LSESNET Web Blog

Generally, an ecological assessment involves direct observation and testing a child in many varied environments where he or she routinely functions. It is very much informal in nature and is certainly different from a formal psychological assessment (e.g., administering WISC assessment). We may ask what the aim of administering such an informal assessment is. Basically, the main aim is to probe how the different environments (or ecosystems) influence the child concerned and, of course, his/her performance in class.

To understand ecological assessment, Bronfenbrenner’s model (1995) has to be brought into this discussion. His model describes five ecosystems, i.e., microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem, which influence human development, nested within each other like a circle of rings. The student as an individual is at the centre of these circles which are the contexts where the student spends a significant amount of time, the relationships of those contexts, the societal structures, and then the larger contexts in which these systems operate. Below is a brief description of each of the ecosystems:

1. Microsystem: This concerns relations between the student and his/her immediate environment. According to Ng and Chia (in press), this ecosystem can be further divided into intra-microsystem and inter-microsystem. The former has to do with the student’s innate or genetically determined abilities. “It is these innate abilities that a child is assessed (e.g., an IQ test) to determine if he/she is highly-able, able, less-able or disabled in his/her performance as a learner” (Chia, 2008, p.29). The latter concerns with the student’s adaptive-behavioral skills to function normally in his/her daily life. “Significant limitations in adpative behavior may impact his/her daily life and affect the ability to respond to a particular situtaion or environment” (Chia, 2008, p.28).

2. Mesosystem: This refers to the connection between and among immediate contexts such as friends, family, school and playground. For instance, the student’s academic progress depends not just on activities that take place inside the classroom, it is also promoted by parental involvement in the school/class life and the extent to which academic learning is carried over into the home (Epstein & Sanders, 2002).

3. Exosystem: This is made up of social contexts that do not contain the student but that affect his/her experiences in immediate contexts. For example, socially isolated families have few personal or community-based ties or are affected by unemployment tend to be dysfunctional and show increased rates of conflict and child abuse. In turn, it gives a negative impact of a breakdown in exosystem activities affecting the student’s performance in class (Emery & Laumann-Billings, 1998).

4. Macrosystem: This consists of the values, laws, customs, and resources of the culture that affect the activities and interactions at all inner circles. The priority that the macrosystem gives to the student’s needs affects the support he/she receives at inner levels of environment. For instance, in countries where generous workplace benefits for parents in employment and high-quality standards for childcare services are mandated, children are more likely to have favorable learning experiences in their immediate contexts (Berk, 2005).

5. Chronosystem: This refers to the dynamic, ever-changing nature of the student’s environment.  

Cutting across the circles of the ecological systems model, there are two main perspectives we should be looking at: (1) dispositional perspective; and (2) situational perspective of the child’s behavior.

Modern psychiatry and clinical (as well as personality and assessment) psychology are dispositionally oriented. According to Zimbardo (2007), “most of our institutions are founded on such a perspective, including law, medicine, and religion. Culpability, illness, and sin … are to be found within the guilty party, the sick person, and the sinner” (p.7). We begin our quest for understanding with the “WHO” questions: Who is responsible? Who caused it? Who gets the blame? and Who gets the credit?

In terms of the situational perspective, we tend to avoid this rush to dispositional judgment when we attempt to understand the causes of unusual behaviors. We begin our quest for meaning by asking the “WHAT” questions as raised by Zimbardo (2007) and the late Professor Viktor Frankl in his search for meaning in life: What conditions could be contributing to certain reacdtions? What circumstances might be involved in generating behavior? What was the situation like from the perspective of the actors? And the list of questions can go on. The main question to sum it all here is “To what extent can an individual’s actions be traced to factors outside the actor, to situational variables and environmental processes unique to a given setting?” (Zimbardo, 2007, p.8).

There are five key questions we want to ask ourselves when conducting an ecological assessment. They are:

1. Where does the child manifest his/her difficulties?

2. Are there issues/areas of concern where he/she seems to operate appropriately or adequately?

3. What is expected of the child academically and behaviorally in each different environment?

4. What are the differences that exist in the environments where the child manifests the greatest and the least difficulty?

5. What are the implications these differences have for our instructional planning? 

In the ecological assessment, it is important to note that a child can perform fairly well in one situation may encounter difficulty in another. That is the main reason why it is so important for us to observe the child in various or different environments (or ecosystems) to obtain a better picture or understanding of him/her. Such an assessment can provide us with vital information that allows us to make decisions for placement as well as accommodation to meet the child’s specific learning as well as socio-emotional needs. It also provides us a more holistic evaluation of the child’s performance in class.

To sum up in what Wallace, Larsen, and Elksnin (1992) have remarked: “An evaluation that fails to consider a student’s ecology as a potential causative factor in reported academic or behavioral disorders may be ignoring the very elements that require modification before we can realistically expect changes in that student’s behavior” (p.19).

