Alternativas de solución

Pesign

This observational study involved non-participant onlookers in following individual children in a group free-play situation, making assessments of their interactions and play within time-limited periods.

The particular problems of comparing visually impaired and sighted children in free play As mentioned, this preliminary study did not compare examples of sighted and visually impaired children. This decision was in acknowledgement that properly controlled experimental comparison between the two groups in free-play may not be possible, given that there are perhaps too many advantages in favour of sighted mainstream children. For instance, there is no standardised age at which children with disabilities begin formal nursery or school, and some children may still only be attending part-time at age 5, by which age almost all sighted children will have been well established fiill-time at primary school. Without full sight there are the extra spatial and mobility demands involved in orienting to a new environment, which is likely to be bigger and less predictable than the familiar home setting. Thus, even before the exigencies of new social circumstances, there are major potential sources of insecurity for the child that may well impact on behaviour. As to social preparedness, there are wide variations in disabled young children's experience with their peers, particularly in group social situations. Perhaps the child has been intentionally shielded from dealing with other children, either mainstream sighted children - who might be thought too excitable, unpredictable and dominating, or from other disabled children - with their own singular needs and often idiosyncratic behaviour. A visually impaired child could then come to school without having associated freely with other children, certainly without having made a peer-friend. In practical terms,

children was judged unlikely, with comparable data therefore doubtful. With such potential factors in mind, this first investigation concentrated solely on the social play at school of groups of totally blind children.

Subject selection

The observations involved blind children from the three sub-groups described in Chapter Two. As a way of considering the extremes of variation within the blind sample it was decided to leave out those children in the ‘intermediate’ ability group, and compare the social and play performance of the nine children who were rated highest by teachers on the ‘interpersonal relating' screening form against the nine with the lowest ratings. These two groups became identified as the 'high social' (or 'HS') and 'low social' (or 'LS') groups, respectively. Group means for verbal IQ, CA and MA are shown below [Table 3.1]. A group difference of approximately 10 IQ points was noticeable between the groups, as no attempt was made to directly match them on these measures at this point. This was because, for this first study, the priority was to compare the two groups as originally defined and in their full numbers, for their social play abilities, as illustrative of interpersonal relating. However, tight group and pair­ wise matching was carried out on these measures for experimental examination of the third project prediction in subsequent Chapters Five and Six.

Ta b l e 3.1: Gr o u p m e a n IQ, CA a n d MA s c o r e s f o r t h e t w o b l i n d s u b-g r o u p s, ‘HIGH SOCIAL’ AND LOW SOCIAL’

CA IQ MA

‘Low Social’ blind (n = 9)

Mean 7;8 86.33 6;7

‘High Social’ blind (n = 9)

Mean 7;6 96.78 7;2

Observational procedure

Play C lassification scheme

Attention was given to three main areas o f children's functioning: (i) the quality of children's social orientation, i.e. their interest in, and contact with, others; (ii) their quality and type of actual play; (iii)

their use of language in social interactions. These are discussed in turn below, in context with approaches taken in other similar investigations.

(i) Social contact

In a free-play situation it was important to make some assessment of a child's orientation to other people, that is, moment-by-moment, how involved he or she seems to be with others - in terms of physical distance, quality of affective engagement, and with what emotional attitude, if any. These are, in fact, the defining, constituent facets of any interpersonal relating, and what was rated by teachers in the preceding chapter. Therefore, observational assessments of these aspects of relating would serve to confirm teachers' ratings for individual blind children, and the usefulness of the ratings themselves.

In a previous observational study of children’s peer social interactions, Coimolly and Doyle (1984) categorised segments of observed play in terms of its social extent (‘social with peer’ / ‘non-social’ / ‘adult directed’). If ‘social’, it was also rated for the quality of its predominant affective mood (‘positive’ / ‘negative’ / neutral’). In similar style, this observational study first involved an estimate of the child's physical proximity to any other person, before any judgement of the quality of any manifest social contact. Then a rating was made of the 'social engagement' of the child toward any other person(s) nearby - this would be 'co-operative' if engaged either with positive affect or neutral with another person, 'conflicted' if negatively so engaged, or 'isolated' if not affectively engaged with anyone.

Coincident with these criteria was a measure of the child's emotional state during the rating period, again encompassing the positive, negative and neutral dimensions with, respectively, 'pleasure', 'distress' (including anger) and 'placidity'.

