Play behaviors of handicapped preschool children in the presence and absence of nonhandicapped peers

JOURNAL OF APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 2, 49-58 (1981)

Play Behaviors of Handicapped Preschool Children in the Presence

and Absence of N0nhanclicapped Peers

TIFFANY FIELD, SCOTT ROSEMAN, L o u i s DE STEFANO

AND JOHN H. KOEWLER III

Mailman Center for Child Development University of Miami Medical School

Sixteen minimally handicapped children and 18 nonhandicapped children were observed playing as separate dasses and as a combined group on their preschool playground. Play behaviors directed toward self, toys, teachers, and peers were recorded using a time sampling procedure. Repeated measures analyses revealed that: (1) handicapped children engaged in less peer-directed and more teacher- directed behaviors than the similar chronological age but developmentally mare advanced normal children; (2) a comparison between a subsample of normal and handicapped children who were approximately equivalent on developmental age suggested that the normal children only vocalized mare often; (3) when integrated with the normal children, handicapped children engaged in more peer- directed and less teacher-directed behaviors than when playing in the nonintegrated situation; (4) during the combined group play situation, normal children directed more behaviors to their own classmates while handicapped children directed approximately equal amounts of behavior to their own classmates and to their normal peers. These results suggest that the normal children were not negatively affected and the handicapped children were positively affected by the integrated play situation.

The recent Education of All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142) has led to the mainstreaming of many handicapped children. This legislation was designed to reduce the handicapped child's isolation, to facilitate the development of skills

*An abridged version of this paper was presented at the American Psychological Association Meeting, New York, September, 1979. We are grateful to the children and teachers who made this study possible and to Susan Widmayer, Lisa Lubin, Shelley Payne, and Wendy Stone who assisted in data collection. Reprints can be obtained from the first author, Tiffany Field, Ph.D., Department of Pediatrics, Mailman Center for Child Development, University of Miami Medical School, P.O. Box 016820, Miami, Florida 33101.

49

50 FIELD, ROSEMAN, DE STEFANO, AND KOEWLER I I I

by exposing handicapped children to normal peer models, and to increase acceptance of handicapped children by their normal peers. Because social interaction behaviors play a critical role in peer acceptance, a number of studies have focussed on the social behavior of handicapped children (Field, 1980; Novak, Olley, & Kearney, 1980; White, 1980). These studies suggest that handicapped children more frequently engage in isolated, self- and toy-directed behaviors, and their occasional social behaviors are directed to teachers more frequently than to peers. Although there is some evidence that social behaviors of handicapped children may be facilitated by exposing these children to normal peer models (Strain, 1981), there is some concern that the normal children may experience a "regression to the mean" phenomenon.

Other concerns associated with the integration of normal and handicapped children include the optimal age for introducing mainstreaming and the most effective ratio of handicapped to normal children, the amount of teacher-directed activity, and the type of setting conducive to interactions between handicapped and normal children.

Studies on the introduction of mainstreaming at grade school age have reported minimal acceptance of handicapped children by their nonhandicapped peers and Tittle or no effect of mainstreaming on the handicapped children (e.g. Bryan, 1974; Iano, Ayers, Heller, McGettigen, & Walker, 1974). An investiga- tion of mainstreaming at a younger age, however, reported positive effects for both handicapped and nonhandicapped kindergarten children (White, 1980). These results were attributed by White (1980) to the integration of equivalent numbers of handicapped and nonhandicapped children and to the minimal amount of teacher-directed activity in the classrooms observed. Her results suggest that mainstreaming may be more effective at younger ages in groups of equal numbers of normal and handicapped children and during free play situations.

Mainstreaming studies on preschool children provide examples on integrating equal numbers of younger handicapped and nonhandicapped children during free play situations (Devoney, Guralnick, & Rubin, 1974; Dunlop, Stoneman & Cantreli, 1979; Peterson & Haralick, 1977; Porter, Ramsey, Tremblau, Iaccobo, & Crawley, 1978). However, their findings are mixed: For example, while Dunlop et al. (1979) noted no changes in the play interaction behaviors of handicapped and nonhandicapped children in an integrated situation, Devoney et al. (1974) noted an increase in the social play behaviors of handicapped children but only when a program was introduced to actively facilitate interaction. Peter- son and Haralick (1977) reported that, although considerable interaction occurred between handicapped and nonhandicapped groups, both the handicapped and nonhandicapped children chose to play more frequently with nonhandicapped children. Porter et al. (1978) also noted that normal children chose to play more

HANDICAPPED PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 51

frequently with normal children, although in their study handicapped children showed "no consistent preferences" for playing with the normal children.

