Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The education of students with special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream settings has developed considerably in most Western countries in recent decades. This trend is regularly reinforced by various laws and circulars. This creates new dynamics in schools, which can have an impact not only on teachers’ practices and perceptions, but also on the experiences of the students concerned. Research is needed to understand the different processes at work so that we can best accompany this change and ensure that everyone can find their place in it. A large body of research has been conducted on this topic, but studies suffer from a lack of consensus regarding the effect of inclusion on the self-concept of SEN students. In this article, we tested the hypothesis that students’ level of identification with their class would moderate the relationship between inclusion and the self-concept of students with SEN. Ninety-two SEN students attending inclusive classes completed two short scales measuring self-concept and identification with the class. Inclusion was measured through the number of hours spent in the regular class. The results showed that, contrary to our hypotheses, the level of inclusion and the interaction between inclusion and identification are not significantly related with self-concept. However, self-concept was revealed to be positively related to identification. These findings are discussed in terms of their theoretical and practical implications.

Plain Language Summary

How Feeling Part of the Class Affects the Self-Esteem of Students with Special Educational Needs in Regular Schools

Why was the study done? The education of students with special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream settings has developed considerably in most Western countries in recent decades. This change affects how teachers work and think, and it also influences the experiences of students with SEN. To support this transition effectively, it’s important to understand how these changes impact everyone involved. Many studies have looked into this issue, but researchers still don’t agree on how being included in regular classes affects the self-esteem or self-concept of students with SEN. In our study, we explored whether students’ sense of belonging in their class (called “identification with the class”) influences how inclusion affects their self-concept. What did the researchers do? The research team worked with 92 students with SEN who were in inclusive classes. These students completed two short surveys that measured their self-concept and their sense of belonging to their class. We also looked at how many hours each student spent in regular classes to measure their level of inclusion. What did the researchers find? Our results did not support our initial hypothesis. We found that the amount of time students spent in regular classes and their sense of belonging did not significantly impact their self-concept when considered together. However, we did find that students who felt a strong sense of belonging in their class tended to have a higher self-concept. What do the findings mean? These results suggest that fostering a strong sense of belonging and inclusion in the class is crucial. These findings have important implications for how we approach inclusive education, both in theory and in practice.

Keywords

inclusion self-concept identification special educational needs

Introduction

The Salamanca Statement on Principles, Policy and Practice in Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994) advocated for inclusive education, emphasizing that all children, regardless of their needs, should have access to quality education in regular schools, supported by appropriate resources and policies. Inclusive education involves “keeping special education students in regular classrooms, and bringing support services to the child rather than bringing the child to support services” (Smelter, Rasch, & Yudewitz, 1994, cited by Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009, pp. 67–77). This statement led to a number of changes in the schooling of students with disabilities andaround the world, numerous laws and decrees have been passed in recent years to promote and implement inclusive education (Schwab, 2020). In France, the Law of February 2005 For Equal Rights And Opportunities, Participation And Citizenship For People With Disabilities placed a strong focus on the inclusion of students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) in regular classes. Several administrative circulars and laws have since reaffirmed this principle, with the result that an increasing proportion of students with SEN are now enrolled in mainstream schools (Reverdy, 2019). As a result, in France, the number of students with SEN included in regular classes has increased significantly over the decade, from around 225,000 in 2012 to roughly 400,000 in 2021 (Ministère de l'Éducation Nationale et de la Jeunesse, 2022). Depending on their special educational needs, students may be fully included, partially included or not included at all. When partially included, they are enrolled in an inclusive institution system or in a specialized classroom run by a special teacher. One of the schemes implemented is the Local Units for School Inclusion (in French, “ULIS”), an inclusive facility within mainstream schools (Ministère de l'Éducation Nationale, de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, 2015). Students participate in learning in the regular classroom with educational accommodations and special arrangements. In instances when these accommodations are no longer sufficient and specialized instruction in a smaller group is deemed necessary, students are placed in an ULIS facility. Students’ level of inclusion varies according to their needs but they all share schooling time between a regular classroom and the inclusive facility, thereby experiencing different learning contexts. These learning contexts can have different consequences on students’ schooling experience (Krämer et al., 2021). It is therefore important that scholars reach a better understanding of these consequences in order to help teachers in implementing inclusive education.

