sample research paper on inclusive education

CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS article

Research about inclusive education: are the scope, reach and limits empirical and methodological and/or conceptual and evaluative.

• Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter, Exeter, England

This paper argues for a broader conception about research into inclusive education, one that extends beyond a focus on empirical factors associated with inclusive education and the effects of inclusive education. It starts with a recent summary of international research into the effects of inclusive education on students with SEN/disabilities and those without. On the basis of this review, it examines a model showing the complexity of factors involved in asking questions about the effects of inclusive education. This complexity reflects the ambiguity and complexity of inclusive education, which is discussed in terms of varied contemporary positions about inclusive education. The analysis illustrates how there has been more focus on thin concepts of inclusion (as setting placement or in general terms) rather than its normative and value basis, which reflects a thick concept of inclusion. The paper concludes by illustrating with the use of a version of the capability approach how there are value tensions implicit in inclusion about difference and about personal vs. public choice. This requires value clarification and some settlement about the balance of values, which is where deliberative democratic principles and processes have a crucial role. The proposed answer to the paper’s question about the scope, reach and limits of research in inclusive education is that such research involves both empirical, methodological, and evaluative matters. Educational research about inclusive education is not just empirical, it also involves value and norm clarification, a process which has been too often ignored.

Introduction

In asking about the scope, reach and limits of research in inclusive education in this paper, the aim is to examine some contemporary findings in one area of research in inclusive education and how value positions are implicated. Policy makers are interested in the effects of inclusive education and researchers are keen to provide evidence that bears on policy making. The paper will start off with a research review which was conducted as a specific response to a policy maker’s request. However, this kind of research, which can be described as treating inclusion as a technical matter, has been widely criticized. For example, Slee and Weiner (2001) identify two groups of researchers; (i) those who work within, what they call the “positivist paradigm,” accept the way things are, attempt to make marginal reforms and who criticize “full inclusion” as ideological and (ii) those who see inclusive education as cultural politics and call for educational reconstruction. Though these authors align with the second group, it is interesting that the first author subsequently uses research which treats inclusive education as a technical matter to support a position about inclusive education. Subsequently, Slee (2018) has referred to a review by Hehir et al. (2016) that depends on a systematic review of technical style studies to support his claims about how: “adjustments made to classrooms, to curriculum and to pedagogy to render classrooms more inclusive and enabling also benefit students without disabilities” (p. 69).

In discussing what this review of Inclusive Education Effects (IE) can tell us and what it cannot, the paper will examine a model showing the complexity of factors involved in asking questions about the effects of inclusive education. It then moves on to consider what other kinds of questions might be asked in research about inclusive education that cannot be addressed through effects-focussed methodologies. At this point in the paper, the issue arises about how the results from empirical studies relate to what is called inclusion or inclusive education. So, varied perspectives on inclusive education are summarized, including those of some parents, based on a recent study of parents’ experiences of deciding to opt for special schooling. These perspectives reflect the ambiguity and complexity of inclusive education, illustrating how the concept is often used in a thin way in empirical studies by focusing more on its empirical identification and causal relationships than its more expanded normative and value basis, a thick concept of inclusion. The paper concludes by using a version of the capability approach to examine issues about “full inclusion” and what can be called a more balanced or reasoned inclusion. This reveals two key dilemmas about difference and about personal vs. public choice that are relevant to providing inclusion with a well-founded value basis. The paper concludes with the claim that research into inclusive education involves technical, methodological, and evaluative matters. It proposes a role for public deliberation in clarifying and settling these value and norm clarification, process which have been largely ignored.

Review of inclusive education effects

The aims of this review were to (i) identify and summarize contemporary international research on IE effects and (ii) draw implications for policy, practice and future research in IE field. The context of this review was that it was undertaken in 2019 by three members of the Lead Group of the SEN Policy Research Forum (SENPRF) 1 following informal communications with the Government Department for Education (DfE) about national SEN and inclusion policy. The Forum was asked to summarize relevant research which was then presented as well to the national SEN Review ( Gray et al., 2020 ).

Ten sources were identified coming from a 2 stage process. Firstly, the authors identified relevant papers already known to them (4 papers). This was then supplemented, secondly, by a data base search using ERIC and ERC databases for the period 2009–2019. Search terms involved all variations of inclusion/inclusive education/mainstreaming × achievement/social emotional X effects. For the ERIC database 630 articles were retrieved with only 5 identified as relevant; for the ERC database 544 articles were retrieved with only one identified as relevant. In this way 10 papers were identified (see Gray et al., 2020 for more details). Five of the papers were reviews of international studies ( Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ; Dyssegaard and Larsen, 2013 ; Oh-Young and Filler, 2015 ; Hehir et al., 2016 ; Szumski et al., 2017 ). Some of these reviews included studies conducted before the 2009 cut-off date used for this review. Three involved a quasi-experimental designs, two with collected data and one using national administrative data. Four involved multi-variate statistical analyses of longitudinal data; with 2 using cohort studies. The papers were either from the United States or European countries, with none from the United Kingdom. Inclusion was mostly defined in the studies covered in terms of a mainstream class setting compared to a special class/school setting. Few gave details about the setting. Where they did, the proportion of time in the mainstream class was reported (e.g., greater or less than 80% of time). In one example, an inclusive setting was defined as being in general classrooms with several hours support per week and receiving therapy support too. Special school was described as small classes (5–8 children) taught by a specialist teacher with an assistant and therapy support ( Sermier Dessemontet et al., 2012 ).

The review was organized into four broad areas: (i) academic effects on students with SEN/disabilities and (ii) social-emotional effects on students with SEN/disabilities, (iii) academic effects on students without SEN/disabilities, and (iv) social-emotional effects on students without SEN/disabilities. For the first area, five sources were used with the balance of findings showing more academic gains of students with a range of SEN in ordinary rather than separate settings. These students were broadly characterized as having mild to moderate SEN/disabilities with the gains being in mostly literacy, but some in maths. One of the review papers reminded readers that this evidence did not show that “full” or “complete” inclusion had higher gains to special education settings for students with mild disabilities.

For the review area, academic effects for non-disabled students, the reviews of older studies, done before 2010 presented a mixed overall picture. However, on balance most studies showed more neutral or positive than negative effects for non-disabled students. However, some more recent individual studies rather than reviews indicated specific weak to moderate negative academic effects on non-disabled students, e.g., having classmates with emotional/behavior difficulties ( Fletcher, 2010 ) or special school returners ( Gottfried and Harven, 2015 ). Other studies indicated some small positive effects, associated with positive teacher attitudes, their training, strategies geared to diverse needs and problem-solving oriented schools ( Hehir et al., 2016 ). In addition, reviews were mixed about the negative academic effects of students with emotional and behavior difficulties on students without SEN/disabilities.

For the review area about social-emotional effects on SEN/disabled students, there were fewer studies than for academic effects. Here the sources showed mixed results. While one review referred to mostly positive outcomes ( Hehir et al., 2016 ), the other significant review reported that no conclusions can be drawn ( Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ). One specific recent study found no adaptive behavior differences across settings ( Sermier Dessemontet et al., 2012 ). For the fourth review area about social emotional effects for non-disabled students, there were also relatively few studies. These were recorded in review papers and showed some positive effects, e.g., less discriminating attitudes, increased acceptance, and understanding.

Research limitations and some relevant conclusion

As in other educational research focussed on effects, there are various design limitations to these inclusion effect studies. These studies use a range of approaches from quasi-experimental designs (QED) to multi-variate statistical analyses of longitudinal data and administrative data sets. With QED, as there is no randomized group allocation, there can be some “participant bias,” e.g., students in inclusive settings might have higher starting levels of functioning. Many of these papers refer to a series of limitations. Studies often use differing definitions of the compared settings. Comparisons are also often defined in terms of placements, e.g., special school v. ordinary school or special class/unit vs. ordinary class, not in terms of school-level (e.g., school ethos), or class level factors (e.g., quality of teaching). Findings relate to specific student age groups and areas of SEN/disability and not others. There is also the risk that other areas of SEN/impairment may not be controlled for in comparisons. Sometimes SEN/disability is also used generically to cover a range of areas and so the comparison becomes between SEN v non-SEN or disabled vs. non-disabled. How these terms are used can also vary internationally. In terms of statistical analyses, sample sizes may be under-powered to draw confident conclusions. Some effect measures, especially for the social-emotional effects could have improved measurement characteristics (e.g., reliability and validity).

For the purposes of this paper three main concluding points can be drawn from this review of inclusive education effects. The first point is that the basic typology of effects (academic and socio-emotional inclusion effects for SEN/disabled students and non-SEN/disabled children) needs to take account of other factors. These include the kinds of SEN/disability, phases of schooling, quality of support for learning and structural class and school factors. Some of these factors might moderate the effects. These are illustrated in Table 1 .

Table 1. Framework of focus and interacting factors relevant to the effects of inclusive education.

What this framework indicates is the multi-dimensionality of inclusive education and the complexity of factors that relate to their varied effects. This implies that there is a need for more nuanced policy and practice questions about inclusive education and consequently more nuanced kinds of studies about inclusive education. This would counter the commonly found preferences that look for simple generalized empirical relationships to confirm pre-existing positions; avoiding what has been called the pervasive confirmation bias ( Wason, 1960 ).

The second main point to make from this review is that the balance of evidence finds neutral or small positive effects as opposed to negative effects. This means that adopting an “on balance” position is the wise way to summarize the review outcome. Both positive and negative effects need to be understood in terms of the complex interaction of individual, class and school factors, on one hand, and what counts as inclusive education and the specific types of effects, on the other. The value of a framework like in Table 1 is that it reflects points from research findings about factors in those interactions that are more or less alterable, with this having policy implications. The third main point of conclusion from this review is that it is useful to develop this kind of mapping of the kinds of interacting factors related to questions about inclusion effects. This is relevant both to the design of further studies and to drawing conclusions for policy.

Unaddressed questions about inclusive education

The kinds of effectiveness research discussed above still leave some crucial questions about inclusive education unaddressed. Although there is scope for more sophisticated research designs to evaluate the effects of inclusive education, the use of multivariate statistical techniques involves large samples which are often not available, especially in some areas of SEN/disability, e.g., severe and profound and multiple learning difficulties SLD/PMLD). So, there are questions still to be asked about the inclusion of students with SLD/PMLD and those with significant emotional and behavior difficulties. These are difficult to address partly because of the relatively low incidence of these areas of difficulties but also the scarcity of practices involving these students in what would be called inclusive settings ( Agran et al., 2020 ). In a rare US quasi-experimental study, for example, 15 pairs of early years and primary aged children with “extensive support needs,” were matched across 12 characteristics based on their first complete Individual Education Program (IEP). One child in each pair was included in general education for 80% or more of their day, while the other was in a separate special education class ( Gee et al., 2020 ). Extensive analyses were shown to indicate more engagement and higher outcomes in general classrooms. But, in terms of what this study implies for inclusive education, there are no details of the students’ level of intellectual disability in these pairs and so we do not know if they had severe/profound intellectual disabilities or in United Kingdom terms SLD or PMLD. Nor does the report indicate details about the type of support and adaptations that were made for those in the general class or whether they spent 20% of their time in a separate class setting.

In the United Kingdom by comparison, reports about inclusive practices are in the form of cases or demonstration models of inclusive practice. For example, an illustration of inclusive practice with students with PMLD involved a common interactive music program for learners with PMLD and those from a mainstream primary school that enabled learning for all involved ( Education Wales, 2020 ). Though this inclusive program took place in a special school setting, it could have also been in an ordinary school setting. Both the primary school and special school children benefitted in their own ways from the joint activities, which seemed to enable its inclusiveness through it focus on the expressive arts.

The implication is that effectiveness research about inclusive education does not bear directly on the basic questions about the future of special classes and schools, settings which have been interpreted as being inconsistent with “full inclusion” ( UNICEF, 2017 ). The uses of terms like “full inclusion” or an “inclusive system at all levels” are unclear about whether they can involve some part-time separate settings (e.g., 20% of class time) or not. They are also unclear about whether fixed term (e.g., 1 year) placements in separate settings are compatible with an inclusive system and whether an “inclusive system at all levels” implies the closure of all special schools in the foreseeable future.

Critiques of “full inclusion” over many years have been about the position representing a “moral absolute” that requires the elimination of any alternative placements or settings to ordinary class placements ( Kauffman et al., 2021 , p. 20). For Kauffman and colleagues, the “full inclusion” focus on place rather than instruction or teaching is deeply problematic. They question those interpretations of Article 24 of the CRPD ( UN, 2006 ) that the Convention implies “full inclusion” without attention to the quality of teaching and alternative placements. However, what both advocates of “full inclusion” and these above critics have in common is that they both use false oppositions or dichotomies; with one pole being favored and the other pole rejected. They mirror each other in this kind of thinking.

There have, however, also been more nuanced arguments about inclusion over the years. Fuchs and Fuchs (1998) , for example, identified strengths and limitations in arguments of both “full inclusionists” and “inclusionists.” They see the former group (full inclusionists) as focussed more on children with more severe disabilities (low incidence needs), prioritizing social attitude and interaction learning, while the latter (inclusionists) are focussed more on children with high incidence needs, prioritizing academic learning and accepting a continuum of provision. Fuchs and Fuchs (1998) raise the question of whether “full inclusionists” are willing to “sacrifice children’s academic or vocational skills” for their social priorities ( Fuchs and Fuchs, 1998 , p. 312). This identifies the differences over inclusive education as one of value priorities, a point to be returned to later in this paper.

