Running head: EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
Effects of Inclusion on the Social-Emotional Development
of Young Children with Special Needs
Sarah Galvan, Lisa Jenne, Serina Lemus
Donna Morgan, Teresa Perez
California State University, San Bernardino
1
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
2
Abstract
Inclusion of special education students in general education classrooms is one way of improving
social and academic outcomes for all students. Although the results of inclusion can be positive
it is not always met in a positive way by both professionals and parents of special education
preschool students. This paper discusses the outcomes associated with social-emotional
development in students with special needs. A Likert-Scale Survey was conducted to ask the
question Do children who display deficits in social/emotional development benefit from an
inclusive classroom setting?
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
3
Effects of Inclusion on Social-Emotional Development of Young Children with Special Needs
Introduction
General Statement of the Problem
Few issues in education generate more discussion, confusion, or apprehension than the
topic of inclusion. It is an issue that has outspoken advocates on all sides, whether for, against, or
somewhere in between. For many, the concept of inclusion is unclear. What does inclusion
actually mean? What does it look like? What are the benefits of inclusion? What are the
concerns? The purpose of this study was to determine if pre-school students who display deficits
in their social-emotional development benefit from participating in an inclusion program. A
Likert Scale survey and interview questions were designed and distributed to teachers,
instructional assistants, administrators, and specialists. The questions were intended to solicit
information regarding observed changes in preschool students who had participated in an
inclusion program as well as how teachers and other staff member viewed inclusion.
Review of Literature
Research reviewed for this project was both quantitative as well as qualitative. The
quantitative research focused on topics such as teacher perceptions of mainstreaming, inclusion
practices within the classroom, and the social-emotional functioning of young children with
learning disabilities. Qualitative research focused on understanding pre-service training for
general education teachers, the development of a mutual understanding of inclusion by parents
and professionals, teacher’s attitudes toward inclusion, and the social construction of young
children who are enrolled in multiple special education programs.
Wiener & Tardif (2004) conducted a study which addressed whether special education
placement made a difference in the social and emotional functioning of children with learning
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
disabilities. The purpose of this study was to compare children with learning disabilities in terms
of social acceptance, number of friends, quality of friendships, self-concept, loneliness,
depression, social skills, and problem behaviors in four types of special education settings. The
results showed that children in more inclusive placements had more positive social and
emotional functioning. Additionally, children who received in-class support were more accepted
by their peers and had fewer problem behaviors than those who received resource room support.
The results also indicated that children in inclusion classes had fewer behaviors than children in
self-contained special education classrooms.
The article, Seeing Eye-to Eye: Are Parents and Professionals in Agreement about the
Benefits of Preschool Inclusion? examined the differences between teaching
professionals/schools support staff and parents regarding the benefits and concerns of inclusion.
The research questions that guided the study were: (1) What are the hopes and concerns of
teaching professionals/school staff as one group of stakeholders and parents as another regarding
inclusion? (2) Do these hopes and concerns change over time? (3) Are there differences between
the hopes and concerns of teaching professionals/staff and parents? Results suggested that at the
broadest category levels both early childhood professionals and parents of children with and
without disabilities agree about the benefits and concerns related to inclusion and little shift was
noted from the beginning to the end of the study. Differences emerged at the subcategory levels,
especially regarding the future of inclusion. Both parents and teaching professionals/staff
demonstrated initial concern and apprehensions regarding the appropriateness and methodology
of inclusion, as well as a preliminary comfort with, and appreciation for, the value of an
inclusionary program. There was also some concern about general education preschool teachers’
4
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
preparation to meet the needs of children with disabilities. It was found that as the severity of the
disability increased, the teachers’ levels of comfort decreased.