(ii) Social play

This attempt to observe and categorise children's play in terms of its social quality and type covered a similar area to that rated by the CARS diagnostic rating scale, discussed in Chapter One (Schopler et

(1987), and Connolly and Doyle (1984). This latter team took judgements of the size of any play interaction (dyadic or involving a larger group), and also whether it consisted of literal or pretend play. Both Rubin & colleagues and Guralnick & Groom employed adaptations of the indices of 'social participation' devised by Parten (1932), and Smilansky's (1968) measures of 'cognitive play'. Guralnik's adaptation of Parten's index, like this study, gave focus to the child's quality of social participation: that is, whether solitary, parallel, or truly joint. The difference between the latter two may not always be clear. Parallel play implies that while two children might be playing in a similar fashion, with the same intent and focus, they may well not be truly interactive and acknowledging of each other's involvement, still as though playing independently, even if physically alongside one another. An effective distinction may be especially difficult when observing visually impaired children who do not use eye-contact as a clue to their attentional focus. In classilying types of play, Smilansky (1968) defined play activities as either i, fimctional ("simple repetitive muscle movements with or without objects") ii, constructive (using objects to make something) iii, dramatic (involving role taking or other pretence) or iv, games with pre-arranged rules. From his observations, Rubin et al. (1978) established chronological age and educational setting as variables infiuencing play. In comparing the play and social abilities of kindergarten age children (range 4; 10 - 5;9) with that of pre-schoolers (range 3;9 - 4; 11), it was seen that the one-year-older kindergarteners showed less solitary- and parallel-functional play and more parallel-constructive and parallel- and group dramatic play than the younger children. The trend was toward more motor-sophisticated and socially- interactive play with increasing age. Unfortunately, no measures of IQ were given for Rubin's study, so it must be left to be to be assumed that the groups were comparable with regard to IQ.

The present classification scheme attempted to define five categories of social play quality: 'no play seen', 'isolated play alone', 'parallel play', 'reciprocal (joint) play - with equivocal evidence', and 'reciprocal play - with definite evidence'. The penultimate of these was given when the child's social play was of an indeterminate quality between 'parallel' and truly joint. For instance, the category could have been used when there was a clear suggestion that the child in question was engaged in the same activity as another, and seemed to acknowledge the presence of the other, but did not demonstrably communicate any co-operative intent or action. If such a behavioural sign was present the child's play

would be rated to fall in the final category. In judging the type of play produced, the following categories were defined: 'rough and tumble' - in which the play seemed to be purely in terms of physical contact; 'functional / exploratory play' - involving interaction with objects and surroundings, yet without any symbolic pretence; and a series of categories reflecting different aspects of symbolic pretence. Within these, note was taken of whether the symbolism involved objects as props given symbolised meaning, or was predominantly or totally verbal. For instance, anecdotal evidence suggested that certain congenitally blind children were often found during free-time standing alone while verbally recreating scenes from recent class-time experience, repeating the instructions given by their teacher. This would qualify as verbal symbolism without props. Instances of role-play were also acknowledged in the categories, such as in the example just given, in which the child seemed to take on the symbolised actions of their teacher. This particular example would be counted as role-play for the purpose of this observational study, yet it also expressed a particular ambiguity which will be dealt with in the subsequent, more detailed chapters on symbolic play, in that the simple repetition of heard phrases casts doubt over the depth of the role characterisation and the child's whole conceptualisation of the event.

(iii) Language

The focus of this aspect of the observation was on the social, communicative, function of any language used by the child. There was a continuum for this, with the non-social extreme being the use of vocal sounds or even recognisable words for a seemingly self stimulatory effect, often involving repetition of a small number of words or a particular phrase just heard, in an echolalic fashion. A further point along the continuum would be the issuing of words or phrases outwards, among but not necessarily directed to, others - with no seeming concern that the communication is met with an appropriate response. This type of socially impaired speech was observed in autistic children by Clark and Rutter (1981) and McHale et al. (1980). Attwood et al. (1988) provided a definition of a slightly more social dimension of language use in describing what was apparently non-communicative speech in autistic children, whereby one child would address another, yet with no observable social interaction ensuing. At the other, most social, extreme of the continuum there would be clear evidence that the interaction

is a two-sided affair with partners taking note of each other's contributions and receiving, giving and building a meaningful and functional social exchange.

In addition, in the only non-mutually exclusive criterion, instances were noted of the children's use of particular types of instrumental language, i.e. with purpose in mind. This included requests, instructions and comments.

Rating criteria

The original set of seven rating criteria were defined after informal piloting with a longer list. This was distilled until each criterion provided satisfactorily behaviourally discrete, rateable data, without overlap. For example, a previously included criterion, 'Orientation' (with component category items 'inward' / 'equivocably toward other(s)' / 'definitely toward other(s)') was seen to cover much the same ground as 'Social engagement' and was discarded. The final list of options for judgements is as follows [Table 3.2]:

Ta b l e 3.2: Ra t i n g c r i t e r i a f o r s o c i a lp l a y o b s e r v a t io n s

SO CIA L PLAY

Proxim ity This denotes the spatial distance taken up between the child and others. Distant (6 ft or more from another child / adult)

Within 6 ft of another child / adult Within 2 ft of another child / adult Touching another child/adult

Social engagem ent A qualitative assessment o f the child's affective attitude to others. Co-operative

Conflictual Isolated

Em otional tone A measure o f individual emotional state. Pleasure

Distress Placid

Sociability of play An estimate o f the level o f social participation. No play seen

Playing alone, isolated Playing in parallel

Reciprocal play - with equivocal evidence Reciprocal play - with definite evidence

Type of play A qualitative description o f the child's level o f play, with particular regard to symbolism.

