Few students with complex support needs are taught in general education (inclusive) classrooms for most of their school day, despite evidence inclusive educational placement benefit students. To better understand how students with complex support needs experience inclusive academic learning, we observed a national sample of 35 students with complex support needs using time sampling and fieldnote data in this convergent parallel mixed-methods study to describe (a) the ecobehavioral characteristics of classrooms, (b) the learning activities occurring in classrooms, and (c) how the materials, supports, and learning activities explain student experiences in these classrooms. Our data revealed that students were primarily engaged in grade-appropriate academic activities, were taught primarily by paraprofessionals and general education teachers, and were taught in classrooms with a variety of grade-appropriate materials and resources. Implications of these findings for research and practice are provided.
AgranM.JacksonL.KurthJ. A.RyndakD.BurnetteK.JamesonM.ZagonaA.FitzpatrickH.WehmeyerM. (2020). Why aren’t students with severe disabilities being placed in general education classrooms: Examining the relations among classroom placement, learner outcomes, and other factors. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/ggqmzp
2.
AndersonE. J.BrockM. E. (2020). Being in the right place at the right time: Educational placement of students with intellectual disability by state and year. Inclusion, 8(3), 210–221. https://doi.org/nx6p
3.
BazeleyP. (2012). Integrative analysis strategies for mixed data sources. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 814–828. https://doi.org/dpvnfx
4.
BinghamA. J. (2023). From data management to actionable findings: A five-phase process of qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–11. https://doi.org/gt5mbw
5.
ColemanO. F.McDonnellJ.BowmanJ.EichelbergerC.RyanJ.ConradiL. A. (2023). Self-contained special educators’ perceptions toward including students with significant cognitive disabilities in general education classes. Exceptionality, 31(4), 291–307. https://doi.org/kqcd
6.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
7.
DessemontetR. S.BlessG.MorinD. (2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic achievement and adaptive behaviour of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56(6), 579–587. https://doi.org/c7cmcj
8.
FeldmanR.CarterE. W.AsmusJ.BrockM. E. (2016). Presence, proximity, and peer interactions of adolescents with severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 82(2), 192–208. https://doi.org/f8gdmf
9.
FettersM. D. (2020). The mixed methods research workbook: Activities for designing, implementing, and publishing projects. Sage.
10.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6pt2), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/gbd7p5
11.
GeeK.GonzalezM.CooperC. (2020). Outcomes of inclusive versus separate placements: A matched pairs comparison study. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(4), 223–240. https://doi.org/gjh4fn
12.
GeeK.RyndakD. L.FisherM.WalkerV. L. (2024). Access to the general education curriculum for students with extensive support needs: Experts’ perspectives. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 49(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/nx5k
GreenwoodC. R.HortonB. T.UtleyC. A. (2002). Academic engagement: Current perspectives on research and practice. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 328–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2002.12086159
15.
HarrisonJ. R.VannestK.DavisJ.ReynoldsC. (2012). Common problem behaviors of children and adolescents in general education classrooms in the United States. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 20(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426611421157
16.
HughesC.CosgriffJ. C.AgranM.WashingtonB. H. (2013). Student self-determination: A preliminary investigation of the role of participation in inclusive settings. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48(1), 3–17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23879882
17.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. (2004). Public Law Number 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647.
18.
JacksonL. B.RyndakD. L.WehmeyerM. L. (2008). The dynamic relationship between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34(1), 175–195. https://doi.org/gmvzg7
19.
KimG.JooS.KurthJ. A.TuckK. N. (2025). A meta-analysis of interventions to support elementary students with intellectual disability in general education classes. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969251328662
20.
KleinertH.Towles-ReevesE.QuenemoenR.ThurlowM.FlueggeL.WesemanL.KerbelA. (2015). Where students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are taught: Implications for general curriculum access. Exceptional Children, 81(3), 312–328. https://doi.org/ggxzwf
21.
KrishnanS. (2024). Key factors influencing inclusive placement decisions of students with extensive support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 49(3), 174–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969241247814
22.
