Educational Psychology and InclusionDr Nathan LambertAcademic and Professional Tutor – University of NottinghamEducational Psychologist – Birmingham EPS

University of Nottingham Spring 2008

Aims of Session

To explore definitions of Inclusion

To examine the reasons behind the move towards inclusive education

To review research into the efficacy of inclusive education

To consider the contribution that psychological theory has made, and could make, to inclusive education

Primary Reference:

Frederickson, Miller and Cline (2008)

Educational Psychology: Topics in Applied Psychology

Chapter 4 – Is Inclusion for children with special needs psychologically

defensible?

Educational Psychology and Inclusion

Part One: A review of the research into the efficacy of inclusive education

Context

Past experience and present understanding

What is ‘Inclusion’?

The education of all children –including those with

special educational needs- in mainstream schools with their chronological peer

group

What is ‘Inclusion’? It is different to “mainstreaming”- it is not a one off decision about placement i.e. mainstream as opposed to special provision. It refers to an ongoing process.

It is different to “integration”- where the child and their support systems are expected to change.

A Historical Perspective

First UK special schools – 1850s HI - VI Great expansion into the 20th century

Until the mid 1960s, educational settings were not considered appropriate for children with severe learning difficulties, and instead of schools these children attended local health authority ‘training centres’.

A Historical Perspective

In 1970 the distinction between those who were and were not ‘educable’ was removed in the Education (Handicapped Children) Act.

Children experiencing particular difficulties continued to be placed with other children with similar difficulties – and hence away from their ‘typically developing’ peer group

A Historical Perspective

It was argued that this allowed special facilities, alternative curricula, and specially trained staff to be made available to the children who needed them

However, it was also argued that this could be stigmatising for the child, and represented a restriction on access to educational and social opportunities

Salamanca World StatementIn 1994, 92 countries signed up to the Salamanca Statement which called on governments to:

“…adopt the principle of inclusive education, enrolling all children in regular schools unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise” (UNESCO 1994)

“Inclusion and participation are essential to human dignity and to the enjoyment and exercise of human rights.” (UNESCO 1994)

SEN and Disability Act (2001)The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001) stated that children who have a statement of SEN must be educated in a mainstream school unless this is incompatible with parental wishes or with the provision of efficient education for other children

(DFEE 2001 S324)

BPS position Rejecting segregation or exclusion of learners for whatever reasons – ability, gender, language, care status, family income, disability, sexuality, colour, religion or ethnic origin.

Maximising the participation of all learners in the community schools of their choice

Making learning more meaningful and relevant for all, particularly those learners most vulnerable to exclusionary pressure

Rethinking and restructuring policies, curricula, culture and practices in schools and learning environments so that diverse learning needs can be met, whatever the origin or nature of those needs

(BPS Inclusive Education Position Paper 2002:2)

The Inclusive ‘Movement’

Human Rights?

Good Education?

Social Sense?

Inclusion and the EP Educational Psychologist are frequently involved in the assessment of individual pupils, and hence with their placement and provision.

Educational Psychologists are also heavily involved with researching, developing and evaluating inclusive initiatives

Case Study

Y2 (6-7) ASD

Currently attending mainstream Placement under consideration

Why is it so hard to come to a consensus on where best to place this child?

Dilemma 1 What outcomes are we aiming for?

In this instance… some are focusing on academic attainment and developing language/ communication skills, whilst others are focusing on him becoming a part of his community and improving emotional well-being.

Different objectives suggest different approaches!

Dilemma 2 Do outcomes even matter? If the issue of inclusion is one of human rights – maybe efficacy is an irrelevance? (See Lindsay 2003)

In this instance… some see this as an issue of the child’s right to go to his local school – and to receive whatever specialist support is needed there – and the parents right to a choice of education for their son.

conflict has arisen where other parties insist on there being evidence of success

Dilemma 3 If inclusion IS a matter of human rights… then who’s rights take precedence?

In this instance…

The parent’s assertion of their child’s right to an education with his sibling and peers?

The child’s rights to the most effective education available?

The child’s (mainstream) classmates rights to an uninterrupted education?

Farrell 2000“A parent may feel that their child has a right to be educated in a mainstream school but an objective assessment of the child might indicate that his/her rights to a good education could only be met in a special school. Whose rights should take preference in cases like this, the parents or the child? In addition, what if placing a child with SEN in a mainstream school seriously disrupts the education of the other pupils? Surely they have a right to a good education as well?”

