Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

ISSN: 0031-3831 (Print) 1470-1170 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20

Outcomes of Regular and Special Class Placement

for Students with Special Educational Needs – A
Quasi-experimental Study

Ninja Hienonen, Risto Hotulainen & Markku Jahnukainen

To cite this article: Ninja Hienonen, Risto Hotulainen & Markku Jahnukainen (2020):
Outcomes of Regular and Special Class Placement for Students with Special Educational
Needs – A Quasi-experimental Study, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, DOI:
10.1080/00313831.2020.1739134

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1739134

Published online: 12 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 38

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csje20
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1739134

Outcomes of Regular and Special Class Placement for Students

with Special Educational Needs – A Quasi-experimental Study
a
Ninja Hienonen , Risto Hotulainena and Markku Jahnukainen b

a
Centre for Educational Assessment, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland; bUnit of
Education and Society, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study reports on an investigation of the differences in results between Received 27 June 2019
students with special educational needs assigned to special classes or Accepted 4 January 2020
regular classes in lower secondary education. Cognitive competencies
KEYWORDS
were measured using curricular Finnish and mathematics tasks, school Multi-tiered support system;
achievement using grade point average (GPA), and learning motivation quasi-experimental;
by using self-reported goal-orientation scales. Propensity score matching propensity score matching;
was utilized to match the students according to their propensity to be special class; regular class
placed in special classes, and 134 pairs were produced out of 860
available students with SEN from which 477 were assigned to special
classes. Results of students assigned to special classes did not differ in
curricular Finnish and mathematics in ninth grade when compared to
their closely-matched peers in regular classes. However, students in
special classes had higher GPAs and a higher performance-approach
orientation and mastery-extrinsic orientation than students assigned to
regular classes.

Introduction
Many countries are committed to multi-tiered systems of learning and schooling support. However,
there are serious complexities in implementing them, and several countries, including Finland, have
difficulty with Tier 3 interventions. Multi-tiered systems refer to systematic ways to organize support
for students with special educational needs (SEN) who need more intensive instruction, with an aim
to identify difficulties early on (Kauffman et al., 2017). They also offer a basis for decisions on how to
support these students, including the decisions on where the support is provided.
The question of the optimal learning environment for students with SEN is, at the same time, a
perpetual and urgent topic in the field of inclusive and special education (Kauffman et al., 2017;
Mitchell, 2008). Traditionally, special education has meant more individualized instruction
offered partly or fully in smaller special classes. However, during the past few decades, the inclusive
education movement has become stronger, and the growing tendency is to organize the learning and
support in regular classes. In Finland, all comprehensive school students are educated in the same
education system, in line with the international conventions for ensuring the right of all learners
to education (e.g., European Union, 2018; UNESCO, 2017; United Nations, 2006). This entails
the aim to provide education for every student in neighborhood schools alongside their peers within
the local community.
However, within the frames set by the legislation and global agreements, there are various place-
ment options for students with SEN, one option persistently being placement in a special class. In

CONTACT Ninja Hienonen ninja.hienonen@helsinki.fi Centre for Educational Assessment, Faculty of Educational Sciences,
University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 9, 00014, Finland
© 2020 Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
2 N. HIENONEN ET AL.

fact, the Trade Union of Education in Finland (2019) has recently called for Tier 3 students’ right to
special class placement to be stipulated by law. Alongside the placement in regular classes, there is
still a strong belief that the needs of a certain group of students are better met in special classes
(Kauffman et al., 2017; Zigmond & Kloo, 2017). There are also concerns that the capacity of general
education to provide adequate support for students with SEN has been overestimated (Fuchs et al.,
2018).
A highly important question is how class placement affects students with SEN, and more pre-
cisely, their academic achievement and learning motivation. Though many parents of students with
SEN value regular class placement, they still have concerns about class size and teacher qualification
(Mason-William et al., 2017). Smaller classes and lower teacher-student ratios are among the key
arguments for special class advocates because it is believed that they allow more individualized
interaction between teachers and students, which in turn affects the students’ learning and motiv-
ation (Harfitt & Tsui, 2015). Furthermore, it is thought that smaller classes can lead to, for example,
more student-centered learning (e.g., Blatchford et al., 2011). Simultaneously, the question of cost
efficiency challenges these arguments (e.g., Hanushek, 2006). Hoxby (2000) translates it into an
education production function — the assumption that there should be a relationship between
the input (reduced class size for some students) and output (achievement and learning results).
This aligns with the idea that increasing education funds will automatically mean better results.
Regular class placement can be seen as a cost-cutting effort and retrenchment by the education pro-
vider. Overall, placement decisions involve pedagogical and educational aspects, but also economic
aspects in terms of the resources available and their allocation. These aspects should always be
included in the decisions on how the teaching is organized, and especially, on how support is
provided.
Despite the urgency and importance of the topic conveyed by Kauffman et al. (2017), inclusion
has been the subject of little objective, scientific investigation and thus, many of the different place-
ment practices do not rest clearly on research-based facts. This study aims to fill this gap by inves-
tigating the placement of students with SEN with longitudinal data and quasi-experimental research
methods within the context of the Finnish multi-tiered support system. We study the placement
effects in regular schools, comparing regular and special classes. The focus is on the placement
effects and the inclusive education is seen merely as a background ideology that has, to start with,
brought the students with SEN to regular classes. Furthermore, the aim of this line of inquiry is
not to explain all the variables of placement effects, but to bring about new understanding of the
topic.

