Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Examining the Student Teacher Relationship (STR) for Children with and Without Disabilities: Spotlight on Autism
Similar to Examining the Student Teacher Relationship (STR) for Children with and Without Disabilities: Spotlight on Autism (20)
More from crealcsuf
More from crealcsuf (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Examining the Student Teacher Relationship (STR) for Children with and Without Disabilities: Spotlight on Autism
- 1. ERICA HOWELL, PH.D. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION, CSUF Examining the Student Teacher Relationship (STR) for Children with and Without Disabilities: Spotlight on Autism
- 2. Agenda for Today 1. Student-teacher-relationship (STR) for typically developing (TD) students 2. STR for students with disabilities 3. STR for students with ASD 4. Investigation outcome report of the STR and ASD 5. Audience perspectives on research outcomes
- 3. Typically Developing Students and the STR Behavior problems and gender associated with conflict in the STR (Jerome, Hamre, and Pianta, 2009; Birch & Ladd, 1997; Howes, Phillipsen, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2000; Silver, Measelle, Armstrong, & Essex, 2005) Conflict and dependency in the STR are strong predictors of behavioral challenges over time (Hamre and Pianta, 2001; Howes et al., 2000; Jerome et al., 2008) STR may act as a protective factor for at-risk children (Silver et al., 2005)
- 4. Students with Disabilities and the STR By age 6, children with ID had significantly lower STRS scores than TD children (Eisenhower, Baker and Blacher, 2007) Poorer STR quality for students with ID in the general education when compared to special day class settings Student reports indicated that students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders rated more dissatisfaction with their teacher than students with learning disabilities, other health impairments, and typically developing peers
- 5. Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder and the STR
- 6. The Importance of Autism and the STR Autism prevalence Public school determination Associated behavior challenges and social deficits may make STR problematic
- 8. Classroom, Family, and Teacher Characteristics: Latent Variables Classroom Characteristics Family Characteristics Teacher Characteristics Educational Placement Income Teaching Experience General education versus SDC (Blacher et al., 2009) Least Restrictive Environment (IDEA, 2004) Autism Authorization (CCTC, 2009) Classroom composition (Buyse et al., 2008) Low socioeconomic status and conflictual STRs (Ladd et al., 1999) High cost of autism intervention SPED teacher “burnout” (Hastings & Brown, 2002) Quality of instructional practices (Mantzicopoulos, 2005)
- 9. Child Characteristics: Latent Variable Behavior Problems Autism Rating Social Response Problem behaviors and conflictual STRs (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Howes et al., 2000; Silver et al., 2005) STR accounted for by behavior problems (Blacher et al., 2009; Eisenhower et al., 2007) Autism and behavior problems (Dominick et al., 2007; Eisenhower et al., 2005; Hartley et al., 2008; Horner et al., 2002; Shattuck et al., 2007) Typical characteristics (APA, 2000) Higher social ratings and closeness, dependency, and conflict (Howes et al., 2000) Early attachment style and STR (O’Connor & McCartney, 2007) Autism and social challenges (Kleinman et al., 2001; Peterson et al., 2009
- 10. Participants Child Demographic Information for Public and Non-Public Schools _______________________________________________________________ Public Non-publict/x² p-val (n = 57) (n = 33) __________________________________________________________ Child Age (mean years) 5.65 8.88 -6.92 p = 0.00 Gender (% male) 79% 82% Grades (%) 14.81 p = 0.01 Preschool 47% 6% Kinder-3rd 45% 41% 4th-8th 8% 52%
- 11. Procedures Public sample recruited from nine public schools in Southern California (N = 57) Non-public school sample drawn from California (80%) and Massachusetts (20%) through School Adaptations for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder study (N = 33) [UCR SEARCH, The Help Group, Melmark-New England] Parents and teachers consented to participate and completed measures Honorarium: $15 Target gift card for parents and teachers Funding provided by a grant from the Riverside Community Foundation (J. Blacher, P.I.); COR grant, UC Riverside (J. Blacher, P.I.)
