Coping and Children with Disabilities Coping strategies of children with an intellectual disability in regular and special classrooms Karen Cohen Gazith Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology McGill University, Montreal, Canada A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfilrnent of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Psychology August 28,1996 Running head: Coping and Children with Disabilities
127
Embed
Coping and Children with Disabilities · Coping and Children with Disabilities III Des stratégies d'adaptation pour des enfants à déficience intellectuelle dans des classes régulière
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Coping and Children with Disabilities
Coping strategies of children with an intellectual disability in regular and special classrooms
Karen Cohen Gazith
Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology McGill University, Montreal, Canada
A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfilrnent of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in Educational Psychology
August 28,1996
Running head: Coping and Children with Disabilities
National Library 1+1 of,,a Bibliothèque nationale du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington OttawaON KiAON4 OttawaON K1AON4 Canada Canada
Your fia Votre referencr,
Our file Notre retefence
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of ths thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othemise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation.
. . Coping and Children with Disabilities u
Coping strategies of children with an intellectual disability in regular and special classrooms
Abstract
Adaptive coping behaviors of children with a mild to moderate intellectual disability educated in regular and special classrooms were examined usùig a comparative design incorpodng both quantitative and qualitative analyses. Children's coping behaviors were examined using the Coping Inventos, (Zeitlin, 1985) and their behavior was assessed using the Child Behavior Checkfisr (Achenbach, 199 1). Children with an intellectual disability integrated in regular classrooms were found not to exhibit more adaptive coping behaviors than their counterparts in special classrooms. Descriptive analyses delineated several factors within both environments that influence child.ents coping efforts such as dependency on adults, extemal control, the quality of instruction, the social organization of the classroom, and the lack of direct instruction in developing children's adaptive coping efforts. Recommendations from the current study focus on the need for children with an intellectual disability to be provided with direct instruction of adaptive coping behaviors and facilitated o p p o d t i e s to learn through trial and error in order to become more autonomous copers.
. . . Coping and Children with Disabilities I I I
Des stratégies d'adaptation pour des enfants à déficience intellectuelle dans des classes régulière ou spécialisée.
Résumé
Des enfants en difficulté d'apprentissage avec un comportement d'adaptation adaptif. ayant une incapacité mentale légère ou modéré et qui reçoivent leur formation pédagogique dans une classe régulière ou spéciale. ont été soumis à des tests comparatifs utilisant des analyses quantitative et analytique. Leur comportement d'adaptation a été examiné en utilisant le "Coping Inventory" (Zeitlin. 1985), et le "Child Behavior Checklist" (Achenbach, 199 1 ). Les enfants ayant une incapacité intellectuelle et intégrés dans une classe régulière n'ont démontré aucune différence dans leur cornportment d'adaptation par rapport à ceux dans une classe spécialisée. Des analyses descriptives ont dépeints plusieurs facteurs a l'intérieur de classes régulières et spécialisées qui influencent les efforts de ces enfants à se libéres de leur dépendance envers les adultes. du contrde extérieur et du manque de direction dans le développement d'un comportement adaptif. La présente étude recommande que les enfants ayant une incapacité intellectuelie reçoivent un enseignement spécifique partant sur les comportement d'adaptation ainsi que des experiences d'apprentissage qui incluent les procédés essai et erreur afin de les rendre plus autonomes.
Coping and Children with Disabilities iv
1 would like to express my appreciation to those individuals who have been instmental in îhe completion of this doctoral dissertation.
First, 1 would like to express my appreciation to Dr. JefEey Derevensky who is not only committed to a standard of excellence, but who is also committed to providing students with the academic guidance needed to meet this very challenging endeavor.
1 would also like to thank Dr. Evelyn Lusthaus whom I have always admired for her compassion, sincerity and insights in her professional and personal endeavon. Your on-going guidance was invaluable. Mary Maguire, you assisted me in the very complex domain of qualitative research and 1 thank you. 1 would also like to thank Mike Hoover whose expert advice was critical to the completion of this research project, Julie Brennan who was most helpful as a research assistant, and Diane Bernier for translating the abstract into French.
I am also grateM to my family and fnends for their constant support: my husband Tsafrir Gazith, rny two children Benjamin and Adam, and my dear fiiends whose names I will not mention in fear of leaving someone out. This research was funded by Fonds Pour La Formation De Chercheurs Et L'Aide A La Recherche and by the Scomsh Rite Foundation of the Roeher Institute.
I would like to express my gratitude to the administrators, teachers, and psychologists who allowed me to corne into their schools and classrooms and were most gracious. Thank you to dl the children who were equally welcoming and hospitable.
Finally, this research project is written in loving mernov of my mother Dena Cohen who instilled in her children the value of education. More important, she exemplified caring, compassion, and acceptance of others in al1 that she did, and for that 1 ttiank her.
Coping and Children with Disabilities v
Coping Strategies of Children with an InteUectual Disability in Regular and Special Classrooms
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 4: Coping Levels for Children Across Groups 42 Table 5: Means and Standard Deviations for Coping Subscales and Bipolar
Table 7: Means and Standard DeMations for Cophg Subscale and Bipolar . . . . . . . . . . . Dimension Scores for Regular and Special Classroom Groups 55
Coping and Children with Yisabilities viii
Figures Figure 1 : Category Scores for Children in Regular and Special Classroom Groups . . 58 Figure 2: Category and Dimension Scores for Children in the Regdar and
Because many studies examining the coping efforts of children with an intellectud
disability have not examined the influence of the type of classroom environment upon
the coping behaviors of these children, the primary purpose of this study is to compare
Coping and Children with Disabilities 2 6
the coping behaviors of children in regular and special classrooms and to examine some
of the practices in the classroorn envkonments that may be influencing the children's
development of adaptive coping behaviors. This study also attempts to expand upon the
small body of existing literature about the coping efforts of individuals with an
intellectual disability. A comparative design is employed to examine the following
research questions:
1. How effectively do students with an intellectual disability cope with everyday
cornmonplace events?
2. Are there personal variables that influence the coping behaviors of children with
an intellectual disability?
3. What are the characteristics of "good" and "poor" copers?
4. Do the coping strategies employed by children with an intellectual disabiiity in
integrated classrooms differ fiom the strategies used by children with a disability in
special classrooms?
5. Are there classroom practices that influence children's coping behavior?
Coping and Children with Disabilities 2 7
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Subjects
Two school boards within the greater Montreal area agreed to participate in the
study. Special education consultants w i t h . each of the school boards provided lists of
students with an intellectual disability and principals w i h h each school set up meetings
with teachers of children with an intellectud disability. Parent consent forms were
distributeci, and parents who agreed to have their child participate in the study were
included in the sample. Information as to the age and IQ of each student was available
through school records.
Sixty-seven children with an intellectual disability, matched for age, gender, IQ
and socioeconomic status participated in this study. Children cornprised two groups,
educated in either regular classrooms (RC) or special education classrooms (SC).
Children ranged in age from 7 to 15 yean with an average of 1 1.30 years (SD = 2.03).
n ie mean age of the girls was 11.54 years (SD = 1.80) and the mean age of the boys was
11.12 years (SD = 2.19). The sample consisted of 38 boys (57%) and 29 girls (43%).
The IQ scores ranged fiom mild to moderate with a mean IQ of 58.73 (SD = 9. W), 58.7 1
(SD = 10.30) for girls and 58.74 (SD = 9.83) for boys.
Placement within an integrated classroom was dependent upon one or more of the
following factors: (a) school board policy, @) parental wishes, andlor (c) teacher
recommendations. The largest number of participants came fkom a school board where a
Coping and Children with Disabilities 2 8
universal integration policy had been implemented.
Children within the segregated classroom were selected fkom a school board and a
special school. While these children may have been recomrnended for special school
placement by teachers based upon their level of performance. no significant differences
were found in subsequent analyses of intelligence test scores. Characteristics of children
within the two classroom groups are presented in Table 1.
en ui Resllpr C b
This group consisted of 37 children between the ages of 7 and 15 years
(M = 10.75, SD = 2.15) There were 17 girls and 20 boys in the sample. Children in this
group had an intellectual disability in the mild to moderate range (IQ ranging from 40 to
69, M = 59, SD = 9.42). Children ranged fkom grade one to grade six and had been
educated for at least two years within regular classrooms for 80% of the school &y.
A total of 15 schools within two school boards in the Greater Montreal area were
included in the study. Thirteen of the schools were Anglophone with French immersion
classes and two were Francophone with English as a second language. Al1 children
within the Anglophone schools were in Engtish classes except one Anglophone student
who was in a French immersion classroom (Anglophone children being insmcted in
French).
Coping and C hildren with Disabilities 2 9
Table 1
haractenstics of S u u c t s -Re andSpecial C l a s x x .- .
Reguiar (n=37) Special (n=30)
M SIIT % M %
Children's Ages in Years
7 to 10
I l to 15
Gender
BOY
Girl
IQ
40 to 54
55 to 70
çhildren in S D ~ C b
This group consisted of 30 children between the ages of 7 to 14 years (M = 1 1.96,
SD= 1.86). Nine of the children were girls and 2 1 were boys. They had an intellectual
disability in the mild to moderate range (IQ ranging fiom 40-70, M = 58, SD = 10.72),
and were educated in special classes for children with intellectual disabilities in the
Greater Montreal area for at Ieast two years. Children attended these classes for the
entire school day and were grouped according to both age and ability therefore there were
no traditional grades.
Coping and Children with Disabilities 30
-ua
This study used a comparative design to examine two groups of children with a
mild to moderate intellectual disability in regular and special classrooms. It included
both a quantitative and a qualitative approach to data collection and analysis.
Quantitative analyses enabled the examination of whether clifferences in coping behaviors
between children in the two classroom environments were present. Qualitative measures
were used to provide a more in-depth examination of the different classroom
environments and the factors present within those envkonrnents that enhanced or
impeded children's coping efforts.
Quantitative rnethods were used to obtain domat ion on the children's coping
efforts, their behavior problems, IQ, and demographic variables. Information was
gathered through the cooperation of admstrators, teaching staff and parents.
Quantitative measures are summarized in Table 2.
