students’ opinions about their classroom climate in inclusive...

Paper, presented at NERA’s 38th Congress, Malmö University, 11-13 March 2010 Susan Tetler & Kirsten Baltzer, DPU, University of Aarhus

1

Students’ opinions about their classroom climate in inclusive settings

Susan Tetler & Kirsten Baltzer, DPU, University of Aarhus

In the Scandinavian countries we have for decades accepted the idea that our regular schools should in-

clude all learners – regardless of the type and degree of their disability. The question, however, is whether

this is an ideal rather than an actual practice, as the practice seems often to fall short of the mark. Scandi-

navian research literature, at any rate, indicates several problematic experiences for students placed in

inclusive settings (Emanuelsson, 1998; Dalen, 1999; Tetler, 2000; Nes, 2004; Marinosson, Ohna, and Tetler,

2007). Thus, the huge gap between ideology and reality – and the reasons for this gap - seems to be crucial

for the outcome of the efforts of inclusion.

It raises questions whether - and how - we judge the ‘quality’ of inclusive settings. Have for instance the

efforts in inclusive settings been reduced to a matter of physical placement, depending on the child’s

adaptability to the more or less standardised norms of the mainstream school? Or are the efforts character-

ized by flexibility and comprehensiveness, allowing students with disabilities to be involved as active par-

ticipants on their own terms? This kind of questions implies a organizational perspective, as we know that

the way in which the learning environment is organized for students with disabilities, affects the outcomes

(academically, socially and personally) for that group of students (as for other groups of students) (Dyson,

Howes, and Roberts, 2002; Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson, 2006; Black-Hawkins, Florian, and Rouse, 2007;

Alborz, Pearson, Farrell, and Howes, 2009; Sydney, 2010).

Farrell argues for a school-related concept of inclusion, containing four aspects: presence, acceptance, par-

ticipation and achievement (2004), as he stresses: ‘It is not, for example, sufficient for children to simply be

present in a school’ (ibid, p 8). Are schools to be characterized as inclusive, they should also welcome all

students and accept them as valuable and active participants of their learning community. Furthermore, all

students should be allowed to participate and contribute in all school activities, as well as to learn and to

develop positive views of themselves. Thus, the research challenge is how to gain substantial knowledge

about what constitutes a quality inclusive setting by examining the four aspects from teachers’, parents’

and students’ views. The study, reported on in this article, concerns the students’ own perceptions. How do

they experience their outcomes of being students in inclusive settings, and how do they characterize the

learning conditions, which they face?

Research on students’ perspectives on learning

In the research field of special education we see a lack of research projects taking the student perspective

seriously. Gaining more substantial knowledge about increased problems in schools with disengagement,

marginalisation and school failure, we need to ask students at risk, how they perceive their role in schools,

and what they experience as characteristics of their learning environment. In order to deal effectively with

that kind of problems we need to understand their motives, incentives and their will to learn. It is the eve-

ryday school life with all its multitude of interactions in learning situations that constitutes the conditions

for taking courage, believing in oneself and learning to look upon oneself as important for the community.

In this way, the student’s will to learn is related to conditions that would overall be described in terms of

learning environment and classroom climate.


2

Classroom climate, learning environment and learning management are related topics, which showed up

on the educational (research) agenda in the 1960s. Since then, the theme has been a field of research of

significant growth and has particularly focused on factors that are supportive of learning. According to a

recent research meta-review, ‘there is clear evidence that the quality of the classroom climate is a signifi-

cant determinant of learners’ achievement. They learn better when they have positive perceptions of the

classroom environment’ (Mitchell, 2008, p 103). Three main factors of creating a climate that facilitates

learning have been identified (ibid. p 103-104):

1) Relationships (the extent to which people in the classroom support and help each other).

2) Personal development (the extent to which personal growth and self-enhancement is facilitated).

3) System maintenance (the extent to which the classroom is orderly, and educators are clear in their

expectations, maintain control and are responsive to change).

Mitchell finds that learning environment and classroom climate depict nearly the same factors related to

learning in schools, and this view is supported by a review from Danish Clearinghouse for Educational Re-

search (Nordenbo, 2008). This review defines classroom climate as a construct including three indicators: 1)

Student activity (the extent to which students are involved in decisions about classroom activities) and mo-

tivation (especially self- or inner motivation), 2) Supportive behaviour (the extent to which the teacher in-

volves students in structuring the learning situation and supportive collaboration), and 3) Student/teacher

relationship (the extent to which the teacher is supportive in relation to student initiatives and motivation).

The wording is slightly different from Mitchell’s, but the content is in fact overlapping.

Bronfenbrenner (1986) focuses upon the relation between the learning context and acquisition of personal

competences. A learning context is characterized by situational requirements and demands, and develop-

ment of competence is a result of the interaction between the context and personal attributes (Wentzel,

2006). These are cognitive, self-monitoring, and self-regulating skills as well as personal goals and values.

Student experiences are primarily influenced by proximal processes as relations, communication, and inter-

actions (Bronfenbrenner, 1999), and positive experiences are related to the quality of proximal processes.