Multi-tiered System of Learning and Schooling Support in Finland

In the Finnish multi-tiered support system, support is provided at three levels: general (Tier 1),
intensified (Tier 2), and special (Tier 3) (FNBE, 2016). The nature of the support provision is pre-
ventative, and the aim is to identify any difficulties early on and provide additional help whenever the
student needs it, whether or not a disability has been diagnosed. The support at all tier levels is pro-
vided in the student’s own school and teaching group, unless the student’s best interests require
otherwise (FNBE, 2016). Tier 1 and Tier 2 support should be provided as a part of mainstream edu-
cation in regular classes.
In this study, the focus is on Tier 3 students attending regular schools, either in regular or special
class. Tier 3 support is provided for students who otherwise cannot adequately achieve the goals of
their growth, development, or learning. An official decision is made by the principal or education
provider (usually municipality) based on a pedagogical statement done by a multiprofessional
team, and an individual education plan is drawn up for the student. Tier 3 support consists of special
needs education and other support needed by the student. The student’s primary teaching group is
stated in the decision; in other words, whether it is a regular or a special class (FNE, 2016). While the
size of regular classes is not regulated by law, the Tier 3 class should not exceed 10 students
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 3

(Basic Education Decree, 852/1998, 2§). In this study, these classes are referred to as special classes
since they consist of only Tier 3 students. Furthermore, in lower secondary special classes, special
education teachers are responsible for the instruction, as opposed to regular classes in which the sub-
ject teachers give the instruction. Thus, special and regular classes differ in terms of their size and
composition, and in teacher qualification (Zigmond & Kloo, 2017).
Of Tier 3 students (8.1% of all comprehensive school students in 2018), 21% studied full-time in
regular classes, and 35% studied in special classes, either in mainstream schools or in special schools
(OSF, 2019). The rest received part of their education in a regular and part in a special class. Tier 3
students study school subjects either according to the general curriculum (55%) or to an individua-
lized syllabus in one or more subjects (45%), depending on the severity and nature of the disability
(OSF, 2019). The objectives and content of the individualized curriculum are derived from the gen-
eral curriculum in a way that meets each student’s own achievement level, for example, by applying
content and teaching materials from the lower grades (FNBE, 2016).
Students with SEN in Finland share characteristics that are similar to those reported in numerous
studies from a range of countries, such as a higher proportion of boys, lower socioeconomic status,
and on average, lower academic achievement (e.g., Hibel et al., 2010; OECD, 2016). It must be noted
that the Finnish support model describes only the delivery of the services, not the actual prevalence
of disabilities (Jahnukainen & Itkonen, 2015). This concept is in line with the International Standard
Classification of Education (ISCED) definition for a SEN student, which states that additional sup-
port is provided for individuals who require it for a vast variety of reasons (UNESCO, 2012). Accord-
ingly, Tier 3 students in this study are referred to as students with SEN.

Class Placement and Student Performance

One of the crucial questions of special and inclusive education is whether students with SEN in regu-
lar classes make better academic gains or perform better than their peers in special classes (Kauffman
et al., 2017). Student performance can be measured using different achievement tests or school
grades.
Measured based on test achievement, a recent Dutch study showed that students in special classes
performed better in mathematics and reading than included students (Zweers et al., 2019). A large-
scale longitudinal Dutch study in primary education found that during a two-year period, there was
no difference between the results of students in their scores on a standardized language or mathemat-
ics test in mainstream and in special schools. However, after two more years, students in mainstream
schools had progressed more than their peers (Peetsma et al., 2001). According to a Swiss study, stu-
dents with intellectual disabilities in regular classrooms did not differ from students in special
schools in scores on a standardized mathematics test during preschool and primary school years,
whereas the included students progressed slightly more in literacy skills (Dessemontet et al.,
2012). A longitudinal study in Switzerland showed that students in special classes performed sub-
stantially poorer in standardized mathematics and literacy tests than comparable students in regular
classes after two years of schooling. However, special classes improved students’ academic self-con-
cept in comparison to their peers in regular classes (Törmänen & Roebers, 2017). Hattie (2009)
found in his synthesis of meta-analyses that students with SEN in mainstream classes performed bet-
ter than students in special classes.
Curriculum-based reading and mathematics was investigated in two US-based studies that found
no clear differences between students with SEN in inclusive and non-inclusive classes (Cole et al.,
2004; Fore et al., 2008).
When school achievement was measured using grades, Rea et al. (2002) found that students with
SEN in the eighth grade taught in inclusive classrooms achieved higher grades than their counter-
parts in pullout programs. A longitudinal study in Norway showed that secondary school students
with SEN in regular classes obtained vocational or academic qualifications to a greater degree than
students in special classes (Myklebust, 2007). However, the study did not report on students’ grades.
4 N. HIENONEN ET AL.

In some of the previous studies, students had been matched according to selected background
characteristics. However, systematic propensity score matching has been missing for the most
part. This study aims to fill this gap by creating systematically statistically equivalent experimental
and control groups.

Class Placement and Learning Motivation

In addition to school achievement and test scores, factors such as learning motivation (e.g., goal orien-
tation) must be considered because they have been shown to play a part in the classroom learning of
students with SEN (Botsas & Padeliadu, 2003; Schwab & Hessels, 2015). Previous studies have shown
that both the learning environment and teacher activities influence the classroom achievement goal
structure (Patrick et al., 2011). In classrooms where teacher activities emphasize learning and
understanding, students are more likely to use more effective and in-depth learning strategies for
learning, seek help more easily, and help each other if necessary than students in classes where the
focus is more on performance, mistakes, and comparison (Ames, 1992a; Patrick et al., 2011; Turner
et al., 2013). Accordingly, goal orientation is better contextualized within an immediate environment
(e.g., Cheng et al., 2014; Huguet et al., 2009). Goal orientation is the motivational purpose students
adopt for their learning in achievement situations (Dweck, 1986). Generally, four learning goals are
distinguished. Mastery orientation entails striving for learning goals whereas performance orientation
refers to a student’s performance in comparison to others (Elliot & Dweck, 1988). Performance-
avoidance orientation reflects the avoidance of demonstrating normative incompetence. Finally, avoid-
ance orientation refers to students’ desires to avoid achievement situations and to minimize the effort
and time spent on studying. In special classes, there might be more time and emphasis on individual
development and simultaneously less pressure on student comparisons (Kauffman & Pullen, 1996).
However, students with SEN in general have been reported to have lower mastery orientation and,
at the same time, higher performance-avoidance orientation (Schwab & Hessels, 2015). There is far
less evidence of educational settings affecting the goal orientation of students with SEN.

