Siblings' mediated learning strategies in families with and without children with intellectual disabilities.

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 2014, Vol. 119, No. 6, 565–588

Siblings’ Mediated Learning Strategies in Families With and Without Children With Intellectual Disabilities David Tzuriel and Dikla Hanuka-Levy

Abstract Dyads of siblings in which the younger sibling had an intellectual disability (ID, n 5 25) were videotaped interacting. The ID group was compared with typically developing sibling dyads matched on mental age (n 5 25) and chronological age (n 5 25). We observed the mediation strategies, activation, and antimediation behaviors of older siblings and younger siblings’ responsiveness to mediation. Mediation strategies were analyzed by the Observation of Mediation Interaction scale. The ID group scored highest on mediation strategies and lowest on activation and antimediation behaviors. Younger siblings’ responsiveness to mediation was highest among the ID group. Mediation for Intentionality and Reciprocity and Meaning were positively associated with the verbal responsiveness of the younger siblings. Activation and antimediation behaviors were negatively associated with the verbal responsiveness. Key Words: intellectual disability; mediated learning strategies; Down syndrome; shared intentionality; siblings’ interaction

The main objective of the current study is to investigate the mediated learning experience (MLE) strategies (Feuerstein, Rand & Hoffman, 1979; Tzuriel, 2013) of dyads of siblings in families where the younger sibling has an intellectual disability. MLE strategies describe a special quality of interaction between a mediator and a learner (Feuerstein et al., 1979; Tzuriel, 2002, 2011, 2013). In this qualitative interactional process, parents, siblings, or peers interpose themselves between a set of stimuli and the developing human organism (learner) and modify the stimuli for the learner (Tzuriel, 1999, 2001). Feuerstein’s conceptualization of MLE strategies is in some aspects similar to Vygotsky’s (1978, 1986) concepts of the zone of proximal development and internalization and the concept of scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). Such learning strategies have long captured the interest of many developmental psychologists (e.g., Rogoff, 1990; Valsiner, 1987; Wertsch, 1985). Studying sibling interactions can shed light on peers and adults relationships because siblings D. Tzuriel and D. Hanuka-Levy

often act as surrogate parents and informal teachers (Davidoff, 2006; Lobato, 1990) and because of the potent effect of MLE strategies on cognitive development and learning potential of children with ID (Feuerstein et al., 1979; Feuerstein, Rand & Rynders, 1988; Tzuriel, 2013). Moreover, the sibling relationship represents a powerful human bond. In this article, we discuss (a) the MLE theory, (b) siblings’ interactions in families with typically developing (TD) children, (c) siblings’ interactions in families with a child with intellectual disability (ID), and (d) application of the MLE paradigm in research of sibling’s interactions. This discussion is followed by the presentation of our research goals, method, and results.

The Mediated Learning Experience (MLE) Theory Mediated learning experience (MLE) interactions are interactional processes in which parents or 565


other caregivers interpose themselves between a set of stimuli and the learner and modify the stimuli for the developing child (Feuerstein et al., 1979; Tzuriel, 2011). The mediator modifies the stimuli by focusing the child on selected aspects of stimuli by changing the intensity, frequency, and order of the stimuli; by arousing the child’s curiosity, vigilance, and perceptual acuity; and by trying to develop in the child the cognitive functions required for temporal, spatial, and cause-effect relationships. MLE processes are gradually internalized by the child so as to become an integrated mechanism of change within the child. Provision of adequate MLE facilitates the development of various cognitive functions, learning sets, mental operations, strategies, and need systems. The internalized MLE processes become more autonomous as children grow and thus allow the developing children later on to use the strategies independently, to benefit from learning experiences in diverse contexts, and to modify the cognitive system by means of self-mediation. Lack of MLE may be derived from two broad categories: (a) lack of environmental opportunities for mediation, (b) and inability of the child to benefit from mediational interactions because of internal barriers (e.g., deafness, intellectual disability). Children and even adults with disabilities, however, can benefit from MLE if opportunities are structured appropriately and given with sufficient intensity. Feuerstein and colleagues (1979) have posited 12 MLE categories, but we used only five in our study. We chose the categories because have been found more central than others and because they have been studied extensively in the following interactions: mother-child (e.g., Klein, 1988; Klein, Weider, & Greenspan, 1987; Tzuriel, 1999, 2011), sibling (e.g., Klein, Zarur & Feldman, 2002, 2003), and peer mediation (e.g., Shamir & Tzuriel, 2004, Tzuriel & Shamir, 2007, 2010). (See the ‘‘Methods’’ section for a brief description of each MLE strategy.) Adequate use of mediational strategies in parent-child interactions helps children to internalize learning mechanisms, facilitate learning processes, and prepare them to mediate to themselves in different contexts without need to rely on adults’ mediation. The quality of parental mediation may give indications about future changes in children’s cognitive structures, deficient cognitive functions, and ability to benefit 566

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

from mediation in other contexts (Tzuriel, 1999, 2001, 2011).

Sibling’s Interaction in Typically Developing Children Previous research on sibling dyads in typically developing (TD) children has found that siblings may serve as an important factor influencing one another’s development (e.g. Knott, Lewis, Williams, 1995, 2007; McAlister & Peterson, 2013; Pepler, Abramovitch, & Corter, 1981; Zukow, 1989; Zukow-Goldring, 2002). Shared intentionality, or the ability to engage with others in collaborative activities with shared goals (e.g., Tomasello, Carpenter, Call, Behne, & Moll, 2005), is a key precursor to later understanding of cognitive development. Moreover, shared intentionality serves as a platform for development of numerous cognitive skills (e.g., Dunn, 1988; Dunn & Kendrick, 1982), such as Theory of Mind (ToM) and executive functions (Peterson, 2000). A large body of research links access to siblings with rapid development of ToM (e.g., Jenkins & Astington, 1996; McAlister & Peterson, 2007; Ruffman, Perner, Naito, Parkin, & Clements, 1998) and executive functions (e.g., Hughes & Ensor, 2005). Cicirelli (1974) and Weisner (1989) reported that at the age of 7 years, siblings can already be efficient teachers. Their efficiency derives from the developing metacognitive skills in middle childhood that become more elaborated toward late childhood and preadolescence. Maynard (2002) showed that older siblings in Maya culture learn how to adapt teaching strategies to the type of task, as well as to the skill level of the young sibling. These teaching skills are related to a general developmental trend of use of verbal communication skills required for teaching. Several important teaching skills (e.g., understanding another child’s perspective, provision of necessary information to a younger child, and direct instruction) have emerged around 6–8 years. Later on at 8–11 years, siblings demonstrate ‘‘scaffolding’’ skills (e.g., use of talk with demonstration, evaluations, and explanations) and decreased their use of commands. Sibling interaction is based on the adoption of asymmetric yet reciprocal roles (e.g., ‘‘teacher’’—‘‘learner’’), allowing children both to practice familiar roles and experiment with novel skills (Stoneman, 2001, 2009). Older siblings have been found to serve as meaningful role models to their Mediated Learning Strategies by Siblings


younger siblings, thus affecting their cognitive, social, and emotional development (Abramovitch, Corter, & Lando, 1979; Abramovitch, Corter, Pepler, & Stanhope, 1987; Azmitia & Hesser, 1993; Dunn & Kendrick, 1982; Maynard, 2002; Meisner & Fisher, 1980; Youngblade & Belsky, 1995). Abramovitch and colleagues (1986) claim that older siblings are responsible for the majority of initiations of interactions whereas the younger children maintain interaction by responding positively to prosocial initiations but fall back on agonism when more positive approaches do not work. Over time, the rate of interaction increases, but this asymmetric pattern is stable throughout early and middle childhood. Similarly, from about 14 months, younger children imitate their siblings more than they themselves are imitated (Dunn & Kendrick, 1979, 1982). Over time, however, the rate of imitation in sibling dyads (especially in mixed-sex pairs) decreases markedly (Abramovitch et al., 1986). Azmitia and Hesser (1993) reported that siblings used more frequent spontaneous guidance and provided more positive feedback when interacting with their younger preschool siblings in a teaching situation than with peers. These behaviors were related to the younger siblings’ demands for explanation and requests to gain control over the performance; these demands were expressed more frequently toward older siblings than toward peers. These findings suggest that sibling interactions provide a context for guided participation in learning activities (Vygotsky, 1978) between children of mismatched ages. In such dyads, the older child is, by virtue of age and experience, are expert on various skills. Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of apprenticeship is particularly meaningful in the present context. Apprenticeship (Rogoff, 1990; Wertsch, 1985) describes learning that takes place during natural daily activities. It is built on interactions between older and younger members of a cultural group where the older sibling scaffolds the abilities of the younger during a shared performance. The finding showing that younger siblings’ demand for learning was related to the efficient teaching strategies of older siblings; this reaction highlights the bi-directional nature of learning in the sibling context. It seems that familiarity between siblings not only facilitates the older sibling’s teaching strategies but also promotes the younger child’s skill in asking adequate questions D. Tzuriel and D. Hanuka-Levy

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

and eliciting concrete instructions from the older experienced sibling, resulting in a more efficient process of guided participation.