Bronfenbrenner defines these processes as proximal, but they need further elaboration to serve as con-

structs for operationalization into research tools.

The lesson to be learnt from Bronfenbrenner is that tools for our study should include indicators related to

the learning context in a broader perspective, learning situations, social relationships between the teacher

and student as well as among students, communication and interaction from the interpersonal as from the

intrapersonal perspective. Mitchell’s and Nordenbo’s meta-reviews give hints about how to transform

Bronfenbrenner’s concept of proximal processes into research tools.

However, Nordenbo (2008) mentions the issue of the German traditions with focus on ‘Bildung’, when con-

ducting meta-reviews on classroom management, following the guidelines presented in The Clearing House

concept (2006). According to the German tradition, education is rooted in philosophy, and this tradition has

been very influential in the Scandinavian countries including Denmark. Nordenbo argues that the ethics and

morality included in the philosophical position of ‘Bildung’ and didactics is indeed a necessary perspective.

Within this tradition there has been no focus on the consequences for management of the teaching and

learning processes, and it is nearly impossible to find studies fulfilling the criteria for inclusion in a Clearing


3

House review. The same criticism is relevant concerning Mitchell’s meta-review, as he focuses solely on the

classroom’s psychological climate. This criticism has to be considered when creating a research tool based

on Bronfenbrenner’s position. In other words, the tool has to reflect the Danish learning context inspired

from both the German tradition for centuries and for the International tradition mainly rooted in Anglo-

American traditions and studies, which is an upcoming inspiration. As a consequence it was necessary to

seek further inspiration from another meta-review conducted within a German context. The German re-

searcher in didactics Hilbert Meyer (2004) has done a meta-review on good teaching. He finds ten charac-

teristics of good teaching, which include more details about the structure of the teaching process, commu-

nication and differentiation. Meyer mentions that it has not been possible to find evidence for communica-

tion as characteristic for good teaching in the meta-review. However, he finds it necessary to include com-

munication in the list.

Allodi (2007) has prepared and tested a theory-based instrument for assessing the quality of learning envi-

ronments in Swedish schools. There are many similarities between Mitchell’s definition based on a meta-

review and Allodi’s theory-based empirical model evaluated from a holistic perspective. However, the

higher-order factors (Allodi) and the main factors (Mitchell) combine the lower order factors into different

patterns. They fit into Bronfenbrenner’s views as well. Allodi finds that Self-affirmation (including Achieve-

ment, Efficacy and Safety) has a central position in evaluating the quality of learning environment. Self-

Affirmation has an interpersonal as well as an intrapersonal dimension. Hence, it has been necessary to

expand the theoretical perspectives. The concept ‘efficacy’ is rooted in Bandura’s social learning theory.

According to Bandura (1994) ‘perceived self-efficacy is defined as people’s beliefs about their capabilities to

produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives. Self-

efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave’ (1994, p 71). A strong

sense of self-efficacy is a major motivational factor, in school settings as in other settings, where people

conduct their lives. There are four main sources to a strong sense of efficacy: Mastery experiences, vicari-

ous experiences provided by social models, social persuasion, and somatic and emotional states. It has to

be mentioned that social persuasion is verbal persuasion and includes competence to structure situations -

for oneself as for other people - in ways bringing success. Part of this competence is to avoid situations or

challenges where people are likely to fail.

Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy is one of the cornerstones in his social learning theory. Bandura (1994)

elaborates a model of personal and social dimensions which sets the stage for an understanding of motiva-

tion for learning as a synthesis of self-regulated processes taking place in social interactions. Later on Ban-

dura (1997) developed the construct of collective efficacy which means that groups can develop shared

efficacy beliefs. Efficacy is thus an important major dynamic source of motivation for self-monitoring, often

mentioned as self-regulated learning (SRL) (McCaslin et al., 2006). Self-Regulated Learning is in focus of the

theories about learning prepared by the Russian psychologist L.S. Vygotsky (ibid). Vygotsky has two impor-

tant foci related to SRL. The first is the focus on the multiple functions of language: Communicative lan-

guage is transforming thoughts into speech; in contrast language or speech directing the self transforms

speech into thoughts – Vygotsky labels it inner speech. He finds that the capacity for self-regulation

emerges from the interpersonal regulation mediated by language or speech. From this theoretical stance

communication is a key-element of good teaching. The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is a construct

closely related to the understanding of self-regulation. ZPD recognizes what learners cannot do themselves,

but are able to do with assistance or support, and is a potent target for learning. As a consequence the rela-

tionship between the participants in ZPD is central – be it peers, teachers or adult significant others.


