Page 239 - Čotar Konrad Sonja, Borota Bogdana, Rutar Sonja, Drljić Karmen, Jelovčan Giuliana. Ur. 2022. Vzgoja in izobraževanje predšolskih otrok prvega starostnega obdobja. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem
P. 239
Sensory Integration as the Path for Nurturing Toddlers’ Wellbeing
Table 4 The Results of Testing the Difference Significance in the First Measurement
Regarding the Two Groups
Sensory materials Group zp
Experimental Control
Trampoline . (.) . (.) –. .
Therapy ball – ‘small’ . (.) . (.) –. .
Therapy ball – ‘peanut-shape’ . (.) . (.) –. .
Balance board . (.) . (.) –. .
Funnel spinning . (.) . (.) –. .
Balancing pad . (.) . (.) –. .
Platform swing . (.) . (.) –. .
Obstacle course . (.) . (.) –. .
Walking and climbing* . (.) . (.) –. .
Lifting and carrying . (.) . (.) –. .
Pushing . (.) . (.) –. .
Notes * On slopes and substrates (spongy stairs, climbing cliff, tactile paths). Standard devi-
ations in parenthesis.
random sample. This could be observed in the activities: ‘lifting and carrying’
and ‘balance pad’ (Table 4) since there had been significantly higher results
already in the first, initial measuring with the children from the experimental
group. For these two activities, it isn’t possible to explain their changes in the
experimental group by means of activities implementation, but rather with
the starting differences between the children.
Experimental and control group – second measurement. In two activities,
‘balance pad’ and ‘lifting and caring,’ changes cannot be taken into consid-
eration because the children from the two groups weren’t on the same pri-
mary level of sensory-motoric abilities, i. e., they weren’t equal considering
their abilities. In other activities, children from the experimental and control
group were equal and it is later possible to analyze the differences just from
the perspective of the sensory activities’ influence, which were introduced in
the everyday practice with the experimental group. According to the results
in Table 5, which shows the differences between the experimental and con-
trol group in the second measurement, it is possible to sum up the results
and isolate those activities that show how the everyday use of specified sen-
sory gadgetry, equipment, and activities affects the differences between the
results in the experimental and control group. The used gadgetry included:
a trampoline, a therapy peanut-shaped ball, and a platform swing.
Those activities in which changes were observed in the control group and
239
Table 4 The Results of Testing the Difference Significance in the First Measurement
Regarding the Two Groups
Sensory materials Group zp
Experimental Control
Trampoline . (.) . (.) –. .
Therapy ball – ‘small’ . (.) . (.) –. .
Therapy ball – ‘peanut-shape’ . (.) . (.) –. .
Balance board . (.) . (.) –. .
Funnel spinning . (.) . (.) –. .
Balancing pad . (.) . (.) –. .
Platform swing . (.) . (.) –. .
Obstacle course . (.) . (.) –. .
Walking and climbing* . (.) . (.) –. .
Lifting and carrying . (.) . (.) –. .
Pushing . (.) . (.) –. .
Notes * On slopes and substrates (spongy stairs, climbing cliff, tactile paths). Standard devi-
ations in parenthesis.
random sample. This could be observed in the activities: ‘lifting and carrying’
and ‘balance pad’ (Table 4) since there had been significantly higher results
already in the first, initial measuring with the children from the experimental
group. For these two activities, it isn’t possible to explain their changes in the
experimental group by means of activities implementation, but rather with
the starting differences between the children.
Experimental and control group – second measurement. In two activities,
‘balance pad’ and ‘lifting and caring,’ changes cannot be taken into consid-
eration because the children from the two groups weren’t on the same pri-
mary level of sensory-motoric abilities, i. e., they weren’t equal considering
their abilities. In other activities, children from the experimental and control
group were equal and it is later possible to analyze the differences just from
the perspective of the sensory activities’ influence, which were introduced in
the everyday practice with the experimental group. According to the results
in Table 5, which shows the differences between the experimental and con-
trol group in the second measurement, it is possible to sum up the results
and isolate those activities that show how the everyday use of specified sen-
sory gadgetry, equipment, and activities affects the differences between the
results in the experimental and control group. The used gadgetry included:
a trampoline, a therapy peanut-shaped ball, and a platform swing.
Those activities in which changes were observed in the control group and
239
