Instructional Practices for Pupils with an Intellectual Disability in Mainstream and Special Educational Settings

In many countries, parents can place autism spectrum disorder (ASD) children in either mainstream or special education settings, which differ in their ability to provide structured early intervention programs. There are no clear guidelines for how to make initial placement decisions and ongoing debate about the benefits and drawbacks of each educational setting. Previous studies have mostly examined placement of school-age children and reported that those with poorer cognitive abilities and more severe ASD symptoms tend to be placed in special education. The placement of younger children has rarely been studied. Here, we utilized the database at the National Autism Research Center of Israel to examine whether ASD severity, cognitive abilities, and parent education influenced the placement of 242 children. We performed the analyses separately for 1-3-year-old children who were placed in daycare centers and 3-5-year-old children who were placed in pre-school kindergartens. Our analyses revealed surprisingly small differences across special and mainstream education settings, particularly in daycare centers. Cognitive scores and parent education were significantly higher in ASD children placed in mainstream education, but these differences were of moderate effect size and explained a relatively small percentage of the variability in placement choices (<15%). Indeed, we found considerable overlap in the characteristics of ASD children across educational settings, which suggests that initial placement decisions are performed with little regard to the children's abilities. Given the importance of optimal early intervention, further studies are warranted to determine whether children with specific abilities and needs benefit more from placement in either educational setting. LAY SUMMARY: Currently, there are no clear recommendations for placing young children with ASD in special versus mainstream education settings. We examined the influence of ASD severity, cognitive abilities, and parent education on the initial placement of 242 children. While we found significantly higher cognitive scores and parental education in children placed in mainstream education, there was a remarkable overlap in the characteristics of children across both settings, suggesting that initial placement is performed with limited regard to the children's abilities. Autism Res 2021, 14: 699-708. © 2020 International Society for Autism Research and Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Today, children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are placed in mainstream or special education settings somewhat arbitrarily with no clear clinical recommendations. Here, we compared changes in core ASD symptoms, as measured by the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, 2nd edition (ADOS-2) clinical assessment, across ASD preschool children placed in special or mainstream education. Longitudinal changes in ADOS-2 scores did not differ significantly across settings over a 1- to 2-year period. While some children improved in core ASD symptoms, others deteriorated in both settings. This highlights the need to identify specific criteria for establishing meaningful placement recommendations.

EDUCATORS AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS regard play as a primary occupation of childhood, which in the case of children with special needs has not been well studied. The aim of this descriptive study was to observe the free-play behaviour of children with special needs in both special education and mainstream education settings. The Revised Preschool Play Scale and Lunzer Scale of Organisation of Play Behaviour were used to observe and record short play samples of 12 children with special needs, aged 48 to 84 months, in both educational settings. Results suggest that developmental play skills remained constant between the two settings. This study highlights the strong developmental foundations provided by play as well as advocating for the importance of play assessment in school-based therapy.

The presence strategy has significantly influenced global educational systems, particularly in facilitating access to mainstream schools for students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). While numerous studies have examined the outcomes of children with IEPs in both regular and special education settings, research on the specific characteristics of these environments remains limited. This research investigates differences in teaching practices between mainstream (N = 285) and special education settings (N = 400) for students with intellectual disabilities. The findings indicate that instructors in both settings devote similar amounts of time to learner- and teacher-centered activities, with a slight preference for the latter. However, mainstream educators set higher academic expectations, whereas special education instructors place greater emphasis on fostering students' social interaction, as demonstrated by the Mann-Whitney U-test. These differences highlight the contrasting priorities of each educational setting—mainstream environments focus on academic achievement, while special education settings emphasize social engagement. Given the importance of both academic success and social inclusion, integrating structured instruction with social interaction strategies is crucial for student development. Additionally, qualitative research suggests that teaching practices in both settings require further exploration to better understand how educators address diverse student needs. One limitation of this research is the confidentiality of instructor responses, which prevents the identification of specific schools or student backgrounds, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings. Further research should explore how instructional strategies can be adapted to improve student engagement and participation across educational settings. Enhancing inclusive teaching approaches can contribute to more effective learning experiences and better social integration for students with intellectual disabilities.

