Authors

Susanne Schwab, Universität Graz

Markus Gebhardt, TU München

Barbara Gasteiger-Klicpera, Universität Graz

Corresponding Author

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Susanne Schwab

Email: susanne.schwab@uni-graz.at

Abstract

Class placement alone cannot be seen as a determining factor for inclusive education. The present study analyses the link between and social and emotional integration and social behavior. Self- and teacher-assessed social behavior as well as self-estimated social and emotional integration were analyzed in a sample of 179 fifth graders from integration classes in Austria. The comparisons between students with and without special education needs (SEN) illustrate that students with SEN showed more indirect aggressive behavior and less pro-social behavior than students without SEN. Regarding the emotional integration, students with SEN felt as well integrated as students without SEN; nevertheless they felt less integrated socially. Relationships between social behavior and self-estimated social and emotional integration were found; especially pro-social behavior and victimization play an important role in both subgroups. These results suggest that the social behavior of all students in integration classes deserves attention.

Introduction

While the positive impact of integration on school achievement of students with and without disabilities was shown in several studies (Merz, 1982; Haeberlin et al., 1999; Myklebust, 2002; 2006; Tent et al., 1991), the current state of research regarding the social integration of students with disabilities demonstrates a more negative picture of inclusion. The significance of inclusion should not only consist of placing all children in the same class, but should also enrich social participation of students with and without disabilities (Rossmann, Gasteiger-Klicpera, Gebhardt, Roloff, & Weindl, 2011, Haeberlin, Bless, Moser, & Klaghofer, 1999; Eberwein, 1999; Huber, 2006; Avramidis, 2010). Real social integration leads to a positive common social life in the entire class. This means not only for the peers to act tolerantly and respectfully, but over and above a collective responsibility for each other and learning to support and care for other children in class (Klicpera & Gasteiger-Klicpera, 2003). Although some studies show positive experiences with disabled and non-disabled students in integrative settings (Cole, Vandercook, & Rynders, 1988), on average, children with SEN have fewer friends and are more often disapproved by their classmates in integration classes than children without SEN (Frostad & Pijl, 2007; Huber, 2008; Ochoa & Palmer, 1995; Pijl, Frostad, & Flem, 2008; Pijl & Frostad, 2010; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009; Swanson & Malone, 1992). Research further seems to indicate that children with SEN are less accepted and more often segregated than children without SEN (e.g. Pijl & Frostad, 2010; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). Many studies deal with the popularity of students with and without SEN, but these studies rarely control conspicuous social behavior, especially aggressive behavior (Rossmann et al., 2011). It is assumed that social behavior and social and emotional integration are related.

In German speaking countries, the question which behavioral attributes lead to segregation from the peer group has been neglected until now (Huber, 2006; Gasteiger-Klicpera, Klicpera, & Hippler, 2001). On the one hand, evidence for the prominent relationship between negative social behavior and being an outsider in class was found by Mands (2007). In his study, students with behavioral problems were disliked in both inclusive and special education systems. On the other hand, popular students with learning disabilities show more pro-social behavior than less popular students with learning disabilities (Haeberlin et al., 1999; Randoll, 1991).

It is well known that popular children are more helpful and cooperative, whereas socially rejected children show significantly more aggressive behavior than their peers (Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998; Gürtler, 2005; Hobi-Ragaz, 2008). Along these lines, Nabuzoka and Smith (1993) pointed out that the outsider status of children with learning disabilities mostly results from withdrawn and little cooperative behavior. Moreover, Huber (2006), summarizing a series of international studies (both in the general population and for students with SEN), showed that social competences, social withdrawal, aggressiveness and cognitive abilities were important factors for predicting social integration in school classes. For children with SEN, studies showed that aggressive behavior led to social rejection (Gasteiger-Klicpera et. al., 2001; Haeberlin et al., 1999), whereas positive social behavior correlated strongly with popularity (Haeberlin et al., 1999; Randoll, 1991). According to Klicpera and Gasteiger-Klicpera (2003), children with SEN are not only those who show more aggressive behavior, they are also more often victims of classmates´ aggressive acts, implying a relationship between being aggressive and getting victimized by others.

