Educational Psychology and the Effectiveness of Inclusive Education - Research Paper Example

? [Type the document [Type the document sub [Pick the [Type the company [Type the I. The issue of relative efficacy of pull out versus classroom based communication intervention has been controversial and subject to years of research and legal battles. Despite the implementation of The Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL 94-142), and the widespread acceptance of inclusion, which favors classroom based intervention, researchers, parents and the subjects themselves have failed to develop a consensus favoring it. While on one hand the pull out intervention is capable of imparting specific and individualized attention to the individual, on the other hand the classroom based interventions facilitate the real world interactions and development of social skills. Depending on the nature of disability, resources available and social as well as cultural conditions, the relative efficacy of the two is reported to vary. The current research aims to provide a comprehensive review of evidences available for the comparative advantages and disadvantages of classroom based and pull-out communication interventions. PULL-OUT VS CLASSROOM-BASED COMMUNICATION INTERVENTION ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES II. Introduction Intervention for children with communication problems and special needs has been a controversial issue despite extensive researches and political and legal involvement. While on one hand is the intervention within the child’s classroom (classroom-based) on the other hand are the interventions following an outside the classroom or pull-out strategy. Compared to pull-out models, classroom models incorporate the concept of inclusive strategy. Inclusion refers to providing support services within the classroom or ‘push in’ in contrast to pull out. Inclusion has been strongly advocated for children with mild disabilities and also for children with severe disabilities in certain cases. However, the comparative advantages and disadvantages of classroom based and pull out interventions still remain open to discussion (Klinger et al., 1998). A. Purpose The current study aims to evaluate the comparative advantages and disadvantages of classroom based and pull out interventions. In order to do so the following objectives were pursued during the course of the study: What are the research based evidences favoring either of the classroom or pull out interventions? Evaluation of the evidences available Critical analysis of the evidences to answer the fundamental question of which of the two interventions, i.e. of classroom based and pull out interventions, are more effective. B. Overview The process of inclusion forming the basis of classroom-based interventions can be traced back to 1950s when parents of children with disabilities started a movement leading to implementation of The Education All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL 94-142), rendering mandatory free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment for all children, regardless of disability. Consequently, resource rooms and self-contained classrooms for children with disabilities were included in schools. PL 94-142 was further updated in 1991 by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Schooling et al., 2010). Despite the legislations and provision favoring inclusion, the consensus in favor of either of the intervention strategies is lacking. Proponents of classroom based intervention argue that inclusion simulates and therefore prepares the child for the real world, lack of seclusion and discrimination leads to enhancement of self esteem, it enhances social interaction and hence mutual bonding among regular and special needs children, and can also take advantage of peer based instructional programmes (DuPaul, 1998). Contrary to this, several concerns have been voiced for the efficacy of classroom based interventions. The lack of individualized instructions and adaptations by teachers for special children in regular classrooms as advised in PL94-142 has been the major cause of concern (Zigmond and Baker, 1994). These reserchers also doubt the level and quality of social interaction facilitated by regular schools among disabled and non-disabled peers. Even parents as well as individuals with special needs have varied opinions with reference to efficacy of the two strategies (Vaughn & Klinger, 1998). The level of controversy associated and the sensitivity as well as importance of the issue renders imperative the evaluation of evidences available in favor and against the two strategies. This will further enable policy makers, educationists, and parents to take appropriate decisions for the overall benefit and academic development of the special needs children. III. Evaluation of Research Based Evidences A. Research Strategy The basic research strategy includes selection of topic, a research design appropriate for data collection, data collection and analysis, and finding answer to the research question on the basis of data. Nature of