‘|
$1.- ‘
1‘;
u. .
-!( H
,. I .
VI"”"Q‘$ .' .
I; H ‘.
- . x A

mfifl

 

’ --. M,“
. -~—o..,-- _ - -

LIBRA P V
Michigan 5
Umwu‘my z", 5

, ,
”*—'—- ~-—- ~- ww—pov a ,- t
-‘** -y- L..— -L. h . ._-.J

12
tr}

l l! mu; ill“ LIN ill 1| Ilium nil, m1 lllzllfl ll

-—-—-_~— in.
Y "' ‘

0‘

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

INTERACTION WITHIN A TYPICAL AND
HEARING-IMPAIRED PREPRIMARY SETTING:
AN INTENSIVE STUDY

presented by
Anne Keil Soderman

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. jcyeem Family Ecology

. ‘6'.
éxlfii/fd le M&.}24/LZL/

Major professor

Date May 10, 1979

0-7639

 

 

19L FEW:
? - .70 5
J" \

:A;Ldbfl. 194
_ 'n'.l

w.

I 5:87

 

 

OVERDUE FINES:

25¢ per day per item
RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS:
-——._.__._____

Place in book return to remove
charge from circulation records

I z ‘ 3‘“)
’flw WM 1% 5’

.r F 44;;-
5&9“?
.| .i '

 

© Copyright by

ANNE KEIL SODERMAN

1979

INTERACTION WITHIN A TYPICAL AND HEARING-IMPAIRED

PREPRIMARY SETTING: AN INTENSIVE STUDY

BY

Anne Keil Soderman

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family Ecology

1979

ABSTRACT

INTERACTION WITHIN A TYPICAL AND HEARING-IMPAIRIED
PREPRIMARY SETTING: AN INTENSIVE STUDY

BY

Anne Keil Soderman

The purpose of this study was to identify character-
istics in both the typical and hearing-impaired settings
that promote or hinder positive peer interaction, to look
specifically at the roles played by adults and children in
that interaction, and to determine whether implementation
‘of staff inservice between settings was effective in in-
creasing positive peer interaction. The data for the inten-
sive study were collected in two settings over three time
periods on one subject, a four-year-old hearing-impaired
male. Eighty-four half-hour observations were made between
January 19, 1978, and May 24, 1978.

Data were obtained by systematic observation, using
an event-sampling technique to measure frequency of initiated
interaction and conflict. Seven major hypotheses relating to
subject-peer interaction, subject-adult interaction, and
conflict were analyzed using the Kruskall-Wallis One-Way

Analysis of Variance by Ranks. Differences were found

Anne Keil Soderman

between settings and phases in subject-peer and subject-
adult interaction. While differences in total conflict and
adult-resolved conflict were not significant, overall
differences in child-resolved conflict between settings and
phases were indicated. More specific differences related
to the variables were identified between settings and
phases when compared using post hoc procedures and White's
Median Statistical Procedure.

The high adult-child interaction and low subject-
peer interaction observed in Phase I in the typical setting
were identified by participants in inservice conducted
between settings as particular targets for intervention.
Subsequent conscious reduction of adult-subject interaction
in Phase II in the typical setting resulted in significantly
increased subject-peer interaction.

A planned time lag of two months occurred between
Phases II and III, during which there was no additional
communication between staff in the preprimary settings or
planned intervention. It was observed that, as adult-
subject interaction again increased in the typical setting,
or returned to Phase I frequencies, subject-peer interaction
significantly decreased. It was concluded that manipulating
a decrease in adult-subject interaction can result in in-
creased peer activity.

The intensive design was extremely useful in that
it yielded qualitative as well as quantitative differences

within and between the two settings over time. Role strain

Anne Keil Soderman

was detected in the subject as he attempted to adapt to

the demands of a variety of structured settings. Role
strain was also seen in the family, due to the handicapping
condition of the subject and other social pressures.

The intensive and holistic approach used in this
study provided a clearer picture of the strengths and weak-
ness operating within each preprimary setting and the
interface between them. It allowed a greater understanding
of the energy expenditures, communication flows, and feed-
back mechanisms operating within this particular family
and between the family and other social systems in an
attempt to deal with the handicapping condition of the
subject. The need to strengthen that interface was evidenced
in the varied perceptions of this child's strengths and
weaknesses held by his family and individual agencies
involved.

This study indicates that educational planners must
be concerned about the overall ecology of the young child
when planning for mainstreaming success. When they fail
to do so, they chance missing the factors that could insure
or deny that success. With impaired children, it is easy
to suppose that mainstreaming failures (and, thus, child-
ren's failures) are due to their handicapping conditions
when, in fact, there is failure to adequately perceive the
child's total scheme. Moreover, as observed in this study,
there must be synthesis between mainstreaming goals and

educational objectives in typical settings if mainstreaming

Anne Keil Soderman

is to be effective. Early childhood educators must begin
to change their preprimary programs to better respond to
individual needs, rather than changing special children to

fit into ongoing programs.

To purple capes. May there be one for

every special child.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Giving due credit to those teachers, co-workers,
friends, and loved ones who contributed to this effort is
more difficult, it seems, than writing the dissertation
itself. Hopefully, they have been as aware of my appre-
ciation as I have been of their support.

Eileen Earhart has been my advisor and chairman
for the past five years. In the time I have known her,

I have truly valued her friendship and wisdom. She has been
a great source of encouragement, and I have been inspired
again and again by her trust and her example. I hope I will
be able to give to others some measure of what she has given
to me.

Other members of my doctoral committee, Linda
Nelson, Eugene Pernell, and Alice Whiren, have contributed
in unique ways to my study, always giving freely of their
time and expertise. Their abilities to interact well with
one another, their fine senses of humor, and wide knowledge
base kept our committee meetings constructive and productive.
I am particularly indebted to Linda Nelson for her editorial
expertise. Though Dr. Beatrice Paolucci was not a member

of my committee, she greatly influenced my thinking about

iv

the way children should be studied. I am pleased to have
had the opportunity to study under her.

A study that is intensive in approach requires a
great deal from those involved. The subject's mother,
though she had very little support herself in many ways,
and absolutely no leisure time, was extremely cooperative
and always found time to assist me in the collection of
qualitative data. I admire her for her resourcefulness and
positive responsiveness to life. She, too, has a story that
should be told. Though her small son was unaware of my
reason for watching him so closely, he has contributed
immeasurably to my understanding of hearing impairment in
young children and the mainstreaming of such children.
Indeed, all of the children in both preprimary classrooms
contributed to that understanding.

Helen Ginsberg, a member of the Pathways staff, was
of great assistance in identifying potential subjects for
this study and the pilot study preceding it. Brenda Hull,
Donna Howe, Debbie Lempicki and their aides were very
cooperative and always open in allowing me to observe in
their classrooms. Greg Sherbern, audiologist, contributed
much to my knowledge about the subject and the history of
his hearing impairment. Special children and their fami-
lies who come in contact with these professionals will
benefit greatly.

Others who have assisted me during important points

in my professional development were my fellow graduate
v

assistants, Gayle Clapp, Lillian Phenice, and Trellis
Waxler. I have valued their friendship and the sharing
of resources that has gone on between us. Suatna
Sookpokakit's willingness to explore new statistical proce-
dures, her knowledge of computer programming, and her care-
ful attention to detail were invaluable to me. I also
appreciated Fayann Lippincott's excellent typing skills in
the preparation of this final draft.

And my family--how can I tell you thank you? We
have survived intact. Mike and John have learned to cook a
little, wash and iron, and do many of the things they say
"are supposed to be a mother's job." Randi has developed
the most able and willing dishpan hands ever seen in a
thirteen-year-old. I have appreciated you so much. I hope
all of the kidding I received from you three about being a
professional student--and all of the times you asked, "Are
you still studying?" does not mean you were turned off to
learning by the drudgery you saw. If so, you would miss
the beauty of what can be uncovered with hard work.
Finally, my heartfelt thanks and love to my husband Bob
who has understood and supported something I needed to do.

You have made this possible and it belongs to both of us.

vi

LIST OF

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLES O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0

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

Chapter

I.

II.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . .

Statement of the Problem . . . .
Need for the Study . . . . . . .
Intent of the Study . . . . . . .
Limitations of the Study . . . .
Objectives . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . .
Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . .
Conceptual Definitions . . . . .
Conceptual Orientation . . . . .
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . .

Individual Information Processing
Hearing Impairment . . . . . . .

The Physiology of Hearing-Impairment .

The Acquisition of Language .

Education of the Hearinngmpaired . . .
Effects of Hearing Impairment . . . . .

Preprimary Educational Settings .

Play as a Factor in the Education

Children . . . . . . . . . . .
Play, Peer Interaction, and

Socialization . . . . . . .

Play and Cognition . . . . .

of Young

Integration of the Handicapped into Typical

Settings . . . . . . . . . . .
The Intensive Design . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

Page

xii

21
27
28
29
32
33
34

37

37
45

48
54
57

Chapter

III.

IV.

V.

STATISTICAL PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . .

Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data Collection Procedures . . . . . . . . .
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DESCRIPTION AND DISCUSSION OF THE SUBJECT AND
HIS ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Presenting Condition of the Subject . .
Prenatal and Postnatal Condition . . . .
Infancy . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Toddlerhood and Early Childhood . . . .

Profile of the Subject' 3 Family .
The Home . . . . . . . . . . .
The Family . . . . . . . . . .

The Preprimary Settings and Staff . .
The Early Childhood Laboratory Setting

and Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Hearing-Impaired Setting and
Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of the Contextual Condition of the
Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Subject-Initiated Peer Interaction in the
Typical and Hearing-Impaired Settings
over the Three Phases . . . . . . . . . .

Peer-Initiated Subject-Peer Interaction in
the Typical and Hearing-Impaired Settings
over the Three Phases . . . . . . . . . .

Adult-Initiated Subject-Adult Interaction in
the Typical and Hearing-Impaired Settings
over the Three Phases . . . . . . . . .

Subject-Initiated Subject-Adult Interaction
in the Typical and Hearing-Impaired Settings
over the Three Phases . . . . . . . .

Total Conflict in the Typical and Hearing-
Impaired Settings over the Three Phases. .

Child-Resolved Conflict in the Typical and
Hearing-Impaired Settings Over the Three
Phases . . . . . . . . . . . .

Adult- Resolved Conflict in the Typical and
Hearing-Impaired Settings Over the Three
Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Hypotheses Tested and Decision
Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

viii

Page
60
60
61
63
64
71
75
77
78
78
81
82
90
9O
91
94
94
98

106

108

108

112

117

120

123

127

129

131

Chapter Page

VI. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, AND
IDIPLICATIONS C O O O I I I C O O O O O O O O O 138

Summary and Discussion of the Findings . . . . 138
Subject-Peer Interaction . . . . . . . . . 139
Subject-Adult Interaction . . . . . . . . 140
Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Descriptive Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Implications for Further Research . . . . . . 153

Implications for Practical Use . . . . . . . . 155

APPENDICES
Appendix
A. Introductory Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

B. Teachers' Behavioral Guideline Attitude
Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

C. Inservice Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

D. Observation Forms and Sample of Notes From
Two Preprimary Settings . . . . . . . . . . . 165

E. Computer Laboratory—Data Coding Form
Data Description and Entries . . . . . . . . 178

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 184

ix

10.

11.

LIST OF TABLES

Mean Ranks of Dependent Variables by Setting
and Time 0 O O I O C O O O O O O O I O O O O 0

Results of Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Analysis of
Variance by Ranks: Subject-Initiated Peer
Interaction O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Results of Marascuilo and McSweeney Post-Hoc
Paired Comparisons Analysis: Subject-Initiated
Peer Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Data Summary: Analysis by Median Slope and
Binomial Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Results of Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Analysis of
Variance by Ranks: Peer—Initiated Subject-
Peer Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Results of Marascuilo and McSweeney Post Hoc
Paired Comparisons Analysis: Peer-Initiated
Subject-Peer Interaction . . . . . . . . . .

Results of Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Analysis of
Variance by Ranks: Adult-Initiated Subject-
Adult Interaction O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0

Results of Marascuilo and McSweeney Post Hoc
Paired Comparisons Analysis: Adult-Initiated
SUbj eCt-AdUIt Interaction o e e e e e e e e a

Results of Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Analysis of
Variance by Ranks: Subject-Initiated Subject-
Adult Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Results of Marascuilo and McSweeney Post Hoc
Paired Comparisons Analysis: Subject-Initiated
SUbjeCt-AdUIt Interaction e e e e e e e e e 0

Results of Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Analysis of
Variance by Ranks: Total Conflict . . . . . .

Page

109

110

112

114

116

. 116

119

120

122

123

125

Table Page

12. Results of Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Analysis of
Variance by Ranks: Child-Resolved Conflict . . 128

13. Results of Marascuilo and McSweeney Post Hoc
Paired Comparisons Analysis: Child-Resolved

Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

14. Results of Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Analysis of

Variance by Ranks: Adult-Resolved Conflict . . 131

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Model of Method for an Intensive Study of
Interaction Within a Typical and Hearing-
Impaired Preprimary Setting . . . . . . . . . l7

2. A Self-regulating Model of Six-dimensional

Goal Seeking Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3. A Basic Control-system Unit of Behavioral

Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4. The Child as an Open System. a. Intake; b.

Selected Filter System; c. Storage or
Memory; d. Decision or Executive Function;
e. Output; f. Sensory feedback; 9.

Filter Revision Process . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5. Central Integrative Thought Processes . . . . . 30
6. A Continuum Representative of Child-Teacher-

Material Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7. Graphic Model of the Design . . . . . . . . . . 63
8. Audiological Evaluation of Subject at Two Years

and Four Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

9. Audiological Evaluation of Subject at Four Years
and Three Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

10. Audiological Evaluation of Subject at Four
Years, Five Months and Following Insertion
Of Aeration TUbes O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 89

11. The Preprimary Early Childhood Laboratory
Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

12.- The Preprimary Hearing—Impaired Setting . . . . 101

13. V Median Slopes: Subject-Initiated Peer
Interaction Over Setting and Time . . . . . . 113

xii

Figure

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Page

V2 Median Slopes: Peer-Initiated Subject-Peer
Interaction Over Setting and Time . . . . . . 113

V3 Median Slopes: Adult-Initiated Subject-Peer
Interaction Over Setting and Time . . . . . . 121

V4 Median Slopes: Subject-Initiated Subject-
Adult Interaction Over Setting and Time . . . 124

V Median Slopes: Total Conflict Over Setting
and Time 0 o o e e o e o e e o e o o e e e o 12 6

V6 Median Slopes: Child-Resolved Conflict Over

Settings and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

V7 Median SlOpes: Adult-Resolved Conflict Over
Settings and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

xiii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

 

There appears to be widespread agreement today among
educators that early education is not only beneficial for
all children but may be advisable (Read, 1976, p. 4). It is
believed that preschool educators share with parents the
responsibility for promoting sound growth and learning in a
period when growth is rapid and significant (Bijou and Beer,
1965; Bloom, 1964; Hebb, 1966; Hunt, 1961). Another pre-
vailing trend among professionals is that of early identifi-
cation of children with handicaps and developmental delay.
Advocators of early intervention indicate that the "first
three years of life are a prime time to redirect environmen-
tal influences that may positively affect growth in the areas
of speech and language, perceptual-motor skills, socializa-
tion, and self-concept" (Abelson, 1976, p. 46). The current
practice of integrating hearing-impaired children into typi-
cal settings has been based on the premise that these chil-
dren have the right to "dignity, individuality, uniqueness,
and, indeed, to an opportunity to become fully participating

citizens within their culture to the degree permitted by

their abilities and capacities" (Bitter and Mears, 1978,
p. 142).

Since the advent of special education, begun by the
Opening of a. school for the education of deaf mutes
in 1817 (Lance, 1976) and recently reinforced by present-day
legislative action requiring that all diagnosed handicapped
individuals three to eighteen years be publicly educated
(Irvin, 1976), there is little doubt that sincere efforts
have been made to add educational support to the handicapped.
Questioning the efficacy of special class placement, however,
many researchers have looked specifically at its value in
terms of the socialization and academic achievement of
children placed in special classes (Dunn, 1968; Seligman,
1972; Wolfensberger, 1972; Forness, 1974; Mercer, 1977).
The particularly negative side effects of segregated place-
ment for mildly handicapped children were explored by Schere
(1974) who suggested it reflected a subtle social control.

Growing out of this concern is a strong push both by
parents and some educators to include children with Special
needs in the "mainstream" of education or "normal" classroom
settings. It is strongly felt that all children, "in unique
ways, are exceptional and special individuals" (Dunlop, 1977).
Conversely, the growing emphasis on "mainstreaming" or inte-
gration efforts has been criticized by many who believe that
handicapped children may be less assertive in regular class-
rooms (Goldstein, Moss, and Jardon, 1965) and may exhibit

negative, rather than positive, changes in behavior

(Vacc, 1971). Atypical children in normal classrooms may
also suffer from peer rejection (Johnson, 1950; Bryan, 1974;
Iano et al., 1974).

Other observations of early childhood integration
have been more positive (Klein, 1975; Carlson, 1976, 1977),
indicating that, among the advantages of "mainstreaming,"
integrated preschool programs give disabled children a
chance to'plan and learn with children who will someday be
their co-workers, friends, and neighbors. Both groups
benefit most from being together on a regular basis during
the years when their attitudes and perceptions of themselves
and others are most pliable" (Klein, 1975, p. 318).

Martin (1974) has questioned what he calls the
"pell-mell . . . naive, mad rush to mainstream children,
based on our hOpes of better things for them." He adds:

We cannot keep silent about some of the lies in our
present (special education) system--the failure to
provide service,the poor facilities, the failure to
identify learning problems, the failure to move children
out of institutions or out of special programs into
regular settings. But we must also avoid those well-
intentioned lies that ignore the weaknesses in a well-
intentioned system because we are afraid that exposure
will hurt our cause. We should not allow our belief in
the promise of mainstreaming to cause us to be silent
if we see fault in its application (p. 153).
Meisels (1977) concurs, noting that rapid adoption without
sufficient preparation and understanding is the greatest
danger confronting mainstreaming.
Tjossem (1976) suggests:
placement of handicapped children in these proqrams,

then, remains a value judgment. Because enrollment
occurs in a climate of presumed benefit, too little

attention has been given to possible adverse effects
that might result for some children as a consequence of
enrollment. Handicapped children, in particular, are
vulnerable to such effects, and they deserve the pro-
tection that consideration of possible adverse effects
affords" (p. 21).

This study was designed to identify characteristics
in both the typical and hearing-impaired preprimary settings,
which may promote or hinder positive peer interaction,to look
very specificallyat the roles played by adults and children
in that interaction, and to determine whether implementation

of staff inservice between settings is effective in increasing

positive interaction.

Need for the Study

 

While it is apparent that issues related to the wisest
educational treatment for special children are far from
resolved, mainstreaming or integration of these children is
occurring with rapid acceleration and is accompanied by con-
fusion on the parts of concerned parents and educators in
achieving their goals for handicapped children. Few, if any,
studies have been designed to determine whether there is
inter-concensus of educational and socialization goals
between those educators whose primary responsibility is the
education of typical children and those whose main educa-
tional thrust is directed toward the handicapped. A pilot
study undertaken by this investigator (Soderman, 1977) in
the spring of 1977 indicated that interaction betWeen agen-
cies may be parallel rather than cooperative in nature, the

agency-participants differing widely in discipline, training,

concept, and approach. When their efforts become merely
interdisciplinary, a lack of effective communication between
agencies may introduce additional, conflicting values into

a child's processing arena. Also indicated in the pilot
study was the presence of negative peer interaction in the
integrated setting as well as a high ratio of adult-child
interaction that appeared to limit child-child interaction.
Further research seemed indicated.

Sapon-Shevin (1978) suggests that research is needed
that looks closely and realistically at the "mainstream"
itself to assess its practical strengths and weaknesses and
to determine whether or not positive peer socialization is,

in fact, occurring.

Intent of the Study

This study was planned to be an intensive observation
of one subject being "mainstreamed" into a typical preprimary
setting while still attending a hearing-impaired program.
The study was conducted in three phases. The first was
designed to collect baseline data on the subject in both the
integrated and non-integrated settings for comparison of
observed behavior in subsequent phases (I and II). More than
mere observation, however, was indicated. Indeed, Bronfen-
brenner (1977) was once told, "If you want to understand
something, try to change it" (p. 517). Therefore, inter—
vention in the study was directed toward decreasing negative

interaction patterns observed in Phase I. It was implemented

before Phase II data were collected to determine whether or
not the intervention would produce significant and positive
interactional changes in the integrated setting. A delayed
observation (Phase III) followed a time lag of two months
during which there was no additional intervention on the
part of the investigator. This was done to see if changes
observed between Phase I and Phase II could be sustained

without further intervention.

Limitations of the Study

 

The following factors were seen as limitations in
this study:

1. Generalizability. A study that is intended to be

 

intensive or ethnographic in approach cannot be generalized
to other individuals, groups, conditions, or settings. In

order to do so, a series of systematic replications of this
study would be necessary.

2. Staff make-up of the typical setting. Though oppor-

 

tunity to conduct research is one reason for the establish-
ment of early childhood laboratories on university campuses,
that research is often confounded in that students who assist
the head teachers are in various stages of professional devel-
opment. Moreover, these aides change as therms change and
such was the case in this study. The student teacher and

aide changed between Phases II and III. Therefore, though

the physical environment, head personnel, and curricular

style remained stable during the entire study in the
typical setting, aides helping to carry out program differed.

3. Emphasis on observation of subject in preprimary

 

settings. Equal time was not given to observing the subject
in his home, in the speech and audiology program, or in the
home of his babysitter. Though these received consideration
in looking at the subject holistically, contact was minimal
when compared with the intensive time spent observing in

the educational settings.

Objectives

 

The primary objective of this three-phase study was
to do an intense observation and objective analysis of the
social interaction between an impaired child and others in
the integrated and non-integrated preprimary settings.
Levels of interaction both within and between settings were
compared. Specifically, answers to the following questions
were sought:

1. Is there a difference in the level of social inter-
actions between the integrating child and others in
the two preprimary settings?

2. Is there a difference in the level of social inter-
actions between the integrating child and others
between phases?

3. What are possible adverse conditions affecting
social interaction in the preprimary settings?

4. What are the positive conditions affecting social

interaction in the preprimary settings?

Is staff in-service that provides for information
exchange between settings effective in decreasing
observed negative interaction and increasing/
maintaining positive interaction between phases?
How much conflict exists in interaction both

within and between the two settings and is that
conflict resolved more often by adults or by
children?

Will social interaction between children increase
when opportunity for adult-child and child-material

interaction within the same setting is decreased?

Hypotheses

 

This study tested seven major hypotheses. A number

of sub-hypotheses specific to the individual variables were

also analyzed.

H1:

The

re is no difference in subject-initiated peer inter-

action in the two settings over the three phases of the
study.

1111

: Peer interaction initiated by the subject will be
significantly greater in the hearing-impaired
setting than in the typical setting in Phase I.

: Peer interaction initiated by the subject in the

2 typical setting will be significantly higher in
Phase III as compared to Phase I.
H13: Peer interaction initiated by the subject in the

typical setting will be significantly higher in
Phase II as compared to Phase I. This will be
indicated by an accelerating lepe or step-wise
increase in the median slope.

H2:

H3:

H1 - Peer interaction initiated by the subject in
the typical setting will be significantly lower
in Phase III than in Phase II. This will be
indicated by a decelerating lepe or step-wise
decrease in the median slope.

There is no difference in the peer-initiated subject-
peer interaction in the two settings over the three
phases of the study.

H21: Peer interaction initiated by the subject's peers
will be significantly greater in the hearing-
impaired setting than in the typical setting in
Phase I.

H22: Peer interaction initiated by the subject's peers
in the typical setting will be significantly
higher in Phase III as compared to Phase I.

H2 - Peer interaction initiated by the subject's peers
in the typical setting will be significantly
higher in Phase II as compared to Phase I. This
will be indicated by an accelerating slope or
step-wise increase in the median slope.

H2 Peer interaction initiated by the subject's peers
in the typical setting will be significantly
lower in Phase III than in Phase II. This will
be indicated by a decelerating slope or step-wise
decrease in the median slope.

There is no difference in adult-initiated subject-adult
interaction in the two settings over the three phases
of the study.

H31: Initiation of interaction with the subject by
adults in Phase I will be significantly higher in
the typical setting as compared to the hearing-
impaired setting.

H3 : Initiation of interaction with the subject by
adults in the typical setting will be signifi-
cantly lower in Phase III as compared to Phase I.

H3 - Initiation of interaction with the subject by
adults will be significantly lower in Phase II as
compared to Phase I in the typical setting. This
will be indicated by a decelerating slope or
step-wise decrease in the median slope.

H4:

H5:

H3

10

Initiation of interaction with the subject by
adults in the typical setting will be signifi-
cantly higher in Phase III as compared to Phase
II. This will be indicated by an accelerating
slope or step-wise increase in the median slope.

There is no difference in the subject-initiated subject-
adult interaction in the two settings over the three
phases of the study.

H41:

H4

H4

H4 :

Initiation of interaction with adults by the
subject in Phase I will be significantly higher

in the typical setting as compared to the hearing-
impaired setting.

Initiation of interaction with adults by the
subject in the typical setting will be signifi-
cantly lower in Phase III as compared to Phase I.

Initiation of interaction with adults by the
subject will be significantly lower in Phase II
as compared to Phase I in the typical setting.
This will be indicated by a decelerating slope
or step-wise decrease in the median slope.

Initiation of interaction with adults by the
subject in the typical setting will be signifi-
cantly higher in Phase III as compared to Phase
II. This will be indicated by an accelerating
slope or step-wise increase in the median slope.

There will be no difference in total conflict in the
two settings over the three phases.

1°

There will be significantly more conflict in the
typical setting as compared with the hearing-
impaired setting in Phase I.

There will be no difference in the amount of
conflict in the typical setting as compared to
the hearing-impaired setting in Phase II.

The amount of conflict in the typical setting will
be significantly higher than that in the hearing-
impaired setting in Phase III.

There will be significantly less conflict in the
typical setting in Phase II as compared to Phase
I. This will be indicated by a decelerating slope
or step-wise decrease in the median slope.

H6:

H7:

11

There will be no difference in the amount of conflict
resolved by children in the two settings over the
three phases.

H61:

H6

There will be a significantly higher amount of
conflict resolved by children in the hearing-
impaired setting as compared to the typical
setting in Phase I.

There will be significantly more conflicts
resolved by children in the typical setting in
Phase III as compared to Phase I.

There will be significantly more conflicts
resolved by children in the typical setting in
Phase II as compared to Phase I. This will be
indicated by an accelerating slope or step-wise
increase in the median slope.

There will be significantly less conflicts
resolved by children in the typical setting in
Phase III as compared to Phase II. This will be
indicated by a decelerating slope or step-wise
decrease in the median slope.

There will be no difference in the amount of conflict
resolved by adults in the two settings over the three
phases.

H71:

There will be a significantly higher amount of
conflict resolved by adults in the typical
setting as compared to the hearing-impaired
setting in Phase I.

There will be significantly fewer conflicts
resolved by adults in the typical setting in
Phase III as compared to Phase I.

There will be significantly fewer conflicts
resolved by adults in the typical setting in
Phase II as compared to Phase I. This will be
indicated by a decelerating slope or step-wise
decrease in the median slope.

There will be significantly more conflicts
resolved by adults in the typical setting in
Phase III as compared to Phase II. This will be
indicated by an accelerating slope or step-wise
increase in the median slope.

study:

12

Assumptions

 

The following assumptions underlie this study:

Positive peer interaction is one of the primary
goals of mainstreaming. Both positive and negative
peer interaction occur within typical preprimary
settings.

Play is a primary factor in the process of sociali-
zation and coqnition in the preprimary child.

Observation of interaction between adult-child and
child-child is most appropriately done during free
play when the setting provides equal and open oppor-
tunity for initiation and closure of interaction.

Interaction can be assessed using the observation
technique of event sampling.

A decrease in negative or adverse interaction will

result in increased positive interaction within any
given system.

Conceptual Definitions

 

The following terms were used throughout this

Cognition.--Knowledge of the world; the product of an

 

interaction between one's mental capacities or mental struc-

ture and those aspects of the world that one is capable of

understanding at a given time in his development; an ever-

changing condition (Gardner, 1978).

Consensus of Goals.--Agreement as to the end toward

 

which a design is directed. Agreed aim or purpose

(Fitzsimons, 1951).

13

Conflict.—-Disagreement; dispute, clash in purpose
or with prescribed guidelines of behavior for that parti-

cular setting.

Deafness.--A functional hearing loss of sufficient

 

severity to prevent aural comprehension of speech even with

hearing aids (Furth, 1973).

Ecologica1.--The interdependent nature of human

 

beings, other organisms, and their environment, including

support systems, energy flows, and communication.

Free Play.--A period of time within each class

 

period in which children have relative freedom of selection
in their interaction with other children, adults and
materials present in the environment so long as their
behavior is consistent with prescribed guidelines in that

particular setting.

Handicapped.--By universal agreement, having a

 

speech, hearing, or vision problem; learning-disabled,
crippled, or mentally or emotionally disturbed.. Gifted
children and those disadvantaged by social or economic

problems are not included (Molloy, 1975).

Hearing-Impaired.--A generic term indicating a con-

 

tinuum of hearing loss ranging from mild to profound as
indicated on an audiogram (Northcott, 1978); denotes a loss

of hearing as measured in decibels (intensity of loudness)

14

and/or frequency (pitch) ranging from a profound loss of
80 or more decibels to a light loss of approximately 20
decibels. Included is prelingual and postlingual hearing

loss (Furth, 1973).

In-service.--Resu1ting from assessment of need;

 

may include motivation, instruction, improvement, reinforce-
ment, and/or implementation of skills for the purpose of
achieving predetermined goals or objectives. Inservice
actively may take the form of workshops, visitations,
courses, staff exchanges, research, or individual activity,

or group research or study (Stevens, 1977).

Integrated.--Containing a mixed population of handi-

 

capped and non-handicapped children where curricular pro-

gramming is apprOpriate to the needs of both.

Interaction.--The child's empathic involvement with

 

the environment--adu1ts, other children, and the material

world (Shapiro and Biben, 1972; Earhart, 1977).

Interdisciplinary.--Between different fields of

 

study (Auserwald, 1968).

Mainstreaming.--The growing and legislatively-

 

mandated practice of integrating handicapped children into

the "regular" classroom (Dunlop, 1977; Meisels, 1977).

Observation.--There are two types of observation:

 

systematic and nonsystematic. In nonsystematic observation,

15

the observer simply watches an individual in his or her
environment and takes note of the behaviors, characteristics,
and personal interaction that seem of significance. In sys-
tematic observation, the observer sets out to observe one or
more behaviors. The observer specifies or defines the
behaviors to be observed and then typically counts or other-
wise measures the frequency, duration, magnitude, or latency

of the behaviors (Salvia and Ysseldyke, 1974, p. 8).

Peer Interaction.--Child-chi1d relations in same-age

 

situations in which children vary in age by twelve months or
fewer (Hartup, 1977); psychologically, the interaction of
children at comparable levels of behavioral complexity
(Lewis and Rosenblum, 1975). Positive peer interaction
occurs when the following social reinforcers are activated:
"Attention (attending to another), approval (praise or
acceptance), affection (physical gestures or verbal state-
ments), submissiveness (following a request or suggestion),
and tokens (giving tangible objects)" (Skinner, 1953;

Charlesworth and Hartup, 1967, p. 994).

Play.--Refers to a heterogeneous assortment of acti-
vities that differ from non-play in that: (1) control of the
content of the behavior is largely under the child's control;
(2) the motive for the behavior is intrinsic and not because
of externally imposed reward; (3) imagination or cognitive
extension transcends immediate constraints of reality

(Neumann, 1971).

16

Preprimary Setting.--Prekindergarten public or

 

private educational setting; a developmental preschool

setting.

Socialization.--A broad term for the whole process

 

by which an individual develops, through transactions with
other people, specific patterns of socially relevant
behavior and experience (Zigler and Child, 1973); the pro-
cess by which we learn the ways of a given society or social
group so that we can function within it (Elkin and Handel,

1978).

Conceptual Orientation

 

It is strongly felt that the study of any child must
be conducted ecologically, i.e., the child may not be studied
effectively or efficiently if one does not see him as
affecting and being affected by his environment, both near
and distant, and the systems that interact within those
environments (see Figure 1).

Bronfenbrenner (1974), a strong advocate of ecologi-
cal research in the field of child development makes the
following points:

1. Research cannot be restricted to the laboratory,
but must be carried out in the real life settings
in which children live.

2. Human development must be studied as a function of
systems at two levels. One level is the interaction
between the child and the surrounding environments
of home, school, peer group, work place, neighbor-

hood, and community. The other level is the inter-
relations between these environments.

