Evaluation Report of Zippy’s Friends Program in the … · Evaluation Report of Zippy’s Friends...

1

EvaluationReportofZippy’sFriendsProgram

intheCzechRepublicŽufníčekJ.,GricováJ.,BěláčekJ.,DosoudilP.,ČermákováM.,PapežováH.

GroundworkfortheStudy

Thisresearchstudy isbasedonthe implementationofZippy’sFriendsmethodology,whichwas supported byMinistry of Health of the CR in 2015–2016 as a part of Norway Grantscheme Psychiatric Care. The methodology represents a long-term, systematic andstructuredprogrammefor5–7yearsoldchildren intheareaofemotions,communication,conflict agreement and strategy for solving difficult situations. The programme has beenestablishedinmorethan30countriesworldwide.

The Zippy’s Friends programme focuses on the prevention of mental illnesses and theirconsequences.Theaimofthemethodologyistoincreaseskillsandcompetencesofchildrenattheageof5to7(i.e.pupilsoflowergradesofprimaryschoolsinourcase)intheareaofemotions,communication,self-confidenceandsocialinteractions,whichhelpstolowertherisk of incidence of mental illnesses and risk behaviour of these children, especially inadolescenceandadulthood.

Nowadays, there are many preventive programmes for late and middle school age andadults, focusingonsuppressingdemonstrationsofspecificareasof riskbehaviour (suchasracism,xenophobia,extremeaggression,drugabuseetc.).However,thereisacriticallackofsuchprogrammes,especially those targetedatmentalhealth, for childrenofearly schoolage.

Inearlyschoolagechildrenenteranewenvironmentandgroup,diametricallydifferentfromtheirpreviousexperience.Theyarematureenoughtolearnnewthings,acceptnewbehaviourpatterns,formtheirownattitudesandopinions,andtoassertthemselvesinthegroup.Thisageisidealforforminghealthyattitudesandrelationshipswithpeersandtowardsauthorityfigures.

DesignandtheMethodologyUsed

TheaimoftheresearchwastoassesstheeffectivenessoftheZippy’sFriendsprogramme,using a prospective, controlled and randomized study. The study comprised 14 schoolsrandomlydivided(randomizedstudy) intotwogroupsofthesamesize–theexperimentalandcontrolgroups(controlledstudy).Intheschoolyear2015/2016theexperimentalgroupworkedwiththeZippy’sFriendsmethodology,thecontrolgroupdidnot.Theentrylevelofthemonitoredphenomenawasdetectedbypre-testinginboththegroups.Thecomparisonwascarriedoutafterpost-testingaftertheendofprogrammeimplementation.

2

For the needs of study, we prepared a questionnaire (Appendix 1) monitoring thephenomena which were the focus of Zippy’s Friends modules and which we expected toinfluence the children in the experimental group during the implementation of theprogramme.Thequestionnaireconsistedofasetof31questionsforteachers’assessmentofthe individualbehaviourofpupils intheareasofself-managementandsocialskills.All thequestions had a 4-point scale answers assessing the frequency of the incidence of themonitoredphenomenon(1=never,4=almosteverytime).

Besides this, the questionnaire also monitored whether the children made progress inacademic skills and what the success of the children with special educational needs wasduringtheprogrammeimplementation.

Theteachersfilled inthequestionnairebeforethestart (pre-test)andaftertheend(post-test)ofworkingwiththemethodology.Foreachchild,auniquecodewascreated,enablingmatching the completed questionnaires and securing anonymity and safety for individualchildrenandschoolstakingpartinthestudy.

After the end of implementation, the questionnairewas also given to the pupils’ parentswhocouldprovideanotherviewofdevelopmentalprogressoftheirchildren.

In the study, statisticalmethods for comparisonof experimental and control groupswereused. We expected a comparable level in the monitored phenomena in the control andexperimental groups when comparing a pre-test of both the groups. Furthermore, weexpected a significant difference in the monitored phenomena in the control andexperimental groups when comparing a post-test of both the groups.ScheduleoftheStudy

The programme Zippy’s Friends (ZF) was realized in the school year 2015/2016 in ourproject.

In the preparatory period, before the start of the school year, we designed the researchsurveyandcreatedthequestionnaire,whichwasusedinthestudy.

Theteachersfromboththeexperimentalandcontrolgroupswereinformedindetailaboutthequestionnaire contentandmethod fordata collection.All uncertaintieswere resolvedcontinuouslyandimmediately.

In September andOctober2015data from thepre-testwere collected– thepre-test hadbeenfinishedbeforetheactualimplementationoftheZFprogrammestarted.

The teachers from the experimental group (from 7 primary schools) were trained in themethodologyattwoworkshopstakingplaceatthebeginningoftheschoolyear.Theyused6modulesdividedinto24unitsintheworkwiththeZFmethodology.

3

Thepre-testdatawereprocessedandevaluatedintheautumn2015andatthebeginningof2016.

During the work with the programme 3 methodological meetings of teachers from theexperimental group took place – every two months so that they could work withapproximately2modulesinthemeantime.

InJune2016,aftertheendoftheZFmethodologyimplementation,thepost-testinboththeexperimentalandcontrolgroupswascarriedout.

Finally, processing and analysis of data collected from thepre-test and thepost-test tookplaceandwasfinishedinOctober2016.Themainconclusions,importantfortheevaluationoftheeffectivenessoftheZFprogramme,aregiveninthisfinalevaluationreport.

DescriptionoftheResearchSample

Therespondentsinthepre-testandthepost-testwereteachers,inthepost-testalsoparents.Theteachersgaveanswersforindividualpupils;datafromthepre-testandthepost-testwerematchedbyidentificationcodes.Thesamplecharacteristicsarederivedfromthenumberwegotaftermatchingthequestionnaires;thesedataweretheinputforprocessingandanalysis.

