04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Secondary Students’ Perceptions of Inclusion Climate in Their Schools and Their Association with Motivation for Academic Engagement
Elias Avramidis, Ifigeneia Kampadeli, Roussi Christina, Filippos Vlachos
University of Thessaly, Greece
Presenting Author: Avramidis, Elias
Inclusive education is widely considered as the most preferred form of education for students accredited with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) around the world. One of the arguments for implementing inclusive educational policies concerns the social benefits that students with SEND gain through their interaction with their peers in regular education classes. However, such benefits might not always be achieved since students with SEN are often found to face significant difficulties in their interactions with peers (Bossaert et al., 2015). Indeed, the literature portrays students with SEND as less accepted, having fewer friendships and experiencing more loneliness in the classroom than their typically developing peers (Pijl & Frostad, 2010; Schwab et al, 2015). Moreover, the available studies also suggest that students with SEND develop a lower sense of belongingness to the school community (Dimitrellou & Hurry, 2018; Nepi, Facondini, Nucci, & Peru, 2013). This is especially alarming since developing a sense of belonging to the school is associated with both affective and academic outcomes (Osterman, 2000). For example, Anderman (2003) found that school belonging was associated with personal interest and intrinsic motivation for accomplishing school tasks, while Irvin et al. (2011) concluded that school belonging represented a strong predictive factor for academic success.
Although different theoretical models of school belonging can be found in the literature, the model proposed by Goodenow (1993) has received most research attention. According to this model, school belonging is a multifaceted construct defined as the feeling of being accepted, respected, included and supported by both teachers and peers, combined with a sense of participating in school activities and being valued within this community. Accordingly, school belonging is based on supportive and caring relationships with teachers, reciprocal and close friendships with peers, and meaningful participation in extracurricular and school-based activities (Bouchard & Berg, 2017).
Along similar lines, some researchers have focused on the examination of “school climate” which is considered to be a more holistic concept, which incorporates the notion of school belonging. According to Cohen, Mccabe, Michelli, and Pickeral (2009) school climate “…refers to the quality and characters of school life. School climate is based on patterns of people's experiences of school life and reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning practices, and organizational structures” (p. 180). Based on this theorizing, Schwab, Sharma and Loreman (2018) coined the term “inclusive school climate”, which incorporates all aspects of school climate mentioned in the relevant literature. To this end, they developed a scale eliciting students’ perceptions of their school climate with a view of evaluating the quality of existing inclusive arrangements.
The present study builds on this line of work by examining secondary education students’ perceptions of the climate in their classrooms with reference to inclusive education through the administration of a revised version of the Inclusion Climate Scale (ICS). In so doing, the perceptions of students identified as experiencing SEND were contrasted to those held by their typically achieving peers. We were also interested in determining the extent to which perceptions of school climate predict the students’ motivation for academic engagement.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research represents a quantitative survey design. Participants were drawn from four mainstream secondary schools in central Greece. All students registered at Grades 7, 8 and 9 were invited to participate in the study. The sample consisted of 626 students with a mean age of 14.42 (sd=.58), of which 100 were diagnosed as having learning disabilities and participated in pull-out learning support programs delivered by special teachers in resource bases within their mainstream schools. In Greece, students labelled as having learning disabilities (LD) typically experience difficulties in their academic performance in areas such as reading, spelling, or arithmetic despite the availability of learning support. Moreover, in the Greek context these difficulties are in most cases accompanied with various types of behavioural difficulties such as disruptive overt behaviour and/or internalized emotional difficulties. All students with LD participating in the present study had also been diagnosed by educational psychologists in public diagnostic centres as experiencing LD and received additional learning support by special teachers in resource rooms within their mainstream schools.
