importance of research in special education

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Defining and Understanding Special Education

This chapter is a concise overview of Special Education. Specific IDEA citations are included to reinforce the importance of each aspect of “Special Education” entitlement for school age students with a disability.  Throughout your program of studies towards special education teacher certification, you will explore these subtopics in depth.

Table of Contents

• Where “special education” is defined in IDEA
• Key points about “special education”

IDEA’s Exact Words

Adaptations and modifications, where is special education provided, the long story on special education.

• What does “specially designed Instruction” mean?

What’s peer-reviewed research?

• The role of states

Key Takeaway

Special education is not a place, however. It’s a set of services, which includes adapting instruction (what’s presented, how it’s presented) to address the unique needs of the child that result from the disability.

Excerpts from the Center for Parent Information and Resources (6.27.2020). Key Definitions in IDEA| Defining and Understanding Special Education, Newark, NJ, Author (2017)

Special Education

Importance of This Key Term  | As the OSEP  Dear Colleague Letter on FAPE  indicates, special education is at the core of how schools address the needs of students with disabilities and support them in achieving the annual goals stated in their IEPs as aligned with the state’s academic content standards. Accordingly, how this term is defined in law and implemented in the real world is extremely important to students, families, schools, and Parent Centers.

Where “special education” is defined in IDEA  | IDEA defines “special education” at 34 CFR §300.39, as follows:

§300.39 Special education.

(a)  General . (1) Special education means specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including—

(i) Instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings; and

(ii) Instruction in physical education.

(2) Special education includes each of the following, if the services otherwise meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section—

(i) Speech-language pathology services, or any other related service, if the service is considered special education rather than a related service under State standards;

(ii) Travel training; and

(iii) Vocational education.

(b)   Individual special education terms defined .  The terms in this definition are defined as follows:

(1)  At no cost  means that all specially-designed instruction is provided without charge, but does not preclude incidental fees that are normally charged to nondisabled students or their parents as a part of the regular education program.

(2)  Physical education  means—

(i) The development of—

(A) Physical and motor fitness;

(B) Fundamental motor skills and patterns; and

(C) Skills in aquatics, dance, and individual and group games and sports (including intramural and lifetime sports); and

(ii) Includes special physical education, adapted physical education, movement education, and motor development.

(3)  Specially designed instruction  means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction—

(i) To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability; and

(ii) To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children.

(4)  Travel training  means providing instruction, as appropriate, to children with significant cognitive disabilities, and any other children with disabilities who require this instruction, to enable them to—

(i) Develop an awareness of the environment in which they live; and

(ii) Learn the skills necessary to move effectively and safely from place to place within that environment (e.g., in school, in the home, at work, and in the community).

(5)  Vocational education  means organized educational programs that are directly related to the preparation of individuals for paid or unpaid employment, or for additional preparation for a career not requiring a baccalaureate or advanced degree.

Key points about “special education”  | When you read the  Dear Colleague Letter on FAPE , you’ll notice that there are several points made about the nature of “special education.” These include that:

Special education is instruction that is  specially designed  to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability. The hallmark of special education is that it is individualized for student needs.

Special education is provided  at no cost  to parents or students.

Special education can be provided in different locations, depending on student needs. IDEA strongly prefers that students receive their special education services  in the general education classroom  with their nondisabled peers, as you can see by its  LRE provisions .

Special education is not a place, however. It’s a set of services, which includes adapting instruction (what’s presented, how it’s presented) to address the unique needs of the child that result from the disability.

Special education isn’t separated from the academic content that students are supposed to learn for their grade. It’s meant to  support  the learning of that academic conten t. That’s why IDEA emphasizes that special education needs to ensure that students with disabilities have  access to the general curriculum  that all students are expected to learn. And that’s why the  Dear Colleague Letter on FAPE  stresses the importance of aligning a student’s goals in the IEP to the academic content for that student’s enrolled grade.

Excerpts from the Center for Parent Information and Resources (6.27.2020).  Special Education, Newark, NJ, Author (2017)

It’s helpful to see IDEA’s full requirement for specifying a child’s special education in his or her IEP. This appears at §300.320(a)

(4) and stipulates that each child’s IEP must contain:

(4) A statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided to enable the child—

(i) To advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals;

(ii) To be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and

(iii) To be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children in the activities described in this section… [§300.320(a)(4)] In its entirety, this provision is the heart and soul, meat and potatoes, bricks and mortar (choose your analogy!) of the IEP. When taken off paper and operationalized in school, it becomes the education that a child with a disability receives. The part we’ve put in bold is the focus of this article, but you’ll want to read the next two articles as well, so you can integrate the information here about special education with what’s presented separately about related services and supplementary aids and services.

Special Education, in Brief

Special education is instruction that is specially designed to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability.  This means education that is individually developed to address a  specific   child’s needs that result from his or her disability. Since each child is unique, it is difficult to give an overall example of special education. It is individualized for each child.

Some students may be working at the pre-kindergarten grade level, others at the first, second, or third grade level. There may be students whose special education focuses primarily on speech and language development, cognitive development, or needs related to a physical or learning disability. Special education for any student can consist of:

• an individualized curriculum that is  different   from that of same-age, nondisabled peers (for example, teaching a blind student to read and write using Braille);
• the  same   (general) curriculum as that for nondisabled peers, with adaptations or modifications made for the student (for example, teaching 3rd grade math but including the use of counting tools and assistive technology for the student); and
• a combination of these elements.

It is also important to remember that the education, services, and supports outlined in a child’s IEP do not necessarily cover that child’s  entire  education.  The IEP only addresses those educational needs resulting from the child’s disability.  If a child needs special education support throughout the school day, for all activities, the IEP will cover all these needs. If the child doesn’t need special education support in one or more areas (for example, physical education, music, or science), then the IEP will not include these subjects. The child accesses them through the general curriculum/ class, with no additional special education services.

The individualization of instruction is an important part of special education. Instruction and schoolwork are tailored to the needs of the child. Sometimes a student may need to have changes made in class work or routines because of his or her disability. Modifications can be made to:

• what   a child is taught, and/or
• how  a child works at school.

Sometimes people get confused about what it means to have a  modification  and what it means to have an  accommodation . Usually a  modification   means a  change in what is being taught to or expected from the student . Making an assignment easier so the student is not doing the same level of work as other students is an example of a modification. An  accommodation  is a change that helps a student overcome or work around the disability . Allowing a student who has trouble writing to give his answers orally is an example of an accommodation. This student is still expected to know the same material and answer the same questions as fully as the other students, but he doesn’t have to write his answers to show that he knows the information.

What is most important to know about modifications and accommodations is that both are meant to help a child to learn. For example:

Jack is an 8th grade student who has learning disabilities in reading and writing. He is in a regular 8th grade class that is team-taught by a general education teacher and a special education teacher. Modifications and accommodations provided for Jack’s daily school routine (and when he takes state or district-wide tests) include the following:

• Jack will have shorter reading and writing assignments.
• Jack’s textbooks will be based upon the 8th grade curriculum but at his independent reading level (4th grade).
• Jack will have test questions read/explained to him, when he asks.

Modifications or accommodations are most often made in the following areas:

Scheduling . For example:

• giving the student extra time to complete assignments or tests
• breaking up testing over several days

Setting . For example:

• working in a small group
• working one-on-one with the teacher

Materials . For example:

• providing audiotaped lectures or books
• giving copies of teacher’s lecture notes
• using large print books, Braille, or books on CD (digital text)

Instruction . For example:

• reducing the difficulty of assignments
• reducing the reading level
• using a student/peer tutor

Student  Response . For example:

• allowing answers to be given orally or dictated
• using a word processor for written work
• using sign language, a communication device, Braille, or native language if it is not English.

Special education instruction can be provided in a number of settings , such as: in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings (§300.26). Schools must ensure that a  continuum of alternative placements  is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities. This continuum must include the placements just mentioned (instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions). Unless a child’s IEP requires some other arrangement, the child must be educated in the school he or she would attend if he or she did not have a disability [§300.116(c)].

Special education instruction must be provided to students with disabilities in what is known as the  least restrictive environment , or LRE. IDEA includes provisions that ensure that children with disabilities are educated with nondisabled children, to the maximum extent appropriate. Each state must also ensure that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily [§300.114(a)(2)(ii)].

Of course, there’s much more to special education than the short summary above. For those of you that want the nitty-gritty, detailed, full picture of special education, here it comes. Keep reading.

Defining special education

Special education.  Sometimes, when the term is used, it means “special education” as defined by IDEA at §300.39, and other times it’s a reference to the field at large—teachers, offices, knowledge base, professional practice, the system.

However, when IDEA uses the term, its meaning is  never  mixed or ambiguous. Every single time “special education” is used in the law and the final Part B regulations, its meaning is the same—the definition below.

§300.39  Special education.

(a)  General . (1)  Special education  means specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including—

(2)  Special education  includes each of the following, if the services otherwise meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section—

And that’s just the “general” part of the definition! The next part is called “ individual special education terms defined ,” where the definition goes on to define:

• at no cost;
• physical education;
• specially designed instruction;
• travel training; and
• vocational education.

Happily, the 20 opening words of special education’s definition—specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability—contain the  core  of the term’s meaning. You’ll see we’ve used those 20 words in the short story of special education. The 362 other words in the definition (which includes the definitions of the individual terms), while still very critical, add detail to that core and further clarify it.

When an abbreviated definition of the term  special education  is called for, you’re most likely to hear its core: “ Special education is specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability. ”

In the definition’s full form, examples roll out and take away gray areas about the some of the scope and substance of special education. Special education can be, for example:

• travel training (which has its own definition);
• vocational education (also defined on its own); and
• services that may be listed in IDEA as a related service but that a state may consider as special education—which makes them “special education” in that state.

As you can see from IDEA’s definition of special education, it can also occur in a variety of settings: in the classroom, in a home, in a hospital or institution, and in other settings. This is why you might also hear that “special education is not a place.” It’s not.  Where  it is provided for a specific child with a disability will depend on that child’s unique needs as determined by the group of individuals (which includes the parents) that makes the placement decision.

So what does “specially designed instruction” mean?

Given the importance of “specially designed instruction” in the core of special education’s definition, it’s useful to take a closer look at how  that  term is defined:

(ii) To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children. [§300.39(b)(3)]

Thus, as part of designing the instruction to fit the needs of a specific child, adaptations may be made in the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction. This is a strong point of pride within the special education field and a considerable accomplishment that’s come from 30 years of practice: the individualization of instruction.

As the provisions above show, adaptations can take many forms in response to the child’s needs; the field is replete with guidance on this critical part of special education.

Time for another definition–not more from “special education” but, rather, from where this article began–the statement of special education that’s required in the IEP. If you look back up, you’ll see that the special education a child receives must be “based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable” [§300.320(a)(4)].  What might that mean?

With the passage of the 2004 Amendments to IDEA, some new terms and concepts became part of the IEP process. One such is peer-reviewed research. The term is not formally defined in the IDEA, but the Department of Education’s discussion in the Analysis of Comments and Changes may be helpful in understanding the term’s general meaning and why no formal definition was included in the regulations:

“ Peer-reviewed research ” generally refers to research that is reviewed by qualified and independent reviewers to ensure that the quality of the information meets the standards of the field before the research is published. However, there is no single definition of “peer reviewed research”’ because the review process varies depending on the type of information to be reviewed. (71 Fed. Reg. at 46664)

The term is used in conjunction with the phrase “to the extent practicable.” To better understand what this means and how IEP teams are to apply peer-reviewed research in their selection of services to be provided to a child with a disability, you may find the Department of Education’s comments helpful.

States, school districts, and school personnel must…select and use methods that research has shown to be effective, to the extent that methods based on peer-reviewed research are available. This does not mean that the service with the greatest body of research is the service necessarily required for a child to receive FAPE. Likewise, there is nothing in the Act to suggest that the failure of a public agency to provide services based on peer-reviewed research would automatically result in a denial of FAPE. The final decision about the special education and related services, and supplementary aids and services that are to be provided to a child must be made by the child’s IEP Team based on the child’s individual needs. (71 Fed. Reg. at 46665)

The role of states in determining what special education is

This discussion of special education as a term brings to mind how it is also a  process , a  system . IDEA may define the term and establish rigorous standards for its implementation, but how special education unfolds in schools is very much a state and local matter. Education is traditionally a state responsibility, with each state vested with the authority to determine its own policies within the parameters of federal requirements. This is one reason why  it’s so critical to know your state’s specific special education policies  and requirements.

So—–where to look for that information?

The best place is to connect with the agency responsible in your state for overseeing special education in the state. That is most likely your state’s Department of Education —or Department of Special Education. Names will vary from state to state, of course.

Center for Parent Information and Resources (6.27.2020). Key Definitions in IDEA| Defining and Understanding Special Education, Newark, NJ, Author (2017)

The Roles and Responsibilities of the Special Educator Copyright © by Paula Lombardi is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, research utilization in special education.

The Next Big Thing in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities

ISBN : 978-1-80071-750-3 , eISBN : 978-1-80071-749-7

Publication date: 28 April 2021

Evidence-based practice is an essential component of special education and provides a framework for promoting the use of research to inform policy and practice. Despite the importance of evidence-based practice to special education, the research-to-practice gap remains a persistent challenge to the successful dissemination of effective, research-based practices. Given the underuse of research in special education, the next big thing in evidence-based special education is to develop effective mechanisms for disseminating research and practice. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to introduce research utilization as a concept to special education and present a preliminary analysis on special education teacher perceptions of research. Results suggest that special education teachers value evidence-based practice but remain unsure of their skills to distinguish between studies with more and less rigorous methods. Moreover, we found that special education teachers tended to use sources with lower self-reported ratings of trustworthiness, such as social media and teacher exchange websites, due to time efficiency and accessibility. Respondents provided recommendations for ameliorating the research-to-practice gap and increasing the usability of research overall.

Buren, M.K. , Johnson, A.H. , Maggin, D.M. , Bains, B.K. , Ledoux Galligan, M.R. and Couch, L.K. (2021), "Research Utilization in Special Education", Cook, B.G. , Tankersley, M. and Landrum, T.J. (Ed.) The Next Big Thing in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities ( Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, Vol. 31 ), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 29-46. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0735-004X20210000031003

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021 by Emerald Publishing Limited

We’re listening — tell us what you think

Something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Special Education Research

See also: Special Education , Special Education Policy , Special Education Law , Special Ed. Identification , Special Education Monitoring

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

How Inclusive Interactive Learning Environments Benefit Students Without Special Needs

Silvia molina roldán.

1 Department of Pedagogy, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain

Jesús Marauri

2 Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain

Adriana Aubert

3 Department of Sociology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Ramon Flecha

Associated data.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Growing evidence in recent years has led to an agreement on the importance and benefits that inclusive education has for students with special educational needs (SEN). However, the extension and universalization of an inclusive approach will also be enhanced with more evidence on the benefits that inclusion has for all students, including those without SEN. Based on the existing knowledge that learning interactions among diverse students are a key component of educational inclusion, the aim of this study is to identify the impact on students without SEN of being educated with students with SEN in shared, inclusive, interactive learning environments. Data were collected in three schools using a qualitative approach with a communicative orientation. Semistructured interviews were held with teachers as well as community volunteers participating in the schools. Further, focus groups were conducted with students and teachers. The results show that students without SEN benefit from participating in interactive learning activities with peers with SEN in different ways: (1) they learn to respect others, accept differences, and acknowledge different abilities, thereby creating opportunities for new friendships to develop; (2) they learn about abilities related to helping others participate and learn, to be patient and to gain the satisfaction in helping others learn and behave better; and (3) they benefit from the cognitive effort required to explain themselves and from the contributions of peers with SEN from which they can learn.

Introduction

The extension and universalization of an inclusive approach is a goal and a challenge for educational systems around the globe, as reflected in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Inclusive education means that all children learn together in schools that recognize and respond to the diverse needs of students, ensure quality education for all through appropriate curricula, organization, teaching strategies and resource use ( UNESCO, 1994 ), and overcome the barriers to the presence, participation, and achievement of all students in general education classes ( UNESCO, 2017 ). However, the original idea of inclusive education focuses on the education of a particular group of students—those with special educational needs (SEN)—to overcome practices of special education that have traditionally segregated students based on a medical model of disability ( Kurth et al., 2018 ). In this regard, inclusive education is generally acknowledged as the venue to enhance both the learning and social development of students with disabilities and other SEN, and therefore the way to fulfill their right to shared quality education in mainstream settings ( United Nations, 2007 ). Consequently, discourse, arguments and research about inclusive education have often centered on the collective of students with SEN, and growing evidence has led to an agreement on the benefits that inclusive education has for these students, as found in reviews of recent research. For instance, the meta-analysis conducted by Oh-Young and Filler (2015) compared the outcomes of students with disabilities between placement settings and found that students in more integrated settings outperformed those in more segregated settings, both in the academic and social domains. The recent review of research by Kefallinou et al. (2020) concluded that there is plenty of research that justifies inclusion both from the educational and the social angles, due to the proven positive effects of educational inclusion on the academic outcomes of students with disabilities, and its positive impact on the subsequent social inclusion of people with disabilities in terms of further academic opportunities and qualifications, access to employment and developing personal relationships within the community.