Table1Characteristicsoftheresearchsample

Number(N)

Filled-inquestionnairesinthepre-testandthepost-testintotal

807

Questionnairesintheexperimentalgroup 466

Questionnairesinthecontrolgroup 341

Schoolsintheexperimentalgroup 7

Schoolsinthecontrolgroup 7

Teachersintheexperimentalgroup 25

Teachersinthecontrolgroup 18

Questionnairesfilled-inbyparents 114

4

Results:SuccessRateofChildrenfromtheExperimentalGroupComparedwiththeControlGroup

Inthefollowingfigurethereisanobviousdifferenceinthesuccessrateoftheexperimentalandthecontrolgroup.Afterimplementationoftheprogramme,thechildrenfromtheexperimentalgrouphadbetterevaluationinalmostallthemonitoredareasinthepost-test.

Figure1Thedifferencesbetweentheexperimentalandcontrolgroupsinthesetofquestionsinthepre-testvs.post-test;asummary

Experimentalandcontrolgroups.N=807,incl.Nexp=466,Ncont=341.

Thedifferencebetweenthepre-testandthepost-testfortheexperimentalandcontrolgroupsisalsoshowninFigures2and3.

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

i14:Doe

snotintim

idate

i29:Doe

snotre

spon

dtoangerwith

…i30:Doe

snotlie

i13:Doe

snotfight

i22:Doe

snotactim

pulsively

i21:Isnoteasilyupset

i15:Doe

snotse

emto

belone

ly

i19:Isnotnervous

i20:Doe

snotargue

i23:Isnotre

stless

i18:Doe

snotinterrup

t9:Followsthe

rules

i17:Paysa

tten

tion

8:Coo

peratesw

ithpeers

10:H

elpsclassm

ates

28:Isself-reliant

7:M

anagesscho

olstress

11:M

aintainsorder

3:Co

mpletesworkon

time

4:Makesfriend

seasily

12:Adaptstosituatio

ns25:C

anapo

logize

26:Isa

bletoaskfo

rhelp

1:Resolvescon

flicts

31:C

anpostpon

ene

eds

6:Accep

tscriticism

2:Canapp

reciatehimself/herself

24:M

anagesfailure

16:P

ointso

utinjustice

5:Solvesh

arm

27.D

escribeshis/

herfeelings

PRE-POST Experimentalvs.Control

PRE-Exper PRE-Kon POST-Exper POST-Kon

5

Figure2Differencesbetweenthepre-testandthepost-testintheexperimentalgroup


Figure3Differencesbetweenthepre-testandthepost-testinthecontrolgroup


2.002.202.402.602.803.003.203.403.603.804.00

i14:Doe

snotintim

idate

i29:Doe

snotre

spon

dto…

i30:Doe

snotlie

i13:Doe

snotfight

i22:Doe

snotactim

pulsively


i15:Doe

snotse

emto

be…

i19:Isnotnervous

i20:Doe

snotargue

i23:Isnotre

stless

i18:Doe

snotinterrup

t9:Followsthe

rules

i17:Paysa

tten

tion

8:Coo

peratesw

ithpeers

10:H

elpsclassm

ates

28:Isself-reliant

7:M

anagesscho

olstress

11:M

aintainsorder

3:Co

mpletesworkon

time

4:Makesfriend

seasily

12:Adaptstosituatio

ns25:C

anapo

logize

26:Isa

bletoaskfo

rhelp

1:Resolvescon

flicts

31:C

anpostpon

ene

eds

6:Accep

tscriticism

2:Canapp

reciate…

24:M

anagesfailure

16:P

ointso

utinjustice

5:Solvesh

arm

27.D

escribeshis/

herfeelings

PRE-POST ExperimentalgroupPRE-Exper POST-Exper

2.002.202.402.602.803.003.203.403.603.804.00

i14:Doe

snotintim

idate

i29:Doe

snotre

spon

dtoanger…

i30:Doe

snotlie

i13:Doe

snotfight

i22:Doe

snotactim

pulsively


i15:Doe

snotse

emto

belone

ly

i19:Isnotnervous

i20:Doe

snotargue

i23:Isnotre

stless

i18:Doe

snotinterrup

t9:Followsthe

rules

i17:Paysa

tten

tion

8:Coo

peratesw

ithpeers

10:H

elpsclassm

ates

28:Isself-reliant

7:M

anagesscho

olstress

11:M

aintainsorder

3:Co

mpletesworkon

time

4:Makesfriend

seasily

12:Adaptstosituatio

ns25:C

anapo

logize

26:Isa

bletoaskfo

rhelp

1:Resolvescon

flicts

31:C

anpostpon

ene

eds

6:Accep

tscriticism

2:Canapp


24:M

anagesfailure

16:P

ointso

utinjustice

5:Solvesh

arm

27.D

escribeshis/

herfeelings

PRE-POSTControlgroupPRE-Kon POST-Kon

6

Thedifferenceintheexperimentalandcontrolgroupswasnotprovedincaseofthefollowingphenomena:

• fights• isimpulsive• islonely• isnervousinthegroupofchildren.

Significantdifferencesappearinginboththegroups:

Inboththecontrolandexperimentalgroupsthechildrenargueandliemore.Thedifferencebetweenthepre-testandthepost-testissmallerintheexperimentalgroup.Thechildreninboththegroupsaremoreself-reliantandcompleteworkontimemoreoften;theycanapologizeandarebetterindescribingtheirfeelings.However,intheexperimentalgroup,thechildrenmademoreprogressinphenomena“Describeshis/herfeelings”and“Canapologize”.

Significantdifferencesbetweentheexperimentalandthecontrolgroupsappearedinthefollowingareas:(pre-posttestcomparisonshowedabiggerdifferenceintheexperimentalgroup)

§ Self-managementskills:

• canpostponeneeds• isself-reliant• managesschoolstress• maintainsorder• completesworkontime• adaptstosituations.

