Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs • Volume 6 • Number 3 • 2006
doi: 10.1111/J.1471-3802.2006.00069.x
Including children with special educational needs in
XX
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
mainstream classrooms: implications for pedagogy
from a systematic review
Melanie Nind 1 and Janice Wearmouth 2
1
University of Southampton; 2The Open University
Key words: special educational needs, pedagogy, inclusion, peers, systematic review.
This paper reports on the outcomes of the first in
a series of three systematic literature reviews in
inclusive education. The aims include establishing
what research has been undertaken in the area of
effective pedagogical approaches to enable children
with special educational needs to be included in
mainstream classrooms, synthesising themes in a
purposive sample of the literature and examining
how this research might inform practice. One outcome
of this first literature review was an overview of the
various ways that teachers are effectively including
children with special educational needs. In this
paper, using the literature, we share some of the
characteristics of the teaching approaches that have
been shown to lead to positive outcomes in the
areas of academic attainment, social involvement
and improved behaviour. We discuss how these
approaches, particularly those involving peer group
interactions, might be used by teachers to support
all learners.
Introduction: why a systematic review of the evidence?
Ordinary classrooms in mainstream schools contain an
ever-widening diversity of pupils. In inclusive education
the challenge for teachers is the quality of learning and
participation of all the pupils located therein. Inclusive
schools are understood to be those that make major
adjustments to their organisation and processes in response
to their diverse populations. A key element of adjustment
is in the way that teachers teach: to develop inclusive
pedagogy teachers need access to good information.
In England and Wales there is a statutory requirement
for mainstream schools to provide ‘effective learning
opportunities for all pupils’ following three ‘key principles
for inclusion’: setting suitable learning challenges, responding
to pupils’ diverse learning needs, and overcoming potential
barriers to learning and assessment for individuals and
groups of learners (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
(QCA), 2000). However, a potential obstacle to providing
116
116–124
these opportunities is the history of faith in special
procedures and approaches conducted in special settings
or by special teachers. An industry has developed around
special needs that results in teachers facing countless claims
for the effectiveness of specialist techniques and materials
that are often untested, either in special or inclusive settings,
and that have a poor theoretical basis (see Thomas &
Loxley, 2001). Much of the weightier research and studies
of less readily packaged approaches are not reported in the
professional media and so are not readily available to
teachers. Previous overviews of the research have established
some of the wider policy, support and organisational
elements that are effective in inclusive education (Sebba &
Sachdev, 1997) and indicated that there is little evidence to
support the use of a particular pedagogy for each type of
special educational need (Norwich & Lewis, 2001).
The systematic review discussed in this paper was intended
to provide a summary of the available evidence about
pedagogical approaches that have recorded outcomes in
including children with special needs in mainstream
classrooms. The research was funded by the Teacher Training
Agency (now Training and Development Agency for Schools)
with the intention that the pedagogical approaches teachers
adopt in response to classroom challenges can be informed
by the best evidence available.
Background
The policy of including pupils with special educational needs
(SEN) in mainstream schools and classrooms in England
and Wales was importantly marked by the Warnock Report
(Department of Education & Science (DES), 1978) and has
since gained momentum with Codes of Practice (Department
for Education (DfE), 1994; Department for Education &
Employment (DfEE), 2001), government guidance (DfEE,
1997; 1998) and legislation (HM Government 1981, 1993
and 1996 Education Acts; Special Educational Needs and
Disability Act 2001). Despite a large literature, there is a
lack of clarity for teachers to draw on about what constitutes
‘best practice’ or even effective practice in teaching approaches
for classes that include pupils with a range of SEN.
© 2006 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2006 nasen

This first review in a series of three interconnected reviews
(Nind & Wearmouth, 2004) was conducted in 2003–2004
in the context of a long history of concepts of special pupils
and special education and a faith in special pedagogical
approaches. Also emerging from this context have been
recent attempts to map the territory and evaluate the
range of available teaching approaches for pupils with
SEN (Davis & Florian, 2004; Lewis & Norwich, 2005).
Important critiques of special pedagogy (e.g., Hart, 1996;
Norwich & Lewis, 2001; Thomas & Loxley, 2001) have
raised the profile of teaching approaches that ordinary
teachers can and do use to include children with SEN in
mainstream classrooms. Previous systematic literature
reviews related to the area of SEN and inclusion had focused
on behavioural concerns and behaviour management in
schools (Harden, Thomas, Evans, Scanlon & Sinclair,
2003); the impact of paid adult support on the participation
and learning of pupils in mainstream schools, including
pupils with SEN (Dyson, Howes & Roberts, 2003); and
school-level approaches to facilitating the participation
by all students in the cultures, curricula and communities
of schools (Dyson, Howes & Roberts, 2002). Although
research had sought to establish the effectiveness of
particular pedagogies or the impact of school actions on
pupil participation, there had been no prior systematic
review in the UK that could answer the question of what
pedagogical approaches can effectively include children
with SEN in mainstream classrooms. This review sought to
fill this gap.
