Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

Inviting inclusive education: Affective considerations

Kenneth A. Pudlas
Trinity Western University
Langley, BC
Canada
pudlas@twu.ca

               The prevailing method of delivering special education services in Canada (Edmunds, 2003) is through a model known as Full Inclusion.   This latest iteration of special education is predicated on the ideology of normalization, first proposed by Wolfensberger (1972).   The purpose of this paper is to describe research which explores inclusion from the perspective of primary participants: students and teachers.

              Specifically, one of the goals of the full inclusion model is that all students come to view themselves as valued and fully participating members of the school community (Pudlas, 2003; Dei, James, Karumanchery, James-Wilson, & Zine, 2000; Stainback, S., Stainback, W., East, & Sapon-Shevin, 1994). Further, in Canada, where provincial governments have jurisdiction over education, the British Columbia Ministry of Education (1995, 1999) sets as a desired learning outcome that all students should have a positive and healthy self-esteem.   Concomitantly educators are urged to provide a climate which invites school success (Purkey & Novak, 1996). These factors combine in what is certainly a laudable ideology: successful, valued, and included members of a school community with positive self-concepts.   Without adequate research though, inclusion may remain simply that, an ideology rather than a reality.   This paper presents results from an ongoing programme of research into the efficacy of the full inclusion model (see for example: Pudlas, 2001, 2003, 2004). In the educational enterprise, the three primary stakeholders are students, teachers, and parents.   To date the research reported here has investigated the perceptions of students and teachers regarding their experience of full inclusion.

Assessing the Efficacy of the Full Inclusion Model

            Inclusion at its basic level is predicated on the belief that all persons should be fully functioning members of the community – regardless of their ability or lack thereof. Community speaks to the idea of holding things in common, and exists when people are welcomed not shunned.   Thus community involves much more than mere physical proximity; it requires a sense of belonging, of common ownership, and of commitment to commonly held values or mores.   In the school context the two primary parties involved in building and experiencing community are students and their teachers.   The former, both those with and without identified special needs, are to experience a positive self-concept as one of the desired learning outcomes (BC Ministry of Education, 1999).   The latter, by virtue of their role as models, can profoundly influence not only the classroom community, but also the attitudes of students without special needs toward their peers who have special needs.   This is supported by the literature on social learning theory, as first espoused by Bandura (1986), and among other factors comes from the modeling of significant others.

            Students ’ perceptions of the degree to which community is happening, that is the degree to which they are included, can be sampled by their perception of how well they are accepted by their peers. To obtain such measures the research reported herein utilized the Self Description Questionnaire (Marsh, 1988).   This survey instrument recognizes the multi-faceted model of self-concept espoused by Shavelson (Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976).   Shavelson’s model proposes that both academic and non-academic factors contribute to student’s overall self-concept.   The SDQ presents statements to which students respond on a numeric scale indicating how representative that statement is of their experience. Students respond to statements such as, "Other students choose me as their friend".   Their responses are scored on a scale ranging from 1-5 for the SDQ I (for younger children) and from 1-6 for the SDQ II, and the higher the score, the more positive their self-concept on that particular facet, in this instance, peer self-concept.

            Teachers ’ perceptions of the FI model are tied to their sense of professional efficacy. That, in turn, influences their ability to provide inviting and inclusive educational communities, since teachers may be less inviting toward those students perceived to be a threat to their professional efficacy.   An instrument to assess teachers’ perceptions of the full inclusion model, the Educator Opinion Questionnaire, has been developed by Bunch (1993).   The EOQ has a total of seventy items (statements) to which teachers are asked to respond.   These statements pertain to ten different facets:

            Teacher self-confidence;

            Adequacy of teacher preparation;

            Teacher responsibility;

            Effect of full inclusion on included students;

            Effect of full inclusion on regular students;

            Educational soundness of full inclusion;         

            Effects of full inclusion on regular classroom teachers;

            Professional relationships;   

            Administrator support;

            Appropriateness of teacher workload.

Teachers respond to statements such as, "Regular class teachers possess the expertise necessary to work successfully with challenging needs students".   Their responses are scored on a six point scale ranging from agree strongly (1) to disagree strongly (6). The EOQ is constructed such that a higher score indicates a more negative attitude toward that facet, and a higher overall score would indicate a more negative perception of the full inclusion model. Results of this phase of the research are presented and discussed later in this paper.  