4

Bandura and Vygotsky have developed important key-concepts which elaborates the understanding of the

concept ‘learning environment’. Vygotsky adds richness to Bronfenbrenner’s concept of communication

and interactions. Goals and values are mentioned in Bronfenbrenner’s list of personal attributes. Bandura

adds richness to the understanding of goals. Following Bronfenbrenner, goals and values are embedded in

the school context in curricula and syllabi. Somehow curricula and syllabi should be reflected in the re-

search tool, because they set up a framework for the proximal processes: communication, interactions and

relations. Finally, we have to bear in mind, that learning, development of motives and motivation for learn-

ing, collective efficacy and self-efficacy emerges intertwined in the work on school subjects within the

framework set by curricula and syllabi. Hence, the research tools should reflect the specific school subjects

for students in primary education, how these subjects and the social life within school relate to students’

everyday life and how teachers support students in connecting their experiences across important life con-

texts (Hedegaard and Chaiklin, 2005).

Finally, it has to be stressed that the body of research on classroom climate has been investigations of

various aspects of classroom climate and how they impact on academic achievement and affective learning,

but as Mitchell states: He has ‘not been able to find any research that focuses on learners with special edu-

cational needs’ (Mitchell, 2008, p 108). However, the value of giving voice to young people with disabilities

is evident, as they have provided many new insights about their experiences, including how they often feel

deprived of influence on their own lives and living conditions. They also report loss of competence and op-

portunity for taking initiatives, making up one’s mind and acting self-dependently (e.g. Ringsmose and

Buch-Hansen, 2004; Høgsbro et al., 1999). The challenge for education, then, is to counter processes, in

which dependence, passiveness and helplessness seem to get internalized in children and youth with dis-

abilities, and for that purpose it is necessary to learn more about the youngest students’ perceptions and

school experiences.

Methods

The study, dealt with in this paper, has sought to gain a deeper understanding of the concept of educa-

tional inclusion in mainstream classrooms and the opinion held by the students involved. It is part of a lar-

ger research project, dealing with the learning experiences of 27 students with disabilities (specifically

groups of students diagnosed with ADHD, autism, blindness, cerebral palsy, dyslexia, and learning difficul-

ties) in their school settings. Fifteen students were included in mainstream classrooms, while the other 12

students were placed in more segregated settings such as special classes and special schools. All the stu-

dents were in primary education. The research was funded by the Danish Ministry of Education and wished

to explore the policy question of whether or not the resources being directed to special education services

were ‘working’ (Egelund and Tetler, 2009).

In order to study educational patterns required a systemic approach to capture classroom complexity in a

variety of ways (Salomon, 1991). To this end, a wide range of methods was used including semi-structured

interviews with focus students (students with disabilities), semi-structured interviews with their teachers

and parents, semi-structured interviews about the classroom climate with the focus students as with their

classmates (304 in all), collection of individual educational plans, collection of teachers’ diaries with success

stories’ and observations of teaching and learning activities in each classroom. In all the research was con-


5

ducted as a multi-site, multi-researcher qualitative project (in 24 classrooms across 23 schools distributed

among 18 Danish municipalities) (Tetler et al., 2009; Ferguson and Tetler, 2009).

This paper, then, deals with the insight gained through semi-structured interviews with those fifteen focus

students, who were included in mainstream classrooms, and their class mates. First of all an interview

guide was prepared for the diverse student group taking in account recent international meta-reviews

about ‘good teaching’, which showed clear evidence that the classroom climate is a significant determinant

of learners’ achievement. Especially three factors seem important: Relationships, personal development

and system maintenance (Mitchell, 2008). However, when asking students about their own perceptions of

their learning environment, meta-reviews can just be a starting point. It has been necessary to transform

the content of the three main factors into questions related to everyday classroom practice and adapt

these questions to student age and intellectual development. In this process we took inspiration from Nor-

wegian, Swedish and German research related to classroom climate, learning environment and learning

contexts (Nordahl, 2005; Westling Allodi, 2005, 2007; Meyer, 2004). Nordahl has done a literature review

and learned that there are 8 important factors defining the learning environment. Some of these 8 factors

are also mentioned in Mitchell’s model. Nordahl mentions school management and collaboration with par-

ents, but these factors are not relevant for an interview guide for students. Allodi’s GAVIS questionnaire

(GAVIS is an acronym for ‘The Goals, Attitudes and Values in School’) has provided inspiration to relate the

factors ‘Relationships’ and ‘Personal development’ to classroom practice. Therefore, three of the themes

(and the related questions from GAVIS) are included in our interview guides. The themes are ‘Participation’,

‘Responsibility’, and ‘Influence’, while the questions from ‘Helpfulness’ has provided inspiration to state-

ments about ‘Collaboration’ in the interview guide.

Mitchell’s factor ‘System maintenance’ is about didactical issues, and the inspiration to this section of the

interview guide stems from a meta-review on characteristics of ‘good teaching’ (Meyer, 2004). Meyer

found 10 characteristics of good teaching, and four of them are included in the interview guides as themes:

’Physical environment’, ’Clear structure’, ’Meaningful communication’ and ’Differentiation’ (see table 2). A

closer look on the descriptions of these characteristics reveals an overlap with the factors ’Relations’ and

’Personal development’.