The Present Study

This study addresses the critical need for research on students with SEN assigned to two educational
settings: special and regular classes. Specifically, we compared the differences in curriculum-based
Finnish and mathematics tests, in grades, and in self-reported goal-orientation scales. With research
question 1, we control for the initial differences between students to make sure that the differences
possibly found in questions 2 and 3 are due to the placement effects. We addressed the following
research questions:

1. Do students with SEN in regular classes differ from students with SEN in special classes in terms
of their background variables and cognitive outcomes at the beginning of seventh grade?
2. How do students with SEN in regular classes differ from students with SEN in special classes in
terms of their cognitive competence measured by test scores and GPA at the end of ninth grade?
3. Do students with SEN in regular classes score higher in learning motivation measured by self-
reported goal-orientation scales than students with SEN in special classes?

Method
Research Design
We used a quasi-experimental method — propensity score matching — that creates a statistically
equivalent experiment and control groups to detect the effects of placement (see Becker & Ichino,
2002; Gersten et al., 2000; Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983). The purpose of propensity scoring is to
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 5

achieve the optimal balance between comparison groups on prominent covariates that influence
both participation in the treatment and the outcome (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983; also, Luellen
et al., 2005). In other words, a propensity score is the conditional probability that a person will be
in one condition rather than another (e.g., receive treatment rather than be in the control group)
given a set of covariates used to predict the person’s condition (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983). The
idea is that people with the same propensity score, but who are in different experimental conditions,
are nonetheless comparable because the distributions of their covariates are in balance (Luellen et al.,
2005). Furthermore, once matched with theoretically relevant variables, any differences between the
groups should reflect more of the true treatment effects.

Participants and Sampling

The data were drawn from the larger longitudinal study assessing and combining learning and well-
being conducted in all 14 municipalities in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area — the largest urban area
in Finland. All the schools (N = 129), and thus the whole age cohort, were included in the sample.
Data were collected at the beginning of seventh grade in September 2011 right after students were
assigned to new classes and at the end of ninth grade in April 2014. Thereby, the data cover the entire
three-year lower secondary education (13- to16-year-old students). The Ethical Committee of
National Institute of Health and Welfare granted the ethical approval for data collection. Permission
for the larger study was obtained from the education department of each municipality for both data
collections. Two municipalities required parental consent in 2011 and one in 2014. In the other
municipalities, parents were informed about the study.
The data collection was conducted by teachers according to written instructions as a part of ordin-
ary school days. The students worked individually on cognitive tasks and questionnaires for the
learning motivation scales, and the test took 90 min. The students included in the analyses (N =
860) were selected by the following criteria: students received Tier 3 support according to special
education teachers and were present at the time of the data collections.
It must be noted that this study utilizes secondary data: the class placement was not the purpose of
the larger data collection. Our analyses were carried out after data had been collected to fulfil the
study’s original purpose; however, we included all possible variables when matching the students.

Placement
In line with the quasi-experimental design, special class placement is referred to as experiment in this
study as it is considered to be special and different from regular class placement (Zigmond & Kloo,
2017). The class placement was extracted from the student lists provided by the education depart-
ment of each municipality. For the analyses, we used a dichotomously-coded variable (0 = regular
class; 1 = special class). Classes in which all the students were Tier 3 students and the number of stu-
dents did not exceed the statutory class size maximum of 10 students for special classes were coded as
special classes (79 classes and 413 students). All the other classes were coded as regular classes (261
classes and 447 students), which consisted of Tier 3 students and other students. The student lists did
not include whether students participated in the classrooms full- or part-time.

Measures
Covariates
All covariates used in the matching were drawn from the seventh grade data (Table 1). Gender was
coded dichotomously (1 = girl; 2 = boy). For the measure of socioeconomic status (SES), the infor-
mation on mothers’ educational level was available (1 = basic education; 2 = high school; 3 = poly-
technic or university). Curriculum was also used as a covariate. Special education teachers were
asked to complete a questionnaire about whether a student studied according to a general or
6 N. HIENONEN ET AL.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for students in special and regular classes before matching at seventh grade.
Special classes (n = 413) Regular classes (n = 447)
Variable N % N %
Gender: Boy*** 305 74 282 63
Curriculum 131 31 139 32
M SD M SD
SES 1.69 0.76 1.76 0.79
Age* 16.25 1.13 16.11 0.50
Curriculum-based Finnish 51.81 22.54 49.91 22.54
Curriculum-based mathematics 29.76 18.73 28.89 16.38
Verbal proportional reasoning 31.08 18.34 33.50 18.35
Quantitative reasoning 20.61 17.83 20.93 18.90
Formal thinking 11.81 18.08 12.62 18.67
Notes: N = Number of responses, M = Mean, Sd = Standard deviation.
Continuous variables are presented as means and standard deviation; dichotomous variables are presented as N (%).
Continuous variables were analyzed using independent samples t-tests; categorical and dichotomous variables were analyzed
using chi-square tests.
*** Means of special and regular class students are statistically significantly different at the p < 0.001 level.
* Means of special and regular class students are statistically significantly different at the p < 0.05 level.
Curriculum (0 = general; 1 = one or more individualized curricula).
SES: Mother’s educational level (1 = basic education; 2 = high school; 3 = polytechnic or university).
Age was calculated at the time of the assessment in ninth grade.

individualized curriculum. For this, we created a categorical ordered variable for curriculum accord-
ing to national statistics (0 = general curriculum, n = 590; 1 = individualized in one subject, n = 109;
2 = individualized in 2–3 subjects, n = 72; 3 = individualized in 4 or more subjects, n = 89). Age was
calculated at the time of the assessment in ninth grade.
Cognitive competencies were assessed both with the cross-curricular competencies (three tasks:
proportional reasoning, quantitative reasoning and formal thinking) and with the curricular Finnish
and mathematics. Cross-curricular tasks were measured within the Finnish learning to learn (LTL)
framework. LTL can be defined as cognitive competence and willingness to adopt to novel tasks
(Hautamäki & Kupiainen, 2014). Following Zigmond and Kloo (2017), both the reasoning skills
and subject matter have been used as covariates in the present study.
All items were multiple-choice questions and they were scored dichotomously as correct or incor-
rect by researchers. A mean for the percentage of correctly-solved items was calculated separately for
all five tasks. Furthermore, a mean for the percentage of correctly-solved 22 items for the cross-cur-
ricular tasks was calculated to control for possible selection bias in further analyses (Cronbach’s α
= .82 in seventh grade and α = .77 in ninth grade).