One way to take a broader perspective is to consider the practice and theory of a “full inclusive education” commitment. From the practice perspective, we can examine the Canadian New Brunswick system, which is cited as an example of “full inclusion” ( National Council for Special Education [NCSE], 2019 ). In a statement by the Porter et al. (2012) , a core inclusive principle is that:

“… public education is universal—the provincial curriculum is provided equitably to all students and this is done in an inclusive, common learning environment shared among age-appropriate, neighborhood peers” (p. 184).

However, in this publication evidence is given of the use of part-time and full-time “streaming” in primary and secondary schools and some alternative settings (0.4–1.5% across Francophone districts: p. 91). The reference in the above core principle to “common learning environments” is central to the definition of inclusive education. This phrase was introduced as an expansive definition:

“to dispel the misperception that inclusion is having every learner in a regular classroom all the time, no matter what the circumstances” ( AuCoin et al., 2020 , p. 321).

By using this term “common learning environment” in this way and not referring to ordinary/mainstream class environments, the New Brunswick conception of inclusive education is open to use of some alternative settings which is inconsistent with “full inclusion” and compatible with the concept of a flexible continuum of provision.

Inclusive education: concept, theory, and ambiguity

Given these ambiguities, on one hand, and the passions associated with inclusion and inclusive education, on the other hand, the analysis needs to consider the value of inclusion as this might inform some of the applied questions about inclusive education. In this regard, Felder (2018) has identified that inclusion tends to be a thin concept in empirical studies, like those discussed above. This is illustrated in the way the terms inclusion/inclusive are used in these studies. It is also why “what counts as inclusion” is an important part of the framework in Table 1 about the focus and interacting factors relevant to the effects of inclusive education. What these empirical studies do is focus more on matters related to how to realize inclusive education than consider and justify its expanded normative and value basis, what Felder (2018) called a thick concept of inclusion.

For Felder, an important distinction here is between communal inclusion (gemeinschaft) and societal inclusion (gesellschaft), to use the German terms from the social theorist Tonnies. Societal inclusion is about social relationships formed through instrumental rationality, while communal inclusion is about social relationships found in friendships, love relationships and interpersonal ties. In this analysis, the structures of societal inclusion can influence what make communal inclusion possible. However, communal inclusion sets some limits to the extent to which this form of communal inclusion can be secured through human rights. Felder’s analysis implies that human rights are not able to fully secure the social freedom and recognition, esteem or solidarity that are often neglected aspects of inclusion. In Felder’s analysis inclusive education which ultimately depends on social inclusion depends on social intentionality or agents acting collectively. People need to be integrated in a cooperative societal context to use their freedoms and basic rights. This underlines the importance of people having a degree of freedom to decide where they want to be included and be associated with. And, if disabled people are to have similar freedoms as other people in positive terms, they require more goods than others, because of the problem of converting these resources into practical opportunities. This is the basic assumption deriving from the capability approach ( Sen, 1979 ), which will discussed further below.

This thick concept on inclusion can also be contrasted with some current concepts of what inclusion means in inclusive education. Two leading concepts will be discussed and contrasted with a third which relates directly to students with more severe/profound disabilities. The first perspective, proposed by Warnock (2005) emphasizes that inclusion means the entitlement of everyone to learning in a personally relevant way, wherever this takes place. This concept of inclusion can imply and be used to justify separate settings for learning, e.g., special schools and classes in general schools, while overlooking the social effects and significance of separation, especially if it is imposed. Another leading concept of inclusion in inclusive education, associated with the Inclusion Index ( Booth and Ainscow, 2011 ) focuses on increasing student participation and reducing exclusion from “the cultures, curricula and communities of local schools” (p. 6). This concept implies that “all are under same roof,” a phrase used by Warnock (2005) , with the onus on local ordinary schools to accommodate diversity. This concept says little about how much diversity can be accommodated nor whether restructuring local schools could include some internal school separation.

It is also useful to contrast these two leading concepts with a 40 year old concept of partial inclusion that relates specifically to students with more severe/profound disabilities ( Baumgart et al., 1982 ). The basic premise of the principle of partial participation is that all severely disabled students have “a right to educational services that allow them to be the most that they can be” (p. 4). This implies engaging in as many different activities in as many different environments as instructionally possible. Baumgart et al. (1982) clarify that such partial participation requires individualized adjustments or modifications of typical environmental conditions. They also note that observing severely disabled and non-disabled students will show that they do not participate in activities to the same degree and in the same ways. This concept is characterized by its strong focus on what is pedagogically possible, going beyond the generalities of the two more prominent recent concepts.

Different policy positions

The leading international policy position on inclusive education is in Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD; UNICEF, 2017 ). The CRPD stresses that inclusive education is a fundamental human right for every child with a disability. It defines an inclusive education system as one that “accommodates all students whatever their abilities or requirements, and at all levels.” This position is justified in various terms: the educational case is that all children learn more effectively in an inclusive system; the social case is that this contributes to more inclusive societies and the economic case that it is more cost-effective.

However, not all countries accept Article 24 as shown by the United Kingdom Government having ratified the UNCRPD but stating specific reservations about preserving parents right to choose a special school education. This position has been United Kingdom (England) policy for over a decade. For example, the results of the consultation about the Green Paper that preceded 2014 revised SEN and disability legislation, were interpreted as showing widespread support. The public consultation was interpreted as showing support for parents to have the right to express a preference for any state funded mainstream or special school ( Department for Education [DFE], 2011 ).

It is revealing to compare these policy perspectives on inclusive education with those of parents who have selected special schools for their children with SEN/disabilities. A recent United Kingdom study examined the views of parents of pupils in special schools in the South West of England: their reasons for choosing special school, the extent to which they felt they had an independent choice, their views on alternative provision and their concepts of inclusive education ( Satherley and Norwich, 2021 ). Analysis showed that the top three reported factors as influencing decisions were school atmosphere, caring approach to pupils and class size, a finding that connected with their concepts of inclusive education. Not only does this small-scale study show distinctive parental perspectives on schooling and the dilemmas they experienced in choosing provision for their children, but concepts of inclusive education that depart from some of those discussed above. Over half considered that high quality inclusive education provision meant a sense of belonging to a class and school and social acceptance by peers, on one hand, and a more individualized curriculum, on the other. In addition, for many parents the belonging, social acceptance and Individualized curriculum was found only in special schools. By contrast, quality inclusive education rarely meant a resource base or specialist unit attached to mainstream school (28%), joint placement (21%), co-located schools (19%) or mainstream provision only (8.8%). What characterizes these parents’ perspectives was that they did not refer to placement, where provision is made. The UNCRP assumes that inclusion means placing students with disabilities within mainstream classes with appropriate adaptations ( UNCRPD, 2016 , p. 3). So, these parents mostly held different views from the dominant UNCRPD concept of inclusive education, discussed above.

The capability approach

A thick concept of inclusion in inclusive education, as discussed above, implies the importance of people having a degree of freedom to decide where they want to be included and with whom they associate. It was also suggested above that if disabled people are to have similar freedoms as other people, they require more resources than others, because of the problem of converting these resources into practical opportunities. This is where the capability approach developed by Sen (1979) can act as rich conceptual and value resource for thinking about inclusive education. Its discussion in this paper is not as a complete approach to the field, 2 but as the kind of framework that assists in thinking about what is involved in a just education system.

For Sen (1979) , the capability approach is about evaluating someone’s advantages in terms of his or her actual ability to achieve various valuable functionings as a part of living. Terzi (2014) expresses what a capability represents in terms of the “genuine, effective opportunities that people have to achieve valued functionings” (p. 124). What is distinctive about the capability approach is how it answers the political-ethical question about equality of what? Unlike perspectives which either focus on equality of resources or opportunities, the capability approach focuses on genuine opportunities. For Terzi, capabilities as genuine opportunities are important because they ensure that individuals can choose the kind of life they have reason to value. This also implies a fundamental role for agency in realizing the valued plans in one’s life. This has implications for the balance of choice, especially where it concerns children and young people. It has also been argued that a capability-oriented approach needs to acknowledge children’s agency in determining their own valued functionings and not just be determined by adults ( Dalkilic and Vadeboncoeur, 2016 ). This introduces some nuance into how a capability approach might work in relation to education, but this is not the paper to discuss these matters further. There are also issues about determining the capability set to be equalized. In considering whether there are basic universal capabilities there are also questions about opting for adequacy rather than equality in capabilities and whether some capabilities require equality. These matters will also not be addressed here.

Where the capabilities approach is incomplete is in considering the design questions of how to equalize capabilities; how to organize education to achieve this goal? Two key questions will be considered in relation to this question:

i how are “valuable functionings” identified? This is about the balance between personal preferences (agency) vs. public choice (democracy);

ii how to address the dilemmas of difference? This is about recognition of difference as either enabling vs. stigmatizing ( Norwich, 2013 ).

The second question about differences and differentiation will be dealt with first. In the capability approach thinking about equalizing capabilities is in terms of dignity. In these terms two ways of equalizing dignity can be considered from an educational perspective. One way of equalizing dignity is to respond to the individual functioning of all; this can be seen as about enabling learning for all. Another way is to avoid marking out students as different; this can be seen as avoiding the risk of stigma/humiliation. For example, some parents of children and young people are reluctant to seek out a diagnosis for their children, e.g., autism of ADHD, while others seek them out. These two ways of equalizing dignity can lead to a tension: differentiation as enabling but also risking stigma and devaluation, which can present a dilemma about difference/differentiation.

One way to connect how to address the dilemma of difference to conceptions of inclusion is in terms of the distinction which Cigman (2007) has made between “universal” and “moderate” inclusion. For Cigman, in “universal” inclusion, any marking out through separation of some children is to be avoided—through identification, different curricula, teaching and settings along a continuum of provision. This separation is regarded as a mark of devaluation and stigma; its avoidance is presented as a way of promoting respect. She contrasted this with “moderate” inclusion, that recognizes that promoting respect is also about identifying pupils’ personal strengths, difficulties and circumstances in a way that is enabling and not just stigmatizing. Based on this thinking there can be two broad responses to dilemmas of difference:

• it is possible to respond to the individual functional requirements (enabling route) and to avoid separation (avoid stigmatizing route); there are no dilemmas of difference representing a “universal” inclusion perspective.

• It is possible to some extent to respond to the individual functional requirements (enabling route) and to avoid separation (avoid stigmatizing route), but not fully: there are some dilemmas of difference which can be resolved to some extent. This represents a “moderate” inclusion perspective, what might better be represented as a reasoned and balanced inclusion.

This line of thinking shows how political-ethical questions about equalizing capabilities implicate dilemmas of difference in concepts of inclusion in inclusive education.

Deliberative democracy and citizens’ assemblies: personal vs. public choice

The second question arising from issues linked to the capability approach is how are “valuable functionings” identified? This has been framed as about the balance between personal preferences (agency) and public or social choice (democracy). In the United Kingdom (English) SEN/disability policy context, there has been over several decades a strong adoption of a “parental choice—provision diversity” approach—or what has also been called a neo-liberal approach ( Runswick-Cole, 2011 ). Here the choice is placed firmly with the individual. However, there has also been a persistent concern about United Kingdom (England) policy failure, which has been interpreted as reflecting an over-emphasis on personal preference rather than public choice ( Lehane, 2017 ). This has even been recognized more recently by policy makers, including the contemporary Department for Education Review of SEN/disability policy and practice ( Department for Education [DFE], 2022 ). This is a case of a Government having to confront the results of decades of policy which have not supported inclusive practices in a strategic way:

“…the need to restore families” trust and confidence in an inclusive education system with excellent mainstream provision that puts children and young people first; and the need to create a system that is financially sustainable and built for long-term success ( Department for Education [DFE], 2022 , p. 5).

However, this is not just about persistent policy failure over SEN/disability, it can be seen to also illustrate the democratic deficits in general educational and general social policy-making processes. SEN/disability inclusion cannot be detached from these other systems within the wider education system, such as school accountability, curriculum focus, and design, behavior management etc., because of their strong inter-connections. This is where Crouch’s (2011) Post-Democracy analysis is relevant in identifying how policy-making could better reflect stakeholder’s perspectives. This also connects to Felder’s (2018) examination of the meaning of inclusion, as encompassing communal and societal aspects and as being inherently social in its links to social intentions and actions. Felder goes onto to argue that the inclusion in inclusive education involves all stakeholders at all levels, from individuals to structural levels.

The implication of this analysis is that there needs to be more public deliberation and choice about inclusive education and a better balance between personal preferences and public choice. Following this argument Norwich (2019) has argued for an Educational Framework Commission, as a non-governmental policy initiative that uses representative citizen assemblies and other approaches to seek informed common ground between different stakeholders in policy making. This is one way to consider what is involved in a thick concept of inclusion in its links to democracy and as setting the context for research into inclusive education.

Several conclusions can be drawn from the above analysis about the scope, reach and limits of research on inclusive education. First, inclusive education is multi-dimensional, ambiguous and normative. This is related to the discussion about using inclusion as a thick or thin concept. The thick—thin distinction has been associated with the philosopher Williams (1985) in relation to ethical evaluations. Both thin and thick concepts involve evaluations, but thick concepts also have more complexity and descriptive content, while with thin concepts there is little sense of what is evaluated positively or negatively. In the case of inclusive education, the characteristic qualified by the term inclusive is positive without knowing much about the characteristic. For example, describing some education practice as “inclusive” reflects a thin use of the term, while qualifying the term “inclusive” as in “societal inclusion” or “curriculum inclusion in a separate setting” reflects more content and veers toward a thicker use of the concept. Kirchin (2013) has suggested that this thin-thick distinction is better represented as a continuum from thin to thick, which fits the use of the term “inclusive,” in these three examples, “inclusive practice,” “societal inclusion” to “curriculum inclusion in a separate setting.”

