Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
04 SES 06 B: Inclusive Early Childhood Pathways: From Policy Discourses to Classroom Practice
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
04. Inclusive Education
Paper Development of Inclusive Early Childhood Education: Factors Transforming the School System Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania Presenting Author:The development of inclusive education is a global trend and an essential part of changes in educational systems (Connor et al., 2025). Educational policies and child-education regulatory documents in many countries oblige schools and teachers to ensure the quality of inclusive education (Klibthong & Agbenyega, 2022; Singh & Zhang, 2022; Connor et al., 2025). On the other hand, inclusive education that does not produce rapid indicators of quality and that requires complex solutions, structural changes, the development of competencies among all participants in the educational process, the expansion of material resources, and increased funding may have a negative impact on education policy. The publication by Magnússon and Paulsrud (2025) reveals how a negative connotation “inclusion has gone too far” can become entrenched in political debates. The implementation of inclusive education, including inclusive early childhood education, is accompanied not only by successful practices but also by ongoing tensions. Tensions persist between the conceptualization of inclusive and special education, where the understanding of inclusive education appears to eliminate special education by focusing on educating all children exclusively in mainstream settings, rather than on the goal of effectively addressing the special educational needs of each and every child (Kauffman & Hornby, 2025), optimally developing children’s individual potential and ensuring well-being. Meanwhile, researchers and practitioners in the field of special education are sometimes highly critical of inclusive education and reluctant to contribute, through continuous collaboration, to changes in the concept and role of special education in the development of inclusive education (Connor, Danforth & Gallagher, 2025). This creates conceptual confusion in schools, forms a dualistic system of inclusive and special education structures, and leads to fragmentation of school education systems. Consequently, research is being intensified to identify a coherent model of an inclusive early childhood education system that supports the learning of all children. Inclusive education is grounded in the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approach (Pikus et al., 2024). The model presented by Coogle et al. (2022) integrates Universal Design for Learning with Multi-Tiered Systems of Support. Ongoing research continues to explore early childhood curriculum models that support inclusive education, as conventional flexible programmes are insufficient to address children’s special educational needs (SEN) (Singh & Zhang, 2022). Inclusive pedagogy grounded in play-based and experiential learning, as well as the modelling of effective early childhood education and behaviour management strategies responsive to special educational needs, remains highly relevant (Singh & Zhang, 2022; Chow et al., 2025). In addition, studies examining the complex relationships between inclusive education systems and parental involvement in children’s learning continue to gain importance (Yildirim, 2025). Some studies focus on highlighting the transformative potential of inclusive early childhood education (Shen & Musyoka, 2025) and identifying strategic actions to improve the quality of inclusive education (Klibthong & Agbenyega, 2022). The study we conducted aims to reveal what helps early childhood education institutions transform fragmented inclusive and special education systems into a coherent inclusive education system that fully addresses children’s special educational needs, ensures their well-being, and optimally develops their potential capacities. Research question presented in the paper: What factors promote and hinder the transformation of an early childhood education institution’s educational system towards inclusion in the contemporary context of tensions in education policy, concepts, and practices? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used A focus group method was employed in the study, involving a moderated group discussion in which participants shared their experiences, attitudes, and insights related to inclusive early childhood education (Gundumogula, 2020). This method is based on interaction among participants and collective meaning-making, enabling the exploration of diverse perspectives, shared understandings, and problems arising in educational practice (Kitzinger, 1995; Hennink, 2007). The focus group method was chosen to identify factors that promote or hinder early childhood education institutions in developing a coherent inclusive education system grounded in the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approach and child support structures, while addressing issues related to the improvement of inclusive education quality. Group discussions provided opportunities to collect a wide range of experiences and viewpoints from different educational stakeholders, which emerged through dialogue and reflection among participants. Two focus groups were conducted during the empirical phase of the study. Both focus groups