The Impact of Inclusive Education on Academic Motivation,Academic Self-Efficacy,and Well-Being of Students With Learning Disability

Abstract

This study explored the impact of inclusive education on academic motivation, academic self-efficacy, and well-being of students with learning disability (LD). Three groups of students (students with LD studying in special schools, students with LD studying in inclusive schools, and students without LD studying in inclusive schools) were compared on these variables. Results revealed that students without LD scored higher on both academic motivation and academic self-efficacy. They also scored higher on well-being than students with LD going to inclusive schools. Implications of the results in the context of students with LD are discussed.

Keywords

learning disability inclusive education academic self-efficacy academic motivation well-being

Introduction

Inclusive education is a system of education that enables learners from various needs, abilities, and interests to learn together. It accommodates children regardless of their physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic, or other condition (Bindal & Sharma, 2010). An inclusive approach tries to bring about educational and personal development without trying to eliminate differences (Nind & Kellett, 2002). Ainscow (1999) states that in an inclusive educational system, diversity should not be viewed through normative standards but seen as a cue to change the educational experience. With the era of inclusive education, the responsibility for change has shifted from learners to practitioners (Nind & Kellett, 2002). This shift also necessitates the inspection of the implementation of inclusive education to check for any changes that may be required.

The 1990s have seen a lot of work on the realization of inclusive education (Lindsay, 2007). Some studies reporting the educational outcomes of inclusive education have found slightly positive results (Lindsay, 2007). Other studies have looked into the social outcomes of inclusive education and reported mixed results (Karin et al., 2012). Some studies have depicted positive social outcomes (Avramidis, 2010), and others have reported risks for students’ social development (e.g., Locke et al., 2010).

Inclusive education in India is mostly concerned with students with disabilities (Singhal, 2008). Disability-oriented inclusive education is about active participation from all students and not just enrolling them in a mainstream school (Nind, 2014). However, in India, inclusive education is still at a nascent stage, which requires more research (Bindal & Sharma, 2010).

For students with learning disability (LD), motivation for academic tasks is low and their self-efficacy is fragile because of repeated failure and poor academic achievement (Wong et al., 2008). Low motivation and low self-efficacy will influence their engagement with learning tasks (Wong et al., 2008). A number of studies have found that intrinsic motivation is associated with better learning, performance, and well-being (e.g., Benware & Deci, 1984; Deci et al., 1981; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Valas & Sovik, 1993). As evident from the aforementioned studies, intrinsic academic motivation, academic self-efficacy, and well-being are important for favorable academic outcomes. But how does an inclusive educational setting influence these variables remains to be explored. This study will be a step forward in understanding this aspect. McGregor and Vogelsberg (1998) have suggested that children with disability are exposed to a more rigorous setting in an inclusive setup leading to improved skill base and academic gains. If that is so, students with disability (including students with LD) should show some improvement in academic-related variables and not just academic performance. As inclusive education has not met with a scrutiny of how it has affected students, especially students with LD in India, this study had been designed with the purpose of checking the impact of inclusive education on students with LD on three key variables—academic motivation, academic self-efficacy, and well-being.

Therefore, the objective of this study was to inspect the impact of inclusive education on students with LD by comparing three groups of students—students with LD studying in special schools, students with LD studying in inclusive schools, and students without LD studying in inclusive schools.

Method

Participants

To address the objective of the study, the sample consisted of a total of 222 students comprising of three groups—students with LD studying in special schools (n = 72), students with LD studying in inclusive schools (n = 75), and students without LD studying in inclusive schools (n = 75). The students were in the age group of 10 to 16 years and were from two metropolitan cities of India. The students with LD were also diagnosed and assessed by the schools. Their specific area of disability was not taken into consideration, because the focus of this study is on psychosocial functioning of students with LD.

