final 07.06.16 proposal l guihot

Confirmation Proposal: 2016 INTERVENTION ON A STRING

RESEARCH PROPOSAL:

Intervention on a string: What is the impact on communication, social skills and self-esteem in children, including children with Special Educational Needs (SEN), using puppetry as a tool of intervention?

Figure 1

Researcher : Leanne Guihot

Supervisors: Dr. Jill ScevakDavid Roy

To be undertaken with the School of Education, at the University of Newcastle.

Leanne Guihot


Contents

Literature Review 3

Introduction 3

Mainstream Inclusion and Children with SEN in Australia 6

Communication and Social Skills / Self-Esteem / Emotion Regulation 7

Quality Creative Arts Practices : Drama 11

Puppetry 13

1. Research Design 17

2. Intervention 20

3. Ethics 22

4. Timetable 23

5. References 25

6. Appendices 31

Leanne Guihot


Literature Review

Introduction

Education for All effectively means FOR ALL, particularly thosewho are most vulnerable and most in need. The future is not fated,but will be fashioned by our values, thoughts and actions.

(The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education, Preface, p. iv, 1994)

In an ideal world, children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) would be treated with dignity

and respect, and an equitable education system would be made available to all children. It has

been argued that education is instrumental in the achievement of these fundamental goals in

society by increasing opportunity, and enhancing life choices and quality of life (Marston, and

Dee, 2015; Pfeffer, 2014). It is through well-developed, inclusive education that equity and social

capability for all children including those with SEN may be made possible (Marston, and Dee,

2015; Pfeffer, 2014). The British theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking has done much to

heighten awareness around the needs of people with disabilities, and has ‘awakened us not only to

the terrible struggle faced by those with Lou Gehrig's disease, but to the fact that no matter how

severe one's physical limitations, the heart and mind have astronomical potential’ (Uehling, 1998),

and he remains to this day, a determined campaigner for people with special educational and

physical needs (Rees, 2015).

Leanne Guihot


In Australia, according to the NSW Department of Education, all students in NSW public schools

are treated equally under the NSW Government Equity policy

(http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/studentsupport/studentwellbeing/equalopportunities.php). The

goal in NSW Public schools is that all students, regardless of ability and need for additional

support, are entitled to an education. As stated by the Department of Education, students with

disabilities and special needs are supported through a wide range of programs and services that

operate in regular and special schools across the state

(http://www.dec.nsw.gov.au/our-services/schools/disability-services). However, contained in the

executive summary in the Report on the Review of Disability Standards for Education 2005, the

findings regarding access and participation for Students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) are

as follows:

There are examples of students with disability being unable to access and participate in

education on the same basis as other students and where the intent of the Standards is not

being met in practice.

There is limited accessible practical advice and training on implementing the Standards for

educators about identifying individual needs, developing individual education plans and

providing appropriate support to achieve learning outcomes.

There is limited access to qualified professionals and limited ongoing professional

development in inclusive education.

(Report on the Review of Disability Standards for Education 2005, 2012, p. IV)

These shortcomings are also echoed within the ‘Every Student, Every School’ policy, which is

supported by the Commonwealth Government's More Support for Students with Disabilities

National Partnership, which provided almost $48 million in 2012 and 2013 to build the

capabilities of schools to meet the educational needs of students with disabilities

(www.det.nsw.edu.au/every-student-every-school). ‘Every Student, Every School’ is an initiative

that aims to provide better learning and support for the 90,000 students with Special Educational

Leanne Guihot

http://www.dec.nsw.gov.au/what-we-offer/education-and-training/disability-support/every-student-every-school

http://www.dec.nsw.gov.au/our-services/schools/disability-services


http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/

http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/studentsupport/studentwellbeing/equalopportunities.php


Needs (SEN) in Australian public schools through a strong focus on professional learning and

support for teachers and support staff giving students with SEN additional learning and support at

the time that they need it (www.det.nsw.edu.au/every-student-every-school). However, these

vital support infrastructures are not currently available in every public school. In many cases,

regular class teachers wait for the support they need in teaching the students in their class, leaving

many students without individualised guidance and adequate tuition

(https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/about-us/how-we-operate/national-partnerships-

program/every-student-every-school/support-for-students.pdf). Thus, whilst Australian

governments struggle to implement policies, and meet the challenges of ensuring that every

student regardless of their ability receives an equitable and quality education, the problems and

barriers remain and children with SEN face unjustifiable hardships.

The need for improvement in education for children, including children with SEN creates multiple

challenges for education systems where funding, placement and support are stretched to the limit

(Galletly, Knight and Dekkers, 2010). However, research has found that the use of creative arts

practices has a positive impact on children’s academic and non-academic self-concept, helping

promote scholastic involvement in all children, including children with SEN (Littledyke, 2015;

Roy and Dock, 2014; Russel-Bowie, 2013). This also impacts on self-esteem, through increased

confidence in creative expression, enquiry and problem-solving skills, and communication and

social skills. (Alesi, Rappo and Pepi, 2012; Burton, Horowitz and Abeles, 1999; Baurain and

Nader-Grosbois, 2012; O’Mara, March, Craven and Debus, 2006; Trimingham, 2010).

While there are studies that explore equity, communication, social development and self-esteem in

the education setting, these studies tend to fall into the scholastic or therapeutic research domain,

Leanne Guihot

https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/about-us/how-we-operate/national-partnerships-program/every-student-every-school/support-for-students.pdf

https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/about-us/how-we-operate/national-partnerships-program/every-student-every-school/support-for-students.pdf

http://www.det.nsw.edu.au/every-student-every-school



and while creative arts practices are often used as tools of intervention to aid in the

implementation of these skills, most studies that explore creative arts practices have not

adequately measured, empirically, their impact or effectiveness (Baurain and Nader-Grosbois,

2012; Cziboly, 2010; Guli et al., 2013; Jones et.al, 2013; Hunt and Renfro, 1982; Lyons and

Arthur-Kelly, 2014; Trimingham, 2010). This is problematic when attempting to promote the

creative arts as holistic and effective, as there is deficient evidence using robust, empirical

methods to support claims made. More pertinent to this project, research that specifically reflects

the benefits of puppetry for children with SEN is mainly found in areas that focus on trauma and

therapeutic situations (Ahlcrona, 2013). Projects are generally small scale, inconclusive and/or

not quantitatively analysed, with minimal statistical precision and/or lack long term qualitative

goals and commitments (Ahlcrona, 2013; Dillen, et al., 2009; Ewing, 2010; Russell-Bowie, 2013).