§ Socialskills:

• cooperateswithpeers• isabletoaskforhelp• resolvesconflicts• acceptscriticism• pointsoutinjustice• describeshis/herfeelings

(muchmoresignificantlydifferentinthepre-postcomparisonthaninthecontrolgroup).

7

ThefollowingFigure4showsthedifferenceinevaluationofchildrenintheexperimentalandthecontrolgroupsinthepost-test.Figure4Differencesbetweentheexperimentalandthecontrolgroupsinthepost-test


2.002.202.402.602.803.003.203.403.603.804.00

i14:Doe

snotintim

idate

i29:Doe

snotre

spon

dtoanger…

i30:Doe

snotlie

i13:Doe

snotfight

i22:Doe

snotactim

pulsively


i15:Doe

snotse

emto

belone

ly

i19:Isnotnervous

i20:Doe

snotargue

i23:Isnotre

stless

i18:Doe

snotinterrup

t9:Followsthe

rules

i17:Paysa

tten

tion

8:Coo

peratesw

ithpeers

10:H

elpsclassm

ates

28:Isself-reliant

7:M

anagesscho

olstress

11:M

aintainsorder

3:Co

mpletesworkon

time

4:Makesfriend

seasily

12:Adaptstosituatio

ns25:C

anapo

logize

26:Isa

bletoaskfo

rhelp

1:Resolvescon

flicts

31:C

anpostpon

ene

eds

6:Accep

tscriticism

2:Canapp

reciate…

24:M

anagesfailure

16:P

ointso

utinjustice

5:Solvesh

arm

27.D

escribeshis/

herfeelings

POSTTESTExperimentalvs.Control

POST-Exper POST-Kon

8

Results:AccordingtotheGradesAllthefigures,comparingsuccessrateintheparticulargrades,showasignificantprogressintheexperimentalgroup,withthemostsignificantimprovementinthemonitoredphenomenainthefirstandsecondgrade.Thiscanbecomparedwiththeteachers’observationsayingthattheeasiestworkwithchildrenisinthesecondgrade,seeSummaryofTeachers’Experience.Wecanconcludethatinthesecondgrade,theZFprogrammebringstheapparentbenefit(eventhoughnotsohighaoneasinthezeroandfirstgrade)andatthesametimechildrenhaveadaptedtotheschoolenvironment.InthecaseofzerogradewecanspeculatethattheprogressiscausedbyimplementationofZFprogrammeorthenaturaldevelopmentofchildrenatthisage.Wedonothavecomparisonwithacontrolgroupinthisgrade,astheystoppedcollaboratingduringtheperiodofdatacollection.Inthethirdgradethedifferencesarenotsobig;oneofthecausesmightbealowernumberofpupilsinthegroup,anotheronetheageofchildren(i.e.8–9years).ThesechildrenareolderthanthetargetgroupoftheZFprogramme(5–7years).

Figure5Frequencyofthemonitoreddemonstrationsofbehaviour

Ngrade0=41.

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

i14:Doe

snotintim

idate

i29:Doe

snotre

spon

dtoanger…

i30:Doe

snotlie

i13:Doe

snotfight

i22:Doe

snotactim

pulsively


i15:Doe

snotse

emto

belone

lyi19:Isnotnervous

i20:Doe

snotargue

i23:Isnotre

stless

i18:Doe

snotinterrup

t9:Followsthe

rules

i17:Paysa

tten

tion

8:Coo

peratesw

ithpeers

10:H

elpsclassm

ates

28:Isself-reliant

7:M

anagesscho

olstress

11:M

aintainsorder

3:Co

mpletes

workon

time

4:Makes

friend

seasily

12:Adaptstosituatio

ns25:C

anapo

logize

26:Isa

bletoaskfo

rhelp

1:Resolvescon

flicts

31:C

anpostpon

ene

eds

6:Accep

tscriticism

2:Canapp


24:M

anagesfailure

16:P

ointso

utinjustice

5:Solvesh

arm

27.D

escribeshis/

herfeelings

PRETEST-POSTTESTvsgrade0:Experimentalschools

PRE_Exper_0

POST_Exper_0

9

Figure6Experimentalgroupgrade1

Figure7Controlgroupgrade1

Ngrade1=376.