Measurement Tools

Self-Regulation Questionnaire–Academic

It is a 17-item questionnaire (Deci et al., 1992), which has been adapted from a scale developed by Ryan and Connell (1989). It assesses the student’s style of academic self-regulation, that is, the reason why a student would perform a particular task. It is a Likert-type scale in which the student is required to indicate how often the student performs the tasks for the given reason. This questionnaire has two versions. The version for students with LD was used in the study because the targeted sample consists of students with LD. It has four subscales: External Regulation, Introjected Regulation, Identified Regulation, and Intrinsic Motivation. The reliability measured by Cronbach’s alpha for the scales ranged from .66 to .82.

Children’s Self-Efficacy Scale

This scale is used to assess the level of confidence that children perceive they have to perform certain tasks (Bandura, 2006). Two subscales from the original scale will be used for the present study. They are Self-Efficacy for Academic Achievement (eight items) and Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulatory Learning (10 items). These scales were selected because they suit the objective of this study as they were related to academics and learning. The scale of the original version ranged from 0 (cannot do at all) to 100 (highly certain can do). For the present study, the scale was also modified to range from 0 (cannot do at all) to 10 (highly certain can do). This was done to make the scale simpler and also to keep it similar to the other scales to be used in the present study. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the two scales were reported to be .87 (Self-Efficacy for Academic Achievement) and .80 (Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulatory Learning).

Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI)–School Children

The PWI scale contains seven items of satisfaction, each one corresponding to a quality-of-life domain as standard of living, health, life achievement, personal relationships, personal safety, community-connectedness, and future security (Cummins & Lau, 2005). Each item is concerned with how happy the subject feels with respect to the life domain indicated in the item. To denote this, a scale ranging from 0 (very sad) to 10 (very happy) is used. This scale was reported to have adequate reliability and validity.

Procedure

For the purpose of this study, various schools in two metropolitan cities in India were approached for data collection. The participants included students with LD studying in special schools, students with LD studying in inclusive schools, and students without LD studying in inclusive schools. They were administered the questionnaires in a group setting. They were first given the instruction for each questionnaire and asked to fill the demographic details. Any queries they had were answered. It was made sure that a teacher who spoke the local vernacular language was present at the time of administering the questionnaire, so that any difficulty faced by the students could be dealt with in the local language as well. They then proceeded to fill the questionnaires themselves.

Results

The present study investigated the impact of inclusive education on three variables: academic motivation, academic self-efficacy, and well-being.

Academic motivation was measured using the Self-Regulation Questionnaire–Academic. It has four subscales: External Regulation, Introjected Regulation, Identified Regulation, and Intrinsic Motivation. The External Regulation and Introjected Regulation combine to form the controlled subscale, and Identified Regulation and Intrinsic Motivation combine to form the autonomous subscale. Thus, academic motivation was measured in terms of controlled and autonomous regulation in this study.

To look into whether the three groups of participants differed in these two broad forms of academic motivation, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed on the data collected from the participants on the Self-Regulation Questionnaire–Academic. All the assumptions for MANOVA were checked for the given set of data. Using Pillai’s trace, no significant effect of the groups of students was found on the controlled and autonomous subscales, V = .034, F(4, 438) = 1.87, p > .05. Furthermore, separate univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) revealed a significant difference among the groups on controlled subscale, F(2, 219) = 2.84, p < .05. However, it did not find a significant difference among the groups of students on the autonomous scale, F(2, 219) = 2.56, p > .05.

From the contrast results, it was observed that when students with LD studying in special schools were compared with students without LD studying in inclusive schools, there was a significant difference on the controlled subscale (p < .05) and the autonomous subscale (p < .05). The means of these two groups show that students without LD studying in inclusive schools had significantly higher scores on both controlled and autonomous subscales than students with LD studying in special schools. On the contrary, when students with LD studying in inclusive schools were compared with students without LD studying in inclusive schools, there was no significant difference on either the controlled subscale (p > .05) or the autonomous subscale (p > .05). Thus, a general trend that was observed in the scores demonstrates that students without LD studying in inclusive schools scored the highest in both the subscales of motivation followed by students with LD studying in inclusive schools. The students with LD studying in special schools obtained the least scores on both controlled and autonomous subscales of motivation.

