case study of students with special needs

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Systematic review article, social-emotional learning interventions for students with special educational needs: a systematic literature review.

• 1 Center for Teacher Education, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
• 2 Optentia Research Focus Area, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa

In the last decades, social-emotional learning interventions have been implemented in schools with the aim of fostering students’ non-academic competences. Evaluations of these interventions are essential to assess their potential effects. However, effects may vary depending on students’ variables. Therefore, the current systematic review had three main objectives: 1) to identify the effectiveness of social-emotional learning interventions with students with special educational needs, 2) to assess and evaluate those intervention conditions leading to effective outcomes in social-emotional competences for this population, and 3) to draw specific conclusions for the population of students with special educational needs. For this purpose, studies were retrieved from the databases Scopus, ERIC, EBSCO and JSTOR, past meta-analysis and (systematic) reviews, as well as from journal hand searches including the years 1994–2020. By applying different inclusion criteria, such as implementation site, students’ age and study design, a total of eleven studies were eligible for the current systematic review. The primary findings indicate that most of the intervention studies were conducted in the United States and confirm some positive, but primarily small, effects for social-emotional learning interventions for students with special educational needs. Suggestions for future research and practice are made to contribute to the improvement of upcoming intervention studies.

Introduction

Schools often focus strongly on teaching subject-related content. However, educators and policymakers have increasingly recognized that the teaching and learning of non-academic competences also play an important role when it comes to preparing students for their life journey. In this context, it has been acknowledged that social-emotional well-being is a key factor for school belonging ( Allen et al., 2018 ). A recent systematic review ( Amholt et al., 2020 ) and further meta-analysis ( Bücker et al., 2018 ; Kaya and Erdem 2021 ) have shown, mixed but overall small to medium effects of well-being on students’ academic achievement. Well-being has also been discussed as a key factor for inclusive education ( Hascher 2017 ; Juvonen et al., 2019 ). In this context, students with special educational needs (SEN) in particular were found to have reduced well-being ( McCoy and Banks 2012 ; Skrzypiec et al., 2016 ) and school belonging ( Dimitrellou and Hurry 2019 ) relative to their peers without SEN. Students with SEN have also been reported to lack of social-emotional competences compared to their peers without SEN ( Frostad and Pijl 2007 ). Therefore, the development in and enhancement of social-emotional competences play a crucial role in every students’ life, especially in those of students with SEN. However, the concept of SEN is wide and includes students with distinct (learning) needs that are unaddressed or weakly addressed within mainstream schools and curricula. This results in cognitive, social-emotional, behavioral and/or physical needs, whether or not there is a formal diagnosis ( Frederickson and Cline 2015 ). Yet, there is no consensus on the definition of the wide construct of SEN ( Susanne, 2021 ) as it includes both those students with an official diagnosis ( Abedi and Faltis 2015 ) and those scoring high ( Kaptein et al., 2008 ; Ullebø et al., 2011 ; Hall et al., 2019 ; Bryant et al., 2020 ) on diagnostic instruments such as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman 1997 ; Goodman, Meltzer, and Bailey 1998 ). In many studies, the sample of students with SEN is also not differentiated by type which may be due to the great number of comorbidities. Students with learning disabilities (LD), for instance, often exhibit ancillary behavior problems (see e.g., Susanne, 2018 ). Elias et al. (1997) presented teaching methods enabling students to recognize and control their emotions as well as their social interactions. Domitrovich et al. (2017) propose to divide social-emotional competences into an intra- and interpersonal domain. Accordingly, intrapersonal competences comprise self-control, emotional regulation, and coping strategies, while communication, social problem solving, and cooperation are associated with the interpersonal domain. Jones et al. (2017) point out that the former is essential to learning the latter. Social emotional learning (SEL) is thus described by the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning ( Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2020 ) as “the process through which all young people and adults acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to develop healthy identities, manage emotions and achieve personal and collective goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain supportive relationships, and make responsible and caring decisions”. Hence, five core competences are defined for the SEL framework: self-awareness (e.g., understanding emotions and thoughts as well as their impact on behavior), self-management (e.g., goal achievement through managing emotions, thoughts, and behavior), social awareness (e.g., empathy, recognizing social norms), relationship skills (e.g., effective communication, development of healthy relationships, helping others), and responsible decision-making (e.g., individual and social problem solving, reasoned judgment, critical thinking skills). In recent decades, several SEL intervention programs have been developed and implemented in schools. Past research has shown that these programs have positive impacts on academic success as well as non-cognitive skills. For example Corcoran’s et al. (2018) meta-analyses, which included forty studies, found evidence that SEL interventions had positive effects on reading and mathematics and small effects on science. Positive outcomes on social emotional competences could be found in two meta-analyses ( Durlak et al., 2011 ; Wigelsworth et al., 2016 ) and evidence of long term effects of social-emotional interventions was demonstrated by Sklad et al. (2012) , including forty-five studies, and Taylor et al. (2017) , including eighty-two studies, although short-term effects were more likely than long-term effects. However, Siddiqui and Ventista (2018) reported slightly more attenuated but positive results in their systematic review on the impact on non-cognitive skills, including thirteen studies.

Overall, several meta-analyses in the last decade could find at least some evidence of SEL intervention benefits on social-emotional competences. Besides individual competences Morganti et al. (2019) emphasize that SEL also plays an important role in the context of SEN and inclusive education, since students learn to recognize and understand the emotions, views, and actions of their classmates, creating an accepting learning environment. The authors highlight that SEL can foster the interaction between students with or without SEN but also predict desirable behaviors or inhibit inappropriate ones. Nonetheless, it remains important to have a closer look at whether students with SEN benefit from SEL intervention programs. Three existing reviews have been carried out on this topic. Hagarty and Morgan (2020) recently published a systematic literature review on SEL interventions for students with LD, including twelve studies. The authors included school-based as well as out-of-school interventions with children aged 4–19. The results show little evidence of the effectiveness of SEL interventions for students with LD. Play-based programs, however, showed more effects, and studies assessing the effectiveness of interventions based on behavioral psychology and social learning theory showed the greatest effect for students with LD. It has to be mentioned that the authors also included intervention studies without control groups as well as case studies. Another systematic literature review and meta-analysis focused on computer-based SEL interventions for individuals on the autistic spectrum (ASD) ( Tang et al., 2019 ). The meta-analysis, including seventeen studies, could find medium effects of computer-based interventions targeting social-emotional outcomes. However, in this study, the participants ranged in age from 3 to 52 years, seventeen intervention studies lacked a control group, and case studies were included. Furthermore, the interventions were only computer based. A further systematic review assessed SEL interventions for students with hearing impairments ( Luckner and Movahedazarhouligh 2019 ). The authors were very reluctant to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions on SEL outcomes since a great number of the studies had inadequate study designs (e.g., no control group, too few participants, etc.).

Due to the aforementioned studies, it has to be stated that past research mainly examined the effects of SEL interventions for students without SEN. Few available reviews of the effects of SEL programs for students with SEN focused on interventions for individuals with ASD, LD, or hearing impairment and included studies without a control group, also conducted out-of-school (e.g., therapeutic), and included both very young and elderly people. The present systematic review therefore aims to close this gap by examining school-based SEL interventions for school-aged students with SEN.

The research questions leading this systematic review are as follows:

1. What are the effects of SEL interventions on the social-emotional competences of students with SEN?

2. Which intervention conditions (e.g., duration, implementing person, etc.) are most important SEN students’ outcomes?

3. Which specific conclusions can be drawn according to the population of students with SEN?

Search Procedure and Inclusion Criteria

This systematic literature review aligns with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement ( Page et al., 2021 ). The search procedure started in May 2020 and ended in mid-July 2020. The databases Scopus, ERIC, EBSCO, and JSTOR were used to retrieve relevant studies. In advance, several systematic reviews and meta-analyses on SEL interventions were screened to identify keywords used. These keywords were then pooled and systematized. The syntax used in the databases was hence composed of three main areas, namely content, program, and study-related terms. The following syntax was, for example, applied to the Scopus database:

(“social emotional” OR “social and emotional” OR “social-emotional” OR “social emotional competenc*” OR “social-emotional competenc*” OR “social and emotional competenc*” OR “social emotional learning” OR “social and emotional learning” OR “social-emotional learning” “SEL” OR “social emotional wellbeing” OR “social emotional well-being” OR “social and emotional wellbeing” “social and emotional well-being” OR “social-emotional wellbeing” OR “social-emotional well-being” OR “social competence” OR “social development” OR “social skills” OR “social-skills”) AND (intervention OR “class* intervention” OR curriculum OR program* OR implementation OR “education* intervention” OR “evidence-based intervention” OR “school intervention” OR “school-based intervention*" OR “universal intervention*" OR “school-based program*" OR “universal prevention” OR “school-wide” OR education OR prevention OR training) AND (evaluation OR effect* OR outcome* OR “program* evaluation” OR “intervention research” OR “random control” OR “random* trial” OR study OR review OR predictor*)

In addition to the databases, studies from thirteen (systematic) reviews and meta-analysis of SEL interventions were added ( Merrell 2010 ; Durlak et al., 2011 ; Weare and Nind 2011 ; Sklad et al., 2012 ; Humphrey, Lendrum, and Wigelsworth 2013 ; Barnes, Smith, and Miller 2014 ; Sullivan and Simonson 2016 ; Wigelsworth et al., 2016 ; Taylor et al., 2017 ; Corcoran et al., 2018 ; Moy et al., 2018 ; Siddiqui and Ventista 2018 ; Goldberg et al., 2019 ). Furthermore, a hand search was completed in the following journals, as they contained a great amount of the studies included in the respective meta-analyses and/or (systematic) reviews: Child Development , Developmental Psychology , Early Education and Development, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , Journal of Educational Psychology , Review of Educational Research , Review of Research in Education , and School Psychology Quarterly .

Several inclusion criteria were defined to answer the research questions. Hence, studies had to meet the following criteria to be included in the systematic literature review:

• published in English

• published since 1994 (since the emergence of the term SEL)

• published in a scientific journal

• focus on SEL intervention

• school-based intervention

• students not older than eighteen during intervention implementation (grade 1 and above)

• empirical research (quantitative or mixed methods)

• sample size of at least ten students with SEN

• reporting outcomes on at least one SEL dimension

• reporting pre and post-test outcomes for students with SEN

• evaluated with a control group (including students with SEN)

SEL interventions were defined as those that had a curriculum and were composed of different sessions in which the promotion of social-emotional competences was addressed and implemented in the same way by teachers/other professionals. Intervention studies in which, for example, teachers were provided theoretical/practical training in SEL and/or in specific teaching techniques aiming to promote these competences without a specific intervention/curriculum were excluded from this literature review. With respect to students’ age, studies were excluded if they did not provide separate data for students within the targeted age group. For example, studies were included if pre-test was in pre-school and followed data for the same sample in first grade after the intervention but excluded if data from pre-school/kindergarten intervention participants were mixed with those of school-aged participants. In terms of methodology, case studies were excluded, as were studies that applied only qualitative methods to evaluate outcomes. Studies had to report at least some descriptive statistics (mean scores and standard deviations for pre-and post-tests for both intervention and control groups) for students with SEN. For example, studies that included only partial descriptive data were included, and the corresponding author(s) was/were contacted and asked for missing data (e.g., studies applying various regression analyses). The missing data were included in the current review and marked accordingly in the reporting tables if provided by the author. If authors could not provide the missing data (e.g., older data) or did not respond, the study had to be excluded, as effect sizes (ES) could not be calculated without sufficient descriptive data. Multiple papers on the same cohort were considered if the inclusion criteria were met and additional data were reported. SEN was operationalized based on an official diagnosis or cut-off values indicated as clinical/high/at-risk on screening instruments such as the SDQ ( Goodman 1997 ; Goodman, Meltzer, and Bailey 1998 ) or the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders tool (SSBD; Walker and Severson 1992 ). Studies had to report clear cut-off values to be eligible. In this sense, studies that reported, for example, students with behavioral and/or emotional difficulties based on teacher referral (without any assessment) were excluded, as were studies that reported data from “at-risk students” without any further information or assessment.

Screening, Selection, and Critical Appraisal of Selected Studies

The whole process of the current systematic literature review was conducted with the systematic review software Covidence, an online screening and data extraction tool. In the first step, records were uploaded to the tool where duplicates were automatically removed. In a second step, both authors screened study titles and abstracts independently. The online tool allows researchers to mark studies with “yes,” “no,” and “maybe.” When both authors agreed, the respective study was either included or excluded for full-text screening. In case of a disagreement, consensus had to be reached between the authors by discussion. During the full-text screening, both authors independently excluded studies with one of the reasons specified in the inclusion criteria (e.g., no SEN specific outcome). The inclusion criteria were ranked hierarchically, and the reason for exclusion of the studies was determined accordingly. This also means that a study could have several reasons for exclusion; however, the online tool only allows the assignment of one reason. For example, the reason for excluding a study which neither included students with SEN nor had a pre- and post-test design would be “wrong population” since the inclusion criteria of students with SEN is ranked higher in the inclusion criteria than the inclusion criteria pre-post study design.

Figure 1 shows the total number of records ( N = 2,622) identified through databases ( n = 2,180), meta-analysis and (systematic) reviews ( n = 387) as well as journal hand search ( n = 55). After removing duplicates, a total of 2,469 studies remained for the title and abstract screening. After the title and abstract screening, 314 studies were eligible for full-text screening. After reviewing the full texts, eleven studies remained to be included in the literature review.

FIGURE 1 . Flow Diagram.

Following the full-text screening, the included studies were critically appraised using the checklist instrument for educational intervention studies proposed by Morrison et al. (1999) . According to this instrument, nine key questions are put forward to critically evaluate the intervention as well as the evaluation. Topics to be assessed included research question; aims of the intervention; description of the educational context, structure, content, and process of the intervention; study design; methods; outcomes to evaluate the intervention; further explanations of results; and discussion for unanticipated outcomes.

Coding, Data Extraction, and Calculation of Effect Sizes

Coding was piloted using two of the eligible studies. To allow a good overview of the intervention and its results, two protocols were designed. The first protocol provides general information on the intervention and the study ( Table 1 ): country, intervention name, intervention duration and frequency, implementer, training, school level and type, research design, mean age, sample, and type of SEN. The second protocol contains student-specific outcomes. The latter provides descriptive statistics for pre- and post-test and is subdivided into four parts: student ratings, teacher ratings, parent ratings, and assessments ( Tables 2 – 5 ). Studies used a variety of designs leading to reported outcomes on at least one of the aforementioned subgroups to assess emotional and/or social/behavioral competences for the participating students. In the case of several measurement points during the intervention, only pre- and post-test data were extracted, as only a few studies reported (e.g., Espelage, Rose, and Polanin 2016 ).

TABLE 1 . General Information.

TABLE 2 . Student Ratings.

TABLE 3 . Teacher Ratings.

TABLE 4 . Parent Ratings.

TABLE 5 . Assesment.

Calculation of effect sizes (ES) was necessary since they were missing in some studies or reported differently across the studies. Since only evaluations with pre-post designs (repeated measurement points) that were evaluated with a control group were included, the ES d corr was calculated for each study following Klauer (2014) , who proposes to use the difference between the Hedge’s g of the intervention (IG) and control group (CG). This corrected version allows for unbiased ES, especially for studies with smaller sample sizes. ESs are indicated as small (<0.5), medium (0.5–0.8), or large (>0.8) within the tables.

Due to the inclusion criteria a total of eleven studies ( Greenberg et al., 1995 ; Greenberg and Kusché 1998 ; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1999 ; Lane 1999 ; Sandra G.; McClowry, Snow, and Tamis-LeMonda 2005 ; Ohl, Fox, and Mitchell 2013 ; Wigelsworth, Humphrey, and Lendrum 2013 ; Espelage, Rose, and Polanin 2016 ; Smith et al., 2016 ; Faria, Esgalhado, and Pereira 2019 ; Jayman et al., 2019 )were found eligible for the current systematic review. This section is subdivided into two sections and reports on general information (see also Table 1 ) regarding the interventions (e.g., name of intervention, country in which it was implemented, etc.) as well as some basic information regarding the study (e.g., study design, sample size and type of SEN). The second section reports on measures and outcomes with a focus on ESs. Descriptive data for pre- and post-intervention measures are presented in Table 2 through 5 to provide a better overview.

General Information

Publication dates reached from 1995 to 2019. Most of the program evaluations were conducted in the United States ( n = 7), followed by the United Kingdom ( n = 3), while one study was evaluated in Portugal. Regarding author overlap, it can be reported that this appeared in one case, comprising three studies, and in a second case, comprising two studies, where at least two authors appeared as (co)authors. In total, eight different intervention programs were evaluated, namely: Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) ( n = 3); Pyramid Club ( n = 2); Second Step-Student Success Through Prevention (SS-SSTP); Smile, Scream and Blush; Social Skills Intervention (SSI); INSIGHTS into Children’s Temperament intervention (INSIGHTS), the Tools for Getting Along, and Secondary Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL). Sessions were conducted in most of the studies at least on a weekly basis for 20–120 min, while few studies did not report any information on the frequency ( n = 4). The intervention was delivered by teachers in seven of the studies and by external persons (e.g., facilitators, puppet therapists, researcher) in four studies. Training for implementation was provided in nine cases. Two studies did not provide any information in this regard; however, this concerns those interventions that were delivered by external professionals. In most of the studies ( n = 7), the intervention was implemented in a primary mainstream school; two of these had regular and special classes. Seven interventions were implemented at the classroom level, two in small groups, and two at the school level. Ten studies reported a quantitative study design while one applied a mixed-method design. Students aged 6.5 to 14 in ten studies, while one study could not report neither on the mean age nor age ranges as data was not available for all students. The total sample size of the study ranged from 39 to 443, while the sample size of students with SEN ranged from 39 to 1,307. The sample size for students with SEN in the intervention group ranged from 13 to 593, and from 12 to 714 for the control group. Six studies reported data for students with Behavioral, Emotional, Social Difficulties (BESD), three studies for students with diverse SEN, one study for students with mild intellectual disabilities and one for students with hearing impairment. Four studies reported on outcomes for students with a diagnosed SEN. Seven studies included those students in their sample who scored high/clinical on screening instruments assessing behavioral and/or emotional problems.

Outcomes for Emotional, Social, Behavioral Competences

In the reviewed studies, reported outcomes were measured in the form of student ratings ( n = 4), teacher ratings ( n = 6), parent ratings ( n = 3), and assessments ( n = 4). Five studies reported outcomes from at least two different assessors for social/behavioral and/or emotional competences. Seven studies reported outcomes in the social/behavioral and emotional domains, two in emotional, and two in social/behavioral competences. In total, ES (d corr ) for emotional, social, behavioral competences ranged from small (-0.208) to large (4.634). When comparing different reporting sources on overall ES, student ratings yielded small (0.211) to large (2.651) effects, teacher ratings showed likewise small (0.208) to large (-1.192) ES, parent ratings yielded small (-0.238) to medium (-0.571) ES, and assessments yielded small (-0.232) to large (4.634) ES. However, small ESs were much more frequent than medium to large ones, except for assessments, where this was the reversed (see Tables 2 – 5 ).

Overall, ES for emotional outcomes ranged from small (-0.245) to large (4.634). In student ratings ES for emotional outcomes ranged from small (-0.258) to large (2.651) in two studies while no effect on emotional outcomes could be found in two studies (anger control; emotional symptoms). In teacher ratings, ES for emotional outcomes ranged from small (-0.245) to medium (-0.936) in four studies, while in two studies two subscales on emotional outcomes (self-image, aggression) did not yield any ES. In the three studies that included parent ratings, only one assessed emotional outcomes, finding no effects. Studies using assessments to evaluate emotional competences ranged in ES from medium (0.681) to large (4.634), available in four studies. However, in one study reporting on a subscale regarding emotion coping, no effect could be found, while another subscale of this study had a large ES in emotion recognition. In a second study, however, no effects could be shown on the subscale for emotion recognition.

For the overall effects of social/behavioral outcomes, ES ranged from small (-0.208) to large (2.183). For student ratings, ESs for social/behavioral outcome, available in three studies, were small (0.211) to medium (-0.411). In one of these studies, there was no effect for the subscale positive orientation in social problem solving, and in a second study, there was no effect for two subscales on conduct problems and hyperactivity. For teacher ratings, ES ranged from small (-0.208) to large (1.502). In one of these studies, no effect could be found for one subscale assessing externalizing behavior, in a second study there was no effect regarding the subscales on conduct problems and hyperactivity, and in a third study a subscale regarding behavioral adjustment did not show an effect. For parent ratings of social/behavioral outcomes, ES ranged from small (-0.238) to medium (-0.571), while in one of these studies no effect could be shown for the externalizing behavior subscale. In one study, which included parent ratings, no effect at all could be shown either for the pro-social behavior or the externalizing behavior problems subscale. For the two studies applying assessments to evaluate social/behavioral outcomes, ES ranged from small (0.262) to large (2.183) for social problem-solving skills, while in one of these studies assessing hostile attributional bias and aggressive relation, no effects could be found.

During past decades the number of published studies has radically increased in the field of inclusive education. One the one hand challenges of inclusion have clearly been made visible. For instance, it was shown that students with SEN have lower social skills ( Frostad and Pijl 2007 ) and are at risk of low social participation ( Banks, McCoy, and Frawley 2018 ; Zweers et al., 2021 ). On the other hand, there is still a considerable gap in research providing evidence on how to prevent or intervene these challenges. The main aim of the current study was hence to assess whether SEL interventions are effective in the population of students with SEN. In contrast to the few existing reviews/meta-studies published on the same topic (SEL intervention and its effects on the population of students with SEN), within the current study, only studies following high methodological standards, including a (waiting-)control-group design and reporting results for pre- and post-tests on SEL dimension(s), were included. This decision was made to allow a more reliable judgment of the effects of SEL programs on students with SEN.