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

i14:Doe

snotintim

idate

i29:Doe

snotre

spon

dtoanger…

i30:Doe

snotlie

i13:Doe

snotfight

i22:Doe

snotactim

pulsively


i15:Doe

snotse

emto

belone

lyi19:Isnotnervous

i20:Doe

snotargue

i23:Isnotre

stless

i18:Doe

snotinterrup

t9:Followsthe

rules

i17:Paysa

tten

tion

8:Coo

peratesw

ithpeers

10:H

elpsclassm

ates

28:Isself-reliant

7:M

anagesscho

olstress

11:M

aintainsorder

3:Co

mpletes

workon

time

4:Makes

friend

seasily

12:Adaptstosituatio

ns25:C

anapo

logize

26:Isa

bletoaskfo

rhelp

1:Resolvescon

flicts

31:C

anpostpon

ene

eds

6:Accep

tscriticism

2:Canapp


24:M

anagesfailure

16:P

ointso

utinjustice

5:Solvesh

arm

27.D

escribeshis/

herfeelings

PRETEST-POSTTESTvsgrade1:Experimentalschools

PRE_Exper_1 POST_Exper_1

1.001.502.002.503.003.504.00

i14:Doe

snotintim

idate

i29:Doe

snotre

spon

dtoanger…

i30:Doe

snotlie

i13:Doe

snotfight

i22:Doe

snotactim

pulsively


i15:Doe

snotse

emto

belone

lyi19:Isnotnervous

i20:Doe

snotargue

i23:Isnotre

stless

i18:Doe

snotinterrup

t9:Followsthe

rules

i17:Paysa

tten

tion

8:Coo

peratesw

ithpeers

10:H

elpsclassm

ates

28:Isself-reliant

7:M

anagesscho

olstress

11:M

aintainsorder

3:Co

mpletes

workon

time

4:Makes

friend

seasily

12:Adaptstosituatio

ns25:C

anapo

logize

26:Isa

bletoaskfo

rhelp

1:Resolvescon

flicts

31:C

anpostpon

ene

eds

6:Accep

tscriticism

2:Canapp


24:M

anagesfailure

16:P

ointso

utinjustice

5:Solvesh

arm

27.D

escribeshis/

herfeelings

PRETEST-POSTTESTvsgrade1:Controlgroup

PRE_Kon_1 POST_Kon_1

10



Ngrade2=330.

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

i14:Doe

snotintim

idate

i29:Doe

snotre

spon

dtoanger…

i30:Doe

snotlie

i13:Doe

snotfight

i22:Doe

snotactim

pulsively


i15:Doe

snotse

emto

belone

lyi19:Isnotnervous

i20:Doe

snotargue

i23:Isnotre

stless

i18:Doe

snotinterrup

t9:Followsthe

rules

i17:Paysa

tten

tion

8:Coo

peratesw

ithpeers

10:H

elpsclassm

ates

28:Isself-reliant

7:M

anagesscho

olstress

11:M

aintainsorder

3:Co

mpletes

workon

time

4:Makes

friend

seasily

12:Adaptstosituatio

ns25:C

anapo

logize

26:Isa

bletoaskfo

rhelp

1:Resolvescon

flicts

31:C

anpostpon

ene

eds

6:Accep

tscriticism

2:Canapp


24:M

anagesfailure

16:P

ointso

utinjustice

5:Solvesh

arm

27.D

escribeshis/

herfeelings

PRETEST-POSTTESTvsgrade2:Experimentalgroup


1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

i14:Doe

snotintim

idate

i29:Doe

snotre

spon

dtoanger…

i30:Doe

snotlie

i13:Doe

snotfight

i22:Doe

snotactim

pulsively


i15:Doe

snotse

emto

belone

lyi19:Isnotnervous

i20:Doe

snotargue

i23:Isnotre

stless

i18:Doe

snotinterrup

t9:Followsthe

rules

i17:Paysa

tten

tion

8:Coo

peratesw

ithpeers

10:H

elpsclassm

ates

28:Isself-reliant

7:M

anagesscho

olstress

11:M

aintainsorder

3:Co

mpletes

workon

time

4:Makes

friend

seasily

12:Adaptstosituatio

ns25:C

anapo

logize

26:Isa

bletoaskfo

rhelp

1:Resolvescon

flicts

31:C

anpostpon

ene

eds

6:Accep

tscriticism

2:Canapp


24:M

anagesfailure

16:P

ointso

utinjustice

5:Solvesh

arm

27.D

escribeshis/

herfeelings


PRE_Kon_2

POST_Kon_2

11



Ngrade3=58.

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

i14:Doe

snotintim

idate

i29:Doe

snotre

spon

dtoanger…

i30:Doe

snotlie

i13:Doe

snotfight

i22:Doe

snotactim

pulsively


i15:Doe

snotse

emto

belone

lyi19:Isnotnervous

i20:Doe

snotargue

i23:Isnotre

stless

i18:Doe

snotinterrup

t9:Followsthe

rules

i17:Paysa

tten

tion

8:Coo

peratesw

ithpeers

10:H

elpsclassm

ates

28:Isself-reliant

7:M

anagesscho

olstress

11:M

aintainsorder

3:Co

mpletes

workon

time

4:Makes

friend

seasily

12:Adaptstosituatio

ns25:C

anapo

logize

26:Isa

bletoaskfo

rhelp

1:Resolvescon

flicts

31:C

anpostpon

ene

eds

6:Accep

tscriticism

2:Canapp


24:M

anagesfailure

16:P

ointso

utinjustice

5:Solvesh

arm

27.D

escribeshis/

herfeelings

PRETEST-POSTTESTvsgrade3:Experimentalgroup


1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

i14:Doe

snotintim

idate

i29:Doe

snotre

spon

dtoanger…

i30:Doe

snotlie

i13:Doe

snotfight

i22:Doe

snotactim

pulsively


i15:Doe

snotse

emto

belone

lyi19:Isnotnervous

i20:Doe

snotargue

i23:Isnotre

stless

i18:Doe

snotinterrup

t9:Followsthe

rules

i17:Paysa

tten

tion

8:Coo

peratesw

ithpeers

10:H

elpsclassm

ates

28:Isself-reliant

7:M

anagesscho

olstress

11:M

aintainsorder

3:Co

mpletes

workon

time

4:Makes

friend

seasily

12:Adaptstosituatio

ns25:C

anapo

logize

26:Isa

bletoaskfo

rhelp

1:Resolvescon

flicts

31:C

anpostpon

ene

eds

6:Accep

tscriticism

2:Canapp


24:M

anagesfailure

16:P

ointso

utinjustice

5:Solvesh

arm

27.D

escribeshis/

herfeelings


PRE_Kon_3 POST_Kon_3

12

Results:ComparisonofBoysandGirls

Figure12comparesthechangesofthelevelofthemonitoredphenomenabetweenthetargetgroupofboysandthegroupofgirlsintheexperimentalgroup.Ingeneral,theboysgotalowerevaluationthanthegirlsinthepre-test.AftertheimplementationoftheZFprogrammeandthepost-testitshowedthatboththegirlsandboyshadmadecomparableprogressinthemonitoredareas.ThuswecanconcludethattheimplementationoftheZFprogrammebringssimilarbenefitforbothgirlsandboys.

