Teachers on perceived traits and academic achievements of regular pupils and pupils with special needs in mainstream primary schools

This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee At Martin]On: 07 October 2014, At: 13:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teachers and Teaching: theory andpracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Teachers on perceived traits andacademic achievements of regularpupils and pupils with special needs inmainstream primary schoolsIrena Lesara, Ivan ukb & Mojca Peekaa Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana,Sloveniab Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, SloveniaPublished online: 16 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: Irena Lesar, Ivan uk & Mojca Peek (2014) Teachers on perceivedtraits and academic achievements of regular pupils and pupils with special needs inmainstream primary schools, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 20:3, 358-374, DOI:10.1080/13540602.2013.848520

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.848520

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13540602.2013.848520http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.848520

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

13:

45 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teachers on perceived traits and academic achievements ofregular pupils and pupils with special needs in mainstreamprimary schools

Irena Lesara*, Ivan ukb and Mojca Peeka

aFaculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; bFaculty of Sport,University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

(Received 19 December 2011; final version received 6 August 2012)

When looking for answers to the question of academic (non)achievement ofregular pupils and pupils with special needs, it is necessary to take into accountthe extraordinary complexity of factors, ranging from psychological acrossinstructional to home environment variables. The academic achievement is notonly a reflection of the pupils knowledge, but is also influenced by the pupilsbehaviour, the teachers expectations and finally the relationship establishedbetween the teacher and the pupil. This paper contributes answers to the questionwhich of the traits, perceived by teachers, explain the academic achievements ofregular pupils and pupils with special needs. Our analysis shows that perceivedtraits that explain the academic achievement of regular pupils refer to academicas well as social behaviour, disruptive behaviour and self-regulatory behaviour;therefore, they cover all areas of perceived traits we studied. In pupils withspecial needs as a whole and in particular groups of pupils with special needs,the factor which presents disruptive social behaviour proved as insignificant,which consequently means that the academic achievement of pupils with specialneeds depends more on academic and self-regulatory behaviour, task activity andsocial inclusion.

Keywords: mainstream primary school; perceived traits; academic achievement;regular pupils; pupils with SEN

Introduction

Academic (non)achievement of pupils with special needs how can this beexplained?

The question of academic (non)achievement of special educational needs (SEN)pupils is central to numerous studies of the past decades, primarily due to an everincreasing number of integrative or, currently, inclusive tendencies. First, researchersdirected their attention to efficient education of particular groups of pupils inreference to their location (regular or specialized schools), noting that the evidencesuggests that any differences in outcomes for children with special needs betweenspecial and mainstream schools are small, but tend to favour mainstream schools interms of both educational attainments and social integration (Topping & Maloney,2005, p. 7). Studies further focused on the effects of various forms of additional

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

2013 Taylor & Francis

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 2014Vol. 20, No. 3, 358374, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.848520

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

13:

45 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.848520

individual help in mainstream schools (Davis & Hopwood, 2004), on the aspect ofteachers cooperation with special pedagogues, the introduction of varioustechniques, aids and work strategies, etc. (Antia, Stinson, & Gaustad, 2004;Ebersold, 2003). But is the assumption that learning of SEN pupils is so veryspecific in comparison to the regular population that it needs completely adaptedteaching strategies and special didactic approaches based on research findings? Intheir longitudinal study, Peetsma, Vergeer, Roeleveld, and Karsten (2004) point outthat the hypothesis that the degree of specialist care being offered helps these pupilscould not be confirmed. Doubt in this assumption was emphasized also by Norwich(2004, p. 328), who in his syntheses of studies linked to particular groups of SENpupils establishes that although common teaching principles and strategies arerelevant to the sub-groups we have considered, more intensive and explicit teachingis also relevant to pupils with different patterns and degrees of learning difficulties.When examining the findings of various studies, Salend and Garrick Duhaney(2004, p. 507) found,

That while // some studies suggest that inclusion more often results in positiveacademic and social outcomes for pupils with disabilities, other studies indicate thatsome pupils with disabilities benefit academically when they receive their educationalprograms through traditional special education (SE) service delivery model (such aspull-out resource room program). Although several factors may contribute to thisinconclusive finding, important variables seem to be the quality of the inclusionprogram and the extent to which the general education (GE) system accommodates theacademic and social needs of students with disabilities in inclusion program.

From this quick survey of research results about academic and social effects ofschooling SEN pupils, we can draw the conclusion that neither placing in GE or SEsettings nor carrying out an individually adapted programme in separated premisesor with the cooperation of special pedagogues and teachers in regular classes are themost important in predicting academic and social effects of schooling. Namely, alladaptations of educational programmes aimed at improving academic achievementsand social inclusion may be carried out in various ways, which nevertheless dependmostly on the culture of the school and all its employees (Booth & Ainscow, 2002;Dyson, Howes, & Roberts, 2004; Gillen, Wright, & Spink, 2011) who may or maynot share particular values and act accordingly. Numerous studies document thatstudents in schools with a better school culture and climate, which is influenced bythe extent to which members of the school community feel socially, emotionally andphysically safe, have higher achievement and better socioemotional health (Cohen &Geier, 2010). In a review of studies on the impact of support in school, the SearchInstitute found (Tableman, 2004) that a caring school climate is associated withhigher grades, engagement, attendance, expectations and aspirations, a sense ofscholastic competence, fewer school suspensions and on-time progression throughgrades (19 studies), with higher self-esteem and self-concept (five studies), with lessanxiety, depression and loneliness (three studies) and with less substance abuse (fourstudies). According to Castro Silva and Morgado (2004), support teachers considerthat factors which include the school climate, curriculum design and teachingapproach contribute significantly to achievements of SEN pupils.