Research questions

The aim of this study is to further explore the relationship between social behavior and social integration, both in the subgroup of students with and without SEN, by analyzing self- and teacher evaluations. Before exploring the relationships, it is important to investigate whether differences exist regarding social behavior and the social and emotional integration of students with and without SEN. This leads to the four research questions for this study.

1. The first research objective deals with the self estimation of students’ social behavior. It addresses the question whether there are differences in social behavior between students with and without SEN. At this juncture, direct and indirect aggressive behavior, as well as pro-social behavior (self-estimated) will be analyzed. The research literature previously cited led to the hypotheses that children with SEN show more aggressive behavior and less pro-social behavior than students without SEN. Furthermore, the estimated pro-social behavior of peers and the aggressive behavior of peers are analyzed to find confirmation for the idea that students with SEN are more often victimized.

2. The second question concerns teachers’ ratings of students’ social behavior. Do the teachers have the same perception as the students? Do teachers estimate students with SEN as more aggressive (direct and indirect)? Do teachers more frequently notice victimization in students with SEN than in students without SEN? Do teachers witness less pro-social behavior in children with SEN compared to children without SEN?

3. Students with SEN in integration classes appear to feel less socially integrated than students without SEN. Regarding the emotional integration, the results are inconsistent. Therefore, the third research question is whether students with SEN differ from students without SEN concerning their self estimated emotional and social integration.

4. The fourth question relates to the associations between social and emotional integration (self-estimated) and social behavior. Are the correlations between the self-estimated emotional and social integration and the various variables of social behavior (self and teacher assessed) similar for children with and without SEN? Can aspects of social behavior be identified that seem to play an important role for the (self-estimated) integration of students without SEN, but not or only marginally for students with SEN and/or vice versa?

Research Method

Procedure

The data set for this study is taken from the first survey from the study „Schulische Integration im Längsschnitt – KompetenzEntwicklung bei SchülerInnen mit und ohne SPF in der Sekundarstufe I – SILKE“ (Academic integration in a longitudinal study – development of competences of students with and without SEN in secondary schools; for further analyses see also Gebhardt, Schwab, Krammer & Gasteiger-Klicpera, 2012; Gebhardt, Schaupp, Schwab, Rossmann, & Gasteiger-Klicpera, 2012). At the end of the academic year, students from eight integrative classes (and one special class in the 5th grade, which was excluded from further analysis in this article) were surveyed in Styria regarding their academic performance and social integration. The assessments were carried out with all students in integrative arrangements, including students with and without SEN. The assessments took place during the first two hours of two consecutive school days. Depending on the class, the test took 70-100 minutes per day. Assistants supported SEN students on a one-to-one whenever deemed necessary. In addition, the regular and the special needs teacher filled out a questionnaire about every student taking part in the study.

Sample

Students:

In the course of the study 179 students (116 boys, 63 girls) from eight different classes were tested. The average number of students in a class was 22. Four to six children with SEN received integrated schooling in each class. The 95 male and the 49 female students without SEN had a mean age of 11.52 years (SD=0.74). The students with SEN (21 male and 14 female students) were slightly older with 11.84 years (SD=0.84). 85.7% of the students with SEN in this sample had a learning disability. Most of the students with SEN in integrative settings in Austria have learning disabilities regarding one or more subjects (e.g., German or Mathematics). This type of disability is similar to the ICF (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, WHO, 2001) category B, students with Learning Difficulties (WHO, 2001). Due to the fact that one student could not communicate because of the severity of her impairment (severe intellectual disability), she was excluded from the sample. Of the students without SEN 49.3% had a migration background. 60% of the students with SEN were immigrant children.

Teachers:

Inclusive education in Austria is essentially characterized by joint classes taught by a regular classroom teacher and a special needs teacher. The special needs teacher is mainly responsible for supporting the children with disabilities and ensures that special needs students are adequately served within the inclusive classroom. The regular class teacher is constantly present in the classroom. The special needs teacher is nearly always present in class, but he/she primarily focuses on the special needs children. The teachers were asked to discuss the student together and to jointly fill in the questionnaire. The teachers’ work experience ranged from one to 37 years in regular classes, and from one to 18 years in the integration classes.