Another study examined the current conditions of inclusive programs in New York to
identify what was needed to improve such programs. The study was designed to investigate
advantages and disadvantages of small group instruction, co-teaching, one to one instruction, and
personnel support. The study also considered teacher qualifications and professional
development experiences in an inclusive environment. Additionally, information regarding
general forms of assistance including consultation with special education teachers, teacher
assistants, and classroom volunteers were recorded. Researchers of this study found that coteaching, which is seen as the most reflective of inclusion principles, was the least utilized. Small
group instruction, one to one support, and planning primarily involved the special education
teacher rather then it being a collaborative effort. Teachers who worked with larger groups of
students were reported to embrace a co-teaching style of inclusion, while small group was the
dominant form of support reported in smaller groups of students. One to one support, which was
seen as the least inclusive, was the most prevalent type of support administered in inclusion
classrooms.
A study conducted in 2006 focused on the perceptions of undergraduate elementary
education majors and undergraduate secondary education majors toward inclusion, how they felt
about teaching students with exceptionalities, and how prepared they felt to teach special
education students in a general education setting. For the purpose of this study McCray &
Alvarez McHatton defined inclusion as a student with disabilities who received some or all of
their instruction in a general education setting. The study was conducted at a large urban research
university located in the Southeastern United States. Both groups were enrolled in a course on
5
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
the integration of exceptional students within general education settings. The college students
who participated in the study were visited by the researchers at the beginning and the end of the
course with the approval of the course instructor. The results of the study showed that
participants had a favorable view of inclusion, and developed a greater awareness and affection
for the need of inclusion by the end of the course. A smaller number felt better prepared to
address the needs of students with disabilities. The authors of this study raised concerns in
several areas. First, if teachers did not find supportive attitudes toward inclusion in their places
of employment, would their own positive perceptions and attitudes begin to wane? Second, if
the districts in which the new teachers were placed did not include a supportive environment for
inclusion, were the teachers less likely to gain additional skills and supports necessary to
effectively teach students with exceptional needs?
A similar study sought to examine and gain insights into teachers’ attitudes toward
inclusive practices as reflected in their behavior in the classroom. The researchers focused on
two areas of observation: (1) What are the factors that influence teachers’ attitudes toward
inclusion? and (2) How are teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion reflected in their behavior in the
classroom? This study utilized open-ended interviews, observations with follow-up interviews,
and observer field notes that were analyzed using content analysis with emergent themes from
different data sources. The findings revealed that teachers had a more positive attitude toward
inclusion when programs provided training and knowledge about children with disabilities and
hands-on activities for working with students with disabilities, support personnel in the
classroom, and administrative support. The type of coursework and direct experiences with
children who have disabilities were also important in forming positive attitudes toward inclusion.
6
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
Stanton-Chapman & Snell conducted a study to evaluate turn-taking skills of
preschoolers with disabilities who participated in a social communication intervention that
targeted skills such as initiations, responses, proximity, and turn-taking. The purpose of the study
was to build on the work of Craig-Unkefer and Kaiser (2002, 2003) by conducting a series of
single-case intervention studies that evaluated the efficacy of shared-storybook reading on
children’s positive peer interactions and verbal play during theme-based activities. In each of
these studies, children were taught four communication skills (i.e. initiating, responding, name
use, turn taking) using an intervention approach that included an advanced play organizer
component (teaching target vocabulary words, assigning children play roles, reading the
storybook, play planning), structured play sessions with a dramatic theme, and engagement of
the children in a brief session to review their performance. This study pursued three research
aims. The first aim was to explore the effects of the social communication intervention on
children’s’ initiating play/conversation with a peer and with their appropriate responding to a
peer’s initiations for an interaction. It was expected that the intervention would produce an
increase in frequency of initiation and responses from the initial baseline to the time of the
intervention’s conclusion. The second aim was to explore the turn-taking skills of participants
following the social communication intervention. The intervention included direct instruction on
turn-taking, so an increase in the frequency of the turn-taking was expected. The third aim was to
explore whether the effects of the social communication intervention program generalized to
other settings. The expectation for this aim was that children would be able to apply their newly
learned skills to both classroom and playground settings. The results of the study showed that the
percentage of non-overlapping data (PND; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994) was calculated to
determine the intervention’s effectiveness. With regards to initiation/responses, the PND
7
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
revealed that the intervention was mildly effective for two children, moderately effective for four
children, and highly effective for four children. The author concluded that her findings were
consistent with other similar studies.