17

 

Federal
and
Local
Agencies

 

 

Families

Subject ‘\\\\\‘g

i 3 .
H Interaction Typ1ca1

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing-Impaired
Preprimary Setting

 

 

4 Preprimary Setting
I

 

l

3 Observer

 

Figure 1. Model of method for an intensive study of interaction
within a Typical and Hearing-Impaired Preprimary
Setting. Communication, feedback, and energy flows
are indicated by arrows.

18

3. Person-environment and environment-environment
realities should be investigated through ecological
experiments, which are systematic contrasts between
two or more environmental systems, with efforts to
control for and assess possibly confounding inter-
acting components.

Elsewhere, Bronfenbrenner (1977) adds:

. . . Research on the ecology of human develOpment

should include experiments involving the innovative

restructuring of prevailing ecological systems in ways

that depart from existing institutional ideologies and
structures by redefining goals, roles, and activities,
and providing interconnections between systems previously

isolated from one another (p. 528).

In an effort to draw tOgether, or coordinate inter-
agency research, a prominent research group concluded that,
though ecological studies encompass many different approaches
to research, including methodology, focus, content, and
role, they all reflected "a common concern for not just the
child, family, and environment in themselves, but the ecology
of childhood--the systems through which children, and the
people, institutions, and physical and social circumstances
in their lives are interrelated" (Hertz, Mangus, Mann, and
Wagner, 1977).

Care must be taken, however, that one does not con-
fuse an ecological approach with that which is, in fact,
interdisciplinary. Auserwald (1968) addresses this problem
specifically, suggesting that, in any research, the ordering
of the data within a selected framework will critically
affect the nature and outcome of: (a) the analysis of that

data, (b) synthesis of the results of analysis into hypo-

theses, (c) the formulation of strategies and techniques

l9

(methodologies) to test the hypotheses, (d) the construction
of a delivery plan for use of those strategies and techni-
ques, (d) the implementation of the plan, and (e) the col—
lection of data from the arena of implementation to test
its impact (p. 203). He sees the sequence as cyclical. The
interdisciplinary approach, he feels, maintains the vantage
point of each contributor within his own discipline,
resulting in a possible distortion and loss of structural
aspect and clarity of context of the data. Auserwald (1968)
noted:
The systems approach, on the other hand, changes the
vantage point of the data collector. It focuses
precisely on the interfaces and communication processes
taking place there (p. 204).

Phenice (1978) adds that environmental agencies such
as the family, the school, the peer group, media, and mass
communication create a flow of informational input and out-
put resulting in mechanisms for interactions between the
social as well as the technological and physical environ-
ments (p. 14).

The bottom line may be that suggested by Meisels
(1977): "The environmental gestalt provides the climate in

which (hearing-impaired) children may become participants

in the mainstream of life."

Overview
Chapter II contains a review of literature related
to mainstreaming the hearing-impaired preprimary child.

Methodoloqy is set forth in Chapter III, including a

20

discussion of the research design, data collection proce-
dures, and data analysis. A description of the subject,
his family, and his environment is presented in Chapter IV.
Analysis and discussion of results are found in Chapter V.
The final chapter includes a summary and conclusions, as

well as implications for further research.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The research literature pertinent to this study is
reviewed under the following general headings: Individual
Information Processing; Hearing Impairment; Preprimary
Educational Settings; Play as a Factor in the Education of
Young Children, including Play, Peer Interaction, and
Socialization as well as Play and Cognition; Integration of

the Handicapped into Typical Settings; The Intensive Design.

Individual Information Processing

 

How can you expect me to be human if you
deny me a clear perception of the effect
I have on my world? (Gardner, 1975,

p. 65)

It Seems relevant here to consider information pro-
cessing, in general, and as it may relate to the inter-
nalizing of social attitudes and cognitive symmetry.

The manner in which information is processed by
the individual is the result of distance-regulating prac-
tices set up between the individual and the environment,
including groups of other individuals with whom he interacts

over time and space in access to targets of affect, power,

and meaning. Kantor and Lehr (1976) postulated that

21

22

distance regulation "encompasses the systems concept of
feedback loops, goal-seeking behavior, self-awareness,
self-direction, and information processing" (p. 38), as can
be seen in Figure 2. It is at the boundaries of systems
that the "three access dimensions (affect, power, and
meaning) regulate traffic between two or more systems, or
between a system and a subsystem" (p. 40).

When one views information processing from a systems
perspective, feedback (a process by which a system informs
its component parts how to relate to one another and to the
external environment in order to facilitate the correct or
beneficial execution of certain system functions) becomes a
crucial feature (see Figure 3).

As can be seen, a disturbance activates the system,
which is steadied by the error signal. Output (or behavior)
is the result and feeds back into the environment, possibly
stimulating further activity.

When an individual detects some sort of pattern in
matter energy flows, noise and uncertainty are reduced as
the individual matches up or weighs that information against
past experience, alternative outcome, relative possibilities
of outcomes, and consequences which may affect those out—
comes.

Buckley (1967), in considering the effects of posi-
tive and negative reinforcement in the interaction process

wrote:

23

.Amm .d .mhma .usma
paw Houcmxv >ua>fiuow mafixmmm Hmom HmcoflmcmElexfim Mo Hobos mafiumHsmmulmawm a .N musmflm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wommm

 

 

 

 

 

H

hmumcm Q firmCflcmqu _ Hm3om uommm41_

i T .—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmuumz
~ cofiumEH0mcH

 

 

ll
F42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Ama .m .ohma

.uzmq cam Moucmxv coflumuflcmmuo Hmuofl>mswb mo uwc: Ewummmnaouucoo oflmmn 4 .m musmflm

 

mononusumfla O I mufiucmno

/ usmcH

muwucmoo _ x

usduso

xomnomwm Hmucmficouw>cm

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

w/Ik
M IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ucmficoufi>cm IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII um IIIIIIIIII
Ewumam
:oHuocsm cofluocsm
HOUUNWHM Homcwm
Hmcmwm Homcmm
Hmcmflm _
uouum 1— . HOumummEoo

 

 

at Hmcmflm mocmummmm

25

When . . . men engage in behavior that is rewarded or
reinforced, they become conditioned to engage in that
behavior at other appropriate times. Behavior is then
viewed as a function of its payoff in terms of the
rewards and punishments it fetches. Social behavior
becomes an exchange of activity between two or more
individuals that is more or less rewarding or costly.
In interaction, each emits activities that entail the
greatest profits--rewards, or units of values, less
costs or punishments measured against some standard
of distributive justice (p. 107).

He continued, later, to say that we need to be
"prepared for the possibility that a social system may
generate and maintain deviant and disorganizing forces in
just as automatic a way as it generates mechanisms of con-
formity and organization" (p. 163).

It would seem, then, that two (or more) systems,
which theoretically may have goal concensus in mind, must
constantly be aware of feedback in the other system which
may be of a conflicting nature and, hence, a long-range
inhibitor of what are thought to be common goals.

Gardner (1975) has suggested a model of "the child
as an open system"--as an active seeker and responder to
environmental stimulation by employing a variety of alter-
native behaviors through which he also renovates and/or
modifies his world (see Figure 4). In this model, the child
filters all stimuli from his environment, choosing what he
does and does not pull in, and subsequently integrates new,
selected stimuli with previously stored information. The
feedback, then, which results from the child's own actions

into his perceptual system is seen as fundamental in revision

of behavior.

 

26

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b
g. ‘ ‘ c . storage
E
.—+ 4 e
iii: d. decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

f . feedback ‘

Figure 4. The child as an open system. a. Intake;

the

b. Selected filter system; c. Storage or memory;
d. Decision or executive function; e. Output;

f. Sensory feedback; 9. Filter revision process
(Gardner, 1975, p. 63).

Gardner observed:

This notion of the child as an open system has, I
believe, some implications for curriculum as well as
for teaching strategies . . . If the child is an open
system, we violate that system to the extent that we
reduce the number of options available to him. If the
child is an open system, we support that system to the
extent that we increase the number of options available
to him. If the child is an Open system, we have little
need to ask whether his behavior is, in a given instance,
play or nonplay, work or nonwork. We are getting
closer to the idea if we ask whether the people and the
materials and the objects in a child's world are sup-
porting the growth and elaboration of that particular
open system (pp. 66-67).

Furth (1973) maintained that, when we investigate
thinking processes of the hearing impaired,

We must use procedures that do not contain in themselves,
or in their instruction, a strong linguistic component.
Otherwise we would observe nothing but the poor lin-
guistic knowledge of deaf children, which would be as
unfair to deaf persons as judging a normal person‘s

27

thinking skill by means of a verbal test conducted
in a language he does not understand (p. 56).

Elsewhere, he suggested that only Piaget deals with
intelligence in such a manner that the maturity of a hearing-
impaired child's thinking can be appropriately assessed.
Piaget's (1961) concept of information processing proceeds
from simple motoric activity on the part of the individual,
such as simply moving around or handling an object, to
increasingly complex organization and coordination of
environmental data into what he calls schemas. Involved in
this process is assimilation, or quantitative change in
schemata, and accommodation, or qualitative change and
organization in the application of these schema. Under—
lining the importance of interaction, Furth (1973) explains
the simple individual evolution of the thinking process:

By living in daily contact with the world, the child
organizes his knowing contact with the world in a
continuous progression that imperceptibly leads to
stages of organization that are qualitatively different
from earlier stages. These stages can be considered a
general framework or perspective in which the person
functions. Intellectual development is the progression
from an infant's perspective to the adult's perspective
(p. 26).

Hearing Impairment

In 1976, in the United States, it was estimated that
there were approximately three million children with some
degree of hearing loss. In the United States and part of
the world where figures were available, 3 1/2 to 5 percent

of school-age children have some degree of hearing loss

(Siebens, 1976; Horton, 1976).

28

The Physiology of Hearing-Impairment

 

Setting forth the physical requirements of normal
hearing, Lavett (1965) indicated:

To hear normally, the external ear canal must be open,
the ear drum must be thin, intact, and able to vibrate.
The middle ear space must be filled with air. The
ossicles (malleus or hammer, incus or anvil, stapes or
stirrup) must be able to vibrate, and especially the
stapes has to vibrate into the fenestra ovalis, and

the inner ear must be healthy and perfectly capable of
picking up these sound waves. The nerve must be able
to receive the sound waves and pass them further to the
brain (p. 392).

Lavett cited three kinds of hearing loss--conductive
or obstructive loss, nerve or perceptive loss, and a combi-
nation of conductive and perceptive loss.

Conductive loss can be due to any of the following:

a. blockage of the ear canal due to infection, tumor,
or foreign substance
b. perforation or scars of the eardrum
c. interference with the motion of the ossicles because
of dislocation, infection, scarring, fluid in the
middle ear, or otosclerosis
d. blockage of the eustachian tube due to a swelling of
the tissue as a result of an allergy or inflammation,
adenoid enlargement, or tumor
e. congenital causes in which the auricle, the ear
canal, the tympanum, or the ossicles may be deformed
at birth.
Characteristic of this type of hearing loss is that sound is
not heard in sufficient volume, resulting in loss of high
tones (p. 393).

Perceptual or sensory loss appears to be more serious
than conductive losses in that they are not "amenable to
medical or surgical treatment." Cause is often unknown but

may be due to inherited defect during interuterine life or

29

anoxia at delivery. Among other causes are toxic nerve
deafness, drug toxicity, syphilis, skull fracture, infection,
tumors, and acoustic trauma (Lavett, 1965, p. 403).

Hearing losses may be of a profound or minimal
nature. In 1937, the Committee on Nomenclature of the
Conference of the Executives of the American Schools for the
Deaf categorized or classified "at risk" hearing conditions
as follows:

The Deaf: Those in whom the sense of hearing is non-
functional for the ordinary purposes of life. This
general group is made up of two distinct classes based
entirely on the time of the loss of hearing: (a) the
congenitally deaf: Those who are born deaf, (b) the
adventitiously deaf: Those who were born with normal
hearing but in whom the sense of hearing becomes non-
functional later through illness or accident.

The Hard of Hearing: Those in whom the sense of hearing,

although defective, is functional with or without a
hearing aid (Oyer, 1969).

 

The Acquisition of Language

 

Occasionally, children who are deaf or severely
hard-of—hearing have been mistakenly diagnosed as mentally
retarded because of resulting handicaps of delayed language
and speech. Kingery (1976) suggested:

One of the most remarkable and certainly one of the
most important aspects of human behavior is the ability
to learn and use language. A common language among
individuals is the cement which binds society together.

Furth (1973) hypothesized that language, not speech,

is the difficulty for children who have early profound or

prelingual deafness. Deafness, often called the "invisible

handicap," is frequently underestimated in the severity of

30

its handicapping nature because of its negative consequences
in the area of communication. Spradley (1978), in his
poignant account of his own experience in rearing his deaf
daughter, presented evidence that 90 percent of the pro-
foundly deaf never develop intelligible speech (p. 218).

How the language process is interrupted or even severed can
be easily understood when one views Wepman's (1976) model of

central integrative thought processes (Figure 5):

 
     
  
 

   
 

Non

   
 

 

Sensory_ verbal verbal

Perceptmn \ \ Verbal
\\ .
/ / / ) ExpreSSion

(Inner Speech)
Figure 5. Central Integrative Thought Processes (Wepman,

1976, p. 113).

The kind of language the hearing-impaired child ini-
tially learns is probably determined by his parents. One
option available is the auditory/oral method, which is also
described as unisensory, auditory/global, aural/oral, acou-
pedic, and natural (Northcott, 1978). It calls for
binaurally aided hearing and requires the child to listen
carefully with available residual hearing and to develop
short and long-term auditory memory. Attention is also

given to speechreading but does not include signs and

31

fingerspelling, which are characteristic of the alternative,
or simultaneous, method. Also known as "total communica-
tion," the latter method includes incorporation of aural,
manual, and oral modes of communication to assure effective
communication (American Annuals of the Deaf, 1976, p. 358).
Most parents prefer an auditory/oral method, at least ini-
tially, with the addition of the simultaneous method after
the child has been stimulated to develop the skills needed
for the former method (Luterman, 1976; Northcott, 1977).
It has been demonstrated in the literature that individuals,
particularly children under eight years of age, have trouble
processing speechreading and sign language simultaneously,
with resulting poor synchronization (Goeth, 1967; Goetzinger,
1974; Goetzinger and Proud, 1975; Stuckless, 1971; Gates,
1970).

Conversely, in support of fingerspelling, Quigley
(1969) surveyed two hundred subjects in six public residen-
tial schools to determine differences in academic growth and
communication skills between students using the oral method
and those using a combined mode of communication. Though no
statistically significant differences were found in speech
intelligibility or speech reading, students employing manual
methods were found to be significantly higher in most areas
of educational achievement. Pushing for reform in teaching
communication to the profoundly deaf, Ridgeway (1969) cited

outspoken support for the manual method from both the

32

National Association of the Deaf and the Council of

Organizations Serving the Deaf (p. 21).

Education of the Hearing-Impaired

 

Northcott (1978), in examining the historical per-
spective attached to education of the hearing-impaired,
suggested that controversy revolves around two questions:

(1) the best method for teaching language and speech to the
hearing-impaired and (2) whether or not mainstreaming of the
impaired child is appropriate. The best question, he con-
tends, is to ask, "For which child" (p. 211)? He concludes
that "no single method of instruction and/or communication
(oral or total communication) or educational setting can best
serve the needs of all hearing impaired children" (p. 212).

A survey to assess the extent of educational inte-
gration of the hearing-impaired (Bitter and Mears, 1973)
revealed that 69 percent with mild hearing loss were fully
integrated; 50 percent or 2,313 students with marked hearing
losses were fully integrated; of the 6,345 students identi—
fied.as having severe or profound hearing loss (response rate
was 41 of 50 states), over 50 percent were in non-integrated
settings.

Griffing (1970) offered some guidelines for
evaluating educational potential in deaf children:

1. Onset of hearing loss.
2. Extent and configuration of hearing loss.

3. Auding ability (interpretative function in utilizing
residual hearing).

33

4. Nature and extent of delayed speech and language
development resulting from hearing impairment.

5. Developmental growth potential in the areas of
receptive and expressive communication skills.

6. Potential for learning (intelligence, emotional
status, social maturity, level of educational
achievement, motor development, and perceptual
level).

Effects of Hearing Impairment

 

Knapp (1948), who investigated the emotional aspects
of hearing loss, concluded that, while chronic deafness might
cause a less drastic sense of loss, it appeared to have a
more warping effect than loss suffered in adulthood.
Findings by Mycklebust (1964) revealed that, as a whole,
deafness may affect personality selectively on the basis of
sex, age of onset, and degree of hearing loss.

Furth (1973) has described the deaf or hearing—
impaired child as "a human child without a language"

(p. 13). Looking at the developmental importance of play in
symbol construction, he adds that the child naturally

comes to know things and people around him, can produce
symbols and understand them through play and fantasy, and
can communicate by actions and gestures. Therefore, he con-
cludes, the deaf child's world up until the approximate age
of five is very similar to the known world of the hearing
child: . . ."he plays and gestures and is alive and
sociable"(p. 29).

Helen Keller, when asked whether she considered
blindness or deafness her greater handicap, said that deaf-

ness was much the greater problem (Siebens, 1976).

34

When one considers the inherent communication prob-
lems and subsequent problematic areas related to interaction,
it seems apparent that a hearing-impaired child must have a
noticeable impact on his family, his peers, and his community
and that intervention, if it is to succeed, must also be

impactful.

Preprimary Educational Settings

 

Lillie (1975) and Mayer (1971) have pointed out that
all preprimary models exist along a continuous plane that
moves from an informal emphasis on the social and emotional
to a formal, cognitive emphasis. In between exist the less
formal sensory-cognitive models and the more highly struc-

tured verbal-cognitive models (see Figure 6):

 

Informal Formal
Social-Emotional Cognitive
Emphasis Emphasis
J l I 1 1 \
‘_.

Child Sensory Verbal Verbal
Development Cognitive Cognitive Didactic

Figure 6. A Continuum Representative of Child-Teacher-Material
Interaction (Ackerman and Moore, 1976, p. 683).

The verbal-didactic model is the most formal of the
four major models considered in Figure 6. It is best illu-
strated by the language-based program and Distar materials
developed by Bereiter and Engelmann (1966) and is recommended

by others that appear to embrace a stimulus-response

35

behavioral view of learning (Bijou and Baer, 1961; Bushell,
1970; Haring, Hayden, and Allen, 1971; Karnes, Zehrback, and
Teska, 1972; Miller and Camp, 1972; Resnick, 1967). Theore-
tically, the model springs from Skinnerian psychology and
looks at the child as a passive organism whose behavior is
shaped by his environment. The model is widely used in pre-
primary special education settings. However, critics have
questioned transfer of skills learned to subsequent problem-
solving situations (Stevens and King, 1976).

The classroom that is organized around a verbal-
coqnitive, or cognitive-interactionalist, model has been
heavily influenced by Piagetian theory (Beard, 1969). In
the verbal-cognitive model, the child is viewed as an
"action-oriented, searching, seeking, continually-adapting
organism (who) learns through the interaction of spontaneous,
active play with the environment and the people around him"
(Stevens and King, 1976, p. 32). Perhaps most well-known
have been the educational models developed by Weikart (1971),
Lavatelli (1970), and Kamii (1972), which feature child-
centered, self-discovery learning. Responses t0 particular
activities are frequently elicited from the children and are
often generalized to other situations in the classroom.
Because of the heavy emphasis on the modes of child-material
and child-adult interaction, child-child interaction often
becomes secondary.

The most popular program representing a sensory-

cognitive model is that instituted by Maria Montessori

36

(Evans, 1971). A learning environment is constructed for the
child that is wholly child-centered, and the child is rela-
tively free to explore actively a wide variety of manipula-
tive materials. Because Montessori (1965a) viewed intelli-
gence as the ability to order and to classify objects and
concepts, the classroom materials are carefully sequenced.
Montessori's belief in the value of exploring materials
evolved from the work of Froebel (1902) and has been sup-
ported by Dewey (1938) and Piaget (1969). The model has
been seen as appropriate for use with disadvantaged children
(Fisher, 1971). Key aspects of the model are the emphasis
on motor development and sensory involvement with didactic
materials, the goal being preparation for academic success.
Research by Dreyer and Rigler (1959) indicated that Montes-
sori children were less socially oriented and creative but
more task-oriented than the traditional nursery school sub-
jects. Studies by Kohlberg (1968) and Berger (1969) indi-
cated a significant increase in attentional responses basic
to task persistence, motor impulse control, and field
independence.

The least formal model has also been described as a
"maturational" or "unit" model. Theory underlying it
(Gesell and Ilg, 1949) views man as primarily the product
of genetic influence and unfolding . . . and less influenced
by environmental experiences. The preprimary child's

learning is thought to be most effectively approached through

37

the free exploration of materials. Preset curriculum would
be pejorative, and the children's interests, rather than the
teacher's, would indicate any structuring of the environment.
Stevens and King (1976) indicate that curricular experiences
are organized around such units as the family and community
helpers. The teacher provides appropriate activities and
materials as dictated by the readiness of the child. Child-
child interaction and social—emotional development are
primary components of the model.

This investigator is aware of no studies, to date,
that have been directed toward exploring the most appropriate
preprimary model for specifically encouraging peer inter—
action between handicapped and typical children. Additional
research is needed to determine whether or not a particular
model promotes or hinders a goal of social interaction.
Moreover, human and material components within preprimary
settings that encourage or discourage interaction also need
to be further identified.

Play as a Factor in the Education
of Young Children

 

 

Play, Peer Interaction, and
Socialization

 

 

There are many theories of socialization, including
those of maturation (Gesell, 1946), psychosexual development
(Freud, 1950; Erikson, 1963), and social learning (Hull,
1951; Skinner, 1938; Watson, 1959; Sears, 1951). According

to Zigler and Child (1973), however, no single approach is

38

likely to yield complete understanding of a child's
socialization and that what we are dealing with when we talk
of socialization is the practical problem of how to rear
children so that they will become adequate adult members of

the society to which they belong. They suggested:

Regardless of whether a child and the people around him

are aware of the genetically determined tendencies,

general and particular, which he brings with him at

birth, or are aware of the lively self that he gradually

structures out of his interaction with the world, we can

be sure these two are important components of the

socialization process (p. 4).

R099 (1977) concluded that, in socialization, what is
often critical in determining an individual's life chances
is not biological differences, i.e., sex, race, size, and
strength, as well as aberrations that may improve or impair
an infant's ability to function as a biological specimen and
member of society, but the way cultures react to these dif-
ferences. This theory is supportive of C. H. Cooley's (1902)
"looking glass self" and Bierstaedt's (1974) view: "I am what
I think you think I am" (p. 197). It is through this process
of social interaction that human infants come to know the
rules, values, and beliefs of their given societies and how
to apply them to themselves, thereby creating their self.
One of the most important developmental phenomena in

socialization, one which leads from self to society and from

simple exploration of the environment to mastery, is that of

play.) According to Erikson (1950), it is a sequence in which

39

the young child moves through autocosmic, microcosmic, and
macrocosmic levels of interaction. He states:

The child's play begins with and centers on his own

body. This we shall call autocosmic play. It begins
before we notice it as play, and consists at first in
the exploration by repetition of sensual perceptions,

or kinesthetic sensations of vocalizations, etc. Next,
he plays with people and things. The microsphere, i.e.,
the small world of manageable toys, is a harbor which
the child establishes, to return to when he needs to
overhaul his ego. But the thing-world has its own laws:
it may resist reconstruction, or it may simply break to
pieces; it may prove to belong to someone else and be
subject to confiscation by superiors. If frightened or
disappointed in the microsphere, the child may regress
into the autosphere, day dreaming, thumb-sucking, mastur-
bating. On the other hand, if their first use of the
thing world is successful and is guided properly, the
pleasure of mastering toy things becomes associated with
the mastery of the traumata which were projected on them,
and with the prestige gained through such mastery

(p. 194).

Whiren (1976) suggested that, though play is an
important phenomenon in man, cultural values negating play
have prevented much research on the subject. Therefore,
many of the theories about play remain unsubstantiated or as
"ancillary propositions associated with other theoretical
constructs" (p. 26).

Classical theories of play in the literature include
those of surplus energy (Tolman, 1932; Tinklepaugh, 1942;
Alexander, 1958); relaxation or renewal of energy (Lazarus,
1883; Patrick, 1914) in which energy is replenished for less
familiar cognitive activity; instinctive behavior (Groos,
1898, 1908), which suggests that children play as preexercise
for adult activities; recapitulation (Hall, 1907), a process

ridding the organism of primitive and unnecessary instinctual

40

skills carried over by heredity; and, finally, ego-expansion
(Claparide, 1934) or expression and completion of the ego
and the rest of the personality through play, an exercise
that concomitantly strengthens the developing cognitive
skills, and aids the emergence of additional cognitive
skills.

Other theories growing in popularity, which make use
of pieces of the classical theories, are called infantile
dynamic theories of play (Piaget, 1951; Lewin, 1935;
Buytendijk, 1934). Collectively, they suggest a process
through which a child passes from egocentric thinking to
adult rationality and in which reality is bent to fit one's
existing forms of thought rather than adjusting behavior to
fit reality. Piaget hypothesizes that all living organisms
have a tendency to make repeated contact with any slightly
novel event, thereby forcing new awareness, new habits, new
expectations, and new distinctions regarding the environment
as a whole. Newer theories also include the psychoanalytic
or cathartic theory of play (Carr, 1902; Freud, 1922;
Erikson, 1950), in which the child's play is seen as an
attempt to master situations that are difficult for him,
and a stimulus-seeking theory (Ellis, 1973) that involves
exploration and manipulation of the environment or the

symbolic representation of experience.

41

Stone (1971) stated that society's task of making
the lives of its members meaningful is accomplished by the
differentiation and integration of the child's self through
play. Thus children are brought into meaningful communica-
tion with adults and one another, establishing their selves
as objects "so they can refer the other objects of their
world to such established selves, thereby imbuing these
worlds with significance. Play has a major part in the
accomplishment of these tasks" (p. 9).

Light and Keller (1975) proposed that the peer group
is an important agent in the enculturation or socialization
of children. Moreover, there is widespread agreement among
behavioral theorists of many theoretical persuasions that
healthy child development is partly dependent upon peer
interaction (Carmichael, 1970; Hoffman and Hoffman, 1966;
Hetherington, 1975; Mussen, 1960; Lewis and Rosenblum,
1975). It is through peer interaction that the child forms
the egalitarian relationships that are impossible to form
with parents and teachers because of their authority and
power.

Hartup (1977), in his consideration of the emergence
of aggression skill and control through play in young
children, would concur. He maintained that children learn
a great deal in their rough-and-tumble activity with peers
that is not possible in adult-child interaction. They learn

how to defend themselves, to make others angry, and, in turn,

 

42
to "turn off" that anger, thus resisting the temptation
to attack.

There is also evidence that sexual and moral develOp-
ment are in part dependent upon the trial and error inter-
action, modeling, and information-gathering that goes on
among peers in a non-authoritarian atmosphere (Kinsey,
Pomeroy, and Martin, 1948; Piaget, 1932). R099 (1977) sug-
gested that the classroom provides a social environment for
this interaction in which children may experience adaptation
to peers and strangers, learn to share, take their turn, not
be distracted, and become members of society.

In a comprehensive consideration of the role of play
in social development, Caplan and Caplan (1974) indicated
that social development, then, may be measured in terms of a
child's mobility, communication ability, self-care, self-
directed activity, and social attitude and behavior. They

add:

Social competency also includes techniques for expressing
interest and friendship, for welcoming and including
others in play, and for initiating and carrying on group
activity. No child enjoys an adequate social life

unless he has acquired the ability to play with other
children. Each child wants to be part of a group of
children his own age (p. 75).

Research directed toward examination of play patterns
of preprimary children in early childhood settings has re-
vealed chronological age should not be the only consider-
ation in determining a child's readiness for group play.
Individual differences, rate of development, and temperament
are also cogent factors. Also, though the average four-year-

old may enjoy cooperative and imaginative play, all young

43

children will not necessarily attain like success with their

peer group in the beginning. Smilanski (1975) commented:

We do know that a large number of children in the United
States and in other countries come to preschool and
kindergarten with a very low performance in play and
that their capability does not develop significantly
during their education in preschool and kindergarten
years . . . I also feel that we possess a considerable
amount of knowledge which can enable us to try experi-
mentally some of the ways of intervention which will
raise significantly the ability of these children

(p. 45).

Implications are that adults may need to offer assistance by
planning an environment that actually encourages social
interaction between children (Caplan and Caplan, 1974).
Gewirtz (1971) suggests that it requires a purposeful con-
sideration of ecology and functional environment:

. . . the functional environment is comprised of objects
and events in a physical space that actually or poten-
tially affect behavior. Upper limits to the functional
environment are set by the available physical space and
the materials and persons positioned in that space. We
shall use the term "ecology" to stand for these limiting
physical factors. It is apparent that the gross amount
of space available will affect behavior.

When people are considered part of the environment,
questions immediately arise as to the age, number, and
gender distribution of the children and caregivers who
are to be present. Various age and sex ratios are likely
to promote different patterns of interaction and thus
varying responsive environments. The ratios of materials
and persons to the available physical space also can be
manipulated to foster constructive use of the props or
desirable interaction patterns among persons (p. 202).

Proshansky et al. (1970) found that space, administrative
guidelines, furniture, and number of peOple within an eco-
system (or natural setting) greatly influenced characteris-

tic behavior patterns and, furthermore, that those patterns

could be altered by restructuring that setting (p. 27).

44

Positive attitudes and knowledge of significant
adults about play and peer interaction have been questioned.
Kuschnor and Clark (1977) charged that it is necessary that
one take seriously the concept of interaction as it relates
to children and materials if one is to provide the best
educational environment possible for young children. It is
through a child's interaction with materials and with others
that development and learning come about. Teachers' abili-
ties to structure a classroom appropriately depend upon their
understanding of various developmental concepts and their
close observation of children at play. It has been sug-
gested by Keasey (1971) that peer interaction is usually
looked on as something to be held in check rather than used
by educators to the child's advantage, in spite of the fact
that many studies have shown the effectiveness of using peer
models in learning transfer between young subjects (Miller
and Dollard, 1941; Hartup, 1977).

In underlining the absolute necessity for play
activity in the Optimal development of the child, Brauchlin
(1970) and Stensaasen (1964) indicated that too much adult
interference and organization can hamper play spontaneity.
Moreover, as has been suggested by Hutt (1971) care must be
taken in labeling activity participated in by young children
as play simply because the "young animal performs it"

(p. 248). Traditional definitions of play suggest that
true play is usually enjoyable, spontaneous, goal-free,

highly motivated, and self-initiated (Mitchell and Mason,

45

1934; Gilmore, 1971). Sutton-Smith (1971) suggested that,
if it isn't playfulness, it isn't play and describes the
playing child:

He spends a tremendous amount of time exploring or
copying or building. He is very serious and very
redundant. He repeats over and over again until
mastery is established (p. 19).

In a study of spontaneous social play among preschool
children, Parten (1971) concluded the following:

1. Preschool children most frequently play in groups
of two.

2. The size of play groups increases with age.

3. Two-thirds of the two-child groups are unisexual.

4. The majority of the child's favorite playmates are
of the same sex.

5. I. Q. has little influence on the preschool child's
friendships.

6. Age and home environment influence friendships.

7. Siblings show a marked preference for each other's
society.

8. Playing house is the most social type of play
engaged in by nursery school children.

9. Sand play and constructive work with clay, paper,
beads, and paints are characteristically parallel
play activities.

10. Younger and older children differ in the manner in
which they play with toys and hence the social value
the toy has for them (p. 95).

Play and Cogpition

 

Through play a child learns what no one can
teach him (Sher, 1977, p. 134).

The phenomenon of play has been viewed, and particu-
larly recently, as an essential medium for cognitive learning
(Sponseller, 1976) and as it contributes to social, physical,
and emotional learning. Spodek (1976), in examining the
history of what he calls "the problem of play," wrote:

One of the interesting characteristics of the field of
early childhood education is the need to justify our use

46

of play in programs for children, as well as the need to
justify ourselves as professionals whose prime concern
is children's play. How do you justify a serious con-
cern with play in the puritanical world in which we live
today? Often what we do is deny our concern with play
by twisting the words around so that play is considered
something else. We say, for example, that "play is the
work of the child," thus equating work with play and
turning play into work. If we call play work, we can be
serious about it, thus maintaining our professional
self-esteem.

The problem with such obfuscation is that we miss the
whole point by denying our real concerns. We should not
hide the fact that we are concerned with play, that we
are involved in helping children to play. We need to
become serious about play gg play. If play is legiti-
mate, then it needs to be accepted within its own right
without confusing issues. We need to see play in its
prOper form in order to use it wisely rather than hiding
it (p. 7).

He concluded with a discussion about where the
problem of viewing play as a genuine tool for cognition
lies: with adults rather than with children. He suggests
that, if we begin to understand the reasons for children's
play and its consequences, we will no longer see it as a

problem--but as a potential.