Sibling Interactions in Families With a Child With Intellectual Disability Surprisingly, little research has examined the role of siblings in the development of a child with an intellectual disability (ID). The existing studies find clear, asymmetric roles, with the child with ID taking on the role of the younger child in the pair, regardless of their birth-order position. This pattern is found in children with difficulties as diverse as Down syndrome (Abramovitch, Stanhope, Pepler, & Corter, 1987), cerebral palsy (Dallas, Stevenson, & McGurk, 1993), and autism (Knott et al., 1995). Children with disabilities are therefore able to participate in reciprocal interaction through a process in which the TD sibling ‘scaffolds’ and supports the interaction. Knott and colleagues (1995) found greater levels of interaction and more complex bouts between children with learning disability than would be predicted from the literatures on peer interactions. Sibling interactions in families where the young child has ID have shown that the older TD siblings tend to take up the socializing role of a parent, teacher, or guide, whereas the young child adopts the role of the learner (Brody, Stoneman, Davis, & Crapps, 1991; Caro & Derevensky, 1997; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985; Gibbs, 1993; Knott et al., 1995; Stoneman, 2001, 2005, 2009; Stoneman & Brody, 1982, 1990, 1993; Stoneman, Brody, & Davis, 1989; Wilson, Blecher, & Baker, 1989). Stoneman and colleagues (1989) argue that although in TD siblings there is a tendency for asymmetrical relations to decrease with increase of age, in sibling pairs in which one of them has ID, the asymmetrical relations tends to increase with increasing age. Several researchers have observed that siblings’ satisfaction from the interaction depends on the ability of the partners to mediate accepted roles and act in a qualitative way in those roles (Burr, Leigh, Day, & Constantone, 1979; Knott et al., 1995). Siblings of children with disabilities reveal an impressive ability to play with the child; and the quality of their interaction is higher than the peer interaction of the child with disabilities (Knott et al., 1995). Many studies, starting with the classic works of Farber (1960) and Grossman (1972), showed that TD children in families with a 567


child with ID reveal much more help behavior toward their sibling with ID than do children in TD families (Cuskelly & Gunn, 1993, 2003; Grossman, 1972; Hannah & Midlarsky, 2005; McHale & Gamble, 1989; Stoneman, 2009; Stoneman & Brody, 1990, 1993; Wilson et al., 1989). Most studies dealing with teaching processes among siblings in families with a child with ID have referred to intervention programs aimed at teaching the TD sibling to use adequate instruction strategies. The use of the instruction strategies was later examined during siblings’ interactions (Cash & Evans, 1975; Miller & Cantwell, 1976; Powell, Salzberg, Rule, Levy, & Itzkowitz, 1983; Tekin & Kircalli-Iftar, 2002). In general, the findings indicate the usefulness of the intervention programs. Little is known, however, about spontaneous mediation processes among siblings in families with a child with ID. Such spontaneous interactive processes indicate that children develop mediation techniques based on situational factors and have adaptive value, especially in families experiencing learning difficulties of one of its members.

MLE Strategies in Siblings’ Interactions Early studies on MLE strategies were carried out mainly on mother-child interactions (e.g., Klein et al., 1987; Tzuriel, 1999, 2001, 2013). These studies are based on the assumption that the mother is the most meaningful figure for the child’s cognitive development in the formative years. The findings in these studies strongly indicate that MLE interactions better explained the children’s cognitive development than did distal factors, such as mother’s socioeconomic status (SES) or intelligence (Tzuriel, 1999, 2001, 2011). Recently, there has been a growing interest in investigating the MLE processes among siblings within the family system (Klein et al., 2002, 2003; Tzuriel & Rokach, 2009), as well as among peers (Shamir & Tzuriel, 2004; Tzuriel & Shamir, 2007, 2010). MLE research with siblings has been carried out so far with TD children, with a focus on the effects of the MLE strategies on cognitive development. Klein et al., (2003) reported that the most frequent mediatonal behaviors observed in siblings’ teaching interactions were regulation of behavior, that is, instructing verbally, or modeling the desired behavior nonverbally followed sporadically by 568

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

mediation for feelings of competence (e.g., encouraging behaviors, such as saying, ‘‘very good,’’‘ ‘‘good for you!’’). The authors reported also that two types of MLE strategies, previously found most predictive of children’s cognitive development in mother-child interactions, were rarely found in the repertoire of siblings’ teaching: (a) mediation for transcendence (e.g., expansion, particularly expansion in the form of demand, ‘‘Where did we see this flower?’’’ ‘‘Where does a bird live?’’) and (b) feelings of competence (encouragement), especially when followed by explanations or demonstrations clarifying what led to success (Klein & Alony, 1993). These findings suggest that the siblings were focusing on helping their younger brother or sister carry out the desired task and not on long-term objectives, such as preparing them for better transfer of what was learned. The rarity of such explanations and encouragements may be related to the older siblings’ (5- to 6-year-olds) relative difficulty in coping with abstract reasoning, including metacognitive understanding, which may be required for mediation of transcendence. Klein and colleagues (2003) explain, in addition, that both regulation of behavior and encouraging, frequently found in siblings’ teaching interactions, are probably easier to observe and imitate, within the context of parental mediation behavior, as compared to expansion, which is more abstract and removed from the immediate objective of any observed interaction. Of most importance, however is the question of the effects of ID of one of the children in the family on MLE processes of siblings. Therefore, the main objective of the current study was to investigate the MLE strategies among siblings in which the younger child has ID, as compared with siblings composed only of TD children. To control for mental-age gap between dyads of siblings, we used two comparison groups of siblings: a group with similar mental-age gap (TDM) and a group with similar chronological-age gap (TDC). In Tzuriel’s studies (e.g., Tzuriel, 2013), mother-child or peer dyads were videotaped during free-play or structured situations and analyzed later with use of the Observation of Mediation Interaction (OMI, Klein et al., 1987). Each dyad was videotaped in a familiar physical environment, such as child’s kindergarten or home. In the free-play condition, which usually took 15 min, sets of games and play materials were placed on the table; and the dyad was asked to Mediated Learning Strategies by Siblings

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565


play together as they were used to doing at home. In the structured situation, which also took 15 min, the dyad was given problem-solving tasks, such as analogies. The more experienced person in the dyad (mother or older child) had to teach the younger child. The tasks were explained to the mediator before the videotaping session, but no directions were given as to how to teach the child. 2.

Research Goals The first goal was to study the differences in MLE strategies between dyads of siblings in which the younger siblings have an intellectual disability (ID group) as compared with dyads of siblings in which the younger siblings’ age are matched on mental age gap (TDM group) and chronological age gap (TDC group) with pairs of siblings in the ID group. The differences in use of MLE strategies were examined in free play and structured situation. In other words, we asked whether group differences depend on the type of interaction situation. The second goal was to study the differences among the three groups in two nonmediation behaviors: activation and antimediation. Activation refers to interactions in which the mediator is performing the task for the learner (nonverbal) or tells the learner the right answer (verbal). Activation is observed during peer mediation when the mediator says, for example, ‘‘Put this card here’’ or simply takes the card from the learner or pushes the card into the right place. Antimediation refers to interactions in which the mediator is acting negatively toward the learner (e.g., ‘‘You don’t know anything,’’ ‘‘How many times do I have to tell you that?’’ ‘‘I see that you will never succeed’’). This observation is based on previous studies showing that when dyads are not using mediation during their interactions, they often use activation or antimediation behavior (Shamir & Tzuriel, 2004). The third goal was to study differences among the three groups, in responsiveness of younger siblings to the mediation strategies of the older siblings, as well as the prediction of younger siblings’ responsiveness to mediation from older siblings’ MLE strategies.

Expectations 1. Older siblings in dyads where the younger siblings have ID will show a higher level of MLE strategies than will older siblings in dyads in which the younger siblings are TD

D. Tzuriel and D. Hanuka-Levy

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

children (TDM and TDC groups). This expectation is based on the assumption that the younger siblings with ID require from the older siblings more communication and sharing, as well as the older siblings’ perception of the limitations of their younger siblings. This perception enhances, consequently, the mediators’ need to make the children part of the interaction. In the TD comparison groups, on the other hand, the younger siblings are more independent and do not require as much guidance and help. Mediators in the TDM group (i.e., siblings with mental-age match) will show higher level of MLE strategies than that of mediators in the TDC group (i.e., siblings with chronological-age match). This expectation is based on the assumption that the larger the age gap between siblings, the more the older siblings tend to take the parental role and therefore show higher level of mediation strategies with their younger siblings. In addition, the younger the siblings, the more they tend to be open to accepting mediation from the older sibling. MLE in the structured situation will be higher than in the free-play situation. The rationale behind this expectation is related to the nature of the structured situation in regard to sibling interaction. Because of its demanding problemsolving nature, the structured situation triggers higher level of mediation efforts. This is especially articulated in dyads where the younger child has ID. It is also especially articulated when mediation for transcendence (e.g., mediation of rules), for feelings of competence, and for self-regulation are required. The nature of the structured tasks requires relatively higher level of those mediation strategies than the nature of the free-play activity. Mediators in the ID group will show less activation and antimediation behavior than mediators in the TDM and TDC groups. This expectation is based on previous research showing greater sensitivity of siblings of children with ID than siblings of TD siblings (e.g., Knott et al., 2007). Younger siblings will show higher responsiveness to mediation, both verbal and nonverbal, in the ID than in the TDM and TDC groups. Verbal and nonverbal responsiveness to mediation will be higher in the structured than in the free-play situation. Mediation in structured situation is more deliberate and requires active efforts on the mediator’s side to elicit verbal and nonverbal responses from the learner, hence the expected responsiveness. The question is whether the difference will be modified by the group variable. Younger siblings’ responsiveness to mediation will be positively predicted by older siblings’ mediation strategies and negatively predicted by activation and antimediation behaviors.

Method Sample The sample was composed of 75 dyads of siblings divided into three groups, 25 dyads of olderyounger siblings in each. In the first group, the younger siblings was a child with ID, and the older siblings were TD, as were the older siblings in two comparison groups. In all groups, the older sibling was the mediator and the younger sibling 569

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565


was the learner. The goal was to study mediation patterns in dyads in which the younger siblings were children with ID, as compared with dyads in which the younger siblings are TD; therefore, we asked to what degree differences in mediation patterns may be attributed to the lower mental age levels of younger siblings with ID. For that purpose, we created two comparison groups. In the first comparison group, the mental age gap between dyads of siblings is equivalent to the mental-age gap between dyads where the younger sibling is a child with ID (TDM group). It should be emphasized that matching of this group was carried out on presumed mental age using chronological age as a proxy. In the second comparison group, the chronological gap between dyads of siblings is equivalent to the chronological-age gap between dyads where the younger sibling is a child with ID (TDC group). The rationale for including two comparison groups is as follows. If we would choose only a comparison group of TD siblings with similar chronological-age gap (i.e., TDC), one could attribute differences in mediation pattern to the

mental-age difference and not necessarily to the intellectual disability of the ID group. On the other hand, if we would choose only a comparison group of TD siblings with similar mental-age gap (i.e., TDM) one could attribute differences in mediation pattern to the chronological-age gap and not necessarily to the intellectual disability of the ID group. It was necessary, therefore, to use both comparison groups to focus on the effects of ID as a major determinant of sibling mediation pattern. The age range of the older siblings in all groups was similar, but different from that of the younger siblings (see Table 1). In the TDM comparison group the average younger sibling age was about one-half of the age of the younger siblings in the ID group, whereas in the TDC group the chronological age was comparable. For each dyad in the ID group we matched a dyad in the comparison groups based on the siblings’ age gap and gender. As can be seen in Table 1, no significant group differences were found on age and gender composition. The selection of children with ID was done with the cooperation of the Ministry of Education

Table 1 Age and Gender Characteristics of the Sample Older Siblings

Group

Younger Siblings

Gender Balance Older/Younger

Boys (n 5 11) Girls (n 5 14)

Boy/Boy 5 6 Boy/Girl 5 5 Girl/Girl 5 6 Girl/Boy 5 8

Children with intellectual disability (ID) (n 5 25)

10:6–14 yr M 5 12:1

Age difference between older and younger siblings Typically developing children matched on mental age (n 5 25)

2–7 yr, M 5 3.82, SD 5 1.38 10:6–14 yr 3:6–6 yr M 5 12:0 M 5 4:1

Boys (n 5 9) Girls (n 5 16)


5.5–10 yr, M 5 7.32, SD 5 1.25 10:6–14 yr 7–11 yr M 5 11:9 M 5 8:3

Boys (n 5 12) Girls (n 5 13)


x2(2) 5.76, ns

x2(6) 5 4.95, ns

Age difference between older and younger siblings Typically developing children matched on chronological age (n 5 25) Age difference between old–younger siblings

F(2,

6:6–11:6 yr M 5 8:4

Older Siblings’ Gender

2–7 yr, M 5 3.56, SD 5 1.35 t(48) 5 1.13, ns1 72) 5 .43, ns

Note: ID 5 intellectual disability. 1 The t test was carried out between the ID and TDC groups.