The term children with special educational needs (SEN) refers to highly diverse populations of children with a wide range of physical, cognitive and socioemotional disabilities or difficulties as well as strengths and resources causing them to require varying degrees of special educational support and assistance (Squires, 2012; Vehmas, 2010; Wilson, 2002). Several studies document significant gender imbalances in the number of students who receive special educational support, and for most disability categories the prevalence is higher for boys (Skårbrevik, 2002). The reasons for these imbalances are likely complex, and it is beyond the scope of the present review to account for the hypotheses and findings associated with each disability category. However, a general hypothesis across different categories of special educational needs is the notion that special educational needs are more likely to remain undetected in girls as symptoms and problems in girls may be less visible to educators (Arms et al., 2008). Traditional special education consists of segregating students with special needs from mainstream students within separate and typically smaller classrooms or educational settings. However, as early as in the 1930s, a movement originally known as mainstreaming, and in more recent years as inclusion, has sought to bring an end to segregated placement as the preferred educational option for students with special needs (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980). In 1994, the idea of inclusive education became even more consolidated when the Salamanca Statement was adopted by representatives from 92 countries, resulting in an international shift in policy. This meant that far more students with special needs started entering general educational settings around the globe (Murawski & Lee Swanson, 2001; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). The terms inclusion, mainstreaming, integrated placement, and cross-categorical instruction all refer to educational settings with a group composition consisting of a mixture of students with and without special educational needs. In the present review, we have chosen to use the term inclusion to refer to general educational settings in which there is a mixture of students with and without special educational needs. Ideally, inclusion and inclusive education should be based on an educational approach in which the goal is to continuously address and respond to the diversity of needs of all learners through increasing participation and reducing exclusion within and from education. Inclusion thus may involve changes and modifications in content, approaches, structures and strategies, with a common vision which covers all children and a conviction that it is the responsibility of the regular system to educate all children. Inclusion emphasises the provision of opportunities for equal participation of children with disabilities (physical, social and/or emotional) whenever possible into general education, but leaves open the possibility of personal choice and options for special assistance and facilities for those who need it (UNESCO, 2005). Inclusion as an ideological and theoretical movement was built on a philosophical foundation but during the last 60 years, the number of empirical studies addressing inclusive education has grown tremendously. However, findings on the efficacy of inclusion on student outcomes are still far from unequivocal (Kavale & Forness, 2000; Lindsay, 2007; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). This is where the present review will contribute, as the aim of the review is to summarise contemporary evidence on the effects of inclusive education when compared to a traditional segregated approach on students' learning, socioemotional adjustment and well-being. It is important to consider the types of students who might benefit most from inclusive education. As stated earlier, it is possible that the effects of inclusive education may be different for girls and boys. Further, a child's cognitive and socioemotional skills and needs develop throughout childhood and adolescence (Lightfoot et al., 2009) and thus, it is possible that the potential benefits of inclusive education may vary depending on the age of the children. We plan to to explore the impact of these student characteristics on student outcomes. At the core of inclusion is the principle that students with special or additional learning needs or disabilities belong in mainstream education. The fundamental principle of inclusive education is that all children should learn together, regardless of any difficulties or differences (UNESCO, 2005; Winter & O'Raw, 2010). However, operationally within the present review, we define inclusion as an educational setting with a mixture of children with and without special educational needs. In the present review, the intervention termed inclusion may thus be defined as any given group composition within a general educational setting which contains at least one child with an identified special educational need. Based on the core principles of inclusion there are many ways in which inclusion may be practised and adjusted, and thus there are a large number of characteristics within the inclusive setting, which may vary across the included studies. We will review studies of all kinds of inclusive education meaning that placement in the inclusive setting may be full time or part time. Special education students are a diverse group, as outlined in Section 4.1.2, and we will review studies regardless of the type of special educational needs of the student population and regardless of the ratio of students with and without special needs within the inclusive setting. We will include studies in which the general education teachers are provided with support and continuing professional