Learning and Individual Differences 30 (2014) 163–169

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / l ind i f

Teachers' perceptions of additional support needs of students inmainstream primary education

Marjon Bruggink a,⁎, Wim Meijer a, Sui Lin Goei a,b, Hans M. Koot b

a Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle, The Netherlandsb VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

⁎ Corresponding author at: Postbus 10090, 8000 GTel.: +31 8846991091.

E-mail address: M.Bruggink@Windesheim.nl (M. Brug

1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.11.005

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 7 May 2013Received in revised form 27 September 2013Accepted 14 November 2013

Keywords:Elementary school teachersSpecial needs studentsIndividual needs

Mainstream primary education requires teachers to be proactively responsive to a variety of student educationalneeds, especially because of the increasing heterogeneity of school intake. Despite the increasing interest inlearners' additional support needs rather than student deficits, empirical studies on the topic remain scarce.Therefore, this study addresses teacher perceptions (n = 57) of additional learning support needs of students(n = 114; mean age = 9; 48% male). Exploratory factor analyses (PCA; PAF) identified four dimensions ofneed: a) instructional support, b) (on-task) behavioral support, c) emotional support, and d) peer support. Inter-estingly, the views of teachers correlated with the characteristics of students in terms of student attainment, theteacher-perceived task-oriented behavior of students, the teacher-perceived (problem) behavior in theclassroomand teacher-perceived relationshipswith students. The present study shows that the views of teachersare both thorough and differentiated. Accordingly, implications for teacher training are discussed.

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The practice of today's mainstream primary teachers is increasinglyinclusive (UNESCO, 1994). Although the involvement of teachers in iden-tifying and referring studentswith special educational needs to segregat-ed educational settings is currently insufficient, the traditional focus onthe deficits of some children increased teacher awareness of differencesin student abilities, social backgrounds, learning strategies, metacogni-tion, motivation, interest, learning strategies, (on-task) behavior(Houtveen, Booij, De Jong, & Van de Grift, 1999; Riding, 2005), andunique learning needs (Vehmas, 2010). Therefore, most teachers agreethat a one-size-fits-all-approach no longer meets the standards of 21stcentury education (Ferguson, 2008), and question how to proactivelyprovide differentiated instruction (Smit & Humpert, 2012; Tomlinsonet al., 2003) to achieve adaptive education (Vogt & Rogalla, 2009). Cur-rently, the key role of teachers is to address alterations needed in thelearning environment (Curry, 2003) in order to provide additional learn-ing support as needed. Practice-based models, such as needs-based as-sessment (Pameijer, 2006), curriculum-based assessment (Obi, 2009)and responsiveness-to-instruction (Ardoin, Witt, Connell, & Koenig,2005; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007), arewidely implemented to support teachersin differentiating among pupils in need (e.g., in clusters, subgroups ortiers). However, teachers are still struggling to fulfill this task. As hasbeen stressed regularly (Humphrey et al., 2006; Lebeer et al., 2010;Talmor, Reiter, & Feigin, 2005), teaching in heterogeneous classrooms

B, Zwolle, The Netherlands.

gink).

ghts reserved.

is a major challenge. Teachers agree that students with the most signifi-cant needs will not have their educational needs met in regular class-rooms without special educational support (Lopes, Monteiro, Sil,Rutherford, & Quinn, 2004); however, learning support for many ofthese students is nonexistent or inadequate (Mowat, 2009).

This raises questions concerning the views of teachers regarding the(additional) support needs of students and teacher approaches to meetthese needs. Current studies address (a) the shift from special educa-tional needs, towards learners' additional support needs (Lindsay,2007; Vehmas, 2010; Wilson, 2002), (b) prevalence numbers (Croll &Moses, 2003; Lebeer et al., 2010; Pijl, Frostad, & Flem, 2008; Van derVeen, Smeets, & Derriks, 2010) and characteristics of students with ad-ditional support needs as perceived by the teacher (Anders et al., 2011;Bruggink, Goei & Koot, 2013; Van der Veen et al., 2010), or (c) literaturereviews rejecting the idea of specific pedagogic approaches for studentswith special or additional needs. The latter recommends that solutionsbe sought in the frameworks of graded learning support or multi-tiered support systems, where common teaching strategies are used inmore intensive, frequent or explicit ways to meet the support needs oflearners (Lewis & Norwich, 2001; Lindsay, 2007; Nind & Wearmouth,2006; Norwich & Lewis, 2007; Rix, Hall, Nind, Sheehy, & Wearmouth,2009; Sheehy et al., 2009; Tomlinson et al., 2003). However, quantita-tive research to substantiate teacher views on additional learning sup-port needs of students remains scarce. One empirical study in theNetherlands addressed this, resulting in two dimensions: the need forstructure and the need for emotional support, which were related towithdrawal, emotional instability and anxiety (Meijer, Fossen, vanPutten, & van der Leij, 2006). Although the findings of this study are rel-evant, it focused narrowly on needs related to the social–emotional

164 M. Bruggink et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 30 (2014) 163–169

development of students. Thus, a broad perspective on the additionalsupport needs of learners, incorporating cognitive, social, emotional orbehavioral domains (Boekaerts, de Koning, & Vedder, 2006; Meijer,2009), is needed.