Nind, Flewitt & Payler (2011) conducted a study focusing on the social constructs
surrounding preschool-aged children who have been diagnosed with learning disabilities within
the contexts of their homes, ‘special’ early education settings, and ‘inclusive’ or mainstream
early education settings in England. The authors stated that they regard the children as meaningmakers-social actors actively constructing their own childhoods (James & James, 2004). They
also regard children as socially produced and constrained by what is made possible for them by
societal expectations and those who speak with authority (Benjamin et al., 2003). The focus of
this study was to conduct in-depth ethnographic case studies of three young children with
learning disabilities who went between home and two different early education settings-one
being inclusive and one more special needs-to see how they made sense of their different
experiences. The results of the case studies illustrated the different social constructions of the
children across their different educational settings. The case studies provided sufficient detail to
show that it would be an oversimplification to claim that in the special education settings,
children were constructed as special, and in inclusive environments, they were constructed as
ordinary (Nind et al.,2007). The implications for parents choosing individually designed
packages for their young children was that getting the combination of special services and
typically developing peers they seek is not straightforward. Rather, practice and discourse
legacies, institutional ethos, and individual stances will all influence how their children are
understood and treated in the settings (Nind et al., 2007).
8
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
A primary goal for many educators as well as inclusion advocates is to increase levels of
social inclusion for students with disabilities. An appreciate inquiry theoretical research group
examined the efficacy of the Circle of Friends Program (COFP), a group which seeks to expand
the social network of students with disabilities by connecting them with programs within the
general education system. An analysis which focused on the positive core experiences of the
program’s stakeholders which included ten sponsors, eight mentors, and ten parents of children
with disabilities representing six schools throughout four school districts (one urban and four
suburban) in a Midwestern State was conducted. The researcher found that parents whose
children were disabled felt less alienated, involvement in the program was transforming
regardless of their role, COFP provided positive environmental conditions for students with
disabilities, and that providing additional resources for COFP might increase its sphere of
influence. Researchers also found that one of the greatest benefits of the Circle of Friends
Program was its influence in changing peoples’ perceptions and beliefs toward students with
disabilities (Calabrese, Patterson, Liu, Goodwin, Hummel, & Nance 2008).
Freeman, Ebner, Anderson, Irvin, Horner, Bounds, & Dunlap (2006), conducted a study
to measure the effectiveness of behavioral support systems for students with significant
disabilities. The objective of the study was to focus on the conceptual and procedural elements
intended to benefit the full range of students within a school with a particular focus on students
with more intensive behavioral issues. Elementary students from schools in Oregon and Illinois
were the participants of this research. One year prior to the program implementation, schools
involved in this study sent teams to put a School-wide Positive Behavior Support System
(SWPBS) into action. School staff was trained in SWPBS during that first year. The program
was then implemented over the next two years. During the two year execution of the program,
9
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
data was gathered using school profiles, behavior records, and field notes, as well as Systemwide Evaluation Tool (SET) assessments which included document review, interviews, and
direct observations conducted by an individual trained in SET assessment practices. Researchers
found that putting in place a School-wide Positive Behavior Support System benefited not only
the students with severe behavioral issues, but all students within the general education
population. It also served to strengthen inclusion programs.
While the majority of our research data on inclusion is positive, Scruggs & Mastropieri
(1996) conducted a study on teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion of students with
disabilities in general education classrooms that revealed mixed emotions. The study raised
questions regarding willingness of general education teachers to teach students with disabilities,
benefits of mainstreaming/inclusion, negative effects of inclusion on the classroom environment,
and need for sufficient expertise, training, and resources for successful mainstreaming/inclusion.
