An Outcome Measure for Social Goals of Inclusion

Abstract

Teachers in rural areas are finding that more and more special needs children are being included in their K-12 classrooms to comply with the mandate for a free and appropriate public education even in isolated small school systems. For students with mild intellectual disabilities (MID) this placement is meant to accomplish both the academic and the social goals in their individualized educational programs (IEP). Measuring progress in the achievement of social goals is less straightforward than measuring academic improvements. This study used a simple sociometric assessment technique to measure how much general education peers socially accepted the students with MID in the general education setting. At the time of this study, the students with MID were placed in general education classrooms using the old “mainstreaming” model for a minimal length of time in a limited number of nonacademic settings. The participants were 61 students with MID and their 286 general education peers. Preservice special education teachers were trained to use nominal sociometry to measure peer acceptance. The data were aggregated for statistical analysis. The procedure used was counting the number of students who were not named at least once as a friend by general education peers during two opportunities. The findings were that only 43% of the students with MID were named at least once by a nondisabled peer while 85% of general education students were chosen at least once. There were no differences by gender or educational level. These data can provide a baseline for school systems desiring to measure the effectiveness of inclusion programs in rural elementary, middle or secondary schools. The newer inclusion programs that increase the amount of time that students with MID spend in general education with appropriate supports should have better social outcomes when measured in a similar manner.

A comparison of individual qualities of resiliency in adolescents with mild intellectual disability and typically developing adolescents

“…Nota and associates (2010) explained the lack of differences in self-efficacy beliefs in male and female persons with ID by the fact that school and extra scholastic activities for individuals with ID were rarely differentiated by gender, and thus girls and boys with ID mainly had similar experiences. The results of this research which refer to individual qualities in the sense of relatedness domain, are consistent with the findings of other authors indicating that in children and adolescents with ID gender was not significantly related to peer acceptance and relations (Smoot, 2004;Wendelborg & Kvello, 2010) or social skills (Adeniyi & Omigbodun, 2016;Heiman & Margalit, 1998). This is further supported by empirical findings that academic competence, physical appearance and behavior problems had more influence on the status of persons with ID in their peer group than gender (Baydik & Bakkaloğlu, 2009).…”

“…On the basis of a systematic review of literature in this area, Verdonschot and colleagues (2009) concluded that persons with ID had less contact with family and friends, and that their social networks were relatively small, mainly consisting of persons with ID. Furthermore, research on peer interactions of students with ID in regular schools indicated that they socialized with peers with ID more than with TD peers (Cutts & Sigafoos, 2001), that they were poorly accepted by their peers (Smoot, 2004), that they were less popular, had fewer friends, and were rarely included in friend groups (Koster et al, 2010). A lower level of tolerance of differences was determined in adolescents with mild ID, i.e.…”

Children with Special Needs' Opinions and Problems about Inclusive Practices

“…Kaynaştırma eğitimine devam eden öğrencilerin normal gelişen akranları tarafından sosyal kabul düzeyini inceleyen araştırmalar ise özel gereksinimli öğrencilerin akranları tarafından dışlandığını ortaya koymuştur (Akçamete ve Ceber, 1999;Baydık ve Bakkaloğlu, 2009;Göl, 2014;Manetti, Schneider ve Siperstein, 2001;Smoot, 2004;Şahbaz, 2004;Vuran, 2005). Bu araştırmalardan birinde kaynaştırma uygulamasına devam eden ve kaynaştırmaya aday gösterilen öğrencilerin sosyometrik konumları incelenmiş ve öğrencilerin yarısından fazlasının akranları tarafından reddedildiği, düşük sosyal tercih puanları aldıkları görülmüştür (Vuran, 2005).…”

Perceived Social Acceptance and Peer Intimacy Among Children with Disabilities in Regular Schools in Norway

“…However, school‐age children with disabilities have a less positive assessment of their social belonging than that of their peers with no disabilities (Hogan et al. 2000; Watson & Keith 2002), they are less socially preferred among their peers (Cambra & Silvestre 2003; Smoot 2003), and they participate less in social and curriculum activities at school (Simeonsson et al. 2001; Eriksson et al.…”