 

Carini (1977) suggested that observing children at
play can be an effective tool in identifying children's
learning interests. She addressed the problem of allowing
children serious time to play:

Play and interest are reciprocal. Children play what
interests them. Both of these words worry adults,
especially some educator adults, a lot. Play is contra-
posed to work and reality, and the interesting is contra—
posed to the serious and demanding--while both imply
frivolity and trivia. Interest originally meant "to be
in and among things, at the center of things," and what
we call play is the child's world, his or her reality.
We know that the absence of play or interest suggests
pathology in the child. Through play, the child's
innermost themes and world are represented and completed
(p. 16).

47

Herron and Sutton Smith (1971) have raised the ques-
tion of whether or not there may be some critical inter-
dependencies between the time at which imaginative activity
is most abundant and its availability for the development
of abstract processes. They suggest that perhaps the inte-
gration of imagery and action through imaginative play in
the preoperational stage acts to rid children of their
object cathexes, thereby freeing them for the imaginative
tasks of reading and numbers.

According to Piaget (1961), development of intelli-
gence in the young child results from action and interaction
beginning with external sensory-motor investigations of the
environment and maturing into internal, thinking actions
that include comparing, counting, classifying, and matching.
The importance of play in this process is set forth by
Sher (1977) who suggested that it serves a wide variety of
purposes in the child's life, including the facilitation of
intellectual skills--concept of size, liquid measure and
volume, distinguishing between fantasy and reality, problem
solving, developing social skills and emotional values. He
writes:

They acquire concepts, skills, understandings and
attitudes. Much play requires observation, inquiry,
and problem solving, all of which leads to a high
level of thinking. When a child learns through
play the learning becomes internalized and becomes
part of her being (p. 133).

Sher added that teachers should structure some play

experiences but also make sure that children have opportunity

48

for spontaneous play where imagination flourishes. Included
should be four kinds of educative play: manipulative play,
physical play, dramatic play, and games.

Noting that children's thinking is qualitatively
different than an adult's, Weybright (1977) maintained that
a child constructs intelligence, not through "passive, didac—
tic instruction but through social interaction and coopera-
tion with others" (p. 96). He further suggested that an
active conceptualization of intelligence depends upon teacher
support and classroom organization that allows children to
act directly upon meaningful materials and to interact
closely with children and adults.

Lieberman (1965) concluded from a study of ninety-
three kindergarten children that play, games, and cognitive
development are functionally related. Research by Sutton-
Smith (1971) supported the concept that expressive phenomena
called on in play produce a wealth of cognitions as well as
adaptive or creative readiness to deal with the environment.

Integration of the Handicapped
into Typical Settings

 

 

The goals of early education for handicapped

children are two-fold: Stigma reduction/removal

and competence enhancement (Guralnick, 1978,

p. 264).

Integration or mainstreaming of the handicapped into
typical or normal classroom settings has received considerable
space in the literature, especially recently, because of its

heightened popularity; legislative action at the federal

49

level, such as the 1972 federal mandate that no fewer than
10 percent of the places in Head Start go to the handicapped
and Public Law 94-142 has strengthened implementation.

There has, however, been widespread dissent in the fields of
education and special education as to the merits of inte-
gration (as was indicated in the Statement of the Problem)
and, as was noted by Cornett (1977), the term Mainstreaming
of itself does not denote success or failure in improving the
lot of the handicapped. In spite of the inherent difficul-
ties, the discussion here will be directed with the assump-
tion that mainstreaming, at least for the present, is a
distinct given, and not just a possibility.

Sapon-Shevin (1978) expressed concern that children
somehow have to qualify with a certain readiness before they
can be admitted to the mainstream:

The very concept of mainstreaming tends to imply that
the mainstream is inaccessible and unamenable to change.
This orientation puts the burden of change on those
being introduced into the environment. The educator's
task is seen as that of making children ready to enter
the mainstream.

Mainstreaming must be conceived of not as changing the
special child so that he will fit into the_unchanged
regular classroom, but rather as changing the nature

of the regular classroom so that it is more accommodating
to all children (pp. 119-120).

Martin (1973) has also urged educators to view
children as exhibiting a variety of unique learning and

behavior styles. He suggests the end of "dichotomous con-

structs" that result in segregated settings and a

50

reconceptualization of teacher education that would broaden
teacher competency to deal with a broader range of abilities.
In order to measure existing preschools' readiness
to mainstream handicapped children, a survey was conducted
by Abelson (1975) in a large, urban community. The investi-
gators concluded that the vast majority of preschool
teachers revealed a positive attitude toward integration.
Most frequently accepted handicaps were speech delay and
mental retardation; least desirable included confinement to
wheelchair, upper extremity problems, and blindness.
Few preschools were observed that did not have some
sort of architectural barrier and other problems appeared
to be no parking space, no drop-off space, and poor toilet
facilities for the handicapped. Management styles of
teachers and the availability of various learning materials
and accessories were not assessed but it was concluded that
most schools offered "about the same type of programs, with
a more limited range of experience that is expressed by
their goals and philOSOphies" (Abelson, 1975, pp. 46-47).
In speaking of the challenges teachers will meet in
the integration effort, Ginsberg (1976) related:
One is challenged to find ways of providing deliberate,
structural experiences for children in areas which are
more commonly taken care of in the course of development
from infancy to childhood. These are skills which every
teacher must master in dealing with the typical vari-
ations among children. This same ability to provide
Specific enrichment and developmentally appropriate

stimulation of the child is highlighted and accentuated
when dealing with special children (p. 7).

51

Moreover, as was pointed out elsewhere by Sapon-
Shevin (1978), organizing a classroom so that it is not
solely teacher-centered but, rather, makes use of the com—
bined strengths of classroom members, will greatly ease the
burden of the teacher. It is also a necessary characteri-
stic of the mainstreamed classroom if effective communication
between children is to occur. Clark (1976) investigated the
communication patterns and friendship choices in a main-
streamed preschool setting in which there were five communi—
cation handicapped and four normal children. Results indi-
cated that teachers were doing most of the talking and the
handicapped children were being talked to the least by their
peers. A focal study of one handicapped subject indicated
that she was more often talked to in comparison to initiating
talking to others, that teachers and the normal children were
the most frequent interactors, that the subject usually did
not respond verbally when talked to, and that the subject
interacted more with normal than with handicapped classmates.
There appeared to be a relationship between the severity of
the handicap and social acceptance. It was concluded that
intervention on the part of the teacher appeared necessary
in order to develop interactions between mainstreamed
handicapped and normal children.

Wright (1962) pointed out that one of the benefits
of integration will be a pooling of resources and knowledge

about normal and exceptional children that will lead to more

52

certainty about child development in general. He saw
evaluation by the teacher of the impaired child's impact on
the normal program as critical so that the experiences of
normal children are not jeopardized. He suggested, however,
that we often underestimate the ability of children to accept
other children, and their limitations, physical or emo-
tional, that it is beneficial for children to come in con-
tact, early, with variations, which will certainly be a part
of their adult life. Regularly enrolled preschool children
are more apt to express curiosity than hostility toward
integrated handicapped children (Carlson, 1977).

Jackson (1976) in a study looking at the effects
of integration on twenty handicapped preschoolers indicated
that handicapped subjects were found to have a much lower
self concept than non-handicapped and that, although the
nonhandicapped peers outperformed the handicapped subjects,
the mean difference in task orientation and social behavior
between the two groups was significantly reduced over the
course of a year.

Guralnick (1976) warned, however, that interaction
between handicapped and nonhandicapped children by itself
does not provide the sort of social context that facili-
tates either social or cognitive learning:

If early education teachers want to influence young
children's development, they need to know about proce-
dures that promote peer interactions. This knowledge
is especially important for teachers who work with

handicapped and nonhandicapped children in integrated
early education settings. In order for handicapped

53

children to receive many of the benefits of integrated

programming, they must interact routinely with nonhandi-

capped children. However, teachers who "expect" handi-

capped and nonhandicapped children to interact with one

another are likely to be disappointed (p. 55).
Supporting the fact that individual differences and
experiences cannot simply be ignored in the "blending" of
human beings in social situations, Laing (1967) wrote:

Human beings relate to each other not simply exter-

nally, like billiard balls, but by the relations

of the two worlds of experience that come into

play when two people meet (p. 63).

Four factors were identified by Haring, Stern, and
Cruickshank (1950) as critical to the success of integrating
handicapped children into typical classrooms, i.e., the
extent to which

1. The classroom provides for all needs of the child.
2. The child can become a contributing member of the
group.
3. The physical facilities of the school are amenable
to the child's needs.
4. The teacher with whom the child is placed under-
stands and accepts him.
Research by Wynne, Ulfelder, and Dakof (1975) supported the
idea that the ability and attitude of the teacher appears to
be the most "important factor in the success of the inte-
gration program" (p. 75). Dunlop (1977) cites additional
classroom practices that seem to promote integration success

as:

1. Open, sensitive, and honest classroom discussion
of differences between children

54

2. A teacher who focuses intensively on the development
of positive learning sets, which involves expectation
for the attainment of realistic goals

3. Some time set aside each day to evaluate and plan for
the progress of each child in the classroom

4. Children allowed and encouraged to undertake activi-
ties independently

5. Cooperative activities planned and built into the
curriculum that will encourage social growth of all
the children

6. Parents involved in classroom activities whenever
possible (pp. 29-31).

The Intensive Design

 

Many who have been involved more recently in
evaluating research related to young children seem to be
gaining interest in the intensive design, or N=l, which is
distinctive from group design in its conception of individual
variability. Dukes (1965) reported 246 single-subject
studies in the period from 1940-1965. Careful observation
and critical description is used to determine more effective
ways to help individuals change.

Two criticisms leveled at N=l designs are (1) its
deficiency in meeting several of the accepted standards of
experimental research, the first being a lack of control over
individual variation, and (2) its lack of generalizability.
Thoresen (1972), an advocate of the design, argued that in
intensive design, "individual variability is not looked upon
as intrinsic or accidental, but as imposed or learned by the
conditions under which it occurs. Each subject serves as his

own control."

55

Campbell and Stanley (1963) have supported this
point. They note that the time series design, which ap-
proximates the intensive design, controls for all the major
internal variability that might confound experimental
results during an investigation. Originally, it was typi-
cally used to analyze a student's work under various condi-
tions (Allport, 1920; Sorokin, 1930).
On generalizability in group design, Chassen (1967)
remarked, "Even if such (group) comparisons are statistically
significant, the observed mean difference between groups
still does not clearly demonstrate that the difference was
generally effective for all subjects." Thoresen noted, "in
fact, the obtained differences can be the result of a few
who changed dramatically while most changed very little. The
effect on the particular individual remains obscure."
Bridge (1973) suggested, "Generalization is gradually
established through a series of systematic replications with
the same subject (intraindividual) or across subjects
(interindividually)."
The general format of the time-series design is set
forth by Simonton (1977) as follows:
First, the dependent variable is observed over time;
then, at some predetermined point in this observa-
tional sequence, an "intervention" is made with the
expectation of a change in the dependent variable
(p. 489).

Observation as a data-gathering device has been most useful

when specialized information is needed. Salvia and

Ysseldyke (1974) maintain that they can provide highly

56

accurate, detailed, verifiable information not only about
the person being assessed but also about the contexts in
which the observations are being made (p. 8).

Gottman, McFall, and Barnett (1969) concluded that the
intensive design was a powerful approach to such research
areas as psychotherapy, education, psychophysiology, and
operant research. Suggesting also that the approach can
be applied in either the laboratory or natural (field)
setting, they claimed that it was responsive to ecological
considerations while permitting satisfactory experimental
control. They indicated that a time series design must
demonstrate "that the perturbations of a system are not
uncontrolled variations, that is, noise in the system."

Gottman (1973) suggested elsewhere that time series
designs:

do indeed offer an alternative when a traditional

experimental design is not feasible. However, their

most important contribution is that they offer a unique
perspective on the assessment of interventions. Experi-
mental designs in the Fisherian tradition may obfuscate
important observations about the form of the inter-
vention effects across time. Simultaneous randomized
designs have become so much the method of investigating
treatment effects that behavioral scientists have lost
sight of the fact that these designs were originally
developed for use in evaluating agricultural field

trials (p. 95).

Commenting on other problems connected with using
pure experimental research designs in the social sciences,
Bronfenbrenner (1977) wrote recently:

It can be said that much of contemporary psychology

is the strange behavior of children in strange

situations with strange adults for the briefest
possible period of time (p. 513).

designs:

1.

57

Thoresen listed eight attributes of intensive

The specific actions of individuals are the unit
of focus, rather than an average comparison between
groups.

The frequency, magnitude, and/or variability of the
individual's actions can be examined continuously
during each phase and between phases of the
investigation.

The individual subject serves as his own control
in that the magnitude and duration of change is
compared to his own baseline of actions. Past and
individual differences are carefully controlled.

Experimental control of variables is greatly facili-
tated, thereby reducing the need for statistical
control through complex inferential statistics.

The effects of treatments administered simultaneously
on one or more client behaviors (dependent variable)
can be examined over time for a particular individual
by use of multiple baselining.

Causal relationships can be established by repli-
cation (reproductability) of specific results by
means of certain intervention techniques across
individuals. Evidence of generalization is syste-
matically gathered without recourse to the untenable
assumption of random sampling.

The clinician can determine the extent of relevant
changes in client action continuously during treat-
ment and after treatment, if necessary, based on the
data provided.

An intimate method for controlled inquiry of covert
(internal) behavior of individuals is provided. This
makes it well suited to humanists (Thoresen, 1972,

p. 12).

Summary

In this chapter, the factors related to interaction

within the integrated and hearing-impaired preprimary

settings have been reviewed. It was observed that the child

58

is an open, active processor of information flows and who,
in turn, acts upon those flows.

A review of the factors related to hearing-impairment
was presented, including the physiology of hearing loss and
its impact on language development. A brief, historical
perspective of education of the hearing-impaired was
included, as were the effects of hearing-impairment on the
developing personality. The severity of the handicap is
dependent upon the degree and type of hearing loss as well
as on the onset of the loss, and the effectiveness of the
intervention for teaching coping strategies to the
individual.

Educational settings in which young children learn
and interact with their peers, materials, and adults were
defined, and examples of advantages and disadvantages of
several models were set forth. It was suggested that addi-
tional research is needed to identify the most appropriate
preprimary model for promoting peer interaction between
typical and handicapped children.

Space was also given to a discussion of play as an
integrating factor in the education of preprimary children,
including the contribution it makes in the areas of peer
interaction, socialization, and cognition. Play was seen to
be a critical, yet underrated, tool in preprimary develop-
ment. It was not to be assumed that all children had the

necessary skills to interact well with their peers in play

59

settings. Also, as was demonstrated, it may be necessary
to actively structure these settings in such a way as to
enhance or encourage positive interaction among children.

There was consideration of current issues related
to integrating the handicapped into typical settings. A
brief review included legislation, responsibilities of inte-
grating agencies, and key factors that appear to be predic-
tive of successful mainstreaming.

Finally, the merits of the intensive, or time-series,
design as a powerful tool for research in the social
sciences was discussed. The design has been well accepted
for cases where a traditional experimental design is not
appropriate and where assessment of intervention is

necessary.

CHAPTER III

STATISTICAL PROCEDURES

Population

 

The population from which the subject was selected
was that of hearing-impaired preschoolers in a medium-sized
city in the north-central region of the United States who
attended both a non-integrated and an integrated educational
preprimary setting. Non-integrated educational settings are
those that are characterized by intervention geared toward a
particular type or types of handicapping conditions and
whose population is made up only of children who have been
determined by staff at the intermediate school district to
be handicapped. At the time of this study, all hearing-
impaired preschoolers fitting this category attended a par-
ticular elementary school where there were two classes for
the preprimary hearing-impaired. The school also contained
classes for the orthOpedically-impaired as well as regular
classrooms for typical children and mixed classes of typical
and impaired children, grades prekindergarten through six.

Integrated educational settings are those composed

characteristically of children who are not considered to be

60

61

handicapped, but whose population does contain one or more

children who are handicapped.

Sample

A sample of one subject was selected for observa-
tional study. Because of the general unavailability of sub-
jects fitting the narrow population described above, it was
determined that the subject would be the first hearing-
impaired preprimary child whose parents would consent to
participate in the study and who attended the elementary
program for the preprimary hearing-impaired as well as one of
the early childhood laboratories housed on the local univer-
sity campus. The period of selection and study was set for
the 1977-1978 school year.

During the time of this study, an on-going project
funded by the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped was
being administered through the local university's Institute
for Family and Child Study. The primary purpose of the
project was the successful integration, or mainstreaming, of
impaired children into typical preprimary classrooms.
Training sites for the project included the on-campus early
childhood laboratories. Each classroom was staffed with a
professionally-trained head teacher, student teachers, and
student aides; the students were currently enrolled in the
early childhood training courses offered at the university.
Contact was maintained with the project staff and the pre-

primary teachers at the elementary school for the

62

hearing-impaired so that a possible subject for observation
could be identified. The subject selected was characterized
as follows:

1. He was a four-year-old, hearing-impaired male.

2. He had been diagnosed as having a moderate-to-severe
hearing loss.

3. He would be attending half-day preprimary classes
four mornings per week at the local elementary school
for the hearing—impaired.

4. He would also be attending half-day classes four
afternoons per week at the nearby university
laboratory school.

An appointment was then secured with the local
school district's director of special education services to
explain the purpose and intended procedure of the study.
Oral permission was received on condition that the subject's
parents were in agreement. A letter of permission was sent
to the parents and, following a personal interview, per-
mission was granted. A letter explaining the study was also
sent to the Early Childhood Studies Committee, a university
agency that meets to review the intended purpose and proce-
dure of all research conducted in the early childhood
laboratories. Clearance was received from that committee
as well as from the Committee for Research on Human Sub-
jects. Finally, permission for observation in the classroom
was asked for in writing from each of the preprimary

teachers and was granted.

63

Research Design

 

In this study, the intensive, or time-series, design
(Thoresen, 1972) was employed. Event sampling of integration
between a single subject and others within two preprimary
settings and over three phases of observation was done. A

graphic model of the design is as follows (Figure 7):

Observation Phases

I II III

 

Non-Integrated Setting

 

Integrated Setting

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7. Graphic Model of the Design.

Treatment effects were contrasted over the two
independent variables of time (Phases I, II, and III) and
setting (Preprimary program for the hearing-impaired and
the typical early childhood laboratory setting) and the
following dependent variables:

1. Subject's initiation of interaction with peers
2. Peers' initiation of interaction with subject
3. Subject's initiation of interaction with adults

4. Adults' initiation of interaction with subject

64

5. Total conflict resulting from environmental
interaction of subject with
a. peers
b. adults
c. materials

6. Amount of total conflict resolved by adults in
setting

7. Amount of total conflict resolved by children in

setting

Data Collection Procedures

 

Each preprimary teacher participating in the study
was asked to respond to a Teacher's Behavioral Guideline
Survey, which was developed by the investigator, so that any
differences in classroom expectations related to the sub-
ject's behavior could be determined (see Appendix B). Con-
flicts would consist of deviations from expectations indi-
cated by teachers as "Always expected/reinforced" or "Often
expected/reinforced" in that behavior in any of the
following ways:

1. In interactions between subject and his peers
2. In interactions between subject and adults
3. In interactions between subject and materials

Earhart (1977) has identified three kinds of inter-
actions that occur between individuals, groups, and/or
materials as follows:

1. Verbal--inc1udes brief to lengthy vocal interaction

in the form of statements, questions, and/or
phrases.

65

2. Non-verba1--includes body gestures and facial
expressions that indicate such affective postures,
as pleasure, displeasure, interest and assurance.

 

3. Physica1--includes touching, pushing, clinging, and
hugging, as well as imitation of other physical
behaviors such as running, jumping, and skipping.
Observation was done by the investigator. Because

the intensive design approximated, in this case, an ethno-
graphic or case-study approach, much of the qualitative data
would have been lost to the investigator if another observer
had been used. Moreover, the motivation for an ecological
overview or understanding of the mainstreaming process called
for personal and intense involvement of the investigator in
all settings and over all time periods.

In order to provide objectivity, observer reliability
was established prior to the study. Before baseline data
were gathered (Phase I), the observer met with another doc-
toral student in the integrated preprimary setting to
establish observer reliability. A subject was randomly chosen
for simultaneous observation by both observers. Observation
periods were set for ten minutes each. At the conclusion of
each, comparisons were made by the observers on the
following:

1. Number of subject-child interactions.

2. Number of subject-adult interactions.

3. Total number of conflicts.

4. Number of conflicts resolved by children.

5. Number of conflicts resolved by adults.

66

Fifteen lO-minute observation periods yielded an overall
average agreement of 96.73 on initiation of interaction
between children and adults and between children in the
setting, including any conflicts. At no time was agreement
less than 75 percent and, in eleven out of fifteen obser-
vations, agreement was 100 percent. Objectivity was further
insured by the quantitative nature of the actual data
gathering. The event-sampling procedure and continuous
recording of observed interaction (see Phase I) served to
eliminate subjective interpretation on the part of the
investigator. A sample of this procedure may be found in
the Appendices.

Phase I. Beginning January 19, 1978, data were col-
lected during Phase I, or the baseline period (seven days),
for two half-hour observation periods per day in each pre-
primary setting, for a total of fourteen half-hour obser-
vations per setting. Observation was made only during free
play or periods when activity was relatively unstructured
so that interactions were the result of free choice or spon—
taneous activity. Observation as a technique for collecting
data on the social interaction of children has been employed
formally since the 19303 (Berne, 1930; Parten, 1933). Recent
application has been made to studies looking at children's
preferences of play objects to peers (Scholz and Ellis,
1975), exploratory behavior and peer play (Hutt, 1955), and
differential effects of group density on social behavior

(Hutt and Vaisey, 1966). The greatest benefit in observation

67

of children's interaction in naturalistic settings, rather
than experimental settings, is that the setting is "ecolo-
gically sound," i.e., the child is on "familiar ground"
(Kerlinger, 1967; Eubank, 1976). Smith and Conelly (1972)
have suggested that a combined time-and-event sampling tech-
nique may be the most appropriate technique for observing
overt behaviors.

Using an event-sampling procedure, continuous
recording was made on an observation form of all interactions
between the subject and others in his environment. Ini-
tiation of interaction was indicated by noting first who made
contact (p--peer; s--subject; a--adult) and an arrow was
drawn toward the intended contact (ex. s+p, p+s, a+s, s+a).
Continued interactions between participants were counted as
one observation. If a period of three seconds of silence
(counted as 1001, 1002, 1003) occurred after initiation,
subsequent initiation was counted. All interactions within
group situations that were directed toward the subject or
by the subject were counted. Purpose of interaction, length
of interaction, and particular responses to initiation were
recorded only as running observation; the factors were not
isolated for subsequent analysis as they were not specifi-
cally related to the hypotheses under investigation. Con-
flict was recorded, however, and notes were made as to
whether it was resolved by adults or children in the

setting, or unresolved. Any aggression related to conflict

68

was also noted and differentiation was made between hostile
(person-directed) aggression and instrumental (object-
directed) aggression.

Intervention at the end of Phase I and preceding
Phase II consisted of the following:

1. An Inservice Questionnaire was sent to the subject's
parents,* to each of the preprimary teachers, and to
the clinician working with him at the University's
Speech and Audiology Clinic. Each was asked to
assess the following:

a. The subject's strengths

b. The subject's most pressing needs

c. Their goals for him for the current school year

d. Specific steps already taken to see that the
goals were being accomplished.

e. His progress related to those goals

f. Adjustments they felt necessary for effective
achievement of their goals

9. Concerns they had about the mainstreaming
process

h. Any other comments, observations, or suggestions
they felt would be helpful.

2. Each preprimary teacher was asked to observe the
subject in the other preprimary setting for an

entire class period, at least.

 

*The subject's parents were unable to participate
more fully because of other responsibilities.

69

The clinician was asked to observe the subject in
both settings.
Following the observations, the following were
invited by the observer to attend an inservice
session for discussion:
a. The subject's parents
b. The preprimary staff from both centers,
including the student teacher from the typical
setting and the teacher aide from the hearing-
impaired settings.
c. The clinician from the Speech and Audiology
Clinic.
The observer acted as moderator of the session and
encouraged participating members to share their
goals, concerns, and observations about the sub-
ject's progress in the typical setting. It was
hypothesized by the observer that there appeared to
be a direct relationship between the high adult-
child interaction in the integrated setting and
the correspondingly low rate of child-child inter-
action in the same setting. Other participants
agreed, and adult-child interaction in the typical
setting was subsequently identified as the target
behavior for intervention. A written communication
(see Appendix C) was sent to all participating
adults in the integrated setting by the teacher in

an attempt to heighten awareness about the value of

70

child-child interaction. For a two-week period
following Phase I and preceding Phase II obser-
vation, students and aides participating in the
integrated setting were reminded often during the
pre-session planning by the head teacher and
student teacher to monitor their interaction with
the subject. At the same time, they were to
encourage the subject's interaction with his peers.
6. The clinician from the Speech and Audiology Clinic
agreed to visit the integrated setting, bringing
some hearing aids and other equipment related to
hearing-impairment so that all children in the inte-
grated setting could become more familiar with them.
7. The teacher in the integrated setting planned some
special play sessions where she took the subject and
several other children into another playroom so they
could become more familiar with one another in a

smaller group setting.

Phase 11. At the end of the two-week period fol—
lowing staff in-service and follow-up with the above strate-
gies, data were again collected in Phase II of the study.
Procedures followed were identical to those in Phase I.
Fourteen half-hour observations were collected in each
preprimary setting.

Phase III. Following a delay of eight weeks, during

 

which there was no additional communication between pre-

71

primary settings or planned intervention by the investigator,
data were again collected in the final phase of the study.
Phase III of the study was completed by May 24, 1978. Again,
procedures followed were the same as those in Phases I and
II. Fourteen half-hour observations were done in each pre-

primary setting.

Data Analysis

 

The seven major hypotheses, testing whether or not
there were differences in the dependent variables between
the two settings over time, were analyzed using the
Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks. The
test is an extremely useful one for deciding whether K
independent samples are from genuinely different populations
or whether they represent merely chance variations such as
are to be expected among several random samples from the same
population (Siegel, 1976, p. 184). A summary of the proce-
dure follows:

1. Rank all of the observations for the k groups in a
single series, assigning ranks from 1 to N.

2. Determine the value of R (the sum of the ranks) for
each of the k groups of ranks.

3. If a large proportion of the observations are tied,
compute the value of H from formula (8.3). Other—
wise use formula (8.1).

4. The method for assessing the significance of the
observed value of H depends on the size of k and
on the size of the groups:

a. If k=3 and if n1, n2, n3 3 5, Table 0 may be
used to determine the associated probability
under Ho of an H as large as that observed.

72

b. In other cases, the significance of a value as
large as the observed value of H may be assessed
by reference to Table C, with df=k-1.

5. If the probability associated with the observed value
of H is equal to or less than the previously set
level of significance, a, reject Ho in favor of H1.
(Siegel, 1967, p. 192).

A post hoc procedure developed by Marascuilo and
McSweeney (1967) was used by test sub-hypotheses looking at
differences between settings or between phases I and III.
The post hoc trend analysis is used following the rejection
of the null hypothesis by a nonparametric test such as the
Kruskall-Wallis or the Friedman test performed on rank data
(Marascuilo and McSweeney, 1967, p. 407). It is based upon
a chi-square analog of Sheffe's theorem.

Those sub-hypotheses that were limited to comparison
between subsequent Phases in the typical setting only were
analyzed for significant trend by using White's (1972) Median
Statistics. The technique is an outcome analysis specifi-
cally suited to the kind of dynamic information gathered in
the intensive design and provides the researcher with
descriptive as well as practical results. Median statistics
have also proven to be a more useful approach than tradi-
tional inferential statistics based on the mean. As White
points out:

The greater the difference between any single score

and the rest of the data, the greater the singular

influence that score will have in the determination

of the mean. The mean, in a sense, emphasizes the

importance of deviant scores. On the other hand,
the median is not affected by largely deviating

73

scores, only by the fact that they are greater or
less than the other scores in the distribution
(p. 12).
As a second point, demonstrating the usefulness of
the median, White states that:
Using the median, we may be assured of meeting our
expectation 50 percent of the time; using the mean,
on the other hand, we might base our estimates
heavily on his (the subject's) best or worst
days--resulting in either an over or under estimate
of the majority of his performances (p. 14).
White suggests that typical research standards are
not obtained using this particular technique for analysis
unless at least 9-11 data points are available. This study

used fourteen.

Specific steps taken in the data analysis included
the following:

1. Construct the median slope for each of the
seven variables per setting and time by dividing fourteen
data points into quadrants and identifying the median points
in the right and left halves.

2. Determine step (immediate upward or down-
ward change in performance) and progress change (slope, that
is, the difference between the slope of the line of progress
and the dotted, or predicted acceleration, line)in subse-
quent comparisons.

3. Statistically test the data.

Previous studies (Bridge, 1973; Schmickley, 1976)

utilizing White's analysis procedure have followed median

74

slope construction with the binomial test (Siegel, 1956),
a nonparametric procedure that approximates the parametric
t-test.

The assumption of independence was a concern and the
possibility of violation was considered in that data were
collected on one subject. White (1972) addresses this
problem:

When the source of data is a group of individuals,
operating independently of one another, assumptions of
independence are justified. In the case where all data
are obtained from a single individual, however, and
especially where those data are (as they must be)
distributed over time, assumptions of independence
must be rejected (p. 8).

White's dismissal of the importance of this assump-
tion was later challenged by a group of statisticians at
Stanford University who conducted a number of studies to
determine the effect of the following types of dependency:

1. Drift
2. Sequential dependencies, including acute and
cyclical cases.

Results of their study revealed that, although there
was no theoretical reason to believe that tests such as the
binomial would be appropriate modes of analysis, in fact
they were. Effects of drift, they determined, were counter-
balanced by White's dynamic, rather than static, approach to
analysis. The directional trend of the median slope is

extended into the next phase (differentiated as a broken

line) and contrasted to the solid line of the median slope

75

particular to that phase. Sequential dependencies that may
be cyclical in nature (i.e., related to such factors as
seasonal conditions) are reduced or eliminated because of the
dynamic, rather than static form of analysis. Data are col-
lected over time, thereby enabling the investigator to deter-
mine hgw variables have changed as well as if_they have

changed. White suggests:

A dynamic approach to analysis will try to determine the
nature of the dependency in the data and remove or
utilize that information to more accurately assess the
differences between conditions (p. 9).

Summary

The pOpulation for this study was preprimary
hearing-impaired children enrolled in both a non-integrated
and integrated educational setting in a medium-sized city in
the north-central region of the United States. The sample
consisted of a single subject who was four years old and had
a moderate-to-severe loss of hearing. He attended a program
for hearing-impaired preschoolers Operated by a local,
public elementary school as well as an integrated preprimary
program at one of the early childhood laboratories on the
nearby university campus.

An intensive, time-series design was used. Running
observation and event sampling over seven dependent variables
related to interaction were recorded in two settings and in
three time phases. A total of eighty-four half-hour obser-

vations were made between January 19, 1978 and May 24, 1978.

76

Planned intervention, based on Observation of inter-
action during Phase I, occurred before Phase II data were
collected. A common goal agreed upon by all attending the
inservice was the fostering of peer-subject interaction in
the integrated setting by consciously decreasing subject-
adult interaction.

Data were analyzed using (1) the Kruskall-Wallis One
Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks, (2) post-hoc comparisons
suggested by Marascuito and McSweeney (1967), (3) White's

(1972) Median Statistical procedure.

CHAPTER IV

DESCRIPTION AND DISCUSSION OF THE SUBJECT

AND HIS ENVIRONMENT

A study that is intended to be ecological in scope
and approach requires at least minimal consideration of the
subject's entire contextual condition. In the case of a
child's educational progress, some knowledge Of the child's
beginning and life away from the school setting is extremely
useful in determining how to structure the learning environ-
ment most effectively. When the child is impaired, close
communication with, and knowledge about, the child's family
may be even more critical in order to implement successful
intervention. In this chapter, a discussion of the pre-
senting condition of the subject will be followed by a
descriptive profile Of his family and of the preprimary
settings in which he was living and developing-during the
study. Information about the presenting condition of the
child from conception through the time of the study was
Obtained from numerous oral and written communications with
the subject's mother, including a home interview. Clinical
records describing diagnostic evaluations were shared with

the investigator by the attending audiologist. Following the

77

78

1975 divorce of his parents, the subject resided only with
his mother and sister. As a result, the investigator's con-
tact with the child's father was minimal. The father was
present during the home interview but participated only mini-
mally, despite an attempt to draw him in.

Information about the preprimary settings and staff
was supplied by those members as well as gained during the

actual observation phases.

The Presenting Condition of the Subject

 

Prenatal and Postnatal Condition .

 

The child under study was conceived in March 1973
and was born December 10, 1973. A previous pregnancy of the
mother had been unusual in that she had lost eleven pounds
prior to the birth of her first child. However, delivery
and condition of the child, a daughter, were described by
the mother as "normal." Her second pregnancy four and
one-half years later approximated the first in that there
was little weight gain.