What makes inclusion in inclusive education a thick term is its multi-dimensionality which can also engender value tensions that need to be resolved. As argued above, this requires value clarification and some settlement about the balance of values, which is where deliberative democratic principles and processes have a crucial role. However, these processes can be Informed by empirical research, such as those summarized above. So, the answer in this paper to the question about the scope, reach and limits of research in inclusive education is that such research involves both empirical, methodological and evaluative matters. Educational research about inclusive education is not just empirical, it also involves value and norm clarification, a process which has been too often ignored. However, some empirical research in the field, such as the effects type summarized above, requires thin concepts of inclusion, as this is the only way that systematic empirical metrics can be set up for the kinds of large scale linking of variables. So, there is a place for both thin and thick concepts of inclusion in which they can interact. Thick concepts of inclusion can inform the foci for empirical research, while thin concepts used in empirical conclusions can inform how thick concepts develop through deliberative processes.

Author contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has 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.

• ^ SEN Policy Research Forum, an independent network based in the United Kingdom, that aims to contribute intelligent analysis and the use of knowledge and experience to promote the development of policy and practice for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities.
• ^ Sen indicated himself that the capability approach is an incomplete approach as it requires local democratic social choice in defining capabilities ( Sen, 2017 ).

Agran, M., Jackson, L., Kurth, J. A., Ryndak, D., Burnette, K., Jameson, M., et al. (2020). Why aren’t students with severe disabilities being placed in general education classrooms: examining the relations among classroom placement, learner outcomes, and other factors. Res. Pract. Pers. Sev. Disabil. 45, 4–13. doi: 10.1177/1540796919878134

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

AuCoin, A., Porter, G. L., and BakerKorotkov, K. (2020). New Brunswick’s journey to inclusive education. Prospects 49, 313–328. doi: 10.1007/s11125-020-09508-8

Baumgart, D., Brown, L., Pumpian, I., Nisbet, J., Ford, A., Sweet, M., et al. (1982). Principle of Partial Participation and Individualized Adaptations in Educational Programs for Severely Handicapped Students. Psychol. Res. Pract. Pers. Sev. Disabil. 7, 17–26.

Google Scholar

Booth, T., and Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. 3 rd ed. Bristol: CSIE.

Cigman, R. (2007). A Question of Universality: inclusive Education and the Principle of Respect. J. Philos. Educ. 41, 775–793.

Crouch, C. (2011). The Strange Non-death of Neo-liberalism. London: John Wiley & Sons.

Dalkilic, M., and Vadeboncoeur, J. A. (2016). Re-framing inclusive education through the capability approach: an elaboration of the model of relational inclusion. Glob. Educ. Rev. 3, 122–137.

Department for Education [DFE] (2011). Support and Aspiration: A new Approach to Special Educational needs and Disability. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/support-and-aspiration-a-new-approach-to-special-educational-needs-and-disability-consultation (accessed July 6, 2022).

Department for Education [DFE] (2022). SEND Review: Right Support, Right Place, Right Time Government Consultation on the SEND and Alternative Provision System in England. London: DFE.

Dyssegaard, C. B., and Larsen, M. S. (2013). Evidence on Inclusion. Aarhus: Aarhus University.

Education Wales (2020). Routes for Learning: Guidance document. Available online at: https://hwb.gov.wales/api/storage/f4133444-0b1d-4f66-aa46-8f76edd09199/curriculum-2022-routes-for-learning-guidance-final-web-ready-e-130720.pdf (accessed July 6, 2022).

Felder, F. (2018). The value of Inclusion. J. Philos. Educ. 52, 54–70. doi: 10.1111/1467-9752.12280

Fletcher, J. (2010). Spillover Effects of Inclusion of Classmates with Emotional Problems on Test Scores in Early Elementary School. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 29, 69–83. doi: 10.1002/pam.20479

Fuchs, D., and Fuchs, L. S. (1998). Competing Visions for Educating Students with Disabilities Inclusion versus Full Inclusion. Child. Educ. 74, 309–316. doi: 10.1080/00094056.1998.10521956

Gee, K., Gonzalez, M., and Cooper, C. (2020). Outcomes of Inclusive Versus Separate Placements: A Matched Pairs Comparison Study. Res. Pract. Pers. Sev. Disabil. 45, 223–240. doi: 10.1177/1540796920943469

Gottfried, M. A., and Harven, A. (2015). The Effect of Having Classmates with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders and the Protective Nature of Peer Gender. J. Educ. Res. 108, 45–61. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2013.836468

Gray, P., Norwich, B., and Webster, R. (2020). Review of Research about the Effects of Inclusive Education: (longer version). Available online at: https://senpolicyresearchforum.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Inclusion-Review-final-longer-Feb-21.pdf (accessed July 6, 2022).

Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., and Burke, S. (2016). A Summary of The Evidence on Inclusive Education. Cambridge: Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Kauffman, J. M., Ahrbeck, B., Anastasiou, D., Badar, J., Felder, M., and Hallenbeck, B. A. (2021). Special Education Policy Prospects: Lessons From Social Policies Past. Exceptionality 29, 16–28. doi: 10.1080/09362835.2020.1727326

Kirchin, S. (2013). Thick Concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 9780199672349.001.0001 doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672349.001.0001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lehane, T. (2017). “SEN’s completely different now”: critical discourse analysis of three “Codes of Practice for Special Educational Needs” (1994, 2001, 2015). Educ. Rev. 69, 51–67. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2016.1237478

National Council for Special Education [NCSE] (2019). Policy Advice on Special Schools and Classes An Inclusive Education for an Inclusive Society?. Trim: NCSE.

Norwich, B. (2013). Addressing Tensions and Dilemmas in Inclusive Education: living with Uncertainty. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203118436

Norwich, B. (2019). From the Warnock Report (1978) to an Education Framework Commission: A Novel Contemporary Approach to Educational Policy Making for Pupils With Special Educational Needs/Disabilities. Front. Educ . 4:72. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00072

Oh-Young, C., and Filler, J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Res. Dev. Disabil. 47, 80–92. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.014

Porter, G. L., and AuCoin, A., New Brunswick Department of Education Early Childhood Development (2012). Strengthening Inclusion, Strengthening Schools Report of the Review of Inclusive Education Programs and Practices in New Brunswick Schools. Fredericton, N.B: New Brunswick Dept of Education and Early Childhood Development.

Ruijs, N. M., and Peetsma, T. T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educ. Res. Rev. 4, 67–79. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.002

Runswick-Cole, K. (2011). Time to end the bias towards inclusive education? Br. J. Spec. Educ. 38, 113–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8578.2011.00514.x

Satherley, D., and Norwich, B. (2021). Parents’ experiences of choosing a special school for their children. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 1–15. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2021.1967298

Sen, A. (1979). “Equality of What?,” in Tanner Lectures on Human Values , ed. S. McMurrin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Sen, A. (2017). Collective Choice and Social Welfare: An Expanded Edition. London: Penguin. doi: 10.4159/9780674974616

Sermier Dessemontet, R., Bless, G., and Morin, D. (2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic achievement and adaptive behaviour of children with intellectual disabilities. J. Intellect. Disabil. 56, 579–587. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01497.x

Slee, R. (2018). Inclusive Education isn’t Dead, it Just Smells Funny. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780429486869

Slee, R., and Weiner, G. (2001). Education Reform and Reconstruction as a Challenge to Research Genres: Reconsidering School Effectiveness Research and Inclusive Schooling. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 12, 83–98. doi: 10.1076/sesi.12.1.83.3463

Szumski, G., Smogorzewska, J., and Karwowski, M. (2017). Academic Achievement of Students Without Special Educational needs in Inclusive Classrooms: A Meta-Analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 21, 33–54. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004

Terzi, L. (2014). Reframing Inclusive Education: Educational Equality as Capability Equality. Camb. J. Educ. 44, 479–493. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2014.960911

UN (2006). Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities , 24. Available online at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDisabilities.aspx#24 (accessed November 25, 2021).

UNCRPD (2016). Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: n Article 24: Right to inclusive education General comment No. 4 (2016) . Available online at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CRPD/GC/RighttoEducation/CRPD-C-GC-4.doc (accessed November 29, 2021).

UNICEF (2017). Inclusive Education: Understanding Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Available online at: https://www.unicef.org/eca/sites/unicef.org.eca/files/IE_summary_accessible_220917_0.pdf (accessed July 6, 2022).

Warnock, M. (2005). Special Educational Needs: A New Look. London: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.

Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Q. J. Exp. Physiol. 12, 129–140. doi: 10.1080/17470216008416717

Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. London: Fontana.

Keywords : inclusive education, inclusion, research, effects, evaluations, thin and thick concepts

Citation: Norwich B (2022) Research about inclusive education: Are the scope, reach and limits empirical and methodological and/or conceptual and evaluative? Front. Educ. 7:937929. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.937929

Received: 06 May 2022; Accepted: 29 June 2022; Published: 15 July 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Norwich. 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: Brahm Norwich, [email protected]

Disclaimer: 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.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

The Dilemma of Inclusive Education: Inclusion for Some or Inclusion for All

Äli leijen.

1 Institute of Education, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

Francesco Arcidiacono

2 Research Department, Haute Ecole Pédagogique BEJUNE, Biel/Bienne, Switzerland

Aleksandar Baucal

3 Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

In this paper, we intend to consider different understandings of inclusive education that frame current public and professional debates as well as policies and practices. We analyze two – somewhat opposing – discourses regarding inclusive education, namely, the “inclusion for some” – which represents the idea that children with special needs have a right to the highest quality education which can be delivered by specially trained staff, and the “inclusion for all” – which represents the idea that all children regarding their diverse needs should have the opportunity to learn together. To put the two discourses in a dialogical relation, we have reconstructed the inferential configurations of the arguments of each narrative to identify how the two definitions contribute to position children with and without special needs and their teachers. The results show the possibilities to bridge the two narratives, with respect to the voices they promote or silence, the power relations they constitute, and the values and practices they enact or prevent.

Introduction

Inspired by social justice ideas, the Convention on the Rights of the Child ( UN, 1989 ) and the Salamanca Statement ( UNESCO, 1994 ), many European countries have developed policies and implemented practices to promote inclusive education ( Arcidiacono and Baucal, 2020 ; Nelis and Pedaste, 2020 ). Consequently, more children with special education needs 1 are nowadays learning with their peers in mainstream schools and the number of special schools has decreased. Although this is a trend in different countries in Europe and in the Global North, there are several challenges. Most notably, there is still no clear understanding of inclusive education. Researchers, policy makers, and teacher educators have diverse understandings ( Haug, 2017 ; Van Mieghem et al., 2018 ; Kivirand et al., 2020 ), which range from the idea that special education is itself a form of inclusive education, to the observation that all children are, for the majority, learning together in an inclusive setting ( Ainscow and Miles, 2008 ; Hornby, 2015 ; Kivirand et al., 2020 ). Magnússon (2019) has concluded that the “implementations, interpretations and definitions of the concept vary greatly both in research and in practice, between countries and even within them” ( ibid , p. 678).

These different discourses are present in several societies, but the debates are more heated in contexts which more recently have started to implement inclusive education practices, such as Eastern Europe and former Soviet countries ( Florian and Becirevic, 2011 ; Stepaniuk, 2019 ). One of the reasons for so many challenges in the latter context is the past experience of a strongly segregated educational system. This historical context is illuminated in the views of teachers, parents, and the general public.

In this paper, we will analyze two – somewhat opposing – discourses regarding inclusive education encapsulating two positions that are in the core of many current debates about inclusive education. The first one (“inclusion for some”) represents the idea that children with special needs have a right to highest quality education which can be best delivered by specially trained staff in a specialized and often segregated environment, while the second one (“inclusion for all”) represents the idea that all children regarding their diverse needs should have the equal opportunity to learn together in a regular education setting.

In this paper, we are going to put the two discourses in a dialogical relation. Through an argumentative analysis based on the reconstruction of the inferential configurations of arguments, we intend to identify how the two definitions contribute to position children (with and without special needs) and teachers, whose voices they promote and whose voices are silenced, what power relations they constitute, and what values and practices they enact or prevent. The possibility to map out the reasoning beyond these arguments is discussed as the starting point for bridging the existing conceptions about inclusive education. Prior to introducing the two narratives, we introduce briefly the background of inclusive education in Estonia which forms the context of the current study.

Inclusive Education in Estonia

Similarly to many Eastern European countries, Estonia has a long special education tradition, which is influencing acceptance of the principles and the actual practices of inclusive education. These principles have been established at the legislative level in Estonia since 2010, most notably the law states that students with special needs have the right for studying in their schools of residence with their peers ( Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act, 2010 , 2019 ). In accord with the changes in the legislative framework, the number of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools has increased; however, another phenomenon has appeared – the number of students enrolled in special classes in mainstream schools has also increased ( Räis et al., 2016 ). These special classes are often taught by teachers of special education and not by regular teachers. Although many school leaders understand the need for inclusive education, their main concern is a lack of availability of support specialists – including special needs teachers, speech therapists, and phycologists ( Räis and Sõmer, 2016 ). Although the expertise of support specialists is highly valued in Estonian schools and kindergartens, more and more teachers have recognized the importance of their own professional development related to supporting diverse learners. For example, the comparison of TALIS 2013 and TALIS 2018 survey data ( OECD, 2020 ) showed that teachers’ participation in professional development activities related to supporting diverse learners has significantly increased in Estonia and at the same time teachers indicated that training in this area is for them still the largest need for professional development. Consequently, diverse in-service training courses are available for teachers. An analysis of the course content at one of the major universities in Estonia providing teacher education showed that the core content of these courses has tended to focus on didactical methods of teaching students with special educational needs rather than on strategies of inclusive pedagogy. However, more recent in-service courses have emphasized social justice, possibilities for participation, and inclusive pedagogies as well (e.g., Kivirand et al., 2021 ). This brief overview illuminates that very different perspectives and practices are present in Estonia. We will explore these in more detail in the next sections.