Aims
The aims of the review were to create a descriptive map of
research undertaken in the area of effective pedagogical
approaches that enable children with SEN to be included in
mainstream classrooms and to determine and examine the
nature of those pedagogical approaches. It was hoped that
this might give some clarity to teachers, trainee teachers
and, perhaps most importantly, trainers of teachers. To
answer our question about what pedagogical approaches
can effectively include children with SEN in mainstream
classrooms it was important to define our terms. For our
purposes ‘effectively include’ meant that we identified only
studies that indicated an outcome for pupils in terms of
their learning and participation such as changes in their
attainment levels, progress, attitudes, confidence or skills.
The studies could report outcomes either for the pupils with
SEN or for all the pupils. ‘Pedagogical approaches’ was
understood in the broadest sense, including studies of
classroom practices, personnel deployment, organisation,
use of resources, classroom environment and curriculum.
In focusing upon ‘special educational needs’, we were
concerned with the learning needs of all those pupils
identified as experiencing difficulties in learning of any
kind, together with those identified as experiencing a
categorised difficulty such as autistic spectrum disorder,
sensory impairment, or specific learning difficulties.
Although there is much to be learned from research on
teaching approaches for other diversity and difference in
the classroom, this was not included in this particular
review.
© 2006 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2006 nasen
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 6 116–124
Stage 1 method – mapping the terrain
A systematic literature search was conducted using the
guidance from the Evidence for Policy and Practice
Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre)
(version 0.9.7, EPPI, 2003). (For critiques of such methods,
see Evans & Benefield, 2000; MacLure, 2005; Nind, 2006).
Specific search terms were aligned with the varying word
usages in different countries and the British Education
Thesaurus was used for selecting synonyms. All studies
returned from searches were entered into a database and
screened. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to
identify studies with a specific scope (a focus on students
aged 7–14 who experience SEN, in mainstream classrooms,
including pedagogical approaches and an indication of
student outcomes); study type (empirical); and time and
place (written in English and published after 1994). A
range of electronic databases and citation indexes were
interrogated and Internet sites were searched (see Nind &
Wearmouth, 2004).
Screening was applied by two screeners operating
independently; first to titles and abstracts (in two iterative
stages) and then to full documents. Thus, studies were
taken through a series of graduated filters, culminating in
the shortlist of studies that met the inclusion criteria.
These were keyworded using the EPPI-Centre Keywording
Strategy (version 0.9.7) with review-specific keywords in
addition to EPPI keywords. This generated the ‘descriptive
map’ of the studies, that is, a picture of the kinds of
research that have been conducted, where, with what
samples, foci, outcomes and so on. This process did not
attempt to assess the quality of the studies.
Stage 1 findings – a view of the terrain
A total of 2095 potentially relevant reports were identified
for the review. Over half (1156) were excluded in the first
screening of titles and abstracts and a further 238 were
excluded in a second iteration of the process. A total of 383
full reports were screened (some having been unavailable
in the timeframe). A further 315 reports were excluded
leaving 68 that met the criteria for inclusion in the mapping
study.
Most of the 68 studies in the map were identified through
the electronic searches on PsychInfo and ERIC. Over half
of the studies were researcher-manipulated evaluations
(56%) with the remainder divided among naturally occurring
evaluations, explorations of relationships and descriptive
studies. The vast majority (82%) were undertaken in the
USA with seven studies (10%) conducted in the UK and
the remainder in Canada (4%), Norway, Australia and New
Zealand.
The majority of studies did not focus on curricular issues,
but of those that did literacy dominated. Primary school
contexts were twice as prevalent as secondary school
contexts. The target groups were mostly pupils of both
sexes with learning difficulties, although studies of pupils
with autistic spectrum disorders, emotional and behavioural
problems, and physical and sensory disabilities were also
117
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 6 116–124
Figure 1: Nature of the pedagogical approach (n = 68
studies)
represented. Some teaching approaches were explicitly for
all pupils. Regular mainstream teachers mostly carried out
the teaching interventions, with special teachers and peers
also often involved.
The most common pedagogical approach was adaptation of
instruction, often combined with other types of adaptation:
materials, classroom environment and assessment. Just under
a quarter of the studies involved peer group interactive
approaches (see Figure 1).