570

Mediated Learning Strategies by Siblings


and organizations serving children with ID. In the first step, we approached 27 schools and voluntary organizations of special education across Israel serving children with ID and with higher functioning abilities. After identifying the appropriate children in each school based on age and gender characteristics, we approached their parents with a letter explaining the goals of the study followed with a personal telephone call. Out of 90 children whose characteristics fit the requirements of the study (age of siblings and gender) only 25 families gave consent to participate in the study. The reasons for refusal were lack of time (e.g., parents are working late) and concern about exposure (this concern was given desspite promise of confidentiality and use of observations only for research purposes). Thus, the final sample was composed of 25 children with ID who have an older sibling. The range of their IQs, based on Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R) scores obtained from school records, was between 55 and 69 (M 5 63, SD 5 8.50). The comparison TDM and TDC groups were selected from 10 schools in the central part of Israel. The schools’ principles were assured that the observations would be carried out at the homes of participants and not in the schools. As a result, we approached 300 families, out of which 240 families agreed to participate. From the 240 families, 50 families were selected, 25 on the basis of pair-matching to the mental-age difference of the pairs of siblings with ID, and 25 on the basis of pair-matching to the chronological-age difference of the pairs of siblings with ID. In addition, in each group the gender and age of siblings were counterbalanced (see Table 1). A short screening interview of parents and teachers revealed that none of the TD children had any diagnosed learning disability or learning delay. For the younger siblings in the ID group, 72% had Down syndrome and 28% had ID of undetermined etiology. Preliminary analyses failed to show any significant differences in mediation strategies between children with Down syndrome and those with ID of unknown etiology in both free-play, F(1, 19) 5 2.53, ns, and structured situations, F(1, 19) 5 1.30, ns. We decided therefore in further analyses to combine the two subgroups. Children were drawn only from families with no (obvious) health problems. No significant differences were found among the three groups on mothers’ years of education, x2(4, D. Tzuriel and D. Hanuka-Levy

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

75) 5 5.26, ns, and on fathers’ years of education x2(4, 75) 5 2.31, ns.

Measures Observation of Mediation Interaction (OMI). The OMI was originally developed for observation of parent-child mediated learning interactions at infancy (Klein et al., 1987; Klein, 1988, 1991) and later adapted for observation of parent-child interactions of kindergarten children (Isman & Tzuriel, 2007, 2008; Tzuriel, 1996, 1999, 2013; Tzuriel & Caspi, 2014, Tzuriel & Eran, 1990; Tzuriel & Ernst, 1990; Tzuriel & Rokach, 2009; Tzuriel & Shomron, 2009; Tzuriel & Weiss, 1998), peer-mediation with school-age children (Shamir & Tzuriel, 2004; Tzuriel & Shamir, 2007, 2010), and teacher-child interactions (Tzuriel, 2001; Tzuriel, Kaniel, Zeliger, Friedman, & Haywood, 1998). The OMI is based on five behavioral categories that represent the five MLE strategies: Intentionality and Reciprocity (Focusing), Meaning (affect), Transcendence (expanding), Feelings of Competence (rewarding), and Regulation of Behavior. Each mediation strategy had been operationalized in terms of mutually exclusive specific behaviors. Intentionality and Reciprocity (focusing) refers to a mediator’s deliberate and calculated efforts to change the child’s awareness, perception, processing or reaction. For example, focusing was coded whenever a sequence of acts is directed towards achieving a change in the learner’s perception or response to the environment. A verbal behavior is coded whenever the mediator shows a verbal attempt to catch the learner’s attention, using words or sounds (e.g., ‘‘Look here’’). Nonverbal behavior is coded whenever there was an action, facial expression, pointing, and body movements (e.g., touching, or moving the other party). Reciprocity is determined by clues indicating contact (e.g., eye contact, touching, speaking), motor activity, or any other reaction on the part of the learner. Behaviors of mediators and learners are coded in relation to the other’s behaviors and the meaning conveyed through these behaviors. Mediation of Meaning refers to affective, motivational and value-oriented significance possessed by the presented stimuli, which are filled with importance, value and worth (e.g., ‘‘What a beautiful picture’’). Mediation of Transcendence refers to interactions in which the mediator provides both 571


the immediate or concrete needs of the children and attempts to reach additional goals that are beyond the specific situation or activity (e.g., ‘‘The rule is that the relation between the first two blocks applies also to the second two blocks’’). Mediation of Feelings of Competence is observed in interactions in which a mediator conveys to the learner that the learner is capable of functioning successfully and independently and interprets to the learners their own success (e.g., ‘‘In spite of the difficulty you did it very well’’). Mediation of Self-regulation refers to interactions in which a mediator regulates a child’s reaction, depending on the child’s reactive style and the task demands. The mediator can use varied strategies of arousing awareness to task characteristics, analyzing task components, modeling self-control, and providing metacognitive strategies. Usually the interaction has been videotaped and analyzed later by trained observers. Klein (1988) has preferred to assess the quality of the interaction by a macroanalytic rather than by a microanalytic approach. For example, when a parent focuses the child’s attention on some aspects of a stimulus (handing an object to a child), it has been coded as behavior reflecting focusing only if it was reciprocated by the child’s response. Whenever the parent made an attempt to generalize a rule, suggest a concept, or a principle that goes beyond the concreteness of the situation, it is coded as expanding, regardless of the specific content being conveyed. The basis of the OMI system is an interaction ‘‘event’’ that might contain one or more mediation strategies. Klein has argued that previous attempts to measure mother-child interactions (e.g., ClarkeStewart, 1973) ‘‘do not offer clear understanding of which behaviors occurring during parent-child interaction represent necessary and sufficient conditions for learning experience’’ (p. 56). An advantage of the MLE molar observational approach is its allowance of the identification of meaningful patterns of continuity in parents’ behavior across a developmental dimension (e.g., Ramey, Farran, & Campbell, 1979). Sroufe (1995) mentioned that understanding of continuity in child development is not characterized by mere additions of behavioral components, but rather on transformations and epigenesis. The qualitative characteristics of the MLE observation approach allow comparison of similarities in behavioral patterns across generations and coincide with other patterns, such as emphasis on 572

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

holism and the need to look at the meaning of behavior within a psychological context, rather than as isolated events (Santostefano, 1978; Sroufe, 1995; Sroufe & Waters, 1977). One of the basic assumptions behind the OMI is that observation of MLE processes in a familiar physical environment context reflects the spontaneous MLE processes at home. This assumption has been supported in several studies (e.g., Klein, 1988; Klein & Alony, 1993). In the present study, MLE interactions were sampled in two distinct situations: free-play and structured. These contexts were thought to represent typical and major parent-child interactions (Tzuriel, 1999). A similar distinction between these two contexts has been made earlier by others (e.g., Valsiner, 1987; van Geert, 1994; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985). In a previous study on mother-child interaction (Tzuriel, 1996) it was found that these two different situations triggered different patterns of interactions: More MLE interactions were shown in the free-play than in the structured situation. In the free-play situation, mothers probably assume more responsibility for the interaction and thus make efforts to mediate. In the structured situation, on the other hand, the child is expected to be engaged in problem-solving activity, and so mothers tend to restrict themselves to initial explanation of the task and to intervene only at points of difficulty. In the current study, where the younger siblings have ID, we expected that the structured situation would trigger much more mediation from the older siblings than the freeplay situation. The older siblings would invest more efforts to teach their younger siblings how to solve problems and reveal higher level of mediation. We also added two behavioral categories for observation of older siblings: activation and antimediation. Activation refers to interactions in which the mediator is performing the task for the learner (nonverbal) or tells the learner the right answer (verbal). Activation is observed during peer-mediation when the mediator says, for example, ‘‘Put this card here’’ or simply takes the card from the learner or pushes the card into the right place. Antimediation refers to interactions in which the mediator is acting negatively toward the learner (e.g., ‘‘You don’t know anything,’’ ‘‘How many times do I have to tell you that?’’ ‘‘I see that you will never succeed’’). These categories differentiated between an experimental group who received a program of peer Mediated Learning Strategies by Siblings


mediation, as compared with a control group (e.g., Shamir, Tzuriel & Guy, 2007) and as a negative predictor for enhanced cognitive modifiability (Tzuriel & Shamir, 2007). Responsiveness to mediation efforts of young siblings. Two measures of responsiveness to mediation efforts of young sibling were observed and recorded: verbal and nonverbal. The verbal responsiveness measure included all behaviors that express overt verbal response (e.g., ‘‘This is a funny game,’’ ‘‘…and now we should add eyes’’). The nonverbal responsiveness included any behavior expressing nonverbal responses to the older sibling mediation, such as body gesture, facial mimicking, and physical activity. Interrater reliability of MLE strategies. In previous studies, each interaction was videotaped for a period of 20 min; 10 min in a free-play and 10 min in a structured situation (see more details in ‘‘Procedure’’). The reliability of the MLE interaction scores was tested in the current study by two experienced raters who were blind to the study hypotheses. The raters were trained for about 25 hours how to observe and code the different behavioral categories of each MLE strategy. The inter-rater reliability was carried out by Pearson correlations on a subsample of children (n 5 10). The correlations were between .77 and .97 for the various MLE strategies. The reliability coefficients for activation and antimediation behaviors were .95 and .99, respectively. The interrater reliability of the OMI was established previously on different samples of infants (e.g., Klein et al., 1987). Interrater reliabilities in different infant studies ranged between .62 and .92. Interrater reliabilities of mother-child interactions using samples of kindergarten and school-age children ranged between .54 and .95 for different MLE strategies (e.g., Tzuriel, 1999, 2012; Tzuriel & Eran, 1990; Tzuriel & Ernst, 1990; Tzuriel & Weiss, 1998). Interrater reliabilities were found to range between .85 and .95 for the different strategies of peer mediation (Shamir & Tzuriel, 2004; Shamir, Tzuriel & Guy, 2007; Shamir, Tzuriel, & Rozen, 2006; Tzuriel & Caspi, 20014; Tzuriel & Shamir, 2010). The Children’s Analogical Thinking Modifiability (CATM) test. The CATM (Tzuriel & Klein, 1985, 1990) test is a dynamic assessment instrument aimed mainly at assessment of children’s cognitive modifiability in the domain of analogical reasoning. The CATM was used in the current study only as a tool for teaching of D. Tzuriel and D. Hanuka-Levy