Fieldwork involved administering two psychometric instruments: the reduced version of the Inclusion Climate Scale (ICS) developed by Schwab et al. (2018) to assess perceptions of school climate and the Μotivation and Engagement Scale - High School (MES-HS) developed by Martin (2010) to assess participants’ perceptions of school climate and their motivation for engagement at school. The reduced version of the ICS is a four-point Likert scale which consists of 18 items representing three hypothesized factors. To complete the scale students had to choose among the following options: Not at all true (1), Mostly False (2), Mostly True (3) True (4). The higher the score in the subscales, the more positive student perceptions are implied. The MES-HS instrument consists of 44 items representing multiple hypothesized factors relating to students’ motivation for engagement. These items could be answered on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Higher composite scores indicate higher motivation for engagement.
As anticipated, the Principal Components Analysis conducted on the participants’ responses to the ICS yielded a three-factor solution. These factors were named “Teacher Practices of Support and Care”, “Emotional Experience” and “Peer Relations” respectively. No such analysis was performed on the students’ responses to the MES-HS scale; instead, in the present study, an overall motivation score was extracted by summing all questions of the MES-HS having first reversed those with a negative content.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe comparisons performed between groups of participants determined by their academic status revealed some mixed results. Specifically, students with LD reported more positive perceptions on the “teacher practices of support and care” and the “emotional experience” factors and, at the same time, less positive perceptions of their peer relations compared to their typically achieving classmates. With regard to the participants’ motivation for engagement no difference was detected between the two groups. Moreover, no gender differences were detected on all assessed variables. As expected, all dimensions of inclusive school climate were found to be linked with the students’ motivation for school engagement. However, the regression analysis performed showed that the dimension of ‘teacher support and care’ and the provision of individualized learning support in resource rooms were the most important predictors of student motivation for engagement.
These findings are in line with previous studies which have shown that the availability of learning support in general schools results not only in academic benefits but also lead to improved relationships with teachers (Rose & Shevlin, 2017). It could be suggested that the deployment of special teachers in Greek general schools has been effective in terms of differentiating the curriculum and offering individualized support to students with LD, thus promoting both the development of positive perceptions of school climate and enhanced motivation for engagement.
The rather negative perceptions of relations with peers were again largely anticipated as the literature contains numerous studies that have found integrated students with LD experiencing significant difficulties in their interactions with peers (Schwab, et al., 2015).
The study concludes with highlighting the importance of implementing school-based interventions to mitigate the difficulties faced by students with LD and, at the same time, foster the development of a positive school climate leading to multiple benefits for all students.
ReferencesAnderman, L. H. (2003). Academic and social perceptions as predictors of change in middle school students' sense of school belonging. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(1), 5-22.
Bossaert, G., de Boer, A., Frostad, P., Pijl, S. J., & Petry, K. (2015). Social participation of students with special educational needs in different educational systems. Irish Educational Studies, 34(1), 43–54.
Bouchard, K.L., & Berg, D.H. (2017). Students' School Belonging: Juxtaposing the Perspectives of Teachers and Students in the Late Elementary School Years (Grades 4-8). School Community Journal, 27(1), 107-136.
Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180-213.
Dimitrellou, E., & Hurry, J. (2019). School belonging among young adolescents with SEMH and MLD: the link with their social relations and school inclusivity. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 34(3), 312–326.
Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30(1), 79-90.
Irvin, M. J., Meece, J. L., Byun, S. Y., Farmer, T. W., & Hutchins, B. C. (2011). Relationship of school context to rural youth’s educational achievement and aspirations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(9), 1225-1242.
Martin, A. J. (2010). The motivation and engagement scale. Sydney, Australia: Lifelong Achievement Group.
Nepi, L. D., Facondini, R., Nucci, F., & Peru, A. (2013). Evidence from full-inclusion model: The social position and sense of belonging of students with special educational needs and their peers in Italian primary school. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(3), 319–332.
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students' need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 323-367.
Pijl, S. J., & Frostad, P. (2010). Peer acceptance and self‐concept of students with disabilities in regular education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(1), 93–105
Rose, R., & Shevlin, M. (2017). A Sense of Belonging: Childrens’ Views of Acceptance in “Inclusive” Mainstream Schools. International Journal of Whole Schooling, Special Issue, 65–80.