Toward the end of the pregnancy, the pediatrician
involved had begun to suspect a problem when instruments
for measuring prenatal growth detected no progress in the
fetus. The subject's mother noted that she had not been
overly concerned at the time. X-rays and amniocentesis
confirmed, however, that the child was indeed small and that
"there might be some problems." The fetus had apparently

been receiving insufficient oxygen. Trying to prepare

79

themselves for the worst, the parents discussed what they
would do if the child were abnormal at delivery. They
decided they would withdraw permission for life-extending
medical treatment.

When the child was born, the attending doctor placed
him on his mother's abdomen. She refused to look at him,
telling the doctor that she didn't want to see him if he
wasn't "all right." The doctor told her he could not be
sure but that her son looked fine; he was just small. The
child was removed from his mother so that routine procedures
could be carried out. Afterwards, when she had been assured
that he appeared healthy, the mother remembered, "I was
willing to hold him then. I just wanted them to tell me he
was all right. I wanted to hear that . . . I thought, then,
there was a chance."

The child was taken to the nursery. Less than an
hour later, the doctor reappeared, wanting the mother to sign
a form so medication could be administered. The child was
having convulsions. The medication, however, had serious
side effects and could cause blindness in young infants.

The mother became upset. The child's father, saying
he was not willing to see her become "emotional" about the
problem, left the hospital. The subject's mother, remembering
the ordeal, related, "I felt sorry for myself . . . I won-
dered how I was going to cope. My first feeling was that God

was punishing me for something I had done. I'm not religious

80

in the sense that I go to church on Sunday, but I cried and
cried, especially at night . . . asking Him why He had to do
that to (subject), why He just didn't do something to me
instead." She added that she had been having marital diffi-
culty with her husband and felt guilty in that she had not
wanted the baby. Moreover, she felt she had not taken
proper care Of herself during the pregnancy. Her nutri-
tional intake had been poor and she had smoked a great deal,
she said.

When she left the hospital, the baby did not leave
with her but remained in an incubator for an additional
five weeks. She returned to work just a week after the
child was born but continued to visit him daily at the
hospital. She was encouraged by her doctor to hold him
through the portholes in the incubator, to feel his weight.
She reported that she was afraid to touch him and did not
do so for three days. She was reluctant to establish con-
tact with the child because "she didn't know for sure if he
would live and did not want to become emotionally involved
with him." When she finally gained courage enough to push
her hands through the portholes to lift her child who was
"wired up . . . his brain . . . his heart . . ," she said
that she could feel "every bone in his little head and
shriveled body. There was nothing to him . . ." The day
she took her son home, however, his mother noted, "I saw

two one and one-half pound twins. I thought, 'He's not

81

thgt bad, anyway.'" Later, she noted, "I guess everything
is relative . . ."

After she took the baby home, there were many
problems. He was described as "crying constantly" and could
take very little food at one time because of complications
with his tongue and the shape of his mouth. He also
appeared to have problems with his esophagus, and his inter-
nal organs were slightly misplaced. Though the mother was
working during the day, she continued to get up with the
child every two hours at night. She noted, "There were a
lot of times when I thought I couldn't do it . . . when I
felt like giving up . . . crawling into a hole to escape.
The thing that kept me going was (my daughter). She needed

me.

Infancy

Though the child continued to experience "problems"
in his overall develOpment, his motor develOpment appeared
to be progressing normally. He was sitting up at six months
and crawling by nine months. He was beginning to attempt

walking when his mother noted a "lifting" of the depression

she had experienced. "I began to feel 'Why are you feeling
sorry for you? He's the one who has the problem.'" She

continued to be concerned about him. She pressed the doctor
about the child's small fingers and his abnormally shaped
thumbs. The doctor refused to say there was anything wrong.

She cited his failure to talk. The doctor suggested it could

82

be a possible sign of retardation but they would have to
wait." He reminded her not to let the child point or merely
signal for what he wanted, but to encourage him to speak.
She said, "I stopped pushing. Finally, I got to the point
where I just accepted it . . . I didn't worry anymore about
it. It had happened, and that was it."

The child's mother continued to work and took an
additional job in the evenings to pay the pressing medical
bills that their insurance would not cover. Her husband was
out Of work and was not able to contribute financially to the
family income. The children were dropped Off in the morning
at a babysitter's house a few blocks from the school the
daughter now attended. The babysitter was described by the
subject's mother as "very stable, in her 40's, and with four
boys of her own." The children remained there three to four
evenings a week. Their mother picked them up about eleven

o'clock on those evenings, after work.

Toddlerhood and Early Childhood

 

When he was approximately two years old, the subject
was referred by his pediatrician to the Speech and Hearing
Clinic at the local university for a routine hearing
evaluation. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine
if a hearing loss was present. At that time, the parents
reported concern over his continuing "slow development" and
absence of speech. There had also been a history of ear

infections. COR (Conditioned Orienting Response) revealed

83

responses by the subject at a moderate loudness level
(30dB-40dB). He was reported by the audiologist to show a
startle response at approximately llOdB, H1, warble tone,
and to localize well in response to noisemakers. Because of
the smallness of his ear canals, impedance audiometry could
not be accomplished. It was recommended that the child be
seen again by his pediatrician and to return in three months
for re-evaluation.

At the age of two years and four months, the child
was again tested at the Speech and Hearing Clinic. At that
time, COR audiometry indicated a moderate to severe flat
hearing loss (see Figure 8). Bone conduction testing could
not be attempted due to the child's aversion to the bone
vibrator. However, impedance audiometry revealed slight
stiffness of the left tympanic membrane; impedance measure-
ments Of the right ear were impossible due to lack of
cooperation by the child. Conduction involvement was sus-
pected. It was recommended that he be seen for medical
treatment Of the middle ear condition and that his hearing
be re-evaluated after completion of such treatment.

When he was two years and six months, the clinic
recommended that the subject be seen regularly at the clinic
for several sessions to condition him to the acceptance Of
the equipment and to play audiometry techniques. Amplifi-
cation was being considered if indicated during the condi-
tioning period. A subsequent hearing evaluation was con-

ducted by the county Otolaryngology Clinic. At that time,

84

.msucoz usom new mummy 038 um pomnnsm mo :oflumsam>m HmowmoHoflpsfi .m gunmen

TN.x_nrA_n_—x_.1_
1wp._u_v_<_o_e_

fiance 6: _ .552 — wzom 754.2 _ E< — :5 h.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OZmOma
c a ¢_a ¢_._ 3 a m 4 ¢_.. ¢_..
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ u.
_1___+_______2
3w «3...-..02 c. acme—mas. 25035
. . o:
t. 1 1
co.
1 u u m
B
15 H
u _ n .W 02‘
_ u . 8 M Dov em
_ . . on m
_ . . 0 Q .m.
_ no _ \ C P ._
_ L! ‘ . 8 n 4
. _ flu _ u c
_ . . cc H
_ . . W a: Em v3.2.. 8.: .x. haw
_ _ .. on 8 .6: 4E .Em
_ . . ) 29525.59“.
" u “ om W 1515.20.93 :Ummim
. . . 9 ac..-
_ _ _ m
_ _ _ o w
9.
.8 89 88 89 OS emu mm—

 

 

 

 

 

 

.nI. thmI Z. >UZmDOmmm

85

no abnormalities were detected in the subject's ears, nose,
or throat. Tympanic membranes on both sides were mildly
retracted but intact. It was suggested that he receive
further evaluation.

At two years and ten months, the subject was re-
evaluated, and it was recommended that his right ear be
fitted for an earmold. Results Of an evaluation of four
hearing aids indicated the Audiotone A 24 R2 hearing aid
would be beneficial because of acoustic frequency response
and the child's acceptance of the aid. It was also recom-
mended that he receive binaural amplification upon adjusting
to the monaural amplification.

When the subject was three years of age, he began
attending preprimary classes for the hearing-impaired at the
local elementary school. About six months later, he was
tested at the university genetics clinic in an effort by his
mother to identify what had "malfunctioned" in his prenatal
develOpment. The report was that he had a rare hereditary
disease known as Treacher-Collins syndrome. After thorough
examination, the clinic reported that there was "no reason
why, after adequate correction of his hearing with appro-
priate hearing aids, he should not develop and function
normally," though he would probably be at the lower end of
the scale on a normal growth curve. It was during this
period that the subject's mother again became pregnant.
Feeling she "couldn't take it again," she underwent an abor-

tion and subsequent sterilization. She and the subject's

86

father continued to experience marital difficulty and were
finally divorced. The entire financial responsibility for
rearing the children continued to be shouldered by the sub-
ject's mother. She felt, however, that she was "coping" and
that the problem seemed to be resolving somewhat, as were her
feelings of guilt. She commented, "I believed that I had
amended the sin, whatever it had been." She continued to
work full-time during the day as well as three evenings a
week. She had grown used to her schedule: "You do it. You
make every minute count. I have no social life and can't
attend the kids' school affairs, but I tell them why . . . I
try to make them understand."

Upon turning four, the subject began attending four
afternoon sessions per week at the university laboratory
preschool in addition to the four morning sessions per week
at the preprimary hearing-impaired program. In addition, he
was being seen for one morning session per week at the uni-
versity speech and hearing clinic. It was not unusual for
him to fall asleep in the van that transported him between
the programs. He ate lunch at the elementary school before
leaving for his afternoon session with typical children.
After school, the van again transported him to his baby-
sitter's where he and his sister played and waited to be
picked up by their mother.

Though the subject had lived in the same apartment

building for four years, his mother reported that he had no

87

playmates in the neighborhood: "After school, he has his
sister to play with. He doesn't go outside without me. I
really don't even trust him with his sister outside."

In the spring of the study (3-17-78), the subject
was again seen for a hearing evaluation, including impedance
measurements and a hearing aid check. Previous evaluation
had suggested a moderate-to-severe hearing loss bilaterally
with a conductive component present. There appeared to be
improvement in his hearing sensitivity and, for the first
time, a sensorineural hearing loss was ruled out (see
Figure 9). Results suggested only a moderate conductive loss
in at least "the better ear." Bone conduction thresholds
were within the range of normal hearing. Following this
evaluation, tubes were inserted in the subject's ears for
aeration of the middle ear. Subsequent re-evaluation indi-
cated a significant improvement in hearing sensitivity
(Figure 10). A mild, bilateral loss was Observed, but sensi-
tivity had improved by approximately 20-25dB, leaving the
subject with borderline normal hearing. Speech reception
thresholds were in good agreement with pure tone results.
Based on this information and dramatic change, the following
recommendations were made by the audiologist:

1. (The subject) is to continue to receive close oto-
logic and audiological management to help insure the
continued good use Of his residual hearing.

2. (The subject) is to discontinue the present use Of
his two hearing aids for a one-month trial period.

His mother reported that since his surgery he will
Often complain that the hearing aids are too loud.

88

menuzucv m a,

125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 0000

-10 -10 women» CODE

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 0 Ear Color Air Bone 53:3":3;
g 10 10 R Red 0 - o E -C
- L 3m x~x 3.] A ,N
g 20 20
“ CNT - Couid not test
d . .
g 30 30 ONT Did not "St
:3
g 40 40 Short Increment Sensitivity Index
5 Right Left
d
§ so 50 .H, . as 96
d H % %
s 60 60 t
a Cerbert Tone Decay Test
a 70 70 R'
3 new Len
55 so ,0 H, as as
‘3’ H, aa .__aa
a ‘..
a 90 9° Bekesy Audiometric Test
a .
let Left
100 '00 Audiogrem
Type ,
110 110
PURE1T»“EAVERAGE( )
AC I I I I I I I I I I I I I AC Air: RE LE 88A
BC I I I l I l I I l I I 3C Bone: RE LE 88A
L R L R L R L R L R L R L R
(Effective Masking in Non-Test Ear) coma";
. I 4“!”
mm: eumounnv or: - M a. 2
Recorded Lave Vouce Iva-'4 “on

 

 

 

 

 

 

SRT ”(Q “8’9 93/” ucz. MCL
R was as s 95 68 as
L 1653 9. v. '1. as as
Bin as as as as as as
SF as as as as aa 68
Aided ”'pr 0:. as 95 d8 d8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9. Audiological Evaluation of Subject at Four Years
and Three Months.

89

rasoueucv in ii,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

125 250 500 1000 2000 4000
-10 -10
a 75 7'1 - .”
e 10 ‘ffi' 10
‘ -—
a
E- 20
a _II_
.0
'5‘ 30
a q.—
5 40 40
.. -Ii—
a.‘ so so
a .It
a!
S 60 60
a Ji—
§ 70 70
g ——
'- 80 80
3 db
'5 90 90
U
z 'I"
100 100
110 110
AC I I I I I I AC
8c ' I I I I I Be
LIR L R L R L R L R L R
(EHective Masking in NonoTest Ear)
SPEECH AUDIOMETRY
Recorded Live Voice
1
SRT F’s/Q "”9 ”3’" UCL MCL
R fifis %r 95 is as as
L qBaas '1»; v. 1. as as
Bin as 9v. w. '5 as as
SF 30:23 9. as 95 as as
AidedI' as 9i. :5 as as as
Figure 10.

AUDIOBBM coo: ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R Red 0. o C'E
L Blue x-x 3.] A v

 

CNT ' Could not test
DNT - Did not test

Short lnaement Sensitivity Index

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right Left
H, H 'I.
H, ' v. as
Cerhert Tone Decay Test
Right Left
H, as as
H, 08 dB
Bekesy Audiometric Test .
Right Left
Audioqrern
Type
PURE TONE AVERAGE ( )
Air: RE LE 88A
Bone: RE LE 89A
COMMENTS

Audiological Evaluation of Subject at Four Years,

Five Months and Following Insertion of Aeration

Tubes .

 

 

 

 

90

(Subject) will be checked repeatedly for any possible
detrimental effect of not wearing the present aids.

3. (The subject) is to continue to receive intensive
language therapy since he does function as a
language-delayed child. His present speech patho-
logist reported excellent progress this past school

year with nine months language growth in nine months
of therapy.

Profile of the Subject's Family

The Home

The family makes its home in a group Of condominiums
that are quadrex in nature, each of the four, two-story
apartments Opening directly to the outside. Evidence of
children, a locked bike and a "big wheel," could be seen on
the porch alongside a grill for outdoor cooking. There was
very little outdoor play Space. The mother reported that
she was presently "buying into" the condominium and that it
had been their home since shortly after the subject's birth.

Inside, the apartment was very well furnished. The
furniture was new and of extremely good quality. There were
pictures of the children on the tables and walls, as well as
other art forms. These included interesting three-dimen-
sional objects. Magazines and books were in a wicker basket,
which was on the floor next to a tape player. Cassette tapes
were nearby. During an evening visit, lighting was very soft
and included a lighted globe on one table. The comfortable
living room Opened widely into a kitchen where the subject
sat at the table finishing his evening meal. His mother and

sister had finished their dinner and were cleaning up. The

91

child was eating his serving of a casserole of meat and

potatoes, salad, and milk. His ten-year-Old sister took a
Sponge and began wiping the table. She was praised by the
mother for doing so. The children's shoes, which had been

polished, were lined carefully on newspaper on the counter.

The Family

 

The mother was very open and cooperative during the
interview. Shortly after the investigator had arrived, the
subject's father entered the apartment. He stayed briefly
to listen to an explanation Of the study and then went up-
stairs to watch television with the children. Before
leaving, he disagreed with the subject's mother about the
cause of the child's hearing-impairment. It had not been
the result of Treacher-Collins Syndrome, he said, but the
fact that his son had suffered anoxia at birth. The sub—
ject's mother did not respond to his comment.

The family is nuclear in composition. Paternal
grandparents, who live on the western side of the state, do
not visit the family. Therefore, they see the children only
twice a year, when their daughter-in-law visits them. The
maternal grandparents are seen more Often, exchanging visits
with their daughter and her children approximately every two
months. Neither parent belonged to social clubs or organi-
zations and neither was involved in volunteer work. One or
two vacations are taken per year, as well as shorter, planned

trips.

92

The child's father was 32 years old at the time of
the study. His occupation was described by his ex-wife as
"househusband," though they are divorced. He is a high-
school graduate and attended college for two years. He was
described by his wife as having a difficult time displaying
emotion. His reaction to his infant son's impairment was
outwardly very unemotional: "It happened. We just deal with
it." He added, when questioned by the investigator about
his reaction, "It doesn't bother me. Medical facilities are
adequate. It's just a matter of finding out what the long-
range problems are."

Responding to a questionnaire about his son (prior
to in-service sessions), he indicated that, educationally,
the child had strength in no area and that his son's most
pressing need was an ability to communicate with his peers.
His concern with mainstreaming was that (subject) would not
be able to "keep up with" his non-handicapped peers. He also
responded that he wanted a professional opinion as to
whether his child's "mental understanding and reasoning" were
normal for a child his age or, if he were behind, a com-
parable age level.

The subject's mother, 30 years old at the time of
the study, had graduated from high school and then gone on
to secretarial work. For the past ten years, she had been
employed full-time at a credit union, working as an admini—
strative assistant. She also worked at the credit union

during the evening for an additional 21-39 hours per week.

93

The family's income averaged between 12,000 and 15,000
dollars annually, all Of it earned by the subject's mother.
Though she described her life, in general, as
"mostly satisfied," she described her feelings about her
marriage as "unhappy." Feelings about her family life were
mixed. Though she Openly and frequently expressed joy and
pride in her children, she noted the weight of carrying such
a heavy financial burden by herself. Health insurance had
covered approximately two-thirds of the medical bills
incurred since the birth Of the subject. Medical expenses
had been considerable, and the child's mother was having a
difficult time dealing with the remaining bills. The task
had completely exhausted her leisure time and, she noted,
robbed her of time she would normally have spent with her
children. Moreover, she had very little money for "extras."
At this point in her life, the subject's mother felt she had
to be more concerned about economic and psychological
security than in Opportunities for creative and expressive
living. However, she noted some dissatisfaction for her
current life style, admitting that her income and her
responsibilities had reordered her priorities. Though she
felt life, itself, a matter of "luck," she also felt in
control of it, or at least presently able to cope with what
"luck had dealt her." Overall, she expressed positive
feelings about herself and the way she was meeting her

present responsibilities.

94

The subject's sister was ten years old and attended
the fifth grade in the same elementary building that housed
the preprimary hearing-impaired program. Several times
during the study, the observer noticed her looking into the
subject's classroom to smile and wave to him. During a home
interview, she attended to him several times when he
appeared to need help. Each time, she treated him very
patiently and affectionately. "Sissy," as the subject called
her, had made friends in her neighborhood and belonged to a
girl scout troop. She told the investigator, "When I grow
up, I might be a teacher. It would take a long time, though,

wouldn't it?"

The Preprimary Settings and Staff

 

The Early Childhood Laboratory
Setting and Staff

 

 

The typical setting in which the subject was main-
streamed during the study was established as a parent
cooperative preschool in 1948. The laboratory served the
university community in providing students with Opportunities
for laboratory experience, class projects, observation, and
research. It was also serving as a demonstration site for a
federally funded project to support families Of exceptional
children in ongoing preschool programs. Though the center
was open to the community, the majority of the children were
from university student and faculty families. To ensure
adequate attention to individual needs, an adult/child ratio

of 1:4 was maintained.

95

Two types of programs Operating within the school
included two parent cooperative groups and a parent-toddler
interaction series designed to meet the special needs of
families with young children. The facility included children
from two to five years of age, and the program was designed
to foster physical, social, emotional, intellectual, and
creative development. The goal for all children enrolled,
as stated in a written overview of the program, was to
encourage their growth "toward independence with a positive
image of self and the environment."

The particular group in which the subject was
enrolled met four times weekly in the afternoons for 2 1/2
hours per session. A head teacher was aided by parents and
university students in implementing a program based pri—
marily on Piagetian theory. Field trips and resource
persons were included in the program. Learning centers had
been set up (see Figure 11) to facilitate the children's
exploration of materials in the following areas:

Block and large motor play

Housekeeping/dramatic play

Science/social studies

Art Media

Manipulative materials

Sand/water/woodworking

The program format included an hour of free play, a
large group session, snack, outdoor play, and small group
activity. During free play, an adult was positioned near

each of the areas to encourage the children's interaction

with the materials and to stimulate conversation about them.

96

Til

:3:T:_3

.tcn.azm >uc~tucnmd DCC:T_L:C >~Lsx >LOEmLLLLL 3:9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.- thvmi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5:. r... .1;

d
H M
o
u w. a z a
q E. .5... 3..
I u P
a mxco~m m m. b
uwumEoLc
acmaooxnso:
E_ _
U -
Lobe:
99.34
al‘IJ.J m.
I 0.:cfi / . 0
37-5.? 1 .
e 1 D / 4.7 a
.//IHWI_ fl
4
a
_fl....m..._ u
ix 1 3:5 1 r .-I //l
4
t;.< 0;.LLC

 

97

Use of the materials was largely restricted to the particu-
lar area in which they were found. Program planning was done
by the student teacher with the approval and guidance of the
head teacher. Materials and equipment were diverse and
plentiful.

The head teacher in this setting earned her B.S. in
1969 in child development and elementary teaching. She
received an M.A. in child development from the same univer—
sity in 1971. During the study, she was currently certified
for elementary and preprimary teaching. She had been a
COOperative nursery school teacher for six years and had
considerable experience working with parents of preprimary
children in various capacities. In responding to an in-
service questionnaire following Phase I, the head teacher
felt the subject's most pressing need was to gain clarity
of speech. Though no formal goals had been established
(see questionnaire, Appendix C) for his progress, she
expressed hope that he would be interacting comfortably with
his peers. Specific steps had not been taken to achieve
this prior to Phase II. His teacher wrote, "SO far, we have
pretty much been letting (subject) explore the environment
and become an accepted member of the group with some teacher
initiation of interaction on suitable occasions." She also
felt at that time that the subject had been "accepted by
most children" and that those who were unaccepting were also

having difficulty interacting with others. She further noted

98

that his good attention span, adaptability, and positive
self concept were strong features in the child.

The student teacher was a senior, enrolled in the
university in the early childhood curriculum. She was
assisted by other students, who were also moving through
the early childhood sequence, and by parents of the children

in the cooperative program.

The Hearing-Impaired Setting and Staff

 

Identified hearing-impaired preschoolers in the
subject's educational district were enrolled in a centralized
tri-county program housed in a local elementary school. The
school, which Opened in 1976, also served as a district-wide
preprimary and elementary educational facility for ortho—
pedically—impaired children. Children with moderate-to-severe
impairment were primarily served in self-contained classrooms.
Adjunct services included physical education and library, as
well as individual use of specialized and county intermediate
personnel such as psycholOgists, physical therapists, and
speech and audiology clinicians. Following established guide-
lines in PL 94-142, these children were placed in the "least
restrictive environment." Whenever possible, they were main-
streamed into other classrooms in the building, which were
primarily populated with non-handicapped children. The
building did not contain a preprimary classroom for typical
children, serving the non-handicapped population only in

grades K-6.

99

The adult/child ratio in the classroom serving
moderately-to-severely impaired children was held to 1:5.
Typically, a head teacher and one aide were responsible for
ten children. Only six children, including the subject were
presently being served in his classroom at the time of the
study, though capacity in that particular classroom had been
set for ten. Another hearing-impaired preprimary classroom
was also operating in the building. The adult/child ratio
in that classroom was also considerably lower than the
maximum, with six children being served by a head teacher
and aide. Frequently, the two classes were combined during
the second half of the three-hour morning program for snack
and language lessons. With the exception of the subject,
who attended only mornings and was mainstreamed into the
university program in the afternoon, the children met on
Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday from 8:30 a.m. to
11:30 a.m. Lunch followed from 11:30-12:30. The afternoon
session began at 12:30 and ended at 3:30. On Wednesdays,
children did not attend classes; the entire day was reserved
for program planning and teacher in—service. The two pre-
primary hearing-impaired classrooms were somewhat different
in the makeup Of the children being served. Though several
of the children in the subject's classroom were profoundly
deaf, the level of overall functioning in that particular
classroom was considerably higher than that in the other

classroom where hearing-impairment was often complicated by

 

 

100

additional handicaps such as emotional impairment. Too,
the children in the subject's classroom tended to be
slightly Older, chronologically, than the children in the
other classroom.

The program began in the morning with the children,
accompanied by their teacher or aide, marching in a line
from their lockers near the entrance to their classroom.
Following a brief period of exploration, the children again
lined up for "toileting." Bathrooms were located a short
distance from the classroom. This period was followed by a
period of free play during which the teacher selected
individual children for one-to-one concept teaching. Other
children were free to select play materials from a large
cardboard carton (see Figure 12) or from shelves. They were
free to use the materials in any part Of the room and in any
way they wished, so long as safety standards were not over-
looked. During this period, direction from the teacher or
aide was infrequent and only occasionally were play materials
such as puzzles or slide viewers set out on the tables for
the children's use. It was during this period that weekly
trips to the school library or gymnasium were scheduled.

At approximately 9:45 a.m. - 10:00 a.m., the children
were alerted that it was "snack time." They were then joined
at that time by the other class of children, taking their
places at low tables. Certain children were selected by the
teachers to hand out napkins or straws. Then began a daily,

laborious process of dispersing food. Often the snack

101

9')

3:03 c2323: n .233.

.?:_¢.:m =0.m0;E_i::..03: >-0§_L;:.; 2:6

\

.N. eoao.i

 

 

 

66'1035
5,:euoea¢

 

 

 

DEH-Hu

 

a xaae

 

 

 

.Losuooe

 

vfm

 

 

L

U

T.

I

s

3

O

1

U

.D

a
x.: .r
v 00: you

 

 

 

was-odm

 

\ Il‘lilaieiell

nae

pzsoqdna

 

 

 

 

vuooazzo
30:

 

 

preoqdng

 

 

 

 

carousbs:

102

consisted of cereal, toast, or cookies and milk. One at a
time, children were sequentially offered a spoon, a dish, or
bowl, the dry food, and milk. They were required to make the
proper sign for each article or to speak if they were able.
If they were not willing to do so, they did not receive the
article. If their attempt was genuine, they were praised

for their "good talking."

Snacktime was followed by a large group session with
the children again seated around tables at the "language
center." Didactic teaching materials such as visual aids
and mimeographed sheets were used to promote skill-building
in conceptual and expressive language. The subject's teacher
expressed her concern to the investigator about the severe
language lag experienced by most hearing-impaired children.
She noted that the controversy over oral vs total communica-
tion for the deaf often resulted in pre-kindergarten hearing-
impaired children coming to her very much like a "blank
slate," with little receptive and/or expressive language.

She suggested that hearing-impaired children could benefit
greatly if signing were begun at a time when they were most
sensitive to language input. The argument that signing could
deter speech was incomprehensible to the subject's teacher.
The primary purpose of the preschool hearing-impaired class-
room, as she saw it, was to give the children a means of
communication, to help them understand their environment,

and to prepare them for their educational career. Clearly,

the model she had chosen to implement those goals was the

103

behavioral or verbal-didactic model based on a stimulus-
response view of learning. The most appropriate and effec-
tive mode to stimulate language development was thought to
be total communication rather than the oral/aural method
specified by the local university. There existed a conflict
in that some of the children, including the subject, were
enrolled in this program favoring signing and were also
receiving services at the local university speech and audio-
logy clinic where signing was considered a deterrent to
speech and language development.

The teacher in the hearing-impaired setting had
earned a B.A. at a state university in 1977 and subsequent
hours at another state university in special education. Her
certification included a state elementary provisional certi-
ficate for grades K-8 with endorsement for teaching the
hearing-impaired in grades K-12. She had been employed
since the beginning Of the 1977 school year with the local
school district teaching pre-kindergarten hearing-impaired.

The aide assisting the teacher in this setting had
a high school diploma. She had been employed by the school
district on a full-time basis since 1970 as an aide with the
hearing-impaired. Tasks given to her were largely clerical
or custodial. She assisted by helping to prepare the snack,
bulletin boards, and teaching materials. She also helped
the children make transitions from place to place and with

their hygiene during toileting. Applied instructional

104

activities were taken care of by the teacher. The children
received attention from the adults largely in structured
teaching situations and were left during free periods to
devise their own play. The adults used the children's play
time to plan lessons and to prepare the environment for up-
coming instructional periods. They usually responded to the
children only to answer questions or to remind them to Obey
classroom guidelines.

Prior to the in-service session, the teacher was
questioned about her goals for the subject and to identify
his strengths and needs. She suggested that his ability to
communicate, attending skills, and good social interaction
with his peers were strengths. His most pressing needs
appeared to her to be speech and language development and
improvement in his fine motor skills. Behavioral Objectives
that she had established for his successful integration or
mainstreaming were as follows:

Criteria for Integration:

 

1. (Subject) will continue to use and develop the
receptive and expressive skills of communication
(speech, language, and speech-reading) well enough
to function successfully in the regular preschool
program.

2. (His) social and emotional maturity level must
remain at its present stage of development and not
regress or become surpressed.

3. (He) must be attentive to directions and follow them
to complete his work.

4. The teacher must always be aware of (subject's)
handicap and have an opportunity to devote her time
to him when he is confused or not understanding
tasks.

105

5. Consideration of the noise level in the room must
be given to (subject) as it may interfere with his
hearing directions or instructions.

6. (Subject) must be accepted by the other members of
the classroom as a member of the class and given the
same consideration they expect to give each other.

Objectives for Integration:

 

1. Upon arrival to the new situation (subject) will
select from three choices one Object to play with
(such as car, truck, airplane). This one activity
should take place no longer than six times.

2. (He) will sit with a large group instruction for at
least five minutes each time the group meets.

3. (He) will participate when called upon to do an
activity in the large group at least three out of
four times.

4. (He) will select one area out of five small group
activities in which to participate for at least
five minutes. (Building corner, art table, creative
dramatics, paint corner, and readiness table).

5. (He) will select one area out of five small group
activities until the activity or project is completed
three out of four days.

6. (He) will play with another child who approaches
him three out of four days.

7. (He) will approach another child to play with two
out of three days.

8. (He) will share his toy with another child at least
one time a week.

These objectives will have been met when it is agreed
upon by the teachers concerned with (Subject) that he works
and plays well with others.

sale
1. Increased language and improvement in speech.

2. Social interaction and acceptance by others.

106

3. To function and be able to keep up with the
demands made in a regular preschool.

Summary of the Contextual Condition
of the Subject

 

 

The four-year-old male under study manifested a
moderate-to-severe hearing loss, which had been present
since birth. Genetic investigation indicated presence of
Treacher-Collins syndrome, a rare hereditary disease. Some
question existed as to whether the child's hearing-impairment
was directly due to the inherited disease or to related,
secondary complications caused at birth. The impairment
had resulted in language delay.

The child resided with his mother and ten—year—old
sister. His mother worked several evenings a week in addi-
tion to a full-time job during the day. The subject conse-
quently was cared for after school by a babysitter until his
mother called for him.

He attended classes for the preprimary hearing-
impaired at a local elementary school where the program was
behaviorally-oriented. Specific criteria for his main-
streaming had been outlined by the teacher in that setting.
He had been mainstreamed into an early childhood laboratory
program at a nearby university. Programming in that typical
setting was Piagetian-based and no specific goals had been
formulated.

In responding to a questionnaire related to educa-

tional goals for the subject, his parents did not feel that

107

he was strong in any educational area. They saw his most
pressing need to be an ability to communicate with his peers.
Conversely, the teacher in the hearing-impaired setting
identified his ability to communicate with others and good
social interaction as strengths. She felt his most pressing
need, however, was further develOpment of speech and lan-
guage. In the university laboratory setting, the child was
viewed as needing clarity of speech. His strengths were
assessed to be a positive self-concept, good attention span,

and adaptability.

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The results of the data analysis are presented in
seven sections based on the major hypotheses regarding
subject-initiated and peer-initiated subject-peer inter-
action, subject-initiated and adult-initiated subject-adult
interaction, and conflict in the typical and hearing-
impaired settings over the three phases of the study. The
results of the interaction variables and variables related
to conflict will accompany each section. A summary of
results will conclude the chapter.

Mean ranks of dependent variables by setting and
time are reported in Table l.