I n v e m The Coping hventory (CI) (Zeith, 1985) is a
48- item obsewationd instrument used to assess adaptive coping behavior of children
aged three to 16 years. It is divided into two categories: coping with the self and coping
with the environment. Coping with the self refers to behaviors used to meet persona1
needs, while coping with the environment refers to behaviors used to adapt to the
demands and pressures of the environment. Each of the two categories in the subtests
Coping and ChiIdren with Disabilities 3 1
Table 2
Measure Instrument Procedure
Coping effort Coping Inventory (CI) Completed by classroom teacher
Behavior problems Child Behavior Checkiist Completed by classroom (CBCL) teacher
Kadinan Brief Intelligence Administered to child by (K-Bit) researcher
Demographic variables Parent questionnaire Completed by parent
incorporates three dimensions of coping styles: productive, active, and flexible. A
productive coping style refers to behaviors that are socially responsible and enhance self
esteem. A flexible coping style is one where copers use a variety of coping behaviors and
can shifi plans according to a specific situation. Active copers are those that initiate and
sustain actions both mentally and physically. A more in-depth description of the
operational definitions used in the Coping Inventory is presented in Appendix A. The
rater uses a 5-point Likert scale to score the instrument. A score of 1 refen to behaviors
that are pot effective and a score of 5 refers to behaviors that are effective rnost of the
iime. The rater can be anyone who is f d l i a r with the child, and is usually completed by
a teacher or parent. The global score provides an adaptive behavior summary index
(AM) and the higher the score, the more effective the coping behavior.
Reliability of the measure has been conducted through tests of interna1
Coping and Children with Disabilities 3 2
consistency, inter-rater reliability, and standard error of measurement. Mesures of
intemal consistency are reported to range fiom .84 to .98, with the AB1 h a h g a
reliability index of .97. Inter-rater reliability coefficients were above .78
for al1 subscales. The standard enor of measurement was between .O26 and .O30 for al1
subtests (Zeitlin, 1985).
ehamor p m b h n s : Child Behawor Ch&ist (CBCL). The CBCL (Achenbach,
199 1) is a 1 1 8-item teacher-report fonn used to assess behavioral problems of children
fiom four to 16 yean. The checklist was devised to discruninate between children who
are adapting successfully and those who will need support for emotional/behaviord
problems. The CBCL incorporates a 3-point scale to assess teacher perceptions of
behavior problems (e.g., social withdrawal, somatic complaints, anxiety and depression,
social problems, thought problems, attention problems, delinquent behavior and
aggression). The checklist also incorporates cornpetency items such as getting dong
with others and success in specific academic subjects (e.g., mathematics, language arts,
science). The competency items are measured using a scale of below average, average,
and above average. The rater is asked to complete the checklist focusing on current
behaviors. The CBCL velds a total score and subscores (e.g., intenializing and
externalizhg).
A nomative sample of children was constnicted by rating four to 18 year old
children, al l of whom had not received mental health services or special school seMces
within the preceding 1 bmonth period.
Coping and Children with Disabilities 3 3
The CBCL has test-retest reliability of .87 for the competence scales and -89 for
the problem scales over a seven-day period. Long term stability of scale scores were
5 2 for competence scales and .71 for problem scales. Discriminative validity is
supported by the ability of the scale to discriminate between referred and nonreferred
children. The scale controls for gender and age differences in behavior problems.
nef -nce T a . The KaufÎnan Brief Intelligence Test
(K-BIT) (Kaufhan & Kaufriian, 1990) is a brief, individually administered intelligence
test that measures both verbal and nonverbal intelligence and provides a Ml-scale IQ.
The assessment can be admuiistered to individuals that range in age fiom four to 90
years. The test is composed of two subtests: Vocabulary (including Expressive
Vocabulary and Definitions) and Matrices. Vocabulary rneasures verbal, school related
skills, and verbal concept formation. Matrices measure nonverbal skills and the ability to
solve new problems. Standard scores have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
in tems of reliability scores the Vocabulary reliability scores are reported to have a mean
score of .92 and the Matrices reliability scores range between .74 to .95.
The K-BIT takes approximately twenty minutes to complete and can be
administered by technicians or paraprofessionals if they have had sufncient training in
using the instrument.
c d i e s : Par- Demographic information regardhg
the socioeconomic status of the children, whether both parents reside in the home, birth
order, and number of siblings was included in a questionnaire.
Coping and Children with Disabilities 3 4
Children. Children who had not received a psychoeducational assessment within
the past three years were individually administered the K-BIT ( K a h a n & KaufÎnan,
1990). This assessment took approximately 20 minutes and was conducted during the
school day. Measures were taken, such as calling the child to the office, to ensure that
the other children were not aware that the child was being assessed.
Teachers. The researcher met with the teacher (usually in groups) and explained
the different elements of the CI and the CBCL. Specifically, the researcher reviewed
what it was measuring and how it was administered. Afl teachers worked with a teacher
assistant and therefore the teachers were asked to complete the inventories with the
teacher assistant to enhance reliability. In the case of a disagreement on a particular item
they were asked to discuss the item until they agreed. If they could not agree on the item
they were told to include both responses. The teachers were given two weeks to
complete the ùiventory for each target child.
P a r a Letters were sent to parents, dong with the consent f o m and a
demographic questionnaire. The researcher telephoned all the parents who had not
retumed the questionnaire and reminded them to complete and return the form to their
child's school.
Traditional qualitative data collecting techniques were employed within the curent
study (Bogden & Biklen, 1992; Miles & Huberman, 1994). These techniques include
Coping and Children with Disabiiities 3 5
participant observations, both formal and infomal interviews, and document andysis.
Table 3 presents the rationale for the qualitative components used in ths investigation.
b s a
hident observatiom Thuty-five children within the two groups were randornly
selected by the researcher for focused observation. The coping strategies that were
employed by each child were documented during three daily activities: rnathematics,
language arts, and recess. These three different areas were chosen because they present
distinct oppominities for observation of social interactions with peers and teachers.
Mathematics is usually the most structured of the three activities, and presumably
interactions between children and
teachers are greatest during this activity. Language arts is generally less rigd and
presents increased oppominities for student interactions within a formal classroom
structure. During recess children interacted primarily with one another in a non-
stnictured atmosphere in various venues (e.g., on a jungle jim, in the playgound, or in the
classroom).
Student coping efforts were divided into three domains: (a) interactions with
teachers and teacher assistants; (b) interactions with peers; and (c) interactions with the
environment. A coping behavior was considered as any attempt by the student to manage
a particular situation (e.g., yelling at a teacher, asking for help, or refrainhg fYom difficult
work).
Coping and Children with Disabilities 3 6
. . u-ve Cmonents and
Component Rationale
Observations Examination of students' coping efforts S tudents Teachers' responses to students' coping efforts Teachers and teacher assistants Teachers' classroom sûategies Classroom environment Relationships between teacher and assistant, teacher and
student, and assistant and student
Interviews S tudents Teachers
Document analysis Books Stencils
Teachers' perceptions of students' adaptation to school environment Teachers' rationales for implementation of classroom strategies Students' perceptions of their adaptation to classroom structure and events
Understanding of curriculum and coping behavior of students Interaction between curriculum and coping behavior of students
The researcher observed each student separately for at least three, thirty minute,
observations per activity (e.g., mathemahcs, language arts, and recess) totaling a
minimum of 4.5 hours per child. Handwritten field notes were taken on site and
transcribed ont0 a computer. An example of the style and format of the field notes is
presented in Appendix B. The observations took place twice a week for five weeks and
were collected over a three month period fkom March, to May, 1993. To ensure that the
class memben and the children being obsewed were unaware ba t they were being
Coping and Children with Disabilities 37
shgled out, the classroom teacher was instructed to ùifonn the class that the researcher
was observing the classroom teacher. Observations were recorded as field notes and
subsequently coded for emerging thernes.
observatk. Classroom teachers and teacher
assistants were observed. The primary foci of these observations centered on five areas
of teacher behavior. The fïrst area of focus was the examination of strategies
implemented to encourage social interaction and modeling between children with an
intellectual disability and children without disabilities. The second area focused on the
extent to which teachers and teacher assistants encouraged or impeded the development
of independent coping behaviors. Third, the way in which teachers responded to children
was also examined (e.g., teacher use of positive reinforcement or punitive measures).
The fourth area of examination focused on the teaching style of the teacher (e-g.,
classroom lecture, individual seat work or group work). Finally, other teaching behavior
that took place w i t h the classroom that could potentially be informative in
understanding the coping behaviors of the children (e.g., special activities such as circle
tirne) was recorded.
1. The classroom environment was another focus of the
observations. The different classroom environrnents were compared in ternis of the
interactions that existed between the classroom teacher and assistani, the classroom
teacher and the child with an intellectual disability, and between the teacher assistant and
the nondisabled child. The interaction between the assistant and the child with an
Coping and Children with Disabilities 3 8
intellechial dîsability seemed critical because these children spent most of the day
involved in interactions with an assistant. Thus, students' overall coping efforts and their
adaptiveness were examined in the context of the environment in which the coping efforts
took place.
In addition, observations focused on the presence or absence of certain variables
and the extent to which these variables were implemented in different classrooms. These
variables included (a) the leaniing structure in the classroom (e.g., individual or
collaborative); (b) peer interaction in both acadernic and social contexts; (c) teaching
style (e-g., wann and caring or punitive); (d) the structure of the cunîculum ( e g , multi-
level or lower grade level); and (e) the extent to which teachers and teacher assistants
collaborated in the planning and implementation of prograrns for children with an
intellectual disability.
in addition, the physical configurations of the classroom were included in the
observation component. The typical arrangement of the regular and special classrooms is
included in Appendix C.
