Professor Rombach
May 3, 2005
Abstract
Providing an equitable and
harmonious classroom for all students, regardless of disability or need, is an
important issue in schools today.
Educators have the significant responsibility of teaching these students
in the classroom together. This
literature review points out ways in which teachers can educate themselves on
inclusion, as well as suggests techniques and practices they can utilize for
the successful implementation of an inclusive classroom environment for their
students.
The Impact of Inclusive
Education Practices for All Students
Inclusion is one of the most
important educational issues that teachers will face in their classrooms
today. “Over the last 2 decades,
inclusion has become a critical part of the reform effort to improve the
delivery of services to students with disabilities by focusing on the placement
of these students in the general education setting” (Praisner, 2003,
p.135). By definition, inclusion,
“…represents a commitment to creating schools and classrooms in which all
children, regardless of individual educational needs or disabilities, are
educated together” (Sapon-Shevin, 1999, p.63).
Within an inclusive classroom setting, the opportunity for
discrimination and prejudice is high.
Teachers may indirectly exude an atmosphere of inequity simply because
they believe that certain students should have more of an opportunity to learn
than other students. These
predispositions can arise from teachers’ attitudes, feelings, perspectives, or
even experiences on dealing with inclusion in the classroom. However, they also can arise when teachers
have not had any exposure to inclusive practices and are simply averse to
change. What inclusion should
ultimately strive to achieve is the accommodation of all students in a classroom,
both with and without “disabilities.”
Instead of teachers ignoring the abundance of differences in their
classrooms, i.e., class, race, ethnicity, language, etc., they should embrace
them and work to create a classroom community that values and honors those
differences. In this way, students will
feel a sense of connection and bond with both their teachers and fellow
classmates. My purpose for the review
of educational research for this paper was to determine the positive and
negative affects of inclusion in a more in-depth and comprehensive manner. The objective of this paper is to determine
how inclusive education practices impact all students in inclusive
classrooms.
There were five articles
that were examined for this small-scale literature review. All articles shared the same topic of
inclusion. However, there were two
distinct themes that emerged from the articles’ findings. The first theme dealt with the positive and
negative attitudes and perceptions that educators hold toward inclusion. The second theme dealt with the social
aspects of inclusion and whether or not an inclusive classroom setting can
positively impact the social functioning of students with disabilities. The five articles were sorted between these
two themes and the comparison and connection between the articles were analyzed
and explained.
Educators’ Attitudes and
Predispositions about Inclusion
The following theme emerged
after reviewing the findings of three of the articles in this review: educators appear to have a disparity of
attitudes and perspectives about inclusive practices in the classroom. Shade & Stewart (2001) illustrated that
the completion of an introductory course to Special Education can vastly improve
the attitudes of general education and special education preservice teachers
toward inclusion. Shade & Stewart
(2001) reported that only 40 states require a Special Education course on
exceptionalities for all general education preservice teachers. Furthermore, “…of [these researchers’] national
survey respondents, only 33.5% reported that field experience was required in
addition, and only 19.8% reported that a second course was required” (Shade
& Stewart, 2001, p.38). These
percentages equate to an extremely small amount of mandatory preparation for,
and exposure to, Special Education before preservice teachers enter the
classroom. This lack of exposure can be
correlated as a direct cause of preservice teachers’ feelings of anxiety,
frustration, or inadequacy toward teaching children with disabilities. Furthermore, it has been, “…documented that
teachers desire training prior to receiving students with disabilities in their
classrooms” (Shade & Stewart, 2001, p.38).
Therefore, it is understandable that by taking a course that introduces
the concepts and procedures of Special Education in the classroom, preservice
teachers’ attitudes could positively change.
Therefore, this study’s results are extremely important for assuaging
the negative feelings that preservice teachers hold toward inclusive
practices. Additionally, the results of
this study are also important, “…in light of the fact 10 states still do not
require a course in special education, even though more than 80% of students
with mild disabilities receive their public school instruction in the general
education classroom” (Shade & Stewart, 2001, p.39). Clearly, the success of implementing
inclusive educational practices in the classroom lies heavily with teachers’
attitudes. However, by exposing
preservice teachers to a course that describes and teaches the facets of
Special Education, their negative preconceptions about inclusion can be
dispelled and appeased.
