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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE 7 Reasons of Friendships with Students with Severe Disabilities Reason the other hand, Iranian students are significantly less likely to select reasons that pertain to talking about one’s self such as I am understanding and I have a good attitude. Similarly, when a benefit is to one’s self (e.g., It could be fun.), there is a significant reduction in Iranian student responses. Although total frequencies differ, American and Iranian students order 7 of 10 items in the same most-toleast sequence. (Items 4, 7, and 9 are out of sequence.) American (n 656) Number (Percentage) Iranian (n 289) Number (Percentage) df Value Chi-square Significance Level 1. <strong>The</strong>y need friends, too. 534 (82.40) 214 (74.0) 1 8.67 0.00* 2. I like to help people. 478 (73.76) 214 (74.0) 1 0.01 0.93 3. <strong>The</strong>y would feel better with a friend. 465 (71.75) 190 (65.7) 1 3.43 0.06 4. It could be fun. 434 (66.97) 24 (8.3) 1 27.53 0.00* 5. I would feel good about myself. 427 (65.89) 144 (49.8) 1 21.67 0.00* 6. We might have common interests. 401 (61.88) 136 (47.8) 1 17.95 0.00* 7. Because I am understanding and friendly. 366 (56.48) 89 (30.8) 1 52.78 0.00* 8. I could learn about disabilities. 361 (55.70) 167 (57.8) 1 0.35 0.55 9. Because I have a good attitude. 335 (51.69) 56 (19.4) 1 85.86 0.00* 10. I would have another friend. 302 (46.60) 78 (27.0) 1 31.89 0.00* Note. Items ordered by frequency of American student responses; df degrees of freedom; *p .05 TABLE 8 Difficulties of Friendships with Students with Severe Disabilities Difficulty Finally, difficulties for friendships are presented in Table 8. Forty percent or more American students identify six barriers to friendships, while Iranian students only identify two items, “I wouldn’t know what to say or do,” and “<strong>The</strong>y couldn’t do the things I like to do,” at a rate of 42% to 34%, respectively. Both groups emphasize not knowing how to behave as a main barrier or difficulty. Overall, the two groups differ significantly on 8 of 10 items, all of which American students select more fre- American (n 656) Number (Percentage) Iranian (n 289) Number (Percentage) df Value Chi-square Significance Level 1. I wouldn’t know what to say or do. 414 (67.09) 122 (42.2) 1 50.44 0.00* 2. I would be nervous or uncomfortable. 339 (54.94) 32 (11.1) 1 156.65 0.00* 3. People might tease me; I don’t want to be made fun of. 317 (51.37) 50 (17.3) 1 94.83 0.00* 4. <strong>The</strong>y couldn’t do the things I like to do. 307 (49.75) 97 (33.6) 1 20.88 0.00* 5. <strong>The</strong>y wouldn’t fit in with my friends. 273 (44.24) 49 (17.0) 1 63.99 0.00* 6. I would feel awkward or embarrassed. 251 (40.68) 34 (11.8) 1 76.32 0.00* 7. I have too many other commitments. 180 (29.17) 37 (12.8) 1 28.96 0.00* 8. <strong>The</strong>y might fight or hurt me. 129 (20.90) 42 (14.5) 1 5.22 0.02* 9. <strong>The</strong>y are not as smart or intelligent as me. 75 (12.15) 25 (8.7) 1 2.46 0.12 10. My family would not agree. 67 (10.85) 32 (11.2) 1 0.01 0.92 Note. Items ordered by frequency of American student responses; df degrees of freedom; *p .05 Friendships / 31
quently than Iranian students. Compared to Iranians, American adolescents more often indicate that they would be nervous or uncomfortable, do not want to be teased, think the student with a disability would not fit in with their friends, and that they might be physically hurt. Approximately 10% of both groups feel that the student with a disability is “not as smart or intelligent as me” and that their families would not agree with having such a friendship. Discussion This investigation of the attitudes and perceptions of American and Iranian secondary students pertains to forming friendships with students with severe disabilities and offers a preliminary comparison of western and Middle Eastern adolescent perspectives and values. Striking similarities and differences emerge that in part may be explained in relation to experience in inclusive settings (Van Laarhoven et al. 2006), friendship functions and developmental progression (Bierman, 2004), the education and training of teachers (Cameron & Cook, 2007; Hamre-Nietupski et al. 1994) and paraeducators (Malgren & Causton- <strong>The</strong>oharis , 2006) as well as cultural factors (Bui & Turnbull, 2003; Edeh, 2007; Koh et al., 2003). As in past research, the current study supports the conclusion that forming friendships, in this particular case, friendships with students with disabilities, is a complex process, that outcomes should not be casually generalized across populations (Way & Chen, 2000) and that heterogeneity within cultures must not be overlooked (French, Bae, Pidada, & Lee, 2006). Since most friendship and disability research focuses on preschool through middle school students, this investigation of adolescent views extends the literature and has implications for the post-school lives of individuals with severe disabilities whose personal relationships often are limited to family and caregivers (Pottie & Sumarah, 2004). Are friendships with students with severe disabilities possible? Secondary students in America and Iran view friendships with students with severe disabilities to have pros and cons, similar to previous research results with American students (Bunch & Valeo, 2004; Hendrickson et al., 1996; Siperstein et al., 1997). Both American and Iranian secondary students in inclusive high schools agree that it is possible to have friendships with students with severe disabilities and that there are benefits to students with disabilities. (To a lesser extent both groups perceive benefits to students without disabilities.) Neither group agrees with the statement that friendships are easy to form. American students feel significantly more strongly than Iranians that such friendships are not easy. This perception of the increased difficulty in forming friendships