Hence, the aim of this study is to empirically substantiate additionallearning support needs of students in mainstream primary education,from the perspective of teachers, and to value these views by linkingthem to external reference points. The study addresses two researchquestions. First, how do Dutch mainstream primary school teachersperceive the additional learning support needs of students? Second,how are these perceptions related to the attainment of students,teacher-perceived task-oriented behavior of students, teacher-perceivedbehavior of students in the classroom, and teacher-perceived relation-ships with students?

Answers to these questions are relevant for initial teacher training inorder to prepare new mainstream teachers for their complex jobs(Florian, Young, & Rouse, 2010) of meeting a variety of additionallearning support needs in everyday classrooms.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Participants

A total of 57 teachers in Dutch mainstream primary educationstudying for their Bachelor of Education (86%) or Master of SpecialEducational Needs (14%) atWindesheim University of Applied Sciencesvolunteered to take part in the study (all female;mean age = 28, range19–59; mean years of experience = 5, range 0–32). They were recruit-ed during a course they were taking on defining the learning supportneeds of students. Data collection took place from September 2011until December 2011. To identify students with additional learning sup-port needs, participating teachers were asked: “Which of the studentsin your classroom are in need of additional support to achieve set edu-cational goals?” It was made clear that educational goals could pertainto a specific teaching subject or to a student's social, emotional orbehavioral development. The question resulted in a list of teacher-identified students for each classroom, varying from three to tenstudents.

Then, two teacher-identified students with additional support needs(henceforth referred to as teacher-identified students) were randomlyselected from each classroom for the study, resulting in a study sampleof 114 students (mean age = 9 years; 48% male). About half of theteacher-identified students were scoring above the national average inmathematics (50%) and comprehensive reading (47%). Twenty percenthad one or more formal diagnoses: 16% ADHD, 4% autism spectrum, 8%dyslexia, 8% language and speech problems; 64% not specified.

Finally, one student thatwas not teacher-identified as a studentwithspecial educational needs was selected at random from each classroom,to form a reference group. Due to non-response, a total of 43 studentsformed the comparison sample.

2.2. Procedures

Teachers were asked to score the additional learning support needsof students. Furthermore, teachers filled out norm-referenced question-naires regarding the attainment of students, teacher-perceived task-oriented behavior of students, classroom behavior and teacher-perceived relationships with students. The COTAN-handbook1 (Everset al., 2002), which reviews the quality of Dutch diagnostic instrumentsin terms of reliability and validity, was consulted to select instrumentswith adequate psychometric properties (α N .60), norm-referencedgroups, suitability for mainstream primary education, and minimal

1 COTAN = Commissie Testaangelegenheden Nederland van het Nederlands Instituutvan Psychologen (NIP) [Commission of Testing of the Dutch Institute of Psychologists].

time requirements for completion. The instrumentation will bedescribed in the next section.

Measures were taken to protect the young and potentially vulnera-ble teacher-identified students during data collection. First, the writtenapproval of parents for their child's involvement was required. Second,teacher-identified students were not disclosed within the classroom.Finally, the data were collected anonymously; the names of studentswere replaced with respondent codes.

2.3. Measures

This section describes the instrumentation, regarding 1) teacherperceptions of the additional support needs of learners, and 2) externalreference points such as the attainment of students, teacher-perceivedtask-oriented behavior of students, classroom behavior and teacher-perceived relationships with students. All given scale internal consis-tency rates (Cronbach's alphas; α) were obtained within this study.

2.3.1. Teacher perceptions of additional support needs of studentsBecause no reliable scaleswere available tomeasure the teacher per-

ceptions of additional learning support needs of teacher-identified stu-dents in Dutch mainstream primary education, a list of items wascompiled for this study. A well-established Dutch practice-basedmodel on needs-based assessment (Pameijer, 2006) was used as astarting framework. This model embodies examples of additional learn-ing support, within the categories of instruction (e.g., “the student is inneed of a teacher who is modeling/thinking out loud”), assignments(e.g., “a task at or below his/her level”), activities (e.g., “activitieswhere s/he can take responsibility”), peers (e.g., “peers who accepthis/her odd behavior”), and feedback (e.g., “feedback on the effort s/hetook”).

Furthermore, several relevant studies from different domains werescrutinized to select relevant examples of additional learning supportfor students, addressing (1) basic needswithinmotivational psychology(Niemiec & Ryan, 2009), (2) learning functions within cognitivepsychology (Shuell, 1986; Vermunt & Vermetten, 2004), (3) literaturereviews on effective pedagogic approaches meeting the special educa-tional needs of students (Nind & Wearmouth, 2006; Norwich & Lewis,2001; Rix et al., 2009; Sheehy et al., 2009; Tomlinson et al., 2003), and(4) meta-analyses addressing effective support for students with learn-ing problems (Gersten et al., 2009) or behavioral problems (Cooper,2011; DuPaul & Weyandt, 2006; Evans, Harden, & Thomas, 2004;Humphrey, 2009;Niesyn, 2009; Zentall, 2005) orwith respect to specificsubjects, such as mathematics (Kroesbergen & Van Luit, 2003) orcomprehensive reading (Berkeley, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2010).

A total of 146 items describing the additional support needs of stu-dents were selected within the following categories: instruction (26items; e.g., “an extended instruction”); tasks and activities (30 items;e.g., “one task at a time”); feedback and motivation (19 items; e.g., “acompliment when a task is completed”); behavioral support (26items; e.g., “orientation on the task”); social relationships (24 items;e.g., “collaboration with peers”); and classroom management (21items; e.g., “defined starting and ending points”). A 5-point Likertscale (“never applicable” to “often applicable”) was used. The selectionwas discussed with others in educational practice and research (includ-ing pre-service teachers in their final year of training (Bachelor ofEducation; Windesheim University of Applied Sciences; n = 60) andDutch researchers (n = 10; 30% PhD, 70% MSc or MA) during a roundtable-session. An overview of items can be obtained from the first au-thor. Further details on psychometric measures of the scales are provid-ed in the “Results” section of this study.