Theboysmadesignificantprogressinthephenomena“Canappreciatehimself”andaccordingtotheteachers,theyarealsobetteratdescribingtheirfeelings,eventhough,incaseofthisitem,thegirlsgotahigherscore.Inthequestion“Pointsoutinjustice”thegirlsandtheboysgotthesameresultsaftertheimplementationoftheprogramme.

Figure12Gender

Nexp=466.

2.002.202.402.602.803.003.203.403.603.804.00

i14:Doe

snotintim

idate

i29:Doe

snotre

spon

dtoanger…

i30:Doe

snotlie

i13:Doe

snotfight

i22:Doe

snotactim

pulsively


i15:Doe

snotse

emto

belone

ly

i19:Isnotnervous

i20:Doe

snotargue

i23:Isnotre

stless

i18:Doe

snotinterrup

t9:Followsthe

rules

i17:Paysa

tten

tion

8:Coo

peratesw

ithpeers

10:H

elpsclassm

ates

28:Isself-reliant

7:M

anagesscho

olstress

11:M

aintainsorder

3:Co

mpletesworkon

time

4:Makesfriend

seasily

12:Adaptstosituatio

ns25:C

anapo

logize

26:Isa

bletoaskfo

rhelp

1:Resolvescon

flicts

31:C

anpostpon

ene

eds

6:Accep

tscriticism

2:Canapp


24:M

anagesfailure

16:P

ointso

utinjustice

5:Solvesh

arm

27.D

escribeshis/

herfeelings

PRE-POSTGender

PRE-"Boys"PRE-"Girsl"POST-"Boys"

13

Results:PupilswithSpecialEducationalNeeds1Whenwestartedtheproject,oneofourpointsofinterestwasalsothereactionofpupilswithSENtotheprogrammeimplementation.Thusweincludedseveralquestionsinthequestionnairehelpingustoidentifysuchchildren.Theywerefromthefollowinggroups2:

• childrenwithdisabilities(physicaldisability,visualimpairment,hearingimpairment,intellectualdisability,mentaldisorders,autism,speechimpediment,combineddisabilities,developmentallearningdisabilities,andbehaviourdisorders)

• childrenwithahealthproblemorhandicap(weakenedbytheirhealthstate,long-termillnessandlighthandicapsleadingtolearningdisabilitiesandbehaviourdisorders)

• childrenwithasocialhandicap(fromfamilieswithlowsocio-culturalstatus,threatenedwithsociallypathologicalphenomena,withinstitutionaleducationorprotectivecustody,pupilswithanasylum-seekerstatus).

ThefollowingFigures13and14showthechangesinthemonitoredphenomenalevelofpupilswithSENandcomparethembetweenthecontrolandexperimentalgroups.

Itisobviousthatinthecontrolgroupthelevelofthemonitoredphenomenadidnotchangesignificantly,unlikethecaseofexperimentalgroup,inwhichtheprogressbetweenthepre-testandthepost-test(i.e.aftertheendofprogrammeimplementation)isclear.

ThepupilswithSENmadesuchsignificantprogressinthemonitoredphenomenathatinthepost-testtheirresultsapproximatethoseofchildrenwithoutidentifieddiagnosis.

Inthecontrolgroup,nosuchprogresswasmadeandthepupilswithSENgotamuchlowerscorethantherestofclass.

WecanconcludethatZFprogrammeconsiderablycontributestotheadaptationofchildrenwithSENtotheschoolenvironmentandtheirintegrationamongpeers;thelatteroneisprovedbythephenomenonwiththehighestprogressmade“Isabletoaskforhelp”.

1Inthestudywemeanachildthathadbeendiagnosedbyschoolcounsellingdepartmentandbelongstothecategoryofchildrenwithspecialeducationalneeds.2Article16ofActNo.561/2004Coll.of24September2004onPre-school,Basic,Secondary,TertiaryProfessionalandOtherEducation.

14

Figure13Comparisonofthepupilswithdiagnosisandwithoutdiagnosisintheexperimentalgroup–pre-posttest

NexpDg.yes=97,Dg.no=369.

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

i14:Doe

snotintim

idate

i29:Doe

snotre

spon

dtoanger…

i30:Doe

snotlie

i13:Doe

snotfight

i22:Doe

snotactim

pulsively


i15:Doe

snotse

emto

belone

ly

i19:Isnotnervous

i20:Doe

snotargue

i23:Isnotre

stless

i18:Doe

snotinterrup

t9:Followsthe

rules

i17:Paysa

tten

tion

8:Coo

peratesw

ithpeers

10:H

elpsclassm

ates

28:Isself-reliant

7:M

anagesscho

olstress

11:M

aintainsorder

3:Co

mpletesworkon

time

4:Makesfriend

seasily

12:Adaptstosituatio

ns25:C

anapo

logize

26:Isa

bletoaskfo

rhelp

1:Resolvescon

flicts

31:C

anpostpon

ene

eds

6:Accep

tscriticism

2:Canapp


24:M

anagesfailure

16:P

ointso

utinjustice

5:Solvesh

arm

27.D

escribeshis/

herfeelings

PRE-POSTvsDg(YESvsNO)proExperimental

PRE_DgYES_Exper PRE_DgNO_Exper

POST_DgYES_Exper POST_DgNO_Exper

15

Figure14Comparisonofthepupilswithdiagnosisandwithoutdiagnosisinthecontrolgroup–pre-posttest

NcontDg.yes=75,Dg.no=266.