development aimed at helping the teachers accommodate the needs of special education students and studies of inclusive settings in which no such support is offered to the teachers. It is often referred to as coteaching when two or more professionals deliver substantive instruction to a diverse or blended group of students within the same physical space (Murawski & Lee Swanson, 2001). In the present review, we will include studies, in which special education teachers and/or teaching assistants are present within the general education setting (coteaching) and studies in which they are not. For physically disabled students there may be adjustments made to the inclusive educational setting in order to accommodate aids such as wheelchairs, and for dyslexic students a number of computer programmes may be available. We will review studies in which students with special needs are provided with any kind of aid and technological support. This list of possible variations in student and classroom characteristics is not exhaustive, and in summary, within the present review we will include studies of all kinds of inclusive education as long as the studies are aimed at exploring the effects of inclusion in comparison to segregated special educational settings. We plan to conduct moderator analyses to explore the impact of specific characteristics of the inclusive educational setting and the characteristics of special educational needs on student outcomes. Considering the rapid global development towards inclusive educational placement for students with special educational needs, there is a rather surprising lack of pedagogical, psychological, or didactic theories regarding the specific ways in which inclusive education may affect students with special needs' academic and socioemotional development. Group composition within the educational setting may play a significant role in determining the academic achievement, socioemotional development and overall wellbeing of special needs students. Theoretically and ideologically, scholars favouring mainstreaming or inclusion propose that segregated educational placement causes stigmatisation and social isolation which may have detrimental effects on the self-concept, social identity, and self-confidence of students with special educational needs (Dyssegaard & Larsen, 2013). Second, being placed in a general education classroom along with typically developing peers is proposed to benefit special needs students' academic growth through peer effects (Rea et al., 2002; Tremblay, 2013). Finally, it is hypothesised that social interaction with general education peers may provide developmental opportunities that are not present in smaller, specialised units (Fisher & Meyer, 2002). On the other hand, opponents of inclusive education for all special needs students suggest that placement in general education classrooms may have adverse effects for special needs children especially if the time and resources allocated for individualisation and differentiation are not aligned with student needs. In such cases, special needs students' learning opportunities and wellbeing may also suffer, resulting in damages to self-concept (Zeleke, 2004), social isolation or bullying (Monchy et al., 2004; Pijl et al., 2010), stress (Pitt & Curtin, 2004), negative self-perception, and lower self-confidence (Bakker et al., 2007; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). Hegarty (1993) provides a narrative review of the literature on inclusion and suggests that a number of factors are associated with positive student outcomes in inclusive settings. These are: (1) instruction based on student achievement needs, (2) materials and procedures that allow students to proceed at their own pace, (3) additional time for students who need it, (4) increased student responsibility for their own learning, (5) cooperation among students in achieving goals, (6) support teaching and (7) collaboration among special and general education teachers. In sum, the impact of inclusion on the academic achievement, socioemotional development, and wellbeing of students with special needs may be hypothesised to be both positive and negative, and the current knowledge base is rather unclear, leaving special educators and policymakers uncertain when making decisions on special education provision. Since the 1980s, a number of reviews on the impact of inclusion on students with special needs have been published (Madden & Slavin, 1983; Ottenbacher & Cooper, 1982; Wang & Baker, 1985; Hegarty, 1993). Results are equivocal, and several reviews point to a number of methodological challenges and weaknesses of the study designs within the included primary studies. In summary, most reviews suggest a neutral or small positive impact of inclusion on most outcomes. However, all reviews also point to the need to study the impact of potential moderators more thoroughly, as there may be several interaction effects between student and classroom characteristics, such as student disability category × proportion of students with disabilities within the classroom and disability category × presence of teaching assistants. Therefore, it is important to conduct the present review in order to explore the impact of potential moderators associated with student and classroom characteristics. In the following section we present the existing reviews and their main findings. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 50 primary studies exploring the effects of special versus regular class placement for children with special needs, Carlberg and Kavale (1980) concluded that for students with special needs consisting of below average IQs, special classes were significantly inferior to regular classes on all outcome measures (separate analyses were carried out for achievement, social/personal and other measures). However, for students with behavioural disorders, emotional disturbances and learning disabilities (LDs), special classes were superior to regular classes. Madden and Slavin (1983) conducted a narrative review of the effects of mainstreaming/inclusion on students with mild academic disabilities. The review does not include a description of the search strategy for identifying records or the criteria used to determine eligibility for inclusion in the review. The review concludes that among methodologically adequate studies, findings indicate few benefits on academic and social outcomes of placement in full-time special education compared with part-time placement with resource support or full time regular class placement for students with mild academic disabilities. Ottenbacher and Cooper (1982) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 43 primary studies exploring the effects of class placement (special class, regular class and resource class defined as placement in regular education classroom with resource support and the possibility for part time segregated education) on the social adjustment of students with mild cognitive disabilities. The overall results suggest a very small effect in favour of special class placement over regular class placement. However, when special class placement was compared with resource class placement, results were insignificant but favouring resource class placement. Wang and Baker (1985) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 11 primary studies exploring the effects of mainstreaming/inclusion on children with special educational needs. In order to be eligible for inclusion in this review, primary studies needed to provide information on the effects of mainstreaming on students with special needs placed in a regular education setting. The studies had to use a control group consisting of special needs students with comparable impairment classifications placed in a segregated learning environment. The final selection of studies included 11 studies published between 1975 and 1984. The included studies used a wide variety of outcomes, but within the meta-analysis, outcomes were synthesised into three categories: performance, attitudinal, and process effects, and separate analyses were carried out for each of the three outcome categories. The study found small-to-moderate beneficial effects of inclusion on all outcomes with an overall mean weighted effect size across all studies and all three categories of outcomes of 0.33. Hegarty (1993) provides a narrative review of the literature on integration (inclusion) of students with different disabilities. The narrative review is based on a literature review which was commissioned by the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and was conducted by researchers in five different countries. The review does not include a description of the search strategies for identifying records or the criteria used to determine eligibility for the selected primary studies. Within the review, a number of factors which are associated with effective integration programmes are identified. Baker et al. (1994/1995) describe a review and meta-analysis by Baker et al. (1994/1995), which included 13 primary studies exploring the effects of inclusive placement on academic and social outcomes for students with special needs. We have been unable to retrieve the original publication, but according to Baker et al. (1994/1995), this study found a very small effect in favour of inclusive placement on academic outcomes (0.08) and a small to moderate effect on social outcomes (0.28). Sebba and Sachdev (1997) provide a review as part of a research report on what works for whom in inclusive education. The review does not include a description of the search strategy or the criteria for inclusion/exclusion of studies for the review. Within the research report, the authors suggest an overall positive impact of inclusive education and list a number of potential moderators such as attitudes of teachers and parents as well as a number of recommendations for the implementation of inclusive education. McGregor and Vogelsberg (1998) provide a narrative review of studies of both the effects of inclusive schooling on student outcomes and studies focusing on issues related to the implementation of inclusion. The review includes both quantitative and qualitative studies including case studies. Results are difficult to synthesise, but suggest an overall positive impact of inclusion based on the main findings: (1) students with disabilities demonstrate high levels of social interaction in settings with typically developing peers, but placement alone does not guarantee positive social outcomes; (2) interactive small group contexts facilitate skill acquisition and social acceptance; (3) friendships develop between students with disabilities and typically developing peers. Freeman and Alkin (2000) conducted a systematic narrative review in which it was concluded that on measures of academic achievement and social competence, children with mental retardation placed in general education perform better than children with mental retardation placed in special education classrooms. This review was only about children with mental retardation and did not include meta-analyses. Murawski and Lee Swanson (2001) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis which included 6 studies exploring the effectiveness of coteaching on student outcomes of both general education students and students with special educational needs. Coteaching was defined as two or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to a diverse or blended group of students within a shared/common physical space, and thus in this review coteaching is a form of inclusion. The outcomes within the included studies were grades, achievement scores, social and