feduc-05-582873 October 6, 2020 Time: 20:56 # 1
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 08 October 2020
doi: 10.3389/feduc.2020.582873
Social Acceptance in Inclusive
Classrooms: The Role of Teacher
Attitudes Toward Inclusion and
Classroom Management
Ariana Garrote1,2* , Franziska Felder2, Helena Krähenmann1,2, Susanne Schnepel2,
Rachel Sermier Dessemontet3 and Elisabeth Moser Opitz2
1 School of Education, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Brugg, Switzerland, 2 Institute
of Education, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 3 Department of Special Educational Needs, University of Teacher
Education of the Canton of Vaud, Lausanne, Switzerland
Social acceptance is vital to students’ development. Being rejected by classmates can
result in negative socio-emotional and academic outcomes. Finding relevant factors to
be able to effectively support student social acceptance is especially challenging in
inclusive classrooms because of the high heterogeneity of the student group. There
is evidence that social acceptance is determined by the social behavior of students. In
Edited by: addition, current research suggests that affect-motivation dispositions, such as teacher
Antonius H. N. Cillessen, attitudes, are related to teaching practices, which in turn are associated with student
Radboud University, Netherlands outcomes. This longitudinal study examines, on an individual level, the relationship
Reviewed by: between social behavior and the social acceptance of students. On a classroom level,
Francesca Giovanna Maria
Gastaldi, the extent to which a teacher’s attitudes toward the inclusion of students with special
University of Turin, Italy educational needs affects their classroom management (i.e., implementation of clear
Teresa Pozo-Rico,
University of Alicante, Spain rules and successful time management) is analyzed. In addition, the effect of teacher
*Correspondence: attitudes toward inclusion and classroom management on social acceptance in the
Ariana Garrote classroom is investigated. The social acceptance of a sample of 580 students in 34
ariana.garrote@fhnw.ch inclusive classrooms was assessed at the beginning and the end of the school year. In
Specialty section: addition, student social behavior was rated by peers at the beginning of the school year.
This article was submitted to Teachers (n = 34) were asked about their attitudes toward inclusion at the beginning
Educational Psychology, of the school year. One mathematics lesson in each classroom was videotaped to
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Education assess the teachers’ classroom management practices. Multilevel structural equation
Received: 13 July 2020 models revealed a positive relationship between student social behavior and their social
Accepted: 18 September 2020 acceptance in the peer group. Contrary to expectations, teachers’ attitudes toward
Published: 08 October 2020
inclusion did not predict their classroom management practices (i.e., implementation of
Citation:
Garrote A, Felder F, clear rules and successful time management). As hypothesized, teachers’ classroom
Krähenmann H, Schnepel S, management predicted the level of social acceptance in the classroom, whereas
Sermier Dessemontet R and teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of students with special educational needs did
Moser Opitz E (2020) Social
Acceptance in Inclusive Classrooms: not. The study results are discussed in light of previous findings and implications for
The Role of Teacher Attitudes Toward teacher education are described.
Inclusion and Classroom
Management. Front. Educ. 5:582873. Keywords: classroom management, teacher attitudes, social acceptance, primary school, special educational
doi: 10.3389/feduc.2020.582873 needs, inclusive classrooms
Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 1 October 2020 | Volume 5 | Article 582873
feduc-05-582873 October 6, 2020 Time: 20:56 # 2
Garrote et al. Teachers’ Role in Social Acceptance
INTRODUCTION rejecting a peer. Most students associated the rejection of peers
with behaviors that threatened social expectations and norms
Providing an optimal learning environment for the academic (e.g., pushing around, bossing about, interrupting, hitting). This
and socio-emotional development of students is a major task indicates that student social behavior determines their level of
for teachers. There is a large body of evidence focusing on the social acceptance within the peer group. On a classroom level,
effect of the teacher on academic development, such as student however, expected and “normal” social behavior is dependent on
learning processes and cognitive outcomes (e.g., Hattie, 2009). In the classroom norm. This means that a student’s social acceptance
recent years, researchers have also examined the extent to which is also determined by the acceptance of their behavior by the
teaching practices contribute to the social experiences of students group (Chang, 2004; Hitti et al., 2011). Whether behaviors such
within their peer group and hence to their socio-emotional as aggression and prosocial actions are perceived as “normal” in
development (e.g., Farmer et al., 2011; Juvonen et al., 2019). a classroom is, in turn, dependent on teacher practices (Mikami
More specifically, Farmer et al. (2011) introduced the concept et al., 2012). Therefore, both peer group dynamics and the
of the “invisible hand” into the research discourse. This refers teachers’ role in creating it are relevant when analyzing how to
to the potential teachers have to influence peer dynamics and foster the social acceptance of all students (Farmer et al., 2019).
student social behavior in classrooms. Teachers can intentionally Currently, the impact of teachers on students is conceptualized
improve student social acceptance by implementing peer assisted with models of teacher competence. Blömeke et al. (2015) and
learning strategies (e.g., Fuchs et al., 2002), or by changing Krauss et al. (2020) describe the process of teacher influence
seating arrangements in their classrooms (e.g., Van Den Berg on the students as dispositions (cognitive and affect-motivation)
et al., 2012). Teachers also unintentionally affect the social of the teacher that affect his or her teaching practices, which
dynamics of the classroom by interacting with students and in turn have an impact on the students. These models and
implementing their teaching routines (Farmer et al., 2011). the associated studies mostly focus on cognitive and non-
For example, how teachers give feedback does not only have cognitive student outcomes related to mathematical learning
an impact on students’ learning processes (e.g., Hattie, 2009), (e.g., mathematical achievement, motivation). However, the
but also affects their social acceptance (e.g., Hendrickx et al., models are also useful as heuristics for social outcomes like the
2017; Wullschleger et al., 2020). However, most empirical social acceptance of students. Krauss et al. (2020) distinguish
studies on the impact of teachers on student social outcomes the affect-motivation dispositions self-regulation, motivational
have been carried out in regular classrooms. Little is known orientations as well as beliefs, values, and goals, to which attitudes
about the extent to which teachers influence student social can be included. These dispositions affect teaching practices in
acceptance in inclusive classrooms. In these classrooms, it is the dimensions of classroom management, student support, and
particularly challenging for teachers to support student social cognitive activation. Focusing on inclusive classrooms, the affect-
acceptance because they are highly heterogeneous in terms of motivation variable “teacher attitude toward inclusive education”
student characteristics and broad range of educational needs (i.e., and its relationship to other teacher related variables has been
typically developing students, special educational needs students, analyzed in several studies.
and second language learners). Therefore, it could be that the Current research shows a relationship between attitudes
impact of teacher related variables on student social outcomes toward inclusion–or attitudes toward students with disabilities–
differs from that in regular classrooms. This study contributes and inclusive teaching practices. Avramidis et al. (2019) found
to the understanding of the role of teachers in student social that teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and their self-efficacy
acceptance in inclusive classrooms. for inclusive practices predicted their willingness to implement
Developmental studies have shown that supporting student a peer-tutoring program. Further, research by Wilson et al.
