3. Methodology
Purpose: to better understand students’ perceptions
of inclusion or pull-out
Thirty-two students in three grade levels
Random samples
Profiled subgroup of students
Questionnaires independently reviewed
4. Evidence Presented
All students liked having 2 teachers
Which model do students prefer?
Which model helps students learn better?
Who is their favorite person to teach them?
What does the special education teacher do?
5. Conclusion
Students favored pull-out over inclusion
Inclusion classrooms focus on learning
Extra help available
Content more difficult
Pull-out for learning; inclusion for making friends
6. Contribution
Students’ views varied
Students felt both models met their needs
Support for continuum of delivery models
Placement based on student need
7. Summary
Student preference
Giving students a voice
LRE
Use special education and general education
teachers to determine placement
8. Reference
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.
S., Cohen, P., & Forgan, J. W. (1998). Inclusion or
pull-out: which do students prefer? Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 21,(2), 148-158.
Editor's Notes
Janette Kettmann Klinger, PhD. is an assistant professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Miami; Sharon Vaughn, PhD. is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the University of Texas at Austin; Jeanne Shay Schumm, PhD. is an associate professor and chairperson of the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Miami; Patricia Cohen, MS, is a Dade County Public Schools special education teacher; and James W. Forgan, PhD. is an assistant professor in the Department of Special Education at Georgia Southwestern State University.
The purpose of this study was to better understand students’ perceptions of and preferences for inclusion or pull-out service delivery models. Thirty-two students, grades four through six were interviewed. Each student had spent at least one academic year in classrooms that use pull-out and inclusion models for special education delivery. There were 90 out of 112 students who participated in the study. Students who had not been in those models at least a year were removed from the study. A matching number of students without LD were randomly selected from the remaining general education students. The researchers selected a subgroup of the sample to be profiled. This subgroup included four students with LD, one with limited english proficiency, one who preferred pull-out, one who preferred inclusion, and one who was visually impaired. Two students without LD were selected as well. One average achieving and one high achieving. These students were profiled based on the following criteria: Was the student representative of other students in the sam category, and did the student provide “rich” explanations for responding a particular way. The instrument used was a questionnaire titled Student’ Views of Inclusion Interview that was discussed, piloted, and revised. Some questions were open-ended and others asked students to choose between options. Students were interviewed at the end of the school year by trained researchers. Two researchers independently read every interview.
All students reported liking having two teachers in the classroom. When asked which model they preferred, 18 students reported pull-out, 9 students reported inclusion, and 5 students answered both ways. When asked which model helps kids learn better, 15 reported pull-out, 9 answered inclusion, and 4 answered both ways. The students were asked who their favorite person to teach them was and four responded the special education teacher, 11 preferred the general education teacher, 2 said either teacher, and 12 preferred a student to help them. Finally, when asked what the special education teacher does, 7 responded with helps the general ed teacher, 16 said helps all students, 4 replied teaches, and 5 said a combination of the above.
As a result of their research, the authors’ concluded that students in the study considered the pull-out model to be preferable to inclusion, although the students with LD were closer to an even split than their non-LD peers. Students expressed opinions but did not seem to care whether they were part of inclusion or pull-out programs. Furthermore, students believed that learning was stressed in their inclusion classrooms, and that plenty of help was available from teachers and peers. Students with LD reported that they got more work done, although it was harder, when they stayed in the general education classroom. The consensus was that pull-out was preferable for learning but inclusion was better for making friends. Finally, students perceived that the LD teacher was there to help them rather than help the general education teacher.
This research article collected data that asked students which delivery model they preferred, which is the first article that I have seen with that data. Students’ views of the delivery model that best met their needs varied, however, regardless of their preference, the students felt that inclusion still met their needs. The results provided support for maintaining a continuum of service delivery options, and that the placement of each child should be considered based on his or her needs. Overall, the authors’ argued that integration of students into regular education classrooms has worked for some but not for others. The students’ views did provide insight into their learning needs.
I felt that the authors made some very good points about student preferences of delivery models. Giving students a voice and looking at each student individually when we place them in their LRE is not something we really do as a building, or if we do, the general education teachers are not part of the process. I would like to see if there has been similar data collected at higher grade levels and present this to our special education department.