Because inclusive education is about quality education for all, it is important to look at the potential benefits of inclusion for all students. In this regard, the fact that most of the research on inclusive education concerns categories of learners, particularly those with disabilities and other SENs, may cause us to overlook the impacts on other collectives of learners and may not be consistent with a definition of inclusive education geared toward all learners ( Messiou, 2017 ). The objective of extending and universalizing an inclusive approach would benefit from evidence showing that it is positive—or at least not negative—for all students, including those without SEN.

For this reason, some studies have considered the impact of inclusion on students without special needs. Some of these studies have examined the development of students’ attitudes, empathy and understanding of others. For instance, Smith and Williams (2001) showed that children without disabilities can be sensitive to the consequences of different types of impairments and generally have a positive perception of the capabilities of children with different kinds of impairments, which has positive implications for inclusion. Tafa and Manolitsis (2003) found that typically developing children educated in inclusive programs with children with SEN have increased respect, awareness, and acceptance of their peers’ needs, develop less prejudices, and learn to be more helpful and supportive toward people with disabilities, according to parents’ perspectives. This is consistent with other studies that concluded that inclusive education can play a role in challenging disabling attitudes by transforming non-disabled children’s attitudes toward people with disabilities, therefore contributing to building a more inclusive society ( Beckett, 2009 ). Grütter et al. (2017) analyzed the role of friendship between students with and without SEN and found that opportunities to forge close friendships between students with and without SEN enhance the positive attitudes of students without SEN toward students with SEN; this suggests that inclusive education may benefit from educational practices that actively promote friendship among students with and without SEN. Research has also studied the impact of inclusion on the development of cognitive abilities such as theory of mind (ToM), finding that children without SEN educated in inclusive classes with children with SEN develop a better ToM than their peers educated in traditional classes ( Smogorzewska et al., 2020 ). According to Smogorzewska et al. (2020) , a greater understanding of diversity, tolerance, acceptance of others and the use of prosocial behaviors in inclusive classrooms seem to promote ToM development.

Other studies have explored the impact on academic learning. Although some studies find that the presence of SEN students in regular classes is related to slightly lower performance of their peers without SEN (e.g., Hienonen et al., 2018 ), the conclusions of different reviews of research suggest the contrary. Ruijs and Peetsma (2009) revealed that inclusive education has neutral to positive effects for both students with and without SEN compared to non-inclusive education, especially regarding academic achievement. Focusing on the impacts of students without SEN, Kalambouka et al. (2007) showed no evidence of adverse effects of the inclusion of children with SEN, indicating that most findings involved positive or neutral effects on children without SEN. Similarly, Szumski, Smogorzewska and Karwowski’s meta-analysis (2017) underscored a significant and positive—although weak—effect of the presence of students with SEN on the academic achievement of students without SEN. In none of the examined conditions were significant negative impacts found; in contrast, they were at worst neutral and positive in many cases. More recently, Kefallinou et al. (2020) signaled in their review that the inclusion of students with disabilities did not negatively affect the learning outcomes or the social development of their peers without disabilities, and there was a small—but positive—impact on the academic achievement of students without SEN. In addition, the benefits of inclusive education were connected to effective classroom practices characterized by learning interactions, such as cooperative and dialogic learning, peer tutoring, or collaborative problem-solving, which are beneficial for all learners in the classroom ( Kefallinou et al., 2020 ). As argued in these studies, the results support the idea that inclusive education is not against the right of the majority of students to receive quality education, as not only students with SEN, but also those without SEN, may benefit from being educated together.

One of the key characteristics of inclusive educational environments is the opportunity to have rich and diverse learning interactions among heterogeneous students. The role of social interactions in children’s learning and development has long been investigated by psychologists of education since the onset of the sociocultural theory of learning ( Vygotsky, 1978 ; Bruner, 1996 ). Bruner’s concept of communities of mutual learners helps us to understand the benefits of learning interactions between peers in contexts of diversity. According to Bruner (1996) , group work in schools in the form of communities of mutual learners allows for an equilibrium between individuality and group effectiveness, ensuring that everyone progresses according to their ability and giving all children the opportunity “to enter the culture with awareness of what it is about and what one does to cope with it as a participant” (p. 82). Interactive learning spaces, especially when they are mediated by dialogue, permit collective thinking and learning, enhance academic achievement, social skills, and social cohesion, and are especially beneficial for vulnerable groups of students ( Fernández-Villardón et al., 2020 ; García-Carrión et al., 2020 ). Hence, the objectives of inclusive education would be better attained when such interactive and dialogic learning environments are promoted.

Interactive groups (IGs) and dialogic literary gatherings (DLGs) are specific interactive learning environments that take into account the value of diversity, interaction, and dialogue for learning. Both IGs and DLGs have been identified as successful educational actions (SEAs) that foster successful educational outcomes in diverse student populations ( Flecha, 2015 ). In IGs, classrooms are arranged into small groups of heterogeneous students (e.g., 4–5 students each) who work on instrumental learning activities (especially literacy and math) proposed by the teacher using interaction and dialogue to help each other solve the activity, while a volunteer from the community (e.g., a family member, a former student, or a neighbor) supports each group, dynamizing students’ interactions and mutual help. IGs boost students’ academic learning and—due to the solidary bases of the IG, where students are prompted to help each other—improve the school climate; new friendships are also encouraged, as well as multicultural coexistence ( García-Carrión and Díez-Palomar, 2015 ; Valero et al., 2018 ; Zubiri-Esnaola et al., 2020 ).

Dialogic literary gatherings consist of debating books from classical literature that students have previously read. After agreeing to the chapters that will be discussed at the next gathering, students read the text individually or with help from their family members, a teacher, or a peer, and select a piece of text they found relevant to share at the gatherings. There, they discuss and reflect on the text based on the principles of dialogic learning ( Flecha, 2000 ). DLGs contribute not only to a better understanding of the text, but also enhance students’ reading, reasoning, and argumentative abilities, and deepen understanding of others’ perspectives and emotional well-being ( García-Carrión, 2015 ; Garcia et al., 2018 ; Foncillas et al., 2020 ).

Both DLGs and IGs have been implemented with students with SEN included in mainstream classrooms, and shared with students without SEN. The interactive learning environments created through IGs and DLGs improve the learning and relationships of students with SEN; therefore IGs and DLGs encompass inclusive learning environments ( Duque et al., 2020 ). Less is known about the impact of IGs and DLGs on students without SEN when they are shared with students with SEN. The aim of this study is to identify impacts for students without SEN of being educated with students with SEN in shared, inclusive, interactive learning environments such as IGs and DLGs.

Materials and Methods

This research is a qualitative study of schools that implement interactive learning environments—specifically interactive groups (IGs) and dialogic literary gatherings (DLGs)—with students with and without special needs. The study was conducted within the framework of a broader competitive research project titled “Interactive learning environments for the inclusion of students with and without disabilities: Improving learning, development and relationships” (INTER-ACT). More specifically, this study is part of the project’s second objective: “To analyze in depth successful cases of schools implementing IGs and DLGs with students with disabilities to identify the best conditions to increase the impact on the improvement of learning, development, and relationships.”

The specific objectives of this study were: (1) to determine whether participating in IGs and DLGs with students with SEN has an impact in terms of learning and/or development for children without SEN; (2) to identify types of impacts on students without SEN as a result of participating in IGs and DLGs with students with SEN; and (3) to understand how these impacts are related to being educated with students with SEN in shared, inclusive, interactive learning environments such as IGs and DLGs.

Data from the three mainstream educational centers that participated in the second objective of the INTER-ACT project were considered. These centers were one primary school, one primary and secondary school, and one secondary school that educate students with and without special needs in shared learning environments, and which have already implemented interactive learning environments (IGs and DLGs) in the framework of an inclusive project. The schools were selected for their participation in the INTER-ACT project according to the following criteria: (a) schools that had been organizing classrooms in IGs and/or DLGs for at least two academic years; (b) these schools serve a higher percentage of students with disabilities than the average in the region; (c) these schools implement IGs and DLGs inclusively, involving students with SEN with their peers who do not have SEN; and (d) these schools had observed improvements in their students, recorded through quantitative or qualitative evidence, since they have implemented IGs and/or DLGs.

Data Collection

Qualitative data were collected in each school with the aim of understanding, from the participants’ experiences, how the interactive learning environments that were being facilitated with students with and without SEN contributed to students’ cognitive and social development. The data collection techniques used were semistructured interviews with teachers and community volunteers participating in the schools, and focus groups with students and teachers (see Table 1 ). For the purpose of data collection, students with SEN were considered those with an official report that entailed learning difficulties in the school context. Conversely, students without SEN were those without an official report and who did not present particular learning difficulties in the school context. Purposeful sampling was employed to select participants who could be especially knowledgeable about the object of study. In all cases, the participants selection was agreed with the school principals to select those participants that could be more representative. All data collection techniques were carried out on the school premises for the participant convenience. Interviews with teachers lasted between 60 and 75 min. The duration of the focus groups was approximately 40 min for teachers and between 30 and 45 min for students. In the case of volunteers, interviews lasted approximately 20 min.

Data collection techniques implemented in each school.

Participant teachers in the interviews and in the focus groups were selected based on their experience of implementing IGs and/or DLGs with students with and without SEN. All of them had been implementing IGs and/or DLGs and all of them had—at the moment of the data collection or in the past—students with SEN participating in IGs and/or DLGs together with students without SEN.

Two interviews with teachers were conducted, one in school 1 and one in school 3. They were female teachers in both cases. The teacher interviewed at school 1 was the school principal and a language teacher who implemented DLGs with the two sixth-grade classes, which contained five students with SEN. She had more than 10 years of experience facilitating IGs and DLGs. The teacher interviewed in school 3 taught the third grade of compulsory secondary education. In that class, eight students had SEN.

Two focus groups were held with teachers, one in school 1 and one in school 2. In school 1, four female teachers participated. One of them was a teacher in the first and second grades of primary education, another was a teacher in the third and fourth grades, and two more were teachers in the fifth and sixth grades. They had between 4 and 12 years of experience in the school implementing IGs and/or DLGs. In school 2, three female teachers participated. One of them was a teacher of first and second grade, another was a special education teacher, and the third was a teacher of second grade of compulsory secondary education and educational advisor. They had between 1 and 10 years of experience in the school implementing IGs and/or DLGs.

Three focus groups were held with students, two in school 1 and one in school 3. In school 1, one focus group was conducted with each of the two sixth-grade classes. They have been implementing IGs since second grade and DLGs since third grade. In these classes, cases of special needs included hearing impairment and intellectual disability (one boy), intellectual disability (one boy), dyslexia (two boys and one girl) and ADHD (one boy). Five students participated in the first focus group (three boys and two girls), and seven participated in the second focus group (five girls and two boys). In the first group, there was one girl and one boy with SEN, and in the second group, there was one boy with SEN. In school 3, one focus group was conducted with two girls: one in second grade of compulsory secondary education, and one in third grade of compulsory secondary education. Both participated in IGs and DLGs. One of them had special needs (a syndrome entailing visual and hearing impairment, as well as an intellectual disability) and participated in IGs and DLGs with her classmates without special needs, while the other student did not have SEN and had a classmate with autism who participated in IGs and DLGs along with the rest of the class.

Finally, two interviews were conducted in school 2 with two male volunteers who participated in IGs in classes containing students with and without SEN. One of them had taken part in IGs in preprimary and primary education classes for 2 years, while the other had participated in IGs for 3 years in fifth and sixth grades of primary education and in third grade of compulsory secondary education.

Both the interviews and the focus groups included questions regarding, on the one hand, the characteristics of the implementation of the interactive learning environments and, on the other, the impacts on the participating students. The data collection was conducted using a communicative orientation that involves creating the conditions for egalitarian dialogue between researchers and the end-users of research to reach a shared interpretation of the reality being studied ( Gómez et al., 2019 ). Sample questions for teachers and volunteers included: “How would you describe the interactions between students with SEN and their peers without SEN when they participate in IGs and/or DLGs?” “Have these interactions between students changed over time?” “Have you observed an impact on students that could be related to such interactions?” Sample questions for students were: “How do you work in IGs and DLGs with your classmates?,” “When you or some of your classmates have some difficulties when participating in IGs or DLGs, what do you do?,” “Have you improved on something since you have taken part in IGs and DLGs?,” “And your classmates?,” “Can you give an example?”

Before data collection, school boards and individual participants were informed about the aims of the research. All participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that the data would be recorded anonymously. Informed consent was obtained from the participant teachers and community volunteers and from the parents or guardians of the minors. To ensure ethical integrity of the study, the research responded to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by UNESCO, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2000/C 364/01) regarding scientific and ethical procedures, the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity ( ALLEA, 2017 ), the Ethics Review Procedure established by the European Commission (2013) for EU research, and the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. The study was fully approved by the Ethics Board of the Community of Researchers on Excellence for All (CREA).

Data Analysis

Interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcriptions were subsequently revised to identify the excerpts that referred to interactions between students with and without SEN that could indicate an impact on students without SEN. A second reading was conducted to identify recurrent themes that emerged from the excerpts, and three main themes were identified that led to the inductive creation of the three categories of analysis: (1) impact on students’ attitudes, (2) impact on students’ social skills, and (3) impact on students’ academic learning and cognitive development (see Table 2 ). One researcher coded the excerpts according to the categories created; some excerpts were assigned to more than one category. Subsequently, a second researcher revised the coded excerpts, taking into account the definition of the categories. The second researcher agreed on the coding and proposed the assignment of some of the citations to additional categories. The final coding was agreed upon by both researchers.

Categories of analysis.

The results of our analysis allowed us to identify a series of impacts for students without SEN of sharing interactive learning environments with students with SEN. According to the categories of analysis, our findings show that participating together in learning activities, mediated by interaction and dialogue, allows students without SEN to: (1) build understanding and respectful attitudes toward diversity; (2) learn about social abilities related to facilitating others’ learning; and (3) enhance opportunities for academic learning and cognitive development as a result of engaging in learning together, exchanging questions and knowledge. As seen in Table 2 , the category with a higher number of quotes is (1) impact on students’ attitudes, with more than half of the quotes referring to such an impact, followed by (2) impact on students’ social skills, and finally by (3) impact on students’ academic learning and cognitive development.

Building Positive Attitudes Toward Diversity in Interactive Learning Environments Shared With Peers With Special Needs

Category 1 included evidence regarding the attitudes of students without SEN toward students with SEN when they learned together in IGs and/or DLGs. Participants in the three schools, including teachers, students and volunteers, provided evidence in this regard.

When students without SEN share interactive learning environments with students with SEN, they have unique opportunities to learn firsthand about diversity. They share their learning time and space with peers of the same age, who often need special attention because of their individual characteristics, which differ to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways from those of most students. This is a necessary first step to develop positive attitudes on diversity and educational and social inclusion, which cannot be completely achieved when education on respect for diversity, valuing its potential, and educational and social inclusion is not based on the daily experiences of sharing these learning opportunities with individuals with SEN, who have a face and a name. However, interactive learning environments allow students to share not only learning space and time, but also interactions and dialogue around shared learning activities (such as solving a math problem or sharing a personal reflection on an excerpt from a book), which create opportunities to learn about diversity and its value based on the personal experiences of those individuals with whom the activity is shared. In this way, students can learn about diversity with those children who have not only a name and a face but also a personality, preferences, and struggles.