Copyright © 2008 LSES. All rights reserved. see Disclaimer  

The reporter, Lisabel Ting, of The Straits Times Mind Your Body supplement should be applauded for writing an excellent article on dialogic-diagnostic art therapy (DDAT). She has clearly explained the difference between expressive art therapy and dialogic-diagnostic art therapy. I quote: “While expressive art therapy is geared towards having a curative effect on a mental, emotional or behavioral disorder, the dialogic-diagnostic art therapy allows a trained therapist to access the subconscious elements of a client’s psyche and to interpret drawings to help diagnose his/her condition” (ST Mind Your Body, March 26, 2008, p.8).

Mdm Salenah Mohd Ismail, a registered DDAT therapist, is quoted to say that “DDAT tells us about the somatic (physical) situation in a child. It can also tell us about the future … drawing is a bit like dreaming, there’s always a subconscious element in the images.” I may want to clarify her statement that DDAT is not fortune-telling or peeking at a crytal ball to see the future. It cannot tell us about the future. However, DDAT can tell us something about the individual who has drawn the picture and the likely consequence he/she is likely to encounter if no intervention comes in. Predicting a likely consequence is not telling about future of an individual through his/her drawing.

Another registered DDAT therapist, Mdm Loke Ying Ying, is quoted to say that DDAT can also be used to evaluate a child’s mental age and intelligence. One example is the Goodenough Draw-a-Person test. Another example is the Harris-Goodenough Draw-a-Person test - an up-dated version from its previous one. Today, such drawing tests are no longer used to measure a child’s intelligence. They serve better as a rough estimation of a child’s mental age and/or intelligence. A better and more accurate intelligence test is the widely used Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV Edition (WISC-IV). It is good that Mdm Loke explained that such drawing tests can be used to measure a child’s drawing quotient (dQ) instead. This helps to differentiate the two cognitive quotients, i.e., dQ and IQ. 

Another important point that has been raised in Lisabel Ting’s article is that the reporter mentioned “DDAT can also be used as an indicator of possible mental problems such as autism and schizophrenia” (ST Mind Your Body, March 26, 2008, p.9). Two things I have to mention here. First, autism is not a mental problem or illness. It is a neuro-developmental disorder of constitutional origin and whose triad of impairments include impairment in social interaction and communication, and repetitive behavioral pattern as well as a lack of imagination in play. Schizophrenia is a mental illness and medication is a must. Second, DDAT serves better in detecting suspected cases of social-emotional-behavioral disturbances (administering the Draw-a-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance or DAP:SPED for short). There is little or no evidence-based research studies been done on the efficacy of DDAT in identifying individuals with mental illnesses. Perhaps more studies will be done with the focus in this area in the near future.

Finally, I agree with Dr Noel K.H. Chia, a board-certified educational therapist and IACT-registered trainer in DDAT, on the issue of the reliability of DDAT although it seems very helpful. I quote: “Accuracy and reliability depend heavily on the years of experience and advance training that a DDAT therapist has gone through” (ST Mind Your Body, March 26, 2008, p.9). What is more important to us should we see a piece of unusual drawing done by a child is that we should never jump into a conclusion too quickly. Always refer to a professional trained and qualified to perform a proper diagnosis in the DDAT.   

Copyright © 2008 Esther Yap. All rights reserved. see Disclaimer  

Many people whom I have come into personal contact at seminars, workshops, etc. have often asked me this question: “What is dialogic-diagnostic art therapy?” Or another question like “Isn’t it the same like expressive art therapy or whatever it is called?” First of all, let us define what art therapy is all about.

Art therapy is an expressive form of therapy involving the creative process of art for the purpose of healing and life-enhancing. Wikipedia describes it as a combination of psychotherapeutic theories and techniques with an understanding of the psychological aspects of the creative process, especially the affective properties of the differen art materials. 

In dialogic-diagnostic art therapy, it is very different from the traditional expressive art therapy being practiced by most of the professionals. Two important terms have been added here: dialogics and diagnosis. What is dialogics? Also, what is diagnosis with reference to art therapy?

According to Bakhtin (1981), dialogics is the study of the way meaning is constituted out of the contending languages within any culture - contending because there is a constant tendency to try to unify languages within an official or unitary language that is undermined by the endlessly changing conditions of the society, which generates new languages and new relations between them. With reference to art therapy, dialogics focuses on the way meanings of the drawn icons, symbols or pictures are derived or understood within a society concerned based on the societal understanding of its collective archetypes. As the society changes,the meanings of its collective archetypes also change.