Instruments:

The students were asked to fill out a number of subscales from two instruments. The first questionnaire, “dimensions of integration” (FDI 4-6; Haeberlin, Moser, Bless, & Klaghofer, 1989) was used to measure social and emotional integration. Each scale consists of 15 items. The answer format in the FDI was a 5-point rating scale with anchors 0 = not true and 4 = very much true. The second questionnaire, “Leben in der Klasse” (Live in the class – LIC; Gasteiger-Klicpera, 2001), consisted of six scales and is based on the Children's Self-Experience Questionnaire (Crick & Grotpeter, 1996). The first part of the questionnaire deals with the student’s own behavior towards classmates (direct aggressions, 4 items; indirect aggressions, 4 items; pro-social behavior, 4 items), the second part concerns peers’ behavior (direct victimization, 5 items; indirect victimization, 5 items; classmates pro-social behavior, 5 items). For the LIC the answer format was also a 5-point rating scale with 0 = never to 4 = very often. An overview of the students’ scales including examples and reliability is given in table 1.

Table 1 Overview of Student Questionnaires

The teacher questionnairehas a similar format as the LIC and asks about the students’ behavior towards his or her classmates. An example of such questions is “Some students start brawls. How often does this student do that?” The questionnaire comprises the scales “direct aggressions” (3 items), “indirect aggressions” (2 items), “pro-social behavior” (3 items), and “victimization” (3 items). Cronbach´s alpha ranges from .79 to .93.

Data Analysis

To investigate the differences between students with and without SEN in social behavior, multivariate analyses and t-tests were conducted for all self and teacher assessed variables. The correlations between the social and emotional integration and the various variables of social behavior were analyzed separately for students with and without SEN.

Results

Differences between students with and without SEN in social and emotional integration

The multivariate analysis of variance with SEN (with vs. without SEN) as independent variable and the self-assessments of social and emotional integration as dependent variables indicated a significant main effect for social integration (F1,155=5.18, p<.05, partial Eta2=.03). Students with SEN (M=2.40, SD= 0.82) feel less socially integrated than students without SEN (M=2.72, SD=0.71).

Emotional integration appears to be comparable for students with and without SEN (M=2.11, SD=1.06, F1,155=1.04, n.s., partial Eta2=.01).

Self estimated social behavior

Self-assessed direct aggressive behavior does not differ between students with and without SEN, but students without SEN show less indirect aggressive behavior than children with SEN. Furthermore, students without SEN rate their pro-social behavior higher than students with SEN. The results also show that students without SEN less often face indirect victimization than students with SEN. Regarding direct victimization, no significant difference are found. Finally, students without SEN experienced more pro-social behavior from their peers than students with SEN.

Table 2:

Self-assessments of direct and indirect aggressive behavior, prosocial behavior, direct and indirect victimization and classmates' prosocial behavior (Means, standard deviations, t-values, degrees of freedom) in students without (N=144) and with SEN (N=35).

**p<.01, *p<.05;

Teacher ratings of students’ social behavior

The teacher ratings show no significant differences in direct and indirect aggressive behavior between students with without SEN. According to the teachers, students without SEN more often show pro-social behavior than their classmates with SEN. Furthermore, students without SEN seem to be less affected by victimization than students with SEN.

Table 3:

Teachers’ ratings of direct and indirect aggressive behavior, prosocial behavior and victimization (Mean values, standard deviations, t-values, degrees of freedom) in students without and (N=144) and with SEN (N=35)

**p<.01, *p<.05;

Interrelations between social behavior and social and emotional integration of children without SEN

To answer the question whether correlational patterns are comparable for students with and without SEN, the correlations between self-estimated emotional and social integration and the various variables of social behavior (self and teacher assessed) are given for the two groups separately. These are presented in Table 4. Since the distributions were rather skewed, we preferred to calculate spearman Rho instead of Pearson correlations.

Table 4:

Correlations between social and emotional integration and self-assessments and teacher assessments of behavior of students without (N=144) and with SEN (N=35)

** p < .01, *p < .05, # p < .1

Social Integration

For children without SEN, social integration, is only weakly correlated with emotional integration (rs=.25, p<.05). The self-assessment of social behavior shows a weak negative correlation with direct aggressive behavior (rs = -.21, p<.05), and pro-social behavior is positively correlated with social integration (rs =.38, p<.01).

Regarding the peers’ behavior, victimization shows a weak negative correlation to social integration (rs = -.23, p<.01), whereas pro-social behavior of classmates shows a moderate positive correlation to social integration (rs =.51, p<.01).

