Nicolas Margas- Institute of Sport Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
Education institutional guidelines around the world agree that building more inclusive schools is a priority. The reality of school practice, however, belies this institutional will. To help fill the gap, this theoretical review documents the value that the construct of classroom climate brings to research and practice in terms of inclusive school development. The article firstly points out that the current main challenge is to develop Inclusive Mainstream Teaching (IMT) in diverse classrooms. Indeed, IMT is needed in all classrooms to guarantee the effectiveness of special accomodating measures in schools that are targeted at special education needs students. Intervening at classroom level is both a pragmatic and powerful way of developing inclusive schooling. However, developing IMT in the classroom remains a challenge for both teachers and researchers. Thus this review documents the central role that classroom climate should play in the development of IMT. More precisely, the factors of classroom climate that are associated with inclusive outcomes are identified. We also highlight how these factors and the measurements associated with them are efficient tools to guide IMT development. These measures are proximal, sensitive, complementary, and pragmatic indicators of effective IMT. Such indicators are very useful in helping research empirically document effective IMT, ensure that any small improvement is assessed, monitor teachers’ progress, and assist their professional growth. Theoretically positioned as a mediator between inclusive teaching in mainstream classrooms and inclusive school outcomes, inclusive classroom climate is a tool that appears to be effective in supporting IMT development and, consequently, in the establishment of more inclusive schools.
1. Introduction
Building more inclusive schools is a core element of international educational guidelines (UNESCO, 2015, 2016) and school policies around the world (Peters, 2004; Curcic, 2009; Katz, 2013; Watkins, 2017; Schwab, 2021). This political and institutional consensus is accompanied by a shared definition of the goals of inclusive education (Avramidis et al., 2000; UNESCO, 2009; Katz, 2013). The “ultimate” goal of inclusive education (Booth and Ainscow, 2002; Schwab, 2021) is that school forms “the basis for a just and non-discriminatory society” (UNESCO, 2009, p. 9). As such, this is a deeply social goal. Inclusive schools must promote positive relationships between diverse students, peer acceptance and a sense of community for all, including those with special education needs (SEN; Koster et al., 2009; Bossaert et al., 2013). Since this first objective can only be achieved in a context of diversity, the second, more academic objective, is engagement and learning for all students despite the differences between them. Striving to achieve these goals is also crucial for overcoming other recurrent educational issues like bullying (e.g., Thornberg et al., 2022), school dropout (e.g., Reinke and Herman, 2002), students’ well-being (e.g., Wang et al., 2020b) and even long-term health (e.g., Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015).
However, despite agreement over the objectives of an inclusive school, developing inclusive practices remains a major challenge (Ferguson, 2008; Heiniger and Hercod, 2017). The philosophical underpinnings of inclusive education are generally shared by teachers (Jury et al., 2021), but difficulties remain when it comes to implementation. This leads to skepticism, lack of confidence if not outright rejection by teachers of the inclusive approach (Desombre et al., 2019; Savolainen et al., 2022; Jury et al., 2023).
This theoretical review argues that there is a need to draw on the construct of classroom climate to overcome the gap between institutional objectives and the reality of the classroom. It followed a three-steps argumentation1. The first section point out that a top priority is to develop inclusive mainstream teaching (IMT) in diverse classrooms. Next, the article documents the central role that the classroom climate can play in developing IMT. The second section identifies the factors of the classroom climate that produce inclusive outcomes. The third section shows how those factors of inclusive classroom climate and the measures associated with them are tools that can efficiently support IMT development in classrooms.
2. Inclusive mainstream teaching as the current main challenge to developing inclusive schools
Although segregated schools for students with special education needs (SEN) still exist, most educational systems around the world aim to welcome as many students as possible in the same schools (for reviews, Curcic, 2009; Schwab, 2021). Nearly all the enrolled school population is now educated in mainstream schools (e.g., 97.36% in Education, E.A.f.S.N.a.I, 2017). To adapt these schools to such diversity, guidelines propose a variety of special accommodations targeting certain students around a mainstream form of teaching that is required to be more inclusive (Schwab, 2021). “Special accommodations” refer to the permanent or temporary formation of special needs groups within the school and to special needs teaching that occurs within or alongside mainstream classes. Such accommodations generally concern about 15% of school pupils, including pupils with learning or/and behavioral difficulties at school and students with officially-recognized specific needs (4.53% of students in Europe; Education, E.A.f.S.N.a.I, 2017). IMT is intended to provide the opportunity to as many students as possible to be included in mainstream teaching. The social aim is to create connections between diverse students and the pedagogic aim is to be flexible and differentiated enough to offer the best possibilities for development and learning for all (Willis and Mann, 2000; Tomlinson et al., 2003). The following empirical findings show that generalizing the development of IMT to all classrooms is what is currently needed to establish inclusive schools.
2.1. Inclusive mainstream teaching and efficiency of special accommodations
In this section, we review empirical evidence showing that special accommodations for SEN struggle to be efficient if they are not articulated with IMT in all classrooms.
First of all, special accommodations that permanently segregate students lead to mixed results in terms of academic achievement (Chiu et al., 2017). Moreover, this segregation gives no opportunity for cross-group interactions, thus doing nothing to counter stereotype-ridden, negative attitudes towards SEN students among the mainstream pupil population (for a review, Juvonen et al., 2019). Intergroup contacts in schools are necessary to enhance positive attitudes and trust towards minorities (Hewstone et al., 2018), cross-ethnic friendships, the emergence of complex social identities (Knifsend and Juvonen, 2017) and more positive outgroup stereotypes (Munniksma et al., 2013). In segregated situations, precautions are needed to ensure that intergroup contacts outside the classroom are constructive and even sought after. This requires the development of inclusive education principles in all students, i.e., an efficient IMT. Indeed, inclusive peer norms, low intergroup anxiety, expectation of similarity, the valuing of difference, social competencies like perspective taking, empathy and tolerance, are all essential to prompt mainstream students to be open to mixing with SEN students (for a review, Turner and Cameron, 2016). In sum, IMT is needed to encourage intergroup contact with SEN students and reduce the exclusion effects of special accommodations that isolate them.
In the second case, where special accommodations are based on the creation of temporary special groups and specialized interventions within mainstream classrooms, intergroup contacts do exist. Such arrangements are common in many countries. For example, most SEN students are placed in mainstream classrooms for 80% or more of their time in European schools (UNESCO, 2016). However, such settings can also lead to stereotype-reinforcement and status differences (Bigler and Liben, 2007). Without IMT, this intergroup saliency can actually reinforce discrimination and exclusion (Córdova and Cervantes, 2010; Covelli and de Anna, 2020). For example, special accommodations targeted at SEN can at times be seen as an unfair use of resources by mainstream students—especially those experiencing academic difficulty, their parents and even teachers. In such circumstances, even more discrimination may result, if SEN students are perceived as a threat to mainstream students’ development and to values of meritocracy (for reviews, Iyer, 2022; Stanczak et al., 2023). Similarly, if achievement is defined in terms of superiority over others in the classroom (i.e., normative comparison), special accommodations can result in SEN students again being seen as a threat to mainstream students’ achievements. This can lead to rejection of SEN students and their feelings of exclusion (Iyer, 2022).
Interestingly, some studies show a third scenario. In this case, offering special accommodations initially provided just for students with SEN, to other mainstream students when necessary, can contribute to breaking down intergroup divisions and reducing threat perceptions. For example, high-quality co-teaching between mainstream and specialized teachers within an inclusive setting facilitates learning for students with and without SEN, social acceptance of students with SEN and socio-emotional development for all (Bear and Proctor, 1990; Juvonen and Bear, 1992; Schwab, 2017).
Taken together, these findings highlight that mainstream and special teaching needs to be more inclusive in all contexts (Hornby, 2015). IMT development is thus a key to the development of truly inclusive schools.