Outcomes
The tasks for curricular Finnish (18 items) and mathematics (15 items) were designed to measure
contents and objects determined by the National Core Curriculum (FNBE, 2004) that students
are expected to acquire by the end of sixth grade, as the first data collection was at the beginning
of the seventh grade. Students completed the same cognitive tasks in both data collections. The
reliabilities were acceptable (Cronbach’s α in seventh grade for Finnish .63 and mathematics .78,
and in ninth grade .75 and .82 respectively).
As a measure of academic achievement, we used the grades in ninth grade that were derived from
the National Joint Application Register. The grades (ranging from 4 to 10) were analyzed separately
and, in addition, the GPA was calculated as an average of Finnish, mathematics, foreign language,
and science (i.e., an average of geology, physics, chemistry, and biology). In general, all students
in Finland, including students with SEN, are assessed according to the same principles (FNBE, 2016).
Learning motivation was assessed according to the Finnish LTL framework consisting of five
different goal-orientation scales as the mastery orientation was divided into intrinsic and extrinsic
scales: 1) mastery-intrinsic orientation (e.g., “To learn as much as possible is an important goal
for me at school,” α = .85); 2) mastery-extrinsic orientation (e.g., “Getting good marks at school is
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 7

important to me,” α = .80); 3) performance-approach orientation (e.g., “I feel I have reached my goal
if I do better or get a better mark than most of the other students,” α = .71); 4) performance-avoid-
ance orientation (e.g., “For me it is important not to fail in front of my classmates,” α = .78); and 5)
avoidance orientation (e.g., “I have no interest in doing anything extra for school,” α = .68) (Hauta-
mäki & Kupiainen, 2014). Each scale consisted of three items, and the rating of each statement was a
seven-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 = not at all to 7 = yes, exactly so. Mean scale scores
were computed for each student.

Data Analysis
All the statistical analyses were run with SPSS 24. Prior to the matching, independent samples t-tests
for continuous variables and chi-square tests for dichotomous and categorical variables were
employed to determine whether mean differences in covariates between special classes and regular
classes were significant (Gersten et al., 2005). After the matching, the t-tests were used to assess the
matching balance (Caliendo & Kopeing, 2008), as well as one-way and two-way ANOVA. Effect sizes
were estimated with Cohen’s d because the sample sizes were reasonable (Cohen, 1988, pp. 477–478;
Turner & Bernard, 2006).
We used two methodological approaches to produce the comparable pairs in order to consider
possible hidden bias (Luellen et al., 2005). First (Approach 1), we employed Fuzzy match extension
in SPSS 24, using nearest neighbor matching as a matching algorithm without replacement in ran-
domized order. Nine covariates (Table 1) were used to predict the placement. Using variables
measured at the beginning of seventh grade helped to avoid the endogeneity problems associated
with outcome variables that might have been affected by the student placement. We obtained 134
matched pairs. Next (Approach 2), drawing on the same set of covariates, we estimated a logistic
regression model predicting students’ propensity for experiencing a treatment of interest — in
this study, the placement in a special class. Based on the predicted probabilities (exact match within
2 decimals), we created pairs manually, and it resulted in 127 matched pairs. In the subsequent ana-
lyses, we used the 134 pairs obtained with Approach 1. However, to ensure non-biased comparison,
we also conducted all analyses with the dataset achieved by Approach 2. If the results of the two
approaches differed, we reported the results of both analyses.
Cases without a match were excluded from further analyses because they were considered to be
outside the region of common support (Caliendo & Kopeing, 2008).1 As expected, students placed in
special classes showed a higher propensity to be placed in special classes than students placed in
regular classes. However, there was a substantial overlap in the distributions (Appendix A), and
the distribution of the matched students followed the distribution of the whole sample well in the
seventh grade test performance (Appendix B).
In previous studies with the same data, multilevel analyses have been conducted in order to take
into account the nested structure of the data and the class level counted for 18% of the variation in
cognitive tasks (Hienonen et al., 2018). However, in this study, the focus was on creating a quasi-
experimental study and thus, the number of students in the paired sample is limited, and class
and school levels are not fully representative. The mean for students in class was 1.8 and thus,
the multi-level analyses were not feasible (Maas & Hox, 2005).

Results
The class size differed significantly between special (M = 8.05, SD = 2.81) and regular classes (M =
17.06, SD = 5.65) (t (858) = –2.337, p < .001). The average proportion of students with SEN in regular
classes was 2.7% (SD = 4.60).
1
The only statistically significant difference between matched and non-matched students was in seventh grade math test scores (t
(560) = 2.248, p < .01), matched students scored higher (31.6 vs. 27.2).
8 N. HIENONEN ET AL.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for students in special and regular classes after matching at seventh grade.
Special classes (n = 134) Regular classes (n = 134)
Variable N % N %
Gender: Boy 96 72 96 72
Curriculum 29 14 36 18
M SD M SD d
Propensity score 0.46 0.11 0.46 0.11
SES 1.69 0.76 1.71 0.75
Age 16.11 0.45 16.11 0.49 0.00
Curriculum-based Finnish 53.23 22.20 52.20 19.50 0.05
Curriculum-based mathematics 30.14 17.30 31.00 14.92 0.11
Verbal proportional reasoning 34.14 19.75 32.09 16.82 0.11
Quantitative reasoning 21.26 17.61 18.38 14.76 0.18
Formal thinking 12.59 19.42 10.17 15.94 0.14
Notes: N = Number of responses, M = Mean, Sd = Standard deviation.
Continuous variables are presented as means and standard deviation; dichotomous variables are presented as N (%).
Continuous variables were analyzed using independent samples t-tests; categorical and dichotomous variables were analyzed
using chi-square tests.
Curriculum (0 = general; 1 = one or more individualized curricula).
SES: Mother’s educational level (1 = basic education; 2 = high school; 3 = polytechnic or university).
Age was calculated at the time of the assessment in ninth grade.
d = Effect size measured with Cohen’s d. Values of .20 refer to small effects, values of .50 to medium effects and values of .80 to
large effects (Cohen, 1988),