This is a double-edged sword, for although small scale qualitative projects may not offer robust

results, they can become the catalyst for additional and perhaps larger research projects.

Mainstream Inclusion and Children with SEN in Australia

The history of formal school education for children with SEN is a relatively short one,

highlighting the many disadvantages, inequities and challenges faced by this group; particularly

with respect to access and participation, curriculum, assessment and pedagogy (Cziboly, 2010;

Lyons and Arthur-Kelly, 2014; Report on the Review of Disability Standards for Education 2005,

2012). This exposes the recent and rapid changes faced by teachers, special educators and policy

makers, and emphasises the very real need for quality intervention practices to be made accessible

to educators in order to reach the children who need them (Cziboly, 2010; Lyons and Arthur-

Kelly, 2014).

Leanne Guihot


In the last 30 years, gains have been achieved in special education policy and practice; for

example, in Australia most children with SEN and all diverse learners are educated in special

schools, but even when they are integrated into the mainstream setting, they generally have an

Individualised Education Plan (IEP). IEPs often address more atypical components of the

curriculum, which in some cases results in diminished educational goals and outcomes (Lyons and

Arthur-Kelly, 2014). There has been much research conducted that explores the needs and

requirements for improvement in education for children with SEN, including evidence-based

initiatives (Cziboly, 2010; Guli et al., 2013; Lyons and Arthur-Kelly, 2014). This broad research

base has identified a number of practices, some of which include: student-centred planning,

curriculum-based assessment and programming, increased professional development for

educators, and a curricula focus on communication and social skills development (Coholic, Eys

and Lougheed, 2012; Cziboly, 2010; Guli et al., 2013; Lyons and Arthur-Kelly, 2014).

Communication and Social Skills / Self-Esteem / Emotion Regulation

Formal education plays an important role in the growth and personal development of all children,

and two main areas of consensus surrounding needs for children, including children with SEN are:

a) communication, and b) social skills (Lyons and Cassebohm, 2012). Programs rich in

communication and social skills instruction, give children opportunities to explore new concepts,

make decisions, problem-solve and express ideas in both scholastic and personal domains, while

important building blocks for learning and shaping relationships are also enhanced (Griswold and

Townsend, 2012; Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2012). All children, including children with SEN

could benefit from programs that have the building of communication skills and social

development at their core.

Leanne Guihot


Effective communication skills enable children to express their internal states such as needs, wants

and preferences (Balandin and Duchan, 2007) and also aids in the moderation of challenging

behaviours (Lyons and Cassebohm, 2012). In special education, the focus on the social

competence of children with SEN tends to be narrow, targeting primarily the ability to regulate

emotions (Dempseyand Dally, 2014; O’Donnell et.al, 2012). This can be seen as classroom

management, but is also useful for exploring empathy, an important ability that contributes to

successful communication and social interactions. However, this relatively narrow focus on

emotion regulation leaves a significant gap in the holistic development of children with SEN

(Cornett, 2007; Dempseyand Dally, 2014; Ewing, 2010; Russell-Bowie, 2013; Sinclair, Jeanneret

and O'Toole, 2009).

Within the formal education setting in Australia, children are faced with challenges and obstacles,

such as scholastic situations and social interactions that test resilience, confidence and affect self-

esteem (Blair et al., 2015). It has been said that children with SEN experience heightened

emotional states that impact on their capacity to build resilience and develop emotionally (Fussell,

Macias and Saylor, 2005). All children have varying extremes of emotions to manage, however,

it has been shown that children with SEN face more challenges in areas of social competence than

do their typically developing peers, because of physical and/or neurological developmental issues

(Fussell, Macias and Saylor, 2005). The ability to understand and regulate emotions requires a

sophisticated set of tools that need to be established at an early age, and nurtured over time (Blair

et al., 2015).

In their study, Blair et al. (2015), examined emotion regulation, social skills, peer group

acceptance and friendship within the developmental period of middle childhood, using three

Leanne Guihot


waves of data, children aged 5, 7 and 10 years. In order to achieve gains in these areas, emotional

dimensions such as: affective reciprocity (the development of autonomy); mutual influence (the

behaviour of a larger group of individuals controlled by a smaller group); and, relational

commitment (a mutual commitment to work together to seek unity, maintain friendships, and build

relationships), need to be examined and developed (Blair et al., 2015). Data was gathered from

the children, their teachers and their mothers: the children completed the Parker and Asher

‘Friendship Quality Questionnaire’ to assess their perceptions of their closest friendship, the

teachers completed the Gresham and Elliott ‘Social Skills Rating System’ to assess teachers’

perceptions of children’s behavioural social skills, the mothers completed the Shields and

Cicchetti ‘Emotion Regulation Checklist’ to assess their perception of a child’s emotionality and

regulation. This longitudinal study reported that a child’s ability to regulate their emotions helps to

increase their ability to participate actively and positively in social settings, while promoting

social skills such as cooperation and assertiveness. It was also confirmed that emotion regulation

and social competence develop together over time and require a balance of quality interaction and

repetition of social skills building, using challenging and engaging creative arts practices in a

variety of contexts (Blair et al., 2015).

In another study, the notion that socio-emotional regulation is subject to developmental delay and

difference in children with SEN, was tested (Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2012). The researchers

explored the similarities and differences in socio-emotional regulation in neurologically atypical

children (45 participants), compared to typically developing children (45 participants) aged 3-6

years (children were matched for their developmental age). Based on a heuristic model of social

skills, three levels of social skills were explored: 1. Social information processing; 2. Social

interactions; and 3. Social adjustment in social relationships, using the Dyadic Game of Socio-

Emotional Problem-Solving (DGSEP). The DGSEP is designed similarly to a Snakes and Ladders

Leanne Guihot


game, and is intended to elicit positive and negative emotions in problem-solving situations. After

the DGSEP had taken place, the examiner/researcher analysed and coded the video observations

using the Grid of Socio-Emotional Regulation (GSER), which was created with reference to the

Emotional Regulation Checklist (ERC), and the Emotional Regulation Rating Scale (ERRS)

(Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2012). It was found that neurologically atypical children develop

their abilities in socio-emotional regulation more slowly (Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2012).

