Educational Psychology and Inclusion

Download Presentation
(1183) |   (0) |   (0)
Views: 64 | Added: 19-06-2013
Rate Presentation: 0 0
Aims of Session. To explore definitions of Inclusion To examine the reasons behind the move towards inclusive educationTo review research into the efficacy of inclusive educationTo consider the contribution that psychological theory has made, and could make, to inclusive education. Primary Reference:.
Educational Psychology and Inclusion

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only and may not be sold or licensed nor shared on other sites. SlideServe reserves the right to change this policy at anytime. While downloading, If for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1. Educational Psychology and Inclusion Dr Nathan Lambert Academic and Professional Tutor ? University of Nottingham Senior Practitioner Educational Psychologist ? Birmingham Educational Psychology Service University of Nottingham Autumn 2008

2. Aims of Session To explore definitions of Inclusion To examine the reasons behind the move towards inclusive education To review research into the efficacy of inclusive education To consider the contribution that psychological theory has made, and could make, to inclusive education

3. Primary Reference: Frederickson, Miller and Cline (2008) Educational Psychology: Topics in Applied Psychology Chapter 4 ? Is Inclusion for children with special needs psychologically defensible?

4. Educational Psychology and Inclusion Part One: A review of the research into the efficacy of inclusive education

5. Context Past experience and present understanding - 3 questions

6. Question 1 Do you have a clear idea of what inclusion - or an inclusive education - is? Could you come up with a definition of ?inclusion?

7. Question 2 Do you think you have been through an inclusive education? What did you see, if anything, that suggests your schools were ?inclusive?? What did you see, if anything, that suggests your schools were not ?inclusive??

8. Question 3 Do you feel inclusive education is a goal worth striving for? What are your views based on?

9. What is ?Inclusion?? The education of all children ?including those with special educational needs- in mainstream schools with their chronological peer group

10. What is ?Inclusion?? It is different to ?mainstreaming? - it is not a one off decision about placement i.e. mainstream as opposed to special provision. It refers to an ongoing process. It is different to ?integration? - where the child and their support systems are expected to change.

11. A Historical Perspective First UK special schools ? 1850s HI - VI Great expansion into the 20th century Until the mid 1960s, educational settings were not considered appropriate for children with severe learning difficulties, and instead of schools these children attended local health authority ?training centres?.

12. A Historical Perspective In 1970 the distinction between those who were and were not ?educable? was removed in the Education (Handicapped Children) Act. Children experiencing particular difficulties continued to be placed with other children with similar difficulties ? and hence away from their ?typically developing? peer group

13. A Historical Perspective It was argued that this allowed special facilities, alternative curricula, and specially trained staff to be made available to the children who needed them However, it was also argued that this could be stigmatising for the child, and represented a restriction on access to educational and social opportunities

14. Salamanca World Statement In 1994, 92 countries signed up to the Salamanca Statement which called on governments to: ??adopt the principle of inclusive education, enrolling all children in regular schools unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise? (UNESCO 1994) ?Inclusion and participation are essential to human dignity and to the enjoyment and exercise of human rights.? (UNESCO 1994)

15. SEN and Disability Act (2001) The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001) stated that children who have a statement of SEN must be educated in a mainstream school unless this is incompatible with parental wishes or with the provision of efficient education for other children (DFEE 2001 S324)

16. BPS position Rejecting segregation or exclusion of learners for whatever reasons ? ability, gender, language, care status, family income, disability, sexuality, colour, religion or ethnic origin. Maximising the participation of all learners in the community schools of their choice Making learning more meaningful and relevant for all, particularly those learners most vulnerable to exclusionary pressure Rethinking and restructuring policies, curricula, culture and practices in schools and learning environments so that diverse learning needs can be met, whatever the origin or nature of those needs (BPS Inclusive Education Position Paper 2002:2)

17. Including Samuel A Documentary by Dan Habib, filmmaker in residence at the Institute of Disability, University of New Hampshire

18. Some Key Questions raised in Including Samuel? Can all children be included? Is inclusion somehow ?easier? with younger children? Do teachers face potentially stressful competing demands? How do you begin to create an inclusive culture? How should we respond to placements that have failed?

19. The Inclusive ?Movement? Human Rights? Good Education? Social Sense?

20. Inclusion and the EP Educational Psychologist are frequently involved in the assessment of individual pupils, and are consequently also involved with discussions and decisions regarding children?s placement and provision. Educational Psychologists are also heavily involved with researching, developing and evaluating inclusive initiatives

21. Inclusion and the EP Educational psychologists frequently work with young people, their families, and school and support staff, applying psychology in order to improve school experiences. They may work at an individual level or a systemic level.