The teachers’ assessments also show significant correlations between social behavior and social integration. Direct aggressive behavior is negatively (but weakly) correlated to social integration (rs = -.18, p<.05) while pro-social behavior is positively (also weakly) related to the students’ social integration (rs =.18, p<.05). Victimization and social integration show are weak negative correlation (rs = -.25, p<.01).

Emotional Integration

Regarding the emotional integration, only one self-assessed variable of social behavior was correlated significant with emotional behavior. Self-rated directly aggressive behavior was related negative to emotional integration (rs =-.31, p<.01). There were no significant correlation found between peers’ social behavior and emotional integration.

Moreover, teacher rated direct aggressive behavior was correlated negative with emotional integration (rs =-.21, p<.01) and teacher rated pro-social behavior was related positive with (rs =.19, p<.05) emotional integration.

Relations of the social behavior with the social and emotional integration in children with SEN

Social Integration

For children with SEN, partially other correlations are found. Social integration is correlated moderately with emotional integration (rs=.47, p<.01). Self-estimated pro-social behavior is correlated negatively with social integration (rs = -.36, p<.05), which means that this correlation runs in the opposite direction compared to what was expected. Direct (rs = -.44, p<.05) and indirect (rs = -.37, p<.05) victimization negatively correlated to social integration. Teachers’ rating of the victimization and self-estimated social integration are also negatively correlated (rs = -.43, p<.05).

Emotional Integration

In the subgroup of students with SEN, self-estimated indirect aggressive behavior is negatively correlated to emotional integration (rs = -.45, p<.05). Furthermore, significant correlations are found with peers’ pro-social behavior (rs = .36, p<.05), and teachers’ ratings of direct aggressive behavior (rs = -.40, p<.05) and victimization (rs = -.43, p<.05).

Discussion

First of all, this study investigated the social behavior of children with and without SEN. Comparisons of mean values indicated that children with SEN more frequently show negative social behavior, that they show less pro-social behavior and that they are more frequently victim of aggressions. This is confirmed by different estimations of social behavior (self and teachers’ estimations). The fact that the different assessments confirm the same findings indicates a high level of validity of the results. The conclusions by Klicpera and Gasteiger-Klicpera (2003) are corroborated by these results.

Differences in the self-assessed social and emotional integration between students with and without SEN were investigated using analysis of variance. Although the emotional integration (e.g., likes being at school) was assessed at a similar level, the social integration (e.g., having lots of friends) was declared lower by students with SEN. Thus, despite a lower social integration, students with SEN feel equally well integrated emotionally as students without SEN. These results are in accordance with previous research (e.g., Haeberlin et al., 1999; Huber, 2006; Randoll, 1991).

The research literature already showed that a relationship exists between social behavior and being integrated (e.g., Haeberlin et al., 1999; Mand, 2007; Randoll, 1991). This study also analyzed the relationships between positive and negative social behaviors and integration. This study generally confirmed significant correlations between social behavior and integration. Thus, this study endorses the assumption that social behavior plays an important role in the integration of students with SEN (Rossmann et al., 2011). Furthermore, the study showed that for students with and without SEN, partially the same aspects of social behavior correlate with social and emotional integration (e.g., teachers’ assessments of direct and indirect aggressive behavior in relation to social integration). However, some aspects of social behavior are differently correlated in both groups. For example, for students without SEN the highest correlation was found between pro-social behavior of classmates and social integration, whereas for students with SEN, victimization (self- and teacher-assessed) showed the highest correlation with social integration. For the emotional integration self-assessed direct aggressive behavior showed the highest correlation in the sample of students without SEN and self-assessed indirect aggression appeared not correlated with emotional integration. In the sample of students with SEN on the other hand, the highest correlation was found between emotional integration and self-assessed indirect aggression. Finally, one very surprising correlational result was found. While pro-social behavior was positively correlated to social integration in the sample of students without SEN, this relation appeared inversed in the sample of students with SEN. This results was found in both the self-assessment and the teacher’s assessment, so it does not seem to be an artifact of the instrument. One possible explanation of this result could be that students with SEN, who are less socially integrated, try to show more pro-social behavior to obtain a higher social integration, but apparently this does not seem to work. Thus, to some extent, for children with and without SEN, different aspects of their social behavior seem important for their perception of their own social and emotional integration.