Role of researcher. The researcher assumed the role of a participant observer. She
spent an hour in each classroom prior to documenting observations. During some of the
observation penods the researcher positioned herself at the back of the classroom
attempting to be as unobtnisive as possible. In addition, efforts were made by the
researcher to accommodate to the needs and desires of each classroom teacher, and not to
impose herself on the classroom structure. During some observation penods, children
Coping and Children with Disabilities 3 9
seemed to be highly cognizant of the fact that someone was observing their classroom and
appeared somewhat disturbed by the intrusion. On those days the observation period was
temiinated and the researcher retumed on another day.
ews
Structured and nonstmctured interviews were conducted for both children with an
intellectual disability and their teachers. Children's i n t e ~ e w s were predominantly
unstnictured and open-ended in order to pennit the children to express themselves on
issues related to school work and peers. However, during the structured interviews the
children were asked specific questions related to perceptions of their adaptation to school,
specific issues related to school work and peer relations.
Teacher i n t e ~ e w s followed a predominantly stmctured format where the
objective was to understand the teachers' perception of how the children with an
intellectual disability were coping within their classroom. In addition, questions were
asked to the teachers to obtain an understanding of their teaching style and the strategies
that were purposefully implemented within the classroom. An example of a structured
iiterview is presented in Appendix D.
An additional component of the examination was the analysis of the cunicular
materials (e.g., books and stencils). An examination of the curricular materials used in
the designated periods added to the understanding of the events that were taking place
withùi the classroom.
Coping and Children with Disabilities 4 0
To ensure inter-rater reliability on both the CBCL and the CI, the classroom
teacher and the teacher assistant completed the forms together. Observations and teacher
i n t e ~ e w s were also used as a rneans of v e r i w g consistency between the teachers'
evaluation of a child's coping efforts and child's achial coping behavior. While two
observers would have ensured greater reliability for the qualitative component of the
study, the teachers were very reticent about having hvo observers in the classroom.
However, the fact that there was only one observer encouraged the teachers to provide
detailed and privileged information that potentially would not have been disclosed had
there been two observers in the classroom.
Coping and Children with Disabilities
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS
A comparative design was used to examine the copuig behaviors of children with
an intellectual disability in regular and special classrooms. The results are organized in
five sections according to the questions addressed in the study. Both quantitative and
qualitative analyses were conducted to respond to the various questions. With respect to
the qualitative component of the study, patterns of behaviors and responses were
Research Question 1. How Effatively Do Children with an lntellectual Disability Cope with Commonplace School Events?
The coping styles of al1 children were assessed according to the Coping Inventory
(CI). The key words used to interpret the Coping [nventory are presented in Appendix E.
Scores fiom 1 .O to 2.1 suggest ineffective or minimally effective coping. Mid-range
scores between 2.2 and 3.1 indicate inconsistency in adaptive behaviors, specifically
behaviors that are effective in some situations but not in others. Scores fkom 3.2 to 5.0
suggest effective behaviors most of the time. The Adaptive Behavior Index score (AM)
reflects the total score on the CI.
The mean coping score for al1 children in this study was 2.9 1 (SD = .78),
suggesting that these children produced coping behavion that were effective in some
similar situations. As seen in Table 4, 85.72% of AB1 scores fell in the mid to upper
ranges (2.2-5.0). Similarly, on the two categories of the CI (Self and Environment),
Coping and Children with Disabilities
Table 4
J ,evels for C l d r a Across G r o u
Coping Inventory Score
Coping level Total score CI Self scores CI (AB0 Environment
score -- - -- - - -- -- -
1.0 - 2.1 14.29% 19.05% 20.69% (Lneffective or Minimal1 y Effective)
2.2 - 3.1 47.62% 47.62% 39.68% (Inconsistency in Adaptive Behavior)
3.2 - 5.0 38.10% 33.33% 39.68% Effective Behaviors Most of the Tirne
80.95% of CI-Self scores and 79.36% of CI-Environment scores fell withui this range.
The mean AB1 score for al1 children was 2.95 (SD = 0.76). These findings suggest that in
this study, teachers thought that most of their students with an intellectual disability
coped at best inconsistcntly, while some did so effectively, with everyday school events.
Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine whether there were
differences in how the students scored on the two categories (Self and Environment) and
the three individual dimensions (Productive, Active and Flexible) for al1 children in the
study. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 5.
Coping and Children with Disabilities
Table 5
eans and Standard Deviations for C o ~ i n e Subscales and Bi~olar
- - - - - - -
CI Categories and Dimensions
CI Self
Active
Productive
Flexible
CI Environ
Active 2.49
Productive 3 .O3
Flexible 2.97
. . ifferences wiithin Categones
Differences were found among the three individual dimensions of both the CI-Self
and the CI-Environment categories. Regarding the individual dimensions of the Self
category (Self-Active, Self-Productive, and Self-Flexible) significant Merences were
observed [E(2, 124) = 34.83, p < .001]. Post Hoc (C Matrix) analyses indicated that the
Self-Productive scores were significantly higher than the Se15Flexible scores
[E(l, 62) = 57.44, p < .O0 11 and the Self-Active scores were significantly higher than the
Self-Flexible scores [E(1, 62) = 42.93, p < .001]. According to Zeitlin (1985) flexible
copers are those individuals who possess a wide repertoire of coping behaviors and are
Coping and Children with Disabilities 44
able to enact the most appropriate behavior according to a specific situation, productive
copers are socially responsible and enact behaviors that enhance self esteem and effect
desired results, and active copers initiate and sustain actions. The results of t h s part of
the study suggest that in the Self category, the children's ability to produce active and
productive coping behaviors was superior to their ability to demonstrate flexible coping
efforts.
With respect to the individual dimensions of the Environment category
(Environment-Active, Environment-Productive, and Environment-Flexible) significant
differences were also observed [r(2, 124) = 5.40, p < .O 11. Post Hoc (C Matrix)
analyses indicated differences between the Environment-Productive and the
Environment-Active dimensions [E(l, 62) = 9.70, p < .01]. This finding indicates that
children in this study were more capable at effecting coping efforts that were productive
as compared to their ability to effect coping behaviors that were active.
ifferences between Categoner
Intra-individual cornparisons (repeated measures ANOVA) showed no difference
between the scores for the CI-Self and the CI-Environment categones. However,
significant differences were found when comparing individual dimensions between the
Self and the Environment categories. The Self-Active dimension was sigmficantly higher
than the Environment-Active dimension [E(l, 62) = 6.90, p < -051 indicating that children
were able to initiate and sustain actions that met their own personal needs but had
dificulty initiating and sustaining actions that conformed to environmental demands.
Coping and Children with Disabilities 45
The Environment-Flexible dimension was significantly higher than the Self-Flexible
dimension [E(1,62) = 39.74, p < .O011 such that children were berter at effecting
coping stratedes that met environmental demands than they were at enacting coping
behaviors that met their own personal needs.
In surn, the overall Coping lnventory scores of children in this study suggest that
the majority of students were inconsistent in their coping efforts. Most of the children
presented coping behaviors that were effective in some situations but not in others. This
is supported by the students' significantly lower scores on the Flexible as compared to the
Productive and Active dimensions. These scores indicated that children in this study
experienced greatest difficulty in situations where they needed to enact flexible coping
behaviors: that is, where they were required to shift to a new coping strategy in response
to a specific situation. This difficulty was especially pronounced in meeting their own
needs as compared to meeting environmental needs. In addition, the students'
inconsistent coping abilities were also reflected in their comparatively low scores on the
Environment-Active dimension, indicating that they experienced dificulty coping with
situations in which they had to initiate and maintain coping efforts related to the
demands of their environment.
Research Question 2. Are There Persona1 Variables that Affect Children's Coping Behavior?
Correlation coefficients were calculated to examine the relationship between
children's coping style and their behavioral conduct, age, and IQ. A correlation
Coping and Children with Disabilities 46
Table 6
Correlations Among the Variables for AI1 Children
CI CI ABI CBCL CBCL CBCL Agc IQ Self Env [nt Es t Total
CI Self - Self dimension of the CI CI Env - Enklronment dimension of the CI CBCL - Adaptive Behavior Index or the total CI score CBCL Int - Internai score of the CBCL CBCL Ext - Extemal score of the CBCL.
coefficient mamx showing the significant correlations is presented in Table 6. There was
a significant negative correlation (r = 4 7 , p < .05) between children's total coping score
(as rneasured by the CI) and their behavioral problems (as measured by the CBCL). There
were also sipificant correlations between the subscales of the CI (CI-Self and CI-
Environment) and the dimensions of the CBCL (interna1 and extemal). The negative
Coping and Children with Disabilities 47
correlations are a result of an inverse relationship between these variables, such that
a higher AB1 score indicates more adaptive coping behaviors and a lower CBCL score
indicates more effective coping behaviors.
In sum, while age and IQ were not correlated with children's coping behavior.
there was a relationship between their overall behavior problems and their coping effort.
T h i s relationship suggests that, within the context of the classroom, effective copers
tended to present fewer behavior problems than less effective copers.
Research Question 3. What are the characteristics of good copers and poor copers?
Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to address this question.
A t-test was used to compare the 10 most effective copers and the 10 most ineffective
copers on age, IQ, gender, and behavior. Using qualitative analyses, good and poor
copers were profiled to explore their behavioral characteristics.
Regarding the quantitative anafysis, t-tests revealed that the only significant
difference between the good and poor copers was on their behavioral conduct
(1(19)= 12.47, p < -00 1). Significant differences between the effective and ineffective
copers were observed for the intemal dimension of the CBCL (1(19)=6.64), p c -00 1) and
for the external dimension of the CBCL (1(19)=6.70, p < .001). nie mean score for the
interna1 dimension of the CBCL was 49.90 (SD = 4.18) for the effective copers and 67.60
(SD = 7.3) for the ineffective copers. The mean score for the external dimension of the
CBCL was 45.80 (SD = 6.40) for the effective copers and 64.30 (SD = 5.95) for the
Copine and Children with Disabilities 35
ineffective copers. These findings suggest that children who presented effective coping
behaviors scored as meeting their persona1 needs and adapting to the demands of the
encironment also presented few behavioral problerns.
With respect to the qualitative analysis. eight children were selected for specific
case profiles. Al1 children were @en pseudonyms. Four of these children were assessed
by their teachers as effective copers and four children were assessed as ineffective
copers. The profiles are presented below. followed by an examination of the behavioral
characteristics that were common to each group of copers.