First, based on the selected studies, it became apparent that SEL interventions are more frequently evaluated in the United States than in other countries. Only three out of the eleven studies were conducted in Europe, with an overlap of authors for two of these studies. On the one hand, this is somehow not surprising, since the first SEL programs have been developed and implemented within the US context ( Osher et al., 2016 ). On the other hand, previous literature e.g., in Europe has also highlighted the urgent need to foster social-emotional competencies of students with SEN. However, for some effective intervention programs developed in the United States (e.g., PATHS), there are also studies showing that effects could be shown in the United Kingdom but equally for the intervention and control group when implemented outside of the United States (see e.g., Humphrey et al., 2016 ). These geographical differences regarding the effectiveness may result from various reasons (e.g., transferability of programs from one continent to the other, different school systems, different social norms, etc.) and have been discussed in the respective evaluations. A positive finding from the articles reviewed that needs to be highlighted is that those people delivering the intervention, in most cases teachers, received training prior to implementation. Implementation quality has been shown to be an important factor for intervention outcomes (for an overview see e.g., Durlak and DuPre 2008 ). Past research has shown that teacher training affects implementation quality and thus the effectiveness of the program regarding SEL outcomes for students (see e.g., Durlak and DuPre 2008 ; Bradshaw 2015 ; Humphrey, Barlow, and Lendrum 2018 ). Therefore, in line with previous research, the present study recommends giving a crucial role to the implementation processes of interventions in schools as well as their evaluation in research.

Regarding the overall results of the current study with respect to the first research question, it can be reported that the review of studies found some evidence supporting the effectiveness of SEL programs for students with SEN. The effects were reported by different raters (e.g., self-ratings from students, teacher ratings, parent ratings) or were evaluated via assessments. Positive changes were particularly reported in emotional outcomes for this subsample, with improvements ranging between small and large effects, with the former predominating. For these outcomes more precisely, ESs were slightly higher for assessments (0.681–4.634) than for students’ ratings (-0.258–2.651). Effects for teacher ratings (-0.245 to -0.936) were even a bit lower, and no effect was found in the only study that included parents’ ratings. This result might indicate that changes in emotional outcomes are less sensitive for observers compared to assessment. While these outcomes are somewhat promising out of eight studies reporting effects on emotional outcomes, one did not find any effects, while one did not find effects for parent ratings but for the assessment. The picture is different for social/behavioral outcomes. Teacher ratings showed the highest effects (-0.208–1.502) compared with student ratings (0.211 to -0.411), parent ratings (-0.238 to -0.571), and assessments (0.262–0.531), especially for social/problem-solving skills. However, again not all studies showed significant outcomes of the intervention on social behavioral aspects. Interestingly, several studies could not find any effect for externalizing behavior, regardless of the rater. One explanation may be that interventions may not have addressed externalizing behavior within their curriculum or that additional and more specific components were needed for students with behavioral difficulties. To conclude, it can be stated that nearly half of the studies included outcomes from different sources, which is highly important since outcomes might be biased e.g., if the teacher him/herself is implementing the intervention. Further, other studies already indicated that raters’ perspectives might play a significant role and stressed the importance of multi-informant assessment (e.g., Achenbach 2018 ; Miller et al., 2018 ). Achenbach (2018) argues that students’ behavior in particular might vary in different contexts, which results in different perceptions of different raters. However, taking all sources into account, within the current study, small to medium ESs were demonstrated by all raters (students’ self-ratings, teacher ratings, parent ratings, assessments), although most of the effects were small.

With respect to the second research question (specific effects based on specific intervention conditions), no conclusion can be drawn within the current literature review. Generally, different intervention programs have been used within the included studies. Moreover, the frequency of the implementation of the intervention varied widely, and around one third of the studied did not indicate information on frequency. Two studies provided insufficient information about the individuals delivering the intervention. However, most interventions (seven out of eleven) have been implemented by the teachers. This is somewhat promising, as the ecological validity is higher if no external persons (e.g., researchers) are interfering in the setting, though more experimental settings often show higher ESs at least for short-term effects. Furthermore, as only four studies have been included where no teachers implemented the intervention, no precise conclusions can be drawn within the current review study.

Regarding the third research question, it can be reported that within the included studies, the samples varied a lot. For instance, not only studies with students having an official diagnosis of SEN, but also studies with students who scored clinical/high/at-risk of BESD were included. However, taking into account the specific operationalizations of SEN (e.g., legal diagnosis, teacher rating, parent rating) or the specific type of SEN (e.g., behavior problems, physical disability), it was not possible within the present study to draw specific conclusions according to the population of students with SEN since the total number of studies included was limited. For example, several studies included students with SEN in the intervention but did not provide separate statistical data for this subsample. Subgroup analyses provide an important contribution to the evaluation of whether an intervention achieves differential effects in specific student populations. Furthermore, in several trials, students with SEN were completely excluded from the intervention study (e.g., Aber, Brown, and Jones 2003 ; Gueldner and Merrell 2011 ; Ialongo et al., 2019 ). Therefore, the studied population within the current literature review is also influenced by this bias. Not only, but also for students with SEN, it would be crucial to include them in interventions and evaluate their social-emotional outcomes. Researchers are therefore encouraged to use instruments that are appropriate for these students.

Limitations

The current study has to be read in light of several limitations. First, relevant publications may not have been identified due to the keywords used or missing journal access. Moreover, within the current study, only English-language publications were considered eligible. Since intervention studies might be aimed at a practitioner-oriented audience (e.g., teachers), it is expected that there will be more studies published in the language of instruction. Next, likewise, as in all systematic literature reviews, there is a publication bias affecting the outcomes. Non-significant studies generally are less often published. Additionally, non-significant outcomes for the treatment group or contrary to the expected results (e.g., negative treatment effects, etc.) are rarely published (for more information about the publication bias see e.g., ( Cooper, DeNeve, and Charlton 1997 ; Card 2012 ). In addition, for some studies, it was difficult to determine whether the intervention program could be considered as SEL. In particular, the lack of information about the intervention led to decision disagreements among the authors. While for some included interventions (e.g., PATHS, SEAL) it was clear that they were following the SEL criteria, for others it was rather difficult to make a clear decision, and those papers therefore had to be excluded from the current review. Similarly, for some studies, detailed (descriptive) information was missing in the publications and therefore corresponding authors were contacted via email. While some information was added due to personal contact between the original authors of the study and the authors of the review, some papers had to be excluded due to unavailable information. Furthermore, it has to be stated that systematical literature reviews are rare in the field of students with SEN. This can partly be explained by specific problems. First of all, the studied population is broad and still difficult to narrow down. Even studies using the same terminology (SEN) do not compare similar populations; for example, the criteria for having a diagnosis of SEN varies widely between countries and sometimes even within countries (see e.g., Susanne, 2021 ). Moreover, summarizing students into a group of students with SEN diagnosis is difficult since the group of students with SEN is heterogeneous. Therefore, one student with SEN might be very different from another student with SEN. Just giving one example: in the population of students with SEN, the age of students attending the same grades might vary widely, and therefore studies including students older than eighteen had to be excluded. Furthermore, SEN was also operationalized based on clinical scores from diagnostic assessment instruments. In this regard, scores were based on teacher and/or parent ratings ( Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1999 ; McClowry et al., 2005 ), but also one study based on students’ ratings ( Wigelsworth, Lendrum, and Humphrey 2013 ) was included. However, previous literature has already indicated that behavior ratings are sensitive based on the rater (e.g., Cheng et al., 2018 ).

Finally, the possibility of giving a quantitative summary or conducting a meta-analysis is limited within the current review. Not only the insufficient numbers of included studies in total but also the huge variations in study design, the intervention conditions, and the methodological quality cut the possibilities for showing overall ESs. Therefore, conducting a meta-analysis was not feasible with such a high diversity in the population and the interventions studied, taking into account interesting research questions (e.g., correlation of intervention duration/frequency and effectiveness, who should deliver the intervention). Taking these limitations into account, the ESs reported within this study might be overestimated. ESs could be lower if more variables are included. Hence, only including pre-post data of the intervention and control groups and no other variables could lead to overestimated ES. Potential moderator variables (e.g., the type of disability, age of students, etc.) and possible interaction effects of variables (e.g., duration of intervention, frequency of intervention) have to be investigated in future research.

This literature review provided the first systematic insight into the effectiveness of SEL programs in the population of students with SEN. While some positive effects could be identified, an important finding of the current study is the need for further research. There is still the need for research to determine the features of intervention programs that are most successful. Therefore, in order to achieve the most successful outcomes for students with SEN, much more research is required in the future. One further gap identified in this literature review regarding pedagogical practice was that in the studies reviewed, students with SEN themselves were minimally involved in intervention decisions. Not a single study included student decisions (e.g., about the specific intervention program). Involving the advocates themselves could increase the effects, as self-determination plays a crucial role, especially in the subgroup of students with SEN. Additionally, it would be critical to foster teacher awareness of evidence-based teaching practices as part of the teacher training curriculum. Finally, the highest effects on a student population can be reached if effective strategies are used in teachers’ day-to-day practice.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Abedi, J., and Faltis, C. (2015). Teacher Assessment and the Assessment of Students with Diverse Learning Needs. Rev. Res. Edu. 39 (1), vii–xiv. doi:10.3102/0091732X14558995

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aber, J. L., Brown, J. L., and Jones, S. M. (2003). Developmental Trajectories toward Violence in Middle Childhood: Course, Demographic Differences, and Response to School-Based Intervention. Dev. Psychol. 39 (2), 324–348. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.39.2.324

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Achenbach, T. M., and Edelbrock, C. S. (1983). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and Revised Child Behavior Profile . Burlington, VT: T. M. Achenbach .

Google Scholar

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative Guide for the 1991 CBCL/4-18, YSR, and TRF Profiles . Burlington, VT: University of Vermont .

Achenbach, T. M. (2018). Multi-Informant and Multicultural Advances in Evidence-Based Assessment of Students' Behavioral/Emotional/Social Difficulties. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 34 (2), 127–140. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000448

Allen, K., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hattie, J., and Waters, L. (2018). What Schools Need to Know about Fostering School Belonging: A Meta-Analysis. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 30 (1), 1–34. doi:10.1007/s10648-016-9389-8

Amholt, T. T., Dammeyer, J., Carter, R., and Niclasen, J. (2020). Psychological Well-Being and Academic Achievement Among School-Aged Children: A Systematic Review. Child. Ind. Res. 13 (5), 1523–1548. doi:10.1007/s12187-020-09725-9

Banks, J., McCoy, S., and Frawley, D. (2018). One of the Gang? Peer Relations Among Students with Special Educational Needs in Irish Mainstream Primary Schools. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Edu. 33 (3), 396–411. doi:10.1080/08856257.2017.1327397

Barnes, T. N., Smith, S. W., and Miller, M. D. (2014). School-Based Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions in the Treatment of Aggression in the United States: A Meta-Analysis. Aggression Violent Behav. 19 (4), 311–321. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2014.04.013

Bracken, B. A., and Keith, L. K. (2004). Clinical Assessment of Behavior . Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources .

Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). Translating Research to Practice in Bullying Prevention. Am. Psychol. 70 (4), 322–332. doi:10.1037/a0039114

Bryant, A., Guy, J., Holmes, J., Duncan, A., Baker, K., Gathercole, S., et al. (2020). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Predicts Concurrent Mental Health Difficulties in a Transdiagnostic Sample of Struggling Learners. Front. Psychol. 11, 3125. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.587821

Bücker, S., Nuraydin, S., Simonsmeier, B. A., Schneider, M., and Luhmann, M. (2018). Simonsmeier, Michael Schneider, and Maike LuhmannSubjective Well-Being and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. J. Res. Personal. 74 (June), 83–94. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2018.02.007

Card, N. A. (2012). Applied Meta-Analysis for Social Science ResearchApplied Meta-Analysis for Social Science Research . New York, NY, US: Guilford Press .

Chamberlain, P., and Reid, J. B. (1987). Parent Observation and Report of Child Symptoms. Behav. Assess. 9 (1), 97–109.

Cheng, S., Keyes, K. M., Bitfoi, A., Carta, M. G., Koç, C., Goelitz, D., et al. (2018). Keyes, Adina Bitfoi, Mauro Giovanni Carta, Ceren Koç, Dietmar Goelitz, Roy Otten, et alUnderstanding Parent-Teacher Agreement of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Comparison across Seven European Countries. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 27 (1), e1589. doi:10.1002/mpr.1589

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (2020). CASEL SEL Framework. Available at: https://casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/CASEL-SEL-Framework-11.2020.pdf .

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (1999). Initial Impact of the Fast Track Prevention Trial for Conduct Problems: I. The High-Risk Sample. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. J. Consult Clin. Psychol. 67 (5), 631–647.

Conducted Problems Prevention Research Group (1999). Technical Reports for the Fast Track Assessment Battery . Fast Track Project .

Cooper, H., DeNeve, K., and Charlton, K. (1997). Finding the Missing Science: The Fate of Studies Submitted for Review by a Human Subjects Committee. Psychol. Methods 2 (4), 447–452. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.2.4.447

Corcoran, R. P., Cheung, A. C. K., Kim, E., and Xie, C. (2018). Effective Universal School-Based Social and Emotional Learning Programs for Improving Academic Achievement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 50 Years of Research. Educ. Res. Rev. 25, 56–72. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2017.12.001

Crick, N. R. (1996). The Role of Overt Aggression, Relational Aggression, and Prosocial Behavior in the Prediction of Children's Future Social Adjustment. Child. Dev. 67 (5), 2317–2327. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01859.x

D'Zurilla, T. J., Nezu, A. M., and Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2004). “Social Problem Solving: Theory and Assessment,” in Social Problem Solving: Theory, Research, and Training . Editors E. C. Chang, T. J. D’Zurilla, and L. J. Sanna (Washington: American Psychological Association ), 11–27. doi:10.1037/10805-001

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence for a Multidimensional Approach. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 44 (1), 113–126. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113

Dimitrellou, E., and Hurry, J. (2019). School Belonging Among Young Adolescents with SEMH and MLD: The Link with Their Social Relations and School Inclusivity. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Edu. 34 (3), 312–326. doi:10.1080/08856257.2018.1501965

Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., and Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the Cycle of Violence. Science 250 (4988), 1678–1683. doi:10.1126/science.2270481

Dodge, K. A., and Coie, J. D. (1987). Social-information-processing Factors in Reactive and Proactive Aggression in Children's Peer Groups. J. Pers Soc. Psychol. 53, 1146–1158. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.53.6.1146

Domitrovich, C. E., Durlak, J. A., Staley, K. C., and Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Social-Emotional Competence: An Essential Factor for Promoting Positive Adjustment and Reducing Risk in School Children. Child. Dev. 88 (2), 408–416. doi:10.1111/cdev.12739

Durlak, J. A., and DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation Matters: A Review of Research on the Influence of Implementation on Program Outcomes and the Factors Affecting Implementation. Am. J. Community Psychol. 41 (3–4), 327–350. doi:10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., and Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The Impact of Enhancing Students' Social and Emotional Learning: a Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions. Child. Dev. 82 (1), 405–432. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

Elias, M. J., Larcen, S. W., Zlotlow, S. P., and Chinsky, J. H. (1978). An Innovative Measure of Children's Cognitions in Problematic Interpersonal . Toronto, Canada: Paper presented at the American Psychological Association .

Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., et al. (1997). Promoting Social and Emotional Learning: Guidelines for Educators . Alexandria, Va., USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development .

Espelage, D. L., Rose, C. A., and Polanin, J. R. (2016). Social-Emotional Learning Program to Promote Prosocial and Academic Skills Among Middle School Students with Disabilities. Remedial Spec. Edu. 37 (6), 323–332. doi:10.1177/0741932515627475

Faria, S. M. M., Esgalhado, G., and PereiraPereira, C. M. G. (2019). Efficacy of a Socioemotional Learning Programme in a Sample of Children with Intellectual Disability. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. Disabil. 32 (2), 457–470. doi:10.1111/jar.12547

Frederickson, N., and Cline, T. (2015). Special Educational Needs, Inclusion and Diversity . Third edition. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press .

Frostad, P., and Pijl, S. J. (2007). Does Being Friendly Help in Making Friends? the Relation between the Social Position and Social Skills of Pupils with Special Needs in Mainstream Education. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Edu. 22 (1), 15–30. doi:10.1080/08856250601082224

Gesten, E. L. (1976). A Health Resources Inventory: The Development of a Measure of the Personal and Social Competence of Primary-Grade Children. J. Consulting Clin. Psychol. 44 (5), 775–786. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.44.5.775

Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Retzlaff, P. D., and Espy, K. A. (2002). Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) in a Clinical Sample. Child. Neuropsychol. 8 (4), 249–257. doi:10.1076/chin.8.4.249.13513

Goldberg, J. M., Sklad, M., Elfrink, T. R., Schreurs, K. M. G., Bohlmeijer, E. T., and Clarke, A. M. (2019). Effectiveness of Interventions Adopting a Whole School Approach to Enhancing Social and Emotional Development: A Meta-Analysis. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 34 (4), 755–782. doi:10.1007/s10212-018-0406-9

Goodman, R., Meltzer, H., and Bailey, V. (1998). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Pilot Study on the Validity of the Self-Report Version. Eur. Child. Adolesc. Psychiatry 7 (3), 125–130. doi:10.1007/s007870050057

Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note. J. Child. Psychol. Psychiatry 38 (5), 581–586. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x

Greenberg, M. T., and Kusché, C. A. (1990). Inventory of Emotional Experience: Technical Report . Seattle: University of Washington .

Greenberg, M. T., and Kusché, C. A. (1998). Preventive Intervention for School-Age Deaf Children: The PATHS Curriculum. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Edu. 3 (1), 15. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.deafed.a014340

Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., Cook, E. T., and Quamma, J. P. (1995). Promoting Emotional Competence in School-Aged Children: The Effects of the PATHS Curriculum. Dev. Psychopathol 7 (1), 117–136. doi:10.1017/S0954579400006374

Gresham, F. M., and Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System . Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service .

Gueldner, B., and Merrell, K. (2011). Evaluation of a Social-Emotional Learning Program in Conjunction with the Exploratory Application of Performance Feedback Incorporating Motivational Interviewing Techniques. J. Educ. Psychol. Consultation 21 (1), 1–27. doi:10.1080/10474412.2010.522876

Hagarty, I., and Morgan, G. (2020). Social-Emotional Learning for Children with Learning Disabilities: A Systematic Review. Educ. Psychol. Pract. 36 (2), 208–222. doi:10.1080/02667363.2020.1742096

Hall, C. L., Guo, B., Valentine, A. Z., Groom, M. J., Daley, D., Sayal, K., et al. (2019). The Validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) for Children with ADHD Symptoms. PLOS ONE 14 (6), e0218518. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0218518

Hascher, Tina. (2017). “Die Bedeutung von Wohlbefinden und Sozialklima für Inklusion,” in Inklusion: Profile für die Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz: theoretische Grundlagen, empirische Befunde, Praxisbeispiele. Beiträge zur Bildungsforschung (Münster New York: Waxmann ), 69–79.

Humphrey, N., Barlow, A., and Lendrum, A. (2018). Quality Matters: Implementation Moderates Student Outcomes in the PATHS Curriculum. Prev. Sci. 19 (2), 197–208. doi:10.1007/s11121-017-0802-4

Humphrey, N., Barlow, A., Wigelsworth, M., Lendrum, A., Pert, K., Joyce, C., et al. (2016). A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial of the Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) Curriculum. J. Sch. Psychol. 58 (October), 73–89. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2016.07.002

Humphrey, N., Lendrum, A., and Wigelsworth, M. (2013). Making the Most Out of School-Based Prevention: Lessons from the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) Programme. Emotional Behav. Difficulties 18 (3), 248–260. doi:10.1080/13632752.2013.819251

Ialongo, N. S., Domitrovich, C., Embry, D., Greenberg, M., Lawson, A., Becker, K. D., et al. (2019). Celene Domitrovich, Dennis Embry, Mark Greenberg, April Lawson, Kimberly D. Becker, and Catherine BradshawA Randomized Controlled Trial of the Combination of Two School-Based Universal Preventive Interventions. Dev. Psychol. 55 (6), 1313–1325. doi:10.1037/dev0000715

Jayman, M., Ohl, M., Hughes, B., and Fox, P. (2019). Improving Socio-Emotional Health for Pupils in Early Secondary Education with Pyramid: A School-Based, Early Intervention Model. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 89 (1), 111–130. doi:10.1111/bjep.12225

Jones, S. M., Barnes, S. P., Bailey, R., and Doolittle, E. J. (2017). Promoting Social and Emotional Competencies in Elementary School. Future Child. 27 (1), 49–72. doi:10.1353/foc.2017.0003

Juvonen, J., Lessard, L. M., Rastogi, R., Schacter, H. L., and Smith, D. S. (2019). Promoting Social Inclusion in Educational Settings: Challenges and Opportunities. Educ. Psychol. 54 (4), 250–270. doi:10.1080/00461520.2019.1655645

Kaptein, S., Jansen, D. E., Vogels, A. G., and Reijneveld, S. A. (2008). Mental Health Problems in Children with Intellectual Disability: Use of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 52 (Pt 2), 125–131. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2007.00978.x

Kaya, M., and Erdem, C. (2021). Students' Well-Being and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis Study. Child. Ind. Res. 14 (5), 1743–1767. doi:10.1007/s12187-021-09821-4

Klauer, K. J. (2014). Training des induktiven Denkens - Fortschreibung der Metaanalyse von 2008. Z. für Pädagogische Psychol. 28 (1–2), 5–19. doi:10.1024/1010-0652/a000123

Kusché, C. A., Greenberg, M. T., and Beilke, B. (1988). The Kusche Affective Interview . Washington: University of Washington: Department of Psychology .