Conclusion

Social and emotional integration is related to several aspects of social behavior. In this study, the emotional integration of students with SEN appeared to be comparable to students without SEN, but students with SEN felt less socially integrated. Correlation analyses of social and emotional integration and social behavior showed that these variables are related; especially the pro-social behavior of classmates and victimization play an important role in self-estimated social and emotional integration. These results suggest that in integration classes, the social behavior of all students should be considered important. For future research it will be necessary to accompany students in integration classes longitudinally to be able to observe the development of their academic and social concerns (social behavior, social integration, emotional integration) and to conceive arrangements for a well-functioning inclusive education.

References

Avramidis, E. (2010). Social relationships of students with special educational needs in the mainstream primary class: peer group membership and peer‐assessed social behaviour, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(4), 413-429.

Bless, G., & Schleenbecker, K. (2007). Die Effekte von Sonderunterricht und Gemeinsamem Unterricht auf die Entwicklung von Kindern mit Lernbehinderungen. In J. Walter & F. Wember (Eds.), Sonderpädagogik des Lernens; Handbuch Sonderpädagogik - Band 2 (pp. 375-383). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Buhrmester, D., Furman,W., Wittenberg, M., & Reis, H. (1988). Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 991–1008.

Cole, A. D., Vandercook, T., & Rynders, J. (1988). Comparison of two peer interaction programs: Children with and without severe disabilities. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 415-439.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children´s treatment by peers: Victims of relational and overt aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 367-380.

Eberwein, H. (1999). Integrationspädagogik als Weiterentwicklung (sonder-)pädagogischen Denkens und Handelns. In H. Eberwein (Ed.), Integrationspädagogik – Kinder mit und ohne Behinderung lernen gemeinsam (pp. 55-68). Weinheim: Beltz.

Frostad, P., & Pijl, S. J. (2007). Does being friendly help in making friends? The relation between the social position and social skills of students with special needs in mainstream education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22, 15–30.

Gasteiger-Klicpera, B. (2001). Aggression und Klassengemeinschaft: Entwicklung und Einflußfaktoren. Habilitationsschrift. Universität Wien.

Gasteiger-Klicpera, B., & Klicpera, C. (2003). Warum fühlen sich Schüler einsam? Einflussfaktoren und Folgen von Einsamkeit im schulischen Kontext. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 52, 1-16.

Gasteiger-Klicpera, B., Klicpera, C. & Hippler, K. (2001). Soziale Anpassungsschwierigkeiten bei lernbehinderten Schülern und Schülern mit speziellen Lernbeeinträchtigungen: Eine Literaturübersicht. Heilpädagogische Forschung, 17, 72 -87.

Gebhardt, M., Schaupp, H., Schwab, S., Rossmann, P., & Gasteiger Klicpera, B. (2012). Heterogene Gruppen in mathematischen Grundfertigkeiten. Eine explorative Erkundung der Fähigkeiten im Grundrechnen in Integrationsklassen der 5. Schulstufe. Zeitschrift für Inklusion, 1-2. Verfügbar unter www.inklusion-online.net/index.php/inklusion/article/view/155/147 [24.09.2012]

Gebhardt, M., Schwab, S., Krammer, M. & Gasteiger-Klicpera, B. (2012). Achievement and integration ofstudents with and without special educational needs (SEN) in the fifth grade. Journal of special education and rehabilitation, 13, 3-4, 7-19.

Gürtler, C. (2005). Soziale Ungleichheit unter Kindern: Über die Rolle von Kind- und Elternhausmerkmalen für die Akzeptanz und den Einfluss eines Kindes in seiner Schulklasse. Dissertation. Potsdam.

Haeberlin, U., Bless, G., Moser, U., & Klaghofer, R. (1989). Integration in die Schulklasse: Fragebogen zur Erfassung von Dimensionen der Integration von Schülern: FDI 4-6. In U. Haeberlin (Ed.). Beiträge zur Heil- und Sonderpädagogik, 8. Beiheft zur Vierteljahresschrift für Heilpädagogik und ihre Nachbargebiete (pp. xx) Bern: Haupt.

