https://www.scribd.

com/doc/127370723/Readiness-of-General-Education-Teachers-in-Handling-
Students-With-Special-Needs-in-an-Inclusive-Setting-By-Arville-Domingo-Mier-Keyser-and-Patena

Every teacher is the manager of the children’s learning. As a teacher, you influence the children you
teach-in many ways. Because of you, many of them learn things that they will remember for the rest of
their lives from him. Dean (1993) says that as a regular teacher how you discharge this responsibility
depends not only on the person you are and the relationships you are able to build with children and
colleagues, even though these are also important. The ability to organize children’s learning, the actual
teaching skills you posses, you ability to observe, select, assess, evaluate and so on, are crucial and make
all the difference between the group in inch most of the children come near to achieving their full
potentials and in which most are under achieving. Children are normally with the regular teacher for the
majority of the time so that he or she is able to know them well. Most regular teachers in primary
schools also have some freedom to plan the work as seem best to them. Inclusive education as the
name implies includes or accepts or welcomes all persons into a class, school or community as full
members not minding their conditions (abilities or disabilities, potentials or deviations) and also value
them. The center for studies in inclusive education (CSIE) as cited by Okoba (2007), defines inclusive
education as “a programme for all children and young people with or without disabilities or difficulties
learning together in ordinary primary provisions, schools, colleagues and universities with appropriate
network of supports”. He went further to explain that the essential marks of inclusive education are
that its client are not limited to exceptional children in the traditional delineation of die term, but
indeed all children having problems with learning and the normal children as well.

A Somewhat Different Approach

Inclusion receives a lot of press these days, as more and more special education students are included in
a general education classroom. There are some situations, however, in which is it difficult or impossible
for special education to join an inclusion classroom. In those cases, some schools will consider using
reverse inclusion instead.

Inclusive education is when all students, regardless of any challenges they may have, are placed in age-
appropriate general education classes that are in their own neighborhood schools to receive high quality
instruction, interventions, and supports that enable them to meet success in the core curriculum (Bui,
Quirk, Almazan, & Valenti, 2010; Alquraini & Gut, 2012).

The school and classroom operate on the premise that students with disabilities are as fundamentally
competent as students without disabilities. Therefore, all students can be full participants in their
classrooms and in the local school community. Much of the movement is related to legislation that
students receive their education in the least restrictive environment (LRE). This means they are with
their peers without disabilities to the maximum degree possible, with general education the placement
of first choice for all students (Alquraini & Gut, 2012).

Successful inclusive education happens primarily through accepting, understanding, and attending to
student differences and diversity, which can include the physical, cognitive, academic, social, and
emotional. This is not to say that students never need to spend time out of regular education classes,
because sometimes they do for a very particular purpose—for instance, for speech or occupational
therapy. But the goal is this should be the exception.

The driving principle is to make all students feel welcomed, appropriately challenged, and supported in
their efforts. It’s also critically important the adults are supported, too. This includes the regular
education teacher and the special education teacher as well as all other staff and faculty who are key
stakeholders; and that also includes parents.

Are regular classroom teachers really not qualified to teach students with special needs?

By Linda Graham and Kate de Bruin and Ilektra Spandagou

Sure enough, representatives of parent and teacher groups have emerged to back
Senator Pauline Hanson’s claims that children with ‘autism and disabilities’ should
be removed from mainstream classroom.
Primary principals in south western Sydney were reported as saying a shortage of
places in special schools and classes is leading to the placement of students with
disability or special needs into regular classes with a teacher who is “not
sufficiently qualified”.
No description of the necessary qualifications was provided in the article but the
implication was clear: special qualifications are needed to teach special students. In
other words, a regular teacher education qualification just doesn’t cut it.

At about the same time Dr James Morton, who is Chairman of the AEIOU
Foundation and parent of a child with autism, in an interview on ABC radio
criticised universities for failing to prepare teachers to teach students with
disability. His chief complaint was that units specialising in autism are not
mandatory in undergraduate teacher education programs and accused universities
of not investing in Australia’s future.
 Then we had Professor Kenneth Wiltshire of the UQ Business School who argued
via an opinion piece that the states had pulled a “con job… late last century” by
promising “disabled students could become mainstream in every way by being
included in conventional schools”. He then claims the states only supported
inclusion because they were “cost-cutting by closing many special schools”.
While confused and lacking any supporting evidence, Wiltshire’s article echoes
points made in the other two examples:

1. special students need to be educated by special teachers in special places,

2. regular classroom teachers are not qualified to teach students with disability and/or
universities are failing to adequately prepare them
3. there are not enough special teachers and special places (because of inclusion and
the closure of special schools).
Is there truth to any these claims?
In short, no.

Firstly, research consistently shows that educating students with disability in

special places does not guarantee better academic or social outcomes, better
employment prospects or post-school options and social inclusion. Quite the
opposite, in fact.

This does not mean that they will do well in mainstream schools built for a narrow
range of students. It means that local schools must evolve to cater to the full range
of students. And this means teachers and teacher preparation must also evolve.