Kusché, C. A. (1984). The Understanding of Emotion Concepts by Deaf Children: An Assessment of an Affective Education Curriculum .

Luckner, J. L., and Movahedazarhouligh, S. (2019). Social-Emotional Interventions with Children and Youth Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing: A Research Synthesis. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 24 (1), 1–10. doi:10.1093/deafed/eny030

Lynne Lane, K. (1999). Young Students at Risk for Antisocial Behavior: The Utility of Academic and Social Skills Interventions. J. Emotional Behav. Disord. 7 (4), 211–223. doi:10.1177/106342669900700403

McClowry, S. G., Snow, D. L., and Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2005). An Evaluation of the Effects of INSIGHTS on the Behavior of Inner City Primary School Children. J. Prim. Prev. 26 (6), 567–584. doi:10.1007/s10935-005-0015-7

McCoy, S., and Banks, J. (2012). Simply Academic? Why Children with Special Educational Needs Don't like School. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Edu. 27 (1), 81–97. doi:10.1080/08856257.2011.640487

Meadow, K. P. (1983). Revised Manual. Meadow/Kendall Social-Emotional Assessment Inventory for Deaf and Hearing-Impaired Children . Washington, DC: Pre-College Programs, Gallaudet Research Institute .

Merrell, K. W. (2010). Linking Prevention Science and Social and Emotional Learning: The Oregon Resiliency Project. Part a Spec. Issue Using Prev. Sci. Address Ment. Health Issues Schools 47 (1), 55–70.

Miller, F. G., Johnson, A. H., Yu, H., Chafouleas, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Riley-Tillman, T. C., et al. (2018). Methods Matter: A Multi-Trait Multi-Method Analysis of Student Behavior. J. Sch. Psychol. 68 (June), 53–72. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2018.01.002

Morganti, A., Pascoletti, S., and Signorelli, A. (2019). Index for Social Emotional Technologies: Challenging Approaches to Inclusive Education . London: Routledge . doi:10.4324/9781351185073

Morrison, J. M., Sullivan, F., Murray, E., and Jolly, B. (1999). Evidence-Based Education: Development of an Instrument to Critically Appraise Reports of Educational Interventions. Med. Educ. 33 (12), 890–893. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00479.x

Moy, G., Polanin, J. R., McPherson, C., and Phan, T.-V. (2018). International Adoption of the Second Step Program: Moderating Variables in Treatment Effects. Sch. Psychol. Int. 39 (4), 333–359. doi:10.1177/0143034318783339

Ohl, M., Fox, P., and Mitchell, K. (2013). Strengthening Socio-Emotional Competencies in a School Setting: Data from the Pyramid Project. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 83 (3), 452–466. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02074.x

Osher, D., Kidron, Y., Brackett, M., Dymnicki, A., Jones, S., and Weissberg, R. P. (2016). Advancing the Science and Practice of Social and Emotional Learning. Rev. Res. Edu. 40 (1), 644–681. doi:10.3102/0091732X16673595

Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., MulrowMulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). PRISMA 2020 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated Guidance and Exemplars for Reporting Systematic Reviews. Bmj 1, n160. doi:10.1136/bmj.n160

Phipps, S., and Steele, R. (2002). Repressive Adaptive Style in Children with Chronic Illness. Psychosom Med. 64 (1), 34–42. doi:10.1097/00006842-200201000-00006

Pons, F., and Harris, P. L. (2000). Test of Emotion Comprehension – TEC . Oxford, UK: University of Oxford .

Pons, F., Doudin, P. L., and Harris, P. L. (2004). “La compréhension des émotions:,” in Les émotions à l'école edited by Louise Lafortune, Pierre-André Doudin, Fracisco Pons and Dawson R. Hancock (Sainte-Foy, France: Presses de l’Université du Québec ), 7–32. doi:10.2307/j.ctv18pgxjg.4

Ribordy, S. C., Camras, L. A., Stefani, R., and Spaccarelli, S. (1988). Vignettes for Emotion Recognition Research and Affective Therapy with Children. J. Clin. Child Psychol. 17 (4), 322–325. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp1704_4

Robinson, E. A., Eyberg, S. M., and Ross, A. W. (1980). The Standardization of an Inventory of Child Conduct Problem Behaviors. J. Clin. Child Psychol. 9 (1), 22–28. doi:10.1080/15374418009532938

Siddiqui, N., and M. Ventista, O. (2018). A Review of School-Based Interventions for the Improvement of Social Emotional Skills and Wider Outcomes of Education. Int. J. Educ. Res. 90 (1), 117–132. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2018.06.003

Sklad, M., Diekstra, R., Ritter, M. D., Ben, J., and Gravesteijn, C. (2012). Effectiveness of School-Based Universal Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Programs: Do They Enhance Students' Development in the Area of Skill, Behavior, and Adjustment? Psychol. Schs. 49 (9), 892–909. doi:10.1002/pits.21641

Skrzypiec, G., Askell-Williams, H., Slee, P., and Rudzinski, A. (2016). Students with Self-Identified Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (Si-SEND): Flourishing or Languishing!. Int. J. Disabil. Dev. Edu. 63 (1), 7–26. doi:10.1080/1034912X.2015.1111301

Smith, S. W., Daunic, A. P., Aydin, B., Van Loan, C. L., Barber, B. R., and Taylor, G. G. (2016). Effect of Tools for Getting along on Student Risk for Emotional and Behavioral Problems in Upper Elementary Classrooms: A Replication Study. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 45 (1), 73–92. doi:10.17105/SPR45-1.73-92

Sullivan, A. L., and Simonson, G. R. (2016). A Systematic Review of School-Based Social-Emotional Interventions for Refugee and War-Traumatized Youth. Rev. Educ. Res. 86 (2), 503–530. doi:10.3102/0034654315609419

Susanne, S. (2021). “Inclusive and Special Education in Europe,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Inclusive and Special Education . Editors U. Sharma, and S. Salend (Oxford: Oxford University Press ), 807–819. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1230

Susanne, S. (2018). “Peer-relaNons of Students with Special Educational Needs in Inclusive Education,” in Dirib Cittadinanza Inclusione . Editors S. Polenghi, M. Fiorucci, and L. Agostinetto (Rovato: Pensa MultiMedia ), 15–24. Available at: https://www.siped.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-Roma-Ab.pdf

Tang, J. S. Y., Chen, N. T. M., Falkmer, M., Bӧlte, S., and Girdler, S. (2019). A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Social Emotional Computer Based Interventions for Autistic Individuals Using the Serious Game Framework. Res. Autism Spectr. Disord. 66 (10), 101412. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2019.101412

Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., and Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting Positive Youth Development through School-Based Social and Emotional Learning Interventions: A Meta-Analysis of Follow-Up Effects. Child. Dev. 88 (4), 1156–1171. doi:10.1111/cdev.12864

Ullebø, A. K., Posserud, M.-B., Heiervang, E., Gillberg, C., and Obel, C. (2011). Screening for the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Phenotype Using the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire. Eur. Child. Adolesc. Psychiatry 20 (9), 451–458. doi:10.1007/s00787-011-0198-9

Walker, H. M., and Severson, H. H. (1992). Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) . Second Edition. Boston Ave: Sopris West , 1140.

Walker, H. M. (1976). Walker Problem Behavior Identification Checklist (Manual) . Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services .

Weare, K., and Nind, M. (2011). Mental Health Promotion and Problem Prevention in Schools: What Does the Evidence Say? Health Promot. Int. 26 (Suppl. 1), i29–69. doi:10.1093/heapro/dar075

Wigelsworth, M., Humphrey, N., and Lendrum, A. (2013). Evaluation of a School-wide Preventive Intervention for Adolescents: The Secondary Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) Programme. Sch. Ment. Health 5 (2), 96–109. doi:10.1007/s12310-012-9085-x

Wigelsworth, M., Lendrum, A., Oldfield, J., Scott, A., Ten Bokkel, I., Tate, K., et al. (2016). The Impact of Trial Stage, Developer Involvement and International Transferability on Universal Social and Emotional Learning Programme Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Cambridge J. Edu. 46 (3), 347–376. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2016.1195791

Zweers, I., de Schoot, R. A. G. J. v., Tick, N. T., Depaoli, S., CliftonClifton, J. P., de Castro, B. O., et al. (2021). Social-emotional Development of Students with Social-Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties in Inclusive Regular and Exclusive Special Education. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 45 (1), 59–68. doi:10.1177/0165025420915527

Keywords: soical-emotional learning, special educational needs, systematic literature review, school-based, interventions

Citation: Hassani S and Schwab S (2021) Social-Emotional Learning Interventions for Students With Special Educational Needs: A Systematic Literature Review. Front. Educ. 6:808566. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.808566

Received: 03 November 2021; Accepted: 30 November 2021; Published: 21 December 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Hassani and Schwab. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Sepideh Hassani, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

The role of evidence in developing effective educational inclusion

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 14 December 2023

Preventing bullying of students with special educational needs through dialogic gatherings: a case study in elementary education

• Garazi Álvarez-Guerrero   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0632-4391 1   nAff5 ,
• Rocío García-Carrión   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5520-5105 2 ,
• Andrea Khalfaoui 3 ,
• Maite Santiago-Garabieta 3 &
• Ramón Flecha 4  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  956 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

1587 Accesses

65 Altmetric

Metrics details

Scientific literature has clarified that bullying is a global challenge and students with special educational needs (SEN) are at a higher risk of experiencing it. Educational actions focused on dialogue and interaction as dialogic gatherings (DG) have been widely studied as a successful educational action (SEAs) rooted in egalitarian dialogue that promotes social cohesion. However, its potential to prevent bullying among students with SEN remains to be investigated. This qualitative case study explores the impact of implementing DG in two elementary classrooms and its potential to prevent school violence in a comprehensive school setting (43 students, 10–12 years old, from which 5 had SEN). Classroom observations of DGs and focus groups with teachers and students were conducted. Data analysis indicated that DG effectively contributed to students’ increased awareness regarding the distinction between violent and non-violent relationships, and influenced their personal preferences, guiding them towards non-violent behaviours. Implications for practice highlight the potential of DG to enhance non-violent behaviours among elementary students, which is particularly relevant to ensure students with SEN’s protection and inclusion.

Similar content being viewed by others

Transforming the educational experiences of marginalized students in Ghana through dialogic literary gatherings

Impact of an evidence-based training for educators on bystander intervention for the prevention of violence against lgbti+ youth.

A rapid realist review of universal interventions to promote inclusivity and acceptance of diverse sexual and gender identities in schools

Introduction.

Violence in schools is a global challenge that affects one out of three students in the world (WHO, 2020 ). The devastating consequences of suffering bullying include low academic achievement, and mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, or low self-esteem (Solberg & Olweus, 2003 ). While this issue could affect all students, those with Special Educational Needs (hereinafter, SEN) are particularly vulnerable, as they are twice more often at risk of suffering school violence than their peers without SEN, according to studies conducted in Sweden (Annerbäck et al., 2014 ), Finland (Repo & Sajaniemi, 2014 ) and the U.S. with school-aged children (Sentenac et al., 2013 ). Perceived differences in terms of physical and verbal limitations between students with and without SEN might explain the higher risk of suffering school violence (Malecki et al., 2020 ). This type of bullying, specifically targeted to students with disabilities, whether in a regular classroom or online setting, is known as, ‘Disablist bullying’ (O’Moore & McGuire, 2021 ).

In addition, fewer opportunities to interact with peers appear to be related to a higher risk of suffering victimisation among students with SEN (Glumbic & Zunic-Pavlovic, 2010 ). These findings are reinforced by Bowker et al. ( 2006 ), who showed that when students with SEN do not have peer support in the classroom are more likely to be victimised. These results highlight the crucial role peer interactions and supportive classroom environments might play in preventing school violence for all students, which is particularly important for those with SEN.

Building on the potential of peer interactions and dialogue-based actions to prevent school violence (Ríos-González et al., 2019 ), some educational actions have put together those critical components such as family and community participation, to orchestrate a safe and supportive learning environment (Morlà-Folch et al., 2022 ). In this vein, one of the most studied interventions is dialogic gatherings (DG), which are a reading activity rooted in sharing meanings, interpretations and reflections around a particular text collectively agreed upon beforehand (Ruiz-Eugenio et al., 2023 ). This particular action is identified in scientific literature as a Successful Educational Action (hereinafter, SEAs), which are school-based interventions identified by the European Project INCLUD-ED: “Strategies for Inclusion and Social Cohesion in Europe from Education” (Flecha, 2015 ) that “can improve school success and contribute to social cohesion in every context where they are implemented” (Flecha, 2015 , p. 3). This is aligned with the theory of Dialogic Society (Flecha, 2022 ), which understands that citizens can participate and benefit from the cocreation of scientific knowledge, which can lead to achieve social impact, following the criteria of the Horizon Europe framework.

As of the present, a systematic review by Ruiz-Eugenio et al. ( 2023 ) has identified over 60 scientific articles that delve into the effects of Dialogic Gatherings (DG) across a broad spectrum of academic areas, including reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition, as well as their social implications. These studies have highlighted positive outcomes, encompassing enhanced social cohesion and improved classroom climates. Furthermore, when DG is implemented using evidence-based texts that factor in their social impact, as proposed by Soler-Gallart and Flecha ( 2022 ), the results have indicated significant benefits. For instance, Buslón et al. ( 2020 ) reported that DG has a positive impact on enhancing scientific literacy among adult participants. Additionally, Garcia-Carrión et al. ( 2020 ) found that DG fosters a secure and inclusive environment for children, where every contribution is recognised and respected. Numerous studies focusing on DG have shown that this intervention can effectively increase student’s awareness of violence when implemented in early adolescence (López de Aguileta et al., 2020 ), and with girls, some of them victims of violence against women and living out-of-home care (Salceda et al., 2020 ), and girls with disabilities (Rodrigues et al., 2021 ). However, the potential of DG to prevent and counteract violence when implemented in mainstream schools and exploring especially its potential benefits for children with SEN remains to be investigated.

School violence against students with SEN and inclusive learning environments

School violence, also known as bullying, refers to aggressive behaviour aimed at inflicting injury or discomfort on another individual, which involves continuous aggression, (whether physical, psychological, or social) and usually occurs in school settings such as classrooms, the playground, or school surroundings (Olweus, 1978 ; 1993 ). According to the results of a longitudinal study developed in the United Kingdom with over 13,000 pupils aged between 7 and 15, the percentage of children who had been excluded from school is 15%, as they suffered bullying daily (Anti-Bullying Alliance, 2016 ). These data show one of the most urgent challenges educational systems must address to guarantee the right to education in schools where children might be safe (Ríos-González et al., 2019 ), as a prerequisite to learn and thrive.

Indeed, offering a high-quality and inclusive education for all, as the sustainable development goal 4 establishes (United Nations, 2015 ), entails guaranteeing a safe school environment that includes all students. For this to happen, Iñiguez-Berrozpe and colleagues ( 2021 ) highlight the importance of creating collective norms in the school to overcome violence. This collective creation of rules and standards, that set the grounds for a safe and supportive daily life in schools, is more effective if it includes in its entire process the involvement of the families and the community (Iñiguez-Berrozpe et al., 2021 ). This is consistent with other research that has also evidenced that the participation of the entire school community seems to be fundamental in reducing school violence (Espelage et al., 2015 ). Thus, this factor seems particularly relevant for students with SEN, since they are highly vulnerable to violence in school (UNESCO, 2019 ).

Among the multiple variations in the terminology used to refer to students with SEN, a generic term widely used in the literature for decades, include “all children who have developmental difficulties that affect: their learning; their behavioural, emotional and social development; their communication; and their ability to care for themselves and gain independence” (Lindsay, 2007 , p. 3). Furthermore, students with SEN often experience more bullying, discrimination, and isolation than their peers without SEN (Turner et al., 2011 ). Indeed, they are also more likely to suffer incidents of physical, verbal, emotional, or sexual abuse being highly vulnerable (Malecki et al., 2020 ; Reiter, Lapidot-Lefler ( 2007 )). In addition, this student body might have fewer opportunities to interact with their peers in a mainstream classroom, which also increases the likelihood of being victims of school violence (Bowker et al., 2006 ). Since the context matters to enable or hinder students’ opportunities to learn and feel supported, creating learning environments that generate opportunities for peer interactions seems particularly relevant for students with SEN.

In this regard, decades of research have been looking at what schools can do to foster violence-free inclusive learning environments, which are defined as natural and non-restrictive contexts, where all students are granted the opportunity to interact with each other in egalitarian conditions (Schoger, 2006 ). For instance, when Draper et al., ( 2019 ) explored effective strategies to support peer interactions for students with severe disabilities in music classes in the USA, they found that activities that allowed students to work together and help each other were significantly efficient to increase positive peer interactions. Indeed, inclusive learning environments prioritise dialogue-based practices to ensure that everyone has equal opportunities to participate, and that the voices of all students are heard and considered (Donnelly et al., 2016 ). This happens to be crucial since a lack of peer interactions in the classroom has been pointed out as a risk factor linked to school violence (Glumbic & Zunic-Pavlovic, 2010 ). In this sense, The report “Achieving student well-being for all: educational contexts free of violence” contracted and funded by the EC to find the programmes that have succeeded in preventing violence against children found that a common element in all programmes that overcome violence against children is the involvement of the whole community, its scientific training and its union in the response to cases, always supporting the victims (Flecha, Puigvert & Racionero-Plaza 2023 ).

These dialogue-based interventions have been defined by the INCLUD-ED: “Strategies for inclusion and social cohesion in Europe from education” (Flecha, 2015 ) project as successful educational actions (SEAs hereinafter) (Flecha, 2015 ). Research has reported these SEAs promote social cohesion and foster academic success among students across the globe, including in special education settings (Navarro-Mateu et al., 2021 ; Álvarez-Guerrero et al., 2021 ). There are several benefits SEAs have achieved when implemented accurately; as research has shown students have improved their interpersonal relations (García-Carrión et al., 2020 ) and communicative competence (Fernández-Villardón et al., 2021 ), among others. Within the seven successful educational actions (Flecha, 2015 ) identified in the INCLUD-ED project, this article focuses on the Dialogic Gatherings (DG hereinafter), that have been applied in the frame of the Dialogic Model of Prevention and Resolution of Conflicts, two specific successful educational actions aiming at preventing and reducing school violence.

Putting dialogic learning to work to prevent and reduce school violence

Educational research has provided relevant insights on how to prevent school violence using a dialogic approach (Padrós, 2014 ). Using a variety of texts such as literary or scientific works to open dialogues on bullying or child abuse has been a recurrent tool for deepening the understanding of bullying (Salceda et al., 2020 ; Williams, 2020 ). Moreover, it has been used to implement classroom strategies for overcoming bullying among students of different age groups (Aubert, 2015 ; Rosen et al., 2023 ).

In this framework, Dialogic Gatherings can be implemented in the classroom to engage students in a collective construction of knowledge and meaning when they discuss a previous reading of the same text (García-Carrión et al., 2020 ). In DGs, participants choose based on reasoning and validity arguments (Habermas, 1984 ) one of the greatest works in different cultural or scientific fields, such as literature, art, music, or science. Then, students read the text individually and select a piece or paragraph that appeals to them for any reason to be shared later in the DG where they engage in meaningful and critical dialogues around the previous reading. In addition to the positive effects documented in the utilisation of DG (Ruiz-Eugenio et al., 2023 ), as previously stated, there has been a paucity of research that has examined its specific potential in cultivating protective factors aimed at mitigating school violence, with a particular focus on children with SEN.

However, DGs can be implemented as a specific strategy within the Dialogic Model of Prevention and Resolution of Conflicts, one of the successful educational actions addressed to reduce and prevent bullying. This dialogic model is characterised by using dialogue as the tool for fostering egalitarian relationships involving students, teachers, families and community members in creating rules and reaching agreements of school-wide standards for better coexistence through a dialogic process (Villarejo-Carballido et al., 2019 ). Particularly, the dialogic model promotes a bystander intervention among the students and the entire community to foster solidarity and protective networks in the school (Duque et al., 2021 ). Hence, spaces for dialogue are created with the aim of promoting a culture of protection and rejection of violence through interactions in which many diverse voices are included. Accordingly, the DGs are one of those spaces where egalitarian dialogues take place among the students, including everyone’s voice in a safe and supportive environment where every single child is included.

A case study (Yin, 2018 ) was carried out to achieve an in-depth understanding of how Dialogic Gatherings might have an impact, if any, in preventing bullying, and particularly against students with SEN, as they are more vulnerable to suffer bullying (Farmer et al., 2017 ). Thus, this research aims to answer the following research questions:

How can Dialogic Gatherings using research-informed texts contribute to improving peer relationships and create safe environments among students with and without SEN in an Elementary school?

To what extent, if any, this environment can protect from suffering bullying students with SEN?

The study was conducted between May and June 2022 in a school located in the Basque Country (Spain) in a low socioeconomic area. It serves students from 2 to 12 years. It is a culturally and linguistically diverse school, where over more than 39% of students are migrants and the rest come from migrant families from 28 different countries mainly from Northern and Occidental Africa, Occidental Asia, and South America.

Participants

A total of fifty-one participants, including students, school staff and parents, who volunteered in the school, were involved in the study. In the DG sessions, 43 students between 10 and 12 years old (see Table 1 for more details), three mothers and one father aged between 30 and 45 years old, and two female teachers participated. Then, in the focus groups, three more female school staff members participated: the School Principal, the Special Education Teacher, and the School Counsellor. Students and parents were the participants in the DG, they contributed with their ideas, sharing their arguments and commenting on each other’s opinions, prompted by the text previously read. The teachers acted as facilitators of the discussion, taking turns ensuring the dialogic principles underlying the activity (Flecha, 2000 ).