research designs that can be considered for providing evidences can be classified into two basic categories: descriptive (e.g. case studies, ethnography and grounded theory) and experimental. While descriptive research is appropriate for description of a process; experimental design is suitable for investigation of cause effect relationship. Thus the research strategy that are most rigorous with reference to their design and hence are considered to provide most important evidences are those that involve an experimental, quasi experimental (QED) or regression discontinuity design (RED). These strategies are designed to determine the cause effect relationship between an independent and dependent variable (Gersten et al., 2005). Among the experimental evidences the randomized controlled trials (RCT) provide the strongest evidences. B. Classroom based Intervention During the last 50 years, remarkable developments have transformed the educational settings of children with special needs. The current consensus remains in favor of inclusive education with special needs students being included in regular classrooms with mainstream students. Proponents of the classroom-based interventions stress that a requirement of special needs may arise from numerous varied factors such as psychological, social, cultural, linguistic, economic and physical. Consequently the term ‘children with disabilities’, that was used for them was replaced by ‘children with special needs’. It was also important to consider that the special needs can arise temporarily during the academic life of any child (Smith, 2004). Inclusion is based on the premise that each child deserves an education that is not restricted by an impairment; which means much beyond the physical presence of the child in the classroom but participation and successful learning in regular classrooms (Smith, 2004). The responses to the inclusion setting have been equivocal, some reviews reporting marginal advantages of classroom-based interventions (Lindsay, 2007) and others reporting the more frequent rejection of students with special needs compared to their mainstream peers (Nakken & Pijl, 2002). This finding has grave implications in terms of social acceptance of these students and therefore of their well being and development. It indicates a failure of the chief objective of inclusion, “removing the stigma associated with segregated placements, facilitating the modeling of appropriate social behavior by children with disabilities, and enhancing the social status of pupils with disabilities…..” (Roberts & Zubrick, 1992) Advantages Classroom based interventions have been found to benefit child as a consequence of being surrounded by his normal peers thereby providing better opportunities, role models and experiences. Studies, in general have reported no marked differences in academic performance levels in the two settings, differences are significant in social aspects. Higher academic achievement levels are reported by some studies comparing the same in classroom and pull-out intervention (Rea et al., 2002). Better performance on one hand is attributed to peer interaction and peer tutoring techniques, and on the other hand to teacher based factors such as higher expectations of teachers from disabled children in regular classrooms, more individualized attention and higher individualized education program (IEP) goals than in pull out settings (Rea et al., 2002). The special needs child gets the opportunity to witness normal social behavior and follow it in real world settings (Baker & Zigmond, 2005). Not being labeled into categories, the child is able to bond with his non-disabled peers, leading to better understanding and acceptance of these children. An early experience of interaction with real world people different from themselves, the child finds himself better prepared for the real world situations later in the life. They are more aware of the perceptions and attitudes of the people in the real world are acclimatized and therefore better accepted (Brown, 1997). Segregation of children on the basis of disabilities leads to a major setback to their self esteem and feelings of self worth. Classrooms based interventions are able to overcome this (Brown, 1997). Disadvantages Shortcomings of classroom based interventions are inherent in lack of researches and hence evidence. Children with severe disabilities are not able to acclimatize to the general classroom settings and in the transition for them could even be a scaring and traumatic experience. There are possibilities and evidences of rejection of disabled children by the non disabled peers, leading to a setback to the child’s already fragile self esteem (Leyser & Kirk, 2006). Though classrooms enable overcoming physical barriers to interaction among regular and disabled children, researches have shown that children prefer to interact and bond with similar peers (McPherson et al., 2001); and experience difficulties in interacting or forming friendships with special needs children. The latter themselves are more vulnerable in interacting (Monchy et al., 