2.3.2. Student attainmentStudent attainment was assessed using standardized tests, which

are part of the Dutch national monitoring and evaluation system, tomonitor the progress of students. This system was developed by the

Table 1Outcomes of six separate first order principal components analyses of the teachers'perceptions of students' additional learning support.

Category Interpretation factor Mean (SD) α

1. Instruction 1. Instruction and modeling (11 items) 3.82 (0.9) .942. Relating lesson to other lessons

(5 items)3.45 (0.7) .76

2. Assignment andmaterials

1. Repetition and remediation (7 items) 3.72 (0.8) .862. Challenge (7 items) 2.69 (0.7) .763. Reduction of stimuli (5 items) 2.92 (0.7) .67

3. Feedback 1. Emotional support (6 items) 3.89 (0.6) .872. Feedback (6 items) 4.00 (0.8) .833. Not interpretable (4 items) 3.19 (1.0) .63

4. Behavioral support 1. Positive behavior support (7 items) 3.20 (0.9) .942. Staying on task (5 items) 3.64 (0.9) .863. Not interpretable (5 items) 3.37 (0.8) .78

5. Social relationships 1. Acceptance by peers (6 items) 3.47 (0.8) .852. Social support by peers (5 items) 3.55 (0.6) .703. Explanation of social behavior

(4 items)2.76 (0.9) .74

6. Classroommanagement

1. Rules (4 items) 3.11 (1.0) .922. Structure in activities (5 items) 3.38 (0.8) .843. Structure in the working place

(4 items)3.41 (0.9) .85

4. Preparation of unexpectedsituations (3 items)

2.74 (0.9) .80

165M. Bruggink et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 30 (2014) 163–169

Central Institute for Test Development (Centraal Instituut voorToetsontwikkeling, CITO). The tests on comprehensive reading andmathematics subjects are administered twice per year in Dutch schools;the most recent test scores were used.

The student outcomes (A–E-score) correspond with the follow-ing percentile cut-off points: A-score N P75; B-score = P50–P75;C-score = P25–P50; D-score = P10-P25; E-score b P10. A dummyvariable was computed to distinguish teacher-identified studentswith special educational needs scoring above (‘high’, 1; NP50) andbelow (‘low’, 0; bP50) the national averages.

2.3.3. Teacher-perceived task-oriented behavior of studentsTeacher perceptions of the task-oriented behavior of identified stu-

dents were measured using the Dutch version (Smidts & Huizinga,2009) of the ‘Behavior Rating of Executive Function’ (Gioia, Isquith,Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000), which captures cognitive processes for effi-cient, target-oriented and socially adapted behavior of children (age5–18) in school contexts. The questionnaire is completed by teachers,who indicate how often a given behavior has occurred in the past 6 -

months, based on 75 items on a 3-point scale (never–often) consistingof 9 scales: inhibit, shift, emotional, initiate, working memory,plan/organize, organization of materials and monitor. Table 4 showsthe reliability of scales, ranging from α = .77 to .93, and examples ofthe items.

2.3.4. Teacher-perceived problem behavior in classroomsTeacher perceptions of the internalization and externalization of

problem behavior by identified students in classrooms were measuredusing the Dutch version of the ‘Problem Behavior at School Interview’

(PBSi) (Erasmus, 2000). The PBSi is a 36-item teacher questionnairethat assesses disruptive behavior and shy or withdrawn behavior ofchildren in school contexts. Teachers rate the students' behavior on a5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never applicable) to 5 (often appli-cable). The PBSi consists of 6 scales: attention deficit hyperactivedisorder (ADHD), oppositional disorder (OD), conduct disorder (CD),aggression, anxiety, and depression. Table 4 shows the reliability ofscales, ranging from α = .72 to .91, and examples of the items.

2.3.5. Teacher-perceived relationships with studentsTeacher perceptions of their relationships with identified students

were measured by the ‘Leerkracht Leerling Relatie Vragenlijst’ (LLRV)(Koomen, Verschueren, & Pianta, 2007), the Dutch version of the‘Student–Teacher Relationship Scale’ (Pianta, 2001). The questionnairehas 28 items on a five-point scale (ranging from “never” to “always”)consisting of three scales: conflict (11 items, e.g., “if this child is in abad mood, I know it is going be a long and challenging day”), closeness(11 items, e.g., “I have a warm relationship with this child”) and depen-dency (6 items, e.g., “the child reacts strongly to situationswhere he/shecannot be with me”). Table 4 shows the reliability (α) of the scales inthis study, ranging from .81 to .88, and examples of the items.

2.4. Analyses

Exploratory factor analyses (PCAwith varimax rotation)were used toreduce data and define scales in the Teachers' Perceptions Of Students'Additional Learning Support Questionnaire. Due to the restrictions of arelatively small number of respondents (n = 114) and a large numberof items (n = 146), PCAs were conducted separately on items in eachcategory (instruction, assignment and activities, feedback and motiva-tion, behavioral support, social relationships and classroom manage-ment). Communalities and the scree plot were used to select the bestsolution and the number of factors per category (eigenvalue N 1.0)because there was no ‘a priori’ expected number. Cronbach's alpha (α)was used for reliability analysis.