As the study has a special emphasis on students with SEN, more details about these participants are provided to frame their specific needs (see Table 2 ).

Data collection

Four classroom observations were conducted during the Dialogic Gatherings (two in each group) in which students discussed the previous reading of the research-informed texts. Following the guidelines of the dialogic gatherings, the participants sat in a circle and participated in the discussion. They were not asked to do anything beyond participating in the session. All sessions were video recorded for a later in-depth analysis to explore dialogues about key elements that help overcoming bullying at schools, and specifically against students with SEN.

After the implementation of the DGs, five focus groups of approximately 30 min each were conducted, and audio recorded between May and June 2022. Four with 5 students from each group -A and B-, and one with teachers and school staff: two teachers, the special education teacher, the school counsellor, and the principal. This technique enabled us to explore both individual and collective perspectives, leading to a more profound comprehension of the experience of bullying, the higher risk that students with SEN have and the factors that might protect them following the Communicative Methodology (Gómez et al., 2010 ). The techniques described in this section were carried out inside the school, and all the participants and they were asked to give their opinions about the intervention. They were also asked if there was something that particularly helped them in the dialogic gatherings to prevent violence. Table 3 summarises the data collection techniques and participants involved.

Procedure and materials

Prior to starting the school year, in June 2021 this school was contacted as it was interested in preventing bullying or any kind of school violence. After reaching a consensus with all members of the community (students, teachers, and families) the school agreed to implement the dialogic Model and the dialogic gatherings using research-informed texts. The study was conducted in the 2021–2022 academic year and two elementary education fourth-grade classrooms (Group A and Group B) implemented the DG. These groups were selected because (a) having a higher number of conflicts among the students and (b) having a higher number of students with SEN than in the rest of the classrooms.

Thus, from May to June 2022, a rigorous implementation of DG was ensured through a close collaboration between the teachers and the researchers. The DG lasted around one hour and a half. The texts used in DG were two scientific dissemination articles about bullying prevention, published in “Kaiera,” a free open-access online journal that publishes research-informed articles. The dissemination article read and discussed in the first session was based on the results of the study by Palikara et al. ( 2021 ) on the mediating role of school belonging in school-aged children, entitled “The relationship between school sense of belonging, emotional well-being and feeling of loneliness”. The second DG was an adaptation of the article ‘A Friend Is a Treasure and May Help You to Face Bullying’ (Navarro et al., 2018 ), which included examples of bullying situations.

During the gatherings, all the participants sat in a circle, so that everyone could see each other. The classroom teacher facilitated the gathering ensuring an equitable participation and a respectful environment, that values arguments and rejects power-based interventions. During the sessions, students share what appeals to them from the text and link it to their own daily experiences, engaging in meaningful dialogues that ultimately lead them to a deeper understanding of the given text.

Students with SEN participated in the DG sessions alongside their peers. In order to ensure their equitable participation, those students had the opportunity to prepare for the gathering beforehand by reading the text in advance with the support of the special education teacher. This was an initiative of the school to support the participation of these students in the DG because they present some level of difficulties in reading skills. The preparation consisted of 2 group sessions with these students, where the assistant teacher helped them to read, underline the information they wanted to share, and assist them in drafting what they wanted to talk about during the session.

The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Deusto (ETK-45/21-22). Informed consent was ensured before the study started, which included the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequences. Participants’ identity is protected by pseudonyms to ensure their anonymity. In terms of data protection, this study has securely stored data in an online cloud only accessible by the researchers. The data collected from the study is treated with strict confidentiality and used solely for the purposes of the study. This study is also part of the competitive project funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain: “CHILDPRO: It is never too early to prevent gender-based violence: identification and overcoming of risk behaviours in childhood” (REF: PID2020-115581RB-I00).

Data analysis

All the data collected were transcribed verbatim and analysed. Thus, inductive thematic analysis was carried out which allowed us to determine themes found within our research data (Clarke, Braun ( 2017 )). A total of four main themes were identified: (1) Raising awareness of violent behaviours; (2) Importance of reading evidence-based texts about friendship; (3) Fostering safe inclusive learning environments; (4) Sustainability of the intervention over time.

After that, the data was categorised to explore the barriers and the opportunities of the dialogic gatherings based on the two components of the Communicative Methodology: exclusionary, and transformative dimensions (Gómez et al., 2010 ). The first one, the exclusionary dimension, identifies the obstacles to social transformation. The second one, the transformative dimension, includes the elements that overcome these barriers. Considering this transformative approach is particularly important when doing research with students with SEN, because of their vulnerability to being bullied and excluded.

A total of 863 utterances were analysed. From those, 90% emerged as transformative dimensions of the dialogic gatherings and 10% reported barriers or exclusionary dimensions. Accordingly, this section is structured within these two main dimensions that include the results of the thematic analysis illustrated through participants’ voices. All the participants were asked to fill out an informed consent. In the case of children, their parents signed it, and they were also asked to give their verbal consent. Their participation was voluntary and there were no economic or material compensations for participating in this research.

Transformative dimension

Raising awareness of violent behaviours and challenging them.

The dialogues shared in the gatherings helped students to reflect on their own behaviours and raised their awareness about violent behaviours, their consequences and the possibility to change them. In this regard, Brian, a student with ADHD and mild intellectual disability, usually misbehaved in the classroom and disturbed his peers. In the second DG, dialogues were shared about hypothetical situations when someone tries to force you to do something you do not want to do, and he raised his hand and asked the following question:

For example, someone is with me, tells me to do something I don’t want to do… What can I do? I think I did something wrong, and I regret it. I have also realised that I don’t like being told what to do… (Brian, DG 2, group B).

Later, in the focus group Brian shared he wanted to improve his own attitude, as he realised after the DG that his peers with violent attitudes were influencing and shaping his behaviour. Also, Brian’s mother expressed in one of the DG her concerns about children’s mental health when they misbehave, and she told the students they have to behave appropriately at school with their peers. The following dialogue illustrates how Brian reflected about his own attitude and the behaviours of colleagues from whom he was receiving pressure to do things he didn’t like. In this sense, his classmates Mike, and Ethan, encouraged him to change his attitude to release himself from such pressures.

Brian (student with SEN): Some of those who misbehave to be funny, they make other people follow them and for example. I have done it and I keep… Sometimes I misbehave and I follow them around, and I don’t know how not to follow them around because they only talk nonsense… And after the DG I want to improve my attitude, I want to change, I don’t want to keep misbehaving.

Mike: I can tell you that those who have driven you to misbehave, don’t listen to them, because they won’t help you to be better.

Ethan: Brian, you… Even if they made you misbehave, try not to have that attitude. I know you have got used to having that attitude but try to get rid of it. I know, it’s very difficult, when you get used to something it’s very difficult to change it… But at least try! And if you can’t… At least you have tried! (Students, group B).

After these dialogues, Brian stayed in silence for a few seconds and answered to Mike and Ethan saying he would change his attitude, respecting others and letting them participate in the sessions without interrupting them.

Well… I’m going to try it; Now I understand that I need to change my attitude and I will. If I don’t change it some people are going to get angry with me, and if I continue misbehaving, my classmates won’t be able to participate in the sessions. (Brian, student, group B).

Also, students reported that the DG has helped them to be more aware of who is their friend and who has violent behaviours towards them, so they do not consider this attitude as desirable when choosing with whom they want to establish their friendships.

Amber: I have friends, but they are not my friends, because they misbehave and have violent behaviours. That’s why I don’t want to be with them, I don’t like it. That’s why they are not my friends.

Sophia: I have good friends who help me in general, who help me to do my work… and when I’m sad they come to me and ask me if I’m fine.

Researcher: And who wouldn’t be your friend Sophia?

Sophia: Well, they wouldn’t be my friends if they hit me, if they treat me badly, if they behave badly… like… if they hurt me. (Students, group A).

The importance of reading research-informed texts about friendship

It was also identified that reading texts that reported scientific evidence about school violence during the DG sessions supported some students in improving their behaviour. In the case of Amber, a girl from group A, she mentions that it has been very significant to read this type of text, as it has helped her to better identify how aggressors behave and that she has perceived how some of her peers also started acting differently after participating in DG.

When we started to read Kaiera’s texts in the DG, some people started to behave better when they read them. Because I think, in my opinion, they saw the aggressor’s behaviour and they didn’t want to be like those aggressors. (Amber, group A)

During the DG students engaged in discussions about their daily experiences at school, particularly focusing on their own behaviours and attitudes. In this specific interaction, the researcher directs the students’ attention to an image showing a playground and a situation where a group of students is bullying another student. Anthony, one of the students, acknowledges that he has experienced a similar situation where a student was mocking another one, and he mentions that he has taken action to help. This illustrates how Dialogic Gatherings can help students reflect on their own experiences and actions, helping students to have a better understanding of bullying and friendship.

Researcher: Look, in this image you can see a playground and how someone is reporting when they see that a group is bullying someone ((points the picture)).

Anthony: I have seen myself in that situation ((referring to a scene in the illustration where a student is mocking another one)) and I have helped.

Researcher: That’s great, Martin has something to add.

Martin: That’s true, he has helped and comforted me. Now I know that to help a friend means to be a true friend. (DG 2, group A).

In that session, the teacher added that this idea seemed very important to her, and another student, Gemma, replied to her, that being a good friend meant being treated well and not letting others hurt you. Julia responded that the text highlights the importance of having good friends who help you getting over bullying.

Group A teacher: Yes, I have also seen that and think it is so important to give support.

Researcher: Definitely, Gemma.

Gemma: I also like it when they are with me and treat me well. A friend is someone who listens to you and doesn’t leave you alone when they pick on you.

Researcher: ((Assents)) Julia.

Julia: As the text says it’s super important to have good friends who help you end bullying. (DG 2, group A).

Finally, when students were asked in the focus group if anything had been done during the academic year had increased their sense of being safe in the school, two of the students, Amber and Sophia answered that the DG helped them to feel safer, highlighting that evidence-based text provided them with relevant information to better understand friendship.

Researcher: Is there anything that has made you feel safer in the school during this school year?

Amber and Sophia: The Dialogic Gatherings.

Researcher: And what do you think is the most remarkable about them?

Sophia: Well, the texts like the one about violent behaviour and the other one about friendship.

Amber: Now after reading the texts we know better who our friend is and who is not. (FG students, group A).

Fostering a safe and inclusive learning environment

Students underline that they have learned that friendship can prevent bullying by reading and sharing the article of Navarro et al. ( 2018 ) about friendship, which made them reconsider the definition of what it means to be a true friend. This also helped bullying prevention, as the text provides them with science-based actions that help to overcome violence in school. In this line, when the students of group A were asked during the focus group if they feel safer at the school after the DG, they answered that now they all feel safer because they know that their friends will protect them if something happens.

Researcher: So, after the DG do you feel safer at school?

Researcher: And why?

Amber: Because now after talking about this we know that when you have friends, they help you not to suffer aggression or abuse, because as it says in the text: “a friend is a treasure that helps you to prevent bullying” and we are better friends now. (Focus group students, group A).

This student, Amber, who is seated in class next to Noa, also underlined that after participating in DG, what they have learned is that being alone increases the risk of suffering bullying, and now they know that if they want to combat bullying, they need to address this issue. Having this in mind, Amber, Sophia, and Anthony, students without SEN who took part in the focus group, reported that after the DG sessions they and other peers began to play with Noa, a student with SEN that was excluded regularly before the implementation:

Amber: Noa (student with SEN) she was always alone, but then we started to understand that you have to play with everyone and not leave someone alone. So, some people started to play with her!

Sophia: I started to play with her too!

Anthony: Me too! (Focus group, students, group A).

In the case of Noa, she had previously reported that she did not have any friends at school, and after the DG sessions, other pupils noticed this and started interacting with her in class and in the playground. The teacher from group A shared in the focus group that the implementation of DG has helped to overcome isolation in the school context:

I think that to prevent violence it is important to say that what happens to you happens to everyone and that everyone is not an isolated individual, but that we are all one. We are group A, and that’s it! That was so important. (Classroom teacher, Group A).

Students were also more aware of the specific needs of other peers with SEN, such as the possible limitations in verbal or social skills. The teacher comments on the case of Martin, a pupil who had self-harming behaviours by hitting his head against the walls when he was alone in the playground. She says that when she told him to stop, he did not, but when his peers told him to go with them, he listened and immediately stopped hurting himself. Since Martin’s classmates knew about the importance of including everyone through the DG, this situation changed and now it does not happen because he is no longer alone.

At the beginning of the school year, Martin (student with SEN) usually was all alone during the playground and all the time was banging his head against the walls, and no matter how many times I told him to get off, he wouldn’t get off. Now he never does it because he is never alone. Sometimes, he tries to isolate himself, and when I try to speak, he doesn’t listen to me. But if someone else from the classroom goes, he immediately pays attention to them. (Classroom teacher, group A).

Rachel’s case is worth to mention, as an outstanding case of a student with SEN that showed that being involved in the dialogic gatherings helped her to enhance her sense of belonging and foster her participation in school. Rachel had communication difficulties that prevented her from participating in regular classroom activities but in the DG, she voluntarily raised her hand to read and comment on the paragraph she had selected, expressing her opinion on it. The special education teacher in that moment reported that was the first time she had participated in class. As we can see in the quote, Rachel’s intervention triggered further discussions because another student responded to her idea by agreeing with her statement:

Rachel: Bullying is a form of aggression, which means it’s behaviour that is used to hurt someone.” It’s a behaviour that is used to harm someone because I believe hurting someone is wrong, and bullying is also wrong because the victim suffers.

Laia: I have chosen the same paragraph because there are some who don’t realise that harm can be done just with words… and I also liked what Rachel said. (DG 2, group B).

Teacher from group B also reported that Rachel has improved in terms of socialisation after the DG as she has started to participate in the class. She explains how Rachel, through this text and the dialogues shared, learnt that the risk of suffering bullying increases with loneliness and this was a crucial realisation since she usually self-isolated. Participating in the DG opened her the door to participate and to feel more included, breaking the dangerous walls of solitude.

There is a student, Rachel (Student with SEN), who joined us last year and usually spent time with two students, but this year those students have left, and she doesn’t want to socialise anymore. It is true that in the last DG we did, when we read about “if you isolate yourself, you are more at risk of being bullied”, it made an impact on her, and she spent a couple of weeks talking more with everyone. In class I also started to notice that she was there, because she was always quiet, and then it was like “I’m listening to your voice! (Classroom teacher, group B).

Exclusionary dimension

Sustainability of the intervention over time.

Teachers reported the limitations they encounter to maintain the gains observed during the DGs over time. That is, some students benefitted from being involved in the gatherings, and that opened new possibilities for participation and socialisation, such as the case of Rachel, as reported by the special education teacher:

I think that for Rachel (Student with SEN), DG has opened a door for her to interact with other children. It took a while for her to understand the text, but when she read that if she isolated herself, she could be bullied, she was the one who wanted to socialise. (Special education teacher).

However, she also acknowledged that Rachel did not continue socialising after the gatherings were over.

But after two weeks she was isolating herself again. That’s why I think that if we had continued with the DG, these impacts would not have been lost. (Special education teacher).

Hence, the special education teacher suggests that extending the DG during the entire school year would enlarge its benefits and argues that if the intervention had continued, these benefits could have been maintained.

Results reveal that Dialogic Gatherings had a positive impact among students in different dimensions. Firstly, by promoting the creation of a safe and inclusive learning environment in which students can share their thoughts and feelings about issues related to school violence. Previous research shows how dialogic interventions for violence prevention can generate an adequate climate to improve social cohesion in schools (Oliver, 2014 ). Through DG, we have seen how students with and without SEN started to communicate effectively, creating new relationships with their peers, and taking care of the most vulnerable ones, which is essential for preventing violence in the school context (Dunn, 2004 ). Through dialogues shared in DG, students have also learned to respect and appreciate differences among their peers, which can lead to a more inclusive and comprehensive school environment (García-Carrión et al., 2018 ).

Secondly, there has been an improvement in reducing the attractiveness of violent behaviours. This, in turn, has increased the greater appreciation of positive behaviours, leading students to prefer or prioritise friendships free of violence. These results feed previous research about the effectiveness of Dialogic Gatherings in the prevention of gender violence among girls with intellectual disabilities (Rodrigues et al., 2021 ). Indeed, dialogues about the importance of not letting anyone behind and friendship were particularly relevant results of DG, as those make students be more aware of the key role everyone holds in ensuring an inclusive and violence-free environments at school. Also, sharing their thoughts, experiences, and beliefs on a particular reading under the dialogic conditions of the DG facilitates the participation of students with SEN, which bridges relationships with their peers without SEN. These kinds of relationships have proven to act as a protective factor to counteract school violence (Farmer et al., 2016 ).

Thirdly, DG has offered the participants the opportunity not only to read high-quality research-informed texts but also to make students reflect about their own daily experiences and relationships, leading them to choose non-violent friends. Through the dialogues developed during the Dialogic Gatherings and the focus groups, students with and without SEN have developed strategies to distinguish between those who are their friends and those who are not, by reflecting on how their peers treated them and vice versa. It also has helped students with SEN to reflect about their own behaviour, which opens new possibilities to prevent conflicts and to autoregulate themselves, which is essential for human development (Vallotton & Ayoub, 2011 ). This is consistent with the preventive socialisation theory that raises awareness about the link between violent actions and attractiveness, unveiling violent models in society and eliminating their appeal (Valls et al., 2008 ).

Limitations and future research

Although this is a highly relevant topic that has been little studied so far, the implementation of DG in mainstream elementary education has shown promising results in overcoming and preventing bullying. The study acknowledges some limitations: on the one hand, the number of participants and the sessions carried out were limited, and even if the results are promising, they cannot be generalised. It has also been noted that the positive impacts on students with SEN were sustained over the period during which the DG was carried out. Also, future research could include playground observations, in addition to DG observations, by a pre-post design to better inform the possible changes in students’ relationships. Also, it may be studied how the sustainability of this action over time would benefit students with and without SEN. Finally, it will also be valuable to explore the transferability of DG to other contexts and settings such as special education, and how it can be adapted to meet the needs of more diverse students.

The findings from this study suggest that dialogic gatherings (DG) have had a positive impact on students generating safe inclusive learning environments in a mainstream schools, and resulting in benefiting students with SEN. The DG, as a Successful Educational Action, created and structured an inclusive space where students shared their experiences and engaged in critical readings, reflections, and discussions on important issues in addressing bullying such as friendship as a protective factor and bullying. After the intervention, students have reported feeling safer and more supported in the school environment. Overall, DG fostered a greater sense of belonging to the school and redefined the concept of friendship to exclude all kinds of violence from it. In addition, this inclusive learning environment raised awareness of the situation of loneliness some students with SEN were experiencing and helped in self-harm prevention by generating support networks. Also, participants of this study understood the importance of standing up for those who are particularly vulnerable, such as students with SEN and fostered positive peer interactions towards students that were usually left apart. Furthermore, DG has opened the door to greater empathy towards students with SEN, so that they do not feel alone at school.

In summary, DG about friendship has had a positive impact on students with and without SEN, helping them to develop a greater understanding of what friendship means, reducing the appeal of violent behaviours, raising awareness about bullying, and advancing toward more inclusive school environments. These findings present promising results to enhance safe, supportive, and inclusive learning environments in mainstream schools, and to ensure quality education for all.

