Meaningful Learning
The Relation Between Classroom Climate and Internalizing and Externalizing
Behavioral Problems in Students with Emotional and Behavioral Problems
Attending Special Education.
Master Thesis Universiteit van Amsterdam Master Forensische Orthopedagogiek
Zayni Sommer 10074368
Docent: Prof. Dr. G. J. J. M. Stams Tweede beoordelaar: Dhr. Dr. M. Assink
Abstract
This study investigates the association between classroom climate and internalizing and externalizing behavior problems in adolescent students with emotional and behavioral problems attending special education. Two self-report questionnaires were filled out by a total of 223 participants (students and teachers). The Climate Scale was completed to assess classroom climate and the Brief Problem Monitor (BPM) to assess internalizing and externalizing behavior problems of the students. Multilevel Logistic Regression analysis showed a positive association between a negative classroom atmosphere among students and their externalizing problem behavior. Both for internalizing and externalizing problems teachers reported male students to be more problematic than female students. However, student self-report yielded higher ratings of internalizing problems for girls. Further research is needed to examine the relation between classroom climate and internalizing and externalizing problems in students with emotional and behavioral problems attending schools for special education. We advocate experimental-longitudinal research, targeting classroom climate through interventions, using observational measures next to questionnaires.
Key words: Externalizing behavior problems, Internalizing behavior problems, Class climate, Special education.
Introduction
For many countries around the world access to basic education for all children is their main goal for preparing them for life, work and active citizenship (Kiru, 2019). According to UNICEF (2019) schooling does not automatically lead to knowledge acquisition. Unexpectedly, the majority of non-learners over the entire world are actually in school. An estimate of 411 million students in schools worldwide are not able to reach the minimum proficiency levels for reading and mathematics (UNICEF, 2019). Causes of school failure are learning disabilities, psychological or medical disorders, low parental education and lack of a clear plan (Al-Zoubi & Bani, Younes, 2015). Emotional and behavioral problems of students constitute one of the main causes of school failure (Baker, Grant, & Morlock, 2008).
Students with emotional and behavioral problems attending special education often have a history of professional care, and are referred to schools for special education because they are unable to come along with the mainstream regular education system due to their learning disabilities associated with severe social, emotional and behavioral disturbances and deficiencies (Breeman et al. 2015; Carman et al, 2004; Stoutjesdijk & Scholte, 2009; Onderwijsinspectie, 2019; Quinn et al., 2005; Wagner et al., 2005). To improve the chances of learning of students in special education small classes are formed, and teachers provide students with individualized instruction (Carman, et al,. 2004). Although these adjustments are made, teachers in special education still have the major challenge to get students to learn despite all their problems and deficiencies. When behavior problems disrupt classroom activities it disturbs learning at optimal levels as well. This is why teachers should be able to create conditions that decrease behavior problems of their students (Nordquist & Twardosz, 1990).
A total of 1-5% of children in western countries, including the U.S.A. and Europe, are referred to schools for special education (Breeman et al. 2015; Meijer, 2003). The specific group of special education students in this study have severe emotional and behavioral problems, which need special care with a daily structure. The perspective is to prepare them for a job and a future in the community
(Gordon & Weldon, 2003; Jancic, 1998). The present study focuses on the association between classroom climate and internalizing and externalizing problems in adolescent students with emotional and behavioral problems attending special education.