Also, the neurologically atypical group of children displayed less social behaviour, which required

using verbal modality, than the typically developing children involved in the study (Baurain and

Nader-Grosbois, 2012). Baurain and Nader-Grosbois conclude by saying that children with SEN

need opportunities to explore social interactions in varied contexts in order to diversify their

experiences, and enhance their ability to regulate emotions (Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2012).

Both studies outlined above highlight the importance of the ability to regulate emotions, and the

importance of building social skills, such as; sharing, cooperating, and helping others, self-

assertion, responding appropriately in conflict and non-conflict situations (Baurain and Nader-

Grosbois, 2012, Blair et al., 2015). Emotion regulation and understanding are essential building

blocks within the personal development domain for all children, but children with SEN need more

time to acquire these attributes, all of which helps contribute to the development of a healthy self-

esteem (Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2012; Blair et al., 2015).

The need to use quality creative arts practices that employ a variety of strategies for the

exploration of communication, social skills, emotion regulation and self-esteem is beneficial for

all children, including children with SEN (Baurain and Nader-Grosbois, 2012; Jones et.al, 2013;

Hunt and Renfro, 1982). Although a variety of creative arts practices have been employed in

Leanne Guihot


previous studies, the use of puppetry has not been analysed empirically as a tool specifically

designed to target these important areas. An early intervention program that implements

evidence-based initiatives in conjunction with drama-based practices in order to challenge, nurture

and empower, may go some way to help all children, including children with SEN to develop on a

holistic level (Coholic, Eys and Lougheed, 2012; Cziboly, 2010; Guli et al., 2013).

Quality Creative Arts Practices : Drama

Quality Creative Arts Practice (QCAP) is a generalist term and for the purposes of this proposal,

will be used in relation to practical, drama-based methods and forms. QCAPs employ various

artistic instruments, in various contexts in order to create an environment that serves as a vital

incubator for risk taking, reflexivity and fearless critical thinking (Batty and Berry, 2015).

Engagement in quality arts education has been said to positively affect overall academic

achievement, engagement in learning, and development of empathy towards others (Board of

Studies NSW, 2006; Cornett, 2007; Ewing, 2010; Russell-Bowie, 2013; Sinclair, Jeanneret and

O'Toole, 2009). Through invention, students learn with understanding, i.e., through experiential

exploration and creative use of imagination in a quality creative arts environment, students are

able to make choices, come to their own conclusions, and follow their own, unique journey. In

essence, invention needs to be the driving force for an intervention practice that has creative arts at

its core (Ewing, 2010; Russell-Bowie, 2013). Creative arts practices have long been recognised as

useful tools in education, and this is evident in its promotion within both the NSW Creative Arts

syllabus, and the ACARA, draft curriculum: The Arts (drama);

In the longer term, learning in the Creative Arts assists students in their lifelong learning..

It also assists students to participate in and contribute to cultural life.. to empathise with

Leanne Guihot


others.. to respect the views of various social and cultural groups (Board of Studies NSW,

2006, Creative Arts K-6 Syllabus, p. 7)

As art-makers, performers and audience, students develop and apply personal skills and

dispositions such as self-discipline, goal setting, working independently, showing

initiative, confidence, resilience and adaptability. They learn to empathise with the

emotions, needs and situations of others.. (ACARA, 2013, Draft Curriculum: The Arts

Foundation to Year 10, p. 18)

Creative arts have the power to surprise, and through the use of QCAPs, children are given the

chance to explore emotions, establish their identities and make important connections surrounding

them in their classroom, their school, their community and the world beyond (Sposito et al., 2016).

QCAPs are a flexible, significant and an invaluable pedagogical tool in the educational setting

and have the capacity to provide opportunities for all children to immerse themselves into new

environments, to walk safely in the shoes of a significant other (including themselves) (Littledyke,

2015; Sposito et al., 2016). Thus it could be argued that QCAPs impact across multiple domains;

whilst meeting curricular needs QCAPs also aid in the exploration of values that help give

children the proficiency to embrace society, to engage diverse learners through praxis, help

children with SEN to feel understood and welcome (Creative Arts K-6 Syllabus, 2006), and help

promote engagement in the classroom through both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Ahlcrona,

2013; Guli et al., 2013; Sposito et al., 2016; Volkenburg, 2015);

o Intrinsic motivation: through involvement, creativity, high-quality learning and

positive wellbeing

Leanne Guihot


o Extrinsic motivation: through access to outside incentives and consequences, such as;

praise, attention, public recognition, awards, smiles of approval and sense of

accomplishment; (Ahlcrona, 2013; Guli et al., 2013; Sposito et al., 2016; Volkenburg,

2015)

Along with holistic and scholastic benefits, QCAPs are recognised internationally as essential

tools to help facilitate the equitable and individual right to cultivate our creative potential and

cognitive development (UNESCO, 2006). The creative arts enable expression and communication

of thoughts, ideas and emotions in ways that other forms of communication simply cannot (Roy

and Dock 2014; Sposito et al., 2016), helping to give voice to the voiceless. Using QCAPs not

only engages all of the senses (Roy, Baker and Hamilton, 2015, p. 9), but instils the potential for

children to engage in lifelong learning. With this in mind, an intervention program using QCAPs

embedded with puppetry could increase self-esteem in mainstream children, including children

with SEN, through building skills in communication, social interactions, problem solving, and

creative and self-expression (Ahlcrona, 2013; Dillen et al., 2009; Sposito et al., 2016).

Puppetry

Historically, puppets have been used throughout the ages for entertainment, teaching and

communicating ideas, and for sharing values and beliefs (Blumenthal, 2005; Sposito et al., 2016).

Puppets come in many shapes and sizes, and can be complex, or simple to manipulate using the

hands, fingers, rods or strings. The use of puppets crosses cultures, social and economic

boundaries, and it has been said that their power to educate and to heal is boundless (Bernier,

O’Hare, 2005; Sposito et al., 2016; Trimingham, 2010). Their strength lies in our innate ability to

suspend our disbelief and immerse our imagination into their world of possibilities (Bernier,

O’Hare, 2005).

Leanne Guihot


A puppet is an inanimate object, that we know to be without life and is entirely separate to us, yet,

can reflect aspects of ourselves effectively and almost effortlessly. It has been said that what we

share with a puppet, be it in the form of a universal human need or value/virtue, is shared in a non-

threatening and nurturing environment that fosters engagement and exploration (Trimingham,

2010). A child has a certain degree of control over interactions with a puppet which in-turn feeds

trust, and the desire to continue exploration in a safe and secure environment.