Table 1 provides data from the map and illustrates the kinds
of studies and teaching included in various categories of
teaching approach. It can be seen that many of these studies
involve interventions combining more than one of the
approaches. This was particularly true of naturally occurring
evaluations.
Stage 2 method – an in-depth look
Implementing teaching approaches such as those featured
in the review may be problematic for teachers if they
require additional or special resourcing to which they do
not have access. The review, however, did include studies
of approaches that involved only those personnel who are
available in every classroom, that is, the mainstream teacher
and pupils’ own peers. The cluster of studies of peer group
interactive approaches were of particular interest in this
respect and seen by the project’s steering group as
particularly relevant.
118
What we could learn from the studies centred on two
main dimensions: (1) evidence of the effectiveness of these
approaches and (2) what they involved. Thus, the systematic
review addressed two related new questions for the in-depth
stage:
• Does a pedagogy involving a peer group interactive
approach effectively include children with SEN in
mainstream classrooms?
• How do mainstream classroom teachers enhance the
academic attainment and social inclusion of children with
SEN through peer group interactive approaches?
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the in-depth review
were drawn up to include studies with a focus on a peer
group interactive pedagogical approach (beyond peer
tutoring/behavioural prompting); conducted by mainstream
classroom teachers without necessitating additional staff
support; and indicating academic and/or social interaction/
involvement outcomes measured through systematic data
gathering. These criteria were applied to studies in the map
to identify a subset for the in-depth review. Data extraction
was undertaken on these, again by two reviewers working
independently and only later discussing and resolving any
differences. The quality of studies and weight of evidence
were assessed using the EPPI data extraction framework.
This involved assessing the reliability and validity of each
study and judging the trustworthiness of study results.
Ultimately, the weight of evidence that each study could
contribute to answering the in-depth review questions was
agreed using the following explicit criteria:
• The soundness of studies (internal methodological
coherence);
• The appropriateness of the research design and analysis
in relation to the review questions; and
• The relevance of the study topic focus to the review
questions.
Taking into account quality of execution, appropriateness
of design and relevance of focus, the judgement of the
overall weight of evidence was made using a consistent
formula.
Only the studies judged to have at least medium weight
of evidence were synthesised for each question. Synthesis
involved eliciting a qualitative and quantitative overview
for the effectiveness question and a structured narrative
describing any overall, cross-study patterns/themes related
to how teachers use peer group interactive approaches.
Stage 2 findings – a detailed synthesis
Ten studies were included in the in-depth review overall;
5 were included in the synthesis for review question (a) (are
approaches effective?) and 7 for review question (b)
(how are approaches used?) with 2 in both. Nine of the ten
studies were conducted in the USA. With the exception of
two studies that explored relationships, they were evaluations,
six of which were researcher-manipulated. Six of the
studies focused on literacy.
© 2006 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2006 nasen
 Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 6 116–124

Table 1: Illustrative examples from the map of teaching approaches

Pedagogical approach
Adaptation of instruction
Adaptation of materials
Adaptation of assessment
Adaptation of classroom environment
Behavioural/programmatic intervention
Computer-based pedagogy
Peer tutoring
Peer group interactive
Team teaching
Illustrative examples
• Case study: scaffolding to assist cognitive learning processes (Flem, 2000)
• One teacher’s application of mnemonic strategy instruction in her inclusive, Grade 4 social studies class
(Mastropieri, Sweda & Scruggs, 2000)
• Impact of professional development leading to use of new strategies and materials to support pupils
struggling with reading (Bryant & Linan-Thompson, 2001)
• Adaptation of teaching, environment, materials and assessment (Bryant, Dean, Elrod & Blackburn,
1999)
• One teacher’s approach combining activity-oriented science curriculum with the building of caring
relationships in her classroom and developing enthusiasm for science and fulfilling students’ personal
purposes (Zembylas, 2002)
• Pupils trained to attract teacher attention and thus increase (a) the rate of teacher attracting, (b) the rate
of teacher praise received, (c) the rate of instructional feedback received, and (d) accuracy in work
completion (Alber, Heward & Hippler, 1999)
• Simple peer-prompting procedure for reducing or eliminating annoying/disruptive sounds made by
child with developmental disabilities (Arceneaux & Murdock, 1997)
• The electronic mirror and emotional growth: influencing self-appraisals and motivational affects in
students with EBD through the use of computer-mediated education (Luth, 2001)
• Computer-assisted cooperative learning in Grade 3 mathematics instruction compared with whole-class
computer-assisted learning (Xin, 1999)
• Academic effects of classwide peer tutoring during spelling instruction compared to traditional teacher-
led instruction (Mortweet, 1999)
• Pupils with learning disabilities and students at risk for referral for special education assessment trained
as tutors for younger children in a peer tutoring programme (Yasutake, 1996)
• Strategies for active facilitation of social interactions, empowering children, building a sense of
community in the classroom, modelling acceptance, and developing school organisational supports.