Findings
from Praisner (2003) parallel Shade & Stewart (2001) in the sense that the
more experience and training educators had with inclusive practices, the more
positive their attitudes were toward inclusion. Praisner (2003) studied the attitudes of elementary school
principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in the
classroom. She developed a Principals
and Inclusion Survey (PIS) that, “…was designed to determine the extent to
which variables such as training, experience, and program factors were related
to principals’ attitudes” (Praisner, 2003, p.136). Although the majority of respondents (76.6%) scored within an
uncertain range on the survey, i.e., not strongly positive or negative about
inclusion; she found that a significant positive correlation existed between
principals’ experience with inclusion and their attitudes towards it. That is, the more positive principals’
overall experiences were with children with disabilities, as well as the more
inservice and special education training hours they had completed, directly
correlated to heightened positive attitudes toward inclusion. Additionally, Praisner (2003) found
significant positive relationships between principals’ attitudes and
experiences toward inclusion and the level of restriction that children with
disabilities would be placed in. That
is, principals with positive attitudes toward inclusion would choose to place
students with disabilities in more inclusive placements with less restrictive
settings. Clearly, the attitudes and
predispositions that principals have toward inclusion can directly and severely
impact the placement of students with disabilities.
As
the leader in the school, the principal directly influences resource
allocations, staffing, structures, information flows, and operating processes
that determine what shall and shall not be done by the organization. Due to their leadership position,
principals’ attitudes about inclusion could result in either increased
opportunities for students to be served in general education or in limited
efforts to reduce the segregated nature of special education services. Therefore for inclusion to be successful,
first and foremost, the school administrator must display a positive attitude
and commitment to inclusion. (Praisner,
2003, p.136).
The results of this study are extremely
important for revealing the effects that principals’ attitudes can have on the
successful inclusion of students with disabilities in the classroom. Inclusion should be included as mandatory
curriculum in preparation and inservice training for principals. Additionally, when school districts hire
and/or evaluate principals, that principal’s attitudes and beliefs toward
inclusion should weigh heavily in the districts’ decision-making process. “As shown in this study, exposure to special
education concepts through special education credits and inservice training were
related to a more positive attitude toward inclusion” (Praisner, 2003,
p.141). This statement directly
connects with Shade & Stewart’s (2001) findings on educators’ attitudes
toward inclusion in the sense that providing educators with training and information
on inclusion can lead to positive attitudes on the subject.
McLeskey,
Waldron, So, Swanson & Loveland (2001) compares to Shade & Stewart
(2001) and Praisner (2003) in the sense that the perspectives of educators who
were teaching in an inclusive classroom environment, “…had significantly more
positive perspectives regarding inclusion than did the teachers who were not
employed in inclusive programs” (McLeskey, Waldron, So, Swanson, &
Loveland, 2001, p.108). McLeskey et al.
(2001) utilized the Inclusive School Program (ISP) Survey to investigate and
compare the perspectives of teachers who were currently teaching in an
inclusive classroom environment (the inclusion group) with teachers who were
not (the non-inclusion group). The
survey included 30 survey items that addressed, “…the major issues from the
[Regular Education Initiative Teacher Survey (REITS)] related to teacher
perspectives on inclusion of students with mild disabilities” (McLeskey et al.,
2001, p.111). Of these 30 items, the
two groups of teachers significantly disagreed on 12 items. Some of these differences related to
non-inclusion teachers feeling that their schools were not ready, or lacked the
resources, for the successful implementation of an inclusive school
program. Additionally, the
non-inclusion group held pessimistic views about team-teaching with special
education teachers, the benefits that students would receive in an inclusive
classroom atmosphere, as well as the role special education teachers would play
in providing support for all students in a general education classroom. Also, the non-inclusion group considerably
differed from the inclusion group when asked about whether they felt students’
parents would be supportive of inclusion; teachers from the inclusion group
were twice as likely to feel parents would be supportive. Clearly, the non-inclusion group possessed
significantly higher levels of negativity and cynicism toward inclusion. When analyzing these teachers’ negative
responses, “…it is important to note that much of this research has been
conducted with teachers who were not currently teaching in inclusive programs”
(McLeskey et al., 2001, p.108).