The puppets become simultaneously, “me” and “not me”, and therein lies their power. For an

audience, this paradox means that through watching puppets perform we can learn some things

about ourselves – including new ways of being and relating to the world – without feeling

defensive or threatened. (Bernier and O’Hare, 2005. Puppetry in Education and Therapy,

Foreword, p. vii,)

Puppetry in education is potentially a powerful pedagogical tool for all children, but importantly,

for children with SEN the use of puppets helps to enhance communication, social skills and

confidence (Ahlcrona, 2013; Dillen et al., 2009; Sposito et al., 2016; Trimingham, 2010). It has

been said that puppets give children a new way of looking at situations, and reinforces gains made

within the teaching setting (Dillen et.al, 2009).

Dillen et al. (2009) explored and analysed the power of puppetry in psychotherapy, using the

semi-structured application of the action sociogram, where children were given opportunities to

view their world from new perspectives. This therapeutic practice is heavily embedded with

developmental psychology, in order to chart a child’s family / relational representations. The

‘action sociogram’ in psychotherapy incorporates puppetry for stimulating self-reflection (Dillen

et al., 2009), and is a counselling process that allows children to explore issues, enhance

Leanne Guihot


communication skills, and problem solve through storytelling and sharing of life experiences. In a

family, individual, and/or group setting, children were given the chance to actualise, recognise and

evaluate their inner feelings by relaying events and situations from their lives, in order to explore

their interpersonal relationships. Using the physicality of dolls, with faces and clothes chosen by

the children, using a floor-mat with an environment mapped out by them, relevant to their personal

stories (Dillen et al., 2009), it was found that puppets increased spontaneity and helped children

verbalise their hidden feelings using this non-confrontational medium, with which to talk about

themselves and others (Dillen et al., 2009). However, while the playing-back of actual events

using the action sociogram was found to be a very powerful therapeutic tool, further research is

required to confirm and empirically measure the specific effects of this reflective process (Dillen

et.al, 2009).

It has been suggested that neurological pathways may be strengthened when puppets are used with

children, as they can act as a ’bridge’ to the outside world and allow children with SEN to access

their physical senses (Trimingham, 2010), stimulating neural connectivity, potentially increasing

the capacity for developmental growth in an individual (Rees, Booth, Jones, 2016). It could be

suggested that this ‘bridge’ goes deeper than simply giving them access to the outside world, as

puppetry can also bring empowerment to children, especially when working collaboratively in

groups (Belfiore, 2013). The nature of exploring, creating, imagining and experimenting in a

collaborative environment enhances children’s interpersonal intelligence, which gives children the

ability to understand, act on and shape others’ feelings and attitudes (Gardner, Komhaber, and

Wake, 1996). These skills give children the power to express their feelings, whilst enhancing their

ability to understand the feelings of others’ (Ewing, 2010), thus increasing skills in

communication, socialising, problem solving, and enhancing areas of personal development such

Leanne Guihot


as; self-esteem, self-affirmation, confidence and resilience (Hunt and Renfro, 1982; Gardner,

1985; Trimingham, 2010).

It appears that research to date has not empirically examined the impact of puppetry as a tool of

intervention in the areas of communication, social skills and self-esteem for children, including

children with SEN (Ahlcrona, Mirella, Forsberg, 2013; Dunst and Trivette, 2009; Dillen, et.al.,

2009; Ewing, 2010; Trimingham, 2010). Given the rapid changes and adjustments faced by

special education facilitators and policy makers, more research is required that focuses on student

centred planning, communication and social skills, and the impact of QCAPs including puppetry

to ensure that the most beneficial and efficient practices are adopted in formal education, in

Australia. An intervention project that includes broader domains, e.g. social development,

communication, and self-esteem, in order to address the needs of all children, including children

with SEN, so that they may meet the challenges present in education, including social interactions,

self expression and problem-solving, with a higher level of confidence and resilience (O’mara,

March, Craven and Debus, 2006).

There has been much said regarding the benefits of enhancing communication and social skills

using quality creative arts practices in the education setting. However, there appears to be a

paucity of studies that have systematically assessed gains made, and their effectiveness. It is

proposed that the results gathered in this intervention project will seek to quantitatively and

qualitatively analyse and evaluate the impact of puppetry on the communication, social skills and

self-esteem of children, including children with SEN, using a QCAP incorporating puppetry and

playbuilding.

Leanne Guihot


Research Questions

1. What impact does an intervention programme using puppetry as a tool on children’s’

Communication skills

Social skills

Academic self esteem

Non academic self esteem

2. Does an increase in the use of communication and social skills impact on (academic and non-

academic self concept and) self-esteem?

1. Research Design

In order to answer the research questions the study will use quantitative and qualitative methods to

analyse and evaluate data collected.

Participants

150 mainstream students, aged 8-10 years of age

Participants from 4+ schools in the Hunter Region who implement children with SEN into

the mainstream public school system in NSW, Australia.

Participants and Parents will be asked to complete Measuring Elementary School Students’

Social and Emotional Skills Questionnaire

Leanne Guihot


Instruments

1. Rosenberg Questionnaire (see Appendix 1) :

Pre- Intervention: Quantitative tool to measure Baseline - self-esteem in all children,

including those with SEN

Post-Intervention: Quantitative tool to measure any changes in self-esteem in all children,

including those with SEN

2. Measuring Elementary School Students’ Social and Emotional Skills Questionnaire (See

Appendix 2) :

Pre- Intervention: Quantitative tool to measure baseline competencies in 5 key social and

emotional skills: self-control, persistence, mastery orientation, academic self-efficacy and

social competence

Post-Intervention: Quantitative tool to measure gains / growth in 5 key social and emotional

skills: self-control, persistence, mastery orientation, academic self-efficacy and social

competence

3. Observations

Qualitative tool : Observations will be recorded using iPad (to film intervention) and field

notes, to record the following:

During Stage 1. (individual focus)

social interactions (with researcher and other participants)

engagement with puppet/s

ability to problem-solve

use of puppet to convey meaning

Leanne Guihot


During Stage 2. (group work focus)

social interactions (with other participants)

engagement with puppet/s

ability to problem-solve / communicate ideas

creative expression

use of puppet to convey meaning

Observations will be coded and evaluated to establish success of social development in Part 1 of Intervention (using Individual work) and combined with Part 2 of Intervention (using Group work) in order to analyse social interactions during the intervention project.