2.2. Classroom teaching as a pragmatic and powerful element to develop inclusive schools
IMT within a classroom is a considerable challenge, but less than developing an entire inclusive school. IMT is circumscribed to the classroom environment specifically cultivated by one teacher (Schweig et al., 2019). Moreover, modifying the way to teach in their classroom is the teacher’s foremost concern. This is the element in which they will invest the most (Bonvin and Margas, 2021). Seeking to build an entire inclusive school requires both training and convincing virtually every member of the educative team. Since training courses are often organized by academic discipline, this is rarely the case. Inversely, even isolated teachers can seek to implement IMT. This perspective fits with the relative independency of each classroom dynamics in a school (Wang and Degol, 2016). The progress of one teacher in implementing IMT may even give others self-confidence and trigger a broader transformation.
The classroom level is not just more pragmatic for developing inclusive schools. It is also the main source of variation in students’ learning and achievement (Nye et al., 2004; Pianta and Hamre, 2009). The classroom is the environment in which students learn and interact with peers and teachers on a daily basis (Brackett et al., 2012; Fraser, 2015). These daily interactions are the primary processes that provide students the opportunity to develop academic and social competencies (Hamre, 2014). As such, the development of IMT in classrooms seems the most pragmatic and efficient factor for developing inclusive schools.
2.3. Inclusive mainstream teaching: the main current issue for teachers and researchers
Special accommodations are often explicitly defined in institutional directives because they are often associated with specific fundings (Schwab, 2021) and because they build on the legacy of previous special education development efforts (Bedoin and Séguillon, 2021). However, this is not the case for IMT. Institutional directives focus only on the objectives of IMT and, at best, describe what IMT needs to develop in an appropriate way (e.g., differentiated instruction, accessible teaching content, positive relationships between students in classrooms, cooperation) without indicating how. The implementation of IMT is therefore left to teachers who can feel powerless and helpless. As evidence of this situation, many teachers express concerns about inclusive education and more precisely, by order of importance, (a) the lack of resources in terms of staff and funding, (b) the extended working hours induced by an inclusive classroom, (c) the difficulties associated with IMT, and (d) the appropriateness of inclusive education in the classroom, which may lead to reduced learning for mainstream students (Jury et al., 2023). This last issue appears the most frequently in teachers’ concerns about inclusive education (Jury et al., 2023). Teachers’ negative attitudes are also often fueled by a perceived lack of self-efficacy (Desombre et al., 2019) and the feeling that they are unable to cope with specific students’ difficulties (de Boer et al., 2011; Monsen et al., 2014). In sum, the main issue behind teachers’ resistance to developing IMT is the perceived difficulty of teaching in a diverse classroom.
It is not very surprising that educational guidelines are unclear about IMT implementation and that teachers are reluctant to try, considering that even research has trouble identifying effective IMT strategies (Juvonen et al., 2019; Schwab, 2021). Empirical evidence of successful IMT implementation is largely lacking, especially in contexts of diversity (Bossaert et al., 2012; De Vroey et al., 2016; Loreman, 2017; Fabes et al., 2019). For example, the development of differentiated instruction leads to diverse practices, with no consensus or empirical conclusions to guide these practices (Galand, 2017). Similarly, the management of social dynamics in the classroom lacks empirical evidence (Farmer et al., 2018). These observations help us to understand the lack of existing teacher training on IMT (Stough, 2006; Webster-Stratton et al., 2008). For many authors (Juvonen et al., 2019; Van Mieghem et al., 2020) and politicians (United Nations Human Rights Special Procedure, 2019), the key foundation for successful implementation of IMT remains the development of evidence-based trainings. Yet, identifying empirically validated IMT practices constitutes the most prominent challenge to developing inclusive schools, according to teachers, researchers and even politicians. In other words, how do we know if the IMT used actually make a difference? As IMT obviously works at the level of the classroom, taking classroom climate into consideration seems a particularly promising way of testing its efficacy. The two following sections present the model of classroom climate and evidence that classroom climate represents an effective approach for developing IMT.
3. Classroom climate and the achievement of inclusive school goals
Coming from organizational psychology, the concept of climate refers to the feel of an environment (e.g., the school, the classroom) that emerges from actors’ perceptions of their experiences in this environment (e.g., Ostroff et al., 2003). Even though these experiences may vary from one day to another, they converge towards “a consistent image of the long-standing attributes of classroom environment” (Fraser, 1998, p. 8). Classroom climate thus corresponds to the overall perception of relatively stable characteristics and social interactions that occur within the classroom environment (Filiault and Fortin, 2011).
A major finding on classroom climate is that students’ perceptions of their experiences in the classroom are critical in guiding their behaviors and, consequently, their engagement, learning and social behaviors at school (Fraser, 1998; Wang, 2012; Wagner et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2020b). Students’ perceptions of different factors of classroom climate are thus key to understanding how modifying teaching in the classroom may affect both goals of inclusive schooling.
3.1. Classroom climate multidimensional model
Conceptualizations of classroom climate encompass the different processes experienced in classrooms (for reviews, Hamre et al., 2007; Downer et al., 2010; Kaplan Toren and Seginer, 2015). As classroom climate refers to the perception of the classroom environment stemming from various types of experiences, classroom climate models are multidimensional. Following Moos and Trickett (1974) and Walberg and Anderson (1968) conceptualizations, these models all converge towards at least three basic dimensions (Fraser, 1998; Pianta and Hamre, 2009; Filiault and Fortin, 2011; Fauth et al., 2014; Bardach et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020b), even if the terminologies and boundaries of these dimensions sometimes diverge.
The first dimension, often called the relationship (Fraser, 1998) or socioemotional support dimension (Wang et al., 2020b) refers to the perceptions of the “nature and intensity of personal relationships within the environment and assesses the extent to which people are involved in the environment and support and help each other” (Fraser, 1998, p. 9). It relies on the social and emotional wellbeing of students, including the warmth, safety, connectedness, quality of interactions between teachers and peers, and their consecutive sense of belonging to the classroom (Filiault and Fortin, 2011; Wang et al., 2020b). The second dimension is named the system maintenance and change dimension (Fraser, 1998) or organization and management dimension (Wang et al., 2020b). It includes perceptions of the organization inside the classroom such as clarity of rules and order, openness to negotiation. This dimension is related to the management of students’ behavior, time, and attention in the classroom (Hamre et al., 2007). Finally, the personal development (Fraser, 1998) or instructional dimension (Wang et al., 2020b) assesses the perceptions of instruction strategies and learning processes, which favor (or not) students’ personal growth and learning in the classroom (Fraser, 1998). This dimension is dependent on supportive interactions that facilitate learning, the provision of challenging tasks, and constructive feedback (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007; Fauth et al., 2014).
A construct validity approach suggests that theory, measurement, empirical research, and practice are intertwined and that the neglect of one aspect can undermine the others and the resulting validity of the construct (Marsh, 2002). Such an approach is useful in appreciating the relevance of the classroom climate model. When it comes to the factors within the three basic dimensions of classroom climate, the relations between theory, measurement and empirical results are well-documented (for reviews, Fraser, 1998; Pianta and Hamre, 2009). Recent meta-analysis (Wang et al., 2020b) and large scale studies (e.g., Hamre et al., 2014) showed relations between these factors of classroom climate and important educational outcomes. Moreover, beyond the validated scales that exist to measure each specific factors of classroom climate, some measurement instruments regrouped several of these scales (for reviews, Fraser, 1998; Altaf, 2015; Fraser, 2015) and revealed good factorial validity (e.g., the WIHIC, Skordi and Fraser, 2019). Adaptations of these instruments for various types of schools and students exist (e.g., Beld et al., 2018). Researchers can therefore choose the appropriate instrument or even part of this instrument to test their hypothesis in various contexts. It is even assumed that “few fields in education can boast the existence of such a rich array of validated and robust instruments that have been used in so many research applications” (Fraser, 1998, p. 8).
