The principle of teaching students with special educational needs (SEN) in least restrictive environments (LRE) and necessity of legal arrangements regarding this issue have been commonly accepted and are supported in field of special education (Taylor, 1988). However, considerable debate remains regarding interpretation and implementation of LRE principle into practice (McLeskey, Landers, Williamson, & Hoppey, 2010). Recently, inclusive education has been considered as an opportunity for SEN students to become a part of a peer-group, form positive social relationships and friendships, and develop and learn, rather than integrating these students into general education classrooms (Odom, Buysse, & Soukakou, 2011). In this context, main goal of inclusive education is to create socially supportive and developmentally appropriate learning environments for SEN students (Odom, 2000). The legal ground for inclusion practices was established in Western countries in 1970s and in Turkey in 1983. Since then, several studies have examined effectiveness of inclusive education on academic achievement and focused on several indicators of socio-emotional and behavioral functioning such as self-concept, social skills, peer relationships, social status, and problem behaviors of SEN students. A number of studies have reported that inclusive education yielded positive outcomes for SEN students in terms of communication skills, social skills, and behavior (For a review, see Katz & Mirenda, 2002; see also Rafferty, Piscitelli, & Boettcher, 2003). However, other studies have indicated that inclusive education was not effective in obtaining positive outcomes for SEN students (Freeman & Alkin, 2000; Gresham & McMillian, 1997). In their review article, Gresham and MacMillan (1997) stated that students with learning disabilities, mild intellectual disabilities, behavioral problems, and attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorders had peer-related difficulties, social skills deficits, more problem behaviors, and less peer-acceptance or more rejection compared to typically developing students. They also highlighted that findings regarding self-concepts of SEN students were contradictory.Some studies have reported that self-concept of SEN students in inclusive classrooms did not differ significantly from those of typically developing children (Arnold & Chapman, 1992; Koster, Fiji, Nakken, & Van Houten, 2010), whereas other studies have indicated that SEN students had lower self-concept (Cambra & Silvestre, 2003; Schmidt & Cagran, 2008; Valas, 1999). Rosenberg (1979) defined self-concept as the totality of individuals thoughts and feelings with reference to himself as an object (p. 7). The development of self-concept begins in family context and this process accelerates during school years and is shaped through interpersonal interactions (Bilgin & Kartal, 2002). The attitudes and behaviors of family and peers affect development of child's self-concept to a great extent (Bolger, Patterson, & Kupersmidt, 1998). Social comparison with other students in same setting may also affect children's sense of self as well as their awareness of opinions and appraisals about them by other significant individuals (Allodi, 2000). Festinger (1954) reported that individuals take others whose skills or attitudes are similar to them into account as criterion for social comparisons (as cited in Coleman, 1983). It has also been argued that SEN students in segregated settings may have more positive self-concept since such settings offer a social comparison group composed of similar peers in terms of academic skills. Moreover, these settings can decrease student's failures by assigning appropriate academic tasks and providing special educational support (Ribner, 1978). Chapman (1988) reviewed studies that investigated effects of placement settings (general education vs. …
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Open Access
Jun 13, 2017
F Sülen Şahin Kıralp + 1
