Stefanie Adriaensens1, Sara Van Waes2, Elke Struyf3. 1. Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Training and Education Sciences, University of Antwerp, Gratiekapelstraat 10, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium. Electronic address: Stefanie.adriaensens@uantwerpen.be. 2. Center for Excellence in Higher Education, University of Antwerp, Venusstraat 35, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium. Electronic address: Sara.vanwaes@uantwerpen.be. 3. Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Training and Education Sciences, University of Antwerp, Gratiekapelstraat 10, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium; Antwerp School of Education, University of Antwerp, Venusstraat 35, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium. Electronic address: Elke.struyf@uantwerpen.be.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent work has reported adverse effects of students' stuttering on their social and emotional functioning at school. Yet, few studies have provided an in-depth examination of classroom interaction of students who stutter (SWS). The current study uses a network perspective to compare acceptance and rejection in the classroom interaction between SWS and their peers in secondary education. METHODS: The sample comprised 22 SWS and 403 non-stuttering peers (22 classes) of secondary education in Flanders (Belgium). Students' nominations regarding three acceptance and three rejection criteria were combined. Social network analysis offered procedures that considered direct and indirect interaction between all classmates. RESULTS: We found few significant differences: SWS and their peers were distributed similarly across positive and negative status groups. Both considered and were considered by, on average, six or seven classmates as 'a friend', who they liked and could count on, and nominated or were nominated by one or two classmates as 'no friend', somebody who they disliked and could not count on. On average, SWS and their classmates also did not differ in terms of structural position in the class group (degree, closeness and betweenness), reciprocated rejection, and clique size. However, SWS do tend to be slightly more stringent or more careful in nominating peers, which led to fewer reciprocated friendships. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that SWS are quite accepted by peers in secondary education in Flanders. Such positive peer interaction can create a supportive and encouraging climate for SWS to deal with specific challenges.
PURPOSE: Recent work has reported adverse effects of students' stuttering on their social and emotional functioning at school. Yet, few studies have provided an in-depth examination of classroom interaction of students who stutter (SWS). The current study uses a network perspective to compare acceptance and rejection in the classroom interaction between SWS and their peers in secondary education. METHODS: The sample comprised 22 SWS and 403 non-stuttering peers (22 classes) of secondary education in Flanders (Belgium). Students' nominations regarding three acceptance and three rejection criteria were combined. Social network analysis offered procedures that considered direct and indirect interaction between all classmates. RESULTS: We found few significant differences: SWS and their peers were distributed similarly across positive and negative status groups. Both considered and were considered by, on average, six or seven classmates as 'a friend', who they liked and could count on, and nominated or were nominated by one or two classmates as 'no friend', somebody who they disliked and could not count on. On average, SWS and their classmates also did not differ in terms of structural position in the class group (degree, closeness and betweenness), reciprocated rejection, and clique size. However, SWS do tend to be slightly more stringent or more careful in nominating peers, which led to fewer reciprocated friendships. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that SWS are quite accepted by peers in secondary education in Flanders. Such positive peer interaction can create a supportive and encouraging climate for SWS to deal with specific challenges.
Authors: Shelley B Brundage; Nan Bernstein Ratner; Michael P Boyle; Kurt Eggers; Rachel Everard; Marie-Christine Franken; Elaina Kefalianos; Anne K Marcotte; Sharon Millard; Ann Packman; Martine Vanryckeghem; J Scott Yaruss Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 4.018