Data availability

All the data is stored by researchers and will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Code availability

The code of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Material availability

The materials of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Álvarez-Guerrero G, López de Aguileta A, Racionero-Plaza S, Flores-Moncada LG (2021) Beyond the school walls: Keeping interactive learning environments alive in confinement for students in special education. Front Psychol 12:662646. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662646

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Annerbäck EM, Sahlqvist L, Wingren G (2014) A cross-sectional study of victimisation of bullying among schoolchildren in Sweden: Background factors and self-reported health complaints. Scand J Public Health 42(3):270–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494813514142

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Anti-Bullying Alliance (2016) Bullying and wellbeing: report from stage 1 of data collection. Anti-bullying alliance. Retrieved July 15, 2023, from https://bit.ly/3I58xh2

Aubert A (2015) Amaya: dialogic literary gatherings evoking passion for learning and a transformation of the relationships of a Roma girl with her classmates. Qual Inq 21(10):858–864. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800415614034

Article   Google Scholar  

Bowker JCW, Rubin KH, Burgess KB, Booth-LaForce, Rose-Krasnor L (2006) Behavioral characteristics associated with stable and fluid best friendship patterns in middle childhood. Merrill-Palmer Q 52(4):671–693. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2006.0000

Buslón N, Gairal R, León S, Padrós M, Reale E (2020) The scientific self-literacy of ordinary people: Scientific Dialogic Gatherings. Qual Inq 26(8-9):977–982. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800420938725

Clarke V, Braun V (2017) Thematic analysis. J Posit Psychol 12(3):297–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613

Donnelly V, Murchú FÓ, Thies W (2016) Addressing the challenges of raising achievement for all. In: Watkins A, Meijer C (eds.). Implementing inclusive education: issues in bridging the policy-practice gap (pp. 181-205). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. pp. 181–205

Draper EA, Brown LS, Jellison JA (2019) Peer-interaction strategies: fostering positive experiences for students with severe disabilities in inclusive music classes. Appl Res Music Educ 37(3):28–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123318820401

Dunn J (2004) Children’s friendships: the beginnings of intimacy. Blackwell

Duque E, Carbonell S, de Botton L, y Roca-Campos E (2021) Creating learning environments free of violence in special education through the dialogic model of prevention and resolution of conflicts. Front Psychol 12:662831. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662831

Espelage DL, Rose CA, y Polanin JR (2015) Social-emotional learning program to reduce bullying, fighting, and victimization among middle school students with disabilities. Remedial Spec Educ 36(5):299–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514564564

Farmer TW, Sutherland KS, Talbott E, Brooks D, Norwalk K, Huneke M (2016) Special educators as intervention specialists: Dynamic systems and the complexity of intensifying intervention for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. J Emot Behav Disord 24(3):173–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426616650166

Farmer VL, Williams SM, Mann JI, Schofield G, McPhee JC, Taylor RW (2017) Change of school playground environment on bullying: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics 139(5):e20163072. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3072

Fernández-Villardón A, Valls-Carol R, Melgar P, Tellado I (2021) Enhancing literacy and communicative skills of students with disabilities in special schools through dialogic literary gatherings. Front Psychol 12:1275. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662639

Flecha R (2000) Sharing words: theory and practice of dialogic learning. Rowman & Littlefield

Flecha R (2015) Successful educational actions for inclusion and social cohesion in Europe. Springer

Flecha R (2022) The Dialogic Society: the sociology scientists and citizens like and use. Hipatia Press

Flecha R, Puigvert L, Racionero-Plaza S (2023) ‘Achieving student well-being for all: educational contexts free of violence’, NESET report. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

García-Carrión R, Molina S, Roca-Campos E (2018) Interactive learning environments for the educational improvement of students with disabilities in special schools. Front Psychol 9:1744. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01744

García-Carrión R, Villardón-Gallego L, Martínez-de-la-Hidalga Z, Marauri J (2020) Exploring the impact of dialogic literary gatherings on students’ relationships with a communicative approach. Qual Inq 26(8–9):996–1002. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800420938879

Glumbic N, y Zunic-Pavlovic V (2010) Bullying behavior in children with intellectual disability. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2(2):2784–2788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.415

Gómez A, Racionero-Plaza S, Sordé T (2010) Ten years of critical communicative methodology. Int Rev Qual Res 3(1):17–43. https://doi.org/10.1525/irqr.2010.3.1.17

Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action. Beacon Press

Iñiguez-Berrozpe T, Orejudo-Hernández S, Ruiz-Eugenio L, Elboj-Saso C (2021) School networks of positive relationships, attitudes against violence, and prevention of relational bullying in victim, bystander, and aggressor agents. J Sch Violence 20(2):212–227

Lindsay G (2007) Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming. Br J Educ Psychol 77(1):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X156881

López de Aguileta G, Torras-Gómez E, García-Carrión R, Flecha R (2020) The emergence of the language of desire toward nonviolent relationships during the dialogic literary gatherings. Lang Educ 34(6):583–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2020.1801715

Malecki CK, Demaray MK, Smith TJ, Emmons J (2020) Disability, poverty, and other risk factors associated with involvement in bullying behaviors. J Sch Psychol 78:115–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.01.002

Morlà-Folch T, Davis AIR, Cuxart MP, Valls-Carol R (2022) A research synthesis of the impacts of successful educational actions on student outcomes. Educ Res Rev 37:100482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100482

Navarro-Mateu D, Gómez-Domínguez T, Padrós Cuxart M, Roca-Campos E (2021) Dialogic learning environments that enhance instrumental learning and inclusion of students with special needs in secondary education. Front Psychol 12:662650. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662650

Navarro R, Yubero S, Larrañaga E (2018) A friend is a treasure and may help you to face bullying. Front Young Minds 6(14):1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/frym.2018.00014

O’Moore M, McGuire L (2021) Disablist bullying. In: Smith PK, O’Higgins Norman J (eds.). The Wiley Blackwell handbook of bullying: a comprehensive and international review of research and intervention. vol. 1. Wiley Blackwell. pp. 342–360

Oliver E (2014) Zero violence since early childhood: the dialogic recreation of knowledge. Qual Inq 20(7):902–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414537215

Olweus D (1978) Aggression in the schools: bullies and whipping boys. Hemisphere

Olweus D (1993) Bullying at school: what we know and what we can do. Blackwell

Padrós M (2014) A transformative approach to prevent peer violence in schools: contributions from communicative research methods. Qual Inq 20(7):916–922. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414537217

Palikara O, Castro-Kemp S, Gaona C, Eirinaki V (2021) The mediating role of school belonging in the relationship between socioemotional well-being and loneliness in primary school age children. Aust J Psychol 73(1):24–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.1882270

Reiter S, Lapidot-Lefler N (2007) Bullying among special education students with intellectual disabilities: Differences in social adjustment and social skills. Intellect Dev Disabil 45(3):174–181. 10.1352/1934-9556(2007)45[174:BASESW]2.0.CO;2

Repo L, Sajaniemi N (2014) Bystanders’ roles and children with special educational needs in bullying situations among preschool-aged children. Early Years 35(1):5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2014.953917

Ríos-González O, Puigvert L, Sanvicén P, Aubert A (2019) Promoting zero violence from early childhood: a case study on the prevention of aggressive behavior in Cappont Nursery. Eur Early Child Educ Res J 27(2):157–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2019.1579544

Rodrigues R, Soler-Gallart M, Marini F, Natividad-Sancho L (2021) Dialogic feminist gathering and the prevention of gender violence in girls with intellectual disabilities. Front Psychol 12:662241. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662241

Rosen LH, Scott SR, Higgins MG (2023) Books and bullies: responses to bullying in preschool students. Int J Bull Prev 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-023-00171-z

Ruiz-Eugenio L, Soler-Gallart M, Racionero-Plaza S, Padrós M (2023) Dialogic literary gatherings: a systematic review of evidence to overcome social and educational inequalities. Educ Res Rev 39(100534):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100534

Salceda M, Vidu A, Aubert A, Roca E (2020) Dialogic feminist gatherings: Impact of the preventive socialization of gender-based violence on adolescent girls in out-of-home care. Soc Sci 9(8):138. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9080138

Schoger KD (2006) Reverse inclusion: providing peer social interaction opportunities to students placed in self-contained special education classrooms. Teach Except Child 2(6):3

Google Scholar  

Sentenac M, Gavin A, Gabhainn SN, Molcho M, Due P, Ravens-Sieberer U, de Matos MG, Malkowska-Szkutnik A, Gobina I, Vollebergh W, Arnaud C, Godeau E (2013) Peer victimization and subjective health among students reporting disability or chronic illness in 11 Western countries. Eur J Public Health 23(3):421–426. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cks073

Solberg ME, Olweus D (2003) Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behav 29:239–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.10047

Soler-Gallart M, Flecha R (2022) Researchers’ Perceptions about methodological innovations in research oriented to social impact: Citizen evaluation of social impact. Int J Qual Methods 21:16094069211067654. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211067654

Turner HA, Vanderminden J, Finkelhor D, Hamby S, Shattuck A (2011) Disability and victimization in a national sample of children and youth. Child Maltreat 16(4):275–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559511427178

UNESCO (2019) Behind the numbers: ending school violence and bullying. UNESCO. Retrieved July 15, 2023, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000366483

United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations. Retrieved from: bit.ly/42ImdpF

Vallotton C, Ayoub C (2011) Use your words: the role of language in the development of toddlers’ self-regulation. Early Child Res Q 26(2):169–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.09.002

Valls R, Puigvert L, Duque E (2008) Gender violence among teenagers: Socialization and prevention. Viol Women 14(7):759–785. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208320365

Villarejo-Carballido B, Pulido CM, de Botton L, Serradell O (2019) Dialogic model of prevention and resolution of conflicts: evidence of the success of cyberbullying prevention in a primary school in Catalonia. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(6):918. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060918

Williams K (2020) What imaginative literature can teach us about bullying. Int J Bull Prev 2(3):170–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-020-00077-0

World Health Organization (WHO) (2020, June 18) Global status report on preventing violence against children 2020. World Health Organization. Retrieved July 15, 2023, from https://www.who.int/teams/social-determinants-of-health/violence-prevention/global-status-report-on-violence-against-children-2020

Yin RK (2018) Case study research and applications design and methods (6th edn.). Sage

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is funded by the Project “CHILDPRO: It is never too early to prevent gender-based violence: identification and overcoming of risk behaviours in childhood” (REF: PID2020-115581RB-I00) funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain.

Author information

Garazi Álvarez-Guerrero

Present address: University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain

Authors and Affiliations

University of the Basque Country, San Sebastian, Spain

University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain

Rocío García-Carrión

University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Spain

Andrea Khalfaoui & Maite Santiago-Garabieta

University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Ramón Flecha

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RG-C and RF contributed to the conception and design of the study. GÁ-G did the data collection, organised the database. GÁ-G wrote the first draft of the manuscript. RG-C, AK, MS-G and RF revised and edited the manuscript. All authors contributed to the manuscript revision, and read and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Garazi Álvarez-Guerrero .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

The Ethics Committee of the University of Deusto approved this research. Reference: ETK-45/21-22. All research was performed in accordance with relevant guidelines/regulations applicable when human participants are involved according to European Union regulations (April 2016) in relation to (ii) access to personal data; (iii) use of data; and (iv) responsibilities of researchers of the project.

Informed consent

All the participants were asked to fill out an informed consent. In the case of children, their parents signed it, and they were also asked to give their verbal consent. Their participation was voluntary and there were no economic or material compensations for participating in this research.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Álvarez-Guerrero, G., García-Carrión, R., Khalfaoui, A. et al. Preventing bullying of students with special educational needs through dialogic gatherings: a case study in elementary education. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 956 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02470-8

Download citation

Received : 25 September 2023

Accepted : 27 November 2023

Published : 14 December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02470-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Open access
• Published: 18 December 2023

Challenges and opportunities of AI in inclusive education: a case study of data-enhanced active reading in Japan

• Yuko Toyokawa   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2386-3303 1 ,
• Izumi Horikoshi 2 ,
• Rwitajit Majumdar 2 , 3 &
• Hiroaki Ogata 2  

Smart Learning Environments volume  10 , Article number:  67 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

4770 Accesses

4 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

In inclusive education, students with different needs learn in the same context. With the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, it is expected that they will contribute further to an inclusive learning environment that meets the individual needs of diverse learners. However, in Japan, we did not find any studies exploring current needs in an actual special needs context. In this study, we used the learning and evidence analysis framework (LEAF) as a learning analytics-enhanced learning environment and employed Active Reading as an example learning task to investigate the challenges and possibilities of applying AI to inclusive education in the future. Two students who attended a resource room formed the context. We investigated learning logs in the LEAF system while each student executed a given learning task. We detected specific learning behaviors from the logs and explored the challenges and future potential of learning with AI technology, considering human involvement in orchestrating inclusive educational practices.

Introduction

Efforts are underway to promote the realization of inclusive education and the widespread development of inclusive environments in which all children can learn together irrespective of their disabilities, cultural backgrounds, or socioeconomic status (UNESCO, 2009 ). Inclusive education in Japan primarily focuses on learners with disabilities and aims to enable them to actively participate in and contribute to society independently in an inclusive manner (MEXT, 2012 ). In general, not only in Japan, but also in many other countries, students with mild disabilities, such as those with developmental disorders or disabilities (DD), study alongside non-disabled learners in the same learning environment in regular classes in inclusive education. In diverse but constrained learning contexts with different types of learners, teachers have difficulty orchestrating multiple flows of information and tasks (Dillenbourg, 2013 ). Although there are many different types of educational practices within inclusive education, special education (SE) approaches can be used to meet and support the unique learning needs of learners with special needs in a learning environment (Bryant et al., 2019 ).

In regular classes, all learners engage in learning at the same pace, but students with learning difficulties (LD), who are said to be less efficient at processing information, tend to have trouble catching up in class compared with other students (Gersten et al., 2001 ). This may cause depression, poor academic performance, and low self-esteem (Peterson et al., 2001 ; Rose, 2019 ). For such learners, resource rooms or pullout programs can provide extra support outside regular classes (Bryant et al., 2019 ). A resource room under inclusive education in Japan is an independent remedial class in which learners with a relatively mild disability, or those who tend to demonstrate some difficulties, leave their regular classes and receive support according to their needs (MEXT, 2020 ). In the learning context, Toyokawa and her colleagues observed that students in a resource room in Japan implemented daily learning activities with a digital e-book reader called BookRoll in the learning and evidence analysis framework (LEAF) with learning analytics (LA) technology and found the possibility of detecting their stumbling points and strengths in their learning logs (Toyokawa et al., 2022 ). A large amount of data can be accumulated from daily learning using LEAF. However, the utilization of LA technology such as LEAF for learners with special needs has not been researched extensively in an inclusive Japanese learning environment. More than 30 years ago, Yin argued about the future-oriented investigation of new technology, including using artificial intelligence (AI) in SE (Yin & Moore, 1987 ). Research on inclusive education using AI has been rapidly gaining attention worldwide (Kazimzade et al., 2019 ; Salas-Pilco et al., 2022 ). However, just as Kazimzade and her colleagues mentioned the lack of exchange between AI and disability research in their book chapter (Kazimzade et al., 2019 ), the lack of progress in the context of special needs is also the case in Japan. Therefore, we propose integrating LA and AI technology to effectively orchestrate learning for learners with special needs in inclusive education. Focusing on literacy skills that underlie all aspects of learning and daily life and bearing in mind the importance of reading, we selected active reading (AR) in an LA-enhanced learning environment as one task and investigated the challenges and possibilities of AI integration.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the second section, an overview of inclusive education in Japan, LA-enhanced learning environments, and AI in inclusive education is presented. In the third section, the research objectives and a question are stated, and then the LEAF components are introduced as a learning environment for this study, followed by participants and learning tasks. Data collection and interpretation are then described. The following section presents the findings of the case study to answer the research question. In the Discussion section, possible solutions for learning with AI are discussed along with limitations for future research. Finally, the implications and contributions of the study are highlighted.

Literature review

Special education in inclusive education in japan.

In inclusive educational environments, students study together in the same class, regardless of their difficulties. Inclusive education is defined as education in which students with disabilities have access to the standard curriculum in a general education classroom (Bryant et al., 2019 ). In the Japanese inclusive context, students with relatively mild DD [e.g., autism, low vision, speech impairment, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and LD] attend the same classes as students without DD. In Japan, the number of students with DD is increasing. According to a report from the Ministry of Education in Japan (MEXT), the number was approximately 600,000 in 2012 and 800,000 in 2022, or approximately two to three students with DD out of every thirty students in one class (MEXT, 2022a ). For such learners, a resource room or pullout program is available, and which provides extra support outside of regular classes upon request (Bryant et al., 2019 ). The support system differs depending on needs, but attending a resource room is the primary form of receiving additional support at school for learners with DD in the current inclusive education system in Japan. The Japanese resource room is an independent supplementary class in which learners with relatively mild disabilities or those who tend to show some difficulty leaving regular classes receive special support equivalent to self-reliance activities according to their needs (MEXT, 2020 ). Learners with various difficulties can receive support tailored to their individual needs, such as social or communication skills training and academic support, such as reading, writing, and math. In this respect, resource rooms can be said to be a part of SE, in which learners with difficulties can receive support based on their needs. SE is an approach designed to meet the unique learning needs of individuals with disabilities, such as students with different learning, behavioral, social communication, and basic functional needs (Bryant et al., 2019 ). Currently, the resource room service is provided at elementary schools, junior high schools, and high schools in Japan, but the situation is that there are students who need support but are left unattended for reasons such as a lack of instructors (MEXT, 2022b ).

Information and communication technology (ICT) in education is said to be progressing in Japan, but the penetration rate lags far behind that of other countries when looking at the average Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (National Institute for Educational Policy Research, 2022 ). Research on the use of ICT in SE in Japan has primarily focused on alternative and assistive technologies and teaching materials (Kinoshita et al., 2023 ; Kumagai & Nagai, 2022 ). While research on technical assistance has garnered considerable attention in the literature, there is a notable gap in research pertaining to special needs in inclusive education from the lens of LA. This gap is especially pronounced in the context of Japan, where the utilization of learning log data and AI technology for this purpose remains unexplored.

Learning analytics and support for learners with special needs

Using e-learning tools such as ICT, it is possible to collect and accumulate learning log data that record the learning process. LA, which is research on the contribution of learning logs to learning and educational activities, has attracted attention. LA is research aimed at improving and enhancing teaching and learning by analyzing and visualizing accumulated log data and providing feedback based on the visualization through daily learning activities (Bodily & Verbert, 2017 ; Siemens & Baker, 2012 ). Using the LA learning system LEAF, Toyokawa and her colleagues traced students' handwriting from their interaction performance in the daily learning of students attending a resource room in an elementary school in Japan to investigate their learning performance and difficulties (Toyokawa et al., 2022 ). In this study, they successfully visualized and observed learning behaviors such as students’ learning difficulties using penstroke analysis. This study demonstrated the possibility of using log data to assist learners with special needs and support teachers. To cite two overseas examples, first, a pilot study was conducted in which a learning game for cognitively impaired people was developed and learning behavior was observed from interaction and performance data using LA (Buzzi et al., 2016 ). The learning game allows for assigning and monitoring tasks remotely, encouraging learning according to individual needs, and analyzing the results obtained from learning. The second example is an attempt to provide support by opening a learner model using LA and detecting reading difficulties, such as learning style and cognitive traits, from the demographic submodel and reading profile (Mejia et al., 2016 ). This study underscores the importance that learners are aware of their own learning styles and cognitive limitations. All three cases sought to support learners with special needs and teachers using LA. It is expected that the LA-enhanced learning environment will further improve learning and education with AI technology in the future; however, in Japan, LA research to support learning has not yet become popular in SE. Furthermore, limited research has provided AI-based support for the unique requirements of inclusive education.

AI in inclusive education

AI has the capacity to harness learners' behavioral data, ultimately delivering personalized and tailored educational services to cater to individual needs, as suggested by Margetts and Dorobantu ( 2019 ). AI also aids in making more accurate predictions and planning learning. According to the same study, some local governments in the UK are already using predictive analytics to anticipate future needs in areas such as SE and children’s social services. This prediction can also be applied to identify students who are considered to be “at risk” (Cano & Leonard, 2019 ; Slowík et al., 2021 ). Such warning systems are already in use in the United States, New Zealand, and Canada.

AI has also had a significant impact on Japanese society. Although educational big data have been accumulated through the use of ICT and machine learning, compared to other countries, it is obvious that in Japan, AI technology in the educational field lags behind the national level. Kazimzade and her colleagues argue that most of today's adaptive education systems rarely consider diversity and that it is necessary to create heterogeneous data sets to train AI in inclusive learning environments to replicate our diverse societies (Kazimzade et al., 2019 ). This lack of heterogeneous datasets is particularly evident in the context of SE in inclusive education in Japan. In this respect, this research is one of the few to focus on learning support using AI for minority learners who need special support in Japan. In this study, we investigated how to support learners with special needs in inclusive education using AI technology. The research methods and experimental procedures are described in the next section.

Research objective

Given the need to understand how AI-driven approaches can realize future SE in inclusive education in the Japanese context, we conducted a case study to explore the current needs, challenges, and opportunities of implementing AI.

What are the challenges and opportunities of AI-driven services for active reading of learners with special needs in inclusive education?

Case studies have gained considerable acceptance as valid research methods in a wide range of fields. In particular, Yin’s case study is said to be reliable for connecting the underlying theory and practice (Zainal, 2007 ). A case study enables us to understand behavioral states from the perspective of learners and subjects, which is said to be useful in explaining the complexity of real learning situations in detail (Zainal, 2007 ). Research on learning in SE is a large field; however, only a limited number of individuals can be selected as research subjects. It is valuable to accumulate data obtained from daily learning in a natural way, and we consider this experiment “a unique way of observing natural phenomena present in a series of data,” as defined by Yin’s case study (Zainal, 2007 ). Next, we present the LEAF system as a reading learning environment and workflow that were utilized to investigate the challenges and opportunities of AI applications.

LEAF system and its components used in a case study

We propose the use of the LEAF as an LA-enhanced AR learning environment for inclusive education. LEAF is a learning environment framework that includes BookRoll, an e-learning material browsing system that allows learners to view digital learning materials anytime and anywhere, and a group of LA dashboard modules (LogPalette) that analyze and visualize the logs learned using BookRoll (Ogata et al., 2018 ). BookRoll includes reading-facilitating functions such as markers that can be used for highlighting and memos that can be added as annotations. Learners can choose input methods such as keyboards, direct handwriting using a stylus pen, and text conversion from voice input. Learning logs, such as the contents of memos, portions highlighted with markers and their content, number of operations, and viewing time, are accumulated in the Learning Record Store and analyzed and visualized in LogPalette. Figure 1 illustrates the LEAF framework with BookRoll and LogPalette interfaces.

Examples of the BookRoll interface, the LA dashboard, and the pen stroke analysis interface in the LEAF framework

Participants and study context

The participants were two twelve-year-old boys (boys 1 and 2). Boy 1 attended a resource room for six years to receive social communication training and had received special support before entering elementary school. Boy 2 was diagnosed with autism and attended a resource room for six years. He received special support before entering elementary school. Resource rooms are for students with relatively mild difficulties, and many who attend these rooms have not been diagnosed with disabilities. The decision on whether one is to receive special support in a resource room is made by the school principal, following an appropriate understanding of the actual situation and a discussion with the school committee (MEXT, 2020 ). Therefore, in this study, no details on the difficulty level were available for each child. The participants were asked to perform AR at home with their mothers. Written informed consent was obtained from the guardians of the students. First, the flow of learning activities was explained to the students and their mothers. Then, all four AR activities for Boy 1 which lasted about for one hour, and three AR activities for Boy 2, which lasted approximately one and a half hours were observed by a researcher. They chose a device to use, either a PC or an iPad, and chose an input method, such as using a keyboard for typing or a stylus pen for handwriting. In Japan, under the Global and Innovation Gateway for All (GIGA) school initiatives, each student is provided with one device. Both students had no problems operating PCs and/or tablets and typing on keyboards at home by themselves. We asked them to work on their reading on their favorite device with the intention of doing it in a stress-free environment as much as possible. A case study was conducted on two students using BookRoll. We explain the reading-learning activities and AR procedure in the next section.