Subject-Initiated Peer Interaction in the

Typical and Hearing-Impaired Settings
over the Three Phases

 

 

Hl: There is no difference in the subject-initiated
peer interaction in the two settings over the
three phases of the study.
Results of the chi-square test of the Kruskall-Wallis
One-Way Anova (corrected for ties), with Sdf, was 51.4606.
The test was significant at .0000 (a > .05). H1 was there-

fore rejected, indicating that there was a difference between

108

109

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

uoaamcoo
o.vv m.¢m v.mm a.mm a.mm m.mv pm>a0mmnluaspm
om¢n>
yogamcoo
m.mm m.vm m.mm a.mm m.mm m.Hm po>H0mwnlprnu
omoo>
b.0v v.mv 0.0N m.mv N.Hv m.w¢ uowamcou Hmuoa
oem>
.ucfl panomuuomnnsm
m.oe s.mo m.om m.ov a.mm o.sm omumfluflcwuuomflnsm
«m¢>
.ucfi pasomuuomflnsm
m.ov o.Hv m.mv o.mm m.vo o.am _ @mumfluflcflluaspfl
n m<m>
t w
m M .UCfl Hmomluoonnsm
. 0.5m m a.mo s.wm _ m.mm m.vH o.sv omumfluncfluummm
M . M mmm>
H M cowuomuoucw Hmmm
5.0N o.Ho m.mm W n.0n a.ma 0.5v w ooumwuflswuuomnnsm
M V mma>
. magnumm w mcflnuwm mcwuuwm
. mcwuumm wumfiflnmwum onwuumm ‘ humefiummum mcwuuom >Hmfiwumoum
aumEHHmoum _ woufimmEH humeflummum M pmuflwmfiH >umfiwummum pmuflmmEH I
W HMUfimwe _ Imcflummm Hmowmxa Imcwummm HMOHQ>B Imcflummm M mannaum>
w HHH mmmcm m HH mmmnm H woman H
. n 1.. H

 

 

.wEHB pom onwuuwm >n moanmflum> ucowcmmwa mo mxcmm :mwzll.a magma

settings

Results 0

four alte
H11:

H12:

H1 '

Table 2.-

110

and phases in subject-initiated peer interaction.
f the Anova may be seen in Table 2. The following
rnative hypotheses were subsequently investigated:

Peer interaction initiated by the subject will be
significantly greater in the hearing-impaired
setting than in the typical setting in Phase I.

Peer interaction initiated by the subject in the
typical setting will be significantly higher in
Phase III as compared to Phase I.

Peer interaction initiated by the subject in the
typical setting will be significantly higher in
Phase II as compared to Phase I. This will be
indicated by an accelerating lepe or step-wise
increase in the median slope.

Peer interaction initiated by the subject in the
typical setting will be significantly lower in
Phase III than in Phase II. This will be indicated
by a decelerating slope or step-wise decrease

in the median slope.

—Results of Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Analysis of
Variance by Ranks: Subject-Initiated Peer
Interaction.

 

vlsp

Situation

Number
(Data Poi

14 14 l4 l4 l4 l4
nts)

 

Mean Rank

3 47.0 16.1 70.7 33.5 61.0 26.7

 

Cases

84

Chi-square significance Chi-square significance
corrected for ties
51.2965 .0000 51.4606 .0000

lll

Post-hoe examination of the difference in interaction
between settings in Phase I was computed at an alpha level
of .05 using the following equation (Marascuilo and

McSweeney, 1967):

w = R1 - R2 = o
A K 2
Var W = §_i§ill Z E—K
12 K=1 nK

“x; (.05) /Var W

Range
Confidence Interval = W i Range

Results revealed that subject-initiated peer interaction was
significantly greater in the hearing-impaired setting than
in the typical setting in Phase I. Therefore, Hll was
retained.

Examination of H12 did not support the alternative
hypothesis. Subject-initiated peer interaction in the
typical setting did not prove to be significantly higher in
Phase III as compared to Phase I. The point differences,
lower limits, upper limits, and decision for H11 and H12 may
be seen in Table 3.

As can be seen in Figure 13, an acceleration in the
median slope indicated higher subject-initiated peer inter-
action in the typical setting in Phase II than in Phase I

(H13). To determine the statistical significance (a = .05)

of the difference between the actual trend (solid) line and

112

Table 3.--Resu1ts of Marascuilo and McSweeney Post-Hoc Paired
Comparisons Analysis: Subject-Initiated Peer Interaction.

 

 

 

_ I
Sub- [Point Difference 3 Lower Limit Upper Limit . .
. - A A ~ A Dec1s1on
hypothe31si (V) ; (w-range) , w+range I
r V 6
H11 g 30.9 .2 61.6 ; Retain
H12 9.6 ' -21.1 40.3 : Reject

 

the predicted (dotted) line, a binomial test was done using

the following formula:

P<r=n> = Ncr (P>r(q)N'r

where P is the hypothesized probability, q is l-p, and c
indicates a combination.

Since results indicated that the change in slope was
significant at .0056, Hl3 was retained.

As indicated by the deceleration in the median
slope and binomial test (results = .00001), subject-initiated
peer interaction in the typical setting (H14) proved to be
significantly higher in Phase III as compared to Phase II.
Data summaries for all alternative hypotheses analyzed by

the median slope and the binomial test are provided in

Table 4.

Peer-Initiated Subject-Peer Interaction in the
Typical and Hearing-Impaired Settings over the
Three Phases

 

H2: There is no difference in the peer-initiated
subject-peer interaction in the two settings
over the three phases of the study.

113

.62.? can 6:.uucm uc>c ccvutaucucn new; c¢ucut.:~nao¢wnsm "mete—m c«.v¢! ~> .n— wasn‘t

Va n— NA ~— 0— ¢ 0 h c w v n N u v— n— w— —— C— a m h c v v p N — v— m~ Nu —— O~ o m h c m v n N n

O
OQB'DmQMN—CO

 

icon» tc.u_TaLL uuuuuuuu ON

\

\ On

\ ¢:.~ ECL~ acutLr. Illeloil
\ coauooueucu

\ ho >ucvzc0uk

 

 

\

114

.uwuoonou mmomsacabh agnostic encuwuwsu “cognac... mu: :5: c:

.thmw: yo: emu... 11.55: 605.0315: 0: voyage-J macaw 5 #59725: .3

.3. u a so £523.53 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lwtm
vwguonom c: 2 N .069 an: 9500.57.92 ch:
vvuownwm of. z o ozuumuouwunz mt.
63m v
cocoons. c. o : .Huuo< 3:... vcmvmuw—ouvo w:
Become: 2. z o . .muoa acuanuouwunz ac:
nwuw Cu 9
6366?: 1. 2 e 6:268 9.35339. E.
pvaownoz c u n u A . ~ wove :ojmqumoni .2.
03.06an S. o I .—euu< :omyuuwfiounz m3.
«cucumuox nocoo . o z . ~ouu< :omumuwumowo on:
cvwcwmuwx snoo. : n .756: :ofiumuw~ouo< mm:
:ouuuuouwonz v
cow—:32. mecca. Z c . 20.5 9.2m N:
._uoo<
cuwcuuuom once. m a mumnm unfiu0um~ouo< mm:
cowcwmuwz 2.25. v— o .«wovn OCMumnwdwunE v:—
ccwcwnuwm 36:. N 2 Aouu< an: m2.
at: 95..
"mfi mamwzaonaz cwuumuwua c.3338... Awe: 3:: voice
2.32:3: .22. 32.... 392 36$ 2.3m Co 633...
.. 01:. $1.55; .3ch wage; tcmub 56:09:: 39239;:
:cumuowo uo E163. Eco mama 759.2 coyowcwua Erna—toad“
-IS.|..Lli-,11-1-2 1 I - 7;. 3|. .-. - iii.-- ,

 

.aawh 7:59;: cc... was—m 54cm: .3 uum>uoc< "Pun-ES» Small; 032.

115

As indicated in Table 5, the null hypothesis was
rejected. Differences in peer interaction between the set-
tings and over the three phases were proven to be highly
significant by the Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Anova (.00001).
The alternative hypotheses explored to detect those dif-
ferences were the following:

H21: Peer interaction initiated by the subject's peers
W111 be Significantly greater in the hearing-
impaired setting than in the typical setting in

Phase I.

H2 Peer interaction initiated by the subject's peers
in the typical setting will be significantly higher

in Phase III as compared to Phase I.

N
0.

H2

Peer interaction initiated by the subject's peers
in the typical setting will be significantly
higher in Phase II as compared to Phase I. This
will be indicated by an accelerating slope or
step-wise increase in the median slope.

H24: Peer interaction initiated by the subject's peers

in the typical setting will be significantly

lower in Phase III than in Phase II. This will be
indicated by a decelerating slope or step-wise
decrease in the median slope.

To determine whether or not peer-initiated subject-
peer interaction was greater in the hearing-impaired setting
than in the typical setting in Phase I, the two settings
were compared using the post hoc procedure (see Table 6).
The alternative hypothesis (H21) was subsequently retained,
indicating greater interaction in the hearing-impaired
setting.

The same test revealed no significance when peer-

initiated interaction was compared between phases I and III

in the typical setting. Interaction did not significantly

116

Table 5.--Results of Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Analysis of
Variance by Ranks: Peer-Initiated Subject-Peer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interaction.
VZPS
Situation 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number
(Data Points) 14 l4 14 14 14 14
Mean Rank 47.6 14.5 52.3 38.7 65.0 37.0
Cases Chi-square significance Chi-square significance
corrected for ties
84 34.2590 .0000 34.3829 .0000

Table 6.--Results of Marascuilo and McSweeney Post Hoc Paired
Comparisons Analysis: Peer-Initiated Subject-Peer

 

 

 

Interaction.
Sub- Point Lower Limit Upper Limit . .
. . A A Dec151on
hypotheSis Difference (w-range) (W+ range)
(V)
H21 33.1 2.4 63.8 Retain
H22 22.5 -8.2 53.2 Reject

 

 

 

 

 

117

increase. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis (H22)
was rejected.

In H23, it was hypothesized that peer-initiated
subject-peer interaction in the typical setting would be
significantly higher in Phase II than in Phase I. This was
supported (see Figure 14) by a sharp increase in the median
slope. Binomial analysis revealed that the difference
between the predicted line and actual slope was significant
at .0036.

The fall in slope between Phase II and Phase III in
the typical setting supported H24. There was a significant
(.00003) decrease in peer-initiated subject-peer interaction
between the two phases in the typical setting.

Adult-Initiated Subject—Adult Interaction

in the Typical and Hearing-Impaired
Settings over the Three Phases

 

 

 

H3: There is no difference in adult-initiated subject-
adult interaction in the two settings over the

three phases of the study.

The Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Anova disclosed the
presence of significant differences (.0001) between settings
and phases in adult-initiated subject-adult interaction
(see Table 7). Sub-hypotheses related to this variable
included the following:

H31: Initiation of interaction with the subject by adults
in Phase I will be significantly higher in the

typical setting as compared to the hearing-impaired
setting.

v—

3-11 8

n— Nu an 6— o Q h c w v n N

vcouu ccacuvtsa uuuuuuuu

I-.. II'!

we._ been» .e:.Lc

 

v— n— N—

.cE~F can ccuuucm Lc>c cem50cuc.c— Lccnueoc_£:m caucmuucuohcc; ”acne—m suave! >

_—

C—

 

 

'—

nu

N.

~—

6—

¢ c

N .v— vszcuu

QFOWQMN—‘O

0‘

O—
nu
N—
n—
'd
m—
mu
ha
mu
$—
CN
nN
NN
MN
VN
mN
wN
5N
QN
oN
On

:cmiumuctcu
uc >uccavouu

119

Table 7.--Results of Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Analysis of

Variance by Ranks: Adult-Initiated Subject-Adult
Interaction.

 

 

V3AS
Situation 1 1 g 2 3 4 5 6
Number i 14 i 14 14 14 14 14

(Data Points)

Mean Rank

fl

1 21.0 , 64.2 32.6 49.5 41.0 46.6

 

Cases

84

H3 :

Chi-square significance Chi-square significance
corrected for ties
25.8330 .0001 25.9674 .0001

Initiation of interaction with the subject by
adults in the typical setting will be significantly
lower in Phase III as compared to Phase I.

Initiation of interaction with the subject by
adults will be significantly lower in Phase II as
compared to Phase I in the typical setting. This
will be indicated by a decelerating slope or step-
wise decrease in the median slope.

Initiation of interaction with the subject by
adults in the typical setting will be significantly
higher in Phase III as compared to Phase II. This
will be indicated by an accelerating slope or step-
wise increase in the median slope.

H3l was supported by post-hoc comparison of Phase I

interaction within the two settings. Adults in the typical

setting initiated interaction with the subject significantly

more often than did adults in the hearing—impaired setting.

H32, however, was rejected. There did not prove to be an

overall decrease in adult-initiated interaction with the

120
subject in the typical setting between phases I and III.

Results of the post-hoc procedures may be seen in Table 8.

Table 8.--Results of Marascuilo and McSweeney Post Hoc Paired
Comparisons Analysis: Adult-Initiated Subject-Adult

 

 

 

Interaction.
' 1 I
Sub- 5 Point Lower Limit 5 Upper Limit 3 . .
. ; . A A : DeCiSion
hypotheSis , Difference (W-range) I (w+range) g
i (A g ;
3‘ I f
H3l 43.2 12.5 73.9 ‘ Retain
H32 17.6 -l3.1 48.3 Reject

 

 

 

 

 

As shown in Figure 15 by the deceleration in the
median slope in Phase II, adult-initiated interaction with
the subject in the typical setting decreased significantly
from Phase II. The binomial test (sig. at .0027) supported
retaining the alternative (H33).

Subsequent increase in adult-initiated interaction
between Phase II and Phase III in the typical setting was
indicated by a reversal in the direction of the slope. The
binomial test indicated the significance of the probability

to be .00003. Therefore, H34 was also retained.

Subject-Initiated Subject-Adult Interaction
in the Typical and Hearing-Impaired
Settings over the Three Phases

H4: There is no difference in the subject-initiated
subject-adult interaction in the two settings
over the three phases of the study.

.cemk tcc oc¢uiam uc>c c0..uc;o;c~ Lacanuczmzzu tc.c.a_c~|u~=t< ”mcLC—w ccavcx n> .mu eusu—L

N— - 0— o I. h 0 r 9 n N u v— n— N— _— c— a c h m w v n N — V— n— Nu —— Cu O m h w m v n N n

o
u
N
n
v
m
o
h
a

 

 

121

 

cN
hN
GN
0N

 

cat»; caau.tcua uuuuuuuu CM

couboououcu
ec‘_ 1:6». _e:LL¢ :o(;4-o. uc >L=t=t¢~u

 

 

122

Again, as indicated in Table 9, the One-Way Anova
supported rejection of the null hypothesis. Specific dif—
ferences between settings and phases related to subject—
initiated interaction with adults were investigated under
the following alternative hypotheses:

H41: Initiation of interaction with adults by the sub—
ject in Phase I will be significantly higher in
the typical setting as compared to the hearing-
impaired setting.

H4 : Initiation of interaction with adults by the sub-
ject in the typical setting will be significantly
lower in Phase III as compared to Phase I.

H4 - Initiation of interaction with adults by the sub-
ject will be significantly lower in Phase II as
compared to Phase I in the typical setting. This
will be indicated by a decelerating slope or step-
wise decrease in the median slope.

H4 - Initiation of interaction with adults by the sub-
ject in the typical setting will be significantly
higher in Phase III as compared to Phase II. This
will be indicated by an accelerating lepe or
step-wise increase in the median lepe.

Table 9.--Results of Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Analysis of
Variance by Ranks: Subject-Initiated Subject-Adult

 

 

Interaction.
v4SA : , ‘
Situation 5 1 2 3 4 5 g 6
T %
Number } 14 14 14 14 14 14

(Data Points)

 

Mean Rank 1 27.6 53.1 40.9 30.2 62.7 i 40.5

Cases Chi-square significance Chi-square significance
corrected for ties
84 25.8330 .0001 25.9674 .0001

123

Post hoc analysis of the subject's initiation of
interaction with adults indicated that it was not signifi-
cantly higher in the typical setting, rejecting H41. That
it did not decrease significantly in the typical setting
between Phases I and III is illustrated in Table 10. Con-
sequently, H42 was also rejected.

Table lO.--Results of Marascuilo and McSweeney Post Hoc Paired
Comparisons Analysis: Subject-Initiated Subject-Adult

 

 

 

Interaction.
Sub- Point Lower Limit Upper Limit 1 . .
. . A A DeCiSion
hypotheSis Difference (w—range) (w+range) 5
(W) 2
H41 25.5 -5.2 56.2 _ Reject
H42 12.6 -18.1 43.3 Reject

 

 

 

 

Though it was expected that subject-initiated
interaction with adults would decrease or continue to
decrease between Phase I and Phase II in the typical setting,
interaction increased as can be seen in Figure 16. Therefore,
H43 was rejected. Similarly, initiation of interaction with
adults was expected to increase between Phases II and III in
the typical setting. It did, in fact, decrease, also causing
rejection of H44.

Total Conflict in the Typical and

Hearing-Impaired Settings over
the Three Phases

 

H5: There will be no difference in total conflict in the
two settings over the three phases.

124

.cEmF Tzc ::_u.cm a:>C :C_.Lr.ci:_ u.:t<u.L:_£:m tadcuy.c—15Lc_£:m "mL;C_m cc.ttt v> .c. ogzcwg

v—naNuuncuamhcmvmmuv—m—N—ancchcmer—v—r—N—Zc—cChcmvmn—

 

7:9.» & TCuwat 5..

L...— .e....»‘ ~P....t..

Iv'"|lun'

 

 

Cm

SC. 7.... a». a:—

uC >.E...:~..Z..

125

The Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Anova (see Table 11) did
not indicate significant differences in conflict in the two
settings over the three phases. Therefore, the null hypo-
thesis was retained, causing rejection of the following
alternative hypotheses:

H51: There will be significantly more conflict in the

typical setting as compared with the hearing-
impaired setting in Phase I.

H5 - There will be no difference in the amount of con-
flict in the typical setting as compared to the
hearing-impaired setting in Phase II.

H5 - The amount of conflict in the typical setting will

be significantly higher than that in the hearing-

impaired setting in Phase III.

H5 - There will be significantly less conflict in the
typical setting in Phase II as compared to Phase
I. This will be indicated by a decelerating
slope or step-wise decrease in the median slope.

Figure 17 displays the calculated lepes within the

typical settings between phases.

Table 11.--Results of Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Analysis of
Variance by Ranks: Total Conflict.

 

 

 

 

VSTC

Situation 1 2 3 4 5 6

Number .

(Data Points) 14 l4 l4 l4 l4 14

Mean Rank 4 48.6 41.2 46.5 26.6 45.4 46.7

Cases Chi-square significance Chi-square significance

corrected for ties
84 7.8127 .1669 7.9751 .1576

126

v— m~ Nu —~ 0— a m h

"'.C' "..’..'....‘S '---""-.-' -

Tee». ttaL_TtLL 11111111

cc.— Tech; _c:.c«

v~

N—

N—

c—

a
.LE_P tce v:_.ecm uc>c Lv__e:C; .cuCP uvc;c_m :c*tct t>

 

 

I!

 

 

.h. c»:c.u

0 Q h D m 9' M N —' G

N H c
Mada-4

M—
V—
m~
@—
n—
c—
0—
CN
~N
NN
MN
VN
mN
cm
AN
cN
0N
Cm

comue>nomno
mo >Uccacwnm

127

Child-Resolved Conflict in the Typical and
HearingyImpaired Settipgs Over
the Three Phases

 

 

 

H6: There will be no difference in the amount of conflict
resolved by children in the two settings over the
three phases.

Significant differences in the amount of child-
resolved conflict in the two settings over the three phases
were detected by the Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Anova (Table
12). To locate those differences, the following hypotheses
were also analyzed:

H61: There will be a significantly higher amount of
conflict resolved by children in the hearing-
impaired setting as compared to the typical
setting in Phase I.

H6 - There will be significantly more conflicts
resolved by children in the typical setting in
Phase III as compared to Phase I.

H6 - There will be significantly more conflicts
resolved by children in the typical setting in
Phase II as compared to Phase I. This will be
indicated by an accelerating slope or step-wise
increase in the median slope.

H6 - There will be significantly less conflicts
resolved by children in the typical setting in
Phase III as compared to Phase II. This will be
indicated by a decelerating slope or step-wise
decrease in the median slope.

A comparison of the two settings in Phase I

revealed no significant differences in child-resolved

conflict. Therefore, H6 was rejected. Post hoc exami-

l
nation of this variable in the typical setting between
Phases I and III also revealed no significant differences.

Thus, H62 was also rejected. Results are shown in

Table 13.

128

Table 12.--Resu1ts of Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Analysis of
Variance by Ranks: Child-Resolved Conflict.

 

1r

 

V6CRC ;
Situation 1 2 3 ' 4 Q 5 6
Number 14 14 14 5 14 i 14 14

(Data Points)

 

 

Mean Rank 51.9 32.5 53.1 23.3 54.9 39.3
Cases Chi-square significance Chi-square significance
corrected for ties
84 19.6330 .0015 20.7600 .0009

Table l3.--Results of Marascuilo and McSweeney Post Hoc Paired
Comparisons Analysis: Child-Resolved Conflict.

 

Sub- Point Lower Limit Upper Limit

 

 

hypothesis Difference (Q-range) (§+range) DeClSIOn
(W)

H61 19.4 -1l.3 50.1 Reject

H6 6.8 -23.9 37.5 Reject

 

129

The expectation that more conflict would be
resolved by children in the typical setting (H63) in Phase
II was not met. Rather, the slope decelerated, indicating
no significance. H63 was rejected.

H64, a comparison of the conflict resolved by
children in the typical setting between Phases I and III
was also rejected. There was not a significant decrease
in the amount of child-resolved conflict between the two
settings. Changes in median slopes for the variable are
illustrated in Figure 18.

Adult-Resolved Conflict in the Typical

and Hearing-Impaired Settings Over the
Three Phases

 

H7: There will be no difference in the amount of
conflict resolved by adults in the two settings
over the three phases.

The null hypothesis was retained. Kruskall-Wallis
Analysis of differences in the amount of adult-resolved
conflict in the two settings over the three periods indi-
cated they were not significant (see Table 14). Therefore,
the following alternative hypotheses were rejected as
having no significant differences:

H71: There will be a significantly higher amount of
conflict resolved by adults in the typical setting
as compared to the hearing-impaired setting in
Phase I.

H72: There will be significantly fewer conflicts
resolved by adults in the typical setting in

Phase III as compared to Phase I.

H73: There will be significantly fewer conflicts
resolved by adults in the typical setting in

130

v—

n—

N—

 

1:6.— . T: .L:.CLL lllllll

.4.._ _ .:.p.. .

_c:.te

 

 

.LE_F tzt rt:_i.tm LL>C uLm—uccc tc>_Cutzut~_£L Anzac—m :mmtc: ¢> .m~ cu=cak

”OO‘QF‘DU‘QMN—‘c

9 H N ~ c o a h c w v m N
NNNN~~~~—~~—~~

rN

9N

NN

cm

on

GM
:o_LLm.c.:~
go >L:::t¢un

 

131

Table l4.--Results of Kruskall-Wallis One-Way Analysis of
Variance by Ranks: Adult-Resolved Conflict.

 

 

 

r

I
V7ARC i
Situation 1 2 3 4 ‘ 5 6
Number
(Data Points) 14 l4 14 14 14 14
Mean Rank 45.2 58.1 38.9 33.4 34.8 44.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cases

84 9.6256

.0866

Chi-square significance

Chi—square significance
corrected for ties
10.5030

Phase II as compared to Phase I.
indicated by a decelerating slope or step-wise
decrease in the median slope.

H7 °

.0622

This will be

4. There will be significantly more conflicts resolved

by adults in the typical setting in Phase III as
This will be indicated by
an accelerating slope or step-wise increase in the
median slope.

compared to Phase II.

Median slopes for the typical setting are illu-

strated in Figure 19.

In this section, the hypotheses tested are

Summary of Hypotheses Tested

 

and Decision Rules

 

restated and decision rules are given.

Hyppthesis Tested

 

Hl: There is no difference in subject-

initiated peer interaction in the two
settings over the three phases of the

study

Decision Rule

 

Null rejected*

132

1.5.: 19.52:...—

..:.—- —:..- u“ —-..3 T...

 

 

3.5:... _.:3

2?... Z...“

...>..

 

.2. _&:3.. —...>.:.fi.4v—I ~—.._.<

2,2...0. .n .525:

h

>

 

.2 2.53..

o
whomVMN—nc

30‘
~

ma
N~
m—
on
mu
A:
N—
m—
m.—
ON
~N
NN
MN
QN
mw
6N
2.
an
aka
0..

63.5.. 25;:
.0 >..e:3:7...._.._

H2:

133

H1 - Peer interaction initiated

by the subject will be signi—

ficantly greater in the

hearing-impaired setting than

in the typical setting in

Phase I. Alternative Retained*

H1 - Peer interaction initiated

by the subject in the typical

setting will be significantly

higher in Phase III as com-

pared to Phase I. Alternative Rejected

H1 - Peer interaction initiated by

the subject in the typical

setting will be significantly

higher in Phase II as compared

to Phase I. This will be indi-

cated by an accelerating slope

or step-wise increase in the

median slope. Alternative Retained*

H1 - Peer interaction initiated by

the subject in the typical

setting will be significantly

lower in Phase III than in

Phase II. This will be indi-

cated by a decelerating slope

or step-wise decrease in the

median slope. Alternative Retained*

There is no difference in the peer-
initiated subject-peer interaction
in the two settings over the three
phases of the study. Null Rejected*

H21: Peer interaction initiated by
the subject's peers will be
significantly greater in the
hearing-impaired setting than
in the typical setting in
Phase I. Alternative Retained*

H22: Peer interaction initiated by
the subject's peers in the
typical setting will be signi-
ficantly higher in Phase III
as compared to Phase I. Alternative Rejected

H3:

134

H2 ' Peer interaction initiated by

the subject's peers in the

typical setting will be signi-

ficantly higher in Phase II as

compared to Phase I. This will

be indicated by an accelerating

slope or step-wise increase in

the median slope. Alternative Retained*

H24: Peer interaction initiated by
the subject's peers in the
typical setting will be signi-
ficantly lower in Phase III
than in Phase II. This will be
indicated by a decelerating
slope or step-wise decrease in
the median slope. Alternative Retained*

There is no difference in adult-

initiated subject-adult interaction

in the two settings over the three

phases of the study. Null Rejected*

H31: Initiation of interaction with
the subject by adults in Phase I
will be significantly higher in
the typical setting as compared
to the hearing-impaired setting.
Alternative Retained*

H3 - Initiation of interaction with

the subject by adults in the

typical setting will be signi-

ficantly lower in Phase III as

compared to Phase I. Alternative Rejected

H3 - Initiation of interaction with

the subject by adults will be

significantly lower in Phase II

as compared to Phase I in the

typical setting. This will be

indicated by a decelerating

slope or step-wise decrease in

the median slope. Alternative Retained*

H3 ° Initiation of interaction with

the subject by adults in the

typical setting will be signi-

ficantly higher in Phase III as

compared to Phase II. This will

be indicated by an accelerating

slope or step-wise increase in

the median slope. Alternative Retained*

H4:

H5:

135

There is no difference in the subject-

initiated subject-adult interaction

in the two settings over the three

phases of the study. Null Rejected*

H41: Initiation of interaction with
adults by the subject in Phase
I will be significantly higher
in the typical setting as com-
pared to the hearing-impaired
setting. Alternative Rejected

Initiation of interaction with

adults by the subject in the

typical setting will be signi—

ficantly lower in Phase III

as compared to Phase I. Alternative Rejected

H4

N
0.

H4 : Initiation of interaction with

adults by the subject will be

significantly lower in Phase II

as compared to Phase I in the

typical setting. This will be

indicated by a decelerating

lepe or step-wise decrease

in the median slope. Alternative Rejected

H4 - Initiation of interaction with

adults by the subject in the

typical setting will be signi-

ficantly higher in Phase III as

compared to Phase II. This will

be indicated by an accelerating

lepe or step-wise increase in

the median slope. Alternative Rejected

There will be no difference in total
conflict in the two settings_over the
three phases. Null Retained

H51: There will be significantly more
conflict in the typical setting
as compared with the hearing-
impaired setting in Phase I. Alternative Rejected

H52: There will be no difference in
the amount of conflict in the
typical setting as compared to
the hearing-impaired setting
in Phase II. Alternative Rejected

H6:

H7:

136

H5 - The amount of conflict in the

typical setting will be signi-

ficantly higher than that in

the hearing-impaired setting

in Phase III. Alternative Rejected

H5 . There will be significantly

less conflict in the typical

setting in Phase II as compared

to Phase I. This will be indi-

cated by a decelerating slope

or step-wise decrease in the

median slope. Alternative Rejected

There will be no difference in the

amount of conflict resolved by

children in the two settings over

the three phases. Null Rejected

H61: There will be a significantly
higher amount of conflict
resolved by children in the
hearing-impaired setting as
compared to the typical set-
ting in Phase I. Alternative Rejected

H62: There will be significantly
more conflicts resolved by
children in the typical set-
ting in Phase III as compared
to Phase I. Alternative Rejected

H6 - There will be significantly

more conflicts resolved by

children in the typical setting

in Phase II as compared to Phase

I. This will be indicated by an

accelerating slope or step-wise

increase in the median slope. Alternative Rejected

H6 - There will be significantly less

conflicts resolved by children

in the typical setting in Phase

III as compared to Phase II. This

will be indicated by a decelerating

slope or step-wise decrease in the

median slope. Alternative Rejected

There will be no difference in the

amount of conflict resolved by adults

in the two settings over the three

phases. Null Retained

137

H7 - There will be a significantly

higher amount of conflict

resolved by adults in the

typical setting as compared to

the hearing-impaired setting in

Phase I. Alternative Rejected

H7 - There will be significantly

fewer conflicts resolved by

adults in the typical setting

in Phase III as compared to

Phase I. Alternative Rejected

H7 - There will be significantly

fewer conflicts resolved by

adults in the typical setting

in Phase II as compared to

Phase I. This will be indi-

cated by a decelerating slope

or step-wise decrease in the

median slope. Alternative Rejected

H7 : There will be significantly

more conflicts resolved by

adults in the typical setting

in Phase III as compared to

Phase II. This will be indi—

cated by an accelerating slope

or step-wise increase in the

median slope. Alternative Rejected

* Significant at .05

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS,

AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary and Discussion of the Findings

 

The purpose of this study was to identify charac-
teristics in both the typical and hearing-impaired pre-
primary settings that promote or hinder positive peer
interaction, to look specifically at the roles played by
adults and children in that interaction, and to determine
whether implementation of staff inservice between settings
was effective in increasing positive interaction. The data
for the study were collected in two settings over three time
periods on one subject, a four-year-old hearing-impaired
male.

Data were obtained by systematic observation, using
an event-sampling technique to measure frequency of ini—
tiated interaction and conflict. Seven major hypotheses
related to subject-peer interaction, subject-adult inter—
action, and conflict were analyzed using the Kruskall-Wallis
One-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks. Differences were
found between settings and phases in subject-peer and
subject-adult interaction. While differences in total

conflict and adult-resolved conflict were not significant,

138

139

overall differences in child-resolved conflict between
settings and phases were indicated. More specific dif-
ferences related to the variables were identified between
settings and phases when compared using post hoc procedures

and White's Median Statistical Procedure.

Subject-Peer Interaction

 

In looking at subject—initiated peer interaction in
Phase I, frequency of interaction was significantly greater
in the hearing-impaired setting. Though it was hypothesized
that the subject's interaction with his peers in the typical
setting would naturally be greater in Phase III than in
Phase I, it did not prove to be so. His initiation of
interaction with peers in that setting, however, did increase
significantly between Phases I and II. This change followed
intervention that consisted of interagency observation by
staff, discussion of the investigator's findings in Phase I,
and formulation of specific strategies for improving subject-
peer interaction in the typical setting. A time lapse of
two months between Phases II and III occurred, during which
there was no further intervention planned by the investi-
gator. Rather, a "normal course of events" was allowed, or
a return to baseline conditions. It was felt by the investi-
gator that failure to maintain active communication between
agencies would result in decline of subject-peer interaction.
Analysis between phases II and III in the typical setting

proved this to be true.

140

Peer-initiated subject-peer interaction followed
a similar pattern. The subject's peers interacted with him
significantly more often in the hearing-impaired setting
in Phase I. Following the inservice period, there was a
significant increase in peer-initiated interaction in the
typical setting between Phases I and II. This increase was
not maintained between Phases II and III. Moreover, peer-
initiated interaction did not increase significantly in the
typical setting over the entire four-month period of the
study, as indicated by analysis between Phases I and III.
Findings reinforce Guralnick's (1978) position that it may
be necessary to systematically design interactions that

involve peer reinforcement.

Subject-Adult Interaction

 

Adults initiated interaction with the subject in
Phase I significantly more often in the typical setting.
It was hypothesized that this frequency would decrease by
the end of the study. Though there was a decrease, it was
not significant. Adult-initiated interaction was identified
in the inservice session as a target behavior for reduction
in order to heighten subject-peer interaction. This aware-
ness on the part of adults in the typical setting resulted
in significantly decreased interaction with the subject in
Phase II. In the period that lapsed between Phases II and
III, this trend was reversed, and the rate of subject-adult

interaction increased significantly.