The results revealed that a majority of teachers agreed with the general concept of
inclusion/mainstreaming and a slight majority was willing to implement mainstreaming/inclusion
practices in their own classrooms. A substantial minority believed that students with disabilities
would be disruptive to their classes or demand too much attention. Teachers in the secondary
level were less positive about mainstreaming/inclusion than elementary school teachers. Overall,
many teachers had reservations or concerns about mainstreaming/inclusion.
Research Question
The research question for this project is: Do children who display deficits in
social/emotional development benefit from an inclusive classroom setting? The purpose of the
study is to identify the pros and cons of inclusion for preschool children with special needs,
10
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
investigate the outcomes of inclusion, and determine the effectiveness of inclusion on academics
and social skills in Early Childhood Special Education.
Definition of Terms
Behavior: The actions or reactions of a person or animal in response to external or internal
stimuli.
Collaboration: the process of working with other individuals to develop education programs and
services for the fundamental aim of improving the educational, emotional, and physical
wellbeing of children.
Co-Teaching: Two or more educators or other professionally certified staff share instructional
responsibility for a single group of students primarily in a single classroom or workspace to
teach required curriculum with mutual ownership, pooled resources, and joint accountability
although each individual’s level of participation may vary.
Direct Instruction: An instructional approach to academic subjects that emphasizes the use of
carefully sequenced steps that include demonstration, modeling, guided practice, and
independent application.
Dyad: Two units treated as one; a couple; a pair.
Ethnography: A descriptive study (i.e., observation and reporting) of human culture and
societies.
Inclusion: An instructional methodology based on educating children with disabilities and
without disabilities in the same classroom environment. Often called “full inclusion”, this
practice is encouraged by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by the
provision that disabled children should be educated in the “least restrictive environment”
11
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
possible; therefore, if a disabled child can effectively learn in a regular classroom environment,
he or she should study there.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act is the law that guarantees all children with disabilities access to a free and appropriate public
education.
Inductive Reasoning: A kind of reasoning that constructs or evaluates general propositions that
are derived from specific examples. Inductive reasoning contrasts with deductive reasoning, in
which specific examples are derived from general propositions.
Interrater Reliability: For any research program that requires qualitative rating by different
researchers, it is important to establish a good level of interrater reliability, also known as
interobserver reliability.
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): A learning plan that provides the most success in the
general education classroom setting.
Likert Scale Survey: A scale commonly involved in research that employs questionnaires. It
is the most widely used approach to scaling responses in survey research, such that the
term is often used interchangeably with a rating scale.
Mainstream: A term that refers to the ordinary classroom that almost all children attend.
Accommodations may be made for children with disabilities or who are English language
learners, as part of the general educational program. This is term is synonymous with inclusion
for the purposes of this paper.
Mean: The sum of a set of data divided by the number of data (average).
Median: The Median is the ‘middle value’ in your list. When the totals of the list are odd, the
median is the middle entry in the list after sorting the list into increasing order. When the totals
12
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
of the list are even, the median is equal to the sum of the two middle (after sorting the list into
increasing order) numbers divided by two.
Mode: The mode in a list of numbers refers to the list of numbers that occur most frequently.
Pre-Service Teacher: One who has declared an education major but has not yet completed
training to be a teacher. Typically complete a period observing teachers at different levels and
then an internship or student teaching experience working alongside mentor or master teacher
before licensed as professional educators.
Qualitative Research: Research providing detailed narrative descriptions and explanations of
phenomena investigated, with lesser emphasis given to numerical quantifications – methods used
to collect qualitative data include ethnographic practices such as observing and interviewing
Quantitative Research: Quantitative research methods can be categorized as descriptive research,
correlational research, and experimental research.