Schwab, S., Gebhardt, M., Krammer, M., & Gasteiger-Klicpera, B. (2015). Linking self-rated social inclusion to social behaviour. An empirical study of students with and without special education needs in secondary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(1), 1–14
Schwab, S., Sharma, U., & Loreman, T. (2018). Are we included? Secondary students’ perception of inclusion climate in their schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 31–39.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Performance in the Cognitive tasks of Pupils with SEN in Different Placement options, from General education class to Special class
Meri Lintuvuori1,2, Ninja Hienonen2,1, Nestori Kilpi2, Sanna Oinas1, Mikko Asikainen1, Markku Jahnukainen1
1University of Helsinki, Finland; 2Tampere University, Finland
Presenting Author: Lintuvuori, Meri;
Kilpi, Nestori
Although inclusive education is a strong trend in education policy in many countries, there are different definitions and variations used. The Finnish 'Education for All' reform was completed in the late 1990s when the responsibility for the education of children with the most severe intellectual disabilities and children in reformatory school was moved from social services to the education system. From a legislative perspective, all comprehensive school pupils are in the same education system. The idea of a ‘least restrictive environment’ has been one of the guiding principles of basic education since 1970; nevertheless, totally inclusive schools are rare in Finland (Jahnukainen, 2015). The special education system is currently referred to as Learning and schooling support (Basic Education Act, 628/1998 Amendment 642/2010). Since 2011, the three levels of support have been general (Tier 1), intensified (Tier 2) and special (Tier 3) support. The support methods and tools are almost the same at all tier levels; however, the intensity of the provided support increases from one level to the next (Thuneberg et al., 2013).
Inclusive education is not defined in the Basic Education Act (BEA, 628/1998; Jahnukainen et al., 2023). The national core curriculum of basic education states that the development of basic education is guided by the inclusion principle (Finnish National Board of Education, FNBE, 2016). However, it doesn’t define the inclusion more precisely. This has led to municipal-level differences in ways of organising basic education (Hienonen 2020). Although the inclusion is a process that helps overcome barriers limiting the presence, participation and achievement of all learners (UNESCO, 2017), the Finnish public discussion has been focused almost only on whether pupils considered having special needs should be placed in a general education class or special class (Jahnukainen et al., 2023). Previous studies show that pupils with special educational needs (SEN) may perform better in general education classes (e.g., Kojac et al., 2018; Peetsma et al., 2001). Some studies have also shown neutral effects for general education class placement (Cole, Waldron, & Majd 2004; Fore et al., 2008; Hanushek et al., 2002; Ruijs, 2017).
The Finnish legislation (BEA 628/1998) allows different options for organising the education of pupils with SEN at Tier 3. The placement options can vary from full-time education in a general education class to full-time education in a special class or special school. In 2022, 9 percent of comprehensive school pupils in grades 1-6 received Tier 3 support, and 36 percent of these pupils studied most of the time (80-100%) in a general education class, 47 percent most of the time (81-100%) in a special class and 17 percent in both a general education class (20-79%) and special class (OSF 2023).
This sub-study is based on a four-year longitudinal study in which the pupils are followed from the 4th grade to the 6th grade. The main objective is to investigate the outcomes of the different placement options and the effect of class composition on pupils with SEN and their peers. In this sub-study we focus only on the pupils with SEN, and investigate, with the cross-sectional first round data, how the different placement options of pupils with SEN are related to pupils’ performance in mathematical reasoning and vocabulary tasks. The research questions are:
1. Did the pupils with SEN differ in their background factors across the different placement options?
2. Is there a relationship between the placement options for pupils with SEN and pupils background factors in mathematical reasoning scores?
3. Is there a relationship between the placement options for pupils with SEN and pupils background factors in vocabulary task scores?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe data were drawn from the longitudinal study assessing different aspects of learning in the sample schools. The stratified national sample is based on official statistics on special education and register data of educational institutions (Statistics Finland). Our research instrument is based on the Finnish learning to learn (LTL) framework (Hautamäki & Kupiainen, 2014) and the online test portal created for the purposes of this study is based on previous large-scale assessment studies (e.g., Hienonen, 2020; Vainikainen & Hautamäki, 2022). LTL assessments have been used as one indicator of the effectiveness of education in Finland alongside the more subject-related sample-based assessments.