141

Analysis of subject-initiated interaction with
adults disclosed that it was far more frequent in the
typical setting in Phase I than in the hearing-impaired
setting. It was thought that purposely decreasing adult-
initiated subject-adult interaction would subsequently
result in decreased subject-initiated interaction with
adults. This was not substantiated by analysis. It did,
in fact, increase. Subject-initiated interaction with
adults decreased in the typical setting between Phases II
and III, though it was hypothesized that it would increase.
It could be seen, however, that there was a direct relation-
ship between decreased subject-adult interaction and an
increase in subject-peer interaction. This would support
research by Brauchlin (1970) and Stensaasen (1964) that too
much adult interference and organization can hamper play
activity. The results of this study indicated that mani-
pulating a decrease in adult-subject interaction can result

in increased peer activity.

Conflict

Because significant conflict both within and between
settings had been noted in the pilot study, it was hypo-
thesized that differences would also be found between
settings and phases in the study. Analysis did not bear
this out. There were no significant differences. Thus, the
null was retained and alternative hypotheses rejected.

Though overall differences in the amount of conflict

142

resolved by children proved to be significant, the tests
used to examine the alternatives did not prove to be sensi-
tive enough to identify those differences. Median slopes

(see Figure 18) for V indicated a decelerating slope

6
between Phases I and II in the typical setting. All four
alternative hypotheses were, however, subsequently rejected

as having no significance.

Summary of Findings

 

The following were outcomes of the study:

1. Subject-peer interaction was not as frequent
between the subject and his peers in the typical or main-
streamed setting as between the child and his peers in the
hearing-impaired setting.

2. Subject-peer interaction in the typical setting was
increased by purposely manipulating a decrease in adult-
initiated interaction with the subject.

3. Failure to maintain active communication between
agencies and awareness of mainstreaming goals resulted in
reversal of progress in the typical setting. Subject-peer
interaction declined as subject-adult interaction increased
between the settings over time.

4. There did not appear to be significant differences
in conflict between the settings over time, with the

exception of child-resolved conflict.

143

Descriptive Conclusions

 

Use of the intensive design yielded qualitative as
well as quantitative differences within and between the two
settings over time. Viewing the child in his family
setting as well as in the educational settings added addi-
tional clarity to the overall picture of this mainstreaming
effort.

The approach to free play was quite different in
the two settings. Children in the hearing-impaired setting
were literally "set free" between structured concept lessons
to initiate their own play. They chose materials from a
large cardboard box and were free to use them in any way
they chose as long as safety rules were being observed.

The children were also able to use the materials in any
part of the room and often included classroom furniture in
their play. Hiding under tables or behind dividers for
various kinds of dramatic play was a favorite and frequent
activity. Play was usually sustained for long periods, and
adults did not usually participate unless approached by the
children. Children very often practiced "playing school,"
or being mother or baby, fireman, monsters, and doctors.

A great deal of their play allowed exaggerated and expres-
sive facial and body movement. Though there were wide
variations in hearing loss ranging from profound to
moderate, the children had no trouble communicating with

one another. The most verbal children were more dominant

144

in play, however, assuming leader roles rather than subor-
dinate play roles. Since play materials were somewhat
sparse, children often shared with one another. The jumbled
condition of the toybox required hunting for specific play
things and the children often assisted one another in this
task. Too, because play materials were limited, they were
required to invent materials they needed in their play. A
tray placed over another child's lap became a "high chair."
An old purse served as a doctor's kit. Paper tissues were
used in diverse ways, the children pretending they were
bandages, wash cloths, napkins, and a variety of other
created uses.

Confrontations between children were watched care-
fully by adults but children were encouraged to settle their
own difficulties. This appeared to result in less resentment
on the part of the "loser" than when adults stepped in to
arbitrate. Several examples in both the hearing-impaired
and typical setting illustrated this point:

3-13-78. Hearing-Impaired Setting Notes:

"The teacher ignores a great deal of conflict

between children, waiting to see if they will

resolve the difficulty themselves. Today, John

was purposely banging into S. and Amy as they

rode ahead of him on another truck. The passage-

way was narrow. S. and Amy looked at the teacher

but didn't say anything. She seemed to ignore

145

the situation but was covertly watching the
children. They allowed John to pass them.

When he went by, he smiled and waved to them.
They waved back. Because the teacher does not
often interfere, the children demonstrate that
they can compromise and alternate "being in
power." They rely on themselves to solve
conflicts and there appears to be little
resentment resulting. They are quick to forget
small hurts (and injustices), are quite willing
to share with one another in this setting (and
are often reinforced for doing so), and quite
supportive and protective of one another. Even
though they lose a current 'battle,‘ they do not
lose 'face' when allowed to work out their own
difficulty."

5-16-78. Typical setting notes: "S. and Cam
are in the corner where the S. is working with
flannelboard pieces. Cam is watching. The student
teacher (S.T.) is inhibiting conversation between
the children in that she is monopolizing it her-
self, instructing S. where he might put the pieces
and asking him what they represent. She is holding
Cam on her lap. S. picks up a nearby book and
pretends he is reading a story to them as he moves
the flannel pieces about. Cam moves to work with

the flannel pieces but the S.T. tells him to finish

146

'1istening' to S.'s story. Cam is visibly dis-
gusted and makes several gestures to get S. to
end his 'story—telling.' The S.T. also asks S.
to hurry but, when he continues, she stOps Cam
from playing with the flannel pieces. The tone
of the setting grows hostile and Cam, after
watching and showing his disgust, begins to
grab at the flannel pieces. S. counters by
grabbing them back and hiding them behind his
back. . . ."

5-22-78. Hearing-Impaired Setting Notes:
"The teacher usually allows children to form their
own rules pretty much. Today, however, she makes
Cathy give S. a small fireman--makes her exchange
and share. The children usually do a pretty good
job of this without being forced. Afterwards,
Cathy was pouty and not very cooperative with S.
for a while. She finally worked out of it, but
he was concerned and hurt when she brushed his
hand away when he tried to initiate play. She
exaggerated a pouting, disgusted look on her face
and indicated that she did not want to play with
him. He continued to play by himself but was
obviously worried about the situation, glancing
at her again and again to see if she was still

angry."

147

The children were very nurturant with one another
in the hearing-impaired setting and seemed reluctant to
hurt one another's feelings. Though the setting reflected
a behavioral orientation with a large part of the class time
devoted to language develOpment, children experienced about
as much "free play" time as did children in the typical
setting.

Children in the typical setting interacted more with
adults and materials during free play than with one another.
This appeared to be due to the program model and the numbers
of stimulating materials and activities available to the
children. Also, adults were present in every interest
center available to the children and frequently initiated
conversation with them about the materials available.
Children, including the subject, moved freely from one area
to another but usually did not stay long at any one activity.
Though there were opportunities for "creative" play, they
were primarily adult-initiated. Materials were changed
frequently so that children could explore a wide variety.
The children were expected to use these materials in certain
interest areas, each of which was overseen by an adult.

Dewey (1915) reminded educators, "The greatest of
all pedagogical fallacies is the notion that a person learns
only the particular thing he is studying at the time."
Though the head teacher was very sensitive to the spontaneous

needs of the children, student teachers and mothers in the

148

typical setting were more inclined to "follow the rules"
when children became innovative with materials. For
example, in the spring of the study, children in the typical
setting were filling funnels at an outdoor water table. The
table had been placed near a large covered drain. The sub-
ject took a pitcher of water and began pouring it slowly
down the drain, watching it disappear and listening intently
to the gurgling sound it made. Another child copied him
and soon the two were busy refilling their pitchers and
pouring water slowly down the drain. They were asked by the
student teacher to work with the water in the table only.
They soon lost interest and left to play in another area.
Carini (1977) sees this sort of behavior on the educator's
part as a failure to recognize the inherent value of a
child's motivation. She wrote:
Equipped as we now are by virtue of age with a capacity
to link means to ends, and because we have an overview
of events, to anticipate and plan, we are always seeing
in the child's activity things that are not there and
failing to see what, in fact, is compelling to the
child. Thus, with the upsurge of interest in Piaget's
work, wherever there is a water table with a child
filling containers, adults are seeing the "conservation
of capacity"--and, therefore, of course they are missing
the child and his or her intrinsic interest in water
as a clear, pure, living element (p. 118).
Though statistical analysis of subject-peer inter-
action in the typical setting did not disclose significant

differences between Phases I and III, observation indicated

a difference in the qualitative nature of the interaction.

 

As can be seen in the sample of notes from Phase I in the

typical setting (Appendix D), subject-peer interaction was

149

not only quantitatively less frequent, but also rather
negative in tone. By the end of the study, though inter-
action had not increase quantitatively, the children's
interactions were qualitatively more positive. Too, the
subject was demonstrating leadership, with quieter members
of the class following him. He was also able to assert
himself with his more aggressive classmates. For example,
early in the study, the subject would allow larger children
to force him out of line in the typical setting, something
he would not stand for in the hearing-impaired setting.
Also, he did not challenge other children in the typical
setting when they took materials from him without asking.
Often, it was necessary for the teacher to step in. This
sort of "protection" was not necessary in the hearing-
impaired setting where the subject was quite assertive.
Toward the end of the study, the subject was more apt to
protect his own rights, and his confidence as a functioning,
contributing member of the group was gaining strength. These
findings would challenge Goldstein's (1965) empirically-based
conclusions that handicapped children are less assertive in
the regular classroom. More research is indicated that looks
closely at children over periods of time.

The intensive design was extremely useful for
picking up other qualitative pieces of information about the
dynamic successes and failures of the subject's maine

streaming. Had a methodological approach other than intense

150

observation been utilized, the following critical, turn-
around factor in the subject's interaction with his peers
would have been lost:

On March 2, 1978, the subject spotted a purple
cape hanging in the dramatic play area. He put it on and
began pretending he was a vampire, moving about the room
flapping his wings and "scaring" other children. He drew
the attention of several other children who decided they,
too, wanted capes to be vampires. "Vampire" play grew in
popularity for several days afterwards. The H.T. allowed

the children to wear the capes about the room instead of

confining their play to the dramatic play corner. Following

are notes related to this incident:
3-7-78. "Cam takes S. up to S.T., telling
her, 'I have a whole team of vampires. He's (5.)
on my team.’ Cam then 'attacks' a mother standing
nearby. S. copies him. Cam spreads his 'wings'
over S., catching him and saying, 'Gotcha, little
vampire.’ He takes him to a locker and puts him

inside roughly. S. tries to 'break out.‘ Cam

indicates the other children to S. and says, 'Let's

suck their blood.' They are joined by David.
Cam catches S. again saying to David,'I caught the
little bat; I caught the little vampire.‘ He then
lets S. go, saying to S. and David, 'C'mon, team.
We're a whole team.‘ The subject is definitely

a member of the team."

151

3-8—78. "S. has his 'bat cape' on again. It

is precious to him and he searches for it as soon

as he enters the room. It has been his key to

getting into the group. When he attempts to climb

on some larger equipment with it, the S.T. asked

him to remove it because of safety. He declined to

play on the equipment rather than give up the

cape. The S.T. is not aware of its importance. If

S. takes the cape back to the dramatic play corner

while he climbs, someone may take it and he will

have lost his key."

The intensive design also served as a useful tool
in detecting the role strain forced on the subject because
of mainstreaming. His tendency to fall asleep while being
transported from agency to agency may illustrate how tiring
it was for a four-year-old child to spend six or more hours
of his day in two structured educational settings. Moreover,
it was observed that he was frequently expected to make up
missed work in the hearing-impaired setting, which inter-
ferred with or interrupted his play time. The problem was
compounded when he moved each day from the second preprimary
setting to a baby-sitter's home and then to his own home
later in the evening. In addition, he was participating
once a week in the speech and audiology program, which called
on him once more to observe the expectations of another

setting and personnel. Observed separately, the demands of

152

individual settings did not appear to be excessive. Viewed
overall, however, they may have been.

The intensive and holistic approach used in this
study also provided a clearer picture of the strengths and
weaknesses operating within each preprimary setting, and
at the interface between them. It allowed greater under-
standing of the energy expenditures, communication flows,
and feedback operating withint this particular family and
between the family and other social systems in an attempt
to deal with the handicapping condition of the subject. The
need to strengthen that interface was evident in the varied
perceptions of the child's strengths and weaknesses held by
his family and individual agencies involved. From these
varied perceptions grew equally different views of the
promise each felt might be inherent in the mainstreaming
venture.

The following factors greatly aided the investi-
gator's understanding of the overall ecology of this child,
or the degree of interrelatedness between the systems with
whom he interacted in his dynamic development before and
during the time of the study:

1. Communication with, interview, and observation of
the child's family.

2. Intense observation in the two preprimary settings
over time.

3. Numerous conversations with speech and audiology

personnel involved.

153

4. Review of all written communication since the sub-
ject's birth between medical personnel and involved
agencies (including the family and speech and
audiology personnel).

This study indicates that educational planners must
be concerned about the overall ecology of the young child
when planning for mainstreaming success. When they fail to
do so, they chance missing the factors that could insure or
deny that success. With impaired children, it is easy to
suppose that mainstreaming failures (and, thus, children's
failures) are due to their handicapping conditions when, in
fact, there is failure to adequately perceive the child's
total scheme. Moreover, as observed in this study, there
must be synthesis between mainstreaming goals and educational
objectives in typical settings if mainstreaming is to be
effective. Early childhood educators must begin to change
their preprimary programs to better respond to individual
needs, rather than changing special children to fit into

ongoing programs.

Implications for further Research
Further study is indicated to answer the following
questions generated by this study:
1. Are children more resourceful and creative in their
play when:
a. Materials are limited?
b. Restrictions on the use of materials and play
environment are few?
c. When adult interaction is minimal?

d. Play is child-initiated rather than structured
a-priori by adults?

154

Is the play of hearing-impaired preprimary children
qualitatively different than that of typical
children?

a. Are roles taken more geared to crisis play?

b. Is the play of the hearing-impaired child
different in content than the play of
typical children?

0. Are hearing-impaired children more nurturant
in their play with one another than with
other children?

d. Are less-impaired children more apt to take
leadership roles than their more severely-
impaired peers?’

e. Are "hierarchies of command" apparent in the
play of both hearing-impaired and typical
children?

f. Is there any correlation between the level of
fantasy play and the develOpment of a child's
communication skills?

g. Is aggressive play a primary component in the
sequence toward more mature social play in
young children?

What kind of training do special education pre-
primary teachers have in normal childhood develop-
ment? What kind of training and knowledge do
teachers in typical preprimary classrooms have about
handicapped children?

a. Are expectations of preprimary children in typi-
cal and non-typical settings developmentally
apprOpriate?

b. Is there appropriate communication between
agencies when mainstreaming of preprimary
children takes place?

c. To what extent are teachers in one setting
expected to observe and/or implement goals
from other settings for the child being
mainstreamed?

d. What kinds of energy/communication flows between

systems are most effective in building the
interface needed for successful mainstreaming?

155

What correlation is there between communication
strength in young children and their academic and
social success in both mainstreamed and impaired
settings?

What longitudinal effect does preprimary main-
streaming have on the child, educationally and
developmentally?

How does the strain of adapting to and meeting the
needs of the handicapped child impact on the child's

family, psychologically and economically?

Implications for Practical Use
Educators involved in mainstreaming of preprimary
children must consider the child's entire contextual
condition when prescribing programming for him so as
to avoid excessive demand due to cumulative roles.
Observation and event-sampling are extremely useful
tools for teachers to measure the dynamic progress
of students mainstreamed into their classrooms.
There is a need for on-going communication between
agency staff involved in the mainstreaming effort
to insure that progress toward common goals for the
subject is, in fact, occurring and that there is
overall consensus in these goals.
Teachers in all early childhood educational settings
need to be aware of a child's compelling interests

and see that there are opportunities for Spontaneous

156

innovation in play by children as well as teacher-
initiated activity.

Too much adult interference tends to limit peer
interaction in play situations as well as problem-
solving by children.

Teachers may need to actively structure classroom
situations in order to encourage positive peer
interaction. There must be attention, in that
structuring, however, to the cues given by children
as they react to teacher-initiated structure so that
outcomes are more positive than negative.

The history of the intervention sequence with the
subject suggests that much valuable time was lost
in his rehabilitation because of possible poor
communication between diagnostic agencies in trying
to describe his condition. The startling improve-
ment in his hearing in the spring of the study due
to aeration of the ear canals could possibly have
taken place earlier in his develOpment, eliminating
some or all of his language delay. The importance of
early, thorough, and coordinated evaluation of
impaired infants requires a preventative, rather
than remedial, attitude on the part of physicians

and educators.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

INTRODUCTORY MATERIALS

APPENDIX A
INTRODUCTORY MATERIALS
Request Letter to Parents
January 1, 1978
Dear

In a current research investigation, I am interested
in observing children who are attending School
as well as another preschool setting in the afternoon. I am
hopeful that my observations will insure better coordination
between the two settings and will lead to a clearer under-
standing of young children's educational needs. You and
(child's name) have been suggested as people who might be
willing to cooperate in this activity.

 

 

The child observed will not be identified by name
in the study. Parents will be invited to share in inservice
sessions being planned for staff members from both settings,
and results of the observational study will be shared with
all participants upon conclusion.

If you are willing to participate in this project,
please sign the enclosed form and return in the enclosed,
addressed envelope.

Thank you for your consideration of this project.
If you have any further questions, please contact me at

 

Sincerely,
Anne K. Soderman
Principal Investigator

Enclosure

157

158

Parent's Consent Form

We hereby agree to have participate in

 

the observational study described to us by Anne K.

Soderman, College of Human Ecology,

 

 

University. We understand that the study will take

place during the 1977-78 school year, that names of parti—
cipants will not be used, and that we will receive oral and
written communication as to the outcome of the study. We
further understand that we will have opportunity to parti-
cipate in inservice sessions being planned for staff members

from School and Cooperative Nursery,

 

 

that no beneficial results are guaranteed because of this
inservice, and that subjects have the right to withdraw

from participation at any time.

 

Parents' Signature

 

Date

APPENDIX B

TEACHERS' BEHAVIORAL GUIDELINE

ATTITUDE SURVEY

APPENDIX B

TEACHER'S BEHAVIORAL GUIDELINE

ATTITUDE SURVEY

Following is a list of guidelines or 'rules' for
behavior that are often used in many preschool centers where
children and adults are interacting with one another. Some
are specific, while others are quite general. It is
expected that there will be variation in a teacher's valuing
of an item's importance in achieving her behavioral objec-
tives with the children. Items are to be evaluated on the
following continuum and the corresponding numerical value

placed in the blank at the left.

 

THE CHILDREN IN MY CLASSROOM ARE

5 4 3 2 1
Always Often Sometimes Seldom Not
Expected/ Expected/ Expected/ Expected/ Expected/
Reinforced Reinforced Reinforced Reinforced Reinforced

 

1. To hang up coat when entering building.

2. To refrain from verbal or physical abuse of
another person.

3. To refrain from running inside.
4. To observe limits set for other children.
5. To return materials to the proper place.

6. To respond to adult direction.
160

161

7. To respect another child's rights and property.
8. To wait one's turn in using materials, etc.

9. To receive the same privileges and rights as
other children.

10. To flush toilet after using.
11. To wash hands after toileting.
12. To use materials only in designated areas.

13. To solve own difficulties with other children
(unless physical danger is involved).

14. To refrain from interfering with another child's
work or play.

15. To participate in clean up after activity.
16. To diSpose of waste materials after eating.
17. To listen while others are speaking.
18. To refrain from climbing on furniture.
19. To use quiet voices inside.
20. To remain seated during group activity so others
may see.
Comments: (Teachers may also include other expectations she

sees as important to her and attach numerical value)

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

INSERVICE MATERIALS

APPENDIX C

INSERVICE MATERIALS
Educationally, what do you feel are (Subject's) present

strengths?

Again, from a broad educational perspective, what do you
feel may be his most pressing needs?

What are your goals for (Subject) this year?

What specific steps have you taken so far to see these
are accomplished?

Assess his progress to date as related to those goals.

What adjustments do you feel are needed to more effec-
tively achieve your goal for (Subject)?

What questions or concerns do you have about the "main-
streaming" of (Subject) into (preprimary typical
laboratory setting)?

Any other comments, observations, or suggestions you
feel may be helpful to share:

162

163

COMMUNICATION TO STAFF IN TYPICAL SETTINGS
FROM HEAD TEACHER 2/18/78

SOME NOTES ON ADULT PARTICIPATION---

Because we have such diversity within our group, I think
that perhaps it is time to reflect upon the interactions
which are taking place. Many of the children are very ver-
bal and are well able to verbalize their ideas, needs and
wishes. These children are also interacting a lot with
other highly verbal children. However, several of the
children are not very verbal and are not interacting much
and I think that this could be altered with some increased
awareness by the teaching adults. We have been, perhaps,
too quick to respond, intervene and assist. While I am by
no means suggesting that we ignore the needs of the children,
I do think that perhaps we could meet those needs a little
less rapidly upon occasion and encourage more verbal
expression and more direct child-child interaction. The
following suggestions are offered for your consideration:

1. Be a little less quick to step into situations--
watch and see if children can resolve their own
differences. Of course, if safety is involved,
d9 act!

2. When a child turns to you for help, encourage the
child to verbalize the request. We're getting too
good at responding to non-verbal cues and gestures.
Also, be sure to only give as much help as a child
really needs.

 

3. When a child's rights are being infringed upon by
another child, encourage the child to speak out
rather than doing it for him/her: " , you can
tell that you're still using the truck."

" , tell that you don't to be pushed."
We've been more inclined to protect, interpret
and speak 22; the child rather than encourage the
child to express his/her pwp feelings.

 

4. When supervising activities, encourage child-child
interactions rather than child-adult or adult-
child. Frequently, we repeat the same thing to
each child who comes to our area. It would be
much more beneficial to ask the first child to

164

explain to new-comers. You're still there to
help! But try, , can you tell what
we're doing?" or " , will you show how
this works?" or " , that's a good idea.
Tell and then let's try it."

5. Encourage children to seek help from other
children: "I'll bet could help you do that.
Ask him/her." or " , it looks like needs

your help with ."

6. Reinforce child-child interactions. Smile. "I
like the way and are working together."
"You and really did that well together."

I think that if we all are more aware we'll find that the
children will become more independent, more verbal, and
will be interacting with each other more. Perhaps if we
adults can view ourselves as "facilitators of learning"
rather than as "teachers," we'll be more successful in
achieving our goals.

APPENDIX D

OBSERVATION FORMS AND SAMPLE OF NOTES

FROM TWO PREPRIMARY SETTINGS

165

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a.m.—32m apt/CU

.332 _ Tram >~_<Z u mam—z.— 03...

4.5:.

231....

 

 

 

flcquaom casmmmannmcmuuoz

mgr—.32 LC 24.3355 22¢ TALKS.“— 207F<>~u3m33

2 x :_ZH.___._¢

o n o m A ~ m a .. - an n.oaoe
. .
_ 1
* .
L. 1. 1.1
o o c c o a _ o a _ _ ~ m cola"
_ 1 m~.o_
o A o ~ ~ 0 ~ _ . n c m~2o~13~2o~
. . o~1cmnm
1 .
o a o m a . A _ _ a . ea _ cane
_ mmuo
», 11" I! t _ l
o q o n c ~ ~ m . a a v A" mum
” . owua
» u
.
:3“th unwano 02 our gazmi 3 2: :30... 1.4%.. 9.52.6 w gums—£13.54 uumflnomnuvom .aOA1uoon23m 05:.
25:09.... 5 vovucuczz "
_
coaamohvni uni—2:5 . —
.u‘aWHnlluqT4‘nlv‘1‘1l'llnl.‘11-.l<.ki‘.‘."1ql‘iwii‘l.pN701I4n1'w1udianm.l.-v. I..l.~ a. 1". I4 «17.51-. 1| I 14 1 ti n”‘:.~c U i1‘1‘nt.nn1li- '1 il.1ld“u11...1u I“
o moons mo .02
11111 _ 1-: .oz mmazz 1- w~o~ .o Numaunom mama

soucwo uo 0662

166

.pcmEEoo cw umos mum cmupaflno Hmcum> umOE
one .mflsmumpmma no show 080m mxmu no as mafia on m>mn was» 2033 m50w>no
we mane =.ocmEEoo mo mausmumflna m cmnmflanmumm m>mn ou Eomm coupaflno one

.pcsowm mamaumumfi mcflumasaflum mo EDEHCHE 0 ma wumcu mmsmown
wamumameEH coflufippm 30c xcm mofluoc coupaflno .haumpuo NHoEmHuxw ma Eoou one

.mmHm Hflwcu usonm mmeH :30 “Away mo Ham mumuwcwm cwhpawco one .mumucmo
ummHODCH me use uwm ma mcflcuoz .xon pnmononmo 0H0 cm cfl pmmmsum mum who» one

.pmwp Ho xoflm mcwmn
.muoumcoe .ouflm pcsoum muwucoo wean mflsu mo :05: .hmHm owumEmup m>oH >039

.ms mcflcmmao usonm coom >um>

mum >m£9 .cmHB away Hm>mumn3 ucoemflsvm human can head uflmcu How hammum Econ
may mo Ham mm: moss .mem Dwsm on ocsouo mnouwsusm o>oE >029 .musuwcusm Hops:
Hmcuo comm Eoum aopflna coupafino .mcfluumm Hmoflm>u ca meoHHm on Ho>mc paso3
was» woaa we Aumucoo pwuflmmefllmcfluwmnv um co mmom was» Noam on» Mo :05:

"mucoEEoo

1 6‘7

.ECOuzucn use Ga >o3 059 __c v:L_ uc uso 1:0 c. 3>333 .m can >2c9

.umz umuuo mafia cw umo ou can yams: on DD >039 m-mu >mm_z

ozo "soaaazco ..nv:a;3. anew—e500 >209
.Auoswd sauna uzmdu ea you a; Dog» EA: ob ucsuuoae~.

.cwed< ucuuc umaa Eco >309 muoucn vccoom a :. mama .Uc_~ :« mum?

0: .uso macawu mcuou 05m a.mequ >auoa: a. u« umza 150nm madmu assume?

 

 

 

.qu cu moweucnum> mzm .mlll.a
.uo acax00~ a.mz x003 a :w ousuoq; a so: mzccm 0: .alll.m
.o-~=a a so: Dow Cu EL: nxmc >mm.2 .mlll.m
.mc> new: man mmxmzm =.u:oms .m>mm 0:.
smucou 30> mum ..ms .mlwflhm.m
.pwdm ucopcd co :0 no: «and :00 mafia Om o>OE Ou .m mxmo OQEA< .m .m
.Axcms u~uum~a my Ill
measuGEOQ no: can when: xcn sweozuoxou: has an xooa cu .m magma >mmnz .m .m
.u« mooomaou can moon 05m :.p>a magnum: u=o> x0050 me am; III
.uzo OEoo coo 30> . . . .ocoo ma .3 .u: unzu EA: onwpcax. ocom m.o=: .m .9.:
.52: a6 >~snotn 111
modusm ..m unusuu: m: .nozauv may hops: axoma ..m Ou uo>o moom >nos .m .m
m.m .05 Beau asap“: 50> out . . . pcxoozu mp_c mcfluawz uso> Dov umuuvn III
0.0:: .m>um .3 .u! .E_: new: u.:mwop m: museum»: .m .m ob muqto o: .m .3 .u:
.EOOu mSumLMuc0.mooL>uwm qmdooam uo scuowuqa ..3 .u: .umzmuc
u soon: and: Cu ocuccvuOLQ who >059 .uooqu one Ou :3cc >mmaz m-=1 m: .mlll.m
.A>-cu:uu:. an; m.:mEmu«u
use as e_ .nooo ozm .aaz Anauman 6 caau ea: 620: 6» annaz nxnn .m .a111.m
.xoa>3u
puocnpumo Cu ua>o moom m: .ocwu:m_o> acouuamcnuu a mmUMDOc 0: .Lo: III
oxen mafiaean ma 0: moumUApcu .moswc Ou came a co coeumm uao mucqoa .m .m .m
.umu m :c maE-o w: .mpumo moucowpcd >20? .mlll.m
.umuuon mmcwuco~u>
0;» 00m Cu :0 ccoum cu Em: sou c306 udczo a maze Logbook .um;
ou mmnu mouooqccu .mumucm 0; cos: chaos swam—don :c mosqucm~m> manage: m: .6.=1Il.m
oNHa
.>cp >uc>0 coxoozo coucudzo uo zudoo= .umuwu
wcoc m>m3~m acquomwoe mason xuo3 ufimnu :oxoa scucauno o>o= .mcuoon
cauo-sn co xuoz m.uo:ommu >~umcz .pmuzuosuum >um> mm EOOummodo oz?
~p0>~O>CA :ofimmoumoo Luca u .m mucv>o uo cowuc>svmno ocuccau co>~o>cu wemfi
mu .u~:pm no cquo uoonnzm n .m be :oqudmuumop quun op_>0ud m~n=p>>wccn
>b co>~0wwu hocuwmn ocq< so Locomvb acmcsam n .9.m 11cmummufl:~ ma :owuouuvucw 30:
0002 "soaaezoo accuses 660: u .s.:
mnmm .ogxwmmMAWm- sum: ImMmmmuemMmNWMMM= Loa:vc Lo 5262 .111112131I111 tv>tomsc o__zu .ll:|1 . 1| uo>uomso we 06oz

2:2... ZC_L.<>zu._m:2

168

.mmnaccm t:
.8021 meow—L czm .mcccma 0;» L0: mccoz 1:0 00 noccma QECm 000:3 no:

m_—0» o: .0.ss:0 0;» £»_3 oc_xL03 __m»m m» >mmw: 05023 0» uw>0 mx_c3 t: .a .m
.z0:0u 00» m. mgm he: m_~0» 0: .tommtcuzm mxcc— .mcc»m cam .11-
one neocaezoo .mem acemz .>_t:0. m>cm 0: .oct: n..m macho 605»< .m ;1.a
.502» :»«3 m~bw» 0;» hope: »00 0» no: m~_0» can moo. he; mam» .m .L .m
.u0:»000» »» mc«»»=0 .munm» 0;» »c m»_m can 0-~20 0 >0 t0»0ct»m»p m» >mmm: 1|1
.mcwb ;»»3 moon 0: .w—nc» 0;» amps: »00 >05» »o:» .m 0» no»60»c:» >mw»! .w .a
.»0»»»E 0;» c_ moon» »0»mcCE mcxxE 05¢ :.a: moxczs 00Em< .LCC»» as» :0 11
scoop: m» czm .mmE«< to»:»cmu mm: u0»mccE a »c£u .m c» w01c0202_ >mm_: .m .a
.Cuocn c»»0~_:n vampcc»m a .11.
cc»£02 00»; c» m—umo 0:» mxmc 0: .0:«— c z» »00 >05? .sz» m30—~0u .m .a .m

.xcn tumoncuco on» :« cwuc>comm6

»m:_ me: >mmm= m»m£ x06_b ocfiscoz .cc»~ m a» etcwp c» amoes ocE»< 0:0
>mmfiz .po»»0xm 02 0» mcc0»0ua >mm_z .uocau 0:» :0 no“. m: .m.»«@ 02»
canon 0» mcco»wu0 0: ..0cmnflfiwbuw> can 0:»:omm. »oo 0» 0:_:»050m o>cc

:00 a: LA mxmm can mcmb 0» mooo w: .uaccmc ocwxmu cum >mmm: 0cm scab .L .m
A.»0»000 >m_c 0» m»:c3 0:» .c_ ccE 0_»»_~ .11.
mg» »:0 0» x00 cumcsc~c0 0:» :» U:M;»¢EOm c:»u Em: m~0£ 0» so: nxmo o: .L - .m
.35. tau. .5? 11
oc_>m.0 mw arm :ccE 0—»»>»: 0:» 0m: Em: »0~ ~»_3 0:0 u» ccsm< mxmm .m .L .m
cvno
0:4 HHU~4LZOU .LOC c:_£¢n »03 0» Em: mcc_Emu umzchP .m .b.:
.ccE«< czuzon »cc 0» «can» 0: .0: oc»» >02?
.A>£c& 0x»~. c0 m»ccc be: no; .00» .ocw »c;» 00E_< 0» mc»oomp:» .m .L11:.m
.a:ch 0:» :u
couc~wso Lc:»0 0:» c» »» R3050 czm cash .0tw_x00c so; 8.: mzozm >mmq: .mll1.a
:.4t»» mc5»m_t;u 0;» c0»c»:06c 0802: .e.:11l.m
.m casch Eur so: m»=; 0:0 mtOp >mmmz
.c_c: L0:.c 0:. :0 »_m C» >mw_: mxnc ram L_¢:0 m_£ c0 Lc>c m0>CE .m .Lill.m
.30: LLozo c :C cc_1»mm m_ c: .»00 0:» :0 cc: £»_3 »_w 0» .m mxmo 00E_< .m-:1.L
.q:_xco::m mt»: 0:»;00: so: Laos :60 0: new? m—_0» o: .L::1.m
fine
.>0x: macaw; L:C> :mc3 :c> tat ..m .mlfl.h.:
.000: c: .c_ttmE 0:» cm cc.% »:L C» .u m_~c» oce_< .m1;l.a
.to:»ccc» »_m can »C: 0» xte: 00 >05? ._c3C» 503:; m »60 .: ma_a£ 00£_< .m--1.a
.mcctz m_: :mc3 0» meow tan
.4: mecca. c: .em<;ae1:;c:m1>z-;_e n>__:utttt >t0> etc. tecmucaci
E_: waxes arm .mtcgm a»: c_. 0. L0: mxmo c: ._00:tm 0L u;:0> »;0=c»c
1m> L3: 08:; 1c vcczu m_£ »uc_ >305 »c:» E_: m_~c» osm .cc w»ccn
u_: mm; >309 Ems. at: m__c& .m.:ca mm; 3:_:c»»:£ :_ ;_6; L05 mxm< .%.:1-1.m
.tcEtc: 0.2:; wt.— 05»».... c, :70: f; .7... mxm< .._..:1 13¢.
or...