The 2016 Australian Senate Report made recommendations for teaching skills that
would improve workforce capacity for inclusion: universal design for learning,
differentiated teaching, and cooperative learning.
With this knowledge, teachers can identify what support students need to access
the curriculum, engage in classroom activities, and achieve at school. These skills
are emphasised in the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, which since
2012 have underpinned the accreditation of university teacher education courses.

The Standards make clear that all classroom teachers are qualified to teach
students with disability and/or additional needs. To be accredited, university
teacher education courses must also cover four key focus areas that directly relate
to students with disability: (i) differentiating teaching to meet the specific learning
needs of students across the full range of abilities, (ii) supporting learning of
students with disability, (iii) supporting student participation and engagement, and
(iv) managing challenging behaviour.
Every graduating teacher must provide evidence that they meet each Standard to
achieve registration to teach. To maintain their annual registration, existing
teachers must provide evidence that they have engaged in professional learning
relating to the Standards.

Clearly, there is a framework to ensure that registered classroom teachers are

qualified to teach students with disabilities and/or additional needs, and for
universities to prepare their graduates to do so. The benefits are seen in numerous
schools and classrooms across the country, but there is scope for both teacher
preparation programs and schools to embrace inclusive teaching practices.

Finally, the claim that places in special schools and classes have declined because
of inclusion and the subsequent closure of special schools is completely false.

Around the world, children are excluded from schools where they belong
because of disability, race, language, religion, gender, and poverty.

But every child has the right to be supported by their parents and community to
grow, learn, and develop in the early years, and, upon reaching school age, to go
to school and be welcomed and included by teachers and peers alike. When all
children, regardless of their differences, are educated together, everyone
benefits—this is the cornerstone of inclusive education.
What is inclusive education?
Inclusive education means different and diverse students learning side by side in
the same classroom. They enjoy field trips and after-school activities together.
They participate in student government together. And they attend the same
sports meets and plays.

Inclusive education values diversity and the unique contributions each student
brings to the classroom. In a truly inclusive setting, every child feels safe and has
a sense of belonging. Students and their parents participate in setting learning
goals and take part in decisions that affect them. And school staff have the
training, support, flexibility, and resources to nurture, encourage, and respond to
the needs of all students.

Regular classroom teachers worldwide are increasingly being asked to

include students with a range of diversities in their classrooms as a result of
policy and legislative reforms internationally (UNESCO, 2013). The
placement of students with diverse abilities (including those with a
disability) in a regular school does not guarantee high-quality education.
Schools often find excuses not to include a student, citing reasons as lack
of resources or lack of necessary skills and knowledge in the teaching
community to teach the students. We already know that children are more
likely to attend schools if they receive high-quality education (Rouse, 2010).
We cannot expect that increasing number of placement opportunities will
result in increased participation of learners with diverse abilities, including
those with disabilities, in our education system. We need to pay as much
attention to the quality of teaching and teacher preparation as we have paid
to increasing placement opportunities through legislation and policy
mandates internationally (UNESCO, 2013).
UNICEF (2012) conducted a study of participants involved in teacher
education programs from 111 countries. The report found that, in general,
most teacher education programs do not prepare teachers well to teach
learners with diverse abilities including those with a disability in their
classrooms. Slightly over 33% of respondents indicated that information
about inclusive education was not covered during their teacher education
programs. Qualitative comments from participants provided further insight
into the data. The report argued that teacher educators’ lack of experience
in inclusive education negatively impacted upon their ability to translate
theory of inclusive education into practical guidance for pre-service
teachers. Inadequate preparation of pre-service teachers for inclusive
classrooms suggests that most in-service teachers in the same system are
likely to struggle to include all learners in regular classrooms.
In a recent Senate report (Commonwealth of Australia, 2016), the
Australian Education Union (AEU) stated that “many teachers report feeling
underprepared when it comes to educating students with disability” (p. 77).
An overwhelming 63% of teachers stated that the level of training and
professional development they had received had not given them the skills
and knowledge to teach students with disability. A review of research and
policy documents from several countries suggests that inadequate
preparation of teachers to teach in inclusive classrooms is a worldwide
phenomenon (EADSNE, 2010). In a large study of in-service teachers
undertaken by OECD (Schleicher, 2016), it was found that the greatest
challenge faced by teachers across all participating OECD countries was
their lack of preparedness to teach students with special needs. The
problem of inadequate preparation of teachers to teach in inclusive
classrooms in developing countries is even worse. In a review of the
teacher education programs from 13 countries of the Asia Pacific region,
we found that focus on inclusive education in teacher education programs
was ad hoc, minimal, and isolated (Sharma, Forlin, Deppeler, &
Yang, 2013). While some universities covered theoretical information about
disabilities and inclusion, none of the universities had any practicum
component oriented toward practicing inclusion.