Children’s Self-Efficacy Scale was used to measure the academic self-efficacy of the students of the three groups. PWI–School Children was used to measure well-being of students of the three groups. One-way ANOVA was conducted to analyze whether there were differences among the three groups on the variable of academic self-efficacy and well-being. All the assumptions of ANOVA were met for both the variables.

The results of ANOVA showed that there was a significant effect of the groups of students on academic self-efficacy, F(2, 219) = 15.16, p < .05, r = .35. A Tukey post hoc test revealed that the academic self-efficacy of students without LD studying in inclusive schools was significantly higher than students with LD studying in special schools (p < .05) and also students with LD studying in inclusive schools (p < .05). No significant difference was observed between students with LD studying in special schools and students with LD studying in inclusive schools. As the sample sizes were slightly different, Gabriel’s procedure was also conducted as part of the post hoc analysis. It also revealed similar results. The students without LD studying in inclusive schools scored higher on academic self-efficacy than students with LD studying in special schools (p < .05) and also students with LD studying in inclusive schools (p < .05).

The well-being of the three groups of students was also analyzed using ANOVA. Results indicated a significant difference among the three groups of students on their well-being scores, F(2, 219) = 3.08, p < .05, r = .17. A further post hoc test (Tukey’s test) showed that students without LD studying in inclusive schools scored significantly higher on well-being than students with LD studying in inclusive schools (p < .05). The Gabriel’s procedure also illustrated the same result with students without LD studying in inclusive schools obtaining significantly higher scores on well-being than students with LD studying in inclusive schools. No such difference was observed for students with LD studying in special schools.

Discussion and Implications

The current study looked at the variables of academic motivation, academic self-efficacy, and well-being among the groups of students according to the different schools. The students with LD studying in special schools were found to be scoring significantly lower on both autonomous and controlled academic motivation. Lee and Zentall (2012) also reported similar findings when they found that students with reading difficulties/disabilities had lower motivation (both extrinsic and intrinsic) than students without disabilities. According to Sideridis (2009), higher levels of external motivation differentiate between students with and without LD. The findings of the present study were similar to the findings of a study by Grolnick and Ryan (1990) which also found that students with LD scored lower on academic self-regulation than the participants of a control group comprising of students without LD. Studies by Renick (1985); Lincoln and Chazen (1979) (as cited in Grolnick & Ryan, 1990) have found that students with LD show less mastery motivation than students without LD. Ellis (1986) reported that students with LD had lower levels of intrinsic motivation. In addition to that, the present study found that students with LD scored lower on controlled or extrinsic motivation as well. Renick and Harter (as cited in Deci et al., 1992) reported that students labeled as LD perceived themselves as being academically less competent compared with their nonlabeled peer without any disabilities.

The above-mentioned studies are in consonance with the results of the current study pertaining to the difference between students without LD studying in inclusive schools and students with LD studying in special schools. However, contrary to these findings, Pintrich et al. (1994) found no difference between students with and without LD on either of intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, or anxiety. This study too supports the findings of the current study where no difference on academic motivation (either intrinsic or extrinsic) was found between students with LD studying in inclusive schools and students without LD studying in inclusive schools. Thus, it seems the placement in the type of school might have a role to play in the academic motivation of students.

The study looked at autonomous (intrinsic) and controlled (extrinsic) motivation as it pertains to self-determination theory (SDT). SDT advocates an organismic viewpoint, that is, it views human beings as active agents who exert influence on their environment. Thus, their subjective experiences and interpretations also become important. Students with LD studying in special schools have experienced tremendous hardships in their academic lives. The previous academic failures are bound to leave an impact on them. To make things even more difficult, they were no longer accepted in the mainstream schools that they previously studied. Their issues in learning and academics seem to represent a “vicious spiral of school failure” (Yailagh et al., 2014, p. 29). As a result of frequent disappointments, academics provide little motivation for them.