The Effects of Inclusion on Students with SEN

The scientific literature has extensively investigated the effects of these different contexts and shown the benefits of inclusion for students with SEN (e.g., Hehir et al., 2016; Krämer et al., 2021; Oh-Young & Filler, 2015; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). However, despite a growing body of research investigating its effectiveness for SEN students (e.g., Dessemontet et al., 2012; Kocaj et al., 2018; Szumski & Karwowski, 2015), the relationship between inclusion and some aspects of their school development is still not fully understood. In recent meta-analyses (Dalgaard et al., 2022; Krämer et al., 2021), authors studied the effect of inclusion of students with SEN on cognitive (e.g., academic performance) and psychosocial (e.g., self-concept, well-being) variables in multiple studies conducted across different countries. Meta-analyses indicates that, with regard to cognitive aspects, research shows an overall higher achievement of SEN students when they attend regular schools (Dessemontet et al., 2012; Hessels & Schwab, 2015; Kocaj et al., 2014; Smogorzewska et al., 2019; Szumski & Karwowski, 2014, 2015). The authors point out that these findings are consistent across cognitive outcomes. They support the idea that inclusive environments seem to provide a more stimulating environment and more opportunities for students to progress (Krämer et al., 2021). In addition, several factors need to be considered, such as the social background of the students, the effect of selecting students according to their ability level, or the amount of time the students have already spent in inclusive education (Krämer et al., 2021). On the other hand, the effects for psychosocial outcomes such as well-being, social and emotional integration or self-concept are inconsistent, depending on the variables of interest. Firstly, authors tend to show no difference in SEN students’ adaptive behaviors (Dessemontet et al., 2012), social proximity and play behaviors (Martlew & Hodson, 1991) or social participation (Porlier et al., 1999) when they are enrolled in regular or special education classrooms. In terms of social and affective outcomes, results are more contrasted: SEN students in special education contexts appear to have better enjoyment of learning (Kocaj et al., 2018), better life satisfaction (Rathmann et al., 2018) and better emotional and motivational characteristics (Hienonen et al., 2021; Schmidt, 2000). At the same time, they also report lower self-rated health (Rathmann et al., 2018), lower theory of mind development (Smogorzewska et al., 2019) and higher levels of anxiety (Peleg, 2011). These heterogeneous findings may, of course, be explained by the wide variety of outcomes. As Krämer et al. (2021) point out, further research is needed to “make more precise statements about the effects of inclusion on individual psychosocial factors” (p. 463). This conclusion led us to focus on one particular psychosocial outcome, students’ self-concept.

The Consequences of Inclusion on Students with SEN’ Self-Concept

Regarding self-concept, the results of the studies suffer from a lack of consensus (Douma et al., 2022) : some studies show a negative effect of inclusion (Kocaj et al., 2018; Szumski & Karwowski, 2015; Zdoupas & Laubenstein, 2023), others no difference (Gorges et al., 2018; Wild et al., 2015) and still others a positive effect (Boerrigter et al., 2021; Seničar & Kobal Grum, 2012; Wiener & Tardif, 2004). To explain the contrasting effects observed on this dimension, authors sometimes refer to two contradictory theories (Krämer et al., 2021): the Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect (BFLPE, developed by Marsh & Parker, 1984 ; see e.g., Bosch & Wilbert, 2020 or Koivuhovi et al., 2022 for recent studies in primary school), that is, students in high-performing classes develop lower self-concepts; and the Basking-In-Reflected-Glory Effect (BIRGE, Marsh et al., 2000 ; see e.g., Bosch & Wilbert, 2020 for a recent study in primary school), that is, students identify with the successes of their class, thereby increasing their self-concept. Both BLFPE and BIRGE effects can be seen as manifestations of social comparison processes in which individuals determine their own social and personal worth based on how they stack up against others (Festinger, 1954). The BFLPE suggests that students may perceive themselves more positively academically if they are high achievers in a relatively low-achieving environment (a “big fish in a little pond”), as opposed to low achievers in a high-achieving environment (a “little fish in a big pond”). BIRGE, in the other hand, refers to the tendency of individuals to associate themselves with successful others or groups in order to enhance their own self-esteem or social status. By affiliating with these successful entities, individuals bask in the reflected glory of their accomplishments, which can bolster their own self-esteem. It is conceivable that SEN students, especially those with cognitive impairments, may find themselves “low-achievers” amongst a higher-achieving class, therefore leading to these two phenomena. In the meta-analysis (Krämer et al., 2021, p. 463), authors conclude that it is “conceivable that the BIRG […] and the BFLPE […] cancel each other out,” bringing about a general absence of effect. According to these two theories, students’ self-concept is either enhanced or deteriorated depending on whether they assimilate or contrast with their group. The assimilation effect refers to the internalization by students of the positive perception of the regular classroom; they feel of proud to belong to their group. The opposite effect involves students making intra-group comparisons of educational achievement with their classmates; these comparisons cause a decrease in the feeling of competence.