social acceptance in the peer group is vital to their social and (2019) indicated that teachers with more positive attitudes
academic development, as negative outcomes can be prevented. toward children with disabilities had higher self-efficacy and a
Students who are rejected by their classmates show higher rates higher inclination to use inclusive teaching practices. According
of stress and school avoidance and display lower academic to Hellmich et al. (2019), primary school teachers’ everyday
engagement (Ladd et al., 2008; Peters et al., 2011). In the practices in heterogeneous classrooms were related to their
longer term, the lack of peer acceptance can cause behavioral intentions regarding the implementation of inclusive education
problems (Sturaro et al., 2011) and result in students dropping and to their attitudes toward inclusive education. Moreover,
out of school (Ollendick et al., 1992). Research has shown a longitudinal study from Bosse et al. (2016) showed that
that some students are more vulnerable and are more likely to teachers with more positive attitudes toward inclusion were
experience social rejection and negative academic outcomes. In less anxious. Less anxiety might in turn positively affect the
inclusive classrooms, students with special educational needs are teaching quality. Finally, Monsen et al. (2014) showed that
sometimes at greater risk of being less accepted by their peers teachers with highly positive attitudes toward inclusion made
than their classmates without special educational needs (Koster a greater effort to adapt their learning, social, and emotional
et al., 2010; Pijl and Frostad, 2010; Grütter et al., 2015). Students classroom environments to reflect an atmosphere suitable for
showing a lack of socially competent behavior are also less likely included students with special educational needs. To conclude,
to be accepted by their peers (de Monchy et al., 2004; Mand, many studies suggest a relationship between teacher attitudes
2007; Bacete et al., 2017). For instance, Bacete et al. (2017) toward inclusion and teaching practices in inclusive classrooms.
asked first and second grade students about their reasons for However, this relationship has not been extensively investigated
Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 2 October 2020 | Volume 5 | Article 582873
feduc-05-582873 October 6, 2020 Time: 20:56 # 3
Garrote et al. Teachers’ Role in Social Acceptance
in longitudinal studies. In addition, teaching practices were In conclusion, students’ social acceptance is determined by
assessed with self-reported data from the teachers. Studies with individual characteristics such as student social behavior. In
concrete behavior observations are lacking. addition, some evidence is available indicating that a teacher’s
Classroom management is a core component of effective attitude toward inclusive education–as an affect-motivation
teaching practice (Hattie, 2009) and researchers have highlighted disposition–affects their teaching practices. However, the findings
its particular importance in inclusive classrooms (Jordan and are based on self-reported teacher behavior. Studies that
McGhie-Richmond, 2014; Farmer et al., 2019). Farmer et al. investigate the relationship between attitudes toward inclusion
(2019) point out that classroom management is designed to foster and the concrete teaching practices in class are lacking. Finally,
student development and the maintenance of new competencies. there is a growing body of research suggesting that social
In an observational study, Jordan and McGhie-Richmond acceptance in the peer group is influenced by how teachers
(2014) identified classroom management as an effective teaching manage the classroom. Yet, there are not many empirical studies
practice that correlated with the amount of instructional time. that have examined the extent to which classroom management
Helmke (2014) emphasized three factors for effective classroom affects students’ social acceptance in inclusive classrooms.
management: (1) clear rules and the early establishment In light of the current state of research, this study will answer
and consistent realization of social and academic norms, the following research questions on an individual and on a
(2) successful time management which facilitates the smooth classroom level (see Figure 1).
transition from one activity to the next and prevents tardiness
and unnecessary waiting, and (3) the effective prevention (1) Does student social behavior predict student social
and handling of classroom disruptions. Jordan and McGhie- acceptance in the peer group (individual level)? In
Richmond (2014) report, focusing on inclusive classrooms, that accordance to previous findings (e.g., de Monchy et al.,
well-established classroom routines for beginning and ending 2004; Mand, 2007; Bacete et al., 2017), it is hypothesized
a lesson, handing out and collecting materials and transitions that students with higher levels of social behavior are more
between tasks, expecting students to help each other before likely accepted by their peers.
asking for help from the teacher, and taking some responsibility (2) Do teacher attitudes toward inclusion predict classroom
for managing their behavior and engagement in learning management (classroom level)? Based on previous study
activities, are crucial. results (e.g., Hellmich et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2019), a
Most of the research on the effects of classroom management significant relationship between attitudes toward inclusion
has focused on the academic progress of students as an outcome and classroom management is assumed.
variable. Only in recent years has there been an increasing interest (3) Does effective classroom management predict student
in investigating the impact of teacher classroom management social acceptance in the peer group (classroom level)?
practices on student social outcomes (e.g., Farmer et al., 2019). According to the research supporting the impact of
As a classroom leader, the teacher plays a crucial role in the classroom management on student social experiences (e.g.,
management of behavior (e.g., with the implementation of Farmer et al., 2019), a positive relationship is assumed,
rules) as well as the acceptance of students’ behavior (Pianta which suggests that more effective classroom management
and Hamre, 2009; Mikami et al., 2010; Farmer et al., 2011). leads to a higher level of social acceptance in the classroom.
Karakaya and Tufan (2018) examined the relationship between (4) Do teacher attitudes toward inclusion predict student
teachers’ classroom management and students’ social behavior in social acceptance in the peer group (classroom level)?
a sample with preschoolers aged 4–7. No relationship between Considering the expected relationship of affect-motivation
these variables could be found. However, data were collected dispositions and teaching practices (Blömeke et al., 2015;
using teacher questionnaires and concrete teaching practices Krauss et al., 2020), no direct relationship between attitudes
were not examined. This might have affected the results. Based toward inclusion and social acceptance is expected. Only an
on research on the relationship between teachers’ classroom indirect effect via classroom management is assumed.