Two Discourses of Inclusive Education

Inclusion for some.

There have been several articles published in 2020 in Estonian national newspapers arguing that inclusive education is a dream or ideology that does not take into account actual circumstances of reality. In one of such articles ( Ehala, 2020 ), a university professor, who regularly writes about education, cites a recent study conducted in Estonia on the added value of education on children’s cognitive abilities. The study showed that 80% of the children’s knowledge and skills can be explained by individual abilities and home background, and only 20% by the influence of school. The professor argued that children with physical disabilities could be included, but it is problematic to include children who have been raised according to very different principles or who have significant cognitive disabilities. He specified that inclusive education would only be possible in societies which are very homogeneous, most importantly regarding child raising practices and family values. This would result in a situation where there are few differences between children’s behaviors and are used for similar norms and regulations. He pointed out as: “Inclusive education is a mirage created by our sense of justice, but its implementation puts young people in a learning environment that is not in line with their home preparation and developmental needs. They are just too special and different so that everyone could learn together in a way that no one suffers.” He concluded that we simply need different kinds of environments for different children.

Many of these ideas are also pointed out by some teachers. In 2019, a new educational strategy was prepared for Estonia and in this process, several meetings were held in different places across the country. Many teachers were critical regarding the recent policy reform related to inclusive education. On the one hand, teachers are concerned about the learning process and outcomes of the regular children and, on the other hand, their own preparation to support students with special needs. Working with special needs students requires specialized knowledge and expert skills, which many teachers simply do not have. Similar to these views, a group of master students wrote an article in a national newspaper in June 2020 ( Kupper et al., 2020 ) where they stated that although they support the idea of inclusive education, it is only justified if it is carefully organized and sufficient support is available. They also added that inclusive education is certainly not suitable for students with more severe special needs. They point out as: “Inclusion may not be effective in case the teacher does not receive enough support and guidance regarding how to work with a special needs student and the rest of the class at the same time. If, figuratively speaking, the teacher’s strength does not overcome the situation, then the increase in behavioral problems, drop-out rates and developmental delays are real dangers.”

Moreover, this article also shed light into the perspective of parents of special needs students. They argued as: “A familiar and close-to-home school with a teacher assistant or support specialist does not outweigh the assurance that the child’s safety and well-being is guaranteed throughout the day and is cared for by a sufficient number of professionals.” Moreover, “Studying at a school close to home may not always be possible if the child needs a much more complex service due to his or her situation, including, for example, special therapies and additional activities. If such a solution is not offered during the school day, parents must find the time and opportunity, usually at the expense of working hours, to provide the necessary service to the child. Thus, the difficulty of the whole situation lies with the parents, who, despite the child’s special needs, must be able to maintain optimism, offer equal care and love to the other children of the family in other words, try to live as normal a life as possible while maintaining the ability to work, good relations with the employer and income and one’s own emotional balance.”

In brief, all these perspectives argue that the development of different students will benefit from specialized learning environments and special teachers who have good expert knowledge and skills for preparing specific educational experiences for maximizing each student’s individual potential. Similar viewpoints have also been presented in the international literature: for example, Kauffman and Hornby (2020) criticized inclusive education ideology and leading scholars in the field for the unrealistic claims regarding its implementation and outcomes. They concluded as: “Appropriate instruction is by far the most important task of education for all students, including those with disabilities. Making appropriate instruction a reality for all students requires special education, including teachers with special training, rather than a generic, ‘one size fits all’ or all-purpose preparation” (p. 10).

Inclusion for All

In contrast to voices arguing for creating different learning environments for different children, scholars, policy makers, teachers, and parents in favor of inclusion for all stress, in different talks and articles, that all children in a society should have an equal right to get adequate opportunities to develop wellbeing, agency, identities, and competences in order to become capable to participate fully and equally in the society ( UNESCO, 1994 ; Ainscow and César, 2006 ; Cigman, 2007 ; Felder, 2019 ). This objective cannot be reached if some children are educated in a segregated context.

Inspired by social constructivist approaches to learning, teacher educators supporting inclusive education argue that child development depends not only on inherited capacities, but it is also constructed by shared social values, access to educational institutions, technologies (including assistive technologies), and other relevant social resources as well as quality of support provided to the child and opportunities to participate fully and equally in a community.

Teacher educators and policy makers would agree that it is true that current educational systems (schools, teachers, initial education of teachers, practices, technologies, teaching and learning materials, etc.) in many countries have been established based on an assumption that “regular” education, schools, and teachers should work only with “typical” children and other children need to be educated in a specially designed and segregated environment, that is, “special” education ( Carrington, 1999 ; Croll and Moses, 2000 ; Dyson et al., 2002 ; Radó et al., 2016 ; Zgaga, 2019 ; Koutsouris et al., 2020 ). However, they would argue that in such an environment, children cannot develop a sense of belonging nor can become full members of the society because of marginalized status and limited opportunities to grow with others ( Freeman and Alkin, 2000 ; Farrell, 2010 ; Koller et al., 2018 ). Moreover, in a special education, setting relationships, practices, and technologies tend to be adapted to their constraints instead of being designed to enable children to fully participate in education and society in spite of constraints. Similarly, parents, teachers, and kindergarten/school leaders favoring inclusive education in Estonia would argue for social justice ideas: the importance of growing up within the community and learning at a kindergarten/school close to their home. A father of a child with speech difficulties, who was contacted by an author of this article and asked why he favored his child attending a regular kindergarten instead of a specialized kindergarten, pointed out as: “I can’t distinguish my child, who has special (or rather specific) needs, from any other child. How can I agree with her being placed in a school which labels her directly and indirectly as a person who does not fit the norm? Especially when attending kindergarten, she is as special and as normal as every other child who she plays with and a child who plays with her. This should be the norm for any healthy development of a child.” Similarly, a teacher and master student ( Konetski-Ramul, 2021 ) and a head of support specialists services ( Labi, 2019 ) have argued for inclusive education in articles published in the national teachers’ newspaper in Estonia. In these articles, the authors urged for not separating students with special needs easily to special classes or special schools, e.g., Labi (2019) pointed out as: “If today we separate one quarter of children for fear that their involvement could negatively affect the well-being of the other three quarters of children, then as adults there are people in the labor market, in families, or even in the queue at the store, who cannot cope with each other. It is more sustainable to grow together, learn from each other and cope with each other throughout the school journey.” Many parents of special needs children would also argue that the most important goal for them is for their children to adapt to society and learn to live with other people. To illustrate this idea, a mother of a young child with multiple disabilities pointed out during a public speech in Estonia that her family’s “goal is to support him so he would become a taxpayer.”

In order to have an equal opportunity, all children need to be educated in regular education that have conditions, capacities, and resources to be able to adapt to the children needs, capacities, and constraints. Following this, in a case when a school, teachers, discourses, practices, and technologies are not aligned with the needs of some students, it cannot be an acceptable reason for the exclusion of the child, but for adapting the education to the child and his/her learning and developmental needs ( Farrell, 2010 ; Arcidiacono and Baucal, 2020 ).

The majority of Estonian teachers has adopted learner-centered views about education as reported in international comparison studies, such as TALIS 2013, 2018, and a smaller group has also learned to implement these in practice (many Estonian teachers are still rather traditional and subject-oriented in their teaching practice; OECD, 2014 , 2020 ; see also Leijen and Pedaste, 2018 ). Teachers who have accepted the child-centered view might not consider a class as a unified mass, instead they might perceive children anyway as special and different, notice variety, individual differences and adapt their teaching accordingly ( Breeman et al., 2015 ). Following, adapting their teaching for a child with special needs would not be so different from any other adaptation of teaching for the child’s needs and interests. While discussing the possible challenges of inclusive education during an in-service course taught by the first author of the paper in autumn 2019, a teacher pointed out that “it is very interesting and positively challenging to teach a group of students with a large variety. These are (my) favorite classes.” This indicates that teachers might find diversity and variety enriching for themselves as professionals.

Goal of the Paper

The aim of this paper is to show, through the conceptual analysis of the two above-mentioned discourses, that it is possible to put these two narratives in a dialogical relation to identify their contribution to position children (with and without special needs) and teachers with respect to the voices they promote or silence about inclusive education, the power relations they constitute, and the values and practices they enact or prevent.

Materials and Methods

We propose an analytical approach based on the argumentum model of topics (AMT) that aims at systematically reconstructing the inferential configuration of arguments; namely, the deep structure of reasoning underlying the connection between a standpoint and the argument(s) in its support ( Rigotti and Greco Morasso, 2009 ). The general principle underlying the reconstruction of the inferential configuration of argumentation is that of finding those implicit premises that are necessary for the argumentation to be valid.

In the AMT, two fundamental components should be distinguished when bringing to light the inferential relation binding the premises to the conclusion of an argumentation. First, an argument envisages a topical component, which focuses on the inferential connection activated by the argument, corresponding to the abstract reasoning that justifies the passage from the premises (arguments) to the conclusion (standpoint). The inferential connection underlying the argument is named with the traditional term maxim. Maxims are inferential connections generated by a certain semantic ontological domain named locus. Second, an endoxical component, which consists of the implicit or explicit material premises shared by the discussants that, combined with the topical component, ground the standpoint. These premises include endoxa, i.e., general principles, values, and assumptions that typically belong to the specific context, and data, basically coinciding with punctual information and facts regarding the specific situation at hand and usually representing the part of the argument that is made explicit in the text ( Rigotti and Greco Morasso, 2011 ). Despite its particular concern for the inferential aspects of argumentation, the AMT accounts not only for the logical aspects of the argumentative exchange, but also for its embeddedness in the parties’ relationship, and thus proves to be particularly suited for the argumentative analysis of public discourses.

In the present paper, we refer to the AMT to reconstruct the inferential structure of some arguments proposed by the two above-mentioned discourses, i.e., the type of reasoning underneath the arguments. In this sense, the model is assumed to be a guiding framework for the analysis, since it provides the criteria for the investigation of argumentative positions and for the identification of different components of each discourse. It is used to highlight points of contention and dialogue, as well as the explicit and implicit arguments advanced by the involved sustainers of the two narratives. The application of this analytic method in the study of public discourses, such as the role of inclusive education, is assumed to reinforce the possibilities of understanding how people discursively position themselves as involved partners in the management of the selected issue, namely, inclusive education.

According to the AMT, the following analytical components must be identified as: the maxim on which the argumentation is based and the relative locus at work; the endoxon, i.e., the premises shared by the discussants, and the datum, i.e., the punctual information and facts regarding the specific situation at hand (usually representing the part of the argument that is made explicit in the text) to which the argument is linked. The results of the AMT’s reconstruction will be represented through graphical tools adopted to show the above-mentioned components.

Generally speaking, the different arguments used by the parties can be viewed in terms of a constellation of features ( Goodwin, 2006 ), including various interactional structures connected to aims, perceptions, directives, accounts, etc. In the present paper, we will limit our conceptual analysis of two narratives to some elements that are essential for the aim of the study, although we are aware that this is a partial choice. Accordingly, the locus at work for the maxims will not appear in our schemes and only the arguments sustaining the main ideal view of each narrative and the presumed positions associated with the selected arguments will be presented.

In the next sections, we propose two examples of AMT based on selected arguments for each discourse.

Reconstructing the Inferential Structure of the First Discourse Argument

The first discourse (“inclusion for some”) proposes as a standpoint that students with special needs require specialized educational settings. The argument advanced to sustain this position is that specialized settings are accommodating to the student’s capacities and needs.

Figure 1 shows the representation of such an argument based on the AMT. On the right hand of the diagram, the inferential principle, i.e., the maxim, on which the argumentation is based is specified as: “to provide a beneficial property to the student, it is required to adopt a system that guarantees this beneficial property.” The AMT representation allows consideration of the contextual premises that are implicitly or explicitly used in argumentation. This may be found on the left hand of the diagram, where a second line of reasoning is developed that supports the former one. This is why the first conclusion on the left becomes the minor premise on the right. In this way, the crossing of contextual and formal premises that is characteristic of argumentation is accounted for in the AMT. The endoxon refers in this case to common knowledge about the main idea of the accommodation principles: “To accommodate to the student’s capacities is a beneficial property.” The datum (“Specialized settings are accommodating to student capacities”) combined with the endoxon produces the conclusion that “Specialized settings have beneficial properties.”

AMT-based reconstruction of the first discourse argument.

In the first discourse, if the accommodation is considered beneficial for a student with special needs, and if specialized settings are recognized as environments that can guarantee a process of accommodation, then it is valuable to require that students with special needs should be placed in specialized settings.

Reconstructing the Inferential Structure of the Second Discourse Argument

The second discourse (“inclusion for all”) proposes as a standpoint that all students require regular educational settings. The argument advanced to sustain this position should be summarized as follows: Regular settings offer equal opportunities to all students. Figure 2 shows the representation of such an argument based on the AMT.

AMT-based reconstruction of the second argument.

On the right hand of the diagram, the inferential principle, i.e., the maxim, on which the argumentation is based is specified as: “if the offer of equal opportunities is an important educational goal, and there is a way to guarantee such a goal, then this way should be adopted.” Concerning the contextual premises that are implicitly or explicitly used in argumentation, the endoxon refers to common knowledge about the main idea of the educational goals: “Education should offer equal opportunities to all students.” The datum (“Regular settings offer equal opportunities to all students”) combined with the endoxon produces the conclusion that “All students require regular educational settings.”