attitudinal outcomes. The review found coteaching to be effective (average total effect size of 0.40). It is unclear what the control conditions within the included studies were and two of the included studies did not have a control group, but used a pre-test/post-test research design. Lindsay (2007) provides a narrative review of the effectiveness of inclusive education for students with special educational needs. The review provides a historical overview of the vast literature prior to 2000 and a search of studies published 2001–2005 in eight journals on special education. The search identified 1373 studies and points to the fact that only 1% of the identified papers were comparative outcome studies. The review concludes that there is a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of inclusion and argues that where evidence does exist, the balance is only marginally positive. Lindsay (2007) thus supports the need for an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of inclusion for students with special needs, with special attention to the potential impact of student and classroom moderators. In a systematic narrative review of the effects of inclusion on both learning and socioemotional outcomes of students with and without special needs, Ruijs and Peetsma (2009) point to mixed findings regarding the effects of inclusion on student outcomes and suggest a number of potential moderators. The authors conclude that there is a need for more research. This review has not been updated since publication and does not include meta-analyses. In 2009, a systematic review of evidence comparing the academic performance of students with special needs in different educational settings was carried out by the Canadian Council on Learning. The review included 30 primary studies. The search strategy for identifying studies was not described. The included studies examined students with LDs, intellectual disabilities, language impairments and mixed disabilities. The quality of each study was rated as either "high", "medium", or "low" based on criteria related to transparency and research design, and effect sizes were retrieved. No meta-analyses were carried out, but the authors provide tables illustrating the number of effect sizes for each disability category favouring either inclusive or segregated settings along with the quality ratings of the studies from which they were retrieved. The authors point to mixed findings but conclude that the balance of evidence shows favourable academic outcomes for students with special educational needs educated in inclusive settings, however they also note that results are not homogenous and that effects are generally small in magnitude.11 The review was retrieved 2.10.2019 from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519296.pdf. Dyssegaard and Larsen (2013) provide a systematic review and narrative synthesis on the effects of including children with special needs in mainstream teaching in primary and lower secondary school, and on which of the applied educational methods have proven to have a positive effect. The narrative synthesis is based on 43 studies of which 16 studies were deemed to have a "high level of evidence". The included studies consist of randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, cohort studies, longitudinal studies, and studies using a pre-test/post-test design. The systematic review included studies focusing on outcomes for both mainstream and special needs students and does not include a meta-analysis. The conclusion points to mixed findings regarding the overall effectiveness of inclusion on the academic achievement and psychosocial adjustment of special needs students and suggests that the effects may vary depending on the age of the child and the overall school and teacher attitudes towards inclusion. Furthermore, the review suggests that the effectiveness of coteaching may depend on the educational background and continuous professional development of both special and general education teachers and of teaching assistants. Carroll et al. (2017) provide a rapid evidence assessment of studies focused on approaches, strategies, and interventions supporting children and young people with special educational needs in mainstream schools. The rapid evidence assessment is based on a systematic search in a single database (ERIC) as well as a strategy of consulting experts within the relevant fields. The initial search identified 1046 papers of which 505 were later excluded due to low quality of evidence. The rapid evidence assessment points to a number of implementation strategies, pedagogical and didactic approaches which have shown positive results. Furthermore, the study points to evidence gaps and suggests the need for further research. The rapid evidence assessment does not include a meta-analysis. In the present review, besides being up to date, we will conduct an extensive risk of bias assessment of all included studies, and we will provide separate meta-analyses for each conceptual outcome (academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing). Furthermore, we hope to be able to conduct moderator analyses based on the children's specific disability categories and the specific type of inclusion setting. This may shed further light on the initial differential findings from existing reviews. Traditional segregated special education is costly and in a time of increased interaction between special and general education systems and constraints on education spending, policymakers must consider the cost-efficiency of different special needs provisions. As more students with special educational needs enter general education settings, educators and policymakers must consider how the needs of these students are met in different settings and on what grounds placement in general or special