Assimilation is a mechanism that described as having several antecedents, including self-esteem, attainability of the comparison standard or psychological closeness (Crusius et al., 2022; Gerber et al., 2018; Mussweiler, 2001). In this article, we will focus here on psychological closeness, which seems a powerful factor for assimilation in the social comparison process (Gerber et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2021). Psychological closeness is a sub-dimension of identification (Leach et al., 2008), that is, “that part of an individual's self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1978, p. 63). We therefore suggest that identification with the class could be a factor explaining the relationship between inclusion and SEN students’ self-concept. This suggestion is also in line with previous works (Szumski & Karwowski, 2015), which showed that emotional and social integration moderate the relationship between educational context (i.e., segregated or inclusive) and SEN students’ self-concept.

The Present Study

As mentioned above, there is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the relationship between inclusion and self-concept of SEN students. The purpose of this study is to examine the role of identification as a factor in explaining the relationship between these two factors. In this study, we hypothesize that SEN students’ degree of identification with the class – that is, the sense of membership that a student feels with his or her class – may moderate the effect of inclusion on their self-concept.

The moderation hypothesis is shown in Figure 1. Specifically, we expect a positive moderation of identification with the class: inclusion will have a positive effect on students with SEN’s self-concept when students strongly identify with their class. This study was pre-registered, and the associated data and material are fully accessible here: https://osf.io/wm2au/.

Figure 1.

Model of hypothesized moderation.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 92 participants aged between 8 and 16 (M = 11.3 years, SD = 1.65). Participants demographics can be found in Table 1. All students attended a Local Unit for School Inclusion (in French, “ULIS”), an inclusive facility within a mainstream school. In this inclusive setting, their schooling time was divided between a regular class and an inclusive facility, depending on their difficulties and special educational needs. All children came from a ULIS facility dedicated to cognitive impairment in a public school in both rural and urban areas in the northern France.

Table 1.

Participants Demographics.

Participants profile	Category	N	%
Gender	Female	43	46.7
Gender	Male	49	53.3
School level	Primary school	70	76.1
School level	Secondary school	22	23.9
Age	8–9	9	9.8
	10	20	21.7
	11	34	37.0
	12	9	9.8
	13	9	9.8
	14	5	5.4
	15–16	6	6.5

Measures

Level of Inclusion

The level of inclusion corresponded to the number of hours per week each that the child spent in his or her regular class. This number varied from 3 hr (roughly 12% of the week) to 24 hr (100%), with M = 14.6 and SD = 5.26.

Identification

Identification with the class was measured by two tools, the first of which is the “Inclusion of Other in the Self” (Aron et al., 1992) scale in a child-friendly version as proposed by Scholz-Kuhn et al. (2021). In this scale, children are asked to choose between three images representing themselves and their class with varying degrees of proximity: the “closeness” image representing a particular child within a group of children and the “distant” image representing the same child outside the group of children. Second, we selected five items from the Group Identification Scale (Leach et al., 2008) in its French version proposed by Bertin et al. (2022). These five items correspond more specifically to the dimensions of self-stereotyping (e.g., “I have a lot in common with the students in this class”) and satisfaction (e.g., “I am happy to be in this class”). For the latter scale, students were asked to indicate their level of agreement using a Likert scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree. The scale’s response modalities were visually represented by smiley faces for ease of understanding. Reliability analysis was satisfactory (α = .71) and a mean score was calculated (M = 3.85, SD = 0.87).

Self-concept

To measure self-concept, we selected items from the Self-Description Questionnaire (Marsh et al., 1984) in its French version proposed by Dierendonck (2014). More specifically, the questionnaire included four items from the Academic Self-Concept dimension (e.g., “I learn quickly in all school subjects”) and four items from the Relational Self-Concept dimension (e.g., “I get along easily with other children”). Students responded to this scale using the five-point Likert scale described above. Reliability analysis was satisfactory and mean scores were calculated respectively for the academic dimension (α = .66; M = 3.69, SD = 0.79), for the relational dimension (α = .65: M = 3.84, SD = 0.85) and for the total scale (α = .77; M = 3.76, SD = 0.73).