Therefore, it is fair to conclude that these negative responses could
have been influenced, in part, by either the teachers’ lack of experience with
inclusion, or their resistance to change in their classroom or school
setting. It is evident that teachers
who have not been exposed to inclusion hold deep concerns about its successful
implementation, as well as an understandable caution regarding change. However, this should not be construed to
mean that these educators are averse to inclusive practices in the
classroom.
To
further support this point, it is noteworthy that the non-inclusion and
inclusion groups did not differ significantly on item #27 of the ISP Survey,
which addressed whether students with disabilities have a basic right to
receive their education in the general education classroom. Only 20 percent of the non-inclusion group
and 10 percent of the inclusion group disagreed with this statement. This reflects very strong support on the
part of both groups for the concept of inclusion. (McLeskey et al., 2001, p.114).
The results of this study reveal an important
viewpoint of teachers who have had little experience with inclusion. For these teachers, exposure to, and
experience with, inclusion is a key factor that can aim to promote supportive
and positive perspectives and attitudes toward inclusive classroom
practices. This study’s findings directly
correlate with the Prasiner (2003) article in the sense that educators’ lack of
experience with inclusion can have an adverse affect on their attitudes and
predispositions on the subject.
Through
the analysis of the three aforementioned studies, it can clearly be seen that
educators’ attitudes toward inclusion is directly correlated with their
experience and exposure of the subject.
By providing educators with informative and educational venues to learn
about inclusion, i.e., through an introductory course, inservice training, or
an introduction to inclusive experiences, educators can develop positive and
optimistic attitudes toward inclusion, while at the same time, becoming
advocates of its implementation. The
similarities in the findings of these three studies may suggest that not
providing these educational venues for educators could result in the detriment
of educational quality bestowed upon children with disabilities. In each study, participants held negative
and cynical attitudes and perspectives about inclusion; some without ever even
dealing with it in the classroom. By
providing teachers with the empowerment to embrace inclusion for themselves
through knowledge and experience, students with disabilities will experience a
positive and significant impact. The
alternative is unfortunately distressing to imagine.
Social Development of
Students with Disabilities
The following theme emerged
after reviewing the findings of the two remaining articles in this review: it is not enough to improve the social
functioning of students with disabilities by merely integrating them in a
general education classroom; additional supports must be put into place to
advance their social acceptance. Doré,
Dion, Wagner, & Brunet (2002) illustrated that although there was a slight
increase in social interaction of students with mental retardation (MR) and
their regular-class peers due to inclusion, the overall social integration was
unsatisfactory. The reduction of marginality
is one of the major objectives of high school inclusion. Certainly, the liberalism on the part of
general education students to embrace and befriend students with disabilities
is an influential factor for the successful social integration of these students
into the general education classroom.
However, marginality is a sensitive topic that most high schools
students feel hesitant interacting and dealing with. In a questionnaire study given to high school students, which was
stated in this article, most, “…adopted a moral point of view, stating that
they felt it was their duty to make an effort to become friends with
adolescents with MR so that their social isolation might be reduced” (Doré et
al., 2002, p.254). The findings of this
study parallel others, which showed that, “…interactions between students with
MR and their classmates are often brief and superficial, frequently amounting
to no more than a simple ‘hello’” (Doré et al., 2002, p.259). Many different variables could have played a
role in this study’s findings, including the fact that both girls were
transferred in the middle of the school year, which would make social
integration challenging for any student to achieve. Additionally, Doré et al. (2002) found that inclusion alone may
not be adequate in producing successful social integration; they suggested
implementing, “…[c]omplementary strategies…such as circle of friends or social
skills training” (Doré et al., 2002, p.259).
Furthermore, the authors concluded that in order to reduce the risk that
integrated students attain social isolation, it is imperative to ensure that
students with disabilities have the opportunity to interact with a multitude of
different people following their inclusion, including other students with
MR. The findings of this study are
important for understanding that inclusion itself is not enough to positively
impact the social development of students with disabilities. Educators need to not only find
complementary measures that will serve to enhance and develop the social skills
of these students, but also at the same time, expose them to a variety of
people that will strive to extend and augment their social acceptance and
belonging amongst their peers.