Behavior problems of children have been conceptualized as internalizing and externalizing problems (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1987), and both are associated with impaired academic development in students (Hinshaw, 1992; Mash & Barkly, 1996; Reid, Gonzalez, Nordness, Trout, & Epstein, 2004). Examples of externalizing problems are fighting, lying or cheating, overactive, impulsive, or aggressive behaviors. Internalizing problems are a little more difficult to identify, because of their non-observable character. Examples are social withdrawal, sadness, anxiety, loneliness, depression or feeling worthless (Loukas, 2007). Besides externalizing and internalizing symptoms, children in special education often have mental disorders, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or disruptive behavior disorder (DBD) (Skårbrevik, 2001). It is a challenge to offer these children an education that matches their possibilities and learning motivation (Gover, Mackenzie, & Armstrong, 2000; Leone & Weinberg, 2010). Both internalizing and externalizing symptoms and mental disorders are associated with poor academic outcomes (Hinshaw, 1992; Mash & Barkly, 1996; Stoutjesdijk & Scholte, 2009), and hinder students’ ability to develop and maintain successful social relationship with peers, teachers and adults (Reid et al., 2004). To become effective learners, education must meet a number of conditions, such as adequate working material that matches the cognitive ability of the students. Research has repeatedly proven that classroom climate is one of the most important conditions for learning (Beld, 2019).
From school climate to class climate
Meaningful learning can only take place in a safe environment, which was established as early as 1949 by Withall, followed by Anderson in 1970. Human behavior is a function of both person and environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). The environment’s social climate is quite pervasive, because it
constantly interacts with a person’s personality, beliefs, fears, and expectations (Cervone, Shadel & Jencius, 2001; Hall, 1936).
School climate has been defined as the quality and characteristic of school life (Clifford et al., 2012), which can vary enormously. It can feel inviting and supportive, but also unwelcoming or unsafe. A lot of research has shown that the perception that students have of the climate of their school has great influence on their academic motivation and achievement (Loukas, 2007; Wissink et al., 2014). The emotional and behavioral problems of students are affected by their perception of school climate too (Loukas, 2007). A number of essential dimensions of school climate are quality of teacher-student relationship, relationships among students, how connected students feel to school, teaching, learning, the school improvement process, and the safety students experience in school, and the physical surroundings of the school building (Beld et al., 2017; Donkers & Vermulst, 2011; Scholte & Stoutjesdijk, 2011; Thapa et al., 2013).
Whereas school climate refers to school life in a broad sense, classroom climate refers to the quality of the students proximal social learning environment (McRobbie & Fraser, 1993), that is, the direct moment-to-moment interactions between a teacher and his or her class and the interactions among students themselves (Clifford et al., 2012 ). Classroom climate is formed by two aspects: the extent to which the teacher provides support in the class and the mutual interaction between students (Beld et al., 2017). It has been shown that the climate in the class has an impact on the learning motivation, social-emotional functioning and learning achievements of students (Anderson, Hamilton & Hattie, 2004; Maras, Demetre, Moon & Tolmie, 2012). Various factors, such as work atmosphere and quality of relationship among students, determine the climate in class (Altaf, 2015). It is affected by characteristics of the students themselves, the teachers and the management of the school. If there is a positive class climate there is a good collaboration between students and teachers, and students have a positive collaboration. The teacher also has a significant role in here (Donker & Vermulst, 2014; Scholte & Stoutjesdijk, 2011).
A positive and supportive classroom climate is considered to be indispensable for positive academic and social emotional outcomes of students (Anderson, Hamilton, & Hattie, 2004; Gietz & McIntosh, 2014; Wissink et al., 2014). A positive classroom climate has been shown to lead to fewer conflicts and less sanctions for misconduct, and less internalizing and externalizing behavior problems (Bosker & Hofman, 1994; Steffgen, Recchia, & Viecgtbauer, 2013, Veen et al., 2007). A negative classroom climate could result in the contrary, that is, academic underachievement, disruptive behavior of students, and increased aggression among students and between students and teachers (Barth, et al., 2004; Pinxten et al., 2015).
One of the greatest differences with student attending regular education is that students in special education with behavioral and emotional problems show more challenging behavior and have deficiencies in their learning capacity (Crosnoe, 2002; Konijn &Verhulst, 2006; Skarbrevik, 2010; Van de Werfhorst, Berghof, & Veenstra, 2012). Nowadays most studies on classroom climate have been conducted in regular education instead of special education (Beld, 2019). It is therefore unknown whether the results of studies examining classroom climate in regular education can be generalized to special education given the differences in students and organization of education (e.g., classroom size, training of teachers, etc.).