Since handicapped children are often developmentally delayed, it is not clear whether they show less sophisticated social play behaviors and are less often engaged in interactions because they are handicapped or because they are developmentally delayed. In a study comparing the play behaviors of handicapped children at different developmental ages, the handicapped children were noted to follow a normal developmental sequence of teacher-, toy-, and peer- directed behaviors (Field, 1980), but at a delayed rate of development. When different chronological but similar developmental age handicapped children were compared, their play behaviors were quite similar. This finding poses the question of whether similar developmental age children, normal and handicapped, might behave more similarly in an integrated play situation than similar chronological age children, but different developmental age handicapped and normal children.

Another unresolved question for preschool mainstreaming studies is whether the same handicapped or normal child behaves differently in integrated and nonintegrated play situations. The above studies did not report comparisons between the same children playing in integrated and nonintegrated situations. In addition, these comparisons would desirably occur at the same time period since changes attributed to mainstreaming may relate simply to the rapid developmental changes occurring at the preschool age.

Finally, mainstreaming studies are often conducted either in the classroom of the normal or the classroom of the handicapped children. This arrangement may contribute to insecure behavior on the part of the children who are moved to a less familiar setting and territorial behavior on the part of those children observed in their own classroom.

The present study combined some of those conditions thought to contribute to effective mainstreaming. These include the mixing of equivalent numbers of handicapped and nonhandicapped children at the younger preschool age in a setting which was equally familiar to both handicapped and nonhandicapped children--the children's playground. To determine whether handicapped and nonhandicapped children behaved differently in integrated and nonintegrated situations, each child was observed in both situations. Because handicapped children had previously been observed to engage in more self-, toy-, and teacher-directed behaviors, these were included in the observation protocol. We hypothesized that in the presence of normal children who typically engage in more peer-directed behaviors, the handicapped children might engage in less isolated and less teacher-directed and more peer-directed behaviors. Because handicapped children typically show less frequent peer-directed than toy- and teacher-directed behaviors and because interactions with peers are considered

52 FIELD, ROSEMAN, DE STEFANO, AND KOF:WI.ER Ill

critical to peer acceptance (Moore, 1967), we viewed the facilitation of these behaviors as the goal of this mainstreaming effort.

METHOD

Subjects

The sample was comprised of 16 handicapped preschool children (eight girls) and 18 nonhandicapped children (eight girls). Approximately 70% of the sample was Caucasian and of middle socioeconomic background. The children ranged in age from 2.5 to 4 years (M = 3.4 for handicapped children and 3.2 for nonhandicapped children). The handicapped children were on the average ten months younger developmentally, based on standardized developmental scales. They were diagnosed as having minimal sensorimotor handicaps of varying etiology including minimal cerebral palsy (N = 3), Down syndrome (N = 4), minimal retardation (N = 4), and speech and hearing deficits (N = 5). All children were verbal and ambulatory.

Procedure

The setting was a very large playground (approximately 26 by 32 m) adjacent to the school. The playground featured a number of climbing structures, tree swings, crawling tunnels, a sand box, and a wading pool. The separate classes of handicapped and nonhandi-capped children played on the playground for one-half an hour per morning session, and the two classes were combined on the playground for one-half an hour. According to a prearranged schedule, the handicapped children were alone on the playground for the first half-hour, the normal children joined them for the second half-hour, and the normal children played alone on the playground for the third half-hour. The order of this schedule was reversed on alternate days with the normal children playing first alone, then joined by the handicapped children, and, finally, the handicapped children playing alone on the playground. This counterbalancing arrangement was designed to control for order effects. Although two teachers were present from the normal and handicapped classes, the playground period was designated as free play.

Each child was observed for eight periods of 5 minutes duration over the course of one semester. The observations were made by psychology graduate students who were not informed of the purpose of the study or the developmental and chronological ages of the children at the time of the observations. A time sample unit coding system was used which involved 10 seconds of observing followed by 10 seconds of recording behavior on time sample behavior checklists.

The coding system included proximal and distal, positive and negative behaviors frequently observed during preschool play interactions and operation-


ally defined according to Eckerman and Whatley (1977). These were looking, smiling, vocalizing, proximity, touching, hitting, toy snatching, and crying. All of the behaviors were recorded for each target child as they were directed toward a teacher, play object, self, or child. During the integrated situation child- directed behaviors were differentially recorded according to children in the child's own class or in the other class. Touching initiated by the teacher was also ceded for each target child, since it could be reliably observed and was considered a potential index of teacher-directed activity or teacher intervention during free play.