Peer group interactive approaches occurring alongside adaptation of teaching and environment and team
teaching (Salisbury, Gallucci, Palombard & Peck, 1995)
• Literature circles to encourage students to improve their abilities to analyse literature selections as well
as their self-determination in selecting literature to read and discussing their ideas (Blum, 2002)
• Special educator and speech and language pathologist ending delivering services in self-contained
classrooms and starting team teaching (Denton, 1994)
• Study of classroom social climate, instructional effect, and distribution of teachers’ roles and tasks in
team teaching (Pugach, 1995)

The peer group interactive approaches in detail
The studies were rich in detail about the teaching
approaches and how they were studied, and individually
and together they have relevance for others seeking to
develop as inclusive education teachers. Table 2 provides
some of the detail of the specific approaches studied and
summarises the outcomes and the implications which,
following this individual focus, will be discussed as a
whole.
Discussion: characteristics of the approaches and how
these might be used
All the teaching approaches studied involve an understanding
of the pupil as an active agent in the construction of
personal knowledge and of all pupils as capable of learning.
They also imply that the learning environment plays a key
role as pupils learn through social interactions. There is
recognition that a sense of belonging to, and participation
in, the learning community has an important effect on
young people’s learning in schools.
The studies, separately and together, illustrate the potential
for the peer group to support the achievement and progress
of pupils with SEN. Teachers foster the co-construction
of knowledge through scaffolding by, and dialogue with,
peers. In these studies this co-construction took the form
of peer-led discussion groups (Cushing, Kennedy, Shukla,
Davis & Meyer, 1997; Stevens & Slavin, 1995a; 1995b),
careful questioning of pupils (Palincsar, Magnusson &
Cutter, 2001) and focusing on social cognition and behaviours
(Frederickson & Turner, 2002). In the cooperative learning
groups, that were the subject of several of these studies,

© 2006 The Authors

Journal compilation © 2006 nasen 119
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 6 116–124
Table 2: The approaches, findings and implications of the individual studies
Study and pedagogy
Beaumont (1999) Dilemmas of peer assistance in a bilingual full
inclusion classroom
Exploratory study of teachers providing space for ‘spontaneous,
unstructured peer assistance interactions’ between students, some of
whom had previously been in special education.
Frederickson & Turner (2002) Utilising the classroom peer group
to address children’s social needs: an evaluation of the Circle of
Friends intervention approach
Evaluation of intervention to facilitate social acceptance of pupils
through peer support – helping each other to see and think about things
from different perspectives. Circle of Friends adapted to support
inclusion of students with emotional and behavioural difficulties in
mainstream classrooms by involving peers as a support network to
facilitate the acquisition and generalisation of appropriate classroom
behaviours and social competence.
Cushing (1997) Disentangling the effect of curricular revision and
social grouping within cooperative learning arrangements
Comparison of cooperative learning encompassing differentiated
curriculum and pair work with differentiated curriculum plus social
grouping component.
Stevens & Slavin (1995a) Effects of a Cooperative Learning
Approach in reading and writing on academically handicapped
and non-handicapped students
Evaluation of Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition
(CIRC) Programme: a comprehensive cooperative-learning approach
to reading and language arts instruction. Students work in
heterogeneous learning teams on reading and writing activities.
The approach is, itself, informed by research, and consists of three
main elements: story-related activities, direct instruction in
comprehension strategies, and integrated writing and language arts.
Stevens & Slavin (1995b) The Cooperative Elementary School:
Effects on Students’ Achievement, Attitudes, and Social Relations
Evaluation of cooperative learning strategies across the curriculum,
particularly in relation to literacy and numeracy, and set within the
context of a broader cooperative learning environment and school
philosophy. Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC)
Program and Team Assisted Individualisation – Mathematics (TAI).
120
Summary of outcomes and implications
Found students needed skills to negotiate complex social relationships.
Social (inter)actions affected participation in curricular activities. Students
with special needs offered help to others, which suggests they wanted to
establish themselves as equals, but they themselves experienced less support
in interactions than their peers.
Teachers need to consider context and role when planning and to understand,
monitor and structure helping interactions. Teachers need to help students
learn how to make bids for attention, how to ask precise questions and how
to offer help without criticism.
