Search

Exploring the individual differences of the longitudinal growth of early numeracy (EN) in young children with Intellectual disabilities (IDs) prerequires the critical stage of exploring and validating the potential factor structure. Despite the fact that Relational Skills (RS), Counting Skills (CS) and Operations (O) are expected to constitute distinct domains of EN, there is not sufficient evidence to support either the above position or the position that they are different means of assessing a general-informal numeracy skill construct. This study was designed to shed light in the field through the evaluation of a measurement model describing the structure of RS, CS and O domains of EN and their interrelation. The sample included N = 155 children with IDs, enrolled in special school classes, mentally aged between 5;02 (y;m) and 6;10 (M = 5.11, SD = 0.974). Confirmatory Factor Analysis indicated a “good fit” of the two-factor model (RS, CS + O) of EN in ID (RMSEA=.029

In the present study, the role of interpersonal coping strategies was examined in relation to teachers’ characteristics and burnout factors. Two hundred sixty-nine General and Special Education tea...

The purpose of this research was to measure teachers and students interpersonal competences in situations that a teacher may face at school and which require interpersonal interaction with students...

Over the past few years, perceptions about disability – at least at the theoretical level – have been shifted toward a more progressive approach, which stresses the social aspects of the construction of disability (social model) rather than personal limitations, as supported by the traditional disability approach (medical–individual model). Drawing upon the sociosemiotic approach as developed by Kress and van Leeuwen, the present study examines from a comparative perspective the representations about disability and people with disabilities, as emerging from the drawings produced by 4th grade Greek primary school children. The sample consists of two groups of children. Group A does not share the same school environment with schoolchildren with special education needs, while group B shares the same school surroundings with students attending a special education needs School. The comparative analysis of their drawings indicates that children of both groups reproduce the dominant meanings they receive from th...