These findings may also be indicative of the experience of a more controlling and less autonomous academic environment by the students with LD. The label of a “students with disability” is accompanied by not only a stigma but also a belief on the part of the others that these students may not be as competent as the other students without any disability. These beliefs may be internalized by the students with LD leading to a drop in their academic motivation. Furthermore, the absence of any positive feedback and a highly controlling academic environment hinders any fulfillment of the basic psychological needs. Grolnick and Ryan (1990) stated that teachers themselves reported that they were more controlling toward students with LD. This again suggests that students with LD do not enjoy as much autonomy as the others. This is bound to impact their academic motivation and in fact cause them to have lower motivation than students without disability.

After academic motivation, the next variable studied was academic self-efficacy. The results revealed that students with LD, irrespective of the school, had significantly lower academic self-efficacy. Earlier studies have established that students with LD have lower academic self-efficacy than students without LD (e.g., Baum & Owen, 1988; Clever et al., 1992; Tabassam & Grainger, 2002). Another study by Yuen et al. (2008) found that Chinese students with LD had lower self-efficacy in learning English and Chinese language skills than their nondisabled counterparts. Aikhomu’s (2015) study too found that students with LD had scored lower on measures of self-efficacy, irrespective of the gender of the students.

According to Bandura (1997), mastery experiences are one of the sources of influence on self-efficacy. Mastery experiences were found to be the primary predictor of academic achievement by a study by Loo and Choy (2013). In case of students with LD, mastery experiences in the field of academics is often a rare occurrence. The characteristics of the disability itself are such that academic tasks are very challenging and receiving the right kind of support to excel in those tasks is also hard to come by. Apart from repeated failure experiences, the time required for them to master a particular academic skill may also be longer compared with their peers without disability. Therefore, their experience in the field of academics is mostly negative and deflating and lacking in making them feel efficacious. Thus, mastery experience as a source of self-efficacy may not always be present to enhance their academic self-efficacy. Rather, its opposite or the lack of it may degrade their academic self-efficacy. They probably do not enjoy enough instances to perceive themselves as being able to accomplish the academic feats.

According to Bandura (as cited in Shkullaku, 2013), people tend to move away from situations and tasks which they believe lies beyond their capacities. They rather move toward tasks which they believe they can perform successfully. In the present study, the students with LD (studying in both inclusive and special schools) have scored lower on academic self-efficacy than students without LD which indicates that they perceive themselves as not being too adept in academic tasks. This would imply that they would avoid situations and tasks that they believe they are not good at, which in this case are academic tasks. This would thus also partly explain the scores on academic motivation obtained by students with LD. They had lower academic motivation than students without LD. Their academic self-efficacy may influence their academic motivation too to some extent. As they perceive themselves as not having the capacities to excel in academics, they may avoid those academic tasks altogether resulting in low motivation. Gist and Mitchell (1992) reported that self-efficacy beliefs can be determined by other factors such as motivation and the task associated with the belief.