In conclusion, in order to be able to provide appropriate education for students with emotional and behavioral problems in special education, it is important to know how the classroom climate can support students to become effective learners and protect them from developing internalizing and externalizing problems. This study will examine the association between classroom climate and internalizing and externalizing problems of students with emotional and behavioral problems attending primary and secondary schools for special education in the Netherlands (Amsterdam), accounting for differences in gender and age of the students.
Method
Participants
Data on classroom climate and internalizing and externalizing problems were collected among 223 students of cluster 4 schools for special education in Amsterdam. Three primary special education schools (n = 135, 62%) and one secondary special education school (n = 84, 38%), of which 188 boys and 31 girls (86% and 14%), with ages ranging from 8 to 19 years old (M = 12.03, SD = 2.15). Teachers also participated, of which 72% were female and 28% were male.
Procedure
This study used routine outcome monitoring (ROM) data, for which parents and children gave permission through informed consent. The test battery consisted of questionnaires assessing classroom climate and internalizing and externalizing problems. The data from this study were collected during the first semester of 2016 at schools for primary and secondary special education in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The data were made anonymous after collection. The climate scale and the BPM-Y were taken by the students and the BPM-T was taken by the teachers. This took place at school, where questionnaires were filled out in the classrooms on laptops. The questionnaires for the students were taken in groups, if necessary, the test was taken individually. It took about approximately one hour for the students to fill out the questionnaire. After filling out the questionnaire, the students received a small present in the form of a lollipop or keychain. The teachers filled out the questionnaire at the same time. They did this digitally, and it took them about half an hour.
Each assessment was followed by a feed-back meeting for both teachers and students, supported by a brief graphic information folder. The team of teachers received feedback trough presentations, and the students received feedback trough classical discussions about the results. The
quantitative data of the questionnaires and the qualitative data of the feedback rounds were included in a research report per school.
Measuring instruments
Classroom climate was measured using the climate scale, which measures the pedagogical climate in a class (Donkers & Vermulst, 2010) on four dimensions: positive relationships among students, negative classroom atmosphere, structure provided by the teacher and quality of the interaction between the teacher and his or her students. The climate scale consists of 16 general questions and 17 teacher specific questions, answered on a Likert type scale (1 = (almost) never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = regular and 4 = often). An example of an item is: “I think the lessons of this teacher are messy.”. The Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities of the subscales were good: student relationships .86, atmosphere .85, teacher-student interactions .91. However, the subscale structure proved to be low, but sufficient, with .63.
Internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors among students were measured with the Brief Problem Monitor (BPM), which measures emotional and behavioral problems of youth between 6 and 18 years old (Achenbach, McConaughy, Ivanova, & Rescorla 2011). Two different versions, the BMP-Y (self-report list, for students between 11-18 years old) and the BMP-T (teacher list, for students between 6-18 years old) were used. The BPM-Y contains three scales and 19 items, and the BPM-T contains three scales and 18 items in which internalizing problems, externalizing problems are measured. Items such as "Discusses a lot" or "Destroys property of his or her family or others" were answered using a Likert type scale (0 = not true, 1 = slightly true, 2 = completely true). The BPM-T showed good reliabilities for both internalizing and externalizing problems, Cronbach’s alpha >.90. The BPM-Y also showed good reliabilities for both problem behavior scales, with Cronbach’s alpha exceeding .80.
Statistical analyses
To investigate the influence of classroom climate on internalizing and externalizing problem behavior, four multivariate multilevel logistic regression analyses were conducted because of the nested data structure and high levels of skewness of the data on behavior problems of the students, using the Statistical Package for Social Scientist (SPSS) version 25. The independent variables within this study were the four dimensions of the classroom climate, as reported by the students, and gender and age of the students (control variables). Dependent variables were internalizing and externalizing problem behavior of students, reported by both teachers and students. The scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior problems were dichotomized through a median split. A significance level of p <.05 was used. Assumptions were checked, including multicollinearity, but proved not to be violated.