Simple rough and tumble play Functional / exploratory play

Symbolic representational play using objects as props

Symbolic representational play with props, with oneself represented in the play

Symbolic representational play witli props, with a role-played character involved (though this character need not necessarily be physically represented by a prop)

Verbal symbolism only, without objects involved, though with oneself represented in the play

Verbal symbolism only, without objects involved, though with a role-played character

Other LANGUAGE

Language use - Social

The social direction o f any language used Self-directed

Non-specifically directed outwards Direct to other, but not reciprocal Reciprocal - with equivocal evidence

Reciprocal - with definite evidence, i.e. socially engaged, conversational Language use -

P ragm atic

The functional use o f any language used Request

Instruction Comment

Methodology of Observations

In the similar project conducted by Guralnik and Groom (1987); groups of children were observed at play indoors in a university-based laboratory observation room, which allowed for close and inclusive video recordings. This allowed the observers to rate fixed segments of recorded data. Also, the particular child being observed at any one time wore a custom-designed vest equipped with microphone and transmitter, which provided a back-up audio account of his or her interactions. In the present project, however, children were observed during their most familiar free-play setting with their peer-group, which for most of the schools is the outdoor playground. The recording of observations therefore relied on purely manual methods, with close physical proximity between child and observer enabling the observer to record all activities, interactions and language, however intimate or quiet. This involved the investigator observing with a notebook in a non-participant style, which is possible with blind children without the danger of contamination by unwitting observer participation, as the sample was selected exclusively from children in special educational settings. This also meant a less populous playground and consequently much easier conditions to observe and overhear children, as well as ensuring that there were consistent settings for the observations.

One undetermined factor in these observations was the presence during the play periods of children with a wide range of degree of visual impairment, rather than all of the participants being uniformly totally blind. It was noted by Guralnik and Groom (1987) from their observations of disabled and non­ disabled children how the latter children were more likely to initiate interactions in the playground. Thus it might be expected that children with less severe visual impairments would dominate interactions and exert influence over results. However, (and given that all of the subjects included in the study were of the same, total, degree of visual impairment) each rating criterion was considered to focus sufficiently on the specific behaviour and reactions of the target child, so as not to be influenced by the kind of approach made by any other child, whether partially sighted, totally blind, or with other disabilities.

Rating procedure

The children were each observed for three sessions. These took place on three separate occasions during regular playtimes, in all but a minority of cases over three different days. The intention was to collect a representative sample of play behaviour, across the child's different moods and, importantly, which would even out potential effects of any individual conflicts or other particular interpersonal situations that might be going on between the child and other specific class-mates. As shown in Table 3.2 below, in one observation session there were five time-sampled observation periods, each of 20 seconds. After these 20 seconds the observer took time to complete a tick-sheet of the seven different rating criteria detailed above in Table 3.1.

Within all but one criterion, the item categories were constituted as mutually exclusive items (the exception was pragmatic language use). The observer would tick the one which best characterised the child's activities during that 20-second period. If it proved very difiicult to decide between two items as the most frequent behaviour in a particular period, the most highly affective or social item was ticked. Thus, in a difiicult decision between “Social engagement: ‘co-operative’ / ‘isolated’” the former would be chosen. To some extent the ratings were an impressionistic measure. The onus was on the child to demonstrate positive evidence in each new rating period of a particular behaviour; that is, even if vaguely similar, behaviour was not automatically judged to follow-on from and be of the same type as that of the previous rating period. The criterion of pragmatic language use was exceptional in being the only elective rating, completed only if a child showed any language during the 20-second observation period.

The scoring of each 20-second period was intended to take less than 40 seconds, although for more complicated rating decisions this was closer to 60 seconds. It would never be less than 40 seconds, therefore ensuring that at least a minute transpired between the beginnings of successive observation periods. Therefore one observation session provided data from at least five minutes of play.

Each observation session began with the child geographically close (within six feet) to at least two other children, without an adult in the immediate vicinity. This established a common 'starting point' from which each child could decide how he or she wished to spend the observation period.

The following table [3.2] illustrates how scores were derived from the rating schedule. For the criterion ‘Social engagement’ children were rated for each 20-second period as to which of the three category items was most characteristic of the nature of their interacting with others during that period. As an example, if in one five-period observation session the child was seen for two periods each to be 'co-operative' and 'conflictual', and once to be 'isolated', he would score '2;2;T. In order to obtain a child's overall scores the total across the three sessions was calculated. Thus, if this child scored identically during the other two observation sessions his total would be '6;6;3', out of a possible maximum of 15 for each.

Ta b l e 3 .3: Ex a m p l er a t i n g: Cr i t e r i o n o f 'So c i a le n g a g e m e n t'