The Purpose of Efficacy Research

“Data can be used to evaluate progress towards the goals established by values, but data cannot alter the value itself” (McLeskey et al 1990 in Frederickson and Cline 2002)

“The rationale for policies depends on an interplay of moral/ political and scientific reasoning. Broadly speaking decisions about whether to advocate a policy depend primarily on moral or political reasons and knowledge about how to achieve a desired policy change may involve detailed factual considerations” (Booth 1986 in Frederickson and Cline 2002)

Psychological Research into Inclusion

Typically, research takes the form of comparative studies in which two groups – included and excluded- are compared on the basis of outcomes such as:

Educational attainment Affective measures – self-esteem, social integration, ‘adjustment’

Research Problems

Difficulties specifying the independent variable – many different views of what inclusion is

Poor matching of participants – children with SEN typically have additional problems

Mainstream and special settings tend to have different objectives and therefore different curricula emphasis

Differences between teacher experience and qualification between and within settings

(Frederickson et al 2008)

Efficacy Research Findings

‘Headline’

Reviews of Efficacy Research have tended to come down marginally in favour of inclusion, with some qualifications

(Frederickson et al 2008 – see, for example, Baker, Wang and Walberg 1994-5)

Efficacy Research Findings

A review of recent research…

demonstrates the variability of research in this field and the

need for caution when considering the conclusions

drawn

Hegarty (1993) Summarised a Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) review of international research literature on integration efficacy studies across countries and different SEN

Reported results were generally inconclusive

Argued that this makes it difficult to justify continued segregated education

Lindsay 2007 Lindsay (2007) reported on a review of efficacy studies published in SEN journals between 2000 and 2005

1373 ‘inclusion’ papers were considered, with only 1% addressing efficacy issues (comparing the performance of children with SEN in mainstream and special, or comparing the performance of children with SEN in mainstream settings with their typically developing peers).

The weight of evidence was marginally in favour of inclusion.

Dyson et al 2004 Research for the DfES Utilising the National Pupil Database (a database

bringing together the attainments scores of 500,000 pupils and their education-relevant statistics (inc. SEN and school setting).

It was reported that: There was no real evidence of a relationship between

the ‘inclusivity’ of an LA and overall LA attainment, or between the ‘inclusivity’ of a school and school level attainment

There was some evidence that inclusion can have positive effects on the wider achievement of all pupils, such as social skills and understanding (-though this was based chiefly on the the views of teachers and pupils)

Other factors – socio-economic status, gender, ethnicity and home language – appear to be much more significant in their impact on attainment

Staub and Peck (1994) Review of USA studies into the effect of increasingly inclusive classrooms on children without additional needs

None of the studies found a deceleration of academic progress for the mainstream students

Children did not ‘pick up’ undesirable behaviour

Teacher time was not reduced for children without additional needs

Nowicki and Sandieson (2002)

Meta-analysis of publications between 1990 and 2000

Investigated children’s attitudes to children with SEN

Inclusive classrooms had a medium sized effect on facilitating positive attitudes

Manset and Semmel (1997)

Included MLD pupils were compared with MLD pupils in special settings

Learning outcomes from various inclusion programmes were reviewed

Results very variable: 2 programmes, included pupils showed better progress in

literacy – no diff in maths In 2 others pupils showed better progress in maths – no diff

in literacy In 1 programme better progress in both literacy and maths In 1 programme no diff in both literacy and maths In 1 programme no diff in literacy and slower progress in

maths

However, in all 7 studies, the progress of pupils without additional needs in inclusive classrooms appeared to be better than that made by pupils in non inclusive classrooms.

“This suggests that efforts to transform the mainstream classroom into an effective environment for students with disabilities may also have a positive impact on normally achieving students, at least on measures of basic skills”

Gresham and MacMillan (1997)

A particular focus on social and affective outcomes (an early objective)

suggested children with SEN placed in mainstream settings are less socially accepted and more rejected by their mainstream peers than children without additional need

In Summary One cannot point to a robust research basis for inclusive education, although the research broadly points to a neutral or slightly positive overall effect, for those seen to be ‘included’, and their ‘normally developing’ peers

Whilst research evidence remains somewhat inconclusive, the Human Rights debate ensures that increasing funds are put towards inclusive education

Educational Psychology and Inclusion

Part Two: The contribution that psychological theory has made, and could make, to inclusive education

So far, we have seen that EPs have a significant role to play in researching the efficacy of inclusive educational settings

In other lectures, you will considerer the part educational psychologists, and psychological theory can play in developing optimal learning experiences for pupils

However, educational psychologists, and psychological theory, also has a significant part to play specifically in developing optimal inclusive environments