Positive impact on the social acceptance of the focus children in the
perceptions of their classroom peer groups (though improvements were not
shown on teachers’ or focus children’s perceptions, nor on the general ethos
of the classroom learning environment).
Teachers can use Circle of Friends approaches to facilitate social acceptance.
Teachers need to actively engage in exploratory research into how this might
have greater impact.
Pupils with learning difficulties made greater improvement in weekly pre-/
post-test scores when the curriculum materials were adjusted and they
worked with one peer only, compared with when the curriculum materials
were adjusted and the target pupils worked in cooperative learning groups.
There was little difference in active engagement or social interaction across
the two conditions.
The implications are not necessarily to favour pair work over cooperative
learning as the educators preferred the cooperative group arrangements and
reported that students without disabilities did too.
Positive academic outcomes compared with regular instruction and pull-out
remedial programmes, including greater progress in reading vocabulary,
comprehension, language mechanics and expression than students in
traditional classrooms. This was the case for students with and without
difficulties in learning. Small to moderate effect sizes, some of them
statistically significant.
There are benefits to combining a focus on curriculum and instruction
arrangements alongside social grouping arrangements. It is worth investing
in multifaceted, cooperative learning approaches. There is value in using
holistic, authentic learning experiences in a peer-interactive context.
Significant, lasting improvements in reading vocabulary, language
expression and math computation across groups. Significant difference to
number of friends.
Multifaceted approaches can lead to positive academic and social outcomes.
Cooperative learning approaches can be used to enhance inclusion through
integration of students into heterogeneous learning teams with group goals
and individual accountability, using additional support where needed. An
environment of positive interdependence helps. There is value in using
holistic, authentic learning experiences in a peer-interactive context.
© 2006 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2006 nasen

Table 2: Continued
Study and pedagogy
Palincsar, Magnusson & Cutter (2001) Making science accessible
to all: results of a design experiment in inclusive classrooms
Design experiment of ‘Guided Inquiry supporting Multiple Literacies’
(GIsML) approach, which includes elements of cooperative learning,
subject-specific careful pedagogy, authentic activities and opportunities
to engage in higher order thinking. Students repeat cycles of
investigation to refine their thinking (engage, investigate, explain and
report). Key characteristics are paying attention to the way lesson
content and teaching materials can be accessed by the students and the
way the thinking and reasoning of students with special needs can be
accessed by teachers and peers.
Goatley (1996) The participation of a student identified as learning
disabled in a regular education book club: the case of Stark
Single case study of one student’s response to book club – a literature-
based reading programme with reading, writing, instruction and large
group discussion components and authentic, contextually-grounded
literacy activities, e.g., reading real books, connected text, not just
completing worksheets to practise a single skill.
there is a clear view of the need for a careful delineation
of the roles of group members. In effective peer group
interactive approaches, roles and group interactions are
carefully planned with the pupils’ learning at the centre of
the planning process.
The views of skill acquisition that underpin the studies,
particularly in the areas of literacy and numeracy, tend to
be holistic and related to their application to the real-world
context. This holistic approach is very different from the
more usual fragmented or task-analysed, phonics-based
approach to literacy instruction for pupils deemed to have
SEN. Equally, the approaches to mathematics and science
suggest an acknowledgement of the importance of the
social context rather than the individualised instruction
(particularly in mathematics) more usually associated with
‘remediation’ approaches to the learning needs of pupils
with SEN.
Implicit in the approaches researched in these papers is
a need for everyone to share and understand a common
school philosophy about everyone’s learning and respect
for individuals who experience difficulties. They reflect the
view that inclusion of individuals in mainstream classrooms,
in the sense of participation in the learning community,
cannot occur without cooperation and collaboration. With
the exception of the study that was purely concerned with
the social dimension (Frederickson & Turner, 2002) the
collective research evidence suggests that the social and
© 2006 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2006 nasen
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 6 116–124
Summary of outcomes and implications
Significant learning gains in science made by students with special
educational needs, low-achieving and normally-achieving students. The
nature and amount of appropriate assistance/intervention received by
students influenced their participation. Students with special needs found it
difficult to learn from large-group discussions without concrete support, but
one-to-one discussion with the teacher helped them to engage with learning,
develop thought and rehearse for sharing. Students whose achievement in
writing was poor participated more fully when helped to document their
thoughts.
Teachers need to have deep knowledge of subject matter and time and
opportunity to discuss teaching approaches with their peers. They need to
give students social support, particularly in small-group activities. There is
value in using holistic, authentic learning experiences in a peer-interactive
context.
