Profiles of self-concept, goal orientation, and self-regulation in students with physical, intellectual, and multiple disabilities: Implications for instructional support

Abstract

The present study explored physical self-concept, goal orientation in sport, and self-regulation in regard to a motor task, in 75 secondary students with physical, intellectual, and multiple disabilities, who were educated in the same special education units. It was found that students with intellectual disabilities generally presented a positive profile in all three psychosocial constructs, whereas students with physical disabilities presented low scores in most measures. Students with multiple disabilities did not differ essentially from students with intellectual disability in regard to physical self-concept and goal orientation; however, they compared unfavorably to them regarding self-regulation. The delineation of a distinct and defendable profile of self-concept, goal orientation, and self-regulation for each disability group allows the formulation of proposals for the implementation of appropriate instructional programs for students belonging to the above mentioned categories.

Introduction

Self-concept, goal orientation, and self-regulation are regarded as key determinants of effective task implementation in the case of individuals both with and without disabilities (e.g., Hart and Evans, 2006, Jagacinski et al., 2008, Schunk and Pajares, 2005, Switzky, 2006). Comparisons between populations of individuals with and without disabilities have shown that lowered self-concept, deficient goal-orientation, and inadequate self-regulation constitute main reasons for the drawbacks and shortcomings in task participation and completion often presented by individuals with disabilities, especially those with physical, intellectual, and multiple disabilities (e.g., Coakley et al., 2006, Eisenhower et al., 2007, Kozub et al., 2000, Shields et al., 2006).

Individuals with physical disabilities have been found to be in the position to reach general self-concept levels comparable to those of their typical peers, despite the difficulties they may encounter in the developmental course of their self-concept (e.g., Manuel et al., 2003, Russo et al., 2008, Schuengel et al., 2006, Shields et al., 2007). However, students belonging to this group have been also found to exhibit low self-concept in reference to activities requiring motor competence, such as physical education or athletics (Appleton et al., 1994, King et al., 1993, Miyahara and Piek, 2006, Tam, 1998). Studies on goal orientation in individuals with physical disabilities have yielded mixed results. There are researches concluding that no significant differences exist in terms of goal orientation between groups of athletes with and without physical disabilities (e.g., Fliess-Douer et al., 2003, Page et al., 2000, Skordilis et al., 2006, White and Duda, 1993); other researches, however, have shown that, compared to typical individuals, individuals with physical disabilities may be stronger oriented toward task involvement and self-improvement (Brasile et al., 1991, Pensgaard et al., 1999). As far as self-regulation is concerned, Kunnen, 1990, Kunnen, 1992 has concluded that students with congenital physical disabilities show diminished interest and inadequate persistence in task completion, reduced attribution of success to themselves, unrealistic perceptions of self-competence, discrepant expectations following a success or a failure, insufficient exploitation of feedback, and inadequate use of information on the task characteristics. Jennings, Connors, and Stegman (1988), and Smidt and Cress (2004) have come to similar conclusions. In another study, Kunnen and Steenbeek (1999) found that, compared to other disability groups, students with physical disabilities often show low perceived contingency, thus having difficulty differentiating between factors leading to success or to failure. It is worth mentioning, that in some subgroups of physical disabilities, e.g., in individuals presenting cerebral palsy or spina bifida, research shows that action planning and focus of attention on task implementation is often beyond their deliberate control (e.g., Chen and Yang, 2007, Rose and Holmbeck, 2007, Smidt and Cress, 2004).

