The Effects of Teacher-Led Inclusive Instruction on Student Behavior and Academic
Achievement in the Elementary General Education Classroom
Introduction
Inclusive education can be defined as each student being integrated to the fullest extent in
a general education classroom. (Gaines & Curry, 2011). The general education classroom being
the classroom in which typically developing students receive their education. The theory behind
inclusive education is that all children deserve to be educated with their peers, as opposed to
students with special needs being secluded into special education classrooms. While to most,
inclusive classrooms are a simple, given thing, something that doesn’t require so much as a
second thought. Some supporters of inclusive education go so far as to argue that inclusive
education is a moral human right (Gordon, 2013).
Others feel that it is detrimental to our educational system. Their reasons vary, from lack
of teacher readiness (Lancaster & Bain, 2010) to the negative effects they fear inclusion may
have on typically developing students (Rujis, Van der Veen, & Peetsma, 2010). Currently,
inclusion isn’t required by law (Gaines & Curry, 2011).
The focus of this literature review is to look critically at several aspects of inclusion. I
will share the characteristics necessary for inclusion to be implemented successfully as well as
the arguments against inclusion. Lastly, I will share some thoughts in moving forward with
inclusion, what needs to change, and what to expect in the future.
Literature Review
When examining the effectiveness of inclusion in the general education classroom, there
are many things to consider, the first consideration being classroom management. Classroom
management can be defined as proactive strategies that teachers use to keep their students
engaged as well as provide a quality-learning environment (Sucuoglu, Akalin, & Sazak-Pinar,
2010). Throughout my research, I found that most researchers choose to measure classroom
management through the observation of teachers, and their use of approval and disapproval
behaviors. Approval behavior is described as teachers rewarding appropriate student behaviors.
Disapproval behavior is described as teachers verbally or nonverbally reprehending or criticizing
a student for inappropriate or undesirable behavior (Yildiz & Pinar, 2014).
Research suggests that when a teachers’ use of approval behaviors in inclusive
classrooms go up, students’ success increases both in regard to academics as well as social
behaviors (Yildiz & Pinar, 2014). From this we can gather that a students’ success in an inclusive
setting can vary greatly on the effectiveness of their classroom teacher. It wasn’t until the 1970’s
that researchers began to recognize the relationship between teacher behaviors and student
success (Güner, 2012). Since then a great deal of research has been conducted on the correlation
between effective teaching strategies and their effect on students. It is suggested that when
classroom teachers provide all their students with approval behaviors such as positive feedback,
the students in the classroom with disabilities demonstrate a higher level of academic
achievement (Sucuoglu, Akalin, & Sazak-Pinar, 2010).
Providing this high level of approval behavior to all students in the classroom can prove
as a challenge to some teachers, as the expectations for students must vary based on their
individual educational needs. Strategies to help students with special needs find success in
inclusive settings include differentiating the amount of time required to complete tasks
successfully, the type of responses expected from students, and the duration of conversations and
activities (Sucuoglu, Akalin, & Sazak-Pinar, 2010). When a teacher is able to show that
flexibility in instruction and expectations in inclusive settings, it not only demonstrates effective
classroom management, it also ensures that all students have the opportunity to find success.
Another way to measure the effectiveness of a teachers’ classroom management is to
look at the engagement of the students within the classroom. Effective inclusive education
teachers should not only be flexible and able to adapt to their students needs, they should also be
able to create a learning environment in which all students are actively engaged (O’Leary, 2011).
In order to measure student engagement, researchers observe students on-task behaviors. On-task
behaviors include actively looking at a worksheet or book, listening to instructions or
conversations, and answering questions (O’Leary, 2011). In a study conducted in Ireland,
researchers found that teachers who used higher amounts of approval behaviors also had students
engaging in a higher level of on-task behaviors. This illustrates a strong correlation between
approval behaviors and student engagement, but lacks sustenance in regard to its applicability in
the inclusive setting, due to the fact that out of the forty-five students studied, only four of them
had special needs.
In an article recently published in the journal of Teaching Exceptional Children,
researchers gave suggestions on ways to increase engagement for students with special needs,
more specifically, students with autism. Throughout their research, focus is placed on the
different areas and ways students can be engaged. Those areas include auditory engagement,
visual engagement, social engagement, and physical engagement. Research was conducted in
controlled laboratory settings, and it was found that student engagement in all of these areas can
be increased through a variety of strategies, such as the use of songs for transitions and lessons,
visual schedules for prompting of daily tasks, requiring verbal response and verbal peer
interactions, and opportunities for movement integrated throughout the day (Goodman &
Williams, 2007). While these are beneficial strategies to increasing student engagement, which is
a necessity in the success of an inclusive classroom, researchers also acknowledged that while
these strategies work well in a controlled laboratory setting, they may be difficult to recreate and
implement fully in a typical general education classroom setting.
