Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

last recommendation would be to provide
constructive feedback at each daily reminder
session to <strong>the</strong> campers without disabilities
about <strong>the</strong>ir interactions <strong>the</strong> previous camp
day.
Limitations
There were several factors both foreseen and
unforeseen that produced limitations to <strong>the</strong>
results of <strong>the</strong> STAR intervention. As is often
<strong>the</strong> case with inclusive recreation programs,
<strong>the</strong>re were very few participants with disabilities
at each camp site. For this study <strong>the</strong>re
were only one or two campers with disabilities
who had permission to participate in <strong>the</strong> study
at each camp site and <strong>the</strong>se campers had mild
disabilities that were not apparent to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r
campers. It is unclear if <strong>the</strong> results of <strong>the</strong> study
would have been different if <strong>the</strong> campers with
disabilities had impairments easily recognizable
to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r campers (e.g., a child in a
wheelchair).
An additional limitation to <strong>the</strong> research
comes as a result of <strong>the</strong> design of <strong>the</strong> intervention
itself. During <strong>the</strong> baseline condition,
<strong>the</strong> campers with and without disabilities were
seated away from each o<strong>the</strong>r, essentially eliminating
any opportunity for interaction between
<strong>the</strong> two. During <strong>the</strong> intervention observations,
<strong>the</strong> campers with and without
disabilities were seated next to each o<strong>the</strong>r.
Simply placing <strong>the</strong> campers next to each o<strong>the</strong>r
may have increased <strong>the</strong> incidence of interaction
between <strong>the</strong>m. The campers without disabilities
were always free to move during <strong>the</strong>
intervention; however, most stayed in <strong>the</strong> seat
<strong>the</strong>y were asked to sit in. Had <strong>the</strong> participant
pool been larger, it may have been possible to
take baseline data and complete <strong>the</strong> intervention
with a camper who was initially sitting
next to <strong>the</strong> camper with a disability.
Future Directions
The positive results of <strong>the</strong> STAR intervention
have far-reaching directions for future research.
It is important to replicate across different
variables so <strong>the</strong> STAR intervention may
be used by a variety of recreation programs in
<strong>the</strong> future. It is also important to replicate <strong>the</strong>
procedures using campers with a variety of
disabilities and a range of severity. This should
include campers with physical, emotional, and
cognitive disabilities. Procedures should be
replicated using different recreation settings
and activities, such as team sports, games,
swimming, and dance. A final factor to consider
for future research is <strong>the</strong> age and gender
similarities of <strong>the</strong> pair of campers. Gender
and age differences in <strong>the</strong> dyads may have
affected <strong>the</strong> results of this investigation, but
future replications with pairs of <strong>the</strong> same gender
or age versus pairs of differing gender and
age will give fur<strong>the</strong>r insight into facilitating
interactions in camp settings. Future studies
could also explore different interventions
based on <strong>the</strong> age of <strong>the</strong> child, such as <strong>the</strong> use
of pictures for younger children versus abstract
presentations for older children. Future
research will streng<strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> effectiveness of
<strong>the</strong> STAR intervention and will expand <strong>the</strong>
opportunity for many recreation programs to
use this method to increase friendships
among campers with and without disabilities.
References
100 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2008
Anderson, L., Schleien, S. J., McAvoy, L., Lais, G., &
Seligmann, D. (1997). Creating positive change
through an integrated outdoor adventure program.
Therapeutic Recreation <strong>Journal</strong>, 31, 214–229.
Bedini, L. A. (2000). “Just sit down so we can talk”:
Perceived stigma and community recreation pursuits
of people with disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation
<strong>Journal</strong>. 34, 55–68.
Devine, M. A. (2004). “Being a ‘doer’ instead of a
‘viewer’”: The role of inclusive leisure contests in
determining social acceptance for people with
disabilities. <strong>Journal</strong> of Leisure Research, 36, 137–159.
English, K., Goldstein, H., Kaczmarek, L., & Shafer,
K. (1996). “Buddy skills” for preschoolers. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 28(3), 62–66.
English, K., Goldstein, H., Shafer, K., & Kaczmarek,
L. (1997). Promoting interactions among preschoolers
with and without disabilities: Effects of a
buddy skills-training program. Exceptional Children,
63, 229–243.
Garfinkle, A. N., & Schwartz, I. S. (2002). Peer
imitation: Increasing social interactions in children
with autism and o<strong>the</strong>r developmental disabilities
in inclusive preschool classrooms. Topics
in Early Childhood Special Education, 22, 26–38.
Goldstein, H., & English, K. (1997). Interaction
among preschoolers with and without disabilities:
Effects of across-<strong>the</strong>-day peer intervention. <strong>Journal</strong>
of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 40, 33–49.
Goldstein, H., Kaczmarek, L., Pennington, R., &