Resource Room: Specially equipped and staffed classroom in a regular school in which student
with mild disability or one who is gifted spends part of his or her day receiving individualized
instruction or skills remediation, with the balance of the day spent in regular classroom. Sessions
are usually 20-45 minutes and instruction may be given either individually or in small groups.
Self-Contained Classroom: Located within a regular education school, a full day or mostly full
day class or program for children with disabilities, usually composed of children in the same
categorical grouping who cannot be educated appropriately in a regular classroom; characterized
by highly individualized, closely supervised specialized instruction.
Significance of the Proposed Study
When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was passed in 1997,
children with disabilities became entitled to receive the same education as their typically
13
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
developing peers. Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, public
schools have been required to provide a "fair, equal and significant opportunity" to all children.
These legislative acts increased the accountability of school personnel because they mandated
that all students can learn and are expected to reach their maximum potential. With this new
legislation, mainstreaming children with disabilities into the general education classroom has
become a standard.
When children with disabilities are mainstreamed into the general education classroom,
they learn to play and interact appropriately with children their own age. Inclusion provides
opportunities for socialization and friendships to develop. It provides a sense of belonging and
appropriate modeling of social, behavioral, and academic skills. Mainstreaming children with
disabilities also helps decrease their aggressive and noncompliant behaviors. Including children
with disabilities in general education classes models acceptance of diversity. It teaches children
how to relate with others of different abilities.
The proposed study is to examine the benefits of inclusion for students who have special
needs and are placed in the general education environment. Inclusive education can be beneficial
to all students in a class, not just students with special needs. Research shows that inclusion helps
students understand the importance of working together and fosters a sense of tolerance and
empathy among the student body.
Despite some of the research indicating the positive aspects of mainstreaming, many
teachers, parents, and policymakers have concerns about inclusion classrooms. There remain
some unanswered questions and conflicting research studies. Teachers have been concerned that
they may not have the knowledge or supports necessary to deal with severely disabled children.
Without adequate supports in place, teaching all the children effectively becomes impossible.
14
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
15
The larger class size of the regular classroom versus special education classrooms may also make
teaching varying levels of behaviorally disturbed children more difficult. Teachers without
formal training in special education may need special training to equip them for the rigors of
teaching children who have diverse special needs. Teachers may wonder which disabled children
are best suited for inclusion as it is not clear that every disabled student will benefit from it. Our
question still remains unknown - Do children who display deficits in social-emotional
development benefit from an inclusive classroom setting?
Design and Methodology
Subjects and/or Case.
The population for this study consisted of teachers, paraprofessionals, specialists and
administrators who work in the Upland Unified School District. These individuals were
purposefully selected because they have direct experience in working with children diagnosed
with social-emotional disabilities who have been placed in an inclusive classroom setting. This
experience and understanding of the effects of inclusion was imperative in getting valid
responses and informing our understanding of student outcomes. All but two of the individuals
selected for this study were currently working in the UUSD’s Step-Up Preschool Program. Two
of the participants were general education kindergarten teachers who received students from the
Step Up program and have knowledge of the students continued progress in their socialemotional development outside of an inclusive school environment. Step-Up Preschool is a fullinclusion preschool program for children who are three-to-five years of age. Half of the students
in each class have been diagnosed with developmental delays and/or disabilities and have
individualized educational programs while half of the students are typically developing.