Results
In Table 1 the results of the multilevel logistic regression analyses are reported. Teachers rated girls lower on both internalizing (b =-1.004 ad OR =.366, p < .05) and externalizing behavior problems (b =-0,963 an OR =.382, p < .05), whereas student self-report yielded higher scores for girls on internalizing problems (b = 1.206 and OR = 3.338, p < .05) and no significant difference on externalizing problems (b = 0.510 and OR = 1.665, ns). Age was positively associated with internalizing problems (b = 0.270 and OR = 1.310, p < .05), as reported by teachers, and negatively associated with externalizing problems (b = -0.217 and OR = .805, p < .05), as reported by students. Finally, negative classroom atmosphere was associated with more externalizing problems, both as rated by teachers (b = 0.553 and OR = 1.739, p < .05) and students (b = 0.942 and OR = 2.566, p < .001).
Table 1
Multilevel Logistic Regression Analysis: Predictors of Internalizing and Externalizing Problems: Unstandardized Regression Coefficient and Odds Ratios
Predictors Internalizing Externalizing Teacher Student Teacher Student b/or b/or b/or b/or Gender (1 = boy; 2 = girl) -1.004/.366* 1.206/3.338* -0.963/.382* 0.510/1.665 Age 0.270/1.310* -0.040/.960 0.163/1.177+ -0.217/.805* Student relationships -0.146/.864 -0.331/.718 0.250/1.284 0.026/1.027 Negative classroom atmosphere 0.045/1.046 0.547/1.728+ 0.553/1.739* 0.942/2.566** Structure 0.038/1.361 -0.576/.562+ 0.222/1.249 -0.302/.740 Teacher-student relationships 0.142/1.153 0.040/1.041 -0.516/.597+ 0.279/0.756 Note 1. N = 223 Note 2. + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .001 Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the relation between classroom climate and internalizing and externalizing problem behavior of students with emotional and behavioral problems attending special education. As expected, a relation was found between negative classroom atmosphere and externalizing problem behavior of students, but unexpectedly not for any of the other dimensions of classroom climate (i.e., positive student relationships, structure, and teacher-student relationships), and internalizing problem behavior. Teachers rated boys as more problematic both in terms of internalizing and externalizing problems, which was not evident in student self-report of problem behavior, which yielded higher scores for girls on internalizing problems. Finally, age was positively associated with internalizing problems as reported by teachers, and negatively associated with externalizing problems as reported by students.
It is difficult to explain why only one dimension of classroom climate, namely negative classroom atmosphere, proved to be significantly related to students’ behavior problems, because especially quality of teacher-student relationships has been found to be strongly related to both internalizing and externalizing behavior problems (Nurmi, 2012; Lei, Cui, & Chiu, 2016), in particular in students with emotional and behavioral problems (McGrath & Van Bergen, 2015), although no studies have examined the association between teacher-student relationships and behavior problems in students with emotional and behavioral problems attending special education. Since most studies concern quality of teacher-student relationships at the individual level, findings may be different when considering teacher-student relationships at the classroom level. Next, it is plausible to suggest that teachers in special education in general have higher levels of social and emotional competencies through their specialized training, which may create a ceiling effect if it concerns quality of teacher-student relationships. This was confirmed in a post-hoc analysis, showing relatively high scores on teacher-student relationship quality.
Notably, higher levels of teacher-student relationship quality may affect other aspects of classroom climate, including classroom atmosphere, which may subsequently be related to students’ behavior problems (see Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Interestingly, a post-hoc analysis showed that teacher-student relationship quality was most strongly associated with supportive relationships among students (r = .48, p < .001) and structure (r = .31, p < .001), showing the weakest association with a negative atmosphere among students (r = -.15, p < .05). Another explanation for the only significant relation between classroom atmosphere and externalizing problems may be found in contamination of measures, since items of the atmosphere and externalizing scales show overlap in content. However, such contamination does not explain the significant, although weaker, association between classroom atmosphere and internalizing problems. No effects may have been found between on the one hand structure and supportive relationships among students and on the other hand behavior problems, because structure may be a relatively static characteristic of classroom climate, while supportive relationships among students may possibly be submersed by negative relationships among
students given the principle that bad is stronger than good in psychological phenomena (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001).