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

i14:Doe

snotintim

idate

i29:Doe

snotre

spon

dtoanger…

i30:Doe

snotlie

i13:Doe

snotfight

i22:Doe

snotactim

pulsively


i15:Doe

snotse

emto

belone

ly

i19:Isnotnervous

i20:Doe

snotargue

i23:Isnotre

stless

i18:Doe

snotinterrup

t9:Followsthe

rules

i17:Paysa

tten

tion

8:Coo

peratesw

ithpeers

10:H

elpsclassm

ates

28:Isself-reliant

7:M

anagesscho

olstress

11:M

aintainsorder

3:Co

mpletesworkon

time

4:Makesfriend

seasily

12:Adaptstosituatio

ns25:C

anapo

logize

26:Isa

bletoaskfo

rhelp

1:Resolvescon

flicts

31:C

anpostpon

ene

eds

6:Accep

tscriticism

2:Canapp


24:M

anagesfailure

16:P

ointso

utinjustice

5:Solvesh

arm

27.D

escribeshis/

herfeelings

PRE-POSTvsDg(YESvsNO)proControl

PRE_DgYES_Con PRE_DgNO_Noc

POST_DgYES_Con POST_DgNO_Con

16

Results:Academicsuccess

Theteachersratedindividualpupilsaccordingtotheirabilitiestomasterthecurriculumonthe4-pointscale(“excellent”,“verygood”,“average”,“belowaverage”).

ThefollowingTable2showstheevaluationbyteachersinthepre-test,i.e.beforetheimplementationofZFprogramme.

Table2Masteringthecurriculum:resultsofthepre-test.

Thedifferenceintheresultsoftheexperimentalandcontrolgroupsisnotstatisticallysignificant.

17

Table3Masteringthecurriculum:resultsofthepost-test.

Thedifferenceintheresultsoftheexperimentalandcontrolgroupsisstatisticallysignificant.

Inthecontrolgroup,therewasnochangeintheevaluationofacademicsuccess;thepercentageofpupilsclassifiedasexcellentstaysthesame,norarethereanysignificantchangesinothercategoriesinthepre-testandthepost-test.

Intheexperimentalgroup,thepupilsmadeasignificantprogressasfarastheiracademicskillsareconcerned.Thenumberofpupilswithexcellentscoregrewby11percent.

Theseresultsaccordwiththehypothesisthatthepositiveinfluenceontheenvironment,developmentofsocialskillsandself-managementskillshaveapositiveeffectonacademicsuccessofpupils.

18

Results:Parents’View

Parentsinboththecontrolandexperimentalgroupshaveaverysimilarviewoftheirchildren(seeFigure15,post-test).However,theviewofindividualchildrenbyteachersandbyparentsdiffersinboththecontrolandexperimentalgroupstoaconsiderableextent(seeFigures16and17).

Wecanconcludethatteachersandparentshaveadifferentviewofthechildren.Thismightbecausedbythefactthatteachersandparentsseethechildrenindifferentenvironmentsandsocialgroups.

Figure15Comparisonoftheviewofchildrenbytheirparentsintheexperimentalandthecontrolgroups–post-test

NParents=114.

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

i14:Doe

snotintim

idate

i29:Doe

snotre

spon

dto…

i30:Doe

snotlie

i13:Doe

snotfight

i22:Doe

snotactim

pulsively


i15:Doe

snotse

emto

belone

ly

i19:Isnotnervous

i20:Doe

snotargue

i23:Isnotre

stless

i18:Doe

snotinterrup

t9:Followsthe

rules

i17:Paysa

tten

tion

8:Coo

peratesw

ithpeers

10:H

elpsclassm

ates

28:Isself-reliant

7:M

anagesscho

olstress

11:M

aintainsorder

3:Co

mpletesworkon

time

4:Makesfriend

seasily

12:Adaptstosituatio

ns25:C

anapo

logize

26:Isa

bletoaskfo

rhelp

1:Resolvescon

flicts

31:C

anpostpon

ene

eds

6:Accep

tscriticism

2:Canapp

reciate…

24:M

anagesfailure

16:P

ointso

utinjustice

5:Solvesh

arm

27.D

escribeshis/

herfeelings

Posttestparentsexperimentalvs.control

PAR-Exper PAR-Control

19

Figure16Comparisonoftheviewbyparentsandteachersintheexperimentalgroup

Figure17Comparisonoftheviewbyparentsandteachersinthecontrolgroup

NParents=114.