The third variable that this research question studied was well-being. Well-being of the three groups of students was compared and it was found that students with LD studying in inclusive schools had scored significantly lower on well-being compared with students without LD studying in inclusive schools. Support for these findings can only be indirectly sought from previous work. Svetaz et al. (2000) had found that the risk for emotional distress among adolescents with LD was twice than that of adolescents without LD. Students with LD have been found to be at risk for severe depression and suicide (Huntington & Bender, 1993). In another study by Nelson and Harwood (2011), students with LD were found to have higher mean scores for anxiety than students without LD. Heath and Ross (2000) reported that girls with LD had higher levels of scores for depressive symptoms than girls without LD. Karande et al. (2008) reported that the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of children with LD was compromised for both psychosocial and physical factors of health. The HRQOL is further affected by the presence of co-occurring attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as revealed by another study by Karande and Bhosrekar (2009). They found that children diagnosed with LD and co-occurring ADHD had poorer overall psychosocial functioning assessed by parent-reported Child Health Questionnaire. Thakkar et al. (2015) found that children newly diagnosed with LD had a higher risk of being clinically anxious. This did not depend on the gender, presence of comorbid ADHD, or the type of curriculum the children attended. These studies lend support to the present findings because they too present a scenario where students with LD scored significantly lower in well-being-related constructs. Furthermore, Karande et al. (2009) analyzed the school-related experiences of adolescents with LD and reported that 30% of their participants had negative recollection, 23.3% responded to feeling different from their classmates, 20% reported that they were ridiculed by their classmates about their disability, and 23.3% were insulted by their teachers. Factors like these can definitely have a negative impact on the well-being of the students with LD, especially the ones studying in inclusive schools. The students with LD studying in special schools would have different experiences where they may not feel like they are different than the other students because of their disability. Also they probably have a more supportive teaching environment. The teachers in a special school are all trained in the specialized field of special education, while in an inclusive school the regular classroom teacher may not be so. Thus, they may be more empathic and supportive of the students and their needs. Furthermore, it may also be possible that they seek to find happiness from other sources rather than their academic prowess or achievements. Thus, no significant difference in well-being was observed between the students with LD studying in special schools and students without LD studying in inclusive schools.

Implications

The students with LD studying in special schools were found to be scoring significantly lower on both autonomous and controlled academic motivation. The students with LD studying in inclusive schools also scored lower than students without LD studying in inclusive schools. A child who has low level of intrinsic motivation in any area may fail to initiate behavior directed toward any activity related to that area. The students with LD (irrespective of the school they are attending) had shown a low level of intrinsic motivation. Consequently, there is a high probability that their initiation toward any academic-related task will be lacking. Their development in such tasks/skills will not happen at an optimal level. A prominent implication of these findings is that focus should also be given to ameliorate these motivational concerns/deficits as a part of intervention over and above those aiming at remedial education. Such kind of strategies should emphasize on provision of conditions that allow fulfillment of the basic psychological needs (as suggested by SDT). As a result of fulfillment of the needs, intrinsic motivation can be improved. Or Alternatively extraneous forms of motivation can be changed to more intrinsic forms of motivation.

Academic achievement was found to be consistently predicted by both types of autonomous motivation, that is, intrinsic motivation and identified regulation (Taylor et al., 2014). There can be a bidirectional relationship between academic achievement and academic motivation. Achievement can itself predict the type and quantity of motivation and motivation in turn can naturally determine academic achievement. Even though academic activities may not be inherently interesting for the students with LD, they are important for their life in general. The use of extrinsic motivators also gain importance in such circumstances. Other researchers (e.g., Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) also propound that extrinsic motivation is also important in the academic domain. Therefore, it seems necessary that assessment of academic deficits of students with LD be accompanied by measurement of motivational variables too and appropriate steps be taken to improve the type and quantity of motivation of these students. The second study of this thesis is aimed at developing and testing an intervention in this same line.

Komarraju and Nadler (2013) stated that students with high self-efficacy in academics are the ones who pursue mastery goals and new knowledge. They also perform better than others. On the contrary, students with low self-efficacy have lower chances of being motivated by mastery goals or performance goals. Thus, the above findings on academic self-efficacy have strong implications for educators and administrators. Understanding of self-efficacy beliefs of students with varied educational needs can enlighten the practice of more engaging and effective educational instructions. Within an inclusive setup, students with different abilities and needs would be studying together. To make this system successful, care has to be provided that no student is left behind in any manner. Apart from academic achievement, the school is an institution that plays a major role in building self-related concepts. Self-efficacy can have important consequences on the student’s life. Its relation to academic achievement is already well established. Students with LD seem to be lacking in these beliefs. Therefore, it becomes very necessary that this issue be addressed. The inclusive educational system is motivated to bring every student at par with each other. Self-efficacy should be considered another area to work on so that these academic perceptions of students with LD can be enhanced and they can reap the benefits of academically efficacious beliefs.