We will focus on four psychological theories that have been applied to understanding and changing children's attitudes and behaviour towards peers who have SEN, as outlined in Frederickson et al (2008)

Theory of Planned Behaviour Contact Theory Labelling and Attribution Theory Social Exchange Theory

We will consider:

How these four theories have influenced research

How research drawing on these four theories might influence practice

Theory of Planned Behaviour

Three major influences on behaviour:1. One’s own attitude towards the

behaviour (+/-)2. One’s perception of the subjective

norm (-what will others think?)3. One’s perception of behavioural

control i.e. self-efficacy [and actual opportunity to engage in the behaviour]

(Ajzen 1991)

A pupils interaction to a child with SEN can be viewed in light of this model

Theory of Planned Behaviour

Roberts and Lindsell (1997)

8-12 year old children’s attitudes to peers with physical disabilities strongly predicted their intention to interact with them.Their attitudes correlated significantly with the attitudes of their teachers and mothers (the subjective norm)

Roberts and Smith (1999)

Children’s attitudes and their perceived behavioural control were significant [predictors of their intention to interact with children with physical disabilities].

Theory of Planned Behaviour

Implications for practice

Contact TheoryContact Theory holds that contact between

groups can change the attitudes of in-group members towards out-groups (i.e. children with SEN) and can reduce stereotyping and prejudice.

Four conditions are necessary:1. Equal status2. Common goals3. No competition between groups4. Authority sanctioning the contact

(Allport 1954)

Contact Theory

Maras and Brown (1996)

Primary aged children in contact with children from a (Severe Learning Difficulties) Special School developed more positive social orientation to the pupils than a control group who didn’t have contact with them and who demonstrated little attitudinal change

Contact TheoryMarom, Cohen and Naon (2007)designed an intervention to improve the disability related attitudes of 10-12 year olds –as well as their self efficacy for interacting with children with disabilities (i.e. drawing on both Contact Theory and Theory of Planned Behaviour)

The Intervention was in two phases:1. Provide information re. the children and

their disabilities, and re. people with disabilities in general

2. Facilitate contact between the two groups via joint, non-competitive activities.

They reported improvements in the attitude and self efficacy of students, with no change in the control group

Contact TheoryTwo models are proposed to explain how

contact might best alter attitudes of the in-group

The decategorisation model (Brewer and Miller 1984) - Children with SEN would not be clearly identified as being part of a wider group of ‘SEN children’

The intergroup model (Hewstone and Brown 1986) - Children with SEN would be clearly identified as being part of an out- group of ‘SEN children’

Contact TheoryCameron and Rutland (2006) investigated the effects of ‘extended contact’ – i.e. children having vicarious experiences of friendship with children with SEN (e.g. hearing about in-group members friendships with out-group members)

Once a week, 5-10 year olds heard stories of disabled-non-disabled friendships.

In some stories the protagonists membership of an out-group of children with disabilities was emphasised (intergroup model), in others it was de-emphasised (decategorisation model).

Cameron and Rutland (2006) cont.

Intended behaviour showed positive change in both conditions – suggesting extended contact can have an effect (-very useful in situations where direct contact is difficult to achieve)

Attitudes were seen to change where out-group membership was emphasised (intergroup model)

Contact Theory

Newberry and Parish (1987)

8-10 year olds scouts engaging in social interaction with children with disabilities fostered more favourable attitudes, where the disabilities were very apparent

Contact TheoryLabelling has long been assumed to have a negative effect – serving as a self fulfilling prophecy.

Research drawing on Contact Theory, however, suggests that stressing difference may be beneficial in the creation of optimal inclusive environments…

Could labelling therefore have a positive effect…?

Labelling and Attribution TheoryBak and Siperstein (1986)

Reported that children aged 9-12 years held less negative attitudes towards a child observed to be withdrawn, when the child was also described as being ‘mentally retarded’

Only a weak effect was seen, however, when the child was observed to be aggressive.

Labelling and Attribution Theory

Law, Sinclair and Fraser (2007)

Attitudes of 11-12 year olds to children with ADHD diagnoses were assessed through the use of vignettes.

Attitudes were mainly negative, and a diagnostic label was found to have no additional influence on the attitude or behavioural intention. The child’s behaviours, not the label, have the greatest impact.

Labelling and Attribution TheoryResearch focusing directly on ‘labelling’ is equivocal…

Labelling appears to have only a minimal influence on the inclusive environment

However, it is one factor that pupils will use to try to make sense of what they are confronted with…

Labelling and Attribution Theory Attribution Theory (Weiner 1985) suggests that when faced with negative behaviours, children will search for an explanation – they will attribute causation.