In a study conducted in Turkey, researchers studied the correlation between teachers’
perceptions of behaviors in their classrooms, (which were compiled through surveys) and
classroom management techniques implemented (which was gathered through use of the
Classroom Management Observation Form.) What they found was that the teachers who
perceive fewer problem behaviors within their classroom scored higher on the Classroom
Management Observation Form. Similarly, teachers who perceived a higher number of problem
behaviors in their classroom scored significantly lower on the Classroom Management
Observation Form (Sucuoglu, Akalin, & Sazak-Pinar, 2010). While I find this particular study to
be biased on the basis of the subjects were selected because they were already taking part in
another study, I still feel this illustrates the direct correlation between strategies employed by
teachers and the overall success of their classroom management.
Federal law requires that students be educated in the Least Restrictive Environment
(LRE). LRE is the requirement that special education students be educated with all children, both
with and without special needs, in the closest to typical educational environment in which they
can still find success (Gaines & Curry, 2011). Throughout the years, the needs of students have
grown and changed greatly. Because of this, there are much higher and increasingly complex
expectations of teachers (Van De Putte & De Schauwer, 2013). As stated earlier, the correlation
between teacher behaviors and student behaviors is great. Similarly, an important factor for the
success of inclusion is the knowledge base of teachers as well as their attitude toward it (Van De
Putte & De Schauwer, 2013). This begs the question, if the special education teachers are the
teachers with the knowledge base necessary for meeting the needs of students with special needs,
why would we put those students in any other classroom?
Opponents of inclusion feel that general education teachers have less knowledge about
teaching students with special needs, and could therefore have a negative effect on their
education (Ruijs, Peetsma, & Van Der Veen, 2010). These opponents feel that students with
special needs should be kept with the special education teachers in order to find success.
Contrary to this belief, proponents of inclusive education are concerned that children’s rights are
being compromised by special education, due to the segregation from peers and the fear of
drastic differences in curriculum (Lindsay, 2007).
With the concern surrounding students with special needs segregation from typically
developing peers also comes the concern of the lack of social skills developed as a result.
Research suggests that increasing the social skills of students in special needs is important and
necessary for their success not only in the general education classroom, but more broadly, in
real-life. Research conducted here in the United States shows a direct link between social skills
taught in the classroom, and an increase in all students’ ability to problem solve, interact
appropriately, and cooperate with peers (Pinar & Sucuoglu, 2013).
Inclusive education comes with great benefits, especially to typically developing
students. In an inclusive setting, children develop a point of view that helps them to be more
attentive, understanding, and loving toward others, despite their differences. They also gain a
more realistic point of view about society, people, and personal differences (Ogelman & Secer,
2012). Fostering these qualities in our children today will help to create understanding and
empathetic adults in the future.
The civil rights movements of the 1960’s moved our society toward seeing inclusion
about more than just the classroom. Instead, for many, inclusion is seen as an issue of diversity
and social justice, and extends far beyond the walls of a classroom (Thomas, 2013). When
thinking about inclusion, it is important that we look at the whole picture. Through my research I
have found that inclusive education concerns far more than just students with special needs.
Inclusive education concerns all students, teachers, administrators, parents, and politicians.
Because it concerns and affects so many, it is important that all voices are given a chance to be
heard, considered, and respected.
Conclusion
Currently in the United States, assessment plays a huge role in the educational life of a
child who has special needs. Students are evaluated and important decisions regarding their
education are made based on a variety of assessment results (Lebeer, Partanen, Candeilas,
Gracio, Bohacs, Sonnesyn, & Dawson, 2013). That being said, in recent years, the number of
students in the united states identified as having special education needs who are being taught in
the general education classroom has more than tripled (Sodak, 2003). Some argue that these
assessments are to blame, and that we are identifying students who don’t need special education
services. But many others argue that the needs of our students today are changing, and in order to
keep up, the way we educate them must change as well.
Twenty years ago, less than one third of students with special needs participated in the
general education classroom. By the late nineties, more than seventy five percent of students
with special needs were being educated in inclusive settings (Sodak, 2003). As a society, we are
taking necessary steps toward moving forward with inclusion, but there are still many steps
forward that we need to take.
Until recently, much of the research that had been done in regard to inclusion consisted
primarily of children with mild special needs. As we move forward toward universal inclusion,
more research is being conducted on educational experiences and needs of students with more
severe disabilities, and how their needs can be met in the general education classroom (Foreman,
Kelly, Pascoe, & King). This type of research continues to propel us forward in terms of
inclusion becoming the norm in our educational system.