Findings
from Doré et al. (2002) mirrored findings from Pavri & Luftig (2000) in the
sense that they suggested that, “…merely placing students with disabilities in
inclusive classrooms is not sufficient to allow for their social inclusion and
that other supports need to be in place to facilitate their acceptance and
belonging in the peer group” (Pavri & Luftig, 2000, p.12). The authors investigated the perceived
loneliness, social competence, and social status of sixth-grade students with
learning disabilities in an inclusive classroom setting. They hypothesized that by placing these
students in an inclusive setting, their social functioning would be positively
affected. Unfortunately, there were no
differences found.
In
the present study, it appears that the loneliness of the students with learning
disabilities was realistic and related to their diminished social status. The findings suggest that the students with
learning disabilities were less likely to be popular than their peers without
disabilities and thus less likely to be nominated for social activities by
peers. (Pavri & Luftig, 2000, p.12).
These findings are important because they
suggest that students with disabilities that are placed in inclusive classrooms
can still feel unaccepted and lonely by their peers. Pavri & Luftig (2000) recommend that in addition to an
inclusive classroom setting, there also needs to be different types of support
in place for these students that can both facilitate and work to develop their
social skills. One such type is teacher
support. “There is a clear need for
teacher preparation programs to address the social acceptance of students with
disabilities in the general education classroom and to provide teachers with
strategies needed to facilitate the social functioning of all their students”
(Pavri & Luftig, 2000, p.13).
Additionally, the authors stated that providing deliberate and dynamic
coaching for these students would help them learn the social behaviors that
lead to acceptance. These findings are
directly correlated with Doré et al.’s (2002) findings in the sense that an
inclusive classroom setting by itself does not appear to be sufficient enough
to advance the social development of students with disabilities.
Through
the analysis of these two articles on the social development of students with
disabilities, it can clearly be seen that the implementation of additional
types of measures and support is both vital and necessary for the successful
advancement of students’ social development.
Educators need to be cognizant of the fact that students with disabilities
may often possess delays in their social development, which parallel the delays
in their academic achievement. Often
these delays, coupled with more aggressive and negative verbal and nonverbal
behaviors may, “…result in students with disabilities having fewer friends than
their peers without disabilities as well as their being actively rejected by
peers” (Pavri & Luftig, 2000, p.8).
This rejection may cause students to feel ignored and less esteemed,
which can further lead to isolation and disconnection from their peers. Therefore, it is crucial that educators are
aware of the many outlets available for increasing students’ feelings of social
competence, i.e., social skills training, teacher support, or coaching. Implementing and instilling these different
types of support, along with the utilization of an inclusive classroom
environment, would successfully attain the advancement of social development of
students with disabilities.
The findings from the five articles in this literature review expressed two clear points. The first point is that the attitudes and predispositions that educators possess about inclusion can have a direct and severe impact on the quality of education bestowed upon students. The second point is that an inclusive classroom setting by itself is not enough to successfully evolve the social development of students with disabilities; other support systems must be in place to aid in this progression. The goal of this paper was to determine different inclusive education practices and examine how they impact all students in inclusive classrooms. Findings from the studies examined aided greatly in pursuing this objective. It is crucial that educators are mindful of their attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and even thoughts about inclusion so that they are able to self-examine themselves and strive to teach all students equitably; not doing so could result in the gross neglect of educational value bequeathed to students. Additionally, the social skills that students possess are the foundation for their ability to connect and build relationships with their peers. These skills, or lack there of, can have a severe affect on students’ feelings of happiness, confidence and self-esteem. Educators need to be aware of the many support systems available that will strive to improve these skills for students with disabilities. This is vital for their augmented social development.
Doré,
R., Dion, É., Wagner, S., & Brunet, J.P. (2002). High school inclusion of
adolescents with mental retardation: A multiple case study. Education and
Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37 (3), 253-61.
McLeskey,
J., Waldron, N., So, T., Swanson, K., & Loveland, T. (2001). Perspectives
of teachers toward inclusive school programs. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 24 (2), 108-115.
Pavri,
S., & Luftig, R. (2000). The social face of inclusive education: Are
students with learning disabilities really included in the classroom? Preventing
School Failure, 45 (1), 8-14.
Praisner,
C. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward inclusion of
students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69 (2), 135-45.
Sapon-Shevin,
M. (1999). Because we can change the world:
A practical guide to building cooperative, inclusive classroom communities.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Shade,
R., & Stewart, R. (2001). General education and special education
preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure,
46 (1), 37-41.