educational settings should be determined. As previously noted, the current knowledge base is ambiguous with many findings suggesting a complex interplay between student and classroom characteristics (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980; Mesibov & Shea, 1996; Peetsma et al., 2001), leaving special educators and policymakers uncertain when making decisions on special education provision and highlighting the need for a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of inclusion on student outcomes. The objective of this systematic review is firstly: To uncover and synthesise data from studies to assess the effects of inclusion on measures of academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing of children with special needs when compared to children with special needs who receive special education in a segregated setting. A secondary objective is to explore how potential moderators (gender, age, type of special need, part or full time inclusive education, and coteaching) affect the outcomes. The moderator analysis will be performed as outlined in Section 4.3.11. In order to summarise what is known about the causal effects of inclusion on student's academic achievement, socioemotional outcomes, and wellbeing in special education, we will include all studies with a well-defined control group. Thus, the study designs eligible for inclusion are: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (allocated at either the individual level or cluster level, e.g., class/school/geographical area etc.). Non-randomised studies (inclusion has occurred in the course of usual decisions, the allocation to inclusive and segregated special educational placement is not controlled by the and there is a comparison of two or more of at least a group and a control using a single group research will not be eligible for inclusion in the review. Non-randomised studies using an approach will not be the of exclusion of studies using an for for studies of these In order to the risk of bias in cluster randomised studies, we will study designs in which only one was to the intervention or control group. there must be at least two units in the intervention group and two units in the control group, as there is a risk of effects with effects this likely be In order to the of findings from the present review to current and we will search to studies published The for studies is as a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses have synthesised the effects of inclusion based on studies published prior to Second, educational settings, pedagogical approaches and the development and of technological to support the educational needs of special needs children have changes throughout the two & and in order for the findings from the present review to be to the current within educational settings, we will review to the more recent findings. The review will include special needs children in to the in in special education in the defined as the countries. The reasons for focusing on the are we that the in which children with disabilities are within is which fundamental differences in the for children with disabilities around the globe et al., 2010; & 2013). Second, special education is costly and thus the resources for special educational support for children with special needs are often different between in the and the developing regarding the of what a special educational need Wilson, 2002). A used be found in the with in which special needs are into 13 different disability categories under which children are eligible for For more information on the disability of with These categories are: challenges related to a child's to or e.g., or impairment conditions a child's or e.g., e.g., and or language impairment difficulties with or e.g., language problems a child's to or impairment including and where a child most or all even with a impairment to a not by the of children from both and vision impairment when a child has problems with or as in the case of disability intellectual by or other kinds of physical disabilities with more than one by the However, the criteria are not to be as or as of what special educational needs but are rather as in the search for and of relevant studies. We that existing to define special educational needs, as in and are by a lack of which to be

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a classroom management strategy that consistently demonstrates its ability to promote positive behaviors and peer relations among students, with immediate and long‐term benefits. This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of peer‐reviewed research on the GBG specifically focused on students with special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream education settings. Following a systematic search‐and‐selection procedure, 30 studies were included, 26 with an experimental design and 4 with a qualitative/mixed‐methods design. SEN participants were mainly subgroups of students with baseline assessments of emotional‐behavioral difficulties; there was, however, substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity across studies. Integrative findings from quantitative and qualitative studies indicate that the GBG benefits most students with SEN in mainstream settings, while results for students with severe socio‐behavioral difficulties are ambiguous. We identified a paucity of research on students with neurodevelopmental diagnoses such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or autism spectrum disorder, as well as on the perspectives of students and teachers and challenges associated with the GBG for students with severe difficulties. Schools implementing the GBG should be aware that some students may need individual adaptations to participate in the GBG, and teachers may need support to implement these adaptations.

