The relation between students special needs, social inclusion and social rejection Moritz Börnert1, Jürgen Wilbert1, Johanna Krull2, Thomas Hennemann2 1
University of Potsdam, 2 University of Cologne
Theoretical Background
Research Questions:
• social integration is one of the primary psychological needs and is related to students’ well-being and social-emotional development (Krapp & Ryan, 2002) • main objective of education is the social integration of all students (Hence, Martschinke, Kopp and Ratz, 2012) • studies show negative social integration of students with special educational needs in inclusive education (e.g. Bless & Mohr, 2007; Kavale & Forness, 1996; Pijl & Frostad, 2010) • majority of these studies is based on cross-sectional study designs, lack of control for gender and migration background
Q1: Can students special needs can be seen as causal to or as a result of social rejection/inclusion? Q2: Are these results valid for behavioral as well as for learning difficulties?
Observed Variables Behavioral and Learning problems: teacher rating Social inclusion: Sociometry: Choose as seatmate „Who in this class do you want to sit next to?”) Social rejection: Sociometry: Reject as seatmate „Who in this class don’t you want to sit next to?” Sample Description N=1244; 4 measurement times (grade 1-4) Age:
Gender/Migration Background
Mean age at grade 1: female: 48 %, male: 6.5 (sd =0.5) 52% Grade 1-4 38% migration background
Learning-/Behavioral Problems
t1
t2
Learning problems
Learning problems
Behavioral problems
Behavioral problems
Social Inclusion
Social Inclusion
Social Rejection
Social Rejection
b. problems t1 7 % b. problems t2 8 %
Gender
l. problems t1 7 % l. problems t2 8 %
Migration
Q1: Direction of influence Grade 1 behavioral problems choose as seatmate
Discussion:
à à
Grade 2 choose as seatmate behavioral problems
B -1.5 -.01
ß -0.12 -0.05
∆X²=3.89 p < .05
behavioral problems reject as seatmate
à à
reject as seatmate behavioral problems
2.0 .02
0.13 0.13
∆X²=0.0 p > .98
learning problems choose as seatmate
à à
choose as seatmate learning problems
-0.8 -.01
-0.07 -0.04
∆X²=0.82 p > .37
learning problems
à
reject as seatmate
0.5
0.03
reject as seatmate
à
learning problems
.00
0.03
∆X²=0.01 p > .90
Q2: Differences between learning und behavioral problems Grade 1 behavioral problems learning problems behavioral problems learning problems choose as seatmate choose as seatmate reject as seatmate reject as seatmate
à à à à à à à à
Grade 2 choose as seatmate choose as seatmate reject as seatmate reject as seatmate behavioral problems learning problems behavioral problems learning problems
B -1.5 -0.8 2.0 0.5 -.01 -.01 .02 .00
ß -0.12 -0.07 0.13 0.03 -0.05 -0.04 0.13 0.03
Model fit: MLR: X²(11)=173; p < .001; CFI = 0.87; TLI = 0.53 RMSEA = .11 ; SRMR = 0.06
∆X²=3.0 p < .10 ∆X²=3.6 p < .06 ∆X²=0.3 p > .58 ∆X²=4.7 p < .05
• behavioral problems lead to a higher social rejection and to a lower social inclusion • learning problems decrease social inclusion but has no influence on social rejection in second grade • higher social rejection in the first grade increases the risk of behavior problems but not of learning problems • social inclusion leads to less behavioral problems • migration background and gender influence behavioral problems as well as social inclusion and rejection • prevention and proactive strategies regarding classroom climate are necessary Kontakt: Moritz Börnert
[email protected]
