The Social Integration of Learning Disabled Students from Self-Contained to Mainstream Elementary School Settings

Abstract

This study had two purposes: (1) to investigate the social status of learning disabled students and (2) to compare the outcome differences of a rating scale sociometric with those of a peer nomination measure. The LD population consisted of students who were based in self-contained special education classes (LDSC) and joined regular classes up to 18 periods per week. Previous literature has concentrated on LD students based in regular classes who received special services in resource rooms. Since the enactment ofP.L. 94-142, more and more students from self-contained classes have experienced partial integration into regular classes. The social status of this group, however, has been virtually ignored. Findings suggested both lower acceptance and lower rejection scores for the LD students than for regular class students on a nomination measure. The rating scale data revealed lower acceptance scores but no differences in rejection or toleration scores. The acquaintance category of the rating scale suggested that LDSC students are simply not known to their regular class peers.

Bi-Directional and Cross-Categrical Social Status of Learning Disabled, Behaviorally Disordered, and Nonhandicapped Adolescents

“…This method of data analysis is similar to other sociometric research with LD,BD, and EMR students (cf. Coben & Zigmond, 1986;Morrison 8c Borthwick, 1983; Sabornie, in press; Sabornie 8c Kauffman, in press), and allows for examination of degree of high acceptance (rating #1), moderate acceptance (rating #2), neutrality (rating #3), familiarity (rating #4), moderate rejection (rating #5), and outright social rejection (rating #6).…”

“…The OSAS has been used previously to assess the social status of numerous types of exceptional students in traditional classes (e.g., Baldwin, 1958;Monroe 8c Howe, 1971;Rucker, Howe, 8c Snider, 1969;Sabornie & Kauffman, 1985, 1986 and to measure the status of entire nonhandicapped populations (e.g., Brown 8c Bond, 1955; Justman 8c Wrightstone, 1951;Semler, 1960;Taylor, 1952). Test-retest reliability of the OSAS used with adolescents is adequate over a 3-to 4-month period (r = .66 to .90; Taylor, 1952), and OSAS concurrent validity with Moreno's (1934) nomination method ranges from .78 to .96 (Justman 8c Wrightstone, 1951).…”

“…Many investigations suggest that LD and BD students of all ages encounter social ostracism by nondisabled classmates (e.g., Bruininks, 1978;Bryan, 1974Bryan, , 1976Perlmutter, Crocker, Cordray, 8c Garstecki, 1983;Ray, 1985;Sabornie 8c Kauffman, 1985;Vacc, 1972). Other well-controlled studies (e.g., Coben 8c Zigmond, 1986;Sabornie 8c Kauffman, 1986;Sainato, Zigmond, 8c Strain, 1983), however, indicate that low social status among peers does not appear to be a major problem for some LD students.…”

Being part of the peer group: a literature study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in education

“…Wiener and Harris (1989) describe that pupils with special needs (in particular pupils with learning problems) are rejected and neglected by their peers. Research on social acceptance consistently shows that pupils with special needs educated in a regular classroom are less accepted than their classmates without special needs (Freeman & Alkin, 2000), generally have a social status which is lower than that of their classmates (Goodman et al, 1972;Coben & Zigmond, 1986;Sabornie et al, 1990;Stone & La Greca, 1990;Larrivee & Horne, 1991;Kuhne & Wiener, 2000;Pavri & Luftig, 2000;Manetti et al, 2001) and are more socially isolated (Margalit & Efrati, 1996;Evans & Labon, 1997, cited in Skårbrevik, 2005.…”

Percepção do aluno sobre sua interação com o professor e status sociométrico

“…Embora os estudos encontrados na literatura não tenham avaliado as mesmas relações propostas nesta pesquisa, tem-se encontrado evidências de que a maior ou menor aceitação da criança pelo grupo está associada a fatores comportamentais (Bierman, 1987;Cantrell & Prinz, 1985;Morais et al, 2001;Sabornie, 1987), agressividade (Bierman et al, 1993;Coie et al, 1995;Sisto, 2003), julgamentos de atratividade física (Lee-Manoel et al, 2002) e ao próprio desempenho acadêmico (Badami & Badami, 1975;Horowitz, 1981;Coben & Zigmond, 1986), entre outros. Esses dados revelam que a maneira como as crianças são percebidas pelos outros ou, como neste estudo, como elas se veem na opinião dos outros, tem se mostrado relacionada à sua maior ou menor aceitação no grupo de amigos.…”