22. Emily and Alana - Placements that haven?t gone so smoothly?

23. Emily and Alana - Placements that haven?t gone so smoothly?

24. Emily and Alana - Placements that haven?t gone so smoothly? How might Educational Psychologists be involved: Intervention at a Systemic Level - Work with broader school community to change culture, improve systems, re-consider curricula? Intervention at an Individual Level - Investigate and work to address the specific needs of the class or child

25. Case Study Y2 (6-7) ASD Diagnosis Previously attended mainstream nursery and YR class Offered a place in special provision Education Authority reluctant to provide placement in local community school Why is it so hard to come to a consensus on where best to place this child?

26. Dilemma 1 What outcomes are we aiming for? In this instance? some are focusing on academic attainment and developing language/ communication skills, whilst others are focusing on him becoming a part of his community and improving emotional well-being. Different objectives suggest different approaches!

27. Dilemma 2 Do outcomes even matter? If the issue of inclusion is one of human rights ? maybe efficacy is an irrelevance? (See Lindsay 2003) In this instance? some see this as an issue of the child?s right to go to his local school ? and to receive whatever specialist support is needed there ? and the parents right to a choice of education for their son. conflict has arisen where other parties insist on there being evidence of success

28. Dilemma 3 If inclusion IS a matter of human rights? then who?s rights take precedence? In this instance? The parent?s assertion of their child?s right to an education with his sibling and peers? The child?s rights to the most effective education available? The child?s (mainstream) classmates? rights to an uninterrupted education?

29. Farrell 2000 ?A parent may feel that their child has a right to be educated in a mainstream school but an objective assessment of the child might indicate that his/her rights to a good education could only be met in a special school. Whose rights should take preference in cases like this, the parents or the child? In addition, what if placing a child with SEN in a mainstream school seriously disrupts the education of the other pupils? Surely they have a right to a good education as well??

30. The Purpose of Efficacy Research ?Data can be used to evaluate progress towards the goals established by values, but data cannot alter the value itself? (McLeskey et al 1990 in Frederickson and Cline 2002) ?The rationale for policies depends on an interplay of moral/ political and scientific reasoning. Broadly speaking decisions about whether to advocate a policy depend primarily on moral or political reasons and knowledge about how to achieve a desired policy change may involve detailed factual considerations? (Booth 1986 in Frederickson and Cline 2002)

31. Psychological Research into Inclusion Typically, research takes the form of comparative studies in which two groups ? included and excluded- are compared on the basis of outcomes such as: Educational attainment Affective measures ? self-esteem, social integration, ?adjustment?

32. Research problems

33. Research problems Key Point: (see Nathaniel clip) ?Inclusion is an easy thing to do poorly - and when we do it poorly we reinforce the belief that this cannot work? When we evaluate ?inclusion? we need to be aware that the nature and standard of ?inclusive practices? vary greatly.

34. Research Problems Difficulties specifying the independent variable ? many different views of what inclusion is Poor matching of participants ? children with SEN typically have additional problems Mainstream and special settings tend to have different objectives and therefore different curricula emphasis Differences between teacher experience and qualification between and within settings (Frederickson et al 2008) In early usa studies ?which typically compared seg with int provision a)in one study, the segregated group were actually intergrated for 31.7% of the time, more than the integrated groups in other studies? b) groups were matched for age, sex, and iq ? but there were ;okely to be very sig other differences ? behaviour, engagement, attendance? In early usa studies ?which typically compared seg with int provision a)in one study, the segregated group were actually intergrated for 31.7% of the time, more than the integrated groups in other studies? b) groups were matched for age, sex, and iq ? but there were ;okely to be very sig other differences ? behaviour, engagement, attendance?

35. Efficacy Research Findings ?Headline? Reviews of Efficacy Research have tended to come down marginally in favour of inclusion, with some qualifications (Frederickson et al 2008 ? see, for example, Baker, Wang and Walberg 1994-5)

36. Efficacy Research Findings A review of recent research? demonstrates the variability of research in this field and the need for caution when considering the conclusions drawn

37. Hegarty (1993) Summarised a Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) review of international research literature on integration efficacy studies across countries and different SEN Reported results were generally inconclusive Argued that this makes it difficult to justify continued segregated education

38. Lindsay 2007 Lindsay (2007) reported on a review of efficacy studies published in SEN journals between 2000 and 2005 1373 ?inclusion? papers were considered, with only 1% addressing efficacy issues (comparing the performance of children with SEN in mainstream and special, or comparing the performance of children with SEN in mainstream settings with their typically developing peers). The weight of evidence was marginally in favour of inclusion.