Pupils completed the tasks and answered the questionnaires on an online platform as a part of their otherwise normal school day. The tasks and questions were built into 15-minute entities, and the teacher could decide how many of these entities the class did at once. Some of the tasks, for example mathematical reasoning, were adaptive, so the tasks adapted to the student's performance level. In this sub-study, we used pupils’ test scores in mathematical reasoning and vocabulary tasks.
School- and class-level information were collected with principal and teacher questionnaires. The pupils' background information, for example a Tier level of support, was collected from teachers. Pupils attending the study had the research permits from their legal guardian. The research has received a statement from the University of Helsinki's Ethics Committee for the Human Sciences (May 2021) as a demonstration of commitment to research ethics.
In the first phase of our longitudinal study in spring 2022, we received data from 1815 4th graders (typical age of 10 years). There were 42 municipalities, 56 schools and 121 classes participating in the first data collection nationwide. In this sub-study, we analysed only the performance of pupils with a SEN decision at Tier 3, N=160. Of pupils with SEN, 45% studied most of the time in a general education class, 38% most of the time in a special class and 17% part-time in a general education class and special class. The data were analysed using the chi-squared test and linear regression analysis.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAccording to our results, there were statistically significant differences in the background factors of pupils with SEN across the different placement options. However, the placement options for pupils with SEN and pupils background factors did not have a statistically significant relationship on pupils' performance in mathematical reasoning or vocabulary tasks.
The results of this study are in line with previous international research (e.g. Cole et al. 2004; Fore et al. 2008), as pupils with SEN did not differ in mathematical reasoning or vocabulary tasks based on whether they studied most of the time in a general education class, most of the time in a special class, or part-time in a general education class and special class. It should also be noted that the analyses conducted in this sub-study were designed to examine the baseline level, based on the first round of data collection in the longitudinal study. Based on the data from the next two rounds, we will be able to use longitudinal data to examine the development of pupils' performance in the different placement options taking into account, for example, the class composition and differences in initial levels of performance. The effect of pupils’ placement is examined also from the perspective of attitudes and beliefs related to pupils’ learning and schooling.
ReferencesBasic Education Act 628/1998 Amendments up to 163/2022. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1998/19980628
Cole, C., Waldron, N., & Majd, M. 2004. Academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retardation, 42, 136–44. https://doi:10.1352/0047-6765(2004)42<136:APOSAI>2.0.CO;2
Fore, C., Hagan-Burke, S., Burke, M., Boon, R., & Smith, S. 2008. Academic achievement and class placement in high school: Do students with learning disabilities achieve more in one class placement than another? Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 55–72. https://doi:10.1353/etc.0.0018
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. 2002. Inferring program effects for special populations: Does special education raise achievement for students with disabilities? Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465302760556431
Hautamäki, J., & Kupiainen, S. 2014. Learning to Learn in Finland. In R. Crick, C. Stringer & K. Ren (Eds.), Learning to Learn: International Perspectives from Theory and Practice, 170–195. London: Routledge
Hienonen, N. 2020. Does a class placement matter? Students with special educational needs in regular or special classes. University of Helsinki. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-51-6392-9
Jahnukainen, M. 2015. Inclusion, integration, or what? A comparative study of the school principals' perceptions of inclusive and special education in Finland and in Alberta, Canada. Disability & Society, 30, 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.982788
Jahnukainen, M., Hienonen, N., Lintuvuori, M., & Lempinen, S. 2023. Inclusion in Finland: Myths and Realities. teoksessa M. Thrupp, P. Seppänen, J. Kauko, & S. Kosunen (eds.), Finland’s Famous Education System: Unvarnished Insights into Finnish Schooling, 401–415. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8241-5
Kojac, A., Kuhl, P., Jansen, M., Pant, H. A., & Stanat, P. 2018. Educational placement and achievement motivation of students with special educational needs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 55, 63–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.09.004
Official Statistics of Finland (OSF): Support for learning [online publication]. ISSN=2954-0674.