Procedure

Paper-and-pencil questionnaires were completed individually in class from January to April 2022. In order to prevent comprehension problems, all questions were read aloud by the experimenter. The study was voluntary and both the participant and his or her parents provided written consent, using a form containing a brief explanation of the study and its implications, prior to data collection. Informed consent in the form of a completed and signed form was a prerequisite for participation. The teacher was asked to complete information on gender, age, grade level and hours of inclusion. The data collected were completely anonymous (i.e., no information on the participants’ identity appears on the questionnaires and in the databases).

Results

To test our hypothesis, self-concept was regressed on a model that included students’ level of inclusion, their identification with their class and the interaction between these parameters.

To ensure that multicollinearity between predictors and interaction terms did not affect the results, each variable was mean-centered and the interaction terms were based on the centered scores (see Aiken et al., 1991). The mean of the centered identification scale and IOS scores was calculated to create a single indicator of identification.

Preliminary Analysis

Preliminary analyses testing students’ gender, grade level and age as independent variables were conducted. Results indicated that neither gender, t(90) = 0.95, p = .34, grade level, F(6,85) = 0.59, p = .777, nor age, F(1,90) = 0.07, p = .786, significantly predicted self-concept. As a result, the main analysis was conducted without controlling these variables.

Main Analysis

Table 2 shows only a significant correlation between identification and self-concept (r = .433, p < .001). A multiple regression analysis was then conducted to test the relationships between the variables within a single model.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Between Variables.

Variables	M	SD	Level of inclusion	Self-concept	Identification
Level of inclusion	14.6	5.26	-
Self-concept	3.76	0.73	0.174	-
Identification	3.85	0.87	0.143	0.433***	-

***

p < .001.

Analyses including level of inclusion, identification and self-concept were conducted.

As shown in Table 3, analysis revealed that the effect of inclusion on self-concept was not significant, β = .12, t(88) = 1.26, p = .209, η_p² = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.31], indicating that self-concept does not depend on time spent in the regular class. In contrast, the effect of identification on self-concept was significant, β = .42, t(88) = 4.38, p < .001, η_p² = 0.18, 95% CI [0.28, 0.75], indicating that the more a student identified with his or her class, the higher his or her self-concept. The interaction between inclusion and identification on self-concept was not revealed to be significant, β = .07, t(88) = 0.66, p = .513, η_p² = 0.005, 95% CI [−0.17, 0.34].

Table 3.

Multiple Regression Coefficients – Self-concept as Dependent Variable.

Names	Estimate	SE	95% CI Lower	95% CI Upper	β	df	t	p
(Intercept)	3.77	0.07	3.62	3.90	.00	88	54.00	<.001
Level of inclusion	0.09	0.07	−0.05	0.23	.12	88	1.26	.209
Identification	0.38	0.09	0.21	0.55	.42	88	4.38	<.001
Inclusion*Identification	0.06	0.09	−0.12	0.24	.069	88	0.66	.513

Additional analyses were conducted with academic and relational self-concept as separate dependent variables. Results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

Multiple Regression Coefficients – Academic and Relational Self-concept as Dependent Variables.

DV: academic self-concept
Names	Estimate	SE	95% CI Lower	95% CI Upper	β	df	t	p
(Intercept)	3.69	0.08	3.53	3.84	.00	88	47.48	<.001
Level of inclusion	0.15	0.08	−0.004	0.31	.19	88	1.93	.057
Identification	0.30	0.10	0.106	0.49	.31	88	3.10	.003
Inclusion*Identification	0.03	0.10	−0.18	0.23	.00	88	0.27	.786
DV: relational self-concept
Names	Estimate	SE	95% CI Lower	95% CI Upper	β	df	t	p
(Intercept)	3.83	0.08	3.66	3.99	.00	88	46.85	<.001
Level of inclusion	0.03	0.08	−0.14	0.19	.03	88	0.32	.752
Identification	0.45	0.10	0.26	0.66	.44	88	4.52	<.001
Inclusion*Identification	0.09	0.11	−0.12	0.31	.09	88	0.86	.393

It is worth noting that the effect of level of inclusion approached significance on the academic dimension of self-concept, β = .19, t(88) = 1.93, p = .057, η_p² = 0.04, 95% CI [0.00, 0.31], indicating that the more a student spent in his or her regular class, the higher his or her academic self-concept. This effect remains non-significant for the relational dimension of self-concept, β = .03, t(88) = 0.32, p = .752, η_p² = 0.00, 95% CI [−0.14, 0.19].