Despite this solidity, more research is needed to specify the exact definition and boundaries of the three basic dimensions of classroom climate. The terminologies of these dimensions vary and the specific factors included in those dimensions can also vary from one model to another (see, Fraser, 1998; Pianta and Hamre, 2009). For example, perceived autonomy support in the classroom may, depending on how it is conceptualized, be included in the relationship or socio-emotional dimension (Pianta and Hamre, 2009), the organization and management dimension (Wang et al., 2020b), or the instructional or personal development dimension (Moos and Trickett, 1974). Similarly, the perception of safety in the classroom (i.e., physical and emotional security) is proposed as a specific fourth dimension (Wang and Degol, 2016), included in the relationship dimension or even the instructional dimension (e.g., Wang et al., 2020b). To add to the confusion, empirical tests of the three dimensions model of classroom climate are not yet very conclusive (e.g., Hamre et al., 2014).
Nevertheless, in practice, researchers rarely need to encompass the classroom climate as a whole. They often only choose the appropriate validated scales depending on the specific factors of classroom climate they are focusing on and their hypotheses (Fraser, 2015). In sum, the issue of the precise definition of the three basic dimensions of classroom climate does not prevent researchers from identifying the antecedents and consequences of specific factors of classroom climate. These factors of classroom climate, whatever the dimension they belong to, are theoretically and empirically posited as mediators between classroom teaching and important educational outcomes and can be measured with validated instruments. They represent a promising perspective to identify key elements of IMT. The next section hence reviews empirical work identifying factors of classroom climate that help accomplish the social and academic goals of inclusive schools.
3.2. The relations between factors of classroom climate and inclusive outcomes
The social objective of an inclusive school is to improve social behaviors between peers, especially that involving potentially stigmatized peers. The academic objective of an inclusive school is to promote engagement, learning and achievement for all students, particularly those with learning difficulties, in a context of diversity. This section reviews factors of classroom climate that are associated with such outcomes. These are presented according to the three proposed basic dimensions of classroom climate, bearing in mind that these dimensions are open to discussion. The objective here is to focus on factors of classroom climate that are related to inclusive outcomes.
Concerning the relationship dimension of classroom climate, previous results have identified three factors that foster achievement in terms of both the social and academic goals that inclusive schools aim for. Firstly, perceived quality of relations between classroom peers and perceived quality of relations between pupils and teachers are two important factors of an inclusive classroom climate and they are associated with both social and academic goal fulfilment. More precisely, these two aspects of the relational classroom climate are related to students’ social behaviors (Kellam et al., 1998; Mooij, 1999; Roubinov et al., 2020), especially peer victimization and bullying (Barboza et al., 2009; Gregory et al., 2010; Raskauskas et al., 2010; Gendron et al., 2011; Turner et al., 2014; Thornberg et al., 2017; Gage, 2020; Montero-Montero et al., 2021). Perceived quality of relations between peers and between pupils and teachers are also related to students’ engagement, self-determination, efficient learning self-regulation and achievement (Ferguson and Dorman, 2003; Anderson et al., 2004; Lynch and Soukup Sr, 2017). Meta-analyses have found moderate relationships between the quality of teacher-students relations and students’ engagement at school and achievement (e.g., Quin, 2017), as well as general executive functioning (Vandenbroucke et al., 2018). Additionally, longitudinal large cross-sectional studies reveal the short-term and long-term benefits of positive peer relations and pupil-teacher relations in terms of reduced aggression and exclusion between students, and also students’ academic results (e.g., Avant et al., 2011; Thornberg et al., 2022). Crucially from the point of inclusion, even if all children benefit from the quality of relationships in the classroom, this is especially true for at-risk, stigmatized, and vulnerable students. Indeed, the positive effects of the quality of classroom relations on such students in terms of reduced exclusion, improved social adjustment, less deviant peer affiliation and greater sense of belonging within the school (Gazelle, 2006; Avant et al., 2011) have been well documented. Furthermore, their active academic engagement and achievement are also improved (Hamre and Pianta, 2005; Berti et al., 2010; Allodi, 2010a). The third factor of an inclusive classroom climate is the perceived belonging to the classroom (Bossaert et al., 2013). Perceived classroom belonging is related to the academic self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation and task value perceived by students and their sense of belonging and social acceptance (Freeman et al., 2007). It is also related to degree of persistence for African American undergraduate women (Booker, 2016). In sum, students’ sense of classroom belonging, student-student and student-teacher relationships in the classroom are three crucial factors in achieving both the social and academic objectives of inclusive schools. Yet they are often neglected in educational policies and teacher training programs (Allodi, 2010b).
Concerning the organization and management dimension of the classroom climate, four factors appear to be linked to the two desired outcomes. First of all, a meta-analysis has showed that the perceived quality of class organization and clarity of classroom rules improve behavioral and emotional outcomes (Korpershoek et al., 2016), as well as social competence (Shechtman, 2006; Barbarin et al., 2010). Moreover, these factors also lead to higher math and reading achievements over time (Bennacer, 2000; Ponitz et al., 2009; Gaskins et al., 2012; Hatfield et al., 2016; Korpershoek et al., 2016) and more efficient self-regulation (Brody et al., 2002), engagement and task persistence in the classroom (Bohn et al., 2004; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2009). Even more important for effective inclusion, the quality of classroom organization in an inclusive setting is associated with social and academic outcomes for special needs students as well as for others (Ainscow et al., 2006). Students’ autonomy management is a second factor of the organization and management dimension which helps achieve inclusion-related social and academic objectives. Indeed, the perceived authoritarianism of teachers is directly related to bullying (Thornberg, 2018) and, inversely, a democratic management climate in the classroom promotes democratic values in students and attitudes of responsibilities inside as well as outside the school (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). Complementarily, a student-centered style of teaching (i.e., where students are considered to be active participants of their learning and where teachers try to facilitate students’ autonomous efforts to learn) induces positive social consequences for students susceptible to stress whilst having no negative impact on less sensitive students (Roubinov et al., 2020). A third related inclusive classroom climate factor resides in the feeling of justice (or injustice) between students in the classroom. More precisely, feelings of injustice from teacher management are negatively associated with academic self-efficacy (Dorman, 2001), engagement (Berti et al., 2010), learning motivation (Dalbert and Maes, 2002), and even long-term academic achievement (Resh and Sabbagh, 2009). Feelings of injustice, moreover, modify the conception of equity and just societies (Dar and Resh, 2003). Finally, the fourth factor observed in the literature refers to the social norms that are perceived as salient in the classroom. Indeed, salient pro-inclusion social norms in the classroom lead to more inclusive behaviors in all students, a stronger sense of belonging among students from marginalized groups, and a reduction in the achievement gap (Murrar et al., 2020; Brauer et al., 2021).
Examining the instructional dimension of classroom climate, we find three factors related to inclusive outcomes. Firstly, the perceived differentiation of learning improves social participation in the classroom (Zurbriggen et al., 2021) and achievement (Fast et al., 2010; Curby et al., 2011), a positive effect that applies to at-risk students as well (Hamre and Pianta, 2005). Conversely, lack of consideration for differences between pupils is associated with school disengagement and absenteeism (Fallis and Opotow, 2003). Secondly, a climate that supports pupil perceived autonomy and avoids perceptions of teacher control leads to prosocial behavior between students (Cheon et al., 2019). And thirdly, pupil perceptions of a mastery-goal classroom learning structure are associated with a sense of belonging (Kumar, 2006), positive socio-emotional outcomes (Shim et al., 2013), less self-handicapping strategies (Ferguson and Dorman, 2003) and better achievement (Bennacer, 2000; Fast et al., 2010; Curby et al., 2011). Conversely, pupil perceptions of performance goal promotion and a competitive climate induce negative socio-emotional outcomes (Loukas and Murphy, 2007) and self-handicapping strategies (Ferguson and Dorman, 2003).
Even if non-exhaustive, the factors identified here allow us to draw more precise guidelines as to what we should aim for as we go forward in building IMT. These factors sketch out concrete outcomes rather than simply focusing on the ultimate and more abstract, distal goal of inclusion (e.g., achievement for all, stereotype-reduction and increased pro-social behavior). The next section continues to document this promising perspective. It focuses on how the measurements of these factors of inclusive classroom climate can help us develop the concrete building-blocks of IMT in classrooms and accurately evaluate their effects.