The student showed improved levels of reading comprehension and writing
and improved social skills in the classroom. He started to respond to the text,
drawing on self-experiences and eliciting the viewpoints of his peers. His
teacher became aware of his strengths and provided the necessary instruction
to help in problem areas.
There is value in using holistic, authentic learning experiences in a peer-
interactive context.
academic dimensions are integrally linked. Moreover, peer
group interactive approaches that have positive outcomes
address both the social and academic elements of supporting
learning.
The systematic review provides some evidence of how the
elements of peer group interactive approaches have been
used to support the inclusion of pupils with special needs
in mainstream classrooms. It also provides evidence of the
ways in which these approaches have implications for the
organisation and overall philosophy of schools. Although
specific evidence is available for the effectiveness of
particular programmes, cooperative learning more generally
encompasses a range of teaching practices and the evidence
base relates to the elements of social grouping/teamwork,
the roles of group members, revising and adapting the
curriculum and working within a cooperative learning school
ethos. A common concern is pupils helping each other to
see and think about things from different perspectives.
Early efforts at integration have been criticised on the
grounds that pupils with special needs may be present in
mainstream classrooms without learning or participating
(Mittler, 2000). In contrast, the outcomes of three of these
studies show both enhanced academic learning and
community participation of pupils with SEN are possible.
The evidence indicates that peer group interactive approaches
that are effective in academic terms are also often effective
in terms of social participation and children’s attitudes to
121
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 6 116–124
their learning. Teasing out the elements of the approaches
that are functionally related with each outcome, as Cushing,
Kennedy, Shukla, Davis & Meyer (1997) attempt to do, is
difficult and probably unnecessary in professional rather
than research terms. Indeed, the relationship between
academic and social dimensions is not always straightforward,
as they show, but in general the studies show the
advantages of peer group interactive/cooperative learning
approaches that are multifaceted. The studies indicate that
attention to community and classroom participation should
not be at the expense of attention to curriculum-related
teaching and learning. Palincsar, Magnusson & Cutter’s
(2001) finding that significant learning gains depend on
social and cognitive supports, underlines this point.
In summary, there are important lessons for teachers to use
in that:
1. As well as utilising pupils as resources for learning,
teachers who use peer group interactive approaches see
the other adults within the school community as both
teachers and learners. This both models cooperative
learning and provides additional supports.
2. Teachers using peer group interactive approaches to
effectively include pupils with SEN are aware of the
need for careful planning of group work, including
delineation of the roles of group members.
3. Teachers effectively using peer group interactive
approaches work on (basic) skills in a holistic way,
embedded in classroom activity and subject knowledge.
This is in contrast to the isolated skill development
associated with traditional remedial programmes for
special needs. Making use of peers may bring with it a
necessity to make skill development socially
meaningful.
4. The studies indicate a role for shared philosophy around
respecting everyone in the class and all their learning.
Teachers effectively including pupils with SEN through
peer group interactions enjoy a common concern with
participation in the learning community, cooperation and
collaboration.
Conclusion
Policymakers often advocate inclusive education without an
understanding of the pedagogical approaches that teachers
can use to operationalise the policy. There is a shortage
of evidence about the nature of teaching approaches that
References
Alber, S. R., Heward, W. L. & Hippler, B. J. (1999)
‘Teaching middle school students with learning
disabilities to recruit positive teacher attention.’
Exceptional Children, 65, pp. 253–70.
Arceneaux, M. C. & Murdock, J. Y. (1997) ‘Peer
prompting reduces disruptive vocalizations of a student
with developmental disabilities in a general eighth-
grade classroom.’ Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 12, pp. 182–6.
122
effectively include children with SEN in mainstream
classrooms and daily teachers are exploring and creating
approaches that work for them. There is, however, some
evidence that can inform this work, that is, evidence that
peer group interactive approaches can be effective and
evidence about how they work. Policy should support
teachers in adopting such approaches.
Teacher educators, who may struggle to respond to the
questions of their trainees about whether inclusive pedagogy
is actually viable, could also use the evidence gleaned
from this review. It is important, however, that teachers and
teacher educators addressing the challenge of teaching
diverse class groups use the available evidence in an active
way as part of their own classroom-based research or
reflective practice (Elliot, 2004). Reviewing the literature
gives teachers evidence-related ideas to work with – it does
not give them a recipe to follow.
It is also important that effective teaching for inclusion is
seen as the complex practice that it is, often combining
attention to (subject-specific) adaptation of teaching/curriculum
with attention to community participation, social grouping
and roles within the group. According to the evidence
reviewed here, teaching approaches that effectively
include children with SEN cannot be reduced to simplistic
formulae, but rather bring together teacher skills with a
willingness and ability to also make use of pupil skills.