The effect of identification showed similar results for separated dimensions.

Discussion

In recent years, a widespread political and societal trend has made it possible for a growing number of SEN students to be enrolled in mainstream schools. Despite the fact that inclusion has been proven to enhance learning, there is no consensus on how it affects psychosocial variables such as well-being or self-concept (Krämer et al., 2021). The purpose of this study was to examine the role of identification as a means of bridging conflicting literature on the relationship between inclusion and SEN students’ self-concept. More specifically, we hypothesized that identification with the class may moderate the effect of inclusion on SEN students’ self-concept. This question is one of considerable educational relevance, as self-concept is closely interlinked with academic achievement (e.g., Marsh & Martin, 2011).

The results at first appear to show no significant relationship between level of inclusion and self-concept, consistent with previous research (Gorges et al., 2018; Wild et al., 2015). As it has been suggested (Krämer et al., 2021), it is possible that two contradictory processes, that is, BFLPE and BIRGE, are canceling each other out: some students’ self-concept stand to gain from BFLPE, while the self-concept of others could be detrimentally affected by BIRGE. This lends support to our moderation hypothesis, in the sense that another factor could account for these contradictory processes. However, there is no significant interaction between level of inclusion and identification on self-concept, which runs counter to our hypothesis. Identification plays a significant role in the self-concept of students with SEN but does not affect it differently as a function of student’s level of inclusion in the regular classroom. Nevertheless, identification is related to self-concept, which suggests that identification with one’s regular class is indeed important in fostering a positive self-concept in students with SEN. This is in keeping with the idea that in order to assimilate with other students and benefit from comparison with them (BIRGE), it is preferable to identify and harbor a feeling of proximity with the group. In future research, it would be interesting to measure SEN students’ identification with the specialized group, compare the two levels of identification and examine whether self-concept is affected differently. More generally, it could be valuable to study how SEN students categorize themselves and with which groups they identify by drawing on the classic works of Tajfel, Turner and their collaborators (Tajfel & Turner, 2004; Turner et al., 1987). In their social identity theory, judgments about one’s self as a group member are a result of social comparisons between the in-group and relevant out-groups. To attain one’s need of a satisfactory self-image, group members usually engage in various strategies to try and make the in-group positively distinctive. In the case of SEN students whose schooling time is divided in to different settings, it would be interesting to study how these two settings can constitute distinct in- and/or out-groups, both for SEN students themselves and their classmates and how the processes described in the social identity theory can apply in this particular context.

We believe that these findings have theoretical and practical implications. From a theoretical perspective, the present study contributes to the understanding of how inclusion in regular classes can affect SEN students in their academic development. The results of this study suggest that inclusion in itself is neither positive nor negative for students’ self-concept, which is in line with some previous studies (Gorges et al., 2018; Wild et al., 2015). Together with cognitive benefits that have been widely demonstrated (Krämer et al., 2021; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009), these findings should provide an argument in support of inclusion in regular classes. However, this inclusion must consider a number of considerations. For example, our study shows a positive relationship between SEN students’ level of identification with their class and their self-concept, which highlights the importance of implementing those educational practices known to enhance group cohesion and social participation, such as cooperative learning, peer-tutoring, and support groups (see e.g., Garrote, 2017). In future research, it could be worth exploring other moderating factors, such as students’ actual social participation or the inclusive practices used by teachers. More generally, the lack of a significant relationship between inclusion and self-concept is also a reminder that self-concept is derived from numerous processes, such as temporal or intra-individual comparisons or inferences based on feedback from significant others (Gorges et al., 2018). This underlines the importance of the teacher’s approach to pedagogy in general – a large body of research has shown, for example, the manner in which teachers can implement practices that support students’ sense of competence, relatedness and autonomy (e.g., Sarrazin et al., 2011). Regarding the inclusion of SEN students in particular, for example, it has been showed that the use of inclusive practices is dependent on their self-efficacy, concerns and attitudes toward inclusion (Sharma & Sokal, 2016). This underscores the fact that successful student inclusion is the result of a complex and multifaceted process, which encompasses the need to train and accompany teachers in the implementation of inclusive education (Desombre et al., 2019, 2021). Together with a finer understanding of the processes at work at the student’ level, such initiatives could help to bolster the success of inclusive education.