4. Inclusive classroom climate factors and the development of IMT
Studies identifying concrete IMT actions that actively support the inclusive factors of classroom climate are lacking (Tetler and Baltzer, 2011; De Vroey et al., 2016; Loreman, 2017). For example, in the mentioned search in scientific databases, only 10% of the 650 articles including “classroom climate” and “inclusion” were empirical studies investigating antecedents of classroom climate. These studies were moreover mostly based on correlational designs. The following section aims to show how being aware of the factors of inclusive classroom climate can help concretely develop IMT in the classrooms and guide the development of much-needed action research studies.
4.1. Factors of inclusive classroom climate perceived by students are proximal, sensitive, and pragmatic indicators of IMT
The factors of inclusive classroom climate are closer to day-to-day classroom life than the final inclusion-related outcomes, which need time to be changed. These factors are direct specific perceptions of classroom experiences. As such, they are more sensitive indicators of objective progress in IMT (Tetler and Baltzer, 2011). Sensitive indicators of IMT efficiency make it possible to detect even the smallest effects of modifications in IMT. That means that smaller samples and less time-consuming studies are required to obtain significant results and provide evidence-based practice guidelines. Sensitive indicators of efficient IMT are also essential to preserve teachers’ self confidence in their capacity to improve their practices. This is particularly important as teachers’ lack of self-confidence to teach in an inclusive manner has been well documented, along with the resulting impact on attitudes towards inclusive education (Desombre et al., 2019). Finally, the various validated measures of factors of classroom climate (for a review, Fraser, 2015) also provide evidence that the classroom climate approach is an appropriate and pragmatic way to identify effective IMT elements. Such measures can even be used in addition to final inclusive outcomes to test the expected mediation process and offer a more complete view of the effects of IMT modifications.
From another point of view, using students’ perceptions of classroom climate rather than teachers’ or observers’ reports is likely to be a more reliable way of developing IMT. Theoretically, students’ self-reports, compared to teachers’ and external observers’ reports, have the advantage of capturing the perceptions of the individuals whose behaviors are precisely the expected outcomes (Fraser, 1998). Students’ self-reports are also more precise because they are based on comparisons with other classroom climates that students have previously experienced throughout their schooling. They moreover result from all of the experiences that took place for them in the classroom, while external observers and even teachers only observed part of these experiences (Wang et al., 2020a). Evidence for this assumption can be found in studies comparing the relationships between inclusive outcomes and classroom climate measured according to these different sources. For example, in the study of Wang et al. (2020a), teachers’ reports did not significantly predict any student’ outcomes. Student reports had larger and more significant prediction effects when it came to student engagement and grades, whilst observers’ reports had smaller but better prediction effects on students’ long term achivement (i.e., standardized test scores after one year). Meta-analysis confirmed these results, as the source of reports of classroom climate (students, teachers, or observers) significantly moderated the strength of the relations between classroom climate and educational outcomes (Wang et al., 2020b). More precisely, only students’ reports of classroom climate were significantly associated with all outcomes assessed in the study (i.e., social competence, externalizing behaviors, socioemotional distress, engagement, and achievement). Additional evidence can be found in studies testing the effects of IMT modifications on both classroom climate and inclusive outcomes. For example, the study of Cheon et al. (2019) tested the longitudinal effects of a teacher training program on students’ social behaviors and measurements of inclusive classroom climate via students and observers’ reports. Results showed that students’ reports were as effective as observers’ reports in detecting changes in teaching style. But students’ reports of classroom climate were a better predictor of final inclusive outcomes than observers’ reports. Given that IMT needs to promote inclusive student outcomes to be effective, inclusive factors of classroom climate as perceived by students seem to be the best indicators of effective IMT. Students are key stakeholders to be consulted on issues that concern them, such as inclusion (Ainscow, 2007; Tetler and Baltzer, 2011).
Finally, classroom climate questionnaires are more pragmatic than videos, external observations, and techniques of naturalistic inquiry, ethnography, case study or interpretive research (see, Fraser, 1998). While recognizing that all methods have advantages and remain complementary, classroom climate questionnaires are particularly well adapted to school context. A last additional advantage is that classroom climate questionnaires can easily be used by teachers themselves if they want to evaluate their own practice and its evolution. Such procedures based on classroom climate questionnaires have already been developed and proved their efficiency in improving practices (see, Taylor et al., 1997; Fraser, 1998; Nelson et al., 2015; Moreu et al., 2021). Because they are easy to use, classroom climate questionnaires can also help to diagnose problems and develop responses before problems are grounded in classroom routines (Hoy and Woolfolk, 1990; MacNeil et al., 2009; Schweig et al., 2019).
To summarize, students’ self-reports of the listed inclusive factors of classroom climate are not only predictors of inclusive outcomes. They are also proximal, sensitive, and pragmatic indicators of IMT efficiency. They can help research to identify efficient elements of IMT, monitor progress, ensure that even small improvements are assessed, and assist professional growth (Schweig et al., 2019).
4.2. A multilevel multi-factor classroom climate measure to better identify effective IMT
IMT needs to be accessible to all students in the classroom. IMT aims to create a teaching experience that is shared by the entire classroom, rather than only focusing on marginalized students and trying to compensate their shortcomings. This universal accessibility is the core of the universal design for learning (Rose and Meyer, 2002), which led to promising results in promoting inclusion (Katz, 2013, 2015). This means that IMT improvements should result in improvements of student perceptions of the classroom climate for the large majority of students.
It follows that two methods can help to better document IMT improvement by means of students’ self-reports of classroom climate. First of all, the quality of IMT can be observed through the reduction of influence of students’ status (social and academic) in the classroom on their perception of classroom climate. Efficient IMT needs to increase engagement and learning for all students, and consequently independently from students’ status (Cohen, 1994; Lotan, 2006; Pescarmona, 2014; Lotan and Holthuis, 2021; Lotan, 2022). Measuring student status in addition to classroom climate provides the opportunity to document the decrease in the influence of student status on classroom climate which implies successful IMT implementation.
Second, IMT improvement can also be addressed through hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). HLM can distinguish the classroom level and the individual level of the students’ reports of classroom climate (Lüdtke et al., 2009; Marsh et al., 2012; Bardach et al., 2020). The common variance between students, at classroom level, constitutes an indicator of shared perceptions of the climate. Conversely, large residual differences between students in the same class, once shared agreement between students in the same class is controlled for, implies that there is significant diversity in perceptions of classroom climate. Efficient IMT is supposed to increase students’ reports of classroom climate and its inclusive consequences at the class level. Nevertheless, focusing on climate at the classroom level requires large sample studies, as the number of classes included in the analysis must be sufficient.
From another point of view, measuring several factors of the classroom climate at the same time offers a more effective measure of IMT. For example, cooperative pedagogy, often highlighted as a core element of IMT (e.g., Juvonen et al., 2019), is supposed to improve the student relationship aspect of classroom climate (Roseth et al., 2008). Nevertheless, cooperative pedagogy is also related to feelings of justice (Ghaith, 2003) and equity (Buchs and Maradan, 2021), and can improve learning, especially in a context of diversity (e.g., Falvey and Givner, 2005). To really catch the efficiency of cooperative pedagogy for inclusion hence requires measuring different factors of inclusive classroom climate. Similar conclusions can be reached when focusing on the inclusive effects of socioemotional learning programs, which primarily target the quality of relationships between students but can also impact factors of classroom climate associated with instruction (Durlak et al., 2011; Sklad et al., 2012). Moreover, hypothetical elements of IMT (e.g., Jigsaw cooperative method), often initially suggest fostering one factor of inclusive classroom climate (e.g., improving intergroup attitudes, Williams, 2004). But they may also undermine another factor (e.g., engagement, Cochon Drouet et al., 2022). Using a multi-factor measure of classroom climate helps to show that a single promising element of IMT has the potential to increase different factors of classroom climate, whilst maybe at the same time undermining others. Finally, the use of multi-factor measures of classroom climate is also a good way to diagnose specific difficulties in IMT and focus on one targeted factor (Moreu et al., 2021).