This study was conducted at the start of a new schoolyear, which may have colored the findings of this study, and may partly explain the non-significant findings for three classroom dimensions, since development of supportive teacher-student relationships may need time to establish, just as positive affiliations among students. Literature describes the start of a new schoolyear as a social challenging event in every child’s life (Davis, Donzella, Krueger, & Gunnar, 1999). It might therefore be possible that the assessment time did have an influence on the behavior of the students and subsequently the atmosphere in the classroom. Children with behavior problems may experience the entry in a new group as relatively stressful, in particular when they have to deal with other students showing externalizing (e.g., conduct disorder) or internalizing problems (e.g., anxiety) (Granger, Stansbury & Henker, 1994; McBurnett, 1991).
The present study contributes to knowledge on the psychological atmosphere in the classroom, accounting for student characteristics, such as age and gender. For instance, there is some evidence showing that teachers perceive boys as more problematic than girls, which is not evident in student self-report. Moreover, age differences in internalizing and externalizing problems also seem to depend on the different perception of teachers and students. When conducting research on classroom climate, it is therefore not only important to focus on the time of year (i.e., the start of the end of a school year), but to also focus on the perceptions of both teacher and students.
A first limitation of this study is that it is fully based on self-report questionnaires, although multi-informant, using a classroom climate instrument that has never been validated for the use in special education classes. Future research should also involve observation to obtain a more complete picture of the classroom climate in special education. However, so far, to our knowledge most (or perhaps even all) observational measures, just as questionnaires, have been developed and validated for the assessment of classroom climate in regular education (Altaf, 2015). Notably, students with emotional and behavioral problems attending special education differ from students attending regular
education, having mental disorders, higher prevalences of trauma, conduct problems, and sometimes even taking education in residential schools of (secure) youth institutions (Beld, 2019; Colins et al., 2010; Van Dam, Nijhof, Scholte &Veerman, 2010). It is plausible to suggest that differences in student characteristics and organization of schools for special education lead to dissimilar classroom dynamics compared with regular education (Beld, Van der Voort, Van der Helm, Van der Kuiper, & Stams, 2017). Beld (2019) therefore concluded in her recent dissertation that there is not only little known about the antecedents and consequences of classroom climate in special education, but there is also no well validated measuring instrument available to assess the different dimension of classroom climate in special education, except for one instrument that she developed and validated herself, the Special Education Classroom Climate Inventory (SECCI) (Beld et al., 2017).
Another limitation is that this study is cross-sectional, while transactional processes between classroom climate and behavior problems are likely to occur. Such dynamic processes can only be examined in a longitudinal study with at least three measurement waves. The next limitation is that continuous dependent variables had to be dichotomized due to non-normality of the distribution, which reduces variance and therefore statistical power to detect significant effects. We would have preferred to use clinical BPM cut-off scores for dichotomization of internalizing and externalizing problems, but no such validated cut-off scores were available for students with emotional and behavioral problems attending special education. We therefore chose a median split. Finally, this study was conducted in Amsterdam and during the start of the school year, which limits the generalizability of our research finding.
Despite the limitations of this study, it is the first to examine the relation between classroom climate and both internalizing and externalizing behavior of students with emotional and behavioral problems attending special education. Previous studies only looked at externalizing problematic behavior (See Beld, 2017). It could be interesting for future studies to examine the association between classroom climate and behavior problems in non-urban areas. It would also be interesting to include the presence or absence of certain competences of the teacher, such as sensitivity, method of
communication, firmness, and perceived competence. The findings of the current study provide teachers who work in special education with information on how important class climate is for the healthy functioning of a student within class.