An interesting finding of studies is the fact that in a lot of cases, only thequestion of efficiency of various teaching strategies is pointed out, and that, whenlooking for answers, researchers often neglected not only the fact that besides the

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 359

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

13:

45 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

instructional variable and classroom climate, academic achievement ispredominantly influenced by psychological and home environment variables(Wang, Haertl, & Walberg, 1993), but also the fact that amazing transactions formbetween teachers and pupils, mutually influencing establishment of relations, whichconsequently predict a pupils academic achievements (Lesar, uk, & Peek, 2010;Decker, Dona, & Christenson, 2007). The teachers perception of pupils traits inclass and the teachers responses dynamically interact and form a circle, confirmingand strengthening this perception, or, as Sutherland, Lewis-Palmer, Stichter, andMorgan (2008) maintain, there appears to be an association over time between bothteacher and student behaviour that results in changes in the behaviour of both.

And since sub-groups of SEN pupils are so varied, the attitude towards inclusionof these sub-groups into GE or SE settings and readiness of adapting teaching andcooperation of pedagogical staff also depends on their specifics, we attempted toanswer the question in which traits perceived by teachers explain the academicachievement of pupils.

Recognized traits of pupils as an important factor of academic achievement

The teachers perception of pupils is important for their position in class, for thequality of their interactions with teachers and also for their academic achievement.Within psychology, more and more studies are being carried out on the influence ofpersonality traits of pupils on their academic (non)achievement. Researchers mostoften rely on the five-factor model (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,neuroticism and openness to experience), which describe general organization ofpersonal features among adults (Smrtnik Vituli & Zupani, 2009; Zupani &Puklek Lepuvek, 2005). Baker and Victor (2002, quoted from Zupani & Kavi,2004, p. 447) maintain, on the basis of how teachers estimate personal traits ofprimary school children, that school grades reflect a pupils openness to experiencesas well as other features of his/her personality, such as well-developed organizationskills, a tendency to plan, to work hard, etc. in short, a conscientious attitude. Thestudy by Zupani and Kavi (2007) also showed that academic achievement offirst-grade pupils in three subjects is simultaneously and longitudinally predicted bytheir non-verbal cognitive abilities and estimations by their (pre)school teachers oftheir conscientious attitude-openness in nursery/school.

The findings of Wang et al. (1993), namely, suggest that pupils traits have asomewhat greater influence on academic achievement than teaching practices orwhat is going on in class. These factors are supposed to have a greater influence onacademic achievement than home and community educational contexts (community,peer group, home environment and parental support, student use of out-of-schooltime). The first category, social and behavioural variables (examples of variablesincludes students positive attitudes, an absence of disruptive classroom behaviour,appropriate classroom activity levels, cooperativeness with teachers and peers andthe ability to make friends) is important given the social nature of schooling.Examples of variables in the motivational and affective category include,

Attitude towards the school, teacher and subject matter; motivation for life-longlearning, independence as a learner; perseverance with regard to learning tasks; andacademic self-competence in the subject area. The specific variables comprising theMetacognitive category include self-regulatory and self-control strategies, comprehen-sion monitoring, and positive strategies to cope with failure and to generalize concepts.(Wang et al., 1993, p. 263, 264)

360 I. Lesar et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

13:

45 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

On the grounds of the transaction model (Sameroff & Mackenzie, 2003; Stangvik,1998; Sutherland & Oswald, 2005), it is necessary to point out that the schoolenvironment in general and teachers in particular have a strong influence on pupilsbehaviour in class. Teachers may, with their improper reactions, strengthen apersons adversed behaviour, despite the fact that one of their tasks is to provideassistance in behavioural problems, namely to overcome the effects of developmen-tal influences which result in asocial forms of behaviour (Office for Standards inEducation, 2006; Sutherland & Oswald, 2005; University of Birmingham, 2003).Studies often show the opposite, namely that teachers avoided interacting withstudents who exhibited the most problematic behaviour, while choosing to engage inmore instructional interactions with students who exhibited more appropriate behav-iour (for e.g. Sutherland & Oswald, 2005; Wehby, Symons, & Canale, 1998). Aspointed out by Zupani and Kavi (2007, p. 162), a pupils behaviour stronglyinfluences teachers perception of the extent of the pupils ability to learn and thisperception is linked to the quality of the pupils interaction with the teacher, whichpositively predicts the childs academic achievement. Non-achieving pupils get lesssocial stimuli, fewer invitations to cooperate, more negative information andnegative expectations towards them, relating not only to productivity, but also tobehaviour (similarly in Kobolt, 1992; University of Birmingham, 2003). As demon-strated by Decker et al. (2007), when the quality of relations between teachers andpupils improves, pupils behaviour, cooperation and academic achievements alsoimprove. Furthermore, as demonstrated by studies on the perspective of pupilsbehaviour in class, it is difficult to determine whether the achievement problemscaused the behaviour problems or vice versa. According to the research ofAlgozzine, Wang, and Violette (2011), when viewed as outcomes, achievement andbehaviour are related; when viewed as causes of each other, achievement andbehaviour are unrelated.

Thus, a grade does not only reflect a pupils knowledge. It is influenced by thepupils behaviour, the teachers expectations and the relationship formed betweenthem. The teachers belief in the power of knowledge and the pupils ability to learnreduce differences in learning of less privileged groups of pupils and vice versa(Gerschel, 2005). This raises the question of which recognized traits best explainacademic (non)achievement of pupils and mainly whether they differ betweenregular pupils and SEN pupils as well as among particular groups of SEN pupils.We will try to answer this question through a comparison. According to Cremin andThomas (2005), comparison is a major factor in differentiation and segregation inschools, and in the alienation and exclusion experienced by pupils. Through regularcomparison of ones self with others, individuals gain, or fail to gain, recognition,status, respect, self-respect and inclusion. Teachers also make these comparisons,and individuals are continually aware of the ways in which they are judged, assessedand placed in hierarchies of status and worth.

The present study and the context of the research

The purpose of the study entitled Justice in educational systems a contrastingapproach1 was to analyse teachers positions regarding inclusion of marginalizedgroups of pupils in mainstream primary schools. Among other things (e.g. how wellteachers feel qualified to teach marginalized groups of pupils; who is, according toteachers, responsible for their inclusion into the class; which of the marginalized


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

13:

45 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

groups teachers view most favourably) (Peek, uk, & Lesar, 2008), we were inter-ested in traits which are perceived by teachers in particular groups of pupils andwhether there is a connection between traits in pupils noticed by teachers and theteachers assessment of a pupils academic achievement. With this purpose wedesigned a questionnaire in the form of a semantic differential. In this paper, wepresent our conclusions to the following research questions from the study:

Are there differences in academic achievement of SEN pupils as a whole andregular pupils?

