Problem 2: special needs children

Question 1

2009, Ruijs & Peetsma:
-aim
-method

Answer 1

-aim: review of literature including SEN children in normal schools
-Method: literature review

Question 2

2009, Ruijs & Peetsma:
-results

Answer 2

-achievement of students with SEN: positive, achieve better in inclusive settings
-socio-emotional effects on children with SEN: mixed, they have a lower social position but have more interaction than if they were in special education
-academic effects on ‘normal’ children: over all positive, may be better for low-achieving students than for high-achieving
-social effects on normal children: more positive attitude towards children with SEN and
-overall: slightly positive

Question 3

2009, Ruijs & Peetsma:
-limitations

Answer 3

-some studies didn’t have control groups,
-there are different types of inclusive education
-how generalisable are the results
-how systematic is the whole review

Question 4

2017, Szumski et al:
-factors moderating the relationship + results

Answer 4

-country of study (better in US & canada)
-implementation of inclusive education (helpful for other students if SEN students are included)
-educational team composition (no effects)
-level & type of disorder (mild SEN & no behavioural problems = sign benefit)
-educational stage (sign but weak results for primary education, no further sign results)
-type of SEN: no sign effect for EBD group (worst behavioural problems group) + more pos results for classes without EBD children

–> overall beneficial for normal students to include SEN students

Question 5

2017, Szumski et al:
-limitations

Answer 5

-no control group
-no control of children’s cognitive abilities
-generalizability ?
-heterogeneity of the moderators is high –> difficult to draw conclusions
-no investigation of long-term effects

Question 6

2017, Garrote et al:
-goal
-method
-

Answer 6

-goal: what type of school based intervention can foster the social participation of students with SEN in mainstream pre-school and primary classrooms?
-method: systematic review

Question 7

2017, Garrote et al.:
-results

Answer 7

overall SEN students are less accepted
+ teaching interaction strategies, group activities, support groups and training paraprofessionals are effective in facilitating social participation

Question 8

2017 garrote et al,
-limitations

Answer 8

-mainly ASD was looked at, more studies with different SENs are needed
-more studies from other countries are needed

Question 9

2013, de boer et al:
-goal
-hypothesis
-method

Answer 9

-goal: cross-sectional study to investigate which child, peer and classroom related variables relate to peer acceptance and friendships of SEN students in normal schools
-hypothesis: effect of gender on peer acceptance of SEN students
-method: questionnaires measuring 4 variables:
–peer acceptance & friendships
– type of disability
–internalising and externalising behaviour problems
–attitudes of peers towards students with disabilities
–teacher assistance

Question 10

2013, de boer et al:
-results

Answer 10

-child variables: behaviour is more relevant than appearance or SEN
-peer variables: children prefer same sex friends
-classroom variables: neg correlation between teacher assistance and student participation
-boys: only variables that had an effect were mean class attitude and teacher assistance (neg affected acceptance)
-girls: neg effect for presence of social problems, individual attitudes had an effect (girls with more pos attitude are more likely to accept SEN girls), neg effect of teacher assistance

Question 11

2013, de boer et al
-limitations

Answer 11

-possible bidirectional findings
-influence of other involved parties was not considered