The correlational character of this study does not warrant causal conclusions. It would therefore be interesting to examine whether classroom climate can be systematically influenced by means of and intervention, and whether or not improvement in classroom climate is subsequently associated with a decrease of internalizing and externalizing problems in students. Effective classroom management and implementation of an emotional learning program are factors that may contribute to a positive classroom climate (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). This means that the teacher must not only be able to understand the behavior of the student in special education, but also have the social and emotional competence and knowledge and skills to adequately respond to the student’s emotional and social special needs (Jennings and Greenberg, 2009).
References
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock C. S. (1978). The classification of child psychopathology: A review and analysis of empirical efforts. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1275–1301.
Al-Zoubi, S. M. & Bani Younes, M. A. (2015). Low Academic Achivment: Causes and Results. Theory and Practice in Language studies, 5(11), 2262-2268. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0511.09
Altaf, M. (2015). Exploring classroom environment through perception. An overview of various inventories. International Journal of Novel Research in Education and Learning, 2, 23-32.
Anderson, G. J. (1970). Effects of classroom social climate on individual learning. American Educational Research Journal, 7, 135-152. doi:10.3102/00028312007002135
Anderson, A., Hamilton, R. J., & Hattie, J. (2004). Classroom climate and motivated behavior in secondary schools. Learning Environments Research, 7, 211-225.
Baker, J. A., Grant, S, & Morlock, L. (2008). The Teacher-Student Relationship As a Developmental Context for Children With Internalizing or Externalizing Behavior Problems. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 3-15. doi: 10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.3
Barth, J. M., Dunlap, S. T., Dane, H., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2004). Classroom environment influences on aggression, peer relations, and academic focus.
Journal of School Psychology, 42, 115-133. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2003.11.004.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. doi: 10.1037//1089-2680.5.4.323
Beld, M. H. M. (2019). Still Learning: The impact of Classroom Climate on Students Attending Secondary Special Education. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Beld, M. H. M., Van der Voort, D., Van der Helm, G. H. P., Van. der Kuiper, C. H. Z., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2017). School attitude, general self-worth, and social identity: The validity of the
About Me Questionnaire for students with severe behavioural problems in school.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Beld, M. H. M., Van der Voort, D. van der; Helm, G. H. P. Van der, Kuiper, C. H. Z., Swart, J. J. W. de, & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2017). Assessing classroom climate in special education: a validation study of the special education classroom climate inventory. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37(7), 736-749. doi: 10.1177/0734282917706618.
Bosker, R., & W. Hofman (1994). School effects on drop-out. A multi-level logistic approach to assessing school-level correlates of drop-out of ethnic minorities. Tijdschrift voor
Onderwijsresearch, 19, 50-64.
Breeman, L.D., Lier van, P.A.C., Wubbels, T., Verhulst, F.C., Ende van der, J., Maras, A.,
Hopman, J.A.B., & Tick, N.T. (2015). Developmental Links Between Disobedient behavior and Social Classroom Relationships in Boys With Psychiatric Disorders in Special
Education. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 43, 787-799. doi: 10.1007/s10802-014-9935-0
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals of Child Development, 6, 187 – 249.
Carman, G. O., Dorta, N., Kon, D., Martin, J., & Zarrilli, M. A. (2004). Special Education in Residential treatment. Child an Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 13, 381-394.
Cervone, D., Shadel, W. G. & Jencius, S. (2001). Social-Cognitive Theory of Personality Assessment. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(1), 33-51. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_3
Clifford, M., Menon, R., Gangi, T., Condon, C., & Hornung, K. (2012). Measuring school climate for gaugling principal performance: A review of the validity and reliability of publicly accessible measures. Washington: American Institute for Research.
Colins, O., Vermeiren, R., Vreugdenhil, C., van den Brink, W., Doreleijers, T., & Broekaert, E. (2010). Psychiatric disorders in detained male adolescents: A systematic literature review.