Are there differences in academic achievement of regular pupils and variousgroups of SEN pupils, namely blind and visually impaired pupils (B/VI), deafpupils and pupils with hearing impairments (D/HI), pupils with speech andlanguage disorders (S/LD), pupils with physical disabilities (PD), pupils withlong-term illness (LTI), pupils with learning difficulties (LD) and pupils withemotional and behavioural disorders (EBD)?

Are there differences in academic achievement among above mentionedgroups of SEN pupils?

Which are the underlying factors of pupils perceived traits? Which underlying factors explain the academic achievements of regular pupilsand SEN pupils as a whole?

Which underlying factors explain the academic achievements of particulargroups of researched SEN pupils?

According to Slovenian legislation, the above-mentioned groups of SEN pupilscan be, on the basis of an expert decision, included in regular primary school solelyon the condition that, in relation to the kind and degree of deficiency, impairment ordisorder, they attain the educational standard in accordance with the educationalprogramme of regular education. They can obtain additional professional help andthe implementation of the educational programme can be tailored to their needs(Ministry of Education and Sport, 2000). The emphasis is, therefore, on deficiency,its degree and standardization of capabilities, all which make it clear that there arestill medical and professional discourses in the background (Lesar, 2008). The basiccriteria of inclusion and exclusion of pupils is educational and not social inclusion,and the effect of the system is that such pupils adapt to the majority, i.e. areassimilated (Peek & Lesar, 2006). In such context, the way how the teacher seesSEN pupils is even more important for the degree of their actual inclusion in theclass.

Methodology

Sample

Our sample included 207 teachers in the lower primary school and 207 teachers inthe upper primary school2 from 41 primary schools in Slovenia, which is just below10% of all primary schools in the country. The sample was further stratified inrelation to whether the school was in a town or in a rural area, by region and by theteachers gender. Within these categories, the selection of schools was random. Allteachers in the survey described regular pupils, namely one girl and one boy by eachteacher, which means that regular pupils are presented by 828 female and malepupils. In filling in the questionnaire, teachers were instructed to describe their

362 I. Lesar et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

13:

45 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

assigned female/male pupil (the first or the last in the alphabetic order) and to assesshis/her academic achievement3. SEN pupils were described only by teachers whohad experience with them. Teachers were instructed to describe a pupil theycurrently teach or a pupil they have taught as the last one; if they had several suchpupils in class, half of the teachers were instructed to describe the one who waslisted first alphabetically and the second half to describe the pupil listed last alpha-betically. They also assessed his/her academic achievement. Two hundred andninety-four of the teachers answered that they have or have had experiences with aSEN pupil. A more detailed structure of fully presented pupils is presented in Tables1 and 4. From the point of view of the study, these pupils were selected randomly.

Instrument

Based on descriptions of marginalized groups of pupils, made by 78 second yearstudents of the class teaching at the Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana,on the results of semi-structured interviews with four teachers, three counsellors andtwo headmasters, and on analyses of similar questionnaires (for e.g. Conners,Sitarenios, Parker, & Epstein, 1998; Kobolt, 1992; Poulou & Norwich, 2000), wedesigned a pilot version of the questionnaire. We then tested it on a sample of 328primary school teachers in Slovenia. The data were processed and on the basis ofprocessed results and teachers responses to the questionnaire, we designed the finalversion of the questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of 32 variables, whichinclude the area of academic behaviour (e.g. educational ambitions, activity and ini-tiative, precision in work), social behaviour (e.g. example adaptation to the class,feeling at school, popularity in class), self-regulatory behaviour (e.g. self-critique,self-esteem, independence) and disruptive behaviour (e.g. unpredictable behaviour,obedience, impertinence towards teachers). All variables in the questionnaire aregiven in the form of a semantic differential. On a five-degree scale, teachers had todetermine for a particular variable whether they consider a pupils listed traits asmore positive or more negative (for example, is accepted by classmates/is notaccepted by classmates; shows unpredictable behaviour/shows no unpredictablebehaviour).

Reliability of the final questionnaire version was tested with the Cronbach alphacoefficient which is .955 for regular pupils and .948 for SEN pupils. Reliability wasadditionally tested using the method of factor analysis. Including all common

Table 1. Academic achievement of studied groups of pupils and z-test results of regularpupils and SEN pupils as a whole as well as individual groups of SEN pupils.

Group of pupils N Mean Std. deviation Std. error z-Test

Regular pupils 785 3.98 1.052 .038SEN 281 2.70 1.081 .064 17.197*

LD 76 2.05 .728 .084 20.934*

B/VI 12 3.33 1.231 .355 1.821S/LD 29 2.55 .985 .183 7.651*

D/HI 51 3.43 1.082 .151 3.532*

EBD 69 2.62 .859 .103 12.388*

PD 34 3.24 1.232 .211 3.452*

LTI 10 2.20 .919 .291 6.065*

*p

factors, for regular pupils, the percentage of explained variance is 62.386% and forSEN pupils 64.907%, which means that the rtt reliability level for regular pupils is.790 and for SEN pupils .806. The validity was determined by the percentage ofexplained variance of the first factor in the factor analysis which was 41.809% forregular pupils and 38.323% for SEN pupils. The questionnaire is standardized.

Data collecting procedure and data processing

Following a written notice and a phone conversation, the survey was conducted byresearchers at individual schools.

The data were processed using the statistical method appropriate to our objec-tives. Statistical analysis was carried out using the SPSS 15.0 application. Measuresof central tendency and dispersal were calculated. To establish differences inarithmetic means between regular pupils and SEN pupils and their sub-groups, weused the z-test; while for differences in arithmetic means and variance amongindividual groups of SEN pupils, we carried out ANOVA processing and post hocmultiple comparisons among groups according to the Tamhane T2 method. Toestablish the underlying factors of pupils perceived traits, we carried out a factoranalysis of major components and made an orthogonal rotation of the basic result(varimax method). Based on the Scree test, we established the number of significantfactors. We only took account of the saturation value of variables on the factorsabove +/ under 0500. For each individual, factor values were calculated for eachtypical factor according to the regression method. A regression analysis of theacademic achievement with factor values of all factors was carried out according tothe all-together method. We used p < .05 as the threshold of statistical significance.

Results and interpretation

Academic achievement of regular pupils and of pupils with SEN

An analysis of academic achievement of studied groups of pupils shows that SENpupils as a whole have significantly lower academic achievement than regular pupils(see Table 1). A similar finding is also assessed when comparing results of SENpupils and regular pupils in external knowledge assessments. This finding isexplained by the majority of researchers as a reasonable consequence of theeducational process which is not adapted to the needs of particular groups of pupilsin mainstream schools (Koir, 2008). However, some emphasize that rather than anindividual deficiency, most often influences of social-economic family status, culturalbelonging and gender lie behind recognition of a SEN pupil (Gerschel, 2005). In the

Table 2. Differences in academic achievement between individual groups of SEN pupils.

SEN SEN Mean difference Std. error p

LD PD 1.183(*) .227 .000EBD .571(*) .133 .001

D/HI LD 1.379(*) .173 .000S/LD .880(*) .238 .009EBD .808(*) .183 .001LTI 1.231(*) .328 .042

*The table only presents results of those groups of pupils where statistically significant differences weredetected.

364 I. Lesar et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

13:

45 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table3.

Factors

with

loadings

greateror

smallerthan

.500

(varim

axmethod).

Traits

SEN

pupils

Regular

pupils

Nodisruptiv

esocial

behaviour

Academic

andself-

regulatory

misbehaviour

Inappropriate

task

activ

itySocial

inclusion

Academic

and

self-regulatory

behaviour

Nodisruptiv

esocial

behaviour

Social

inclusion

Has

high

educationalam

bitio

ns/Has

low

educationalam

bitio

ns.667

.805

Isactiv

eandtakesinitiative/Is

not

activ

e,does

nottake

initiative

.630

.794

His/her

behaviourisunpredictable/His/

herbehaviourisnotunpredictable

.706

.653

Isproneto

self-criticism/Isnotprone

toself-criticism

.500

.607

Isconfi

dent/Isnotconfi

dent

.654

.665

Isobedient/Isnotobedient

.774

.732

Plays

andtalkswhile

completing

tasks/Is

focusedwhile

completing

tasks

.524

.566

.561

.507

Ischeeky

toteachers/Isnotcheeky

toteachers

.778

.705

Paysattentionto

detail/Doesnotpay

attentionto

detail

.696

.740

Showsperseverance

atwork/Doesnot

show

perseverance

atwork

.705

.760

Adaptsto

class/Doesnotadaptto

class

.605

.659

Feelscomfortable

inschool/Doesnot

feel

comfortable

inschool

.765

.569

Isaggressive/Isnotaggressive

.843

.751

Isindependent/Isnotindependent

.636

.751

Ispopularin

class/Is

notpopularin

class

.722

.672

(Contin

ued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

13:

45 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table3.

(Contin

ued).

Traits

SEN

pupils

Regular

pupils

Nodisruptiv

esocial

behaviour

Academic

andself-

regulatory

misbehaviour

Inappropriate

task

activ

itySocial

inclusion

Academic

and

self-regulatory

behaviour

Nodisruptiv

esocial

behaviour

Social

inclusion

Can

concentrateforalong

period

oftim

e/Cannotconcentrateforalong

period

oftim

e

.569

.523

.810

Disruptsschoolwork/Doesnotdisrupt

schoolwork

.716

.688

Isaccepted

byclassm

ates/Isnot

accepted

byclassm

ates

.783

.679

Conflictpersonality

/Not

confl

ict

personality

.868

.810

Learnsquickly/Learnsslow

ly.794

.777

Can

makedecisions/Cannotmake

decisions

.805

.742

Wantsto

beat

thecentre

ofattention/

Doesnotwantto

beat

thecentre

ofattention

.697

.641

Controllable/Uncontrollable

.788

.707

Revengeful/N

otrevengeful

.811

.740

Delinquent/N

otdelin

quent

.803

.644

Trustworthy/Untrustworthy

.615

.556

Aloof/Not

aloof

.798

.766

Boastful/N

otboastful

.768

.762

Standsup

forhimself/herself/Doesnot

standup

forhimself/herself

.542

Has

good

learning

habits/Has

bad

earninghabits

.599

.788

Sparklin

g/Not

sparkling

.535

.550

Has

good

generalknow

ledge/Doesnot

have

good

generalknow

ledge

.775

.767

366 I. Lesar et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

13:

45 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

group of pupils which we studied ourselves, SEN girls had statistically significanthigher academic achievement than boys (Lesar et al., 2010). In relation to suchfindings, Gerschel (2005, p. 96) poses the question of how to recognize the borderbetween gender and SEN when studying the often detected learning underachieve-ment of SEN boys. This question is additionally founded by the fact that in ourcountry and globally, any group of SEN pupils is comprised of around two-thirds ofboys and one-third of girls.

Our research also revealed statistically significant differences in the academicachievement of regular pupils and individual groups of SEN pupils (see Table 1)except in B/VI pupils, where no statistically significant differences could be proved.It is noteworthy that pupils with sensory and physical handicaps reach significantlybetter academic achievement than other groups of pupils. Pupils with LD hardlyreach satisfactory results, while somewhat better academic achievement is noted inpupils with LTI. On average, the academic achievement of pupils with S/LD andpupils with EBD is between satisfactory and good. Good academic achievement onaverage is reached by pupils with PD and B/VI pupils. Finally, the highest academicachievement is reached by D/HI pupils.

Table 4. Connectedness of academic achievement and traits of studied groups of pupils.

A group of pupils R R2 F df1 df2 N Sig. Factor Beta Sig.

Regular .806 .649 481.409 3 781 785 .000 1 .772 .0002 .200 .0003 .113 .000

SEN .758 .575 88.323 4 261 266 .000 1 .060 .1372 .663 .0003 .330 .0004 .145 .000

LD .572 .327 7.889 4 65 70 .000 1 .128 .2442 .451 .0003 .427 .0014 .219 .042

B/VI .874 .764 5.657 4 7 12 .024 1 .080 .6852 .505 .0373 .627 .0134 .045 .821

S/LD .809 .654 10.863 4 23 28 .000 1 .142 .2922 .716 .0003 .305 .0224 .069 .602

EBD .611 .374 8.651 4 58 63 .000 1 .152 .2392 .699 .0003 .368 .0084 .145 .230

PD .804 .646 12.771 4 28 33 .000 1 .142 .2542 .655 .0003 .504 .0014 .281 .039

D/HI pupils .733 .537 12.762 4 44 49 .000 1 .080 .4512 .625 .0003 .131 .2234 .275 .012

LTI .746 .557 1.255 4 4 9 .415


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

13:

45 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Differences in academic achievement between individual groups of SEN pupilsare also statistically significant (see Table 2). D/HI pupils have statisticallysignificantly higher academic achievement than pupils with LD, pupils with S/LD,pupils with EBD and pupils with LTI. However, pupils with LD have statisticallysignificantly lower academic achievement than D/HI pupils, but also than pupilswith EBD and pupils with PD. It is also noteworthy that teachers, when askedwhether pupils with SEN in principle may reach the same academic achievement asother pupils, give the biggest share of negative answers for pupils with LD and forpupils with EBD (Peek & Lesar, 2006, pp. 102106). Although our analysis ofactual academic achievement does not completely confirm this, the academicachievement particularly of pupils with LD is exceptionally low, which can beexplained by the already emphasized connection of the recognized pupils ability tolearn with the quality of the teachers interaction with him/her, which all positivelypredicts the academic achievement of the pupil in question (Zupani & Kavi,2007, p. 162).

Regular pupils and pupils with special needs as seen by teachers

The factor analysis provides three factors for regular pupils and four for SEN pupils(Table 3).

The second factor in regular pupils which explained 26.473% of variance andthe first factor in SEN pupils which explained 28.832% of variance, entitled Nodisruptive social behaviour, are identical, the only difference being the saturation ofparticular variables. This contains all variables linked to disruptive behaviour(unpredictable behaviour obedience, insolence and disrespect, aggressive behaviour,disrupting the classroom, conflict-provoking, tamability, vengefulness, delinquentbehaviour, contempt, etc.), three variables linked to social behaviour (adaptability inthe classroom, attention-seeking, trustworthiness, cockyness, etc.) and one linked toacademic behaviour (playing games and chatting during tasks). Valence of the factoris positive. Both studied groups of pupils show, from teachers perspective, noproblematic behaviour and are not socially outstanding, although, deriving from thefrequency structure, a bigger share of teachers agree with the positive valence ofvariables determining this factor in regular pupils than in SEN pupils.

The third factor in regular pupils which explained 8.940% of variance and thefourth factor in SEN pupils which explained 8.325% of variance, entitled Socialinclusion, are also identical; only one variable linked to self-regulatory behaviour(ability to sparkle) is more in this factor with regular pupils. Other variables arelinked to social behaviour (the level of feeling happy in school, popularity in theclassroom, being accepted by classmates). The factor has a negative valence anddemonstrates social exclusion/inclusion of a pupil. With the frequency structure, itcan be established that, in teachers views, pupils are generally speaking sociallyincluded in the class, although teachers are more convinced about this concerningregular pupils rather than concerning SEN pupils.

The first factor in regular pupils which explained 26.974% of variance, entitledAcademic and self-regulatory behaviour, is divided into two factors in SEN pupils,namely the second entitled Academic and self-regulatory misbehaviour, whichexplained 17.398% of variance, and the third which explained 10.352% of variance,entitled Inappropriate task activity. All these variables have a negative valence.While, in regular pupils, the first factor comprises all variables linked to academic

368 I. Lesar et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

13:

45 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

behaviour (ambitions, enterprising attitude and initiative, playing games and chattingduring tasks, attention to detail, perseverance, ability to focus, quick to understandnew concepts and diligence general knowledge) and a majority of those linked toself-regulatory behaviour (self-criticism, confidence, independence, ability to makedecisions, etc.), the second factor in SEN pupils comprises all variables linked to self-regulatory behaviour (self-criticism, confidence, independence, ability to makedecisions standing up for ones rights, ability to sparkle, etc.) and the majority ofthose linked to academic behaviour (ambitions, active attitude and initiative, ability tofocus, quick to understand new concepts, general knowledge, etc.). Other variableslinked to academic behaviour appear in the third factor (playing games and chattingduring tasks, attention to detail, perseverance, ability to focus, diligence, etc.).

We could conclude that in teachers perception of regular pupils, academicbehaviour is crucial as it appears already in the first factor. In SEN pupils, socialbehaviour is crucial, next are academic and self-regulatory behaviour and finallyappropriateness of task activity and social inclusion. In regular as well as in SENpupils, factors linked to academic behaviour and self-regulatory behaviour have anegative connotation. And yet the frequency structure shows that among teachers, aregular pupil is recognized as the one with constructive academic behaviour andhigh self-regulatory behaviour, while in SEN pupils both areas have a rathernegative connotation.

Traits which explain academic achievement of pupils

Regression is typical of both regular and SEN pupils (see Table 4). All three factorsexplain 64.9% of academic achievement of regular pupils. The results can beinterpreted as follows: the more a regular pupil shows constructive academicbehaviour, no disruptive social behaviour and is socially included, the better his/heracademic achievement. Such a finding is also comparable with findings of someother studies (for e.g. Wang et al., 1993).

The 57.5% academic achievement of a SEN pupil is explained only by thesecond, third and fourth factors. Regression shows that the better a SEN pupilsself-regulatory and academic behaviour, appropriate task activity and socialinclusion, the better is his/her academic achievement. While the variables explainingacademic achievement of a regular pupil are more dispersed and cover all areas ofstudied perceived traits, in SEN pupils, the first factor, No disruptive socialbehaviour, is found as insignificant in explaining academic achievement. Examiningthe study carried out by Wang et al. (1993), social and behavioural variables,motivational and affective as well as metacognitive variables are important foreffective learning. Could the results be interpreted in a way that the expressedacademic behaviour and appropriate task activity of a SEN pupil, as well as self-regulatory behaviour and social inclusion, are more important traits in the teachersassessment of knowledge? The results are definitely interesting, as despite the factthat a SEN pupils behaviour may be less easily controlled, the pupil can, due toconstructive self-regulatory and academic behaviour and good social inclusion, reachhigher academic achievement. This may be explained with the finding of Neans andKnapp (1991, quoted from Wang et al. 1993, p. 277), who especially point out that,

Research results on metacognition (comprehension monitoring, strategies to facilitategeneralization of concepts, self-regulatory and self-control strategies, cognitive skills


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

13:

45 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

instruction, and reciprocal teaching) have been especially helpful in developinginstructional strategies for children from educationally disadvantaged and at-riskbackgrounds.

Regression is also typical of individual groups of SEN pupils, except for pupils withLTI. In pupils with PD and pupils with LD, academic achievement is linked to thesecond, third and fourth factors. The interpretation is the same as for the wholegroup of pupils with SEN. In pupils with PD, the factors explain as much as 64.6%of academic achievement, while in pupils with LD, only 32.7% of academicachievement is explained. In the latter, a large proportion of academic achievementis determined by other factors, which may be a result of the fact that this group ofpupils is extremely varied (it is not rare for newly immigrated pupils and pupilsfrom socially and economically underprivileged environments to be directed intothis group). It should be mentioned that in one of our previous analyses, we estab-lished that within the frame of the second and third factors, LD pupils statisticallysignificantly differ from other groups of SEN pupils, since they have significantlyworse self-regulatory and academic behaviour than B/VI pupils, D/HI pupils, pupilswith EBD and pupils with PD as well as inferior task activity than D/HI pupils(Lesar, uk, & Peek, 2009).

Also in EBD pupils, the exposed factors explain a relatively low proportion ofacademic achievement, namely 37.4%, and only through the second and thirdfactors: the better a pupils self-regulatory and academic behaviours together withtask activity, the better his/her academic achievement. It is noteworthy that in thementioned pupils, exactly those traits which, according to teachers estimations, tothe greatest extent mark and separate them from other pupils (also from SENpupils) i.e. their problematic behaviour do not explain their academic achieve-ment. Preliminary analysis namely confirms that these pupils, in teachers opinions,are most problematic from the point of view of disruptive and social behaviour, andalso, that of all the groups of SEN pupils, such pupils do not actually have the worstself-regulatory and academic behaviour (pupils with LD are worse), but they are, inteachers views, worse when compared with D/HI pupils also regarding task activity.This raises the question of whether the data perhaps reveal the fact that in theirassessment, teachers try to neglect their disruptive behaviour and look for strongpoints mainly in areas of self-regulatory and academic behaviour as well as taskactivity. And yet it is obvious from the results that the recognized positive traits ofEBD pupils explain only a good third of their academic achievement and that it isnot easy to find the other factors. One possible factor could be the low estimation ofteachers of such pupils ability to learn. This is something teachers clearly pointedout in relation to this group, and which may result in lower academic achievement.

The second and third factors also explain the academic achievement of B/VIpupils (they explain 76.4% academic achievement) and pupils with S/LD (theyexplain 65.4% academic achievement). The interpretation is the same as in pupilswith EBD: the better a pupils self-regulatory and academic behaviours together withtask activity, the better his/her academic achievement.

Academic achievement of D/HI pupils is explained by the second and the fourthfactors in 53.7%: the better are a pupils self-regulatory and academic behavioursand social inclusion, the better his/her academic achievement. This is the only groupof SEN pupils, for which task activity is not relevant in explaining academicachievement. These pupils have better task activity than pupils with LD and pupils

370 I. Lesar et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

13:

45 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

with EBD (Lesar et al., 2009), in which this factor proved to be important inexplaining their academic achievement. D/HI pupils have better academic achieve-ment than almost all groups of pupils with SEN (see Tables 1 and 2).

An analysis of academic achievement in particular groups of SEN pupils showsthat the first factor, No disruptive social behaviour, is insignificant in explainingtheir academic achievement, which is not in accordance with some studies whichemphasize the importance of suitable social and academic behaviour of a pupil forhis/her academic achievement (Algozzine et al., 2011; Wang et al., 1993). Academicand self-regulatory behaviour stand out as the most important factors for SEN pupils,since it is the second factor which explains academic achievement of all groups ofSEN pupils. Also Pejak, Valeni Zuljan, Kalin, and Peklaj (2009, p. 66) maintainthat all forms of desired behaviour are positively related to students academicachievement, but significant predictors of students academic achievement are self-management/compliance and academic behaviour, and not peer relations. In allgroups of SEN pupils, except in the D/HI group, academic achievement is explainedalso by task activity, while in LD, D/HI pupils and pupils with PD, social inclusion isalso important in explaining academic achievement. It is noteworthy that the propor-tion of academic achievement explained with the existing factors in pupils with LDand in pupils with EBD is significantly lower compared with other SEN groups.

Conclusion

The study shows that regular pupils and SEN pupils, as well as individuals groupsof SEN pupils, differ considerably in many respects.

In regards to academic achievement of studied groups of pupils, we obtainedsimilar answers as recognized by some other authors, (Gerschel, 2005; Koir, 2008)namely that academic achievement of SEN pupils as a whole is significantly lowerthan that of regular pupils, and that academic achievement of regular pupils issignificantly higher in comparison with individual groups of SEN pupils with theexception of B/VI pupils. Differences in academic achievement among individualgroups of SEN pupils are also statistically significant. D/HI pupils post the highestacademic achievement and pupils with LD the lowest.

The study also shows underlying factors of pupils perceived traits which differfor regular pupils and SEN pupils and those traits which teachers recognize inregular pupils and SEN pupils as those explaining their academic achievement arenot the same in all studied groups of pupils. Perceived traits explaining the academicachievement of regular students refer to academic as well as social and self-regula-tory behaviour, and an absence of disruptive behaviour; therefore, they cover allareas of perceived traits we studied. In SEN pupils, the factor No disruptive socialbehaviour proved insignificant, which consequently means that academic achieve-ment of SEN pupils depends more on academic and self-regulatory behaviour, taskactivity and social inclusion. Also, when analysing particular groups of SEN pupils,we established that first factor, No disruptive social behaviour, does not explaintheir academic achievement, and among other factors, mostly Academic and self-regulatory misbehaviour together with Inappropriate task activity seem to be themost important in explaining academic achievement.

Taking into account the fact that SEN pupils in Slovenian mainstream primaryschools are academically less achieving and socially less included than regularpupils (Peek et al., 2008), inclusion will require a lot of effort both at broader


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

13:

45 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

social and official levels, where the professional and medical discourses are verymuch present. Improving student behaviour and academic performance generallyrequires changing the school climate and the school culture. While making positivechanges in the school climate motivates staff and students to improve, thedistrict-level school culture must also change if school reforms are to be sustainedfor long-term improvement (Tableman, 2004).

Additionally, more attention should be paid to teacher education, which shouldaim to raise awareness of the power of their implicit expectations and their aware-ness of social construction regarding pupils handicaps. The class is namely a spacewhere surprising transactions between teachers and pupils are established and itdepends on teachers view of pupils what kind of interactions they will establishwith them, which consequently predicts pupils academic achievement. Theteachers perception of a pupils traits in class and their response dynamicallyinteract and form a circle which confirms and reaffirms this perception. The studyshould, therefore, be understood in the context of a transaction model.

We are aware that through a more detailed analysis of the causal dependencebetween pupils traits perceived by teachers and their academic achievement, itwould be worth conducting an analysis by measuring pupils knowledge withstandardized tests, thus decreasing the teachers influence on the assessment of apupils knowledge. It would also be worthwhile to include a larger sample mainly ofstudied groups of SEN pupils in the research and to explore more systematically theschool culture and climate as factors affecting both the pedagogical practices ofteachers as well as social-emotional and academic learning of pupils.

Findings of the present analysis undoubtedly show the necessity of such studiesas they allow important conclusions for planning work not only of teachers but alsoof other professional workers in schools. On the one hand, the traits teachers recog-nize in pupils may help predict pupils academic achievement, and on the other, theyexpress the need for clearer teacher reflection on which individual pupil traits influ-ence them, and which, from their perspective, are more constructive in achievinggood learning results, as well as what are their conceptions on the abilities of regularpupils and of SEN pupils. Finally, such studies may also contribute to more encour-aging pedagogic practices, allowing teachers to systematically encourage pupils tomore appropriate academic and self-regulatory behaviour, which would most likelycontribute to better learning results and indirectly to better social inclusion, sinceboth are, to some extent, determined by a pupils academic achievement.

Notes1. The research was financed by Slovenian Ministry of Education, Science and Sport.2. Primary school in Slovenia takes nine years; children start school at the age of six.

School is divided into three three-year triads: the first three years are taught by classteachers, the last three years by subject teachers and the second triad is taught by acombination of both.

3. At the primary and secondary level of education in Slovenia, there is a five-step gradingscale: 1 indicates unsatisfactory, 2 satisfactory, 3 good, 4 very good and 5 excellent.

ReferencesAlgozzine, B., Wang, C., & Violette, S. A. (2011). Reexamining the relationship between

academic achievement and social behaviour. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,13, 316.

372 I. Lesar et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

13:

45 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Antia, S. D., Stinson, M. S., & Gaustad, M. G. (2004). Developing membership in educationof deaf and hard-hearing students in inclusive settings. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Specialeducational needs and inclusive education: Major themes in education (Vol. II,pp. 463487). London: RoutledgeFalmer, Taylor & Francis Group.

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participationin schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.

Castro Silva, J., & Morgado, J. (2004). Teachers beliefs about the academic achievement ofstudents with special educational needs. British Journal of Special Education, 31, 207214.

Cohen, J., & Geier, V. K. (2010). School Climate Research Summary: New York, NY.Retrieved January 2010, from http:// www.schoolclimate.org/climate/research.php

Conners, C. K., Sitarenios, G., Parker, J. D., & Epstein, J. N. (1998). Revision and classroombehavior in public education settings. School Psychology Review, 26, 333370.

Cremin, H., & Thomas, G. (2005). Mainstreaming underclasses via contrastive judgement:Can inclusive education ever happen? British Journal of Educational Studies, 53, 431446.

Davis, P., & Hopwood, V. (2004). Including children with a visual impairment in themainstream primary school classroom. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Special educational needsand Inclusive education: Major themes in education (Vol. II, pp. 446462). London:RoutledgeFalmer, Taylor & Francis Group.

Decker, D. M., Dona, D. P., & Christenson, S. L. (2007). Behaviorally at-risk AfricanAmerican students: The importance of student-teacher relationships for student outcomes.Journal of School Psychology, 45, 83109.

Dyson, A., Howes, A., & Roberts, B. (2004). What do we really know about inclusiveschools? A systematic review of the research evidence. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Specialeducational needs and Inclusive education: Major themes in education (Vol. II,pp. 280294). London: RoutledgeFalmer, Taylor & Francis Group.

Ebersold, S. (2003). Inclusion and mainstream education: An equal cooperation system.European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18, 89107.

Gerschel, L. (2005). Connecting the disconnected: Exploring issues of gender, race andSEN within an inclusive context. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Special educational needs andInclusive education: Major themes in education (Vol. II, pp. 95110). London:RoutledgeFalmer, Taylor & Francis Group.

Gillen, A., Wright, A., & Spink, L. (2011). Students perceptions of a positive climate forlearning: A case study. Educational Psychology and Practice, 27, 6582.

Kobolt, A. (1992). Motivacijske in vedenjske strategije otrok in mladostnikov v domski vzgoji[Motivational and behavioural strategies of children and the young in residence hallseducation] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Koir, S. (2008). Uenci s posebnimi potrebami v zunanjem preverjanju znanja [Pupils withspecial needs in external knowledge assessment]. Defektologica Slovenica, 16, 6168.

Lesar, I. (2008). Analiza diskurzov in paradigem pri uresnievanju integracijskih ininkluzivnih teenj v olskih sistemih [The analysis of discourses and paradigms in therealisation of integration and inclusion tendencies in school systems]. ContemporaryPedagogy, 59, 90109.

Lesar, I., uk, I., & Peek, M. (2009). Uitelji o vedenjskih reakcijah uencev s posebnimipotrebami v redni osnovni oli [Teachers on behavioural reactions of pupils with specialneeds in regular primary schools]. Socialna pedagogika, 13, 335352.

Lesar, I., uk, I., & Peek, M. (2010). Prepoznane lastnosti, ki pojasnjujejo uni uspehobiajnih uencev in uencev s posebnimi potrebami [Perceived traits explainingacademic results of normal pupils and pupils with special needs]. Didactica Slovenica,25, 319.

Ministry of education and sport. (2000). Zakon o usmerjanju otrok s posebnimi potrebami[Placement of children with special needs act]. Ljubljana: Author.

Norwich, B. (2004). Education, inclusion and individual Differences: Recognising andresolving dilemmas. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Special educational needs and Inclusiveeducation: Major themes in education (Vol. II, pp. 101119). London: RoutledgeFalmer,Taylor & Francis Group.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

13:

45 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

http:// www.schoolclimate.org/climate/research.php

Office for Standards in Education. (2006). Improving behaviour: Lessons learned from HMImonitoring of secondary schools where behaviour had been judged unsatisfactory.Retrieved from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk

Peek, M., & Lesar, I. (2006). Pravinost slovenske ole: mit ali realnost? [Justice of schoolin Slovenia: Myth or reality?]. Ljubljana: Zaloba Sophia.

Peek, M., uk, I., & Lesar, I. (2008). Teachers perceptions of the inclusion of marginalisedgroups. Educational Studies, 34, 223237.

Pejak, S., Valeni Zuljan, M., Kalin, J., & Peklaj, C. (2009). Students social behaviour inrelation to their academic achievement in primary and secondary school: Teachersperspective. Psihologijske teme, 18, 5574.

Peetsma, T., Vergeer, M., Roeleveld, J., & Karsten, S. (2004). Inclusion in education:Comparing pupils development in special in regular education. In D. Mitchell (Ed.),Special educational needs and Inclusive education: Major themes in education (Vol. II,pp. 474487). London: RoutledgeFalmer, Taylor & Francis Group.

Poulou, M., & Norwich, B. (2000). Teachers perception of students with emotional andbehavioural difficulties: Severity and prevalence. European Journal of Special NeedsEducation, 15, 171187.

Salend, S. J., & Garrick Duhaney, L. M. (2004). The impact of inclusion on student with andwithout disabilities and their educators. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Special educational needsand Inclusive education: Major themes in education (Vol. II, pp. 488513). London:RoutledgeFalmer, Taylor & Francis Group.

Sameroff, A., & Mackenzie, M. J. (2003). Research strategies for capturing transactionalmodels of development: The limits of the possible. Development and Psychopathology,15, 613640.

Smrtnik Vituli H., & Zupani, M. (2009). Agreement among different groups of informantsreporting on adolescents personality [in Slovene]. Didactica Slovenica, 24, 87103.

Stangvik, G. (1998). Conflicting perspectives on learning disabilities. In C. Clark, A. Dyson,& A. Millward (Eds.), Theorising special education (pp. 137155). London: Routledge.

Sutherland, K. S., Lewis-Palmer, T., Stichter, J., & Morgan, P. L. (2008). Examining theinfluence of teacher behaviour and classroom context on the behavioural and academicoutcomes for students with emotional or behavioural disorders. The Journal of SpecialEducation, 41, 223233.

Sutherland, K. S., & Oswald, D. P. (2005). The relationship between teacher and studentbehaviour in classrooms for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Transac-tional processes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14(1), 114.

Tableman, B. (Ed.). (2004). Best practice briefs. University Outreach & Engagement, Boardof Trustees of Michigan State University. Retrieved from http://outreach.msu.edu/bpbriefs/issues/brief31.pdf

Topping, K., & Maloney, S. (Eds.). (2005). The Routledge Falmer reader in inclusive educa-tion. London: RoutledgeFalmer, Taylor & Francis Group.

University of Birmingham, School of Education. (2003). A study of children and youngpeople who present challenging behaviour. Retrieved from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for schoollearning. Review of Educational Research, 63, 249294.

Wehby, J., Symons, F. J., & Canale, J. A. (1998). Teaching practices in classrooms forstudents with emotional and behavioral disorders: Discrepancies between recommenda-tions and observations. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 5156.

Zupani, M., & Kavi, T. (2004). Middle and late childhood temperament and personality[in Slovene]. In L. Marjanovi Umek & M. Zupani (Eds.), Razvojna psihologija(pp. 440450). Ljubljana: Znanstveno raziskovalni intitut Filozofske fakultete.

Zupani, M., & Kavi, T. (2007). Longitudinal and simultaneous prediction of academicachievement in first-grade pupils [in Slovene]. olsko polje, 18, 141170.

Zupani, M., & Puklek Levpuek, M. (2005). Basic personality dimensions in adolescence:Their connection with motivational goals and beliefs in learning situations [in Slovene].olsko polje, 16, 333.

374 I. Lesar et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

13:

45 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.ofsted.gov.ukhttp://outreach.msu.edu/bpbriefs/issues/brief31.pdfhttp://outreach.msu.edu/bpbriefs/issues/brief31.pdfhttp://www.ofsted.gov.uk

Abstract Introduction Academic (non)achievement of pupils with special needs - how can this be explained? Recognized traits of pupils as an important factor of academic achievement The present study and the context of the research

Methodology Sample Instrument

Data collecting procedure and data processing Results and interpretation Academic achievement of regular pupils and of pupils with SEN Regular pupils and pupils with special needs as seen by teachers Traits which explain academic achievement of pupils

ConclusionNotesReferences

Documents

Teachers on perceived traits and academic achievements of regular pupils and pupils with special needs in mainstream primary schools