The interviews were conducted as group interviews (and in some cases individual interviews), as they have

been run as conversations about statements one by one. However, the answers have been collected on

answering sheets designed in a questionnaire format to create a shortcut access to students’ views and

opinions. This has been necessary, because some of the informants have no spoken language. The answer-

ing categories are inspired from ordinal scales e.g. Likert scales, but the interpretation has been processed

according to qualitative methodology, rooted in a qualitative methodology focused on interpretivism (Fer-

guson and Ferguson, 1995).

Findings

Table 1 shows the answering patterns for focus students (15 in all) and their mainstream class mates (222 in all), calculated in % of interpretable answers within each group. Each column can be interpreted as be-low:


6

Column A: Themes and Item numbers Column: B Theme and items Column: C Students Groups C and F Column: D Category 1 very positive answers n % Column: E Category 2 positive answers in % Column: F Category 1+2 Sum of positive answers in % Column: G Category 3 negative answers in % Column: H Category 4 very negative answers in % Column: I Category 3+4 Sum of negative answers in % Column: J Characterisation of answering pattern (See note page 9). Column K: Comparison between the C- and F population. Comparison categories similar or different

Taking a closer look at as well the C- (class mates) as the F-(focus) students’ response pattern concerning

their opinions on their learning environment, some characteristics stand out clearly (see Table 1). Four di-

dactic themes are represented in this interview and the students’ statements are predominantly positive

about the themes ‘Clear structure’ (statement 5-8) and ‘Meaningful communication’ (statements 9-12). For

instance, except for one student, they all state that their teachers are good at explaining to them what to

do (statement 8) and how to progress (statement 11). A more blurred pattern stems from the student re-

sponses concerning their physical environment. Especially, we will point out the F-students problems with

doing different things without disturbing each other (73% negative answers at statement 3). This is corre-

sponding with the lack of peace to work (statement 5) for nearly half of the students in both groups of class

mates and focus students. The F-students are more positive concerning good space and order, and for the

majority the situation is not that bad. The C-students have another meaning: they are positive about the

space, but turns to the negative side concerning order in classrooms. Looking at the aspects of differentia-

tion, the teaching pattern seems to be characterized by positive answers for both groups. The answers are

positive in the interval from 58% to 100% (statements 13-16). Above all it is striking that all students state

that it is OK in their learning communities not to be equally good at everything (statement 16). F-students

also experience their teachers using a wide range of materials for the students to work with (statement 13),

and they are even more positive about that than the C-students. For both groups there is a clear picture of

having good relations to their teachers.

The four themes ‘Collaboration’, ‘Influence’, Participation’ and Responsibility’ are related to the factors

‘Relationships’ and ‘Personal development’ mentioned in Mitchell’s model. Influence (statements 21-24) is

about being able to decide, getting ideas appreciated and experiencing significant others’ attention of how

you are doing in school, while participation (statements 25-28) is about being part of and being listened to.

Influence seems to be quite a tricky issue for the teachers to leave room for (statements 21-24). State-

ments 21 and 22 turn to the negative side for F- as well as C- students. Statement 24 turns to the positive

side for both groups, and at statement 23 turns the C-students to the positive and the F-students to the

negative side. Both F- and C-students’ experiences on participation are more positive with responses on

three statements 26-28 turning to the positive side. However, the answers on item 25: In my class some of

my peers feel alone is a bit worrying, with only 49% to the positive side for C-students and 43% for the F-

students. Concerning ‘Collaboration’ (statements 17-20) is the response pattern more positive for C- than

for F students (especially on statement 17 and 18). However, statement 20 turns really high to the positive

side for both groups. On ‘Responsibility’ (statements 29-32) both F- and C-students express positive experi-

ences. On three statements both groups turn out very positive (29, 31, 32). They are also on the positive

side concerning responsibility on what to do in reading and math, but not positive to the same high ranking

as on the three other statement within the theme.


7

Table 1. Students’ opinions about their learning environment A Item

B C Stu-dents

D YES

E yes

F D+E

G no

H NO

I G+H

J K Comparison: C vs. F

Theme Physical environment 1 In my class there is plenty of space C

F 29% 20%

57% 47%

86% 67%

13% 33%

1% 0%

14% 33%

Pos. Mix.

Different

2 In my class things are placed, mak-

ing it easy for us to find C F

7% 7%

40% 53%

47% 60%

43% 27%

9% 13%

52% 40%

Neg. Mix.

Different

3 In my class we make different

things without disturbing each other

C F

7% 7%

39% 20%

46% 27%

45% 53%

7% 20%

52% 73%

Neg. Neg.

Similar

4 In my class is a computer, which we

all can use C F

43% 50%

14% 7%

57% 57%

5% 7%

38% 36%

43% 43%

Mix. Mix.

Similar

Theme Clear structure 5 In my class it’s possible to work

without being disturbed C F

4% 20%

45% 20%

49% 40%

39% 7%

12% 53%

51% 60%

Neg. Neg.

Similar

6 In my class we have rules for how

to behave, we have rules for how to behave

C F

54% 64%

35% 29%

89% 93%

9% 0%

2% 7%

11% 7%

Pos. Pos.

