Research article review and synthesis

Inclusion Research

Daniel, L.G. & King, D.A. (1997). Impact of Inclusion Education on Academic Achievement, Student Behavior and Self-Esteem and Parental Attitudes. The Journal of Educational Reseaerch 91.

The title of this article gives the gist of the study, which is on inclusion and its effects on the three dimensions of academic achievement, student behavior and self-esteem, and parental attitudes. What is not included is the fourth dimension that is addressed specifically in the research, that being reports by both parents teachers of problem behaviors on the part of these students. Presumably these are included under the heading of student behavior. However, the punctuation leaves it unclear whether the researchers believe they are discussing four topics or only three and whether they are linking student behavior and self-esteem as one related category. In fact, they are not and see these as two different variables, which makes sense once you read the article. Some researchers looking for this sort of data might think this article was only peripheral to what they are looking for, when in fat it is on point. Also, the methodology is not addressed beyond the word "inclusion" as a distinction between inclusion and non-inclusion, and the issue of whether there are differences according to the type of inclusion program is not mentioned in the title at all.

In the article itself, the problem is well-defined and made clearer than in the title. The authors state that they are examining four sets of dependent variables and then state clearly what they are. The authors note the rationale for the study in the shift in the boundaries that once separated general education and special education. The reason for this has been the educational reform known as inclusion, which is emerging in schools throughout the nation. This is defined as the placement of students with disabilities in regular education classrooms. Of course, this raises the question of how well these children do once they are in such a program and specifically whether they do better or worse than students who are subject to non-inclusion. The issue is considered in terms of different dimensions of behavior. The move toward inclusion has been fueled by legislation stating that disabled students have to be put in an environment deemed "least restrictive." At the same time, a separate set of special education initiatives have been followed and have expanded at the same time. Inclusion also has evolved over time.

The authors discuss the two sides in the issue, those supporting the case for inclusion, and those who believe that these students might be better served if they were kept separate. Because of the debate and the development of both types of program, research is needed to provide a foundation for informed choices. The researchers therefore set out to conduct a careful examination of inclusion-based education.

The results were subjected to discriminant analysis to show second, related, purpose was to determine whether student placement in different types of inclusion programs would result in differences in the dependent variables. Discriminant analysis results indicated that (a) parents of students in the inclusion classes expressed a higher degree of concern with their children's school programs; (b) teachers and parents of the students in the inclusion classes reported more instances of behavior problems; - students in inclusion classes were more likely to experience gains in reading scores with no noteworthy differences for mathematics, language, and spelling; and (d) students in inclusion classes reported lower levels of self-esteem.

Methods Section

This research used a quasi-experimental design for third through fifth-grade students from 12 intact classrooms. There were 207 students in the study, which eliminated the possibility of the random assignments of participants. Students were examined in three groups: 68 students were in Group 1 from four noninclusion classrooms; 34 students were in Group 2 from two clustered inclusion classrooms; and 105 students were in Group 3 from six random inclusion classrooms.

Six variables were defined: 1) parental concerns; 2) teacher and parent-reported instances of problem behaviors on the part of students; 3) the academic performance of the students; 4) and student self-reported self-esteem. The researchers used three standardized instruments to measure the variables of interest, these being the CBCL, SEI, and SAT (mathematics, reading, spelling, and language subscales. The researchers also used their own parent concern questionnaire. The researchers explain each of the tests and what each measures as well as how each is to be scored. The results are set forth in tables for easier comparison along with indicating the means of analysis, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) to show where the differences observed are significant and where they are not. When the results showed the need for some adjustment, the researchers used gain scores and pretest scores to achieve greater reliability.

The parent concerns questionnaire was a 22-item questionnaire with responses marked on a seven-point scale, ranging from "not true at all about me at this time" to "very true about me at this time." Previous psychometric data were not available for this study. The researchers therefore used factor-analytic procedures to gain information about the construct validity of the data generated, and so long as meaningful factors were found, the scores would be used to address the second research question. SAT data was collected from archival records kept in the schools involved. SEI data came directly from students who completed the instruments during normal classroom sessions. Teachers completed their portion and returned the protocols to the researchers, while parents were mailed their part with an explanation for the purpose of the study and a request for participation as well as an assurance of confidentiality.