Interobserver reliabilities were calculated for four playground sessions by K (Kappa); a chance-corrected percent agreement measure (Bartko & Carpenter, 1976). The average reliabilities ranged from .78 to .93, with the low frequency behaviors of hitting, toy snatching, and crying being the most reliable. The total number of time sample units during which behaviors occurred was converted to proportion of observation time behaviors occurred, since approximately 8% of the observation periods were interrupted prior to their completion. A few of the behaviors (hitting, toy snatching, and crying) were not included in the analyses since they occurred with such low frequency that they might be expected to artifactually inflate group differences.

The group data were analyzed first by analysis of variance using sex, order of playground situation (integrated play as fast or second situation), and group (normal or handicapped) as factors. Since there were no significant effects for sex or order, both sexes and orders were combined for the analyses reported. The results presented derive from a 2 (normal or handicapped group) by 2 (integrated versus nonintegrated situation) repeated measures analysis of variance with situation as the repeated measure (Myers, 1972).

RESULTS

The means and significant effects yielded by the repeated measures ANOVA are presented in Table 1. Greater than (>) or less than (<) signs indicate direction of effects for those F values significant at least at thep < .05. The presence of these signs in the column between groups indicates significant main effects for group. Their presence in the columns between situations for both of the groups indicates significant main effects for situation. For those significant group by situation interaction effects, post hoc comparisons were made by Bonferroni t tests (Myers, 1972). Directional signs for these significant effects appear in the column between situations for the particular group affected.

Significant main effects for group suggested that across both integrated and nonintegrated situations: (1) handicapped children looked at, vocalized to, and were proximal to other children a lesser proportion of time than the normal children; (2) handicapped children (versus normal children) spent more time

54 FIELD, ROSEMAN, DE STEFANO, AND KOEWLER III

TABLE 1 Mean Proport ion of Time Behaviors Directed Toward Children (Same Class/Other Class),

Teachers, Play Objects, and Self During Integrated and Nonintegrated Play Sessions 1

GROUPS

Handicapped Nonhandicapped

Behaviors directed to: In tegrated Nonlntegrated Integrated Nonintegrated

Children (same class/ other class):

Looking 67(35/32) > 46 < 72(52/20)* > 62 Vocalizing 4(2/2) 3 < 44(22/2) 27 Smiling .10(. 2/. 8) .5 2.2(2/. 2) 2 Proximity 81(45/36) > 48 < 91(71/20)* > 71 Touching 7(5/2)* 4 5(4/I)* 6

Teachers: Looking 34 < 41 > 24 25 Vocalizing 8 11 2 6 Smiling 2 4 3 4 Proximity 49 43 > 22 23 Touching 1 < 11 4 5 Touching by teacher 4 < 7 > 2 .5

Play objects: Looking 34 42 31 < 45 Vocalizing 0 < 7 > 1 .4 Smiling 0 .1 .1 .2 Touching 46 53 < 67 59

Serf: Looking .8 .3 .4 .1 Vocalizing 3 3 3 < 8 Smiling 3 3 1 2 Touching 2 1 4 1

1 < = significantly less than and > = significantly more than at p *significant differences between same class/other class child-directed

situation at p < .05 or less.

< .05 or less.

behaviors during integrated

looking at teachers, more time within the proximity of teachers, and were more often touched by their teachers than were the normal children; and (3) handicapped children spent more time vocalizing to play objects and less time manipulating or touching objects than their normal peers.

Main effects for the repeated measure, integrated and nonintegrated situation, indicated that both handicapped and normal children spent less time looking at and being in the proximity of other children during the nonintegrated situation.

Group by situation interaction effects were as follows: (1) when playing in the integrated versus nonintegrated situation, handicapped children looked at, touched, and were touched by their teachers a lesser proportion of the time and


they vocalized to objects less frequently; (2) normal children in the integrated as opposed to nonintegrated situation spent less time looking at play objects and less time vocalizing to self.

Child-directed behaviors occurring during the integrated situation were analyzed as a function of whether they were directed to own class or other class children by Bonferroni t tests (Myers, 1972). The normal and handicapped children did not differ on absolute proportions of time vocalizing, smiling and touching children of the opposite classroom, but the handicapped children spent more time than the normal children looking at children of the opposite classroom (32% versus 20%, p < .01); and being proximal to children of the opposite classroom (35% versus 20%, p < .005).