The findings of the present study bring to light a number of factors which are an area of concern for students with LD, especially if we try to enforce a system of schooling which is inclusive in a true sense. The well-being of students with LD studying in inclusive schools does not seem to be as sound as the others. Interventions for LD need to look beyond the academic domains and focus on these variables too. Teacher training courses should also make the teachers capable enough to target these variables. A little help can go a long way in enabling the students cope well with their issues and difficulties. Svetaz et al. (2000) mention that connectedness to parents and school can act as a protective factor against emotional distress among adolescents with LD. Therefore, schools can provide counseling to recognize and intervene in the emotional issues being dealt with by the students with LD. School needs to be a place where they feel secured in spite of their issues and difficulties. Apart from that, parents too will play a big role in helping these students overcome different issues. The school administrators and teachers can join hands with the parents to provide a supportive environment to the students with LD where they are not identified by the “disability” but by the qualities that make them an individual.

Students with LD experience a lot of difficulties and issues in the academic arena. To make their academic journey more comfortable, the educational setting requires to be more conducive to their needs and that comprises an inclusive setting where they gain academic and nonacademic skills at par with their peers. To ensure that no child is left behind, assessment and interventions should look into the kind of self-related variables that the current study had looked into. Only then can we realize a truly inclusive educational system.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Dilwar Hussain

References

Aikhomu

I. E.

(2015). Learning disability status and gender as predictors of self-efficacy [Doctoral dissertation]. Walden University. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.co.in/&httpsredir=1&article=1219&context=dissertations

Ainscow

(1999). Understanding the development of inclusive schools. Falmer.

Avramidis

(2010). Social relationships of pupils with special educational needs in the mainstream primary class: Peer group membership and peer assessed social behaviour. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25, 413–429.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

Bandura

(2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, 5, 307–337.

Baum

Owen

S. V.

(1988). High ability/learning disabled students: How are they different? Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(3), 321–326.

Benware

C. A.

Deci

E. L.

(1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 755–765.

Bindal

Sharma

(2010). Inclusive education in Indian context. Journal of Indian Education, 35(4), 34–45.

Clever

Bear

Juvonen

(1992). Discrepancies between competence and importance in self-perceptions of children in integrated classes. Journal of Special Education, 26(2), 125–138.

10.

Cummins

Lau

(2005). Personal Wellbeing Index–School Children. Deakin University.

11.

Deci

E. L.

Hodges

Pierson

Tomassone

(1992). Autonomy and competence as motivational factors in students with learning disabilities and emotional handicaps. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 457–471.

12.

Deci

E. L.

Schwartz

A. J.

Sheinman

Ryan

R. M.

(1981). An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), 642–650.

13.

Eccles

J. S.

Wigfield

(2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132.

14.

Ellis

E. S.

(1986). The role of motivation and pedagogy on the generalization of cognitive strategy training. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19(2), 66–70.

15.

Gist

M. E.

Mitchell

T. R.

(1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211.

16.

Grolnick

W. S.

Ryan

R. M.

(1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 890–898.

17.

Grolnick

W. S.

Ryan

R. M.

(1990). Self-perceptions, motivation, and adjustment in children with learning disabilities: A multiple group comparison study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(3), 177–184.

18.

Heath

N. L.

Ross

(2000). Prevalence and expression of depressive symptomatology in students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(1), 24–36.

19.

Huntington

D. D.

Bender

W. N.

(1993). Adolescents with learning disabilities at risk? Emotional well-being, depression, suicide. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(3), 159–166.

20.

Karande

Bhosrekar

(2009). Impact of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder on health-related quality-of-life of specific learning disability children. The Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 76(11), 1119–1124.

21.

Karande

Bhosrekar

Kulkarni

Thakker

(2008). Health-related quality of life of children with newly diagnosed specific learning disability. Journal of Tropical Pediatrics, 55(3), 160–169.