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

analogies by older siblings. The CATM is composed of 18 colored (red, blue, yellow) blocks and three sets of analogical problems. Each block contains two colors on one color on each side of the block, a characteristic that requires mental representation in the process of searching for the correct block. Each set contains 14 analogical problems increasing in level of difficulty. The blocks are composed of three dimensions (color, size, and shape). In each problem, three blocks are presented horizontally, and the learner is asked to compare the first two blocks (A : B) and find which block should be placed to match the third one (C : D). The problems require simultaneous consideration of the three dimensions, systematic exploratory behavior, use of high-order concepts, anticipatory verbalization as a self-guide, sorting out irrelevant dimensions, control of impulsivity, and need for precision and accuracy.

Procedure Each pair of siblings participated in two videotaping sessions, free-play and structured, each sampling a different interactional situation. The free-play and structured situations, each lasting for 10 min, were given in that order. In both situations the older siblings had the mediator role. Both sessions, carried out at the children’s homes, allowed observation of mediation processes across different typical situations. In the free-play situation, the older siblings were asked to play with their younger siblings using games and play materials that were placed on a table (e.g., puzzles, Tricky Fingers, mazes, completion of face drawings). Based on a pilot study on games level appropriate for each group, similar type of games was used in all three groups, with adjustment to the learner’s age level. Each dyad of siblings was told that the goal of the study was ‘‘to explore how siblings play and learn together.’’ The older siblings were instructed before the interaction to play with their young siblings as they are used to playing every day at home. In the structured situation, the older siblings were asked to teach their young siblings two analogical problems from the Children’s Analogical Thinking Modifiability (CATM) test (see Instruments). The analogy tasks were explained to the older siblings before the interaction, but no instructions were given as to how to teach their younger siblings. 573


This context of observation allows conditions of familiarity and enables better cooperation and smoothness of data gathering procedures. The video camera was placed in a static position, in a corner of the living room and was focused on a prearranged area of a table and two chairs, where the siblings were invited to sit and interact. The structured situation was given after the free-play situation to control for possible effects of the structured situation on the mediators’ behavior in the free-play situation. This predetermined order was done to control for implicit and explicit expectations created during the structured situation, and possibly for carrying on and transferring mediation strategies used during the problem-solving activity (structured) to the freeplay situation.

Results The MLE strategies were coded based on the OMI adapted for observation of peers and siblings’ interactions (Klein et al., 2002, 2003; Shamir & Tzuriel, 2004, Tzuriel & Shamir, 2010). Coding of interactions included behavior units of older sibling as related to the first five MLE strategies. In the following sections, we present group differences in (a) MLE strategies in free-play and structured situations, (b) activation and antimediation behaviors, (c) young siblings’ verbal and nonverbal response to mediation, and (d) the relation of young siblings’ responsiveness to mediation by older siblings’ MLE strategies, and nonmediation behaviors.

MLE Strategies of Siblings in ID, TDM, and TDC Groups in Free-play and Structured Situations To examine the nature of group differences in free-play versus structured situations, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) of Group 3 Situation (3 3 2) was carried out with MLE strategies as dependent variables. Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, and univariate F statistics, for each MLE strategy. The findings revealed significant main effect for Group, F(10, 136) 5 14.26, p , .001, g2 5 .51, indicating that the ID group showed higher mediation strategies than the TDM group, which in turn showed higher mediation scores than the TDC group (ID . TDM . TDC). Further analysis showed that out of five MLE strategies, four strategies contrib574

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

uted significantly to the Group main effect: Intentionality and Reciprocity, F(2, 72) 5 24.40, p , .001, g2 5 .40; Meaning, F(2, 72) 5 25.02, p , .001, g2 5 .41; Feelings of Competence, F(2, 72) 5 51.86, p , .001, g2 5 .59; and Selfregulation, F(2, 72) 5 61.94, p , .001, g2 5 .63. Scheffe´ analyses (p , .05) showed that the order of ID . TDM . TDC was consistent across all four mediation strategies. No significant differences were found for mediation for Transcendence, F(2, 72) 5 .70, ns. These findings confirm our first and second expectations. The findings revealed also a significant main effect for Situation, F(5, 68) 5 22.63, p , .001, g2 5 .62, which indicates higher mediation scores in the structured than in the free-play situation. This finding supports our third expectation. Further analysis showed that out of five MLE strategies, four strategies contributed significantly to the Situation main effect: Intentionality and Reciprocity, F(1, 72) 5 13.01, p , .01, g2 5 .15; Meaning, F(1, 72) 5 31.17, p , .001, g2 5 .30; Transcendence, F(1, 72) 5 49.82, p , .001, g2 5 .41; and Feelings of Competence, F(1, 72) 5 26.70, p , .001, g2 5 .27. In all four variables, mediation in the structured situation was higher than in the free-play situation. No Situation differences were found for Self-regulation strategy, F(1, 72) 5 .72, ns. The main effect of Situation was modified, however, by a significant Group 3 Situation interaction, F(10, 136) 5 3.45, p , .001, g2 5 .20. Further analyses of variance (ANOVAs) on each MLE strategy showed that the interaction derives mainly from MLE strategies of Meaning and Transcendence (see Table 2). Figures 1 and 2, respectively, show the interactions. Simple main effect analyses carried out on mediation for Meaning interaction (Figure 1) revealed that it was significantly higher in the structured than in the free-play situation, in two groups: ID, F(1, 24)5 33.57, p , .001, g2 5 .58; and TDM, F(1, 24) 5 7.24, p , .05, g2 5 .23, but not in the TDC group, F(1, 24) 5 .40, ns. Between-groups analyses within each situation showed significant differences in both the free-play situation, F(2, 72) 5 9.71, p , .001, g2 5 .21, and structured situation, F(2, 72) 5 21.01, p , .001, g2 5 .37. Examination of the effect size reveals that the group differences are higher in the structured than in the free-play situation. Scheffe´ analyses (p , .05) showed that mediation for Meaning of older siblings in the ID group was Mediated Learning Strategies by Siblings

D. Tzuriel and D. Hanuka-Levy 34.96 12.98 22.92 11.30 3.84 3.22 29.40 14.19 36.80 9.68

Structured 21.24 8.79 4.20 4.62 1.44 1.36 9.08 6.02 20.00 10.04

Free 28.92 14.49 12.48 16.24 5.48 5.03 16.68 8.69 22.80 8.70

Structured

TDM

14.08 6.52 2.20 1.89 .68 1.07 3.64 3.80 13.96 9.09

Free

21.44 7.11 1.88 1.88 6.56 5.71 12.00 6.06 16.96 7.54

Structured

TDC

72)

1.51

.43

3.85*

10.13***

.91

F(2,

.04

.01

.10

.22

.03

g2

Note: MLE 5 mediated learning experience; ID 5 intellectual disability; TDM 5 typically developing children with similar mental-age gaps; TDC 5 typically developing children with similar chronological-age gaps. Free 5 free-play situation; Structured 5 structured situation. *p , .05, ***p , .001.

Self-regulation

Feelings of Competence

Transcendence

Meaning

32.16 11.88 8.76 7.90 1.80 1.73 24.04 11.20 39.04 11.69

Intentionality and Reciprocity

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Free

MLE Strategy

ID

Group 3 Situation Interaction

Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations and F Statistics of MLE Strategies of Older Siblings in Free-Play and Structured Situations


EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

575


EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

differences in free-play situation, F(2, 72) 5 4.10, p , .05, g2 5 .10, but not in the structured situation, F(2, 72) 5 2.06, ns. Scheffe´ analyses (p , .05) showed that mediation for Transcendence in the free-play situation was higher in the ID group than in the TDC group.

Activation and Antimediation Behaviors in ID, TDM, and TDC Groups Figure 1. Mediation for Meaning Strategy in Free-Play and Structured Situations in the ID, TDM, and TDC Groups. Note: ID 5 intellectual disability; TD 5 typically developing; TDM 5 typically developing children with similar mentalage gaps; TDC 5 typically developing children with similar chronological-age gaps. higher than that of the other two groups in both situations. Furthermore, in the structured situation, older siblings in the TDM group scored higher than in the TDC group. Simple main effect analyses of the mediation for Transcendence interaction (Figure 2) revealed significantly higher scores in the structured than in the free-play situation, in all three groups: ID, F(1, 24) 5 6.84, p , .05, g2 5 .22; TDM, F(1, 24) 5 16.92, p , .001, g2 5 .41; TDC, F(1, 24) 5 26.64, p , .001, g2 5 .53. Between-groups analyses within each situation showed significant

Figure 2. Mediation for Transcendence Strategy in Free-Play and Structured Situations in the ID, TDM, and TDC Groups. Note: ID 5 intellectual disability; TD 5 typically developing; TDM 5 typically developing children with similar mentalage gaps; TDC 5 typically developing children with similar chronological-age gaps. 576

The nonmediation behaviors were analyzed by one-way MANOVA of Group with activation and antimediation as dependent variables. The analysis revealed significant group differences, F(4, 142) 5 3.51, p , .01, g2 5 .09. The means, standard deviations, univariate F statistics, and Scheffe´ analyses for each behavior category are presented in Table 3. The TDC group received the highest activation and antimediation scores, followed in a decreasing order by the TDM and ID groups. Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric analyses showed similar findings for the activation and antimediation behaviors. These findings support our fourth expectation.