39. Dyson et al 2004 Research for the DfES Utilising the National Pupil Database (a database bringing together the attainments scores of 500,000 pupils and their education-relevant statistics (inc. SEN and school setting). It was reported that: There was no real evidence of a relationship between the ?inclusivity? of an LA and overall LA attainment, or between the ?inclusivity? of a school and school level attainment There was some evidence that inclusion can have positive effects on the wider achievement of all pupils, such as social skills and understanding (-though this was based chiefly on the the views of teachers and pupils) Other factors ? socio-economic status, gender, ethnicity and home language ? appear to be much more significant in their impact on attainment

40. Staub and Peck (1994) Review of USA studies into the effect of increasingly inclusive classrooms on children without additional needs None of the studies found a deceleration of academic progress for the mainstream students Children did not ?pick up? undesirable behaviour Teacher time was not reduced for children without additional needs

41. Kalambouka, Farrell, Dyson & Kaplan (2005) A more recent review of studies (N=26, again mainly American) into the effect of increasingly inclusive classrooms on children without additional needs 23% indicated positive academic and social outcomes for children without SEN 53% indicated a neutral impact 10% indicated mixed impacts 15% indicated a negative impact Findings are slightly more positive for academic than social outcomes

42. Manset and Semmel (1997) Included MLD pupils were compared with MLD pupils in special settings Learning outcomes from various inclusion programmes were reviewed Results very variable: 2 programmes, included pupils showed better progress in literacy ? no diff in maths In 2 others pupils showed better progress in maths ? no diff in literacy In 1 programme better progress in both literacy and maths In 1 programme no diff in both literacy and maths In 1 programme no diff in literacy and slower progress in maths However, in all 7 studies, the progress of pupils without additional needs in inclusive classrooms appeared to be better than that made by pupils in non inclusive classrooms. ?This suggests that efforts to transform the mainstream classroom into an effective environment for students with disabilities may also have a positive impact on normally achieving students, at least on measures of basic skills?

43. Nowicki and Sandieson (2002) Meta-analysis of publications between 1990 and 2000 Investigated children?s attitudes to children with SEN Inclusive classrooms had a medium sized effect on facilitating positive attitudes

44. Gresham and MacMillan (1997) A particular focus on social and affective outcomes (an early objective) suggested children with SEN placed in mainstream settings are less socially accepted and more rejected by their mainstream peers than children without additional need

45. In Summary One cannot point to a robust research basis for inclusive education, although the research broadly points to a neutral or slightly positive overall effect, for those seen to be ?included?, and their ?normally developing? peers Whilst research evidence remains somewhat inconclusive, the Human Rights debate ensures that increasing funds are put towards inclusive education

46. Educational Psychology and Inclusion Part Two: The contribution that psychological theory has made, and could make, to inclusive education

47. So far, we have seen that EPs have a significant role to play in researching the efficacy of inclusive educational settings In other lectures, you will considerer the part educational psychologists, and psychological theory can play in developing optimal learning experiences for pupils However psychological theory arguably has a particularly important part to play in the development of optimal inclusive cultures and environments wherein children and young people will be genuinely socially included

48. We will focus on four psychological theories that have been applied to understanding and changing children's attitudes and behaviour towards peers who have SEN, as outlined in Frederickson et al (2008) Theory of Planned Behaviour Contact Theory Labelling and Attribution Theory Social Exchange Theory

49. We will consider: How these four theories have influenced research How research drawing on these four theories might influence practice

50. Theory of Planned Behaviour Three major influences on behaviour: One?s own attitude towards the behaviour (+/-) One?s perception of the subjective norm (-what will others think?) One?s perception of behavioural control i.e. self-efficacy [and actual opportunity to engage in the behaviour] (Ajzen 1991) A pupils interaction to a child with SEN can be viewed in light of this model

51. Theory of Planned Behaviour Roberts and Lindsell (1997) 8-12 year old children?s attitudes to peers with physical disabilities strongly predicted their intention to interact with them. Their attitudes correlated significantly with the attitudes of their teachers and mothers (the subjective norm) Roberts and Smith (1999) Children?s attitudes and their perceived behavioural control were significant [predictors of their intention to interact with children with physical disabilities].