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
Instrumentation/Data Collection
A qualitative design was applied in designing the research for this study. Following a
review of pertinent research literature related to the topic of inclusion, our team designed a
survey to elicit general perspectives and information on our topic (Appendix A). The survey was
composed of 16 statements with a Likert-type scale. The scale ranged from 1- Strongly Agree, 2Somewhat Agree, 3- Neutral, 4-Somewhat Disagree, and 5- Strongly Disagree. There was also
one open-ended question that allowed for further comments on their opinions of inclusion. The
surveys were distributed via inboxes and included directions for how to complete the form. The
survey was designed to be anonymous, however, there was an area created for individuals to
identify themselves if they were willing to be contacted for further comment regarding their
experience and opinions. Completed surveys were placed back into a specified inbox. With the
exception of the individuals who identified themselves as available for further comment, the
surveys were kept anonymous so as not to skew responses. Of the 35 questionnaires distributed,
17 were returned. After the initial surveys were completed and the results were reviewed, we
began a second phase of data collection consisting of three open-ended interview questions
(Appendix B). Open ended questions were used to encourage discussion and set a tone that
would allow participants to be candid in their responses. The second survey was given to the
individuals who indicated that they were willing to be contacted for further comment on their
opinions and experiences regarding student outcomes in inclusive settings. Similar to the initial
survey the second survey was distributed anonymously via inboxes with instructions for
completing the form. All responses were kept anonymous.
16
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
Data Treatment Procedures
The design for this study was based on inductive reasoning. Data was gathered first, then
processed to form generalizations about inclusion. Data from the initial Likert-scale survey was
analyzed using an Excel spreadsheet to determine mean, median and mode. The results of the
initial survey led to the development of a written survey. The following procedures were used to
analyze the written survey data: (1) Two members of our research team independently read the
surveys to become familiar with the range of responses, noting central themes that emerged from
the data. (2) The members then combined themes that referred to the same idea. (3) The
members then compared their findings to establish interrater reliability for the responses.
Presentation of Findings
The results of the data collection (Appendix C) revealed that most of the respondents had
positive attitudes toward inclusion and agreed that inclusion led to increased levels of
competence in children with social-emotional deficits. The majority of respondents indicated that
they agreed strongly that inclusion improves communication and social skills of students with
social-emotional disabilities (question 3). Respondents agreed that inclusion helps students with
social-emotional deficits to improve academically (question 6). The results of the open-ended
interview questions revealed that inclusive education is beneficial to all students, not just
students with special needs. Respondents made multiple references to the social benefits of
inclusion including opportunities for children with disabilities and children who are typically
developing to interact with and learn from each other. Additionally, multiple respondents
indicated they have witnessed students in inclusive settings demonstrating a greater acceptance
of individual differences, sensitivity to the needs of others, and a genuine ability to form
friendships.
17
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
The collected data also showed other areas worth noting. When asked if inclusion of
children with social emotional disabilities hinders their capability to meet the needs of their
general education students, nine respondents disagreed however six respondents agreed with that
statement (question 5.) Most respondents agreed with the perception that general education
teachers are concerned that students with disabilities may disrupt the education of and hinder the
academic success of students without disabilities (questions 11 and 12). Another area of interest
in our findings was the educators’ perception of parents’ attitudes toward inclusion. Respondents
strongly believe that parents of students with disabilities support inclusion while parents of
students without disabilities hold a neutral stance (questions 7 and 8). These perceptions are in
line with the findings in our literature review.
While the focus of the study was on determining if inclusion is beneficial, it is worth
noting that a high number of respondents strongly agreed that collaboration and support between
special education teachers and general education teachers was a necessary component of
successful inclusion programs (question 14).
Limitations of the Design
There were three primary limitations encountered in this study. The first limitation was
the sample size of individuals interviewed. Of the 35 surveys distributed, only 17 were returned.
Of those 17 received, only six individuals consented to further contact to discuss their opinions
and experiences with inclusion. The second limitation was that fact that our research was
conducted at a single school site. Results cannot be generalized from only one location. The third
limitation was time constraints. Given more time, extended classroom observations and the
opportunity to document observations with field notes may have provided a clearer picture of the
actual social-emotional gains made by students.
18
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
19
Conclusion
The research question that was used for this project is: Do children who display deficits
in social/emotional development benefit from an inclusive classroom setting? A Likert Scale
survey was completed by 17 participants at one preschool in the Upland Unified School District.
