published_or_final_version / Education / Master / Master of Education

Research has identified language impairment as a pervasive disability (Bishop & Edmundson, 1987; Greenhalgh & Strong, 2001). Classroom communication behaviors have a role in the maintenance of special education eligibility and functional communication difficulties for young children with language impairment. This paper reviews the theoretical and experimental literature on narrative skills and language impairment as well as empirical support for understanding language delays as part of a group of risk factors that affect child development. The present study describes patterns in the communication skills of a small group of young children with a predetermined diagnosis of language impairment using a case and field mixed methods research design. The study contributes to our conceptual understanding of the pervasive nature of language impairment by focusing on patterns in oral narrative skills and their relationship to communication at school, at home, and in the community. Study results differentiate participants by the severity of utterance formulation difficulties as well as social communication differences and emotional health symptoms to identify patterns. This study was unique in that information from classroom teachers and parents in addition to an analysis of multiple language samples created a thick description of patterns across participants. Discussion elaborates upon patterns in the data and implications for assessment and practice implications for school based services from a speech-language pathologist.

This study investigated the effect of participation in team building activities on the self-conceptions of middle school physical education students. Participants consisted of 68 physical education students in Grades 6 -8. The classes were randomly assigned to one of two groups, either treatment or control. The treatment group participated in one Team Building Through Physical Challenge (TBPC) activity every other week, for 8 weeks, while the control group continued with their regular physical education curriculum without participation in the TBPC activities. Harter's (1 985b) Self-perception Profile for Children was administered to all participants prior to and following the intervention. Data were analyzed using a 2 (treatmentlcontrol) x 2 (pretest/posttest) x 2 (malelfemale) repeated measures analysis of all six self-conceptions (athletic competence, social acceptance, behavioural conduct, scholastic competence, physical appearance, and global self-worth). Results at posttest revealed males in the treatment group had significantly higher self-conceptions for athletic competence. Participant mean scores in the treatment group also increased across time for social acceptance, scholastic competence, athletic competence and global self-worth. The second purpose of this study was to capture the experiences of the participants. A variety of qualitative data collection techniques (focus group interviews, videotaping, and digital photographs) were used to achieve this purpose. Five relatively distinct themes emerged from the analyses. These themes included: (a) Optimal Challenge and Optimal Interest, (b) Risk and Trust - A Symbiotic Relationship, (c) Teamwork - . . .It's About The Process, (d) Communication - Having a Voice, and (e) Negotiating -The Decision-Making Process. The findings of the qualitative analysis helped illuminate the quantitative results. Recommendations for future research and practice are also presented.

This study is a critical analysis of the discourse on childhood resilience and the politics of teaching resilience to "kids at risk" in inner-city schools. Resiliency research is rooted in the early psychology studies of children's coping and competence. By the 1970s, researchers were observing children who appeared invulnerable to traumatic events. These children were later described as resilient, and resilience was defined as bouncing back from adversity. Today, resilience has become an ideological code for social conformity and academic achievement. My analysis problematizes "childhood resilience" and "teaching resilience" and examines two dangerous shifts in the mainstream resiliency research over the past several decades. In one shift, resilience slipped from an anomaly in the context of complex trauma to being claimed as the social norm of the dominant society. In another shift, the context of resiliency research slipped from traumatized to disadvantaged populations. Consequently, teaching resilience in inner-city schools is a popular topic among professional child and youth advocates in BC. But these two shifts manifest as teaching socioeconomically disadvantaged children to conform to the social norms of the dominant society and as rationalizing social and educational programs that help children and youth at risk overcome obstacles. Such programs do not work to challenge systemic inequalities. I undertook a discourse analysis and an interpretive inquiry in identifying three resiliency discourses: the first is a dominant expert discourse based on quantitative studies; the second is a subordinate experiential discourse based on qualitative stories; and the third is a professional advocacy discourse that includes expert and experiential knowledge. The expert discourse derives from psychometric studies of resilient-identified children, and the experiential discourse emanates from the psychotherapeutic narratives of resilient-identified adults. The advocacy discourse emerges from educators, psychologists, and social workers who advocate on behalf of children and youth at risk. The data include resiliency texts, focused interviews, and relevant fieldnotes. I developed criteria for critiquing and recognizing resilience, explored potential intersections between the expert and experiential discourses, and interpreted risk and resiliency themes in the advocacy discourse. In challenging the dominant discourse, I argue that resilience is not a fixed set of traits that can be reified and replicated. Moreover, I argue that complex trauma and trauma recovery are essential to any construct of resilience and that resilience is pluralistic, contingent, and always in process. My study recommends collaborative resiliency research that focuses on trauma and that values experiential knowledge and attends to class and cultural diversity. It also recommends that the professional advocacy community re-focus on risk and work toward developing social programs and critical pedagogies that challenge structural oppression and systemic discrimination.