practices and the occurrence of disruptive behavior (e.g., Stronge
et al., 2011) it can be hypothesized, that a high level of effective
classroom management practices, like the implementation of MATERIALS AND METHODS
effective rules, can prevent disruptive behavior (Kostewicz et al.,
2008). This in turn can positively affect the social acceptance Participants and Procedure
of students who are at risk of being rejected because of their The sample of the present study consists of 34 inclusive classes
disruptive behavior. A meta-analysis of Korpershoek et al. (2016) from grade 1 to grade 3 (6-to-9-year old students; n = 580) from
showed that classroom management facilitates both academic 9 cantons in two linguistic regions of Switzerland. Eight classes
and socio-emotional learning. In their research summary, Soodak were combination classes (i.e., grade 1 to 3 or grades 1 and
and McCarthy (2006) stress that certain teaching practices (i.e., 2). In Switzerland, the 26 cantons are individually responsible
using hands-on activities, peer tutoring) are associated with for education and each have their own regulations. All cantons
social acceptance in the peer group. However, this positive embrace inclusive education, but implementation differs. In
effect needs to be supported by more evidence, as studies some cantons all students with learning disabilities and 50%
on the impact of classroom management on social acceptance of the students with intellectual disabilities attend mainstream
are very scarce. classes while in other cantons, the level of inclusion is much
Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 3 October 2020 | Volume 5 | Article 582873
feduc-05-582873 October 6, 2020 Time: 20:56 # 4
Garrote et al. Teachers’ Role in Social Acceptance
FIGURE 1 | Hypothesized Model. Solid arrows represent hypothesized effects. Dashed arrows depict paths that are expected to be 0. On the individual level,
student social behavior is assumed to predict student social acceptance. On the classroom level, teacher attitudes are hypothesized to predict teacher classroom
management, but to have no direct effect on student social acceptance. Teacher classroom management, however, is expected to be a significant predictor of
student social acceptance on the classroom level. Teacher attitudes are assumed to only affect students’ social acceptance indirectly (mediated by teacher
classroom management).
lower. Invitation letters were sent to several schools via school challenging to examine the influence of the teachers (Jones
authorities. Teachers decided voluntarily whether or not they and Brownell, 2014; Pfister et al., 2015). Strategies that were
wished to participate (n = 34). The parents gave written consent implemented to deal with this challenge will be described in the
for the participation of their children in the study. Classes were measures section.
included in the study if they included at least one student who The study was conducted over one school year. Student
had been diagnosed, prior to the study, with an intellectual social behavior and social acceptance at t1 were assessed at
disability or a severe learning disability (cut off criteria IQ < 75) the beginning of the school year, social acceptance at t2 at the
by a school psychologist (n = 43). Students with milder end. The teacher questionnaire on attitudes toward inclusion
learning disabilities and behavioral problems were also enrolled was administered at the beginning of the school year. Teacher
in these classes. However, according to the common practice classroom management in class was observed 3–4 months
in Switzerland these students were not officially diagnosed as after the beginning of the school year by videotaping one
having special educational needs. Due to the small number mathematics lesson.
of students diagnosed with an intellectual disability or severe
learning disability in each class, this variable (with special
educational needs vs. without special educational needs) could Measures
not be included in the study analyses. Nevertheless, these students Teacher Attitudes Toward Inclusion
were part of the study sample. Teacher attitudes toward inclusion were assessed using the
In the study sample, a special education teacher was present Opinions Relative to the Integration of Students with Disabilities
in the classes, with a range of 3–17 h per week (M = 9.1, questionnaire (ORI; n = 34, Min = 73, Max = 130, M = 102.21,
SD = 3.73). In 17 classrooms, the special education teacher SD = 13.1, 25 items, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85). The questionnaire
was present in the classrooms in all of his or her lessons of was translated and the terminology and the labels of the
support, and the general education and the special education factors were adapted (i.e., integration, disability) to make it
teacher were both present in the classroom. In 12 classes, a more suitable in the contemporary Swiss context (Ewing et al.,
mixed setting was chosen (in-class support and one-to-one 2018) and the specific setting of regular classes attended by
support outside the classroom, or in-class-support combined students with an intellectual disability. The ORI questionnaire
with small group support of students with and without an consists of four factors (Antonak and Larrivee, 1995). Factor
intellectual disability). In the remaining 5 classes, the support I is comprised of eight items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85) on
of the special education teacher was provided exclusively for the benefits of inclusive education (e.g., “The challenge of
the student(s) with an intellectual disability in a resource room. being in a regular classroom promotes the academic growth
This so-called “nested-instruction” structure where there are of students with ID.”). Factor II includes 10 items (Cronbach’s
occasionally two teachers present in the classroom, makes it alpha = 0.70) on the behavior of students with an intellectual
Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 4 October 2020 | Volume 5 | Article 582873
feduc-05-582873 October 6, 2020 Time: 20:56 # 5
Garrote et al. Teachers’ Role in Social Acceptance
disability and classroom management (e.g., “It is not more SD = 0.75) and a score for the implementation of rules
difficult to maintain order in a regular classroom that contains (M = 3.12, SD = 0.8).
a student with an intellectual disability than in one that
does not contain students with an intellectual disability.”). Student Social Behavior
Factor III includes three items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.69) on To assess the social behavior of students, their peers were asked
the perceived ability to teach students with an intellectual two questions about cooperative and prosocial behavior (n = 579,
disability (e.g., “Regular classroom teachers have the ability Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84). Participants rated four randomly
necessary to work with students with an intellectual disability.”). selected classmates on a five-point-scale with smileys (1 = / = “I
Factor IV comprises four items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.51) on do not agree at all” to 5 = , = “I totally agree”) with respect to
the topic “special versus inclusive education” (e.g., “Students how well they could work with them and how helpful they were.
with an intellectual disability can best be served in regular For each student, an average cooperative behavior score (n = 579,
classrooms”). In the present study, the analyses are carried out M = 3.71, SD = 0.84) and an average prosocial behavior score
both with the total score of the ORI as a manifest variable and, (n = 579, M = 3.62, SD = 0.86) at t1 was calculated.
separately, with the scores of factors I (benefits of inclusion),
II (behavior management), and III (ability to teach) as manifest Student Social Acceptance
variables. Factor IV is excluded because of its low reliability in The social acceptance of students was determined by asking
the study sample. their peers at the beginning (t1) and end of the school year (t2)
questions about playing together. The sociometric instrument
Teacher Classroom Management was developed based on the recommendations in Hymel et al.
Video data were used to assess classroom management. Between (2004). Participants rated how much they liked to play with every
November and December, approximately 3–4 months after the single classmate on a five-point-scale with smileys (1 = / = “I
start of the school year, one mathematics lesson per class do not like to play with X at all” to 5 = , = “I like to play
(duration M = 48.88 min, SD = 10.33) was videotaped using with X a lot”). For each student, an average acceptance score
two cameras (3329 min in total). Teachers were given two fixed was calculated with the ratings received from all classmates
conditions for the video-recorded lesson: (a) the content had at t1 (n = 580, M = 3.49, SD = 0.61) and t2 (n = 565,
to be arithmetic and (b) the study aimed to record business M = 3.47, SD = 0.61).
as usual. That meant, for example, that both the general
education teacher and the special education teacher had to be Analysis Strategy
teaching during the lesson. As the general education teacher The data from this study is hierarchically structured, with
lead the classroom activities during most of the lesson, only students nested within classes. Multilevel modeling offers an
his or her classroom management practices were considered for appropriate framework to examine this complex data structure
further analyses. (Hox et al., 2017). In a first step, in order to verify the multilevel
After the video session, the teachers were interviewed to structure of the data, the classroom differences for all variables
determine if the recorded lesson had been typical for a at the individual level were verified with analysis of variance
mathematics lesson and the setting of the collaboration. Based and by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficients ICC(1)
on the interviews, the video-recorded lessons were assessed to and ICC(2) with R package multilevel 2.6 (Bliese, 2016). While
be “mostly typical” or “rather typical.” Only video data from the ICC(1) represents the proportion of the total variance
typical situations were included in the analyses (n = 33). Two explained by the grouping structure, the ICC(2) shows the
items were defined and rated by indicators: time management reliability of aggregated variables. Further, correlations between
and consistent implementation of clear rules. The ratings the study variables at the classroom level (e.g., teacher attitudes
describe an overall evaluation of a whole lesson unit that toward inclusion) and the individual level (e.g., student social
is based on the intensity or degree of the shown behavior behavior) were computed.