C3» :00; .mn:. .c >ertfich .0:_»»cm t0».c;E—13:_Lcc:

169

.200» t:3»3:; :0» :LE.< mxna c:

.1»:.. ..:n.7.0._ ©.__:m:_n
who m~:_o 0:» 0:053 0~ac» : 0» no>0 m007 0: .220 1:: :_x;s: m»; >330 when—U .n
xvizw

.m:0.mmy:;x3

uU»m:0E u_0:» »:0 x0050 0» :0:t__;u 3:» _.0 >2 :30:»E as» D»:_ ::_x00_

20:5 m» 000:9 .:»_3 9:m>m_: :09: we: 0: :08 0»»»._ vs. :».3 was: »m;» >53:
0:03m 0:» mmxn» 0m~c 05m .maoum 0: .»e:» 00 0» »0: E_: ma:.£3: :m:0:9» 3:9
.»00u m»: :»»3 m:_m:0 a:_x0_x m:_332 .m

.>030 mv-N=1

m:»»»:a cave: cc: 3—00» 0:» o» 02>0 Ga -0 >02? .5950. :»:2 >33» . . . m~_00
»~ .»» axoqx a: .000~u 9:» :0 cage 0 m0»00_c:m m: .mzmca »m meO— 0:

.00»: o:«»:m 0:» am>muams 0:0 o:_aoox0m:0: 0» m:»:»w= .:0 »» m»:1 02m

m» »m: wuwu m»: 000:: 0» mwom 0: .com m_ 0x>oeoe no: m-o» v: :.»:0 »m »:z 0»
:0200»u 0:» »00 om no»»mms .m>om mzm .wu»u a coon m.0:0:» :3: m-v» o: :.0:«E
n.»~z .m:»>om 0:0 wanna»: 0» o:»»:»0& .00: EOuu »» moxc» v: .Q: »» mxoq; 0:0
howduuw :»»3 mcq>m~a :002 no: »oomnam 3:05 0~»»__: 0:» m::»» 092000» 600: 0:9
.m»mmm:m 00E»< .>m~1 0» »:03 ».:moon

ozm nmo»oou :05» .:0 »w m»:a 02m .»aE~m: _~mn»00u @1100: :0» »m: a »0m

>mz» 000:9 .umcuoo ocwzmoxomaoz 0:» o» ccqb ocmun E»: any: 0» was»: mxma .m
.xom: m.m:«b 6::0:m 500 m»: mama: .m

.mmmqoc 0:0 mmuuu

uw»m:08 mwa 0» oscqucoo >059 3.:OE.U: .5»: m»~3» ozm .uocuoo acqmwmx

1vmsoz 0:» :» smuau: a ma 000:» E»: m~_me .E»: »m 900» ad») a mome was»:
.500» 0:» ac 00am m»»moa;0

0:» :0 adam» 0 :06:: 03 0» E»: mumo 02m .00»: m :00: m.0:w:» was»: mmfim» 0:
x.~:umumo 0:: .mva< m_~m» .m

.mv>~0m80:» chooazso 0:» :0»:7qcu»m >ozfi

.>m:n m» 0:3 06mm 0:» »m mx00~ 05m .m»mmq»mm>:> 0» uv>0 mweoo >mm»!

.:300 »» xoocx »m0&~m >029 .Ouuonaso 0:» 0:»:00 on»: 0» E»: m-0» 005»:
.uouu»E 0:» :» moon» uwumcoe 0x05 0» ma::»»:00 a: .0>mm~ a»: >ozk

.m:o=m~ m:0>um>m .Q:0uo onocz 0:» mmuuom . . . >»0=0_ mazouo m:

.30:x ».:03 mm»w w:0>um>o 0m »0»:U 00 0» 005»: m~dmfi .»0m0~u a :» mow»: 0:
.3: E»: me»; ozm .09: 0» mwuudooo> 0:

.>~»co_»cEm:U >u0> sumac: »m=n mm: 023 .m ho>0 mxuoz 00E»:

.ofiam» 0:» 000:: »0a >mm»: 0:0 0: .30: no»m:05 0 m.v: mo:o»mua v:

.0~0m» 0:» 000:: 50:» »30 0500 0» .m m»wo .um>0 x000 mmeou 005_<

.Emc» :»H3 0500 0» E»: mccwsmm .5»: »0o 0» xomn moav acme

.w_nm» 0:» umccz mcamamu .m

>_:O .m>co~ :wuc~»:u 0:» -< .x~nm» 0:» 000:: »00 0» a»: m-0» >mm—z
.:.:cc used» on» :0 :6000: 0:0 0:0 :300 9“» H»: >02? .udvmsaz 0» m»:.0& v:
:.::_E .0:_:: .xoon m_£ m» »_ »m:» 00: mccqsou 0: .3002 o :»~3 mosw< mvvm .m

33»:» 07:; .x>a_ .c >:u::JLL

.3:»»»0m

H

a.

lllllll

(0010.20

LLMS-UZ‘JZLO

C
A
H.

3Nno_
ooucfi

omua

mvua

000:01£_17:m000:

170

.0» m»:03 02m 00 »_ :0 0.0 :00 020 002»

0000000:_ 0:0 00020 002»0:0 5000 .0000»05 050m 00>050m .005_< 0» 00>: 0000 0:
.002 0000»0: 0: .320200; 0.020 0 :0 m. 0050<

.00002130 0 :0 3:02»05:n 5.2 03020 02005

.2300 00 >20? 0020003 0: .00__m »:: 00:00: >0:0z

.>_000:»0:10000 »0 0210000 0: .020202 002 :0 502 :m2c0zm:

:02» 0:0 502 »0 02009 02m .0:0~0 »0 0>00~ 0.3020 02 m0»0000:0 .00002000> >mm0z
.0000 02» 000: 0:0»:0—0> 0 :0 020» 02» 2»03 ::0>0_a 00 .m

.0050: 020202 0:02 :0 »0o 0» 02:0 0:

.0: 0:0. 0» 3:00: 02» 0200 002000» 025

.v:002020 mm 02 >23 »:020 >mm_z 0» 02.05 .000020 0092020 0:

.m 0» 00020 02» m0>0m 0:0 00020 002»0:0 0» 02005 m0>05 0050:

020 "50020200 .m:00~1500 02005 .0002» »00 0» 502 00200 >-0c0mg00 002 0050< .20
0:0»»0m :002 002 02005 002» 00020 0 :0 m»0m 0: .20002020 00 0:003 02» 0»
2002 :025 .00 000005 02» 00023 00002100 02» 0» 00>0 0000 0: .>—030~
0200m .0000» 00 02 m>0m 0: .»00 0» 00020 0 :0 020 0» .m 0200 0050c

.»m 0» m»:002 .000000020 :00»000 0 »:020 02005 0000» 0:

.00003 02» 00

2000 m»00a00 0: .000 0000000 00020200 02» 00 2000 023 502 0200 0020005
.000:0~00 02» »0 3:0200_ 00 .m 00023 0» 00>0 0000 023 .0:09

m»000»»0 0025 .»:050»00x0 m302m .00>0~Qm00 00 00020000 .0m 050m0m 00023
00002 :«»0-:2 02» o» 0000 :.000000 00 3:0: 02» 2203 5000 02» 020000
0000:03 0: .000000 00 0:0 0 000 :0 0500 0» 02005 0:0 >mm_: 0200 0:
.000000 202

0>02 >02» 002 m-05 .0000 00002230 02» 020202 09 0» 00020 m020» 0:

.»:0 »0 sm»0;ms 02 .0000 02» 502 00000 020 m< x.>202: 0 >20300>20

00 0: .20010 0 2003 502 00002 .502 000 002 020 30000: m0»0000:0 0:05

.m000 0: .002 0» 2002 »« 0>0m 0» .m 0220» 0020005

Uz< "50220200 .2002 002 020202
2000 02» 00002 0: .002000» 02» m_~0» >000: .2000 m.>mm0z 0020» 0:

:.502 0000:

2203 020 00023 0000 020200200302 02» 0» 00>0 0500 0» .m 0» 0:000 0:0 02—0»

02m .200 0000 >20000 020 0020002 05 000001030 m02». m0~02000> 0:05

00:0 :70; .:~$. .2 >0000200

owned

.m .0
3::
.m .0
.0 .m
.0”...
un— om
.milé...
CA“- I'm
.m'llm
.m .0
3::
.m .._..:
.m|,||I.‘

.720»»0n 0000005~Im:w000:

 

171

A {*‘IIIIIIIII.IIIIIIII I...In.l.

3 -. ... 0. n. _ I J... .3. V- m "1. _ _. I L.

 

 

I I ,v. . . I . I. :IIIIII . I II II, III III! I I III! III! I l I|.|I I IIII' ..||II 3|. . I.
I'll... [II .III'III II I‘ll-III". . III..uI.III.I'l II a.I'III||I| InI. . I ..II II I.ll.| 1.: .II .II III I 1" III. a II.- o.I III I I I I I II I III II I IlItII I I II III, I I. I I
‘19"- IIII'IIIII'I I III III III |II I I I III I I 'I I I II III II III I I.II| IAIII IIIIIII I I. II I I II I [III I II I I- II II- IIII'III II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D n m. _ _ 2 _. _ .. .a ma."—
it.

a m m 2 h N — :7"—

an".

— _ _ _. .2 _ : a..."-

.2".

:3000.._ 2.0.1.20 02 02> ::—.< T. .27» .0 ti. 1:127 2...... 22.2 2.02.021“: .—..—.< .90. 2.5.: 0...... 01.3—12.0: 22%.. 0:2...
m00>_0nvz >2 00000.:001 0

 

II. .‘IIIIIIIIIIII II ‘.IIIIIIAII I- ‘1

2000000334 20:02:...

I? .IIIVIII III,| ,II IQI' - I: ,II I .l.IlII'I4 II.III

m 0070; 00 .02

_ .02 0002; mfimfl,flmix.0:020h 0»dc

 

._..._H_:0 2:25 <02: «almafl 1.0.0.020.“ . 03:00 00 2:02

172

mcofluomumucfl cHflnoIUHHno .mCHHmnm mmmusoomfic wasp mmoa
mwmumaseflumum>o mmnu mud mcmnoaflno map on cmummwo mawflumume wcme oou
mumnu mu< .mcoH >Hm> new omcfimumsm ma Ou Emwm yo: mmoo mcwuumm mflnu CH >mflm

.uuowfioo Hem Ems» o» mmom :wumo .Hmmw umwum m wxoon mmxflq

.mso>um: cmnz mxcwam

.cmumo uwnuoe was psonm mxamu Auomnnsmv

.ucmz hwnu umsz How mcflusummm no mcfiucflom

umsfl mo ©mmumCH muflamnum> on cwuwaflzo map ccwewn ou 6mm: wumnommu was

.hbcwuumw @mMHMQEHlmcflummmv um cmofluo:
no: m>mn H noflcz .m0flo> mauUfiH .xmm3 >um> m mm: mm .mme meanu>cm Hum:
EH: m>mn ou no Auummnsmv Ham: on uHDUfiMMfiv ma uH .Eoon wnu Ca mmHo: Hmnuo

 

wnu cuwz omcflneoo .usn cmuflmmsfllmcflumwn Hem >ua>fluom voomlluso oceanlox "mucmfieoo

173

.SUuU—CTQ 33d 2... :....§......£ ._.._u.....‘_..::_

a: >~ou:_3m£n m. 9»U;E .Avxcauazu Ca 32.:Lun__ m. x;_< .1:;;:.n m. :3..=p;_>

oz» :95: mocmucmu_fi any Luz: :60 a: az:u cm:mw;_; 3:“ :3 1:5: .3; ma:; 2:3

.mccsc; w: E£u>zh tzu Cu macaw mam ..m£7=a;. . .t::0m 03.: >.43.; v m.d1;%
.Uscz ma: :uq3 cowuuunq> any mzaum :cza tzc mc;_; 25; accaoz o: .hLEatz m3;.ao_>x
mum? Use mdacu ou x51: moo: “av—nan .mzxczm u1:E .uaxzzm 1 maacu.t:. v:m

m: mac: .3 29.55: 333 33> :9.) 9.23m c .12: 3.5.9:? uni...

.4. 23:3»:u mxco~ can v;_;o_>x m a: mxuu;

.muuouuv

u;a mox.uum 3:
.x:_< :4 mxtULm .P.:

a Umzco Uzu UCMum.wU:= o:
.Ucwzouuz mm .m

nose. ._3a13 v:u :. u. mans—z can xucu
.ccwuou:_> vcm x.cw any 3:_g._z usage mxunk

 

I-

 

mcccz h=o> :_ uxczm a. .22; mac;u #32; .n .e.:
.uvz 0a 7453 mac? “CST—am
.xsou acqczu any maxquam azm
:.a~2 4.:Cc 33 gaze: .E.: mU:_Evu
uwzonma can: 029 .uoxozm a mu.: 3: .masum0u;;m x:_< .AEfl: a» mem~u a_ ll;
mm>os wzmv . . . u. uoqmmo mm a“ c~:03 .oum: >Juwn: m€:::m easy .1, .>9: .n .E.:
m_u~
.1623 I'll
sum: mx~m3 .E.= .mylua mzu uv>o mquEm: m: .in! .cuqz >auv.; m:c:3m ac;% .m .e.:
.mm;_1
ecu Lm>o ad mm>oz .moafiQo—>x you uJEEaz maxma .m .xuaz ma>m3 ccsom 30: 5.:
mc__~ou .Umzu Ou mxmoam .9.: 029 .;E:n a3d13 0:“ axes _~_3 uq Om yous: vzu
cm xuou anacsu any as; sz m1~oz .9.: .mvE_u .uuw>om 0.2uu a c: u. m:::3;
can xuou a maze» v: .325“ a“ 93m :00 0: 0m sous: 0a name—U yaw ca 5.: mxm< .mn:-£r;_
.a:m>mm ad 0: “dz: ~63: a.:ao
a can ECO» mcu cm xmfloc m« u— .9.: Cu mmsdqmnum> .m .mvzun3uazu vuzu .&.:ull.n
.01 34
gas: a“: mzocm uzc 0:0 mwxwuum ocm .- .mxhou vaucsu vu_~cu vac onus? .n-l!.9.:
.xuau acqum~aq> use :0 vcc; no: meal vzm a“
:maam: flaw) awn: xm_< o:_xwm mu .9.: .xo~< a:.:9ac3 ma 3: .Evzu mummCuo
can mxuOu ocqcsu o3u mmxou .m mtlill .mu_m;o omvgu «0 9:0 :q udm Ou ucaz .al.:.&.:
.cuusz Cu mm50u0uaam .m .xo~< cad: mva_;c_>x 3cqua.: .&.: mumv; .m aaum
mco>_o>:fl scammonmvc ham; u .3 muzo>v no :quc>u3maa a:~:::a us ca>~0>c_ Jew?
m— .udzcc no c~dzu uuaflazm u .m caduomuouzd we :owgzquumvn av..: mdrzc.>uc:_
>2 vw>_0mmu uU£u323 uozaoz acdxuoz n .z UC_>C.;v cmaoflu.:_ 3C:
oucz neu_;mzcu uozumoe acuvzum u .e.m
magnum? new: a .9.:
MNWM.MW:»mm2m;Q; Dam: mm¢ath- budzzu .c 2512 {I to>u::;: t_.;; “ ii;-- ub>pzm22 “G 0:12

2:3... ZCT..<>:;::C

174

:.3:2 >Lze .uac as: 50:? .m:0__ vaaguzzm :35 .mza 3.: >;;% ..h:_ :;;t__;;
030 any 0:020 :0d000u00:_ 0: m. m;:;? .ac.m:_ mum.:: t2:— ::.x:E 0:026
couc~wsu 0:» «dc acum3 .a.m .>w3n .3 :mvhmom: m.:$ ._;_:53 an m_30u: .m
.3310

any oucq x002 $000 00500.: .m30_0 5.0:. «:30: uvzgca 0:“ Ca rzwa;0;vu

ndo cum >32? .auv_£:m v;d 4:: 3700 05¢ a: .3: m.:7 n::>.;>; =.u:u:
m.~wd:mc Tcmzuumuom Stumoq: mucous: a: .1: may: .3 .::_:aQESm E_; m__v%

.m“ 3a h.N~_.2.LD>

0‘ cwgwmmco nozao ozu mtcwsvu .%.: 0;? .31509«: 0a 0x0: 0330 0 :_ m_ 0:

.uommga 0700 ~30> 0x02 cdzzzm 30> 00>0z mu:?.a < m30> Qua uazz
.07c0 m can“ mQE__u comaazm as? .190: and c. :000_fi:0

>=mE 0.0 whose .szu an mx00~ uman a: mm:0__ 0:4 00; 0. 0:03 20> 00
3.0300: 0 ca :mcc__: 0.1 zone—.20 Dza 050:3 Cu mac? 0:

Um< "Ecuamzou .u« :uzuag 0a 5.: m0:_EOu 0:0 Ea:

Um< “EUHJLZOU

uwuum moam hocucou 9:9 .>03m x—m3 0a madaos 0cm xuou 0:423; mzu mmxuu 0:
m>c3 mg: :_ an: c.0m000 a“

0m gown qu :0 aw o>mz nozunu w: cdzoz .mau use: was usonm Ed: 0a mx_me
.mcoquomuaucw c.~cu:0..zu ommuscum_0 thu mmoc. .0caoum

00 0a £33020 mum ouozu .050 toga academy .%.m on? :.oE EOuu sozu uwo 0a
was 0: .02: .mzum 00:0 .mzmzo Ec0u0~>um veam mu:03 0: a“ Em; mxmm .&.m
.u_ cusuv» 0a .P.m >3 1~0u ma 3: .moum

hanuacm 0» aw muxmu new 0~2Mu ecu EOHu umxuzm oz; m0>0§0u 0: .o—AMu
ownss mxu 0a xomn mmoc .um an :300 mx00~ 0: .:0 on» was mad; .E.m

.md any 0E0: aw: wu0£3 0a maoo .MOHa any m0>mv~ 0:

Uz< "Eungmzcu .xoma

:<

0600 0a Eu: mC:_Ecu .E.m .xon Lu“: ovum mv>am_ .m .>O:OE 0E 0>_@ .smm>
m>0:0£ taco 0>«v 50> 0‘:
.x00 vzu we ~30 m:_25050m gum 0a mczoumua o:

mmuoxoauc mwmczu mum yes:
.>qucho 0a mcuzuvz .mormccua uc x02 0 he; mmcflun w:

mmUOucscu 050m 0>m: a 0.300 ..m

.mw_u000;o u0u E“: mxmc 03m .x00 0 ha: m0>ua .m

:m>:n mean: :0» 00 umszs ..b.m mxmm 00:0

.>0:OE 00:0 >60 00 mcce.ou; .m .060 m .m mace: 0: me“ man m:cm3 30> 0:
mezzo cum: ocuaaozm 00 00:03 30> 0:

.mdmdumuce 050m um: macaw m:

, mos sum: acfizaozm 03 09 acm3 30> 00 .
.m0_000000 20.3 ;: mums. m: .o_nmu 0:» :0 meme“ >u000u7 can
300:? .ucdnqmvu meu a £503 3:_>m—a mu >02 0 Suez: D_20a 0 30 $00: a:
"._..:.Zz:: J. chaff. 0a .5: m2“: 3...: 55:. mo>mu.— tam. 525:5; "92.302? moxaa .m

53.. 9...... .33

s. .n
.mIIIOAu
.m‘l|l.z
.m .2

.m .._...n

.m .._..n.

.n-|..._..n
le...

.m .._..m

.m .95

.._...Iml .m

.m thaw

dam .m
.m i

.m 42m

.9... .m

.m .._..m

mmu~

cNu~

.o >uazuzvm .v:_.uwm ~cu_1>&

'175

0x0

ozz

"EU—JLZCU

"FuhdszU

. u _ «.u m4.0....a. .0 d _._ .r0._ __m0 ._._ u..:.

0:... .:0 0.0000: 0 "3:; 00:00.40 700: 0:9 .03» 00...: m... m0:....w 0:
«0....»200320 0::03 .m .2.

.::.a:_0;:09:m0 0H0 :0:0__:0 0:0:3 0—200 0 00 mx—tz 0:0 m0>00_ 0:

. . . :0.1__:0 .0:00 03» 00

0:000: 0 m:_30:m m. 00:0000 :00: 0:0 000:3 0: m0:: .m0>00_ 000.2:m
:.4_ :cun .32: .m>um 0020

.0:0—; m.10:0 :_ .0.m:0£ 3:q>_u mm: 7cquaz; >2 m0:0;n00 .m

. . . .mus0mocmc m.u00w2:m 0:0 :0 0:0 0>0: :00 0: u: 5:: mxm0 00:0

.Tcmzucc >00 :0 00 >0:%

.0: 00 0000 0:0 ::_:0:00 .0:0~: 0:0:0 :00: u0gmaou 0:» m0M~u .m

.m 00 x00: nodmnou 0:0 mam—u 00:0

.u0>0 u. 0x00: 0: .0:0: m..m no uzo um ma0uv

0:0 a: 00m :00 0: a: .m 0x00 0: .0:0: m..m :: houmJOA 0:u 0000 00:0
.0:0:m0u 0.:00 >0:u 0:0 >mq0: 00a am an .:«070 m0uq~000>

0: .E0:u £000 0mcozm0u 0: mm 000:? .0:0m 0:» :: 0::0u 0: 0:0:00500

50:: 030:0 0:0 m:m>0~a 0:0 00:0 0:0 00:3000mu:0 000:3 0a 00>0 mx~03 0:
.00: Cu acm:u0500 m>0m 0:0 ~0:u02 0:u 0» x00: 0000 0:

.0000 0:0 :0 m0:0um 0:0

0:00 0:» 0a :00: mx~03 0: .ma:0EEOU 0:m .uo:u05 acmxucz 0:u 0a mx~0u 0:
.0:0m 0:u :« :uuou 0:0 :00: 0:00 0: :0::3 u0umno~ 0 mccwu . . . uw :udz 0:00
0:0 :0 accummwuaem 00x0E 0:0 0:0 00u:_u 0 00x09 . . . .0:0m 0:» :: us0mo:«0
0:u 0x~03 0: .0:0m 0:0 :w x030: mad: 0 0:3: 0: .u:000:«0 0:0 as: 0a :0_:3
:w uao uoam :00—0 0 moqv 0:0 :0030 0 00:“: .0:00 0:u :: am 0:00 0:0 xoauu
0 m0:«u 0: .mo:0:u aquwomam uou 9:~x00_ . . . 0:00 0:0 £000 m~0mu0u0s

0:0 m:w0000 ma 0: .20: 0:u u0 .0 0:0 umsn mu 000:9 .uqmmew: 00 mmumg000>
0: .:000 mm 00:0 0000 -0Em 0:u :_ 9:0x003 m:«00: 0: .0000>00 >—~0«u

1:01 0“ :om:3 x02 0 :« 0:00 0000 . . . 500» 0:u no uu0a ~0:uo:0 0a 0009 .m

.:0u03 Cu 00::«ucoo uoonazm

0:9 .m00u0nsswumum>o >0:u 00< «003:0~ mo:u:u :0 >000 E0:u 0x05 00

00300 000: :000~«:0 0:u on mm~0m00u0s >:0E 00a 000:0 00¢. .:000~M:0 00:00
0:u m:_:ou03 umsn mu 0: .mm:0>00: :0:3 00:» 00 0: 0000. .ocux:_~: ma

0: .0:a:0u03 .00:0um 0: .0000 >0~Q 0:u no 0000 0:u 00 0:000:«0 m“: 00x0u
.m .m:«0~0500 x0~< .>030 0:0mocuo m.x0~< 00:0» 00:00“: .>on ~0:u0 00
mxooq .m .umusw ma x0_< .0000u >0~m .ocm000u0ucu 0:0 m>00 00:00 030 0:9

.50:u 00:0003 .m .mu0amcos 0:0 >0:& .13000 0:: c: 000 00:0 6:0

x0~< s~0u0 >0:u :«n 30: 00m mamuz0m0:q0. 0m0:0 000 30> 0:0: .mxm0 00:00:
.13000 0:u Ou 00>0 0000 .m .:u03 >0—1 0a muscmocuc owum0~a 03:0~

0:0 0:0:u 000:3 000~1 acouwuudt 0 Cu 0:00 m0: 0:0>u0>m .0::0:0 c000~q:0
00:u0 0: 000 000:5 .udomem: >2 0000 0:u m:_0~_::0u mcqcmn .m ..500:

0:» :: mwduw>muo0 >000: >:0E 000 000:9. ._:u0u00 0: Cu 50:: mcu03 00:00:
0:b .0000: 0:0:0 :um3 0x00~n 0:» acmuusa .0000 0:» 0:_x0003

.00::. 030; .wua—

:0

.n .fi.m
.m .L
.m .&
mvud
.m-|.&
.mllom
.& .m
.2 .m
.2 .m
ovum
mmuu
.m!|l.:

>:0:uaou .o:_uu0w ~00_2>&

.:0~00_.3:
0:» 0>.u0 0n»: 0:» 0:_>0: m. .m .m .00.» 5.: 0>0: 0» 000.; 0:00 0 0.30:?
.00»00u» 0:» ac »:0»u :. 0h»: 0:» w»3: .m0~..000> .000: :00: 00.3 m»: 0.3;

.m0:»000&. .5.: 0» ». 0>.0 ».:0000 .0

.m0> 000: 0.: 00:0:0 .n .:15 0:» :».3 >0.; 0» m»:03 0: u. .m 0:00 00:0

.00.: m.»00n::m 0:» :m»00: :05 0.: :.0:0.»00 .: .m>0m 00:0

.>0_; 0:. 00»0.».:. 00:0

003000: 05.» m.:» >0x0 0.». .:.000 5.: 30:50: 0>.0x 300.:3m :.>0: .05

02 "50.40200 0::0 0» >:F; .»00.::m 0» m>0u 0:0 0.0:0 0:.:0: m00.: 0: :0:b :.»» :0»m:
.00coamou 00:0 .0:0.1 0.00:0 :0 :300 030030 0:0 0:»: 0 m0: 0: m0:0»0u; .m

m.m .00 0::00 00:0 m.»0:2

.0:.:0»03 mg .m .000: :0: :300 00500 . . . 000:

00: :0 0:0.au.0 0.: m0>0t .0:.»».m a. .E.: 000:3 0» L0>o 0000

:0:& .00»00»» 003 0» 003:»»:00 00:0 .:0u0..:0 00:»0 >2 00»00u»m.0

mz “EUHJLZOU .E.= .m0> 000: m»: 00x0:m .m .»» 0:.03 003 0: u» »00n:3m 0:» 0x00
00:0 .». 00: »00n:3m 0:» »0:» 00:0 00:.500 00:0009 .m »0 0.3000 00:0

.»» 0x0» 0» 00»00u» 0:» :0 0:0: 0.: m»31 .m .0»3:.5 0 you

>0»m 0» .b.: 0:» 0300 00:0 .0: m>0m 0:0 .00550: 0 m»:03 0: m0»00»0:.

.m.0m;u :33: wcu.a

a»: m»:: .m0«300 .0 .0:0.1 0:»>.u 0:: 00: 030:0 0: .»0:000» 000: 0»

m-00 00:0 .0:0~: 0:» 00:03: .»m :0 :05 0 m»3: .00»00:» 0:» 00:0» 0:

am»» 0>.»0 0» >30 m.:» »:03: ..w 0» m>0m 00:0

70 .0:0.; 0:» >2 :000u0 0:» m»::

.04 .0.:0» 0:» 0» m:u3»0u 00:0 .u.005.: >: 0.00» 0:» »0 0:»»».m m. .m
11

.0.:0» 0:»

:2 "90.40200 0>00~ >0:b .:».3 0:.>0.1 :00: 00: .m 0:» u000u0 0:» »30 :00.» 0:» :0

0:~:»>u0>0 m:00:x 00:0 .0.:0» 0:» :0 0:30:0 m.0.u0»05 0:.>05 000 >0:9
.00:Qo»m.u:0 0» mx0000 00:0 .>030 000000 m0>oE .m z.».:00: .m~.0> 00:0
.5»: m0uO:0» 00:0 .30:.0 0.00:0 >0 33 0000.0 0:» m0>05 .m

.:».3 0:.>0.a m. 0: 0;0.0>:0 :0 z. :0003 0500 00: 00:0

.0:»»».m 000 00:0 0:0 u0:;0»m.u:0 000:3 0.00» 0» :0>0 x03:» 0.: 00x0» 0:
.000000 0 :».3 x00»: 0 0:»:030 m. .m .0:.»00:0»:. »0: 000 >0:b .>0.a
.0uq0u0: a.00u0 1030»: 0:» »0 30»m :»0: >0:% .5.: m30..00 .m .m0>00.
.z .5»: 00:0»03 .m ..030. 00». mu00 0.: u0>0 00:0: 0.: m»3; .0550:
.0:0: u0:»0:0 :0 0»3Q .9.: .00:00 0» 003:.»:00 .m .mao»m 0:000» 0:8

.u0»0:05 0:.>.u 0.: 00: 030:0 0:

.0:»0:00 ..&.: 0:» 0:0

.0 0:» :».3 0:0 m>0: 00:»0 03E :.0:.0:00: 0:0 >0:E .500 m..m 00x0» ...0
.»0: 0» m0~..0:u0> ....50:

0:0 ...0 :»:3 00000: 0:» 0:.>0.1 m. .e.: 0:» 0:0:3 0» :00: 0000 .m

.033. .000; £20.

.m .E.:
.9.: .m
0%“ 0“
.mIIIQ
.m .%.=
.m .m
.E.: .m
om 0“.
ofllloflm
.: .m
3...: .m
on 0.“
.....:-l..m
.: >.03u:0; .0:.»»0m

scum

.00.1>b

177

.50:» »0
0:0x00: 000 00:»05 0 0:0 0>o: 00:»: 000:» 000:3 0»:0» 0 :0 0x00: 0:»
00 0005 00:050x0 0: s~00> 000 30:: .0:00 0.00» »0 0:0x003 00 0:3 00:»0: .0 .2

..»000500 000 50:» 000: :0»00 . . . 0x00: 00:“: 0:0
.:000 0:0 00:00 0:»

 

00:00: 0: :0:3 :00 0: 50: 0000» 0:0 .:00: 0 0>0: :00 0: 00 00: 0x00 0: .e.: .0
.e.: on» 0» muom 0cm 000:0
0:» 5000 x00: 0 0»0m 0: .00:000 :00: o» 0000 .0»:0» :0 x030» 00>00» .0
. .:000 >»»00: 050» 0:1:0000 0: H~03 »: »0:» .0 00:»500 0:0 .000: 0: o»
000:0»:0 0003 >0:» >03 0:» :0 0~0000»05 0:» 00: 0» 00:0 00:0500 .9.0 0:? .mlll.9.0
.~.m .200; m::» 20000 no» :mo. .000 oz» :0 :00; 50:0 m00oz cmzu
0:4 "90—00200 .:«030
50:» 0300:» 00:0 .:00: 0»050:0 0»:0 .0 .50: »0 0.050c0 0..0 0300:» 00:0 .0|||.:
moum
..0 00 050: 0500 :»03 000:0. 00:»0 0:»
0.»0:» .0: 0>00 .P.: .00 :0 050: 0»: :003 :00: 0:» :0 »0x00: 0 00»0000:_ .9.:|ll.0
.:00: >00000» 0»: 00:
30:0 0» 00>o 00500 0:0:0 00:»o:< .0000: a:0>~0 5:: :0»03 0» 00: 0»:03 .ENPH!I.0
mx0200 »0:» m0 .0 .e.=

.0>_0 070: .mnm: .0 >000000m .m:»»»0m H0001>9

APPENDIX E

COMPUTER LABORATORY-DATA CODING FORM

DATA DESCRIPTION AND ENTRIES

178

APPENDIX E

COMPUTER LABORATORY-DATA CODING FORM

DATA DESCRIPTION AND ENTRIES

Data Description (all cards)

Card Space I
1
2-3
4

7-10
11-12
13
14-15
16
17-18
19
20-21
22
23-24
25
26-27

28
29-30

Blank

Number of Observation (1-14)
Blank

Time (Phase 1, 2, or 3)
Setting

1 - hearing-impaired setting
2 - typical setting

Blank
v1 Subject-Initiated Peer-Interaction

Blank
V2 Peer-Initiated Subject-Peer Interaction

Blank
V3 Adult-Initiated Subject-Adult Interaction

Blank
V4 Subject-Initiated Subject-Adult Interaction

Blank

V5 Total Conf‘ict

Blank

V6 Child-Resolved Conflict

Blank

v7 Adult-Resolved Conflict

 

179

chNuwm
N o < o o t N o < N o < N N < o o ( o o ( < ( c N N ¢ N c I NooNaNN
o o < c c < o 0 ¢ v N ( N N < N c < N o < < t c N N < N o < N omega
N o < N o ( N c ( N N « N o < o N < N o < < < < N N < e N t
N o ¢ N o ¢ o N t N c < m o < N o ( o N < < < < N N < N N (
o c ¢ N o < N o < N o ( N o . N N t N N ( . t < N N < N N (
o o ( N o t N o ( N o t N N < N N ( N N x < < < N N ¢ N N <
N c < N o < N o < N o < N c < N N < o N < < < < N N < o N <
o c < N o ‘ N c ¢ N o < N o ¢ N o ¢ N N < < < < N N < N c <
N o ¢ c o < N c < N o ( N c ( N o ( N N < < ( ¢ N N ( N c <
N o < N o < N o < v o t N o < N N < N N ( ( < < N N < N o <
N o < N o ( N o ( N c < c o ( = o t c N r < c < N N < a o <
N o < o c < N c ( v c ( a o ( N c < N N < < ( ( N N < N o <
N o < N o < c o ( N c t N o ( v c ¢ N o < < < < N N < N o <
N o ( o c < N o < e a ( N o t N N < o o . < ( ( N N I N o <
ocNNuom
UquanN

N o < v o ( m o < N c < n o < a N c v c < < c < N N < N o < IocNuum:

N c < m o . m c c a o < m o ( c m < h o < < < < N N < N o < N wanna

 

Om mm mm NN ow mN vm mm NN N~ GN mN mN 5N @N mN vN MN NN NN oN a a h o m v n N N

r|,u|. 4441.1.ldll41. 11,1. . 1i 'i.,.1fll:u xv14‘|1|]i'nfl,fi.1.0..-u».,..4...1-Ilull|4‘la|...v4u.i§aucl.,1.-a .l I‘¢.l tlu1lu14laudl ‘. |||||| 111.141,IILWFnlwlanjji!lj114I:-I.J,14‘.

