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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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., &
Shafer K. (1992). Peer-mediating intervention: Attending to, commenting on, and acknowledging <strong>the</strong> behavior of preschoolers with autism. <strong>Journal</strong> of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 289–305. Gonzalez-Lopez, A., & Kamps, D. M. (1997). Social skills training to increase social interactions between children with autism and <strong>the</strong>ir typical peers. Focus on Autism and O<strong>the</strong>r Developmental Disabilities, 12, 2–15. Herbert, J. T. (2000). Therapeutic adventure staff attitudes and preferences for working with persons with disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation <strong>Journal</strong>, 34, 211–226. Hundert, J., & Houghton, A. (1992). Promoting social interaction of children with disabilities in integrated preschools: A failure to generalize. Exceptional Children, 48, 311–320. Laushey, K. M., & Heflin, L. J. (2000). Enhancing social skills of kindergarten children with autism through <strong>the</strong> training of multiple peers as tutors. <strong>Journal</strong> of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 183–193. Odom, S. L., Chandler, L. K., Ostrosky, M., McConnell, S. R., & Reaney, S. (1992). Fading teacher prompts from peer-initiated interventions for young children with disabilities. <strong>Journal</strong> of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 307–317. Sable, J. R. (1995). Efficacy of physical integration, disability awareness, and adventure programming on adolescents’ acceptance of individuals with disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation <strong>Journal</strong>, 29, 206– 227. Sasso, G. M., Mundschenk, N. A., Melloy, K. J., & Casey, S. D. (1998). A comparison of <strong>the</strong> effects of organismic and setting variables on <strong>the</strong> social interaction behavior of children with developmental disabilities and autism. Focus on Autism and O<strong>the</strong>r Developmental Disabilities, 13, 2–17. Schleien, S. J., Germ, P. A., & McAvoy, L. H. (1996). Inclusive community leisure services: Recommended professional practices and barriers encountered. Therapeutic Recreation <strong>Journal</strong>, 30, 260– 273. Received: 23 August 2006 Initial Acceptance: 17 October 2006 Final Acceptance: 9 January 2007 STAR Intervention Program / 101
Page 1 and 2:
Education and Training in Developme
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Guardianship: Its Role in t
Page 9 and 10:
guardians who are knowledgeable abo
Page 11 and 12:
in budgeting and spending; (b) a sp
Page 13 and 14:
and effective are essential to self
Page 15 and 16:
involved in the gu
Page 17 and 18:
sonal rights removed through guardi
Page 19 and 20:
who are not trustworthy, and when o
Page 21 and 22:
Discussion and Recommendations Lake
Page 23 and 24:
DC: OSERS. (ERIC Document Reproduct
Page 25 and 26:
people who do not have disabilities
Page 27 and 28:
TABLE 1 School Demographics Demogra
Page 29 and 30:
TABLE 2 Methods for Including Stude
Page 31 and 32:
participate in service learning pro
Page 33 and 34:
who are “more experienced” in s
Page 35 and 36:
cern that they wer
Page 37 and 38:
service learning activity for stude
Page 39 and 40:
supports school personnel need to h
Page 41 and 42:
Using Pivotal Response Training wit
Page 43 and 44:
the trained peers
Page 45 and 46:
Group B between one and two times p
Page 47 and 48:
ing play sessions with Group B, Col
Page 49 and 50:
learned to interact with ot
Page 51 and 52:
Affirmative sentences emphasize a v
Page 53 and 54: identifying several important behav
Page 55 and 56: Kenji. For Kenji, all observation s
Page 57 and 58: Figure 2. Percentage of 10-s interv
Page 59 and 60: gaging in complicated verbal commun
Page 61 and 62: Results The results of the<
Page 63 and 64: when the person wa
Page 65 and 66: Effectiveness of the</stron
Page 67 and 68: is still encountering only one symb
Page 69 and 70: TABLE 1 Characteristic of Participa
Page 71 and 72: TABLE 2 Characteristics of
Page 73 and 74: TABLE 3 Major Findings Study Commun
Page 75 and 76: TABLE 3—(Continued) Study Communi
Page 77 and 78: TABLE 3—(Continued) Study Communi
Page 79 and 80: nosed as having ASD. Therefore, PEC
Page 81 and 82: Preschool Teacher Perceptions of As
Page 83 and 84: TABLE 1 Teacher Demographics 1 Teac
Page 85 and 86: TABLE 3 Assistive Technology Self-A
Page 87 and 88: Integration or supplemental perspec
Page 89 and 90: I don’t know if the</stro
Page 91 and 92: sessions, and the
Page 93 and 94: that would be difficult to develop
Page 95 and 96: Riemer-Reiss, M. L., & Wacker, R. R
Page 97 and 98: TABLE 1 Characteristics of Campers
Page 99 and 100: appropriate answers were provided.
Page 101 and 102: Figure 2. Effects of STAR intervent
Page 103: garding how to effectively interact
Page 107 and 108: proach, features are built into <st
Page 109 and 110: independent transitions were totale
Page 111 and 112: Figure 1. Number of independent tas
Page 113 and 114: type of skills (e.g., domestic, lei
Page 115 and 116: Peer-Implemented Time Delay Procedu
Page 117 and 118: show that peer tutors can reliably
Page 119 and 120: General Procedures The dependent va
Page 121 and 122: Skill training. The teacher and one
Page 123 and 124: Figure 2. Percent of correct respon
Page 125 and 126: heterogeneous group of students is
Page 127 and 128: States’ Eligibility Guidelines fo
Page 129 and 130: Method Procedure The first author d
Page 131 and 132: TABLE 1—(Continued) IQ part score
Page 133 and 134: eligibility to exhibit an IQ two or
Page 135: ility guidelines for MR from state
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?