Characteristics of Good and Poor Copers
Effective Copers
The following profiles consist of effective copers who received scores of 3.0 and
above on the CI. A common characteristic of these copers was their acute awareness of
their needs and their ability to effectively pursue these needs.
AM .4nn was a twelve-year-old child who attended a grade four regular classroom.
Although she was two years older than her grade four classmates, she was not a ta11 child and physically it appeared as though she was the same age as her peers. Arui's AB1 score was 3 .O (3 .O on the Self category and 3.9 on the Environment category). Her IQ score was 46 and her CBCL score was 64.
Am displayed coping behaviors that were both productive and active. Wlen situations were structured and nonthreatening, Ann followed the routine with ease. She followed classroom rules and procedures dong with her classmates such as entering class. greeting the teacher at the door, taking her seat, and conversing with fiiends. According to Ann's teachers she was a productive coper in that she could express her needs in a socially acceptable way. The process of Am's adaptation to the classroom was difficult at &es. especially when she was experiencing problems at home. She would corne to school angry and would resist working. During that time, her teachers provided her with ways of dealing with her anger such as leaving the classroom for short periods.
Coping and Children with Disabilities 49
Am's teachers cited her most adaptive behaviors (where she received scores of 4 and 5) on the Self- Active dimension of the CI. Specifically. she was adaptive in tems of showing others when she was angy; she could ask for help when needed and initiate actions to have her needs met. She also received scores of 5 on her ability to accept and give w m t b and support to others. Ann exhibited more ineffective behaviors in the Environment-Productive dimension. Her teachers indicated that she had difficulty staying on task and hctioning with minimal external structure.
Am's teachers were concerned about specific problematic areas such as her poor fuie motor control and her visual and gross rnotor problems. They found her to be very challenging but enjoyed having her in their classroom. While Am's progress was slow. it was steady.
k The second exarnple provides an account of an individual who had a very bright
disposition and was adept at dealing with diverse situations. Lee was a fourteen-year old girl in a grade six regular class who had been integrated since grade one. Her teachers arciculated that hcr best traits were her adaptability. her positive attitude. and her warm smile. Her AB1 score was 3.5 (3.6 on the Self category and 4.4 on the Environment category). Her IQ was in the moderate range and her CBCL score was 56.
Lee was productive in tems of meeting her own needs. Her coping style enabled her to find ways to handle new and difficult situations. to respond effectively to external control. and to exhibit a sense of self wortti. She was able to meet her own needs. particularly in the area of controlling impulses so that they did not interfere with her learning. Lee's teachers articulated that this was an important quality. Her least effective behaviors where she received three scores of 2, were shown when she had to manage high stress situations, to initiate actions, and to demonstrate independence and self reiiance.
Observational analysis supported teacher reports of her productive and active coping style. When she was bothered by a classrnate (e-g.. someone speaking loudly to a peer during teacher directed instruction). she would vocalize her displeasure and students responded to her requests. Lee appeared to be very rnuch in control of what happened to her and was able to enlist help from others (e-g.. during group work when she needed a selection of a story clarified or during recess when she needed assistance from the teacher on duty).
The active and positive nature with which Lee dealt with difficult situations and the successful results that ensued M e r encouraged her use of effective coping behavior. According to her teacher, she was detennined to be treated like everyone else and would often refuse what she perceived to be unnecessary special attention (e.g., wrïting a test at a different time than her classrnates). Her teachers responded to her requests and tried to ensure that whenever possible. she would not be singled out.
Coping and Children with Disabilities
Neil Neil was a fifieen year old child in a special classroom. His AB1 score was 4.2,
with a 4.3 on the Self and a 4.1 on the Environment categorîes. His IQ was 44 and his CBCL score was 5 1.
Neil's most effective behaviors, where he received scores of 5, were on the Self- Productive dimension (e.g., uses language to communicate needs, demonstrates a happy feeling and does not frustrate easily) and the Self-Active dimension (e.g., asks for help when needed and initiates actions to get needs met). His lowest scores, where he received 3's, were on the Environment-Active dimension (e.g., stimulates others) and the Environment-Flexible dimension (e-g., gives warmth and support).
Neil was a very happy child with a constant srnile on his face. According to his teacher, he followed classroom rules and was a very diligent worker. He displayed productive coping behaviors primarily in terms of his ability to ask for help and meet his own needs. One day, when Neil was told that he was going to be the captain of the sports team, he asked his teacher if he could leave class a few minutes earlier than his classmates so that he could change into his gym clothes and wait for the other students in the gym. Neil was very persistent and was able to complete his work despite the often chaotic nature of the classroom. Neil needed a lot of assistance on academic tasks and would work arduously until his work was completed. When he was aware of the fact that he was conducting himself incorrectly. he would immediately ask for assistance.
Nicholas Nicholas was a fourteen-year-old child in a special classroom. His AB1 score was
4.3 with a 4.4 on the Environment dimension and a 4.1 on the Self dimension. His IQ was 70 and his CBCL score was 6 1. His teachers reported that Nicholas was a very easygoing child with a keen sense of d e t e d a t i o n . When he set his mind to something he would persevere until he reached his goal. When he was working on a certain project he enlisted the help of his teacher. In addition, he adapted very well to new situations. One day the classroom teacher had to leave the class to assist a student. The assistant took over, and although they had been workmg on a language arts activity, the assistant began writing math problems on the board. Whereas many students became angxy and refused to alter activities, Nicholas quietly took out his mathematics exercise book and began working.
Nicholas received several scores of 5 on the Self-Productive dimension (e.g., has confidence in his ability to l e m and do things) and on the Self-Active dimension (e.g., child initiates actions to have his needs met). His lowest scores were also on the Self- Productive dimension. He received scores of 2 on items such as: child responds to extemal control and is able to handle anxiety.
Coping and Children with Disabilities
In sum effective copers appeared to have a clear sense of their needs and were
able to articulate these needs in ways that were deemed socially acceptable. When they
needed help they were able to ask for it and receive it fiorn their teachers, assistants, and
classmates. When dissatisfied with events or situations within their immediate
surroundings. they were able to express this dissatisfaction and generally obtain positive
results. These positive outcomes provided them with reinforcement to continue their
efforts.
The following four profiles are of students who received scores below 1.5 on the
Coping Lnventory. They presented ineffective coping behaviors, primarily with regard to
the narrow range of strategies they used in dealing with stressful situations, meeting their
desires or needs. or making independent choices.
w Mary was nine years of age and attended a grade two regular classroom. Her AB1
score was 1.8, with a 1.7 on the Self dimension and a 1.8 on the Environment dimension. Her IQ was 67 and her CBCL score was 74. While Mary was in a class with 20 students, she worked primarily with a teacher's assistant.
Despite Mary's overall low coping score, she was able to actively meet her own needs in some specific situations. She loved to read and would often sit on the carpet and read with a fiend. There were also situations in which Mary exhibited productive coping efforts, both with regard to herself and her environment. Her teacher assessed her as demonstrating a happy feeling, ofien being involved in activities with peers, and maintainhg a sense of curiosity.
Through teacher interviews it became apparent that Mary's overall ineffective score was mainly a result of her hstrating easily. in addition, she was rated as being ineffective in her ability to handle anxiety, demonstrate confidence, and develop independence.
Coping and Children with Disabilities 52
Although Mary seemed to have the ability to actively fuifil her own needs, she was unable to deal with frustrations or aversive events in her surroundings. She was very rigid in tems of her responses to aversive events and she would often reach the point of anger and hstration whereby she would scream, flail her hands, and lash out at whoever was nearby.
Liane Liane was seven years of age and attended a grade one regular classroom. Her
AB1 score was 2.3, with a score of 2.6 on the Self subscale and a 1.8 on the Environment subscale. Her IQ was in the moderate range and her CBCL score was 65.
Liane's most adaptive behaviors were on the Self-Productive dimension where she received two scores of 4 on the item "Child does not fiutrate easily" and "Chld has a healthy pleasure in being herself." She also received a score of 4 on the item indicating that the child is hked and accepted by others. Liane's ineffective behaviors were in the area of handling new situations, dealing with her anxiety. and demonstrating confidence in her ability to leam new things.
Liane's teachen were most concerned about her level of dependence, primarily in the area of acadernic tasks. Through observation, it was noted that this dependence seemed to be solicited by both Liane and the assistant. For example, one afiemoon Liane was working on a math stencil where she had to add pictures of various anllnals. She was unable to count the two groups of turtles and therefore began tapping her pencil. The assistant seemed to become agitated and said, "Liane, would you put down the pencil. It seems to be distracting you fiom getting the answer." Liane quickly put down her pencil. A few moments later Liane asked "Can I pick up my pencil and use it to help me count?"
In tems of social interaction, Liane, while having a sense of what she hoped for in tems of social acceptance, seemed unable to satisG her needs. Her classrnates did not make fun of her, yet they had not fully accepted her within the classroom. Whenever she attempted to include herself in their activities, her peers blatantly excluded her. While teachers expressed a desire for her to become more independent in both social and academic areas, it was not clear how the teacher or assistant made efforts to achieve this goal.
Çathr The third child profiled was an eleven-year-old girl in a special education
elementary school. Her teachers described her as a very obstinate child whose obstiname lirnited her progress. The positive traits, as articulated by her teachers, were her above average Me skills and ability to demonstrate a tremendous sense of responsibility. Cathy received an AB1 score of 2.0, with a 2.5 on the Environment category and a 1.5 on the Self subscale. Her IQ was 48 and her CBCL score was 69.
Cathyfs least adaptive behaviors were on the Self-Productive and Self-Active dimensions. She received scores of 1 on items describing her ability to demonstrate
Coping and Children with Disabilities
confidence, use mental ability effectively (at her own level of functioning), apply what she h a leamed to new situations, and compensate for thuigs that she is unable to do because of physical, mental or emotional problems.
Similar to the other students profiled, Cathy seemed to have a keen sense of her needs but often used maladaptive means to achieve them. She frequently became angry and aggressive when she codd not get what she wanted. Typically, Cathy's way of dealing with unpleasant situations, such as another student not lending her a pencil or her not knowing the answer on an exam was by yelling at those around her until she was physically removed from the classroom.