Clearly there is a need for us to rethink the way we have been preparing
teachers to teach in inclusive classrooms. Better prepared teachers not
only provide high-quality education to children with disabilities, all children
benefit in classrooms taught by competent, inclusive teachers (Sharma &
Loreman, 2014). One aspect that needs to be given significant attention
relates to addressing gaps between theory and practice of inclusion. Levine
(2006) in a comprehensive report “Educating School Teachers” indicated
that despite significant changes in teacher education in the United States,
there remain clear gaps between theory and practice. A comment made by
one pre-service teacher (PST) in the report highlights his point. “I could talk
about Carl Jung, scaffolding, cooperative learning groups, [and] the
advantages of constructivism, but had no idea what to do when Johnny
goes nuts in the back of the class, or when Lisa comes in abused, or when
Sue hasn’t eaten in three days” (p. 39). The comment by the participating
teacher presents “a symptom of a serious underlying problem described by
one education alumnus as ‘an abyss’ between theory and practice” (p. 39).
Recently a report on Australian teacher education programs also reported
significant disconnect between university-based teaching and school
experiences (Ingvarson et al., 2014). It stated that the disconnect is unlikely
to produce teachers who were ready to teach in our diverse classrooms.
The report stated there are significant consequences of inadequate
preparation of teachers, including higher turnover among poorly developed
pre-service teachers. The authors (Ingvarson et al., 2014) recommended
that we should focus our attention to meet the challenge. There is a need
for us to reform our teacher education programs internationally to ensure
true inclusion of all learners, including those with a disability, in mainstream
classrooms. A number of researchers have discussed ways teacher
education for inclusion could be reformed. For example, in one such
program Humberto (N.D.) suggested that an inclusive education teacher
needs to be prepared to recognize individual differences and implement
learning strategies for all. He further suggested that inclusive teacher
education programs should focus on equality: promoting the same
opportunities for all; quality: offering functional and meaningful learning;
and equity: responding to special educational needs. Other authors have
talked about various other means that inclusive teacher education
preparation should be undertaken. Various authors have talked about
various aspects of preparing teachers for inclusion ranging from using an
infusion approach to inclusion where content about inclusive education is
infused in all teacher education subjects rather than covered in just one
stand-alone teacher education subject (Loreman, 2010); use of reflective
teaching practice as a dominant frame for teacher preparation
(Sharma, 2010); and use of professional learning schools to provide field
experience for graduate teachers (Waitoler & Kozleski, 2010). Some
researchers have also talked about ways inclusive teacher education could
be evaluated to determine its effectiveness (Salend, 2010). Clearly, the
work done by these researchers have significantly moved the field forward.
In this article I make an attempt to build upon Shulman’s signature
pedagogies framework as a possible way to prepare teachers for inclusive
classrooms. It is important to recognize that Shulman’s framework was
mainly developed for preparation of regular classroom teachers. It is
important to acknowledge that Shulman’s framework in inclusive teacher
education has previously been applied by Florian and Rouse (2009) in
Scotland and has already shown promising signs in the field.
Prior to reviewing inclusive teacher education, it is important to define
inclusive education. UNESCO (2013) recognizes “inclusive education is a
dynamic process of change and improvement through which the education
system, and individual schools, school managers, and teachers address
the education needs of all children without discrimination” (p. 4).
Implementers of inclusive education make constant efforts to identify and
address barriers that might prevent learners from accessing education, and
participating in the learning process, and increasing their capacity both
academically and socially (UNESCO, 2013). Ainscow (2005) identified four
key elements of inclusive education that should form the foundation of
inclusive teacher education. First, inclusion is a process. He suggests that
inclusion is an ongoing process to search for ways to respond to diversity.
It is about an ongoing journey of learning to live with difference, and, also
about learning about how to learn from difference. Second, inclusion is
concerned with the identification and removal of barriers to learning.
Implementing inclusion requires collecting, collating, and evaluating
information from a variety of sources to plan for improving practice. Third,
inclusion is about the presence (i.e., attending schools alongside other
students), participation (i.e., the quality of experiences), and achievement
(i.e., learning and achieving across the curriculum not just examination
results) of all learners, not just those who have an identified disability.
Fourth, inclusion involves a particular emphasis on learners who are at an
increased risk of marginalization, exclusion, or underachievement.
Inclusion requires that we make serious attempts to ensure their presence,
participation, and achievement within our education system.

Understanding the Challenge

In order to understand how best we can reform teacher education for
inclusion, we need to first understand what do teachers need to learn to
teach effectively in inclusive classrooms. According to Shulman (2004),
teacher education or any other professional learning programs must
prepare teachers with three key elements (Shulman, 2004). He calls these
elements “three apprenticeships.” These are “apprenticeship of the head”
(i.e., the cognitive knowledge and theoretical basis of profession);
“apprenticeship of the heart” (the ethical and moral dimensions of a
professions, attitudes, and beliefs that are critical to one’s profession); and
“apprenticeship of the hand” (the technical and practical skills required to
carry out the tasks relevant to one’s profession). One critical question that
we need to ask is: Are we preparing our teachers who have the heart, head
and hands of inclusive teachers? In order for us to answer the question, we
need to first understand the heart, head and hands aspects more fully.

