A gap in research is investigation of social interactions of students with disabilities in a structured physical education setting.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare social interactions of elementary students with disabilities in structured physical education and unstructured recess settings at a suburban elementary school.
Methods
Student A was a third-grade boy with other health disabilities and visual impairment. Student B was a first-grade girl with developmental cognitive disability (a.k.a. mental retardation). Both students received one-on-one paraeducator support throughout the school day. A case study format was used to compare social interactions of each student across the two settings. Each paraeducator was trained in data collection procedures by the principal investigator. Data collected by the observers were recorded on checklists by date and setting and later entered into an Excel spreadsheet. For each daily observation, the data collector entered frequency counts for interactions by setting, who initiated each interaction (student, peer, or adult), and type of interaction (positive or negative). Both students were observed 11 times in their 30-minute physical education classes.
Analysis/Results
Student A was observed to have 180 social interactions in the physical education setting; he initiated 57%, peers initiated 17%, and an adult initiated 24%, with 75% being positive. In the recess setting, Student A was observed 16 times. He had 64 interactions; he initiated 80% while 19% were peer and 1% adult initiated, with 92% being positive. Student B was observed to have 133 interactions in the physical education setting; she initiated 44%, peers initiated 24%, and an adult initiated 28%, with 68% being positive. In the recess setting, Student B was observed 11 times. She had 56 interactions; she initiated 54% while peers initiated 39% and an adult initiated 4%, with 89% being positive. Because of varying lengths of settings, data were converted to rates of interactions per minute. For each participant, data were analyzed across the two settings comparing the mean rates of interactions with a paired t-test. For Student A, there was a significant difference across the two settings (t (10) = -6.02, p < .001), indicating a higher rate of interactions in the structured class setting. For Student B, there was no difference of rate of interactions across the two settings (t (10) = -.47, p = .33).
Conclusions
These contradicting results indicate the need for further research on social interactions of students with a variety of disabilities and ages across settings.