Annie The fourth profiled child was Annie, a thirteen-year-old child in a special
education classroom. Annie's AB1 score was 1.9 with a 2.1 on the Self score and 1.7 on the Environment score. Amie's IQ was 42 and her CBCL was 69.
Annie had sigmficant academic needs and required a lot of support and attention from her teachers. However it was difficult for her to express her needs since her ability to communicate was impeded. She would often use non-effective means of getting attention, such as yelling out for the teacher. She was very rigid in her coping efforts in that she would yell for help from her desk, despite the fact that her efforts rarely brought positive results. According to her teachers. she had become very passive in her efforts to cornplete academic work. even when it was not beyond her level. Presumably she had leamed that her efforts rarely brought positive results and therefore she did not actively attempt to initiate actions that would help her anain her needs (e.g.. academic support and attention fiom her classmates and teachers).
Annie's most effective behaviors were on the Self-Productive dimensions where she received scores of 3 and 4 on items such as "Child generally demonstrates a happy feeling." Her most ineffective behaviors were on the Self-Active and Self -Flexible dimensions where she received scores of 1 on items such as "Child initiates actions to g t needs met."
Annie's profile provides another example of a chld who used very ineffective means of attaining her needs and wants even though she was aware of what her needs and wants were. The lack of positive results seemed to b d e r her ability to initiate more effective means of reaching her goal, and instead she became very passive in her coping efforts.
Similar to the effective copers described in the first set of profiles, these
ineffective copers seemed to be aware of their wants or needs (e.g., being accepted by
peers or succeeding at academic tasks). However, unlike effective copers, the ineffective
Coping and Children with Disabilities 54
copers used perseveratory and ineffective strategies that prevented them from positively
intluencing their surroundings. The coping behaviors used by the adaptive copers were
met with successfûl results, M e r reinforcing their efforts to maintain adaptive coping
strategies. However, the inability of the ineffective copers to positively influence what
happened to them and to maintain some level of control over their surroundings seemed
to diminish their efforts to attempt more effective behaviors.
Research Question 4. Do the Coping Strategies of Children in the Regular Class and the Special Class Differ?
A ftest was conducted to determine whether children integrated within replar
age-appropriate classrooms (RC) exhibited more adaptive coping strategies than their
counterparts in special classrooms (SC). The mean ABI score for the RC group was 2.79
(SD = 0.63). suggesting inconsistent effectiveness, while the rnean AB1 score for the SC
group was 3.12 (SD = 1.62). also showhg effectiveness in some situations but not in
others. Thus there were no statistically significant differences b e ~ e e n the two groups on
their AB1 scores.
Funher analyses examined whether there were sipifkant differences between the
two classroom goups related to the CI'S two categories (Self and Environment) and three
dimensions (Productive, Active, and Flexible). Means and standard deviations for each
of the categories and dimensions scores for the two groups are presented in Table 7.
Significant differences between the regular class and special class groups were found for
two of the six possible comparisons. Specifically, children in the RC group scored
Coping and Children with Disabilities 55
Table 7
Means and Standard Devia tio ' n for Copin g Subscale and Bi~olar Dime nsion Scor es fo r
Rewlar and Special Classroom Groups
RC Group SC Group
lkka.L SD Mean SD
CI Self
Active 3 .O7 O. 73 3 .11
Productive 2.92 0.73 3 .O5
Flexible 2.17 0.87 2.83
CI Environ
Active 2.49 0.80 3 2 0
Productive 3.03 0.87 3 -24
Flexible 2.97 0.70 3.01
AB1 Score 3.79 0.63 3.12
(1 = 3.00. p < 0.0 1) and environment-active (1 = 3.00, p . 0.0 1) . Thus in comparing the
two groups on overall and subscale scores of the CI, little difference was found.
. . fferences Within Catepries
Analyses were done to examine whether children within each of the two groups
differed on specific dimensions within the two categories. With regard to the Self
category for the RC group, significant difierences between dimensions were observed
Coping and Children with Disabilities 56
[E (1,68)=32.08, &< -00 1). A post hoc andysis (C matrix cornparison) indicated that the
Self-Flexible scores were significantly lower than both the Self-Productive scores
[E(1.34)=5 1-82, pc.0 1 1 and the Self-Active scores [E( l.34)=40.84, p < -00 11. With
regard to the Self category for the SC group, differences in dimensions were also
obsewed [E(1,54)=6.88, p < -011. A post hoc analysis (C matrix) revealed that the Self-
Flexible scores were significantly lower than both the Self-Productive scores
[E(1,27)=15.51. p < -0011 and the Self-Active scores [E(1,27)=8.54. &< -011.
In sum, for both groups with regard to the Self category. children's ability to
exhibit Flexible coping behaviors was significantly lower than their ability to be both
Productive and Active copers.
With regard to the Environment category for the RC group, sipficant differences
between dimensions were observed [E (1$8)=15.14, p < .001]. A post hoc analysis
(C matrix) revealed that children within this group were less effective enacting Active
coping as compared to Productive coping behaviors [E (1.34)=23.43, p < -00 11, and
similarly were more effective with regard to Flexible coping as compared to Active
coping [E(1,34)=16.72, p < .001].
Ln sum, on the environment category, there were significant differences between
groups on the dimension scores for the RC group but not for the SC group. Thus, the SC
group exhibited greater consistency its dimension scores than did the RC group.
fferences between C-ones
Within each group, the Self and Environment categories for each of the
Coping and Children with Disabilities
dimensions were compared. As seen in Figure 1, significant differences for the RC
group were obsewed between the Self-Active and the Environment-Active dimensions
[E (1,34)=16.35, p< 0.00 11. For the SC group, differences were found only on the Self-
Flexible and Environment-Flexible dimensions, again with the Self-Flexible dimension
being significantly less than the Environment-Flexible dimension [E (1,27)=7.07,
a< .(Il]. Furthemore, children fiom both the RC and the SC groups were found to
exhibit a more rigid coping style with regard to themselves (Self-Flexible) than with
regard to the environment (Environment-Flexible). The data support a trend indicating a
greater difference between the dimensions for the RC group than for the SC group.
showing that children in the RC g o u p have less ability to both meet their persona1 needs
and confonn to environmental demands (see Figure 2).
in sum, while the two classroom groups did not differ on their global AB1 . there
were trends in their coping styles that differed. Children in the SC group tended to have
greater consistency in their scores: when they received effective scores on the
Environment category they also received effective scores for the Self category.
According to Zeitlin (1985). in order for children to maintain integrated functioning there
has to be consistency in terms of their ability to meet their personal needs and conform to
environmental demands. in contrast, children in the RC group were inconsistent in their
Self and Environment scores. When they received effective scores on one category, they
received ineffective scores on the other category, thus preventing them fiom achieving
integrated functioning. This may have resulted in greater frustration for them.
Copine and Children with Disabilities 58
Regular Class
Special Class
Productive
Active
Flexible
Productive
Active
Flexible
Coping Scores Profile
Environment
Figure 1: Category Scores for Children in the Regular and Special Classroom Groups
Coping and Children wîth Disabilities
COPING PROFILE
1 2 3 4 5 Nonproductive 1 I I I J Productive
\:.
Passive Act ive
Rigid Flexible
Regular Class
1 2 3 4 5 Non productive 1 I I I I Productive
1:. Passive i I I 1: I i Active
Rigid 1 I I 1 Flexible
Special Class
Figure 2: Category and Dimension Scores for Children in the Regular and Special Classroom Groups
Coping and Children with Disabilities 60
Research Question 5. Are there classroom practices that seem to affect the development of students' adaptive coping behaviors?
Through observational analyses. specific practices that seemed to either inhibit or
facilitate children's coping behavior were identified. These practices are organized and
discussed below into six areas: (a) role of the teacher assistant. b) extemal control of the
teacher, (c) content of the cuniculum, (d) engaged time of students with regard to the
cumculum, (e) opportwities for students to interact with peers, and ( f ) oppominities for
students to develop independence. Classroom practices in each of these areas will be
outtined in relation to whether they enhanced or hindered children's coping efforts.
Role of the Teacher Assistant
In many cIassrooms, teacher assistants used some practices that seemed to impede
children's ability to learn adaptive coping behaviors. The assistant often sat adjacent to
the children to whom they were providing support and fkequently provided students with
solutions to problems, rather than allowing hem to generate their own solutions. The
assistants seemed unable to detemine when their presence was essential and when the
children could cope on their own, or with the help of a fellow classrnate. An example of
this "over supportt' is illustrated in the following vignette.
When a ten-year-old student in a special class did not have colored pencils for a drawing activity, the teacher told her to ask a peer. These types of interventions often occurred without providing the child with an opportunity to act on his/her own initiative. An additional example of creating situations of over support occurred in a regular classroom with an eight-year-old student who had a persistent runny nose. The assistant continued to get a tissue for the student and wipe her nose without allowing her to do this on her own (M # 10.7:05.07.93).
Coping and Children with Disabilities
In regular classrooms, the teacher assistant often rnaintained primary responsibility
for the integrated child, which encouraged the classroom teacher to reduce the child's
responsibility for the academic and social success of the child as a member of the
classroom. An exarnple of this was observed in a classroom with a girl named Laura.
Laura was waiting in line with other students to show her completed math stencil to the
teacher. The assistant noticed that while waiting in line, Laura became restless; therefore
she told her that she. not the teacher, could correct the mathematics sheet.
in both the regular and special classrooms the "over" support provided to children
with an intellectual disability seemed to have a deleterious effect on their ability to leam
adaptive coping behavior. The children's capacity to cope with the many challenges
within their classroom by learning more appropriate responses to events was affected by
their lack of experience in using trial and error. These children had few oppominities to
independently develop a repertoire of adaptive coping behaviors, partly because they
were given immediate solutions to problems.
In contrast. teacher assistants who were adept at facilitating children's adaptive
coping efforts seemed to be able to evahate when their assistance was required and when
the students could work independently. This occurred primarily in regular classrooms.