may be an outcome diverging educational and societal expectations. Propelled by IDEA (1999, 2004) many preschool- and primary-aged American students are likely to have social contact, become acquainted with, and/or develop friendships with students with disabilities within inclusive educational settings (Fryxell & Kennedy, 1995; Lee, Yoo, & Bak, 2003). <strong>The</strong> rate of social interaction, however, is rather abruptly diminished in the school life of adolescents regardless of the nature of the inclusive practices. Such factors as the increasing difficulty of subject matter, the assignment of individual paraeducators to students with severe disabilities (Malgren & Causton-<strong>The</strong>oharis, 2006), and societal pressures to achieve (e.g., district wide assessments in the U.S., preparation for college entrance exams in Iran) create distinct curricular tracks for students with disparate intellectual capabilities. <strong>The</strong>se realities in turn mitigate against the development of friendships. Educational setting. American and Iranian students indicate that the regular class for the entire day is their highest rated choice of an educational setting for facilitating friendship. Similar to the earlier Siperstein and colleagues’ (1997) study of middle school students, American secondary students do not appear to strongly support full inclusion. American students indicate significantly less concordance with the policy of students with severe disabilities being placed in the regular class for the entire day (M am 2.79 vs. P ir 3.28). Both groups, however, express relatively strong disagreement with the placement of students with severe disabilities in special schools. Iranian students view special schools significantly less favorably than American students. <strong>The</strong>se data suggest that Iranian adolescents may envision a more idealized service 32 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-March 2010
Page 1 and 2: Education and Training in Autism an
Page 5 and 6: Manuscripts Accepted for Future Pub
Page 7 and 8: only on isolated subskills of readi
Page 9 and 10: (Mathes & Torgesen, 2005a), was (a)
Page 11 and 12: The following meas
Page 13 and 14: ery few days and followed by daily
Page 15 and 16: TABLE 3 Growth on Pretest to Postte
Page 17 and 18: TABLE 4 Model Fit Estimates for Ini
Page 19 and 20: was no statistical difference betwe
Page 21 and 22: with moderate ID. Students with mod
Page 23 and 24: needed to ensure success. Teachers
Page 25 and 26: Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Whitehurs
Page 27 and 28: y students with and without disabil
Page 29 and 30: (Nasrabadi, Parsayekta, & Emami, 20
Page 31 and 32: TABLE 2 Student Beliefs about Educa
Page 33: TABLE 5 Student Perceptions of How
Page 37 and 38: should initiate the friendships, an
Page 39 and 40: Analysis of person-centered plannin
Page 43 and 44: his years in preschool he spent par
Page 45 and 46: TABLE 1 Summary Descriptors of Mark
Page 47 and 48: possible signs of Pierre Robin synd
Page 49 and 50: living skills. When evaluated for v
Page 51 and 52: There was, however
Page 53 and 54: were evident at Jim’s birth (i.e.
Page 55 and 56: References Alper, S. (2003). <stron
Page 59 and 60: cognitively impaired, intellectuall
Page 61 and 62: TABLE 1 Percentage of the Populatio
Page 63 and 64: TABLE 2 Percentage of Students Ages
Page 65 and 66: that has been accorded to other are
Page 67 and 68: TABLE 5 Summary of NLTS-2 Findings:
Page 69 and 70: education and training, especially
Page 71 and 72: the National Longitudinal Transitio
Page 73 and 74: lack the underlying categorical and
Page 75 and 76: Computer, but these classes were lo
Page 77 and 78: themes used in the baseline session
Page 79 and 80: Figure 1. Mean Percentage of Interv
Page 81 and 82: that these changes may also be obse
Page 83 and 84: children with autism: The</
Page 85 and 86:
sessment involves direct observatio
Page 87 and 88:
ehavior plans submitted to the comm
Page 89 and 90:
TABLE 2 Functional Assessment Compo
Page 91 and 92:
TABLE 4 Frequency of Behavior in Ea
Page 93 and 94:
Figure 1. Hypothesized functions of
Page 95 and 96:
who may not have access to trained
Page 97 and 98:
Education and Training in Autism an
Page 99 and 100:
sand, and independently engages for
Page 101 and 102:
that was prescribed for the target
Page 103 and 104:
TABLE 5 Alp’s Positive Behavior S
Page 105 and 106:
Figure 1. Mothers’ percent of cor
Page 107 and 108:
TABLE 7 Means and Ranges for Partic
Page 109 and 110:
analysis of acquisition, generaliza
Page 111 and 112:
egressive form of autism represents
Page 113 and 114:
Mercury Exposure during Pregnancy E
Page 115 and 116:
the Institute of Medicine (IOM) sta
Page 117 and 118:
tors as we seek to become more well
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
TABLE 1 Overview of Response Card S
Page 123 and 124:
effect, students responded to a gre
Page 125 and 126:
group instructional sequence has be
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
TABLE 1 Stages of The</stro
Page 131 and 132:
ternative for instructing individua
Page 133 and 134:
Figure 1. Percentage of correct res
Page 135 and 136:
TABLE 3 Instructional Data for Each
Page 137 and 138:
Hall, M. G., Schuster, J. W., Woler
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
serve him or herself performing a b
Page 143 and 144:
ically turn on the device and to se
Page 145 and 146:
Figure 1. Adam’s percentage of ta
Page 147 and 148:
ing intervention was reimplemented,
Page 149 and 150:
implemented, all students demonstra
Page 151 and 152:
Hagiwara, T., & Myles, B. S. (1999)
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Method Participants Participants we
Page 157 and 158:
TABLE 1 Summary of Director Respons
Page 159 and 160:
number of recommended hours. Taken
Page 161 and 162:
increasing number of children ident
Page 163:
Look! I'm in College! DVD Look, I
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?