Volume 11 - Articles-1400
MEJDS (2021) 11: 23 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Sepah Pour S, Kajbaf M B, Ahadi H, Abedi A. The Effects of Quinn Curriculum on Cognitive Abilities in Preschoolers. MEJDS 2021; 11 :23-23
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1111-en.html
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1111-en.html
1- Islamic Azad University (Khorasgan Branch)
2- Isfahan University
3- Psychology Department, Azad University (Science and Research Branch)
2- Isfahan University
3- Psychology Department, Azad University (Science and Research Branch)
Abstract: (863 Views)
Background & Objectives: Preschool years could be the major stage of childhood. Accordingly, several programs are held globally for children's cognitive empowerment, intelligence, language, and motor skills. Entering primary school, children need to acquire 7 principal skills (i.e., linguistic skills, memory, math, visual–spatial, cognitive, & fine motor skills) and proper performance in intelligence and preschool exams. They have to obtain these skills through playing in preschool. These skills are the main prerequisites for academic learning, such as reading, writing, math, and even social skills. The current research aimed to examine the effects of the Quinn Educational Program (QEP) on Cognitive Abilities (CAs) in Iranian 4–6–year–olds.
Methods: This was a quasi–experimental research with a pretest–posttest–follow–up and a control group design. The statistical population consisted of all 4– to 6–year–olds attending kindergartens and preschools in Tehran City, Iran, in the 2015–2016 academic year; 30 eligible volunteers were selected by convenience sampling method. They were randomly placed in the experimental and control groups (n=15/group). The inclusion criteria of the study were the age range of 4 to 6 years; living with both parents; no psychiatric disorders per the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Preschool and Preschool Children (WPPSI–III; 1967); no severe movement problems (based on the medical records); not using medications (per parental reports); no family relationship problems; no diseases that disrupt the treatment, and parental consent for the children to participate in the study. The exclusion criteria were absence from >1 treatment sessions and the parents' dissatisfaction with the continuation of the participation in the study. The research tool was WPPSI–III, i.e., performed in the study groups at pretest, posttest, and follow–up steps. The experimental group was trained by the QEP in 12 one–hour group sessions in 3 months (3 sessions/mon). This program is particularly designed for preschoolers to improve their reading, comprehension, memorizing, listening, mathematics, and visual–spatial skills. The control group received no training. Moreover, the follow–up phase was performed after 6 months in the research groups. Data analysis was implemented by repeated–measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni posthoc test in SPSS at the significant level of 0.05.
Results: The obtained findings indicated no significant effect of group on the total intelligence (p=0.206); however, the effect of time was significant on this variable (p<0.001). Thus, there was a significant difference between the mean total intelligence scores in the 3 measurement stages. The time×group interaction was also significant (p<0.001). Therefore, there was a significant difference in the total intelligence score between the study groups in the research stages. Furthermore, the effect of the group was not significant on practical intelligence (p=0.400); however, the effect of time was significant in this respect (p<0.001). Accordingly, there was a significant difference between the mean practical intelligence scores in the 3 measurement stages. The time×group interaction was also significant (p<0.001). Thus, there was a significant difference in the total intelligence score between the study groups in the research stages. The effect of the group was not significant on verbal intelligence (p=0.170); however, for this variable, the effect of time was significant (p<0.001). Therefore, there was a significant difference between the mean verbal intelligence scores in the measurement stages. The time group interaction was also significant (p<0.001). Thus, there was a significant difference in verbal intelligence between the study groups in the research stages. Additionally, the Bonferroni posthoc test data indicated significant differences in the pretest and posttest (p<0.001), as well as pretest and follow–up (p<0.001) stages concerning total intelligence, verbal intelligence, and practical intelligence. Moreover, significant differences were observed in the posttest and follow–up phases respecting total intelligence (p=0.001), practical intelligence (p=0.023), and verbal intelligence (p=0.001). In the follow–up phase, total intelligence and practical intelligence scores were increased; however, verbal intelligence was declined.
Conclusion: Based on the present research findings, it is possible to enhance the intelligence score of 4–6–year–olds in Tehran by the QEP. The QEP is an interactive and beneficial parent–child educational program for enriching preschoolers’ intelligence.
Methods: This was a quasi–experimental research with a pretest–posttest–follow–up and a control group design. The statistical population consisted of all 4– to 6–year–olds attending kindergartens and preschools in Tehran City, Iran, in the 2015–2016 academic year; 30 eligible volunteers were selected by convenience sampling method. They were randomly placed in the experimental and control groups (n=15/group). The inclusion criteria of the study were the age range of 4 to 6 years; living with both parents; no psychiatric disorders per the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Preschool and Preschool Children (WPPSI–III; 1967); no severe movement problems (based on the medical records); not using medications (per parental reports); no family relationship problems; no diseases that disrupt the treatment, and parental consent for the children to participate in the study. The exclusion criteria were absence from >1 treatment sessions and the parents' dissatisfaction with the continuation of the participation in the study. The research tool was WPPSI–III, i.e., performed in the study groups at pretest, posttest, and follow–up steps. The experimental group was trained by the QEP in 12 one–hour group sessions in 3 months (3 sessions/mon). This program is particularly designed for preschoolers to improve their reading, comprehension, memorizing, listening, mathematics, and visual–spatial skills. The control group received no training. Moreover, the follow–up phase was performed after 6 months in the research groups. Data analysis was implemented by repeated–measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni posthoc test in SPSS at the significant level of 0.05.
