Mainstreaming Students: Effects of Positive Peer Interaction
This literature review examines the effects of positive peer interaction when students from self-contained special education classrooms are mainstreamed into general education settings. Drawing on peer-reviewed and professional sources, the paper explores differences in instructional time between segregated and inclusive classrooms, the psychological and social outcomes of inclusion, the distinction between physical and social integration, and the complex interplay of variables that influence student success. It also outlines the negative aspects of mainstreaming, strategies teachers must employ to meet diverse student needs, and firsthand observations from experienced educators. The review concludes that mainstreaming produces both benefits and challenges, and that further research is needed.
- Instructional Time: Segregated vs. Inclusive Classrooms: Data comparing instructional time in inclusive vs. segregated settings
- The Need for Extra Assistance for Special Needs Students: Challenges of providing adequate support in mainstreamed classrooms
- Psychological and Social Outcomes of Inclusion: Psychosocial benefits and limitations of integrated placements
- Physical Integration vs. Social Integration: Gap between physical presence and genuine social belonging
- Negative Aspects of Mainstreaming and Inclusion: Documented drawbacks and risks of inclusive education programs
- Strategies for Meeting the Needs of All Students: Instructional strategies teachers use to support diverse learners
- Practitioner Perspectives and Conclusion: Educator observations and summary of literature findings
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper synthesizes multiple peer-reviewed and practitioner sources to build a balanced, multi-perspective view of mainstreaming — presenting both benefits and drawbacks without overstating either side.
- It grounds abstract policy debates in concrete data, such as the specific percentages of instructional time in inclusive vs. segregated settings, which makes the argument measurable and credible.
- The inclusion of a firsthand practitioner voice (Dennis, 2010) adds an experiential dimension that complements the academic sources and grounds the literature in real classroom reality.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates a thematic literature review structure, organizing sources not chronologically but by concept — moving from instructional outcomes to psychological effects, then to practical strategies and lived experience. This technique allows the writer to build a cumulative argument across sources rather than simply summarizing each one in isolation.
Structure breakdown
The review opens with a quantitative comparison of instructional time, then expands into social and psychological outcomes, addresses the gap between physical and social integration, catalogs documented negative effects, and closes with practitioner strategies and an educator's firsthand account. This progression from data to lived experience gives the paper a logical arc that moves from evidence to application.
Instructional Time: Segregated vs. Inclusive Classrooms
Katz and Mirenda (2002), in their study "Including Students with Developmental Disabilities in General Education Classrooms: Educational Benefits," report on a comparison of instructional time for students with developmental disabilities across special education and general education settings. Their findings indicate that "the percentage of non-instructional time was significantly different in the two settings, with 58% in the segregated classrooms and only 35% in inclusive classrooms." Even when whole-class instruction is excluded from the analysis, "a significantly greater amount of time was devoted to instruction in the inclusive classrooms. This may explain why, despite smaller staff-to-student ratios in segregated classrooms, several studies have documented that students are more often alone, and less often engaged, in self-contained classrooms" (Katz and Mirenda, 2002).
The study further found that inclusive classrooms focused instruction "to a significant extent on academics (72% of the time) as compared to the segregated settings (24% of the time)" (Katz and Mirenda, 2002). Additionally, there was greater provision of instruction by paraprofessionals and other adults "in the segregated settings than in the inclusive (43% to 21% respectively); conversely, peer-to-peer instruction was more common in inclusive (18%) than in segregated settings (<1%)" (Katz and Mirenda, 2002).
The Need for Extra Assistance for Special Needs Students
Qualls (2007), in "Mainstreaming Students in the Classroom," identifies several concerns associated with mainstreaming. Chief among them is that children who are more severely handicapped will need extra assistance that a single teacher cannot adequately provide in a mainstreamed classroom. Additionally, some mainstreamed students may prove difficult for teachers to manage effectively, and attention may be diverted away from other students in order to address the needs of students with special needs.
Psychological and Social Outcomes of Inclusion
Hersen and Thomas (2005) note that data on the psychosocial outcomes of inclusion compared to a wider range of placements is limited, due to variations in the methodologies used across studies and in the details of the placements themselves. Nevertheless, a compelling rationale supporting integration for children with intellectual disabilities and other conditions is "the assumed impact of integration in the socio-emotional domain — that is, there are increased opportunities to interact with children with more developed social skills and increased opportunities for relationships with nondisabled peers" (Hersen and Thomas, 2005).
According to Hersen and Thomas (2005), the literature suggests several powerful and interrelated influences on the development of personality for students with disabilities, including: (1) experiences of failure related to a lack of ability; (2) poor social networks and perceived social isolation; and (3) negative social comparisons. These factors underscore the importance of carefully structured social environments within any placement setting.
Bibliography
Crowell, Amanda, et al. (2005). Special Education: Inclusion vs. Exclusion. Scott County High School.
Dennis (2010). Inclusion and mainstreaming — they should work, but do they? Internet Special Education Resources. Retrieved from http://www.iser.com/resources/21st-sped.html
Juncaj, Blair, Knapp, Allison, and Smith, Kristen (2009). Inclusion of special education students in the general education setting. Retrieved from
Katz, Jennifer and Mirenda, Pat (2002). Including students with developmental disabilities in general education classrooms: Educational benefits. International Journal of Special Education, 17(2).
Perles, Keren (2010). Inclusion for special education students: Advantages and benefits. Bright Hub. Retrieved from
Qualls, Terra (2007). Mainstreaming students in the classroom. Multicultural Education.
Thomas, Jay C. and Hersen, Michel (2005). Comprehensive Handbook of Personality and Psychopathology, Volume 2. John Wiley and Sons.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.