2.002.202.402.602.803.003.203.403.603.804.00

i14:Doe

snotintim

idate

i29:Doe

snotre

spon

dto…

i30:Doe

snotlie

i13:Doe

snotfight

i22:Doe

snotact…


i15:Doe

snotse

emto

be…

i19:Isnotnervous

i20:Doe

snotargue

i23:Isnotre

stless

i18:Doe

snotinterrup

t9:Followsthe

rules

i17:Paysa

tten

tion

8:Coo

peratesw

ithpeers

10:H

elpsclassm

ates

28:Isself-reliant

7:M

anagesscho

olstress

11:M

aintainsorder

3:Co

mpletesworkon

time

4:Makesfriend

seasily

12:Adaptstosituatio

ns25:C

anapo

logize

26:Isa

bletoaskfo

rhelp

1:Resolvescon

flicts

31:C

anpostpon

ene

eds

6:Accep

tscriticism

2:Canapp

reciate…

24:M

anagesfailure

16:P

ointso

utinjustice

5:Solvesh

arm

27.D

escribeshis/

her…

PRE-POST-PAR podleTypuSkoly

Teachers-Exper PAR-Exper

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

i14:Doe

snotintim

idate

i29:Doe

snotre

spon

dtoanger…

i30:Doe

snotlie

i13:Doe

snotfight

i22:Doe

snotactim

pulsively


i15:Doe

snotse

emto

belone

ly

i19:Isnotnervous

i20:Doe

snotargue

i23:Isnotre

stless

i18:Doe

snotinterrup

t9:Followsthe

rules

i17:Paysa

tten

tion

8:Coo

peratesw

ithpeers

10:H

elpsclassm

ates

28:Isself-reliant

7:M

anagesscho

olstress

11:M

aintainsorder

3:Co

mpletesworkon

time

4:Makesfriend

seasily

12:Adaptstosituatio

ns25:C

anapo

logize

26:Isa

bletoaskfo

rhelp

1:Resolvescon

flicts

31:C

anpostpon

ene

eds

6:Accep

tscriticism

2:Canapp


24:M

anagesfailure

16:P

ointso

utinjustice

5:Solvesh

arm

27.D

escribeshis/

herfeelings

PosttestTeachersvs.Parentscontrol

Teachers-Control PAR-Control

20

SummaryofTeachers’ExperienceBasedontheirTestimonieandSubjectiveEvaluationAsapartofimplementationofZFprogramme,regularmethodologicalmeetingstookplace.Theaimofthesemeetingswastoenabletheteachersimplementingtheprogrammeintheirclassestoshareexperienceandtohelpthemtoovercomedifficultiesthatmighthaveemergedduringtheirworkwiththemethodology.

Atthebeginningteacherswereworriedaboutthetimedemandedforindividualunitsandthewholeprogramme.Inthecaseoftheyoungestchildren,theyhaddifficultyinconcentratingforthewholesession,whichwassolvedbyspreadingtheunitintimeandswitchingitwithotheractivities.Incourseoftimemostteachersagreedthatthechildrencouldmanagetoconcentratebetterforthetimerequiredforthesession,andonlyexceptionallydidtheycontinuewiththeunitinthenextlesson.

Someteachershadapositivefeedbackonimprovementinthecollaborationwithparents,whichfrequentlyexceededtheirexpectations.Onlyexceptionallytheteacherssawsituationswhenparentssuggestedsolutionsthatwerecontrarytothemeaningoftheprogramme(e.g.fightbacketc.).Theteacher-trainersinchargeofthemeetingsandtheteachersagreedthatsimilarsuggestionsshouldbediscussedwiththechildren,usingthetoolsofferedbytheZFmethodology(e.g.“Rulesforchoosingagoodsolution–itmakesmefeelbetteranditdoesn’thurtmeoranyoneelse”),andthatteachersshouldavoidcriticizingtheparents.

Oneofthetopicsthatworriedteachersintheimplementationinclasswaslossanddeath.Thefeedbackfromthemethodologicalmeetingsdidnotconfirmsuchworries.Childrenconsideredthetopicsasinteresting,andfromtheirreactionwecouldconcludethattheywelcomedthepossibilitytosharesuchtopics(basedonthenumberoffeedbacks,activitiesandpayingattentionintheclass).

Theattendeesofmethodologicalmeetingsconsideredtheprogrammemeaningful;theyevenobservedchangesinconflictfrequency.TheyrefertoZFwhensolvingsituationsinotherlessons.Theworkwithyoungerchildrenseemstobemoredifficult.TheeasiestwayofimplementationoftheZFmethodologyseemstobeinthesecondgrade,basedontheteachers’experience.

Theteacherstakingpartinourstudywanttocontinuewiththemethodology–e.g.todeepenacquiredskillsofthechildrenbyadditionalactivities.Italsofollowsthattheteacherswouldappreciatedtrainingofothercolleaguesfromtheirschools,andtheythinkafter-schoolcarecentresshouldalsobeinvolved.

21

Fromteachers’feedback:

“Irealizedsmallchildrenhavethesameurgetotalkabouttheirfeelingsandtroublesasadults.”(Lucie,teacher)

“Zippygivesallchildrenthechancetoexplainvariouslifesituations,learnhowtoanticipatethemandcopewiththem.”(Jaroslava,teacher)

“Thefacttheprojectworkscanbeobservedfromthechildren,sincetheyaresincereandcannotbefooled.MysoncouldnotwaitforthelessonswithZippyandenjoyedthemall.Ialsogotpositivefeedbackfromteachersatschool.”(2ndgradepupil’smother)

“Thewholeprojectiswell-prepared,itiscomprehensiveandattractiveforbothchildrenandteachers.”(2ndgradepupil’smother)

“WeusetechniquesfromtheZFprogrammeintheeverydaylifeoftheclassroom,e.g.conflictagreement.”(Veronika,teacher)

Thefollowingfigureshowsteachers’opinionsonthebenefitoftheprogrammefortheindividualchildren.

Inwhichareawastheprogrammebeneficialforthechild?

Teachers’opinions,post-test.Respondentscouldchoosemoreoptions.Nexp=467.

43%

37%

32%

31%

25%

25%

18%

16%

13%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Expressthemselves

Cooperateinagroup

Solveconflicts

Adapttonewsituations

Askforhelp

Createandkeepfriendship

Apologize

Helpothers

Copewithstress

Itwasnotbeneficialinanyarea

22

Conclusion

ThisresearchreportsummarizesbasicfindingsfromtheassessmentoftheeffectivenessoftheZippy’sFriendsprogrammebyarandomized,controlledstudy.TheaimofthestudywastofindoutwhethertheimplementationoftheZFprogrammebringssignificantbenefitsforthepupilsofzero,first,secondandthirdgradesofrandomlychosenprimaryschools,evaluatedbytheirteachersandparents.FortheevaluationweusedaquestionnairereflectingphenomenaonwhichtheZFprogrammefocusesinitsmodules.Besidesthatwewerealsointerestedinthequestionofwhethertheprogrammewouldhaveanyinfluenceonthepupils’performanceintheclassroom.

Thedataanalysisclearlyshowssignificantbenefitsinmostmonitoredphenomenaforchildrenworkingontheprogrammeoverthewholeschoolyear.Theonlyphenomenawithnotsosignificantdifferenceswere“Isimpulsive,Islonely,Isnervousinagroupofchildren”,howevernochangehappenedinthecontrolgroupeither.Wecanconcludethatthesemonitoredphenomenaareratherrelatedtothepersonaltraitsofthechildrenassessed,sothequestioniswhether,withsuchatypeofintervention,itispossibletosignificantlyinfluencetheminashortspaceoftime.