The discourse indicates that if offering equal opportunities to all students (by exposing them to similar conditions) are considered an important educational goal, and if regular settings are recognized as environments that can guarantee to offer equal opportunities, then it is valuable to require that all students be placed in regular settings.

Implicit in Two Discourses

The models referring to the two discourses about inclusive education are showing in both cases reasonable arguments advanced to sustain the positions and the perspectives they intend to promote. For each discourse, accountable elements are proposed to show the pertinence of the approach and to sustain the idea of education that is considered as adequate for society.

The two discourses position the children as the main key-players in the educational endeavor: In fact, inclusive education should sustain the requirement for appropriate settings (special and regular) that are able to allow students (with and without special needs) to develop their capacities and to become members of the society. In this sense, the two discourses share a similar preoccupation and aim to play in the service of children’s development. However, it is also true that both discourses promote reasons that seem to position the children within different frames, for example, in terms of temporality. In fact, the first discourse (“inclusion for some”) focuses on the need to guarantee a process of accommodation to the children’s needs in order to guarantee a system that allows students to develop their capacities. In this sense, a short-term perspective is promoted, because the goal behind the sustained discourse is to be able to act adequately in the “here and now” of the contingent situations. By contrast, the second discourse (“inclusion for all”) advances the idea that offering equal opportunities to all students constitute the main goal of education. In this sense, a long-term perspective is promoted in terms of capacity to ensure the conditions that will guarantee the future realization of students as full members of the society. These elements, connecting the two discourses along a temporal dimension, will be discussed in the next section of the paper, as well as the implications in terms of positions that children and teachers should take according to their voice, the power relations that are connected to this, and the values that are enacted or prevented.

Although we have identified these two discourses in the current ongoing debate on inclusive education in Estonia, they encapsulated long lasting conflicting positions that can be recognized in many countries and communities. Moreover, these discourses also reflect political, policy, cultural, and identity “wars” that are present in many countries since the Salamanca Statement ( UNESCO, 1994 ), calling societies to put forward the inclusive education on their education policy agenda. The “war” on inclusive education is related to the fact that educational policies are inherently political, since they always involve values, interests, power games, choices, prioritization, and allocation of resources ( Barton, 1997 ). Moreover, different sides propose different values and ideals; that is, they postulate different desired outcomes and different visions of the future citizen ( Magnússon, 2019 ). However, it is worth noting that current conflicting debates are just another step in an historical process of a struggle of regular schools between exclusion and inclusion of children and youth perceived and treated as different from dominant groups, in relation to various characteristics, such as socioeconomic status, gender, and race ( Boroson, 2017 ). In fact, the meaningful inclusion of individuals who are different from the majority has been fraught in many ways. The evolution of educational systems with respect to the inclusion of students who are different in terms of race, gender, or ability was considered to be of questionable worth, an obstacle on teachers’ time and a threat to the status quo ( West, 2000 ). Although today education in mainstream schools is guaranteed ( Snyder et al., 2016 ), many educators and families still have a concern or even fear the “intrusion” into general education classrooms of students who are different than majority in terms of personal characteristics (physical, socioemotional, or cognitive) or ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic background ( Boroson, 2017 ). By considering the two discourses highlighted in this paper, we can consider that, on the one hand, those who are pro-specialist settings would argue that segregation works in favor of child with special education needs; on the other hand, those who view inclusion as a social justice issue might consider specialist settings as segregating like other forms of educational and historical segregation (e.g., gender and faith).

Two conclusions could be made from this. First, as with previous inclusion “wars,” the current one will be resolved when conflicting sides will manage to dialogize their conflicting positions. The second conclusion is that the current “war” is just an episode in a continuous historical story on social inclusion, so after that one, there will be some new inclusion “war” that might not be imaginable from the perspective of our current experience and knowledge. Having said that, our main objective is to identify their frameworks in terms of assumptions, power relationships, voices, rights, and values, as well as priorities and practices in order to propose a bridging between them and to dialogize current relation that is dominantly conflicting.

As it is already said, both discourses put a stress on children’s needs and recognize the duty of the education system to provide adequate conditions for their education. However, there is also an important difference in relation to the position and rights of children with special needs. The “inclusion for some” discourse recognizes the rights of children with special needs, but at the same time, it advocates that their rights need to be limited by practical constraints related to the implementation of the full inclusion in the regular school. In this way, this discourse gives a voice to children with special needs, but also to educational practitioners who are in many occasions not competent enough nor have adequate conditions and resources to ensure quality education to children with special needs in regular schools. Although both voices are represented in the discourse “inclusion for some,” it prioritizes somewhat the voice of educational practitioners. On the other hand, the “inclusion for all” discourse privileges the voice of children with special needs and their rights that need to be served by the society in the same way as the rights of all other citizens. It also recognizes practical and policy constraints at the level of the education system, schools, and practitioners, but it does not position their voices and concerns at the same level as the rights of children with special needs. Thus, it advocates that schools and practitioners ought to be equipped by adequate policies, training, and resources to be capable of serving the rights of children with special needs for the quality education in inclusive conditions.

Difference in prioritization of voices is related to the difference in basic values and distribution of power. The discourse “inclusion for some” suggests that the current potential of the education system, schools, and teachers should be put at the first place and that rights of children with special needs should be realized progressively following the improvement of the potential of the education system to ensure high quality inclusive education. In this way, it gives more power to the majority, to the education system, and practitioners since it calls that rights on quality education need to be aligned with the potential of the education system to serve this right. However, in this way, it also creates an opportunity for using current lack of capacities in regular schools for ensuring inclusive education as a reason for postponing the realization of rights of children with special needs. If for some reason there is no political will or if the majority of educational practitioners is not willing to transform their beliefs, competences, and practices, then it might effectively maintain current conditions for some time (potentially endlessly). On the other hand, the “inclusion for all” discourse privileges the right of children with special needs over current conditions and lack of capacities and resources advocating that the latter needs to be transformed as quickly as possible. Consequently, it places higher power to the children with special needs and their fundamental rights than to eventual practical and political constraints of various kinds. Nevertheless, it might be related to some unintended negative consequence in the implementation of inclusive education. Forcing a full implementation of inclusive education when regular schools and practitioners are not prepared adequately might result in various negative consequences. These consequences might be counterproductive in terms of defending rights of children with special needs and effectively postpone the implementation of inclusive education. Therefore, in spite of differences in terms of basic values and power relations putting forward in two discourses, it is possible to identify a common interest. It is related to the successful implementation of inclusive education and the minimization of risk both for children with special needs and for education practitioners and schools including children without special needs.

Concerning the implementation of inclusive education, there are two opposite perspectives creating a major conflict between the two discourses. Being grounded on previous founding ideas, the “inclusion for some” advocates for some form of special education provision mostly in separate and specialized schools, while the “inclusion for all” discourse stands up for desegregation and full inclusion of children with special needs in regular schools. According to UNESCO (2020) , the implications in developing forms of education that are effective for all children are related to three levels: educational (to develop ways of teaching that respond to individual differences and that therefore benefit all children), social (to change attitudes to difference by educating all children within a non-discriminatory society), and economic (it is likely to be less costly to establish and maintain schools).

These positions reflect their difference in terms of future priorities ( Ydo, 2020 ). The “inclusion for some” discourse is focused to optimize provision of education as an ultimate goal. Hence, it prefers providing education in a specialized environment since it enables full accommodation to specific educational needs of children attending special schools. In this way, children with special needs might have best opportunities to learn in their way and to achieve education goals. On the other hand, the discourse “inclusion for all” calls for a more comprehensive ultimate goal. These goals ought to be to empower and enable children with special needs to become active citizens who will participate fully and equally in the society and to pursue their own life projects. Projecting this ultimate goal for education of children with special needs, the discourse “inclusion for all” pursues a full inclusion in regular schools since education in segregated institutions prevents children with special needs from becoming full members of the society. This difference in terms of the ultimate goal of education of children with special needs might seem as unresolvable. It also can make sense why the “war” between the two discourses and the communities organized upon them is very frequently concentrated on the special school issue. However, in our view, this opposition might be bridged by relating the two discourses to different time perspectives (as it has been already mentioned earlier). The common ground might be that all children with special needs are fully included in regular schools in order to enable and empower them to become active and equal future citizens, but to keep special schools and special education teachers as additional resources where different students from regular schools can get different forms of supplementary support according to their needs occasionally or in a longer period. This approach would require establishing a good and productive professional collaboration between regular and special schools as resource centers, as well as between teachers from regular schools and special education teachers. Based on a good professional collaboration and complementary professional competences of all teachers (including special education teachers), children with special needs would get an additional support during classes in regular schools or when it is needed in a special school (for example, when the child needs a specialized treatment or to get additional training for using some assistive technology). It is true that this arrangement could be challenged by some practical issues and would require a modification of regular institutional organization and practices. However, it would improve opportunities for children with special needs to become competent future citizens, and for the education system and the society to become inclusive.

Furthermore, additional common ground might be related to the pace of the long-term implementation of inclusive education. The discourse “inclusion for all” provides a strong argument why inclusive education is the principal way to empower and enable children with special needs to grow up with a feeling that they are equal members of the society and with a dignity to take part fully in the life of the community so to pursue their life projects and contribute to the society. However, the discourse “inclusion for some” pinpoints in a good way that journey toward the ultimate goal cannot be straightforward nor quick because it is related to the transformative potential of the society and the education system imposing important constraints. Although these constraints are malleable and temporary, they need to be addressed in any implementation plan for inclusive education. Therefore, we assume that the two discourses can be bridged in the sense that one of them crystalizes and advocates what ought to be long-term goals for the implementation of inclusive education, while the second one articulates practical constraints and barriers that need to be overcome in order to make inclusive education real.

In this paper, we utilized the AMT for analyzing two somewhat opposing discourses regarding inclusive education, namely, the “inclusion for some” and “inclusion for all.” We reconstructed the inferential configurations of the arguments of each narrative, identified how the two definitions contribute to position children with and without special needs and their teachers. The results showed several similarities and differences between the discourses. We also identified some possibilities to bridge the two narratives; most importantly, by relating to different time perspectives, these two discourses stress: “Inclusion for some,” which tends to focus on the present situation and attending to the particularities of the child, is valuable for realizing the long-term and sometimes idealistic goals of “inclusion for all” and vice versa , “inclusion for all,” which stresses participation and learning with peers, is beneficial for realizing the goals of “inclusion for some” – to maximize each child’s potential in real life – since regular schools resemble society more closely than segregated schools. Productive professional collaboration between different parties is required to realize both visions of inclusive education. We also suggest further investigations to deepen this research line in the future, through face-to-face interviews with politicians, school managers, teachers, and parents who could better delineate the different positions according to their role and involvement with children with special needs.

Author Contributions

All the authors originated the paper’s ideas and designed the conceptual analysis. ÄL was engaged in presenting the context of the study, as well as interpreting and discussing the findings and writing the conclusion. FA focused on the method, analysis, and interpretation of the narratives. AB focused mainly on interpreting and discussing the findings. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript to be published.

This research was conducted with financial support by the European Regional Development Fund under Grant Enhancement of Research and Development Capacity of Teacher Education Competence Centre Pedagogicum [grant no. NSVHI19074], as well as the contribution of the Research Department, University of Teacher Education BEJUNE (Switzerland).

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.

1 In line with OECD definition, in this paper, we refer to “children with special education needs” as an umbrella term indicating children who require additional resources or accommodating dominant educational practices in order to ensure equal learning opportunities to them. The term refers to children with disabilities, children with learning difficulties, and children living in disadvantage conditions ( OECD, 2007 ).

