Inclusive Education of Students With General Learning Difficulties: A Meta-Analysis
Primary school (grades 1–6) Lower secondary (grades 7–9) Across ages Special education and inclusion
Links to claims
Limits (1)
| Claim | Basis |
|---|---|
| C31 | Full text: pupils with general learning difficulties scored higher in inclusive settings (d = 0.35; 0.64 propensity-matched), but gains over time did not differ (longitudinal d = 0.05). C31 weakened 2026-10-31. |
Review state: first-pass draft, pending human review.
Source note
Syntes: Krämer, Möller & Zimmermann (2021) — pupils with general learning difficulties score higher in inclusive settings, but do not gain faster over time
Källa: Krämer, S.; Möller, J.; Zimmermann, F. (2021). Inclusive Education of Students With General Learning Difficulties: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research 91(3), 432–478. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321998072
Verified content
- [full text] 40 studies, 428 effect sizes, N = 11,987. "General learning difficulties" (GLD): pupils with learning difficulties across subjects, often with a below-average IQ of roughly 50–90 (p. 435).
- [full text] Cognitive (academic) outcomes of pupils with GLD, inclusive vs segregated: d = 0.35 (SE .09, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.52; 16 samples); 0.28 (CI 0.17 to 0.40) with one or two outliers removed (Tables 2 and 6). Mathematical and verbal outcomes alike (0.32 each).
- [full text] Design moderated the effect: cross-sectional comparisons d = 0.48 (CI 0.30 to 0.66) vs longitudinal gains over time d = 0.05 (CI −0.16 to 0.25), difference significant (F(1, 159) = 30.68, p < .001).
- [full text] Matching: samples fully matched by propensity scores d = 0.64 (CI 0.32 to 0.96; 4 samples); controlled for cognitive ability etc. d = 0.21 (CI −0.05 to 0.47; 7); neither d = 0.29 (CI 0.02 to 0.57; 5); the three groups did not differ significantly (p = .12).
- [full text] Psychosocial outcomes of pupils with GLD: d = 0.00. Peers without GLD: cognitive d = −0.14 (CI −0.32 to 0.04), psychosocial d = 0.06.
Limits
- [assessment] Non-randomised studies throughout; the authors discuss selection (better-performing pupils with GLD may be placed in inclusive classes). Only pupils with general learning difficulties, not all special educational needs. The longitudinal subgroup — the one closest to a causal test — shows no extra gain.
Why it is in the library
Applied 2026-10-31 (nightly attacks) against C31's "neither raises nor lowers … by a reliable amount": a reliable level advantage for pupils with GLD, but no difference in gains over time.
Added 2026-10-31 by the project. [full text] = read in the published article.
Metadata as recorded
- ID
- SEND-004
- Tier
- meta
- Titel
- Inclusive Education of Students With General Learning Difficulties: A Meta-Analysis
- Författare
- Krämer, S.; Möller, J.; Zimmermann, F.
- År
- 2021
- Källa/DOI
- https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321998072
- Tidskrift
- Review of Educational Research 91(3), 432–478
- Typ
- three-level meta-analysis of 40 studies (428 effect sizes, N = 11,987) comparing students with general learning difficulties (and peers without) in inclusive vs segregated settings; cognitive (academic) and psychosocial outcomes; moderators include design (cross-sectional vs longitudinal) and matching
- Åldersgrupp
- grundskola-lag;grundskola-hog;overgripande
- Teman
- specialpedagogik-och-inkludering
- Hämtad
- 2026-10-31
- Paywall
- listed open access by Unpaywall (publisher)
- Verifierad
- Crossref DOI 10.3102/0034654321998072 checked 2026-10-31 (title, three authors, RER 91(3) 432–478); numbers from the full text
- Status
- added 2026-10-31 (nightly attacks); C31 weakened.
The original files (PDF or abstract) are kept in the project archive and are not published here.