(Rakoczy and Pauli, 2006) using a Likert-like scale, ranging In a second step, multilevel structural equation modeling
from 4 = full compliance with the ideal performance to 1 = no was performed using the R package lavaan 0.6–5 (Rosseel,
compliance with the ideal performance. Indicators for time 2012; Rosseel et al., 2019). Multilevel modeling enables
management were, for instance, “the teacher uses the time for the investigation of the extent to which the classroom
instructional and content-based activities” or “the transition of differences (between-classroom variation) in social acceptance
one lesson phase to the next proceeds smoothly.” Indicators at t2 were predicted by teacher attitudes toward inclusion
for the item implementation of rules were, for instance, “the and teacher classroom management. At the individual level
teacher ensures that the students obey the rules” or “the (within-classroom variation), the extent to which student social
teacher draws the attention of the students to rule violations.” behavior and social acceptance at t1 were predictors of student
Each video was rated independently by two trained rater. social acceptance at t2 was examined. In accordance with
Interrater reliability grelativ (Clausen et al., 2003) was 0.88 previous findings on sex-differences in social behavior, sex
for time management and 0.86 for implementation of rules. was added as a control variable at the individual level. Full
G-Coefficients are interpreted according to the same criteria as information maximum likelihood estimation was employed to
reliability coefficients (ibid.), therefore the interrater reliability make use of all available data. The goodness of fit of the
was good. Each class had a score for time management (M = 2.45, estimated models was evaluated using four indicators: chi-square
Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 5 October 2020 | Volume 5 | Article 582873
feduc-05-582873 October 6, 2020 Time: 20:56 # 6
Garrote et al. Teachers’ Role in Social Acceptance
test, comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of only behavior management and perceived ability to teach were
approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root-mean-square positively, but weakly, correlated with teacher time management
residual (SRMR). and with teacher implementation of rules.
The Role of Teacher Attitudes Toward
RESULTS Inclusion and Classroom Management in
Student Social Acceptance
Intraclass Correlations The hypothesized model with teacher attitudes toward inclusion
The analysis of variance showed significant differences between as a manifest variable fitted the data well, χ2(6) = 6.36, p = 0.384,
the classes for the variables at the individual level: cooperative CFI = 1, RMSEA = 0.01 [90% CI: 0,0.06], SRMR = 0.02. The
behavior, prosocial behavior, and social acceptance (t1 and t2). results are presented in Figure 2. On the individual level, student
The differences between the classes were significant for student social behavior was correlated with student social acceptance at
social acceptance at t1 (F[33, 546] = 3.27, p < 0.001) and t and was a predictor of student social acceptance at t . Student
at t2 (F[33, 531] = 4.55, p < 0.001), as well as for student
1 2
sex was correlated with student social behavior. More specifically,
cooperative behavior (F[33, 545] = 1.64, p < 0.05) and prosocial girls were rated as having significantly higher levels of social
behavior (F[33, 545] = 1.99, p < 0.001). The intraclass correlation behavior than boys. On the class level, classroom management
coefficient ICC(1) values showed that 17.6% of total variance was a significant predictor of student social acceptance at t
in social acceptance at t and 11.7% of total variance in social 2
.
2 As hypothesized, teacher attitudes toward inclusion did not
acceptance at t1 were explained by the classroom level. In predict student social acceptance at t2. In addition, teachercontrast, only 3.6% of total variance of student cooperative attitudes toward inclusion were not related to teacher classroom
behavior and 6% of total variance of student prosocial behavior management, which was unexpected. On both levels, social
were explained by the grouping structure, which is lower acceptance at t1 strongly predicted social acceptance at t2, whichthan the usual range (ICC[1] > 0.10–0.25) in educational indicates a high stability of social acceptance over time.
studies (Hedges and Hedberg, 2007). Thus, in the multilevel An alternative model was tested with the three factors
structural equation modeling, only the student variables of social of teacher attitudes toward inclusion added separately as
acceptance at t1 and t2 where aggregated at the classroom level. manifest variables. The adapted model also fitted the data well,
The ICC(2) values for social acceptance at t1 (0.69) and t2 χ2(11) = 23.29, p < 0.05, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.05 [90%
(0.78) revealed a moderately good reliability of the group mean CI:0.02,0.07], SRMR = 0.02. As expected, teacher attitudes about
(Trevethan, 2017). benefits of inclusion, about behavior management in inclusive
Further, the correlations between the variables on the classrooms, and about the ability to teach in inclusive classrooms
individual level revealed a significant but small (Cohen, 1988) had no effect on student social acceptance t at the classroom
negative relationship between student sex and their social 2level. In addition, none of the three factors of teacher attitudes
behavior (Table 1), which means girls were perceived as showing toward inclusion predicted classroom management.
higher levels of social behavior than boys. In addition, student
social behavior was moderately to strongly positively correlated
with student social acceptance at t1 and t2. On the classroom level, DISCUSSION
teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion were positively but weakly
correlated with teachers’ time management and implementation In this study, the impact of student social behavior, teachers’
of rules. Looking separately at each teacher attitude factor, attitudes toward inclusion, and classroom management on
TABLE 1 | Correlations of student variables on individual level (n = 580) and teacher variables on classroom level (n = 34).
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
1. Sex (male = 1)
2. Social Acceptance t1 −0.07
3. Social Acceptance t2 −0.05 0.74***
4. Cooperative Behavior −0.16*** 0.58*** 0.51***
5. Prosocial Behavior −0.15*** 0.53*** 0.47*** 0.72***
6. Attitudes −0.01 0.08* 0.03 −0.03 0.004
7. Benefits of Inclusion −0.03 0.12** 0.07 −0.02 −0.03 0.81***
8. Behavior Management −0.03 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.84*** 0.49***
9. Ability to Teach −0.01 −0.004 0.01 −0.04 −0.07 0.5*** 0.18*** 0.36***
10. Time Management 0.04 0.09* 0.18*** −0.08 0.05 0.28*** 0.06 0.36*** 0.15**
11. Implementation of Rules −0.02 0.02 0.1* −0.08 0.11* 0.28*** 0.08 0.32*** 0.1* 0.7***
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.