- 12. Outcome Measure: The Student Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta, 2001) Total score and three subscale scores Conflict (e.g. “This child sees me as a source of punishment and criticism”) Closeness (e.g. “This child openly shares his/her feelings and experiences with me”) Dependency (e.g. “This child asks for my help when he/she really does not need help”) Teacher rated each item on 1-5 scale Alphas in present sample were .75 (conflict), .77 (closeness), .51 (dependency), and .76 (total)
- 13. Instruments Parent, Teacher, and Child Completed Measures ________________________________________________________________________ Rater Measurement Teacher-Rated Measures Student Teacher Relationship Total Score and Subscales Social Responsiveness SRS-T (Total Score) Behavior Problems TRF (Total Score) Autism GARS (Autism Index) Classroom Demographics Classroom Climate Inventory Parent-Rated Measures Social Responsiveness SRS-P (Total Score) Behavior Problems CBCL (Total Score) Autism GARS (Autism Index) Family Demographics Family Information Form
- 14. What family, teacher, child, and classroom characteristics are predictive of the STR? Latent and Observed Variables in Teacher-Rated STRS Total Score Path Model Latent Factor Observed Variables Child Characteristics Behavior Problems Teacher Report Form (total score) Autistic Characteristics Gilliam Autism Rating Scale-T (autism index) Social Responsiveness Social Responsiveness Scale-T (total score) Classroom Characteristics Educational Placement General education/mild moderate Autism-only classrooms Non-public school classrooms Family Characteristics Income Teacher characteristics Teacher Experience Student-Teacher-Relationship Student Teacher Relationship Scale (Total Score)
- 16. Chi-square 13.04 Df 11 P-value .29 CFI .99 RMSEA .045 RMSEA CI .00 to .124 Class- room Char Child Char Teacher Char Family Char STRSocial Response Autism Rating Behavior Problems Income Teacher Exp. Educational Placement Teacher-Rated Path Model Predicting the Overall Student-Teacher-Relationship -.27 -.02 -.1o -.69 1.00 .74 .80 .82 1.00 1.00 .23 -.34 -.47 STRS Total 1.00
- 17. Classroom Char. STR Total Child Char. -.27** -.69*** Behavior Problems Autism Rating Social Response .79 .86 .91 Significant Paths in Teacher-Rated Path Model Predicting the Overall Student-Teacher-Relationship .23* *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
- 18. Class- room Char. Child Char. Teacher Char. Family Char. STR Close- ness Social Response Autism Rating Behavior Problems Income Teacher Exp. Educational Placement Teacher-Rated Path Model Predicting Student-Teacher-Relationship Closeness -.15 .04 .03 -.64 1.00 .59 .91 .82 1.00 1.00 .20 -.33 -.48 STRS Closeness 1.00 Chi-square 11.04 df 11 P-value .44 CFI 1.000 RMSEA .006 RMSEA CI .00 to .111
- 19. Child Characteristics STR Closeness Significant Paths in Teacher-Rated Path Model Predicting the Student-Teacher-Relationship Closeness .64* Behavior Problems Autism Ratings Social Response .59 .82 .91 *p < .001
- 20. Class- room Char. Child Char. Teacher Char. Family Char. STR Conflict Social Response Autism Rating Behavior Problems Income Teacher Exp. Educational Placement Parent-Rated Path Model Predicting Student-Teacher-Relationship Conflict .26 .03 .00 .21 1.00 .80 .90 .86 1.00 1.00 .42 -.13 -.38 STRS Conflict 1.oo Chi-square 10.74 df 11 P-value .465 CFI 1.00 RMSEA .000 RMSEA CI .00 to .109
- 21. Classroom Char. STR Conflict Significant Paths in Parent-Rated Path Model Predicting the Student-Teacher-Relationship Conflict .26* *p < .05
- 22. Class- room Char. Child Char. Teacher Char. Family Char. STR Conflict Social Response Autism Rating Behavior Problems Income Teacher Exp. Educational Placement Parent-Rated Path Model Predicting Student-Teacher-Relationship Dependency .26 .32 .10 -.04 1.00 .80 .90 .86 1.00 1.00 .41 -.13 -.41 STRS Conflict 1.oo Chi-square 9.46 Df 11 P-value .58 CFI 1.00 RMSEA .000 RMSEA CI .00 to .098
- 23. Teacher Characteristics STR Dependency Significant Paths in Parent-Rated Path Model Predicting the Student-Teacher-Relationship Dependency .32* *p < .05
- 24. Discussion Teacher and parent-rated child characteristics predicted the overall STR Corroborates several key studies on the STR and disability (Blacher et al., 2009; Eisenhower et al., 2007; Robertson et al., 2003) Classroom characteristics contributed significant variance to the overall STR even when accounting for child characteristics Students in more restrictive educational settings reported poorer quality STRs Classroom composition (Buyse et al., 2008) Perceptions of teaching assignment (Mantzicopoulos, 2005) Work-related stress (Mantzicopoulos, 2005)
- 25. Discussion Continued Students who demonstrated challenging child characteristics experienced less-close STRs in the teacher-rated model. Child characteristics predicting STR closeness highlighted in past research (Al-Yagon & Mikulincer, 2008; Copeland et al., 1997; Howes et al., 1994; Howes et al., 2000) The parent-rated model indicated that more challenging child characteristics and students from lower income families were rated as less close to the teacher Similar finding in Ladd et al. (1999) Impact of income on parent-teacher relationship
- 26. Discussion Continued Veteran teachers were more likely to have dependent relationships with students than beginning teachers Teacher fatigue (Olivier & Venter, 2003) Teacher “burn-out” (Hastings & Brown, 2002; Ingersoll, 2003; Lecavalier et al., 2006) Parent-ratings differentiated between groups on ratings of child characteristics Environmental differences
- 27. Implications Limitations Early intervention Teacher education Support for teachers Inability to include all relevant variables in path model Imputation of data Self-report nature of measures Dependency scale in STRS Discussion Continued
- 28. Future Research Investigate variables specific to educational settings that impact the STR Classroom observations to supplement self-report measures Comparison of STR between disability groups Contribution of parent-teacher dynamics to the STR
Editor's Notes
- On a personal note, this topic has special meaning for me as I taught students with autism for six years and was intrigued by the bonds I forged with my students despite how impacted they were by their disability. For the purposes of this study, I examined the student-teacher-relationship as a theoretical construct, with prior research on typically developing students and students with disabilities guiding my theoretical framework.