4. iPad :

Qualitative tool: Data collection / Observations of Participants as they interact with their

puppets, other participants and rehearse their puppet performances.

Data collected will include:

Engagement in the intervention process

Participation

Enjoyment

Social skills and communication

5. Research Assistant :

Data will be independently coded by another person to assess inter-rater reliability

Leanne Guihot


2. Intervention

20 x Sessions : Puppetry and Playbuilding program.

The concluding goal: Students to produce a short puppet performance

(written/conceived/performed in groups of up to 6 participants).

Weeks 1-10:- STAGE 1 : INDIVIDUAL work

Stage 1 will lay the groundwork for participants to build confidence in using puppets and explore

storytelling. Participants will share ideas, and explore stories, dreams and personal goals.

Weeks 11-20:- STAGE 2 : GROUP work

Stage 2. Students will be placed into small groups (4-6 participants). This will allow the

researcher opportunity to observe any shift in social interaction, communication and problem-

solving that may present itself in a creative, safe working environment.

Intervention In Detail:

Weeks 1-3 : In week 1, “Revae”, puppet manipulated by the researcher, will offer her personal

story, to the participant/s:

1) To engage and focus the attention of the participant/s, and

2) To help inspire the participant/s to consider sharing their own experiences.

In weeks 2 and 3 the Intervention will take the form of puppetry, playbuilding / storytelling

workshops that involve sharing stories and working puppets together, and will build to more

hands-on performance skills enhancement.

Leanne Guihot


Weeks 4-6 : Story gathering: The focus of the next 3 weeks will be to encourage interaction,

questions and sharing of stories and experiences. Participant/s (hopefully) will recount their own

stories – dreams, goals, fictitious / true - Researcher to record (using iPad and taking field notes)

stories /dialogue for future reference.

Researcher will encourage questioning, brainstorming using an iPad or log book. Characterisation

will be explored, including individual profiles for each participant’s puppet/character. Puppet

style and type will be explored and decided upon. Once the participant/s feel happy with their

stories, they will be encouraged to share their stories with other participants.

Week 7 : Participants will explore puppetry and performance, warm-up techniques and puppetry

styles and advice on using different types of puppets. With the help of the researcher, participants

will make puppets (or use iPad app. for puppet creation) : Simple hand, finger or rod puppets :

materials such as cloth, styrofoam, felt, sock, glue, paint, textas, buttons, wool etc. Explore

characters physicality (e.g. are they small, big, dark, shy, smooth, hairy etc.?) This will then feed

into what the puppet may look like and potential puppets to be used. Make puppets using a variety

of materials: (felt, material, paper or cardboard, papier mache, sock, established hand puppet/s)

PLUS: Explore and design ideas for scenery, e.g. Booth: cardboard boxes, curtains, cardboard

(painted), Open: floor mat – materials/carpet/towels/painted calico, In Chair: apron puppet booth,

cloth, cardboard box, iPad.

Week 8- 10 : Expand on and finalise stories. Make decisions about most important events and

conflicts that create tension in their stories, explore main characters needs, desires. Week 10 –

perform small monologue for peers and educators.

Leanne Guihot


Weeks 11 – 12 : Break whole class into groups of 5-6 participants per group. Discussion

regarding Group Devised Puppet Performance: STIMULUS: Social / Friendship issues, e.g.

Fairness, Fitting In, I Get Pushed Around, Listen To Me!, Who Am I?

Weeks 13 – 14 : Begin to explore script for performance: Make notes and record dialogue

(improvised, verbally by participant aided by researcher where appropriate) and build play

structure. Establish routine for rehearsing using puppets made for individual performances:

rehearsal periods that best fits the needs and requirements of all of the participants to be

scheduled.

Weeks 15 – 19 : Rehearsals: this will involve groups running through their play with their

puppet/s and re-working and refining their work, offering feedback to their peers (where possible)

through group discussion after each performance. These weeks will also be used to refine scripts,

puppets and scenery/backdrops/booths.

Week 20 : Performance day. The Participant/s will perform their Group Puppet Performance

before their peers, parent/s, carer/s, teachers and friends. Filming of the final performance will

give the participants a permanent record of their work, and ownership of their creation.

3. Ethics

a) All ethical guidelines will be followed as required for conducting human research, and written

informed consents will be obtained from the participants and their parents/care givers/legal

guardians.

b) All of the participants will attend this study voluntarily.

Leanne Guihot


4. Timetable

MONTH YEAR TASK OUTCOME

June 2016 Confirmation To continue with thesis and research

July 2016 Ethics Application (DET and

UoN)

To gain approval

September 2016 Begin Project

Ethics Approval

Contact schools

To allow information gathering

To establish number of schools and

participants

October 2016 Organise school visits To confirm dates, times and availability

for 2017

February 2017 Issue Questionnaires to

Participants

Begin data gathering

To gather evidence (prior to intervention)

March 2017 Collate Responses

Analyse

To analyse information

April 2017 Write Questionnaire Analysis

Write results chapter

To analyse / collate information

May –July 2017 Round 1 : Term 2

Puppet / Playbuilding Intervention

Round 2 : Term 3

To introduce / begin intervention

To gather research evidence

To extend / rehearse / performance

October 2017 Issue Questionnaires to

Participants

To gather evidence (post intervention)

Leanne Guihot


October 2017 Collate Responses To analyse information

MONTH YEAR TASK OUTCOME

November-

December

2017 Round 1 Analysis of coding, field

notes, observations and additional

information

Round 2 Analysis of coding, field


information

Analysis

Analysis

December 2017 Round 2 Analysis of coding, field


information

To analyse information

January 2018 Draw up Conclusions

Call all this writing

Name the chapter

Methodolgy

Results

To finalise significance of research /

intervention

March 2018 Analysis of Questionnaires To compare results pre and post

Intervention

May 2018 Write up further analysis To further completion of thesis

September 2018 Write up further Conclusions To further completion of thesis

March 2019 Complete 1st Draft of MPhil To complete these in preparation for

editing

May 2019 Complete 2nd Draft (revisions) To complete thesis

June 2019 Complete 3rd Draft (revisions) To complete thesis

July 2019 Submission of thesis Complete

Leanne Guihot


5. References

Ahlcrona, M. F. (2013). The Puppet’s Communicative Potential as a Mediating Tool in Preschool Education, International Journal of Early Childhood,Vol. 44, N. 2, pp. 171-184, 14pp

Alesi, M., Rappo, G., Pepi, A. (2012). Self-esteem at school and self-handicapping in childhood: Comparison of groups with learning disabilities, Psychological Reports, Vol. 111, Issue 3, pp. 952-962. 11p.