Two-tailed. Variables 1–5 are student variables (individual level). Variables 6–11 are teacher attitudes and classroom management variables (classroom level).
Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 6 October 2020 | Volume 5 | Article 582873
feduc-05-582873 October 6, 2020 Time: 20:56 # 7
Garrote et al. Teachers’ Role in Social Acceptance
FIGURE 2 | Path diagram of the final model, containing all hypothesized paths and covariances. The dashed black arrow represents the hypothesized significant
path between attitudes and classroom management that was not confirmed. The dashed gray arrow depicts the path between attitudes and social acceptance at t2
that was hypothesized to be 0. Standardized estimates are provided with their respective level of significance (two-tailed). ∗p < 0.05. ∗∗p < 0.01. ∗ ∗ ∗p < 0.001.
student social acceptance in inclusive classrooms was examined. is in line with previous research showing that children reject their
Also, the extent to which teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion peers because of their problematic social behavior (Bacete et al.,
as affect-motivation dispositions predict teachers’ classroom 2017) and that a lack of socially competent behavior predicts peer
management was investigated. This study contributes to a rejection (Pedersen et al., 2007). Although students with special
better understanding of the impact of teachers’ attitudes toward educational needs who show a lack of socially competent behavior
inclusion and teachers’ practices on student social experiences are more likely to be rejected by their peers (Frederickson
in the peer group. In addition, it includes both student and and Furnham, 2004; Odom et al., 2006), the results of this
teacher predictors that contribute to the social acceptance of study suggest that students without special educational needs
students on an individual and on a classroom level. Further, it are also affected by the association between social behavior and
adds value to earlier research by assessing classroom management social acceptance. Thus, creating opportunities for all students
with behavior observations in class. to acquire and practice cooperative and prosocial behaviors in
Social acceptance in the peer group is an important aspect the peer group (e.g., with peer assisted learning settings) is an
of social participation (Koster et al., 2009; Bossaert et al., important element in the facilitation of student social acceptance
2013). Being accepted by peers can be crucial for the academic in inclusive classrooms (Garrote et al., 2017).
and socio-emotional development of students (Eriksson and At the classroom level, effective teacher classroom
Granlund, 2004). In inclusive classrooms however, some students management had, as predicted, a positive impact on the
are more at risk of having difficulties with their social level of social acceptance in the classroom. While many
participation than others. For instance, students with special studies have revealed the effect of classroom management on
educational needs are less accepted by peers than their classmates student academic outcomes (e.g., Hattie, 2009), this result
without special educational needs (Krull et al., 2014; Nepi et al., supports the finding that student social outcomes are influenced
2015). In order to be able to foster the social participation of by teachers’ classroom management practices as well (e.g.,
all students in inclusive classrooms, the relevant factors on an Soodak and McCarthy, 2006). Further, it provides empirical
individual and classroom level need to be identified. evidence for the concept of the “invisible hand” that refers
In this study, the findings indicate that in inclusive classrooms to the potential teachers have to unobtrusively influence the
students are more accepted by peers if they are perceived as classroom social dynamics (Farmer et al., 2018). Whether
displaying cooperative and prosocial behavior. Students with low intentionally or not, first to third grade teachers had an impact
levels of social behavior were less accepted by the peer group. This on the social acceptance level of the peer group through
Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 7 October 2020 | Volume 5 | Article 582873
feduc-05-582873 October 6, 2020 Time: 20:56 # 8
Garrote et al. Teachers’ Role in Social Acceptance
their classroom management practices. Implementing clear that attitudes toward inclusion, and especially the assumptions
and consistent rules, as well as successfully managing time, on its effects, remain a “fuzzy concept.” In the end, positive
to avoid tardiness and unnecessary waiting, resulted in a attitudes toward inclusion might be, as reported by Bosse et al.
higher level of social acceptance in the classroom by the end (2016), a result of teachers’ experiences of stress. In order to
of the school year. It can be assumed that these classroom be able to draw any conclusions on the impact of teacher
management routines prevented disruptive behavior (Kostewicz attitudes toward inclusion on teacher practices in class, further
et al., 2008) and thus prevented a negative perception of longitudinal studies using multidimensional assessment scales
students with disruptive behavior, which in turn affected the are clearly needed.
social acceptance level in the classroom. Finally, the results This study provides supporting evidence for the role teachers
also highlight the importance of teachers’ awareness of social play in promoting social acceptance in inclusive classrooms.
dynamics in the classroom and of their unique position to However, its findings need to be interpreted in light of its
support social experiences of students in the peer group with limitations. First, video-data were available from only one
adequate classroom management practices (Farmer et al., 2019; lesson. According to Praetorius et al. (2014), one videotaped
Juvonen et al., 2019). lesson per class should be enough to analyze classroom
Teacher attitudes toward inclusion, as an affect-motivation management reliably. Nevertheless, teachers and students might
disposition aspect of teacher competence, played no significant have been influenced by being videotaped. In particular, the
role in the social acceptance level in the classroom. This was students might have displayed less disruptive behavior than in a
expected as current research from regular classrooms shows that setting without a video camera (Hawthorn-effect; Coombs and
affect-motivation dispositions influence teaching practices and Smith, 2003). Second, classroom management of the teacher
only indirectly affect student outcomes via teaching practices might be affected by the presence of the special education
(Blömeke et al., 2015; Krauss et al., 2020). However, in this teacher in some of the classrooms as well as by the nested
study, teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion also did not predict instruction (Jones and Brownell, 2014; Pfister et al., 2015).
teachers’ classroom management practices. Therefore, teachers’ Third, the missing significant relationship between teachers’
attitudes toward inclusion had also no indirect effect–via teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and their classroom management
classroom management–on student social acceptance. These practices could be caused by the unidimensional assessment
study findings indicate that the attitudes of teachers toward of teachers’ attitudes. Recent studies strongly recommend
inclusion might be less important than has been suggested considering not only the cognitive component, but also the
by many cross-sectional studies (e.g., de Boer et al., 2012; affective and the behavioral (de Boer et al., 2012; Ewing et al.,
Desombre et al., 2019; Hellmich et al., 2019) and that its 2018). Fourth, the sequential assessment of the student social
impact on teaching practices is overestimated. Studies have acceptance and the teachers’ classroom management is only
found that teachers with more teaching experience in inclusive one element in favor of a causal relationship between these
classrooms hold more positive attitudes toward inclusion (De variables. Longitudinal studies using cross-lagged panel analyses
Boer et al., 2011). This could indicate a stronger effect of with several measurement points are needed to support this
teaching practices on teacher attitudes than vice versa. It causal claim (Selig and Little, 2012). Finally, the impact of
could also be that teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion are the teacher related variables was studied for the whole class.