Currently in Finland, in an effort to support inclusion, they have developed something
call “part-time special education” (Takala, Pirttimaa, & Törmänen, 2009). Students who
participate in part-time special education spend much of their time in the general education
classroom, being pulled for special-education services when necessary for their success. It is
seen as a temporary educational solution for students and only takes up a small part of their day.
The educational results they have seen have been deemed successful according to the Program
for International Student Assessment, and many feel that part-time special education has played a
big role in that success (Takala, Pirttimaa, & Törmänen, 2009).
Future research should continue to explore inclusion for all degrees of special needs, as
well as exploration into how to best prepare teachers to meet these needs in their classrooms.
Collaboration between teachers will become a necessary component to inclusion in order to meet
the needs of all students, and research into the best systematic way to collaborate among teachers
would be beneficial as well. The more research is done, the more will be found on not only the
benefits of inclusion but also the necessity of it, the right that each child has to an inclusive
education, whether or not they have special needs.
References
Foreman, P., Arthur-Kelly, M., Pascoe, S., King, B., & Downing, J. (2004). Evaluating the
Educational Experiences of Students With Profound and Multiple Disabilities in Inclusive and
Segregated Classroom Settings: An Australian Perspective. Research & Practice For Persons
with Severe Disabilities (29)3, 183-193.
Gaines, K., & Curry, Z. (2012). The Inclusive Classroom: The Effects of Color on Learning
Behavior. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences Education, 29(1), 46-57.
Goodman, G., & Williams, C. M. (2007). Interventions for Increasing the Academic Engagement
of Students With Autism Spectrum Disorders in Inclusive Classrooms. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 39(6), 53-61.
Gordon, J. (2013). Is Inclusive Education a Human Right?. Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics,
41(4), 754-767.
Güner, N. (2012). The Effect of Preventive Classroom Management Training Program on
Approval and Disapproval Behaviors of Teachers. International Journal of Instruction, 5(1),
153-166.
Kim, H.J. (2012). The Effects of Inclusive-Classroom Experience on Early Childhood Preservice
Teachers’ Self-Efficacy. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 6 (1),
161-179.
Lancaster, J., & Bain, A. (2010). The design of pre-service inclusive education courses and their
effects on self-efficacy: a comparative study. Asia-Pacific Journal Of Teacher Education, 38(2),
117-128.
Lebeer, J., Partanen, P.P., Candeilas, A. A., Gracio, M.L., Bohacs, K. K., Sonnesyn, G.G., &
Dawson, L. L. (2013). The Need for a more Dynamic and Ecological Assessment of Children
Experiencing Barriers to Learning to move towards Inclusive Education: a Summary of Results
of the Daffodil Project. Transylvanian Journal Of Psychology, 175-205.
Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive
education/mainstreaming. British Journal Of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 1-24.
Ogelman, H., & Secer, Z. (2012). The Effect Inclusive Education Practice during Preschool Has
on the Peer Relations and Social Skills of 5-6-Year Olds with Typical Development.
International Journal Of Special Education, 27(3), 169-175.
O’Leary, S. (2011). The Inclusive classroom: Effect of a readability intervention on student
engagement and on-task behaviour within two mixed-ability science classrooms. Science
Education Journal, 22(2), 145-151.
Pinar, E., & Sucuoglu, B. (2013). The Outcomes of a Social Skills Teaching Program for
Inclusive Classroom Teachers. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(4), 2247-2261.
Ruijs, N., Peetsma, T., & Van der Veen, I. (2010). The presence of several students with special
educational needs in inclusive education and the functioning of students with special educational
needs. Educational Review, 62(1), 1-37.
Ruijs, N. M., Van der Veen, I., & Peetsma, T. D. (2010). Inclusive education and students
without special educational needs. Educational Research, 52(4), 351-390.
Soodak, L. C. (2003). Classroom Management in Inclusive Settings. Theory Into Practice, 42(4),
327-333.
Sucuoglu, B., Akalin, S., & Pinar, E. (2010). The Effects of Classroom Management on the
Behaviors of Students with Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms in Turkey. The Journal of
International Association of Special Education, 11 (1), 64-75.
Takala, M., Pirttimaa, R., & Törmänen, M. (2009). Inclusive special education: the role of
special education teachers in Finland. British Journal Of Special Education, 36(3), 162-173.
Thomas, G. (2013). A review of thinking and research about inclusive education policy, with
suggestions for a new kind of inclusive thinking. British Educational Research Journal, 39(3),
473-490.
Van De Putte, I., & De Schauwer, E. (2013). "Becoming a Different Teacher..." Teachers'
Perspective on Inclusive Education. Transylvanian Journal Of Psychology, 245-263.
Yildiz, N.G., Pinar, E.S. (2014). Examining Approval and Disapproval Behaviors of Teachers
Working in Inclusive Classrooms. International Journal of Instruction, 7(1), 33-48.