52. Theory of Planned Behaviour Implications for practice

53. Contact Theory Contact Theory holds that contact between groups can change the attitudes of in-group members towards out-groups (i.e. children with SEN) and can reduce stereotyping and prejudice. Four conditions are necessary: Equal status Common goals No competition between groups Authority sanctioning the contact (Allport 1954)

54. Contact Theory Maras and Brown (1996) Primary aged children in contact with children from a (Severe Learning Difficulties) Special School developed more positive social orientation to the pupils than a control group who didn?t have contact with them and who demonstrated little attitudinal change

55. Contact Theory Marom, Cohen and Naon (2007)designed an intervention to improve the disability related attitudes of 10-12 year olds ?as well as their self efficacy for interacting with children with disabilities (i.e. drawing on both Contact Theory and Theory of Planned Behaviour) The Intervention was in two phases: Provide information re. the children and their disabilities, and re. people with disabilities in general Facilitate contact between the two groups via joint, non-competitive activities. They reported improvements in the attitude and self efficacy of students, with no change in the control group

56. Contact Theory Two models are proposed to explain how contact might best alter attitudes of the in-group The decategorisation model (Brewer and Miller 1984) - Children with SEN would not be clearly identified as being part of a wider group of ?SEN children? The intergroup model (Hewstone and Brown 1986) - Children with SEN would be clearly identified as being part of an out- group of ?SEN children?

57. Contact Theory Cameron and Rutland (2006) investigated the effects of ?extended contact? ? i.e. children having vicarious experiences of friendship with children with SEN (e.g. hearing about in-group members friendships with out-group members) Once a week, 5-10 year olds heard stories of disabled-non-disabled friendships. In some stories the protagonists membership of an out-group of children with disabilities was emphasised (intergroup model), in others it was de-emphasised (decategorisation model).

58. Cameron and Rutland (2006) cont. Intended behaviour showed positive change in both conditions ? suggesting extended contact can have an effect (-very useful in situations where direct contact is difficult to achieve) Attitudes were seen to change where out-group membership was emphasised (intergroup model)

59. Contact Theory Newberry and Parish (1987) 8-10 year olds scouts engaging in social interaction with children with disabilities fostered more favourable attitudes, where the disabilities were very apparent

60. Contact Theory Labelling has long been assumed to have a negative effect ? serving as a self fulfilling prophecy. Research drawing on Contact Theory, however, suggests that stressing difference may be beneficial in the creation of optimal inclusive environments? Could labelling therefore have a positive effect??

61. Labelling and Attribution Theory Bak and Siperstein (1986) Reported that children aged 9-12 years held less negative attitudes towards a child observed to be withdrawn, when the child was also described as being ?mentally retarded? Only a weak effect was seen, however, when the child was observed to be aggressive.

62. Labelling and Attribution Theory Law, Sinclair and Fraser (2007) Attitudes of 11-12 year olds to children with ADHD diagnoses were assessed through the use of vignettes. Attitudes were mainly negative, and a diagnostic label was found to have no additional influence on the attitude or behavioural intention. The child?s behaviours, not the label, have the greatest impact.

63. Labelling and Attribution Theory Research focusing directly on ?labelling? is equivocal? Labelling appears to have only a minimal influence on the inclusive environment However, it is one factor that pupils will use to try to make sense of what they are confronted with?

64. Labelling and Attribution Theory Attribution Theory (Weiner 1985) suggests that when faced with negative behaviours, children will search for an explanation ? they will attribute causation. A key concept is perception of responsibility. Someone who is perceived to be responsible for their actions will elicit a more negative response than someone who is not held to be responsible.

65. Labelling and Attribution Theory Sigelman and Begley (1987) 5-6 and 8-9 year olds were told about peers who were either in a wheelchair, obese, learning disabled or aggressive. They were presented with a problem faced by the child and given either no causal information, or causal information that implied controllability or causal information that implied uncontrollability

66. Labelling and Attribution Theory Sigelman and Begley (1987) cont. Children in both age groups were responsive to the causal information when available ? and assigned blame according to ascribed responsibility When causal information wasn?t available, the children tended to hold all but the child in the wheelchair responsible

67. Labelling and Attribution Theory Attribution Theory thus suggests that without explicit ?causal information? to the contrary, pupils will ascribe responsibility for behaviours that they perceive to be negative to the pupil with SEN (and hence react negatively) - unless there is a very clear prompt to do otherwise Social Exchange Theory would support this suggestion, and also offer a further explanation

68. Social Exchange Theory Like attribution theory, research in the area of Social Exchange Theory (Kelley and Thibaut 1978) suggests that children will be more accepting of negative behaviours when the perpetrator is identified as having SEN, or other difficulties that are perceived to be beyond their responsibility.

