A Mixed-Methods Study Describing the Experiences of Elementary Students with Complex Support Needs in Inclusive Settings

Abstract

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.

Keywords

complex support needs elementary inclusive classrooms placement

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agran

Jackson

Kurth

J. A.

Ryndak

Burnette

Jameson

Zagona

Fitzpatrick

Wehmeyer

(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

Anderson

E. J.

Brock

M. 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

Bazeley

(2012). Integrative analysis strategies for mixed data sources. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 814–828. https://doi.org/dpvnfx

Bingham

A. 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

Coleman

O. F.

McDonnell

Bowman

Eichelberger

Ryan

Conradi

L. 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

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.

Dessemontet

R. S.

Bless

Morin

(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

Feldman

Carter

E. W.

Asmus

Brock

M. 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

Fetters

M. D.

(2020). The mixed methods research workbook: Activities for designing, implementing, and publishing projects. Sage.

10.

Fetters

M. D.

Curry

L. A.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6pt2), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/gbd7p5

11.

Gee

Gonzalez

Cooper

(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.

Gee

Ryndak

D. L.

Fisher

Walker

V. 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

13.

Golub

(2021). Circulating the classroom with purpose. https://blueprintschools.org/circulating-the-classroom-with-purpose

14.

Greenwood

C. R.

Horton

B. T.

Utley

C. 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.

Harrison

J. R.

Vannest

Davis

Reynolds

(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.

Hughes

Cosgriff

J. C.

Agran

Washington

B. 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.

Jackson

L. B.

Ryndak

D. L.

Wehmeyer

M. 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.

Kim

Joo

Kurth

J. A.

Tuck

K. 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.

Kleinert

Towles-Reeves

Quenemoen

Thurlow

Fluegge

Weseman

Kerbel

(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.

Krishnan

(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.

Kuntz

E. M.

Carter

E. 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.

Kurth

J. A.

Born

Love

(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.

Kurth

J. A.

Hicks

T. A.

Shogren

K. A.

Zagona

A. L.

Jameson

J. M.

Jackson

Agran

Ryndak

(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.

Kurth

J. A.

Jackson

(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.

Kurth

J. A.

Lockman Turner

Zagona

A. L.

Kim

Loyless

(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.

Kurth

J. A.

Mastergeorge

A. 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.

Leko

M. M.

Hitchcock

J. H.

Love

H. R.

Houchins

D. E.

Conroy

M. A.

(2023). Quality indicators for mixed-methods research in special education. Exceptional Children, 89(4), 432–448. https://doi.org/gskd4x

29.

Logan

K. R.

Bakeman

Keefe

E. 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.

Mansouri

M. C.

Kurth

J. A.

Lockman Turner

Zimmerman

K. N.

Frick

T. 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.

Martella

A. M.

Klahr

(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.

Maurer

K. J.

Sturm

Kasari

(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.

Morningstar

M. E.

Shogren

K. A.

Lee

Born

(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.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage.

35.

Ruppar

Kurth

Bubash

Lockman Turner

(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.

Saldaña

(2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

37.

Taub

D. A.

McCord

J. A.

Ryndak

D. 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.

Thompson

J. R.

Wehmeyer

Hughes

(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.

Thompson

J. R.

Wehmeyer

Hughes

Shogren

Little

T. D.

Seo

Schalock

R. L.

Realon

(2015). Supports Intensity Scale—Children’s version. American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

40.

Toews

S. G.

Kurth

J. A.

Lockman Turner

Lyon

K. 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.

Zagona

A. L.

Kurth

J. A.

Lockman Turner

Pace

Shogren

Lansey

Jameson

Burnette

Mansouri

Hicks

Gerasimova

(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.

0.00 MB

0.11 MB