The research team also analyzed five quantitative and five qualitative studies in order to
formulate a general research question. After analyzing the data and completing follow-up
questions with the participants who wished to participate, our research team concluded that
inclusion is beneficial for preschool-aged children who display social-emotional deficits.
Recommendations for Further Research
Although our research resulted in a positive outcome, more research is needed in order to
show that inclusive education is beneficial to students with social-emotional deficits. Our
research was conducted at one school with a total of 17 participants. One way to support our
findings would be to distribute the Likert Scale survey at more school sites in a range of levels.
Another way to further support our findings would be to have more people participate in the
survey and to have also had more time to interview people who have participated in the inclusion
model in one way or another. Also we could further support our findings by giving the
participants the same survey during the next school year to see if they continue to have the same
positive outlook on inclusion as they currently do. Clearly, while our research resulted in
positive findings more research is needed in order to solidify and truly prove that inclusive
education is beneficial to students with social-emotional deficits.
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
Calabrese, R., Patterson, J., Liu, F., Goodvin, S., Hummel, C., & Nance, E. (2008). An
Appreciative Inquiry into the Circle of Friends Program: The Benefits of Social Inclusion
of Students with Disabilities. International Journal of Whole Schooling, v4 (n2), pp29.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ834294
Freeman, R., Eber, L., Anderson, C., Irvin, L., Horner, R., Bounds, M., & Dunlap, G. (2006).
Building Inclusive school Cultures Using School-Wide Positive Behavior Support:
Designing Effective Individual Support systems for Students with Significant
Disabilities. Research and Pratice for Persons with Severe Disabilities (RPSD), v 31 (n1),
pp4-17. https://www.tash.org/publications/RPSD/RPSD.html
Kilanowski-Press, L., Foote, C. J., & Rinaldo, V. J. (2010). Inclusion Classrooms and Teachers:
A Survey of Current Practices. International Journal Of Special Education, 25(3), 43-56
Leatherman, J.M., & Niemeyer, J.A. (2005): Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion:
Factors Influencing Classroom Practice, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education,
26:1, 23-36.
McCray, Erica D; Patricia McHatton,. ""Less Afraid to Have Them in My Classroom":
Understanding Pre-Service General Educators' Preceptions about Inclusion." Teacher
Education Quarterly. Caddo Gap Press. 2011. Retrieved February 24, 2013 from
HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-2596591001.html
Nind, M., Flewitt, R., & Payler, J. (2011). Social constructions of young children in “special”,
“inclusive” and home environments. Children & Society, 25, 359-370.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion.
Exceptional Children, 63(01).
20
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
Seery, M., Davis, P. M., & Johnson, L. J. (2000). Seeing Eye-to-Eye: Are Parents and
Professionals in Agreement about the Benefits of Preschool Inclusion? Remedial And
Special Education, 21(5), 268-78, 319.
Stanton-Chapman, T.L., & Snell, M.E. (2011). Promoting turn-taking skills in preschool children
with disabilities: The effects of a peer-based social communication intervention. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 303-319.
Wiener, J., & Tardif, C. Y. (2004). Social and Emotional Functioning of Children with Learning
Disabilities: Does Special Education Placement Make a Difference. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 19(1), 20-32.
21
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
22
Appendix A
This is a survey of attitudes/opinions toward the inclusion of students with disabilities
(specifically social/emotional delays) in general education classrooms. The completed surveys
will be examined in anonymity. There is a comment section at the end of the survey to write
additional comments you have about inclusion. Your time and participation in this survey are
greatly appreciated.
Demographics:
Position in the school district
A. General Education Teacher
C. Instructional Assistant
B. Special Education Teacher
D. Other: ____________________
Year(s) in current position
A. Less than 1 year B. 1-5 years
C. 6-10 years
D. More than 10 years
Male ____
Female___
Survey:
Please rate the following statements on inclusion on a scale from 1-5.