Twice exceptional is one of the terms used to describe students who have giftedness and a disability. This is a small heterogeneous population of individual learners who are underserved in special, gifted, and mainstream education settings. Despite the availability of research on transition for students with disabilities, there is little research or literature available on transition for students who experience twice exceptionality (2E). This paper provides a review of the literature available on 2E, taking a lifespan perspective and a school transitions context for students experiencing 2E. Finally, the synthesis of 2E and transition highlights a potential way forward in the research across special, gifted, mainstream and inclusive education to transform student profiling, identification and transition.

BackgroundAccording to Self‐Determination Theory (SDT), motivation is inherently present in every individual, growing from amotivation via controlled to autonomous motivation, through fulfilment of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Peer relatedness has been found to influence motivation multimodally. Students with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties (SEBD) in special education risk additional challenges in motivation and peer relations. How peer relations influence school motivation according to SEBD students' experiences remains unclear.AimsInvestigating how peer relations influence SEBD students' motivation in special secondary education.SampleForty‐nine SEBD students (age 12–18) from 11 special secondary schools in the north of the Netherlands.MethodsTranscripts of semi‐structured interviews from an SDT perspective were thematically analysed for particular information on peer relations and motivation.ResultsStudents positively graded their motivation. Peer relations and students' motivation seemed to influence each other: (1) friends and classmates were salient reasons for school attendance; (2) peer relations influenced schoolwork motivation through relatedness, distraction, cooperation, engaging each other and being alone/loneliness.ConclusionsConsistent with previous findings, peer relations influence students' motivation in special secondary education. This influence seems reciprocal, additionally shaped by SEBD and a special education context. Feelings of (not) belonging in special education influenced school attendance and schoolwork motivation through different mechanisms, with which variations in motivational orientation, diagnosis and gender might interfere. Future research should investigate the influence of type of diagnosis, additional roles of competence and autonomy for SEBD students and possible generalizations of findings in other special and mainstream education settings.

A research-translation project introduced a precision-teaching vocabulary intervention to 36 general and special education teachers through two workshops over a two-year period. (The teachers, in turn, introduced the approach to 694 students, 125 of whom were youth with learning disabilities). The goals of the project were threefold: (a) to determine if, after attending one-day training sessions, teachers were able to implement the vocabulary approach with their students; (b) to evaluate the degree to which the intervention influenced student performance, especially that of pupils with learning disabilities; and (c) to gather teacher and student reactions to the approach. Project outcomes revealed that (a) all but one teacher who received training implemented the approach and collected student performance data; (b) the majority of students, whether general or special education youth attending mainstream or special education settings, demonstrated increased accuracy and fluency on timed vocabulary quizzes; and (c) both teachers and students found the approach worthwhile and enjoyable.

Epilepsy in mainstream and special educational primary school settings

The Holistic Music Educational Approach for Young Children (HMEAYC) is a professional method that aims to provide a music curriculum for children in both mainstream and special education settings. The purpose of this research was to examine the effectiveness of the HMEAYC in communication development through the use of the Soundbeam trigger modes in young children from the mainstream and with special needs. The participants were divided into two groups, and they were aged between 41 and 55 months. All the children received the same number of hours of music instruction per week incorporating the ‘Soundbeam technology’ adapted from the HMEAYC method. The duration was 32 weeks with a 40-minute instructional session once a week. The results and findings showed that both of the groups increased their participation in the musical activities and improved their communication ability by the end of the study. The findings suggest the HMEAYC curriculum framework is beneficial for making connections between music activities and comprehension processes in communication. The results showed that in the autism spectrum disorder children and young children, the manipulation behaviours are both related to single operation through the Soundbeam trigger modes in the HMEAYC.