22.

Karande

Mahajan

Kulkarni

(2009). Recollections of learning-disabled adolescents of their schooling experiences: A qualitative study. Indian Journal of Medical Sciences, 63(9), 382–391.

23.

Karin

Evelien

Mieke

Katja

(2012). Don’t pull me out!? Preliminary findings of a systematic review of qualitative evidence on experiences of pupils with special educational needs in inclusive education. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1709–1713.

24.

Komarraju

Nadler

(2013). Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do implicit beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter? Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 67–72.

25.

Lee

Zentall

S. S.

(2012). Reading motivational differences among groups: Reading disability (RD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), RD+ ADHD, and typical comparison. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 778–785.

26.

Lindsay

(2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 1–24.

27.

Locke

Ishijima

E. H.

Kasari

London

(2010). Loneliness, friendship quality and the social networks of adolescents in high-functioning autism in an inclusive school setting. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10, 74–81.

28.

Loo

C. W.

Choy

J. L. F.

(2013). Sources of self-efficacy influencing academic performance of engineering students. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(3), 86–92.

29.

McGregor

Vogelsberg

R. T.

(1998). Inclusive schooling practices: Pedagogical and research foundations. A synthesis of the literature that informs best practices about inclusive schooling. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED418559

30.

Nelson

J. M.

Harwood

(2011). Learning disabilities and anxiety: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(1), 3–17.

31.

Nind

(2014). Inclusive research and inclusive education: Why connecting them makes sense for teachers’ and learners’ democratic development of education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(4), 525–540.

32.

Nind

Kellett

(2002). Responding to individuals with severe learning difficulties and stereotyped behaviour: Challenges for an inclusive era. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(3), 265282.

33.

Pintrich

P. R.

Roeser

R. W.

De Groot

E. A.

(1994). Classroom and individual differences in early adolescents’ motivation and self-regulated learning. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 14(2), 139–161.

34.

Ryan

R. M.

Connell

J. P

. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–761.

35.

Shkullaku

(2013). The relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance in the context of gender among Albanian students. European Academic Research, 1(4), 467–478.

36.

Sideridis

G. D

. (2009). Motivation and learning disabilities: Past, present, and future. In Wenzel

K. R.

Wigfield

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 605–625). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

37.

Singhal

(2008). Working towards inclusion: Reflections from the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(6), 1516–1529.

38.

Svetaz

M. V.

Ireland

Blum

(2000). Adolescents with learning disabilities: Risk and protective factors associated with emotional well-being: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27(5), 340–348.

39.

Tabassam

Grainger

(2002). Self-concept, attributional style and self-efficacy beliefs of students with learning disabilities with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(2), 141–151.

40.

Taylor

Jungert

Mageau

G. A.

Schattke

Dedic

Rosenfield

Koestner

(2014). A self-determination theory approach to predicting school achievement over time: The unique role of intrinsic motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(4), 342–358.

41.

Thakkar

A. N.

Karande

Bala

Sant

Gogtay

N. J.

Sholapurwala

(2015). Is anxiety more common in school students with newly diagnosed specific learning disabilities? A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 62(1), 12–19.

42.

Valas

Sovik

(1993). Variables affecting students’ intrinsic motivation for school mathematics: Two empirical studies based on Deci and Ryan’s theory of motivation. Learning and Instruction, 3, 281–229.

43.

Wong

Graham

Hoskyn

Berman

(Eds.). (2008). The ABCs of learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Academic Press.

44.

Yailagh

M. S.

Abbasi

Behrozi

Alipour

Yakhchali

A. H.

(2014). Comparisons of self-determination among students with learning disabilities and without learning disabilities. American Journal of Applied Psychology, 3(2), 27–31.

45.

Yuen

Westwood

Wong

(2008). Self-efficacy perceptions of Chinese primary-age students with specific learning difficulties: A perspective from Hong Kong. International Journal of Special Education, 23(2), 110–119.