Within these classrooms, peers played a vital role in the inclusion of a child within the
classroom. "Buddy" systems were established whereby each week another child was
responsible for ensuring that the needs of a child with a disability were being met (e.g.,
Coping and Children with Disabilities 62
accompanying the child to the washroom, helping the child with hdher jacket). The
buddy also helped the integrated child with academic tasks. At tirnes, the nondisabled
peers seemed to have a remarkable ability to evaluate when their help was required and
when they should elicit the child's independence. An example of this was evident in a
classroom where Marian, a child with a moderate intellectual disability, and her friend
Judy, who did not have a disability, were in the reading corner. Marian was asked to
choose a book that she could read with Judy. Even though it took her 15 minutes to
chose a book, Judy waited patiently and encouraged Marian to continue searching.
Marian eventually found a book and the two girls read together in the reading comer.
Within classrooms where teacher assistants did not over support the integated
child, the teacher had primary responsibility for al1 students, including the child with a
disability. The assistant was there to provide support not only to t h i s one child, but to al1
children within the classroom. In these cases, the assistant facilitated rather than impeded
the social functioning of the child. This was accomplished prirnady through the creation
of situations that encouraged interaction among students, in addition to guiding children
as they were involved in these interactions. The results were apparent in the child's
overall functioning within the classroom, parcicularly in the arena of social interactions
and increased independence. Uniike children who were "shadowed" by an assistant,
these more adaptive copers were provided with opportunities to interact with al1 facets of
their classroom environment. Through these interactions they were able to use trial and
error leaming in the acquisition of appropriate coping strategies.
Coping and Children with Disabilities 63
External Control of the Teacher
Another element that appeared to affect children's coping behavior in rnany
classrooms was the level of external control imposed on the children in areas involvuig
academic performance and social interactions. A high level of extemal control seemed to
diminish the child's ability to develop problem-solving strategies in relation to coping
witb events in the environment. In addition, it seemed to lirnit their development of an
intemal mechanism for coping with stresshl events. During one observation session in a
special classroom, the teacher used a very punitive approach in dealing with her students.
even though she described her students as being self sufficient and independent. She
fiequently reprimanded them and punished them for what she perceived to be undesirable
behavior. This was problematic, primaily because the students seemed to be unaware of
the teacher's concept of acceptable behavior, and this ofien led to corûlicts between the
teacher and her students. The following example illustrates the external control imposed
on these children and in tum, their feelings of hstration. It illustrates how this teacher
reinforced cornpliance as opposed to independence or self-expression.
A special class student was asked to read a passage f?om a book. The teacher became annoyed when he did not know the place and remarked that unless he followed along with the class, he would never learn to read. The student grew indignant with the teacher's criticism and responded vehemently that he knew how to read and that she shodd not talk to him that way. The teacher reproached him and sent him to the corner for a time out period. He attempted to explain his
initial response perceived as rude, but without success. While in the corner, his behavior became increasingly disruptive. The teacher thought that he was banging on the wall, disrupting students in the next classroom, so she left him in the time out comer for the remainder of the period (twenty minutes). At the end of the period the teacher asked the students to place their cards on their desks so
Coping and C hildren with Disabilities 64
that they could receive or lose points. Some students received points for what the teacher referred to as good behavior. The student who spent the lesson in the time out corner received five demerit points. The teacher punished him without telling him why she found his initial behavior unacceptable, nor did she explain to the rest of the class why they were being rewarded (FN 2.12: 04. 26.93).
Within this classrooms children were unable to express their dissatisfaction or
attempt independence without being subjected to extemal control. There were many
situations w i t h the various classrooms in which children's attempts to cope appeared to
be hindered by the extemal control that was placed on them.
In contrast, there were teachers who created a more egalitarian classroom
atmosphere by enabling children to express themselves, even if at times their self
expression was somewhat disruptive, as is illustrated in the following example.
AM, an ten year old child in a regular classroom had corne to school upset because, as the teacher later discovered, she had just found out that her mother was expecting a child. The teacher pennitted Ann to r o m around the classroom, understanding that she was unable to focus on her work. Later that morning. the teacher and Ann discussed the ways in which she could deal with her unhappiness (FN 14.2: 05.26.93).
Teachers with a less controlling approach provided children with opportunities to
act out various coping behaviors, thus giving them the chance to moderate their efforts to
cope with stressfd school events. Punishment was generally used as a last resort.
Furthemore, when the punishments were given, the teacher clearly explained to the
students what they had done wrong and how they could ameliorate their behavior in the
future.
Coping and Children with Disabilities
Content of the Cumculum
The way in which the curriculum was structured within the different classroorns
seemed to affect children's overall coping behavior as well. Curriculum in which there
was no continuity in the presentation of material and in the development of skills seemed
to place great strains on children's coping resources. in these classrooms, the prùnary
method of teaching involved the use of work sheets. Teachers introduced new topics by
handing out stencils and only occasionally did they teach through direct instruction. In
these situations, the students became very agitated and anempted to cope with the tedium
of the curriculum by leaving the classroom, talking to neighbours, or yelling and
disturbing classrnates. Teachers using this method of teaching articulated in interviews
that there was no established curriculum; thus they were responsible for developing their
own standards of what and how to teach.
An example of the lack of continuity in the cumculum was evident in a particular
classroom in which a teacher handed out worksheets on analogies. Upon its completion
students were given mathematics sheets to complete. Following the mathematics
exercises the teacher handed out sheets on conjunctions. While some children were able
to cope with this type of instruction, many children seemed unable to deal with the
monotony and tried to physically leave the classroom. Others became very passive and
would wait for instructions before attempting to do any work on their own.
Conversely, adaptive coping efforts seemed to be enhanced in classroorns whereby
the objectives within each of the subject areas were clearly delineated. Student
Coping and Children with Disabilities 66
performance and evaluation were built around ski11 acquisition, and new skills were built
on previously leamed ones. This is illustrated in the foliowing example.
Two children with special needs in the moderate range were working on a laquage arts unit where, dong with all the students in class, they were pubiishing a fictitious story. The individual elements, critical to publishing a story, were reviewed with the class as a whole and reinforced on an individual basis with these two students. Expectations were significantly modified to enable them to write a story at their own ievel and participate in the activity with the rest of the class. Their final accomplishment was readhg their story aloud in fiont of the class. These students were very newous at the thought of presenting their work to the class. One of the students expressed her desue to have the teacher sit next to her while she read the story. Following the presentation they was clearly proud of their achievement (FN 17.3 7:04.08.93).
These children's ability to cope with complex material, perfom tasks that were
comparable to those of their classmates, and share their finished products with their
classmates led to their feeling of satisfaction and accomplishment. The clarity of
objectives and the modifications made to the assignrnent enabled students to work
independently and develop mastery with regard to the curriculum. The outcome was that
students were able to initiate actions leadmg to increased self esteem and control over
their environment.
d Time of StudemsH
Both too much and too little time spent on task seemed have a negative impact on
children's adaptive coping efforts. Withh many of the regular classrooms, there was
immense pressure placed on children with an intellectual disability to perfom
continuously with veiy few breaks. The work expectation for these children was ofien
Coping and Children with Disabilities 67
more ngorous and often exceeded the expectations held for the typical children in the
classroom. Nondisabled students engaged in academic activities for reasonable lengths of
time given their age, fiom fifieen to thirty minutes, and would take self-appointed breaks.
However, students with an intellectual disability typically worked with a teacher assistant
and would shifi From one activity to another without a break. The lack of down time and
the intense dyadic situation that existed between the student and the teacher assistant
seemed to manifest itself in these children being unable to make decisions and develop
coping strategies independent of the assistant. The following example illustrates the
intense pressure placed on an integrated child.
A child was reviewing words using flashcards. Twenty minutes into the activity she seemed to Iose interest. She looked around the classroom and noticed a book in the corner that incited her interest. She asked the assistant if she could read the book for a few minutes and she was told that she could look at the book for five minutes when they fuiished reading. The child flailed her hands in fiutration for a few minutes and then continued reading. When she f ~ s h e d readuig, the assistant told her that she could glance at the book for five minutes. Most of the children in the classroom were also involved in a silent reading activity but would stop and take a break without having to ask permission (as long as they were not disruptive) (FN 6.27: 05.07.93).
In other classrooms there was a signuicant amount of wasted time, a factor that
also had a negative impact on children's coping behavior. The primary reasons for the
wasted t h e seemed to be the nature of the curriculum and the students' dependency on
their teachers. Typicdly, in these classrooms the cmiculum consisted of sheet work,
resulting in students spending an excessive amount of t h e waiting for their work to be
corrected or waiting for the subsequent assignment. Furthemore, students spent
Coping and Children with Disabilities 68
considerable tirne involved in activities that could be perceived as not have much learning
value (e.g., copying lengthy pieces of material fiom the board).
The lack of down time or the excess wasted time seemed to impede the
developrnent of children's coping skius, paticularly in terms of their ability to become
active copers, as they were not provided with opportunities to develop strategies toward
independent problem solving. These students were often put in highly hstrating
situations to begin with. and when they began to experience hstration because of the
stresshl situation and attempt to develop a means by which they could regulate their
frustration. they were lnhibited fiom doing so.
In contrast, children who were in classrooms where the engaged time was well
balanced with break hme seemed to benefit. Children in integrated into regular
classrooms who worked under the same conditions as their nondisabled classrnates were
fortunate in that they were not required to work with very few breaks. Within these
classrooms the teacher assistant worked in collaboration with the classroom teacher and
together they were responsible for the social and academic progress of the integrated
child. Much of the planning took place pnor to the child entering the classroom. This
enabled the child to work alongside peers with minor or significant modifications to the
curriculum, or whenever possible to work on the same cumiculurn as the classroom
students. For exarnple, Mary, a ten-year-old child with a significant disability, was
working on a collaborative activity involving addition and subtraction. The teacher
assistant had prepared the child beforehand with a lot of drill and practice so that the
Coping and Children with Disabilities 69
child would be able to work with her classrnates. Children who were provided with
oppomuiities to work independently appeared to benefit greatly fiom feelings of
accomplishrnent and success.