Young Siblings’ Responses to Mediation in the ID, TDM, and TDC Groups The young siblings’ responses were coded according to two behavioral categories: verbal (e.g., ‘‘This is a funny game’’; ‘‘We need a red triangle here’’) and nonverbal (e.g., body gestures, face mimics, voices associated with mediation of the older sibling). The data were analyzed by repeated measures MANOVA of Group 3 Situation (3 3 2) with Situation (free-play versus structured) as a within-groups factor and the two behavioral categories as dependent variables. The analysis revealed significant main effects for Group, F(4, 147) 5 19.27, p , .001, g2 5 .35, and Situation, F(2, 71) 5 10.43, p , .001, g2 5 .23. The means, standard deviations, univariate F statistics, and Scheffe´ analyses of the young siblings’ responses are presented in Table 4. As can be seen in Table 4, both verbal and nonverbal behaviors were highest among the ID group and lowest among the TDC group. Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric analyses showed similar findings for the verbal and nonverbal behaviors. These findings confirm our fifth expectation. The significant main effect of Situation derives mainly from verbal behavior. Young siblings showed higher verbal responses in the structured (M 5 39.59, SD 5 19.86) than in the Mediated Learning Strategies by Siblings

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565


Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, F Statistics and Scheffe´ Analyses of Activation and Antimediation Behaviors of Older Siblings Nonmediation Behaviors Activation Antimediation

M SD M SD

ID (A)

TDM (B)

TDC (C)

F(2, 72)

g2

.32 .90 .24 .60

2.16 3.22 1.60 2.31

3.40 3.92 2.12 4.20

6.79***

.16

C.A

Z 5 15.33***

3.03***

.08

A5B5C

Z 5 8.52*

Scheffe´

Kruskal-Wallis

Note: ID 5 intellectual disability; TDM 5 typically developing children with similar mental-age gaps; TDC 5 typically developing children with similar chronological-age gaps. *p , .05, ***p , .001.

free-play situation (M 5 29.65, SD 5 16.40). Separate ANOVAs for each situation revealed a significant difference between free-play and structured situations only for verbal responses, F(1, 71) 5 18.94, p , .001, g2 5 .21. Wilcoxon’s nonparametric analysis revealed a significant difference only for verbal behavior, Z 5 3.73, p , 001. The findings on responsiveness in the two situations partially support our sixth expectation by indicating a significant difference only for verbal responsiveness.

The Relation Between Young Siblings’ Response to Mediation and Older Siblings’ MLE Strategies and Nonmediation Behaviors One of the goals of the study was to discover the degree to which young siblings’ responses during sibling interaction were related to the specific MLE strategies used by the older siblings, as well as to their activation and antimediation behaviors. Hierarchical regression analyses were carried out for the verbal and nonverbal behaviors, each analysis containing three steps. In the first step, two dummy variables indicating group characteristics were introduced. In this step we wanted to

control for the effects of intellectual disability and chronological age gap and examine the variance contributed by MLE strategies and nonmediation behaviors beyond that contributed by group characteristics. The first dummy variable (ID vs TD) represents the difference between the ID group and the two TD groups (TDM and TDC). The second dummy variable represents the difference between the TDC group and the other two groups that are similar on mental age of the younger sibling (TDC vs MA). In the second step we introduced four MLE strategies: Intentionality and Reciprocity, Meaning, Transcendence, and Self-Regulation, and two nonmediation behaviors: Activation and Antimediation. Mediation for Feelings of Competence was not included because of its high correlations with Self-regulation (r 5 .81) and Meaning (r 5 .75); correlations that indicate high multicoliniarity. In the third step we included all interactions of the group characteristics (dummy variables) and MLE strategies. The findings are presented in Table 5. Verbal responses. The first regression analysis revealed that overall the study’s variables explained 55% of the variance in the verbal responses of the young siblings. In the third step two MLE strategies of the older sibling were

Table 4 Means, Standard Deviations, F Statistics and Scheffe´ Analyses of the Young Sibling’s Response to Mediation Response to Mediation Verbal Nonverbal

M SD M SD

ID (A)

TDM (B)

TDC (C)

F(2, 72)

g2

85.40 34.61 46.20 26.11

70.12 26.55 26.11 12.87

52.20 19.54 17.36 10.25

9.07***

.20

A.C

Z 5 14.75**

16.98***

.32

A.B5C

Z 5 4.23***

Scheffe´

Kruskal-Wallis

Note: ID 5 intellectual disability; TDM 5 typically developing children with similar mental-age gaps; TDC 5 typically developing children with similar chronological-age gaps. ** p, .01, ***p, .001.

D. Tzuriel and D. Hanuka-Levy

577

578 .24* 2.28*

ID vs TD TDC vs MA Intentionality & Reciprocity Meaning Transcendence Self-regulation Activation Antimediation ID vs TD 3 Intentionality & Reciprocity ID vs TD 3 Activation ID vs TD 3 Antimediation R2 DR2 .42*** .22***

.05 2.08 .30* .41** .21* 2.06 .06 .04

Step 2 (b)

Predictors ID vs TD TDC vs MA Intentionality & Reciprocity Meaning Transcendence Self-regulation Activation Antimediation

Step 3 (b) 2.54* .03 .36** .43*** .13 2.05 2.48* 2.50* 2.32** 2.59** 2.58** .55*** .13**

.32*** .32***

.43*** 2.21

Step 1 (b)

Nonverbal Responses

.53*** .21***

2.12 .03 .10 .10 2.08 .70*** 2.09 .00

Step 2 (b)

Note: ID 5 intellectual disability; TD 5 typically developing children; TDM 5 typically developing children with similar mental-age (MA) gaps; TDC 5 typically developing children with similar chronological-age gaps. ID vs TD 5 Dummy variable representing the difference between the ID group and the two TD groups; TDC vs MA 5 Dummy variable representing the difference between the TDC group and the groups similar on MA of the younger sibling. *p , .05, **p , .01, ***p , .001.

.20*** .20***

Step 1 (b)

Predictors

Verbal Responses

Table 5 Prediction of Verbal and Nonverbal Responses of Young Siblings as a Function of Older Sibling’s MLE Strategies and Nonnmediated Behaviors


EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565



associated positively with the young siblings’ verbal responses, beyond the group variables: Intentionality and Reciprocity and Meaning, whereas Activation and Antimediation behaviors of the older siblings were negatively associated with the verbal responses of the young siblings’ verbal responses. These findings support our seventh expectation. It is interesting to note that three interactions have emerged as significant predictors of verbal response. The first interaction (ID vs TD 3 Intentionality and Reciprocity) indicates that older siblings’ mediation for Intentionality and Reciprocity was positively related to verbal response (r 5 .63, p , .001) only in the two TD groups but was not significant in the ID group (r 5 .14, ns). The second interaction (ID vs TD 3 Activation) indicates that older siblings’ activation behavior was negatively related to verbal response (r 5 2.33, p , .05) only in the ID group but was not significant in the two TD groups (r 5 .03, ns). The third interaction (ID vs TD 3 Antimediation) indicates that older siblings’ Antimediation behavior was negatively related to verbal response (r 5 2.34, p , .05) only in the ID group but was not significant in the two TD groups (r 5 2.01, ns). Nonverbal responses. The second regression analysis revealed that overall the study’s independent variables were associated with 53% of the variance in the nonverbal responses of the young siblings. Unlike the findings on verbal responses, only one variable, mediation for Self-regulation, emerged as a significant positive predictor.

Discussion The findings showing higher level of MLE strategies in the ID group than in the TD groups support our main hypothesis that older sibling in dyads in which the young sibling has an intellectual disability show a higher level of MLE strategies than do older siblings in dyads in which the younger sibling is typically developing (TDM and TDC groups). The higher level of MLE strategies of the older siblings in the ID group appeared despite the fact that the mental age gap between older and younger siblings was similar to that of the TDM group. This finding may be explained by the need of the older siblings to compensate for the difficulties of the younger siblings with ID to process information. They have probably developed sensitivity and awareD. Tzuriel and D. Hanuka-Levy

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

ness to the special needs of their younger siblings and therefore they spontaneously employ better mediation strategies than their counterparts in the other TD groups. In other words, they identify their younger siblings’ difficulties and spontaneously compensate for them by providing more mediation than they would with typically developing younger siblings. This finding is supported by earlier studies showing that siblings of children with ID tend to take on themselves the role of a helper or teacher, as compared with siblings of TD children (e.g., Gibbs, 1993; Stoneman et al., 1987, 1989). It is interesting to note that the highest group differences were on mediation for Self-regulation, followed by Feelings of Competence, Meaning, and Intentionality and Reciprocity. The only MLE strategy showing no group differences was mediation for Transcendence (i.e., teaching rules and principles). This last finding is related to findings of earlier studies showing that of all MLE strategies, mediation for Transcendence is the least frequent and most difficult strategy to use (e.g., Klein, 1996; Tzuriel, 1999, 2013). The more-or-less equal level of mediation for Transcendence demonstrated by siblings in the ID and TD groups is by itself an intriguing finding; this strategy involves abstraction of an event and teaching of rules that are beyond the concrete context of the interaction. The highest group difference, on mediation for Self-regulation, indicates that this strategy is a central one in the repertoire of older siblings’ strategies in the ID group. It is reflected by their spontaneous efforts to give direct instructions and provide verbal and nonverbal modeling to direct their young siblings and transmit to them the responsibility of independent self-regulation. At the age of these children, regulation of behavior is quite necessary and likely to be emphasized by their parents. The high level of mediation for Self-regulation is reflected by slowing down or enhancing their activity, adapting the pace of activity to the task demands, suggesting sequential stages for data gathering, and concretely modeling task performance. Vygotsky (1978) claimed that this kind of transfer of responsibility by teaching self-regulation is a keystone of effective guidance. Our findings are consistent with previous findings showing that young children with disabilities tend to receive more instructions than TD children (e.g., Caissie & Cole, 1993; Vygotsky, 1978). Similarly, Landry, Garner, Pirie, and Swank 579