Similar

7 In my class we are good listening to

each other C F

14% 21%

70% 50%

84% 71%

12% 21%

4% 7%

16% 28%

Pos. Mix.

Different

8 In my class the teachers are good

at explaining what to do C F

48% 64%

45% 29%

93% 93%

7% 7%

0% 0%

7% 7%

Pos. Pos.

Similar

Theme Meaningful communication 9 In my class we speak nicely to each

other C F

7% 20%

58% 40%

65% 60%

28% 7%

7% 33%

35% 40%

Mix. Mix.

Similar

10 In my class we are talking about

what’s happening outside school C F

35% 33%

43% 40%

78% 73%

16% 20%

6% 7%

22% 27%

Pos. Mix.

Different

11 In my class teachers tell us how to

get better in reading and math C F

37% 27%

45% 53%

82% 80%

15% 0%

2% 20%

17% 20%

Pos. Pos.

Similar

12 In my class teachers are good at

making fun C F

19% 40%

38% 20%

57% 60%

24% 13%

19% 27%

43% 40%

Mix. Mix.

Similar

Theme Differentiation 13 In my class we have varied mate-

rials and things to work with C F

23% 47%

41% 33%

64% 80%

31% 13%

5% 7%

36% 20%

Mix. Pos.

Different

14 In my class we can choose different

tasks to work with C F

21% 29%

41% 29%

62% 58%

29% 29%

9% 14%

38% 43%

Mix. Mix.

Similar

15 In my class we have plenty of time

to do our work C F

16% 20%

51% 40%

67% 60%

15% 7%

3% 13%

18% 20%

Mix. Mix.

Similar

16 In my class it is ok that we do diffe-

rently on many things C F

72% 67%

25% 33%

97% 100

3% 0%

0% 0%

3% 0%

Pos. Pos.

Similar


8

A

Item

B C Stu-

dents

D YES

E yes

F D+E

G no

H NO

I G+H

J K Comparison:

C vs. F Theme Collaboration 17 In my class we do project together

C F

14% 20%

69% 33%

83% 53%

15% 33%

2% 13%

17% 46%

Pos. Neg.

Different

18 In my class we care for each other

C F

21% 27%

62% 40%

83% 67%

14% 13%

3% 20%

17% 33%

Pos. Mix.

Different

19 In my class we are doing many

things together in breaks/after school

C F

52% 40%

41% 27%

73% 67%

6% 13%

1% 20%

7% 33%

Mix. Mix.

Similar

20 In my class we support each other

C F

36% 33%

57% 60%

93% 93%

6% 0%

1% 7%

7% 7%

Pos. Pos.

Similar

Theme Influence 21 In my class we are involved in

decisions about important is-sues

C F

9% 20%

22% 20%

31% 40%

32% 13%

37% 47%

69% 60%

Neg. Neg.

Similar

22 In my class are involved in deci-

sions about many issues C F

6% 14%

32% 21%

38% 35%

41% 29%

22% 36%

63% 65%

Neg. Neg.

Similar

23 In my class we make up many

ideas that our teachers like C F

12% 21%

44% 14%

56% 35%

35% 29%

9% 36%

44% 65%

Mix. Neg.

Different

24 In my class we often talk with

teachers about how we feel C F

16% 27%

49% 47%

65% 74%

30% 27%

6% 0%

36% 27%

Mix. Pos.

Different

Theme Participation 25 In my class some of my peers feel

alone C F

14% 14%

35% 29%

49% 43%

27% 7%

10% 29%

37% 36%

Neg. Neg.

Similar

26 In my class everyone is feeling good C

F 20% 29%

51% 36%

71% 65%

22% 7%

7% 29%

39% 36%

Mix. Mix.

Similar

27 In my class we all share expe-

riences C F

50% 53%

33% 27%

83% 80%

18% 7%

3% 13%

21% 20%

Pos. Pos.

Similar

28 In my class we include each other,

e.g. when playing C F

29% 33%

57% 40%

86% 73%

11% 20%

3% 7%

14% 27%

Pos. Mix.

Different

Theme Responsibility 29 In my class we are responsible for

what to do in class C F

49% 50%

30% 29%

79% 79%

16% 21%

5% 0%

21% 21%

Pos. Pos.

Similar

30 In my class we are responsible for

what to do in reading/math C F

16% 21%

39% 43%

55% 64%

37% 29%

8% 7%

45% 36%

Mix. Mix.

Similar

31 In my class we share responsibility

everyone is feeling good in school C F

33% 33%

47% 27%

80% 60%

15% 40%

5% 0%

20% 40%

Pos. Mix.

Different

32 In my class the teachers rely on us

C F

39% 47%

42% 27%

81% 74%

14% 7%

6% 20%

20% 27%

Pos. Pos.

Similar


9

Comparison between students with disabilities, included in mainstream settings and their class mates

The overall aim of this paper is to compare the opinions about the learning environment between two

groups of students: Students with disabilities included in mainstream classrooms (labelled Focus students in

Table 1 & 2) and their class mates (labelled C-students in Table 1 & 2). Also, the intention is to get a holistic

picture of similarities and differences between those two groups of students. To pursue this aim it has been

necessary to compile the comprehensive set of data, which has been done in a very pragmatic manner as

described below. Therefore, the design of the compiling analysis is based on creating cuts that reveals dif-

ferences between the two groups … and makes sense considering the big difference in population size and

the interview with 32 items. This is done as described in the note below1.