~ominiîy for Students to Interact with Peers
W i t h both regular and special classrooms the oppominities for children to
interact with their peers seemed to have an effect on their coping behavior. In the regular
classrooms. there was often a large discrepancy between the over support provided to
children withn the regular classroom and the lack of support provided to them during
fiee play outside the classroom (e.g.. on the playground at recess time). This discrepancy
appeared to place great strain on their coping resources. Dunng free time. integrated
children had very few support systems, resulting in them "fending" for themselves. a
tremendous contrast to the nature of support that took place withn the classrooms.
During fiee play time, many integrated children seemed content to remain on the
periphery and would either follow along in whatever activity the other students were
doing. or would sit in a corner watching others. However, occasionally integrated
children wanted to take a more active role in these activities, and despite their efforts,
their fiequent inability to master the d e s of the game resulted in them not being
welcomed by their peers. lnitially they persisted and seemed able to cope with the
noticeable negative feedback. Their first few efforts were attempted in a socially
accepted manner. However, there came a point at which the children with an intellechial
Coping and Children with Disabilities 70
disability could no longer cope with the exclusion in a socially acceptable way and ofken
became aggressive, as illustrated below.
A group of boys were playmg a game that involved throwing a basketball against the side of the school wall. Initially, the child attempted to include himself in the game by grabbing the bail harshly and throwing it without direction. A student came up to him, grabbed the bal1 away and demanded that he not grab it again. He left this area and tried to join a group of younger boys who were playing tag. Again, he was slightiy rough and awkward in his attempt to include himself in the game. He tried to grab the shirt of one participant who became angry and insisted that this child not be included in the game. 'This child persiste& however, becoming increasing aggressive and clearly having a difficult tirne coping with his inability to find a group of students with whom he could play. He eventually became very rough and the teacher on duty intervened and reprimanded him for his agression (FN 16.44: 05.3 1.93).
A six year old girl was following her classmates around the school yard during recess. Initially, she observed fiom a distance as they picked dandelions. She then attempted to join in. However, instead of picking flowen she picked the stems and threw away the flowers. The children did not make any effort to include her, yet she continued to include herself in their activity. Her obvious imitation of their behavior annoyed the two students and they physically attempted to exclude her by turning their backs to her and walking away. She persevered and continued following them until the recess bel1 rang (M 1 1.16: 05.04.93).
Thus the social requisites placed on these children during free time seemed to
exceed their capability, especially because there were so few oppomuiities withui the
classroorn to develop strategies to deal with conflictual situations with peers.
Within the special classrooms, there was less of a diseepancy between the support
provided to students inside and outside of the classroom. In these situations,
corhontations occuning during fiee time were resolved by the teachers on duty.
Therefore, although students were unable to sustain actions while developing coping
Coping and Children with Disabilities 71
skills to deal independently with difficult situations. these social exchanges seerned to
place less of a strain on their coping resources than for integrated students.
In surn, children's coping efforts were enhanced in classrooms whereby children
were provided with opportunities to interact with one another both within the classroom
as well as during fiee tirne. Al1 children benefitted fkom the time that teachers devoted to
teaclung conflict resolution skills and appropriate social interactions. This type of direct
teaching provided children with guided expertise in acceptable social behavior. and this
enabled them to transfer their knowledge and leamed behavior £kom the classroom to the
school yard.
oortunity for Students to Develo!, Independence
Within many of the classrooms few oppominities were provided to children to
develop coping behaviors independent of their teachers and teacher assistants. Within the
regular classrooms, the dependency of integrated students seemed to be encouraged.
Rarely were they provided with opportunities to smggle and develop rneans of coping
with difficult or stressful situations on their own. However. despite the encouragement
of dependency, most integrated students were persistent in their desires to be like other
students and they would seize any opportunity to elicit independence and to socialize
with peers. The fact that independence and self initiated behavior was encouraged with
nondisabled students seemed to compel integrated students to attempt to initiate
independence as well. The curriculum was set up for the nondisabled students such that
autonomy was a necessity, particularly during center time when students were involved in
Coping and Children with Disabilities 72
different activities in different corners of the classroom. The following example
illustrates an attempt made by a student in a regular classroom to work independently.
A ten year old girl had completed a math activity at one of the centers and decided to work on the computer. Even though she was proficient ui the use of the computer and could access the word garne she wanted to use, the assistant stood beside her. After a couple of minutes she told the assistant that she wanted to work alone and that the assistant should help someone else (FN 10.38:05.04.93).
Withn the special classroom the nature of the activities was such that students
were highly dependent on teachers for constant academic assistance and intervention in
terms of resolving peer conflicts. Because academic tasks generally involved students
completing worksheets, they depended on teachers to give them the next worksheet or to
correct their completed work. In addition, these students were in situations in which al1
of their classrnates were equally dependent on teachers and assistants; as a result it
appeared as though they did not feel compelled to initiate independence. They seemed to
accept being dependent on teachers and did not make any observable attempts toward
independence. An example of the level of dependency was evident in one of the special
classrooms with a twelve year old girl who was consistently calling upon the teacher or
teacher assistant for support.
Following outdoor recess one child called the teacher over to her desk because her socks were wet and she wanted them dried. She then asked the teacher if she could look for her glass case that she had apparently misplaced. Once these tasks were completed, she took out her books and immediately called upon the teacher's assistant because she was unsure of the task (FN 4.8: 03.8.93).
Within these situations of encouraged dependency, children became very passive.
It was easier for them to ask for help rather than attempt to confiont situations
Coping and Children with Disabilities 73
independently; therefore, they made few efforts to initiate actions and resolve problems.
h addition, they had few successful independent coping efforts, resulting in little
reinforcement to attempt to cope on their owri.
independence, while generally not encowged, was fostered in classrooms in
which teachers seemed to hold strong convictions that children should l e m to cope as
independently as possible within the context of their surroundings. Typically, within
these classrooms collaboration between the teaching assistant and the classroom teacher
was promoted. Furthemore, the ctmiculurn was designed such that independence was a
requirement for al1 students. Within these classrooms the assistant stood ai am's length
and encouraged peer involvement. In one particular classroom, a child with a moderate
intellectual disability was m i n g around the track during gym class. While the assistant
was assiped to work with this child during gym, she stood at a distance and watched as
this child arduously ran around the track until another child held ont0 her and helped her
around the track. instances of independence were also observed with regard to students
cornpleting individual projects. They would ask for assistance but were encouraged to
find solutions on their own, using the resources available to them in the classroom.
Unlike the children who were encouraged to developed patterns of dependency.
these children were reinforced for any attempt at initiating independence. The
opportunities provided to these children to become actively involved with al1 facets of
their environment enabled them to experiment with numerous strategies in their effort to
become autonomous and effective copers.
Coping and Children with Disabilities 74
smw
Most children in this study were assessed by their teachers as using effective
coping behaviors in at least some daily school events. They were found to expenence
greatest difficulty enacting flexible as opposed to rigid behaviors; that is, difficulty in
being able to use a variety of coping behaviors to meet different stressful events. Their
scores on the Self-Flexible dimension were significantly lower than their scores on the
Self-Active and Self-Productive dimensions of the Coping Inventory.
Results of the correlational analysis used to assess whether the students' coping
behavior was related to their persona1 variables of age, IQ and behavior problems
suggested that the only factor that was related to children's overall coping ability was
their behavioral difficulties, as measured by the Child Behavior Checklist. Both the
overall behavioral score and the two dimensions (intemal and external) were related to
coping efforts.
Both qualitative and quantitative analyses were employed to examine the
characteristics of good and poor copers. Quantitative results suggested that personal
variables of age, gender, and IQ were not significantly related to good and poor copers.
The oniy significant difference between these two groups of copers was on the behavioral
measure: good copers had fewer behavioral problems than did poor copers. Qualitative
analysis provided evidence that both good and poor copers were aware of their primary
wants and needs (e.g., social acceptance and academic success). However, only the good
copers were capable of meeting their needs in appropriate ways such that positive results
Coping and Children with Disabilities 75
ensued (e.g. asking for assistance to accomplish a dificult task). The positive feedback
that resulted both in tems of personal satisfaction and reinforcement from peers and
teachers further encouraged their use of effective coping.
With regard to differences between the coping efforts of children in regular and
special classrooms, no significant diReremes were found on the overall coping inventory.
However, there were sipificant differences on individual dimensions of the inventory.
Students in special classrooms were more effective than students in regular classrooms in
the Self-Flexible and Environment-Active dimensions of the Coping Inventory.
Furthemore, the Self and the Environment categories were more consistent for children
in special classrooms than for children in regular classrooms making the children in
special classrooms more "integrated copers."
Finally. qualitative analyses suggested that certain classroom practices seemed to
enhance or inhibit chldren's ability to leam adaptive coping behaviors. Practices that
appeared to encourage effective coping efforts were those that provided the opportunity
for students to use hial and error in leaming and practicing a vax-iety of coping responses.
These practices included the restricted use of teacher assistants as "shadows," a teaching
style that allowed students to express opinions, and an environment in which students
followed an established cum'culurn, were engaged in c ~ c u l a r tasks for an appropriate
amount of t h e , and had oppoxtunities to leam to interact effectively with their peers and
to leam to solve problems independently.
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the coping behaviors of children wiîh
rnild to severe intellechial disabilities who were educated in regdar and special
classrooms. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses were employed to investigate (a)
how effectively children with an intellectual disability coped with cornmonplace school
events. (b) what persona1 factors seemed to affect their coping efforts, (c) the
charactenstics of good and poor copers, (d) whether the coping strategies of children in
the regular and the special classes differed, and (e) classroom teacher practices that
dfected the development of children's coping efforts. The fuidings will be discussed with
regard to these five areas.
Effectiveness of Children's Coping Efforts
In this study. 87% of al1 children received coping scores between 2.2-5.0. This
range sugests that most of the children used effective coping efforts in sorne or in many
situations. Of particular difficulty for these childreq however, was the ability to use a
variety of strategies and to shift strategies depending upon the specific situation. This
diffïculty was indicated by their significantly lower scores on the Self-Flexible dimension
as compared to both the Self-Productive and Self-Active dimensions of the Coping
Inventory. In order to be flexible with regard to coping efforts, individuals m u t appraise
7 7
each situation and produce the most appropriate response accordingly. The majority of
children in this study coped by perseverating through the use of a narrow and rigid
repertoire of coping behaviors.