Differences Before and After the Propensity Score Matching

Balance on the means of all covariates across the two groups was studied before and after the match-
ing. To answer the first research question, Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations of all
covariates between the students placed in special and regular classes prior to the matching. The only
significant differences were found in student ages and gender. Students placed in special classes were
older (t (838) = 29.287, p < .05); however, the difference was less than one standard deviation (see
Gersten et al., 2017), and there were more boys than girls in special classes (χ² (1) = 11.476, p
< .001). However, as the two groups were statistically equivalent on all other variables, we continued
our analyses.
Table 2 displays the prerequisites for further analyses: there were no statistically significant differ-
ences between students placed in regular and special classes in seventh grade after they were matched
on their propensity to be placed in special classes. This confirmed that the groups were statistically
equivalent.

The Effect of Placement on Cognitive Tasks and Academic Achievement

To answer the second research question, the students in special classes were compared to their
matched peers in regular classes in ninth grade cognitive tasks. No mean differences between groups
in Finnish or mathematic tasks reached statistical significance (Table 3). The differences in school
achievement were studied using GPA as well as the separate grades included in the GPA. The stu-
dents in special classes had higher GPAs (M = 7.06, SD = 0.84) than students in regular classes (M =
6.71, SD = 0.73) (t (212) = –3.088, p < .01). Furthermore, students in special classes had higher grades
in Finnish (M = 7.15, SD = 0.86) (t (179) = –3.119, p < .01) and in mathematics (M = 6.9, SD = 1.01)
(t (179) = –3.311, p < .01) than their matched peers in regular classes (M = 6.73, SD = 0.85 and M =
6.40, SD = 1.01, respectively).
For students who study according to an individualized curriculum, the objectives are lowered in
the given subject and hence the assessment is done accordingly. However, in terms of their GPAs,
students did not differ based on the curriculum (F (3,212) = .734, p = .533). Furthermore, the
univariate results indicated that the curriculum had no interaction effect on GPAs between special
and regular classes (F (2,212) = 0.734, p = .294).
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 9

Table 3. Cognitive competencies and school achievement in special and regular classes after matching at ninth grade.
Special classes (n = 134) Regular classes (n = 134)
M SD M SD d
Curriculum-based Finnish 55.49 23.50 55.78 22.53 0.01
Curriculum-based mathematics 33.72 19.57 30.17 17.57 –0.16
GPA** 7.06 0.86 6.72 0.76 –0.42
Finnish** 7.15 0.95 6.73 0.85 –0.46
Mathematics** 6.90 1.01 6.40 1.01 –0.49
Foreign language 7.38 1.12 7.08 1.16 –0.27
Science 6.91 0.90 6.70 0.09 –0.24
Notes. N = Number of responses, M = Mean, Sd = Standard deviation.
* Means of special and regular class students are significantly different at the p < 0.01 level.
d = Effect size measured with Cohen’s d. Values of .20 refer to small effects, values of .50 to medium effects and values of .80 to
large effects (Cohen, 1988),

Table 4. Learning motivation in special and regular classes before and after matching at ninth grade.
Before matching Special classes (n = 413) Regular classes (n = 447)
M SD M SD
Mastery-intrinsic orientation 4.87 1.38 4.70 1.23
Mastery-extrinsic orientation* 5.00 1.39 4.78 1.34
Performance-approach orientation 4.26 1.39 4.09 1.24
Performance-avoidance orientation 4.04 1.51 4.12 1.40
Avoidance orientation 4.30 1.27 4.30 1.23
After matching Special classes (n = 134) Regular classes (n = 134)
M SD M SD d
Mastery-intrinsic orientation 4.82 1.39 4.54 1.19 –0.22
Mastery-extrinsic orientation* 5.03 1.41 4.63 1.18 –0.31
Performance-approach orientation* 4.34 1.39 4.00 1.03 –0.28
Performance-avoidance orientation 4.12 1.50 4.02 1.18 –0.08
Avoidance orientation 4.14 1.27 4.45 1.11 0.26
* Means of special and regular class students are statistically significantly different at the p < 0.05 level.
d = Effect size measured with Cohen’s d. Values of .20 refer to small effects, values of .50 to medium effects and values of .80 to
large effects (Cohen, 1988).

Matched data did not indicate any significant differences in terms of student test scores between
special and regular classes. However, analyses revealed that students in special classes had, on
average, higher grades in mathematics and Finnish and their overall GPAs were higher. This
finding was not explained by the interaction effect of the individualized curriculum. Given that
the effect sizes regarding the grades were on average d = .40, the differences between them seem
somewhat notable.

The Effect of Placement on Learning Motivation Scales

In the third research question, we were interested in possible learning motivation differences —
namely, goal orientations. Before matching, the only significant difference (Table 4) was that
students in special classes (M = 5.00, SD = 1.39) had higher mastery-extrinsic orientation (t (624)
= –2.011, p < .05) than students in regular classes (M = 4.78, SD = 1.34).
Even after matching, students in special classes (M = 5.03, SD = 1.41) scored higher in mastery-
extrinsic orientation (t (198) = –2.182, p < .05) than their matched peers in regular classes (M =
4.63, SD = 1.18). Furthermore, they had higher performance-approach orientation (M = 4.34, SD
= 1.39 vs. M = 4.00, SD = 1.03) (t (198) = –1.980, p < .05). However, the differences and effect sizes
were small.
10 N. HIENONEN ET AL.