5. Conclusion
Despite the long-standing consensus on the need for inclusive education in educational systems around the world, mainstream schools are struggling to meet their two inclusion goals, i.e., promoting prosocial behaviors between diverse students and fostering engagement, learning and achievement for all students in a context of diversity. Recurrent problems such as bullying, school drop-out and ill-being are markers of, among other things, a lack of inclusion in the schools. This article helps address the discrepancy between the institutional will for inclusive schools and the reality of practices in the field. It reviews findings that show the added value of the classroom climate construct in developing more inclusive schools. According to these findings, the development of an inclusive classroom climate must be considered as the cornerstone of inclusive school building for three reasons.
Firstly, developing inclusive teaching in all classrooms is the core, yet also the main challenge of inclusive schools. Secondly, previous works clearly identify certain inclusive factors of classroom climate that are associated with the two inclusive objectives. Even if further work is needed to complete this picture, the factors reviewed constitute a preliminary definition of what characteristics a classroom climate needs in order to be inclusive. Thirdly, beyond the guideline that this definition of an inclusive classroom climate already represents, the classroom climate approach and associated validated measures can provide a hands-on way to develop IMT in the field. Indeed, measures of those listed factors, and especially students’ self-reports, are proximal, sensitive, and pragmatic indicators of effective IMT. A multilevel multi-factor classroom climate measure has the potential to document efficient IMT even more precisely. Moreover, such measures can also help teachers and education teams carry out an inclusive climate audit of their learning context (e.g., MacNeil et al., 2009), monitor their efforts in improving the situation (Nelson et al., 2015), and participate in their professional growth (Schweig et al., 2019; Moreu et al., 2021).
On this question of building inclusive schools, teachers have legitimate concerns when faced with the important professional transformation required by IMT in inclusive settings. Researchers are also struggling, as IMT is a practical challenge that requires being aware of the specific constraints that come with teaching. External bodies can draw up useful guidelines that ideally document associations between factors of classroom climate and inclusive outcomes. However, the concrete development of IMT in classrooms ultimately requires collaboration between teachers and researchers. The classroom climate construct constitutes an efficient tool to support these collaborations.
Author contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
Funding
Open access funding by University of Lausanne.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Céline Buchs (Haute École Pédagogique du Canton de Vaud, Switzerland), Noémie Baudoin (Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium) and Caroline Pulfrey (École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland) for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. The author also thanks Gardner Louissaint (Institute of Sport Sciences, University of Lausanne, Switzerland) for his help in collecting the data required to perform the review.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
1. ^This theoretical review aims to document why the classroom climate approach is a promising perspective to build more inclusive schools. In this perspective, empirical evidence that feeds each of the three steps of the argumentation was collected and organized. This review was firstly based on the analysis of empirical studies found in the systematic reviews and meta-analyses dealing with inclusive teaching or with the consequences and antecedents of classroom climate. It was completed with a search realized in January 2023 on Sciences direct, Web of Sciences, ERIC, Pascal & Francis, APA PsyNET and Taylor & Francis databases, for French or English articles including the keywords “inclusive” and “classroom climate.” This search led to 650 different articles that were analyzed and used to document each step of our argumentation.
References
Ainscow, M. (2007). Taking an inclusive turn. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs 7, 3–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2007.00075.x
Ainscow, M., Booth, T., and Dyson, A. (2006). Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion. England: Routledge.
Allodi, M. W. (2010a). Goals and values in school: a model developed for describing, evaluating and changing the social climate of learning environments. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 13, 207–235. doi: 10.1007/s11218-009-9110-6
Allodi, M. W. (2010b). The meaning of social climate of learning environments: some reasons why we do not care enough about it. Learn. Environ. Res. 13, 89–104. doi: 10.1007/s10984-010-9072-9
Altaf, M. (2015). Exploring classroom environment through perception-an overview of various inventories. Int. J. Novel Res. Education Learn. 2, 23–32.
Anderson, A., Hamilton, R. J., and Hattie, J. (2004). Classroom climate and motivated behaviour in secondary schools. Learn. Environ. Res. 7, 211–225. doi: 10.1007/s10984-004-3292-9
Avant, T. S., Gazelle, H., and Faldowski, R. (2011). Classroom emotional climate as a moderator of anxious solitary children's longitudinal risk for peer exclusion: a child × environment model. Dev. Psychol. 47, 1711–1727. doi: 10.1037/a0024021
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., and Burden, R. (2000). A survey into mainstream Teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school in one local education authority. Educ. Psychol. 20, 191–211. doi: 10.1080/713663717
Barbarin, O. A., Downer, J., Odom, E., and Head, D. (2010). Home–school differences in beliefs, support, and control during public pre-kindergarten and their link to children's kindergarten readiness. Early Child. Res. Q. 25, 358–372. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.02.003
Barboza, G. E., Schiamberg, L. B., Oehmke, J., Korzeniewski, S. J., Post, L. A., and Heraux, C. G. (2009). Individual characteristics and the multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: an ecological perspective. J. Youth Adolesc. 38, 101–121. doi: 10.1007/s10964-008-9271-1
Bardach, L., Yanagida, T., and Lüftenegger, M. (2020). Studying classroom climate effects in the context of multi-level structural equation modelling: an application-focused theoretical discussion and empirical demonstration. Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 43, 348–363. doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2020.1791071
Bear, G. G., and Proctor, W. A. (1990). Impact of a full-time integrated program on the achievement of nonhandicapped and mildly handicapped children. Exceptionality 1, 227–238. doi: 10.1080/09362839009524759
Bedoin, D., and Séguillon, D. (2021). “L’inclusion scolaire: une histoire mouvementée” in L'inclusion. Eds. A. André and N. Margas (Paris, France: Revue EP&S), 11–30.
Beld, M., Van der Voort, D., Van der Helm, G., Kuiper, C., De Swart, J., and Stams, G. (2018). Assessing classroom climate in special education: a validation study of the special education classroom climate inventory. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 36, 736–749. doi: 10.1177/0734282917706618
Bennacer, H. (2000). How the socioecological characteristics of the classroom affect academic achievement. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 15, 173–189. doi: 10.1007/BF03173173
Berti, C., Molinari, L., and Speltini, G. (2010). Classroom justice and psychological engagement: students’ and teachers’ representations. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 13, 541–556. doi: 10.1007/s11218-010-9128-9
Bigler, R. S., and Liben, L. S. (2007). Developmental intergroup theory: explaining and reducing children's social stereotyping and prejudice. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 16, 162–166. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00496.x
Bohn, C. M., Roehrig, A. D., and Pressley, M. (2004). The first days of school in the classrooms of two more effective and four less effective primary-grades teachers. Elem. Sch. J. 104, 269–287. doi: 10.1086/499753
Bonvin, P., and Margas, N. (2021). “La place de l’éducation physique et sportive au sein de l’établissement inclusif” in L'inclusion. Eds. A. André and N. Margas (Paris, France: Editions EP&S), 101–116.
Booker, K. (2016). Connection and commitment: how sense of belonging and classroom community influence degree persistence for African American undergraduate women. Int. J. Teach. Learn. Higher Educ. 28, 218–229.
Booth, T., and Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. London, England: Center for Studies on Inclusive Education.