AR learning task

The two boys read the same four reading materials. They read individual stories using BookRoll. The reading process followed the AR process, which was performed using BookRoll in a past study (Toyokawa et al., 2023 ). First, in the pre-reading phase, participants were asked to have an image of the story they were going to read by looking at the page (title, pictures, etc.) and write their predictions in a memo. They were then asked to formulate questions based on their thoughts. Questions were also asked to be recorded in a memo. Each story contained questions on comprehension. While they read the text, they read the story as they looked for answers while marking the answers to the question with a marker directly on BookRoll. In the post-reading phase, participants reflected on their reading and wrote the content of the story in their own words. One week later, they were asked to recall the story and write about what they had remembered. We additionally communicated the AR learning process to both the resource room teacher of Boy 1 and the mother of Boy 2 with the dashboard, engaging in a reflective discussion and receiving their valuable feedback. The objectives and activities for each phase of the AR activities are explained in Table 1 .

Data collection and analysis

The time spent reading and operation logs were investigated to understand each participant's AR process. First, the time taken for each reading task was extracted from the time logs, including the time taken to complete one AR session, the time taken to make a prediction and questions in the pre-reading phase, the time taken to answer questions while reading and marking the answers with a marker, and the time taken to write down what was understood in the post-reading phase (Table  2 ). The objective was to check whether there were any characteristics of reading difficulty, such as taking too long to read, input, and output. Then, behaviors such as frequent page flipping, noticeable writing, erasing, and highlighting actions were visualized as a plot (Fig.  2 ) to understand if we could detect any reading difficulties in the logs and at what stage of AR intervention was required. In order to investigate the reading behaviors, logged actions such as OPEN, MEMO, HANDWRITING MEMO, MARKER, NAVIGATION, TIMER, BOOKMARK, and CLOSE were extracted and analyzed, whose descriptions and interpretations of action logs are listed in Table 3 . After the AR learning, as part of the experiment, we asked the resource room teacher of Boy 1 and the mother of Boy 2 to see each student's AR process and the visualized logs, and received their impressions and comments.

Log visualization of the AR behavior among the three students

Analysis of the participants’ time logs

First, we investigated the learning behavioral patterns found in the learning logs regarding the time spent on each AR task. What the two of them have in common is that it took a considerably long time to write a summary (paraphrasing in their own words) after reading. Boy 2 took three times as long as Boy 1 to do the same. The average time spent on summaries for Boy 1 was (m = 6.28 for 3 summaries), which is approximately 76% of the total average AR activity for Boy 1. The average time spent on summaries for Boy 2 was (m = 22.37 for 2 summaries), which is approximately 96% of total AR activity. A summary of the time spent on the AR tasks is presented in Table  2 .

Analysis of the participants’ operation logs

We then attempted to visualize the AR performance of the two participants from the operation log, which is depicted in the plots in Fig. 2 . Overall, we confirmed that the participants progressed to AR according to the following AR procedure: pre-, while-, and post-reading phases. What we could clearly observe from the plots was that during the first AR activity, Boy 2 with LD noticeably wrote and erased his handwriting, and during the second AR activity, he frequently flipped pages, touched the timer, and wrote and erased his memos. The third AR seemed to proceed smoothly without any extra action; however, the fourth AR was not conducted.

Analysis of the stakeholders’ interviews

In general, learners check and reflect on their own learning processes, but this time, we asked the resource room teacher and the mother of Boy 2 to observe the data, reflect on the learning, and give us their comments. Their comments were as follows:

The teacher told us that all learning with paper is stored in a file and shared with the parents during the interviews, which are conducted twice a year. Students' data are always collected and reported to schools. She said that it would be nice if they could accumulate and share what they had learned using (electronic) tools. She also mentioned that parents need to (and want to) know what their children are doing in school. Boy 2’s mother said that her son cannot get rid of his obsession with things he cannot do. Due to this, he cannot move on to the next task, and as a result, he cannot complete the task. She told us that she made posters so that her son could visually check the tasks, but he now makes his own to-do list daily and keeps it in his school bag. She said that being able to see what he is doing through his learning logs helps her understand and accept how he is doing in school.

In this section, we discuss the findings from the case study, which can serve as evidence for identifying future challenges and possibilities related to the application of AI technology to SE in inclusive education.

Erratic learning engagement of students with LD in different phases of the learning activities and during technology usage

Learners have different time engagements and approaches to the same learning task. In this study on AR activities, Boy 2 required more time than Boy 1 (Table 2 ). The observations demonstrated that Boy 2 approached each activity carefully. He paid particular attention to the order in which things appeared in the story and the flow of AR itself. He was initially overly focused then lost concentration, gave up on the way, and could not complete the tasks. It was also found from the observations that it took time for him to write his summary with a stylus pen on an iPad for the first AR activity. He appeared unfamiliar with the act of writing directly on the iPad screen with a pen, but enjoyed using a new tool. He did not use handwriting during the second AR session but used the keyboard with which he was already familiar. From the logs and observations, we understood that it might be time consuming for some learners to perform knowledge output activities, such as writing what they have understood.

Regarding technology use (Fig. 2 ), Boy 1 had relatively fewer extra actions in the logs besides AR activities, whereas Boy 2 had a greater number of extra actions that demonstrated fixation behavior on ICT features. For example, several operation logs were detected in terms of handwritten memos, such as ADD and DELETE, during the first task. In the second reading task, several additional page movements and timer operations were observed (Fig. 2 ). In the third task, it was observed that AR was completed without additional operations on the logs. However, it was observed that he lost concentration and motivation. Consequently, he was unable to start or complete the fourth task. We also found that learners may end up concentrating on things other than learning, such as using e-learning features, such as timers. These pedagogical challenges must be addressed when creating learning designs for students with special needs.

Varied understanding of stakeholders about data-driven learning

In this study, we faced difficulty obtaining the consent of the guardians for the experiments because AR was not the type of learning support that they had originally requested. Some parents did not consent to the collection of their children’s learning data. During the interviews, we found that there was still a lack of awareness about data-driven learning, such as how BookRoll is actually used for learning and how logs are used to support learning. However, it was also clear that the teacher and the mother were looking forward to the possibility of employing data-driven learning and sharing learning processes effectively using technology.

In this section, we first discuss the limitations of the current study and then address the possibilities and challenges of AI-driven special needs learning in inclusive education.

Limitations and solutions for the sample size

One of the limitations of the current study is its sample size, as there were only two subjects. In resource rooms in Japan, class activities are usually offered by one teacher to either individual students or small groups for a limited time. Therefore, only a limited number of students can receive support each day. In addition, not all schools in Japan have resource rooms. Hence, it was difficult to recruit a large number of participants for this study, even if subjects were collected from multiple schools. Additionally, some parents were not willing to participate in the research and did not consent, making recruiting subjects a major challenge. Thus, it may be difficult to apply and generalize the results of the current study to a broader context. In addition, the small sample size may suggest the possibility of bias in the data analysis. To minimize this possibility, we used log data from the participants' learning process and attempted to visualize the data in plots instead of collecting data from conventional sources such as surveys, tests, and observations. Two researchers performed the confirmation and interpretation of the logs. The results confirmed that differences in the reading process between the two participants, such as differences in how they approached AR and how they used the tools, were interpreted in the same way. Learning evaluations and decision-making regarding whether to provide students with support have often been made based on the evaluation of learners' artifacts, observations, survey results, communication among stakeholders, and subjective measures such as teachers' perceptions or parents' intentions, which may lead to biased judgments or unnecessary support. Although these assessment methods remain essential, by being able to clearly show artifacts and the learning process through log visualization, not only researchers, but also school administrators, teachers, and parents can objectively judge a child's learning progress and make decisions about support provision.

Improving learning design for continuous learning

As mentioned in the existing literature, the majority of research and experiments on reading-based learning typically conclude at the end of the study period, often failing to foster lasting reading habits among learners (Gersten et al., 2001 ). We must acknowledge that there was a need to repeatedly conduct AR activities over time in this study as well. Additionally, it is difficult for learners who have difficulty concentrating to continue learning if they are not satisfied with their learning activities. Designing learning activities to suit learners’ needs and preferences is necessary for learning satisfaction and continuation (Salas-Pilco et al., 2022 ). The AR procedure employed in this study was segmented into three phases. However, taking learners’ attention spans into account, it is imperative to focus on AI applications that offer precise, individualized guidance and feedback for more effective interventions. AI assists learners in learning at their own pace outside the classroom and school. Learners can then use the dashboard to monitor the learning process and learn to reflect and understand so that they can develop and improve their cognitive and metacognitive skills. Learning activities and pedagogical approaches should be improved so that learners with special needs can continue learning independently even after the experimental period ends.

Implications for usability enhancement of the LEAF platform for SE

Existing dashboards in LEAF have an environment in which general students can reflect. However, current AR-D in LEAF may or may not be suitable for learners with special needs. Therefore, we consider updating and improving the performance and content of the functions and systems regarding the concept of the Universal Design of Learning (UDL) (Rose & Meyer, 2002 ). This is because system affordances and dashboard designs can significantly impact perception, behavior, and acquisition. Improvements in the usability, accessibility, and reliability of the system are often indicated in past studies (Buzzi et al., 2016 ; Mejia et al., 2016 ). Improving the system and developing an AI-driven LA dashboard based on real data should be considered so that all learners, including students with special needs and their stakeholders, can easily manage their learning and reflect on it, which will help mitigate learners’ difficulties.

Log data-driven solutions and potentials of AI for AR

In this study, we observed variations in the time needed for AR and the approach adopted for the same learning task among different learners. Students with LD have been found to process information inefficiently and not to understand appropriate reading strategies, which can lead to unexpected learning failures in comprehension and decoding (Gersten et al., 2001 ). For such learners, it is essential to present the steps of “what has been achieved” and “what needs to be done” explicitly and offer cues to help them complete the task and progress to the next step (Gersten et al., 2001 ). In today's data-driven learning environments, such as LEAF, it is possible to notify learners of task completion and reward them to boost their self-esteem and motivation to read and learn. The utilization of log data may lead to more efficient learning. Further, AI complements learners' previous knowledge and skills. For example, it would be possible to use natural language generation to support reading-learning by navigating the contents and the flow of reading activities in an easy-to-understand manner using both text and audio. First, we demonstrate each phase of a potential AI-driven AR approach in the future based on the results of a case study.

[Pre-reading phase]

Although learners with LD are good at many things, they are said to fall behind other students in reading comprehension because of difficulties like making predictions and having limited imagination and cognitive biases (Randi et al., 2010 ). However, such students can be instructed to improve their reading comprehension by using pre-reading strategies that activate their attention and prior knowledge (Gersten et al., 2001 ). AR uses information such as visual and auditory aids to help learners create an image of what they are about to read before (or even while) reading. However, for students who are struggling with reading, AI automatically measures the time required, the length, and the difficulty of a text, integrates it with information from the accumulated learner's data such as their reading speed, weakness, and preferences, and assists them in the reading process. For example, for students who have difficulty imagining textual information, AI generates and provides visual information to make visualization easier. For learners who have difficulty following the order of learning activities, AI can aide learners with audio or textual guides or ask them what they want next to guide their learning. It may also display filters to help students choose what to do next or use past data to calculate the time required for each learner to learn and intervene to complete a task at the appropriate time. In addition, it may activate the learners' existing knowledge by guiding them to vocabulary quizzes and chapters related to the reading content, and provide information relevant to the content they are about to read. In this way, when learners become stuck and cannot predict or create an image of the story during the pre-reading phase, AI may intervene to stimulate their previous knowledge and offer assistance, such as by providing an advanced organizer framework (Idol-Maestas, 1985 ) to guide them on what to do next.

[While-reading phase]

There are various types of reading difficulties given as examples, such as difficulty with concentrating on one thing, following procedures, completing task thing through to the end, reading information from a text alone, and inability to empathize with the emotions and viewpoints of the characters, or just simply taking too long to read (Randi et al., 2010 ; Ryan, 2007 ). AI can offer cues to help learners maintain focus on their reading objectives and assist them in identifying corrective actions when necessary steps are not completed. When unnecessary actions are detected, AI can redirect learners' attention towards the task at hand. AI may thus enable learners with special needs to work on AR learning alone, which was said to be difficult for them (Gersten et al., 2001 ). At the current stage, we developed and tested a text recommender in the LEAF system that automatically recommends reading materials based on the logs from markers used for vocabulary during AR. In the future, AI will recommend reading materials that match learners' levels and preferences based on the outcomes from the AR activities, such as different stroke orders, selecting wrong characters, spelling errors, and frequently used words and content stored in memos. AI will assist in making connections with previously read materials and helping students consolidate and develop what they have read by recommending chapters to review and reading materials to work on next. Moreover, AI may act as a reading agent or invite peers and teachers as intermediaries for reciprocal teaching interventions and mutual guidance that improves reading comprehension through communication with others. In this way, AI may provide opportunities for learners to receive feedback and encouragement from others and cultivate independent abilities in connection with others.

[Post-reading phase]

In this case study, students wrote their understanding of the stories in memos using the keyboard and their handwriting. Currently, the iPad's Speech Recognition function is available for learners who are not good at writing. It is possible for learners to use the voice-to-text function to input what they imagined, understood, and thought about a story into BookRoll memos. This allows for the collection and analysis of data in the LEAF system.

Current reading learning does not end with understanding what was read but requires the ability to develop beyond that and apply information that can be used in real life. These application and practical skills may be enforced through interaction with others. In an inclusive learning environment, learners with and without learning difficulties co-exist. In particular, encouragement from peers may develop learners’ perseverance in the face of challenges and improve their comprehension and learning performance (Gersten et al., 2001 ). For class activities, data-based group formation can be applied in which groups are created to work together to deepen and develop an understanding of what they read. This is possible with the current LEAF, and group formation parameters such as homogeneous, heterogeneous, random, and jigsaw can be adjusted depending on the learning purpose, learner characteristics, and other considerable factors (Liang et al., 2023 ). Further, AI will be able to pair learners who need help with learners who have already completed a task, or create peer help groups based on log data. For example, AI would recommend a human learning companion and/or an AI agent, or called pedagogical agents (Savin-Baden et al., 2019 ), to read together. Peers can be selected from humans or AI in the future, creating an environment that promotes learning and reading together. This may reduce the burden on the teacher in a busy classroom, provide feedback suitable for the individual with the help of AI and the people around it, and manage and orchestrate the class activity efficiently. Depending on the learner’s progress, AI can facilitate a unique inclusive learning experience by potentially involving human intervention and reflection.

AI for facilitating learning reflection and decision-making

Using the LEAF system for AR activities allowed us to capture and visualize participants’ reading processes and detect salient behaviors and insights in learners with special needs. Furthermore, the visualized learning process and artifacts were shared between the resource room teacher and the mother. In the LEAF learning environment, learners can use the dashboard to reflect not only on the results but also on the learning process. Reflection encourages learners’ metacognition by allowing them to reflect on their own thinking, and self-reflection provides an opportunity to evaluate their own cognitive processes (Gersten et al., 2001 ; Silver et al., 2023 ). Generally, learners reflect on their own learning and deepen their understanding, and teachers review their learning and decide what to do next. However, some learners find it difficult to reflect on their own learning. In the AI-driven inclusive education expected in the future, AI may be used to support reflection on reading learning using both text and audio. Using log data from learners’ own learning activities enables more personalized feedback by highlighting interesting and hidden patterns. An AI agent will also play an active role. It will sense “done” or “not done” and provide options for what steps to take while emphasizing what learners can do to increase their self-affirmations. For learners who have difficulty understanding information from graphs and tables, or from texts, audio, and visual images will be automatically selected and added to make it easier for them to understand the information presented on the dashboard to assist in learning comprehension. AI will also automatically explain the data displayed on the dashboard, making it easier to understand not only for learners and teachers but also for parents and other educational supporters. This can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the decision-making process. For example, learners can decide what to learn next, teachers can choose and plan the next activity, and teachers, school administrators, and parents can decide what kind of support learners will need. AI will further encourage human intervention, making it possible to judge their learning more objectively with the help of stakeholders such as teachers and parents, thus facilitating a unique and comprehensive learning experience.

Data sharing and portability

Data on each student in the SE are necessary to determine the support that should be provided according to the student’s developmental stage. Resource room (and homeroom) teachers are obligated to keep records of students’ learning and progress and to report to the school and parents in accordance with them. Support and data sharing are currently primarily conducted using printouts, which are stored, filed, and shared with parents and schools, along with notes on the teacher’s observations during class. In a data-driven learning environment like LEAF, parents can also use the dashboard to check their child’s growth and objectively consider future support based on logs. One of the potential expectations of a data-driven learning environment is the sharing of learning data widely and throughout life with other stakeholders such as other educational institutions and local governments.

The personal data of learners with special needs are shared and transferred across institutions to ensure that they are adequately supported. Even in the event of a change in the learning environment, such as transferring to a different school, graduating from one institution, or progressing to the next educational stage, past learning and support data can be preserved and transferred upon request. The insights we gained from the teacher interview underscored the significance of the secure and seamless sharing and portability of data. The LEAF system is used by students from elementary schools to universities. It will be possible to safely transfer learning data across multiple learning contexts with the integration of blockchain, such as BOLL (Ocheja et al., 2019 ), and students’ learning logs in BookRoll can be transferred to the next learning context. Further, AI will recommend the relevant schools and/or assist learners in making evaluations and decisions when moving up to higher education or finding employment. However, to enhance safe data sharing and portability, it is necessary to obtain the stakeholders’ understanding of learning using AI technology and enhance the data literacy of teachers and learners as well as that of other stakeholders.

Dissemination and awareness of AI-driven learning

AI has the potential to impact not only students in inclusive education but also teachers and other stakeholders like parents. In today’s learning environment in which education and technology are integrated, teachers are required to possess a wide range of diverse competencies such as technical, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) to deal with complex learning situations (Mishra & Koehler, 2006 ). According to MEXT ( 2021a ), in order to obtain a teaching license for elementary and junior high school in Japan, all teachers will be required to have practical training regarding special education including nursing care experience, as well as developing data literacy and ICT skills. Past literature has indicated the need for specialized pre-training for learners and teachers (Leshchenko et al., 2020 ; Starks & Reich, 2023 ) and digital literacy and technology (Starks & Reich, 2023 ). The current study further highlighted these needs for teachers and parents. Our findings also implied that learners’ and teachers’ understanding of the potential of new technologies still remains low in Japan, as noted in other countries (DeCoito & Richardson, 2018 ; Hirsto et al., 2022 ; Salas-Pilco et al., 2022 ). We found that not all parents welcome or approve of data-driven learning.

As cited by UNESCO, one of the challenges related to implementing AI in education is transparency and fairness considerations in the collection, use, and dissemination of personal data ( 2019 ). In order to dispel these concerns and gain understanding, it is necessary to disseminate information literacy and provide training not only to learners and teachers but also to other parties involved in supported learning. One of the solutions we suggest includes involving all stakeholders in the learning environment to objectively share a common understanding. This inclusion of stakeholders in the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of systems used for learning could help them understand data- and AI-driven learning, thereby increasing their understanding of its importance. This may also resolve issues such as misunderstandings between stakeholders. To this end, we maintain close contact with local schools, expanding technical and educational support, and continuing to implement supportive and interactive learning.

While some challenges remain, AI-driven learning offers positive impacts for learners, teachers, parents, and all other stakeholders. This pilot study implies that the duties of the resource room teacher were diverse, including, for example, continuously sharing students’ information with other stakeholders like homeroom teachers and parents and providing optimal individualized support to each student. Emerging technologies such as ICT and AI will lead to the efficient management and coordination of class activities, such as improving instruction and creating teaching materials, which will hopefully result in work style reformations. This could include reducing teachers’ workloads and shortening waiting lists of students who are unable to receive support in a resource room due to a lack of human resources and difficulty in coordinating time (MEXT, 2021b ). Furthermore, school administrative support related to special needs education, the creation and sharing of individual education, and various information will become easier, which will directly lead to the improvement of school operations and the enhancement of portability between schools and related organizations. This study highlighted these possibilities through learning with BookRoll and sharing the learning process with teachers and parents on the dashboard. Collaboration with stakeholders expands the learning opportunities for all students in inclusive education.

To date, no study in Japan has investigated the challenges and possibilities of using AI in the context of actual inclusive educational settings from the LA perspective. Therefore, we undertook a case study to explore how an AI-driven approach can materialize the vision of SE as a supportive framework for learners with diverse needs in the context of inclusive education in Japan. In today’s data-enhanced learning environment, it is possible to detect and visualize specific learning behaviors using learning logs obtained from daily learning. By integrating AI technology into the current learning context, we found that individual learners can be provided with more efficient and appropriate learning and reflections on learning. However, while some teachers and parents, such as our participants, look forward to opportunities to objectively reflect on learning and provide further support using AI technology assistance, we realized that obtaining assent and understanding from teachers and parents along with fostering data literacy remains a challenge for future inclusive education utilizing AI.

