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
Experimentalandcontrolgroups.N=807,incl.Nexp=466,Ncont=341.
Figure3Differencesbetweenthepre-testandthepost-testinthecontrolgroup
Experimentalandcontrolgroups.N=807,incl.Nexp=466,Ncont=341.
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
i21:Isnoteasilyupset
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
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-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
Experimentalandcontrolgroups.N=807,incl.Nexp=466,Ncont=341.
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
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
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
i21:Isnoteasilyupset
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
reciatehimself/herself
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
i21:Isnoteasilyupset
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
reciatehimself/herself
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
i21:Isnoteasilyupset
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
reciatehimself/herself
24:M
anagesfailure
16:P
ointso
utinjustice
5:Solvesh
arm
27.D
escribeshis/
herfeelings
PRETEST-POSTTESTvsgrade1:Controlgroup
PRE_Kon_1 POST_Kon_1
10
Figure8Experimentalgroupgrade2
Figure9Controlgroupgrade2
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
i21:Isnoteasilyupset
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
reciatehimself/herself
24:M
anagesfailure
16:P
ointso
utinjustice
5:Solvesh
arm
27.D
escribeshis/
herfeelings
PRETEST-POSTTESTvsgrade2:Experimentalgroup
PRE_Exper_2 POST_Exper_2
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
i21:Isnoteasilyupset
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
reciatehimself/herself
24:M
anagesfailure
16:P
ointso
utinjustice
5:Solvesh
arm
27.D
escribeshis/
herfeelings
PRETEST-POSTTESTvsgrade2:Controlgroup
PRE_Kon_2
POST_Kon_2
11
Figure10Experimentalgroupgrade3
Figure11Controlgroupgrade3
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
i21:Isnoteasilyupset
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
reciatehimself/herself
24:M
anagesfailure
16:P
ointso
utinjustice
5:Solvesh
arm
27.D
escribeshis/
herfeelings
PRETEST-POSTTESTvsgrade3:Experimentalgroup
PRE_Exper_3 POST_Exper_3
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
i21:Isnoteasilyupset
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
reciatehimself/herself
24:M
anagesfailure
16:P
ointso
utinjustice
5:Solvesh
arm
27.D
escribeshis/
herfeelings
PRETEST-POSTTESTvsgrade3:Controlgroup
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
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-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
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-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
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-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
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
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…
i21:Isnoteasilyupset
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
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
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)
2. Grade (7-8 years old)
3. Grade (8-9 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