Ana, a secondary education student without SEN who has a classmate with autism spectrum disorder, Jose, explained that getting to know him in the school allowed her to learn about diversity in a way that she could not have done before:

• Until I first entered this school last year, I had no idea what the communication and language classroom was, I had no idea that there were people with ASD who could be in schools like this, I was not aware at all of this. However, when I arrived in this school, they put me in the class with Jose, and when I saw him, I said “wow” and I don’t know, from that moment on, he transmitted something to me that made me feel that he was special and that I was going to help him in some way. In addition, as time went by, Jose turned my life around. (Student, school 3)

The interactive learning environment fostered in the classroom, where students learn in dialogue with others, is, according to teachers, what generates the opportunity to acknowledge diversity, while students learn that it is part of human diversity and normalize it:

• I believe that it favors inclusion, for sure, because they talk constantly, leaving the classic model of children sitting alone, individually. So yes, they are all integrated. As she said, they always look the same to each other; they do know that one has more difficulties in one thing or another, but they all treat each other equally. (Teachers’ focus group, school 1)

Teachers in the different schools reported a change in attitudes in their students without SEN, who in the interactive learning environments learned about difference, learned to accept it, and to be more respectful about it. Teachers referred, on the one hand, to children’s acknowledgement of individual differences in their peers’ learning process, which became evident as learning activities were shared among the class, either in small interactive groups or in dialogic literary gatherings with the entire class. Students understood that children could learn at different paces and that they can need different kinds of support or adapted materials, but this does not mean that they cannot share the experience of learning; as one teacher explained: “a dynamic of respect and understanding that not everyone does the same has been created” (Teacher, school 1). Importantly, being aware of these differences does not turn into a stigmatization of students with SEN; in contrast, knowing them allows their peers to learn more about their weaknesses, and to better understand their performance in class. The example of shared reading activities illustrates this impact on students’ attitudes:

• And the other students, for me this is important, they respect their reading rhythm, they respect it, they know that, depending on which children, they go slowly because they have difficulties, but nobody says so, because we all know that they have difficulties and that they go at their own pace and, if they read it slowly, they understand it well. (Teacher, school 1)

Special needs can be related to areas of curricular learning, but can also be expressed in other ways. Teachers’ experience shows that in interactive learning environments, children learn to be more understanding about other types of difficulties, such as behavioral problems that their classmates may exhibit. Although it may sometimes be annoying, they develop the understanding that these children do not have, at that moment, the ability to behave better and learn to accept it, while teachers work to improve children’s ability to control their behavior. This is the case of what this teacher explained:

• There are days when these children—I’m thinking of another one who hasn’t taken the medication—then, he comes in very nervous, he doesn’t stop making noises, he doesn’t shut up. Obviously, holding the gatherings in these conditions is very hard, but they are there, and the group already understand that this child acts this way because he has no other way to do it. Therefore, I think that they have all learned to accept the difference. (Teacher, school 1)

Overall, these episodes show the opportunities created for children without SEN to better understand children with SEN, to be more sensitive to others’ needs, and to be more empathetic. From the perspective of teachers, interactive learning environments such as DLGs entail the learning of values that facilitate the transformation of attitudes. These values emerge from the reading of classic works of literature, which is characteristic of a DLG, where topics such as love, friendship, truth, loyalty, and courage become part of the debate:

• In the gatherings many values arise, students work a lot on values and then have a more complete experience, and they share, and they make. They feel empathy for each other. (.) in the classroom it is very difficult for them to put themselves in the other’s place (.) but in the gatherings it isn’t, empathy does come out. (Teacher, school 1)

This learning of values and empathy is also related to the fact that in DLGs, children often link the episodes of reading to episodes about their own lives or other realities they know of. This is how children expressed this idea in their own way:

• Because when we give our opinion in the gatherings, sometimes he explains something of his life, and so when he says it, we know slightly more about him, and he says more and more things about his life, and so we get to know each other better and become [better] friends, because in this way we get to know each other much more easily. (Student, school 1)

In this process of knowing their classmates with SEN better as a result of sharing interactive learning environments, children also learn that each individual has different abilities, that all of them may need help at some point, and can help others as well, and that the best learning outcomes are obtained when they share these abilities and help each other. IGs facilitate this process, as in IGs all group members are expected to ensure that all other members understand the activity and complete it; therefore, everyone shares the knowledge and abilities they have and that can contribute to the group work. Teachers in one of the schools reflected on this idea, which also contributed to the change of perceptions and attitudes mentioned, as typically developing students realize that students with SEN have challenges but also have abilities: “In those moments they have truly helped each other. Then, they have realized that it is not always the same people who have to help, but they, who have a challenge, are good at it.” (Teachers’ focus group, school 1)

This acknowledgement of diversity (including difficulties, but also possibilities and diverse abilities), which is due to sharing interactive learning environments, facilitates overcoming prejudices. Students with SEN start to be seen not only as those with poor learning, that always struggle and usually need help, but also as students who are capable of learning and making progress, as one teacher noted:

• Academically brilliant boys and girls, who perhaps in third grade looked at these classmates and even knowing them since they were in preschool [3 or 4 years old] thought, “Well, this is clear, they don’t know anything,” have made a positive change because they see these children as classmates with the possibility of learning. (Teacher, school 1)

As shown in this quote from a teacher’s interview, it was not the fact of being educated in the same classroom with SEN students that shaped a realistic perception of their difficulties and capabilities (since both SEN and typically developing students had been educated together for years). Rather the opportunity to learn in interactions with SEN students allowed students without SEN to transform their perceptions and attitudes. Along the same lines, in view of Ana, sharing learning opportunities with her classmate Jose entailed learning that everyone has both difficulties and abilities, and that these can be overcome:

• Jose has taught me that many times people have barriers, because we all have barriers, whether it is at the time of learning, at the time of adults finding a job. Whatever, anything, but there is always a way to overcome them, always, and Jose has taught me many things. In fact, I think he has taught me more than I have taught him. (Student, school 3)

This involved shifting the focus from difficulties to possibilities and transforming learning expectations toward them. Importantly, the peer group learned that students with SEN were not only able to learn, but also contributed to the learning of others, which reinforces this change in expectations and the overcoming of prejudices. This might help typically developing students learn to value people not only based on their more evident characteristics—as may be the case with SEN in the school context—but also to pay attention to other traits (which are sometimes hidden) that can give a broader picture of a person and allow for identifying other enriching features. According to teachers, interactive learning environments such as IGs and DLGs permit this to happen:

• And from that moment on, I think, that’s when we all realized that children like Javi can participate by making very good contributions, and that girls like Laura don’t know everything. I think that this was a very important moment. (Teacher, school 1)

Further, this greater knowledge of peers with SEN and the development of respect for diversity has led in some cases to the blossoming of new friendships. Ana talked about her special relationship with Jose as something that makes going to school more meaningful for her: “And one of the reasons why I love coming to school is to have Jose’s smile there every morning (.) and it’s something I wouldn’t change for anything in the world” (Student, school 3). Blanca, a girl with SEN in the same secondary school, explained something similar in terms of when she thinks of her classmate and friend Jaume:

• Like Ana said, she is very happy with Jose. I am exactly the same with Jaume (.) I am very happy with him and I am happy to have him as a friend, and he is special and very important to me. (Student, school 3)

The building of these friendships not only has had an impact within the school, but has also transferred and expanded the benefits of interactions between students with and without disabilities to new contexts outside school premises and across time, as a teacher in that school explained:

• [His] friendship within the school [was] prolonged on weekends (.) He has come to meet [his] friends of the classroom to go out to dinner 1 day, to see a movie and that is very interesting (.) I think the fact of having worked in groups has facilitated doing things, not only in his group of six, because these groups have been changing more or less. (Teacher, school 3)

Learning Social Skills Related to Helping Others Participate and Learn

Category 2 included evidence regarding an impact on the social abilities of students without SEN as a result of learning together with students with SEN in IGs and/or DLGs. Participants in the three schools, including teachers, students and volunteers, offered evidence in this regard.

In addition to the transformation of thoughts, attitudes and the acknowledgment of others’ abilities and difficulties, engaging in learning interactions with peers with SEN helps to develop a series of social skills. Children acquire these skills because they are necessary to interact with their classmates in IGs and DLGs, specially with those with SEN. These interactive learning environments pose this demand, and these skills become part of the repertoire of abilities that children can use in multiple contexts and with diverse people. First, in interactive learning environments such as IGs and DLGs, children are expected to help each other; thus, children progressively get used to and develop this ability to support their peers, as well as receiving help when necessary. Both teachers and volunteers reflected on the way children learned about this ability through time: “Last year I did notice a change, yes (.) in the end they learn to collaborate, above all, to help each other, and that it goes well, and the work comes out, which is what we are looking for.” (Volunteer, school 2)

With the practice of helping each other in interactive and diverse learning environments, children come to see that collaboration among all helps everyone’s learning, as it allows for one to take advantage of the diverse abilities in the group; therefore, they become progressively more motivated and more proficient in this activity:

• Everyone has some skills; some have some skills for one thing and others have some skills and some abilities for another. After all, if there is a collaboration between all, it is where you have to reach an end, and they help each other to reach this end. (Teacher, school 2)

Once they acquire this ability, they use it to help anyone who needs it, including children with more learning difficulties; they normalize helping others and realize they can make a difference in the learning opportunities of the students with the most difficulties. Therefore, and as a volunteer explained, all students in her class were willing to help those who were more in need: “Yes, let’s say, the whole group was dedicated to helping them” (Volunteer, school 2). Consequently, when they share learning activities with students who especially struggle with learning, they find the opportunity to strengthen this ability to help. Blanca explained something similar when not just one, but three classmates went to help her with the activity:

• For example, in History, we also do [interactive] groups. We were doing a mapping exercise and (.) I got lost a little bit, then I asked my classmate sitting next to me to help me and so on, then she came to help me, then two more came to help me, and I was happy because I did not make myself clear, I got nervous, I did not know how to do it, then (.) they came to help me (.), and that is the best thing about being in a group. (Student, school 3)

Second, in this attempt to help their peers with SEN and facilitate their participation in interactive learning environments, they learn to adjust their interactions to the particular needs of each child. For instance, they learn to be patient and to give the necessary time when their peers have a slower learning pace, which is an evidence of the empathy developed:

• In the gatherings they have also learned to give time. For example, a girl I have in class has a hard time explaining herself, but in the end, she gets it out. Therefore, they have learned to be patient with her and not to stand up and let her talk. Then, in the end, they realize that she does, that she gets out, that she explains well. (Teacher, school 1)

In this regard, they learn to provide adjusted support, building on the abilities they acknowledge in these peers, and try to find alternative ways so that these children can participate in the activity. This entails a metacognitive effort when they try to understand what these children know and how they can help them participate in the activity and progress in their learning.

• The atmosphere in the classroom, when there is a group with a child with SEN, the others, as they live it in their daily life, apart from understanding the difficulty he has and stay on their level, they also look for ways in which he can participate and get involved in some way in the activity. (Teacher, school 1)

This effort to facilitate the learning and participation of children with SEN becomes part of the class routine. so as the teachers explained, it unites the group around this shared purpose and the group members become more sensitive to the needs of their peers. This is also achieved thanks to the guidance that teachers and volunteers provide in order to help typically developing students adjust the support they offer to their SEN peers, and also to encourage typically developing students to help their SEN peers while avoiding overprotection:

• In other words, their classmates, or at least what I experience from my class, they are very supportive and, as Maria said, they are very sensitive on this subject. In this case, I have two students [with SEN], and they take care of them, not too much, because they must be reminded to let them think, too. However, they do take them very much into account in regard to working in [interactive] groups. They try to make sure they can participate like everyone else. Of course, within their possibilities. (Teacher, school 1)

As a result, the situations created not only turn into a higher ability to help others, but also in the satisfaction of seeing others learn better due to their help, which reinforces this behavior. Teachers noted this impact on children: “They help each other and it is going very well; and they love it, it is something they like very much” (Teacher, school 2), as well as students themselves: “And, when you help him and you see that he understood it, you feel satisfied” (Student, school 2). “When I help Joan or even when Joan helps me more, I feel more fulfilled with myself, happier” (Student, school 3). Such rewarding experiences motivates them to continue participating in these activities and to help others, which benefits everyone’s learning.

Enhancing the Opportunities for Academic Learning and Cognitive Development

Category 3 included evidence regarding opportunities for the academic learning and cognitive development of students without SEN when they learned together with students with SEN in IGs and/or DLGs. Participants in school 1 and school 2, including teachers, students and volunteers, mentioned this type of impact.

Sharing learning activities with students with SEN in interactive learning environments triggers an additional cognitive effort for typically developing children when they try to explain themselves to their peers with SEN. It entails, on the one hand, putting oneself in the other’s shoes, trying to understand his/her difficulties and thinking of how to help him/her overcome these difficulties, thus gaining from the cognitive effort made and reinforcing their learning. On the other hand, it also entails discovering one’s own difficulties when trying to make oneself be understood and to do one’s best to achieve it. In this regard, such situations allow students who do not usually have learning challenges to experience them, and underscore the need to make an effort to achieve their objective, which contributes to being more empathetic and understanding of their peers with SEN and, sometimes, humbler regarding their own abilities, as one volunteer explained:

• They do this effort of trying to make them be understood by the other, and this is very interesting, as the know-it-all can see his/her own limitations with respect to the others. Therefore, it demands a much greater effort from oneself than usual. (Volunteer, school 2)

In addition, in interactive learning environments, students without SEN can learn from the explanations and contributions of children with SEN. IGs and DLGs are characterized by promoting a framework of open and egalitarian dialogue where all contributions are valued based on validity claims (i.e., the value of the contribution’s content, regardless of who made the contribution, and in this case, regardless of whether it is a student with or without SEN). Learning from students with SEN can occur both in IGs and in DLGs when these students have a good understanding of the concepts they are working on. As noted by one teacher, these episodes are opportunities for the entire group to learn:

• Children with many special difficulties, have been the ones who have given the clarification, the definition, the explanation for the rest of the group to understand, and this has created a situation, which is not seen, but it is noticed, of improvement for all. (Teacher, school 1)

In DLGs, it also occurs when children with SEN share the paragraph or idea they selected to bring to the gathering, or when they raise doubts about the meaning of particular words that other students had not paid attention to—although they might not understand it either—and this opens up a debate on the meaning of that word or on the ideas of that paragraph that may have not existed without the participation of these children. In the following quote from a teacher, we find first a reference to those situations when a child with SEN does not understand something and their peers explain it to him/her, provoking the additional cognitive effort of trying to make something be understood. Next, we find the reference to these other situations when children with SEN contribute to the group bringing their questions, doubts, and interventions to the gathering, opening a learning opportunity for all:

• If they do not understand it, their classmates explain the meaning to them. Then, when we do this rereading of the chapter or the pages, other vocabulary words often appear that, perhaps nobody had chosen or they do not know the meaning of, and then another debate starts about knowing what it means. Or someone raises their hand and says, “I had not chosen this because when I read it perhaps it did not catch my attention, but now when I reread the chapter, I want to comment on it,” and right after it is commented on. This is done both by children with SEN and by the rest of the class, regardless of their level of ability and everything else. A climate is created that is similar to magic. (Teacher, school 1)

According to the participants’ experiences, interactive learning environments shared between students with and without SEN create the opportunity for all to acknowledge that everyone has abilities and difficulties. Children with SEN can surprise others with their questions, responses, and contributions, generating new opportunities for learning, and everyone can learn that children without SEN do not always know everything. As one teacher explained based on her experience over the years, the fact that children with SEN share interactive learning environments with their peers without SEN has not only benefitted these SEN children, but also the dynamics of the classroom, as it is enriched with diversity, and therefore becomes a benefit for all:

• The fact that these children are in the group—and I can talk about it already for the past 4 years—has improved the dynamics of the gatherings. I think it has been beneficial for everyone, and I am sure it has, because they make interventions that even they themselves are often surprised to have made, and their peers have seen this. (Teacher, school 1)

Interactive groups and DLGs are interactive learning environments that have already been demonstrated to be inclusive and lead to positive academic and social impacts for students with SEN ( Duque et al., 2020 ). The study presented here is the first to analyze the potential impacts of IGs and DLGs on students without SEN when they share these interactive learning environments with students with SEN. The results of our study show that students without SEN can benefit from participating in interactive learning environments (such as IGs and DLGs) with peers with SEN in at least three different ways: (1) building positive attitudes as they learn to respect others, accept differences, and acknowledge different abilities, creating opportunities for new friendships; (2) enhancing their social skills, as they learn about abilities related to helping others participate and learn, to be patient, and gain satisfaction from helping others learn; and (3) producing opportunities to enhance academic learning and foster cognitive development, as they gain from the cognitive effort needed to explain themselves and from the contributions of peers with SEN from which they can learn. Importantly, we did not find negative impacts for students without SEN or for those with SEN as a result of sharing these interactive learning environments. In contrast, all impacts identified—either at the attitudinal, social, or cognitive level—were positive for both groups of students.

In the cases studied, children without SEN developed positive attitudes toward diversity in IGs and DLGs. This is in the line of previous research which found that inclusive educational environments are related to more positive attitudes toward diversity, and especially more positive attitudes among typically developing peers toward children with disabilities or other SEN ( Smith and Williams, 2001 ; Beckett, 2009 ). It is also consistent with research that found that solidarity can be learned in the school context and that it contributes to creating genuine attitudes of inclusion beyond the norms that benefit everyone ( Hernández Arteaga et al., 2020 ).

Additionally, we found that students without SEN had the opportunity to develop social skills when they learned together with students with SEN in IGs and DLGs. Identifying particular types of classroom arrangements and learning dynamics (such as IGs and DLGs) that help one to cultivate such attitudes and skills is important not only for students with SEN—who are more respected, accepted, and integrated in their group of peers—but also beneficial for students without SEN. Attitudes of understanding diverse identities; the values of justice, equality, dignity and respect; cognitive skills (including the ability to adopt a multiperspective approach); social skills (such as empathy and conflict resolution), communication skills and aptitudes for interacting with diverse people, and the capacity to act collaboratively and responsibly have been highlighted as key competences necessary in the 21st century ( UNESCO, 2014 ).