(1994) reported that mothers of young children (2–6 years) with Down syndrome tended to use verbal instructions more frequently with their children during play as compared with mothers of TD children. Klein and Rosenthal (2002) explained this behavior as reflecting the need of mothers to enhance the low activity level of their children. Similar findings were also reported with mothers of high-risk older children (5–9:6 years; Gibbs, 1993; Tzuriel & Weitz, 2008). The group differences on mediation for Feelings of Competence indicate that the group showing the greatest use of this strategy was older siblings in the ID group, followed by the TDM and TDC groups (see Table 2). Similar findings were reported by Roach, Stevenson-Barrat, Miller, and Leavitt (1998) on mother–child interactions in groups of children with Down syndrome (DS) compared with mental age and chronological age matched groups. In all groups of the current study, mediation for Feelings of Competence was carried out verbally (e.g., ‘‘You did fantastically’’) and nonverbally (e.g., clapping hands), though rarely with interpreting to the child or modeling the reasons for success. Similar findings were reported by Klein and colleagues (2002, 2003) among TD 5- to 6-year-old siblings using the MLE model. Siblings tend to employ much more frequent spontaneous rewarding than do peers (e.g., Azmitia & Hesser, 1993; Cicirelli, 1974, 1995; Koester & Johnson, 1984). Shamir and Tzuriel (2004) showed that mediation for Feelings of Competence was much higher (a ratio of 1:12) in an experimental group of children receiving a peer-mediation program than in a control group of children who did not receive any intervention on how to reward their peers. The findings of mediation for Meaning (affect) were mixed. Whereas in the ID and TDM groups, the mean scores were intermediate relative to other strategies, the mean score of the TDC group score was low. By mediation for Meaning, the mediator helps the learner to create an association between the stimulus (object or task) and its meaning. For example, a verbal mediation for Meaning would be, ‘‘This is a red square’’ or ‘‘What a beautiful game!’’ A nonverbal mediation would be expressions such as a smile, astonishment, or impression (‘‘Wow!’’). A possible explanation for the large difference between the ID and the TDC group is probably related to the fact that the learners in the ID and TDM groups were of relatively lower mental age than 580

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

learners in the TDC group. In the first group (ID), it derives from an intellectual disability; and in the second group (TDM), from young chronological age. In both groups the older sibling felt a need to provide meaning to objects and events much more than in the TDC group, in which the young sibling had a relatively higher mental age and therefore required much less mediation for Meaning. Support for this finding may be found in studies in which mother-child MLE interactions were compared in young versus older children. Mothers tended to use much more mediation for Meaning strategies with younger than with older children (Tzuriel & Eran, 1990). It should be noted that most of the young siblings in the ID group were diagnosed as children with Down syndrome. Several researchers have already shown that children with DS have language difficulties that are beyond what is expected by their mental age (e.g., Miller, 2006; Mundy, Sigman, Kasari, & Yirmiya, 1988), hence the high level of mediation for Meaning that is focused on labeling. The unique significant group differences on mediation for Intentionality and Reciprocity (focusing) further support the findings on other MLE strategies and indicate that older siblings tend to be sensitive to the needs of their young siblings by focusing their attention on prominent aspects of the stimuli, selecting them, organizing them, and filtering out irrelevant information. In the case of the ID group, the older siblings provided much higher focusing than did siblings in the TDM group even though the mental age of the young siblings was about equal; a finding that illuminates the heightened sensitivity of the older siblings. It should be noted that older siblings in the TDM group showed more frequent use of MLE strategies than did siblings in the TDC group. The mean age of the young siblings in the TDM and TDC groups was 4:6 and 8:4 years, respectively. This finding is in line with the compensation hypothesis; the larger the age gap between siblings the higher is the older siblings’ tendency to perceive their young siblings as requiring more help and guidance. This finding is similar to Cicirelli’s (1995) finding that the greater the age gap between siblings, the more effective are older siblings in teaching their young siblings. The findings so far support the idea that mediators spontaneously adapt their mediation style to the perceived needs of the child they Mediated Learning Strategies by Siblings


interact with. Effective mediators adapt their mediation to the learners’ cognitive skills, level of interest, attention span, and arousal level (Shamir & Tzuriel, 2004; Tzuriel & Shamir, 2010). In Vygotskian terms, the mediators provided scaffolding help (Rogoff, 1990) based on the learners’ capacities and needs. The educational implications of these findings are intriguing in terms of designing intervention programs to facilitate a meditational teaching style. Teaching in dyads of children is probably more effective when there is a cognitive ability mismatch between individuals in the dyad. This was actually shown in a study on peer mediation of Grade 3 children teaching their Grade 1 younger peers (Tzuriel & Shamir, 2007). When the mediator-learner cognitive levels did not match, experimental learners received higher cognitive scores than did control learners. When the mediator’s and the learner’s cognitive level was matched (low–low and high–high), however, there was no difference between the experimental and control learners. The explanation of this phenomenon might be related to the fact the mediators in the experimental group had to cope with the incongruent cognitive level by facilitating their mediational approach and consequently enhancing the learner’s performance on the cognitive task given. Support for this interpretation might be found in Vygotsky’s (1978) theory and earlier peer-mediation studies (Shamir & Tzuriel, 2004). Vygotsky himself claimed that learning and cognitive changes are more effective when learners interact with a more experienced adults or peers. He did not refer, however, to the differential effects of the cognitive level of mediators or the learners. Because cognitive modifiability of learners was found as intimately related to mediation skills of caregivers (e.g., Tzuriel, 1999, 2001, 2011, 2013), it is suggested in further studies as well as in designing intervention processes to consider use of mismatched dyads. The findings confirmed our expectation that structured teaching situation in general would trigger higher level of mediation than free-play situation. It seems that the older siblings perceived the structured situation as requiring more active guidance and responsibility than the freeplay situation partly because they themselves have to grapple with the task difficulty (i.e., the CATM analogies). As a result, the older siblings invested more efforts to mediate the problem-solving strategies. Presumably, most sibling interactions D. Tzuriel and D. Hanuka-Levy

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

are during free-play situations, and deliberate implementation of a structured mediation-saturated situations in sibling’s’ interactions might facilitate the cognitive development of children with ID. The significant Group 3 Situation interaction for mediation for Meaning (see Figure 2) indicates clearly that this sense of responsibility was more articulated in the ID and TDM groups, but not in the TDC groups. This last finding might indicate that older siblings in these two groups intuitively calibrate their mediation efforts and provide much higher dose of mediation when they are required to teach their younger siblings in the structured situation than in the free-play situation. In the TDC group, on the other hand, mediation for Meaning was similar in both conditions. The significant Group 3 Situation interaction for mediation for Transcendence indicates that in all three groups, mediation score was higher in the structured than in the free-play situation. The gap between the two situations, however, was highest in the TDC group and lowest in the ID group, as indicated by the size effects. This finding is reasonable because the abstract nature of mediation for Transcendence (e.g., teaching of principles and rules beyond the concrete aspects of the object or event) is naturally more frequent in the TDC group than in the TDM and ID groups. As in previous findings, it seems that the older siblings spontaneously and sensitively adapted their level of mediation for Transcendence to the young child’s ability to process the information. This finding is amazingly in line with the calibration phenomenon reported previously, indicating that older siblings calibrate their mediation level to the cognitive level of the younger child. The findings on Activation and Antimediation behaviors complement the findings on mediation behaviors in the current study and previous findings on peer mediation of children with learning disability (Shamir & Lazarovitz, 2007). Older siblings in the ID group showed less Activation behavior and no Antimediation behavior, as compared with the TD groups. These findings reflect their sensitivity to and awareness of the specific difficulties of their young ID sibling. These findings are similar to those reported in the literature, according to which older siblings of children with ID demonstrate less negative behavior during interactions than do 581


siblings of TD children (e.g., Powell & Gallagher, 1993; Shamir & Lazarovitz, 2007). Analysis of the young siblings’ responsiveness to mediation given by older siblings showed that young siblings in the ID group demonstrated significantly the greatest responsiveness to mediation (verbal and nonverbal) followed progressively by the TDM and TDC groups. It seems that young siblings’ responsiveness is a direct reaction to the level of mediation they receive. The findings showing a higher level of verbal responsiveness in the ID group are surprising in view of the fact that they typically show more difficulties in verbal expression and relatively lower levels of abstract thinking than do TD children. This finding indicates the importance of mediation during interaction with children with ID in facilitating their verbal responsiveness. Similar findings have been reported in peer-mediation studies with TD children; learners’ response to mediation was positively related to the quality and amount of mediation given by their peers (e.g., Shamir & Tzuriel, 2004; Tzuriel & Caspi, 2014). The prediction of young siblings’ responsiveness using hierarchical regression analysis further validated the role of mediation as a crucial determinant of verbal and nonverbal responsiveness. In the third step of hierarchical regression analysis (see Table 5) two MLE strategies have emerged as significant positive predictors of verbal responsiveness: Intentionality and Reciprocity (focusing) and Meaning (affecting); however, the first strategy was modified by a significant interaction with the ID vs TD variable (b 5 232). This interaction indicates that mediation for Intentionality and Reciprocity was more related to young siblings’ verbal responsiveness in the two TD groups than in the ID group. A possible explanation for this difference might be related to the role of this specific mediation strategy in the two groups. Whereas with all children, mediation for Intentionality and Reciprocity reflects mediators’ efforts to focus the children on crucial aspects of the stimuli and to expand their attention span, for children in the ID group it serves mainly as a basic preliminary condition for application of other mediation strategies. In other words, children with ID require—more than do TD children—the recruitment of their attention before application of other mediation strategies start to be effective and trigger responsiveness. For children with ID, Intentionality and Reciprocity is more important 582

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

for verbal responsiveness than for TD children, hence the stronger relation between the two variables in the ID group than in the TD group. In addition, the older siblings’ antimediation and activation behaviors negatively predicted the young siblings’ verbal responsiveness. These behaviors either blocked the younger siblings’ responsiveness or, even worse, created a passiveaggressive reaction expressed by lack of cooperation. The significant interactions of ID vs TD 3 Activation and ID vs TD 3 Antimediation suggests that younger siblings in the TD groups were more sensitive to those negative aspects of the interaction than were children in the ID group. The younger TD siblings spontaneously decreased their verbal responsiveness when confronted with a high level of activation or antimediation, whereas children in the ID group showed the same level of verbal responsiveness to low and high levels of these behaviors. The heightened sensitivity level of the TD younger children to activation and antimediation of the mediator might relate to their more developed needs for autonomy than younger children with ID (e.g., Wullink, Widdershoven, van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk, Metsemakers, & Dinant, 2009). More research is required to validate this finding. Unlike the prediction of verbal responsiveness, nonverbal responsiveness of young siblings was systematically related to only one MLE strategy: Self-regulation. This means that when the older sibling directed the young sibling by inhibiting impulsivity, ordering and organizing the information and highlighting selected aspects of the stimuli above others, the nonverbal responsiveness of the younger siblings was higher. It is reasonable to assume that, when given mediation for Self-regulation, the spontaneous response is some kind of a body gesture, face mimics, and physical activity, rather than a verbal response.