Haeberlin, U., Bless, G., Moser, U., & Klaghofer, R. (1999). Die Integration von Lernbehinderten: Versuche, Theorien, Forschungen, Enttäuschungen, Hoffnungen (Volume 3). Bern: Haupt.

Hobi-Ragaz, G. (2008). Reproduktion sozialer Ungleichheit? Die Bedeutung von Eltern-, Kind- und Familienmerkmalen für den sozialen Status unter gleichaltrigen der mittleren Kindheit. In M. Eisner, & D. Ribeaud (Eds.), Forschungsbericht aus der Reihe z-proso Zürcher Projekt zur sozialen Entwicklung von Kindern Zürich, August 2008, Bericht Nr. 07 (pp. xx). Retrieved from http://www.ife.uzh.ch/fckeditor_downloads/file/Z-proso/04_Publikationen/02_Forschungsberichte/02_Vollstaendige_Berichte/FB_Nr7_GHobiRagaz.pdf [01.03.2011]

Huber, C. (2006). Soziale Integration in der Schule?! Eine empirische Untersuchung zur sozialen Integration von Schülern mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf im gemeinsamen Unterricht. Marburg: Tectum.

Huber, C. (2008). Jenseits des Modellversuchs: Soziale Integration von Schülern mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf im Gemeinsamen Unterricht: Eine Evaluationsstudie. Heilpädagogische Forschung, 34, 2-14.

Klicpera, C., & Gasteiger-Klicpera, B. (2003). Soziale Erfahrungen von Grundschülern mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf in Integrationsklassen: Betrachtet im Kontext der Maßnahmen zur Förderung sozialer Integration. Heilpädagogische Forschung, 2, 61–71.

Klicpera, C., & Gasteiger-Klicpera, B. (2003). Unterscheiden sich die sozialen Erfahrungen von Schülern ohne Behinderung und die von den Lehrern initiierten Gelegenheiten zum sozialen Lernen in Integrations- und Vergleichsklassen? Sonderpädagogik, 33(4), 198-210.

Mand, J. (2007). Social position of special needs students in classroom: A comparison between German special schools for students with learning difficulties and integrated primary school classes. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22, 7–14.

Merz, K. (1982). Lernschwierigkeiten: Zur Effizienz von Fördermaßnahmen an Grund- und Lernbehindertenschulen. Heilpädagogische Forschung, 1, 53–69.

Myklebust, J. O. (2002). Inclusion or exclusion? Transition among special needs students in upper secondary education in Norway. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 251-263.

Myklebust, J. O. (2006). Class placement and competence attainment among students with special education needs. British Journal of Special Education, 33, 76-81.

Nabuzoka, D., & Smith, P. K. (1993). Sociometric status and social behavior of children with and without learning difficulties. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 1435-1448.

Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children's peer relations: A meta-analysis of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99-128.

Ochoa, S., & Palmer, D. (1995). A meta-analysis of peer rating sociometric studies of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 29, 1-19.

Pijl, S. J., & Frostad, P. (2010). Peer acceptance and self-concept of students with disabilities in regular education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(1), 93-105.

Pijl, S. J., Frostad P., &. Flem A. (2008). The social position with special needs in regular schools. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(4), 387-405.

Randoll, D.(1991). Lernbehinderte in der Schule: Integration oder Segregation. Köln, Wien: Böhlau.

Rossmann, P., Gasteiger-Klicpera, B., Gebhardt, M., Roloff, C., & Weindl, A. (2011). Zum Selbstkonzept von SchülerInnen mit Sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf in Sonderschulen und Integrationsklassen: Ein empirisch fundierter Diskussionsbeitrag. In R. Mikula & H. Kittl-Safran (Eds.), Dimensionen der Erziehungs- und Bildungswissenschaft (pp. 107-120). Graz: Leykam.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski W. M., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 619-700). New York: Wiley.

Ruijs, N. M., & Peetsma, T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educational Research Review, 4, 67–79.

Tent, L., Witt, M., Bürger, W., & Zschoche-Lieberum, C. (1991). Ist die Schule für Lernbehinderte überholt? Heilpädagogische Forschung, 1, 289–320.

World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Marco Hessels for his careful review of our English text and his suggestions to improve precision and clarity.

International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation
Volume 12, No. 1
www.ijdcr.ca
ISSN 1703-3381