The movement toward inclusion of students with disabilities into general

education classes has become the overwhelming trend in education (Chow &
Kasari, 1999; Mamlin, 1999). Not only does inclusive education for children
with disabilities bring improved academic functioning (Manset & Semmel,
1997; Sideridis et al., 1997), but it also offers them the opportunity for
socialization with their peers without disabilities in general education
classrooms (Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman, & Shattman, 1993;
National Center for Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, 1994). While
early studies have investigated the academic performance of children with
disabilities in inclusive settings, there has been increased interest in and
attention to the social adjustment and social functioning of children with
disabilities in inclusive settings (Vaughn, Elbaum, & Schumm, 1996; Vaughn,
Elbaum, Schumm, & Hughes, 1998).
Students with disabilities often demonstrate delays in social development
that parallel delays in their academic performance and achievement (Odom,
McConnell, & Chandler, 1994). Some students lack skills in initiating and
sustaining positive social relationships (Gresham, 1997; Heiman & Margalit,
1998) and in appropriately interpreting social cues (Heron & Harris, 1993).
They often exhibit more aggressive and negative verbal and nonverbal
behaviors (McConaughly, Mattison, & Peterson, 1994; Sigafoos, 1995) and
may be either disruptive or withdrawn (Clare & Leach, 1991; McIntosh,
Vaughn, & Zaragoza, 199 1). Often these behaviors result in students with
disabilities having fewer friends than their peers without disabilities as well
as their being actively rejected by peers (Farmer & Rodkin, 1996; Nabasoku
& Smith, 1993). Such pervasive deficits in social functioning manifested by
many students with learning disabilities have been widely acknowledged by
the special education community. In fact, in 1987, the Interagency
Committee on Learning Disabilities proposed modification of the definition of
learning disabilities to include social skill deficits as a primary learning
disability.
Social status can take a variety of forms. For example, Coie, Dodge, and
Coppotelli (1982) devised a classification system by which they identify
popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average children. Popular
children are those children who, on a sociometric peer nomination
instrument, receive a large number of positive choices and few, if any,
negative choices. Such children are desired by peers. Conversely, rejected
children receive a greater number of negative nominations but few, if any,
positive ones. Neglected children are those persons who receive few positive
or negative nominations. They are actively ignored, almost invisible persons
in social settings. One investigator (Luftig, 1999) has taken to calling them
"ghost children" because of their social invisibility.
Controversial children are those who receive a significant number of both
positive and negative peer nominations. They are children who appear to be
both positive and negative at the same time to peers. Finally, average
children receive about the average number of both positive and negative
nominations when compared with their peers.
Contradictory data exist regarding the effects of inclusive education settings
on the social functioning of students with disabilities. For instance, Vaughn
and others (1996) found inclusive classrooms to have a positive impact on
the peer relationships and self-concept of students with learning disabilities.
These students reported increases in reciprocal friendships and lower levels
of social alienation after being in an inclusive classroom for the entire school
year. Furthermore, in analyzing the social networks within inclusive third-
and fourth-grade classrooms, T. Farmer and E. Farmer (1996) found that
students with and without disabilities belonged to a peer cluster at about
equal rates. Other researchers, however, report that being placed in an
inclusive setting may pose additional difficulties for students with disabilities
who demonstrate deficits in social behavior. Some evidence indicates that
students without disabilities as well as teachers in general education
classrooms often do not accept a student with disabilities (Bryan, 1997; Sale
& Carey, 1995). Peers and teachers often ignore or actively reject the
overtures of such students, praise them less, and consider them less
desirable than students without disabilities (Heron & Harris, 1993; Stitt et
al., 1988).
If students with disabilities are more isolated and/or rejected than their
peers without disabilities, the question arises as to how acutely students
with disabilities perceive and internalize such feelings of rejection when they
occur. Put another way, when these students are actively rejected or ignored
by their peers without disabilities, do they perceive and take to heart such
rejection and what does that rejection make them feel about their future
ability to initiate or sustain appropriate social relationships?
Students' perceptions of rejection or of being ignored and their resultant
feelings of isolation and disconnection often are manifested in feelings of
perceived loneliness (Eronen & Nurmi, 1999; Sermat, 1980). Feelings of
loneliness among children without disabilities have been found to range from
10% (Asher, Hymel, & Renshaw, 1984) to as high as 18% (Luftig, 1985). By
comparison, rates of loneliness felt among children with developmental
disabilities have been found to be much higher, often 25 % or more (Luftig,
1987).
Being rejected or ignored by peers may also affect one's beliefs about the
ability to make and keep friends in the future. This construct has often been
referred to as "social competence" (Antia & Kreimeyer, 1992; Harter & Pike,
1984). Students' impressions about their social competence influence their
beliefs about the probability that future social initiations will succeed or fail
(Parker & Asher, 1987; Nurmi, Toivonen, Salmela-Aro, & Eronen, 1996).
Such beliefs are important for an individual making a decision to seek
friendships and other positive social relationships in the future or to become
even more isolated or withdrawn (Elias, 1995; Newton, Taylor, & Wilson,
1996).
The topic investigated in the present study was the perceived loneliness,
social competence, and social status of children with learning disabilities in
sixth-grade inclusive education settings. In this particular study, classrooms
were considered inclusive when students with learning disabilities spent
100% of the school day in the general education classroom with same-age
peers. Instruments that measured the 3 above-mentioned variables were
administered to students with learning disabilities and to their classmates
without disabilities. It was hypothesized that inclusive education would have
a positive effect on the social functioning of students with learning
disabilities and that thus they would be as accepted as their peers without
disabilities. Consequently, the study would show no differences between the
groups' perceived loneliness and social competence.

