3. Methodology
Purpose: determine effects of placement
vs. non-placement in inclusion
Four variables examined
Instrumentation for each variable
Data analysis
7. Summary
Contradicts other research
Discuss in review of literature
Data shows no significant gains in
mathematics
8. Reference
Daniel, L. G. & King, D. A. (1997).
Impact of inclusion education on
academic achievement, student
behavior and self-esteem, and
parental attitudes. Journal of
Educational Research, 91,(2), 67-80.
Editor's Notes
Larry G. Daniel, PhD. is the dean of the College of Education at University of Southern Mississippi. Debra A. King, Learning Solutions; Hattiesburg, Mississippi.
The purpose of this article was to determine the effects of students’ placement versus non-placement in an inclusion classroom. The second purpose was to determine whether student placement in three different types of inclusion programs would result in differences in student achievement, behavior, self-esteem, and parental concerns. The authors used a quasi-experimental design using 3rd through 5th grade students from 12 classrooms. Three groups of students made up the sample: group 1 were students from four non-inclusion classrooms, group 2 were students from two clustered inclusion classrooms, and group 3 were students from six random inclusion classrooms. There were four variables in this study. To measure parent attitudes, the researchers used a 22-item questionnaire. To measure teacher and parent-reported behavior problems the researchers used the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). To measure students’ academic performance, the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) was used. Finally, to measure students’ self-esteem, the researchers used the Self-Esteem Index (SEI).Data was analyzed using discriminant analyses.
The result of data analysis revealed: a) parents of students in the inclusion classes expressed a higher degree of concern with their children’s school progress; b) teacher and parents of the students in the inclusion classes reported more instances of behavior problems; c) 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.
The major conclusions were that the effects of inclusion programs are somewhat mixed and difficult to decipher. There seems to be no consistent pattern in achievement differences. There does appear to be a higher instance of behavior problems among students in inclusion classrooms, which may have a negative effect on other students. Next, inclusion programs may not necessarily help raise students’ self-esteem which is contrary to the inclusionary assumption. Finally, parents of children in inclusion classrooms reported a higher degree of concerns with their children’s program than did parents of students placed in non-inclusion classrooms.
This research added to my base of understanding of the research only in that I realized that there is a lot of contradictory research out there. This was, however, the first article that collected data from the perspective of the parent which was helpful. It also contradicted what I expected to find in terms of student achievement. Finally, I think the research needs to be replicated to verify results, as does all research.
In summary, this is the second article that I have read that contradicted the other research I have done. I was worried at first but that is something that can be pointed out in my review of the literature for my special project. I am curious to review my data of mathematics gains for students in inclusion classes because according to this research, significant gains were not made in mathematics and my hypothesis is that they will make gains. I suppose, however, that there is nothing wrong with not finding support for my hypothesis.