Conclusion The findings of the current study strongly support the effects of young children’s mental and chronological conditions on spontaneous mediation strategies of older siblings, as well as on verbal and nonverbal responsiveness of young siblings. Taking into account the role of mediation in enhancement of cognitive development, especially with children with ID, it is crucial to Mediated Learning Strategies by Siblings


understand the spontaneous mediation processes among siblings. Shared intentionality, or the ability to engage with others in collaborative activities with shared goals (e.g., Tomasello et al., 2005) was reported as a key precursor to later understanding of cognitive ability. Such shared intentionality, however, is much more crucial in children with ID. Researchers in the cognitive domain rarely make attempt to explain how these abilities develop, focusing instead on deficit or difference. An important contribution of the current study is providing accurate parameters of observation for sibling interaction as precursor of cognitive development. What is missing is the link between the mediation strategies and cognitive development. In further research, we suggest to include outcome cognitive variables, as well as variables that might moderate the spontaneous mediation processes of siblings. These variables include the level of the ID, the long-range effects of mediation strategies on learning outcomes, the relation between parents’ mediation and siblings’ mediation (i.e., trans-generational transmission of mediation processes), as well as their combined effects on siblings’ learning behavior. We also suggest the study of the siblings’ mediation strategies with a sibling with ID, as compared with a same-family TD sibling, and the mediation strategies in different situations.

References Abramovitch, R., Corter, C., & Lando, B. (1979). Sibling interaction in the home. Child Development, 50, 997–1003. http://dx.doi.org/10. 2307/1129325 Abramovitch, R., Corter, C., Pepler, D. J., & Stanhope, L. (1986). Sibling and peer interaction: A final follow up and comparison. Child Development, 57, 217–229. http://dx.doi. org/10.2307/1130653 Abramovitch, R., Stanhope, L., Pepler, D. J., & Corter, C. (1987). Influence of Down’s syndrome on sibling interaction. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 28, 865–879. Azmitia, M., & Hesser, J. (1993). Why siblings are important agents of cognitive development: A comparison of siblings and peers. Child Development, 64, 430–444. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2307/1131260 Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., Davis, C. H., & Crapps, J. M. (1991). Observations of the role D. Tzuriel and D. Hanuka-Levy

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

relations and behavior between older children with mental retardation and their young siblings. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 95, 527–536. Burr, W. R., Leigh, G. K., Day, R. D., & Constantine, J. (1979). Symbolic interaction and the family. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Ney & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 2, pp. 42–111). New York, NY: Free Press. Caissie, R., & Cole, E. B. (1993). Mothers and hearingimpaired children: Directiveness reconsidered. Volta Review, 95, 49–59. Caro, P., & Derevensky, J. L. (1997). An exploratory study using the sibling interaction scale: Observing interactions with siblings with and without disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 383–403. Cash, W. M., & Evans, I. N. (1975). Training preschool children to modify their retarded siblings’ behavior. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 6, 13–16. Cicirelli, V. G. (1974). Relationship of sibling structure and interaction to younger sibling’s conceptual style. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 125, 37–50. Cicirelli, V. G. (1995). Sibling relationships across the life span. New York, NY: Plenum. http://dx. doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-6509-0 Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1973). Interactions between mothers and their young children: Characteristics and consequences. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38 (6– 7, Serial No. 153). Cuskelly, M., & Gunn, P. (1993). Maternal reports of behavior of siblings of children with Down syndrome. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97, 521–529. Cuskelly, M., & Gunn, P. (2003). Sibling relationships of children with Down syndrome: Perspectives of mothers, fathers, and siblings. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 108, 234–44. Dallas, E., Stevenson, J., & McGurk, H. (1993). Cerebral-palsied children’s interactions with siblings – II. Interactional structure. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 649–671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1993. tb01063.x Davidoff, L. (2006). The sibling relationship and sibling incest in historical context. In P. Coles (Ed.), Sibling relationships. London, UK: Karnac Books. 583


Dunn, J. (1988). Sibling influences on childhood development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 29, 119–127. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/j.1469-7610.1988.tb00697.x Dunn, J., & Kendrick, C. (1979). Interaction between young siblings in the context of family relationships. In M. Lewis, & L. Rosenblum (Eds.), The child and its family. New York, NY: Plenum Press. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3435-4_9 Dunn, J., & Kendrick, C. (1982). Siblings: Love, envy and understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4159/harvard.9780674330597 Farber, B. (1960). Family organization and crises: Maintenance of integration in families with a severely mentally retarded child. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 25 (1, Serial No. 75). Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. B. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device—Theory instruments and techniques. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Rynders, J. E. (1988). Don’t accept me as I am. New York, NY: Plenum. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the qualities of sibling relationships. Child Development, 56, 448–461. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1129733 Gibbs, B. (1993). Providing support to sisters and brothers of children with disabilities. In G. H. S. Singer, & L. E. Powers (Eds.), Families, disability, and empowerment (pp. 343–363). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Grossman, F. K. (1972). Brothers and sisters of retarded children: An exploratory study. New York, NY: Syracuse University Press. Hannah, M. E., & Midlarsky, E. (2005). Helping by siblings of children with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 110, 87–99. Hughes, C., & Ensor, R. (2005). Executive function and theory of mind in 2 year olds: A family affair? Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 645–668. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1207/s15326942dn2802_5 Isman, E., & Tzuriel, D. (2007). The mediated learning experience (MLE) in a three generational perspective. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26, 545–560. 584

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

Isman, E. & Tzuriel, D. (2008). Relationship between mother-child mediated learning experience (MLE) strategies and mothers’ attachment style and mental health. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 7, 388–410. Retrieved from http://www.iace-coged.org/ journal Jenkins, J. M., & Astington, J. W. (1996). Cognitive factors and family structure associated with theory of mind development in young children. Developmental Psychology, 32, 70–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649. 32.1.70 Klein, P. S. (1988). Stability and change interaction of Israeli mothers and infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 11, 55–70. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(88)80016-X Klein, P. S. (1991). Improving the quality of parental interaction with very low birth weight children: A longitudinal study using a mediated learning experience model. Infant Mental Health, 12, 321–337. http://dx.doi. org/10.1002/1097-0355(199124)12:4%3C321 ::AID-IMHJ2280120406%3E3.0.CO;2-Z Klein, P. S. (Ed.). (1996). Early intervention: Cross cultural experiences with a mediational approach. New York, NY: Garland. Klein, P. S., & Alony, S. (1993). Immediate and sustained effects of maternal mediation behaviors in infancy. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 177–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 105381519301700208 Klein, P. S., Wieder, S., & Greenspan, S. I. (1987). A theoretical overview and empirical study of mediated learning experience: Prediction of preschool performance from mother-infant interaction patterns. Infant Mental Health Journal, 8, 110–129. Klein, P. S., Zarur, S., & Feldman, R. (2002). Mediation in a sibling context: The relations of older siblings mediating behavior and younger siblings task performance. Infant and Child Development, 11, 321–333. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/icd.261 Klein, P. S., Zarur, S., & Feldman, R. (2003). Mediational behaviors of preschoolers teaching their younger siblings. Infant and Child Development, 12, 233–242. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/icd.287 Knott, F., Lewis, C., & Williams, T. (1995). Sibling interaction of children with learning disabilities: A comparison of autism and Down’s syndrome. Journal of Child Psychology Mediated Learning Strategies by Siblings


and Psychiatry, 36, 965–976. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1995.tb01343.x Knott, F., Lewis, C., & Williams, T. (2007). Sibling interaction of children with autism: Development over 12 months. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1987–1995. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0347-z Koester, L. S., & Johnson, J. E. (1984). Children’s instructional strategies: A comparison of sibling and peer tutoring. Acta Paedologica, 1, 223–232. Landry, S. H., Garner, P. W., Pirie, D., & Swank, P. R. (1994). Effects of social context and mothers’ requesting strategies on Down’s syndrome children’s social responsiveness. Developmental Psychology, 30, 293–302. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.2.293 Lobato, D. (1990). Brothers, sisters and special needs. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Maynard, A. E. (2002). Cultural teaching: The development of teaching skills in Maya sibling interactions. Child Development, 73, 969–982. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624. 00450 McAlister, A. R., & Peterson, C. C. (2007). A longitudinal study of child siblings and theory of mind development. Cognitive Development, 22, 258–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev. 12043 McAlister, A. R., & Peterson, C. C. (2013). Siblings, theory of mind, and executive functioning in children aged 3–6 years: New longitudinal evidence. Child Development, 84, 1442–1458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12043 McHale, S., & Gamble, W. C. (1989). Siblings’ relationships of children with disabled and nondisabled brothers and sisters. Developmental Psychology, 25, 421–429. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0012-1649.25.3.421 Meisner, J. S., & Fisher, V. L. (1980). Cognitive shifts of young children as a function of peer interaction and sibling status. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 136, 247–253. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1980.10534118 Miller, N., & Cantwell, D. P. (1976). Siblings as a therapist: A behavioral approach. American Journal of Psychiatry, 133, 447–450. Mundy, P., Sigman, M., Kasari, C., & Yirmiya, N. (1988). Nonverbal communication skills in Down syndrome children. Child Development, 59, 235–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130406 Pepler, D. J., Abramovitch, R., & Corter, C. (1981). Sibling interaction in the home: A longitudinal D. Tzuriel and D. Hanuka-Levy