Methodology

Participants
Participants in the study consisted of 15 students with learning disabilities
and 68 students without disabilities, all of whom were enrolled in sixth-grade
classrooms that had adopted a full inclusion model. All participants were
from a single urban school district in southwest Ohio that had approximately
7,000 pupils. The school district policy was to educate all students with
learning disabilities in the general education classroom with same-age peers
for the entire school day. Students received academic assistance from the
special education teacher and other support personnel in the form of co-
teaching or small-group instruction within the general education classroom.
Students participating in the study were from 4 sixth-grade classrooms in
three elementary schools in the district, each with an enrollment greater
than 480 students. At least 40% of the students in each school were
receiving free or reduced lunch Only students who brought back signed
parental permission slips indicating consent to participate in the study were
included. Data collected from students in the participating classrooms who
had a diagnosed disability other than a learning disability were not included
in the present analysis. No a priori decisions were made regarding the
gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or language background of the
participants. Due to issues of privacy and confidentiality, researchers did not
obtain information regarding the intelligence or achievement levels of
participating students, other than that which ascertained their special
education status and label.
Students with learning disabilities were included in the study if they (a) met
the state of Ohio and district criteria (consistent with federal regulations) for
a learning disability and (b) were fully included in a sixth-grade general
education classroom for 100% of the school day. Of the participating
students with learning disabilities, 8 were boys and 7 were girls. Their ages
ranged from 10 to 13 years, with a mean chronological age of 11 years. All
students were native English speakers. Participants had diagnosed learning
disabilities in the areas of reading, writing, and math. Of the 68 sixth
graders without disabilities, 36 were boys and 32 were girls. Students
without disabilities were also between 10 and 13 years of age, with a mean
chronological age of approximately 11 years.

Procedure and instruments

The study was conducted approximately 2 months after the start of the
school year so that students had time to get to know one another and
become familiar with the school and classroom environment. Two measures
were administered to all participating students in their classroom by a
proctor who was a trained school psychologist working in the school district.
The proctor first introduced herself and the purpose of the study, namely, to
learn more about how children feel about working and playing with other
children at school. Students were informed that their participation in the
study was voluntary and that they could stop participating at any time. They
also were assured of the confidentiality of their responses and were
instructed not to discuss their responses with others.
The two measures used in the study were the Modified Children's Loneliness
Scale (Luftig, 1986) and the Peer Nomination Inventory (Luftig, 1986). The
measures were administered in a counterbalanced order, with the Loneliness
Scale being administered first in two of the classrooms and the Peer
Nomination Inventory being administered first in the other two classrooms.
Modified Children's Loneliness Scale
An adaptation of the Children's Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Rating Scale
(Asher, Hymel, & Renshaw, 1984) was used to determine students' perceived social
competence, perceived loneliness, estimation of social status, and perceived ease of
making friends (Luftig, 1986). The original measure is a 24-item questionnaire
using a 5-point Likert- type scale. Seventeen of the original items were included in
the modified form of the measure that was used in the present study: 16 items that
determined the participant's social competence and loneliness at school (e.g., "I am
good at working with other kids," "It is hard for me to make friends") and I item
that determined the participant's attitude toward school (e.g., "I like school"). The
remaining 7 questions in the original scale that focused on the student's preferred
activities were dropped in Luftig's modified scale to reduce the administration time
and also because they were not directly linked to the purpose of the present study.
The Modified Children's Loneliness Scale was administered orally to each
class by the proctor. Four practice items were included at the beginning of
the questionnaire to ensure the participant's familiarity with responding to
the items on the measure. The proctor assisted students with these practice
items. She then read aloud each item on the scale and the five response
options that followed, and students read along silently, marking an X in the
box representing the answer that was most true for them. Response options
included, "that's always true about me," "that's true about me most of the
time", "that's sometimes true about me," "that's hardly ever true about me,"
and "that's not true at all about me." Students were allowed to ask clarifying
questions of the proctor after raising their hands, and the proctor quietly
assisted them. This measure took about 30 min to administer.
Asher's original scale has been found to demonstrate sound technical
properties. For example, it possesses a Spearman- Brown reliability
coefficient of 0.91 as reported by Asher and others (1984). Luftig (1987)
also demonstrated concurrent validity of the scale to be 0.81 between
teacher ratings and actual student reports of loneliness. An adaptation of the
Children's Loneliness Scale also has been used with 20 fourth- and fifth
grade students with learning disabilities and has been found to have high
reliability (coefficient a = 0.885) (Pavri & Monda-Amaya, 2000).
Peer Nomination Inventory
The Peer Nomination Inventory (Luftig, 1986) comprised 15 items that required
students to nominate up to three peers who fit given behavioral attributes (e.g.,
"name up to three students in your class who have a good sense of humor," "name
up to three students you would like to invite to your house after school," "name up
to three students in your class who fight and argue a great deal").