more important in preventing the exclusion of students with The link between social behavior and social acceptance was
special educational needs from mainstream education and affect not examined for students with special educational needs vs.
the willingness of teachers to include students with special students without special educational needs. The results may
educational needs in their mainstream classes (Malki and have differed if students with special educational needs were
Einat, 2018). Further, as suggested by Savolainen et al. (2020), compared to their classmates. The small number of students with
teachers’ self-efficacy could be a more relevant predictor of special educational needs per class made it difficult to examine
teaching practices. However, looking at the factors of teacher this question. In addition, teachers’ attitudes and behavior
attitudes separately, neither teachers’ perception of their behavior were assessed on a classroom level and not as they related
management nor their perception of their ability to teach in to each individual student. Further studies investigating the
inclusive classrooms, which should to some extent represent the effects of teacher related variables on an individual level and
behavioral dispositions of teachers, predicted their classroom comparing their effects on students with and without special
management practices. These results support the finding of educational needs are needed to disentangle the impact of
Hellmich et al. (2019) indicating no significant relationship teacher attitudes and behavior on student social acceptance in
between self-efficacy beliefs and self-reported teaching practices. inclusive classrooms.
However, the lack of significant effect in the present study To conclude, this longitudinal study confirms the significance
could be due to the unidimensional assessment of attitudes of effective classroom management for student social
toward inclusion with the ORI questionnaire (Ewing et al., acceptance (Soodak and McCarthy, 2006; Farmer et al.,
2018). Whereas the cognitive component of teachers’ attitudes 2019). Teachers influence the social dynamics in the classroom
toward inclusion might not be represented in teachers’ behavior, by implementing their classroom routines. In order to use
behavioral and affective components of teachers’ attitudes toward this influence to support student social acceptance, it is of
inclusion are probably more strongly related to teacher behavior. utmost importance that teachers are aware of the positive or
In conclusion, the state of the research and the results show negative impact they have on social experiences of students
Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 8 October 2020 | Volume 5 | Article 582873
feduc-05-582873 October 6, 2020 Time: 20:56 # 9
Garrote et al. Teachers’ Role in Social Acceptance
in the peer group (Farmer et al., 2019). Therefore, future studies ETHICS STATEMENT
should examine the impact of specific classroom management
practices on student social experiences and learning about The studies involving human participants were reviewed and
the effects of classroom management practices on student approved by University of Zurich Ethics Commission. Written
academic and social outcomes should be a mandatory component informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the
of teacher education. Further, considering the limitations of participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.
the present study, the impact of teachers’ attitudes toward
inclusion remains unclear. Interestingly, although the empirical
evidence on the impact of teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
is lacking, supporting student teachers in developing positive
attitudes toward inclusion is still a major aim in the pre- AG, EMO, FF, and RSD conceptualized the research. AG
service formation in some countries (e.g., Hellmich et al., 2016; performed the statistical analyses, wrote the first draft, and
Junker et al., 2020). This shows that more research is urgently finalized the manuscript. EMO contributed to the first draft,
needed to disentangle the relationship between the specific affect- supervised the analyses, revised and substantially helped to
motivation dispositions in terms of inclusion and the concrete finalize the manuscript. All authors organized and conducted the
teaching practices in inclusive classrooms. data collection and approved the submitted version.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT FUNDING
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be This work was supported by the Swiss National Science
made available by the authors, without undue reservation. Foundation (grant number 146086).
REFERENCES de Boer, A., Timmerman, M., Pijl, S. J., and Minnaert, A. (2012). The psychometric
evaluation of a questionnaire to measure attitudes towards inclusive
Antonak, R. F., and Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric analysis and revision of education. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 27, 573–589. doi: 10.1007/s10212-011-0
the opinions relative to mainstreaming scale. Except. Child. 62, 139–149. doi: 096-z
10.1177/001440299506200204 de Monchy, M., Pijl, S. J., and Zandberg, T. (2004). Discrepancies in judging social
Avramidis, E., Toulia, A., Tsihouridis, C., and Stroglios, V. (2019). Teachers’ inclusion and bullying of pupils with behaviour problems. Eur. J. Spec. Needs
attitudes towards inclusion and their self-efficacy for inclusive practices as Educ. 19, 317–330. doi: 10.1080/0885625042000262488
predictors of willingness to implement peer tutoring. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs Desombre, C., Lamotte, M., and Jury, M. (2019). French teachers’ general attitude
19, 49–59. doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12477 toward inclusion: the indirect effect of teacher efficacy. Educ. Psychol. 39, 38–50.
Bacete, F. J. G., Planes, V. E. C., Perrin, G. M., and Ochoa, G. M. (2017). doi: 10.1080/01443410.2018.1472219
Understanding rejection between first-and-second-grade elementary students Eriksson, L., and Granlund, M. (2004). Conceptions of participation in students
through reasons expressed by rejecters. Front. Psychol. 8:462. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg. with disabilities and persons in their close environment. J. Dev. Phys. Disabil.
2017.00462 16, 229–245. doi: 10.1023/B:JODD.0000032299.31588.fd
Bliese, P. (2016). Multilevel Modeling in R: A Brief Introduction to R, the Multilevel Ewing, D. L., Monsen, J. J., and Kielblock, S. (2018). Teachers’ attitudes towards
Package, and the Nlme Package. Available online at: https://cran.r-project.org/ inclusive education: a critical review of published questionnaires. Educ. Psychol.
doc/contrib/Bliese_Multilevel.pdf (accessed March 19, 2019). Pract. 34, 150–165. doi: 10.1080/02667363.2017.1417822
Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J. E., and Shavelson, R. (2015). Beyond dichotomies: Farmer, T. W., Dawes, M., Hamm, J. V., Lee, D., Mehtaji, M., Hoffman, A. S.,
competence viewed as a continuum. Z. Psychol. 223, 3–13. doi: 10.1027/2151- et al. (2018). Classroom social dynamics management: why the invisible hand
2604/a000194 of the teacher matters for special education. Remedial Spec. Educ. 39, 177–192.
Bossaert, G., Colpin, H., Pijl, S. J., and Petry, K. (2013). Truly included? A literature doi: 10.1177/0741932517718359
study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in education. Int. J. Inclusive Farmer, T. W., Hamm, J. V., Dawes, M., Barko-Alva, K., and Cross, J. R. (2019).
Educ. 17, 60–79. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2011.580464 Promoting inclusive communities in diverse classrooms: teacher attunement
Bosse, S., Henke, T., Jäntsch, C., Lambrecht, J., Vock, M., and Spörer, N. (2016). Die and social dynamics management. Educ. Psychol. 54, 286–305. doi: 10.1080/
entwicklung der einstellung zum inklusiven lernen und der selbstwirksamkeit 00461520.2019.1635020
von grundschullehrkräften. [The development of inclusive attitudes and self- Farmer, T. W., McAuliffe Lines, M., and Hamm, J. V. (2011). Revealing the invisible
efficacy of primary schoolteachers.] Empirische Sonderpädagogik 1, 103–116. hand: the role of teachers in children’s peer experiences. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol.