1= Strongly Agree
2= Somewhat Agree
3= Neutral
4= Somewhat Disagree
5= Strongly Disagree
1. I believe in and support the concept of inclusion.
1
2
3
4
5
2. I have received adequate preparation to work with students with social/emotional
disabilities.
1
2
3
4
5
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
23
3. Inclusion improves communication and social skills of students with social/emotional
disabilities.
1
2
3
4
5
4. Students with disabilities actively participate in classroom activities with their peers
without disabilities in general education classrooms.
1
2
3
4
5
5. Inclusion of children with social/emotional disabilities hinders my capability to meet the
needs of my general education students.
1
2
3
4
5
6. Inclusion helps students with social/emotional disabilities improve academically.
1
2
3
4
5
7. Parents of students without disabilities support inclusion.
1
2
3
4
5
8. Parents of students with disabilities support inclusion.
1
2
3
4
5
9. My relationship with parents of students with social/emotional disabilities is generally
positive.
1
2
3
4
5
10. Students with social/emotional disabilities adjust socially and academically to inclusion.
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
1
24
2
3
4
5
11. General Education Teachers are concerned that students with social/emotional delays
may disrupt the education of students without disabilities.
1
2
3
4
5
12. General Education Teachers are concerned that students with social/emotional disabilities
will hinder the academic success of their classroom.
1
2
3
4
5
13. The daily execution of Inclusion is difficult.
1
2
3
4
5
14. Special Education Teachers and General Education Teachers need to collaborate in order for
inclusion to be successful.
1
2
3
4
5
15. Students without disabilities accept their peers with disabilities in the general education
classroom.
1
2
3
4
5
16. I have observed inclusion promoting true friendship among students with and without
disabilities.
1
2
3
4
5
17. Please write any additional comments you have on inclusion.
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
18. If you are willing to be contacted to further discuss your opinions and experiences, please provide
your name and contact info:_________________________________________________
25
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
26
Appendix B
(1) What are some of the positive outcomes that result from inclusive programming? Do you
believe that children who display deficits in social-emotional development benefit from an
inclusive classroom setting?
(2) What are your concerns about inclusive programming?
(3) Do you believe that you have received adequate preparation to work with students with
disabilities?
EFFECTS OF INCLUSION
27
Appendix C
Survey:
Mode Med Mean
Position in the school district
3
3
2.94
Years in current position
2
2
2.59
male/female
2
2
2.00
1. I believe in and support the concept of inclusion
1
1
1.35
2. I have received adequate preparation to work with students with social/emotional disabilities.
2
2
2.12
3. Inclusion improves communication and social skills of students with social/emotional disabilities.
1
1
1.41
4. Students with disabilities actively participate in classroom activities with peers without disabilities in
1
2
2.35
general education classrooms.
5. Inclusion of children with social/emotional disabilities hinders my capability to meet the needs of my
4
4
3.29
general education students.
6. Inclusion helps students with social/emotional disabilities improve academically.
2
2
1.76
7. Parents of students without disabilities support inclusion.
3
3
2.59
8. Parent of students with disabilities support inclusion.
1
1
1.47
9. My relationship with parents of students with social/emotional disabilities is generally positive.
1
1
1.59
10. Students with social/emotional disabilities adjust socially and academically to inclusion.
2
2
2.06
11. General education teachers are concerned that students with social/emotional delays may disrupt the
2
2
2.35
education of students without disabilities.
12. General education teachers are concerned that students with social/emotional disabilities will hinder the
2
2
2.47
academic success of their classroom.
13. The daily execution of inclusion is difficult.
2
2
2.76
14. Special education teachers and general education teachers need to collaborate for inclusion to be
1
1
1.29
successful.
15. Students without disabilities accept their peers with disabilities in the general education classroom.
1
1
1.59
16. I have observed inclusion promoting true friendship among students with and without disabilities.
1
1
1.53