Moreover, we found a positive impact of the interactive learning environments created with IGs and DLGs on opportunities for the learning and cognitive development of children without SEN. This is in line with previous research comparing the learning outcomes of students without SEN, who are educated with students with SEN, and those who are not, which overall revealed no negative impacts on these students but, on the contrary, positive impacts or neutral in the worst cases ( Kalambouka et al., 2007 ; Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ; Szumski et al., 2017 ; Kefallinou et al., 2020 ).

These findings should be taken cautiously. On the one hand, because the study is based on a reduced sample, the conclusions cannot be generalized. On the other hand, because data were collected in schools that were already implementing IGs and DLGs, a pre-post intervention comparison cannot be made to ascertain the changes that occurred in students without SEN due to sharing IGs and DLGs with students with SEN. Finally, the qualitative nature of the data facilitates an understanding of the reality studied but does not allow for a precise assessment of the impacts on students without SEN. Subsequent research could expand the analysis to a broader sample and include an examination of quantitative data, especially of students’ academic progress, since the third category of analysis (impact on students’ academic learning and cognitive development) is the one for which we obtained the least evidence.

However, as the first study on this topic, this research enables an initial approximation based on the participants’ experiences, which is consistent with previous knowledge and can be the basis for further investigation. First, it is in line with the results of previous research on DLGs and IGs which shows their impact on improving students’ academic learning, a better understanding of others and positive coexistence ( García-Carrión, 2015 ; García-Carrión and Díez-Palomar, 2015 ; Garcia et al., 2018 ; Valero et al., 2018 ; Foncillas et al., 2020 ; Zubiri-Esnaola et al., 2020 ). Our study suggests that sharing IGs and DLGs with students with SEN creates new conditions in which these improvements can be promoted. Second, it is aligned with past research on inclusion, which has associated the benefits of inclusive education with classroom practices characterized by interaction, dialogue, and collaboration ( Kefallinou et al., 2020 ), all of which are characteristics of IGs and DLGs and could thus explain the benefits observed. Third, it is in line with theoretical contributions that refer to the relevant role of peer help and other forms of sharing learning interactions. When children try to explain learning content to their peers with SEN or try to help them solve a problem, they expand what Vygotsky called the zone of proximal development (1978) or what Bruner called scaffolding (1996). Both authors emphasized (stemming from the sociocultural theory of learning) the importance of interactions for children’s learning and argued that these interactions could emerge not only from adults but also from more capable peers. Interactions allow for the creation of shared learning ( Mercer and Littleton, 2007 ), and our data indicate that more capable peers can also benefit from these interactions and find opportunities to advance their learning and cognitive development. Indeed, research has suggested thinking of the zone of proximal development not in terms of knowledge transmission, but as an encounter of consciousness that mutually benefits the participants in the interaction ( Roth and Radford, 2010 ).

Although further research is necessary to have a more precise description of the impact of IGs and DLGs for students without SEN when they share these learning environments with students with SEN, the evidence presented can contribute to the understanding that inclusive education not only benefits the most vulnerable students (such as students with disabilities and other SENs), but can also benefit all students when interactions and dialogue are promoted in contexts of diversity. Therefore, it is the right of everyone—with or without SEN—to be educated in inclusive, interactive learning environments, as they produce unique conditions for the academic and human development of all students.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Ethics Board of the Community of Researchers on Excellence for All (CREA). Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

Author Contributions

RF conceptualized the research. SM conducted the literature review, a preliminary analysis of the data, and a first draft of the manuscript. JM revised the data analysis. RF, AA, and JM revised the manuscript and provided feedback and corrections. SM revised the final version of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding. This study was funded by INTER-ACT: Interactive learning environments for the inclusion of students with and without disabilities: improving learning, development and relationships, The Spanish National Program for Research Aimed at the Challenges of Society, Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness. Reference Number: EDU2017-88666-R.

• ALLEA (2017). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Available online at: https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf [accessed January 5, 2021] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckett A. E. (2009). Challenging disabling attitudes, building an inclusive society: considering the role of education in encouraging non-disabled children to develop positive attitudes towards disabled people. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 30 317–329. 10.1080/01425690902812596 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bruner J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duque E., Gairal R., Molina S., Roca E. (2020). How psychology of education contributes to research with social impact on the education of students with special needs: the case of successful educational actions. Front. Psychol. 11 : 439 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission (2013). Ethics for Researchers. Facilitating Research Excellence in FP7. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/89888/ethics-for-researchers_en.pdf [accessed January 5, 2021] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernández-Villardón A., Álvarez P., Ugalde L., Tellado I. (2020). Fostering the social development of children with special educational needs or disabilities (send) through dialogue and interaction: a literature review. Soc. Sci. 9 : 97 . 10.3390/socsci9060097 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flecha R. (2000). Sharing Words: Theory and Practice of Dialogic Learning. Lanham, M.D: Rowman & Littlefield. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flecha R. (2015). Successful Educational Action for Inclusion and Social Cohesion in Europe. Berlin: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foncillas M., Santiago-Garabieta M., Tellado I. (2020). Análisis de las tertulias literarias dialógicas en educación primaria: un estudio de caso a través de las voces y dibujos argumentados del alumnado. Multidisciplinary J. Educ. Res. 10 205–225. 10.17583/remie.2020.5645 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garcia C., Gairal R., Munté A., Plaja T. (2018). Dialogic literary gatherings and out-of-home child care: creation of new meanings through classic literature. Child Fam. Soc. Work 23 62–70. 10.1111/cfs.12384 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García-Carrión R. (2015). What the dialogic literary gatherings did for me. Qualitative Inquiry 21 913–919. 10.1177/1077800415614305 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García-Carrión R., Díez-Palomar J. (2015). Learning communities: pathways for educational success and social transformation through interactive groups in mathematics. Eur. Educ. Res. J. 14 151–166. 10.1177/1474904115571793 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García-Carrión R., López, de Aguileta G., Padrós M., Ramis-Salas M. (2020). Implications for social impact of dialogic teaching and learning. Front. Psychol. 11 : 140 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gómez A., Padrós M., Ríos O., Mara L. C., Pukepuke T. (2019). Reaching social impact through communicative methodology. researching with rather than on vulnerable populations: the roma case. Front. Educ. 4 : 9 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Grütter J., Gasser L., Malti T. (2017). The role of cross-group friendship and emotions in adolescents’ attitudes towards inclusion. Res. Dev. Disabil. 62 137–147. 10.1016/j.ridd.2017.01.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hernández Arteaga I., Fernández López K. M., Estela Vasquez A. C., Mestizo Nuzcue E. J. (2020). Educación y solidaridad: un camino hacia la inclusión educativa. Soc. Educ. History 9 227–251. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hienonen N., Lintuvuori M., Jahnukainen M., Hotulainen R., Vainikainen M. P. (2018). The effect of class composition on cross-curricular competences – Students with special educational needs in regular classes in lower secondary education. Learn. Instruction 58 80–87. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.05.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalambouka A., Farrell P., Dyson A., Kaplan I. (2007). The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. Educ. Res. 49 365–382. 10.1080/00131880701717222 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kefallinou A., Symeonidou S., Meijer C. J. W. (2020). Understanding the value of inclusive education and its implementation: a review of the literature. Prospects 49 135–152. 10.1007/s11125-020-09500-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurth J. A., Miller A. L., Toews S. G., Thompson J. R., Cortés M., Dahal M. H., et al. (2018). Inclusive education: perspectives on implementation and practice from international experts. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 56 471–485. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mercer N., Littleton K. (2007). Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking, a Socio-Cultural Approach. Milton Park: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Messiou K. (2017). Research in the field of inclusive education: time for a rethink? Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 21 146–159. 10.1080/13603116.2016.1223184 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oh-Young C., Filler J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Res. Dev. Disabil. 47 80–92. 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.014 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roth W. M., Radford L. (2010). Re/thinking the zone of proximal development (Symmetrically). Mind Cult. Act. 17 299–307. 10.1080/10749031003775038 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruijs N. M., Peetsma T. T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educ. Res. Rev. 4 67–79. 10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith L. A., Williams J. M. (2001). Children’s understanding of the physicals cognitive and social consequences of impairments. Child Care Health Dev. 27 603–617. 10.1046/j.1365-2214.2001.00236.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smogorzewska J., Szumski G., Grygiel P. (2020). Theory of mind goes to school: does educational environment influence the development of theory of mind in middle childhood? PLoS One 15 : e0237524 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0237524 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Szumski G., Smogorzewska J., Karwowski M. (2017). Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: a meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 21 33–54. 10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tafa E., Manolitsis G. (2003). Attitudes of Greek parents of typically developing kindergarten children towards inclusive education. Eur. J. Special Needs Educ. 18 155–171. 10.1080/0885625032000078952 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for action on special needs education: Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education, Access and Quality. Paris: UNESCO. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2014). Global Citizenship Education. Preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century. Paris: UNESCO. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2017). A Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education. Paris: UNESCO. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations (2007). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Available online at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html [accessed January 5, 2021] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valero D., Redondo-Sama G., Elboj C. (2018). Interactive groups for immigrant students: a factor for success in the path of immigrant students. Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 22 787–802. 10.1080/13603116.2017.1408712 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Boston: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zubiri-Esnaola H., Vidu A., Rios-Gonzalez O., Morla-Folch T. (2020). Inclusivity, participation and collaboration: learning in interactive groups. Educ. Res. 62 162–180. 10.1080/00131881.2020.1755605 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Advertisement

Evidence-Based Practices in Special Education: Current Assumptions and Future Considerations

• Original Paper
• Published: 21 January 2017
• Volume 46 , pages 193–205, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

• Jacqueline Russo-Campisi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3773-2083 1  

3512 Accesses

7 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The research on evidence-based practices (EBP) in special education has shifted over the last decade from identifying efficacious interventions to exploring issues that impede implementation in the classroom. Common barriers to implementation include absence of training and resources, limited collaboration between researchers and practitioners, and the lack of fit between the intervention and environment. These obstacles are frequently cited in the literature in relation to the disparity between research and practice. Although the barriers cited in the research are valid, it is important for stakeholders to investigate this issue from other perspectives and to consider obstacles not readily discussed.

The purpose of this article is to examine how contradictions between implementation fidelity and individualized instruction, and misconceptions between educational terminology and legislation, all impede implementation of evidence-based practices.

A review of the EBP literature was conducted, beginning with pivotal research discussed in evidence-based reviews to examine the differences between EBPs and other terminology. Additionally, the outcomes of various court cases were reviewed to determine whether EBPs are in fact legally required.

A new set of assumptions is required to highlight the barriers not readily discussed regarding the implementation of EBPs. Specifically, the importance of individualizing instruction for students and how these modifications and accommodations may impact fidelity of implementation. Additionally, researchers and policymakers must clarify the ambiguous language used in legislation and relevant terminology, and communicate these discrepancies to all stakeholders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

“Good” choices vs “what really works”: a comparison of evidence-based practice in medicine and education

A systematic review of how studies describe educational interventions for evidence-based practice: stage 1 of the development of a reporting guideline

Evidence-based practice educational intervention studies: a systematic review of what is taught and how it is measured

Cook, B., Buysse, V., Klingner, J., Landrum, T., McWilliam, R., Tankersley, M., et al. (2014). Council for exceptional children: Standards for evidence-based practices in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46 (6), 206–212.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2011). Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education. Journal of Special Education, 47 (2), 71–82.

Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2013). Moving research into practice: Can we make dissemination stick? Exceptional Children, 79 (2), 163–180.

Cook, B., & Odom, S. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 29 (2), 135–144.

Daniel, P. (2008). “Some benefit” or “maximum benefit”: Does the no child left behind act render greater educational entitlement to students with disabilities. Journal of Law and Education, 37 (3), 347–365.

Google Scholar  

Dingfelder, H. E., & Mandell, D. S. (2011). Bridging the research-to-practice gap in autism intervention: An application of diffusion innovation theory. Journal of Autism and Other Developmental Disorders, 41, 597–609.

Etscheidt, S., & Curran, C. M. (2010). Reauthorization of the individuals with disabilities education improvement act (IDEA, 2004): The peer-reviewed research requirement. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21, 29–39.

Fixsen, D., Blasé, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs. Exceptional Children, 79 (2), 213–230.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164.

Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.

Mandell, D. S., Stahmer, A. C., Shin, S., Xie, M., Reisinger, E., & Marcus, S. C. (2013). The role of treatment fidelity on outcomes during a randomized field trial of an autism intervention. Autism, 17 (3), 281–295.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

No Child Left Behind Act (2002). 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.

Odom, S., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148.

Pinder, K. A. (2008). Using federal law to prescribe pedagogy: Lessons learned from the scientifically-based research requirements of no child left behind. The Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, 6 (47), 47–83.

Ramanathan, A. (2008). Paved with good intentions: The federal role in the oversight and enforcement of the individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA) and the no child left behind act (NCLB). Teachers College Record, 110 (2), 278–321.

Smith, G. J., Schmidt, M. M., Edelen-Smith, P. J., & Cook, B. G. (2013). Pasteur’s quadrant as the bridge-linking rigor with relevance. Exceptional Children, 79 (2), 147–161.

Sparks, S. D. (2016). Evidence requirements are redefined in essa. Education Week, 35 (15), 18.

Zirkel, P. A. (2008). A legal roadmap of sbr, prr, and related terms under the IDEA. Focus on Exceptional Children, 40 (5), 1–5.

Zirkel, P. A. (2013). Is it time for elevating the standard for FAPE under IDEA? Exceptional Children, 79, 497–508.

Zirkel, P. A., & Rose, T. (2009). Scientifically based research and peer-reviewed research under the IDEA: The legal definitions, applications, and implications. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 22 (1), 36–50.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Temple University, 1801 N. Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA

Jacqueline Russo-Campisi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacqueline Russo-Campisi .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author has no conflict of interest.

Ethics Statement

This study does not include primary data, thus, no ethics approval was applicable.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Russo-Campisi, J. Evidence-Based Practices in Special Education: Current Assumptions and Future Considerations. Child Youth Care Forum 46 , 193–205 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-017-9390-5

Download citation

Published : 21 January 2017

Issue Date : April 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-017-9390-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Evidence-based practice
• Scientifically based research
• Special education legal
• Requirements
• Special education litigation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Special Education Resource Project

What are evidence-based practices.

Cook, Smith, and Tankersley (2012) define evidence-based practices (EBP) as practices that are shown to be effective through the high-quality researcher to meaningfully improve student outcomes.  Simply put, EBPs are practices that are supported by a strong high-quality evidence base that have seen effects that positively impact students.

Think about EBPs like this…you go and visit your doctor and talk to them about your high blood pressure.  In going to the doctor, the doctor prescribes you medication to treat your high blood pressure.  The medication the doctor has given you has been through rigorous research, clinical trials and approval from the FDA.  The blood pressure medication is more than likely to have a positive impact on lowering your blood pressure to a healthy level.  The doctor prescribing the medication to you is aware of this research and uses his knowledge to prescribe the medication that will best fit your needs.  The doctor knowing the research and the effects of the medication on your blood pressure takes the guess work out of finding a treatment that will lower your blood pressure.

Evidence-based practices in education are the same.  They are backed by rigorous, high-standard research, replicated with positive outcomes and backed by their effects of student outcomes.  EBPs take the guess work out of teaching by providing specific approaches and programs that improve student performance.  There is frustration in teaching when you cannot find a way to help your student learn.  You try one thing and then another and another and they are not having positive outcomes for your student.  EBPs have proven outcomes on students’ performance and can make finding and implementing an effective practice less frustrating.

The term that is most thrown around in the education circle is the phrase “best practice.”  Best practice is a vague term that could include anything from something you saw in an add to a practice that is actually ineffective but someone loves it and so it becomes a “best practice.” Best practices are inherently biased because of personal experiences, opinion or the claim that they are backed by science.  Think about all the stuff that you see on a teachers personal blog, Teachers Pay Teachers or Pinterest.  While they look cute and they seem like they would work in your classroom, none of those practices or materials are backed by scientific research.  Think about how many curriculum programs, supplemental materials, or “best practice” that you have been through in your career.  You use a reading series for 2 years, it’s not helping kids read and your on to the next “best thing.”  Hype surrounding programs and approaches in education are often times backed by popularity and non by science.  Big names in education come out with a new approach to reading and claim it’s the way to teach kids to read.  However, the claim they are making is not backed by research.  Their claims are backed by their standing as “one of the big ones,” one of the companies you can trust.