Discussion
This study investigated the differences between students with SEN in regular classes with students
without SEN and students in smaller special classes with other students with SEN. To examine
the placement effects deeper and more thoroughly, a quasi-experimental setting was designed by
using propensity score matching. Students were matched to each other according to available
seventh grade variables.
Our study contributes to the existing literature on placement effects in four ways. Firstly, there
were no major initial differences among students with SEN placed in special or regular classes. Sec-
ondly, at the end of lower secondary education, the matched data did not indicate any differences in
curricular Finnish or mathematics tests. Thirdly, there were differences in school achievement, as
measured by GPA and separate grades favoring students in special classes. Finally, regarding learning
motivation, students in special classes had higher mastery-extrinsic orientation and higher perform-
ance-approach orientation.
The previous literature has yielded information that students with SEN would benefit more from
placement in regular classes when different measures of academic outcomes have been studied (e.g.,
Dessemontet et al., 2012; Peetsma et al., 2001; Rea et al., 2002). Our data did not reveal such differ-
ences in curricular tasks. Students in special classes did not perform poorer in curricular tasks neither
at the beginning nor at the end of lower secondary education.
Previous research has also indicated that students with learning disabilities who are placed in
inclusive classrooms earned significantly higher grades (Rea et al., 2002). In contrast, our data
revealed that students in special classes received on average higher grades in some of the core sub-
jects, Finnish and mathematics. In addition, their overall GPAs were higher than their matched peers
in regular classes before and after the matching. The possible differences in assessment practices due
to more individualized curricula for some students did not explain these differences. The higher
grades could partly be explained by the higher performance goal structure observed in special classes,
which in turn may lead to seeking recognition and extrinsic rewarding. Grading may be used as an
incentive to induce students to engage with certain learning goals, and these goals can be rewarded
with higher grades (Ames, 1992b). Even though students are not be compared when grades are given
(FNBE, 2016), it can be that higher grades are given in special classes for the corresponding perform-
ance as in a regular class. Previous research has indicated that teachers are more prone to allowing
lower performance to be compensated with extra effort when assessing students with SEN (Rojewski
et al., 1990). As the students did not differ in Finnish or mathematics tasks, but received higher
grades, more research is required. We acknowledge that grading processes can be influenced by a
variety of factors – e.g., easier content in special classes – and they may not directly reflect the differ-
ences between students in regular and special classes. However, as all students are assessed under the
same norms (FNBE, 2016) and students apply for entry to upper secondary education with these
grades at the end of ninth grade, the grade differences should be studied further, for example, by
studying teachers’ grading practices in both regular and special classes.
In terms of goal orientation, according to self-reported scales, students in special classes had
aspirations to have higher grades, succeed better than their peers, and show their abilities to others.
Both the higher mastery-extrinsic orientation and performance-approach orientation support these
conclusions. At the same time, there were no differences in mastery-intrinsic orientation between the
two settings. This may indicate that in smaller special classes, success in school work is emphasized
more than gaining competence, and this brings novel information to existing literature.
The present study focused on the placement effects on cognitive outcomes and motivational
aspects; however, these are related to the social positioning of students. In general, encouraging
self-improvement can be positive for all students while encouraging comparison among peers
may be less positive for lower-achieving students (Patrick et al., 2011). On one hand, special class
placement classes outside regular classes can be detrimental to students’ self-confidence (e.g.,
Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009), and it can also be seen as stigmatizing (Jones, 1972). On the other hand,
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 11

being part of a special class can be less stigmatizing for students with SEN because there is less
pressure to compare themselves and to be compared to other students (Kauffman & Pullen,
1996). Moreover, students in special classes compare themselves to students with a similar perform-
ance level, which can lead to a more positive self-perception concerning school tasks (Bakker et al.,
2007; Belfi et al., 2012) and to higher academic self-concept (Törmänen & Roebers, 2017). This could
lead to the conclusion that encouraging comparison and striving to succeed more than others could
actually function better in more homogenous special classes. In some respects, the higher intrinsic-
mastery goal orientation and performance-approach could be the result of higher academic self-con-
cepts in more homogenous classes because it is easier to outperform students at the same ability level.
In addition, if a student then manages to succeed in school and outperform classmates, it can raise
the academic self-concept and social positioning of this student. In addition, homogenous class-
rooms have been reported to promote greater peer acceptance (Cook & Semmel, 1999).
To date, one challenge in the field has been that many previous studies have been based on small
samples and non-longitudinal designs (e.g., Lindsay, 2003; Myklebust, 2007), and there is a request
for quantitative methods, larger samples, and longitudinal as well as quasi-experimental designs.
Cross-sectional data may explain more about student assignment practices than the effects of the
placement. With longitudinal data and quasi-experimental design, we aimed to ensure that the pla-
cement effects were not due to the pre-existing differences that derive from individual characteristics
and factors influencing assignment practices (Gersten et al., 2017; Myklebust, 2007). The research
design is one of the advantages of this study, yet it also sets some challenges and limitations that
should be considered when interpreting the findings. Evidently, quasi-experimental studies can
never completely replace true randomized experiments; nevertheless, they also have some desirable
features such as study conditions that may be more representative of real-world settings than those in
randomized experiments (Luellen et al., 2005).
Furthermore, one can never detect every possible variable on which the experimental and com-
parison groups may differ; it is always possible that one or more unknown variables could be partly
responsible for the results (Gersten et al., 2000). Our data did not contain information on how the
support for students in classes was implemented in each school. There might be differences in the
arrangements across schools, which in turn could have different effects on students. Detailed obser-
vational data about instructional processes and student-teacher interactions could unveil some of
the mechanisms of small-class effects. Furthermore, the determinants of placement decisions
may vary between schools and municipalities. However, all schools function under the same legis-
lation and norms and, to some extent, nearly the same set of budgetary constraints, though the local
authorities can determine the use of the funds allocated by government (Pulkkinen & Jahnukainen,
2016). There is variation across municipalities in how and where support is provided (Lintuvuori,
2019). However, the performance differences between Finnish schools have traditionally been quite
small (e.g., OECD, 2016). To study the differences across municipalities in placement decisions,
qualitative research is needed. Furthermore, limitations concerning the grounds of the Tier 3 sup-
port received must be mentioned. We made no distinction between the different types of SEN. Col-
lecting such individually-based data would have been against the Finnish policy of avoiding
diagnosis-based categorizing of students with SEN. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the type
of SEN may influence placement decisions. Previous research has suggested that certain groups
of students (i.e., high-incidence disabilities) are more likely to be placed in regular classrooms
whereas students with significant disabilities are more likely to be placed in separate settings (Mor-
ningstar et al., 2017). However, there is a pressing need for research on how students with different
types of needs are affected by the placement decision. Finally, the question of the placement cannot
be solved without more detailed information on the time students spend in different settings during
their school days.
In theory, effective instructional approaches can be provided in both settings (Deno, 1970). How-
ever, it seems that there is a group of students that will still be taught in special classes. This indicates
a belief that the instruction received in special classes is distinct from and superior to the instruction
12 N. HIENONEN ET AL.