KuntzE. M.CarterE. W. (2019). Review of interventions supporting secondary students with intellectual disability in general education classes. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 44(2), 103–121. https://doi.org/gjh4gq
23.
KurthJ. A.BornK.LoveH. (2016). Ecobehavioral characteristics of self-contained high school classrooms for students with severe cognitive disability. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(4), 227–243. https://doi.org/gjh4c4
24.
KurthJ. A.HicksT. A.ShogrenK. A.ZagonaA. L.JamesonJ. M.JacksonL.AgranM.RyndakD. (2024). The relationship between severity of disability and segregated placements for students with complex support needs. The Journal of Special Education, 58(4), 208–219. https://doi.org/nx6q
25.
KurthJ. A.JacksonL. (2022). Introduction to the special issue on the impact of placement on outcomes for students with complex support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 47(4), 187–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969221134509
26.
KurthJ. A.Lockman TurnerE.ZagonaA. L.KimG.LoylessR. (2025). Experiences of elementary students with complex support needs in segregated special education classrooms: A mixed methods study. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 50(1), 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969241267283
27.
KurthJ. A.MastergeorgeA. M. (2012). Impact of setting and instructional context for adolescents with autism. The Journal of Special Education, 46(1), 36–48. https://doi.org/c88fnc
28.
LekoM. M.HitchcockJ. H.LoveH. R.HouchinsD. E.ConroyM. A. (2023). Quality indicators for mixed-methods research in special education. Exceptional Children, 89(4), 432–448. https://doi.org/gskd4x
29.
LoganK. R.BakemanR.KeefeE. B. (1997). Effects of instructional variables on engaged behavior of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63(4), 481–497. https://doi.org/nx6r
30.
MansouriM. C.KurthJ. A.Lockman TurnerE.ZimmermanK. N.FrickT. A. (2022). Comparison of academic and social outcomes of students with extensive support needs across placements. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 47(2), 111–129. https://doi.org/nfrm
31.
MartellaA. M.KlahrD.LiW. (2020). The relative effectiveness of different active learning implementations in teaching elementary school students how to design simple experiments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(8), 1582–1596. https://doi.org/jqrt
32.
MaurerK. J.SturmA.KasariC. (2024). Students educated with alternate curriculum in elementary school: Timing, switching, and educational placements. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 50(1), 50–65. https://doi.org/nx5m
33.
MorningstarM. E.ShogrenK. A.LeeH.BornK. (2015). Preliminary lessons about supporting participation and learning in inclusive classrooms. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(3), 192–210. https://doi.org/f7ss36
34.
PattonM. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage.
35.
RupparA.KurthJ.BubashS.Lockman TurnerE. (2023). A framework for preparing to teach students with extensive support needs in the 21st century. Teacher Education and Special Education, 46(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/jfr7
36.
SaldañaJ. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
37.
TaubD. A.McCordJ. A.RyndakD. L. (2017). Opportunities to learn for students with extensive support needs: A context of research-supported practices for all in general education classes. The Journal of Special Education, 51(3), 127–137. https://doi.org/gc5tbc
38.
ThompsonJ. R.WehmeyerM.HughesC. (2010). Mind the gap! Implications of a person-environment fit model of intellectual disability for students, schools, and educators. Exceptionality, 18(4), 168–181. https://doi.org/cs3gj2
39.
ThompsonJ. R.WehmeyerM.HughesC.ShogrenK.LittleT. D.SeoH.SchalockR. L.RealonR. (2015). Supports Intensity Scale—Children’s version. American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
40.
ToewsS. G.KurthJ. A.Lockman TurnerE.LyonK. J. (2020). Ecobehavioral analysis of inclusive classrooms and instruction that supports students with extensive support needs. Inclusion, 8(4), 259–274. https://doi.org/nx6s
41.
ZagonaA. L.KurthJ. A.Lockman TurnerE.PaceJ.ShogrenK.LanseyK.JamesonM.BurnetteK.MansouriM.HicksT.GerasimovaD. (2022). Ecobehavioral analysis of the experiences of students with complex support needs in different classroom types. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 47(4), 209–228. https://doi.org/nx6t
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