Pearson's correlation showed several significant positive correlationsbetween the factors; these factors were not independent. Therefore, a

second order factor analysis was performed. SPSS Principal Axis Factor-ing (PAF) with varimax rotation was used, including the first-order fac-tors with mean score N3 (5-point scale), consisting of interpretableitems and having reliable scales (α N .65). Further details are given inthe “Results” section of this study.

Since the sample consists of a variety of teachers, in term of theirlevel of training, years of experience and age, each of which characteris-tics might influence teachers' perceptions of students' needs, t-test forindependent samples were used to compare group scale means ofteacher-perceived needs of students by teachers' level of training (e.g.BA or MSEN) and Pearson's correlations (2-sided) were conducted totest relations between needs and years of experience and age. No signif-icant mean differences or signification relations were found.

Scale means of teacher-identified students (n = 114) were com-pared to those of their peers in the reference group (n = 43), usingan independent sample t-test (2-sided). Further, within-group analysescompared scale means of male and female, and high and low achievingteacher-identified students. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's dfor t-tests and were interpreted according a standard rule of thumb:d ≥ 0.2 as a small effect size, d ≥ 0.5 as a moderate effect size, andd ≥ 0.8 as a large effect size.

Pearson's correlations (2-sided) were computed between scalescores of teacher-perceived additional learning support and scale scoreson the external reference points of teacher-perceived task-oriented be-havior of students, teacher-perceived problem behavior in the class-room, and teacher-perceived relationships with students. Correlationswere interpreted according to a standard rule of thumb: r ≥ .2 as asmall, r ≥ .5 as a moderate, and r ≥ .8 as a large effect size.

3. Results

3.1. Teacher perceptions of additional learning support of students

Table 1 presents the outcomes of the exploratory factor analysis(PCA, varimax rotation) on the items of the Teachers' Perceptions OfStudents' Additional Learning Support Questionnaire, including thefactors' names, means (SD) and α's.

Eighteen factors appeared from the PCAs on the items within thecategories: instruction (25 items; 2 factors with eigenvalue N1,explaining 50.7% of item variance); assignment and activities (29items; 2 factors with eigenvalue N1, explaining 45.8% of item variance);feedback and motivation (19 items; 3 factors with eigenvalue N1,

Table 2Factor loadings obtained from the second order factor analysis of factors in the teachers' perceptions of students' additional learning support.

Need for instructional support Need for (on-task) behavioral support Need for emotional support Need for peer support

Repetition and remediation .900Instruction and modeling .818Structure in activities .607 .398Relating lesson to other lessons .537Positive behavior support .888Rules .714Staying on task .571 .574Structure in the working place .457 .398Emotional support .674Feedback .397 .671Social support by peers .616Acceptance by peers .394

Note. Only factor loadings N .30 are shown.

166 M. Bruggink et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 30 (2014) 163–169

explaining 55.5% of item variance); behavioral support (26 items; 3factorswith eigenvalue N1, explaining54.2% of itemvariance); social re-lationships (15 items; 3 factors with eigenvalue N1, explaining 45.6% ofitem variance); and classroom management (21 items; 4 factors witheigenvalue N1, explaining 68.4% of item variance). All eighteen factorswere reliable (α = .63–.94) and had mean scores ranging from 2.69to 3.98. Two of them were too ambiguous to interpret.

Subsequently, a second-order factor analysis (PAF; varimax) wasconducted including factors with a mean score N3 (on a 5-point scale,indicating sufficient importance), being interpretable and reliable(α N .65). Table 2 presents the results of the second-order factoranalysis.

The second order factor analysis resulted in four factors of additionallearning support of teacher-identified students. The first factor was la-beled as need for instructional support (α = .95; 30 items) consistingof the following first order factors: repetition and remediation (7items; e.g., “understanding meaning of words using contexts”;α = .86; loading = .87); instruction and modeling (11 items; e.g.,“using one strategy to solve a problem”; α = .94, loading = .81);structure in activities (5 items; e.g., “marking of starting and endingpoints of a task”; α = .84, loading = .62); and relating a lesson toother lessons (5 items; e.g., “activating prior knowledge”; α = .76,loading = .54).

The second factorwas labeled as need for on-task behavioral support(α = .94; 20 items), consisting of the following first order factors: pos-itive behavior support (7 items; e.g., “setting boundaries”; α = .94,loading = .89); rules (4 items; e.g., “discussing and implementingclassroom rules”; α = .92, loading = .72); staying on task (5 items;e.g., “task orientation”; α = .86, loading = .57); and structure in theworking place (4 items; e.g., “materials being kept in a fixed place”;α = .80, loading = .54). One cross loading was found (e.g., “stayingon task”), loading on the need for didactical support (.58) as well ason the need for on-task behavioral support (.57). After content analysisof the items, this factor was assigned to the need for on-task behavioralsupport and staying on task.

Table 3Means (SD) of dimensions of additional learning support by students' characteristics.

n Need for instructional support Need for (on-

Teacher-identified 114 3.65 (0.68)⁎⁎ 3.33 (0.78)⁎⁎

Non-identified 43 2.60 (0.77) 2.28 (0.98)Boys 56 3.51 (0.58) 3.28 (0.83)Girls 36 3.77 (0.66) 2.95 (0.73)Mathematics low (bP50) 57 3.78 (0.50)⁎⁎ 3.11 (0.69)Mathematics high (≥P50) 31 3.33 (075) 3.35 (0.91)Reading low (bP50) 53 3.78 (0.46)⁎⁎ 3.23 (0.69)Reading high (≥P50) 34 3.36 (0.78) 3.12 (0.89)

⁎⁎ p b 0.01.