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

study. Child Development, 52, 1344–1347. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1129530 Peterson, C. C. (2000). Kindred spirits: Influences of siblings’ perspectives on theory of mind. Cognitive Development, 15, 435–455. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(01)00040-5 Powell, T. H., & Gallagher, P. A. (1993). Brothers and sisters: A special part of exceptional families. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Powell, T. H., Salzberg, C. L., Rule, S., Levy, S., & Itzkowitz, J. S. (1983). Teaching mentally retarded children to play with their siblings using parents as trainers. Education and Treatment of Children, 6, 343–362. Ramey, C. T., Farran, D. C., & Campbell, F. A. (1979). Predicting IQ from mother-infant interactions. Child Development, 50, 804–814. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1128947 Roach, M. A., Stevenson-Barrat, M., Miller, J. F., & Leavitt, I. A. (1998). The structure of mother-child play: Young children with Down syndrome and typically developing children. Developmental Psychology, 34, 77–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.1.77 Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development and social context. London, UK: Oxford University Press. Ruffman, T., Perner, J., Naito, M., Parkin, L., & Clements, W. A. (1998). Older (but not younger) siblings facilitate false belief understanding. Developmental Psychology, 34, 161– 174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34. 1.161 Santostefano, S. (1978). A biodevelopmental approach to clinical child psychology. New York, NY: Wiley. Shamir, A., & Lazerovitz, T. (2007). A peer mediation intervention for scaffolding selfregulated learning among children with learning disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22, 255–273. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/08856250701430786 Shamir, A., & Tzuriel, D. (2004). Children’s mediational teaching style as a function of intervention for cross-age peer-mediation. School Psychology International, 25, 58–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034304024782 Shamir, A., Tzuriel, D., & Guy, R. (2007). Computer-supported collaborative learning: The cognitive effects of a peer mediation intervention. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 6, 373–394. Retrieved from http://www.iace.coged.org/journal 585


Shamir, A., Tzuriel, D., & Rozen, M. (2006). Peer mediation: The effects of program intervention, math level, and verbal ability on mediation style and improvement in math problem solving. School Psychology International, 27, 209–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0143034306064548 Sroufe, L. A. (1995). Emotional development: The organization of emotional life in the early years. London, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child Development, 48, 1184–1199. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1128475 Stoneman, Z. (2001). Supporting positive sibling relationships during childhood. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 7, 134–142. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1002/mrdd.1019 Stoneman, Z. (2005). Siblings of children with disabilities: Research themes. Mental Retardation, 43, 339–350. Stoneman, Z. (2009). Siblings of children with intellectual disabilities: Normal, average, or not too different? In L. M. Glidden & M. M. Seltzer (Eds.), International review of research on mental retardation (Vol. 37, pp. 251–296). New York, NY: Elsevier. Stoneman, Z., & Brody, G. H. (1982). Strengths inherent in sibling interactions involving a retarded child: a functional role theory approach. In N. Stinnett, B. Chesser, & J. Defrain (Eds.), Family strengths: Positive models for family life (pp. 113–129). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Stoneman, Z., & Brody, G. H. (1990). Families with a mentally retarded child. In G. H. Brody & I. Sigel (Eds.), Research methods for studying at risk families (pp. 31–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stoneman, Z., & Brody, G. H. (1993). Sibling relations in the family context. In Z. Stoneman & P. W. Berman (Eds.), The effect of mental retardation, disability, and illness on sibling relationships, (pp. 3–30). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Stoneman, Z., Brody, G. H., & Davis, C. H. (1989). Role relations between mentally retarded children and their older siblings: Observations in three in home contexts. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 10, 61–76. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/0891-4222(89)90029-2 Tekin, E., & Kircaali-Iftar, G. (2002). Comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of two 586

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

response prompting procedures delivered by sibling tutors. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 283–299. Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 675–691. Tzuriel, D. (1996). Mother-child mediated learning strategies in free-play and structured situations among low, medium and high SES levels. Child Development and Care, 126, 57–82. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443961260105 Tzuriel, D. (1999). Parent-child mediated learning interactions as determinants of cognitive modifiability: Recent research and future directions. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 125, 109–156. Tzuriel, D. (2001). Dynamic assessment of young children. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/9781-4615-1255-4 Tzuriel, D. (2002). Dynamic assessment of learning potential. Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 127–131). New York, NY: McMillan Press. Tzuriel, D. (2011). Mediated learning and cognitive modifiability. Encyclopedia of sciences of learning (pp. 2154–2157). New York, NY: Springer Publishing. Tzuriel, D. (2013). Mediated learning experience and cognitive modifiability, Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12, 59–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.12.1.59 Tzuriel, D., & Caspi, R. (2014). Peers mediated learning strategies and cognitive modifiability: The relation to mother-child interaction and intervention for peer’s mediation. Unpublished manuscript, School of Education, Bar-Ilan University. Tzuriel, D., & Eran, Z. (1990). Inferential cognitive modifiability of kibbutz young children as a function of mother-child mediated learning experience (MLE) interactions. International Journal of Cognitive Education and Mediated Learning, 1, 103–117. Tzuriel, D., & Ernst, H. (1990). Mediated learning experience and structural cognitive modifiability: Testing of distal and proximal factors by structural equation model. International Journal of Cognitive Education and Mediated Learning, 1, 119–135. Tzuriel, D., Kaniel, S., Zeliger, M., Friedman, A., & Haywood, H. C. (1998). Effects of the Mediated Learning Strategies by Siblings


‘‘Bright Start’’ program in kindergarten on use of mediated learning strategies and children’s cognitive modifiability. Child Development and Care, 143, 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 0300443981430101 Tzuriel, D., & Klein, P. S. (1985). Analogical thinking modifiability in disadvantaged, regular, special education and mentally retarded children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 539– 552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00923140 Tzuriel, D., & Klein, P. S. (1990). The Children’s Analogical Thinking Modifiability (CATM) test. Instruction manual. Bar Ilan University, RamatGan, Israel. Tzuriel, D., & Rokach, G. (2009, July). Sibling’s mediated learning strategies in Jewish families with many versus few children: The relation to home support and religious orientation and their effects on cognitive modifiability. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference of the International Association for Cognitive Education and Psychology (IACEP), University of Osnabru¯¨ck, Germany. Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2007). The effects of peer mediation with young children (PMYC) on children’s cognitive modifiability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 143–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709905X84279 Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2010). Mediation Strategies and Cognitive Modifiability in Young Children as a Function of Peer Mediation with Young Children (PMYC) Program and Training in Analogies versus Math Tasks. Journal of Cognitive Psychology and Education, 9, 48–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.9.1.48 Tzuriel, D., & Shomron, V. (2009, July). Cognitive modifiability and psychological resilience: The effects of mother-child mediated learning experience (MLE) and home supportiveness among learning disabled children. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference of the International Association for Cognitive Education and Psychology (IACEP), University of Osnabru¯¨ck, Germany. Tzuriel, D., & Weiss, S. C. (1998). The effects of mother’s acceptance/rejection attitudes, children’s personality and mother’s mediated learning strategies on cognitive modifiability. Early Development and Parenting, 7, 79–99. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0917(199806) 7:2%3C79::AID-EDP166%3E3.0.CO;2-%23 Tzuriel, D., & Weitz, A. (2008). Mother-child mediated learning experience (MLE) strategies D. Tzuriel and D. Hanuka-Levy

EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

and child’s cognitive modifiability among very low birth weight (VLBW) and normally born weight (NBW) children. Unpublished manuscript. School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the development of children’s action. New York, NY: Wiley. Valsiner, J. (1988). Developmental psychology in the Soviet Union. Brighton, Sussex, UK: Harvester Press/Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. van Geert, P. (1994). Vygotskian dynamics of development, Human Development, 37, 346– 365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000278280 Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Watson-Gegeo, K. A., & Gegeo, D. W. (1989). The role of sibling interaction in child socialization. In P. G. Zukow (Ed.), Sibling interaction across cultures: Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 54–76). New York, NY: Springer-Verlage. Weisner, T. S. (1989). Comparing sibling relationships across cultures. In P. W. Zukow (Ed.), Sibling interaction cultures: Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 11–25). New York, NY: Springer-Verlage. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. London, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, J., Blacher, J., & Baker, B. L. (1989). Siblings of children with severe handicaps. Mental Retardation, 27, 167–173. Wood, D. J., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. Wullink, M., Widdershoven, G., van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk, H., Metsemakers, J., & Dinant, G. J. (2009). Autonomy in relation to health among people with intellectual disability: A literature review. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 53, 816–826. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01196.x Youngblade, L. M., & Belsky, J. (1995). From family to friend: predicting positive dyadic interaction with a close friend at 5 years of age from early parent-child relations. In S. Shulman (Ed.), Close relationships and socio-emotional development (pp. 35–62). Norworrd, NJ: Ablex. 587


EAAIDD DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.6.565

Zukow, P. G. (1989). Sibling interaction across cultures: Theoretical and Methodological issues. New York, NY: Springer-Verlage. Zukow-Goldring, P. (2002). Sibling caregiving. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Status and social conditions of parenting (2nd ed., pp. 253–286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Authors: David Tzuriel, Full Professor at Bar Ilan University, School of Education, Ramat Gan, Israel.; and Dikla Hanuka-Levy, Instructor, Special Education Program, Gordon College of Education, Haifa Israel.

Received 11/13/2012, accepted 7/7/2014.

Address correspondence concerning this article to David Tzuriel, Bar Ilan University, School of Education, Geha Street, Ramat Gan, Israel 5290002, Israel (e-mail: [email protected]).

We thank H. Carl Haywood for his thorough editing of this article and for his wise advice.

588


Supporting Families of Children With Disabilities.

Selective attention in children with learning disabilities.

Metaphoric competence in children with learning disabilities.

Syntactic Awareness and Arithmetic Word Problem Solving in Children With and Without Learning Disabilities.

Development of physical fitness in children with intellectual disabilities.

Parenting and the parent-child relationship in families of children with mild to borderline intellectual disabilities and externalizing behavior.

Career attitudes among boys with and without specific learning disabilities.

Resilience in families of children with developmental disabilities.

Sustained and selective attention in children with learning disabilities.

The interrelationships between motor, cognitive, and language development in children with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Families of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities: policy, funding, services, and experiences.

Financial counseling for families of children with chronic disabilities.

Editorial: Improving Working Memory in Learning and Intellectual Disabilities.

Emotional false memories in children with learning disabilities.

Interrelations between siblings and parents in families living with children with cancer.

Electrophysiological evidence of lateralized disturbances in children with learning disabilities.

Role of the school in serving children with learning disabilities.

Improving Learning Outcomes: The iPad and Preschool Children with Disabilities.

How Young Children Evaluate People With and Without Disabilities.

Caregiver burden and sibling relationships in families raising children with disabilities and typically developing children.

Multimorbidity in older adults with intellectual disabilities.

Concrete operational thought in children with learning disabilities and children with normal achievement.

Anxiety and Depression in Children With Nonverbal Learning Disabilities, Reading Disabilities, or Typical Development.

Physical activity levels of adolescents with and without intellectual disabilities during physical education and recess.