provided in regular classes: more intense, more focused, and more individualized (Kauffman &
Pullen, 1996; Zigmond & Kloo, 2017). The challenge is to be able to distinguish students who will
benefit from a smaller number of peers or a homogenous student population in class from students
whose learning can also be realized in regular classes when otherwise supported adequately and, on
the other hand, to ensure that no students are placed in needlessly restrictive environments.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Ninja Hienonen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9381-9442
Markku Jahnukainen http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0040-9191

References
Ames, C. (1992a). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D. Schunk, & J. Meece (Eds.), Student
perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327–348). Erlbaum.
Ames, C. (1992b). Classroom: Goals, structures and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–
271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
Bakker, J., Denessen, E., Bosman, A., Krijger, E.-M., & Bouts, L. (2007). Sociometric status and self-image of children
with specific and general learning disabilities in Dutch general and special education classes. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 30(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/30035515
Basic Education Decree. (852/1998). Amendments up to 966/2016. Government of Finland. Retrieved September 23,
2018, from http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1998/19980852
Becker, S., & Ichino, A. (2002). Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. The Stata Journal:
Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata, 2(4), 358–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0200200403
Belfi, B., Goos, M., De Fraine, B., & Van Damme, J. (2012). The effect of class composition by gender and ability on
secondary school students’ school well-being and academic self-concept: A literature review. Educational Research
Review, 7(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.09.002
Blatchford, P., Basset, P., & Brown, P. (2011). Examining the effect of class size on classroom engagement and teacher-
pupil interaction: Differences in relation to pupil prior attainment and primary vs. secondary schools. Learning and
Instruction, 21(6), 715–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.04.001
Botsas, G., & Padeliadu, S. (2003). Goal orientation and reading comprehension strategy use among students with and
without reading difficulties. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(4-5), 477–495. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijer.2004.06.010
Caliendo, M., & Kopeing, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching.
Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(1), 31–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x
Cheng, R., McInerney, D., & Mok, M. (2014). Does big-fish–little-pond effect always exist? Investigation of goal orien-
tations as moderators in the Hong Kong context. Educational Psychology, 34(5), 561–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01443410.2014.898740
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cole, C., Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004). Academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional settings.
Mental Retardation, 42(2), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765(2004)42<136:APOSAI > 2.0.CO;2
Cook, B. G., & Semmel, M. L. (1999). Peer acceptance of included students with disabilities as a function of severity of
disability and classroom composition. Journal of Special Education, 33, 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224
6699903300105
Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37(3), 229–237. https://doi.org/10.
1177/001440297003700306
Dessemontet, R. S., Bless, G., & Morin, D. (2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic achievement and adaptive
behaviour of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56(6), 579–587.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01497.x
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
Elliot, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.5
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 13

European Union. (2018). Council recommendation on promoting common values, inclusive education, and the
European dimension of teaching. Official Journal of the European Union. Retrieved September 24, 2019, from
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018H0607(01)
FNBE. (2004). National core curriculum for basic education. Helsinki.
FNBE. (2016). National core curriculum for basic education. Helsinki.
Fore, C., Hagan-Burke, S., Burke, M., Boon, R., & Smith, S. (2008). Academic achievement and class placement in high
school: Do students with learning disabilities achieve more in one class placement than another? Education and
Treatment of Children, 31(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0018
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., McMaster, K. L., & Lemons, C. J. (2018). Students with disabilities’ Abysmal school perform-
ance: An introduction to the special issue. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(3), 127–130. https://doi.org/
10.1111/ldrp.12180
Gersten, R., Baker, S., & Lloyd, J. W. (2000). Designing high-quality research in special education: group experimental
design. Journal of Special Education, 34(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246690003400101
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. (2005). Quality indicators for group
experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 149–164. https://
doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100202
Gersten, R., Jayanthi, M., Santoro, L., & Newman-Conchar, R. (2017). Designing rigorous group studies in special edu-
cation. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. Cullen Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 105–115).
Education Routledge.
Hanushek, E. A. (2006). School resources. In E. Hanushek, & F. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education
(pp. 2–39). North Holland.
Harfitt, G., & Tsui, A. (2015). An examination of class size reduction on teaching and learning processes: A theoretical
perspective. British Educational Research Journal, 41(5), 845–865. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3165
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Hautamäki, J., & Kupiainen, S. (2014). Learning to learn in Finland. In R. Crick, C. Stringer, & K. Ren (Eds.), Learning
to learn: International perspectives from theory and practice (pp. 170–195). Routledge.
Hibel, J., Farkas, G., & Morgan, P. (2010). Who is placed into special education? Sociology of Education, 83(4), 312–332.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040710383518
Hienonen, N., Lintuvuori, M., Jahnukainen, M., Hotulainen, R., & Vainikainen, M.-P. (2018). The effect of class com-
position on cross-curricular competencies — Students with special educational needs in regular classes in lower
secondary education. Learning and Instruction, 58, 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.05.005
Hoxby, C. M. (2000). The effects of class size on student achievement: New evidence from population variation. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(4), 1239–1285. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300555060
Huguet, P., Dumas, F., Marsh, H., Régner, I., Wheeler, L., Suls, J., Seaton, M., & Nezlek, J. (2009). Clarifying the he role
of social comparison in the big-fish–little-pond effect (BFLPE): An integrative study. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 97(1), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015558
Jahnukainen, M., & Itkonen, T. (2015). Tiered intervention: History and trends in Finland and the United States.
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(1), 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2015.1108042
Jones, R. (1972). Labels and stigma in special education. Exceptional Children, 38(7), 553–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001440297203800705
Kauffman, J. M., Nelson, C. M., Simpson, R. L., & Ward, D. M. (2017). Contemporary issues. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P.
Hallahan, & P. Cullen Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 16–28). Education Routledge.
Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. L. (1996). Eight myths about special education. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(5),
1–12.
Lindsay, G. (2003). Inclusive education: A critical perspective. British Journal of Special Education, 30(1), 3–12. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467-8527.00275
Lintuvuori, M. (2019). From the special education system to learning and schooling support in Finnish basic education.
A system level study based on official statistics and norms. [Dissertation in Finnish].
Luellen, J., Shadish, W. R., & Clark, M. H. (2005). Propensity scores. An introduction and experimental test. Evaluation
Review, 29(6), 530–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X05275596
Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. H. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–92. https://
doi.org/10.1027/1614-1881.1.3.86
Mason-William, L., Bettini, E., & Gagnon, J. (2017). Access to qualified special educators across elementary neighbor-
hood and exclusionary schools. Remedial and Special Education, 38(5), 297–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0741932517713311
Mitchell, D. (2008). What really work in special and inclusive education. Using evidence-based teaching strategies.
Routledge.
Morningstar, M. E., Kurth, J. A., & Johnson, P. E. (2017). Examining national trends in educational placements for
students with significant disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 38(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0741932516678327
14 N. HIENONEN ET AL.