Balandin, S., and Duchan, J.F. (2007). Communication: Access to Inclusion [Editorial]. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, Vol. 32 Issue 4, pp. 230-232. 3p. DOI: 10.1080/13668250701693902

Baurain, C and Nader-Grosbois, N. (2012). Socio-emotional regulation in children with intellectual disability and typically developing children in interactive contexts, ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research, Issue 6, pp. 75-93.

Bazeley, P., (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis: Practical Strategies, London, Sage Publications.

Belfiore, Christie, (2013). Puppets Talk, Children Listen, Teach Magazine, Jan/Feb Issue, pp. 9-11, 3p

Blair, B.L., Perry, N.B., O’Brien, M., Calkins, S.D. and Keane, S.P., (2015). Identifying Developmental Cascades among differentiated dimensions of social competence and Emotion Regulation, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 51, Issue 8, pp. 1062-1073.

Bernier, M. and O’Hare, J. (2005). Puppetry in Education and Therapy, Indiana USA., Author House

Blumenthal, Eileen, (2005). Puppetry: A World History, HNA - Harry N. Abrams, Inc., NY, USA.

Burton, J., Horowitz, R. and and Abeles, H. (1999). Learning in and through the arts: Curriculumimplications. Center for Arts Education Research, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Carey, J. (2006), ‘Not only a White Race, but a Race of the Best Whites’:The Women’s Movement, White Australia and Eugenics Between the Wars, Historicising Whiteness: Melbourne, Vic.: RMIT Publishing in association with the School of Historical Studies, University of Melbourne, Transnational Perspectives on the Construction of an Identity, v. no. , pp. 162-17

Cho J. and Trent, A. (2006), Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6(3), pp.319-340

Cornett, C. (2007). Creating meaning through literature and the arts. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Leanne Guihot


Council for Exceptional Children, Division for Learning Disabilities and Division for Research, (2003). Social skills instruction for students with learning disabilities, Current Practice Alerts, Issue 9, pp. 1-4.

Creswell, John W. (2008). Educational research : planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, (3rd ed.). N.J.: Merrill Prentice Hall

Cziboly, A. (2010). ‘The DICE has been cast’. In A. Cziboly (ed.), Research Findings and Recommendations on Educational Theatre and Drama. Hungary: DICE Consortium. Available from www.dramanetwork.eu

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Report on the Review of Disability Standards for Education 2005, June 2012

Dillen, L., Siongers, M., Helskens, D., Verhofstadt-Deneve, L. (2009). When Puppets Speak: Dialectical Psychodrama within Developmental Child Psychotherapy, Journal of Constructivist Psychology, Vol. 22, Issue 1, pp. 55-82, 2 diagrams, 1 chart.

Dinham, J, (2011). Delivering Authentic Arts Education, Cenage Learning, Vic. Australia

Doidge, N. (2007). The brain that changes itself: Stories of personal triumph from the frontiers of brain science, New York: Viking

Dunst, C.J. and Trivette, C.M. (2009). Using Research Evidence to Inform and Evaluate Early Childhood Intervention Practices, Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, Vol. 29, N. 1, pp. 40-52

Dunst, Carl J. (2012). Effects of puppetry on Elementary students’ knowledge of and attitudes toward individuals with disabilities, International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, Vol. 4, Issue 3, pp. 451-457, 7p, 2 charts

Dunst, Carl J. (2014). Meta-analysis of the effects of puppet shows on attitudes toward and knowledge of individuals with disabilities, Council for Exceptional Children, Vol. 80 Issue 2, pp. 136, 13

Epstein, I., Stevens, B., McKeever, P., Baruchel, S., Jones, H. (2008). Using puppetry to elicit children’s talk for research. Nurs. Inq. Vol 15: pp. 49–56.

Ewing, Robyn (2010). Australian Education Review: The Arts and Australian Education: Realising Potential, ACER Press, Victoria

Finn, C. (2003). Helping Students cope with loss: Incorporating art into group counselling, Journal for Specialists in Group Work, Issue 28, pp. 155-165

Foreman, P., Arthur-Kelly, M., Bennett, D., Neilands, J. and Colyvas, K., (2014). Observed changes in the alertness and communicative involvement of students with multiple and severs disability following in-class mentor modelling for staff in segregated and general education classrooms, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, Vol. 58, N. 8, pp. 704-720, 17 p.

Foreman, P. (2009). Education of Students with an intellectual disability: Research and Practice, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC.

Leanne Guihot


Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., Davidson, L, (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Second article in an occasional series. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36(6), pp. 717-32

Freeman, M., de Marrais, K., Preissle, J., Roulston, K., and St Pierre, E. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An Incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36(1), pp.25-32

Fussell, J. Macias, M.M. and Saylor, C.F. (2005). Social skills and behaviour problems in children with disabilities with and without siblings, Child Psychiatry and Human Development, Issue 36, pp. 227-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10578-0054185-6

Galletly, S.A., and Knight, B.A. (2004). The high cost of orthographic disadvantage. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, Isuse 9, p. 4-11

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: the theory of multiple intelligences, New York: Basic Books

Gardner, H., Kornhaber, M., and Wake, W. (1996). Intelligence: Multiple perspectives. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace

Glyn, J. (2016). History of disability discrimination is present in Australia, Eureka Street . com (article), Vol. 26, Issue 6, pp. 54-57. 4p. 1 Black and White Photograph.

Graham, L.J. (2007). Out of sight, out o f mind/out of mind, out of site: Schooling and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Issue 20, pp. 585-602

Griswold, L.A., and Townsend, S. (2012). Assessing the sensitivity of the evaluation of social interaction: Comparing social skills in children with and without disabilities, American Journal of Occupational Therapy, Vol. 66, pp. 709-717.