The relative proportions of time normal children directed behaviors to their own classmates versus their handicapped peers was greater for looking, vocalizing, proximity, and touching. These significant differences are indicated by asterisks in Table 1. The proportion of time handicapped children directed behaviors to their own classmates versus handicapped peers was only greater for touching behavior.

Finally, an analysis was performed on a subsample to determine whether normal and handicapped children of approximately equivalent developmental age differed on child-directed behavior during the integrated situation. A subsample of children with approximately equivalent developmental ages were selected from each of the groups. Nine of the handicapped children were approximately equivalent on developmental age to seven of the normal children. These children happened to be among the older children of the handicapped group and among the younger children of the normal group. The only significant difference yielded by t tests on these data suggested that the normal children vocalized for a greater proportion of time to other children than did the handicapped children (11% versus 1%, p < .OO1).

DISCUSSION

The concerns expressed by some that normal children may experience a "regression to the mean" when integrated with handicapped children were not supported by these data. While the normal children continued to relate more frequently to their own classmates, as if undisturbed by the addition of less developed children, they related less frequently to objects and more frequently to other children during the integrated than the nonintegrated play situation. The handicapped children also engaged in more peer-directed behaviors, and less object- and teacher-directed behaviors during the integrated versus the nonintegrated play situation.

While this increase of peer-directed behavior during the integrated situation may have simply related to the greater numbers of children available in that

56 FIELD, ROSEMAN, DE STEFANO, AND KOEWLER Ill

situation, the greater amounts of child-directed behaviors by the handicapped children may have been facilitated by the modelling of those behaviors by the nonhandicapped children. Since peer-directed behaviors occur at a more advanced developmental stage than teacher- and toy-directed behavior (Field, 1980), and since peer-directed behaviors are thought to facilitate peer acceptance (Field, 19.81; Hartup, 1979; Moore, 1967; Strain, 1981), the greater frequency of peer-directed behaviors by both the handicapped and normal children during the integrated play situation were viewed as positive effects of that integration. Thus, the concerns expressed by some that the behaviors of nonhandicapped children may be negatively affected by the behaviors of handicapped children appear unwarranted at least at this age. Both the handicapped and the nonhandicapped children appeared to benefit by the integrated situation inasmuch as they directed more social behaviors to other children during that situation.

A number of the results of this study may relate to developmental age differences of the normal and handicapped children. Since handicapped children are frequently assigned to mainstreamed classrooms according to their chronological age and since research is then conducted on same-age but developmental!y different children, these findings deserve comment. Relevant to this problem are the differences noted in the peer- and teacher-directed behaviors of the normal and handicapped children of this study. Peer-directed behavior occurred more frequently among normal children and teacher-directed behavior more often among handicapped children. These data are consistent with those reported by Field (1980) who observed that peer-directed behavior occurred more frequently among more developed handicapped children and teacher-directed behavior among less advanced handicapped children.

The comparison between developmentally age equivalent, normal, and handicapped children of this study also suggests the possibility that the group differences reported are related to developmental age differences more than to handicaps per se. While an adequate treatment of the developmental versus chronological age match question requires separate CA and MA matched sam- ples (Heal, 1970), the comparison of subsamples in this study revealed that developmental age-matched normal children only vocalized more often than the handicapped children. The vocalization difference may have derived from the handicapping condition since many of the children had diagnosed speech deft- cits. Banham (1972) has also noted less vocal activity among handicapped children (normal intelligence, cerebral palsied children) than among age-matched nonhandicapped children. However, another possibility is that language delays of the handicapped children were more pronounced than were delays in other areas, but because language production is not tapped to the same degree as other skills on standardized developmental scales, their developmental ages may have been overestimated by the tests.

The frequently reported preference of nonhandicapped for nonhandicapped children in mainstreaming studies (Peterson & Haralick, 1977; Porter et al.,


1978) may also relate to the normal children being developmentally more advanced than the handicapped children. The normal children in this study may have directed more behaviors to their own classmates during integrated play because their own classmates were closer developmental matches. Just as normal children in mixed age situations seem to prefer same-age or slightly older children (Allen & Feldman, 1973), normal children in mainstreaming studies may prefer their own peers because they are developmentally equivalent or more advanced. Similarly, that the handicapped children watched the normal children more than the normal children watched the handicapped children may relate to the normal children being developmentally more advanced, just as younger children are noted to watch older more developmentally advanced children more frequently than the reverse in peer interaction studies on normal children (Lubin & Field, 1979). The equal frequency of "looking a t " normal and handicapped children by handicapped children may contribute to the impression that the handicapped children show "no consistent preferences" for the normal or handicapped children (Porter et al., 1978). Although thig"~tudy sample was too small to assess individual child preferences, these data and the data of Furman et al. (Furman, Rahe, & Hartup, 1979) on the use of younger peer "therapists" for socially withdrawn children raise the question of whether handicapped children may benefit more from playing with developmentally advanced peer models or developmentally younger peer "therapists ."