Third, the factor of need for emotional support (α = .90; 12 items)consisted of the following first order factors: emotional support (6items; e.g., “increase of self-confidence”; α = .87, loading = .80) andfeedback (6 items; e.g., “feedback on effort”; α = .83, loading = .69).

The fourth factor was labeled as need for peer support (α = .80; 11items) and consisted of the followingfirst order factors: peer acceptance(6 items; e.g., “other studentswho are accepting different or odd behav-ior”;α = .85, loading = .61) and social support by peers (5 items; e.g.,“working together with peers”; α = .70, loading = .40).

3.2. Group differences of additional learning support by students'characteristics

Table 3 presents the mean scale scores on additional learning sup-port of teacher-identified students and these of the reference group(n = 43). Furthermore, mean scores are given by students' characteris-tics (gender; attainment scores regarding mathematics and compre-hensive reading).

Teacher-identified students with special educational needs scoredsignificantly higher on the need for instructional support than studentswithout special educational needs (t(156) = −7.72, p b .001,d = 1.45). Additionally, teacher-identified students scored significantlyhigher on the need for on-task behavioral support than their peers(t(156) = −6.32, p b .001, d = 1.19). Furthermore, teacher-identified students scored significantly higher on theneed for emotionalsupport than their peers (t(156) = −5.29, p b .001, d = .97). This alsoholds for the need for peer support; teacher-identified students scoredsignificantly higher than their peers (t(156) = −4.77, p = 0.00,d = .97).

No differences in the mean scale scores were found between maleand female teacher-identified students.

Low-achieving teacher-identified students inmathematics scored sig-nificantly higher on the need for instructional support than high-achieving teacher-identified students (t(86) = 3.31, p b .001, d = .71).Furthermore, low-achieving students in comprehensive reading scored

task) behavioral support Need for emotional support Need for peer support

3.94 (0.63)⁎⁎ 3.51(0.63)⁎⁎

3.24 (0.80) 2.80 (0.91)3.85 (0.56) 3.51(0.64)4.03 (0.54) 3.47(0.61)3.92 (0.47) 3.49 (0.55)3.89 (0.69) 3.61 (0.63)3.97 (0.49) 3.52 (0.55)3.80 (0.66) 3.55 (0.64)

167M. Bruggink et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 30 (2014) 163–169

significantly higher on the need for didactical support than high-achieving teacher-identified students (t(85) = 2.95, p b .001, d = .66).

3.3. Relations with other teacher ratings

The four dimensions of additional support needs of teacher-identifiedstudents were related to other teacher ratings, including teacher-perceived task-oriented behavior of students; teacher-perceivedproblem behavior in classrooms, and teacher-perceived relationshipswith students. Correlations are presented in Table 4.

No significant correlations were found between teacher-perceivedtask-oriented behavior of students and the need for didactical support.In contrast, six out of eight scales of teacher-perceived task-oriented be-havior of students showed significant correlations with the teacher-perceived need of students for on-task behavioral support: inhibit(r = .31, p b .001), emotional control (r = .21, p = .05), initiate(p = .03, r = .22), working memory (r = .22, p = .03), plan/organize(r = .26, p = .01), and monitor (r = .31, p = .01). Furthermore, fourout of eight scales of teacher-perceived task-oriented behavior of stu-dents showedpositive correlationswith the students' need for emotion-al support, namely inhibit (r = .26, p = .01), shift (r = .31, p b .001),emotional control (r = .23, p b 0.01), and initiate (r = .24, p = .01).No significant correlations were found between the task-oriented be-havior of students and the need for peer support.

Teacher-perceived classroom behavior of students did not relate tothe need of students for didactical support. However, significant corre-lations were found between four out of six scales of teacher-perceivedproblem behavior and the need for behavioral support and staying ontask, namely ADHD (r = .35, p = .00), oppositional disorder (r = .27,p = .01), aggression (r = .23, p = .03), and depression (r = .24,p = .02). The scale of ADHD is also significantly related to the needfor emotional support (r = .24, p = .02), conduct disorder (r = .27,p = .01), and anxiety (r = .22, p = .02). No significant correlationswere found between the task-oriented behavior of students and theneed for peer support.

Teacher-perceived relationships with students, in terms of closenesswith a student, significantly correlated (r = .33, p = .00) to the needfor behavioral support and staying on task. Other aspects of teacher–student relationships (conflict (r = .30, p = .00), and dependency(r = .33, p = .00)) showed significant correlations with the need for

Table 4Correlations between external reference-points and dimensions of additional learning support

Task-oriented behavior α Items ExampleInhibit .93 10 “Has difficulties to put the break to his own bShift .82 10 “Gets upset when plans are being changed”Emotional control .93 9 “Reacts more intensely to situations than othInitiate .77 7 “Has problems starting with homework or chWorking memory .93 10 “Can focus for a short period of time”Plan/organize .77 8 “Underestimates the time that is needed to fi

Organization of materials .92 7 “Cannot find things in the classroom”

Monitor .75 10 “Does not notice when behavior invokes negaProblem behaviorADHD .83 5 “Has little concentration or a short span of attOppositional disorder .87 5 “Is being rebellious”Conduct disorder .91 12 “Curses”Aggression .76 3 “Excludes other children when he is angry”Anxiety .72 3 “Is anxious”Depression .72 4 “Is being indifferent, absent-minded or not m

Student–teacher relationshipConflict .88 11 “If this child is in a bad mood, I know this is g

and challenging day”Dependency .81 11 “I have a warm relationship with this child”Closeness .81 6 “Child reacts strongly to situations where he

⁎ p b 0.05.⁎⁎ p b 0.01.

emotional support. No relations were found between teacher-perceived relationships with students and the need for didactical sup-port or the need for peer support.