Guli, L.A., Semrud-Clikeman, M., Lerner, M.D. and Britton, N. (2013). Social competence intervention program (SCIP): A pilot study of a creative drama program for youth with social difficulties, The Arts in Psychotherapy, Issue 40(1), pp. 37-44

Heathcote, D. (2015). Dorothy Heathecote on education and drama : essential writings /edited by Cecily O’Neill, Abingdon, London, Oxon Routledge Taylor and Francis Group

Hosogi, M., Okada, A., Fujii, C., Noguchi, K. and Watanabe, K. (2012). BioPsychoSocial Medicine, 6 (1), pp. 9-14. 6p. 1 Chart

Hughes, C.A. and Dexter, D.D. (2011). Response to Intervention: A Research-Based Summary, Theory Into Practice, Vol. 50, N. 1, pp. 4-11, 8pp

Hunt, T., and Renfro, N. (1982). Puppetry In Early Childhood Education, Texas, Nancy Renfro Studios

Jones, V.L., Higgins, K., Brandon, R.R., Cote, D.L., Dobbins, N. (2013), A Focus on Resiliency: Young Children with Disabilities, Young Exceptional Children, DOI:10.1177/1096250613481681, http://yec.sagepub.com/content/16/4/3

Leanne Guihot

http://yec.sagepub.com/content/16/4/3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10578-0054185-6


Kemp, A. and Tissot, C. (2012). Use of drama to teach social skills in a special school setting for students with autism. Support for Learning, Vol. 27, Issue 3

Kober, R. (2010). Enhancing the quality of life of people with intellectual disabilities [electronic resource] from theory to practice, Springer Science + Business Media B.V., SpringerLink ebooks, Social Sciences and Law

Klopper, C.J., and Power, B. (2010). Illuminating the gap: An overview of classroom-based arts education research in Australia, International Journal of Education through the Arts, 6(3), pp.293-308

Latshaw, G. (2000). The Complete Book of Puppetry, New York, Dover Publications, (Slightly rev. ed. of: Puppetry. 1978.)

Lench, H.C., Darbor, K., and Berg, L.A. (2013). Functional perspectives on Emotion, Behaviour and Cognition, Open Access Behavioral Sciences, Issue 3, pp. 536-540.

Luckenbill, Julia (2011). Circle Time Puppets Teaching Social Skills, Teaching Young Children, Vol. 4, Issue 4, 2 colour photographs

Lyons, G. (2012). The education of Australian school students with the most severe intellectual disabilities: where have we been and where could we go? A discussion primer, Australasian Journal of Special Education, Vol. 36, Issue 1, p. 79-95, 17p

Lyons, G. and Arthur-Kelly, M. (2014). UNESCO Inclusion Policy and the education of school students with profound intellectual and special educational Needs (SEN): where to now? Creative Education, 5, pp. 445-456

Lyons, G. and Arthur-Kelly, M. (2013). Collaborative stretching: a research agenda for enhancing the quality of lives of people with severe cognitive impairments, Journal of Care Services Management, Vol. 7, Issue 3, pp. 107-115, 9p

Lyons, G and Cassebohm, M. (2011). Curriculum development for students with profound intellectual and special educational Needs (SEN): how about a quality of life focus? Special Education Perspectives, Vol. 20, Issue 2, pp. 24-39

Lyons, R., O’Malley, M. P., O’Connor, P., and Monaghan, U. (2010). ‘It’s just so lovely to hear him talking’: Exploring the early-intervention expectations and experiences of parents, Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 26 (1), pp. 61-76

Marsh, H.W. (1986). Global Self-Esteem: Its relation to specific facets of self-concept and their importance, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 6, pp. 1224-1236

Marston, G., Dee, M. (2015). The social inclusion policy agenda in Australia: a case of old wine, new bottles?, Australian Journal of Social Issues (Australian Social Policy Association). 2015, Vol. 50 Issue 2, pp. 119-138. 20p.

Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), pp.13-17.

Maxwell, J.A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), pp.279-300

Measuring Elementary School Students’ Social and Emotional Skills, Providing Educators with Tools to Measure and Monitor Social and Emotional Skills that Lead to Academic Success

Leanne Guihot


Child Trends, July 2014, Child Trends Publication #2014-37

Mishler, E.G. (1990). Validation in Inquiry-Guided Research: The role of Exemplars in Narrative Studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60(4), pp.415-42

Moreira, P.A.S., Bilimoria, H., Alvez, P., Santos, M. A., Macedo, A. C., Maia, A., Figueiredo, F. and Miranda, M. J. (2015). Subjective wellbeing in students with special educational needs, Cognition, Brain, Behavior, An interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 19 Issue 1, pp. 75-97. 23p

National education and the arts statement, (2007). Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, Cultural Ministers Council, Sydney

NSW Board of Studies, (2006). Creative Arts K-6 Syllabus. Sydney, Australia: Board of Studies NSW

O’Donnell, A. M., Dobozy, E., Bartlett, B., Bryer, F., Reeve, Smith, (2012). Educational Psychology, Milton Qld, Australia, John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd.

O'Mara, A.J., Marsh, H.W., Craven, R.G. and Debus, R.L. (2006). Do Self-Concept Interventions Make a Difference? A Synergistic Blend of Construct Validation and Meta-Analysis, Educational Psychologist, Summer, Vol. 41 Issue 3, p181-206. 26p. 6 Charts

Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Leech, N. (2007). Validity and Qualitative Research: An Oxymoron?, Quality and Quantity, 41(2), pp.233-249

Peter, M. (2009). Drama: Narrative pedagogy and socially challenged children. British Journal of Special Education, 36(1), pp. 9-17

Pfeffer, F. (2014). Equality and quality in education. A comparative study of 19 countries, Social Science Research, Issue 51, pp. 350-368

Pilonis, E. (2007). Competency in generalist practice: A guide to theory and evidence-based decision making. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press

Rees, M. (2015). A triumph of intellect over adversity, New Statesman, Article, 1/16/2015, pp. 34-37. 4p. 2 Color Photographs, 1 Black and White Photograph.

Rees, P., Booth, R., Jones, A. (2016). The emergence of neuroscientific evidence on brain plasticity: Implications for educational practice, Educational and Child Psychology, Mar2016, Vol. 33, Issue 1, p8-19. 12pp. 1 Black and White Photograph.