Table 2. The answering patterns for Focus students (with disabilities) and their Class mates.

Student

popu- C-students

lation

Answering Positive Mixed Negative

category

item 6, item 16 item 29 item 13

Positive item 8 item 20 item 24

item 11 item 27

Focus- item 1 item 18 item 32 item 4 item 14 item 26 item 2

Students Mixed item 7 item 28 item 9 1tem 15 item 30

item 10 item31 item 12 item 19

item 3 item 22

Negative item 17 item 23 item 5 item 25

item 21

1 For each item we have ascribed a characteristic of the answering pattern (please refer to Table 1, Comparison: C students vs. F

students). Taking the small population in account, the pattern design is based on the frequency of positive and negative answers as

registered within the F-population. Also we want to secure at least 1 student’s presence in every cell with a figure > 0. By compiling

the answering categories into 2 groups we find only 1 cell with 0% in the F-row within the frequency cells.

We have chosen to split the answering pattern for each of the item into 3 subgroups: positive pattern, negative pattern and mixed

pattern. The cut-off score for the positive pattern is the most positive 5 scores from the F-population, the cut-off score for the most

negative pattern is the 5 most negative scores from the F-population, and the mixed scores are placed in the interval in between.

This is a very pragmatic mode of dividing into sub groups. The overall objective has been to find ‘a cut’ that reveals differences

within the two populations. The chosen cut has this quality, as it matches the full set of 32 items in the sense that the answers are

distributed on a scale from very positive to very negative, and furthermore, we provide the possibility to give answers at the ex-

tremes as well as near the middle of the scale. It matches the F-population with 14-15 answers on 30 of the 32 items.

5 most positive F student answers: 100-74% items with positive pattern

(100, 93, 80, 79, 74%, including 10 items)

5 most negative F student answers: 0-53% items with negative pattern

(27, 35, 40, 43, 53%, including 7 items)

15 mixed F student answers: 54-73% items with mixed pattern


10

Taking the holistic perspective we find similar answering patterns for F- and C-students in the cells at the

diagonal (grey shadow). Altogether we find 20 items in these three cells. The positive and mixed categories

are of nearly the same size, but with fewer answers in the negative cell. That picture indicates major simi-

larities in both F- and C-students opinions about their learning environment. Having positive, mixed or neg-

ative opinions is not just a simple matter of being in more or less complicated learning situations. Rather, it

is a more complex issue, calling for further cross contextual investigations of the combined intra- and inter-

personal dimensions of learning communities.

In the cells below the diagonal we find 8 answers, i.e. F-students are less positive than C-students. The less

positive answers are spread over the whole item set. However, it is a remarkable pattern that C-students

are positive on item 17: ‘In my class we do project together’, while F-students are negative. Actually, more

than the half part of the F students is negative about this issue.

In the cells over the diagonal we find answers where C-students are less positive than F-students. There are

three items on that side, which are item 13: ‘In my class we have varied materials and things to work with’,

item 24: ‘In my class we often talk with teachers about how we feel’, and item 2: ‘In my class things are

placed, making it easy for us to find’ with 52% students giving negative answers. The latter is very interest-

ing and somehow unexpected. The methodology, however, does not allow us to interpret the findings in

details.

In general, this holistic picture of the learning opportunities for the young students, involved in this study,

indicates some mainstream learning communities, which somehow succeed in creating positive student

attitudes on a range of dimensions of the classroom climate. However, it should also be stressed that for

25% of the items F-students are less positive than C-students. All in all, looking at the eight thematic cate-

gories, no theme can be pointed out as specifically critical. Rather, we can talk about differences in degree,

as the F- students concerning all eight interview themes are less positive than their class mates.

Conclusion

The study, reported on in this paper, concerns the students’ own perceptions of their learning environ-

ment. A major segment of a larger data set has been selected to illustrate how students with disabilities

and their classmates construct the classroom climate, including their experiences of student membership.

In general, (see Table 2) F- and C-students have similar opinions about their learning environment. Moreo-

ver, it is a diverse picture with positive, mixed and negative views on different dimensions of the classroom

climate. The positive and mixed answers are dominant as well as within and across the F- and C- groups of

students. However, the analysis also shows that F-students have a less positive answering pattern, com-

pared with their class mates.

Taking a thematic perspective we find the most positive answers on the four didactic themes: ‘Physical

environment’, ‘Clear structure’, ‘Meaningful communication’, and ‘Differentiation’, and it holds for both

student groups. Also the Themes ‘Collaboration’, ‘Participation’, and ‘Responsibility’ are dominantly posi-

tive, while ‘Influence’ seems to be a more tricky issue.