Although many preschool mainstreaming questions remain unanswered, the results of this study suggest that integrating equivalent numbers of handicapped and nonhandicapped children in a familiar free-play setting facilitates the pre-directed social behaviors of the minimally handicapped child.

REFERENCES

Allen, V., & Feldman, R. S. Learning through tutoring: Low-achieving children as tutors. Journal of ExlJerimental Education, 1973, 42, 1-5.

Banham, K. Activity level of retarded cerebral palsied children. Exceptional Children, 1972, 38, 641-642.

Bartko, J. J., & Carpenter, W. T. On the methods and theory of reliability. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1976, 163,307-317.

Bryan, T. M. Peer popularity of learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 7, 621-625.

Devoney, C., Guralnick, M. J., & Rubin, M. Integrating handicapped and non-handicapped preschool children: Effects on social play. Childhood Education, 1974, 50, 360-364.

Dunlop, K. H., Stoneman, Z., & C.antrell, M. L. Social interaction of exceptional and other children in an integrated preschool classroom: An observational study, 1979.

Eckerman, C. O., & Whatiey, J. L. Toys and social interaction between infant peers. Child Development, 1977, 48, 1645-1656.

Field, T. Self, teacher, toy and peer-directed behaviors of handicapped preschool children. In T. Field, S. Goldberg, D. Stem, & A. Sostek (Eds.), High-risk infants and children: Adult and peer interactions. New York: Academic Press, 1980.

58 FIELD, ROSEMAN, DE STEFANO, AND KOEWLER III

Field, T. Early peer relations. In P. Strain (Ed.), The utilization of classroom peers as behavior change agents. New York: Plenum, 1981.

Furman, W., Rahe, D. F., & Hartup, W. W. Rehabilitation of socially withdrawn preschool children through mixed-age and same-age socialization. Child Development, 1979, 50, 915--922.

Hartup, W. W. Peer relations and the growth of social competence. In M. W. Kent & J. E. Rolf (Eds.), The primary prevention of psychopathology. Vol. 3. Promoting social competence and coping in children. Haiaover, N.H.: University Press of New England, 1979.

Heal, L. W. Research strategies and research goals in the scientific study of the mentally subnormal. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1970, 75, 10-15.

Iano, R. P., Ayers, D., Heller, H. B., McGettigen, J. P., & Walker, V. S. Sociometric status of retarded children in an integrative program. Exceptional Children, 1974, 40, 267-271.

Lubin, L., & Field, T. Imitation during preschool peer interactions. Unpublished manuscript, Uni- versity of Miami, 1979.

Moore, S. Correlates of peer acceptance in nursery school children. Young Children, 1967, 22, 281-297.

Myers, J. L. Fundamentals of experimental design. Boston: Allyn. & Bacon, Inc. 1972.

Novak, M., Olley, G., & Kearney, D. Social skills of children with special needs in integrated separate preschools. In T. Field, S. Goldberg, D. Stem, & A. Sostek (Eds.), High-risk infants and children: Ad,dt and peer interactions. New York: Academic Press, 1980.

Peterson, N. L., & Haralick, J. G. Integration of handicapped and non.handicapped preschoolers: An analysis of play behavior and social interaction. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 1977, 12,235--245.

Porter, R. H., Ramsey, B., Tremblau, A., laccobo, M., & Crawley, S. Social interactions in heterogeneous groups of retarded and normally developing children: An observational study. In G. Sackett (Ed.), Observing behavior: Theory and applications in mental retardation. Baltimore, Md.: University Park Press, 1978.

Strain, P. (Ed.) The utilization of classroom peers as behavior change agents. New York: Plenum, !981.

White, B. N. Mainstrcaming in grade school and preschool: How the child with special needs interacts with peers. In T. Field, S. Goldberg, D. Stem, & A. M. Sostek (Eds.), High risk infants and children: Adult and peer interactions. New York: Academic Press, 1980.

Documents

Play behaviors of handicapped preschool children in the presence and absence of nonhandicapped peers