Myklebust, J. O. (2007). Diverging paths in upper secondary education: Competence attainment among students with
special educational needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11(2), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13603110500375432
OECD. (2016). Low-performing students: Why they fall behind and how to help them succeed. OECD Publishing.
OSF. (2019). Special education. Statistics Finland. Retrieved June 23, 2019, from http://www.stat.fi/til/erop/index.html
Patrick, H., Kaplan, A., & Ryan, A. M. (2011). Positive classroom motivational environments: Convergence between
mastery goal structure and classroom social climate. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 367–382. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0023311
Peetsma, T., Vergeer, M., Roeleveld, J., & Karsten, S. (2001). Inclusion in education: Comparing pupils’ development in
special and regular education. Educational Review, 53(2), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910120055552
Pulkkinen, J., & Jahnukainen, M. (2016). Finnish reform of the funding and provision of special education: The views
of principals and municipal education administration. Educational Review, 68(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00131911.2015.1060586
Rea, P., McLaughlin, V., & Walter-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and
pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68(2), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290206800204
Rojewski, J. W., Pollard, R. R., & Meers, G. D. (1990). Grading mainstreamed special needs students: Determining
practices and attitudes of secondary vocational educators using a qualitative approach. Remedial and Special
Education, 12(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259101200105
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal
effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
Ruijs, N., & Peetsma, T. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed.
Educational Research Review, 4(2), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.002
Schwab, S., & Hessels, M. (2015). Achievement goals, school achievement, self-Estimations of school achievement, and
calibration in students with and without special education needs in inclusive education. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 59(4), 461–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2014.932304
Törmänen, M., & Roebers, C. (2017). Developmental outcomes of children in classes for special educational needs:
Results from a longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 18(2), 83–93. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1471-3802.12395
Trade Union of Education. (2019). Oppimisen ja koulunkäynnin tuki uudistettava pikaisesti. A press release. Retrieved
March 1, 2019, from https://www.oaj.fi/ajankohtaista/uutiset-ja-tiedotteet/2019/oppimisen-ja-koulunkaynnin-
tuki-uudistettava-ikaisesti/?fbclid=IwAR0wBDpw_eTyyPraDxuoUvCxFY6YerL1QOlubFW0FTWXvM64ixU2g6Z
35qo
Turner, H. M., & Bernard, R. M. (2006). Calculating and synthesizing effect sizes. Contemporary Issues in
Communication Science and Disorders, 33(Spring), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1044/cicsd_33_S_42
Turner, J. C., Gray, D. L., Anderman, L. H., Dawson, H. S., & Anderman, E. M. (2013). Getting to know my teacher:
Does the relation between perceived mastery goal structures and perceived teacher support change across the school
year? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.003
UNESCO. (2012). International standard classification of education. ISCED 2011.
UNESCO. (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education.
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. A/61/611. Retrieved December 15,
2017, from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/convtexte.htm#convtext
Zigmond, N. P., & Kloo, A. (2017). General and special education are (and should be) different. In J. M. Kauffman, D.
P. Hallahan, & P. Cullen Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 249–261). Education Routledge.
Zweers, I., Nouchka, T. T., Bijstra, J. O., & Van de Schoot, R. (2019). How do included and excluded students with
SEBD function socially and academically after 1,5 year of special education services? European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2019.1590193
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 15

Appendices

Appendix A. Propensity score plot for special class students and regular class students

Appendix B. Full sample and the paired sample by quintiles in cross-curricular tasks in
seventh grade

Full sample (N = 597) Paired sample (n = 266)

N M Sd N M Sd
1 119 10.20 10.06 31 8.31 2.84
2 87 15.56 4.03 40 14.50 2.18
3 184 23.53 7.87 98 20.78 3.04
4 110 31.21 8.49 50 29.23 2.96
5 97 46.35 11.63 47 42.66 7.76
Notes. N = Number of responses, M = Mean, Sd = Standard deviation.
A mean for the percentage of correctly solved items was calculated based on the 22 items for cross-curricular tasks.
Quintiles were calculated based on percentile groups, with each group containing approximately the same number of cases.