Onthecontrary,significantdifferencesbetweentheexperimentalandthecontrolgroupsappearedintheareaofself-management(inthepost-test).Aftertheprogramme,thechildrenmanagetopostponetheirneeds,theyarebetteratschool-stressmanagement,abletomaintainorder,finishworkintimeandtheyadapttotheschoolenvironmentbetter.Theyhadalsohigherscoresincooperationwithpeers,abilitytoaskforhelp,conflictresolution,acceptingcriticism,abilitytopointoutinjusticeandtodescribetheirfeelings.

TheevaluationofbenefitsafterfinishingtheZFprogrammeforindividualgrades(zero,1,2and3)showedthefollowingresults.Theimprovementinassessmentwasobviousformostmonitoredphenomenainallthegrades.Forthezerograde,wecouldnotcomparetheresultsoftheexperimentalgroupwiththeevaluationofthecontrolgroup,sincethecontrolgroupstoppedthedatacollectionduringtheprogramme.Eventhoughtheimprovementissignificant,itmightbecausedbynaturaldevelopmentofskillsinthecourseoftheschoolyear.Significantbenefitsshowedespeciallyinthecaseoffirstandsecondgrades.Inthethirdgradethebenefitsarenotsoobvious,whichmightbecausedbyahigherageofthechildren(8–9years)thantherecommendedageofthetargetgroup(5–7years),butalsobyarelativelylownumberofchildreninthisgroup.

Whencomparingthechangesinthelevelofthemonitoredphenomenaforboysandforgirls,itshowedthattheboysingeneralgotalowerscoreinthepre-testthanthegirls.AftertheimplementationoftheZFprogrammeitwasapparentthatboththegirlsandtheboyshadmadecomparableprogress.ThusweconcludethattheZFprogrammebringssimilarbenefitsforbothgirlsandboys.

23

Veryimportantresultswerefoundinthecaseofimplementationoftheprogrammeforchildrenwithspecialeducationalneeds.Thesepupilsmadesuchsignificantprogressinthemonitoredareasthattheyapproximatedtothechildrenwithoutanyidentifieddiagnosis.Therewasnosuchprogressrecordedinthecontrolgroup,inwhichthechildrenwithSENstayedfarbehindtherestofclass.WeconcludethattheZFprogrammeisanimportanthelpfortheadaptationofchildrenwithSENtotheschoolenvironmentandtheirintegrationintheclassroom.

Thedataanalysisconsideringacademicskillsandmasteringthecurriculumshowedthatintheexperimentalgroup,significantprogresshadbeenmadeintheevaluationofpupils’studyresults.Thisfindingaccordswiththehypothesisthatthepositiveinfluenceontheenvironment,andthedevelopmentofsocialskillsandself-managementskills,haveapositiveeffectontheacademicsuccessofpupils.

Anotherfindingofourstudyisthedifferentviewofindividualchildrenbyteachersandbyparents.Thismightbecausedbythefactthatteachersandparentsseethechildrenindifferentenvironmentsandsocialgroups.Parentsinboththecontrolandexperimentalgroupshaveaverysimilarviewoftheirchildren.

Apartoftheevaluationreportisalsoabriefdescriptionofmethodologicalmeetings,takingplaceinthecourseofimplementationofZFprogramme.Asfollowsfromtheteachers’feedbackfromthesemeetings,theyconsidertheprogrammemeaningful;theyevenobservechangesinconflictfrequency.TheyrefertoZippy’sFriendswhensolvingsituationsinotherlessons.Theworkwithyoungerchildrenseemstobemorechallenging.TheeasiestwayofimplementationoftheZFmethodologyseemstobeinthesecondgradeofprimaryschool.

1

Annexe 1: Questionnaire for the teachers

ID of a pupil (anonymized code)

No. of the school in the system: No. of the pupil in the classlist: Grade

0. Grade (5-7 years old, 0. grade is not compulsary education, it is aimed for children, who are not prepared for regular school attendance yet)

1. Grade (6-7 years old)



Gender:

female

male

How many modules of Zippy‘s friends did he/she finish?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2

Assess the pupil based on the following questions. Try to estimate his/her behaviour, if you did not experience the situation with the pupil.

Never Ocassionaly Often Almost always

Resolves conflict.

Can appreciate himself/herself.

Completes work on time.

Makes friends easily.

Solves harm.

Accept criticism.

Manages school stress.

Cooperates with peers.

Follows the rules.

Helps classmates.

Maintains order.

Adapts to situations.

Fights.

Intimidates.

Seems to be lonely.

Points out injustice.

Easily loses concentration.

Interrupts others.

Is nervous in a group of children.

Argues.

3

Never Ocassionaly Often Almost always

Easily upset.

Acts impulsively.

Is restless.

Manages failure.

Can apologize.

Is able to ask for help.

Describes his/her feelings.

Is self-reliant.

Responds to anger with agression.

Lies.

Can postpone needs.

4

Diagnosed by a specialist (e.g. Psychological-pedagogical centre, Centre for special pedagogy, a psychologist, a psychiatrist):

Please choose all relevant answers.

ADHD/ADD

Behaviour disorder

Learning disorder

Somatic disability

Mental disability

Autism

Speech impediment

Social handicap

Does not understand lessons (does not speak and understand Czech properly, not a diagnosis)

Other

No diagnosis

In mastering the curriculum I evaluate the pupil as: *

excellent

very good

average

below average

Evaluation Report of Zippy’s Friends Program in the … · Evaluation Report of Zippy’s Friends...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation Report of Zippy’s Friends Program in the … · Evaluation Report of Zippy’s Friends...