There is another term floating around in the education world and that is “effective practice.”  Just as best practice insinuates, effective practices may be back by research but that research may not be high quality.  There could be false positives, limited studies or small or negative effect sizes that impact these practices being named evidence-based.  Think about effective practices like this…you have a headache and you want to treat it.  You’ve heard through the grapevine that peppermint oil can help to get rid of a headache.  You try the peppermint oil and its lessens your headache but the next three times you use it, it does nothing.  You treat your next headache with some pain reliving medication and this does the trick.  Peppermint oil can be an effective treatment for getting rid of a headache, but it is not evidence-based.  There is no high-quality research to back up peppermint oil, no clinical trials and no randomized control trials to prove it’s effectiveness.  It’s effectiveness is validated through companies that sell it, social media, holistic medicine and people you know.

Using evidence-based practices (EBPs), with special education students especially, is a critical feature of improving their learning outcomes.  When teachers combine their expertise as content knowledge experts with explicit instruction and practices and programs backed by research, the likelihood that a child will grow academically is increased tenfold.

We will further explore what a high-quality research study looks like, what research design, magnitude and effect sizes have to do with evidence-based practices and provide resources and information for selecting and implementing an evidence-based practice in the classroom.

References:

Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2011). Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education. Journal of Special Education ,  47 , 71–82.

Cook, B. G., Smith, G. J., & Tankersley, M. (2011). Evidence-based practices in education. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (Volume 1) (pp. 495–528). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., & Landrum, T. J. (2008). Evidence-based practices in special education: Some practical considerations. Intervention in School & Clinic, 44 , 69–75.\

Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Landrum, T. J. (Eds.). (2009). Evidence-based practices for reading, math, writing, and behavior [Special issue]. Exceptional Children , 75.

Kretlow, A. G., & Blatz, S. L. (2011). The ABCs of evidence-based practice for teachers.  TEACHING Exceptional Children, 43(5) , 8–19.

Torres, C., Farley, C., & Cook, B. G. (In press). A special educator’s guide to successfully implementing evidence-based practices. TEACHING Exceptional Children , 45, 64-73.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 17 April 2024

Students with special educational needs in regular classrooms and their peer effects on learning achievement

• V. B. Salas García   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7568-3879 1 &
• José María Rentería   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6486-0032 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  521 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

713 Accesses

9 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Development studies

This study explores the impact of inclusive education on the educational outcomes of students without Special Educational Needs (non-SEN) in Peru, utilizing official Ministry of Education data and implementing cross-sectional regression analyses. Inclusive education is a complex issue that, without appropriate adaptations and comprehensive understanding, can present substantial challenges to the educational community. While prior research from developed nations offers diverse perspectives on the effects of inclusive education on non-SEN students, limited evidence exists regarding its impact in developing countries. Our study addresses this gap by examining inclusive education in Peru and its influence on non-SEN students, thereby contributing to the existing literature. Our findings reveal that, on average, the presence of SEN students in regular classrooms does not significantly affect their non-SEN counterparts. However, we uncover heterogeneous results contingent on the specific type of SEN and students’ academic placement. These results emphasize the importance of targeted resources and parental involvement in facilitating successful inclusive education, particularly for specific SEN types. In summary, this study underscores the need for tailored strategies and additional resources to foster the success of inclusive education and calls for further research in this field to expand our understanding and enhance educational policy.

Similar content being viewed by others

The concept of inclusive education from the point of view of academics specialising in special education at Saudi universities

Dreams and realities of school tracking and vocational education

Persistent association between family socioeconomic status and primary school performance in Britain over 95 years

Introduction.

Inclusive education has become a significant policy for improving access to and the quality of education for children with special educational needs (SEN), who often encounter physical and social barriers hindering their access to education and entry into the labor market, which in turn is detrimental to the economic and social progress of a country (Filmer, 2008 ; Mitra and Sambamoorthi, 2008 ). Thus, the United Nations has declared “inclusive and equitable quality education” as the fourth 2030 Sustainable Development Goal, which aims to reduce the disability gap in education. Likewise, there exist international declarations like the Salamanca Statement in 1994 (UNESCO, 1994 ) or the Declaration of the Decade of the Americas for the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities 2016–2026 (OAS, 2018 ) that incorporate the principle of inclusive education to guarantee education for all.

There are different education approaches Footnote 1 to ensure education for children with SEN, but the inclusive approach, unlike others, promotes equal participation of SEN students in regular schools by attending classes alongside same-aged non-SEN students (Dixon, 2005 ). Inclusive education goes beyond the placement of pupils; it refers to a unified system that receives all students regardless of their abilities or disabilities (Dixon, 2005 ). Under the inclusive approach, governments and schools should provide the means (i.e., physical and human resources) to reduce or eliminate physical, academic, and social hurdles faced by SEN students within regular schools (Dixon, 2005 ). Thus, inclusive education aims for social cohesion and a less discriminatory education approach that helps enhance the human capital acquisition of children with SEN (Kiuppis, 2014 ).

Despite the efforts for an inclusive education agenda worldwide, children with SEN remain behind in education indicators such as years of education, school attendance, or academic achievement (Filmer, 2008 ; Rangvid, 2022 ). This raises concerns about the impact that placement of children with SEN in regular schools may have on the educational achievement of children without SEN since these children are also involved in the inclusive education system (Rangvid, 2019 ; Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ). In Peru, for instance, some teachers in regular schools as well as some leaders of deaf organizations, do not support inclusive education as they think it is detrimental for both SEN and non-SEN students (Goico, 2019 ; Peruvian Ombudsman, 2019 ). Nevertheless, there is little empirical literature focused on the effects of inclusive education not only on SEN students but also on non-SEN students, especially in developing countries that shelter a high percentage of people with disabilities (Olusanya et al., 2022 ). This paper, therefore, aims to fill that gap by using information from a developing country, namely Peru. It investigates the impact of inclusive education, quantified through the presence of students with SEN in regular classrooms, on the academic performance of their non-SEN counterparts. Analyzing the peer effects of inclusive education is of utmost interest for policymakers aiming to increase the presence of SEN students in regular schools, as policy implications should consider the effects on all children.

The present work provides three main contributions to the existing literature regarding peer effects in the context of inclusive education. First, we provide new evidence using unusual and rich data from a middle-income country. To our knowledge, there is only one study focusing on a developing country. Indeed, Contreras et al. ( 2020 ) analyze the Chilean case and find that placement of children with SEN in regular classrooms negatively affects the standardized test scores in mathematics and reading of their non-SEN peers, but it is neutralized when schools receive additional resources and specialized professionals. Nevertheless, Contreras et al. ( 2020 ) use panel data for students attending primary schools in two periods, 2007 and 2011, without including types of SEN. In contrast, we study children attending primary and secondary schools using cross-section data between 2011 and 2019 and disaggregate our analysis by types of SEN Footnote 2 .

Our second contribution is to disaggregate our analysis by type of SEN. We are aware of two studies that use an overall indicator to reflect the presence of SEN students and disaggregate it by type of SEN. On one hand, Hanushek et al. ( 2002 ) examine two types of special educational needs: learning or emotional and speech; while, Ruijs ( 2017 ) examines four types: visual, hearing, physical or intellectual, and behavioral. In our case, besides evaluating the consequences of placing children with mobility, vision, hearing, and intellectual or learning disabilities in a regular classroom, we also evaluate the repercussions of placing children with autistic spectrum disorder in a regular classroom, which is a much less studied topic.

Finally, our third contribution is to explore the heterogeneous results of inclusive education on the non-SEN student population. Unlike previous studies, we explore the potential different impact of inclusive education between male and female non-SEN students. As most reproductive work has traditionally been done by women (cf. Razavi, 2012 ), it could be argued that female non-SEN students are more likely to take care of or help SEN students, which in turn may influence their educational achievement. Our heterogeneity analysis also takes into account school characteristics like classroom size as well as mother’s characteristics.

In our analysis, we take significant steps to mitigate potential biases stemming from endogenous classroom selection and the sorting of SEN students. We achieve this by focusing on schools with one class per grade level, which provides a more controlled setting for our study. Moreover, our dataset allows us to identify the class composition, which is vital for investigating educational peer effects. The classroom environment is particularly relevant, as classmates have a substantial impact on each other’s educational outcomes, given their shared classroom experience throughout the school day (Balestra et al., 2022 ; Burke and Sass, 2013 ; Lazear, 2001 ).

Our findings suggest that the inclusion of students with SEN in regular classrooms, on average, exerts a neutral influence on their non-SEN peers. A nuanced examination reveals varied results contingent upon the specific categories of SEN. This variability is consistent with the fact that SEN encompasses a broad spectrum of support requirements arising from diverse degrees and types of individual abilities, spanning physical, psychological, cognitive, and sensory domains. Hence, the influence of inclusive education would vary according to the distinct profile of the SEN student integrated into a conventional classroom setting. Furthermore, our results underscore the importance of accounting for temporal dynamics and the particular educational phase in gauging the impact of SEN students on their non-SEN counterparts. This observation aligns with the differential results discerned across academic grades.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The literature review and institutional setting are presented in the next section, followed by a description of the data and empirical strategy. After that, we discuss our results, and finally, we conclude.

This section starts with a brief literature review and then describes the main features of the Peruvian educational system as well as its public policy approach to inclusive education.

Literature review

The inclusion of students with SEN in regular schools remains a subject of debate due to the mixed findings within the empirical literature. Proponents of inclusive education argue that attending regular schools is not only a fundamental human right for children with SEN (Ainscow and César, 2006 ; Rangvid, 2022 ; Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ) but can also yield benefits for non-SEN students, particularly in terms of their learning development. This is attributed to the additional resources allocated to inclusive education (Keslair et al., 2012 ; Ruijs, 2017 ). Besides, inclusive education may help children without SEN to develop soft skills like kindness, tolerance, and patience, which are important to living in a diverse society (Contreras et al., 2020 ; Dixon, 2005 ). On the other hand, the main concerns regarding inclusive education are related to negative peer effects. The literature on class composition states that students’ performance is influenced by their peers’ characteristics (Ammermueller and Pischke, 2009 ; Burke and Sass, 2013 ; Lavy et al., 2012 ). Since children with SEN may require more teaching attention and show disruptive behaviors (Ahmed et al., 2021 ; Contreras et al., 2020 ; Rangvid, 2019 ; Ruijs, 2017 ), they could be considered “bad” students who could interfere with the educational development of their classmates without SEN (Lavy et al., 2012 ; Lazear, 2001 ), especially for those who are at the bottom of the ability distribution (Balestra et al., 2022 ; Lavy et al., 2012 ).

The quantitative studies that examine the peer effects of inclusive education mainly use data from developed countries. Most of them have found that inclusive education has a negative or null effect on non-SEN students’ outcomes. For instance, using data from Switzerland, Balestra et al. ( 2022 ) find that placing SEN students in regular classrooms harms not only educational outcomes but also labor market outcomes for non-SEN students. Similarly, studies from the United States (Fletcher, 2010 ) and Denmark (Kristoffersen et al., 2015 ; Rangvid, 2019 ) show that exposure to SEN students decreases reading test scores of non-SEN students. Also, for the United States, Gottfried ( 2014 ) and Gottfried et al. ( 2016 ) present evidence that inclusive education worsens the non-cognitive skills of non-SEN students. Fletcher ( 2010 ), however, points out that the negative effect of inclusive education in the United States disappears for reading when their lagged scores are considered in the analysis. Likewise, studies for Canada (Friesen et al., 2010 ), England (Keslair et al., 2012 ), and the Netherlands (Ruijs, 2017 ) also find that the presence of SEN students does not affect the academic performance of their non-SEN peers; but they point out that this result may be due to additional resources received by regular schools with SEN students. Conversely, other studies have found positive externalities of SEN students on the educational achievement of their non-SEN peers. For instance, Cole et al. ( 2004 ) point out that non-SEN students in the United States perform better at reading and mathematics tests since they may benefit from the additional resources allocated to inclusive education. Likewise, Hanushek et al. ( 2002 ) find that non-SEN students attending inclusive classrooms in the United States improve their mathematics test scores. Using data from the same country, Gottfried and McGene ( 2013 ) go beyond by showing that having a sibling with SEN helps to improve the schooling achievement of those siblings without SEN.

Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews have examined the effects of inclusive education on students with and without SEN. The coincidences lie in the varied impacts of inclusive education on non-SEN students, demonstrating a nuanced and context-dependent picture. While Dell’Anna et al. ( 2021 ) hint at positive peer attitudes in inclusive settings, the academic outcomes and the experience of non-SEN students diverge, with high achievers potentially benefiting more than low achievers (Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ). Kart and Kart ( 2021 ) and Szumski et al. ( 2017 ) contribute to the discussion, highlighting mixed academic effects across different grade levels. The meta-analyses by Oh-Young and Filler ( 2015 ) and Krämer et al. ( 2021 ) emphasize the overall positive impact of inclusive settings for students with SEN while still acknowledging variations in outcomes. Finally, Van Mieghem et al. ( 2020 ) emphasize the pivotal role of teacher professional development in the successful implementation of inclusive education.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that the conflicting results found in the literature may be explained by the differences in the criteria used to identify a SEN student. Most of the previous studies have used an aggregated measure to encompass all SEN students without considering the types of SEN (e.g., Contreras et al., 2020 ; Rangvid, 2019 ). On the other hand, some studies have focused on one or two types of special needs; such as emotional disturbances and mental disabilities (e.g., Cole et al., 2004 ; Fletcher, 2010 ; Hanushek et al., 2002 ; Kristoffersen et al., 2015 ), or learning and behavioral disabilities (e.g., Cole et al., 2004 ; Friesen et al., 2010 ; Hanushek et al., 2002 ). The present paper addresses these limitations found in the literature by taking into account different types of SEN and also by exploring the potential heterogeneous results of inclusive education for non-SEN students.

Institutional setting: The educational system in Peru

Primary and secondary education in Peru is compulsory and provided by the government at no cost and by the private sector with a wide tuition range. Peruvian children between 6- and 11- years old attend primary school and start secondary school by the age of 12 for a period of 5 years. The last National Population Census in 2017 reports that roughly 5.4% and 7.0% of Peruvians who are primary-school and secondary-school-aged, respectively, have at least one disability. However, according to the School Census of the same year, <1% of children attending regular schools are categorized as SEN students, which suggests that inclusive education in Peru is not well developed. Despite this low enrollment rate, the percentage of SEN students grew from 0.26% in 2007 to 0.96% in 2019.

Since primary and secondary schools in Peru must comply with a mandatory national curriculum, the same courses are taken by children who attend the same grade level across different schools. Schools may have more than one class per grade level, which are called sections , which students are assigned when they start primary school, which makes it less likely that students are sorted in a non-random fashion. Besides, every section has a specific classroom where students are instructed in most of their courses; thus, students do not need to move among different classrooms throughout the school day. At the primary school, the teacher assigned to a section is usually responsible for the majority of the courses; whereas, at the secondary school, it is often the case that there is a different teacher for each course. Another characteristic of the Peruvian education system is that it allows parents to send their children to any school, public or private, even if that school is outside their district of residence.

According to the last National Population Census in 2017, Peru has achieved almost universal coverage of education, 94.9% of the population aged 12 or over have primary education, and 74.5% aged 17 or over have secondary education. These numbers, however, mask a disability gap. Among adults aged 17 or over, 14.1% of people with at least one disability report having no education, whereas only 3.9% of people with no disabilities report the same. There is also an educational disability gap of 11.9 percentage points (p.p.) among the female population, but it decreases to 7.1 p.p. among the male population. These figures suggest that having a disability poses a larger burden for females than for males.

In this context, the Peruvian National Education Law recognized in 2003 inclusive education as the main approach to providing education to students with SEN, which should be accompanied by supplementary one-to-one attention by specialists (Congreso de la República, 2003 ). Thus, the Peruvian legal framework advocates an inclusive approach to integrating children and youth with disabilities into society. Aligned with the national inclusive policy, the state, as per the 2012 General Law of Persons with Disabilities (Law 29973), ensures access to quality inclusive education that accommodates individual needs. This entails adjustments in infrastructure, furniture, materials, curriculum, and teaching processes, all aimed at facilitating quality learning and fostering the comprehensive development of each student. It is worth noting, however, that empirical evidence indicates that many regular schools lack the necessary infrastructure, materials, and human resources to accommodate students with disabilities (Cueto et al., 2018 ; Peruvian Ombudsman, 2011 ).