Chang, L. (2004). The role of classroom norms in contextualizing the relations 32, 247–256. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2011.04.006
of children’s social behaviors to peer acceptance. Dev. Psychol. 40, 691–702. Frederickson, N. L., and Furnham, A. F. (2004). Peer-assessed behavioural
doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.691 characteristics and sociometric rejection: differences between pupils who have
Clausen, M., Reusser, K., and Klieme, E. (2003). Unterrichtsqualität auf der basis moderate learning difficulties and their mainstream peers. Br. J. Educ. Psychol.
hoch-inferenter unterrichtsbeurteilungen [Teaching quality based on high- 74, 391–410. doi: 10.1348/0007099041552305
inferent assessments]. Unterrichtswissenschaft 31, 122–141. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., and Martinez, E. A. (2002). Preliminary
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. London: evidence on the social standing of students with learning disabilities in PALS
Routledge. and no-PALS classrooms. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 17, 205–215. doi: 10.1111/
Coombs, S. J., and Smith, I. D. (2003). The Hawthorne effect: is it a help or a 1540-5826.00046
hindrance in social science research? Change 6, 97–111. Garrote, A., Sermier Dessemontet, R., and Moser Opitz, E. (2017). Facilitating
De Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., and Minnaert, A. E. M. G. (2011). Regular primary the social participation of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream
schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: a review of the literature. schools: a review of school-based interventions. Educ. Res. Rev. 20, 12–23.
Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 15, 331–353. doi: 10.1080/13603110903030089 doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.001
Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 9 October 2020 | Volume 5 | Article 582873
feduc-05-582873 October 6, 2020 Time: 20:56 # 10
Garrote et al. Teachers’ Role in Social Acceptance
Grütter, J., Meyer, B., and Glenz, A. (2015). Sozialer ausschluss in Krauss, S., Bruckmaier, G., Lindl, A., Hilbert, S., Binder, K., Steib, N., et al. (2020).
integrationsklassen: ansichtssache? Psychol. Erzieh. Unterr. 63, 65–82. Competence as a continuum in the COACTIV study: the “cascade model”.
doi: 10.2378/peu2015.art05d ZDM Math. Educ. 52, 311–327. doi: 10.1007/s11858-020-01151-z
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning. A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analysis Relating Krull, J., Wilbert, J., and Hennemann, T. (2014). Soziale ausgrenzung von
to Achievement. Oxon: Routledge. erstklässlerinnen und erstklässlern mit sonderpädagogischem förderbedarf im
Hedges, L. V., and Hedberg, E. C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning gemeinsamen unterricht. Empirische Sonderpädagogik 6, 59–75.
group-randomized trials in education. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 29, 60–87. doi: Ladd, G. W., Herald-Brown, S. L., and Reiser, M. (2008). Does chronic classroom
10.3102/0162373707299706 peer rejection predict the development of children’s classroom participation
Hellmich, F., Görel, G., and Schwab, S. (2016). Einstellungen und motivation von during the grade school years? Child Dev. 79, 1001–1015. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
lehramtsstudentinnen und -studenten in bezug auf den inklusiven unterricht 8624.2008.01172.x
in der grundschule: ein vergleich zwischen deutschland und Österreich [Pre- Malki, S., and Einat, T. (2018). To include or not to include – this is the question:
service teachers’ attitudes and motivation in relation to inclusive education in attitudes of inclusive teachers toward the inclusion of pupils with intellectual
primary school – A comparison between Germany and Austria]. Empirische disabilities in elementary schools. Educ. Citizensh. Soc. Justice 13, 65–80. doi:
Sonderpädagogik 8, 67–85. 10.1177/1746197917705138
Hellmich, F., Löper, M. F., and Görel, G. (2019). The role of primary school Mand, J. (2007). Social position of special needs pupils in the classroom: a
teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs for everyday practices in inclusive comparison between German special schools for pupils with learning difficulties
classrooms – a study on the verification of the ‘Theory of Planned Behaviour’. and integrated primary school classes. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 22, 7–14. doi:
J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs 19, 36–48. doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12476 10.1080/08856250601082182
Helmke, A. (2014). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität: Diagnose, Mikami, A. Y., Griggs, M. S., Reuland, M. M., and Gregory, A. (2012). Teacher
Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts [Teaching Quality and practices as predictors of children’s classroom social preference. J. Sch. Psychol.
Professionalism of Teachers: Diagnose, Evaluation, and Improvement of 50, 95–111. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2011.08.002
Instruction], 5th Edn. Seelze: Klett-Kallmeyer. Mikami, A. Y., Lerner, M. D., and Lun, J. (2010). Social context influences on
Hendrickx, M. M. H. G., Mainhard, M. T., Oudman, S., Boor-Klip, H. J., and children’s rejection by their peers. Child Dev. Perspect. 4, 123–130. doi: 10.1111/
Brekelmans, M. (2017). Teacher behavior and peer liking and disliking: the j.1750-8606.2010.00130.x
teacher as a social referent for peer status. J. Educ. Psychol. 109, 546–558. Monsen, J. J., Ewing, D. L., and Kwoka, M. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards
doi: 10.1037/edu0000157 inclusion, perceived adequacy of support and classroom learning environment.
Hitti, A., Mulvey, K. L., and Killen, M. (2011). Social exclusion and culture: the role Learn. Environ. Res. 17, 113–126. doi: 10.1007/s10984-013-9144-8
of group norms, group identity and fairness. An. Psicol. 27, 587–599. Nepi, L. D., Fioravanti, J., Nannini, P., and Peru, A. (2015). Social acceptance
Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., and van de Schoot, R. (2017). Multilevel Analysis. and the choosing of favourite classmates: a comparison between students
New York, NY: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315650982 with special educational needs and typically developing students in a context
Hymel, S., Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., and Renshaw, P. D. (2004). “Peer of full inclusion. Br. J. Spec. Educ. 42, 319–337. doi: 10.1111/1467-8578.
acceptance and rejection in childhood,” in Blackwell Handbook of Childhood 12096
Social Development, eds P. K. Smith and C. H. Hart (Oxford: Blackwell Odom, S. L., Zercher, C., Li, S., Marquart, J. M., Sandall, S., and Brown, W. H.
Publishing), 265–284. (2006). Social acceptance and rejection of preschool children with disabilities: a
Jones, N. D., and Brownell, M. T. (2014). Examining the use of classroom mixed-method analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 98, 807–823. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.
observations in the evaluation of special education teachers. Assess. Eff. Interv. 98.4.807
39, 112–124. doi: 10.1177/1534508413514103 Ollendick, T. H., Weist, M. D., Borden, M. C., and Greene, R. W. (1992).