Bossaert, G., Colpin, H., Pijl, S. J., and Petry, K. (2012). Loneliness among students with special educational needs in mainstream seventh grade. Res. Dev. Disabil. 33, 1888–1897. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2012.05.010
Bossaert, G., Colpin, H., Pijl, S. J., and Petry, K. (2013). Truly included? A literature study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in education. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 17, 60–79. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2011.580464
Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. A., and Salovey, P. (2012). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about social and emotional learning. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 30, 219–236. doi: 10.1177/0734282911424879
Brauer, M., Dumesnil, A., and Campbell, M. R. (2021). Using a social marketing approach to develop a pro-diversity intervention. J. Soc. Mark. 11, 469–488. doi: 10.1108/JSOCM-09-2020-0174
Brody, G. H., Dorsey, S., Forehand, R., and Armistead, L. (2002). Unique and protective contributions of parenting and classroom processes to the adjustment of African American children living in single-parent families. Child Dev. 73, 274–286. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00405
Buchs, C., and Maradan, M. (2021). Fostering equity in a multicultural and multilingual classroom through cooperative learning. Intercult. Educ. 32, 401–416. doi: 10.1080/14675986.2021.1889985
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., and Ntoumanis, N. (2019). An intervention to help teachers establish a prosocial peer climate in physical education. Learn. Instr. 64:101223. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101223
Chiu, M. M., Chow, B. W.-Y., and Joh, S. W. (2017). Streaming, tracking and reading achievement: a multilevel analysis of students in 40 countries. J. Educ. Psychol. 109, 915–934. doi: 10.1037/edu0000188
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Córdova, D., and Cervantes, R. C. (2010). Intergroup and within-group perceived discrimination among U.S.-born and foreign-born Latino youth. Hisp. J. Behav. Sci. 32, 259–274. doi: 10.1177/0739986310362371
Covelli, A., and de Anna, L. (2020). La qualité de l’éducation inclusive en Italie: le regard des enseignants en formation sur l’inclusion scolaire des élèves ayant des besoins éducatifs particuliers. Alternatives 14, 175–188. doi: 10.1016/j.alter.2020.04.002
Curby, T. W., Rudasill, K. M., Edwards, T., and Pérez-Edgar, K. (2011). The role of classroom quality in ameliorating the academic and social risks associated with difficult temperament. Sch. Psychol. Q. 26, 175–188. doi: 10.1037/a0023042
Curcic, S. (2009). Inclusion in PK-12: an international perspective. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 13, 517–538. doi: 10.1080/13603110801899585
Dalbert, C., and Maes, J. (2002). “Belief in a just world as a personal resource in school” in The Justice Motive in Everyday Life (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 365–381.
Dar, Y., and Resh, N. (2003). Social disadvantage and students' perceived injustice in socially integrated schools in Israel. Soc. Justice Res 16, 109–133. doi: 10.1023/A:1024248003808
de Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., and Minnaert, A. (2011). Regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: a review of the literature. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 15, 331–353. doi: 10.1080/13603110903030089
De Vroey, A., Struyf, E., and Petry, K. (2016). Secondary schools included: a literature review. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 20, 109–135. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2015.1075609
Desombre, C., Lamotte, M., and Jury, M. (2019). French teachers’ general attitude toward inclusion: the indirect effect of teacher efficacy. Educ. Psychol. 39, 38–50. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2018.1472219
Dorman, J. P. (2001). Associations between classroom environment and academic efficacy. Learn. Environ. Res. 4, 243–257. doi: 10.1023/A:1014490922622
Downer, J., Sabol, T. J., and Hamre, B. (2010). Teacher–child interactions in the classroom: toward a theory of within-and cross-domain links to children's developmental outcomes. Early Educ. Dev. 21, 699–723. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2010.497453
Cochon Drouet, O., Lentillon-Kaestner, V., Roure, C., and Margas, N. (2022). The role of the type of sport in the effects of the jigsaw method on students’ motivation and moderate to vigorous physical activity in physical education. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 42, 301–312. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2021-0223
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., and Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: a meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Dev. 82, 405–432. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Education, E.A.f.S.N.a.I. (2017). Inclusive Education for Learners With Disabilities. Brussels: Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs.
Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., and Hanish, L. D. (2019). Gender integration and the promotion of inclusive classroom climates. Educ. Psychol. 54, 271–285. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2019.1631826
Fallis, R. K., and Opotow, S. (2003). Are students failing school or are schools failing students? Class cutting in high school. J. Soc. Issues 59, 103–119. doi: 10.1111/1540-4560.00007
Falvey, M., and Givner, C. C. (2005). “What is an inclusive school?” in Creating an Inclusive School. Eds. R. A. Villa and J. S. Thousand (Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development), 1–26.
Farmer, T. W., Talbott, B., Dawes, M., Huber, H. B., Brooks, D. S., and Powers, E. E. (2018). Social dynamics management: what is it and why is it important for intervention? J. Emot. Behav. Disord. 26, 3–10. doi: 10.1177/1063426617752139
Fast, L. A., Lewis, J. L., Bryant, M. J., Bocian, K. A., Cardullo, R. A., Rettig, M., et al. (2010). Does math self-efficacy mediate the effect of the perceived classroom environment on standardized math test performance? J. Educ. Psychol. 102, 729–740. doi: 10.1037/a0018863
Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., and Büttner, G. (2014). Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learn. Instr. 29, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.001
Ferguson, D. L. (2008). International trends in inclusive education: the continuing challenge to teach each one and everyone. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 23, 109–120. doi: 10.1080/08856250801946236
Ferguson, J. M., and Dorman, J. P. (2003). The learning environment, self-handicapping, and Canadian high school mathematics students. Can. J. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ. 3, 323–331. doi: 10.1080/14926150309556571
Filiault, M., and Fortin, L. (2011). Recension des écrits sur le climat de classe et la réussite scolaire au secondaire. Chaire de recherche de la Commission scolaire de la Région-de-Sherbrooke sur la réussite et la persévérance scolaire.
Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: development, validity and applications. Learn. Environ. Res. 1, 7–34. doi: 10.1023/A:1009932514731
Fraser, B. J. (2015). “Classroom Climate” in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (second edition). Ed. J. D. Wright (Oxford: Elsevier), 825–832.
Freeman, T. M., Anderman, L. H., and Jensen, J. M. (2007). Sense of belonging in college freshmen at the classroom and campus levels. J. Exp. Educ. 75, 203–220. doi: 10.3200/JEXE.75.3.203-220
Gage, O. (2020). Urgently needed: a praxis of language awareness among pre-service primary teachers. Lang. Aware. 29, 220–235. doi: 10.1080/09658416.2020.1786102
Galand, B. (2017). "Quels sont les effets de la différenciation pédagogique sur les dimensions cognitives et socio-affectives?," in CNESCO; Ifé/ENS; "Conférence de consensus « Différenciation pédagogique: Comment adapter l’enseignement pour la réussite de tous les élèves? (Paris, France: Conseil national d'évaluation du système scolaire—Institut française d'éducation), pp. 177–187.
Gaskins, C. S., Herres, J., and Kobak, R. (2012). Classroom order and student learning in late elementary school: a multilevel transactional model of achievement trajectories. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 33, 227–235. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2012.06.002
Gazelle, H. (2006). Class climate moderates peer relations and emotional adjustment in children with an early history of anxious solitude: a child × environment model. Dev. Psychol. 42, 1179–1192. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1179
Gendron, B. P., Williams, K. R., and Guerra, N. G. (2011). An analysis of bullying among students within schools: estimating the effects of individual normative beliefs, self-esteem, and school climate. J. Sch. Violence 10, 150–164. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2010.539166
Ghaith, G. (2003). Effects of the learning together model of cooperative learning on English as a foreign language reading achievement, academic self-esteem, and feelings of school alienation. Biling. Res. J. 27, 451–474. doi: 10.1080/15235882.2003.10162603
Gregory, A., Cornell, D., Fan, X., Sheras, P., Shih, T.-H., and Huang, F. (2010). Authoritative school discipline: high school practices associated with lower bullying and victimization. J. Educ. Psychol. 102, 483–496. doi: 10.1037/a0018562
Hamre, B. K. (2014). Teachers' daily interactions with children: an essential ingredient in effective early childhood programs. Child Dev. Perspect. 8, 223–230. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12090
Hamre, B., Hatfield, B., Pianta, R., and Jamil, F. (2014). Evidence for general and domain-specific elements of teacher–child interactions: associations with preschool Children's development. Child Dev. 85, 1257–1274. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12184
Hamre, B. K., and Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Dev. 76, 949–967. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00889.x
Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., and Downer, J. T. (2007). Building a science of classrooms: application of the CLASS framework in over 4,000 US early childhood and elementary classrooms. Foundation Childhood Dev. 30, 1–35.