This study is a critical analysis of the discourse on childhood resilience and the politics of teaching resilience to "kids at risk" in inner-city schools. Resiliency research is rooted in the early psychology studies of children's coping and competence. By the 1970s, researchers were observing children who appeared invulnerable to traumatic events. These children were later described as resilient, and resilience was defined as bouncing back from adversity. Today, resilience has become an ideological code for social conformity and academic achievement. My analysis problematizes "childhood resilience" and "teaching resilience" and examines two dangerous shifts in the mainstream resiliency research over the past several decades. In one shift, resilience slipped from an anomaly in the context of complex trauma to being claimed as the social norm of the dominant society. In another shift, the context of resiliency research slipped from traumatized to disadvantaged populations. Consequently, teaching resilience in inner-city schools is a popular topic among professional child and youth advocates in BC. But these two shifts manifest as teaching socioeconomically disadvantaged children to conform to the social norms of the dominant society and as rationalizing social and educational programs that help children and youth at risk overcome obstacles. Such programs do not work to challenge systemic inequalities. I undertook a discourse analysis and an interpretive inquiry in identifying three resiliency discourses: the first is a dominant expert discourse based on quantitative studies; the second is a subordinate experiential discourse based on qualitative stories; and the third is a professional advocacy discourse that includes expert and experiential knowledge. The expert discourse derives from psychometric studies of resilient-identified children, and the experiential discourse emanates from the psychotherapeutic narratives of resilient-identified adults. The advocacy discourse emerges from educators, psychologists, and social workers who advocate on behalf of children and youth at risk. The data include resiliency texts, focused interviews, and relevant fieldnotes. I developed criteria for critiquing and recognizing resilience, explored potential intersections between the expert and experiential discourses, and interpreted risk and resiliency themes in the advocacy discourse. In challenging the dominant discourse, I argue that resilience is not a fixed set of traits that can be reified and replicated. Moreover, I argue that complex trauma and trauma recovery are essential to any construct of resilience and that resilience is pluralistic, contingent, and always in process. My study recommends collaborative resiliency research that focuses on trauma and that values experiential knowledge and attends to class and cultural diversity. It also recommends that the professional advocacy community re-focus on risk and work toward developing social programs and critical pedagogies that challenge structural oppression and systemic discrimination. / Education, Faculty of / Educational Studies (EDST), Department of / Graduate

The problem of this study is the attainment of social progress by second-grade children. In substance, the problem is "How sociability can be developed in unsociable second-grade children." Since it is generally conceded by modern educators that the most important outcome of education is the child's ability to attack his life problems and to solve them satisfactorily to himself and to the society wherein he lives, this problem is deemed worthy of consideration.

No description available.

published_or_final_version / Education / Master / Master of Education

This study, situated in classroom practice and grounded in pedagogic wakefulness (Clandinin and Connelly, 2000), explores the nature of young children’s sense of voice as indicated through sustained interactions and representations of experiences with picturebook literature. The naturalistic research site was a grade one classroom setting in a large urban school. Student engagement and interactions with read-aloud events and responses to literature through multi-modal representations perpetuated meaning making and personal relevance. Coding procedures exemplified the nature of young children’s sense of voice as falling into two broad conceptual categories: (1) Situated Nature and (2) Experiential Nature. The Situated Nature of young children’s sense of voice revealed developmental, exploratory, and social sites of student engagement to literature. The Experiential Nature of young children’s sense of voice described three specificities of narrativity in their responses to picturebook literature: Young children’s multi-modal responses were interpreted as representative of Self- Narrativity, Interpretive-Narrativity, and Aesthetic-Narrativity. The findings contribute to a reconceptualized literacy curriculum which illuminates personal, social, and cultural identities, especially young children’s awareness of their individual sense of voice, developed through picturebook literature in primary classrooms. / xii, 151 leaves : col. ill. ; 29 cm.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the Skillstreaming the Adolescent social skills training program on sixth grade students' social skills as reported by themselves, their teachers, and their parents. The study was conducted in two phases. Participants in Phase I were 24 sixth grade boys and 25 sixth grade girls selected from a Midwestern, small suburban elementary school. Experimental Group 1 consisted of 24 students and Control Group I consisted of 25 students. The mean age of the students was 11.7 years. Participants in Phase II were 28 sixth grade boys and 21 sixth grade girls. Experimental Group 2 (n=16) and Experimental Group 3 (n=16) were combined for the training intervention. Control Group 2 consisted of 17 students. The mean age of these students was 11.6 years. Pretest and posttest assessments of students' social skills were measured using the Social Skills Rating System-Parent, Teacher, and Student forms (Gresham & Elliot, 1990). Data were analyzed for both phases using repeated Measures of Multivariate Analysis of Variance. In Phase I no significant interaction between time of testing, raters, and group were found. However, differences were found between the experimental and control groups regardless of time, and between time (pre and post tests) regardless of group, primarily due to teacher ratings. In Phase II there was a significant interaction between time of testing, raters, and group. The control group scored higher than the experimental group on students' social skills ratings. Based on univariate tests, the control group's significantly higher ratings were the result of teacher ratings. This study did not find support for the overall efficacy of the Skillstreamins, the Adolescent training program on improving students' social skills as measured by the SSRS-parent, teacher, and student forms. Results and implications of these findings are discussed as they relate to previous research and future directions for study. It is suggested a follow-up measure when students transition to junior high school may provide evidence of long-term effects of social skills programs. An investigation of teachers' expectations may also provide a greater understanding of the impact of training programs. / Department of Educational Psychology