involved participants working within the early childhood education system: early childhood teachers, educational support specialists (speech therapists, psychologists, special educators, and social pedagogues), as well as heads of early childhood education institutions or their deputies responsible for education. Participants were selected using purposive sampling, taking into account differences in professional experience, the diversity of educational institutions, and experience in inclusive education. The focus groups were conducted in accordance with the main stages and conditions of group discussions (Nyumba et al., 2018; Mishra, 2016). Discussions were held remotely via MS Teams, considering participants’ availability. A lead moderator and a supporting moderator were assigned to each focus group. The duration of each discussion ranged from 1.5 to 2 hours, with a total of 15 participants taking part across the two groups. Prior to the discussions, participants were informed about the aims of the study, research questions, procedures, and ethical principles, and they signed informed consent forms. The discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and used for subsequent qualitative data analysis (Nyumba et al., 2018). The study was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Vytautas Magnus University (VMU) and was approved by the University Ethics Committee. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The focus group discussion revealed the perspectives of early childhood education leaders, teachers, and educational support specialists on factors that facilitate or hinder the transformation of a dualistic, fragmented educational system lacking a shared understanding of inclusion into a coherent inclusive education system. Several key factors were identified: a) Development of inclusive local curriculum models based on flexible inclusive curriculum frameworks proposed in national-level curriculum guidelines. The concept of an inclusive curriculum remains insufficiently conceptualised and practically developed; therefore, educational institutions require support from researchers and education strategists. b) Emerging outcomes of children with special educational needs versus reliance on formal achievement descriptions. Within the learning process, the achievements of a child with significant learning needs emerge, differences in developmental pace across learning domains become evident, and potential capacities are highlighted, enabling the anticipation of abilities within the zone of proximal development. Focusing on emerging outcomes is more effective and more motivating for both children and teachers than strict adherence to formalised achievement descriptors. c) Understanding children serves as scaffolding for modelling inclusive learning processes in groups based on the Universal Design for Learning approach. Teachers are able to creatively design flexible learning processes grounded in Universal Design for Learning principles (engagement, representation, and expression) only when they are supported, as needed, through consultations with speech therapists, psychologists, or other specialists, enabling them to understand children’s developmental, behavioural, and learning characteristics. d) Shaping parental and community attitudes towards inclusion through inclusive education success stories. Challenges and problems tend to be highly visible and contribute to negative attitudes, while successful inclusive practices are often accepted quietly as self-evident. Actively communicating success stories was identified as an important factor in fostering positive perceptions of inclusion. Additional factors identified in the study will be presented in the conference presentation. References Chow, G. S. U., Ang, L. L., & Phoon, H. S. (2025). Comparing the behavioural management knowledge and skills of Malaysian teachers in integrated special education and inclusive classrooms: A qualitative study. Support for Learning, 40(4), 277-292. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.70007 Connor, D. J., Danforth, S., & Gallagher, D. (2025). An open letter to the field: Contemplating special education’s collaborative role in developing inclusive education. Exceptional Children, 91(3), 236‐259. https://doi.org/0.1177/00144029241303051 Coogle, C. G., Storie, S. & Rahn, N. L. (2022). A framework for promoting access, increasing participation, and providing support in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50, 867–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01200-6 Gundumogula, M. (2020). Importance of Focus Groups in Qualitative Research. The International Journal of Humanities & Social Studies, 8(11). https://doi.org/10.24940/theijhss/2020/v8/i11/HS2011-082 Hennink, M. (2007). International focus group research: A handbook for the health and social sciences. Cambridge University Press. Yildirim, Y. (2025). Engaging families in the education of children with special needs: Challenges and recommendations. Early Childhood Education Journal, 53, 2895–2907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01835-1 Kauffman, J. & M. Hornby, G. (2025). Extremism and the potential dismantling of special education: Or moving forward with inclusive special education. Support for Learning, 40, 172-183. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12519 Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ, 311(7000), 299–302. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299 Klibthong, S. & Agbenyega, J. S. (2022). Assessing issues of inclusive education from the perspectives of Thai early childhood teachers. International Journal of Early Years Education, 30(2), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2020.1823205 Magnússon, G. & Paulsrud, D. (2025). “Inclusion has gone too far”: how a slogan became policy in Swedish education. Journal of Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2025.2560370 Mishra, L. (2016). Focus group discussion in qualitative research. TechnoLearn, 6(1), 1–5. Nyumba, T. O., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860 Pikus, A. E., Etchison, H. M., Gerde, H. T., & Bingham, G. E. (2024). Nature for all. Utilizing the Universal Design Framework to incorporate nature-based learning within an early childhood inclusive classrom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 57(5), 338-347. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599241257438 Shen, G. & Musyoka, M. M. (2025). Experiences of early childhood special education teachers in inclusive classroom: A phenomenological study. Inclusion, 13(4), 276–295. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-13.4.276 Singh, P. & Zhang, K. C. (2022). Inclusive education in New Zealand: voices from early childhood teachers. Support for Learning, 37(4), 538-552. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12428 04. Inclusive Education
Paper Spontaneous Student Talk in Inclusive Pre-Primary Classrooms: A Focus on Academic Help Seeking 1: Grhapes, INSEI, France; 2: University of Jyväskylä, Finland Presenting Author:In 2026, we mark the 45th anniversary of research on student help seeking, a field initiated by the seminal work of Nelson-Le Gall (1981). This foundational paper distinguished between instrumental help seeking – where students request only the necessary assistance – and executive help seeking, where the goal is to delegate problem-solving entirely. By conceptualizing instrumental help seeking as “an active, complex social-cognitive activity that is essential to learning and achievement” (p. 224), Nelson-Le Gall paved the way for decades of inspiring research. Building on this legacy, our work focuses on young students’ academic help seeking, with a view to promoting children’s active participation and aligning with the European Commission’s 2013 recommendations on investing in children. From a methodological perspective, researchers in this domain have typically relied on self-report measures, focusing more on students’ help-seeking intentions than on their actual help-seeking behavior (cf. Huet et al., 2013). Studies examining help-seeking behavior are methodologically diverse – for example, experimental situations (e.g., Puustinen, 1998), or computer recordings of human-machine help interactions (e.g., Wood & Wood, 1999) – and often lack ecological validity with respect to students’ actual help seeking in real classroom settings. The work by Zorn and Puustinen (2022) on French middle school students with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) represents one of the first attempts to capture this behavior. Students’ spontaneous classroom talk was video recorded, but only the help-seeking sequences were extracted from the data. In addition, when analyzing those sequences, the authors introduced a category termed ambiguous help seeking for students’ spontaneous statements that could not be coded unequivocally (e.g., “I don’t feel comfortable with this task”) but nevertheless prompted teachers to provide assistance; one third of their help-seeking data fell into this category. While Zorn and Puustinen’s (2022) work highlights the importance of capturing spontaneous help-seeking behaviors in naturalistic settings, their focus on middle school students with ASD leaves a significant gap in our understanding of how help seeking manifests in other populations. Pre-primary classrooms, in particular, offer a unique context for studying help seeking: they are characterized by high levels of spontaneous verbal interaction and a strong emphasis on social learning. In Finland, these classrooms bring together students with diverse learner profiles. Yet, research on help seeking in this age group remains scarce. Against this background, this paper addresses two related issues: we analyze the proportion that academic help seeking represents in Finnish pre-primary students’ all spontaneous classroom talk and develop and test a new coding scheme for naturally occurring help-seeking sequences, explicitly specifying what should and should not be considered as help seeking within naturally occurring classroom interaction. Analyzing student help seeking as part of spontaneous student talk in the classroom provides valuable insights into its role in inclusive pre-primary classrooms dynamics. It allows researchers and educators to consider the entirety of children’s discourse. By adopting such a holistic approach to young children’s classroom discourse, we recognize them as active contributors to learning processes and contribute to a broader reflection on the conditions of educational knowledge production and whose voices are acknowledged within it. In sum, this approach offers a richer, ecologically valid understanding of classroom interactions and helps give children a voice in their own learning – a perspective only beginning to gain recognition in France. This paper thus contributes to both theoretical and practical advancements. Theoretically, it refines our understanding of help seeking as a situated, interactional phenomenon. Practically, it equips educators with tools to better recognize and support children’s agency in their own learning. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used We conducted secondary analyses of transcribed video data based on a larger longitudinal study (TESSI; Lerkkanen & Pakarinen, 2016–2022) conducted in Central Finland that examined the well-being of teachers and students and the quality of teacher–student interactions in Finnish classrooms (Lerkkanen et al., 2023). Twenty-minute segments were filmed in 40 inclusive pre-primary classrooms in spring 2017, involving teachers, teaching assistants, and children about to enter first grade that fall (aged 6–7). Categories of spontaneous student talk – spontaneous comments, question answering, help seeking, and expressions of needs, concerns, or desires – were adapted from Kumpulainen and Wray (1997). As for students’ academic help-seeking behavior, we consider that it necessarily involves a situation of uncertainty or doubt related to the academic learning situation at hand – something that cognitively (and possibly emotionally) destabilizes or disturbs students and needs to be clarified in order for learning to continue. The help-seeking categories were developed based on Zorn and Puustinen (2022) and Gaborit (2023). The following categories were retained: (1) Instrumental help seeking, i.e., requests for explanations concerning the subject matter of a task or parts of it (i.e., the conceptual content). (2) Organizational or practical help seeking, i.e., requests for concrete or material resources or actions related to the purpose or organizational aspects of a task (i.e., the “form”). (3) Executive help seeking, i.e., direct requests for answers. (4) Unspecified requests, which cannot be coded unambiguously. Moreover, based on Gaborit’s (2023) doctoral research, instrumental and organizational or practical help seeking were further divided into two subcategories: exploratory (when the request focuses on something new) and confirmatory (when students seek to check something the teacher has just said or the correctness of their preliminary work or reflection). We also established a list of cases that were not considered academic help seeking in the present data. These included, for example, (1) requests that are not directly related to the academic learning situation at hand, even if they may cognitively disrupt or bother the student (e.g., “Could you please be quiet?”); (2) remarks indicating difficulty with the task at hand but not formulated as requests for help (e.g., “I can’t find anything”, “There weren’t enough tokens for me”); (3) students’ wishes and complaints (e.g., “I want to play that game, too”); and (4) cases in which students solely sought to attract the teacher’s attention (e.g., “Hey, I’m raising my hand”). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Data analysis is ongoing. Preliminary results based on 25% of the data (i.e., integrally transcribed video recordings from ten classrooms, corresponding to 1,090 student speaking turns) indicate that, on average, 42% of student talk consists of spontaneous comments (e.g., expressing personal experiences), 37% involves answering teacher’s questions, 11% reflects academic help seeking, and 10% pertains to expressing needs, concerns, or desires. Considerable variability is observed across classrooms, with help seeking accounting for between 1.7% and 25% of student speaking turns. Preliminary analysis of the identified help-seeking sequences using the new coding scheme further shows that a large majority (75.5%) of pre-primary students’ requests fall into a category that could be termed organizational (cf. Zorn & Puustinen, 2022) or practical – that is, requests for concrete or material resources or actions related to the organizational aspects or purpose of a task, in order to make progress. This category appears as the dominating type of help seeking in pre-primary students’ spontaneous talk. The two categories introduced by Nelson-Le Gall (1981) were thus in the minority: 21% of help-seeking sequences were instrumental, while no executive help seeking was observed. In addition, the results obtained using the new help-seeking coding scheme seem promising, as only 3% of the help-seeking data was classified as unspecified (i.e., requests that could not be coded unambiguously) – a very low score compared to Zorn and Puustinen (2022), who found that one third of the help-seeking data could not be coded unequivocally. The substantial inter-class variability observed in this study (i.e., help seeking accounted for only 1.7% of student speaking turns in one classroom, while it represented 25% in another) invites us to complement our analyses with information on the pedagogical context of the video-recorded lessons and the overall interactional dynamics of the classroom. References European Commission. (2013, February 20). Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage [Commission Recommendation 2013/112/EU]. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2013/112/oj/eng Gaborit, M. (2023). La demande d’aide en classe. Une analyse de données recueillies auprès de collégiens avec un trouble de la fonction visuelle et proposition théorique transversale [Seeking help in the classroom. An analysis of data collected from middle school students with visual impairment and a cross-disciplinary theoretical proposal]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nanterre University and INSEI. Huet, N., Dupeyrat, C., & Escribe, C. (2013). Help-seeking intentions and actual use of help in an interactive learning environment. In S. A. Karabenick, & M. Puustinen (Eds.), Advances in help-seeking research and applications: The role of emerging technologies (pp. 121–146). Information Age Publishing. Kumpulainen, K., & Wray, D. (1997). Functional analysis of children's classroom talk: A framework for understanding children's discourse in educational contexts [Paper presentation]. The American Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago, IL, United States. Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Pakarinen, E. (2016–2022). Teacher and student Stress and Interaction in Classroom (TESSI). University of Jyvaskyla. https://doi.org/10.17011/jyx/dataset/77741 Lerkkanen, M.-K., Pakarinen, E., Salminen, J., & Torppa, M. (2023). Reading and math skills development among Finnish primary school children before and after COVID-19 school closure. Reading and Writing, 36(2), 263–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10358-3 Nelson-Le Gall, S. (1981). Help-seeking: An understudied problem-solving skill in children. Developmental Review, 1, 224–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297 (81)90019-8 Puustinen, M. (1998). Help-seeking behavior in a problem-solving situation: Development of self-regulation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13, 271–282. Wood, H., & Wood, D. (1999). Help seeking, learning and contingent tutoring. Computers & Education, 33(2-3), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00030- Zorn, S., & Puustinen, M. (2022). Seeking academic help: The case of lower secondary students with autism spectrum disorder and their teachers. Learning and Instruction, 80, 101624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101624 04. Inclusive Education
Paper A Study of a Sensory-Integration Movement-Play Intervention to Improve Gross Motor Performance Quality in Preschoolers with Developmental Delays in Inclusive Settings 1: National Tsing Hua Unviversity, Taiwan; 2: Daxi Preschool, Taoyuan City, Taiwan Presenting Author:This proposal addresses a common implementation gap in preschool movement play provision within inclusive settings. Although structured physical activity is widely recognized as beneficial for young children’s development (World Health Organization, 2019), limited lesson design, constrained materials, and insufficient professional preparation often result in activities that remain at the level of general running and jumping routines (Huang, 2013). Such provision does not consistently respond to the needs of preschoolers with developmental delays, particularly in motor planning, coordination, and body awareness. At the same time, inclusive early childhood education increasingly emphasizes participation-oriented support embedded in everyday routines rather than separated remedial provision (UNESCO, 2021). Grounded in sensory integration theory (Ayres, 2005), this small-scale exploratory case study developed a sensory-integration movement-play intervention that embedded vestibular, proprioceptive, and tactile input into playful preschool activities. Sensory integration has been discussed as relevant to adaptive responses and motor planning (Sober & Sabes, 2005), and some intervention studies have suggested potential benefits for motor outcomes in preschool children and children with developmental coordination difficulties (Lin et al., 2012; Hong & Lin, 2014). Recent reviews have continued to examine the potential of Ayres Sensory Integration-based approaches for children aged 0 to 12 and in school-based practice (Schoen et al., 2019; Acuña et al., 2025; Whiting et al., 2025). However, fewer studies have focused on how such principles may be translated into feasible movement-play routines within inclusive preschool classrooms, especially for children with developmental delays. The intervention aimed to enhance gross motor performance quality in everyday preschool routines and to explore pre- and post-intervention changes in three domains: locomotion, object control, and balance. It also examined plausible factors associated with skills that improved versus those that showed limited change. Rather than relying on pull-out therapy, the intervention was designed to be feasible within routine classroom provision and implementable with typical preschool resources. In this sense, the study seeks to contribute both practical insight into movement-play design in inclusive preschool curricula and preliminary case-based evidence on how sensory-rich play may support early motor participation in inclusive settings. Although the study was conducted in a Taiwanese preschool context, it focuses on strengthening everyday support for preschoolers with developmental delays through routine movement-play curricula. This concern may resonate with ongoing European discussions on inclusive early childhood education and early support services (UNESCO, 2021). The design logic linking sensory input, motor tasks, and play contexts may offer an adaptable reference point across different curricular frameworks and support arrangements. Future research should examine larger and more diverse samples, as well as differences in curriculum requirements, specialist support, and cultural contexts, to better understand patterns of gains and constraints in similar interventions. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used An intervention-oriented case study design was used. The participants were two preschoolers with developmental delays, a twin sister and brother aged 4 years and 5 months. Individual needs were identified based on the children’s interdisciplinary developmental assessment reports, which informed the planning and implementation of the sensory-integration movement-play intervention. The program included story-based framing and warm-up movement, followed by activities targeting single sensory modalities, including vestibular, proprioceptive, and tactile input. It also included integrated sensory activities such as bilateral integration and body awareness. The program further incorporated dyadic variation games and small-group or whole-group culminating play activities. Throughout the intervention, teacher demonstration and joint participation were used to enhance children’s engagement and the quality of their motor attempts. Outcome assessment used the Preschool Gross Motor Quality Scale (PGMQS; Sun et al., 2013), a standardized measure assessing locomotion, object control, and balance in preschool children, in a pretest-posttest design. Intervention effects were described through pre- and post-comparisons using normative percentile scores and domain-level changes. Given the small sample, the study does not seek broad generalization; rather, it aims to provide an in-depth examination of feasibility and observed patterns of change within an inclusive preschool context. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Both participants showed improvement in gross motor performance quality after the sensory-integration movement-play intervention. Normative percentile scores increased from 3 to 11 for one child and from 24 to 44 for the other. More consistent gains were observed in locomotion, such as consecutive single-leg hopping, side-sliding steps, and hop steps, in object control, such as two-hand catching and stationary dribbling, and in balance, such as single-leg standing and walking a straight line. More limited improvement was found in higher-difficulty skills requiring stronger force production and postural control, including overhand throwing, kicking, striking a stationary ball, and tandem stance. These constraints may be related to individual physiological limitations, weaker vestibular integration and sustained attention, and difficulties maintaining and transferring movement cues across tasks. Overall, the program appeared feasible within a preschool context and suggests the potential value of linking sensory input and motor performance through play in order to support selected aspects of gross motor performance quality. At the same time, the findings should be interpreted cautiously because they are based on only two cases. To support more advanced object control and postural stability skills, longer-term and more targeted practice opportunities are likely required. Further research with larger samples and cross-context comparison is needed to examine the transferability and sustained effects of similar interventions in inclusive early childhood settings. References 1.林巾凱、曾人和、林千琳、張瑋蒨（2012）。學齡前兒童前庭本體感覺統合活動在動作療效之研究 [Effects of vestibular–proprioceptive sensory integration activities on motor outcomes in preschool children]。職能治療學會雜誌，20（2），198-219。[Article in Chinese] 2.洪藝純、林巾凱（2014）。感覺統合治療在發展性協調障礙兒童之介入成效 [Effects of sensory integration therapy for children with developmental coordination disorder]。職能治療學會雜誌，32（1），94-129。[Article in Chinese] 3.黃永寬（2013）。幼稚園實施幼兒運動遊戲課程調查研究 [A survey study on the implementation of movement play programs in kindergartens]。幼兒運動研習年刊，8，4-42。[Article in Chinese] 4.孫世恆、朱怡菁、林千惠、吳昇光（2013）。學前兒童粗大動作品質量表 [Preschool Gross Motor Scale Manual]（量表手冊）。新北市：心理出版社。[Manual in Chinese] 5.Ayres, A. J. (2005). Sensory integration and the child. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. 6.Acuña, C., Gallegos-Berrios, S., Barfoot, J., Meredith, P., & Hill, J. (2025). Ayres Sensory Integration with children ages 0 to 12: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79(3), 7903205180. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2025.051023 7.Schoen, S. A., Lane, S. J., Mailloux, Z., May-Benson, T. A., Parham, L. D., Smith Roley, S., & Schaaf, R. C. (2019). A systematic review of Ayres Sensory Integration intervention for children with autism. Autism Research, 12(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2046 8.Sober, S. J. & Sabes, P. N. (2005). Flexible strategies for sensory integration during motor planning. Nature neuroscience, 8(4), 490-497. https://doi:10.1038/nn1427. 9.UNESCO. (2021). Inclusive early childhood care and education: From commitment to action. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000378076. 10.Whiting, C. C., Schoen, S. A., Bundy, A., Lane, S. J., Mailloux, Z., Roley, S. S., May-Benson, T. A., & Schaaf, R. C. (2025). Occupational therapy using Ayres Sensory Integration® in school-based practice: A call to action. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79(1), 7901347020. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2025.050971 11.World Health Organization. (2019). Guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behavior and sleep for children under 5 years of age. World Health Organization. | ||