Encouraging peer group interactive approaches in the
classroom in an authentic way implies an acknowledgement
of a constructivist, rather than transmission, view of
learning. This implies the need to see all learners, including
teachers, as having active agency in learning and, therefore,
to acknowledge the importance of the teacher as a reflective
practitioner (Schön, 1983; 1987) and the school itself as a
site of reflective practice.
Address for correspondence
Dr Melanie Nind,
School of Education,
University of Southampton,
Highfield,
Southampton SO17 1BJ,
UK.
Email: M.A.Nind@soton.ac.uk
Beaumont, C. J. (1999) ‘Dilemmas of peer assistance in a
bilingual full inclusion classroom.’ Elementary School
Journal, 99, pp. 233–54.
Blum, H. T. (2002) ‘Literature circles: a tool for self-
determination in one middle school inclusive
classroom.’ Remedial and Special Education, 23,
pp. 99–108.
Bryant, R., Dean, M., Elrod, G. F. & Blackburn, J. M.
(1999) ‘Rural general education teachers’ opinions of
© 2006 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2006 nasen

adaptations.’ Rural Special Education Quarterly, 18,
pp. 5–12.
Bryant, R. & Linan-Thompson, D. P. (2001) ‘The effects
of professional development for middle school general
and special education teachers on implementation of
reading strategies in inclusive content area classes.’
Learning Disability Quarterly: Journal of the Division
for Children with Learning Disabilities, 24,
pp. 251–64.
Cushing, L. S., Kennedy, C. H., Shukla, S., Davis, J. &
Meyer, K. A. (1997) ‘Disentangling the effect of
curricular revision and social grouping within
cooperative learning arrangements.’ Focus on Autism
and Other Developmental Disabilities, 12,
pp. 231–40.
Davis, P. & Florian, L. (2004) Teaching Strategies and
Approaches for Pupils with Special Educational Needs:
A scoping study (Research report no. 516). London:
DfES.
Denton, M. (1994) ‘The marriage of special and regular
education through inclusion.’ Teaching and Change, 1,
pp. 349–68.
Department of Education & Science (DES) (1978) Special
Educational Needs: Report of the Enquiry into the
Education of Handicapped Children and Young People
(Warnock Report). London: HMSO.
Department for Education (DfE) (1994) Code of Practice
on the Identification and Assessment of Special
Educational Needs. London: DfE.
Department for Education & Employment (DfEE) (1997)
Excellence for All Children. London: DfEE.
Department for Education & Employment (DfEE) (1998)
Meeting Special Educational Needs: A Programme of
Action. London: DfEE.
Department for Education & Employment (DfEE) (2001)
Code of Practice for Special Educational Needs.
London: DfEE.
Dyson, A., Howes, A. & Roberts, B. (2002) ‘A systematic
review of the effectiveness of school-level actions for
promoting participation by all students (EPPI-Centre
review, version 1.1).’ Research Evidence in Education
Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research
Unit, Institute of Education.
Elliot, J. (2004) ‘Making evidence-based practice
educational.’ In G. Thomas & R. Pring, (eds), Evidence-
based Practice in Education, pp. 164–86. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.
Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-
ordinating Centre (EPPI) (2003) Guidelines for
Extracting Data and Quality Assessing Primary Studies
in Educational Research Version 0.9.7. <http://
eppi.ioe.ac.uk/eppireviewer/
guideline_home.aspx?GUIDELINE_ID=GDL55>
(accessed 23 April 2003).
Evans, J. & Benefield, P. (2000) ‘Systematic reviews of
educational research.’ British Educational Research
Journal, 27 (5), pp. 527–41.
Flem, A. (2000) Towards Inclusive Schools: A Study of
How a Teacher Facilitates Differentiated Instruction.
Paper presented at the European Conference on
© 2006 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2006 nasen
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 6 116–124
Educational Research, Edinburgh, 20–23 September.
<http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/
00001570.htm> (accessed 23 August 2006).
Frederickson, N. & Turner, J. (2002) ‘Utilizing the
classroom peer group to address children’s social needs:
an evaluation of the Circle of Friends intervention
approach.’ Journal of Special Education, 36,
pp. 234–45.
Goatley, V. J. (1996) ‘The participation of a student
identified as learning disabled in a regular education
book club: the case of Stark.’ Reading and Writing
Quarterly, 12, pp. 195–214.