2004). Data for these preferences and avoidance behavior with respect to age, gender and individual disabilities are not specifically available, yet it has been reported that interaction are more obscure in elder students and those with intellectual disabilities compared to younger children and those with motor disabilities (Koster et al., 2007). The three aspects of social position of children in a school are being accepted by peers, having friends and being a part of the peer group (Gest et al., 2001). The three aspects are not distinct, but interdependent and further facilitate learning of social skills, and handling relationships. Special needs children have been reported to be lacking on each of these aspects and therefore social inclusion is at risk for these children, leading to the risk of repercussions of rejection and exclusion (Pijl et al., 2008). The most commonly observed manifestation of this is data for bullying. Now understood to be ‘a systematic abuse of power’, bullying has higher prevalence and more severe consequences in cases involving students with special needs such as special health needs (van Cleave & Davis, 2006), language impairments (Conti Ramsden & Botting, 2004); learning disabilities and comorbid psychiatric conditions (Baumeister et al., 2008) or even the otherwise mainstream children who have had been taking help from mental health services during the past three months. Van Cleave and Davis (2006), conducted a secondary data analysis involving >102,000 US households and reported that children with behavioral, emotional, or developmental problems exhibited higher association with bullying, both as victims and perpetrators. Similar studies conducted by Conti Ramsden & Botting (2004) in England involving 242 children showed that children with disabilities leading to expressive languages experiences frequent victimization. Teachers in general classrooms require additional training for special education, in absence of which the entire concept fails. General classroom based intervention clearly mean that larger number of teachers need to be trained for special education. The prior issue is further complicated by the fact that not all teachers may be ready to teach children with disabilities in their classrooms. The involvement of larger number of individuals such as teachers, peers, administrators etc complicates the learning process for a child with limited and simplistic learning and understanding capabilities. Isolation and rejection mars the very concept of classroom based interventions, since they are based on providing social inclusion along with educational. While the latter can also be provided in pull out settings, it is the former which is of prime importance in classroom interventions. C. Pull-out Interventions Pull-out interventions remained a norm in 1970s and early 1980s and are still practiced in form of resource rooms. These communication strategies involve delivery service for individual or smaller groups with communication problems in a workplace specifically assigned and designed for the purpose (McGinty & Justice, 2006). Advantages Some of the advantages of pull out delivery service are that they allow students with disabilities to receive more intensive attention as a consequence of smaller teacher student ratio. The teachers involved are voluntarily available to and trained for the education of special needs children and therefore are more keenly aware of their specific requirements. It is possible for the teacher to concentrate on learning and development of particular skills. They also facilitate higher probabilities of one on one instruction. Pull out interventions have been reported to be highly effective for gifted children since they enhance the creativity, critical thinking and achievement levelswithout effecting their self concepts (Vaughn et al., 1991). Disadvantages Pull out interventions have been widely criticized for their restrictive and discriminatory nature; and replaced by classroom based interventions. Heterogeneous classes comprising of children with widely varied and highly specific special needs makes it very difficult for the setting to be effective for the children. Removal from general classroom settings has an adverse impact on the self esteem of child and leads to a discriminatory attitude in non-disbaled peers. Artificial environment of pull out settings do not prepare the child for the real world conditions and associated struggles. Language learning in speech and language impaired child is under simulated conditions and lacking a normal language model. The opportunity and level of social interaction available to the special needs child is negligible, leading to his further exclusion and isolation. The restrictive environment of pull out settings severely limits the development of the child (McGinty & Justice, 2006). IV. Conclusion Classrooms and pull-out; both interventions have been and should be discussed in context to the special needs child; giving primary consideration to the goal of education i.e. “ to promote learning and life skills for young people and adults”. Putting a child in either of these settings is as advantageous as it is disadvantageous. A collaborative learning model, where the child can be benefitted from both of these and protected from the shortcomings of both of these settings would be an appropriate and practical approach for education of special needs child, which is being practiced in form of mainstreaming. Mainstreaming requires the student to be taken out of a general education classroom to receive special education services for topic areas that they need additional support. V. REFERENCES 1. Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (2005). The meaning and practice of inclusion for students with learning disabilities; themes and implications for the five cases. The Journal of Special Education , 29 (2), 168-189. 2. Baumeister, A. L., Storch, E. A., & Geffken, G. R. (2008). Peer victimization in children with learning difficulties. Child and adolescent social work journal , 25, 11-23. 3. Brown, D. (1997). Full inclusion: Challenges and issues. Journal of Instructional Psychology , 24, 24-8. 4. Conti-Ramsden, G., & Botting, N. (2004). Social difficulties and victimization in children with SLI at 11 years of age. Journal of speech, language and hearing research , 47, 145-161. 5. DuPaul, G. J., Erwin, R. A., Hook, C. L., & McGoey, K. e. (1998). Peer tutoring for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: effects on classroom behaviour and academic performance. Journal of applied behaviour and academic performance , 31, 579-92. 6. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research. Exceptional children , 71, 137-49. 7. Gest, S. D., Graham-Burmann, S. A., & Hartup, W. W. (2001). Peer experience: common and unique features of number of friendships, social network centrality and sociometric status. Social development , 10, 23-40. 8. Klinger, J., Vaughn, P., Cohen, P., & Forgan, J. (1998). Inclusion or pull-out: which do students prefer? Journal of learning disabilities , 31 (2), 148-58. 9. Koster, M., Pijl, S. J., Houten, E., & Nakken, H. (2007). The social position and development of pupil with SEN in regualr Dutch primary schools. European Journal of special needs education , 22 (1), 31-46. 10. Leyser, Y., & Kirk, L. (2006). Not all riders of the education express debark at the inclusion station. Exceptional Parent , 36 (30), 65-67. 11. Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational Psychology and the effectiveness of inclsive education/mainstreaming. British Journal of educational Psychology , 77, 1-24. 12. McGinty, A. S., & Justice, L. (2006). Classroom based versus Pull-out interventions: a review of the experimental evidence. EBP briefs , 1 (1), 1-25. 13. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology , 27, 415-44. 14. Monchy, M., Pijl, S. J., & Zandberg, T. (2004). Discrepancies in judging social inclusion and bullting of pupils with behavioural problems. European journal of special needs education , 19 (3), 317-30. 15. Nakken, H., & Pijl, S. J. (2002). Getting along with classmates in regular schools: a review of the effects of intehration on the development of social relationships. International Journal of inclusive education , 6 (1), 47-61. 16. Pijl, S. J., Frostad, P., & Flem, A. (2008). The social participation of pupil with special needs in regualr school. Scandinavian journal of educational research , 52 (4), 387-405. 17. Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning disabilites in inclusive and pull out programs. Council for exceptional children , 68 (2), 203-23. 18. Roberts, C., & Zubrick, S. (1992). Factors influencing the social status of children with mild academic disabilities in regualr classrooms. Exceptional children , 59, 192-202. 19. Schooling, T., Venediktov, R., & Leech, H. (2010). Evidence based systematic review: effects of service delivery on the speech and language skills of children from birth to 5 years of age. ASHA's National center for evidence based practice in communicatio disorders . 20. Smith, S. (2004). Idea 2004: Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act: A parent handbook for school age children with learning disbilities. Indiana: Author House. 21. Thorneburg, R. N., Calvert, L. K., Sturm, J. J., Paramboukas, A. A., & Paul, P. J. (2000). A comparson of service delivery models: effects of curriculum vocabulary skills in the school setting. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology , 9, 10-20. 22. Van Cleave, J., & Davis, M. M. (2006). Bullying and peer victimization among children with special health care needs. Pediatrics , 118, 1212-19. 23. Vaughn, S., & Klinger, J. K. (1998). Students' perceptions of inclusion and resource room settings. Journal of special education , 32, 79-88. 24. Vaughn, V. L., Feldhusen, J. F., & Asher, J. W. (1991). Meta-Analyses and Review of Research on Pull-Out Programs in Gifted Education. Gifted child quarterly , 35 (2), 92-8. 25. Zigmond, N., & Baker, J. (1994). Is the maninstream a more appropriate stream for Randy> A case study of one student with learning disabilities. Learning disabilities and practice , 9, 108-17. Read More