A key concept is perception of responsibility. Someone who is perceived to be responsible for their actions will elicit a more negative response than someone who is not held to be responsible.

Labelling and Attribution Theory Sigelman and Begley (1987)

5-6 and 8-9 year olds were told about peers who were either in a wheelchair, obese, learning disabled or aggressive. They were presented with a problem faced by the child and given either no causal information, or causal information that implied controllability or causal information that implied uncontrollability

Labelling and Attribution Theory Sigelman and Begley (1987) cont.

Children in both age groups were responsive to the causal information when available – and assigned blame according to ascribed responsibility

When causal information wasn’t available, the children tended to hold all but the child in the wheelchair responsible

Labelling and Attribution Theory

Attribution Theory thus suggests that without explicit ‘causal information’ to the contrary, pupils will ascribe responsibility for behaviours that they perceive to be negative to the pupil with SEN (and hence react negatively) - unless there is a very clear prompt to do otherwise

Social Exchange Theory would support this suggestion, and also offer a further explanation

Social Exchange TheoryLike attribution theory, research in the area of Social Exchange Theory (Kelley and Thibaut 1978) suggests that children will be more accepting of negative behaviours when the perpetrator is identified as having SEN, or other difficulties that are perceived to be beyond their responsibility.

Social Exchange Theory Social Exchange Theory suggests that the “…desire for affiliation with others relates to the sum of the perceived costs and benefits of interacting with them, set against some minimum level of expectation – the comparison level. The comparison level may be different for some children with SEN” (Frederickson et al 2008)

This suggests there would be different behavioural norms –and expectations - for children with SEN.

Social Exchange Theory

‘Typical’ children rejected by classmates reportedly score high on costly social behaviours and low on beneficial behaviours, while those who are well accepted show the opposite pattern. (Newcomb, Bukowski and Pattee 1993).

Children with SEN who are rejected reportedly receive low scores for beneficial behaviours, but do not receive high scores for costly behaviours. Children with SEN who are accepted reportedly receive low scores for costly behaviours, although high scores for beneficial behaviours are not characteristic of acceptance (Frederickson and Furnham 1998)

That is, having high scores for costly behaviours doesn’t necessarily mean rejection …and having high scores for beneficial behaviours doesn’t necessarily mean acceptance for children with SEN

Social Exchange Theory

Clark and Mills (1993) make the observation that the symmetrical patterns of typically developing children are consistent with ‘exchange relationship’ norms, whereas the asymmetrical patterns for children with SEN are consistent with communal relationships’

“although there is undeniable warmth between the children, most of the comments and non-verbal interactions reflect a helper-helpee relationship, not a reciprocal friendship” (Van Der Klift & Klunc 2002 in Frederickson et al 2008)

Summary

The schools social environment can have a predictable influence on pupils’ attitudes and actions with regards to children with additional needs

In many instances, acknowledging a child’s SEN appears more likely to facilitate positive inclusive experiences. Providing information and structured opportunities to engage in interaction also appears potentially beneficial

“rather than leave classmates to make their own (often rather negative) attributions, more positive outcomes are likely to result if adults provide advance information, ongoing explanations and appropriately structured and supported opportunities for contact” (Frederickson et al 2008)

Context

Past experience and present understanding

*** The inclusive movement has been fuelled, to a

large extent, by human rights issue There remains much debate about the nature of

inclusive education – and it’s objectives Psychological research does not offer a uniformly

positive picture of inclusive education, and is in fact largely inconclusive

Psychological research is beginning to demonstrate factors which are important in developing optimal inclusive environments

Psychological Theory has much to offer in furthering our understanding of what may lead to, or hinder, the development of optimal inclusive environments

EPs are in an excellent position to influence this debate on an individual and broader policy level

References Frederickson N, Miller A and Cline T (2008)

Educational Psychology: Topics in Applied Psychology Hodder Arnold (Published 28 Mar 2008)

Chapter 4 – Is Inclusion for children with special needs psychologically defensible?