Results: The obtained findings indicated no significant effect of group on the total intelligence (p=0.206); however, the effect of time was significant on this variable (p<0.001). Thus, there was a significant difference between the mean total intelligence scores in the 3 measurement stages. The time×group interaction was also significant (p<0.001). Therefore, there was a significant difference in the total intelligence score between the study groups in the research stages. Furthermore, the effect of the group was not significant on practical intelligence (p=0.400); however, the effect of time was significant in this respect (p<0.001). Accordingly, there was a significant difference between the mean practical intelligence scores in the 3 measurement stages. The time×group interaction was also significant (p<0.001). Thus, there was a significant difference in the total intelligence score between the study groups in the research stages. The effect of the group was not significant on verbal intelligence (p=0.170); however, for this variable, the effect of time was significant (p<0.001). Therefore, there was a significant difference between the mean verbal intelligence scores in the measurement stages. The time group interaction was also significant (p<0.001). Thus, there was a significant difference in verbal intelligence between the study groups in the research stages. Additionally, the Bonferroni posthoc test data indicated significant differences in the pretest and posttest (p<0.001), as well as pretest and follow–up (p<0.001) stages concerning total intelligence, verbal intelligence, and practical intelligence. Moreover, significant differences were observed in the posttest and follow–up phases respecting total intelligence (p=0.001), practical intelligence (p=0.023), and verbal intelligence (p=0.001). In the follow–up phase, total intelligence and practical intelligence scores were increased; however, verbal intelligence was declined.
Conclusion: Based on the present research findings, it is possible to enhance the intelligence score of 4–6–year–olds in Tehran by the QEP. The QEP is an interactive and beneficial parent–child educational program for enriching preschoolers’ intelligence.
Type of Study: Original Research Article |
Subject:
Psychology
References
1. 1. Klingberg T, Forssberg H, Westerberg H. Training of working memory in children with ADHD. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2002;24(6):781–91. [DOI]
2. 2. Clark C, Prior M, Kinsella G. The relationship between executive function abilities, adaptive behaviour, and academic achievement in children with externalising behaviour problems. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2002;43(6):785–96. [DOI]
3. 3. Woods SP, Lovejoy DW, Ball JD. Neuropsychological characteristics of adults with ADHD: a comprehensive review of initial studies. Clin Neuropsychol. 2002;16(1):12–34. [DOI]
4. 4. Shallice T, Marzocchi GM, Coser S, Del Savio M, Meuter RF, Rumiati RI. Executive function profile of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Dev Neuropsychol. 2002;21(1):43–71. [DOI]
5. 5. Sharp E. Thinking is child’s play. Ghazi Gh, Kadivar N. (Persian translator). Qom: Ayande Derakhshan Pub; 2000.
6. 6. Ellison S, Gray JA. 365 days of creative play: for children two years and up. Angaji L. (Persian translator). Tehran: Javane Roshd Pub; 2013.
7. 7. Frost J. Supernanny: How to get the best from your children. Ebrahimi M. (Persian translator). Tehran: Zavar Pub; 2013.
8. 8. Moorthy MP, Srinivasan AV, Bhanu K. Cognitive rehabilitation in pediatric cognitivedisorders. International Journal of Scientific Research. 2018:7(4):7–8.
9. 9. Quinn K. Testing for kindergarten: simple strategies to help your child ace the tests for: public school placement, private school admissions, gifted program qualification. Abedi A, Hesam M. (Persain translator). Isfahan: Neveshteh Pub; 2011.
10. 10. Banisaeid M. Comparative effect of memory and cognitive strategies training on EFL intermediate learners’ vocabulary learning. English Language Teaching. 2013;6(8):108–18. [DOI]
11. 11. Mayoral-Rodríguez S, Timoneda-Gallart C, Pérez-Álvarez F, Das JP. Improving cognitive processes in preschool children: the COGEST programme. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2015;23(2):150–63. [DOI]
12. 12. Hahn-Markowitz J, Berger I, Manor I, Maeir A. Cognitive-Functional (Cog-Fun) dyadic intervention for children with ADHD and their parents: impact on parenting self-efficacy. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2018;38(4):444–56. [DOI]
13. 13. Abedi A, Shahmiveh Esfahani A, Momeni F. Maharat mored niaz koodakan baraye vorood be madrese [Skills needed by children going to school]. Isfahan: Neveshteh Pub; 2014. [Persian]
14. 14. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis. Ganji K, Delavar A. (Persian translator). Tehran: Alame Tabatabai University Pub; 2012.
15. 15. Wechsler D. WPPSI manual: Wechsler preschool and primary scale of intelligence. New York: The Psychological Corporation; 1967.
16. 16. Razavieh A, Shahim S. Wechsler intelligence scale adaptation and standardization for preschool childerns in Shiraz. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Shiraz University. 1990;(10):49–74. [Persian]
17. 17. Mahapatra S. Cognitive training and reading remediation. Journal of Education and Practice. 2015;6(19):57–63.
18. 18. Wiest DJ, Wong EH, Minero LP, Pumaccahua TT. Utilizing computerized cognitive training to improve working memory and encoding: piloting a school-based intervention. Education. 2014;135(2):264–70.
19. 19. Walcott CM, Phillips ME. The effectiveness of computer-based cognitive training programs. Communique. 2013;41(6):1–28.
20. 20. Granholm MJ, Olszewski J. Social and emotional development in preschool children: A guide produced by the Michigan department of community Health. US: Michigan Department of Community Health Press; 2012.
21. 21. Dadsetan P, Mansour M. Piaget's view: A selection of piaget, textes. Tehran: Besat Pub; 1994. [Persian]
22. 22. Beauchat KA, Blamey KL, Walpole S. The building blocks of preschool success. Imani A. (Persian translator). Tehran: Madrese Pub; 2013.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
