Pòster presentat al 24th Biennial Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development (ISSBD 2016). Vilnius, Lithuania, 10-14 juliol, 201

García Bacete, Francisco Juan

Marande Perrin, Ghislaine

Renau Escrig, Clara

Roselló Sempere, Sara

Rubio Barreda, Andrea

MARANDE PERRIN, GHISLAINE

Repositori UJI

An Ecological intervention in situations of peer rejection in first and second grades of primary school

Repositori Institucional de la Universitat Jaume I

An ecological intervention in situations of peer rejectionin first and second grades of primary school. Francisco J. García Bacete; Ghislaine Marande Perrin; Andrea Rubio Barreda; Sara Roselló Sempere; Clara Renau EscrigUniversitat Jaume I de Castellón (Spain)IntroductionPeer rejection is a common experience in childhood but it might become chronic and have along-term adverse impact in the absence of intervention. As rejection is associated with a widevariety of externalizing, internalizing and academic problems, early interventions in primaryeducation seem advisable (García Bacete et. al., 2014).A two-year intervention against peer rejection was conducted during first and second grades in 4primary schools in Castellon (Spain). The programme of intervention consisted of 12 componentsassigned to four main blocks; the first two blocks included classroom-wide intervention while theother two blocks addressed more specifically the situation of the rejected children.MethodThe intervention sample, 233 six-to-eight year old students (54.5 % boys, 9 classrooms, first to secondgrade), was compared to the comparison group of 243 students (50.2% boys, 10 classrooms).ObjectivesThe present study adopted the objective of firstly promoting a positive social classroom context whichenhanced acceptance, help and positive cohabitation in peer relationships, fostering the acquisition,practice and generalization of social skills , in order to further improve the situation of the rejectedchildren by means of specific and guided interactions with their peers.INTERVENTION PROGRAMComponent 4:Social reputationBecause reputational processes arefactors that influence the choice ofwho we decide to interact with andhow the relationships will be.E.g. “El cazo de Lorenzo” (Lorenzo’scase)Component 5Communication teacher-parentsPromoting the participation of thefamilies and the family-schoolcooperation(Forest & García Bacete, 2006) Component 6Children's and young people’s literatureThat provides scenes in which the characters behave and interact in various ways.Component 2Teacher-student relationshipsTo make the teachers aware of theirown preferences and behavioralpatterns, and help them to generatepositive expectations for all theirstudents(Wubbels & Brekelmans, 2005)Universal InterventionComponent 7Social-emotional learningThe students work on classroom basis onthe following social-emotional skills:prosocial behavior: assertiveness;emotional management and behavioraladjustment; problem solving ininterpersonal conflicts.Component 8Cooperative learningCooperative learning structures(Kagan & Kagan, 2009)Component 9 Focusing the universal intervention on the  rejected children E.g.: cooperative teams areformed keeping in mind theneeds of each rejected student,classroom rules are developed tocombat the common forms ofexclusion and help the rejectedstudents adopt positivealternative behaviors on aregular basis, etc.Component 10 Friendship LearningComponent 12 Parents-Teacher EmpowermentBetween the teacher, thechild's parents and amember of the researchteam.Component 11 Workshops for parents Parents learn how toteach their child socialskills and help her/himmake friends and be agood friend to her/hispeers .Component 3Peer relationshipsReferencesDurlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The Impact of Enhancing Students’ Social and Emotional Learning: A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions, Child Development, 82(1), 405–432.Forest, C., & García Bacete, F. J. (2006). Comunicación cooperativa entre la familia y la escuela. Valencia: Nau LLibres.García Bacete, F. J., et al. (2014). El rechazo entre iguales en su contexto interpersonal: Una investigación con niños y niñas de primer ciclo de primaria. Memoria para la Fundación Dávalos Fletcher de Castellón.Harrist, A. W., & Bradley, K. D. (2003). “You can’t say you can’t play”: intervening in the process of social exclusion in the kindergarten classroom. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18, 185–205.Karcher, M. (2007). Pair counseling: A developmental intervention for counseling children in dyads. San Antonio: Universidad de Texas, The Pair Counseling Research Program.Levin, J. F., & Nolan, J. (2004). Principles of classroom management: A professional decision-making model (4th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and BaconSelman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and clinical analyses. London; New York: Academic Press. Kagan, S. & Kagan, (2009). Kagan Cooperative Learning. San Clemente: Kagan Publishing.Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacher-student relationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 6-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2006.03.003.Specific InterventionConsists of 8-10 play sessionsbetween two students, one of themrejected, of 35-45 minutes eachsession, with the aim of helping thechild coordinate different socialperspectives and use better socialstrategies(Selman, 1980; Karcher, 2007)- Permanent strategies, e.g. “Talk it out”- Classroom rules, e.g. “ I put myself in your shoes”- Analysis Group Social  Dynamics(Harrist & Bradley, 2003)RoundTable AllWrite ConsensusGenerating contexts that foster positive relationshipsof acceptance and prosocial behaviorLearning and practicing social skills, peer acceptance and prosocial behaviorWorking with the rejectedchildrenWorking with the teachersand families of the rejectedchildrenAnalytic strategyThe data were analyzed using the procedure of cross tables (IBM SPSS statistics 19.0). the rate of rejected children in the two groups,Comparison and Intervention, at Time 1, beginning of 1st grade, was compared to the rate at time 2, end of the 2nd grade.ResultsThe results showed a significant decrease of the rate of rejected children in the intervention group, from 12.1% at Time1 to 8.6% at Time 2,while this rate remained stable in the comparison group (13.1% at T1 and 13.3% at T2). However, the most relevant change referred to thestability of rejection (table 1). In the intervention sample only a third of the children who were rejected at T1 was still rejected at T2(chronicity of rejection: 36.4%), while in the comparison sample the stability of the rejected students was almost 3 children of 5 (chronicity ofrejection: 57.7%).ConclusionsThe good outcomes achieved in the present study support the conviction that peer rejection must be combatted by means of universal andmulticomponent interventions (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor & Schellinger, 2011).Component 1Communication research team –teachers and teacher educationTo make the teachers aware of the interpersonal processes thatoccur in the classroom, as well as to enhance their autonomy andresources for promoting the socio-emotional development andresolving the problems that arise (Levin & Nolan, 2004).

http://repositori.uji.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10234/168634/ISSBD2016_Poster%20InterventionProgram.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

An Ecological intervention in situations of peer rejection in first and second grades of primary school

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Repositori UJI

Repositori Institucional de la Universitat Jaume I