The basic education system comprises three modalities: regular basic education (EBR), alternative basic education (EBA), and special basic education (EBE). EBR represents conventional formal education. EBA caters to students who lack access to EBR, emphasizing vocational and entrepreneurial skills. EBE is designated for students with SEN related to disability, talent, or giftedness. EBA and EBR schools, when admitting students with SEN, are termed inclusive schools . EBE operates in both inclusive schools and standalone EBE schools. In inclusive schools that accept students with mild disabilities and giftedness, EBE provides support and guidance through programs like Support and Advisory Services for Special Educational Needs (SAANEE). This includes personalized services and support to students, parents, teachers, and school principals through weekly visits of specialized professionals (Congreso de la República, 2006 ). Nevertheless, the evidence shows that inclusive education in Peru is far from successfully being implemented, and it is combined with an “integration approach” (Peruvian Ombudsman, 2011 ). On the other hand, dedicated EBE schools directly serve severe and multi-disabled students with needs beyond the scope of EBR or EBA schools. EBR and EBA schools are mandated to reserve at least two slots per classroom during the enrollment period for the inclusion of students with mild or moderate disabilities. However, in practice, this requirement is not systematically fulfilled (Cueto et al., 2018 ).

Data and methodology

In this study, we use three datasets that are collected by the Peruvian Ministry of Education (MINEDU). First, we utilized the Student Census Evaluation (ECE) as our primary data source, which encompasses the scores achieved by students in the national standardized tests of reading and mathematics Footnote 3 . To create our dependent variable, “learning achievement”, we transformed these scores into z -scores, standardizing them by grade level and by subject to have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one for use in our econometric analysis. Furthermore, the ECE dataset includes additional demographic information such as gender and the primary language spoken by the students. The ECE started in 2007, with annual assessments of students in the 2nd grade of primary (2P). Subsequently, it was expanded in 2015 to encompass students in the 2nd grade of secondary (2S). In 2017, however, the ECE was not conducted. Our second dataset is the National School Census (CE) which contains information regarding school characteristics and grade composition. The CE has been yearly collected since 2004, and it covers public and private schools. We use it to measure inclusive education by identifying the presence of SEN students at the section level. These two datasets are merged at the school level through a school identifier; thus, each student is linked to section characteristics in the school he or she is attending. The last dataset is the Information System to Support the Management of the Education Institution (SG), which was implemented in 2003 but has been mandatory only since 2011. The SG contains information that is uploaded every year by teachers or school principals. This includes students’ age, mothers’ age and education, and number of siblings. The SG is merged with the other datasets by using a student identifier.

For our analysis, we focus on students attending 2P in the period dating from 2011 to 2016 (excluding 2014) Footnote 4 and students attending 2S from 2015 to 2019 (excluding 2017). Footnote 5 For both grades, 2P and 2S, we account for potential grade advancement and delay. Footnote 6 Therefore, in the case of 2P where students are usually 7 years old, we include children aged between 6 and 8 years, and for 2S where students are usually 13 years old, we include children aged between 12 and 14 years. The final number of observations for 2P comprises 55,637 students who took the reading test and 55,614 students who took the mathematics test. And, for 2S, we have 47,491 students who took the reading test and 47,484 students who took the mathematics test.

To evaluate the influence of inclusive education on non-SEN students’ learning achievement, we use the CE where the school principal reports the number of SEN students placed in each grade level every year and per type of SEN. Footnote 7 This report is based on medical certificates, psycho-pedagogical certificates, and parents’ affidavits. Thus, we can identify the presence of SEN students per section to measure inclusive education. Footnote 8 Besides, we disaggregate the presence of SEN students per type. Specifically, we distinguish, for each section, the presence of students with mobility, vision, hearing, and intellectual or learning disabilities, as well as those with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). In the case of intellectual or learning disabilities, the CE includes those students with Down syndrome, brain injury, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The other SEN types considered in the CE include students with speech impairment, deaf-blindness, and hospitalized. Although gifted students are identified as SEN students in the CE, we exclude them in our measure of SEN.

There are three main challenges to estimating peer effects, as stated by Manski ( 1993 ), that could hinder proper identification of the influence of SEN students on the learning achievement of their non-SEN peers. First, students in the same cohort could face similar environmental factors or have similar unobserved characteristics that may influence their academic outcomes rather than having classmates with SEN. To disentangle the environment from peer effects, we follow the literature by using a large number of observations and fixed effects (Balestra et al., 2022 ; Burke and Sass, 2013 ).

Second, there is a potential reflection problem as classmates may influence each other and determine their outcomes simultaneously. Since we focus on SEN characteristics related to physical disabilities, health issues, and injuries determined by specialists, it is less likely that the SEN status of students was determined by the learning achievement of their non-SEN peers.

The third problem is related to self-selection. In the Peruvian school system, parents may choose to send their children to any school regardless of their district of residence; thus, specific school characteristics may attract certain types of students. To address this problem, we restrict the analysis to schools with similar characteristics. We select schools located in urban areas providing mixed-sex education that operate on the main school campus only during the morning shift and with 10–30 students per section. In the case of primary education, we select full-grade schools. Footnote 9 Besides, to address a potential sorting problem that could make it difficult to identify whether the learning outcome is due to the presence of SEN students or one’s ability, we select schools with one section per grade level. In this way, we avoid the possibility for school administrators to group students into sections based on their characteristics or for parents to choose a section without SEN students. Finally, more than 90% of non-SEN students take the standardized national tests, which suggests that school principals do not select high-performance students to take these tests.

To test the validity of our identification strategy, we perform two balancing checks for 2P and 2S, presented in Tables 1 and 2 , respectively. To perform these balancing checks, we use only students who took both reading and mathematics standardized tests, rather than separating them by subject as we do for the econometric analyses. Panels A, B, and C show that the presence of at least one SEN student does not determine the gender, language, or age of non-SEN students, respectively. We observe that coefficients are statistically not significant, and their size is smaller in comparison to those from the main analysis, except for reading test scores in 2S. In addition, panel D shows that individual characteristics do not determine the presence of at least one SEN student in the classroom. These results provide evidence against the likelihood of selection into classrooms.

To examine the impact of inclusive education on standardized test performance of non-SEN students, we estimate the following linear model:

Equation ( 1 ) is estimated separately for each grade level (2P or 2S) and subject (reading or mathematics) using a linear regression. \({{{\rm {EDC}}}}_{{i{\rm {s}}t}}\) is the learning achievement of student \(i\) in section \({s}\) at year \(t\) , measured by the z -score of the standardized test. \({{{\rm {SEN}}}}_{{{\rm {s}}}t}\) is a dichotomous variable capturing the presence of at least one SEN student in section \({s}\) at year \(t\) ; thus, \({\alpha }_{1}\) is our parameter of interest. In other specifications below, \({{{\rm {SEN}}}}_{{{s}t}}\) will be differentiated by type of SEN. \({{{\rm {STD}}}}_{{i{s}t}}\) is a vector of student-level control variables that include age in years and indicators for gender (1 = women) and spoken language (1 = indigenous). The vector \({{{\rm {SEC}}}}_{{st}}\) controls for section-level variables without student \(i\) . It includes mean age, proportion of male students, proportion of indigenous speakers, and number of students. The vector \({{{\rm {SCH}}}}_{t}\) includes number of students at the school level. \({{{\rm {HH}}}}_{{it}}\) includes the following household characteristics: mother’s age, mother’s education, and the number of siblings. We also include school-fixed effects \(\left({\gamma }_{{s}}\right)\) Footnote 10 and year-fixed effects \(\left({\gamma }_{t}\right)\) . Finally, \({\varepsilon }_{{i{s}t}}\) is an unobserved error term, and we cluster standard errors at the section level as this is the common environment shared by students (Balestra et al., 2022 ).

To assess potential heterogeneous influences, we follow recent literature Footnote 11 and estimate Eq. ( 1 ) using split samples by the characteristic of interest (Feigenberg et al., 2023 ). In particular, we evaluate the gender of the student \(i\) . For section characteristics, we evaluate the number of students. Finally, we assess the varying estimates based on the mother’s age and the mother’s education. In the case of characteristics that are represented by continuous or categorical variables, we convert them into dichotomous variables. For the number of students, we split the sample between sections that have 20 or fewer students and sections with 21 or more students. In the case of the mother’s age, we use the mean age to split the sample above and below the mean. The mean age is 41.5 for those mothers with children who attend 2P and 44.8 for those with children who attend 2S. Finally, for mothers’ education, we split the sample between those with and without tertiary education.

The descriptive statistics for our final cross-section subpopulations are presented in Table 3 . All descriptive and econometric analyses were conducted using Stata 18. In this case, we combine observations that include students who took both reading and mathematics standardized tests, as the characteristics of the separated subpopulations are similar to each other. According to Table 3 , students with SEN generally have lower reading and mathematics scores compared to their peers without SEN across both primary and secondary grades. This trend is more pronounced in 2S compared to 2P. We also observe in Table 3 that the proportions of women and indigenous language speakers are relatively consistent across SEN and non-SEN cohorts. Approximately 48% of the students are female, and the average age is 6.9 in 2P and 12.9 in 2S. However, it is interesting to note that the mean proportion of indigenous language speakers is higher in 2S (~22%) compared to 2P (~12%), indicating a potential demographic shift as students progress through the education system. A similar trend for indigenous language speakers is observed at the section level. Moreover, figures in Table 3 show that the mean age in a section is ~7.2 in 2P and 13.3 in 2S, the sample is balanced between male and female students at the section level, and there are around 20 students per section. Regarding household characteristics, the average age of mothers is 41.5 for those with children in 2P and 44.8 for those with children in 2S, around 6 out of 10 students have mothers with primary or secondary education, and the majority of students have more than two siblings. Finally, students enrolled in primary education typically attend larger schools, characterized by a pupil population exceeding 120, in contrast to those in secondary education, where schools typically accommodate fewer than 100 students.

Empirical results

Regression results from Eq. ( 1 ) are shown in Table 4 . Footnote 12 For column (1), we use ECE and CE datasets, which do not include students’ age or household characteristics. For columns (2) through (6), we add the SG dataset to incorporate students’ age and household characteristics. Columns (1) through (4) include the proportion of repeaters and the presence of at least one specialized teacher when students were 3 years old, and they were not attending school; thus, the presence of an SEN student should not influence the proportion of repeaters or presence of a specialized teacher. Columns (5) and (6) do not include those variables, and the results remain similar to those obtained in the previous columns. In addition, as a robustness check, we try different subpopulations based on students’ age (columns (2) through (4)) and schools with variation in SEN students (column (6)). For all the specifications, our results consistently show that the presence of at least one SEN student as a measure of inclusive education does not have a significant influence on the learning achievement of students who attend 2P or 2S. Our findings align with similar results from other countries such as Canada (Friesen et al., 2010 ), England (Keslair et al., 2012 ), and the Netherlands (Ruijs, 2017 ), indicating that inclusive education does not have a significant impact on the academic achievement of non-SEN students.

Nevertheless, we notice in Table 4 that, after including students’ age and household characteristics, the negative relationship between inclusive education and learning achievement (column 1) turned into a positive relationship (columns 2 through 6). Even in the case of students who attend 2S, the magnitude of the positive relationship between inclusive education and mathematics scores increased when student’s age and household characteristics were included in the regression. This suggests that the attributes of a student’s household, along with individual traits correlated with them, such as motivation, self-discipline, and parental support, may exert a positive influence on their learning environment. This influence could potentially counterbalance any adverse effects of inclusive education. An alternative explanation lies in the interaction effects between inclusive education and these supplementary factors. For instance, older students or those from more privileged households could potentially derive greater benefits from inclusive education due to their increased adaptability to the classroom environment. We further explore these issues in the Heterogeneity analysis section.

The main results, however, may mask different outcomes by type of SEN. Table 5 shows the results from Eq. ( 1 ) using the presence of at least one student with a certain type of SEN as a measure of inclusive education. Results Footnote 13 in Table 5 are estimated by gradually adding control variables in each column. Columns (1) and (6) do not include any control variable. Columns (2) and (7) add student controls. Cohort controls are added in columns (3) and (8), and school controls are added in columns (5) and (9). Finally, family controls are added in columns (5) and (10). As we can see in Table 5 , adding variables does not substantially change the estimates. We also notice that the sign of the relationship between inclusive education and learning achievement varies by type of SEN, and only vision disability (panel A) and mobility disability (panel B) have a significant positive relationship with the standardized test scores of students who attend 2P and 2S, respectively. As we can observe in Table 5 , even when we use the Romano-Wolf multiple hypothesis correction, the significance of our findings remains similar across different specifications (cf. Clarke, 2021 , Clarke et al., 2020 ). These findings confirm our main results that inclusive education would not harm the learning performance of non-SEN students, regardless of the type of SEN presented by their peers.

Results in Table 5 show that the impact of attending an inclusive classroom with at least one SEN student with a vision disability increases the reading and mathematics scores of students who attend 2P by 0.135 (adjusted p -value < 0.05) (column 5) and by 0.154 (adjusted p -value < 0.05) (column 10) of a standard deviation, respectively. In the case of students who attend 2S, the impact of the presence of at least one student with mobility disability increases the performance on reading and mathematics tests by 0.099 (adjusted p -value < 0.01) (column 5) and by 0.100 (adjusted p -value < 0.05) (column 10) of a standard deviation, respectively. Similar to our results, Ruijs ( 2017 ) found that the presence of students with vision disabilities as well as physical and intellectual disabilities in the third level of pre-vocational secondary education in the Netherlands increases standardized test scores of non-SEN students. Moreover, previous studies pointed out that non-SEN students show more positive attitudes toward their peers with physical disabilities (de Boer et al., 2012 ), which may explain the positive influence of SEN students with vision and mobility disabilities that we have found on the learning achievement on non-SEN students.

Heterogeneity analysis

We further undertake several analyses to understand the differences in the impact of inclusive education. Footnote 14 Clogg’s z -test is implemented for testing the statistical significance of the difference between the coefficients estimated separately by splitting Eq. ( 1 ) (Clogg et al., 1995 ).

Estimates of inclusive education by gender of non-SEN students are presented in Table 6 . The results show that the influence of inclusive education on learning achievement is not statistically significant for men or women, and there is no statistical difference between them.

To explore the influence of inclusive education by usage of adequate resources, we analyze the influence of the total number of students at the section level. We find that inclusive education is associated with higher scores in reading and mathematics for non-SEN students who attend classrooms with 10–20 students and with lower scores for those who attend classrooms with 21–30 students, regardless the student attends 2P or 2S. This result may reflect that small groups foster a closer interaction between students and teacher which in turn may allow the teacher to develop better teaching strategies since they know each student better. The result of inclusive education by section size, however, is statistically different only for the reading score obtained by non-SEN students who attend 2S. This result underscores the complexity of inclusive education’s effects and the importance of context-specific considerations. Authorities should pay special attention to the number of students assigned to an inclusive classroom.

To analyze the household’s characteristics, we use the mother’s age and education. In the case of reading and mathematics in 2P, it seems that older mothers help to improve the scores of non-SEN students who attend an inclusive classroom; but there is not a clear pattern in the case of 2S. The differences in the test scores by mother’s age, however, are not statistically significant in any case, 2P or 2S. We have to take this result with caution as it is possible that other family characteristics rather than the mother’s age act as a moderator that could influence the effect of inclusive education on children’s outcomes in school (Leigh and Gong, 2010 ; López Turley, 2003 ).

We also present in Table 6 the estimates of inclusive education on test scores of non-SEN students by mother’s education. We observe that the difference in inclusive education’s influence on test scores in reading and mathematics is not statistically different regardless mother’s education. Although the difference is small and not significant, we observe that among non-SEN students in 2P and 2S with well-educated mothers (i.e., tertiary education), inclusive education is associated with lower scores in reading and mathematics. This finding may suggest that well-educated mothers may dedicate fewer hours to helping their children as they are more likely to work outside the home in comparison to less-educated mothers.

The current study focused on the learning achievement of non-SEN students in Peru who attend an inclusive classroom. We use three rich administrative datasets that allow us to measure inclusive education by the presence of at least one SEN student in the classroom, which is the appropriate setting as students spend their school day mostly within the classroom. Thus, we are able to capture the influence of inclusive education on the test scores of non-SEN students on national standardized tests in reading and mathematics.

Inclusive strategies in regular classrooms are undeniably crucial, but without appropriate adaptations and a comprehensive understanding by all involved, inclusive education can pose considerable challenges for the entire educational community, including non-SEN students (Edwards et al., 2019 ; Nilsen, 2020 ). While some studies for developed countries show that the learning achievement of non-SEN students is improved by attending inclusive classrooms and others point to negative effects, there is limited evidence regarding the impact of inclusive education for developing countries. From this perspective, our study contributes to the literature by examining the case of inclusive education in Peru and its consequences on non-SEN students. To the best of our knowledge, this topic has not been previously analyzed in the Peruvian context. Further, we explore the influence of inclusive education by type of SEN and undertake a heterogeneity analysis.