This study supports previous research positing that children with an intellectud
disability are restrictive in both the number of coping strategies that they use and in their
ability to shift strategies according to a specific situation. Zeitlin and colleagues (Zeitlin,
1980; Zeitlin & Williamson, 1990) attributed children's weakness in this area to their
particular dificulty with self initiated behavior and the inability to alter strategies based
on the particular situation (Zeitlin & Williamson, 1990). in addition, Wayment and
Zeitlin (1989) found that students with learning problems exhibited a less self negotiated
style and were more emotional in their responses than were non leaming disabled
children. According to Zeitlin ( 1985), children's inability to use diverse coping behaviors
is brought about through a general lack of environmental support.
From the observational data and the qualitative analyses, there appeared to be
three distinct categories of events w i h the classroom envkonments that required the use
of adaptive coping efforts of children with an intellectual disability Fint, children in al1
the classroom environments had to deal with social issues inside and outside the
classroom. The issues differed in the various environments with regard to form and
intensity, yet in both the integrated and the segregated classrooms the apparent pressure
on these children to deal with these situations was evident. Second, academic task was an
area that was often a source of stress for children with an intellectual disability. This area
incorporates the difficulty of the task itself and the circurnstances not directly related to
the task ( e g . length of t h e involved in the same activity). The third area viewed as a
source of stress related to unpleasant or unexpected events that took place in the regular
and special classrooms.
Ryan-Wenger ( 1992), in her examination of 16 empirical studies focusing on
children's coping efforts, produced an expansive list of 15 specific strategies used by
children (ranging Born infancy to adolescence) in coping with situations in their
environment. Some of the situations are cornmonplace, and others are more threatening
(e.g., hospitalization). Through the compilation of these studies, Ryan-Wenger
developed a taxonomy of coping strategies that includes such strategies as: aggressive
responses; behavioral acts ( e g , avoidance, distraction); cognitive acts (e-g.? avoidance,
distraction, problem solving, restruciuring); emotional acts (e.g., emotional expression):
and various means of gaining support (e-g., social, spiritual).
The children in this study responded in only a few ways to the social pressures
with which they were confronted. Children with intellectual disabilities in regular
classrooms tended to use more prosocial behaviors in their attempts to involve themselves
in social situations. Initially, these children used "emotional expressions" (e.g., asking
students if they could be included in the activity, or expressing their dissatisfaction with
aggressive acts of othen). When these emotional efforts were met without success, many
of these children resorted to either aggressive acts or acts that isolated them from their
peers. Typically these children would either physically isolate themselves (e.g., playing
in the corner by themselves) or act
of any social interaction. Children
79
foolishly (e-g., spitting) that resulted in the cessation
with intellectual disabilities in special classrooms
4
4
appeared to be under less pressure to be included in social activities with their peers.
Teachers would either establish activities that included d l students or students would
involve themselves in activities by themselves or with peers. However when problems
arose they tended to resort to aggression as an initial means of solvhg problems.
In terms of dealing with acadernic difficulties children in regdar classrooms who
worked prùnarily with a teacher assistant dealt with mcult tasks by emotional
expression (e-g., asking for a break) or self controllhg activities such as self stimulatory
behaviors (e-g.. flailing their hands or rockuig bacli and forth). Within special
classrooms, observations were noted that there was seemingly less pressure placed on
these children to perform. When children found the task to be dificult, they asked for
help. M e n they did not want to engage in the activity, they tended to use behavioral
avoidance. Whiie children in both regular and special classrooms fkequently asked for
help when needed, few children could solve problems by themselves.
Finally, when students in all classroom situations were confronted with seemingly
aversive or unexpected events, while their initial reactions were aggressive (e.g., physical
attacks), children in reylar classrooms used self-controlhg activities (e.g., emotion
management) seemingiy because they could observe the acceptable behaviors of
80
nondisabled peers. Children in special classrooms were more aggessive in their attempt
to deal with the aversive event or situation and typically teacher intervention was
required.
in al1 situations, children with intellectual disabilities tended to use a limited
number of strategies. In terms of children's effons to cope with academic taslis, here too.
children used either self-controlling or aggressive efforts but very few chldren anempted
more cognitive strategies. While this would be a parcicular challenge to chldren with
intellectual disability. clearly efforts could be made to help them develop their ability to
appraise these specific situations and attempt to implement very basic cognitive strategies
such as read the question a second t h e (cognitive problem solving) or think about a
reward or to tell oneself it's acceptable (cognitive restructunng). According to Kamann
and Wong (1993) directly teachmg students with disabilities appropriate coping strategies
(e-p.. self talk) is an effective means of altering their responses to stressful situations.
Althou@ chldren in the present study used a limited number of strategies they
were more capable in terms of using diverse strategies to meet environmental hstrations
and challenges than they were at meeting their personal needs. It is reasonable to
speculate that children received significantly higher scores on the Environment-Flexible
subscale than the Self-Flexible subscale because of the extensive support provided to
these children to confom to environmental demands (e-g., sitting quietly at desks and
complete stencils). Classroom observations indicated that there was less focus on
proviciing them with the means to acquire adaptive cophg strategies that could enable
them to meet their persona1 needs.
Children in this study also had problems initiating and sustaining actions to deal
with dBïcult situations. According to Zeitlin (1985), opportunities for children to
interact with different facets of their immediate environment are essentid if they are to
develop expertise and confidence in initiating behaviors that will ultimately lead to
successful results. Through practice in ski11 development and trial-and-error learning.
children are encouraged to attempt various coping strategies that will eventually lead to
positive results, thus increasing their sense of self worth and their feelings of competency
and mastery over their surroundings. Within the current study, school related problems
that arose were often resolved through solutions generated by teachers or teacher
assistants. Thus, students were not motivated to generate their own solutions to
problems, nor were they provided with opportunities to leam to use classrnates or other
resources as a means of finding substitutes for their hstrations.
Penond Variables and Coping Behavior
Results of the cment study suggest that the only variable that affected chddren's
coping style was their behavioral conduct. Specifically, effective copers displayed
Zeitlin. S.. & Williamson, G.G. (1990). Coping characteristics of disabled and nondisabled
young children. Anierican Jozrrnul c~'Or/hop.vj*chiu~y, 60, 404-4 1 1 .
Zetlin. AG. & Turner. J.L. ( 1 985). Transition fiom adolescence to adulthood: Perspectives of
mental ly retarded individual s and their families. .4mericun Joirrnal of Menfa/ Beficiency,
XI), 570-579.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
O~erational Definitions used in the Copin Inventorv [Zeitlin. 1985)
Coping is a general terni for the leamed behaviors used to meet persona1 needs and adapt
to the demands of the environment.
Ada~tive Copinq takes place when the chiid is open to new experiences, is able to care
for oneself and meet the demands of the environment.
Maladaptive Copinn Behaviors are characteristic of an individual who "defeats efforts to
care for oneself' and responds inappropnately to the demands of the environment.
Çnping Style is the way one typically manages the world by using specific strategies.
Coping style describes a characteristic way of behaving not a specific behavior. Three
bipolar dimensions are used to describe coping style: (a) productive-nonproductive. (b)
flexible-ngid and (c) active-passive.
Productive-Nonproductive. Productive coping behasiors are socially responsible.
enhance self esteem and effect desired results. In order for a child to be effective in this
domain he/she rnust respond to social dernands and influence what happens by
maintaking some control over personal needs and environmental demands.
Nonproductive coping behaviors are socially irresponsible dirninish self esteem and do
not produce desired results.
-&. Flexible copers use a variety of coping strategies and are able to shift
plans or reformulate ideas according to the specific situation. Rigid copers produce the
same strategies regardless of the particular situation and the results that ensue.
11 3
Active-Passive. Active copers initiate and sustain actions both mental and physical. They
have many opportunities to develop relationships and interests and fmd substitutions for
their frustration. Passive copers do not inihate or sustain actions. They tend to withdraw
or resist involvement.
APPENDiX B
Field Note Reference: 3.27: 04.19.93 Holly School Mrs Kraft Apri126, 1993 8: 15
--
obs. students given too much time to wnte in journal- should be given 10 minutes-she needs more structure
Observations
on board: Journal x words alpha capt L case Alpha order snack-recess math
Michelle works very slowly but she is very involved in her work. I
I Amy doing very little actual work
Students are very dependent on teachers.
she raises her hand and waits for 1 Little work done help independently
Michelle raises her hand 1 took Amy approx 1\2 hr to copy what's written on the board
aide sits next to Michelle to help her h t e in her journal. she dictates to the aide - he writes and then she reads. michelle needs a lot of help. raises hand and waits patiently.
APPENDK D
S a r n ~ l e Teacher Interview
Question: Please describe the situations in which Eric copes best.
Response: Eric copes best one on one with one adult or one other child. He doesn't cope
will in group lesson which is often involves discussion and not enough visual stimuli for
him. He t u e s out and ofien plays with something on the floor.
Question: What are some of the advantages for Eric, being included classrooms with
nondi sabled children.
Response: The biggest advantage for Elon is that he models the behaviors of the students.
He also models inappropriate behavior which is also important. He ofien works with
paiblers and enjoys interacting with them.
Question: Please describe the relationship between Eric and his peers.
Response: Eric is well accepted by his peers. At the b e g i ~ i n g he was very shy and he
would move away f o m othen. Now he only does this with new people. Sometimes he is
involved with students outside during recess but most ofien he is on the periphery as an
observer. When playing he often doesn't know what to do.
Question: What are some coping strategies that Eric utilizes in particularly dificult
situations.
Response: Eric doesn't have ways to cope with frustration, When he is hstrated he
repeats hirnself. He tends to get fixated on certain things. He has a very difficult time
with limitations. He gets very angry.
When things are motivating for example mammals -he concentrates and works well.
When he is lost he tends to go back to things that he knows and feels comfortable with.
He grasps on to things that are easy for him and gets fixated.
IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (QA-3)
APPLIED - A IMAGE . lnc = 1653 East Main Street - ,=A Rochester, NY 14609 USA -- -- - - Phone: 71 6/482-O3ûû -- -- - - Fax: 71 6/288-5989