• Ainscow M., César M. (2006). Inclusive education ten years after Salamanca: setting the agenda . Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 21 , 231–238. doi: 10.1007/BF03173412 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ainscow M., Miles S. (2008). Making education for all inclusive: where next? Prospects 38 , 15–34. doi: 10.1007/s11125-008-9055-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arcidiacono F., Baucal A. (2020). Towards teacher professionalization for inclusive education: reflections from the perspective of the socio-cultural approach . Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri. Estonian J. Edu. 8 , 26–47. doi: 10.12697/eha.2020.8.1.02b [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barton L. (1997). Inclusive education: romantic, subversive or realistic? Int. J. Incl. Educ. 1 , 231–242. doi: 10.1080/1360311970010301 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act . (2010). Riigi Teataja I, 2010,41,240. Available at: http://riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/ee/530102013042/consolide (Accessed January 03, 2021).
• Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act . (2019). Riigi Teataja I, 2019,120. Available at: http://riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/ee/Riigikogu/act/503062019007/consolide (Accessed January 03, 2021).
• Boroson B. (2017). Inclusive education: lessons from history . Educ. Leadersh. 74 , 18–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Breeman L. D., Wubbels T., van Lier P. A. C., Verhulst F. C., van der Ende J., Maras A., et al.. (2015). Teacher characteristics, social classroom relationships, and children's social, emotional, and behavioral classroom adjustment in special education . J. Sch. Psychol. 53 , 87–103. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2014.11.005, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carrington S. (1999). Inclusion needs a different school culture . Int. J. Incl. Educ. 3 , 257–268. doi: 10.1080/136031199285039 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cigman R. (2007). A question of universality: inclusive education and the principle of respect . J. Philos. Educ. 41 , 775–793. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2007.00577.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Croll P., Moses D. (2000). Ideologies and utopias: education professionals’ views of inclusion . Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 15 , 1–12. doi: 10.1080/088562500361664 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dyson A., Howes A., Roberts B. (2002). A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of School-Level Actions for Promoting Participation by all Students. Inclusive Education Review Group, EPPI-Centre. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehala M. (2020). Tulevik on erikoolide päralt. [Future is for special schools] . Postimees. Available at: https://leht.postimees.ee/6901395/tulevik-on-erikoolide-paralt (Accessed January 03, 2021).
• Farrell M. (2010). Debating Special Education. London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Felder F. (2019). Inclusive education, the dilemma of identity and the common good . Theory Res. Educ. 17 , 213–228. doi: 10.1177/1477878519871429 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Florian L., Becirevic M. (2011). Challenges for teachers’ professional learning for inclusive education in central and Eastern Europe and the commonwealth of independent states . Prospects 41 , 371–384. doi: 10.1007/s11125-011-9208-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman S. F. N., Alkin M. C. (2000). Academic and social attainments of children with mental retardation in general education and special education settings . Remedial Spec. Educ. 21 , 3–26. doi: 10.1177/074193250002100102 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin M. H. (2006). Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences . Text Talk 26 , 515–543. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.021 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haug P. (2017). Understanding inclusive education: ideals and reality . Scand. J. Disabil. Res. 19 , 206–217. doi: 10.1080/15017419.2016.1224778 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hornby G. (2015). Inclusive special education: evidence-based practices for children with special needs and disabilities . British J. Special Educ. 42 , 232–252. doi: 10.1111/1467-8578.12101 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kauffman J. M., Hornby G. (2020). Inclusive vision versus special education reality . Educ. Sci. 10 :258. doi: 10.3390/educsci10090258 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kivirand T., Leijen Ä., Lepp L., Malva L. (2020). Kaasava hariduse tähendus ja tõhusa rakendamise tegurid Eesti kontekstis: õpetajaid koolitavate või nõustavate spetsialistide vaade [The meaning of inclusive education and factors for effective implementation in the Estonian context: A view of specialists who train or advise teachers] . Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri. Estonian J. Educ. 8 , 48–71. doi: 10.12697/eha.2020.8.1.03 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kivirand T., Leijen Ä., Lepp L., Tammemäe T. (2021). Designing and implementing an in-service training course for school teams on inclusive education: reflections from participants . Educ. Sci. 11 :166. doi: 10.3390/educsci11040166 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koller D., Le Pouesard M., Rummens J. A. (2018). Defining social inclusion for children with disabilities: A critical literature review . Child. Soc. 32 , 1–13. doi: 10.1111/chso.12223 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Konetski-Ramul K. (2021). Kaasav haridus ehk Elevant keset tuba. [Inclusive education as an Elephant in the room.] Õpetajate Leht . https://opleht.ee/2021/02/kaasav-haridus-ehk-elevant-keset-tuba/ (Accessed January 03, 2021).
• Koutsouris G., Anglin-Jaffe H., Stentiford L. (2020). How well do we understand social inclusion in education? Br. J. Educ. Stud. 68 , 179–196. doi: 10.1080/00071005.2019.1658861 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kupper B., Õun M., Tatomir T., Simso T. (2020). Haridusinnovatsioon: kaasav haridus – kas oleme ikka kõigele mõelnud? [Educational innovation: Have we really thought abouteverything?] Postimees . https://arvamus.postimees.ee/6999120/haridusinnovatsioon-kaasav-haridus-kas-oleme-ikka-koigele-moelnud (Accessed January 03, 2021).
• Labi N. (2019). Kaasavast haridusest on kasu kõigile [Inclusive education is beneficial for everyone.] Õpetajate Leht . https://opleht.ee/2019/05/kaasavast-haridusest-on-kasu-koigile/ (Accessed January 03, 2021).
• Leijen Ä., Pedaste M. (2018). “ Pedagogical beliefs, instructional practices, and opportunities for professional development of teachers in Estonia ” in The Teacher’s Role in the Changing Globalizing World. eds. Niemi H., Toom A., Kallioniemi A., Lavonen J. (Leiden, Netherlands: BRILL; ), 33–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Magnússon G. (2019). An amalgam of ideals – images of inclusion in the Salamanca statement . Int. J. Incl. Educ. 23 , 677–690. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1622805 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nelis P., Pedaste M. (2020). Kaasava hariduse mudel alushariduse kontekstis: süstemaatiline kirjandusülevaade [A model of inclusive education in the context of Estonian preschool education: A systematic literature review] . Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri. Estonian J. Educ. 8 , 138–163. doi: 10.12697/eha.2020.8.2.06 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . (2007). Students with Disabilities, Learning Difficulties and Disadvantages Policies. Statistics and Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . (2014). TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, TALIS. Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . (2020). TALIS 2018 Results: Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals. Vol . 2 Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Radó P., Setenyi J., Petrović D., Stanković D., Markovits G. (2016). Formative Evaluation of Implementation of Inclusive Practices in the Education System in Serbia (2009–2014). UNICEF. https://evaluationreports.unicef.org/GetDocument?fileID=8922 (Accessed January 03, 2021).
• Räis M.-L., Kallaste M., Sandre S.-L. (2016). Haridusliku erivajadusega õpilaste kaasava hariduskorralduse ja sellega seotud meetmete tõhusus. Lõppraport [Effectiveness of inclusive education arrangements and related measures for students with special educational needs. Final report]. Eesti Rakendusuuringute Keskus CENTAR [Estonian Centre for Applied Research CENTAR] .
• Räis M.-L., Sõmer M. (2016). Haridusliku erivajadusega õpilaste kaasava hariduskorralduse ja sellega seotud meetmete tõhusus. Temaatiline raport: kaasamise tähenduslikkus [Effectiveness of inclusive education organization and support for students with special educational needs. Thematic report: The meaning of inclusion]. Eesti Rakendusuuringute Keskus CENTAR [Estonian Centre for Applied Research CENTAR] .
• Rigotti E., Greco Morasso S. (2009). “ Argumentation as an object of interest and as a social and cultural resource ,” in Argumentation and Education. Theoretical Foundations and Practices. eds. Muller Mirza N., Perret-Clermont A.-N. (New York: Springer; ), 9–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rigotti E., Greco Morasso S. (2011). Comparing the argumentum model of topics to other contemporary approaches to argument schemes: the procedural and material components . Argumentation 24 , 489–512. doi: 10.1007/s10503-010-9190-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder T. D., de Brey C., Dillow S. A. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics 2014 (NCES 2016–006). Washington: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stepaniuk I. (2019). Inclusive education in eastern European countries: a current state and future directions . Int. J. Incl. Educ. 23 , 328–352. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1430180 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UN . (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1990/09/19900902%2003-14%20AM/Ch_IV_11p.pdf (Accessed January 03, 2021).
• UNESCO . (1994). Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark/48223/pf0000098427 (Accessed January 03, 2021).
• UNESCO (2020). “ Towards inclusion in education: status, trends and challenges ,” in The UNESCO Salamanca Statement 25 Years on (Paris: UNESCO; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Mieghem A., Verschueren K., Petry K., Struyf E. (2018). An analysis of research on inclusive education: a systematic search and meta review . Int. J. Incl. Educ. 24 , 675–689. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1482012 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• West J. (2000). Back to School on Civil Rights: Advancing the Federal Commitment to Leave no Child Behind. Washington: National Council on Disability. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ydo Y. (2020). Inclusive education: global priority, collective responsibility . Prospects 49 , 97–101. doi: 10.1007/s11125-020-09520-y, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zgaga P. (2019). “ Inclusion in education: Between opportunities and limits. Introduction to the theme ,” in Inclusion in Education: Reconsidering Limits, Identifying Possibilities (Berlin: Peter Lang; ), 7–28. [ Google Scholar ]

Artificial Intelligence for Enhancing Special Education for K-12: A Decade of Trends, Themes, and Global Insights (2013–2023)

• Published: 19 August 2024

Cite this article

• Yuqin Yang 4 ,
• Linbaiyu Chen 1 ,
• Wenmeng He 2 ,
• Daner Sun 3 &
• Sdenka Zobeida Salas-Pilco 1  

This paper provided a review of 210 studies on AI-enhanced special education from 2013 to 2023. Through bibliometric analysis, this review aimed to explore trends, focus areas, developments, and evolving themes of the field of AI for enhancing special education. Several noteworthy findings emerged from our analysis. The trend analysis of publications and citations revealed distinct phases, including an initial exploratory phase (2013–2016) followed by a period of rapid development (2017–2023). keyword co-occurrence networks and emergent word mapping highlight AI’s transformative potential, especially in autism spectrum disorder interventions and advancements in learning environments. Emerging trends focus on mathematics learning outcomes and educational equity, evolving through phases of understanding AI's support and integrating advanced tools like virtual reality and educational robots. Topic clustering analysis revealed categories including cognitive rehabilitation and ethical AI integration, emphasizing personalized instructional environments. Implications for research stress the need to bolster foundational skills and explore innovative teaching methods, including addressing challenges in gamified learning and integrating AI seamlessly. The review reveals a need for larger sample sizes and longitudinal studies to enhance statistical robustness and real-world relevance. In educational practices, using AI tools like apps, robots, and simulations can boost engagement and support social and academic progress. Tailored interventions for specific learning difficulties, such as dyslexia and dyscalculia, through intelligent tutoring systems, offer promise for positive learning outcomes. Policymakers are crucial in facilitating technology integration by ensuring comprehensive teacher training, increased funding for tech infrastructure, and strong leadership. Initiatives targeting underserved communities aim to promote equity and access to transformative resources. This study highlights AI’s transformative potential in special education, advocating for inclusive and personalized learning environments with ethical Al solutions to address unique challenges faced by special needs students.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

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

Using technology in special education: current practices and trends

The Use of Augmented Reality Interventions to Provide Academic Instruction for Children with Autism, Intellectual, and Developmental Disabilities: an Evidence-Based Systematic Review

Evolution and Revolution in Artificial Intelligence in Education

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Education and Educational Technology

Data availability

The data of this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Central China Normal University, NO.152 Luoyu Road, Wuhan, Hubei, 430079, P. R. China

Linbaiyu Chen & Sdenka Zobeida Salas-Pilco

Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China

Department of Mathematics and Information Technology, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, S.A.R, China

Hubei Key Laboratory of Digital Education, Faculty of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The first author was responsible for writing paper and organizing the research work. The second author contribute to do data analysis and interpret part of data. The third author contribute to do part of literature review and data analysis. The fourth author contributed to the writing of results. The fifth author proposed the framework and participated in the writing process.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yuqin Yang or Sdenka Zobeida Salas-Pilco .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

Authors do not have any financial or non-financial competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 43 KB)

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

Yang, Y., Chen, L., He, W. et al. Artificial Intelligence for Enhancing Special Education for K-12: A Decade of Trends, Themes, and Global Insights (2013–2023). Int J Artif Intell Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-024-00422-0

Download citation

Accepted : 21 July 2024

Published : 19 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-024-00422-0

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

• Artificial intelligence (AI)
• Special education
• Special needs students
• Bibliometric analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 19 August 2024

The impact of study habits and personal factors on the academic achievement performances of medical students

• Mohammed A. Aljaffer 1 ,
• Ahmad H. Almadani 1 ,
• Abdullah S. AlDughaither 2 ,
• Ali A. Basfar 2 ,
• Saad M. AlGhadir 2 ,
• Yahya A. AlGhamdi 2 ,
• Bassam N. AlHubaysh 2 ,
• Osamah A. AlMayouf 2 ,
• Saleh A. AlGhamdi 3 ,
• Tauseef Ahmad 4 &
• Hamza M. Abdulghani 5  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  888 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

61 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Academic achievement is essential for all students seeking a successful career. Studying habits and routines is crucial in achieving such an ultimate goal.

This study investigates the association between study habits, personal factors, and academic achievement, aiming to identify factors that distinguish academically successful medical students.

A cross-sectional study was conducted at the College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The participants consisted of 1st through 5th-year medical students, with a sample size of 336. The research team collected study data using an electronic questionnaire containing three sections: socio-demographic data, personal characteristics, and study habits.

The study results indicated a statistically significant association between self-fulfillment as a motivation toward studying and academic achievement ( p  = 0.04). The results also showed a statistically significant correlation between recalling recently memorized information and academic achievement ( p  = 0.05). Furthermore, a statistically significant association between preferring the information to be presented in a graphical form rather than a written one and academic achievement was also found ( p  = 0.03). Students who were satisfied with their academic performance had 1.6 times greater chances of having a high-grade point average (OR = 1.6, p  = 0.08).

The results of this study support the available literature, indicating a correlation between study habits and high academic performance. Further multicenter studies are warranted to differentiate between high-achieving students and their peers using qualitative, semi-structured interviews. Educating the students about healthy study habits and enhancing their learning skills would also be of value.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Academic performance is a common indicator used to measure student achievement [ 1 , 2 ]. It is a compound process influenced by many factors, among which is study habits [ 2 , 3 ]. Study habit is defined as different individual behavior in relation to studying, and is a combination of study methods and skills [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Put differently, study habits involve various techniques that would increase motivation and transform the study process into an effective one, thus enhancing learning [ 5 ]. Students’ perspectives and approaches toward studying were found to be the key factors in predicting their academic success [ 6 , 7 ]. However, these learning processes vary from one student to another due to variations in the students’ cognitive processing [ 8 ].

The study habits of students are the regular practices and habits they exhibit during the learning process [ 9 , 10 ]. Over time, several study habits have been developed, such as time management, setting appropriate goals, choosing a comfortable study environment, taking notes effectively, choosing main ideas, and being organized [ 11 ]. Global research shows that study habits impact academic performance and are the most important predictor of it [ 12 ]. It is difficult for medical students to organize and learn a lot of information, and they need to employ study skills to succeed [ 1 , 2 , 5 , 13 ].