4. Conclusion

The aim of this studywas to empirically substantiate the structure ofadditional support needs of students in mainstream primary education,from the perspective of teachers. This is one of the first empirical studiesfocusing on teacher views on the additional support needs of students.

Factor analyses of responses to the teacher questionnaire presentedfour dimensions of teacher-perceived additional learning support needsof students: (a) the need for instructional support, (b) the need for on-task behavioral support, (c) the need for emotional support, and (d) theneed for peer support. Though teachers scoring students' needs in thisstudy varied in term of their level of training, years of experience andage, none of these characteristics affected their perceptions of students'needs.

Teacher-identified students scored significantly higher on all dimen-sions of additional learning support than non-identified students fromthe same classroom, indicating known-groups validity of the dimen-sions. This finding does not imply that teacher-identified studentshave different support needs than their peers, but rather that teachersperceive these students' needs to be more intense, frequent, explicit orsystematic than the needs of their peers. This interpretation is relatedto literature reviews indicating a lack of evidence on specific pedagogicapproaches to meet the special educational needs of students (Nind &Wearmouth, 2006; Norwich & Lewis, 2001; Rix et al., 2009; Sheehyet al., 2009; Tomlinson et al., 2003).

Furthermore, the associations between these identified dimensionsof teacher-perceived additional learning support and academic perfor-mance as well as emotional and behavioral conduct of the studentswere tested. Teacher-identified students who achieved low scores inmathematics and comprehensive reading were considered in need ofmore instructional support but not of on-task behavioral support, emo-tional support or peer support. Moreover, students who are perceivedby their teacher as having more problems regulating themselves ortheir work, being more often in conflict with the teacher, and showingproblem behavior and depressive symptoms, were perceived to be inhigher need of on-task behavioral support. The scale of depression

.

Need forinstructionalsupport

Need for (on-task)behavioral support

Need foremotionalsupport

Need for peersupport

ehavior” 0.04 0.31⁎⁎ 0.26⁎ 0.130.02 0.17 0.31⁎⁎ 0.07

er children” - 0.01 0.21⁎ 0.34⁎⁎ 0.05ores” 0.08 0.22⁎ 0.26⁎ 0.10

0.15 0.22⁎ 0.18 0.07nish his task” 0.11 0.26⁎ 0.15 0.09

0.01 0.12 0.05 −0.04tive reactions” 0.03 0.29⁎⁎ 0.15 0.09

ention” 0.10 0.35⁎⁎ 0.24⁎ 0.200.03 0.27⁎ 0.18 0.030.10 0.18 0.27⁎⁎ 0.080.09 0.23⁎ 0.17 0.11

−0.09 0.15 0.22⁎ 0.07otivated” −0.06 0.24⁎ 0.19 0.12

oing to be a long 0.09 0.09 0.30⁎⁎ 0.01

0.17 0.19 0.33⁎⁎ 0.00cannot be with me” 0.09 0.24⁎ −0.07 −0.01

168 M. Bruggink et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 30 (2014) 163–169

also relates to the perceived need of on-task behavioral support. A pos-sible explanation could be that the items in this depression scale (e.g.,“being indifferent, absent-minded or not motivated”) were associatedby teachers with students' motivational or task-oriented problems. So,in addition to low academic performance (resulting in the need for in-structional support), difficulties in class pertaining to school task regula-tion, social interaction with teachers as well as behavioral or emotionalregulation were reasons to consider providing additional support. Fur-thermore, the more the identified students were having problemsignoring stimuli, coping with changes, controlling their emotions andbeing in conflict with or dependent upon the teacher, the more theywere perceived as being in need of emotional support. The dimensionof peer support was not related to any of the measured student charac-teristics. It could be that the need for peer support is related to socialrelationships, but no measurements of peer acceptance or rejectionwere performed within this study.

Thus, the present study shows that teacher views on the additionalsupport needs of teacher-identified students in Dutch mainstream pri-mary education are both thorough and differentiated. Teachers discernfour different dimensions of student needs that distinguish betweenteacher-identified students with special educational needs and otherstudents. These perceptions are not affected by teachers' level oftraining, years of experience or age. Clear relations between teacher-perceived student needs for instructional, emotional, and behavioralsupport and teacher-perceived student characteristics were found.This knowledge contributes to a paradigm shift from defining specialeducational needs in terms of children's deficits towards identifyingthe support that children need to perform adequately in the classroom(Curry, 2003; Pameijer, 2006). Empirical knowledge on distinctionsmade by teachers regarding the types of needs was lacking beforenow. These teacher-perceived additional support needs can be incorpo-ratedwithin the continuumof pedagogic approaches (Lewis &Norwich,2001) and help teachers to define student needs in terms of the supportthat can be provided by themselves as needed in the classroom, ratherthan focusing on the deficits of children that may be beyond a teacher'sprofessional competence. This helps teachers to focus on their profes-sional task of education, identifyingwhat could help a particular studentin his or her learning process to achieve set educational goals andorganizing the needed support within the classroom.