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55, 255-263.
Crosnoe, R. ( 2002). High school curriculum track and adolescent association with delinquent friends. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 143-167. doi:10.1177/ 0743558402172003
Davis, E. P., Donzella,B., Krueger, W. K. & Gunnar, M.R. (1999). The Start of a New School Year: Individual Differences in Salivary Cortisol Response in Relation to Chils
Temperament. Developmental Psychobioligy, 35(3), 188-196.
Donkers, A., & Vermulst, A. (2011). Klimaatschaal. Meetinstrument voor het vaststellen van het pedagogisch klimaat voor groepen in het basis, voortgezet en het middelbaar onderwijs [Climatescale. Instrument for determining climate in the higher classrooms of primary education, secondary education and middelschool education]. Uden, Netherlands: Orthopraktijk.
Gietz, C., & McIntosh, K. (2014). Relations between student perceptions of their school
environment and academic achievement. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 1-16. doi:10.1177/0829573514540415.
Gordon, H. R. D., & Weldon, B. (2003). The impact of career and technical education programs on adult offenders: Learning behind bars. Journal of Correctional Education, 54, 200-209. Verkregen op 14 juni, 2014, via http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 2329175
Gover, A. R., MacKenzie, K. L., & Amstrong, C. S. (2000). Importation and deprivation explanations of juveniles’ adjustment to correctional facilities. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 450-467.
doi:10.1177/0306624X00444004
Granger, D. A., Stansbury, K., & Henker, B. (1994). Pre- schoolers’ behavioral and neuroendocrine responses to social challenge. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 190–211.
Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Externalizing behavior prob- lems and academic underachievement in childhood and adolescence: Causal relationships and under- lying mechanism.
Psychological Bulletin, 111, 127–155.
Hall, C.S. (1936). Review of A Dynamic Theory of Personality by Kurt Lemin. American Journal of Psychology, 48, (2), 353-355. doi:10.2307/1415758
Jancic, M. (1998). Does correctional education have an effect on recidivism? Journal of Correctional Education, 49, 152-161. Verkregen op 31 mei, 2014, via
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23294070
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational
Research,79(1), 491-525. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325693
Kiru, E. W. (2019). Special education in Kenya. Intervention in School and Clinic 54, (3), 181-188. doi: 10.1177/1053451218767919
Konijn, C., & Verhulst, F. C. (2006). Psychische problematiek bij kinderen en jongeren: omvang van het probleem. [Mental health problems of children and adolescents. The Scope of the problem]. Utrecht: RIVM.
Lei, H., Cui, Y., Chiu, M.M. (2016). Affective teacher-student relationship and students’
externalizing behavior problems: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1311. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.201601311
Leone, P. & Weinberg, L. (2010). Addressing the unmet educational needs of children and youth in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
Loukas, A. (2007). What Is School Climate? Leadership Compass, 5(1), 1-3.
Maras, P., Demetre, J., Moon, A., & Tolmie, A. (2012). Psychology and antiscocial behaviour in
the classroom. Leicester, UK: The British Psychological Society.
Mash, E. J., & Barkley, R. A. (1996). Child psycho- pathology. New York: Guilford Press.
McBurnett, K., Lahey, B. B., Frick, P. J., Risch, C., Loeber, R., Hart, E. L., Christ, M. A. G., & Hanson, K. S. (1991). Anxiety, inhibition, and conduct disorder in children: II. Relation to salivary cortisol. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 192– 196.
McGrath, K. F., & Van Bergen, P (2015) Who, when, why and to what end? Students at risk of negative student–teacher relationships and their outcomes. Educational Research Review 14, 1–17. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2014.12.001
McRobbie, C. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1993). Associations between student outcomes and 28
Meijer, C. J. W. (2003). Special education across Europe in 2003: Trends in provision in 18 European countries. Brussels: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.
Nordquist, V. M. & Twardosz, S. (1990). Preventing behavior problems in early childhood special education classrooms trough environmental organization. Education & Treatment of Children, 13(4), 274-282.