Different lifestyle and social factors could affect students’ academic performance. For instance, Jafari et al. found that native students had better study habits compared to dormitory students [ 1 ]. This discrepancy between native and dormitory students was also indicated by Jouhari et al. who illustrated that dormitory students scored lower in attitude, test strategies, choosing main ideas, and concentration [ 10 ]. Regarding sleeping habits, Curcio G et al. found that students with a regular and adequate sleeping pattern had higher Grade Point Average (GPA) scores [ 14 ]. Lifestyle factors, such as watching television and listening to music, were shown to be unremarkable in affecting students’ grades [ 15 , 16 ]. Social media applications, including WhatsApp, Facebook, and Twitter, distract students during learning [ 16 , 17 ].

Motivation was found to be a major factor in students’ academic success. Bonsaksen et al. found that students who chose “to seek meaning” when studying were associated with high GPA scores [ 18 ]. In addition, low scores on “fear of failure” and high scores on “achieving” correlated with a higher GPA [ 8 , 18 ].

Resource-wise, Alzahrani et al. found that 82.7% of students relied on textbooks assigned by the department, while 46.6% mainly relied on the department’s lecture slides [ 19 ]. The study also indicated that 78.8% perceived that the scientific contents of the lectures were adequate [ 19 ]. Another study found that most students relied on the lecture slides (> 83%) along with their notes, followed by educational videos (76.1%), and reference textbooks (46.1%) [ 20 ]. Striking evidence in that study, as well as in another study, indicated that most students tended to avoid textbooks and opted for lecture slides, especially when preparing for exams [ 20 , 21 ].

Several researchers studied the association between different factors and academic performance; however, more is needed to know about this association in the process of education among medical students [ 15 , 20 , 22 ], with some limitations to the conducted studies. Such limitations include the study sample and using self-reported questionnaires, which may generate inaccurate results. Moreover, in Saudi Arabia in particular, the literature concerning the topic remains limited. Since many students are unsatisfied with their performance and seek improvement [ 10 ], the present study was designed and conducted.

Unlike other studies in the region, this study aims to investigate the relationship between study habits and personal factors and measure their influence on academic achievement. The results of this study could raise awareness regarding the effect of study habits and personal factors on students’ performance and would also guide them toward achieving academic success. The study also seeks to identify the factors that distinguish academically successful students from their peers.

Study design, setting, and participants

This observational cross-sectional study, which took place between June and December 2022, was conducted among students attending the College of Medicine at King Saud University (KSU), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Its targeted population included all male and female medical students (first to fifth years) attending KSU during the academic year 2021/2022. Whereas, students at other colleges and universities, those who failed to complete the questionnaire, interns (the students who already graduated), and those who were enrolled in the university’s preparatory year, were all excluded from the current study. The sample size was calculated based on a study conducted in 2015 by Lana Al Shawwa [ 15 ]. Using the sample size formula for a single proportion (0.79), the required sample size was 255 using a confidence interval of 95% and a margin of error of 5%. After adding a 20% margin to accommodate non-responses and incomplete responses, the calculated sample size required for this study was 306. However, our research team collected a total of 336 participants for this study to ensure complete representation.

Study instrument

The research team developed and used an electronic questionnaire. The rationale is that no standardized questionnaire measuring the study objectives was found in the literature. However, the questionnaire was tested on a pilot of 15 students to test its clarity and address any possible misconceptions and ambiguity. The study questionnaire was distributed randomly to this cohort, who were asked to fill out the questionnaire. The students reported a complete understanding of the questionnaire’s contents, so the same questionnaire was used without any modifications. The questionnaire, written in English, consisted of three parts. The first part included eleven questions about the socio-demographic status of the participants. The second part contained twenty-one questions examining personal factors such as sleep and caffeine consumption. The last part included twenty-one questions regarding students’ study habits. The questionnaire was constructed based on an ordinal Likert scale which had: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree as possible answers. The questionnaire was sent to participants through email and social media applications like Twitter and WhatsApp to increase the study response. An informed consent that clearly states the study’s purpose was taken from all participants at the beginning of the questionnaire. In addition, all participants were assured that the collected data would be anonymous and confidential. Each participant was represented by a code for the sole purpose of analyzing the data. Furthermore, no incentives or rewards were given to the participants for their participation.

Study variables

Socio-demographic information (such as age, gender, and academic year), and personal factors (such as motivation, sleeping status, caffeine consumption, and self-management) were the independent variables. Study habits such as attendance, individual versus group study, memorization techniques, revision, learning style, and strategies were also independent variables.

Academic achievement refers to a student’s success in gaining knowledge and understanding in various subjects, as well as the ability to apply that knowledge effectively [ 23 ]. It is a measure of the student’s progress throughout the educational journey, encompassing both academic achievements and personal growth [ 3 , 24 ]. Academic achievement is judged based on the student’s GPA or performance score. In this study, students’ GPA scores, awareness, and satisfaction regarding their academic performance were the dependent variables.

We divided the study sample into two groups based on the GPA. We considered students with high GPAs to be exposed (i.e. exposed to the study habits we are investigating), and students with low GPAs to be the control group. The purpose of this study was to determine why an exposed group of students gets high grades and what study factors they adopt. Based on this exposure (high achieving students), we concluded what methods they used to achieve higher grades. Those in the first group had a GPA greater or equal to 4.5 (out of 5), while those in the second group had a GPA less than 4.5. The students’ data were kept confidential and never used for any other purpose.

Data analysis

The data collected were analyzed by using IBM SPSS Statistical software for Windows version 24.0. Descriptive statistics such as frequency and percentage were used to describe the socio-demographic data in a tabular form. Furthermore, data for categorical variables, including different study habits, motivation factors, memorizing and revising factors, and lifestyle factors, were tabulated and analyzed using the odds ratio test. Finally, we calculated the odds ratio statistic and a p-value of 0.05 to report the statistical significance of our results.

Ethical approval and consent to Participate

Before conducting the study, the research team obtained the Ethics Committee Approval from the Institutional Review Board of the College of Medicine, KSU, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (project No. E-22-7044). Participants’ agreement/consent to participate was guaranteed by choosing “agree” after reading the consent form at the beginning of the questionnaire. Participation was voluntary, and consent was obtained from all participants. The research team carried out all methods following relevant guidelines and regulations.

The total 336 medical students participated in the study. All participants completed the study questionnaire, and there were no missing or incomplete data, with all of them being able to participate. As shown in Table  1 9.3% of participants were between 18 and 20, 44.9% were between the ages of 21 and 22, and 35.8% were 23–28 years old. In the current study, 62.5% of the participants were males and 37.5% were females. The proportion of first-year students was 21.4%, 20.8% of second-year students, 20.8% of third-year students, 18.2% of fourth-year students, and 18.8% of fifth-year students, according to academic year levels. Regarding GPA scores, 36.9% scored 4.75-5 and 32.4% scored 4.5–4.74. 23.8% achieved 4-4.49, 6.5% achieved 3-3.99, and only 0.4% achieved 2.99 or less. Participants lived with their families in 94.6% of cases, with friends in 1.2% of cases, and alone in 4.2% of cases. For smoking habits, 86.3% did not smoke, 11% reported using vapes, 2.1% used cigarettes, and 0.6% used Shisha. 91.4% of the participants did not report any chronic illnesses; however, 8.6% did. In addition, 83% had no mental illness, 8.9% had anxiety, 6% had depression, and 2.1% reported other mental illnesses.

Table  2 shows motivational factors associated with academic performance. There was a clear difference in motivation factors between students with high and low achievement in the current study. Students with high GPAs were 1.67 times more motivated toward their careers (OR = 1.67, p  = 0.09) than those with low GPAs. Furthermore, significant differences were found between those students who had self-fulfillment or ambitions in life they had ~ 2 times higher (OR = 1.93, p  = 0.04) GPA scores than low GPA students. Exam results did not motivate exposed or high GPA students (46%) or control students with low GPA students (41%), but the current study showed test results had little impact on low achiever students (OR = 1.03, p  = 0.88). Furthermore, 72.6% of high achievers were satisfied with their academic performance, while only 41% of low achiever students were satisfied. Therefore, students who were satisfied with their academic performance had 1.6 times greater chances of a higher GPA (OR = 1.6, p  = 0.08). Students who get support and help from those around them are more likely to get high GPAs (OR = 1.1, p  = 0.73) than those who do not receive any support. When students reported feeling a sense of family responsibility, the odds (odds ratio) of their receiving higher grades were 1.15 times higher (OR = 1.15, p  = 0.6) compared to those who did not feel a sense of family responsibility. The p-value, which indicates the level of statistical significance, was 0.6.

Table  3 shows the study habits of higher achiever students and low achiever students. Most of the high-achieving students (79.0%) attended most of the lectures and had 1.6 times higher chances of getting higher grades (OR = 1.6, p  = 0.2) than those who did not attend regular lectures. The current study found that studying alone had no significant impact on academic achievement in either group. However, those students who had studied alone had lower GPAs (OR = 1.07, p  = 0.81). The current study findings reported 29.8% of students walk or stand while studying rather than sit, and they had 1.57 times higher GPA chances compared to students with lower GPAs (OR = 0.73, p  = 0.27). High achievers (54.0%) preferred studying early in the morning, and these students had higher chances of achieving good GPAs (OR = 1.3, p  = 0.28) than low achiever groups of students. The number of students with high achievement (39.5%) went through the lecture before the lesson was taught. These students had 1.08 times higher chances of achieving than low achiever groups of students. Furthermore, students who made a weekly study schedule had 1.3 times higher chances of being good academic achievers than those who did not (OR = 1.3, p  = 0.37). Additionally, high-achieving students paid closer attention to the lecturer (1.2 times higher). In addition, students with high GPAs spent more time studying when exam dates approached (OR = 1.3, p  = 0.58).

Table  4 demonstrates the relationship between memorizing and revising with high and low GPA students. It was found that high achiever students (58.9%) studied lectures daily and had 1.4 times higher chances of achieving high grades (OR = 1.4, p  = 0.16) than the other group. It was found that most of the high achievers (62.1%) skim the lecture beforehand before memorizing it, which led to 1.8 times higher chances of getting good grades in this exam (OR = 1.8, p  = 0.06). One regular activity reported by high GPA students (82.3%) was recalling what had just been memorized. For this recalling technique, we found a significant difference between low-achieving students (OR = 0.8, p  = 0.63) and high-achieving students (OR = 1.83, p  = 0.05). A high achiever student writes notes before speaking out for the memorizing method, which gives 1.2 times greater chances of getting high grades (OR = 1.2, p  = 0.55) than a student who does not write notes. A major difference in the current study was that high GPA achievers (70.2%) revise lectures more frequently than low GPA achievers (57.1%). They had 1.5 times more chances of getting high grades if they practiced and revised this method (OR = 1.5, p  = 0.13).

Table  5 illustrates the relationship between negative lifestyle factors and students’ academic performance. The current study found that students are less likely to get high exam grades when they smoke. Students who smoke cigarettes and those who vape are 1.14 and 1.07 times respectively more likely to have a decrease in GPA than those who do not smoke. Those students with chronic illnesses had 1.22 times higher chances of a downgrade in the exam (OR = 1.22, p  = 0.49). Additionally, students with high GPAs had higher mental pressures (Anxiety = 1.2, Depression = 1.18, and other mental pressures = 1.57) than those with low GPAs.

Learning is a multifaceted process that evolves throughout our lifetimes. The leading indicator that sets students apart is their academic achievement. Hence, it is crucial to investigate the factors that influence it. The present study examined the relationship between different study habits, personal characteristics, and academic achievement among medical students. In medical education, and more so in Saudi Arabia, there needs to be more understanding regarding such vital aspects.

Regarding motivational factors, the present study found some differences between high and low achievers. Students with high GPA scores were more motivated toward their future careers (OR = 1.67, p  = 0.09). The study also indicated that students who had ambitions and sought self-fulfillment were more likely to have high GPA scores, which were statistically significant (OR = 1.93, p  = 0.04). This was consistent with Bin Abdulrahman et al. [ 20 ], who indicated that the highest motivation was self-fulfillment and satisfying family dreams, followed by a high educational level, aspirations to join a high-quality residency program, and high income. Their study also found that few students were motivated by the desire to be regarded as unique students. We hypothesize that this probably goes back to human nature, where a highly rewarding incentive becomes the driving force of our work. Hence, schools should utilize this finding in exploring ways to enhance students’ motivation toward learning.

The present study did not find a significant effect of previous exam results on academic performance (OR = 1.03, p  = 0.88). However, some studies reported that more than half of the high-achieving students admitted that high scores acquired on previous assessments are an important motivational factor [ 15 , 25 , 26 ]. We hypothesize that as students score higher marks, they become pleased and feel confident with their study approach. This finding shows how positive measurable results influence the students’ mentality.

The present study also explored the social environment surrounding medical students. The results indicated that those who were supported by their friends or family were slightly more likely to score higher GPAs (OR = 1.1, p  = 0.73); however, the results did not reach a statistical significance. We hypothesize that a supportive and understanding environment would push the students to be patient and look for a brighter future. Our study results were consistent with previous published studies, which showed an association [ 3 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]. We hypothesize that students who spend most of their time with their families had less time to study, which made their study time more valuable. The findings of this study will hopefully raise awareness concerning the precious time that students have each day.

The association of different study habits among medical students with high and low GPAs was also studied in our study. It was noted that the high-achieving students try to attend their lectures compared to the lower achievers. This was in line with the previous published studies, which showed that significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding the attendance of lectures, tutorials, practical sessions, and clinical teachings [ 31 , 32 ]. The present study found that most students prefer to study alone, regardless of their level of academic achievement (82.1%). This finding is consistent with the study by Khalid A Bin Abdulrahman et al., which also showed that most students, regardless of their GPA, favored studying alone [ 20 ].

