Patterns of Teacher‐Student Interaction in Inclusive Elementary Classrooms and Correlates with Student Self-Concept

Abstract

The efficacy of placing students with special needs in inclusive classrooms may depend in part on how instructional factors contribute to student outcomes. Differences in frequencies and levels of cognitive engagement of interactions among nine teachers in inclusive elementary classrooms were related to three other variables: teachers' ratings on the Pathognomonic-Interventionist (PATH/INT) Scale, students' designation either as exceptional or at-risk (EX/AR) or as typically achieving (TA), and students' scores on the Piers Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale. Teachers with PATH beliefs, who attribute learning difficulties to permanent characteristics of the student that are beyond the teacher's mandate, interacted infrequently with their EX/AR students at low levels of cognitive engagement. Teachers with INT beliefs, who see themselves as responsible for the achievement of all their students irrespective of their disabilities, interacted with all students more frequently, and at higher levels of cognitive engagement. In contrast to the PATH teachers, their EX/AR students received more instructional interactions than their TA students. As expected, the EX/AR students in all classrooms had lower Piers Harris Self-Concept Total Scale scores than typically achieving students. However, both TA and EX/AR students had lower Self-Concept Total Scale scores in the classrooms of teachers with PATH beliefs, compared to students in the classrooms of INT teachers. The relationship is discussed between teachers' beliefs, their different patterns of instructional interactions with students with and without disabilities in inclusive classrooms, and the possible impact of instructional interventions on students' self-concept.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 99 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.