Overall, this study has found that the inclusion of SEN students in regular classrooms, on average, yields no substantial implications for their non-SEN counterparts. Our results have shown consistency among the different model specifications estimated using several subpopulations with different age ranges as well as an additional sub-population restricted to schools with variation in the presence of SEN students. Nevertheless, it is worth noticing that there is a negative relationship between inclusive education and learning achievement of non-SEN students that turns into a positive relationship when the mother’s characteristics are included in the analysis. This may present an opportunity for school authorities to involve parents in the learning process of their kids to enhance inclusive education programs, as the literature suggests that the way inclusive education is implemented may lead to positive results on the academic performance of non-SEN students (Szumski et al., 2017 ).

We also found that the implications of inclusive education are contingent upon the specific type of SEN. In particular, non-SEN students benefit from attending classrooms with at least one student with a vision disability in 2P and a mobility disability in 2S. This finding underscores differential effects between lower and later grades, a phenomenon previously noted in the literature (Kart and Kart, 2021 ). Also, this result should draw attention from policymakers interested in inclusive education as schools may be more suitable to assist this type of SEN students, whereas the potential lack of resources to support other types of SEN might detrimentally affect SEN and non-SEN students (Edwards et al., 2019 ). In addition, we find that the influence of inclusive education is heterogeneous. We find that the small size of the classroom (20 or fewer students) helps to improve learning achievement in reading for non-SEN students who attend an inclusive classroom in 2S. Similar to previous literature (e.g., Szumski et al., 2017 ), this finding points to the need for educational policymakers to increase the budget for inclusive education, targeting to hire more and adequate resources. Finally, the mother’s characteristics are not relevant to explain differences in the estimates of inclusive education on academic achievement of non-SEN students.

Despite the contributions made by this study, some potential limitations could be addressed by future research. First, due to a lack of data, we are not able to incorporate a measure that reflects the diverse intensity of a disability (Oh-Young and Filler, 2015 ) that could be associated with different costs (Nicoriciu and Elliot, 2023 ). Second, the datasets employed in this analysis are unavailable for certain years, precluding our use of data from ECE before 2011. Additionally, the variable indicating the language spoken in 2S was not present in the same dataset (CE) for the years 2018 and 2019. Finally, despite our efforts to mitigate concerns related to omitted variable bias, we concede the possibility of residual biases. Specifically, we omitted socioeconomic status from our analysis due to substantial rates of missing data.

Data availability

The datasets used in this study are available from the Peruvian Ministry of Education repository upon request.

In the literature, there are three main approaches: (i) segregation, (ii) integration, and (iii) inclusive (see e.g., Dixon, 2005 ; Kiuppis, 2014 ; Madhesh, 2023 ).

It is worth noting that results from countries like Peru are not directly comparable to those previously presented by Contreras et al. ( 2020 ). Indeed, academic performance in Peru is poorer relative to Chile, as reported by the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and it does not receive monetary incentives to enroll children with SEN. Furthermore, Chile displays a particular institutional framework worldwide since state-subsidized private schools (voucher schools) have around 50% of total enrollment (CEM, 2019 ). Thus, insights from the Peruvian case are valuable for other comparable countries.

Although the ECE evaluates other subjects, only mathematics and reading were evaluated in every ECE. Students attending 2nd grade of primary were evaluated from 2007 to 2016 on mathematics and reading. In the case of students attending 2nd grade of secondary, they were evaluated on mathematics and reading from 2015 to 2019 (except 2017), social sciences in 2016 and 2018, and science and technology in 2018 and 2019.

Unfortunately, information for SG was not available before 2011, and the MINEDU did not provide information for 2014.

The ECE was not conducted in 2017.

Advancement and delay in 2P (2S) are determined based on the chronological age of the students as of March 31. If a student is one year younger than the standard age of 7 (13), it would be considered advancement. Conversely, if a student is one year older than the standard age, that is, age of 8 (14), it would be considered within a delay.

Since we only include schools with one section per grade, the number of SEN students reported by grade is used to account for the presence of SEN students at the section level.

A cohort refers to the students within the same section for each grade level and year.

Full-grade refers to primary schools where teachers do not teach more than one grade in the same classroom.

Since we work with schools that have only one section, school-fixed effects can also be understood as section-fixed effects.

Feigenberg et al. ( 2023 ) state that using a split-sample approach is equivalent to a fully interacted model but avoids losing statistical power. Likewise, they state that, unlike a model with only one interaction, the split-sample approach reduces bias due to omitted variables.

Results, including all control variables, are presented in the Supplementary Information. Tables S1 and S2 for reading and mathematics in 2P, respectively. Tables S3 and S4 for reading and mathematics in 2S, respectively.

Results, including all control variables, are presented in Supplementary Information Table S5 .

Results, including all control variables, are presented in Supplementary Information from Table S6 to Table S10 .

Ahmed A, Hammarstedt M, Karlsson K (2021) Do schools discriminate against children with disabilities? A field experiment in Sweden. Educ Econ 29(1):3–16

Article   Google Scholar  

Ainscow M, César M (2006) Inclusive education ten years after Salamanca: setting the agenda. Eur J Psychol Educ 21(3):231–238

Ammermueller A, Pischke J (2009) Peer effects in European primary schools: evidence from the progress in international reading literacy study. J Labor Econ27(3):315–348

Balestra S, Eugster B, Liebert H (2022) Peers with special needs: effects and policies. Rev Econ Stat 104(3):602–618

Burke M, Sass T (2013) Classroom peer effects and student achievement. J Labor Econ 31(1):51–82

CEM (2019) Estadísticas de la educación 2018. Publicación 2019. Centro de Estudios MINEDUC

Clarke D (2021) rwolf2 implementation and flexible syntax https://www.damianclarke.net/computation/rwolf2.pdf

Clarke D, Romano J, Wolf M (2020) The Romano-Wolf multiple-hypothesis correction in Stata. Stata J 20(4):812–843

Clogg C, Petkova E, Haritou A (1995) Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. Am J Sociol 100(5):1261–1293

Cole C, Waldron N, Majd M (2004) Academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retard 42:136–144

Congreso de la República (2003) Ley General de Educación. Ley 28044. https://leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/Leyes/28044.pdf

Congreso de la República (2006) Directiva No. 076-2006-VMGP/DINEBE https://www.minedu.gob.pe/normatividad/resoluciones/rd_0354-2006-ed.pdf

Contreras D, Brante M, Espinoza S, Zuñiga I (2020) The effect of the integration of students with special educational needs: evidence from Chile. Int J Educ Dev 74:102163

Cueto S, Rojas V, Dammer M, Felipe C (2018) Cobertura, oportunidades y percepciones sobre la educación inclusiva en el Perú. GRADE

de Boer A, Pijl S, Minnaert A (2012) Students’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities: a review of the literature. Int J Disabil Dev Educ 59(4):379–392

Dell’Anna S, Pellegrini M, Ianes D (2021) Experiences and learning outcomes of students without special educational needs in inclusive settings: a systematic review. Int J Incl Educ 25(8):944–959. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1592248

Dixon S (2005) Inclusion—not segregation or integration is where a student with special needs belongs. J Educ Thought 39(1):33–53

Google Scholar  

Edwards B, Cameron D, King G, McPherson A (2019) How students without special needs perceive social inclusion of children with physical impairments in mainstream schools: a scoping review. Int J Disabil Dev Educ 66(3):298–324

Feigenberg B, Ost B, Qureshi J (2023) Omitted variable bias in interacted models: a cautionary tale. Rev Econ Stat https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01361

Filmer D (2008) Disability, poverty, and schooling in developing countries: results from 14 household surveys. World Bank Econ Rev 22(1):141–163

Fletcher J (2010) Spillover effects of inclusion of classmates with emotional problems on test scores in early elementary school. J Policy Anal Manag 29(1):69–83

Friesen J, Hickey R, Krauth B (2010) Disabled peers and academic achievement. Educ Financ Policy 5(3):317–348

Goico S (2019) The impact of “inclusive” education on the language of deaf youth in Iquitos, Peru. Sign Language Stud 19(3):348–374

Gottfried M (2014) Classmates with disabilities and students’ noncognitive outcomes. Educ Eval Policy Anal 36(1):20–43

Gottfried M, Egalite A, Kirksey J (2016) Does the presence of a classmate with emotional/behavioral disabilities link to other students’ absences in kindergarten? Early Child Res Q 36:506–520

Gottfried M, McGene J (2013) The spillover effects of having a sibling with special educational needs. J Educ Res 106(3):197–215

Hanushek J, Kain J, Rivkin S (2002) Inferring program effects for special populations: does special education raise achievement for students with disabilities? Rev Econ Stat 84(4):584–599

Kart A, Kart M (2021) Academic and social effects of inclusion on students without disabilities: a review of the literature. Educ Sci 11(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010016

Keslair F, Maurin E, McNally S (2012) Every child matters? An evaluation of “special educational needs” programmes in England. Econ Educ Rev 31(6):932–948

Kiuppis F (2014) Why (not) associate the principle of inclusion with disability? Tracing connections from the start of the ‘Salamanca process. Int J Incl Educ 18(7):746–761

Krämer S, Möller J, Zimmermann F (2021) Inclusive education of students with general learning difficulties: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 91(3):432–478. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321998072

Kristoffersen J, Krægpøth M, Nielsen H, Simonsen M (2015) Disruptive school peers and student outcomes. Econ Educ Rev 45:1–13

Lavy V, Silva O, Weinhardt F (2012) The good, the bad, and the average: evidence on ability peer effects in schools. J Labor Econ 30(2):367–414

Lazear E (2001) Educational production. Q J Econ 116(3):777–803

Leigh A, Gong X (2010) Does maternal age affect children’s test scores? Aust Econ Rev 43(1):12–27

López Turley R (2003) Are children of young mothers disadvantaged because of their mother’s age or family background? Child Dev 74(2):464–474

Madhesh A (2023) The concept of inclusive education from the point of view of academics specialising in special education at Saudi universities. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:278

Manski C (1993) Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Rev Econ Stud 60:531–542

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Mitra S, Sambamoorthi U (2008) Disability and the rural labor market in India: evidence for males in Tamil Nadu. World Dev 36(5):934–952

Nicoriciu A, Elliot M (2023) Families of children with disabilities: income poverty, material deprivation, and unpaid care in the UK. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:519

Nilsen S (2020) Inside but still on the outside? Teachers’ experiences with the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs in general education. Int J Incl Educ 24(9):980–996

OAS (2018) Program of action for the decade of the Americas for the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. OAS, Washington, DC

Olusanya B, Kancherla V, Shaheen A, Ogbo F, Davis A (2022) Global and regional prevalence of disabilities among children and adolescents: analysis of findings from global health databases. Front Public Health 10:977453

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ombudsman P (2011) Los niños y niñas con discapacidad: Alcances y limitaciones en la implementación de la política de educación inclusiva en instituciones educativas del nivel primaria. Serie Informes Defensoriales, Informe 155. Lima, Defensoría del Pueblo

Ombudsman P (2019) El derecho a la educación inclusiva. Barreras en la implementación de los servicios educativos públicos y privados para estudiantes con discapacidad y con otras necesidades educativas. Serie Informes Defensoriales, Informe 183. Lima, Defensoría del Pueblo

Rangvid B (2019) Returning special education students to regular classrooms: externalities on peers’ reading scores. Econ Educ Rev 68:13–22

Rangvid B (2022) Special educational needs placement in lower secondary education: the impact of segregated vs. mainstream placement on post-16 outcomes. Educ Econ 30(4):399–425

Razavi S (2012) World development report 2012: gender equality and development—a commentary. Dev Change 43(1):423–437

Ruijs N (2017) The impact of special needs students on classmate performance. Econ Educ Rev 58:15–31

Ruijs N, Peetsma T (2009) Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educ Res Rev 4:67–79

Szumski G, Smogorzewska J, Karwowski M (2017) Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: a meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev 21:33–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004

Oh-Young C, Filler J (2015) A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Res Dev Disabil 47:80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.014

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

UNESCO (1994) T he Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Adopted by the world conference on special needs education: access and quality. UNESCO

Van Mieghem A, Verschueren K, Petry K, Struyf E (2020) An analysis of research on inclusive education: a systematic search and meta review. Int J Incl Educ 24(6):675–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1482012

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was supported by the Peruvian Economic and Social Research Consortium (grant No. A1-PB03, CIES 2022). The authors express their gratitude to the participants of the XXXIV Annual Research Seminar 2023 hosted by the Economic and Social Research Consortium (CIES), as well as to two anonymous referees for their invaluable feedback, which contributed to the improvement of this manuscript. Special thanks to Juan Castañeda and Jonatan Amaya for their outstanding research assistance in earlier versions of this study. All remaining errors are our own.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad de Piura, Av. Ramón Mugica 131, Urb. San Eduardo, Piura, Perú

V. B. Salas García

Departamento de Economía, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Av. Universitaria 1801, Lima, 15088, Perú

José María Rentería

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors contributed equally to this work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. B. Salas García .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Salas García, V.B., Rentería, J.M. Students with special educational needs in regular classrooms and their peer effects on learning achievement. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 521 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03002-8

Download citation

Received : 09 November 2023

Accepted : 27 March 2024

Published : 17 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03002-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

What is Special Education?

Author: University of North Dakota April 23, 2024

Throughout history, students with learning needs not only faced challenges in having their needs properly identified, but their educational requirements were often inadequately addressed within the general education system.

Request Information

However, significant strides have been made to rectify this situation, mainly through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This legislation aims to ensure that students with learning needs can access and benefit from specialized education services. 

To better understand this area of education, we'll explore key questions like "What is special education?" as well as examine the process students undergo to qualify for special education services. So, read on and uncover the importance of special education in fostering inclusive learning environments for all students.

Understanding the Basics

Let us start by discussing the fundamental aspects of special education. By exploring these crucial elements, we aim to provide a clear understanding of how special education can support students with unique needs.

Special education refers to tailored instructional programs and support services for students with disabilities or special needs. It encompasses a range of interventions and accommodations designed to meet each student's individualized learning requirements.

The primary purpose of special education is to address the challenges and barriers faced by students with disabilities and ensure their access to a quality education that aligns with their abilities and learning styles. Through specially designed instruction and support, special education aims to empower students with the tools and resources needed to succeed academically, develop essential skills, and achieve their full potential despite their disabilities.

Why is Special Education Important?

Special education is essential to promoting equity and inclusivity within educational systems. By offering specialized instruction, interventions, and support services tailored to the learning needs of each student with disabilities, special education ensures that every individual has equal access to educational opportunities. Additionally, it plays a vital role in facilitating such students' academic and social development, empowering them to reach their full potential and participate meaningfully in school and community life.

Where is Special Education Provided?

Special education services are provided in various settings, with public schools being a prevalent option. Here, students benefit from specialized instruction and support customized to suit their individualized education programs. Inclusive classrooms integrate students with disabilities into general education settings alongside their peers, allowing them to participate in academic and social activities while receiving necessary accommodations and support.

Specialized schools dedicated exclusively to serving students with disabilities also offer special education services. These schools may offer a more intensive level of support and focus on specific disabilities or learning needs, providing a structured and supportive environment for students to thrive. Additionally, special education services may be delivered in alternative settings, such as resource rooms or learning centers within public schools, where students receive targeted interventions and support from special education teachers and staff. 

Who Receives Special Education Services?

Special education services are available to children who meet the criteria outlined by the IDEA. According to the act, they must be identified as having a disability falling under one or more of the following 13 categories :

• Autism: A developmental disability affecting communication, social interaction, and sensory processing
• Deaf-blindness: Simultaneous hearing and visual impairments leading to severe communication and developmental needs
• Deafness: Severe hearing impairment affecting linguistic information processing
• Emotional disturbance: Long-term and marked difficulties in learning, interpersonal relationships, behavior, or mood
• Hearing impairment: Impairment in hearing that affects educational performance but doesn't meet the criteria for deafness
• Intellectual disabilities: Below-average general intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive behavior
• Multiple disabilities: Concomitant impairments causing severe educational needs
• Orthopedic impairment: Severe orthopedic impairment affecting educational performance
• Other health impairment: Chronic or acute health problems affecting alertness and educational performance
• Specific learning disability: Disorders in basic psychological processes affecting language, reading, writing, or math
• Speech or language impairment: Communication disorders adversely affecting educational performance
• Traumatic brain injury: Acquired brain injury causing functional disability or impairment
• Visual impairment including blindness: Vision impairment affecting educational performance, including partial sight or blindness

Analyzing the Special Education Process: A Step-by-Step Guide

Students must undergo a comprehensive process to determine their eligibility for special education services, confirm their specific needs, and ensure they receive appropriate support. Below, we'll cover the step-by-step process, from identifying their needs to reviewing their progress. Understanding these steps is crucial for parents, educators, and others who support students with special needs.

1. Identification and Referral

The first step in the special education process is identifying and referring students who may require special education services. This process often begins with teachers observing students experiencing difficulties in the classroom, such as attention, behavior, or academic performance. 

Initially, teachers may work with students individually and modify instructional strategies to address their needs. However, if these interventions fail to yield positive results, the teacher is obliged to involve the student's parents or guardians in conversations regarding the challenges their child is facing. Additionally, schools must acquire consent from the student's parent or legal guardian before conducting any assessments or providing special education services.