Enhancing the Efficacy of the Inclusion Experience

            Students. According to the results of this research, that will subsequently be presented, students with special learning needs do not perceive themselves as being accepted by their peers. Whether this is an accurate perception or not is moot.   If in fact students with challenging educational needs are not well accepted, a partial cause and effect explanation may be attributed to the fact that they have poor social skills.   The literature indicates that students who have learning disabilities, for example, tend to do poorly in reading social cues, and so poor peer relationships may be the result.   Friendship and interaction are recognized as important in the normal development of children. The literature indicates that without the positive influence of support programs, children with disabilities are often left out and lonely in inclusive classrooms (Pavri & Monda-Amaya, 2000).  A recently completed feasibility study (Schoyen, 2004) assessed the effects of a social skills training programme.   The study assessed the influence of social competence training in the inclusive classroom and was intended to increase the friendship-related social skills of children with special needs so that they could gain the benefits of friendship. The research was based on the hypothesis that social skills training for children with special needs will increase the demonstrated amount of social skills and produce a greater ability to form and maintain friendships in the classroom.   Results of the study are presented in aggregate form in the research results section that follows.

            Teachers play a significant role in establishing the timbre of their classroom community.   Social learning theory would suggest that they act as models for their students, and consequently if they harbour negative attitudes toward inclusion, and by association toward the students with special needs, other students in the class may well learn to be negative as well.   Further, Andrews and Lupart (2000) proposed a paradigm which indicates how educators’ characteristics and enabling conditions work together to affect the success of the inclusive environment.   Results of the research programme indicated that NIMBY-ism (“not in my back yard” – prevalent when persons with mental retardation were first de-institutionalized) is alive and well. That is, teachers were in favour of inclusion, but perceived that their professional efficacy was put at risk.   This led to another phase of research since if teachers approach inclusion with a fearful or otherwise negative attitude they are quite possibly less likely to be inviting to students with special learning needs.   This latter phase of the research (currently underway) is examining the degree to which pre-service teacher candidates’ attitudes toward full inclusion can be enhanced through education. Fear often is the result of encounters with the unknown, and so the rationale for this phase of the research was that upon entering the profession, beginning teachers would be less likely to be fearful of encountering students with special needs if, as part of their professional preparation, they had some prior knowledge and an understanding of how they could partner with other professionals in order effectively include all students in their classrooms.  Preliminary results of this latter phase were presented at the Canadian Society for Studies in Education Conference (Pudlas, 2004) and will be discussed subsequently.

Results: Perceptions of the Inclusion Experience

            Students.   Summarized in Table 1 are the results of student peer self-concept scores.   The results indicate that students with identified special needs scored significantly lower than did their peers who did not have special learning needs.   That is, their perception was that they were not accepted by their peers. Thus for the subjects of this study at least, the goal of full inclusion, having all students as fully participating members of the community, was not met.

Table 1

Peer Self-Concept Subscale Scores

            Teachers.   Table 2 reports the mean score on each of the facets of the EOQ and the total score as obtained by pre-professional teachers prior to commencement of a course on special education.  

Table 2

Pre and Post Instruction EOQ Scores

 Also noted are the scores on the same instrument obtained by a group of teachers who were already in the profession and had teaching experience.   The results indicate that the overall level of negativity toward the full inclusion model is higher for the pre-professional group. Also noteworthy is that the scores vary between the different facets, indicating that there are particular areas that are perceived to be more problematic. Further details of these studies are reported by Pudlas (2003, 2004) and the results are discussed below.

Results: Enhancing the Inclusion Experience

            Students.   The elementary school students involved in the feasibility study indicated an increase in measures of social competence.   These results are summarized in Table 3. There is some indication from the results of this study that the addition of a social skills component to the curriculum does in fact lead to higher social competence.

Table 3

Means and Standard Deviations for Social Skills, Peer Nominations, and Friendships

                                                         Time 1                                    Time 2

                                                M                     SD                    M                      SD

Social skills*                             33.8                  11.0                  37.6                   8.1

Peer nominations                      5.5                    1.6                    6.3                    2.0

Friendships                              10.5                  4.0                    12.0                   3.6

Further, while the results of this modest pilot study did not prove statistically significant, the scores for measures of friendship and for peer nominations also showed a positive trend.  