Hatfield, B. E., Burchinal, M. R., Pianta, R. C., and Sideris, J. (2016). Thresholds in the association between quality of teacher–child interactions and preschool children’s school readiness skills. Early Child. Res. Q. 36, 561–571. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.09.005
Heiniger, L., and Hercod, L. (2017). À la découverte de pratiques inclusives: entre la Norvège et la Suisse. Revue suisse de pédagogie spécialisée 1, 50–55.
Hewstone, M., Ramiah, A. A., Schmid, K., Floe, C., Zalk, M. V., Wölfer, R., et al. (2018). Influence of segregation versus mixing: intergroup contact and attitudes among white-British and Asian-British students in high schools in Oldham, England. Theory Res. Educ. 16, 179–203. doi: 10.1177/1477878518779879
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., and Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and. Educ. Psychol. 42, 99–107. doi: 10.1080/00461520701263368
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., and Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 227–237. doi: 10.1177/1745691614568352
Hornby, G. (2015). Inclusive special education: development of a new theory for the education of children with special educational needs and disabilities. Br. J. Special Educ. 42, 234–256. doi: 10.1111/1467-8578.12101
Hoy, W. K., and Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. Am. Educ. Res. J. 27, 279–300. doi: 10.2307/1163010
Iyer, A. (2022). Understanding advantaged groups' opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies: the role of perceived threat. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 16:e12666. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12666
Jury, M., Laurence, A., Cèbe, S., and Desombre, C. (2023). Teachers’ concerns about inclusive education and the links with teachers’ attitudes. Front. Educ. 7. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.1065919
Jury, M., Perrin, A.-L., Rohmer, O., and Desombre, C. (2021). Attitudes toward inclusive education: an exploration of the interaction between teachers’ status and students’ type of disability within the French context. Front. Educ. 6:655356. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.655356
Juvonen, J., and Bear, G. (1992). Social adjustment of children with and without learning disabilities in integrated classrooms. J. Educ. Psychol. 84, 322–330. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.322
Juvonen, J., Lessard, L. M., Rastogi, R., Schacter, H. L., and Smith, D. S. (2019). Promoting social inclusion in educational settings: challenges and opportunities. Educ. Psychol. 54, 250–270. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2019.1655645
Kaplan Toren, N., and Seginer, R. (2015). Classroom climate, parental educational involvement, and student school functioning in early adolescence: a longitudinal study. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 18, 811–827. doi: 10.1007/s11218-015-9316-8
Katz, J. (2013). The three block model of universal Design for Learning (UDL): engaging students in inclusive education. Can. J. Educ. 36, 153–194.
Katz, J. (2015). Implementing the three block model of universal Design for Learning: effects on teachers' self-efficacy, stress, and job satisfaction in inclusive classrooms K-12. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 19, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2014.881569
Kellam, S. G., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Brown, C. H., and Ialongo, N. (1998). The effect of the level of aggression in the first grade classroom on the course and malleability of aggressive behavior into middle school. Dev. Psychopathol. 10, 165–185. doi: 10.1017/s0954579498001564
Knifsend, C. A., and Juvonen, J. (2017). Extracurricular activities in multiethnic middle schools: ideal context for positive intergroup attitudes? J. Res. Adolesc. 27, 407–422. doi: 10.1111/jora.12278
Korpershoek, H., Harms, T., de Boer, H., van Kuijk, M., and Doolaard, S. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom management programs on students’ academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 643–680. doi: 10.3102/0034654315626799
Koster, M., Nakken, H., Pijl, S. J., and van Houten, E. (2009). Being part of the peer group: a literature study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in education. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 13, 117–140. doi: 10.1080/13603110701284680
Kumar, R. (2006). Students’ experiences of home–school dissonance: the role of school academic culture and perceptions of classroom goal structures. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 31, 253–279. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.08.002
Lotan, R. (2006). Teaching teachers to build equitable classrooms. Theory Pract. 45, 32–39. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4501_5
Lotan, R. A. (2022). “Equitable classrooms: a compelling connection between theory and practice” in Unequals: The Power of Status and Expectations in Our Social Lives. Eds. M. WebsterJr. and L. S. Walker (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 178–C179.P131.
Lotan, R., and Holthuis, N. I. (2021). “Complex instruction for diverse and equitable classrooms” in Pioneering Perspectives in Cooperative Learning. Ed. N. Davidson (New York, NY: Routledge), 63–77.
Loukas, A., and Murphy, J. L. (2007). Middle school student perceptions of school climate: examining protective functions on subsequent adjustment problems. J. Sch. Psychol. 45, 293–309. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.10.001
Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., and Kunter, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of learning environments: how to use student ratings of classroom or school characteristics in multilevel modeling. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 34, 120–131. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.001
Lynch, T., and Soukup, G. J. Sr. (2017). Primary physical education (PE): school leader perceptions about classroom teacher quality implementation. Cogent Educ. 4:1348925. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2017.1348925
MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., and Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ. 12, 73–84. doi: 10.1080/13603120701576241
Marsh, H. W. (2002). A multidimensional physical self-concept: a construct validity approach to theory, measurement. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society 9, 459–493.
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Trautwein, U., Morin, A. J., Abduljabbar, A. S., et al. (2012). Classroom climate and contextual effects: conceptual and methodological issues in the evaluation of group-level effects. Educ. Psychol. 47, 106–124. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.670488
Monsen, J. J., Ewing, D. L., and Kwoka, M. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, perceived adequacy of support and classroom learning environment. Learn. Environ. Res. 17, 113–126. doi: 10.1007/s10984-013-9144-8
Montero-Montero, D., López-Martínez, P., Martínez-Ferrer, B., and Moreno-Ruiz, D. (2021). The mediating role of classroom climate on school violence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18:2790. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18062790
Mooij, T. (1999). Promoting prosocial pupil behaviour: 2-secondary school intervention and pupil effects. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 69, 479–504. doi: 10.1348/000709999157851
Moos, R. H., and Trickett, E. J. (1974). Classroom Environment Scale: Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Moreu, G., Isenberg, N., and Brauer, M. (2021). How to promote diversity and inclusion in educational settings: behavior change, climate surveys, and effective pro-diversity initiatives. Front. Educ. 6:668250. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.668250
Munniksma, A., Stark, T. H., Verkuyten, M., Flache, A., and Veenstra, R. (2013). Extended intergroup friendships within social settings: the moderating role of initial outgroup attitudes. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 16, 752–770. doi: 10.1177/1368430213486207
Murrar, S., Campbell, M. R., and Brauer, M. (2020). Exposure to peers’ pro-diversity attitudes increases inclusion and reduces the achievement gap. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 889–897. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0899-5
Nelson, P. M., Ysseldyke, J. E., and Christ, T. J. (2015). Student perceptions of the classroom environment: actionable feedback to guide core instruction. Assess. Eff. Interv. 41, 16–27. doi: 10.1177/1534508415581366
Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., and Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 26, 237–257. doi: 10.3102/01623737026003237
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., and Tamkins, M. M. (2003). “Organizational culture and climate” in Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12 (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 565–593.
Pescarmona, I. (2014). Learning to participate through complex instruction. Intercult. Educ. 25, 187–196. doi: 10.1080/14675986.2014.905360
Peters, S. J. (2004). Inclusive Education: An EFA Strategy for All Children. Washington, DC: World Bank, Human Development Network.