Students were seated in a semicircle so they could see all their classmates.
The students were instructed to look around the class and nominate peers
who best fit the given behavioral descriptions by writing their names on the
inventory following each item. If a child was absent on that particular day,
his or her name was written on the blackboard so students remembered to
include that child in their nominations. The proctor read the items aloud to
the whole class, and students were given time to respond to the item before
the next item was read. If they needed to, students raised their hands to
seek the assistance of the proctor in writing or spelling a peer's name or in
receiving clarification about the task, and the proctor quietly assisted them.
The items on the Peer Nomination Inventory formed two scales: "liked most"
(popularity scale) and "liked least" (unpopularity scale) that were used to
generate social impact and social preference scores. Of the 15 items, 8 items
made up the "liked-most" scale and the remaining 7 items made up the
"liked-least" scale.
Results

Data preparation and Scoring

Two scores were obtained for the Modified Children's Loneliness Scale: a
loneliness score and an estimate of perceived social competence. For each of
the two dimensions measured by this scale, individual item scores were
summed to yield a total loneliness and total perceived social competence
score.
The order of some of the items was reversed so that all items were positively
worded. Student responses were weighted and scored 1-5 so that a score of
5 always indicated greater loneliness or greater perceived social inadequacy.
Means and standard deviations were computed for each score, which were
used to conduct analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to determine whether there
were differences between students with and without disabilities on these
variables.
The responses on the peer nomination inventory were scored by tallying the
number of nominations each student received on each item on the scale
from all of his or her class peers. Coie and Kupersmidt's (1983) procedure
was then used to compute the student's sociometric status. Based on peer
nominations, each student received a total popularity and unpopularity
score. This score was determined by summing the total score the student
obtained from peers on the 8 questions representing popularity and the 7
questions representing unpopularity. Standard scores (z-scores) were then
computed for each child to facilitate further statistical analyses. "Liked-most"
(i.e., popularity) and "liked-least" (i.e., unpopularity) items were used to
generate social preference and social impact scores.
The social preference score was the z-score (liked most) - the z-score (liked
least), whereas the social impact score was the z-score (liked most) + the z-
score (liked least). These social preference and social impact scores were
used to define four extreme social status types. The popular group
comprised those children who received a social preference z-score greater
than +1.0, a liked-most z-score greater than 0, and a liked-least z-score less
than 0. The rejected group comprised those children who scored a social
preference z-score of less than -1.00, a liked-least z-score greater than 0,
and a liked-most z-score less than 0. The neglected group included those
children who received a social impact z-score of less than -1.00 and a liked-
most and a liked-least z-score less than 0. The rejected children, however,
received many more liked-least nominations than the neglected children did.
The controversial group contained children who obtained a social impact z-
score greater than +1.0 and liked-most and liked-least z-scores greater than
0. Last, the average group comprised children who received a social
preference z-score greater than -1.0 and less than +1.0. Chisquare statistics
were used to determine whether there were differences in the sociometric
status of students with learning disabilities and their peers without
disabilities.

Design and Data Analysis

The study employed a single factorial design with the independent variable
being whether or not a child had a diagnosed learning disability. The
dependent variables were the sociometric status (popular, rejected,
neglected, or controversial), the perceived social competence, and perceived
loneliness.
TABLE 1. Means and Standar Deviations for Loneliness Scores in Students With
Learning Disabilities and Students Without Disabilities

Scores Students with LD Students w/o LD

M 13.67 9.90
SD 6.21 5.50

The data collected using the modified Children's Loneliness Scalewere

analyzed using a series of one-way ANOVAs to determine if there were
differences between the students with learning disabilities and their peers
without disabilities in perceived social competence and perceived loneliness.
Significant differences were found between the two groups in perceived
loneliness F(1, 55)=4.77, p ‹.03), but not in perceived social competence.
Students with learning disabilities perceived themselves as being lonelier
than their peers without disabilities. Table 1 shows the mean difference and
standard deviations between the two groups on perceived loneliness.
As described earlier, the children were classified as belonging to 1 of 5 social
status groups, depending on their social preference and social impact scores.
Thus, the 15 students with learning disabilities were assigned to different
social status groups. For this reason, there were not enough students with
learning disabilities in each of the social status groups to yield statistical
power and warrant parametric statistical analyses. Thus, nonparametric, chi-
square analyses were used.
The central question regarding the social status data was whether the
students with learning disabilities would be assigned to social status groups
differently than was true for their peers without disabilities. Thus, the
expected frequency or norm for students with learning disabilities in each
social status group was the same as the frequency of the students without
disabilities in that status group. Chi-square analyses were conducted to
determine whether there were differences in the number of students with
learning disabilities who were assigned to the popular, average,
controversial, negative, and rejected social status groups as compared with
the number of students without disabilities who were nominated to each of
these status groups.
A significant chi-square was found for the social status groups of popular
children and controversial children. Students with learning disabilities were
less likely to be included in the popular group (df = 1, x2 = 8. 10, p < . 0 1)
and more likely to be placed in the controversial group (df = 1, x2 = 4.86, P
‹ .05) than their peers without disabilities.