            Teachers.   As noted previously, the EOQ scores are summarized in Table 2.   Examination of the total score indicates that there was a statistically significant lowering in the overall negative perceptions of the full inclusion model subsequent to a course on special education. Also noteworthy, scores on specific and important facets related to perceptions of full inclusion were improved.   For example, pre-service teachers’ post-course scores indicated a higher level of confidence in their ability to meet the needs of exceptional students.   This would be one indication that they will enter the profession with a more positive attitude and therefore be more likely to establish an inviting classroom ethos and an inclusive community.   Lest we become overly optimistic, the scores of students on facet six, the educational soundness of FI did not measure up to their professional counterparts, indicating that they were perhaps not fully convinced.   This may not be a bad thing, however, if it means that the next generation of teachers entering the field may be more prone to critically examine the soundness of some of the educational policies and procedures extant.

Summary and Conclusions

            This paper has presented a synopsis of a multifaceted programme of research into the efficacy of the full inclusion model.   Results of the research to date would indicate that, if one of the key goals of full inclusion is that all students - those with special educational needs included - are to be fully accepted and valued members of the community, full inclusion is a failure; at least insofar as the subjects of the research reported here are concerned.   These results would seem to indicate that if the goals of inclusion are to be met in terms of enhanced social acceptance, a promising addition to the educational experience should involve some kind of purposeful social skills training for all students.   It seems that despite the obvious fallacy of such an assumption, merely placing students in the same physical space does not ensure that they develop the kind of community that is at the heart of the ideology of inclusion.   In addition to changes in preparation of students, there may also be reason for optimism if educational decision makers are willing to re-examine and retool the model of educational service delivery to include adequate preparation for teachers in addition to purposeful and focused social skills training for students.

            As with all social research, further study is required.   It would be valuable to survey teachers on a much broader level and also to do post-graduation follow-up of those students who seemed to indicate a level of optimism after a course in special education.   A question to be asked is, “Does professional experience bear out that optimism or does the reality of the classroom experience quash teachers’ enthusiasm”?.   Further study on a larger scale is also warranted on the long-term effects of social skills training.   There needs to be a cost-benefit analysis of whether the investment in such programmes leads to a significantly more positive and more inclusive experience for all students.  

In any case, an unexamined ideology may be mere dogma, and so it is imperative that educators continue to examine the efficacy of various approaches to providing for the needs of their students.   What story will their students tell; how might we work together to ensure that their stories have happier endings?

References

Andrews, J. & Lupart, J. (2000). The inclusive classroom: Educating exceptional children. Scarborough, ON: Nelson: Thompson Learning.

Bandura, A. (1986).   Social foundations of thought and action:   A social cognitive theory.   Englewood Cliffs, NJ:   Prentice Hall.

British Columbia Ministry of Education (1995, 1999). Special education services: A manual of policies procedures and guidelines.   Victoria, B.C.

Bunch, G. (1993).   Educator opinion questionnaire.   ON: Inclusion Press.

Dei, G.J.S., James, M.I., Karumanchery, L.L., James-Wilson, S., & Zine, J. (2000).   Removing the margins: The challenges and possibilities of inclusive schooling.   Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars Press Inc.

Edmunds, A. L. (2003). Preparing Canadian teachers for inclusion Exceptionality Education Canada, 13(1), 5-6.

Marsh, H. (1988).   Self Description Questionnaire: A theoretical and empirical basis for the measurement of multiple dimensions of preadolescent self-concept: A test manual and a research monograph.   San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Pajares, M.   (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.   Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

Pavri, S. & Monda-Amaya, L. (2000). Loneliness and students with learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms:   Self-perceptions, coping strategies, and preferred interventions. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 22-34.

Pudlas, K.A. (2004, June). Inclusive attitude - Inclusive action: Does education make a difference ?   Paper presented to Canadian Association for Educational Psychology at Canadian Society for Studies in Education Annual General Meeting, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Pudlas, K.A. (2003). Inclusive educational practice: Perceptions of students and teachers. Exceptionality Education Canada, 13(1), 49-64.

Pudlas, K. A. (2001).   Educational provisions for children with exceptional needs in British Columbia. Exceptionality Education Canada, 11(2 & 3), 33-54.

Purkey, W. & Novak, J.   (1996).   Inviting school success: A self-concept approach to teaching learning, and democratic process (3 rd edition). Toronto, ON: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Schoyen, K. (2004). The impact of social skills training on the friendships of children with special needs: A model to better inclusion.   Unpublished MA Thesis, Trinity Western University, Langley, BC.

Shavelson, R., Hubner, J., & Stanton, G. (1976).   Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations.  Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441.

Stainback, S., Stainback, W., East, K., & Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994).   A commentary on inclusion and the development of a positive self-identity by people with disabilities.   Exceptional Children, 60(6), 486-490

Wolfensberger, W. (1972).   Normalization: The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto: Leonard Crainford.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact