literature review of inclusive classroom

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

How Inclusive Interactive Learning Environments Benefit Students Without Special Needs

Silvia molina roldán.

1 Department of Pedagogy, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain

Jesús Marauri

2 Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain

Adriana Aubert

3 Department of Sociology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Ramon Flecha

Associated data.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Growing evidence in recent years has led to an agreement on the importance and benefits that inclusive education has for students with special educational needs (SEN). However, the extension and universalization of an inclusive approach will also be enhanced with more evidence on the benefits that inclusion has for all students, including those without SEN. Based on the existing knowledge that learning interactions among diverse students are a key component of educational inclusion, the aim of this study is to identify the impact on students without SEN of being educated with students with SEN in shared, inclusive, interactive learning environments. Data were collected in three schools using a qualitative approach with a communicative orientation. Semistructured interviews were held with teachers as well as community volunteers participating in the schools. Further, focus groups were conducted with students and teachers. The results show that students without SEN benefit from participating in interactive learning activities with peers with SEN in different ways: (1) they learn to respect others, accept differences, and acknowledge different abilities, thereby creating opportunities for new friendships to develop; (2) they learn about abilities related to helping others participate and learn, to be patient and to gain the satisfaction in helping others learn and behave better; and (3) they benefit from the cognitive effort required to explain themselves and from the contributions of peers with SEN from which they can learn.

Introduction

The extension and universalization of an inclusive approach is a goal and a challenge for educational systems around the globe, as reflected in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Inclusive education means that all children learn together in schools that recognize and respond to the diverse needs of students, ensure quality education for all through appropriate curricula, organization, teaching strategies and resource use ( UNESCO, 1994 ), and overcome the barriers to the presence, participation, and achievement of all students in general education classes ( UNESCO, 2017 ). However, the original idea of inclusive education focuses on the education of a particular group of students—those with special educational needs (SEN)—to overcome practices of special education that have traditionally segregated students based on a medical model of disability ( Kurth et al., 2018 ). In this regard, inclusive education is generally acknowledged as the venue to enhance both the learning and social development of students with disabilities and other SEN, and therefore the way to fulfill their right to shared quality education in mainstream settings ( United Nations, 2007 ). Consequently, discourse, arguments and research about inclusive education have often centered on the collective of students with SEN, and growing evidence has led to an agreement on the benefits that inclusive education has for these students, as found in reviews of recent research. For instance, the meta-analysis conducted by Oh-Young and Filler (2015) compared the outcomes of students with disabilities between placement settings and found that students in more integrated settings outperformed those in more segregated settings, both in the academic and social domains. The recent review of research by Kefallinou et al. (2020) concluded that there is plenty of research that justifies inclusion both from the educational and the social angles, due to the proven positive effects of educational inclusion on the academic outcomes of students with disabilities, and its positive impact on the subsequent social inclusion of people with disabilities in terms of further academic opportunities and qualifications, access to employment and developing personal relationships within the community.

Because inclusive education is about quality education for all, it is important to look at the potential benefits of inclusion for all students. In this regard, the fact that most of the research on inclusive education concerns categories of learners, particularly those with disabilities and other SENs, may cause us to overlook the impacts on other collectives of learners and may not be consistent with a definition of inclusive education geared toward all learners ( Messiou, 2017 ). The objective of extending and universalizing an inclusive approach would benefit from evidence showing that it is positive—or at least not negative—for all students, including those without SEN.

For this reason, some studies have considered the impact of inclusion on students without special needs. Some of these studies have examined the development of students’ attitudes, empathy and understanding of others. For instance, Smith and Williams (2001) showed that children without disabilities can be sensitive to the consequences of different types of impairments and generally have a positive perception of the capabilities of children with different kinds of impairments, which has positive implications for inclusion. Tafa and Manolitsis (2003) found that typically developing children educated in inclusive programs with children with SEN have increased respect, awareness, and acceptance of their peers’ needs, develop less prejudices, and learn to be more helpful and supportive toward people with disabilities, according to parents’ perspectives. This is consistent with other studies that concluded that inclusive education can play a role in challenging disabling attitudes by transforming non-disabled children’s attitudes toward people with disabilities, therefore contributing to building a more inclusive society ( Beckett, 2009 ). Grütter et al. (2017) analyzed the role of friendship between students with and without SEN and found that opportunities to forge close friendships between students with and without SEN enhance the positive attitudes of students without SEN toward students with SEN; this suggests that inclusive education may benefit from educational practices that actively promote friendship among students with and without SEN. Research has also studied the impact of inclusion on the development of cognitive abilities such as theory of mind (ToM), finding that children without SEN educated in inclusive classes with children with SEN develop a better ToM than their peers educated in traditional classes ( Smogorzewska et al., 2020 ). According to Smogorzewska et al. (2020) , a greater understanding of diversity, tolerance, acceptance of others and the use of prosocial behaviors in inclusive classrooms seem to promote ToM development.

Other studies have explored the impact on academic learning. Although some studies find that the presence of SEN students in regular classes is related to slightly lower performance of their peers without SEN (e.g., Hienonen et al., 2018 ), the conclusions of different reviews of research suggest the contrary. Ruijs and Peetsma (2009) revealed that inclusive education has neutral to positive effects for both students with and without SEN compared to non-inclusive education, especially regarding academic achievement. Focusing on the impacts of students without SEN, Kalambouka et al. (2007) showed no evidence of adverse effects of the inclusion of children with SEN, indicating that most findings involved positive or neutral effects on children without SEN. Similarly, Szumski, Smogorzewska and Karwowski’s meta-analysis (2017) underscored a significant and positive—although weak—effect of the presence of students with SEN on the academic achievement of students without SEN. In none of the examined conditions were significant negative impacts found; in contrast, they were at worst neutral and positive in many cases. More recently, Kefallinou et al. (2020) signaled in their review that the inclusion of students with disabilities did not negatively affect the learning outcomes or the social development of their peers without disabilities, and there was a small—but positive—impact on the academic achievement of students without SEN. In addition, the benefits of inclusive education were connected to effective classroom practices characterized by learning interactions, such as cooperative and dialogic learning, peer tutoring, or collaborative problem-solving, which are beneficial for all learners in the classroom ( Kefallinou et al., 2020 ). As argued in these studies, the results support the idea that inclusive education is not against the right of the majority of students to receive quality education, as not only students with SEN, but also those without SEN, may benefit from being educated together.

One of the key characteristics of inclusive educational environments is the opportunity to have rich and diverse learning interactions among heterogeneous students. The role of social interactions in children’s learning and development has long been investigated by psychologists of education since the onset of the sociocultural theory of learning ( Vygotsky, 1978 ; Bruner, 1996 ). Bruner’s concept of communities of mutual learners helps us to understand the benefits of learning interactions between peers in contexts of diversity. According to Bruner (1996) , group work in schools in the form of communities of mutual learners allows for an equilibrium between individuality and group effectiveness, ensuring that everyone progresses according to their ability and giving all children the opportunity “to enter the culture with awareness of what it is about and what one does to cope with it as a participant” (p. 82). Interactive learning spaces, especially when they are mediated by dialogue, permit collective thinking and learning, enhance academic achievement, social skills, and social cohesion, and are especially beneficial for vulnerable groups of students ( Fernández-Villardón et al., 2020 ; García-Carrión et al., 2020 ). Hence, the objectives of inclusive education would be better attained when such interactive and dialogic learning environments are promoted.

Interactive groups (IGs) and dialogic literary gatherings (DLGs) are specific interactive learning environments that take into account the value of diversity, interaction, and dialogue for learning. Both IGs and DLGs have been identified as successful educational actions (SEAs) that foster successful educational outcomes in diverse student populations ( Flecha, 2015 ). In IGs, classrooms are arranged into small groups of heterogeneous students (e.g., 4–5 students each) who work on instrumental learning activities (especially literacy and math) proposed by the teacher using interaction and dialogue to help each other solve the activity, while a volunteer from the community (e.g., a family member, a former student, or a neighbor) supports each group, dynamizing students’ interactions and mutual help. IGs boost students’ academic learning and—due to the solidary bases of the IG, where students are prompted to help each other—improve the school climate; new friendships are also encouraged, as well as multicultural coexistence ( García-Carrión and Díez-Palomar, 2015 ; Valero et al., 2018 ; Zubiri-Esnaola et al., 2020 ).

Dialogic literary gatherings consist of debating books from classical literature that students have previously read. After agreeing to the chapters that will be discussed at the next gathering, students read the text individually or with help from their family members, a teacher, or a peer, and select a piece of text they found relevant to share at the gatherings. There, they discuss and reflect on the text based on the principles of dialogic learning ( Flecha, 2000 ). DLGs contribute not only to a better understanding of the text, but also enhance students’ reading, reasoning, and argumentative abilities, and deepen understanding of others’ perspectives and emotional well-being ( García-Carrión, 2015 ; Garcia et al., 2018 ; Foncillas et al., 2020 ).

Both DLGs and IGs have been implemented with students with SEN included in mainstream classrooms, and shared with students without SEN. The interactive learning environments created through IGs and DLGs improve the learning and relationships of students with SEN; therefore IGs and DLGs encompass inclusive learning environments ( Duque et al., 2020 ). Less is known about the impact of IGs and DLGs on students without SEN when they are shared with students with SEN. The aim of this study is to identify impacts for students without SEN of being educated with students with SEN in shared, inclusive, interactive learning environments such as IGs and DLGs.

Materials and Methods

This research is a qualitative study of schools that implement interactive learning environments—specifically interactive groups (IGs) and dialogic literary gatherings (DLGs)—with students with and without special needs. The study was conducted within the framework of a broader competitive research project titled “Interactive learning environments for the inclusion of students with and without disabilities: Improving learning, development and relationships” (INTER-ACT). More specifically, this study is part of the project’s second objective: “To analyze in depth successful cases of schools implementing IGs and DLGs with students with disabilities to identify the best conditions to increase the impact on the improvement of learning, development, and relationships.”

The specific objectives of this study were: (1) to determine whether participating in IGs and DLGs with students with SEN has an impact in terms of learning and/or development for children without SEN; (2) to identify types of impacts on students without SEN as a result of participating in IGs and DLGs with students with SEN; and (3) to understand how these impacts are related to being educated with students with SEN in shared, inclusive, interactive learning environments such as IGs and DLGs.

Data from the three mainstream educational centers that participated in the second objective of the INTER-ACT project were considered. These centers were one primary school, one primary and secondary school, and one secondary school that educate students with and without special needs in shared learning environments, and which have already implemented interactive learning environments (IGs and DLGs) in the framework of an inclusive project. The schools were selected for their participation in the INTER-ACT project according to the following criteria: (a) schools that had been organizing classrooms in IGs and/or DLGs for at least two academic years; (b) these schools serve a higher percentage of students with disabilities than the average in the region; (c) these schools implement IGs and DLGs inclusively, involving students with SEN with their peers who do not have SEN; and (d) these schools had observed improvements in their students, recorded through quantitative or qualitative evidence, since they have implemented IGs and/or DLGs.

Data Collection

Qualitative data were collected in each school with the aim of understanding, from the participants’ experiences, how the interactive learning environments that were being facilitated with students with and without SEN contributed to students’ cognitive and social development. The data collection techniques used were semistructured interviews with teachers and community volunteers participating in the schools, and focus groups with students and teachers (see Table 1 ). For the purpose of data collection, students with SEN were considered those with an official report that entailed learning difficulties in the school context. Conversely, students without SEN were those without an official report and who did not present particular learning difficulties in the school context. Purposeful sampling was employed to select participants who could be especially knowledgeable about the object of study. In all cases, the participants selection was agreed with the school principals to select those participants that could be more representative. All data collection techniques were carried out on the school premises for the participant convenience. Interviews with teachers lasted between 60 and 75 min. The duration of the focus groups was approximately 40 min for teachers and between 30 and 45 min for students. In the case of volunteers, interviews lasted approximately 20 min.

Data collection techniques implemented in each school.

Participant teachers in the interviews and in the focus groups were selected based on their experience of implementing IGs and/or DLGs with students with and without SEN. All of them had been implementing IGs and/or DLGs and all of them had—at the moment of the data collection or in the past—students with SEN participating in IGs and/or DLGs together with students without SEN.

Two interviews with teachers were conducted, one in school 1 and one in school 3. They were female teachers in both cases. The teacher interviewed at school 1 was the school principal and a language teacher who implemented DLGs with the two sixth-grade classes, which contained five students with SEN. She had more than 10 years of experience facilitating IGs and DLGs. The teacher interviewed in school 3 taught the third grade of compulsory secondary education. In that class, eight students had SEN.

Two focus groups were held with teachers, one in school 1 and one in school 2. In school 1, four female teachers participated. One of them was a teacher in the first and second grades of primary education, another was a teacher in the third and fourth grades, and two more were teachers in the fifth and sixth grades. They had between 4 and 12 years of experience in the school implementing IGs and/or DLGs. In school 2, three female teachers participated. One of them was a teacher of first and second grade, another was a special education teacher, and the third was a teacher of second grade of compulsory secondary education and educational advisor. They had between 1 and 10 years of experience in the school implementing IGs and/or DLGs.

Three focus groups were held with students, two in school 1 and one in school 3. In school 1, one focus group was conducted with each of the two sixth-grade classes. They have been implementing IGs since second grade and DLGs since third grade. In these classes, cases of special needs included hearing impairment and intellectual disability (one boy), intellectual disability (one boy), dyslexia (two boys and one girl) and ADHD (one boy). Five students participated in the first focus group (three boys and two girls), and seven participated in the second focus group (five girls and two boys). In the first group, there was one girl and one boy with SEN, and in the second group, there was one boy with SEN. In school 3, one focus group was conducted with two girls: one in second grade of compulsory secondary education, and one in third grade of compulsory secondary education. Both participated in IGs and DLGs. One of them had special needs (a syndrome entailing visual and hearing impairment, as well as an intellectual disability) and participated in IGs and DLGs with her classmates without special needs, while the other student did not have SEN and had a classmate with autism who participated in IGs and DLGs along with the rest of the class.

Finally, two interviews were conducted in school 2 with two male volunteers who participated in IGs in classes containing students with and without SEN. One of them had taken part in IGs in preprimary and primary education classes for 2 years, while the other had participated in IGs for 3 years in fifth and sixth grades of primary education and in third grade of compulsory secondary education.

Both the interviews and the focus groups included questions regarding, on the one hand, the characteristics of the implementation of the interactive learning environments and, on the other, the impacts on the participating students. The data collection was conducted using a communicative orientation that involves creating the conditions for egalitarian dialogue between researchers and the end-users of research to reach a shared interpretation of the reality being studied ( Gómez et al., 2019 ). Sample questions for teachers and volunteers included: “How would you describe the interactions between students with SEN and their peers without SEN when they participate in IGs and/or DLGs?” “Have these interactions between students changed over time?” “Have you observed an impact on students that could be related to such interactions?” Sample questions for students were: “How do you work in IGs and DLGs with your classmates?,” “When you or some of your classmates have some difficulties when participating in IGs or DLGs, what do you do?,” “Have you improved on something since you have taken part in IGs and DLGs?,” “And your classmates?,” “Can you give an example?”

Before data collection, school boards and individual participants were informed about the aims of the research. All participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that the data would be recorded anonymously. Informed consent was obtained from the participant teachers and community volunteers and from the parents or guardians of the minors. To ensure ethical integrity of the study, the research responded to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by UNESCO, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2000/C 364/01) regarding scientific and ethical procedures, the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity ( ALLEA, 2017 ), the Ethics Review Procedure established by the European Commission (2013) for EU research, and the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. The study was fully approved by the Ethics Board of the Community of Researchers on Excellence for All (CREA).

Data Analysis

Interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcriptions were subsequently revised to identify the excerpts that referred to interactions between students with and without SEN that could indicate an impact on students without SEN. A second reading was conducted to identify recurrent themes that emerged from the excerpts, and three main themes were identified that led to the inductive creation of the three categories of analysis: (1) impact on students’ attitudes, (2) impact on students’ social skills, and (3) impact on students’ academic learning and cognitive development (see Table 2 ). One researcher coded the excerpts according to the categories created; some excerpts were assigned to more than one category. Subsequently, a second researcher revised the coded excerpts, taking into account the definition of the categories. The second researcher agreed on the coding and proposed the assignment of some of the citations to additional categories. The final coding was agreed upon by both researchers.

Categories of analysis.

The results of our analysis allowed us to identify a series of impacts for students without SEN of sharing interactive learning environments with students with SEN. According to the categories of analysis, our findings show that participating together in learning activities, mediated by interaction and dialogue, allows students without SEN to: (1) build understanding and respectful attitudes toward diversity; (2) learn about social abilities related to facilitating others’ learning; and (3) enhance opportunities for academic learning and cognitive development as a result of engaging in learning together, exchanging questions and knowledge. As seen in Table 2 , the category with a higher number of quotes is (1) impact on students’ attitudes, with more than half of the quotes referring to such an impact, followed by (2) impact on students’ social skills, and finally by (3) impact on students’ academic learning and cognitive development.

Building Positive Attitudes Toward Diversity in Interactive Learning Environments Shared With Peers With Special Needs

Category 1 included evidence regarding the attitudes of students without SEN toward students with SEN when they learned together in IGs and/or DLGs. Participants in the three schools, including teachers, students and volunteers, provided evidence in this regard.

When students without SEN share interactive learning environments with students with SEN, they have unique opportunities to learn firsthand about diversity. They share their learning time and space with peers of the same age, who often need special attention because of their individual characteristics, which differ to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways from those of most students. This is a necessary first step to develop positive attitudes on diversity and educational and social inclusion, which cannot be completely achieved when education on respect for diversity, valuing its potential, and educational and social inclusion is not based on the daily experiences of sharing these learning opportunities with individuals with SEN, who have a face and a name. However, interactive learning environments allow students to share not only learning space and time, but also interactions and dialogue around shared learning activities (such as solving a math problem or sharing a personal reflection on an excerpt from a book), which create opportunities to learn about diversity and its value based on the personal experiences of those individuals with whom the activity is shared. In this way, students can learn about diversity with those children who have not only a name and a face but also a personality, preferences, and struggles.

Ana, a secondary education student without SEN who has a classmate with autism spectrum disorder, Jose, explained that getting to know him in the school allowed her to learn about diversity in a way that she could not have done before:

• Until I first entered this school last year, I had no idea what the communication and language classroom was, I had no idea that there were people with ASD who could be in schools like this, I was not aware at all of this. However, when I arrived in this school, they put me in the class with Jose, and when I saw him, I said “wow” and I don’t know, from that moment on, he transmitted something to me that made me feel that he was special and that I was going to help him in some way. In addition, as time went by, Jose turned my life around. (Student, school 3)

The interactive learning environment fostered in the classroom, where students learn in dialogue with others, is, according to teachers, what generates the opportunity to acknowledge diversity, while students learn that it is part of human diversity and normalize it:

• I believe that it favors inclusion, for sure, because they talk constantly, leaving the classic model of children sitting alone, individually. So yes, they are all integrated. As she said, they always look the same to each other; they do know that one has more difficulties in one thing or another, but they all treat each other equally. (Teachers’ focus group, school 1)

Teachers in the different schools reported a change in attitudes in their students without SEN, who in the interactive learning environments learned about difference, learned to accept it, and to be more respectful about it. Teachers referred, on the one hand, to children’s acknowledgement of individual differences in their peers’ learning process, which became evident as learning activities were shared among the class, either in small interactive groups or in dialogic literary gatherings with the entire class. Students understood that children could learn at different paces and that they can need different kinds of support or adapted materials, but this does not mean that they cannot share the experience of learning; as one teacher explained: “a dynamic of respect and understanding that not everyone does the same has been created” (Teacher, school 1). Importantly, being aware of these differences does not turn into a stigmatization of students with SEN; in contrast, knowing them allows their peers to learn more about their weaknesses, and to better understand their performance in class. The example of shared reading activities illustrates this impact on students’ attitudes:

• And the other students, for me this is important, they respect their reading rhythm, they respect it, they know that, depending on which children, they go slowly because they have difficulties, but nobody says so, because we all know that they have difficulties and that they go at their own pace and, if they read it slowly, they understand it well. (Teacher, school 1)

Special needs can be related to areas of curricular learning, but can also be expressed in other ways. Teachers’ experience shows that in interactive learning environments, children learn to be more understanding about other types of difficulties, such as behavioral problems that their classmates may exhibit. Although it may sometimes be annoying, they develop the understanding that these children do not have, at that moment, the ability to behave better and learn to accept it, while teachers work to improve children’s ability to control their behavior. This is the case of what this teacher explained:

• There are days when these children—I’m thinking of another one who hasn’t taken the medication—then, he comes in very nervous, he doesn’t stop making noises, he doesn’t shut up. Obviously, holding the gatherings in these conditions is very hard, but they are there, and the group already understand that this child acts this way because he has no other way to do it. Therefore, I think that they have all learned to accept the difference. (Teacher, school 1)

Overall, these episodes show the opportunities created for children without SEN to better understand children with SEN, to be more sensitive to others’ needs, and to be more empathetic. From the perspective of teachers, interactive learning environments such as DLGs entail the learning of values that facilitate the transformation of attitudes. These values emerge from the reading of classic works of literature, which is characteristic of a DLG, where topics such as love, friendship, truth, loyalty, and courage become part of the debate:

• In the gatherings many values arise, students work a lot on values and then have a more complete experience, and they share, and they make. They feel empathy for each other. (.) in the classroom it is very difficult for them to put themselves in the other’s place (.) but in the gatherings it isn’t, empathy does come out. (Teacher, school 1)

This learning of values and empathy is also related to the fact that in DLGs, children often link the episodes of reading to episodes about their own lives or other realities they know of. This is how children expressed this idea in their own way:

• Because when we give our opinion in the gatherings, sometimes he explains something of his life, and so when he says it, we know slightly more about him, and he says more and more things about his life, and so we get to know each other better and become [better] friends, because in this way we get to know each other much more easily. (Student, school 1)

In this process of knowing their classmates with SEN better as a result of sharing interactive learning environments, children also learn that each individual has different abilities, that all of them may need help at some point, and can help others as well, and that the best learning outcomes are obtained when they share these abilities and help each other. IGs facilitate this process, as in IGs all group members are expected to ensure that all other members understand the activity and complete it; therefore, everyone shares the knowledge and abilities they have and that can contribute to the group work. Teachers in one of the schools reflected on this idea, which also contributed to the change of perceptions and attitudes mentioned, as typically developing students realize that students with SEN have challenges but also have abilities: “In those moments they have truly helped each other. Then, they have realized that it is not always the same people who have to help, but they, who have a challenge, are good at it.” (Teachers’ focus group, school 1)

This acknowledgement of diversity (including difficulties, but also possibilities and diverse abilities), which is due to sharing interactive learning environments, facilitates overcoming prejudices. Students with SEN start to be seen not only as those with poor learning, that always struggle and usually need help, but also as students who are capable of learning and making progress, as one teacher noted:

• Academically brilliant boys and girls, who perhaps in third grade looked at these classmates and even knowing them since they were in preschool [3 or 4 years old] thought, “Well, this is clear, they don’t know anything,” have made a positive change because they see these children as classmates with the possibility of learning. (Teacher, school 1)

As shown in this quote from a teacher’s interview, it was not the fact of being educated in the same classroom with SEN students that shaped a realistic perception of their difficulties and capabilities (since both SEN and typically developing students had been educated together for years). Rather the opportunity to learn in interactions with SEN students allowed students without SEN to transform their perceptions and attitudes. Along the same lines, in view of Ana, sharing learning opportunities with her classmate Jose entailed learning that everyone has both difficulties and abilities, and that these can be overcome:

• Jose has taught me that many times people have barriers, because we all have barriers, whether it is at the time of learning, at the time of adults finding a job. Whatever, anything, but there is always a way to overcome them, always, and Jose has taught me many things. In fact, I think he has taught me more than I have taught him. (Student, school 3)

This involved shifting the focus from difficulties to possibilities and transforming learning expectations toward them. Importantly, the peer group learned that students with SEN were not only able to learn, but also contributed to the learning of others, which reinforces this change in expectations and the overcoming of prejudices. This might help typically developing students learn to value people not only based on their more evident characteristics—as may be the case with SEN in the school context—but also to pay attention to other traits (which are sometimes hidden) that can give a broader picture of a person and allow for identifying other enriching features. According to teachers, interactive learning environments such as IGs and DLGs permit this to happen:

• And from that moment on, I think, that’s when we all realized that children like Javi can participate by making very good contributions, and that girls like Laura don’t know everything. I think that this was a very important moment. (Teacher, school 1)

Further, this greater knowledge of peers with SEN and the development of respect for diversity has led in some cases to the blossoming of new friendships. Ana talked about her special relationship with Jose as something that makes going to school more meaningful for her: “And one of the reasons why I love coming to school is to have Jose’s smile there every morning (.) and it’s something I wouldn’t change for anything in the world” (Student, school 3). Blanca, a girl with SEN in the same secondary school, explained something similar in terms of when she thinks of her classmate and friend Jaume:

• Like Ana said, she is very happy with Jose. I am exactly the same with Jaume (.) I am very happy with him and I am happy to have him as a friend, and he is special and very important to me. (Student, school 3)

The building of these friendships not only has had an impact within the school, but has also transferred and expanded the benefits of interactions between students with and without disabilities to new contexts outside school premises and across time, as a teacher in that school explained:

• [His] friendship within the school [was] prolonged on weekends (.) He has come to meet [his] friends of the classroom to go out to dinner 1 day, to see a movie and that is very interesting (.) I think the fact of having worked in groups has facilitated doing things, not only in his group of six, because these groups have been changing more or less. (Teacher, school 3)

Learning Social Skills Related to Helping Others Participate and Learn

Category 2 included evidence regarding an impact on the social abilities of students without SEN as a result of learning together with students with SEN in IGs and/or DLGs. Participants in the three schools, including teachers, students and volunteers, offered evidence in this regard.

In addition to the transformation of thoughts, attitudes and the acknowledgment of others’ abilities and difficulties, engaging in learning interactions with peers with SEN helps to develop a series of social skills. Children acquire these skills because they are necessary to interact with their classmates in IGs and DLGs, specially with those with SEN. These interactive learning environments pose this demand, and these skills become part of the repertoire of abilities that children can use in multiple contexts and with diverse people. First, in interactive learning environments such as IGs and DLGs, children are expected to help each other; thus, children progressively get used to and develop this ability to support their peers, as well as receiving help when necessary. Both teachers and volunteers reflected on the way children learned about this ability through time: “Last year I did notice a change, yes (.) in the end they learn to collaborate, above all, to help each other, and that it goes well, and the work comes out, which is what we are looking for.” (Volunteer, school 2)

With the practice of helping each other in interactive and diverse learning environments, children come to see that collaboration among all helps everyone’s learning, as it allows for one to take advantage of the diverse abilities in the group; therefore, they become progressively more motivated and more proficient in this activity:

• Everyone has some skills; some have some skills for one thing and others have some skills and some abilities for another. After all, if there is a collaboration between all, it is where you have to reach an end, and they help each other to reach this end. (Teacher, school 2)

Once they acquire this ability, they use it to help anyone who needs it, including children with more learning difficulties; they normalize helping others and realize they can make a difference in the learning opportunities of the students with the most difficulties. Therefore, and as a volunteer explained, all students in her class were willing to help those who were more in need: “Yes, let’s say, the whole group was dedicated to helping them” (Volunteer, school 2). Consequently, when they share learning activities with students who especially struggle with learning, they find the opportunity to strengthen this ability to help. Blanca explained something similar when not just one, but three classmates went to help her with the activity:

• For example, in History, we also do [interactive] groups. We were doing a mapping exercise and (.) I got lost a little bit, then I asked my classmate sitting next to me to help me and so on, then she came to help me, then two more came to help me, and I was happy because I did not make myself clear, I got nervous, I did not know how to do it, then (.) they came to help me (.), and that is the best thing about being in a group. (Student, school 3)

Second, in this attempt to help their peers with SEN and facilitate their participation in interactive learning environments, they learn to adjust their interactions to the particular needs of each child. For instance, they learn to be patient and to give the necessary time when their peers have a slower learning pace, which is an evidence of the empathy developed:

• In the gatherings they have also learned to give time. For example, a girl I have in class has a hard time explaining herself, but in the end, she gets it out. Therefore, they have learned to be patient with her and not to stand up and let her talk. Then, in the end, they realize that she does, that she gets out, that she explains well. (Teacher, school 1)

In this regard, they learn to provide adjusted support, building on the abilities they acknowledge in these peers, and try to find alternative ways so that these children can participate in the activity. This entails a metacognitive effort when they try to understand what these children know and how they can help them participate in the activity and progress in their learning.

• The atmosphere in the classroom, when there is a group with a child with SEN, the others, as they live it in their daily life, apart from understanding the difficulty he has and stay on their level, they also look for ways in which he can participate and get involved in some way in the activity. (Teacher, school 1)

This effort to facilitate the learning and participation of children with SEN becomes part of the class routine. so as the teachers explained, it unites the group around this shared purpose and the group members become more sensitive to the needs of their peers. This is also achieved thanks to the guidance that teachers and volunteers provide in order to help typically developing students adjust the support they offer to their SEN peers, and also to encourage typically developing students to help their SEN peers while avoiding overprotection:

• In other words, their classmates, or at least what I experience from my class, they are very supportive and, as Maria said, they are very sensitive on this subject. In this case, I have two students [with SEN], and they take care of them, not too much, because they must be reminded to let them think, too. However, they do take them very much into account in regard to working in [interactive] groups. They try to make sure they can participate like everyone else. Of course, within their possibilities. (Teacher, school 1)

As a result, the situations created not only turn into a higher ability to help others, but also in the satisfaction of seeing others learn better due to their help, which reinforces this behavior. Teachers noted this impact on children: “They help each other and it is going very well; and they love it, it is something they like very much” (Teacher, school 2), as well as students themselves: “And, when you help him and you see that he understood it, you feel satisfied” (Student, school 2). “When I help Joan or even when Joan helps me more, I feel more fulfilled with myself, happier” (Student, school 3). Such rewarding experiences motivates them to continue participating in these activities and to help others, which benefits everyone’s learning.

Enhancing the Opportunities for Academic Learning and Cognitive Development

Category 3 included evidence regarding opportunities for the academic learning and cognitive development of students without SEN when they learned together with students with SEN in IGs and/or DLGs. Participants in school 1 and school 2, including teachers, students and volunteers, mentioned this type of impact.

Sharing learning activities with students with SEN in interactive learning environments triggers an additional cognitive effort for typically developing children when they try to explain themselves to their peers with SEN. It entails, on the one hand, putting oneself in the other’s shoes, trying to understand his/her difficulties and thinking of how to help him/her overcome these difficulties, thus gaining from the cognitive effort made and reinforcing their learning. On the other hand, it also entails discovering one’s own difficulties when trying to make oneself be understood and to do one’s best to achieve it. In this regard, such situations allow students who do not usually have learning challenges to experience them, and underscore the need to make an effort to achieve their objective, which contributes to being more empathetic and understanding of their peers with SEN and, sometimes, humbler regarding their own abilities, as one volunteer explained:

• They do this effort of trying to make them be understood by the other, and this is very interesting, as the know-it-all can see his/her own limitations with respect to the others. Therefore, it demands a much greater effort from oneself than usual. (Volunteer, school 2)

In addition, in interactive learning environments, students without SEN can learn from the explanations and contributions of children with SEN. IGs and DLGs are characterized by promoting a framework of open and egalitarian dialogue where all contributions are valued based on validity claims (i.e., the value of the contribution’s content, regardless of who made the contribution, and in this case, regardless of whether it is a student with or without SEN). Learning from students with SEN can occur both in IGs and in DLGs when these students have a good understanding of the concepts they are working on. As noted by one teacher, these episodes are opportunities for the entire group to learn:

• Children with many special difficulties, have been the ones who have given the clarification, the definition, the explanation for the rest of the group to understand, and this has created a situation, which is not seen, but it is noticed, of improvement for all. (Teacher, school 1)

In DLGs, it also occurs when children with SEN share the paragraph or idea they selected to bring to the gathering, or when they raise doubts about the meaning of particular words that other students had not paid attention to—although they might not understand it either—and this opens up a debate on the meaning of that word or on the ideas of that paragraph that may have not existed without the participation of these children. In the following quote from a teacher, we find first a reference to those situations when a child with SEN does not understand something and their peers explain it to him/her, provoking the additional cognitive effort of trying to make something be understood. Next, we find the reference to these other situations when children with SEN contribute to the group bringing their questions, doubts, and interventions to the gathering, opening a learning opportunity for all:

• If they do not understand it, their classmates explain the meaning to them. Then, when we do this rereading of the chapter or the pages, other vocabulary words often appear that, perhaps nobody had chosen or they do not know the meaning of, and then another debate starts about knowing what it means. Or someone raises their hand and says, “I had not chosen this because when I read it perhaps it did not catch my attention, but now when I reread the chapter, I want to comment on it,” and right after it is commented on. This is done both by children with SEN and by the rest of the class, regardless of their level of ability and everything else. A climate is created that is similar to magic. (Teacher, school 1)

According to the participants’ experiences, interactive learning environments shared between students with and without SEN create the opportunity for all to acknowledge that everyone has abilities and difficulties. Children with SEN can surprise others with their questions, responses, and contributions, generating new opportunities for learning, and everyone can learn that children without SEN do not always know everything. As one teacher explained based on her experience over the years, the fact that children with SEN share interactive learning environments with their peers without SEN has not only benefitted these SEN children, but also the dynamics of the classroom, as it is enriched with diversity, and therefore becomes a benefit for all:

• The fact that these children are in the group—and I can talk about it already for the past 4 years—has improved the dynamics of the gatherings. I think it has been beneficial for everyone, and I am sure it has, because they make interventions that even they themselves are often surprised to have made, and their peers have seen this. (Teacher, school 1)

Interactive groups and DLGs are interactive learning environments that have already been demonstrated to be inclusive and lead to positive academic and social impacts for students with SEN ( Duque et al., 2020 ). The study presented here is the first to analyze the potential impacts of IGs and DLGs on students without SEN when they share these interactive learning environments with students with SEN. The results of our study show that students without SEN can benefit from participating in interactive learning environments (such as IGs and DLGs) with peers with SEN in at least three different ways: (1) building positive attitudes as they learn to respect others, accept differences, and acknowledge different abilities, creating opportunities for new friendships; (2) enhancing their social skills, as they learn about abilities related to helping others participate and learn, to be patient, and gain satisfaction from helping others learn; and (3) producing opportunities to enhance academic learning and foster cognitive development, as they gain from the cognitive effort needed to explain themselves and from the contributions of peers with SEN from which they can learn. Importantly, we did not find negative impacts for students without SEN or for those with SEN as a result of sharing these interactive learning environments. In contrast, all impacts identified—either at the attitudinal, social, or cognitive level—were positive for both groups of students.

In the cases studied, children without SEN developed positive attitudes toward diversity in IGs and DLGs. This is in the line of previous research which found that inclusive educational environments are related to more positive attitudes toward diversity, and especially more positive attitudes among typically developing peers toward children with disabilities or other SEN ( Smith and Williams, 2001 ; Beckett, 2009 ). It is also consistent with research that found that solidarity can be learned in the school context and that it contributes to creating genuine attitudes of inclusion beyond the norms that benefit everyone ( Hernández Arteaga et al., 2020 ).

Additionally, we found that students without SEN had the opportunity to develop social skills when they learned together with students with SEN in IGs and DLGs. Identifying particular types of classroom arrangements and learning dynamics (such as IGs and DLGs) that help one to cultivate such attitudes and skills is important not only for students with SEN—who are more respected, accepted, and integrated in their group of peers—but also beneficial for students without SEN. Attitudes of understanding diverse identities; the values of justice, equality, dignity and respect; cognitive skills (including the ability to adopt a multiperspective approach); social skills (such as empathy and conflict resolution), communication skills and aptitudes for interacting with diverse people, and the capacity to act collaboratively and responsibly have been highlighted as key competences necessary in the 21st century ( UNESCO, 2014 ).

Moreover, we found a positive impact of the interactive learning environments created with IGs and DLGs on opportunities for the learning and cognitive development of children without SEN. This is in line with previous research comparing the learning outcomes of students without SEN, who are educated with students with SEN, and those who are not, which overall revealed no negative impacts on these students but, on the contrary, positive impacts or neutral in the worst cases ( Kalambouka et al., 2007 ; Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ; Szumski et al., 2017 ; Kefallinou et al., 2020 ).

These findings should be taken cautiously. On the one hand, because the study is based on a reduced sample, the conclusions cannot be generalized. On the other hand, because data were collected in schools that were already implementing IGs and DLGs, a pre-post intervention comparison cannot be made to ascertain the changes that occurred in students without SEN due to sharing IGs and DLGs with students with SEN. Finally, the qualitative nature of the data facilitates an understanding of the reality studied but does not allow for a precise assessment of the impacts on students without SEN. Subsequent research could expand the analysis to a broader sample and include an examination of quantitative data, especially of students’ academic progress, since the third category of analysis (impact on students’ academic learning and cognitive development) is the one for which we obtained the least evidence.

However, as the first study on this topic, this research enables an initial approximation based on the participants’ experiences, which is consistent with previous knowledge and can be the basis for further investigation. First, it is in line with the results of previous research on DLGs and IGs which shows their impact on improving students’ academic learning, a better understanding of others and positive coexistence ( García-Carrión, 2015 ; García-Carrión and Díez-Palomar, 2015 ; Garcia et al., 2018 ; Valero et al., 2018 ; Foncillas et al., 2020 ; Zubiri-Esnaola et al., 2020 ). Our study suggests that sharing IGs and DLGs with students with SEN creates new conditions in which these improvements can be promoted. Second, it is aligned with past research on inclusion, which has associated the benefits of inclusive education with classroom practices characterized by interaction, dialogue, and collaboration ( Kefallinou et al., 2020 ), all of which are characteristics of IGs and DLGs and could thus explain the benefits observed. Third, it is in line with theoretical contributions that refer to the relevant role of peer help and other forms of sharing learning interactions. When children try to explain learning content to their peers with SEN or try to help them solve a problem, they expand what Vygotsky called the zone of proximal development (1978) or what Bruner called scaffolding (1996). Both authors emphasized (stemming from the sociocultural theory of learning) the importance of interactions for children’s learning and argued that these interactions could emerge not only from adults but also from more capable peers. Interactions allow for the creation of shared learning ( Mercer and Littleton, 2007 ), and our data indicate that more capable peers can also benefit from these interactions and find opportunities to advance their learning and cognitive development. Indeed, research has suggested thinking of the zone of proximal development not in terms of knowledge transmission, but as an encounter of consciousness that mutually benefits the participants in the interaction ( Roth and Radford, 2010 ).

Although further research is necessary to have a more precise description of the impact of IGs and DLGs for students without SEN when they share these learning environments with students with SEN, the evidence presented can contribute to the understanding that inclusive education not only benefits the most vulnerable students (such as students with disabilities and other SENs), but can also benefit all students when interactions and dialogue are promoted in contexts of diversity. Therefore, it is the right of everyone—with or without SEN—to be educated in inclusive, interactive learning environments, as they produce unique conditions for the academic and human development of all students.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Ethics Board of the Community of Researchers on Excellence for All (CREA). Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

Author Contributions

RF conceptualized the research. SM conducted the literature review, a preliminary analysis of the data, and a first draft of the manuscript. JM revised the data analysis. RF, AA, and JM revised the manuscript and provided feedback and corrections. SM revised the final version of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

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.

Funding. This study was funded by INTER-ACT: Interactive learning environments for the inclusion of students with and without disabilities: improving learning, development and relationships, The Spanish National Program for Research Aimed at the Challenges of Society, Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness. Reference Number: EDU2017-88666-R.

• ALLEA (2017). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Available online at: https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf [accessed January 5, 2021] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckett A. E. (2009). Challenging disabling attitudes, building an inclusive society: considering the role of education in encouraging non-disabled children to develop positive attitudes towards disabled people. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 30 317–329. 10.1080/01425690902812596 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bruner J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duque E., Gairal R., Molina S., Roca E. (2020). How psychology of education contributes to research with social impact on the education of students with special needs: the case of successful educational actions. Front. Psychol. 11 : 439 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission (2013). Ethics for Researchers. Facilitating Research Excellence in FP7. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/89888/ethics-for-researchers_en.pdf [accessed January 5, 2021] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernández-Villardón A., Álvarez P., Ugalde L., Tellado I. (2020). Fostering the social development of children with special educational needs or disabilities (send) through dialogue and interaction: a literature review. Soc. Sci. 9 : 97 . 10.3390/socsci9060097 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flecha R. (2000). Sharing Words: Theory and Practice of Dialogic Learning. Lanham, M.D: Rowman & Littlefield. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flecha R. (2015). Successful Educational Action for Inclusion and Social Cohesion in Europe. Berlin: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foncillas M., Santiago-Garabieta M., Tellado I. (2020). Análisis de las tertulias literarias dialógicas en educación primaria: un estudio de caso a través de las voces y dibujos argumentados del alumnado. Multidisciplinary J. Educ. Res. 10 205–225. 10.17583/remie.2020.5645 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garcia C., Gairal R., Munté A., Plaja T. (2018). Dialogic literary gatherings and out-of-home child care: creation of new meanings through classic literature. Child Fam. Soc. Work 23 62–70. 10.1111/cfs.12384 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García-Carrión R. (2015). What the dialogic literary gatherings did for me. Qualitative Inquiry 21 913–919. 10.1177/1077800415614305 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García-Carrión R., Díez-Palomar J. (2015). Learning communities: pathways for educational success and social transformation through interactive groups in mathematics. Eur. Educ. Res. J. 14 151–166. 10.1177/1474904115571793 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García-Carrión R., López, de Aguileta G., Padrós M., Ramis-Salas M. (2020). Implications for social impact of dialogic teaching and learning. Front. Psychol. 11 : 140 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gómez A., Padrós M., Ríos O., Mara L. C., Pukepuke T. (2019). Reaching social impact through communicative methodology. researching with rather than on vulnerable populations: the roma case. Front. Educ. 4 : 9 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Grütter J., Gasser L., Malti T. (2017). The role of cross-group friendship and emotions in adolescents’ attitudes towards inclusion. Res. Dev. Disabil. 62 137–147. 10.1016/j.ridd.2017.01.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hernández Arteaga I., Fernández López K. M., Estela Vasquez A. C., Mestizo Nuzcue E. J. (2020). Educación y solidaridad: un camino hacia la inclusión educativa. Soc. Educ. History 9 227–251. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hienonen N., Lintuvuori M., Jahnukainen M., Hotulainen R., Vainikainen M. P. (2018). The effect of class composition on cross-curricular competences – Students with special educational needs in regular classes in lower secondary education. Learn. Instruction 58 80–87. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.05.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalambouka A., Farrell P., Dyson A., Kaplan I. (2007). The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. Educ. Res. 49 365–382. 10.1080/00131880701717222 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kefallinou A., Symeonidou S., Meijer C. J. W. (2020). Understanding the value of inclusive education and its implementation: a review of the literature. Prospects 49 135–152. 10.1007/s11125-020-09500-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurth J. A., Miller A. L., Toews S. G., Thompson J. R., Cortés M., Dahal M. H., et al. (2018). Inclusive education: perspectives on implementation and practice from international experts. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 56 471–485. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mercer N., Littleton K. (2007). Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking, a Socio-Cultural Approach. Milton Park: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Messiou K. (2017). Research in the field of inclusive education: time for a rethink? Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 21 146–159. 10.1080/13603116.2016.1223184 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oh-Young C., 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. 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.014 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roth W. M., Radford L. (2010). Re/thinking the zone of proximal development (Symmetrically). Mind Cult. Act. 17 299–307. 10.1080/10749031003775038 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruijs N. M., Peetsma T. T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educ. Res. Rev. 4 67–79. 10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith L. A., Williams J. M. (2001). Children’s understanding of the physicals cognitive and social consequences of impairments. Child Care Health Dev. 27 603–617. 10.1046/j.1365-2214.2001.00236.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smogorzewska J., Szumski G., Grygiel P. (2020). Theory of mind goes to school: does educational environment influence the development of theory of mind in middle childhood? PLoS One 15 : e0237524 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0237524 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Szumski G., Smogorzewska J., Karwowski M. (2017). Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: a meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 21 33–54. 10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tafa E., Manolitsis G. (2003). Attitudes of Greek parents of typically developing kindergarten children towards inclusive education. Eur. J. Special Needs Educ. 18 155–171. 10.1080/0885625032000078952 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for action on special needs education: Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education, Access and Quality. Paris: UNESCO. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2014). Global Citizenship Education. Preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century. Paris: UNESCO. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2017). A Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education. Paris: UNESCO. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations (2007). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Available online at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html [accessed January 5, 2021] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valero D., Redondo-Sama G., Elboj C. (2018). Interactive groups for immigrant students: a factor for success in the path of immigrant students. Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 22 787–802. 10.1080/13603116.2017.1408712 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Boston: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zubiri-Esnaola H., Vidu A., Rios-Gonzalez O., Morla-Folch T. (2020). Inclusivity, participation and collaboration: learning in interactive groups. Educ. Res. 62 162–180. 10.1080/00131881.2020.1755605 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

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

• Review Paper
• Published: 02 November 2023

Cite this article

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

288 Accesses

Explore all metrics

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

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

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

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

Leading Systems Change to Support Autistic Students

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Chelsea Marelle

Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

Emily Tanner & Claire Donehower Paul

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chelsea Marelle .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

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

Download citation

Received : 29 March 2022

Accepted : 24 August 2023

Published : 02 November 2023

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

• Open access
• Published: 14 May 2024

Protocol for a scoping review study on learning plan use in undergraduate medical education

• Anna Romanova   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1118-1604 1 ,
• Claire Touchie 1 ,
• Sydney Ruller 2 ,
• Victoria Cole 3 &
• Susan Humphrey-Murto 4  

Systematic Reviews volume  13 , Article number:  131 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

The current paradigm of competency-based medical education and learner-centredness requires learners to take an active role in their training. However, deliberate and planned continual assessment and performance improvement is hindered by the fragmented nature of many medical training programs. Attempts to bridge this continuity gap between supervision and feedback through learner handover have been controversial. Learning plans are an alternate educational tool that helps trainees identify their learning needs and facilitate longitudinal assessment by providing supervisors with a roadmap of their goals. Informed by self-regulated learning theory, learning plans may be the answer to track trainees’ progress along their learning trajectory. The purpose of this study is to summarise the literature regarding learning plan use specifically in undergraduate medical education and explore the student’s role in all stages of learning plan development and implementation.

Following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, a scoping review will be conducted to explore the use of learning plans in undergraduate medical education. Literature searches will be conducted using multiple databases by a librarian with expertise in scoping reviews. Through an iterative process, inclusion and exclusion criteria will be developed and a data extraction form refined. Data will be analysed using quantitative and qualitative content analyses.

By summarising the literature on learning plan use in undergraduate medical education, this study aims to better understand how to support self-regulated learning in undergraduate medical education. The results from this project will inform future scholarly work in competency-based medical education at the undergraduate level and have implications for improving feedback and supporting learners at all levels of competence.

Scoping review registration:

Open Science Framework osf.io/wvzbx.

Peer Review reports

Competency-based medical education (CBME) has transformed the approach to medical education to focus on demonstration of acquired competencies rather than time-based completion of rotations [ 1 ]. As a result, undergraduate and graduate medical training programs worldwide have adopted outcomes-based assessments in the form of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) comprised of competencies to be met [ 2 ]. These assessments are completed longitudinally by multiple different evaluators to generate an overall impression of a learner’s competency.

In CBME, trainees will progress along their learning trajectory at individual speeds and some may excel while others struggle to achieve the required knowledge, skills or attitudes. Therefore, deliberate and planned continual assessment and performance improvement is required. However, due to the fragmented nature of many medical training programs where learners rotate through different rotations and work with many supervisors, longitudinal observation is similarly fragmented. This makes it difficult to determine where trainees are on their learning trajectories and can affect the quality of feedback provided to them, which is a known major influencer of academic achievement [ 3 ]. As a result, struggling learners may not be identified until late in their training and the growth of high-performing learners may be stifled [ 4 , 5 , 6 ].

Bridging this continuity gap between supervision and feedback through some form of learner handover or forward feeding has been debated since the 1970s and continues to this day [ 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. The goal of learner handover is to improve trainee assessment and feedback by sharing their performance and learning needs between supervisors or across rotations. However, several concerns have been raised about this approach including that it could inappropriately bias subsequent assessments of the learner’s abilities [ 9 , 11 , 12 ]. A different approach to keeping track of trainees’ learning goals and progress along their learning trajectories is required. Learning plans (LPs) informed by self-regulated learning (SRL) theory may be the answer.

SRL has been defined as a cyclical process where learners actively control their thoughts, actions and motivation to achieve their goals [ 13 ]. Several models of SRL exist but all entail that the trainee is responsible for setting, planning, executing, monitoring and reflecting on their learning goals [ 13 ]. According to Zimmerman’s SRL model, this process occurs in three stages: forethought phase before an activity, performance phase during an activity and self-reflection phase after an activity [ 13 ]. Since each trainee leads their own learning process and has an individual trajectory towards competence, this theory relates well to the CBME paradigm which is grounded in learner-centredness [ 1 ]. However, we know that medical students and residents have difficulty identifying their own learning goals and therefore need guidance to effectively partake in SRL [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Motivation has also emerged as a key component of SRL, and numerous studies have explored factors that influence student engagement in learning [ 18 , 19 ]. In addition to meeting their basic psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness and competence, perceived learning relevance through meaningful learning activities has been shown to increase trainee engagement in their learning [ 19 ].

LPs are a well-known tool across many educational fields including CBME that can provide trainees with meaningful learning activities since they help them direct their own learning goals in a guided fashion [ 20 ]. Also known as personal learning plans, learning contracts, personal action plans, personal development plans, and learning goals, LPs are documents that outline the learner’s roadmap to achieve their learning goals. They require the learner to self-identify what they need to learn and why, how they are going to do it, how they will know when they are finished, define the timeframe for goal achievement and assess the impact of their learning [ 20 ]. In so doing, LPs give more autonomy to the learner and facilitate objective and targeted feedback from supervisors. This approach has been described as “most congruent with the assumptions we make about adults as learners” [ 21 ].

LP use has been explored across various clinical settings and at all levels of medical education; however, most of the experience lies in postgraduate medical education [ 22 ]. Medical students are a unique learner population with learning needs that appear to be very well suited for using LPs for two main reasons. First, their education is often divided between classroom and clinical settings. During clinical training, students need to be more independent in setting learning goals to meet desired competencies as their education is no longer outlined for them in a detailed fashion by the medical school curriculum [ 23 ]. SRL in the workplace is also different than in the classroom due to additional complexities of clinical care that can impact students’ ability to self-regulate their learning [ 24 ]. Second, although most medical trainees have difficulty with goal setting, medical students in particular need more guidance compared to residents due to their relative lack of experience upon which they can build within the SRL framework [ 25 ]. LPs can therefore provide much-needed structure to their learning but should be guided by an experienced tutor to be effective [ 15 , 24 ].

LPs fit well within the learner-centred educational framework of CBME by helping trainees identify their learning needs and facilitating longitudinal assessment by providing supervisors with a roadmap of their goals. In so doing, they can address current issues with learner handover and identification as well as remediation of struggling learners. Moreover, they have the potential to help trainees develop lifelong skills with respect to continuing professional development after graduation which is required by many medical licensing bodies.

An initial search of the JBI Database, Cochrane Database, MEDLINE (PubMed) and Google Scholar conducted in July–August 2022 revealed a paucity of research on LP use in undergraduate medical education (UGME). A related systematic review by van Houten–Schat et al. [ 24 ] on SRL in the clinical setting identified three interventions used by medical students and residents in SRL—coaching, LPs and supportive tools. However, only a couple of the included studies looked specifically at medical students’ use of LPs, so this remains an area in need of more exploration. A scoping review would provide an excellent starting point to map the body of literature on this topic.

The objective of this scoping review will therefore be to explore LP use in UGME. In doing so, it will address a gap in knowledge and help determine additional areas for research.

This study will follow Arksey and O’Malley’s [ 26 ] five-step framework for scoping review methodology. It will not include the optional sixth step which entails stakeholder consultation as relevant stakeholders will be intentionally included in the research team (a member of UGME leadership, a medical student and a first-year resident).

Step 1—Identifying the research question

The overarching purpose of this study is to “explore the use of LPs in UGME”. More specifically we seek to achieve the following:

Summarise the literature regarding the use of LPs in UGME (including context, students targeted, frameworks used)

Explore the role of the student in all stages of the LP development and implementation

Determine existing research gaps

Step 2—Identifying relevant studies

An experienced health sciences librarian (VC) will conduct all searches and develop the initial search strategy. The preliminary search strategy is shown in Appendix A (see Additional file 2). Articles will be included if they meet the following criteria [ 27 ]:

Participants

Medical students enrolled at a medical school at the undergraduate level.

Any use of LPs by medical students. LPs are defined as a document, usually presented in a table format, that outlines the learner’s roadmap to achieve their learning goals [ 20 ].

Any stage of UGME in any geographic setting.

Types of evidence sources

We will search existing published and unpublished (grey) literature. This may include research studies, reviews, or expert opinion pieces.

Search strategy

With the assistance of an experienced librarian (VC), a pilot search will be conducted to inform the final search strategy. A search will be conducted in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Education Source, APA PsycInfo and Web of Science. The search terms will be developed in consultation with the research team and librarian. The search strategy will proceed according to the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis three-step search strategy for reviews [ 27 ]. First, we will conduct a limited search in two appropriate online databases and analyse text words from the title, abstracts and index terms of relevant papers. Next, we will conduct a second search using all identified key words in all databases. Third, we will review reference lists of all included studies to identify further relevant studies to include in the review. We will also contact the authors of relevant papers for further information if required. This will be an iterative process as the research team becomes more familiar with the literature and will be guided by the librarian. Any modifications to the search strategy as it evolves will be described in the scoping review report. As a measure of rigour, the search strategy will be peer-reviewed by another librarian using the PRESS checklist [ 28 ]. No language or date limits will be applied.

Step 3—Study selection

The screening process will consist of a two-step approach: screening titles/abstracts and, if they meet inclusion criteria, this will be followed by a full-text review. All screening will be done by two members of the research team and any disagreements will be resolved by an independent third member of the team. Based on preliminary inclusion criteria, the whole research team will first pilot the screening process by reviewing a random sample of 25 titles/abstracts. The search strategy, eligibility criteria and study objectives will be refined in an iterative process. We anticipate several meetings as the topic is not well described in the literature. A flowchart of the review process will be generated. Any modifications to the study selection process will be described in the scoping review report. The papers will be excluded if a full text is not available. The search results will be managed using Covidence software.

Step 4—Charting the data

A preliminary data extraction tool is shown in Appendix B (see Additional file 3 ). Data will be extracted into Excel and will include demographic information and specific details about the population, concept, context, study methods and outcomes as they relate to the scoping review objectives. The whole research team will pilot the data extraction tool on ten articles selected for full-text review. Through an iterative process, the final data extraction form will be refined. Subsequently, two members of the team will independently extract data from all articles included for full-text review using this tool. Charting disagreements will be resolved by the principal and senior investigators. Google Translate will be used for any included articles that are not in the English language.

Step 5—Collating, summarising and reporting the results

Quantitative and qualitative analyses will be used to summarise the results. Quantitative analysis will capture descriptive statistics with details about the population, concept, context, study methods and outcomes being examined in this scoping review. Qualitative content analysis will enable interpretation of text data through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes and patterns [ 29 ]. Several team meetings will be held to review potential themes to ensure an accurate representation of the data. The PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) will be used to guide the reporting of review findings [ 30 ]. Data will be presented in tables and/or diagrams as applicable. A descriptive summary will explain the presented results and how they relate to the scoping review objectives.

By summarising the literature on LP use in UGME, this study will contribute to a better understanding of how to support SRL amongst medical students. The results from this project will also inform future scholarly work in CBME at the undergraduate level and have implications for improving feedback as well as supporting learners at all levels of competence. In doing so, this study may have practical applications by informing learning plan incorporation into CBME-based curricula.

We do not anticipate any practical or operational issues at this time. We assembled a team with the necessary expertise and tools to complete this project.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study will be included in the published scoping review article.

Abbreviations

• Competency-based medical education

Entrustable professional activity

• Learning plan
• Self-regulated learning
• Undergraduate medical education

Frank JR, Snell LS, Cate OT, et al. Competency-based medical education: theory to practice. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):638–45.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Shorey S, Lau TC, Lau ST, Ang E. Entrustable professional activities in health care education: a scoping review. Med Educ. 2019;53(8):766–77.

Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77(1):81–112.

Article   Google Scholar  

Dudek NL, Marks MB, Regehr G. Failure to fail: the perspectives of clinical supervisors. Acad Med. 2005;80(10 Suppl):S84–7.

Warm EJ, Englander R, Pereira A, Barach P. Improving learner handovers in medical education. Acad Med. 2017;92(7):927–31.

Spooner M, Duane C, Uygur J, et al. Self-regulatory learning theory as a lens on how undergraduate and postgraduate learners respond to feedback: a BEME scoping review : BEME Guide No. 66. Med Teach. 2022;44(1):3–18.

Frellsen SL, Baker EA, Papp KK, Durning SJ. Medical school policies regarding struggling medical students during the internal medicine clerkships: results of a National Survey. Acad Med. 2008;83(9):876–81.

Humphrey-Murto S, LeBlanc A, Touchie C, et al. The influence of prior performance information on ratings of current performance and implications for learner handover: a scoping review. Acad Med. 2019;94(7):1050–7.

Morgan HK, Mejicano GC, Skochelak S, et al. A responsible educational handover: improving communication to improve learning. Acad Med. 2020;95(2):194–9.

Dory V, Danoff D, Plotnick LH, et al. Does educational handover influence subsequent assessment? Acad Med. 2021;96(1):118–25.

Humphrey-Murto S, Lingard L, Varpio L, et al. Learner handover: who is it really for? Acad Med. 2021;96(4):592–8.

Shaw T, Wood TJ, Touchie T, Pugh D, Humphrey-Murto S. How biased are you? The effect of prior performance information on attending physician ratings and implications for learner handover. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2021;26(1):199–214.

Artino AR, Brydges R, Gruppen LD. Chapter 14: Self-regulated learning in health professional education: theoretical perspectives and research methods. In: Cleland J, Duning SJ, editors. Researching Medical Education. 1st ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2015. p. 155–66.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cleland J, Arnold R, Chesser A. Failing finals is often a surprise for the student but not the teacher: identifying difficulties and supporting students with academic difficulties. Med Teach. 2005;27(6):504–8.

Reed S, Lockspeiser TM, Burke A, et al. Practical suggestions for the creation and use of meaningful learning goals in graduate medical education. Acad Pediatr. 2016;16(1):20–4.

Wolff M, Stojan J, Cranford J, et al. The impact of informed self-assessment on the development of medical students’ learning goals. Med Teach. 2018;40(3):296–301.

Sawatsky AP, Halvorsen AJ, Daniels PR, et al. Characteristics and quality of rotation-specific resident learning goals: a prospective study. Med Educ Online. 2020;25(1):1714198.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Pintrich PR. Chapter 14: The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In: Boekaerts M, Pintrich PR, Zeidner M, editors. Handbook of self-regulation. 1st ed. Academic Press; 2000. p. 451–502.

Kassab SE, El-Sayed W, Hamdy H. Student engagement in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review. Med Educ. 2022;56(7):703–15.

Challis M. AMEE medical education guide No. 19: Personal learning plans. Med Teach. 2000;22(3):225–36.

Knowles MS. Using learning contracts. 1 st ed. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 1986.

Parsell G, Bligh J. Contract learning, clinical learning and clinicians. Postgrad Med J. 1996;72(847):284–9.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Teunissen PW, Scheele F, Scherpbier AJJA, et al. How residents learn: qualitative evidence for the pivotal role of clinical activities. Med Educ. 2007;41(8):763–70.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

van Houten-Schat MA, Berkhout JJ, van Dijk N, Endedijk MD, Jaarsma ADC, Diemers AD. Self-regulated learning in the clinical context: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2018;52(10):1008–15.

Taylor DCM, Hamdy H. Adult learning theories: Implications for learning and teaching in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 83. Med Teach. 2013;35(11):e1561–72.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalol H. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, eds. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. . Accessed 30 Aug 2022.

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.

Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Venables M, Larocque A, Sikora L, Archibald D, Grudniewicz A. Understanding indigenous health education and exploring indigenous anti-racism approaches in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review protocol. OSF; 2022. https://osf.io/umwgr/ . Accessed 26 Oct 2022.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This study will be supported through grants from the Department of Medicine at the Ottawa Hospital and the University of Ottawa. The funding bodies had no role in the study design and will not have any role in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data or writing of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Ottawa Hospital – General Campus, 501 Smyth Rd, PO Box 209, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada

Anna Romanova & Claire Touchie

The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada

Sydney Ruller

The University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

Victoria Cole

The Ottawa Hospital – Riverside Campus, Ottawa, Canada

Susan Humphrey-Murto

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AR designed and drafted the protocol. CT and SH contributed to the refinement of the research question, study methods and editing of the manuscript. VC designed the initial search strategy. All authors reviewed the manuscript for final approval. The review guarantors are CT and SH. The corresponding author is AR.

Authors’ information

AR is a clinician teacher and Assistant Professor with the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Ottawa. She is also the Associate Director for the internal medicine clerkship rotation at the General campus of the Ottawa Hospital.

CT is a Professor of Medicine with the Divisions of General Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases at the University of Ottawa. She is also a member of the UGME Competence Committee at the University of Ottawa and an advisor for the development of a new school of medicine at Toronto Metropolitan University.

SH is an Associate Professor with the Department of Medicine at the University of Ottawa and holds a Tier 2 Research Chair in Medical Education. She is also the Interim Director for the Research Support Unit within the Department of Innovation in Medical Education at the University of Ottawa.

CT and SH have extensive experience with medical education research and have numerous publications in this field.

SR is a Research Assistant with the Division of General Internal Medicine at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

VC is a Health Sciences Research Librarian at the University of Ottawa.

SR and VC have extensive experience in systematic and scoping reviews.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Romanova .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. prisma-p 2015 checklist., 13643_2024_2553_moesm2_esm.docx.

Additional file 2: Appendix A. Preliminary search strategy [ 31 ].

Additional file 3: Appendix B. Preliminary data extraction tool.

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Romanova, A., Touchie, C., Ruller, S. et al. Protocol for a scoping review study on learning plan use in undergraduate medical education. Syst Rev 13 , 131 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02553-w

Download citation

Received : 29 November 2022

Accepted : 03 May 2024

Published : 14 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02553-w

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

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

A systematic review of empirical studies incorporating english movies as pedagogic aids in english language classroom provisionally accepted.

• 1 Department of English, School of Social Sciences and Languages, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India., India
• 2 Research Scholar, Department of English, School of Social Sciences and Languages, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India., India
• 3 Department of English, School of Social Sciences and Languages, VIT University, India

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

The use of movie as an audio-visual multimodal tool has been extensively researched, and the studies prove that they play a vital role in enhancing communicative competence. Incorporating authentic materials like movies, television series, podcasts, social media, etc. into language learning serves as a valuable resource for the learners, for it exposes them to both official and vernacular language. The current study aims to systematically analyse the preceding studies that conjoined English movies into the curriculum to teach English. It also examines and evaluates the empirical research that various researchers conducted from 2000 to 2023. The articles were primarily sourced from prominent academic databases such as ProQuest, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied in screening the 921 sources, of which 23 empirical studies were eligible for the review as a result of a three-stage data extraction process as shown in the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses" (PRISMA) chart. The extraction of data from the review encompasses an overview of the empirical studies, methodologies, participants, and interventions. The extracts were systematically analysed using the software's End Note and Covidence. The analysis of the existing literature and experimental data substantiates that teaching and learning English as a second or foreign language using movies as teaching aids exhibit promising prospects for enhancing English language proficiency. The findings of the study reveal different genres of movies that aid the facilitator in producing effective instruction materials with clearly defined objectives and guided activities. It is also observed that the learners have a positive experience with long-term learning benefits.

Keywords: EndNote, Covidence, Audio-visual multimodal aids, Communicative competence, Systematic review, Teaching Supplements

Received: 13 Feb 2024; Accepted: 16 May 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 K and S.N.S. 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) or licensor 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: Dr. Gandhimathi S.N.S, Department of English, School of Social Sciences and Languages, VIT University, Vellore, India

People also looked at