One might hypothesize that inclusion promotes better social outcomes for students with Learning Disabilities, especially in the area of self-concept. One might reasons that, if they are not segregated from their non-disabled peers, students with Learning Disabilities will not feel that they are different and inferior.
Or one might theorize that inclusion has negative effects on the self-concept of students with Learning Disabilities. One might think that living in the same classrooms as their non-disabled peers might make the problems they experience all the more salient—and painful—to students with Learning Disabilities.
In fact, it would be relatively easy to go to the library and find a study or two that would support either perspective. This illustrates one of the problems that arises from research: Sometimes the results of studies differ. The problem is overcome, however, when one conducts meta-analyses. A carefully conducted meta-analysis examines all the research (not just one or two that have been cherry-picked to support or refute a hypothesis) and integrates the studies using a consistent metric (the effect size).
Batya Elbaum of the University of Miami (FL, US) conducted a meta-analysis of the research on whether placement of students in different educational environments—regular classroom, resource room, etc.—positively or negatively affected the self-concept of students with Learning Disabilities. Here’s the abstract.
Although placement in less restrictive settings is generally believed to be associated with more positive social outcomes for students with disabilities, the empirical research has yielded equivocal findings. This study sought to synthesize the empirical research comparing the self-concept of students with learning disabilities (LD) in different educational placements. Meta-analysis revealed no overall association between self-concept and educational placement for 4 out of 5 comparisons: regular class vs resource room, regular class vs self-contained class, resource room vs self-contained class, and regular class vs special school. Students with LD receiving instruction in self-contained classrooms in regular schools exhibited lower self-concept compared to students with LD attending special schools. Follow-up analyses were conducted to explore whether the variability of effect sizes in regular class-resource room comparisons was associated with any of several potential moderator variables; the only variable for which the association approached significance was whether students in the regular classroom were provided with appropriate special education supports and services. Findings are discussed in light of documented individual variation in students’ placement preferences.
It appears that neither of those hypotheses about the effects of inclusion on students’ self-concepts is accurate. So, the next time you hear someone (colleague, administrator, parent, advocate) argue that putting little Johnny in such-and-such a placement would be good for his self-concept, you can show that someone the data. It might be true in an individual case, but on average, don’t bet on it.
Elbaum, B. (2002). The self-concept of students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of comparisons across different placements. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 216-226.
For more on meta-analysis, including graphs showing some other findings, see my notes on the old “office of special ed” site.
0 Responses to “Self-concept and inclusion”