Limitations

Some limitations in the present study are worth mentioning. First, the questionnaires used for this study were designed primarily for students without SEN. Even though several precautions were taken to avoid comprehension problems (smileys for the five possible answers; reading aloud of all items), students with cognitive impairments could still have problems grasping subtleties in the questions and discerning between the five levels of agreement. This resulted, for example, in rather high means for self-concept that may not be representative of these students’ actual levels of self-concept. Second, this study included both primary- and secondary-school students in order to reach an acceptable sample size. In France, inclusive settings are slightly different for these two levels, the main difference being that in primary school, a regular class is taught by a single teacher, whereas in secondary school, students have several teachers, each providing instruction on a single subject. Even though school level was ruled out as a controlled variable in the analysis, this can still impact classroom practices and class cohesion, which in turn can affect how a SEN student feels in given teacher’s class. Third, we tried to focus our study on a specific SEN student profile, that is, cognitive impairment. This choice was made in response to a limitation raised in a recent meta-analysis (Krämer et al., 2021), that previous research encompassed too many different SEN profiles. In our study, we targeted those classes designated to admit cognitively impaired students, but we could not be certain each student actually had the targeted SEN profile. Finally, it should be noted that the results of this study are difficult to generalize to other populations. Similar research could be conducted in other cultures, geographic locations or with other types of students with special needs to test the hypotheses on diverse populations.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between mainstream inclusion, class identification and self-concept of students with special educational needs. Contrary to our hypotheses, we were unable to resolve the conflicting findings found in previous literature on the relationship between inclusion and self-concept. In fact, we found no evidence of a relationship between level of inclusion and self-concept, and the moderating role of identification was not demonstrated. Therefore, further research is needed to better understand these relationships. In addition, this study shows that improving the identification of students with SEN in the classroom should improve their self-concept. In order to promote inclusive education, teachers could adopt pedagogical strategies that promote classroom cohesion, for example, by developing cooperative learning and mentoring among students, encouraging social interaction through collective activities and projects and so on.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Juliette Castelain, Alicia Ducatillon, Mélanie Duthoit, Eléana Duyme, Maud Sinsoulieu, Lou Soden and Samia Tajaount for their help in data collection.

ORCID iDs

Marine Delaval

Caroline Desombre

Célénie Brasselet

Ethical Considerations

This study was conducted in compliance with University of Lille’s ethical standards. Written consent was obtained (from both children and their parents) and data were analyzed anonymously.

Author Contributions

MD: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Data Curation, Formal analysis, Resources. CD: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology. CB: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the Institut National Supérieur du Professorat et de l’Éducation de l’académie de Lille - Hauts-de-France and by the French State in the context of the action “Territories of educational innovation” of the Program of investments of the future, operated by the Caisse des Dépôts (PIA3 - 100% IDT).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

This study was pre-registered, and the associated data and material are fully accessible here: .

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

Reno

R. R.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications.

Aron

E. N.

Smollan

(1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612.

Bertin

Marinthe

Biddlestone

Delouvée

(2022). Investigating the identification-prejudice link through the lens of national narcissism: The role of defensive group beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 98, 104252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104252

Boerrigter

Vermeulen

Marres

Mylanus

Langereis

(2021). Self-concept of children and adolescents with cochlear implants. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 141, 110506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110506

Bosch

Wilbert

(2020). Contrast and assimilation effects on self-evaluation of performance and task interest in a sample of elementary school children. Frontiers in Education, 4(165), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00165

Crusius

Corcoran

Mussweiler

(2022). Social comparison: A review of theory, research, and applications. In Chadee

(Ed.), Theories of social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 165–187). Wiley.

Dalgaard

N. T.

Bondebjerg

Viinholt

B. C. A.

Filges

(2022). The effects of inclusion on academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing of children with special educational needs. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18(4), e1291. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1291

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/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01497.x

Desombre

Delaval

Jury

(2021). Influence of social support on teachers' attitudes toward inclusive education. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 736535. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.736535

10.

Desombre

Lamotte

Jury

(2019). French teachers’ general attitude toward inclusion: The indirect effect of teacher efficacy. Educational Psychology, 39(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1472219

11.

Dierendonck

(2014). Validation psychométrique d’un questionnaire francophone de description de soi adapté aux préadolescents [Psychometric validation of a French-language self-description questionnaire adapted for pre-adolescents]. Mesure et évaluation en éducation, 31(1), 51–91. https://doi.org/10.7202/1025013ar

12.