 

"mmNNucm mama

180

 

 

o N ( N o < N o ( N N ( N N < N N ( N N < < < < N N < N N <
N o < N N ( N N ¢ N o N N o < N N ¢ N N < < ¢ < N N ( N o <
N o t N o < N o ( N c < N N ( N N ( N N ( I < t N N ( N N ¢
N N t N N c N N < N o ( N o < N N ¢ N N ( t « ( N N t N o t
o o « N N t N N < N o ( N N < N N ( N N < t < < N N < N N <
o o < N a < N o < N o « N N < N N < N N < N ‘ ( N N < N o t
a N ( N o t N o < N N < N o ( o N < N N < t ( < N N < N N < NcNuumN
UQNNMQEN
N N < N N < N N < N N < N N < N N < N N ¢ < ‘ ( N N ( N N < uchuumz
N o < N N ( N N < N N ( N N ( N o ( o N ( ¢ ¢ ( N N ( N o < NN manna
o N ¢ N N < N N ( N N < N o < N o < N o < < < < N N ( N N c
N o N N N ¢ N o c N N < N N < N N < N o < < < ( N N < N N <
N N t N c < N N ( N N < N N ( N N ¢ N o < . ¢ ( N N ( N N ¢
N o < N o < N c ( N N ( N N ( N o < N o < ( ( < N N < N N <
N N t N N ( N N ( N N « N o < N N ( N e ( < ( < N N < N N c
N c < o o ( N N ( N N . c N < N o < N o < < ( < N N ( N N <
N o < N o < N o N N N ( N N c N o < N N < ( < ( N N < N o .
N o < o N < N c < N N < N N < N o < N o < ¢ ( ¢ N N < N o < .ucou
chuuom
N o ( N N < N o ( N N < N N ¢ N N z N N < < < ¢ N N ( N o < NooNNNN
N N ( N N ( N N ( N N ( N o ( N N ¢ N N < < < < N N ¢ N o < N manna
oN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN oN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN N N N N N N N N N

 

Han-I.) F‘I‘i:"1. I||1v

1a 35* 1E-“ t‘dl‘ 4111...". {JFBHI I 4-1“...lngjl 14.-1 1‘J013. 1‘ .ll‘IVnI 1.- 1d

.| v.0l1 n!"

 

‘4 a 1‘1"]JII'J r‘ In,

 

.voscNucoo noNuucm sumo

 

181‘

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
mchuuom
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNoNNNe
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN ouuzm

 

.Ncoo
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NcNNNNN

kuNuQEN
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNNNNN

c c < a c N v o < h o N N c < c a < o N N N N < N N < O — < nu wanna

 

en mN am hN om mN vm «N ~N NN QN ad ad ha w~ mm v— m— ~— ~— ON a m h o m v m N A

.NJLVINN|N!JQII. v.,II| v.‘ JI- I:N NVIININ N n I IN]. N. .N .14. ".N I“ ul! ‘II .I..'|.. I 4.|...l|v .l -.|| v15...‘. 1.1: ; I . '. N .leu . . v '..’. 01‘ .II GNN N .N .. . 014. ‘.l , 4.. Q ‘ ’J '114..1H.II'N'NJHJJNt‘Ngl'J‘AQII‘AI

 

.cascmucoo mwNNucm mama

 

182

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
NNNNNNN
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNoNNNN
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNN manna
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
kuNoQEN
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNNNNN
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNN oaozm

 

cm aw m~ hm oN mm v~ mN NN - ON an ad ha mu ma on ma Nd an o~ a a h w n v n N A

.5'.41nf" .2111. 1.111.; IIl9.Nfl.1a.1..1uv 1d|llIlIuc N. .lv‘ F III; .I.’ 1.1.14.1!1‘41f JNNNI‘. 11.311711, 4 1‘2-li ufl “Id-1‘ 0.11.1.4 1!," .I. 1 .11! It: 11. Nl1hl“; '11.!!!“ N fl INIIIHINIJUIIIvIII-fll

 

 

 

.coacNucou moNNucm sumo

U

 

 

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .Ncou
NNNNNNN

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NooNNNN

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNN NNNNN

NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN N N N N N N N N N

 

 

lid3|dqahgg Edi :41”; .] Ni‘agj'lu,li ‘4 'Ilwuagi'v} MIMI-“n.1,- a: 0.. .‘:.1I ‘1. ijldl

 

.. II,‘J.N1.]II.§NRIII‘ ‘I‘q.ll|lll.'| lullll.‘

-.II--|I 1'.

 

.Um::NN:OU

mmwuucm Mama

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abelson, A. G. Measuring preschool readiness to mainstream
the handicapped. Early Intervention Prgject for
Handicapped Infants and Children. Final Report.
Ann Arbor, 1973-1976.

 

 

Ackerman, P. R. and M. G. Moore. Delivery of educational
services to preschool handicapped children. In
T. J. Tjossem's (Ed.) Intervention Strategies
for High Risk Infants and Young Children. Baltimore:
University Park Press, 1976.

 

 

Alexander, F. A. A contribution to the theory of play.
Psychoanalytic Quarterly 27 (1958):175-193.

 

Allport, F. H. The influence of the group upon association
and thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology 3
(l920):lS9-182.

 

American Annals of the Deaf. Total communication definition
adopted. Vol. 21, 358, 1976.

 

Aureswald, E. H. Interdisciplinary versus ecological
approach. Family Process. September 1968, p. 7.

 

Beach, F. A. Current concepts of play in animals. Ameri-
can Nationalist 79, 523-541.

 

Beard, R. M. An Outline of Piaget's Develgpmental Theory
for Students and Teachers. New York: Basic Books,
1969.

 

 

Bereiter, C. and E. Engelmann. Teaching Disadvantaged
Children in the Preschools. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1966.

 

 

Berger, B. An investigation of Montessori vs conventional
pre-kindergarten training with inner-city children:
an assessment of learning outcomes. Paper read at
the meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Los Angeles, February 1969.

184

185

Berne, B. Social Behaviors in Young Children. University
of Iowa studies in Child Welfare, 1930, 4.

Bierstaedt, R. The Social Order. 4th ed. New York:
McGraw HiIl, Inc., 1974.

Bijou, S. W. and D. M. Baer. Child Development I: A Syste-
matic and Empirical Theory. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1961.

Bijou, S. and D. M. Baer. Child Development II: Universal
Stages of Infancy. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts, 1965.

 

Bitter, G. B. and E. G. Mears. Facilitating the integration
of hearing-impaired children into regular public
school classes. Readings in Mainstreaming. Guil-
ford, Connecticut: Special Learning Corp., 1978-1979.

Bloom, B. 8. Stability and Change in Human Characteristics.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964.

Brauchlin, E. Play activities as a therapeutic adjunct to
special education pedagogy. Heilpadagogesche
Werkblatter 39 (September l970):232-240.

 

 

Bridge E. "The effect of behavioral techniques within an
intensive design upon elementary school children's
attending behavior." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1973.

Bronfenbrenner, U. The experimental ecology of human
develOpment. In T. W. Hertz (ed.) Proceedings
of the Symposium on Ecological Approaches to
Research on Child Development. Washington, D.C.:
Social Research Group, George Washington University,
1974.

 

Bronfenbrenner, U. Towards an experimental ecology of human
development. American Psychologist 32 (July 1977):
513-531.

 

Bryan, T. An observational analysis of classroom behaviors
of children with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilitieg 7 (January 1977):26-34.

 

Buckley, W. Sociology and Modern Systems Theory. Engle-
wood CIiffs, New Jersey: PrentiCe-Hall, Inc., 1967.

Bushell, D. The Behavior Analysis Classroom. Lawrence,
Kansas: University of Kansas, Department of Human
Development, 1970.

 

186

Buytendijk, F. J. J. Wesen und sinn des spiels. Das
spielen des menschen und der tiere als erscheinungs-
form der lebenstriebe. (Essence and sense of play.
The play of humans and of animals as the outward
appearance of vitality.) Berlin: Wolff, Neue Geist
Verl., 1934.

Campbell, D. T. and J. C. Stanley. Experimental and Quasi-
Experimental Design for Research. Chicago: Rand?
McNally Co., 1963.

 

 

Caplan, F. and T. Caplan. The Power of Play. New York:
Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1974.

 

Carini, P. Building a curriculum for young children from an
experimental base. Young Children. March 1977,
pp. 14-18.

 

Carlson, N. A. (ed.) The Contexts of Life: A Socio-
Ecological Model of Adaptive Behavior and
Functioning. Final Report, Department of Health,
Education & Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau
of Education for the Handicapped, September 1976.

 

 

 

Carlson, N. A. Pathways. A Human Support System Model For
Integrated Handicgpped Children and Their Families.
Progress report, Department of Health, Education &
Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Education
for the Handicapped, August 1977.

 

 

Carmichael, L. (ed.) Manual of Child Psychology. 3rd ed.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1970.

 

Carr, H. A. The survival values of play. Investigations
of a department of psychology and education.
University of Colorado, 1902, l (1), l-47.

Charlesworth, R. E. and Hartup, W. W. Positive social
Reinforcement in the Nursery School Peer Group.
Child Development 38 (December 1967):993-1002.

 

Chassen, J. B. Research Design in Clinical Psychology and
Psychiatry. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
I967.

 

Claparede, E. Sur la nature et la fonction de jeu (Con-
cerning the nature and function of play). Archives
de Psychologie, Geneve, 1934, 24, 350-369.

Clark, E. A. Teacher attitudes toward integration of
children with handicaps. Education and Training
of the Mentally Retarded 4_TDecember 1976):333-335.

 

187

Cooley, C. H. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York:
Chas. Scribner & Sons, 1902.

Cornett, R. O. "Mainstreaming the Hearing-Impaired Child:
The Role of Communication Methods." Paper
delivered at NAEYC Meeting, Chicago, Illinois,
November 1977.

Dewey, J. Experience and Education. New York: Collier
Books, 1938.

Dreyer, A. and D. Rigler. Cognitive performance in
Montessori and Nursery school children. Journal
of Educational Research 62 (1969):411-4l6.

 

Dukes, W. F. N=l. Psychological Bulletin 64 (1965):74-79.

Dunlop, K. Mainstreaming: valuing diversity in children.
Young Children 33 (May 1977):26-32.

 

Dunn, L. M. Special education for the mildly retarded-~15
much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children 35
(September l968):5-24.

Earhart, E. M. "Modes of Interaction." Manuscript,
Michigan State University, 1977.

Elkin, F. and G. Handel. The Child and Society: The Process
of Socialization. New York: Random House, 1978.

 

Ellis, M. J. Why People Play. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973.

 

Erikson, E. Childhood and Society. 2nd ed. New York:
Norton, 1963.

Erikson, E. Toys and reasons. In Childhood and Society.
New York: Norton, 1950, pp. 182-218.

Eubank, B. A. "Social Involvement of Preschool Children
within Various Exterior Play Areas." Ph.D. disser-
tation, Michigan State University, 1976.

Evans, E. D. Contemporary Influences in Early Childhood
Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,
Inc., 1975.

 

Fisher, M. Educational assumptions for constructing objec—
tives and evaluating programs for culturally dis-
advantaged children. ERIC: ED 047/047, 1971.

188

Fitzsimons, C. The Management of Family Resources. San
Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1951.

Forness, S. R. The mildly retarded as casualties of edu-
cational systems. Journal of School Psychology
10 (l974):ll7-126.

Freud, S. The Ego and the Id. London: Hogarth, 1950.

Freud, 8. Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. London:
Allen & Unwin, 1922.

Froebel, F. The Education of Man. Translated by W. N.
Hailmen. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1899.

 

Froebel, F. Pedagogies of the Kundergarten. Translated by
J. Jarvis. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1902.

Furth, H. G. Deafness and Learning: A Psychosocial
Approach. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Inc., 1973.

 

Gardner, D. B. The child as an open system: Conference
summary and implications. Play: The Child Strives
toward Self Realization. Washington, D.C., NAEYC,
1975.

 

 

Gardner, H. Developmental Psychology. Boston: Little,
Brown, and Co., 1978.

Gates, R. R. "The differential effectiveness of various
modes of presenting information to deaf students
through modified television formats." Ph.D. disser-
tation, University of Pittsburgh, 1970.

Gesell, Arnold. The ontoqenesis of infant behavior. In
L. Carmichael (ed.) Manual of Child Psychology.
New York: Wiley, 1946, chap. 6.

 

Gesell, A. L. and Ilg, F. L. Child Development: An Intro—
duction to the Study of Human Growth. New York:
Harper & Row, 1949.

 

 

Gewirtz, H. L. Stimulation, learning, and motivation
principles for day care settings. In E. Grotberg
(ed.) Day Care: Resources for Decisions.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Economic Opportunity,
1971.

189

Gilmore, J. B. Play: a special behavior. In R. E. Herron
and B. Sutton-Smith Child's Play. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971.

 

Ginsberg, H. And we can learn together: some thoughts on
mainstreaming children with special needs.
Integration project, Michigan State University,
September 1976.

Goeth, J. H. Learning with visual and audiovisual percep-
tions. In F. McConnell and P. H. Wards (eds.)
Deafness in Childhood. Nashville, Tennessee:
Vanderbilt University Press, 1967.

Goetzinger, C. P. Psychological consideration of hard of
hearing children. In R. L. Cozad (ed.) The Speech
Clinician and the Hearing Impaired Child. Spring-
field, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1974.

 

Goetzinger, C. P. and Proud, G. O. The impact of hearing
impairment upon the psychological development of
children. Journal of Auditory Research 15 (1975):
1-600

Goldstein, H., J. W. Moss, and L. J. Jardon. The Efficacy
of Special Class Training on the Development of
Mentally Retarded Children. Urbana, Illinois:
Institute for Research on Exceptional Children,
University of Illinois, 1965.

 

Gottman, J. M. N-of-One and N-of-Two Research in Psycho-
therapy. Psychological Bulletin 80 (l973):93-105.

Gottman, J. M., R. M. McFall, and J. T. Barnett. Design
and analysis of research using time series. Ps -
chological Bulletin 72 (1969):299-306.

Griffing, B. L. Planning educational programs and services
for hard of hearing children. In F. S. Berg and
S. G. Fletcher (eds.) The Hard of Hearing Child.
New York: Gruve and Stratton, 1970.

 

Groos, K. The Play of Animals. Translated by E. L.
Baldwin. New York: D. Appleton, 1898.

Groos, K. The Play of Man. Translated by E. L. Baldwin.
New York: Appleton, 1901.

Guralnick, M. J. The value of integrating handicapped and
nonhandicapped preschool children. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry 46(April 1976):236-245.

 

190

Guralnick, M. J. (ed.) Early Intervention and the Inte-
gration of Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Children.
Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978.

Hall, G. S. Youth: Its education, regimen and hygiene.
New York: Appleton, 1907.

Haring, N. C., A. H. Hayden, and K. E. Allen. Programs and
Projects: Intervention in Early Childhood. Edu—
cational Technology, 1971.

 

Hartup, W. W. Peer relations: developmental implications
in same and mixed-age situations. Young Children
32 (March 1977):14-18.

 

Hebb, D. O. A Textbook of Psychology. Philadelphia:
W. B. Saunders, 1966.

Herron, R. E. and S. Sutton-Smith. Child's Play. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971.

 

Hertz, T. W., S. Mangus, A. J. Mann, and C. S. Wagner.
Toward Interagengy Coordination. Sixth Annual
Report. Washington, D.C.: Social Research Group,
George Washington University, February 1977.

Hetherington, E. M. Review of Child Development Research.
vol. 5. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1975. -

 

Hoffman, M. L. and L. W. Hoffman. Review of Child Develop-
ment Research. vol. 2. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 1966.

 

 

Horton, K. B. Early intervention for hearing impaired
infants and young children. In T. J. Tjossem (ed.)
Intervention Strategies for High Risk Infants and
Young Children. Baltimore, Maryland: University
Park Press, 1976.

 

Hull, C. L. Essentials of Behavior. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1951.

 

Hunt, J. McV. Intelligence and Experience. New York:
Ronald Press, 1961.

 

Hutt, C. Exploration and play in children. In R. E. Herron
and B. Sutton-Smith Child's Play. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971.

 

191

Hutt, C. and M. J. Varsey. Differential effects of group
density on social behavior. Nature 209 (March 26,
l966):l371-1372.

Iano, R. P., D. Ayers, H. B. Miller, J. M. McGittigan, U.S.
Walker. Sociometric status of retarded children in
an integrative program. Exceptional Children 40

(January 1974):267-271.

 

Irwin, T. Implementation of public law 94—142. Exceptional
Children 43 (November l976):135-137.

 

Jackson, R. D. The effects of an integrated pre-school
setting on handicapped and non-handicapped children:
an explorative and comparative study of selected
behavioral characteristics, parent and teacher
attitudes. George Washington University, 1976.

Johnson, G. O. A study of social position of mentally
retarded children in the regular grades. American
Journal of Mental Deficiency 55, pp. 60-89.

 

Kamii, C. An application of Piaget's theory to the con-
ceptualization of a preschool curriculum. In R.
Parker (ed.) The Preschool in Action. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon, 1972.

 

Kantor, D. and W. Lehr. Inside the Family. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass Pub., 1976.

 

Karnes, M. B., R. R. Zehrback, and J. A. Teska. An ame-
liorative approach in the develOpment of curriculum.
In R. Parker (ed.) The Preschool in Action. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon, 1972.

 

Keasey, C. B. Social participation as a factor in the moral
development of preadolescents. Developmental
Psychology 5 (September l971):216-220.

 

Kerlinger, F. M. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and WifiSton, Inc., 1967.

 

Kingery, D. Toward an understanding of speech, language,
and hearing disabilities. "In N. A. Carlson (ed.)
The Contexts of Life: A Socio-Ecological Model of
Adaptive Behavior and Functioning. U.S. Department
of Health, Education & Welfare, Bureau of Ed.
for the Handicapped, September 1976.

 

 

Kinsey, A. C., W. B. Pomeroy, and C. E. Martin. Sexual
Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: W. B.
Saunders, 1948.

192

Klein, J. W. Mainstreaming the preschooler. Young
Children (July l975):3l7-327.

Knapp, P. H. .Emotional aspects of hearing loss. Psycho—
somatic Medicine 10 (January-February 1948):203-222.

Kohlberg, L. Early education: a cognitive-developmental
View; Child Development 39(December 1968):1013—1032.

Kohlberg, L. Montessori with the culturally disadvantaged:
a cognitive developmental interpretation and some
resource findings. In R. Hess and F. Bear (eds.)
Earlnyducation. Chicago: Aldine, 1968, pp. 105-
118.

 

Kuschnor, D. S. and P. Y. Clark. Children, materials, and
adults in early childhood settings. In B. Persky
and Golubchick (eds.) Early Childhood. Wayne,

New Jersey: Avery Pub. Group, Inc., 1977.

 

Laing, R. D. The Politics of Experience. New York:
Ballantine Books, 1967.

 

Lance, W. D. Who are all the children? Readings in Main-
streamingyl978-l979. Guilford, Conn.: Special
Learning Corp., 1978.

 

 

Lavatelli, C. S. Piaget's Theory Applied to Early Childhood
Curriculum. Boston: Center for Media Development,
1970.

 

 

Lavett, H. Ear and throat. In J. E. Jordan (ed.) Medical
Information for Counselors and Teachers. College of
Education, Michigan State University, 1965.

 

Lazarus, M. Uber die reize des spiels (Concerning the fas-
cination of play.) Berlin: Dummler, 1883.

Lewin, K. A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York and
London: McGraw, 1935.

 

Lewis, M. and L. A. Rosenblum. Friendship and Peer Rela-
tions. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975.

 

Lieberman, J. N. Playfulness and divergent thinking: an
investigation of their relationship at the kinder-
garten level. Journal of Genetic Psychology 107
(1965):219-224.

Light, D. and S. Keller. Sociology. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1975.

 

193

Lillie, D. L. Early Childhood Curriculum: An Individual
Approach. Science Research Associates, 1975.

 

Luterman, D. M. A comparison of language skills in
hearing-impaired children trained in a visual/oral
method and an auditory oral method. American
Annals of the Deaf 121 (1976).

 

Marascuilo, L. A. and M. McSweeney. Nonparametric post hoc
comparisons for trend. Psychological Bulletin 67
(1967):401-412.

 

Martin, E. W. An end to dichotomous constructs: a recon-
ceptualization of teacher education. Paper pre-
sented at the dedication of Thorndike Hall,
Columbia University, New York, 1973.

Martin, E. W. Some thoughts on mainstreaming. Exceptional
Children 41 (November l974):150-153.

 

Meyer, R. S. A comparative analysis of preschool curricular
models. In R. H. Anderson and H. G. Short (eds.)
As the Twig is Bent: Readings in Early Childhood
Education. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1971.

 

Meisels, S. J. First steps in mainstreaming. Young
Children (November l977):4-15.

Mercer, J. Technical Manual for the Systems of Multi-
cultural Pluralistic Assessment. Psychological
Corporation, 1977.

 

Miller, J. and J. Camps. Toward individual competency:
A Curriculum in the Child's Ecology. In R.
Parker (ed.) The Preschool in Action. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon, 1972.

 

Miller, N. E. and J. Dollard. Social Learning and Imita-
tion. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University
Press, 1941.

 

Mitchell, E. D. and B. S. Mason. The Theory of Play. New
York: Barnes, 1948.

 

Molloy, L. The changing mandate for special education.
The Education Digest 40 (March l975):6-9.

 

Montessori, M. Dr. Montessori's Own Handbook. New York:
Schocken Books, Inc., 1965a.

 

194

Montessori, M. Spontaneous Activity in Education. Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts: Robert Bentley, 1965b.

Mussen, P. H. Handbook of Resource Methods in Child
Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1960.

 

Myklebush, H. R. The Psychology of Deafness. New York:
Grune and Stratton, 1964.

Neumann, E. A. "The elements of play." Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Illinois, 1971.

Northcott, W. H. (ed.) Curriculum Guide: Hearing-Impaired
Children--Birth to Three Years--and Their Parents.
Washington, D.C.: Alexander Graham Bell Association
for the Deaf, 1977.

 

 

Northcott, W. H. Integrating the preprimary hearing-impaired
child: an examination of the process, product, and
rationale. In M. J. Guralnick (ed.) Early Inter-
vention and the Integration of Handicapped and Non-
Handicapped Children. Baltimore: University Park
Press, 1978.

 

 

Oyer, E. J. "Relationship of Homemakers' hearing losses to
family integration." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1969.

Patrick, G. L. W. The Psychology of Play. Pedagogical
Seminary 21 (1914):469-484.

 

Parten, M. B. Social play among preschool children.
Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology 28 (1933):
136-147.

 

Parten, M. B. Social play among preschool children. In
R. E. Herron and B. Sutton-Smith Child's Play.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971.

 

Phenice, L. A. "Children's perceptions of elderly persons."
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1978.

Piaget, J. The Moral Judgment of the Child. Glencoe,
Illinois: Free Press, 1932.

 

Piaget, J. The genetic approach to the psychology of
thought. Journal of Educational Psychology 52

(December 1961):275-281.

Piaget, J. and B. Inhelder. The Psychology of the Child.
New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1969.

195

Piaget, J. Play, Dreams! and Imitation in Childhood.
Translated by C. Gattegms and F. M. Hodgson.
New York: Merton, 1951.

 

Proshansky, H. M., L. G. Ittleson, L. G. Rivling. The
influence of the physical environment on behavior;
some basic assumptions. In H. M. Proshansky, W. H.
Ittleson, and L. G. Rivling (eds.) Environmental
Psychology: Man and His Physical Setting. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.

 

 

Quigley, S. P. The Influence of Fingerspelling on the
Development of Language, Communication, and Educa-
tional Achievement in Deaf Children. Washington,
D.C.: Department of Health, Education & Welfare,
1969.

Read, K. The Nursery School. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders
Co., 1976.

 

Resnick, L. B. Design of an Early Learning Curriculum.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh,
Learning Research and Development Center, 1967.

R099: E. M. Socialization and Early Childhood Education.
In B. Persky and L. Golubchick (eds.) Early Child-
hood. Wayne, New Jersey: Avery Pub. Group, Inc.,

19 7.

 

Salvia, J. and J. E. Ysseldyke. Assessment in Special and
Remedial Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
1974.

 

Sapon-Shevin, M. Another look at mainstreaming: exception-
ality, normality, and the nature of difference.
Phi Delta Kappan 60 (October 1978):119-120.

 

Schere, R. "Social control and its double-bind effect on
the education of the exceptional." Paper read at
the Slst Annual Meeting of the American Ortho-
psychiatric Association, San Francisco, 1974.

Schmickley, U. G. "Effects of Cognitive-Behavior Modifi-
cation upon Depressed Outpatients." Ph.D. disser-
tation, Michigan State University, 1976.

Scholz, G. J. L. and M. J. Ellis. Reported exposure to
objects and peers in a play setting. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology 19 (1975):448-455.

 

196

Sears, R. R., E. E. Maccoby, and H. Lewin. Patterns of
Child Rearing. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson,
1957.

 

 

Seligman, M. E. D. Learned helplessness. In F. DeGraff
(ed.) Annual Review of Medicine. Palo Alto,
California: Annual Reviews, Inc., 1972.

 

Shapiro, E. and B. Biber. The education of young children:
a developmental interaction approach. Tegchers'
College Record 74 (1972):55-79,

 

 

Sher, A. The importance of play. In B. Persky and L.
Golubchick (eds.) Early Childhood. Wayne, New

J

Jersey: Avery Pub. Groups, Inc., 1977.

Siebens, B. D. I Can't Hear You. Published by Michigan
Association Education Deaf, September 1976.

 

Siegel, S. Nonfiparametric Statistics for the Behavioral
Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1956.

Simonton, D. K. Cross-sectional time-series experiments:
some suggested statistical analyses. Psychological
Bulletin 84 (1977):489-502.

 

Skinner, B. F. The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental
Analo ue. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, 1938.

Skinner, B. F. Science and Human Behavior. New York:
Macmillan, 1953.

 

Smilanski, S. Can adults facilitate play in children? Some
theoretical and practical considerations. Play:
The Child Struggles Toward Self Realization.
Washington, D.C.: NAEYC, 1975.

 

Smith, P. and Connally, K. Patterns of Play and Social
Interaction in Preschool Children. In N. Blurton
Jones (ed.) Ethological Studies in Child Behavior.
London: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

 

Soderman, A. K. "Rule Conflict and the Integrated Pre-
schooler: An Assessment of One Facet of Main-
streaming." Unpublished pilot study. Michigan
State University, 1977.

Sorokin, P. A. An experimental study of efficiency of work
under various specified conditions. American
Journal of Sociology 35 (1930):765-782.

 

197

Spodek, B. The Problem of Play: educational or recreational?
In D. Sponseller (ed.) Plgy as a Learning Medium.
Washington, D.C.: NAEYC, 1976.

Sponseller, D. Play as a Learning Medium. Washington, D.C.:
NAEYC, April 1976.

Spradley, T. and J. Spradley. Deaf Like Me. New York:
Random House, 1978.

Stensaasen, S. Children in high houses and crowded streets
and the need for early planning. Symposium Xth
World Assembly of OMEP, Stockholm, Sweden, August
12-18, 1964.

Stevens, R. Individualizing inservice education. Thg
Practitioner. Reston, Virginia: National Association
of Secondary School Principals, vol. IV, no. 1,
October 1977.

Stevens, J. H. and E. W. King. Administering Early Childhood
Centers. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1976.

 

Stone, G. P. The play of little children. In R. E. Herron
and B. Sutton-Smith Child's Play. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971.

 

Stuckless, E. R. "Assessing and supporting linguistic
development in deaf adolescents." Paper presented
at Hearing and Speech Conference, Kansas University
Medical Center, February 1971.

Sutton-Smith, B. The playful modes of knowing. Play: The
Child Strives Toward Self Realization. Washington,
D.C.: NAEYC, 1975.

 

Sutton-Smith, B. "Children at play." Natural History
Magazine, December 1971, pp. 54-59.

 

Sutton-Smith, B. The role of play in COgnitive development.
In R. E. Herron and B. Sutton-Smith Child's Play.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971.

 

Thoresen, C. E. "The intensive design: an intimate approach
to counseling research." Paper presented at AERA
Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, April 1972.

Tinklepaugh, O. L. Social behavior of animals. Chapter
XIII in Comparative Psychology. 2nd ed. F. A.
Moss (ed.) New York: Prentice Hall, 1942.

198

Tolman, E. C. Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men.
New York: Century Co., 1932.

Tjossem, T. D. Early intervention: issues and approaches.
Intervention Strategies for High Risk Infants and
Chiidren. In T. J. Tjossem (ed.) Baltimore,
Maryland: University Park Press, 1976.

Vacc, N. A. A study of emotionally disturbed children in
regular and Special classrooms. In N. J. Long,
W. C. Morse, and L. G. Newman (eds.) Conflict in
the Classroom: The Education of Children with
Problems. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing
Co., 1971.

 

Watson, J. B. Behaviorism. New ed. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1959.

Weikart, D. P., L. Rodgers, C. Adcock, and D. McClelland.
The Cognitively Oriental Curriculum. Washington,
D.C.: NAEYC, 1971.

Wepman, J. M. Aphasia: language without thought or thought
Without language? ASHA 18 (March 1976):131-136.

Weybright, L. D. Action and interaction in the development
of thought in the young child. In B. Persky and
L. Golubchick (eds.) Early Childhood. Wayne, New
Jersey: Avery Pub. Group, Inc.,il977.

 

Whiren, A. P. "The effect of parent education on knowledge
about and attitudes toward children's play."
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State UniVersity,
1976.

White, 0. R. Working paper No. 15. The prediction of
human performance in the single case: an examination
of four techniques. Eugene, Oregon: College of
Education, Department of Special Education, Univer-
sity of Oregon, 1972. A

White, O.R. Telephone conversation. Seattle, Washington.
14 December 1978.

Wolfensberger, W. Normalization. Toronto: National
Institute of Mental Retardation, 1972.

 

Wright, H. L. "The exceptional child in the nursery school
setting." Address given at the spring conference,
co-sponsored by the Nursery Education Association
of Ontario and Midwestern Association for Nursery
Education, Detroit, Michigan, May 1962.

199

Wynne, S., L. Ulfelder, and G. Dakaf. Mainstreaming and
Early Education for Handicapped Children: Review
and Implications for Research. Washington, D.C.:
Wynne Associates, 1975.

 

 

Zigler, E. F. and I. L. Child. Socialization and Personality
Development. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-
Wesley Pub. Co., 1973.