Our future work includes pursuing the possibilities of an AI-driven inclusive learning environment in which all learners are expected to receive equal learning opportunities and optimal support with the co-progress of stakeholders. This cannot be achieved without a considerable amount of data. In Japan, the GIGA initiative has created an environment for data utilization on a national level. Although it has been pointed out that data utilization has not fully penetrated Japan compared to other countries (MEXT, 2022c ), the country is working to build a large-scale data sphere that supports the use of AI, which has created an environment for the effective use of logs. As the use of educational informatization progresses on a larger scale, the data problems and generalizability concerns found in this study may be resolved. Based on the logs collected from the previous and upcoming implementations, we will derive an AI algorithm that will realize and aim to create an AI-driven inclusive learning environment that can provide individually optimal learning support to each learner in cooperation with stakeholders. From there, we will pursue evaluating the impact of AI and understanding the actual situations for inclusive education.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Artificial intelligence

• Active reading

Blockchain of learning logs

Developmental disorders (or disabilities)

Global and Innovation Gateway for ALL

Information and Communication Technology

• Learning analytics

Learning difficulties

Learning & Evidence Analytics Framework

Learning management system

Learning Record Store

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Programme for International Student Assessment

• Special education

Special needs education

Survey, Question, Read, Recite, and Review

Survey, Question, Read, Record, Recite, and Review

Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge

Universal Design for Learning

Bodily, R., & Verbert, K. (2017). Trends and issues in student-facing learning analytics reporting systems research. In Proceedings of the seventh international learning analytics & knowledge conference (pp. 309–318).

Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., & Smith, D. D. (2019). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive classrooms . Sage Publications.

Google Scholar  

Buzzi, M. C., Buzzi, M., Perrone, E., Rapisarda, B., & Senette, C. (2016). Learning games for the cognitively impaired people. In Proceedings of the 13th international web for all conference (pp. 1–4).

Cano, A., & Leonard, J. D. (2019). Interpretable multiview early warning system adapted to underrepresented student populations. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 12 (2), 198–211.

Article   Google Scholar  

DeCoito, I., & Richardson, T. (2018). Teachers and technology: Present practice and future directions. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 18 (2), 362–378.

Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers & Education, 69 , 485–492.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71 (2), 279–320.

Hirsto, L., Valtonen, T., Saqr, M., Hallberg, S., Sointu, E., Kankaanpää, J., & Väisänen, S. (2022). Pupils’ experiences of utilizing learning analytics to support self-regulated learning in two phenomenon-based study modules. In Society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 1682–1688). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Idol-Maestas, L. (1985). Getting ready to read: Guided probing for poor comprehenders. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8 (4), 243–254.

Kazimzade, G., Patzer, Y., & Pinkwart, N. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education meets inclusive educational technology—The technical state-of-the-art and possible directions. In Artificial intelligence and inclusive education: Speculative futures and emerging practices (pp. 61–73).

Kinoshita, T., Imu, Y., & Ishida, S. (2023). [A research trend on the use of ICT in special needs education: Focusing on intellectual and developmental disabilities] Tokubetsushienkyoiku niokeru ICT no rikatsuyo ni kansuru kenkyudoko (in Japanese). Bulletin of the Faculty of Education Chiba University, 71 , 107–115.

Kumagai, H., & Nagai, N. (2022). [Characteristics of information literacy of children attending resource room—Analysis through development and application of an information literacy checklist] Tsukyusidokyoshitu wo riyosuru jido niokeru jyohokatsuyonouryoku no tokucho: Jyohokatsuyonoryoku checklist no sakusei to chosa wo toshite (in Japanese). Bulletin of Miyagi University of Education Graduate School of Teacher Education, 3 , 147–156.

Leshchenko, M., Tymchuk, L., & Tokaruk, L. (2020). Digital narratives in training inclusive education professionals in Ukraine. In J. Głodkowska (Ed.), Inclusive education: Unity in diversity (pp. 254–270). Akademii Pedagogiki Specjalne.

Liang, C., Toyokawa, Y., Majumdar, R., Horikoshi, I., & Ogata, H. (2023). Group formation based on reading annotation data: system innovation and classroom practice . Journal of Computers in Education , 1–29.

Margetts, H., & Dorobantu, C. (2019). Rethink government with AI. Nature, 568 (7751), 163–165.

Mejia, C., Florian, B., Vatrapu, R., Bull, S., Gomez, S., & Fabregat, R. (2016). A novel web-based approach for visualization and inspection of reading difficulties on university students. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10 (1), 53–67.

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2012). Promotion of special needs education for building an inclusive education system toward the formation of a cohesive society (report) overview. Retrieved September 21, 2023, from https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo3/044/attach/1321668.htm

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2020). A guide for teachers in charge of resource room instruction for the first time. MEXT Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau Special Needs Education Division. Retrieved November 21, 2023, from https://www.mext.go.jp/tsukyu-guide/common/pdf/passing_guide_02.pdf

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2021a). Report from the expert meeting on the new era of special needs education. Retrieved November 21, 2023, from https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20210208-mxt_tokubetu02-000012615_2.pdf

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2021b). Aiming to build “Japanese-style school education in the Reiwa era”—Realizing optimal individual learning and collaborative learning that brings out the potential of all children—(Report). Retrieved November 21, 2023, from https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20210126-mxt_syoto02-000012321_2-4.pdf

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2022a). Regarding the survey results (2020) regarding children enrolled in regular classes who require special educational support. Retrieved November 21, 2023, from https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/2022/1421569_00005.htm

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2022b). Results of a survey on the implementation status of instruction for resource room (overview). Retrieved November 21, 2023, from https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20220905-mxt_tokubetu01-000023938-10.pdf

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2022c). Overview of AI strategy 2022: April 2020 cabinet office science, technology and innovation promotion secretariat. Retrieved November 21, 2023, from https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/ai/aistrategy2022_gaiyo.pdf

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017–1054.

National Institute for Educational Policy Research. (2022). OECD student assessment (PISA). Retrieved September 21, 2023, from. https://www.nier.go.jp/kokusai/pisa/

Ocheja, P., Flanagan, B., Ueda, H., & Ogata, H. (2019). Managing lifelong learning records through blockchain. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 14 (1), 1–19.

Ogata, H., Majumdar, R., Akçapinar, G., Hasnine, M. N., & Flanagan, B. (2018). Beyond learning analytics: Framework for technology-enhanced evidence-based education and learning. In 26th international conference on computers in education workshop proceedings (pp. 493–496). Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education (APSCE).

Peterson, C. L., Caverly, D. C., Nicholson, S. A., O’Neal, S., & Cusenbary, S. (2001). Building reading proficiency at the secondary level: A guide to resources. Introduction.

Randi, J., Newman, T., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2010). Teaching children with autism to read for meaning: Challenges and possibilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40 , 890–902.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning . Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (Product no. 101042: $22.95 ASCD members; $26.95 nonmembers).

Rose, D. R. (2019). Students with learning disabilities and their perspectives regarding reading comprehension instruction: A qualitative inquiry. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 14 (2), 137–152.

Ryan, J. (2007). Learning disabilities in Australian universities: Hidden, ignored, and unwelcome. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40 (5), 436–442.

Salas-Pilco, S. Z., Xiao, K., & Oshima, J. (2022). Artificial intelligence and new technologies in inclusive education for minority students: A systematic review. Sustainability, 14 (20), 13572.

Savin-Baden, M., Bhakta, R., Mason-Robbie, V., & Burden, D. (2019). An evaluation of the effectiveness of using pedagogical agents for teaching in inclusive ways. In Artificial Intelligence and Inclusive Education. Speculative Futures and Emerging Practices (pp. 117–134).

Siemens, G., & Baker, R. S. D. (2012). Learning analytics and educational data mining : towards communication and collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 252–254).

Silver, N., Kaplan, M., LaVaque-Manty, D., & Meizlish, D. (Eds.). (2023). Using reflection and metacognition to improve student learning: Across the disciplines, across the academy . Taylor & Francis.

Slowík, J., Gažáková, E., Holeček, V., & Zachová, M. (2021). Comprehensive support for pupils at risk of school failure in inclusive education: Theory and school practice in the Czech Republic. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 27 , 1–17.

Starks, A. C., & Reich, S. M. (2023). "What about special ed?“: Barriers and enablers for teaching with technology in special education. Computers & Education . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104665

Toyokawa, Y., Majumdar, R., Kondo, T., Horikoshi, I., & Ogata, H. (2023). Active reading dashboard in a learning analytics enhanced language-learning environment: effects on learning behavior and performance. Journal of Computers in Education , 1–28.

Toyokawa, Y., Majumdar, R., & Ogata, H. (2022). Learning analytics enhanced E-book reader in a Japanese special needs class. In 2022 International conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT) (pp. 274–278). IEEE.

UNESCO. (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Retrieved September 21, 2023, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000177849

UNESCO. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: challenges and opportunities for sustainable development. Retrieved September 21, 2023, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000366994

Yin, R. K., & Moore, G. B. (1987). The use of advanced technologies in special education: Prospects from robotics, artificial intelligence, and computer simulation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20 (1), 60–63.

Zainal, Z. (2007). Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan , 5 (1).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the resource room teacher and the parents for their contributions to the study.

This work is partially funded by NEDO JPNP20006 and JPNP18013, JSPS KAKENHI (A) JP23H00505 and (B) JP22H03902 and, National Institute for Educational Policy Research: Educational Data Analysis and Research Promotion Project FY2023-2025.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University, Yoshidahonmachi, Sakyo Ward, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan

Yuko Toyokawa

Academic Center for Computing and Media Studies, Kyoto University, Yoshidahonmachi, Sakyo Ward, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan

Izumi Horikoshi, Rwitajit Majumdar & Hiroaki Ogata

Research and Educational Institute for Semiconductors and Informatics, Kumamoto University, 2-39-1 Kurokami, Chuo-Ku, Kumamoto City, Kumamoto, 860-0862, Japan

Rwitajit Majumdar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

YT conceived the idea of the study, conceptualized it, performed the data analysis, and drafted the original manuscript. RM contributed to the discussion on the contribution of AI to special needs education, and IH contributed to conducting the analysis. HO initiated the framework of the overall argument and supervised the conduct of this study. RM and HO acquired funding for the research. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuko Toyokawa .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Toyokawa, Y., Horikoshi, I., Majumdar, R. et al. Challenges and opportunities of AI in inclusive education: a case study of data-enhanced active reading in Japan. Smart Learn. Environ. 10 , 67 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00286-2

Download citation

Received : 29 September 2023

Accepted : 08 December 2023

Published : 18 December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00286-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Inclusive education

Why children with disabilities are missing school and losing skills

Fahmida Azim for NPR

On a recent school day in Del Norte County, Calif., in one of the state's northernmost school districts, 17-year-old Emma Lenover sits at home on the couch.

In some ways, Emma is a typical teen. She loves Disneyland and dance class. But she has already faced more adversity than some classmates will in a lifetime.

"All of October and all of November, there was no school because there was no aide" says Emma's mother, Melony Lenover, leaning her elbows into the kitchen table.

Emma has multiple health conditions, including cerebral palsy. She uses a wheelchair, a feeding tube and is nonverbal. To communicate, she uses a special device, like an iPad, that speaks a word or phrase when she presses the corresponding button. She is also immunocompromised and has mostly done school from home this year, over Zoom, with help from an aide in the classroom. At least, that's what was supposed to happen.

Melony Lenover says her daughter's special education plan with the district guarantees her a dedicated, one-on-one aide. But the district is in the throes of a special education staffing crisis. In the fall, without an aide, Emma had to stop school. As a result, she missed out on the dance and art classes she loves and regressed on her communication device.

The fact that a district could struggle so mightily with special education staffing that students are missing school – that's not just a Del Norte problem. A recent federal survey of school districts across the U.S. found special education jobs were among the hardest to staff – and vacancies were widespread. But what's happening in Del Norte is extreme. Which is why the Lenovers and five other families are suing the school district , as well as state education leadership, with help from the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.

Related: Oregon spent upwards of $18 million to defend its struggling child welfare system. Now, the trial has been postponed

The California Department of Education says it cannot comment on pending litigation.

"It's very, very, very, very difficult when we are trying to bring people on board, trying to provide these services, when we want the best that we can give – cause that's our job – and we can't," says Del Norte Superintendent Jeff Harris. Harris says he cannot comment on the lawsuit, but acknowledges the staffing crisis in Del Norte is very real.

Emma Lenover, left, works through a literacy lesson at home with special education teacher Sarah Elston. Emma loves these visits and, on this day, waited anxiously at the picture window for Elston to arrive.

Cory Turner / NPR

In December, after the lawsuit was filed, district special educator Sarah Elston told the local Wild Rivers Outpost : "Just a few days ago I had two or three [aides] call out sick, they weren't coming to work, and so this starts my morning at 5:30 having to figure out who's going to be with this student... It is constant crisis management that we do in special education today."

Del Norte's isolation makes it more difficult to hire needed staff

The district sits hidden away like a secret between Oregon, the frigid Pacific and some of the largest redwood trees in the world. It's too isolated and the pay is not competitive enough, Harris says, to attract workers from outside Del Norte. Locally, these aides – like the one Emma requires – earn about as much as they would working at McDonald's.

Harris has even tried hiring contractors from Oregon. But "it's a two-hour drive from southern Oregon here," Harris says, "so four hours of the paid contract time was not even serving students."

Related: Staff and advocates claim lack of accountability for Oregon special education system

The district's hiring process is also too burdensome, according to Harris, taking weeks to fill a job. Hoping to change that, the district declared a special education staffing state of emergency earlier this school year, but the problem remains.

In April, the district still had more than 40 special education job openings posted.

Melony Lenover says she knows supporting Emma can be challenging. But decades ago, Congress made clear, through the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act , that her daughter is legally entitled to that support.

If it'd been one of my typically-functioning kids who are not in school for two months, [the school district] would be coming after me.

The federal government said it would cover 40% of the cost of providing special education services, but it has never come close to fulfilling that promise. In 2023, the National Association of Elementary School Principals said , "Since the law was enacted, the closest the federal government has come to reaching the 40 percent commitment was 18 percent in 2004-2006, and current funding is at less than 13 percent."

All this leaves Melony Lenover chafing at what she considers a double standard for children with disabilities.

"If it'd been one of my typically-functioning kids who are not in school for two months, [the school district] would be coming after me," Lenover says.

In many places, a child who has missed about 18 school days – far less than Emma – is considered chronically absent. It's a crisis that triggers a range of emergency interventions. Lenover says Emma's absences weren't treated with nearly the same urgency.

While Emma Lenover still doesn't have a dedicated aide, she is finally getting help.

"We said as a team, enough is enough," says Sarah Elston, who is Emma's special education teacher. "We're gonna do whatever it takes to get this girl an education."

Elston has been working with her high school principal to patch together as much help as they can for Emma, including shifting a classroom aide to help Emma participate in one of her favorite classes remotely, dance.

How the staffing shortage can become dangerous

Linda Vang is another plaintiff in the Del Norte lawsuit, alongside Emma Lenover's parents. On a recent Thursday, she sits at her kitchen table, her back to a refrigerator covered with family photos. She grips her phone hard, like a lifeline, watching old videos of her son, Shawn.

The cell phone videos show a young boy with a broad smile, being urged by his mother to pull up his socks. Or being taught by his doting sister to ride a scooter. Or dressed up for what appears to be a wedding, and doing the chicken dance. He is a joyful kid.

Much has changed since then.

Related: ‘She just wants a friend’: Oregon families push for full school days for children with disabilities

Shawn is a pseudonym, chosen by Vang and his attorneys in the lawsuit. We're not using his real name because Shawn is a minor and his mother asked us to protect his identity.

To understand Shawn's role in the lawsuit – and the depths of Del Norte's staffing crisis – you have to understand what happened to him on Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2023.

He was 15 at the time. Shawn has autism and is nonverbal, and as part of his special education plan, he gets his own, dedicated aide at school. But again, because of Del Norte's struggles to hire enough special education staff, those aides are often in short supply and undertrained.

Shawn's lead teacher that day, Brittany Wyckoff, says, when he grew frustrated in class, his fill-in aide did not follow procedure. It was snack time, but "this staff said, 'No, you're not being calm' and pulled [the snack] away. So that wasn't the appropriate way to handle it."

Another staff member later told police Shawn had begun to calm down, but the aide still wouldn't give him the snack – pistachios. Instead, Wyckoff says, the aide used a firm tone and continued telling Shawn to calm down. Shawn got more agitated, hitting himself in the face.

The aide later told police he began to worry Shawn might try to bite him – because Shawn had bitten other staff before. Witnesses told police he warned Shawn, "You will not bite me. You will not bite me."

Wyckoff says standard procedure, when a student gets agitated and potentially violent, is to move classroom furniture – a table, a desk – between your body and the student. Instead, Wyckoff says, this aide moved furniture out of the way. When Shawn moved toward the aide, unobstructed, the aide raised his hands.

"The staff member just instantly reached out and choked [Shawn]," Wyckoff remembers. "And full-on, like one hand over the other hand choke."

Multiple staff told police, Shawn had not tried to bite the aide. Wyckoff says she was yelling at the aide to stop and finally pulled him off of Shawn, "who was turning purple."

Related: Oregon cancels contract with nonprofit that places foster care kids in unlicensed short-term rentals

How the incident led to missed school

The aide left school after choking Shawn and went to a local bar for a beer, according to the police report. He later told police he'd acted in self-defense. When he was arrested, for child endangerment, and asked why he hadn't called police himself, the aide said, because he'd been in many similar situations and didn't think this rose to that level.

The district attorney ultimately chose not to file charges.

Emma, left, works with her sister, Kelsey Mercer, to join one of her favorite school classes, dance, from home.

Linda Vang says the incident changed Shawn. He became less trusting and was scared to return to the classroom. "It is the hardest thing in my life to watch my son go through this."

To make matters worse, after the incident, the school couldn't provide Shawn with a new aide, and, like Emma Lenover, he couldn't do school without one. After the encounter, he was forced to miss two months of school – because of the staffing crisis.

"It was just week after week, them telling us, 'There's no staff. There's no staff,' " Vang remembers. "I feel for him. I'm angry for him. I'm upset for him. It's hard."

Again, Superintendent Jeff Harris can't comment on the specifics of the lawsuit, or on the incident involving Shawn, but he defends the district.

"We don't come in everyday going, 'How can we mess with people's lives?' We come in every day going, 'What can we do today to make this work?' "

We don't come in everyday going, 'How can we mess with people's lives?' We come in every day going, 'What can we do today to make this work?'

Shawn, like Emma, lost skills during his time away from school. His mother says he struggled more to control his behavior and was less willing to use his communication device.

Shawn is back at school and finally improving, Vang says. He even likes the aide he has now.

"It has been very hard the last year. But you know, we're getting there. You know, I'm doing my best, every single day."

With inadequate staff, students can lose vital skills

Wyckoff, Shawn's former teacher, says the staff shortage is so acute that some aides are being hired with little to no special education experience.

"They could know absolutely nothing about working with a student with special needs," Wyckoff says, "and [the district] is like 'Hey, you've gotta work with the most intensively behaviorally challenging student. Good luck!'"

Wyckoff says the staff the district is able to hire need more and better training, too. The stakes are just too high.

Related: Medicaid makes changes to make it easier for schools to bill for services to students with disabilities

Superintendent Harris says the district does provide staff training, but he also has to balance that with the need to get staff into classrooms quickly.

Veteran special education staff in Del Norte tell NPR they've seen what happens when students with disabilities don't get consistent, quality support: They lose skills.

"One particular student, he was doing well," says Emily Caldwell, a speech-language pathologist in the district. "We were talking about removing his communication device from coming to school because he's communicating verbally."

Caldwell works with many students who, like Shawn and Emma, use a communication device. This student, though, had been learning to use his own voice. It was a big deal, Caldwell says. But the student began losing those skills as he was shuffled between inexperienced staff.

Emma, right, communicates with her sisters Ashley Lenover, left, and Kelsey Mercer using body language and a special tablet device.

Now, "he's not communicating verbally at school anymore, he's only using his device and only when prompted," Caldwell says.

"I have a student whose toileting skills have regressed," says Sarah Elston, Emma's teacher. "I have more than one student who have lost skills on their [communication] device, that is their only way of communicating with the world."

This sense of loss, Elston says, keeps her up at night.

Superintendent Jeff Harris acknowledges the effects of the staffing crisis have been painful.

"When you have a child who can't do something that they were able to do before because they don't have that consistency, that's hard. I mean, that's a knife to the heart."

Related: Parents of severely disabled children in Oregon say end of funding program represents a ‘caregiving emergency’

Looking forward

The lawsuit against the Del Norte Unified School District and state education officials is ongoing. The families hope it will not only help their children, but also raise awareness around a crisis they know is larger than themselves – and larger than Del Norte.

In the meantime, Del Norte teachers are doing everything they can to support their students with disabilities.

Elston, Wyckoff and Caldwell all say they have raised alarms with the district around students not getting the support they're entitled to – and even being mistreated by untrained or inexperienced staff.

Caldwell says some veteran staff have quit out of frustration. Though she insists, she's staying.

"I just worry," Caldwell says, tearing up. "The kids I work with, most of them don't communicate effectively without support. And so they can't go home and be like, 'Hey, Mom, so-and-so held me in a chair today.' And so I feel like, if I wasn't there and if I wasn't being that voice and that advocate, who would be?"