Douma

de Boer

Minnaert

Grietens

(2022). The I of students with ID or SEBD: A systematic literature review of the self-concept of students with ID or SEBD. Educational Research and Reviews, 36, 100449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100449

13.

Festinger

(1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

14.

Garrote

(2017). Relationship between the social participation and social skills of pupils with an intellectual disability: A study in inclusive classrooms. Frontline Learning Research, 5(1), 1–15.

15.

Gerber

J. P.

Wheeler

Suls

(2018). A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years on. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000127

16.

Gorges

Neumann

Wild

Stranghöner

Lütje-Klose

(2018). Reciprocal effects between self-concept of ability and performance: A longitudinal study of children with learning disabilities in inclusive versus exclusive elementary education. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.005

17.

Hehir

Grindal

Freeman

Lamoreau

Borquaye

Burke

(2016). A summary of the evidence on inclusive education. Abt Associates. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED596134

18.

Hessels

Schwab

(2015). Mathematics performance and metacognitive behaviors during task resolution and the self-concept of students with and without learning disabilities in secondary education. Insights Into Learning Disabilities: From Prevailing Theories to Validated Practices, 12(1), 57–72.

19.

Hienonen

Hotulainen

Jahnukainen

(2021). Outcomes of regular and special class placement for students with Special Educational needs – A quasi-experimental study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65(4), 646–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1739134

20.

Kocaj

Kuhl

Jansen

Pant

H. A.

Stanat

(2018). Educational placement and achievement motivation of students with special educational needs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 55, 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.09.004

21.

Kocaj

Kuhl

Kroth

A. J.

Pant

H. A.

Stanat

(2014). Wo lernen Kinder mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf besser? Ein Vergleich schulischer Kompetenzen zwischen Regel- und Förderschulen in der Primarstufe [Where do children with special educational needs learn better? A comparison of academic skills between mainstream and special schools at primary level]. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 66(2), 165–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-014-0253-x

22.

Koivuhovi

Marsh

H. W.

Dicke

Sahdra

Guo

Parker

P. D.

Vainikainen

M.-P.

(2022). Academic self-concept formation and peer-group contagion: Development of the big-fish-little-pond effect in primary-school classrooms and peer groups. Journal of Education & Psychology, 114(1), 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000554

23.

Krämer

Möller

Zimmermann

(2021). Inclusive education of students with general learning difficulties: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 91(3), 432–478. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321998072

24.

Leach

C. W.

van Zomeren

Zebel

Vliek

M. L. W.

Pennekamp

S. F.

Doosje

Ouwerkerk

J. W.

Spears

(2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144

25.

Marsh

H. W.

Barnes

Cairns

Tidman

(1984). Self-description questionnaire: Age and sex effects in the structure and level of self-concept for preadolescent children. Journal of Education & Psychology, 76(5), 940–956. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.76.5.940

26.

Marsh

H. W.

Kong

C.-K.

Hau

K.-T.

(2000). Longitudinal multilevel models of the big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept: Counterbalancing contrast and reflected-glory effects in Hong Kong schools. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.337

27.

Marsh

H. W.

Martin

A. J.

(2011). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Relations and causal ordering British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910x503501

28.

Marsh

H. W.

Parker

J. W.

(1984). Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don’t learn to swim as well? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(1), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.47.1.213

29.

Martlew

Hodson

(1991). Children with mild learning difficulties in an integrated and in A special school: Comparisons of behaviour, teasing and teachers’ attitudes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(3), 355–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1991.tb00992.x

30.

Ministère de l'Éducation Nationale, de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche. (2015). Circulaire n° 2015-129 du 21-8-2015 relative aux unités localisées pour l'inclusion scolaire (ULIS) dans les écoles, collèges et lycées [Circular No. 2015-129 of 21 August 2015 on localised units for inclusive education (ULIS) in primary schools, secondary schools and sixth-form colleges]. Bulletin Officiel de l'Éducation Nationale.

31.

Ministère de l'Éducation Nationale et de la Jeunesse. (2022). Repères et références statistiques 2022. [Statistical benchmarks and references 2022]. DEPP et SIES. https://www.education.gouv.fr/reperes-et-references-statistiques-2022-326939

32.

Mussweiler

(2001). ‘Seek and ye shall find’: Antecedents of assimilation and contrast in social comparison. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(5), 499–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.75

33.

Oh-Young

Filler

(2015). A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 47, 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.014

34.