Roy, D. and Dock, C. (2014). Dyspraxia, drama and masks: Applying the school curriculum as

therapy, Journal of Applied Arts and Health, Vol. 5 Issue 3, pp. 369-375. 7p.

Roy, D. Baker, W. and Hamilton, A., (2015). Teaching the arts early childhood and primary education. (2nd ed.). Melbourne, Cambridge University Press

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Leanne Guihot

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/eds/detail/detail?sid=949070c9-7cc8-4fdf-acbc-1f45e0e13f1a@sessionmgr107&vid=0&hid=112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3D

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/eds/detail/detail?sid=66a9d133-b8f8-430f-80e0-57325922da0e@sessionmgr103&vid=0&hid=108&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3D


Russell-Bowie, (2013). Deirdra, Wombat Stew; Enhancing Self Concept through an Integrated Arts Project, International Journal of Education and the Arts, Vol. 14, Issue 17

The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education, Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality, Salamanca, Spain, 7- 10 June 1994, Printed in UNESCO 1994. ED-94/WS/18

Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications

Semrud-Clikeman, M., Walkowiak, J., Wilkinson, A., and Minne, E.P. (2010). Direct and indirect measures of social perception, behaviour, and emotional functioning in children with Aspergers, disorder, nonverbal learning disability, or ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Vol. 38, Issue 1, pp. 509-519 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-0099380-7

Servizzi, Kelli (2009). Fixing Puppets so they can Talk: Puppets and Puppet making in a Classroom of Preschoolers with Special educational Needs (SEN), Early Childhood Research and Practice, Vol. 10, No. 2, 8pp

Sinclair, C., Jeanneret, N., and O'Toole, J. (2009). Education in the arts: Teaching and learning in the contemporary curriculum. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Sposito, A. M. P., Montigny, F., Sparapani, V. de C., Lima, R. A. G. De Silva-Rodrigues, Fernanda M., Pfeifer, L. I. and Nascimento, L. C. (2016). Puppets as a strategy for communication with Brazilian children with cancer, Nursing and Health Sciences, Vol. 18 Issue 1, pp. 30-37. 8p. 5 (Black and White Photographs)

Ten Cate, O., SENell, L., Mann, K., and Vermunt, J. (2004). Orienting teaching toward the learning process. Academic Medicine, 79(3), 219-228

Trimingham, M. (2010). Objects in transition: The Puppet and the autistic child, Journal of Applied Arts and Health, Vol. 1, Issue 3, P251-265

Uehling, M.D. (1998). A brief history of Stephen Hawking, Biography, 10927891, Aug 98, Vol. 2, Issue 8

UNESCO (2006). ‘Road Map for arts education’. The World Conference on Arts Education: Building Creative Capacities for the 21st Century. Lisbon, 6-9 March. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/40000/12581058115Road_Map_for_Arts_Education.pdf/Seoul%2BAgenda_Goals%2Bfor%2Bthe%2BDevelopment%2Bof%2BArts%2BEducation.pdf.

Van Volkenburg, J. B. (2015). Reaching children with autism spectrum disorders using creative dramatics: The Building Blocks model, Dimensions of early Childhood, 43(2), pp. 13-20. 8p

Watters, Pamela A. (2015). Testing: Room for Creativity, International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 2(2), 13 pages

Way, B., (1967). Development through drama, London, Longmans

Leanne Guihot

http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/40000/12581058115Road_Map_for_Arts_E%09d

http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/40000/12581058115Road_Map_for_Arts_E%09d

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/eds/detail/detail?sid=81d190d1-9e23-4e6f-8e04-0b5bc37be952@sessionmgr106&vid=0&hid=111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3D

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-


www.dec.nsw.gov.au/our-services/schools/disability-services

www.schools.nsw.edu.au/studentsupport/programs/lrngdifficulty.php

www.schools.nsw.edu.au/studentsupport/studentwellbeing/equalopportunities.php

Figure 1 . Pinterest : found on puppet-house.co.jp (https://www.pinterest.com/pin/486388828484979254/)

6. Appendices

Pages 29-30 .. A1 : ROSENBERG SELF-ESTEEM SCALE

Pages 31-35 .. A2 : Measuring Elementary School Students’ Social and Emotional Skills

__________________________________________

A1: ROSENBERG SELF-ESTEEM SCALE

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Description of Measure:A 10-item scale that measures global self-worth by measuring both positive and negative feelings about the self. The scale is believed to be uni-dimensional. All items are answered using a 4-point Likert scale format ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

The modest correlations between self-esteem and school performance do not indicate that high self-esteem leads to good performance. Instead, high self-esteem is partly the result of good school performance.

Self-esteem has a strong relation to happiness. Although the research has not clearly established causation, we are persuaded that high self-esteem does lead to greater happiness. Low self-esteem is more likely than high to lead to depression under some circumstances. Some studies support the buffer hypothesis, which is that high self-esteem mitigates the effects of stress, but other studies come to the opposite conclusion, indicating that the negative effects of low self-esteem are mainly felt in good times. Still others find that high self-esteem leads to happier outcomes regardless of stress or other circumstances.

Instead, we recommend using praise to boost self-esteem as a reward for socially desirable behavior and self-improvement. Ciarrochi, J., Heaven, P. C. L., & Fiona, D. (2007). The impact of hope, self-esteem, and attributional style on adolescents’ school grades and emotional well-being: A longitudinal study.

Leanne Guihot

http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/studentsupport/programs/lrngdifficulty.php



A1: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

InstructionsBelow is a list of statements dealing with your general feelings about yourself.

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement.

1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree

2. At times I think I am no good at all.Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree

3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities.Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree

4. I am able to do things as well as most other people.Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree

5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree

6. I certainly feel useless at times.Self Report Measures for Love and Compassion Research: Self-EsteemStrongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree

7. I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree

8. I wish I could have more respect for myself.Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree

9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree

10. I take a positive attitude toward myself.Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree

Scoring:Items 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 are reverse scored. Give “Strongly Disagree” 1 point, “Disagree” 2 points,“Agree” 3 points, and “Strongly Agree” 4 points. Sum scores for all ten items. Keep scoreson a continuous scale. Higher scores indicate higher self-esteem.

Leanne Guihot


A2: Measuring Elementary School Students’ Social and Emotional Skills

Leanne Guihot


Leanne Guihot

final 07.06.16 proposal l guihot

Documents