Nurmi, J. (2012). Students’ characteristics and teacher-child relationships in instruction: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 7, 177-197.
Onderwijsinspectie (2019). De Staat van het Onderwijs. Retreived on December 4, 2019 from https://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/documenten/rapporten/2019/04/10/hoofdlijnen-de-staat-van-het-onderwijs-2019
Pinxten, M., Wouters, S., Preckel, F., Niepel, C., De Fraine, B., & Verschueren, K. (2015). The formation of academic self-concept in elementary education: A unifying model for external and internal comparisons. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 124-132.
Quinn, M. M., Rutherford, R. B., Leone, P. L., Osher, P. E., & Poirier, J. M. (2005). Youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey. Council for Exceptional Children, 71, 339-345.
Reid, R., Gonzalez, G. E., Nordness, P. D., Trout, A., & Epstein, M. H. (2004). A Meta-Analyses of the Academic Status of Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disturbance. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 130-143.
Scholte E.M. & Stoutjesdijk R. (2011), Speciaal onderwijs en jeugdzorg. In: Duits N., Bartels J.A.C. (red.) Jeugdpsychiatrie en recht. Assen: Van Gorcum. 46-53. doi:
Skårbrevik, K. J. (2001). Disabilities Among Norwegian Students Found Eligible for Special
Education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 48(3), 253-268.
Steffgen, G., Recchia, S., & Viechtbauer, W. (2013). The link between school climate and violence in school: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 300 - 309.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.12.001
Stoutjesdijk, R., & Scholte, E. M. (2009). Special education for children with psychiatric problems: a comparison between students in sepa- rated schools for special education and students in inclusive educa- tion. [cluster 4 speciaal onderwijs: een vergelijking tussen leerlingen op cluster 4 scholen en cluster 4 rugzakleerlingen.]. Tijdschrift Voor Orthopedagogiek, 48, 161–169.
Scholte E.M. & Stoutjesdijk R. (2011), Speciaal onderwijs en jeugdzorg. In: Duits N., Bartels J.A.C. (red.) Jeugdpsychiatrie en recht. Assen: Van Gorcum. 46-53.
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357-385.
UNICEF (2019). Retreived from: https://www.unicef.org/education on 28-november 2019.
Van Dam, C., Nijhof, K., Scholte, R., & Veerman, J. W. (2010). Evaluatie nieuw 29 zorgaanbod gesloten jeugdzorg voor jongeren met ernstige gedragsproblemen [Evaluation of a new care
supply in secure residential youth care for juveniles with severe behaviour problems]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Praktikon.
Van de Werfhorst, H. G., Bergstra, M., & Veenstra, R. (2012). School disciplinary climate,
behavioral problems, and academic achievement in the Netherlands. In R. Arum & M. Velez (Eds.), Improving learning environments. School discipline and student achievement in comparative perspective (pp. 196 -221). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Veen, A., Vergeer, M., Van Oenen, S., Glaudé, M., & Breetvelt, I. (2007). ZonMw
programmeringsstudie jeugd. Deelstudie 1: effecten van interventies in pedagogische basisvoorzieningen. Amsterdam: SCO- Kohnstamm Instituut.
Wagner, M., Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., Epstein, M. H., & Sumi, W. C. (2005). The Children and Youth We Serve: A National Picture of the Characteristics of Students With Emotional Distyrbances Receiving Special Education. Journal of the Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13, 79-96.
Wissink, I. B., Dekovic, M., Stams, G. J. J. M., Asscher, J. J., Rutten, E. A., & Zijlstra, B. J. H. (2014). Moral orientation and relationships in school and adolescent pro- and antisocial behaviors: A multilevel study. Journal of School Nursing, 30, 216- 22.
Wihall, J. (1949). The Development of a Technique for the Measurement of Social-Emotional Climate in Classroom. The Journal of Experimental Education, 17(3), 347-361. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1949.11010391
