View
275
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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)
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].
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)
*** 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