When diagnosis comes into the picture of art therapy, we are looking at the art (i.e., drawings, painting, etc) from an analytical perspective, deciphering the various icons, symbols or pictures drawn to make sense of them within a given context. To obtain an accurate understanding of the drawings, for instance, we need to establish dialogics before diagnosis can be made. Hence, the term dialogic-diagnosis comes to join art therapy forming a highly specialized field known as dialogic-diagnostic art therapy (or DDAT for short).

DDAT can be divided further into two sub-categories: art logotherapy and art nootherapy. The former concerns “meaning” and focuses on the meaning of human existence as well as on man’s search for such a meaning (Frankl, 1962) through art, especially drawing and painting. The latter concerns how our mind perceives the icons, symbols and/or pictures seen in drawings or paintings. It examines the mind of the drawer/artist in terms of his/her mental banks (or memories), mental books (i.e., perception, cognition, meta-cognition, affection, and volition), and mental states of mind.

The DDAT was introduced in Singapore by Dr Noel K.H. Chia in 2003 when he first taught diagnostic art therapy at the Family Resource and Training Centre to counsellors, social workers, BASC teachers, etc. He also trained volunteers at the PEACE Community Services to used diagnostic art therapy. Later, dialogics was added to make the therapy as thorough and as holistic as possible. In 2004, the International Association of Counselors and Therapists (IACT) accepted DDAT as a specialty therapy and Dr Chia became its only certified trainer/therapist to conduct the program in Singapore. In 2007, the IACT approved the DDAT for professional registration, full professional therapist credentialization, and board certification.

The first pioneering batch of seven DDAT professionals completed the specialty program in 2006 and all of them have become very successful practioners. One therapist moves on to set up her art therapy clinic - ArtsHeal - whose focus is on helping children, adolescents and young adults with socio-emotional behavioral problems as well as mental disturbances. Another therapist (the only Malaysian to be qualified in DDAT) returns to Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia to head a counselling centre using DDAT. The third therapist practices DDAT in school as a school counsellor while the fourth uses it to help her students at a student care centre where she heads. The fifth therapist goes on to conduct numerous workshops on DDAT to help parents understand their children and themselves better. The remaining two therapists have their own private practice in DDAT. Among the seven, two have gone on to become full professional therapists in DDAT while another two have become registered therapists. All the others remain as general therapists.    

References:

Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Frankl, V. (1962). Man’s Search for Meaning: An Introduction to Logotherapy. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Copyright © 2008 Esther Yap. All rights reserved. see Disclaimer  

There are two key aspects to be examined: (1) team performance and (2) supervision or mentoring on team performance.

According to Rodd (1998), the quality of early childhood programs or centres “is directly related to the quality of the personnel who operate the program/centre, from the designated leader to the staff who work with children, whether they are trained or untrained, experienced or inexperienced” (p.116). Most early childhood services operate under financial constraints and the likelihood of the continuation of these circumstances, the low salaries for childcare personnel and staff turnover and shortages, an early childhood leader often faces an ignominious situation.

Prospective and current leaders in early childhood must know and understand (1) the basic information about management and leadership and (2) the various approaches that help them recognize their own strengths and weaknesses and find ways to develop their abilities (Sciarra & Dorsey, 2002). The first component can be obtained in part by listening to speakers, reading and participating in discussions. The second component involves serious self-reflection, willingness to change, and sustained effort.

Sciarra and Dorsey (2002) believe firmly that successful early childhood leaders are likely to obtain results that parallel those of business leaders in other fields. These results include the following:

(1) Increased productivity: In early childhood education, this means that children have better quality interactions with teachers and that more of their time is spent in interesting, worthwhile learning. It means that teachers continue to develop professionally.

(2) More satisfied clients: This refers to families of children enrolled with the program or at the centre as well as to the children themselves. Centres with successful leaders are more likely to have clients who feel positive about the program and staff.

(3) Improved financial position: This position may occur as a result of better organization and management under a successful leader. More initiatives that produce grants or improved funding also may be a factor. However, in today’s society, it is challenging to find leaders who are capable of providing the kind of financial picture that allows them to do what should be done in terms of staff salaries in particular. This condition is affected by attitudes toward programs for young children. To date, these programs have not been seen as important as programs for older children in terms of funding.

The term “team performance” refers to collaborative engagement of teachers coming together as a team with the common goal of making their workplace a conducive environment for both teaching and learning (Turk, 1999). To become a team, members must participate in some sort of team-building opportunity. the group may be given opportunities to provide honest feedback to each participant that can help the individual modify her way of working with others (Sciarra & Dorsey, 2002). In other words, the relationship aspect of the team is based on mutual respect, trust and support. Team members recognize their interdependence as well as their independence. Individual differences and successes are valued. The climate is marked by concern for other team members, warmth and friendliness (Rodd, 1998). The team members help to make a unique but equal contribution to the task of delivering their services, and share responsibility for the efficient operation of a quality service with the leader whom they have mutual respect, trust and support.