Digital story edited by: Nicole Cohen Audio stories produced by: Lauren Migaki Audio stories edited by: Nicole Cohen and Steve Drummond Visual design and development by: LA Johnson

Copyright 2024 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

OPB’s First Look newsletter

Streaming Now

Morning Edition

Special Education Teacher Training to Address Challenging Behaviors for Students with ASD in the Classroom Setting: A Systematic Review of the Literature

• Review Paper
• Published: 02 November 2023

Cite this article

• Chelsea Marelle   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7988-3824 1 ,
• Emily Tanner 2 &
• Claire Donehower Paul 2  

286 Accesses

Explore all metrics

As the number of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) increases, the need for well trained teachers who can implement behavior interventions also increases. The current study examines the available research to determine which methods of training are most effective in increasing teacher fidelity to implement behavior interventions. The method of training and the teacher fidelity post training were examined. Electronic database searches of Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), APA PyschINFO, and hand searches were conducted. Results revealed varying training methods and combinations of those methods can be deemed effective in increasing teacher fidelity. A system was created and implemented to categorize the results of teacher fidelity for each study. Directions for future research and practice are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A Systematic Review and Quality Appraisal of Applications of Direct Instruction with Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Evidence-Based Instruction for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder: TeachTown Basics

Leading Systems Change to Support Autistic Students

Alexander, J. L., Ayres, K. M., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Training teachers in evidence-based practice for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 38 (1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406414544551

Article   Google Scholar  

Alexander, J. L., Ayers, K. M., & Smith, K. A. (2015). Training teachers in evidence-based practice for individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A review of the literature. Teacher Education and Special Education, 38 (1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406414544551

*Bethune, K. S., & Wood, C. L. (2013). Effects of coaching on teachers’ use of function-based interventions for students with severe disabilities.  Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children , 36(2), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413478637

Brock, M. E., Seaman, R. L., & Gatsch, A. L. (2018). Efficacy of video modeling and brief coaching on teacher implementation of an evidence-based practice for students with severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33 (4), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643418770639

Cardinal, J. R., Gabrielsen, T. P., Young, E. L., Hansen, B. D., Kellems, R., Hoch, H., Nicksic-Springer, T., & Knorr, J. (2017). Discrete trial teaching interventions for students with autism: Web-based video modeling for paraprofessionals. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32 (3), 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643417704437

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2014). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders among children aged 8 years-Autism and developmental disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2010. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 63 (2), 1–22.

Google Scholar  

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021).  Autism prevalence higher in CDC’s ADDM Network . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved March 13, 2022, from https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p1202-autism.html

Conroy, M. A., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Alter, P. J. (2005). A descriptive analysis of positive behavioral intervention research with young children with challenging behavior. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 25 (3), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214050250030301

Crosland, K., & Dunlap, G. (2012). Effective strategies for the inclusion of children with autism in general education classrooms. Behavior Modification, 36 (3), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445512442682

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

*Digennaro-Reed, F. D., Codding, R., Catania, C. N., & Maguire, H. (2010). Effects of video modeling on treatment integrity of behavioral interventions.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 43(2), 291–295 https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-291

Dufrene, B. A., Parker, K., Menousek, K., Zhou, Q., Harpole, L. L., & Olmi, D. J. (2012). Direct behavioral consultation in head start to increase teacher use of praise and effective instruction delivery. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 22 (3), 159–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2011.620817

*Flynn, S. D., & Lo, Y. (2015).Teacher implementation of trial-based functional analysis and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior for students with challenging behavior.  Journal of Behavioral Education , 25(1), 1–31 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-015-9231-2

Fraser, D. W., Marder, T. J., Debettencourt, L. U., Myers, L. A., Kalymon, K. M., & Harrell, R. M. (2019). Using a mixed-reality environment to train special educators working with students with autism spectrum disorder to implement discrete trial teaching. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 35 (1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357619844696

Grant, M. (2017). A case study of factors that influence the attrition or retention of special education teachers. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 11 , 77–84.

Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Cowdery, G. E., & Miltenberger, R. G. (1994). What makes extinction work: An analysis of procedural form and function. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27 (1), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-131

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

*Kunnavatana, S. S., Bloom, S. E., Samaha, A. L., & Dayton, E. (2013a). Training teachers to conduct trial-based functional analyses.  Behavior Modification , 37(6), 707–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445513490950

*Kunnavatana, S. S., Bloom, S. E., Samaha, A. L., Lignugaris/Kraft, B., Dayton, E., & Harris, S. K. (2013b). Using a modified pyramidal training model to teach special education teachers to conduct trial-based functional analyses.  Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children , 36(4), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413500152

Lang, R., O’Reilly, M., Healy, O., Rispoli, M., Lydon, H., Streusand, W., Davis, T., Kang, S., Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G., Didden, R., & Giesbers, S. (2012). Sensory integration therapy for autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6 (3), 1004–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2012.01.006

Lerman, D. C., Vorndran, C. M., Addison, L., & Kuhn, S. C. (2004). Preparing teachers in evidence-based practices for young children with autism. School Psychology Review, 33 (4), 510–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086265

Loiacono, V., & Allen, B. (2008). Are special education teachers prepared to teach the increasing number of students diagnosed with autism? International Journal of Special Education, 23 , 120–127.

Machalicek, W., O’Reilly, M. F., Beretvas, N., Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G., Sorrells, A., Lang, R., & Rispoli, M. (2008). A review of school-based instructional interventions for students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2 (3), 395–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2007.07.001

*Machalicek, W., O’Reilly, M. F., Rispoli, M., Davis, T., Lang, R., Franco, J. H., & Chan, J. M. (2010).Training teachers to assess the challenging behaviors of students with autism using video tele-conferencing.  Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities , 45(2), 203–215.

*McKenney, E. L. W., & Bristol, R. M. (2015). Supporting intensive interventions for students with autism spectrum disorder: Performance feedback and discrete trial teaching.  School Psychology Quarterly , 30(1), 8–22 https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000060

Mcleod, R. H. (2019). Supporting preservice teachers to implement systematic instruction through video review, reflection, and performance feedback. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48 (3), 337–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-01001-y

*Miller, R. D., & Uphold, N. (2021). Using content acquisition podcasts to improve preservice teacher use of behavior-specific praise.  Teacher Education and Special Education , 44(4), 300–318.

Morrier, M. J., Hess, K. L., & Heflin, L. J. (2010). Teacher training for implementation of teaching strategies for students with autism spectrum disorders. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 34 (2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406410376660

*Mouzakitis, A., Codding, R. S., & Tryon, G. (2015). The effects of self-monitoring and performance feedback on the treatment integrity of behavior intervention plan implementation and generalization.  Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions , 17(4), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715573629

Munson, J., Dawson, G., Sterling, L., Beauchaine, T., Zhou, A., Koehler, E., Lord, C., Rogers, S., Sigman, M., Estes, A., & Abbott, R. (2008). Evidence for latent classes of IQ in young children with autism spectrum disorder. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 113 (6), 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1352/2008.113:439-452

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of Education Statistics, 2012 (NCES Publication No. 2014–015) . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

*Pas, E. T., Johnson, S. R., Larson, K. E., Brandenburg, L., Church, R., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2016). Reducing behavior problems among students with autism spectrum disorder: coaching teachers in a mixed-reality setting.  Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 46(12), 3640–3652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2898-y

Randolph, K. M., & Duffy, M. L. (2019). Using iCoaching to support teachers’ implementation of evidence-based practices. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 8 (2), 9.

Randolph, K. M., & Duffy, M. L. (2020). Using iCoaching to support teachers’ implementation of evidence-based practices. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 8 (2), 9.

*Randolph, K. M., Duffy, M. L., Brady, M. P., Wilson, C. L., & Scheeler, M. C. (2019).The impact of icoaching on teacher-delivered opportunities to respond.  Journal of Special Education Technology , 35(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419836414

Reinke, W. M., Stormont, M., Herman, K. C., Puri, R., & Goel, N. (2011). Supporting children’s mental health in schools: Teacher perceptions of needs, roles, and barriers. School Psychology Quarterly, 26 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022714

*Rispoli, M., Neely, L., Healy, O., & Gregori, E. (2016). Training public school special educators to implement two functional analysis models.  Journal of Behavioral Education , 25(3), 249–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-016-9247-2

Sanetti, L. H., Dobey, L. M., & Gallucci, J. (2014). Treatment integrity of interventions with children in school psychology international from 1995–2010. School Psychology International, 35 , 370–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034313476399

Scheeler, M. C., Morano, S., & Lee, D. L. (2016). Effects of immediate feedback using bug-in-ear with paraeducators working with students with autism. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 41 (1), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406416666645

Scheuermann, B., Webber, J., Boutot, E. A., & Goodwin, M. (2003). Problems with personnel preparation in autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 29 , 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576030180030801

Schles, R. A., & Robertson, R. E. (2017). The role of performance feedback and implementation of evidence-based practices for Preservice special education teachers and student outcomes: A review of the literature. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 42 (1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417736571

Sciuchett, M. (2019). The development of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for classroom and behavior management across multiple field experiences.  Australian Journal of Teacher Education ,  44 (6), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v44.6.2

*Shillingsburg, M. A., Frampton, S. E., Juban, B., Weddle, S. A., & Silva, M. R. (2021).Implementing an applied verbal behavior model in classrooms.  Behavioral Interventions . https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1807

Shuman, E. (2012). Teacher education in autism spectrum disorders: A potential blueprint. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47 , 187–197.

Sullivan, T. N., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2012). Introduction to the special issue of behavioral disorders: Serving the needs of youth with disabilities through school-based violence prevention efforts. Behavioral Disorders, 37 (3), 129–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291203700301

*Walker, V. L., Carpenter, M. E., Clausen, A., Ealer, K., & Lyon, K. J. (2020).Special educators as coaches to support paraprofessional implementation of functional communication training.  Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions , 23(3), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720957995

*Walker, V. L., Carpenter, M. E., Lyon, K. J., Garcia, M., & Johnson, H. (2021). Coaching paraeducators to implement functional communication training involving augmentative and alternative communication for students with autism spectrum disorder.  Augmentative and Alternative Communication , 37(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2021.1909650

Wasburn-Moses, L. (2005). How to keep your special education teachers. Principal Leadership, 5 , 35–38.

Watson, S. B. (2006). Novice science teachers: Expectations and experiences. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17 , 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9010-y

White, M., & Mason, C. Y. (2006). Components of a successful mentoring program for beginning special education teachers: Perspectives from new teachers and mentors. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29 (3), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640602900305

Wilczynski, S. M., Labrie, A., Baloski, A., Kaake, A., Marchi, N., & Zoder-Martell, K. (2017). Web-based teacher training and coaching/feedback: A case study. Psychology in the Schools, 54 (4), 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22005

WWC: Single-Case Design Technical Documentation, (n.d.). WWC | Single-Case Design Technical Documentation. Retrieved October 12, 2022, from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Document/229

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Education, University of North Georgia, 82 College Circle, Dahlonega, GA, 30597, USA

Chelsea Marelle

Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

Emily Tanner & Claire Donehower Paul

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chelsea Marelle .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Marelle, C., Tanner, E. & Paul, C.D. Special Education Teacher Training to Address Challenging Behaviors for Students with ASD in the Classroom Setting: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Rev J Autism Dev Disord (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-023-00404-3

Download citation

Received : 29 March 2022

Accepted : 24 August 2023

Published : 02 November 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-023-00404-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Teacher preparation
• Autism spectrum disorder
• Challenging behavior
• Special education teacher
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Helping Your Baby Reach Greater Wonders

What Is an Out-of-District Placement, and Who Needs One?

• An out-of-district placement benefits children whose local school can’t meet their special education needs. 
• Out-of-district schools are sometimes referred to as special education private schools. 
• If your child qualifies for out-of-district placement, they can attend a specialized school at the district’s expense. 

As parents, we agree that we want the best for our children’s education. However, what happens if you don’t think your child’s school best meets their needs?

Many parents opt for out-of-district placement, which takes the student out of the general education classroom and into a school that better meets their special education needs. 

If your student’s IEP team, a group of professionals who understand your child’s needs, determines that they can’t be met in their school district, they may recommend out-of-district placement. 

Let’s delve deeper into the concept of out-of-district placement and the criteria for qualification. 

What is an Out-of-District Placement?

An out-of-district placement 1 1. Range of Educational Placements. Federation for Children with Special Needs . https://fcsn.org/rangle-of-placements/#1649690443668-4b99a42e-4bf7 refers to schools that are separate from public schools and provide specialized instruction to meet the needs of a specific population. 

Students are generally referred to an out-of-district school if it’s determined that a public school can’t adequately fill their special education needs. Typically, the district pays for your child to attend an outside school, whether a private school, another public school, or a residential school. 

When considering the type of out-of-district placement for your child, consider what environment they would thrive in. For example, would they benefit from attending a school where they would live, or is another school in your same city the best fit for them? 

Out-of-district placements may be temporary or long-term, depending on the student’s progress. 

Legal Basis for Out-of-District Placement 

The legal basis for out-of-district placements varies by county and jurisdiction. However, it’s important to note that both federal and state laws affirm that children with disabilities have the right to a free and appropriate education ( FAPE ) in the least restrictive environment under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

This underscores the system’s commitment to ensuring every child’s educational needs are met, regardless of their circumstances. 

The least restrictive environment ( LRE ) principle is critical to IDEA. It states that children with special needs should be in the same classroom as other students as much as possible. 

Even before COVID, when families were homeschooling, some students weren’t receiving FAPE because their school district couldn’t meet their unique needs. For example, if a child’s IEP isn’t correctly implemented, it’s difficult for them to progress in school. 

Out-of-District Placement: Who Needs One?

An out-of-district placement is ideal for students who require specialized attention or have behavioral issues that can’t be accommodated in their school district. 

Additional characteristics of students typically considered for out-of-district placement include:

• Students with medical needs requiring specialized facilities or staff 
• Students with cultural or linguistic needs
• Students in transitional circumstances 
• Students with disabilities
• Students with exceptional needs 

Ultimately, an out-of-district placement ensures every student, including those with special needs, has access to an effective and appropriate program that helps meet their needs regardless of where they reside or the current resources available in their local school district. 

This opportunity for a more tailored and specialized education can significantly enhance a child’s learning journey, inspiring educators to continue their dedicated work. 

Case Study on Out-of-District Placement 

A 2017 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 2 2. Andover Public Schools equips paraprofessionals to catalyze early intervention efforts. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education . https://www.doe.mass.edu/research/allocation/casestudies/andover.pdf case study found that out-of-district placements help improve Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessments. 

The study also found that the number of children needing out-of-district placement decreased as the school system improved its support of students with disabilities. 

How to Secure an Out-of-District Placement

Your active involvement as a parent is crucial in addressing the issue of out-of-district placement at your child’s IEP meeting. 

Remember, you are your child’s primary advocate. With a counselor’s caseload, they may not fully recognize the need for an out-of-district placement. Your voice and insights can make a significant difference in securing the best educational environment for your child. 

Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to secure an out-of-district placement:

• Request an initial evaluation and identification of special education needs.
• Determine the inadequacy of local district resources.
• Explore available out-of-district options and the selection process.
• Understand legal considerations and parental rights.

At the end of the day, you need to prove that your school district isn’t offering FAPE to your child. 

Benefits and Challenges of Out-of-District Placements

Parents need to balance the benefits and challenges of out-of-district placements to ensure their child receives the appropriate support and services while considering their overall well-being. 

Here’s a snapshot of the benefits and challenges you should consider when deciding whether an out-of-district placement is appropriate for your child. 

Out-of-District Best Practices

Providing your child with an out-of-district placement generally involves a complex process requiring planning and collaboration with the school district. However, rest assured that there are ways to help streamline the process. You are not alone in this journey; resources and support systems are in place to assist you every step of the way. 

Some of the best practices for parents and educators to consider include:

• Active involvement and communication between parents and educators. 
• Conducting a comprehensive assessment to understand the student’s needs and strengths. 
• Strategies for maintaining a connection with the child’s education.
• Collaborating with out-of-district placements for a seamless education.

Some children struggle socially with out-of-district placement, so retaining original friendships and considering joining local youth clubs or team sports is essential. 

What to Do if Your Child Isn’t Accepted in an Out-of-District Placement 

If you receive the dreaded letter saying your child has been rejected for an out-of-district placement, you have options. While it will likely be frustrating after all the hard work you put into the process, it’s important to remain calm (as much as possible!).

First, you can review your application to ensure nothing is off-putting or inaccurate. For example, did you provide an accurate overview of your child and why they should qualify for an out-of-district placement?

You may have your child’s IEP counselor reevaluate it to reflect your child’s needs better. In addition, reach out to the school where you’d like them to be placed to see if there is anything you can do to help your child qualify. Can they come for a trial to see if the school best fits them?

Remember to be your child’s number one advocate and keep fighting for what your child deserves. 

How do I know if my child qualifies for an out-of-district placement?

If your child struggles in public school, you may wonder how to qualify for an out-of-district placement. If there isn’t a program in your school district to meet your child’s unique needs or they aren’t making adequate progress, you should approach the school’s administration. 

Remember that the school may sometimes have differing views about out-of-district placement. You’ll have to advocate for your child, ensuring they are in the appropriate school that best fits their needs. 

What are the common signs that an in-district program isn’t meeting a child’s needs?

If you recognize your child isn’t making sufficient progress in their current school district, an in-district program may not be the best fit. You may also notice your child’s individualized needs can only be met with special education services. 

Can a child return to their local school district after an out-of-district placement?

Children may return to their local school district if they thrive in the out-of-district placement or if it does not benefit them. 

When are children referred to a residential placement?

Generally, children are referred to a residential placement if:

• They require 24-hour structured treatment. 
• There is concern for self-injury or danger to others. 
• They cannot function in daily activities. 
• They commit destructive acts at school or in the community. 

Every child is unique, meaning no two cases are the same, and the reason why one student qualifies for residential placement will likely differ from the next. Find the best fit for your child in an environment where they can thrive. 

• Range of Educational Placements. Federation for Children with Special Needs . (n.d.). https://fcsn.org/rangle-of-placements/#1649690443668-4b99a42e-4bf7
• Andover Public Schools equips paraprofessionals to catalyze early intervention efforts. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education . (n.d.). https://www.doe.mass.edu/research/allocation/casestudies/andover.pdf

Related Posts

IEPs, Special Needs

5 Ways AI Can Benefit Special Needs Students

AI in special education classrooms can help create highly personalized experiences and improve inclusivity. Read about more benefits here!

Special Needs

Financial Planning for Families With Special Needs Children

With special needs financial planning, you can secure necessary resources for your child now while ensuring they will be cared for in the future.

5 Sample Self-Advocacy IEP Goals

Understanding the steps towards growing self-advocacy at school is an important part of building independence and self-efficacy for students.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Students with disabilities are missing school because of staff shortages

Cory Turner

There's a special education staffing crisis in a northern California school district. It means some of the district's most vulnerable students have missed weeks and even months of school.

Why children with disabilities are missing school and losing skills

Copyright © 2024 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Blog The Education Hub

https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/03/26/improving-support-children-young-people-special-education-needs-send/

How we’re improving support for children and young people with special education needs

All pupils should have access to the resources and support needed to fulfil their potential.

Last year, we unveiled an ambitious plan, which set out our aims to change the special educational needs and disabilities ( SEND ) and alternative provision system in England.

Over the past year, we’ve been delivering against this plan and rolling out measures to ensure the educational system meets the needs of all children and young people.

Here’s everything you need to know.

What are we doing to improve provision for pupils with SEND?

Councils are required to provide services for children and young people with SEND but we know that it’s not always easy for parents to find the support they need for their child in their local area.

To help, we are investing £850 million into local authorities across the country to improve services. Local authorities can use this money to create new places in mainstream and special schools , as well as other specialist settings, and to improve existing buildings to make them more accessible and suitable for all.

This funding is part of a £2.6 billion package we’ve committed to improve SEND services between 2022 and 2025.

This will provide over 60,000 new places for children or young people with SEND or who require alternative provision.

We’ve also allocated £13 million for mainstream schools to make sure they have the resources to cater to neurodiverse children and help them to thrive.

Are you going to build more special schools?

While reasonable adjustments are made in mainstream schools for pupils with SEND, we know that for some children, a specialist setting may be a better fit.

Special schools are specifically designed for pupils with complex needs, with tailored support and specialist equipment such as sensory appliances and communication aids.

As well as the funding for local authorities, we’re improving the availability of these facilities through the special free schools programme.

108 of these schools are now open and 92 more will open in due course, which includes the 30 new successful applications to run special free schools.

What is being done to support young people with SEND in apprenticeships?

Apprenticeships are a brilliant option for young people looking to develop their skills and gain a degree-level education. It’s vital that these programmes remain accessible to everyone.

In January 2024, we launched a year-long mentoring support pilot for apprentices with learning difficulties or disabilities.

Through this scheme, we offer advice and training for prospective mentors and providers to ensure they’re equipped to offer apprentices the support they need. The training offer is now live, and mentors are currently being matched with their apprentices.

We’re aware that achieving a level 2 qualification in English and Maths can be a barrier to completing apprenticeships for students with learning difficulties and disabilities.

Last May, a pilot was launched, allowing these students to take these subjects at a lower level (entry level 3), irrespective of whether or not they currently have an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP).

This means more students are able to study English and Maths at this level, helping more young people to achieve their apprenticeships.

Where can I find out more about what support is available in my area?

You can find out more about the funding granted to your local authority, here .

To find out what support is available where you live, visit your local authority’s website and search for SEND.

You can also find out more on your area’s Local Offer website – simply type your local authority’s name and ‘SEND local offer’ into your search engine.

You may also be interested in:

• What are short breaks for disabled children and how are we improving the service
• What are reasonable adjustments and how do they help disabled pupils at school?
• How supported internships help young people with learning disabilities gain work experience

Tags: alternative provision , special educational needs , Special Schools

Sharing and comments

Share this page, related content and links, about the education hub.

The Education Hub is a site for parents, pupils, education professionals and the media that captures all you need to know about the education system. You’ll find accessible, straightforward information on popular topics, Q&As, interviews, case studies, and more.

Please note that for media enquiries, journalists should call our central Newsdesk on 020 7783 8300. This media-only line operates from Monday to Friday, 8am to 7pm. Outside of these hours the number will divert to the duty media officer.

Members of the public should call our general enquiries line on 0370 000 2288.

Sign up and manage updates

Follow us on social media, search by date, comments and moderation policy.