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.
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).
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.
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.
"Gap between physical presence and genuine social belonging"
"Documented drawbacks and risks of inclusive education programs"
"Instructional strategies teachers use to support diverse learners"
"Educator observations and summary of literature findings"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.