Harden, A., Thomas, J., Evans, J., Scanlon, M. & Sinclair,
J. (2003) ‘Supporting pupils with emotional and
behavioural difficulties (EBD) in mainstream primary
schools: a systematic research of recent research
evidence of strategy effectiveness (1999–2002).’
Research Evidence in Education Library. London:
EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of
Education.
Hart, S. (1996) Beyond Special Needs: Enhancing
Children’s Learning through Innovative Thinking.
London: Paul Chapman.
Howes, A., Farrell, P., Kaplan, I. & Moss, S. (2003) ‘The
impact of paid adult support on the participation and
learning of pupils in mainstream schools.’ Research
Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre,
Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
HM Government (1981) Education Act 1981. London: The
Stationery Office.
HM Government (1993) Education Act 1993. London: The
Stationery Office.
HM Government (1996) Education Act 1996. London: The
Stationery Office.
HM Government (2001) Special Educational Needs and
Disability Act 2001. London: The Stationery Office.
Lewis, A. & Norwich, B. (2005) Special Teaching for
Special Children? Pedagogies for Inclusion.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Luth, R. (2001) ‘The electronic mirror and emotional
growth: influencing self-appraisals and motivational
affects in students with EBD through the use of
computer mediated education.’ Emotional and
Behavioural Difficulties, 6, pp. 251–64.
MacLure, M. (2005) ‘“Clarity bordering on stupidity”’:
where’s the quality in systematic review?’ Journal of
Education Policy, 20 (4), pp. 393–416.
Mastropieri, M. A., Sweda, J. & Scruggs, T. E. (2000)
‘Putting mnemonic strategies to work in an inclusive
classroom.’ Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 15, pp. 69–74.
Mittler, P. (2000) Working towards Inclusive Education:
Social Contexts. London: David Fulton.
Mortweet, S. L. (1999) ‘Classwide peer tutoring:
teaching students with mild mental retardation in
inclusive classrooms.’ Exceptional Children, 65,
pp. 524–36.
Nind, M. (2006) ‘Conducting systematic review in
education: a reflexive narrative.’ London Review of
Education, 4 (2), 183–95.
123
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 6 116–124
Nind, M. & Wearmouth, J. (2004) A Systematic Review of
Pedagogical Approaches that Can Effectively Include
Children with Special Educational Needs in
Mainstream Classrooms with A Particular Focus on
Peer Group Interactive Approaches. <http://
eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWeb/home.aspx?page=/reel/
review_groups/TTA_SEN/review1.htm> (accessed 23
August 2006).
Norwich, B. & Lewis, A. (2001) ‘Mapping a pedagogy for
SEN.’ British Educational Research Journal, 27 (3),
pp. 313–30.
Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, K. M. C. & Cutter, J. (2001)
‘Making science accessible to all: results of a design
experiment in inclusive classrooms.’ Learning
Disability Quarterly, 24, pp. 15–32.
Pugach, M. C. (1995) ‘Teachers’ and students’ views of
team teaching of general education and learning-
disabled students in two fifth-grade classes.’ Elementary
School Journal, 95, pp. 279–95.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (2000)
Curriculum 2000. London: QCA.
Salisbury, C. L., Gallucci, C., Palombard, M. M. & Peck,
C. A. (1995) ‘Strategies that promote social relations
among elementary students with and without severe
disabilities in inclusive schools.’ Exceptional Children,
6, pp. 125–37.
Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York:
Basic Books.
124
Schön, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sebba, J. & Sachdev, D. (1997) What Works in Inclusive
Education. Basingstoke: Barnados.
Stevens, R. J. & Slavin, R. E. (1995a) ‘Effects of a
cooperative learning approach in reading and writing on
academically handicapped and nonhandicapped
students.’ Elementary School Journal, 95,
pp. 241–62.
Stevens, R. J. & Slavin, R. E. (1995b) ‘The cooperative
elementary school: effects on students’ achievement,
attitudes, and social relations.’ American Educational
Research Journal, 32, pp. 321–51.
Thomas, G. & Loxley, A. (2001) Deconstructing Special
Education and Constructing Inclusion. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Xin, J. F. (1999) ‘Computer-assisted cooperative learning
in integrated classrooms for students with and without
disabilities.’ Information Technology in Childhood
Education Annual, January, pp. 61–79.
Yasutake, D. (1996) ‘The effects of combining peer
tutoring and attribution training on students’ perceived
self-competence.’ Remedial and Special Education, 17,
pp. 83–91.
Zembylas, M. (2002) ‘Teaching science to students with
learning disabilities: subverting the myths of labeling
through teachers’ caring and enthusiasm.’ Research in
Science Education, 32, pp. 55–79.
© 2006 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2006 nasen