Walker, Sue and Berthelsen, Donna C. (2007) Social Inclusion of Young Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder in Australian early Childhood Programs. In Proceedings Australasian Human Development Association, University of NSW, Sydney. Copyright 2007 (please consult author)

The social inclusion of young The social inclusion of young

children with ASDchildren with ASD in Australian in Australian

early childhood programsearly childhood programs

Sue Walker and Donna Sue Walker and Donna

BerthelsenBerthelsen

Queensland University Queensland University

of Technologyof Technology

Cricos No. 00213J

• Peer interactions form the context within

which children learn other developmental

skills

• Social acceptance is not always the outcome

for children with disabilities in inclusive

programs (Guralnick, Hammond, Connor & Neville, 2006)

• There is evidence that children with

disabilities may be socially excluded or

isolated within early childhood settings

• Compared to typically developing children,

preschool children with disabilities:

• Exhibit lower levels of social interactive play

• Form very few reciprocal friendships and

• Are less accepted by their peers(Guralnick, Connor, Hammond, Gottman & Kinnish, 1996; Guralnick &

Groom, 1988; Hestenes & Carroll, 2000; Walker & Berthelsen, 2005)

• Difficulties with peer interaction

experienced by young children with

disabilities inhibit opportunities to fully

participate in early childhood programs

Why be Why be

concerned concerned

about about

children's children's

social social

inclusion?inclusion?

• To explore the level of social inclusion of

young children with ASD in early

childhood education programs

• To examine the nature of the play and

engagement in play activities of young

children with ASD with their typically

developing peers

• Participants

• 12 focus children (male) with a diagnosis of

ASD enrolled in regular preschool settings

• Mean age 62.25 months (SD 6.41)

• 30 typically developing comparison

children

• Mean age 60.94 months (SD 8.16)

Aims of the ResearchAims of the Research

MethodMethod • Theory of Mind (false belief tasks)

– Changed location and unexpected contents

• Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)

– Receptive language

• Profile of Peer Relations

– Teacher rating of peer acceptance

– Prosocial/cooperative behaviour

– Aggressive/disruptive behaviour

– Passive/withdrawn behaviour

• Naturalistic Observations

– Time sample observations at five minute intervals

across four free play periods of one hour each at

each preschool (50 observations of each focus child)

• Observation categories

• Social categories (Onlooker, alone or solitary play,

parallel play, social play, teacher interaction)

• Cognitive categories (Functional play, constructive

play, dramatic play, games with rules)

Data analysis and resultsData analysis and results……• Non-parametric tests of significance (Mann-Whitney U, p < .05, two tailed) were

used to test for differences on mean scores between typically developing and

focus children

• Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

• Focus children significantly lower on PPVT (Mann-Whitney U = 51.50, p = .001)

• Theory of Mind Tasks

• No significant difference between groups

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Acceptance* Aggression Prosocial*** Withdrawn**

Focus child Comparison group

Comparison between Comparison between

focus children and focus children and

typically developing typically developing

children on profile of children on profile of

peer relationspeer relations

*indicates p < .05, *indicates p < .05,

**indicates p < .01, **indicates p < .01,

***indicates p < .001***indicates p < .001

Comparison between focus children and typically developing childComparison between focus children and typically developing children on ren on

observational data (observational data (*indicates p < .05, **indicates p < .01, ***indicates p < .001)*indicates p < .05, **indicates p < .01, ***indicates p < .001)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Solitary play**

Onlooker

Parallel play

Social play*

Teacher interaction**

Focus children Non-focus children

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Functional

play (p = .056)

Constructive

play

Dramatic play Games with

rules

Focus children Non-focus children

–Teacher report indicated that focus children:

•Were less well accepted by the peer group than typically

developing children

•Displayed less prosocial/ cooperative behaviour and more

passive/ withdrawn behaviour than typically developing

children

–Observational data indicated that focus children:

•Were more likely to be engaged in solitary play and

functional play and less likely to be engaged in social play

than typically developing children

•Were more likely than typically developing children to be

engaged in interacting with the teacher

•Were engaged at comparable levels to typically developing

children across most categories of play activity and social

interaction

•Overall, compared to typically developing children,

children with disabilities:

•Exhibited lower levels of socially interactive play

•Engaged in higher levels of isolate play

•Engaged in more frequent interactions with the teacher

Summary of Summary of

ResultsResults

• While teacher report indicated that the focus

children had significant deficits in their social

skills, observational analyses showed children were

not significantly different in most social and play

activities in which they participated compared to

focus children

• Significant differences between focus children and

typically developing children in receptive language

ability (PPVT)

• No significant differences between focus children

and typically developing children on a range of

tasks requiring an understanding of Theory of

Mind

• However, both teacher report and observational

data indicated that, although focus children

participated socially in the preschool setting, they

spent proportionally less time than their peers in

activities requiring higher levels of social skill

(e.g., social play)

DiscussionDiscussion

• Due to the lack of significant differences in performance between focus children and the typically developing children on the ToM tasks, a focus on social-cognitive skills may not be as useful with this age group as direct teaching of play and social skills

• Active adult intervention in play and social activities is essential in inclusive early education programs

• Effective teaching should be focussed on:

• Direct instruction of functional social skills

• Social relationships as the catalyst for learning

• Social communication as the basis for an integrated teaching-learning process.

ImplicationsImplications

Guralnick, M.J. (2002). Involvement with peers: Comparisons between young children with and without Down’s Syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 46 (5), 379-393.

Guralnick, M.J., Connor, R.T., Hammond, M., Gottman, J.M. & Kinnish, K. (1996). Immediate effects of mainstreamed settings on the social interactions and social integration of preschool children. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100 (4), 359-377.

Guralnick, M.J., Hammond, M., Connor, R.T. & Neville, B. (2006). Stability, change and correlates of the peer relationships of young children with mild developmental delays. Child Development, 77 (2), 312-324.

Guralnick, M.J. & Groom, J.M. (1988). Friendships of preschool children in mainstreamed playgroups. Developmental Psychology, 24, 595-604.

Hestenes, L.L. & Carroll, D.E. (2000). The play interactions of young children with and without disabilities: Individual and environmental influences. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15 (2), 229-246.

Walker, S. & Berthelsen, D. (2005). Social interactions of young children with disabilities in Australian early childhood programs. Presented at the Biennial Conference of the Society for Research in Child Development, Atlanta, Georgia, April, 2005.