Looking on the findings more theoretically (following Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Bandura, 1997; Almquist et al.,

2004) the students’ quite positive attitudes towards their school experiences concerning the didactic and

social dimensions of schooling are results or outcomes of reciprocal dynamic relationship between personal

and environmental factors. The overall picture of environmental dimensions like physical environment,


11

clear structure, meaningful communication, differentiation, collaboration, participation and responsibility is

positive. This is somehow in line with the theoretical views behind the study, as Bronfenbrenner’s proximal

processes (relations, communication and interactions) are included in these environmental dimensions.

Both Bronfenbrenner and Bandura pinpoint that beliefs and efficacy is context specific, e.g. characterized

by situational requirements and demands. Seen from the perspective of the students is the outcome of

their school experiences up to grade 4/5 that the mainstream classroom contexts (set by the school sub-

jects, physical surroundings, need of support from teachers and classmates etc.) have met F- and C-

students requirements and demands for support.

Discussion

As mentioned earlier, mainstream school situations of students with disabilities relate to a wide range of

issues dealing with disengagement, marginalization and school failure. This seems not to be the case among

students in this study, as they have mostly positive experiences of their learning environments. However,

this finding should be reflected in conjunction with our students' age, as they are early in their schooling.

The question is whether (and in which aspects) students’ opinions on their learning environment will

change during schooling. Therefore, it will be obvious (and desirable) to repeat this semi-structured inter-

view for the same student group at three-yearly intervals. Indeed, the research field of educational inclu-

sion is in need of that kind of longitudinal studies, which look more closely at the nature of processes of

inclusion and exclusion over the years.

Even though, in general, the students with disabilities, included in mainstream class rooms, involved in this

study, show up quite positive attitudes towards their learning communities, it also becomes clear, that they

are less positive, compared with their mainstream class mates (without disabilities). First and foremost,

they seem to lack positive experiences of influence and appreciation. In this way, it is an evident challenge

for schools to create learning situations and processes, based on values such as ‘student influence’ and

‘educational participation’, if they are to be characterized as inclusive (see also Farrell, 2004). It is not

enough to be cared for by caring professionals; they also need to be active and valuable contributors to the

student learning communities, to which they belong; e.g. doing project together with their class mates.

It is worrying that two thirds of the students with disabilities do not agree with the statement that ‘in my

class we make up many ideas that our teachers like’. When influence on own learning processes (and a lack

of appreciation) are withdrawn from students with disabilities, they tend to be treated like objects, rather

than subjects – and are likely to develop passiveness and helplessness. As a consequence, successively,

they will suppress own wishes and motives … and will present themselves as disengaged and passive. Later

on, in schooling or adult life, when asked for active participation and independent making up one’s mind,

they have lost competence in acting like that long time ago. Is this trend to be reversed, we must take the

educational challenge seriously, as phrased by Per Lorentzen (1998, p. 27): To work with children’s motives

and will to learn.

If we are going to facilitate for students’ development of autonomy and engagement in own learning

processes, we need to involve them in our teaching planning and evaluation, even if they have difficulties in

expressing their wishes verbally or putting forward their requests. It requires a lot of creativity, persever-

ance and empathy to succeed in grasping the students’ will to learn and in transforming it to a sustainable

practice. Not least, it requires time for reflections on how to balance so inconsistent processes as support


12

and challenges to each individual student, protection and autonomy, security and risky situations (Tetler,

2002). Thus, we need research to further explore the concept of educational participation and the meaning,

held by the students involved.

References:

Ainscow, M., Booth, T. and Dyson, A. (2006) Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion. (London: Routledge).

Alborz, A., Pearson, D., Farrell, P. and Howes, A. (2009) The impact of adult support staff on pupils and

mainstream schools. In Research Evidence in Education Library. (London EPPI-Centre, Social Sci-

ence Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London).

Bandura, A. (1994) Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behaviour (Vol. 4, pp

71-81). (New York: Academic Press).

Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of Control. (New York: W.H. Freeman).

Black-Hawkins, K., Florian, L. and Rouse, M. (2007) Achievement and Inclusion in Schools. (London:

Routledge).

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986) Ecological Systems Theory. In R. Vasta (ed.), Annals of child development. (Vol 6,

pp 187-250) (Greenwich CT: JAI Press).

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1999) Environments in developmental perspective: theoretical and operational mod-

els. In S.L. Friedman and T. Wachs (eds.), Measuring environments across the lifespan. (APA:

Washington DC).

Dalen, M. (1999) Den inkluderende skole – idealer og realiteter. In: En skole for alle I Norden. Et festskrift I

anledning af den 20. nordiske kongres i Stavanger: ’100 års nordisk samarbejde omkring under-

visning af elever med særlige behov’.

Dansk Clearinghouse for Uddannelsesforskning (2006) Dansk Clearinghouse for Uddannelsesforskning

/konceptnotat. http://www.dpu.dk/Clearinghouse

Dyson, A., Howes, A. and Roberts, B. (2002) A systematic review of the effectiveness of school-level actions

for promoting participation by all students. (EPPI-Centre Review, version 1.1) In: Research Evi-

dence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Educa-

tion).