69. Social Exchange Theory Social Exchange Theory suggests that the ??desire for affiliation with others relates to the sum of the perceived costs and benefits of interacting with them, set against some minimum level of expectation ? the comparison level. The comparison level may be different for some children with SEN? (Frederickson et al 2008) This suggests there would be different behavioural norms ?and expectations - for children with SEN.

70. Social Exchange Theory ?Typical? children rejected by classmates reportedly score high on costly social behaviours and low on beneficial behaviours, while those who are well accepted show the opposite pattern. (Newcomb, Bukowski and Pattee 1993). Children with SEN who are rejected reportedly receive low scores for beneficial behaviours, but do not receive high scores for costly behaviours. Children with SEN who are accepted reportedly receive low scores for costly behaviours, although high scores for beneficial behaviours are not characteristic of acceptance (Frederickson and Furnham 1998) That is, having high scores for costly behaviours doesn?t necessarily mean rejection ?and having high scores for beneficial behaviours doesn?t necessarily mean acceptance for children with SEN

71. Social Exchange Theory Clark and Mills (1993) make the observation that the symmetrical patterns of typically developing children are consistent with ?exchange relationship? norms, whereas the asymmetrical patterns for children with SEN are consistent with communal relationships? ?although there is undeniable warmth between the children, most of the comments and non-verbal interactions reflect a helper-helpee relationship, not a reciprocal friendship? (Van Der Klift & Klunc 2002 in Frederickson et al 2008)

72. Summary The social environment can have a predictable influence on pupils? attitudes and actions with regards to children with additional needs In many instances, acknowledging a child?s SEN appears more likely to facilitate positive inclusive experiences. Providing information and structured opportunities to engage in interaction also appears potentially beneficial ?rather than leave classmates to make their own (often rather negative) attributions, more positive outcomes are likely to result if adults provide advance information, ongoing explanations and appropriately structured and supported opportunities for contact? (Frederickson et al 2008)

73. Context 3 questions

74. Do you have a clear idea of what inclusion - or an inclusive education - is? Could you come up with a definition of ?inclusion? How might you change, if at all, your original definition?

75. Do you think you have been through an inclusive education? What did you see, if anything, that suggests your schools were ?inclusive?? On reflection, how inclusive was your schooling?

76. Do you feel inclusive education is a goal worth striving for? What are your views based on? Have your views changed in the light of what has been covered today - in particular the efficacy research offered by psychologists?

77. *** The inclusive movement has been fuelled, to a large extent, by human rights issue There remains much debate about the nature of inclusive education ? and it?s objectives Psychological research does not offer a uniformly positive picture of inclusive education, and is in fact largely inconclusive Psychological research is beginning to demonstrate factors which are important in developing optimal inclusive environments Psychological Theory has much to offer in furthering our understanding of what may lead to, or hinder, the development of optimal inclusive environments EPs are in an excellent position to influence this debate on an individual and broader policy level Office hours -9.40- 12.00 14.11.08 C33 Pychology

78. References Frederickson N, Miller A and Cline T (2008) Educational Psychology: Topics in Applied Psychology Hodder Arnold (Published 28 Mar 2008) Chapter 4 ? Is Inclusion for children with special needs psychologically defensible? Frederickson N and Cline T (2002) Special Educational Needs, Inclusion and Diversity Buckingham OU Press Lindsay G (2007) Educational Psychology and Effectiveness of Inclusive Education/ Mainstreaming British Journal of Educational Psychology 77 1-24

79. Also: Ajzen I (1991) The Theory of Planned Behaviour Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 179-211 Allport GW (1954) The Nature of Prejudice Oxford Addison-Wesley Bak JJ and Siperstein GN (1986) Protective Effects of the Label ?Mentally Retarded? on Children?s Attitudes Toward Mentally Retarded Peers American Journal of Mental Deficiency 91 95-97 Baker ET, Wang MC and Walberg HJ (1994-5) The Effects of Inclusion on Learning Educational Leadership 52 33-35 Booth T (1986) Is Integrating the Handicapped Psychologically Defensible? Letter to the Editor Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 39 141 Brewer M and Miller N (1984) ?Beyond the Contact Hypothesis: Theoretical Perspectives on Desegregation? in: N Miller and M Brewer (Eds) Groups in Conflict N York Academic Press 281-302 British Psychological Society DECP (2002) Professional Practice Guidelines /Inclusive Education Position Paper BPS Cameron L and Rutland A (2006) Extending Contact Theory Through Story Reading in School: Reducing Children?s Prejudice Towards the Disabled Journal of Social Issues 62 469-488 Clark MS and Mills J (1993) The Difference Between Communcal and Exchange Relationships Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19 684-691 Department for Education and Employment (2001) Special Educational Needs and Disability Act London The Stationary Office Dyson A, Farrell P, Polat F, Hutcheson G, and Gallannaugh F (2004) Inclusion and Pupil Achievement: Department for Education and Skills (Research Report No 578)

