The Factors Predicting the Developmental Gains of Children ... · GAT1_composite= The GAT fall composite score, GROUPS=CWD and CWOD GAT2_composite= The GAT spring composite score,

The Factors Predicting the Developmental Gains of Children With and Without Disabilities in Inclusive Preschools

Bulbin SucuogluHatice Bakkaloglu,

Şeyda Demir, Betul Yilmaz,

Abdulhamit Karademir, Zafer Erturk,

Project No: 114k649July 15, 2015-July 15, 2018

The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBİTAK)

Agenda

Early childhood special education and preschool inclusionWhy preschool inclusion?Outcomes of inclusion practices for children

In Turkey…LegislationsRelated studiesNeed for this studyPurpose of the studyData collectionAnalysisResults and discussion

Jun 9, 2016 ISEI 2016 Stockholm 2

Inclusion is a practice….

– beneficial for children with disabilities

– it creates a conducive environment to promote all aspects of child development

– High-quality preschool inclusion is an important part of early childhood special education (Guralnick,

2016)


• Inclusion during the preschool years is necessary. Because….

– Minimizes the possibility of rejection

– Maximizes the possibility of social acceptance

– Increases later life acceptance

– Increases expectations among parents and teachers


• Benefits for children with disabilities….– More benefits than segregated environments….– More advanced level of play– Quality and quantity of social interactions– Learning and generalization of social skills to new

settings– Regular and sustained interaction with classmates– Cognitive development– Developmental progress on intellectual and language

measures

(Odom & Bailey, 2001; Antia & Levine, 2001; Paul-Brown &C operton, 2001; Strain, 1983; Strain & Bovey, 2011; Holahan & Costenbader, 2000)


In Turkey …….• Inclusive preschool practices started in 1997...• In 2006, it became more widespread with the adoption of special

education service regulation…• In 2016, more than 25.000 young children with disabilities were in

preschool classrooms (Ministry of National Education, 2011).

According to the laws and regulations…..

The preschools should take appropriate measures for the children with disabilities who are placed into learning environments with typically developing peers (Ministry of National Education, 2006).

Each classroom should include one or two children with mild disabilities. The teachers have limited knowledge, skills and experience related to

inclusive practices. In each preschool classroom, one teacher is responsible for the

development of all children.


Parent and teacher attitudes and beliefs towards inclusive preschools are generally positive…

teachers’ difficulties

parent concerns..

(Gok & Erbas, 2011; Ozaydin & Colak, 2011; Altun & Gulben, 2009; Kaya, 2005; Yavuz, 2005)


Promising research findings…

learning readiness (Birkan, 1999),

readiness for inclusive settings (Odluyurt & Batu, 2010),

transition (Bakkaloğlu, 2008),

self-help (Aykut & Varol, 2007; Ozen, Acar, Tavlar & Cetin, 2013),

social skills (Ozdemir, 2008).


Facts….

There are segregated and inclusive education systems are together in force in Turkey

The policy-makers and the community seem to be in favor of special settings

Inclusive practices are generally being implemented before setting the stages

Inclusion is believed to be an unsuccessful model

Currently, hundreds of young children with disabilities are placed in preschool classrooms


Research questions:

• Are there significant differences between the fall and the spring developmental scores of the children with and without disabilities?

• What are the predictors of the development of the participant children in inclusive preschools ?


Study groups


78 children 39 children with disabilities (CWD)

39 children without disabilities (CWOD)13 inclusive preschools / 53 classrooms

30 preschool teachers78 mothers

The CWD and CWOD were matched according to their age and gender


Ch

ildre

nw

ith

Dis

abili

tie

sVariables

Age Range= 39-68

X=51,9 Sd=6,68

f %

Gender Girls 16 41

Boys 23 59

Total 39 100

Diagnosis

Speech and language 9 11,5

Physical and Health 9 11,5

Hearing Impairment 4 5,1

Autism 6 7,7

Intellectual Disability 11 14,1

Total 39 100

Special Education Yes 38 97,4

No 1 2,6

Total 39 100

Special Education

Hours /Week

2 hour 23 66,52

2-9 hours 15 39,47

Table:1 Characteristics of the Children With Disabilities

Table 2: Characteristics of the Mothers and the Teachers


Variables CWD** CWOD***

Mothers

Age Range=23-54

X=32,49 sd*=6,60

Range=24-48

X=31,90 sd=5,51

Education

(Years)

Range=5-17

X=9,51 sd=3,5

Range=5-15

X=11,44 sd=3,14

Income

(Euro)

Range= 250-2000 E

X=771, sd= 450,07

Teachers

Age Range=23-46

X=30,62 sd=4,91

Experience

(Years)

Range=1-20

X=6,87 sd=3,87

Education Four Year College Education

*sd: Standard deviation**CWD: Children with disabilities *** CWOD: Children without disabilities

ChildrenGazi Early Childhood Asssessment Tool

(GAT)

The Preschool and Kindergarten Behaviours Scales

School Adjustment Scale

ParentsHOME Screening Questionnaire

Abilities Index

The Quality of Parent-Teacher Relationship Scale

Teachers

The Quality of Parent-Teacher Relationship Scale

Student-Teacher Relationship Scale

ClassroomsInclusive Classroom Profile

Instruments


The two groups of data….


Co

mp

osi

tesc

ore

s

GAT_composite

Social Status

Relationship

Socio-economic level

Oth

erd

ata Inclusive Classroom

Profile score

School adjustment score

Social Skills total score

Problem Behaviors total score

HOME ScreeningQuestionnaire score

Procedure….

