Inclusive Education: Efficacy Research

Inclusive Education: Efficacy Research

1. For Children with SEN

   • Madden + Slavin (1983): some advantage to integration IF a suitable individualised/differentiated educational programme was offered
     • Integration, not inclusion. Make the programme itself accessible?
   • Baker et al (1994-5): effect sizes of 3 studies indicated small to moderate benefit of inclusion for educational and social outcomes.
   • Difficulties in reaching a conclusion
     • Lindsay (2003): efficacy of a human right?
     • Different sets of rights conflicting (Farrell, 2000; Gallagher, 2001)
     • Hegarty (1993): difficult to justify segregation if it is no better than inclusion
   • Odom et al (2004): range of positive developmental and behavioural outcomes identified for children in inclusive settings, but SEN children not as socially integrated as their typically developing peers (3-5yo from 1990-2002)
   • Lindsay (2007): marginally positive overall, but problems with very little efficacy research in the literature.
   • Poor social inclusion
     • Gresham + Miller (1997): compared with mainstream classmates, SEN children poorly accepted, more often rejected, lower levels of social skills and higher levels of problem behaviours. Mix of higher/lower self-concepts (due to setting? Higher in segregated classroom than in mainstream classroom?)
     • Kosher et al (2010): comapred with students without SEN, students with SEN appeared less well accepted and had more interactions with the teacher. But self-perception of both groups was not significantly different, with no effect of category of disability.
     • Nowicki + Sandieson (2002): abled children preferred to physically and intellectually disabled children. Inclusive classrooms had medium-sized effect on facilitating positive attitudes.

2. For the Classmates of Children with SEN (as a group, not individuals)

   • Dyson et al (2004): no evidence for a relationship between inclusivity and attainment at local authority or school level. Other factors (SES, gender...) were much more significant.
   • Kalambouka et al (2005): 23% positive, 53% neutral, 10% mixed, 15% negative. Outcomes more positive on academic than on social factors.
   • Staub and Peck (1994): no negative effects. Children did not 'pick up' undesirable behaviour, teacher time was not reduced.
   • Ruijs and Peetsma (2009): Neutral to positive effects. May be some differential effects for high and low achieving pupils without SEN. Congruent with other findings on social factors.
   • Manset and Semmel (1997): positive effect

3. Teacher Attitudes

   • Robertson et al (2003): the more negative a teacher's relationship with a child with SEN, the less likely that child is to be socially accepted
   • De Boer et al (2011): review of 26 international studies of primary school teachers' attitudes. Majority neutral or negative, none with clear positive results.
     • Teachers reported lacking competance/confidence teaching children with SEN
     • Less overall teaching experience OR more experience teaching children with SEN = more positive attitudes towards inclusion
     • Most negative for learning/behavioural difficulties, more positive for physical/sensory
   • Killoran et al (2013): positive change in attitudes as a result of a pre-service inclusive education course