80. Farrell P (2000) The Impact of Research on Developments in Inclusive Education International Journal of Inclusive Education 4 (2) 153-162 Frederickson N and Furnham AF (1998) Sociometric Status Group Classification of Mainstreamed Children who have Moderate Learning Difficulties: An Investigation of Personal and Environmental Factors Journal of Educational Psychology 90 (4) 1-12 Gresham FM and MacMillan DL (1997) Social Competence and Affective Characteristics of Students with Mild Disabilities Review of Educational Research 67 377-415 Hegarty S (1993) Reviewing the Literature on Integration European Journal of Special Needs Education 8 194-200 Hewstone M and Brown RJ (1986) ?Contact is Not Enough: An Intergroup Perspective on the Contact Hypothesis? In M Hewstone and R Brown (Eds) Contact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters Oxford Blackwell 1-44 Kalambouka A, Farrell P, Dyson A and Kaplan I (2005) The Impact of population inclusivity in schools on Student outcomes in Research Evidence in Education Library London EPPI-Centre Social Science Research Unit, Insitute of Education, University of London Kelley HH and Thibaut JW (1978) Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence N York Wiley Law GU Sinclair S and Fraser N (2007) Children?s Attitudes and Behavioural Intentions Towards a Peer with Symptoms of ADHD: Does the Addition of a Diagnostic Label Make a Difference? Journal of Child Health Care 11 98-111 Lindsay G (2003) Inclusive Education: A Critical Perspective British Journal of Special Education 30 3-12 Lindsay G (2007) Educational Psychology and Effectiveness of Inclusive Education/ Mainstreaming British Journal of Educational Psychology 77 1-24 Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) (1985) Educational Opportunities for All? London ILEA McLeskey J, Skiba R, and Wilcox B (1990) Reform and Special Education: A Mainstream Perspective Journal of Special Education 24 (3) 319-325 Manset G and Semmel MI (1997) Are Inclusive Programmes for Students with Mild Disabilities Effective? A Comparative Review of Model Programmes Journal of Special Education 31 155-180

81. Maras P and Brown RJ (1996) Effect of Contact on Children?s Attitudes toward Disabled and Non-Disabled Peers British Journal of Educational Psychology 70 337-351 Marom M, Cohen Dand Naon D (2007) Changing Disability-Related Attitudes and Self-Efficacy of Isreali Children via the Partners to Inclusion Programme International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 54(1) 113-127 Newberry MJ and Parish TS (1987) Enhancement of Attitudes to ward Handicapped Children Through Social Interaction Journal of Social Psychology 127 59-62 Newcomb AF, Bukowski WM and Pattee L (1993) Children?s Peer Relations: A Meta-analytic Review of Popular, Rejected, Neglected, Controversial and Average Sociometric Status Psychological Bulletin 113(1) 99-128 Nowicki EA and Sandieson R (2002) A Meta-Analysis of Children?s Attitudes Toward Individuals with Intellectual and Physical Disabilities International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 49 243-266 Roberts CM and Lindsell JS (1997) Children?s Attitudes and Behavioural Intentions Toward Peers with Disabilities International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 44 133-145 Roberts CM and Smith PR (1999) Attitudes and Behaviour of Children Towards Peers with Disabilities International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 46 35-50 Sigelman CK and Begley NL (1987) The Early Development of Reactions to Peers with Controllable and Uncontrollable Problems Journal of Paediatric Psychology 12 99-115 UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Educational Needs Paris UNESCO Van Der Klift E and Klunc N (2002) Beyond Benevolence in JS Thousand RA cited in Frederickson et al 2008 Weiner B (1985) An Attributional Theory of Achievement Motivation and Emotion Psychological Review 92 548-573

82. Video clips Including Samuel Are You Happy

Other Related Presentations

Copyright © 2014 SlideServe. All rights reserved | Powered By DigitalOfficePro