Although this study has elucidated the additional learning supportneeds of teacher-identified students, it also has some limitations. Thestudy is based on a relatively small cohort (n = 57) of Dutch teachers,of which all were female. It would have been better to include maleteachers within the sample, however, this was the population at dispos-al. Furthermore, only one informant was used (i.e., the teacher) inassessing the additional learning support needs of students and muchof the information on associated student characteristics. However,standardized instruments were used to understand the latter. Finally,the characteristics of teachers were not measured, despite thefact that recent reviews (Brady & Woolfson, 2008; De Boer, Pijl, &Minnaert, 2011) show relationships between teacher characteristicsand their accountability for adapting education to the needs of learners.Future studies might use more informants to address the needs andcharacteristics of students and to focus on the relationship betweenthe teacher characteristics and teacher perceptions of the additionallearning support needs of students.

Nevertheless, the present study showed that teacher views oftheir students' additional support needs are meaningful, thorough anddifferentiated and should be acknowledgedwhen discussing education-al policies or reforms, such as mainstreaming, integration, least restric-tive environment, inclusion or full inclusion (Pirrie & Head, 2007).This studyprovides new insights regarding the dimensions of additionalsupport needs of students and the responsibility of teachers tomeet theindividual needs of students. These insights might become the core ofthe 21st century teacher training in order to prepare newly qualifiedteachers for their complex jobs.

References

Anders, Y., Sammons, P., Taggart, B., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., & Siraj‐Blatchford, I. (2011).The influence of child, family, home factors and pre‐school education on the identifi-cation of special educational needs at age 10. British Educational Research Journal,37(3), 421–441.

Ardoin, S. P., Witt, J. C., Connell, J. E., & Koenig, J. L. (2005). Application of a three-tieredresponse to intervention model for instructional planning, decision making, and theidentification of children in need of services. Journal of PsychoeducationalAssessment, 23(4), 362–380.

Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T. E., &Mastropieri, M.A. (2010). Reading comprehension instructionfor students with learning disabilities, 1995–2006: a meta-analysis. Remedial andSpecial Education, 31(6), 423–436.

Boekaerts, M., de Koning, E., & Vedder, P. (2006). Goal-directed behavior and contextualfactors in the classroom: an innovative approach to the study of multiple goals.Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 33–51.

Brady, K., & Woolfson, L. (2008). What teacher factors influence their attributions forchildren's difficulties in learning? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4),527–544.

Bruggink, M., Goei, S. L., & Koot, J. M. (2013). Characteristics of teacher-identified studentswith special educational needs in Dutch mainstream primary education. EducationalResearch, 55(4), 361–375.

Cooper, P. (2011). Teacher strategies for effective intervention with students presentingsocial, emotional and behavioural difficulties: implications for policy and practice.European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26(1), 87–92.

Croll, P., & Moses, D. (2003). Special educational needs across two decades: survey evi-dence from English primary schools. British Educational Research Journal, 29(5),731–747.

Curry, C. (2003). Universal design: accessibility for all learners. Educational Leadership,61(2), 55–60.

De Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2011). Regular primary schoolteachers' attitudes to-wards inclusive education: a review of the literature. International Journal of InclusiveEducation, 15(3), 331–353.

DuPaul, G. J., & Weyandt, L. L. (2006). School‐based intervention for children withattention deficit hyperactivity disorder: effects on academic, social, and behaviouralfunctioning. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 53(2),161–176.

Erasmus, M. C. (2000). Problem behavior at school interview. Rotterdam, the Netherlands:Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Erasmus MC.

Evans, J., Harden, A., & Thomas, J. (2004). What are effective strategies to support pupilswith emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) in mainstream primary schools?Findings from a systematic review of research. Journal of Research in SpecialEducational Needs, 4(1), 2–16.

Evers, A., Van Vliet-Mulder, J. C., Resing, W. C. M., Starren, J. C. M. G., Van Alphen de Veer,R. J., & Van Boxtel, H. (2002). Cotan Testboek voor het onderwijs [Cotan handbook of di-agnostics tests for educational settings]. Amsterdam/Meppel: NDC/Boom.

Ferguson, D. L. (2008). International trends in inclusive education: the continuing chal-lenge to teach each one and everyone. European Journal of Special Needs Education,23(2), 109–120.

Florian, L., Young, K., & Rouse, M. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive and diverse ed-ucational environments: studying curricular reform in an initial teacher educationcourse. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(7), 709–722.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention.Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14–20.

Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2009). Mathemat-ics instruction for students with learning disabilities: a meta-analysis of instructionalcomponents. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202–1242.

Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S.C., & Kenworthy, L. (2000). Behavior rating inventory of ex-ecutive function (BRIEF): professional manual. Lutz: Psychological AssessmentResources.

Houtveen, A. A.M., Booij, N., De Jong, R., & Van de Grift, W. (1999). Adaptive instructionand pupil achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(2), 172–192.

Humphrey, N. (2009). FOCUS ON PRACTICE: including students with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder in mainstream schools. British Journal of SpecialEducation, 36(1), 19–25.

Humphrey, N., Bartolo, P., Ale, P., Calleja, C., Hofsaess, T., Janikova, V., et al. (2006). Under-standing and responding to diversity in the primary classroom: an internationalstudy. European Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3), 305–318.