All data was collected two times, in the fall andin the spring of the 2015-2016 school-year.


Results……


Research question 1


ANCOVADependent variable: GAT_ composite spring scoresControlled variable: GAT_composite fall scores

T-TESTS FOR DEPENDENT GROUPSDependent variables:GAT_composite fall X GAT composite spring scores

Psychomotor scoresCognitive scoresLanguage scores

Socio-emotional scores

Table 3: Analysis of covariance for significant mean difference on GAT_composite spring scores among children with and without disabilities


GAT1_composite= The GAT fall composite score, GROUPS=CWD and CWODGAT2_composite= The GAT spring composite score, ES= Cohen d

Source

Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Partial EtaSquared

ES

GAT_fall_composite25,678 1 25,678 366,400 ,000 ,830

GROUPS

,106 1 ,106 1,507 ,223 ,020 ,43

Error5,256 75 ,070

Corrected Total40,816 77

Table 4:T-test for pre-test and post-test scores of GAT of the CWD and CWOD


*p<.000, **p<.05, X= mean, sd=standard deviation, ES= Cohen d valuesdf=77 for all analysis

Dependent Variables

GAT Scores of CWD GAT Scores of CWOD

Fall Spring t ES Fall Spring t ES

X sd X sd X sd X sd

Psychomotor 62,28 6,98 65,39 6,80 5,30* ,45 69,10 3,49 71,00 2,77 4,73* ,65

Cognitive 46,12 7,68 50,05 7,49 6,85* ,51 53,97 4,25 56,94 3,61 6,02* ,75

Language 50,02 7,69 53,76 5,56 6,47* ,56 56,87 2,26 57,76 1,22 2,98** ,49

Social-emotional 50,35 4,39 52,48 3,83 5,75* ,52 54,15 1,18 54,61 1,20 2,12** ,38


*The preschools are not prepared for the inclusive

practices

*The teachers have limited knowledge, skills and experience regarding

inclusion and CWD

Significant differences between the fall and the

spring scores forCWDand

CWOD

Research questions 2


Dependent variable: GAT_composite score obtained from the springsubscale scores

Independent variables

Social statusRelationships

Socio-economiclevel

(the fallcomposite

scores)

Inclusive Classroom ProfileSchool Adjustment ScoreSocial skills total scores

Problem behaviors total scoresHome Screening Questionnaire

(the fall scores)

Group(Group1:CWD)

(Group2: CWOD)

Table 5: Results of regression analysis (N=78), dependent variable: GAT_composite spring scores


R= 0,76 R2=0,55

Variables B Standart

HataB

𝜷 t p

Social status1.composite 0,04 0,07 0,06 0,61 0,54

Social skills.total 0,01 0,00 0,51 3,55 0,00

Problem behaviors.total 0,00 0,00 0,08 0,75 0,45

Relationship.composite -0,00 0,07 -0,00 -0,03 0,97

ICP mean scores -0,05 0,23 -0,02 -0,24 0,80

HOME.total 0,02 0,01 0,17 1,66 0,10

School adjustment.total 0,01 0,01 0,14 0,96 0,34

Group (CWD and CWOD) -0,18 0,15 -0,12 -1,15 0,25

SES1.Composite -0,18 0,07 -0,24 -2,51 0,01

Table 6: Results of regression analysis (N=78), dependent variable: Psychomotor spring scores



ErrorB

𝜷 t p



Problem behaviors total 0,01 0,03 0,04 0,34 0,73

Relationship.composite 0,30 0,61 0,05 0,48 0,62

ICP mean scores 0,76 1,97 0,03 0,38 0,70

HOME.total 0,22 0,12 0,18 1,71 0,09


Group (CWD and CWOD) -1,72 1,34 -0,14 1,2 0,20

SES1.Composite -1,77 0,61 -0,29 2,8 0,00

R=0,72 R2=0,52

Table 7: Results of regression analysis (N=78), dependent variable: Cognitivespring scores


Variables B Standart HataB 𝜷 t P

Social status1.composite -0,15 0,69 -0,02 -0,22 0,82



Relationship.composite -0,55 0,65 -0,08 0,83 0,40

ICP mean scores -0,46 2,09 -0,01 0,22 0,82

HOME.total 0,32 0,13 0,23 2,39 0,02


Group (CWD and CWOD) -2,35 1,42 -0,17 1,65 0,10

SES1.Composite -1,80 0,65 -0,25 2,75 0,00

R= 0,77 R2 =0,59

Table 8: Results of regression analysis (N=78), dependent variable: Language spring scores


Variables B Standart HataB 𝜷 t P





ICP mean scores -1,06 1,52 -0,06 -0,69 0,48

HOME.total 0,15 0,09 0,17 1,56 0,12



SES1.Composite -0,62 0,47 -0,13 -1,30 0,19

R= 0,71 R2 =0,50

Table 9: Results of regression analysis (N=78), dependent variable: Socio-emotional spring scores



HataB

𝜷 t P





ICP mean scores -1,06 1,52 -0,06 -0,69 0,48

HOME.total 0,15 0,09 0,17 1,56 0,12



SES1.Composite -0,62 0,47 -0,13 -1,30 0,19

R= 0,71 R2 =0,50


Social skills of the preschoolers are the most important contributor for the total development and all

developmental domains of all children

SES is the predictor of psychomotor, cognitive development and GAT_spring composite score

Group is not a predictor of the development


The Factors Predicting the Developmental Gains of Children ... · GAT1_composite= The GAT fall composite score, GROUPS=CWD and CWOD GAT2_composite= The GAT spring composite score,

Documents