The team works efficiently and members of the team enjoy doing their work. The leader is able to relax and enjoy the fruits of previous efforts. However, the leader needs to keep close contact with the various teams in the centre and ensure that any small quality control adjustments are made and shared. Opportunities for contact and relationships with outside groups are pursued and assistance from outside sources is welcomed by team members. The team is willing to extend its energies beyond the confines of the program/centre. The leader has an opportunity to facilitate the development of appropriate staff members through the mentoring process (Turk, 1999) thereby contributing to the development of another future leader in early childhood education.

Supervision is a professional responsibility of the early childhood leader in which the leader helps staff members to use their knowledge and skills effectively in the performance of their work and to deepen their understanding of professional philosophies and values (Rodd, 1998). However, for leaders of early childhood centres, the range of supervisory responsibilities is more complex than just working with staff. The supervisory techniques employed by eladrs can “… promote positive relationships … among the staff” which will result in “… confident, motivated caregivers who want to provide quality care and early education for young children” (Kolb, 1989, p.16).

Caruso and Fawcett (1999) point out that most supervisors assist teachers in incrasing the control, authority, and responsibility they have for their own teaching and professional development. Hence, the primary purpose of supervision is “to help and support teachers as they refine their practices and grow professionally and personally” (Sciarra & Dorsey, 2002, p.144), and this can be done through effective mentoring involving a team or based on team performance (Turk, 1999).

If a team is to provide effective memtoring for the purpose of supervision, it must be a working team. Dumaine (1994) defines working teams as those that accomplish daily work, have stable membership, and are self-led. Stable membership is essential for maintaining the important element of trust. However, trust, the glue of relationships, takes time to grow and must begin with self-trust (Marshall, 1995). Trust among team members is the foundation for building caring relationships, and a set of caring relationships is a common element of successful team performance (Powers, 1996).

Mentoring teams must also possess high performance standards and there are various levels of team performance: (1) pseudo, (2) potential, (3) real, or (4) high- perfomance (see Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). High performance teams have an established purpose and are committed to a common working approach. The members have complementary skills and are individually and mutually accountable. Each member is committed to the personal growth and success of the other members. In other words, every member can be a leader, mentor and/or supervisor to others.

Copyright © 2007 Angie Ng. All rights reserved. see Disclaimer  

Many theories of learning have attempted to explain how young children learn. Recent studies have shown that young children are competent, active learners who are capable to set their goals, plan and revise, who can assemble and organize material, and are active agents of their own conceptual development. 

Children, especially those below 6 years of age, learn best through their senses; therefore, they require plenty of opportunities for sensory involvement. They also learn best by doing. They learn by interacting with concrete objects in the environment. Learning is most effective when children are interested in what they are learning.

One important factor involving how young children learn is their environment. Children learn best in an environment where they feel safe or unthreatened. Such an environment must allow for mistakes which children may commit as this is part of the process of learning. From there, learning is gradually built up and is most effective when experiences builds on what they already know.

Early learning experiences are most effective when they take children from simple to more complex levels. Activities should begin where a child is developmentally ready; significant learning tasks should be arranged in stages so that learning is sequenced step by step.

My model of a young child’s learning begins with the young child him/herself as an individual placed in a conducive, non-threatening environment that promotes positive learning. The child as an individual brings with him/her the (1) innate abilities, senses and skills; (2) motivation and interest; and (3) background experiences and prior knowledge into the learning process. One important requirement for good learning to take place is the presence of a good adult model, which is needed at this stage especially when a young child learns a lot through imitations and repetitions of what he/she has seen. The learning process can take place in two ways: sequential process and simultaneous process. The sequential process of learning takes into consideration the time spent/taken to learn a concept or complete a given task. The simultaneous process of learning looks into how a concept or a task is being processed using various senses/skills at the same time.

In the simultaneous process of learning, learning will begin with something that is (1) concrete and then move to abstract; (2) from simple to complex; (3) from easy to difficult; and (4) from familiar to unfamiliar/unknown/novel/new. While this part of the learning is taking place, the procedure (i.e., step-by-step or stage-by-stage) of learning also occurs through imitation and repetition. This could be a form of rehearsing until the mastery of a given task/concept is achieved. This is the sequential process of learning. The expected result is positive learning outcomes based on the learning objectives set by the teacher/parent when working with the child.

Learning is a dynamic process that is very personal and no two young children will learn in the same way or progress at the same pace. Other than being sequential and/or simultaneous, learning can also be associative or dissociative, divergent or convergent, parallel or unparallel, and so on. That will be another article all together.  

Copyright © 2007 Angie Ng. All rights reserved. see Disclaimer