Koomen, H. M. Y., Verschueren, K., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). Leerling Leerkracht RelatieVragenlijst: handleiding [Manual LLRV]. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.

Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2003). Mathematics interventions for childrenwithspecial educational needs: a meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2),97–114.

Lebeer, J., Struyf, E., De Maeyer, S., Wilssens, M., Timbremont, B., Denys, A., et al. (2010).Identifying special educational needs: putting a new framework for graded learningsupport to the test. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(4), 375–387.

Lewis, A., & Norwich, B. (2001). A critical review of systematic evidence concerning dis-tinctive pedagogies for pupils with difficulties in learning. Journal of Research inSpecial Educational Needs, 1 (no-no.).

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

Lopes, J. A., Monteiro, I., Sil, V., Rutherford, R. B., & Quinn, M. M. (2004). Teachers' percep-tions about teaching problem students in regular classrooms. Education andTreatment of Children, 27(4), 394–419.

Meijer, W. (2009). Leerkrachten begeleiden bij passend onderwijs [Supporting teachers inadapting their education]. Amersfoort: CPS.

169M. Bruggink et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 30 (2014) 163–169

Meijer, J., Fossen, M., van Putten, C. M., & van der Leij, A. (2006). Social–emotional char-acteristics and special educational needs. European Journal of Psychology of Education,21(4), 385–400.

Mowat, J. (2009). The inclusion of pupils perceived as having social and emotionalbehavioural difficulties in mainstream schools: a focus upon learning. Support forLearning, 24(4), 159–169.

Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the class-room: applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory andResearch in Education, 7(2), 133–144.

Niesyn, M. E. (2009). Strategies for success: evidence-based instructional practices forstudents with emotional and behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure, 53(4),227–234.

Nind, M., & Wearmouth, J. (2006). Including children with special educational needs inmainstream classrooms: implications for pedagogy from a systematic review.Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 6(3), 116–124.

Norwich, B., & Lewis, A. (2001). Mapping a pedagogy for special educational needs. BritishEducational Research Journal, 27(3), 313–329.

Norwich, B., & Lewis, A. (2007). How specialized is teaching children with disabilities anddifficulties? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(2), 127–150.

Obi, S. (2009). Chapter 6 Curriculum-based assessment: The most effective way to assessstudents with disabilities. In F. E. Obiakor, J. P. Bakken, & A. F. Rotatori (Eds.), Currentissues and trends in special education: Identification, assessment and instruction(Advances in special education, Vol. 19) (pp. 87–97). : Emerald Group PublishingLimited.

Pameijer, N. (2006). Towards needs-based assessment: bridging the gap between assess-ment and practice. Educational and Child Psychology, 23(3), 12.

Pianta, R. C. (2001). Student–Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS): professional manual. Lutz:Psychological Assesment Resources.

Pijl, S. J., Frostad, P., & Flem, A. (2008). The social position of pupils with specialneeds in regular schools. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(4),387–405.

Pirrie, A., & Head, G. (2007). Martians in the playground: researching special educationalneeds. Oxford Review of Education, 33(1), 19–31.

Riding, R. (2005). Individual differences and educational performance. EducationalPsychology, 25(6), 659–672.

Rix, J., Hall, K., Nind, M., Sheehy, K., & Wearmouth, J. (2009). What pedagogicalapproaches can effectively include children with special educational needs in

mainstream classrooms? A systematic literature review. Support for Learning, 24(2),86–94.

Sheehy, K., Rix, J., Collins, J., Hall, K., Nind, M., & Wearmouth, J. (2009). A systematicreview of whole class, subject-based pedagogies with reported outcomes for theacademic and social inclusion of pupils with special educational needs. In: ResearchEvidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit,Institute of Education, University of London.

Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research,56(4), 411–436.

Smidts, D. P., & Huizinga, M. (2009). BRIEF: Executive Functies GedragsvragenlijstHandleiding [BRIEF: Professional Manual]. Amsterdam: Hogrefe.

Smit, R., & Humpert, W. (2012). Differentiated instruction in small schools. Teaching andTeacher Education, 28(8), 1152–1162.

Talmor, R., Reiter, S., & Feigin, N. (2005). Factors relating to regular education teacherburnout in inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20(2),215–229.

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, andlearning profile in academically diverse classrooms: a review of literature. Journalfor the Education of the Gifted, 27(2/3), 119–145.

United Nations Educational, S. a. C. O. (1994). The Salamanca framework and statement foraction on special needs education. Paris: UNESCO Special Education, Division of BasicEducation.

Van der Veen, I., Smeets, E., & Derriks, M. (2010). Children with special educational needsin the Netherlands: number, characteristics and school career. Educational Research,52(1), 15–43.

Vehmas, S. (2010). Special needs: a philosophical analysis. International Journal ofInclusive Education, 14(1), 87–96.

Vermunt, J. D., & Vermetten, Y. J. (2004). Patterns in student learning: relationships be-tween learning strategies, conceptions of learning, and learning orientations.Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 359–384.

Vogt, F., & Rogalla, M. (2009). Developing adaptive teaching competency throughcoaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1051–1060.

Wilson, J. (2002). Defining ‘special needs’. European Journal of Special Needs Education,17(1), 61–66.

Zentall, S. S. (2005). Theory‐ and evidence‐based strategies for children with attentionalproblems. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 821–836.