School refusal (SR) signals a young person's difficulty attending school. It jeopardizes their development, often contributes to distress for parents, and places an extra burden on school personnel. Reviews of empirical studies indicate that intervention for SR helps to increase school attendance, but not for all youths. This practice-based manuscript aims to support practitioners and organisations addressing the needs of youths and families affected by SR. Specifically, we present 14 signposts for the development and delivery of intervention for SR. The signposts represent important conditions for effective intervention based on key findings from the Knowing What Works project in the Netherlands. During that project, 76 professionals shared their views about the important elements in SR interventions they delivered, and 39 youths and 86 parents shared their views about the helpful elements in SR interventions in which they participated. These 201 stakeholders were variously associated with 21 SR interventions across 9 of the 12 Dutch provinces, most situated in mainstream or special education settings. Their responses informed the development of the 14 signposts presented here, supported by the extant literature on SR intervention. We describe the essence of each signpost and conclude with suggestions for using the signposts and evaluating their utility.

Complex cultural and historical forces are often neglected when the development of inclusive education in international comparative research projects are discussed. The purpose of this study was to analyse teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education by examining the ways in which cultural-historical factors in South Africa and Finland may impact on teachers’ attitudes. Data collection methods included the analysis of education policy documents and other relevant documents in countries, an open-ended question on teachers’ own definition of inclusive education and the results of the initial study on teachers’ attitudes to and concerns about inclusive education. A sample of 310 South African and 833 Finnish primary and secondary education teachers in mainstream and special education settings took part. An analysis of the data within a cultural-historical framework indicated that each country’s historical commitment to inclusive education and its attendant legacies about diversity in education have clearly mediated teachers’ views in both countries. As a result, we have been able to develop a deeper understanding of the complex local conditions, and the similarities and differences across national contexts in which inclusive education is implemented that could benefit both countries.

This study examined the peer relationships and social behaviors of deaf adolescents in the first 2 years of secondary school. Peer nominations and ratings of peer status and behavior were collected longitudinally with 74 deaf and 271 hearing adolescents from Grade 7 to Grade 8. The predictions of deaf adolescents’ peer status in Grade 8 from Grade 7 behaviors differed between mainstream education and special education settings. The behaviors of deaf early adolescents in the beginning of secondary school strongly predicted their peer status a year later. For deaf mainstream students, withdrawn behavior was the most important and negative predictor of peer status. For deaf students in special education settings, prosocial behavior was the most important and positive predictor of peer status.

This study aims to propose and evaluate a model for work engagement in Special Educational Needs (SEN) teachers in Greece, in order to get insights into the effect of parameters such as job satisfaction, burnout and other personal characteristics. The sample consisted of 503 female and 161 male teachers of both primary and secondary education, working in special and mainstream educational settings. Based on these data, a two-step hierarchical regression model was used to identify predictors of teachers’ work engagement. Moreover, confirmatory factor analysis indicated a good fit (TLI = 0.974 > 0.95, RMSEA = 0.043 < 0.08, CFI = 0.952 ≥ . 0.900, χ2/df = 1.3 < 2, p > 0.05 and SRMR = 0.027 < 0.08) of the first order structural model for work engagement (WE-JS-BO). The second-order structural model for the work engagement included teachers’ demographic parameters, labeled personal characteristics, which yielded a good fit (TLI = 0.978 > 0.95, RMSEA = 0.039 < 0.08, CFI = 0.964 ≥ 0.90, χ2/df = 1. 1 < 2, p >0.05 and SRMR = 0.024 < 0.08) Results are discussed for their possible applications in special education teachers’ training.