Frederickson N and Cline T (2002) Special Educational Needs, Inclusion and Diversity Buckingham OU Press

Lindsay G (2007) Educational Psychology and Effectiveness of Inclusive Education/ Mainstreaming British Journal of Educational Psychology 77 1-24

Also:

Ajzen I (1991) The Theory of Planned Behaviour Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 179-211

Allport GW (1954) The Nature of Prejudice Oxford Addison-Wesley Bak JJ and Siperstein GN (1986) Protective Effects of the Label

‘Mentally Retarded’ on Children’s Attitudes Toward Mentally Retarded Peers American Journal of Mental Deficiency 91 95-97

Baker ET, Wang MC and Walberg HJ (1994-5) The Effects of Inclusion on Learning Educational Leadership 52 33-35

Booth T (1986) Is Integrating the Handicapped Psychologically Defensible? Letter to the Editor Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 39 141

Brewer M and Miller N (1984) ‘Beyond the Contact Hypothesis: Theoretical Perspectives on Desegregation’ in: N Miller and M Brewer (Eds) Groups in Conflict N York Academic Press 281-302

British Psychological Society DECP (2002) Professional Practice Guidelines /Inclusive Education Position Paper BPS

Cameron L and Rutland A (2006) Extending Contact Theory Through Story Reading in School: Reducing Children’s Prejudice Towards the Disabled Journal of Social Issues 62 469-488

Clark MS and Mills J (1993) The Difference Between Communcal and Exchange Relationships Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19 684-691

Department for Education and Employment (2001) Special Educational Needs and Disability Act London The Stationary Office

Dyson A, Farrell P, Polat F, Hutcheson G, and Gallannaugh F (2004) Inclusion and Pupil Achievement: Department for Education and Skills (Research Report No 578)

Farrell P (2000) The Impact of Research on Developments in Inclusive Education International Journal of Inclusive Education 4 (2) 153-162

Frederickson N and Furnham AF (1998) Sociometric Status Group Classification of Mainstreamed Children who have Moderate Learning Difficulties: An Investigation of Personal and Environmental Factors Journal of Educational Psychology 90 (4) 1-12

Gresham FM and MacMillan DL (1997) Social Competence and Affective Characteristics of Students with Mild Disabilities Review of Educational Research 67 377-415

Hegarty S (1993) Reviewing the Literature on Integration European Journal of Special Needs Education 8 194-200

Hewstone M and Brown RJ (1986) ‘Contact is Not Enough: An Intergroup Perspective on the Contact Hypothesis’ In M Hewstone and R Brown (Eds) Contact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters Oxford Blackwell 1-44

Kelley HH and Thibaut JW (1978) Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence N York Wiley

Law GU Sinclair S and Fraser N (2007) Children’s Attitudes and Behavioural Intentions Towards a Peer with Symptoms of ADHD: Does the Addition of a Diagnostic Label Make a Difference? Journal of Child Health Care 11 98-111

Lindsay G (2003) Inclusive Education: A Critical Perspective British Journal of Special Education 30 3-12

Lindsay G (2007) Educational Psychology and Effectiveness of Inclusive Education/ Mainstreaming British Journal of Educational Psychology 77 1-24

Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) (1985) Educational Opportunities for All? London ILEA

McLeskey J, Skiba R, and Wilcox B (1990) Reform and Special Education: A Mainstream Perspective Journal of Special Education 24 (3) 319-325

Manset G and Semmel MI (1997) Are Inclusive Programmes for Students with Mild Disabilities Effective? A Comparative Review of Model Programmes Journal of Special Education 31 155-180

Maras P and Brown RJ (1996) Effect of Contact on Children’s Attitudes toward Disabled and Non-Disabled Peers British Journal of Educational Psychology 70 337-351

Marom M, Cohen Dand Naon D (2007) Changing Disability-Related Attitudes and Self-Efficacy of Isreali Children via the Partners to Inclusion Programme International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 54(1) 113-127

Newberry MJ and Parish TS (1987) Enhancement of Attitudes to ward Handicapped Children Through Social Interaction Journal of Social Psychology 127 59-62

Newcomb AF, Bukowski WM and Pattee L (1993) Children’s Peer Relations: A Meta-analytic Review of Popular, Rejected, Neglected, Controversial and Average Sociometric Status Psychological Bulletin 113(1) 99-128

Nowicki EA and Sandieson R (2002) A Meta-Analysis of Children’s Attitudes Toward Individuals with Intellectual and Physical Disabilities International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 49 243-266

Roberts CM and Lindsell JS (1997) Children’s Attitudes and Behavioural Intentions Toward Peers with Disabilities International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 44 133-145

Roberts CM and Smith PR (1999) Attitudes and Behaviour of Children Towards Peers with Disabilities International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 46 35-50

Sigelman CK and Begley NL (1987) The Early Development of Reactions to Peers with Controllable and Uncontrollable Problems Journal of Paediatric Psychology 12 99-115

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Educational Needs Paris UNESCO

Van Der Klift E and Klunc N (2002) Beyond Benevolence in JS Thousand RA cited in Frederickson et al 2008

Weiner B (1985) An Attributional Theory of Achievement Motivation and Emotion Psychological Review 92 548-573