Jordan, A., and McGhie-Richmond, D. (2014). Identifying effective teaching Sociometric status and academic, behavioral, and psychological adjustment: a
practices in inclusive classrooms. Int. Perspect. Inclusive Educ. 3, 133–162. doi: five-year longitudinal study. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 60, 80–87. doi: 10.1037/
10.1108/S1479-363620140000003027 0022-006x.60.1.80
Junker, R., Zeuch, N., Rott, D., Henke, I., Bartsch, C., and Kürten, R. Pedersen, S., Vitaro, F., Barker, E. D., and Borge, A. I. H. (2007). The timing of
(2020). Zur veränderbarkeit von heterogenitäts-einstellungen und middle-childhood peer rejection and friendship: linking early behavior to early-
selbstwirksamkeitsüberzeugungen von lehramtsstudierenden durch adolescent adjustment. Child Dev. 78, 1037–1051. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.
diversitätssensible hochschuldidaktische lehrmodule [Changing heterogeneity- 2007.01051.x
related attitudes and perceived self-efficacy of pre-service teachers through Peters, E., Riksen-Walraven, J. M. A., Cillessen, A. H. N., and de Weerth, C.
diversity-sensitive courses in higher education.]. Empirische Sonderpädagogik (2011). Peer rejection and HPA activity in middle childhood: friendship makes
1, 45–63. a difference. Child Dev. 82, 1906–1920. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01647.x
Juvonen, J., Lessard, L. M., Rastogi, R., Schacter, H. L., and Smith, D. S. Pfister, M., Moser Opitz, E., and Pauli, C. (2015). Scaffolding for mathematics
(2019). Promoting social inclusion in educational settings: challenges and teaching in inclusive primary classrooms: a video study. ZDM Math. Educ. 47,
opportunities. Educ. Psychol. 54, 250–270. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2019.16 1079–1092. doi: 10.1007/s11858-015-0713-4
55645 Pianta, R. C., and Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and
Karakaya, E. G., and Tufan, M. (2018). Social skills, problem behaviors and improvement of classroom processes: standardized observation can leverage
classroom management in inclusive preschool settings. J. Educ. Train. Stud. 6, capacity. Educ. Res. 38, 109–119. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09332374
123–134. doi: 10.11114/jets.v6i5.3076 Pijl, S. J., and Frostad, P. (2010). Peer acceptance and self-concept of students
Korpershoek, H., Harms, T., de Boer, H., van Kuijk, M., and Doolaard, S. with disabilities in regular education. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 25, 93–105.
(2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies doi: 10.1080/08856250903450947
and classroom management programs on students’ academic, behavioral, Praetorius, A.-K., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Rakoczy, K., and Klieme, E. (2014). One
emotional, and motivational outcomes. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 643–680. doi: 10. lesson is all you need? Stability of instructional quality across lessons. Learn.
3102/0034654315626799 Instruct. 31, 2–12. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.002
Koster, M., Nakken, H., Pijl, S. J., and Van Houten, E. J. (2009). Being part of the Rakoczy, K., and Pauli, C. (2006). “Hoch inferentes rating: beurteilung der
peer group: a literature study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in qualität unterrichtlicher prozesse [High-Inference rating: evaluating
education. Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 13, 117–140. doi: 10.1080/13603110701284680 the quality of teaching processes],” in Dokumentation der Erhebungs-
Koster, M., Pijl, S. J., Nakken, H., and Van Houten, E. J. (2010). Social participation und Auswertungsinstrumente zur Schweizerisch-Deutschen Videostudie
of students with special needs in regular primary education in the Netherlands. "Unterrichtsqualität, Lernverhalten und Mathematisches Verständnis". 3.
Int. J. Disabil. Dev. Educ. 57, 59–75. doi: 10.1080/10349120903537905 Videoanalysen, eds I. Hugener, C. Pauli, and K. Reusser (Frankfurt am Main:
Kostewicz, D. E., Ruhl, K. L., and Kubina, R. M. (2008). Creating classroom rules DIPF), 206–233.
for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: a decision-making guide. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat.
Beyond Behav. 17, 61–66. Softw. 48, 1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 10 October 2020 | Volume 5 | Article 582873
feduc-05-582873 October 6, 2020 Time: 20:56 # 11
Garrote et al. Teachers’ Role in Social Acceptance
Rosseel, Y., Jorgensen, T. D., Oberski, D., Bymes, J., Vanbrabant, L., Savalei, V., Van Den Berg, Y. H. M., Segers, E., and Cillessen, A. H. N. (2012). Changing
et al. (2019). Package “Lavaan”. Latent Variable Analysis (Version 0.6-5; p. 102). peer perceptions and victimization through classroom arrangements: a field
Available online at: https://lavaan.ugent.be/tutorial/tutorial.pdf (accessed April experiment. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 40, 403–412. doi: 10.1007/s10802-011-
3, 2020). 9567-6
Savolainen, H., Malinen, O. P., and Schwab, S. (2020). Teacher efficacy predicts Wilson, C., Marks Woolfson, L., and Durkin, K. (2019). The impact of explicit and
teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion: a longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. Int. J. implicit teacher beliefs on reports of inclusive teaching practices in Scotland.
Inclusive Educ. 1–15. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2020.1752826 Int. J. Inclusive Educ. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1658813 [Epub ahead of
Selig, J. P., and Little, T. D. (2012). “Autoregressive and cross-lagged panel analysis print].
for longitudinal data,” in Handbook of Developmental Research Methods, eds Wullschleger, A., Garrote, A., Schnepel, S., Jaquiéry, L., and Moser Opitz, E.
B. Laursen, T. D. Little, and N. A. Card (New York, NY: The Guilford Press), (2020). Effects of teacher feedback behavior on social acceptance in inclusive
265–278. elementary classrooms: exploring social referencing processes in a natural
Soodak, L. C., and McCarthy, M. C. (2006). “Classroom management setting. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 60:101841. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.
in inclusive settings,” in Handbook of Classroom Management, eds 101841
C. M. Evertson and C. S. Weinstein (New York, NY: Routledge),
461–489. Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., and Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher potential conflict of interest.
effectiveness and student achievement. J. Teach. Educ. 6, 339–355. doi: 10.1177/
0022487111404241 Copyright © 2020 Garrote, Felder, Krähenmann, Schnepel, Sermier Dessemontet and
Sturaro, C., van Lier, P. A. C., Cuijpers, P., and Koot, H. M. (2011). The role of peer Moser Opitz. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
relationships in the development of early school-age externalizing problems. Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in
Child Dev. 82, 758–765. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01532.x other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s)
Trevethan, R. (2017). Intraclass correlation coefficients: clearing the air, extending are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance
some cautions, and making some requests. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted
Methodol. 17, 127–143. doi: 10.1007/s10742-016-0156-6 which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 11 October 2020 | Volume 5 | Article 582873