4.3 Article

Which students need accommodations the most, and to what extent are their needs met by regular upper secondary school? A cross-sectional study among students with special educational needs

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION
卷 34, 期 3, 页码 327-341

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2018.1501966

关键词

Person-environment fit; participation; support in school; occupational therapy; neuropsychiatric disorder; dyslexia

资金

  1. Swedish Institute of Assistive Technology (SIAT)
  2. Jerringfonden (the Jerring Foundation)
  3. Stiftelsen Kempe-Carlgrenska Fonden

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was twofold: (1) to identify factors associated with a high level of accommodation needs in school activities among students with special educational needs (SEN) in regular upper secondary education; and (2) to investigate the extent to which schools have met students' perceived accommodation needs. Accommodation needs and their provision in school activities were assessed with the School Setting Interview for 484 students with SEN. Students' mean age was 17.3 years and 50% did not have a diagnosis. A logistic regression analysis revealed that a high level of school absence, studying a vocational programme, and a neuropsychiatric disorder were associated with a high level of accommodation needs. In the majority of school activities, about 50% of students had not received any accommodation despite an experienced need for support. About 30% of students perceived a need for support even though they had been provided with accommodations, and around 25% stated they were satisfied with received accommodations. Regular upper secondary school students with SEN are insufficiently provided with accommodations to satisfactorily participate in education. Specific student characteristics, e.g. high level of school absence, should receive special attention when investigating and accommodating students' needs for support in school activities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据