Egelund, N. and Tetler, S. (eds.), Effekter af specialundervisningen. (København: Danmarks Pædagogiske

Universitetsforlag).

Emanuelsson, I. (1998) Integration and segregation – inclusion and exclusion. International Journal of Edu-

cational Research, 2, 95-105.

Farrell, P. (2004) School Psychologists: Making Inclusion a Reality for All. School Psychology International;

25; 5. Downloaded from http://spi.sagepub.com at Aarhus Universitets Biblioteker / Aarhus University Li-

braries on June 24, 2009.

Ferguson, D.L. and Ferguson, P.M. (1995) The Interpretivist View of Special Education and Disability: The

Value of Telling Stories. In T.M. Skrtic (ed.), Disability and Democracy: Reconstructing (Special)

Education for Postmodernity. (New York: Teachers College Press).

Ferguson, D.L. and Tetler, S. (2009) Meeting the Challenge of Multi-Site, Multi-Researcher Interpretivist

Research. Paper presented at ECER, Vienna, September 28, 2009.

Hedegaard, M. and Chaiklin, S. (2005) Radical-Local Teaching and Learning. (Aarhus: Aarhus University

Press).

Høgsbro, K., Kirkebæk, B., Blom S. V. and Danø, E. (1999) Ungdom, udvikling og handicap. (Frederiksberg:

Samfundslitteratur).

Lorentzen, P. (1998) Språk og handling. (Otta: Tano Aschehoug).

http://www.dpu.dk/Clearinghouse


13

Marinosson G., Ohna S.E. and Tetler, S. (2007) Delagtighedens pædagogik. Psykologisk Pædagogisk

Rådgivning, 44, 236-263

McCaslin, M., Bozack, R.A., Napoleon, L., Thomas, A., Vasquez, V. Wayman, V. and Zhang, J. (2006) Self-

Regulated Learning and Classroom Management: Theory, Research, and Considerations for Class-

room Practice. In C.M. Evertson and C.S. Weinstein (eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management.

(London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).

Meyer, H. (2004) Was ist guter Unterricht? (Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag Scriptor).

Mitchell, D. (2008) What Really Works in Special and Inclusive Education – Using Evidence based teaching

Strategies. (London: Routledge).

Nes, K. (2004) Hvor inkluderende er L97-skolen? In K.J. Solstad and T.O. Engen (Eds.) En likeverdig skole for

alle? Om enhet og mangfold i grunnskolen. (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget).

Nordahl, T. (2005) Læringsmiljø og pedagogisk analyse. En beskrivelse og evaluering af LP-modellen. NOVA

rapport 19/05. Norsk Institutt for forskning om oppvekst, velferd og aldring. (Oslo: Nova).

Nordenbo, S.E. (2008) En Clearingshouse-undersøgelse. Om regelledelse og relationskompetence. In J.B.

Krejsler and L. Moos (eds.), Klasseledelse – magtkampe I praksis, pædagogik og politik. (Frede-

rikshavn: Dafolo).

Ringsmose, C. & Buch-Hansen, L. (2004) VUL – Voksne - Udviklingshæmmede – Livsvilkår. (København:

Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitetsforlag).

Salomon, G. (1991) Transcending the Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: The Analytic and Systemic Ap-

proaches to Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 20, 10-18.

Sydney, A. (2010) A Handbook for Inclusion Managers. (London: Routledge).

Tetler, S. (2000) Den inkluderende skole – fra vision til virkelighed. (København: Gyldendal).

Tetler, S. (2002) Skolelivskvalitet i den inkluderende skole. Kognition & Pædagogik, 12, 32-44.

Tetler, S., Baltzer, K., Hedegaard-Sørensen, L., Boye, C. and Andersen, G.L. (2009) Pædagogiske vilkår … for

elever i komplicerede læringssituationer. In N. Egelund and S. Tetler (eds.), Effekter af specialun-

dervisningen. (København: Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitetsforlag).

Wentzel, K.R. (2006) A Social Motivation Perspective for Classroom Management. In C.M. Evertson and C.S.

Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management. (London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).

Westling Allodi, M. (2005) Specialpedagogik i en skola för alla. Individ, omvärld och lärande. Forskning

nr.27. Institutionen för Individ, omvärld och lärande. (Lärerhögskolan: Stockholm).

Allodi, Westling M. (2007) Assessing the quality of learning environments in Swedish Schools: Development

and analysis of a theory-based instrument. Learning Environments Research, 10, 157-175

Keywords: Educational inclusion, participation, Student voices, Classroom climate

Susan Tetler (ph.d.) is Director of the Research Program ‘Inclusive Education and Social Pedagogy’

at the Danish School of Education, Aarhus University, Tuborgvej 164, DK-2400 Copenhagen NV,

Denmark.

Kirsten Baltzer (ph.d.) is external associate professor at the Danish School of Education, Aarhus

University, Tuborgvej 164, DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark.

Correspondence should be addressed to Susan Tetler: email: [email protected]

students’ opinions about their classroom climate in inclusive...

Documents