Discussion
This study investigated whether students with learning disabilities who were
educated in inclusive general education classrooms differed from their same-
age peers without disabilities on the variables of social status and/or
perceived loneliness. The results indicated that sixth-grade students with
learning disabilities reported more feelings of loneliness than their classroom
peers who did not have disabilities. Furthermore, these same students with
learning disabilities were less popular and more controversial in their social
status than their classmates without disabilities.
The finding of higher levels of reported loneliness among students with
learning disabilities is interesting and to some extent consistent with the
existing literature (Asher & Gazelle, 1999; Guay, Boivan, & Hodges, 1999).
Students with disabilities in general have been found to report higher levels
of perceived loneliness than their peers without disabilities (Luftig, 1987;
Margalit, 1998). This finding has held true for students with diverse
disabilities, including developmental disabilities or mental retardation (Luftig,
1988), students with physical disabilities (King, Specht, Schultz, & Warr-
Leeper, 1997), gifted students (Kaiser & Berndt, 1985; Kline & Short, 1991),
and students with learning disabilities (Coleman, McHam, & Minnett, 1992;
Vaughn, Elbaum, & Schumm, 1996).
Loneliness is a perceived phenomenon. That is, people may feel lonely if
they are truly rejected by peers or if they do not adequately perceive or
understand their actual popularity among peers. Thus, of importance is why
these students perceive themselves to be lonely. Put another way, the
question may be asked as to how realistic or versed in reality are their
feelings of loneliness.
Two possible explanations exist. The first explanation is that students with
learning disabilities are actually disliked or ignored by peers and that thus
their feelings of loneliness are realistic. The second explanation is that the
social relationships of students with learning disabilities do not differ from
those of their peers without disabilities, and that thus their feelings of
increased loneliness are not grounded in reality and are largely a
misconception on their part.
In the present study, it appears that the loneliness of the students with
learning disabilities was realistic and related to their diminished social status.
The findings suggest that the students with learning disabilities were less
likely to be popular than their peers without disabilities and thus less likely
to be nominated for social activities by peers. Given such a lack of
nominations for social activities, it is not surprising that the students with
learning disabilities were aware of their social isolation and described
themselves as lonely.
Another new finding from the present study was the increased likelihood of
students with learning disabilities to achieve the controversial social status, a
situation where a student achieves a significant number of both positive and
negative nominations. Past studies have shown the controversial category to
be relatively small among students (Coie & Dodge, 1983), with the total
percentage of students falling in this category being about 5%. In the
present study, about 7% of the students without disabilities fell into this
category, whereas more than 13% of the students with learning disabilities
were classified as having controversial social status.
Why did a higher percentage of students with learning disabilities fall into
the controversial category? By definition, these students were engaging in
certain behaviors that caused them to be unpopular and popular at the same
time or, conversely, to be popular with some students but unpopular with
others. A number of researchers have found that students with learning
disabilities show decreased social acceptance by their peers without
disabilities (Asher & Taylor, 1981; Stanovich, Jordan, & Perot, 1998) and
that these students often are rejected by peers due to aggressive or
inappropriate social skills (Bryan, 1997; Heron & Harris, 1993). Yet the
present investigators found no studies that reveal significant differences in
the rate at which students with disabilities are nominated for the
controversial category.
It would have been beneficial to identify the specific behaviors that the
students with learning disabilities engaged in that resulted in their higher
incidence in the controversial category. This information is important
because evidence shows that students' behaviors are often a more accurate
indicator of their social status than the label placed on them for the purpose
of providing special education services (Raymond & Matson, 1989; Roberts &
Zubrick, 1993). Additional investigation is required regarding the specific
behaviors that contribute to the inclusion of students with learning
disabilities into the controversial category.
One interesting finding of the present study was that although students with
learning disabilities were less popular and more lonely than their classmates
without disabilities, they did not label themselves as being less socially
competent. This finding is consistent with earlier studies that found that
although students with learning disabilities were in reality less socially
competent than their peers without disabilities (Coleman et al., 1992), they
were also less accurate than their peers in assessing their own social status
and competence (LaGreca & Stone, 1990). Their inaccuracy may occur for a
variety of reasons relating to both development and cognitive functioning.
For example, Vaughn, Hogan, Kouzekanani, and Shapiro (1990) found
developmental differences in the accuracy of perceived social competence in
students with learning disabilities, with older students being more accurate
than younger students. However, Vaughn and others (1990) found that even
students as young as kindergarten or first grade could begin to accurately
assess their own social competence.
The students in the present study were enrolled in sixth grade and were
presumably mature enough to accurately assess their social competence.
Nevertheless, the students with learning disabilities assessed themselves to
be as socially competent as their peers without disabilities even though they
were decidedly less popular. Students with learning disabilities may
demonstrate a cognitive social deficit (or social metacognitive deficit) that
affects their social perceptions much as their cognitive learning deficits affect
their ability to learn academic material (Bruck, 1986; Luftig, 1987). Such a
metacognitive deficit would hinder their ability to adequately interpret
feedback from others.
Finally, it should be pointed out that the current findings as to the decreased
popularity and increased controversial status of the students with learning
disabilities occurred within the inclusive education setting. A variety of
studies have found that students often do not accept their peers who have
disabilities (Bryan, 1997) and that they are more likely to reject or to be
critical of the behaviors of such students (Stitt et al., 1988). Thus, it is
important to note that merely placing students with disabilities in inclusive
classrooms is not sufficient to allow for their social inclusion and that other
supports need to be in place to facilitate their acceptance and belonging in
the peer group.
In summary, it appears that students with learning disabilities were lonelier
than students without disabilities and that their loneliness appeared to be
versed in reality inasmuch as they were less popular and more controversial
than their peers. Although further research on the specific behaviors that
give rise to such isolation seems appropriate, it may be wise for classroom
teachers to deal with student feelings of loneliness and depression while also
teaching them required social skills.