Helsinki: Statistics Finland [Referenced: 29.1.2024]. Access method: https://stat.fi/en/statistics/erop
Peetsma, T., Vergeer, M., Roeleveld, J., & Karsten, S. 2001. Inclusion in Education: comparing pupils’development in special and regular education. Educational Review, 53(2), 125–135.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910125044
Ruijs, N. 2017. The impact of special needs students on classmate performance. Economics of Education Review, 58, 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2017.03.002
Thuneberg, H., Vainikainen, M.-P., Ahtiainen, R., Lintuvuori, M., Salo, K., & Hautamäki, J. 2013. Education is special for all: The Finnish support model. Gemeinsam leben, 2, 67–78.
UNESCO. 2017. A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002482/248254e.pdf.
Vainikainen, M-P. & Hautamäki, J. 2022. Three Studies on Learning to Learn in Finland: Anti-Flynn Effects 2001–2017, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66, 43–58, https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1833240
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Why Study? The Motivation to Study Among Children in Contexts of Deviance and Social Marginality.
Fausta Sabatano, Carmen Lucia Moccia
University of Salerno, Italy
Presenting Author: Moccia, Carmen Lucia
The study aims to investigate the motivation to study among children living in multi-problematic contexts, characterized by a combination of economic and social issues, particularly those related to deviance and delinquency. The area of focus is a region in Campania, Southern Italy, known for the presence of the Camorra, an organized crime structure similar to the Mafia, involving children and families in its delinquent system (1) (2). In this research, motivation is conceptualized as a dynamic and relational force emerging from the interaction between the individual and their environment, and from their perception of the positive and negative valences of the context (3) (4). In a multi-problematic setting, the challenges can particularly generate a sense of fatalism in developing children, leading to low self-determination (5) and self-efficacy (6), factors that can significantly affect their motivation to study. The hypothesis of this research posits that although statistical data correlate school dropout rates with deprived and marginalized contexts (7), motivation is not necessarily dictated by the context. Instead, it might represent an autonomous area of development, with dropout rates being linked to other personal or social factors.It is conceivable that, living within a context governed by criminal logic, children and adolescents may begin to perceive education as less relevant or beneficial for their future. In this regard, the presence of negative role models—adults, family members, peer groups (8) (9)—that achieve success through illegal activities can distort the perception of the value of education. In an environment where organized crime is an everyday experience, children may be drawn to alternative pathways that seem to offer immediate success and rewards, at the expense of long-term investments such as those made in educational and instructional paths. This type of social pressure can be particularly persistent and significant during developmental years, also in terms of primary socialization processes: children interact with each other emulating the behavioral style of their adult role models. In light of these challenges, numerous multidisciplinary studies demonstrate the fruitful relationship between education and crime prevention, highlighting how systemic educational interventions statistically have an incidence in terms of reducing the number of minors recruited by criminal organizations (10). The research thus raises the question: Is it possible to identify a relationship between multi-problematic contexts and the motivation to study? What are the characteristics of an educational intervention capable of effectively supporting the motivation to study among children and adolescents living in such contexts? In line with these research questions, the objective is outlined as exploring the motivation of students from multi-problematic contexts; identifying the characteristics of an educational intervention that can impact the quality of motivation; and isolating potential elements of transferability to similar contexts.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study is part of a broader project aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of a community initiative named "Integra" in a multi-problematic context. The research is inspired by the Response-to-Intervention (RTI) approach (11) within an integrated research design that includes both quantitative and qualitative data sets. The population consists of 50 children between the ages of 8 and 10 from the Pianura neighborhood, identified through archival research as a multi-problematic context. In this neighborhood, the "Integra" Project (12) (13) is implemented, aiming to counteract youth deviance and delinquency by involving children aged 6 to 13 years. The 50 children are divided into two groups: 25 students from third and fourth grades of a primary school in the area, and another 25 students of the same age participating in the "Integra" educational intervention. The research project comprises three phases:
Phase A and C - Assessment
During these phases, screening is conducted through the administration of the AMOS 8-15 questionnaire (14). This battery, consisting of validated scales, is used to investigate the motivation in studying. Specifically, the Study Approach Questionnaire (QAS) is administered, where items marked with the letter A explore study motivation, and simultaneously, Questionnaires on Beliefs and Attributions (QC11-QC2f) are used. These questionnaires dissect motivational aspects into four areas: the student's metacognitive theory about the malleability of intelligence, confidence in one's intelligence and abilities, beliefs regarding the study objective, and causal attributions.
Phase B - Intervention
The intervention involves support activities for teaching within the Integra project. The project was initiated about 20 years ago to counteract distress, deviance, and delinquency in the Phlegraean area of the Campania Region. Over the years, it has involved approximately 2000 children and adolescents (ages 5-13).
In this phase, consistent with the RTI approach, monitoring is carried out using quantitative and qualitative tools, considering the following indicators: participation in the project, academic performance, feedback from parents and teachers, and direct feedback from the children.The tools used include checklists, interviews, life stories, and educators' logbooks. In line with the RTI approach, the study includes an evaluation in the follow-up to assess the long-term impact of the intervention on the motivation to study. The children involved in Integra participate in the project continuously over the years.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn alignment with Goal 16 of the Agenda 2030 (15), particularly targets 16.1, 16.6, and 16.7, the research aims to investigate a possible relationship between motivation to study and the multi-problematic context. This presentation is intended to showcase data related to phase A and phase C. Subsequently, the research will continue by integrating the quantitative and qualitative data from phase B to further explore the relationship between motivation and educational intervention. Following this assessment, an attempt will be made to identify the characteristics of an educational intervention that can not only counteract this trend but also provide a replicable model for future initiatives in similar contexts to support the educational processes of children in vulnerable situations.
References) Allum, F. (2003). Il Crimine Organizzato a Napoli. Napoli: L'Ancora del Mediterraneo.
(2) Ravveduto, M. (2017). La Paranza dei Bambini. La Google Generation di Gomorra. QUESTIONE GIUSTIZIA, 1-6.
(3) Maslow, A. H. (2010). Motivazione e personalità (Original work published 1954). Roma: Armando Editore.
(4) Lewin, K. (1961). Principi di psicologia topologica (Original work published 1936). Firenze: Edizioni OS.
(5) Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York: The Guilford Press.
(6) Bandura, A. (1997). Autoefficacia: Teoria e Applicazioni. Trento: Erikson.
(7) INVALSI 2023, Presentazione Rapporto Nazionale 12 luglio 2023, Roma.
(8) Berthoz, A. (2013). La Vicariance. Paris: Odile Jacob.
(9) Sibilio, M. (2017). Vicarianza e Didattica. Brescia: La Scuola.
(10) PROTON (Modelling the Processes Leading to Organised Crime and Terrorist Networks). Preventing Organised Property Crime in the EU. Transcrime-Università Cattolica di Milano. 2020
(11) Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to Intervention: An Alternative Approach to the Identification of Learning Disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. L. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice (pp. 467-519). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
(11) Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M. A. (2006). Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI): How to Do It. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities.
(12) Sabatano, F., & Pagano, G. (2019). Libertà Marginali. La Sfida Educativa tra Devianza, Delinquenza e Sistema Camorristico. Milano: Guerini e Associati.
(13) Sabatano, F. (2015). La Scelta dell'Inclusione. Progettare l'Educazione in Contesti di Disagio Sociale. Milano: Guerini e Associati.
(14) Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., Zamperlin, C., & Mereghetti, C. (2014). Test AMOS 8-15. Abilità e Motivazione allo Studio: Prove di Valutazione per Ragazzi dagli 8 ai 15 Anni. Trento: Erickson
(15) United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1.
|