The present study findings suggest that a small number of students (29.8%) prefer to walk or stand while studying rather than sit, with most being high achievers (OR = 1.57, P  = 0.15). A study reported that 40.3% of students with high GPAs seemed to favor a certain posture or body position, such as sitting or lying on the floor [ 15 ]. These contradictory findings might indicate that which position to adopt while studying should come down to personal preference and what feels most comfortable to each student. The present study also found that high achievers are more likely to prefer studying early in the morning (OR = 1.3, P  = 0.28). The authors did not find similar studies investigating this same association in the literature. However, mornings might allow for more focused studying with fewer distractions, which has been shown to be associated with higher achievement in medical students [ 3 , 15 , 33 ].

Our study also found that 39.5% of the academically successful students reviewed pre-work or went through the material before they were taught it (OR = 1.08, p  = 0.75), and 25% were neutral. Similar findings were reported in other studies, showing that academically successful students prepared themselves by doing their pre-work, watching videos, and revising slides [ 3 , 9 , 34 ]. Our study showed that 75% of high-achieving students tend to listen attentively to the lecturer (OR = 1.2, p  = 0.48). Al Shawa et al. found no significant differences between the high achievers and low achievers when talking about attending lectures [ 15 ]. This could be due to the quality of teachers and the environment of the college or university.

Regarding the relationship between memorizing and revising with high and low GPA students, the present study found that students who study lectures daily are more likely to score higher than those who do not (OR = 1.4, p  = 0.16). This finding is consistent with other studies [ 3 , 19 , 35 ]. For skimming lectures beforehand, an appreciable agreement was noted by high GPA students (62.1%), while only (42%) of low GPA students agreed to it. Similarly, previous published studies also found that highlighting and reading the content before memorization were both common among high-achieving students [ 15 , 36 ]. Furthermore, the present study has found recalling what has just been memorized to be statistically significantly associated with high GPA students (OR = 1.83, p  = 0.05). Interestingly, we could not find any study that investigated this as an important factor, which could be justified by the high specificity of this question. Besides, when it comes to writing down/speaking out what has just been memorized, our study has found no recognizable differences between high-achieving students (75%) and low-achieving students (69%), as both categories had remarkably high percentages of reading and writing while studying.

The present study has found no statistical significance between regularly revising the lectures and high GPA ( p  > 0.05), unlike the study conducted by Deborah A. Sleight et al. [ 37 ]. The difference in findings between our study and Deborah A. Sleight et al. might be due to a limitation of our study, namely the similar backgrounds of our participants. Another explanation could be related to curricular differences between the institutions where the two studies were conducted. Moreover, a statistically significant correlation between not preferring the data being presented in a written form instead of a graphical form and high GPA scores have been found in their study ( p  < 0.05). However, a study conducted by Deborah A. Sleight et al. indicated that 66% of high achievers used notes prepared by other classmates compared to 84% of low achievers. Moreover, their study showed that only 59% of high achievers used tables and graphs prepared by others compared to 92% of low achievers. About 63% and 61% of the students in their study reported using self-made study aids for revision and memory aids, respectively [ 37 ].

The present study also examined the effects of smoking and chronic and mental illness, but found no statistical significance; the majority of both groups responded by denying these factors’ presence in their life. A similar finding by Al Shawwa et al. showed no statistical significance of smoking and caffeine consumption between low GPA and high GPA students [ 15 ]. We hypothesize that our findings occurred due to the study’s broad approach to examining such factors rather than delving deeper into them.

High-achieving students’ habits and factors contributing to their academic achievement were explored in the present study. High-achieving students were found to be more motivated and socially supported than their peers. Moreover, students who attended lectures, concentrated during lectures, studied early in the morning, prepared their weekly schedule, and studied more when exams approached were more likely to have high GPA scores. Studying techniques, including skimming before memorizing, writing what was memorized, active recall, and consistent revision, were adopted by high-achievers. To gain deeper insight into students’ strategies, it is recommended that qualitative semi-structured interviews be conducted to understand what distinguishes high-achieving students from their peers. Future studies should also explore differences between public and private university students. Additionally, further research is needed to confirm this study’s findings and provide guidance to all students. Future studies should collect a larger sample size from a variety of universities in order to increase generalizability.

Limitations and recommendations

The present study has some limitations. All the study’s findings indicated possible associations rather than causation; hence, the reader should approach the results of this study with caution. We recommend in-depth longitudinal studies to provide more insight into the different study habits and their impact on academic performance. Another limitation is that the research team created a self-reported questionnaire to address the study objectives, which carries a potential risk of bias. Hence, we recommend conducting interviews and having personal encounters with the study’s participants to reduce the risk of bias and better understand how different factors affect their academic achievement. A third limitation is that the research team only used the GPA scores as indicators of academic achievement. We recommend conducting other studies and investigating factors that cannot be solely reflected by the GPA, such as the student’s clinical performance and skills. Lastly, all participants included in the study share one background and live in the same environment. Therefore, the study’s findings do not necessarily apply to students who do not belong to such a geographic area and point in time. We recommend that future studies consider the sociodemographic and socioeconomic variations that exist among the universities in Saudi Arabia.

Availability of data materials

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

Abbreviations

Grade Point Average

King Saud University

Institutional review board

Statistical package for the social sciences

Jafari H, Aghaei A, Khatony A. Relationship between study habits and academic achievement in students of medical sciences in Kermanshah-Iran. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019;10:637–43.

Article   Google Scholar  

Abid N, Aslam S, Alghamdi AA, Kumar T. Relationships among students’ reading habits, study skills, and academic achievement in English at the secondary level. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1020269.

Abdulghani HM, Al-Drees AA, Khalil MS, Ahmad F, Ponnamperuma GG, Amin Z. What factors determine academic achievement in high achieving undergraduate medical students? A qualitative study. Med Teach. 2014;36(Suppl 1):S43–48.

Muntean LM, Nireștean A, Sima-Comaniciu A, Mărușteri M, Zăgan CA, Lukacs E. The relationship between personality, motivation and academic performance at Medical students from Romania. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022, 19(15).

Reza HM, Alireza HJIJME. Investigating study Habits of Library and Information Sciences Students of Isfahan University and Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. 2014, 14:751–757.

Kurtz SM, Silverman JD. The Calgary-Cambridge Referenced Observation guides: an aid to defining the curriculum and organizing the teaching in communication training programmes. Med Educ. 1996;30(2):83–9.

Pun J, Kong B. An exploratory study of communication training for Chinese medicine practitioners in Hong Kong to integrate patients’ conventional medical history. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2023;23(1):10.

İlçin N, Tomruk M, Yeşilyaprak SS, Karadibak D, Savcı S. The relationship between learning styles and academic performance in TURKISH physiotherapy students. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):291.

McKeirnan KC, Colorafi K, Kim AP, Stewart AS, Remsberg CM, Vu M, Bray BS. Study behaviors Associated with Student pharmacists’ academic success in an active Classroom Pharmacy Curriculum. Am J Pharm Educ. 2020;84(7):ajpe7695.

Jouhari Z, Haghani F, Changiz T. Assessment of medical students’ learning and study strategies in self-regulated learning. J Adv Med Educ Professionalism. 2016;4(2):72–9.

Google Scholar  

Proctor BE, Prevatt FF, Adams KSS, Reaser A, Petscher Y. Study skills profiles of normal-achieving and academically-struggling College students. J Coll Student Dev. 2006;47(1):37–51.

Kyauta AMASY, Garba HS. The role of guidance and counseling service on academic performance among students of umar suleiman college of education, Gashua, Yobe State, Nigeria. KIU J Humanit. 2017;2(2):59–66.

Eva KW, Bordage G, Campbell C, Galbraith R, Ginsburg S, Holmboe E, Regehr G. Towards a program of assessment for health professionals: from training into practice. Adv Health Sci Education: Theory Pract. 2016;21(4):897–913.

Curcio G, Ferrara M, De Gennaro L. Sleep loss, learning capacity and academic performance. Sleep Med Rev. 2006;10(5):323–37.

Al Shawwa L, Abulaban AA, Abulaban AA, Merdad A, Baghlaf S, Algethami A, Abu-Shanab J, Balkhoyor A. Factors potentially influencing academic performance among medical students. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2015;6:65–75.

Ibrahim NK, Baharoon BS, Banjar WF, Jar AA, Ashor RM, Aman AA, Al-Ahmadi JR. Mobile Phone Addiction and its relationship to Sleep Quality and Academic Achievement of Medical students at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. J Res Health Sci. 2018;18(3):e00420.

Alkhalaf AM, Tekian A, Park YS. The impact of WhatsApp use on academic achievement among Saudi medical students. Med Teach. 2018;40(sup1):S10–4.

Bonsaksen T, Brown T, Lim HB, Fong K. Approaches to studying predict academic performance in undergraduate occupational therapy students: a cross-cultural study. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):76.

Alzahrani HA, Alzahrani OH. Learning strategies of medical students in the surgery department, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2012;3:79–87.

Bin Abdulrahman KA, Khalaf AM, Bin Abbas FB, Alanazi OT. Study habits of highly effective medical students. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2021;12:627–33.

Jameel T, Gazzaz ZJ, Baig M, Tashkandi JM, Alharenth NS, Butt NS, Shafique A, Iftikhar R. Medical students’ preferences towards learning resources and their study habits at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. BMC Res Notes. 2019;12(1):30.

Abdulghani HM, Alrowais NA, Bin-Saad NS, Al-Subaie NM, Haji AM, Alhaqwi AI. Sleep disorder among medical students: relationship to their academic performance. Med Teach. 2012;34(Suppl 1):S37–41.

Hwang G-J, Wang S-Y, Lai C-L. Effects of a social regulation-based online learning framework on students’ learning achievements and behaviors in mathematics. Comput Educ. 2021;160:104031.

Gamage KAA, Dehideniya D, Ekanayake SY. The role of personal values in learning approaches and student achievements. Behav Sci (Basel Switzerland) 2021, 11(7).

Linn Z, Tashiro Y, Morio K, Hori H. Peer evaluations of group work in different years of medical school and academic achievement: how are they related? BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):102.

Avonts M, Michels NR, Bombeke K, Hens N, Coenen S, Vanderveken OM, De Winter BY. Does peer teaching improve academic results and competencies during medical school? A mixed methods study. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):431.

Topor DR, Keane SP, Shelton TL, Calkins SD. Parent involvement and student academic performance: a multiple mediational analysis. J Prev Interv Community. 2010;38(3):183–97.

Veas A, Castejón JL, Miñano P, Gilar-Corbí R. Relationship between parent involvement and academic achievement through metacognitive strategies: a multiple multilevel mediation analysis. Br J Educ Psychol. 2019;89(2):393–411.

Núñez JC, Regueiro B, Suárez N, Piñeiro I, Rodicio ML, Valle A. Student Perception of teacher and parent involvement in Homework and Student Engagement: the mediating role of motivation. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1384.

Abdulghani AH, Ahmad T, Abdulghani HM. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on anxiety and depression among physical therapists in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):751.

Park KH, Park JH, Kim S, Rhee JA, Kim JH, Ahn YJ, Han JJ, Suh DJ. Students’ perception of the educational environment of medical schools in Korea: findings from a nationwide survey. Korean J Med Educ. 2015;27(2):117–30.

Ahrberg K, Dresler M, Niedermaier S, Steiger A, Genzel L. The interaction between sleep quality and academic performance. J Psychiatr Res. 2012;46(12):1618–22.

Dikker S, Haegens S, Bevilacqua D, Davidesco I, Wan L, Kaggen L, McClintock J, Chaloner K, Ding M, West T, et al. Morning brain: real-world neural evidence that high school class times matter. Soc Cognit Affect Neurosci. 2020;15(11):1193–202.

Pittenger AL, Dimitropoulos E, Foag J, Bishop D, Panizza S, Bishop JR. Closing the Classroom Theory to practice gap by simulating a Psychiatric Pharmacy Practice Experience. Am J Pharm Educ. 2019;83(10):7276.

Walck-Shannon EM, Rowell SF, Frey RF. To what extent do Study habits relate to performance? CBE Life Sci Educ. 2021;20(1):ar6.

Abdulghani HM, Alanazi K, Alotaibi R, Alsubeeh NA, Ahmad T, Haque S. Prevalence of potential dropout thoughts and their influential factors among Saudi Medical Students. 2023, 13(1):21582440221146966.

Sleight DA, Mavis BE. Study skills and academic performance among second-Year Medical students in Problem-based learning. Med Educ Online. 2006;11(1):4599.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University, for.

support through the Vice Deanship of Scientific Research Chairs.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Mohammed A. Aljaffer & Ahmad H. Almadani

College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Abdullah S. AlDughaither, Ali A. Basfar, Saad M. AlGhadir, Yahya A. AlGhamdi, Bassam N. AlHubaysh & Osamah A. AlMayouf

Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Saleh A. AlGhamdi

Department of Medical Education, College of Medicine, King Saud University, P.O. Box: 230155, Riyadh, 11321, Saudi Arabia

Tauseef Ahmad

Department of Medical Education and Family Medicine, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Hamza M. Abdulghani

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception or design: AHA, MAA, and HMA. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: AAB, SMA, ASA, YAA, BNA, OAA and SAA. Drafting the work or revising: TA, AHA, ASA AAB. Final approval of the manuscript: MAA, HMA., AHA, and TA. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tauseef Ahmad .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Human ethics and consent to participate declarations

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-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Aljaffer, M.A., Almadani, A.H., AlDughaither, A.S. et al. The impact of study habits and personal factors on the academic achievement performances of medical students. BMC Med Educ 24 , 888 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05889-y

Download citation

Received : 26 September 2023

Accepted : 12 August 2024

Published : 19 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05889-y

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

• Medical students
• Study habits
• Academic achievement
• Saudi Arabia

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• General enquiries: [email protected]