Pianta, R. C., and Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educ. Res. 38, 109–119. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09332374
Ponitz, C. C., McClelland, M. M., Matthews, J. S., and Morrison, F. J. (2009). A structured observation of behavioral self-regulation and its contribution to kindergarten outcomes. Dev. Psychol. 45, 605–619. doi: 10.1037/a0015365
Quin, D. (2017). Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher–student relationships and student engagement: a systematic review. Rev. Educ. Res. 87, 345–387. doi: 10.3102/0034654316669434
Raskauskas, J. L., Gregory, J., Harvey, S. T., Rifshana, F., and Evans, I. M. (2010). Bullying among primary school children in New Zealand: relationships with prosocial behaviour and classroom climate. Educ. Res. 52, 1–13. doi: 10.1080/00131881003588097
Reinke, W. M., and Herman, K. C. (2002). Creating school environments that deter antisocial behaviors in youth. Psychol. Sch. 39, 549–559. doi: 10.1002/pits.10048
Resh, N., and Sabbagh, C. (2009). “Justice in teaching” in International Handbook of Research on Teachers and Teaching. Eds. L. J. Saha and A. G. Dworkin (Berlin: Springer Science+Business Media), 669–682.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Curby, T. W., Grimm, K. J., Nathanson, L., and Brock, L. L. (2009). The contribution of children’s self-regulation and classroom quality to children’s adaptive behaviors in the kindergarten classroom. Dev. Psychol. 45, 958–972. doi: 10.1037/a0015861
Rose, D. H., and Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents' achievement and peer relationships: the effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychol. Bull. 134, 223–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223
Roubinov, D. S., Bush, N. R., Hagan, M. J., Thompson, J., and Boyce, W. T. (2020). Associations between classroom climate and children's externalizing symptoms: the moderating effect of kindergarten children's parasympathetic reactivity. Dev. Psychopathol. 32, 661–672. doi: 10.1017/S095457941900052X
Savolainen, H., Malinen, O.-P., and Schwab, S. (2022). Teacher efficacy predicts teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion – a longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 26, 958–972. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2020.1752826
Schwab, S. (2017). The impact of contact on students’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities. Res. Dev. Disabil. 62, 160–165. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2017.01.015
Schwab, S. (2021). “Inclusive and special education in Europe” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Inclusive and Special Education. Eds. U. Sharma and S. J. Salend (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 807–819.
Schweig, J., Hamilton, L. S., and Baker, G. (2019). School and Classroom Climate Measures: Considerations for Use by State and Local Education Leaders. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Shechtman, Z. (2006). The relationship of life skills and classroom climate to self-reported levels of victimization. Int. J. Adv. Couns. 28, 359–373. doi: 10.1007/s10447-006-9020-7
Shim, S. S., Cho, Y., and Wang, C. (2013). Classroom goal structures, social achievement goals, and adjustment in middle school. Learn. Instr. 23, 69–77. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.008
Sklad, M., Diekstra, R., Ritter, M. D., Ben, J., and Gravesteijn, C. (2012). Effectiveness of school-based universal social, emotional, and behavioral programs: do they enhance students’ development in the area of skill, behavior, and adjustment? Psychol. Sch. 49, 892–909. doi: 10.1002/pits.21641
Skordi, P., and Fraser, B. J. (2019). Validity and use of the what is happening in this class?(WIHIC) questionnaire in university business statistics classrooms. Learn. Environ. Res. 22, 275–295. doi: 10.1007/s10984-018-09277-4
Stanczak, A., Jury, M., Aelenei, C., Pironom, J., Toczek-Capelle, M.-C., and Rohmer, O. (2023). Special education and meritocratic inclusion. Educ. Policy. doi: 10.1177/08959048231153606 [Epub ahead of print].
Stough, L. M. (2006). “The place of classroom management and standards in teacher education” in Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues. Eds. C. Evertson and C. Weinstein (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers), 909–923.
Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., and Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. Int. J. Educ. Res. 27, 293–302. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(97)90011-2
Tetler, S., and Baltzer, K. (2011). The climate of inclusive classrooms: the pupil perspective. Lond. Rev. Educ. 9, 333–344. doi: 10.1080/14748460.2011.616326
Thornberg, R. (2018). School bullying and fitting into the peer landscape: a grounded theory field study. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 39, 144–158. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2017.1330680
Thornberg, R., Wänström, L., Hong, J. S., and Espelage, D. L. (2017). Classroom relationship qualities and social-cognitive correlates of defending and passive bystanding in school bullying in Sweden: a multilevel analysis. J. Sch. Psychol. 63, 49–62. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2017.03.002
Thornberg, R., Wegmann, B., Wänström, L., Bjereld, Y., and Hong, J. S. (2022). Associations between student–teacher relationship quality, class climate, and bullying roles: a Bayesian multilevel multinomial logit analysis. Vict. Offenders 17, 1196–1223. doi: 10.1080/15564886.2022.2051107
Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., et al. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: a review of literature. J. Educ. Gift. 27, 119–145. doi: 10.1177/016235320302700203
Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., and Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and Education in Twenty-eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen. Amsterdam: The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Turner, R. N., and Cameron, L. (2016). Confidence in contact: a new perspective on promoting cross-group friendship among children and adolescents. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 10, 212–246. doi: 10.1111/sipr.12023
Turner, I., Reynolds, K. J., Lee, E., Subasic, E., and Bromhead, D. (2014). Well-being, school climate, and the social identity process: a latent growth model study of bullying perpetration and peer victimization. Sch. Psychol. Q. 29, 320–335. doi: 10.1037/spq0000074
UNESCO. (2009). Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
UNESCO. (2016). Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations Human Rights Special Procedure (2019). Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities: Visit in France. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/fr/documents/country-reports/ahrc4054add1-visit-france-report-special-rapporteur-rights-persons
Van Mieghem, A., Verschueren, K., Petry, K., and Struyf, E. (2020). An analysis of research on inclusive education: a systematic search and meta review. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 24, 675–689. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1482012
Vandenbroucke, L., Spilt, J., Verschueren, K., Piccinin, C., and Baeyens, D. (2018). The classroom as a developmental context for cognitive development: a meta-analysis on the importance of teacher–student interactions for children’s executive functions. Rev. Educ. Res. 88, 125–164. doi: 10.3102/0034654317743200
Wagner, W., Göllner, R., Helmke, A., Trautwein, U., and Lüdtke, O. (2013). Construct validity of student perceptions of instructional quality is high, but not perfect: dimensionality and generalizability of domain-independent assessments. Learn. Instr. 28, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.03.003
Walberg, H. J., and Anderson, G. J. (1968). Classroom climate and individual learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 59, 414–419. doi: 10.1037/h0026490
Wang, M.-T. (2012). Educational and career interests in math: a longitudinal examination of the links between classroom environment, motivational beliefs, and interests. Dev. Psychol. 48, 1643–1657. doi: 10.1037/a0027247
Wang, M.-T., and Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: a review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 28, 315–352. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1
Wang, M.-T., Degol, L., Amemiya, J., Parr, A., and Guo, J. (2020b). Classroom climate and children’s academic and psychological wellbeing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dev. Rev. 57:100912. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2020.100912
Wang, M.-T., Hofkens, T., and Ye, F. (2020a). Classroom quality and adolescent student engagement and performance in mathematics: a multi-method and multi-informant approach. J. Youth Adolesc. 49, 1987–2002. doi: 10.1007/s10964-020-01195-0
Watkins, A. (2017). Inclusive education and European educational policy. Oxford: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.
Webster-Stratton, C., Jamila Reid, M., and Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Preventing conduct problems and improving school readiness: evaluation of the incredible years teacher and child training programs in high-risk schools. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 49, 471–488. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01861.x
Williams, D. (2004). Improving race relations in higher education: the jigsaw classroom as a missing piece to the puzzle. Urban Educ. 39, 316–344. doi: 10.1177/0042085904263063
Willis, S., and Mann, L. (2000). Differentiating instruction: Finding manageable ways to meet individual needs curriculum update, ASCD.
Keywords: inclusion, classroom environment, inclusive teaching, special education needs (SEN) students, integration, universal teaching
Citation: Margas N (2023) Inclusive classroom climate development as the cornerstone of inclusive school building: review and perspectives. Front. Psychol. 14:1171204. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1171204
Edited by:
Marie Oger, APEMAC, Université de Lorraine, FranceReviewed by:
Pedro Gil-Madrona, University of Castilla-La Mancha, SpainSharinaz Hassan, Curtin University, Australia
Copyright © 2023 Margas. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Nicolas Margas, bmljb2xhcy5tYXJnYXNAdW5pbC5jaA==