- Those students with high problem behavior ratings and with medium to high levels of teacher closeness decreased externalizing behavior from kindergarten to third grade (Silver et al., 2005).
- Students with disabilities may be especially prone to low quality relationships with teachers as they enter the school system with behavioral, social, and academic disadvantages behavior problems and social skills, not ID per se, accounted for the ID/TD differences in the STRS scores
- We learned how the STR forTD peers is impacted by various characteristics, but next to nothing is known about the STR for autism. One study…small sample, HFA/AS, general education…no measures of behavior, social skills (past research showed how important that is to know). Study didn’t include a spectrum of impairment or educational settings
- A review of the literature revealed that predictors of the STR could be organized into several groups. These groups composed of classroom, child, family, and teacher characteristics that predicted the STR informed the decision-making process when I was developing my theoretical model as displayed on screen.
- In terms of including educational placement as an observed variable comprising classroom characteristics, this decision was timely. Law makers place high importance on the involvement of students in the least restrictive environment necessary for a child to make educational progress. In addition, current CA legislation requires some special education teachers to return to school and earn an Autism Authorization, in order to be certified to teacher children with autism. Research has also demonstrated the contribution of educational setting to the STR. Blacher et al. (2009) found that students with intellectual disability who were in general education settings had poorer STRs than students in special day classes. This finding is striking in light of the popular trend to mainstream or fully include students with disability in general education settings. Other research indicated that challenging classroom compositions in terms of behavior problems related to more conflict in the STR. One may certainly expect special day classes with autism-specific compositions to encounter behavior challenges. When family characteristics were considered, income comprised family characteristics. With therapies exacting a high cost to many families, and research indicating that lower socioeconomic status contributed to conflictual STRs, income seemed a salient variable to investigate. Teacher experience comprised the teacher characteristics
- Dependency only 5 items- may be why low reliability
- Question 2 is the main path model
- A review of the literature revealed that predictors of the STR could be organized into several groups. These groups composed of classroom, child, family, and teacher characteristics that predicted the STR informed the decision-making process when I was developing the theoretical model.
- A review of the literature revealed that predictors of the STR could be organized into several groups. These groups composed of classroom, child, family, and teacher characteristics that predicted the STR informed the decision-making process when I was developing the theoretical model.
- A review of the literature revealed that predictors of the STR could be organized into several groups. These groups composed of classroom, child, family, and teacher characteristics that predicted the STR informed the decision-making process when I was developing the theoretical model.
- A review of the literature revealed that predictors of the STR could be organized into several groups. These groups composed of classroom, child, family, and teacher characteristics that predicted the STR informed the decision-making process when I was developing the theoretical model.
- A review of the literature revealed that predictors of the STR could be organized into several groups. These groups composed of classroom, child, family, and teacher characteristics that predicted the STR informed the decision-making process when I was developing the theoretical model.
- Teachers in more restrictive settings may be working very hard to get behavior problems managed and social interactions increased. This may explain why there were no differences in mean scores of child characteristics for teacher-ratings. This “hard work” may leave teachers more fatigued as parent-ratings indicated that the more restrictive settings actually have more behavior and social challenges
- Problem for many measures in the field- kids with autism have deficits that make inflated or deflated scores (inflated on CBCL- deflated on dependency). Behooves somebody to adapt this scale for children with autism.