2. Evaluation and Assessment

Evaluating and assessing students' needs to determine their eligibility for special education services involves various evaluations to gather comprehensive information about their abilities, challenges, and requirements. These evaluations are conducted by a team of professionals, which may include educators, psychologists, speech-language pathologists, and other specialists. The types of evaluations typically completed during this process include:

• Speech-only evaluation: Focusing specifically on assessing speech-language abilities and communication skills
• Speech/language evaluation: Assessing both speech and language abilities, including articulation, fluency, comprehension, and expression
• Teacher narrative or observation: Gathering information from teachers regarding the student's academic performance, behavior, and learning needs through written narratives or direct observations in the classroom
• Full study evaluation: Comprehensive assessment covering various aspects of the student's development, including cognitive, academic, behavioral, and social-emotional functioning
• Socio-cultural evaluation: Examining the influence of cultural and social factors on the student's learning and development
• Psychological evaluation: Assessing cognitive abilities, emotional functioning, and psychological factors that may impact the student's educational performance
• Educational evaluation: Focusing on academic skills, learning style, and educational needs to determine the level of academic support required
• Parent narrative: Obtaining information from parents or guardians about their observations, concerns, and experiences related to their child's development and learning
• Medical evaluation: Conducted by medical professionals to assess any physical or medical conditions that may impact the student's educational needs
• Other evaluations, as needed: Additional assessments may be conducted based on the individual needs of the student, such as adaptive behavior assessments or assistive technology evaluations.

3. Eligibility Determination

Determining eligibility for special education services requires a thorough review of the evaluation results and compliance with legal requirements outlined in the IDEA. Once the evaluation process is completed, the school will conduct a comprehensive assessment of the student's strengths, weaknesses, and overall needs. This assessment considers input from parents or guardians, teachers, specialists, and other relevant individuals involved in the student's education.

The eligibility determination hinges on two key questions: whether the student has a disability and whether that disability adversely affects their academic and functional performance to the extent that they require special education services. If both questions are answered affirmatively, the student is officially deemed eligible for special education services.

4. Individualized Education Program (IEP) Development

Once a student is considered eligible for special education services, the IEP development process begins. The IEP team, comprising educators, specialists, parents or guardians, and the student (when appropriate), collaborates to identify the student's academic and functional needs based on the evaluation results. 

In order to meet the needs of the student and make progress, the IEP team sets measurable goals each year. They decide on the services and support the student requires and mention the education professionals responsible for providing them. The team also outlines the frequency and duration of the services and the settings where they will occur, known as placement.

5. Monitoring and Review

Lastly, monitoring student progress and periodic IEP reviews are needed. Regular monitoring helps educators and support staff track the student's academic and functional development, ensuring that the goals outlined in the IEP are being met effectively. 

Through ongoing assessment and observation, educators can identify any challenges or areas where additional support may be required. Periodic reviews of the IEP provide opportunities to assess the effectiveness of the current strategies and make any necessary adjustments.

Essential Skills Needed for Special Education Graduates

Becoming a special education teacher requires a range of skills and abilities to support students with disabilities effectively. These include:

• Ability to communicate well with students, parents, and colleagues
• Patience and compassion 
• Knowledge of specialized instructional strategies
• Adaptability to different situations and student needs
• Collaboration skills
• Familiarity with assistive technology
• Emotional intelligence
• Cultural sensitivity
• Time management skills

Special education and its dedicated educators play an invaluable role in ensuring that every student, regardless of their abilities or challenges, receives the support they need to thrive academically and socially. These teachers embody the spirit of inclusivity, championing diversity and equity in education. Through their efforts, special education fosters a culture of inclusivity where every student is valued and empowered to fulfill their dreams.

What does "special" stand for in education? ( Open this section)

"Special" in education refers to tailored or individualized instruction and support provided to students with disabilities or exceptionalities.

How do you identify children with special needs? ( Open this section)

Children with special needs are identified through a process involving evaluations, assessments, and observations to determine whether they require specialized educational services.

What are the most common special educational needs? ( Open this section)

Some of the most common special educational needs include learning disabilities, speech and language impairments, autism spectrum disorders, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies, Privacy Information .

• NAEYC Login
• Member Profile
• Hello Community
• Accreditation Portal
• Online Learning
• Online Store

Popular Searches:   DAP ;  Coping with COVID-19 ;  E-books ;  Anti-Bias Education ;  Online Store

Special Education

You are here

Most recent.

Modeling, Prompting, and Reinforcement: Fostering Social and Communication Skills in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Authored by.

Learning, Practicing, and Exhibiting Leadership: Helping Children Develop as Classroom Leaders

Embracing Disability Identity: Representation in Literature as a Tool Towards Inclusivity

Introduction: Using Identity Narratives to Inform ECE Practice

Member Spotlight: Priscilla Congdon

Spotlight on Young Children: Observation and Assessment, Volume 2

Promoting Inclusive Teaching and Learning Using the Engineering Design Process

Rocking and Rolling. Promoting Inclusion in Infant and Toddler Settings

Building Strong Family and Professional Partnerships from the Start: Highlights from the ASD Literature

Including Disability in Early Childhood Curricula: Evaluating and Using Children’s Books

Teaching Young Children About Disability

Fostering Engagement Within Inclusive Settings: The Role of the Physical-Social-Temporal Environment in Early Childhood Settings

Embedded Learning Opportunities for Children with and Without Disabilities

Individuality and Inclusive Practices for Early Childhood

Winter 2021

Addressing Sensory Differences: Creating a More Emotionally Safe and Socially Inclusive Preschool Classroom

When in Doubt, Reach Out: Teaming Strategies for Inclusive Early Childhood Settings

Spring 2021

(E-Book) The Essentials: Supporting Young Children with Disabilities in the Classroom *All Sales are Final

تطبيق نهج التعلم القائم على المشاريع في فصول الدمج: المحاولة الأولى لإحدى المعلمات لاستخدام التعلم القائم على المشاريع Implementing the Project Approach in an Inclusive Classroom: A Teacher’s First Attempt With Project-Based Learning (Voices)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Teachers' role model behavior and the quality of the student-teacher relationship as prerequisites for students' attitudes towards peers with learning difficulties provisionally accepted.

• 1 University of Paderborn, Germany

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

The introduction of inclusive education in primary schools has raised many questions about the impact of teachers' role model behavior on the social participation of students with learning difficulties. Based on the "theory of social referencing", this study examines whether students' attitudes towards peers with learning difficulties are predicted by perceptions of their teachers' role model behavior and the quality of the student-teacher relationship in the classroom. A questionnaire was completed by N = 753 primary school students regarding their perceptions of the student-teacher relationship, their attitudes towards peers with learning difficulties, and their perceptions of teacher behavior towards students with learning difficulties. The results of a structural equation model indicate that students' attitudes towards peers with learning difficulties can be explained significantly by their perceptions of teacher behavior and their perceptions of the quality of the student-teacher relationship in the classroom. The effect of students' perceptions of teacher behavior on their attitudes towards peers with learning difficulties is mediated by their perceptions of the studentteacher relationship. Thus, students focus more on teacher behavior when they perceive a positive student-teacher relationship. Our findings emphasize the importance of teachers' role model behavior in inclusive classrooms and offer opportunities to enhance the social participation of students with learning difficulties in inclusive primary school education.

Keywords: learning difficulties, attitudes, Inclusive education, Social Participation, social referencing

Received: 13 Mar 2024; Accepted: 18 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Löper and Hellmich. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Dr. Marwin F. Löper, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany

People also looked at

The Classic Journal

A journal of undergraduate writing and research, from wip at uga, the importance of special needs preservice preparations and experiences in art education.

by Nancy Suarez-Gonzalez, Art Education

Abstract: This paper explores the importance of special needs preservice preparations and experiences in Art Education and how they correlate with an art educator’s mindset, confidence, and efficiency in teaching students with Special Educational Needs and/or Disabilities (SEND). This study highlights that for all students to have an equal opportunity to acquire everyday life skills in an art classroom—such as critical thinking, collaboration, and communication—modifications need to be made to art educators’ preservice preparations. In current Art Education, an art educator’s insufficient knowledge and experience with students with SEND is an ongoing issue that is often overlooked and under-researched. Supporting evidence, facts, and quotes were gathered from various studies that provide varied perspectives regarding the fact that art educators lack training and/or knowledge regarding learning disabilities and special needs students. This educational error is in no part the educator’s fault but the systems. All issues possess a root cause in this case, higher education systems are failing to prepare art educators on the topic of special needs studies. This problem causes educators to feel less comfortable and confident which then leads to misconceptions and loss of motivation when teaching and integrating individuals with SEND in their classroom.

art education, special education, learning disabilities, preservice experiences, higher education

An interest of mine as a future art educator is to allow all of my students to develop their self-worth and confidence by teaching them the importance of creative expression. My vision is to provide an inclusive environment and a flexible curriculum to nurture all forms of learning to best meet all students’ basic needs. However, I question my ability and the possibility of this outcome due to the limited preparation art teachers gain concerning special education and that of various learning disabilities. Art Education is a field where individuals can learn and develop skills that are vital inside and outside the classroom. Therefore, it is of great importance for art teachers to be sufficiently prepared that all students have the same potential to achieve these lifelong skills.

This educational issue interested me after researching inclusive and empathetic approaches that can be taken in an art classroom. During my exploration of this previous research, I noticed an abundance of information related to learning disabilities and students with special needs. With further exploration, I learned that “art teachers frequently report feeling uncomfortable and frustrated when students with special needs are integrated into their art classrooms” (Bain & Hasio, 2011, p. 34). I wondered why this was the case since, in my understanding, educators should be willing to educate everyone—not handpick those whom they want to teach.

However, I noticed the problem was not the teachers themselves but the educational system that failed to prepare them for such situations. Throughout my inquiry, I will examine educators with enough training and knowledge regarding learning disabilities and special needs students can change their attitude and confidence toward having these students in their classrooms.

Undoubtedly, the integration of art into a student’s academic studies is vital. As Al Yahyai et al. (2021) reflect, “Visual arts are activities that contribute to educating learners with and without special needs. It is considered a source of satisfaction, development of feeling of achievement, happiness, and a means of activating thinking and learning” (p. 191). I would like to believe that all educators agree with this statement. However, art educators particularly struggle to gain sufficient experience with students who have special needs, an issue often overlooked and under-researched. According to Thompson et al. (2023), “specific research about school art teachers’ practice concerning students with SEND, is an under-researched area” (p 84). This causes me to question how long the problem has been known while little has been done to solve or minimize it. A main factor that diminishes an art educator’s ability to educate kids with SEND is their insufficient experience and/or knowledge of the matter. This then leads them to feel uncomfortable when students with SEND are integrated into their classrooms, limiting the student’s opportunity to experience the lifelong skills attained in an art classroom. The lack of knowledge regarding students with special needs and/or disabilities affects not only art educators but all educators. It leads them to develop a fixed attitude towards these groups of individuals. For example, Thompson et al. (2023) references the work of Mazenod et al. (2019) who states, “Some literature has shown that teachers judge students with SEND as lower achievers than those without SEND,” indicating they underestimate their academic ability” (p. 86). This judgment is intolerable because it can influence an educator’s motivation behind teaching someone due to their misconceptions. From past personal experience as a student at a public high school, many individuals, teachers, and students spread false information about those with special needs and disabilities. However, their lack of knowledge is at fault.

I believe if people were properly educated about how diverse students with special needs and disabilities are they would understand that not all individuals in this group are the same; as a matter of fact, they are all unique in their own ways like every other person in this world.

Ultimately, to be able to provide an inclusive environment with a flexible curriculum that nurtures all forms of learning, you must possess a basic knowledge of how to educate all of your students. Yet, this is hard to come by since “most teacher education programs do not offer sufficient coursework or field experiences in training pre-service art teachers to teach students with disabilities” (Begeske et al., 2023, p. 48). As a result of this, many teachers feel unprepared to teach those with SEND and are fixated on creating a curriculum for those with neurotypical brains. Research surveys taken by art teachers in 1967 supported the fact that art educators lack the skill to efficiently and comfortably teach students with SEND. With this information provided, there is a clear correlation that connects a lack of knowledge to the level of confidence when teaching diverse learners. Therefore, it is clear that “authentic experiences in local classrooms help preservice students feel empowered toward working with children with special needs” (Bain & Hasio, 2011, p. 39).

To further assess what art education has to offer to all students reflection is useful; you ever thought about the valuable skills you achieved from your childhood art class? These skills can be as simple as understanding a minimalist picture book or strengthening your creativity. For example, according to Montero (2023), “Past research has suggested incorporating design thinking in education helps students develop what are known as the Four C’s: collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking” (p. 155). A similarity between all these skills is that they are basic everyday necessities. This highlights the importance of why art education is critical in school systems and vital for all students’ personal development.

While growing up, the kids with special needs and/or disabilities were called “the special kids.” I noticed that they were segregated into different classrooms from my peers and me, which I never understood. As of now, I still have little knowledge of individuals with special needs and disabilities, but I am eager to learn. A proposed solution I have for future educators like me to navigate potentially segregated classrooms is the collaboration of special educators with art educators. I believe this collaboration will assist both types of educators because they lack the knowledge of each other’s expertise. Supported by Collier and Wix (2017), “Several special education teachers voiced their fear of succeeding in art, suggesting it was a scary and unfamiliar experience, while art teacher admitted their lack of education and experience regarding how to teach art to students with special needs” (p. 40). A collaboration will allow educators to work together to find a well-structured curriculum that provides diverse students the ability to learn confidently like every other student. In turn, each teacher will gain confidence in an unfamiliar content area: “Special education teachers will be exposed to opportunities to make art in a safe environment, and art education teachers will be faced with opportunities to create inclusive classroom environments” (Collier & Wix, 2017, p. 40).

Given the vast impact art education has on all students’ personal development—inside and outside a classroom—it should become a priority to provide everyone, with or without special needs and/or disabilities, an equal opportunity to experience such a life-changing class. Simple tasks such as exercising one’s creativity, critical thinking, and honing motor abilities through art classes play a huge part in personal and academic performance. Therefore, a significant step to ensure this possibility is to confront the issue of insufficient preparation and knowledge. A solution to this might look like implementing additional disability studies within an educational preparation curriculum in higher education (Al-Yahyai et al., 2021, p. 192) or even garnering further encouragement from K-12 schools regarding collaboration between special needs teachers and art teachers in classrooms.

Al-Yahyai, F., et al. (2021). Effects of a special art education course on attitudes toward Omani learners with special needs. International Journal of Higher Education, 10 (1), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n1p191

Bain, C., & Hasio, C. (2011). Authentic learning experience prepares preservice students to teach art to children with special needs. Art Education, 64 (2), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2011.11519118

Begeske, J., Lory, C., David, M., & Rispoli, M. (2023). Teacher education and students with disabilities in art class: a program evaluation. Arts Education Policy Review, 124 (1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2021.1937762

Collier, M., & Wix, L. (2017). Collaboration and care in an art and special education course. Art Education, 70 (5), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2017.1335545

Montero, J. (2023). Developing empathy through design thinking in elementary art education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 42 (1), 155–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12445

Pantaleo, S. (2016). Primary students’ understanding and appreciation of the artwork in picturebooks. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 16 (2), 228–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798415569816

Thompson, B., Finesilver, C., & Jones, J. (2023). An exploration of arts teachers’ beliefs and judgements concerning students with SEND. Support for Learning, 38 (2), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12434

Acknowledgements: To my former Cedar Shoals high school art teacher Ms. D’Huyvetter, my Art Education instructor Devin Jo, and my parents, Miguel Suarez and Gloria Gonzalez. Thank you for supporting and inspiring me to become better!

Citation Style : APA

Data Tables

These tables present detailed data on the demographic characteristics, educational history, sources of financial support, and postgraduation plans of doctorate recipients. The Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) data tables were reorganized and renumbered in 2021; see table B-1 in the " Technical Notes " for a crosswalk comparing the current tables with those prior to 2021. Explore SED data further via the interactive data tool and the Restricted Data Analysis System . Kelly Kang Survey Manager, SED NCSES

• All Formats (.zip 8.0 MB)
• PDF (.zip 6.9 MB)
• Excel (.zip 1.1 MB)
• MORE DOWNLOADS OPTIONS

Trends in research doctorate recipient characteristics

Trends in postgraduation commitments of research doctorate recipients, field and demographic characteristics of research doctorate recipients, financial support and education-related debt of research doctorate recipients, educational and background characteristics of research doctorate recipients, postgraduation commitments and salaries of research doctorate recipients, doctorate institutions, locations, and countries of origins of research doctorate recipients, statistical profiles of research doctorate recipients, postgraduation plans of research doctorate recipients.