Peleg

(2011). Social anxiety among Arab adolescents with and without learning disabilities in various educational frameworks. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 39(2), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2010.547053

35.

Porlier

Saint-Laurent

Page

(1999, April 19-23). Social contexts of secondary classrooms and their effect on social competence and social [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, QC, Canada. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED431273.pdf

36.

Rathmann

Vockert

Bilz

Gebhardt

Hurrelmann

(2018). Self-rated health and wellbeing among school-aged children with and without special educational needs: Differences between mainstream and special schools. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 81, 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.04.021

37.

Reverdy

(2019). Edubref : D’où vient l’école inclusive? [Edubref: Where does inclusive schooling come from?] ÉDUVEILLE. https://doi.org/10.58079/o3zs

38.

Ruijs

N. M.

Peetsma

T. T. D.

(2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educational Research and Reviews, 4(2), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.002

39.

Sarrazin

Pelletier

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2011). Nourrir une motivation autonome et des conséquences positives dans différents milieux de vie : Les apports de la théorie de l’autodétermination [Fostering intrinsic motivation and positive outcomes in different settings: Contributions from self-determination theory]. In Martin-Krumm

Tarquinio

(Eds.) Traité de psychologie positive [Treatise on positive psychology] (pp. 273–312). De Boeck.

40.

Schmidt

(2000). Social integration of students with learning disabilities. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 28(2), 19–26.

41.

Scholz-Kuhn

Makarova

Bardi

(2021). Researching children’s values in primary schools: Methodological challenges of conducting surveys among young children [Conference session]. ECER Online-Conference, Genève.

42.

Schwab

(2020). Inclusive and special education in Europe. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford University Press.

43.

Seničar

Kobal Grum

(2012). Self-concept and social support among adolescents with disabilities attending special and mainstream schools. Hrvatska Revija Za Rehabilitacijska Istraživanja, 48(1), 73–83.

44.

Sharma

Sokal

(2016). Can teachers’ self-reported efficacy, concerns, and attitudes toward inclusion scores predict their actual inclusive classroom practices? Australasian Journal of Special Education, 40(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2015.14

45.

Smogorzewska

Szumski

Grygiel

(2019). Theory of mind development in school environment: A case of children with mild intellectual disability learning in inclusive and special education classrooms Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 32(5), 1241–1254. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12616

46.

Szumski

Karwowski

(2014). Psychosocial functioning and school achievement of children with mild intellectual disability in Polish special, integrative, and mainstream schools. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 11(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12076

47.

Szumski

Karwowski

(2015). Emotional and social integration and the big-fish-little-pond effect among students with and without disabilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 43, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.037

48.

Tajfel

(1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In Tajfel

(Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 61–76). Academic Press.

49.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Jost

J. T.

Sidanius

(Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press.

50.

Turner

J. C.

Hogg

M. A.

Oakes

P. J.

Reicher

S. D.

Wetherell

M. S.

(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (p. x, 239). Basil Blackwell.

51.

UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Author. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427

52.

Wiener

Tardif

C. Y.

(2004). Social and emotional functioning of children with learning disabilities: Does special education placement make a difference? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2004.00086.x

53.

Wild

Schwinger

Lütje

Yotyodying

Gorges

Stranghöner

Neumann

Serke

Kurnitzki

(2015). Schülerinnen und Schüler mit dem Förderschwerpunkt Lernen in inklusiven und exklusiven Förderarrangements : Erste Befunde des BiLief-Projektes zu Leistung, sozialer Integration, Motivation und Wohlbefinden. [Pupils with learning disabilities in inclusive and exclusive support arrangements: Initial findings of the BiLief project on performance, social integration, motivation and well-being]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 43(1), 7–21.

54.

Zdoupas

Laubenstein

(2023). ‘I feel well, accepted and competent in school’—Determinants of self-perceived inclusion and academic self-concept in students with diagnosed behavioral, emotional and social difficulties (BESD). Social Science, 12(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12030154

55.

Zhang

Yang

Zhang

Han

Luo

(2021). Context-based interpersonal relationship modulates social comparison between outcomes: An event-related potential study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 16(4), 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaa167

The Role of Identification in the Self-Concept of Special Educational Needs Students in Inclusive Settings

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Introduction

The Effects of Inclusion on Students with SEN

The Consequences of Inclusion on Students with SEN’ Self-Concept

The Present Study

Method

Participants

Measures

Level of Inclusion

Identification

Self-concept

Procedure

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Main Analysis

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Author Contributions

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References