Limitations of the study

There were two limitations to the present study that pose problems
regarding generalization to other student populations. The first was the
relatively small number of students with learning disabilities participating in
this study. These results must be duplicated with similar students in other
schools and with students at different developmental levels before they can
be generalized. The second limitation was the model of inclusive education
adopted by the school system in which the current students were enrolled,
which may be different from the models of inclusive education adopted by
other schools. The school followed what they called the "full inclusion"
model, in which all students with learning disabilities were served in the
general education classroom for the entire day. It would have been
beneficial to determine what types of social support were available to
students with disabilities to facilitate their social functioning and peer
relationships in the inclusive education setting.

Implications for practitioners

As stated earlier, it appears that merely placing students with disabilities in
inclusive classrooms is not sufficient to allow for their social inclusion, and
other supports need to be in place to facilitate their acceptance by and
belonging to the peer group. One type of support needed for acceptance of
students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms is teacher support (Chow,
1999). Research evidence indicates that teachers' attitudes toward students
with disabilities in inclusive classrooms are the most powerful factors in
these students being accepted by peers, reporting less loneliness, and
maintaining their self-esteem (Campbell, Dodson, & Bost, 1985; Luftig,
1985). Some general education teachers have been found to be anxious
about or even resistant to having students with disabilities placed in their
classes (Fiedler & Simpson, 1987; Gerstein & Luftig, 1998). There is a clear
need for teacher preparation programs to address the social acceptance of
students with disabilities in the general education classroom and to provide
teachers with strategies needed to facilitate the social functioning of all their
students.
This does not imply, however, that the onus for the social acceptance of
students with disabilities is entirely on the teacher. Regular classroom
teachers and classmates without disabilities should not and cannot accept
total responsibility for the social acceptance of peers with learning
disabilities. That is, social acceptance is not automatic and is usually based
on the student's set of social behaviors that he or she demonstrates with
peers. For this reason, it is important that the student with learning
disabilities receive intentional and active coaching in learning the social
behaviors that lead to acceptance (D. W. Johnson & R. T. Johnson, 1989;
Searcy, 1996). A number of viable programs and methods exist to help
students to achieve these goals (e.g., Meisgeier, 198 1; Zirpoli & Melloy,
1997), and teachers working with students with learning disabilities would
be strongly advised to become competent and willing to provide such
instruction.

Inclusive Setting This term describes a situation where all learners including those with special needs
participate in all activities in a community that recognizes and addresses the needs of each learner as
much as possible. Inclusive Education This refers to the philosophy of ensuring that schools, centres of
learning and educational systems are open to all children. This will enable the learners to be included in
all aspects of school-life. It also means identifying, reducing or removing barriers within and around the
school that may hinder learning. For this to happen, teachers, schools and systems need to modify the
physical and social environment so that they can fully accommodate the diversity of learning needs that
pupils may have.

Integration/Mainstreaming Different Professionals sometimes use the terms ‘integration’ and

‘mainstreaming’ synonymously. The terms indicate the participation of learners with special educational
needs in regular education without demanding changes in the curricular provision. Such children follow
the school system as it is with some or no support to cater for those with special needs. Such children
are expected to adapt to the regular school arrangements.

In recent decades, public schools find themselves facing the greater needs of diverse student
populations, with varying cognitive abilities, maturity levels, and academic strengths and
weaknesses. While most typical elementary, middle, and high school students find themselves
immersed in a classroom of twenty to thirty peers with one lead teacher, most public schools also have
“self-contained” classrooms to provide alternative settings for enhanced academic support for the
children whose needs cannot be fully met in a general education classroom.

What are Self-Contained Classrooms?

Unlike standard classrooms with a large number of peers, self-contained classrooms are typically smaller
settings with a fewer number of students. Created to help foster enhanced support for students with
special needs or specific difficulties, self-contained rooms are generally comprised of about ten students
with unique struggles who are most commonly instructed by a lead teacher with a certification in special
education. Self-contained classrooms will also have at least one paraeducator who provides
instructional support under the guidance of the classroom teacher.

Due to recent curriculum shifts, some self-contained rooms cater to the diverse needs of students, such
as those coping with autism spectrum disorder. A lead teacher, who is highly trained to help support
students with autism, is able to provide greater assistance than what these students would typically
receive in a classroom with a larger student-to-teacher ratio. Other examples of students who may be
enrolled in self-contained rooms include students with developmental issues, behavioral concerns,
students with specific academic struggles (i.e. in math, reading, science), or students learning to read
with dyslexia.
https://eric.ed.gov/?q=regular+teachers+in+inclusive+setting&ft=on