In the case of individuals with intellectual disabilities (especially regarding those included in the mild- to-moderate group, as research on severe intellectual disabilities in reference to self-concept is extremely scant) there is evidence that the mechanisms they tend to employ for protecting their general self-concept are comparable to the mechanisms utilized by typically developing individuals (e.g., Dagnan and Sandhu, 1999, Li et al., 2006, Tracey, 2002); moreover, research shows that individuals with intellectual disabilities tend to maintain a positive general self-concept, due to the compromising (and in this case also protective) role of their mental limitations, in regard to the perception of the full extent of their incapability (e.g., Cunningham and Glenn, 2004, Weiss et al., 2003). On the other hand, students with intellectual disabilities tend to exhibit low academic self-concept, following the general rule that individuals with disabilities tend to expect negative outcomes in coping with tasks presupposing functional intactness in domains directly affected by their disability (Kunnen and Steenbeek, 1999, Marsh et al., 2006a). In contrast, athletic self-concept of students with intellectual disabilities has been found to be comparable to the one of students with typical development (Li et al., 2006, Russell et al., 2002). In reference to goal-orientation, there is evidence that, following adequate support, and probably by employing downward comparisons (i.e. comparisons with persons regarded as being worse off on the dimension of concern to the individual, e.g., Jahoda & Markova, 2004), individuals with mild intellectual disabilities may develop both ego and task orientation, which may be high enough to compare favorably with the goal-orientation of other individuals with disabilities, e.g., individuals with specific learning disabilities (Milo, Seegers, Ruijssenaars, & Vermeer, 2004). As far as self-regulation of individuals with intellectual disabilities is concerned, research has revealed their limited ability to achieve it (Eisenhower et al., 2007, Gilmore et al., 2003, McIntyre et al., 2006), especially in reference to effort maintenance and persistence in task completion (e.g., Kozub et al., 2000, Niccols et al., 2003). Specifically in reference to goal setting in individuals with intellectual disabilities, Copeland and Hughes (2002) support the view that, irrespective of whether the goals have been chosen by the individuals themselves or by other persons, existence of goal setting positively influences achievement in all areas. Although students with intellectual disabilities may need specific instructional support for using the goals, such as visual representation and systematic feedback on task implementation, they seem to benefit from being oriented toward specific goals.

Study of self-concept, goal orientation, and self-regulation in students with multiple disabilities has always been a challenge for researchers, mainly due to the communicative limitations of these individuals, and the questionable adequacy of the available measures. Hence, the respective results have been mixed, and many issues pertinent to this population remain unexplored. For example, in reference to general self-concept some studies show that students presenting both physical and intellectual disabilities cannot preserve a high general self-concept (Buelow et al., 2003, Camfield et al., 2003, Fernell et al., 1992). Coakley et al. (2006) have established that students with spina bifida and mental retardation score low on measures of general, academic, and social self-concept; however, other researchers have established that the already mentioned protective function of low intelligence in reference to self-concept, may also stand in the case of individuals with multiple disabilities (e.g., Buelow et al., 2003). In reference to goal orientation in the population of students with multiple disabilities, the present researchers have not been able to detect any major studies. Research on self-regulation in students with multiple disabilities, on the other hand, is scant but informative. In such a study Smidt and Cress (2004) have shown that there are positive correlations between mental age of students with motor disabilities and their exploratory behavior, their persistence in task completion, and their involvement in assignment implementation. Students presenting cerebral palsy and mental retardation show lower levels of self-regulation compared to students with down-syndrome (Eisenhower, Baker, & Blacher, 2005); students presenting epilepsy and cognitive disorders show almost insurmountable difficulty in organizing self-regulatory behavior (Eisenhower et al., 2005).

As already mentioned, existent research on self-concept, goal orientation, and self-regulation in individuals with physical, motor, and multiple disabilities has focused, for the most part, on comparisons between one disability group and a population of typically developing counterparts. Studies employing comparisons between disability groups are scant, especially in reference to multiple disabilities. Moreover, each of the three above-mentioned dimensions of psychosocial functioning has been mostly investigated in isolation; this fact prevents the delineation of wider profiles of psychosocial functioning for each disability group. Despite the indisputable contribution of the results coming from comparisons between individuals with and without disabilities to the quality of the support provided to the individuals belonging to the various disability groups, many questions pertinent to the complex demands of the programs meant for these individuals remain unanswered. This lack of evidence acquires enhanced importance in frameworks where individuals from different disability categories are participating in common educational programs. In such cases the dynamics of the interaction among the individuals may create situations that cannot be anticipated on the basis of results obtained through the study of isolated groups or through comparisons between populations with disabilities and population with typical development.

Common educational programs for individuals belonging to different disability groups are likely to be found, to a smaller or larger extent, in every educational system; however, in educational systems that only recently started providing systematic services to individuals with physical, intellectual, and multiple disabilities this likelihood increases dramatically. Example of such a system is the Greek one. In the last decade burgeoning numbers of students presenting physical, intellectual or multiple disabilities participate in educational programs implemented by the Ministry of Education, especially at the secondary education level (Pedagogical Institute, 2004). Students from all three categories are very often educated in the same classroom, due to limited resources, shortage of specialized personnel, guidelines of educational policy, or local (e.g., geographical) circumstances. This development constitutes a pedagogical challenge, but also an opportunity for studying self-concept, goal orientation, and self-regulation under the influence of the interactions among the different disability groups. Aims of the present research, then, are: (a) to investigate the profile of self-concept, goal orientation, and self-regulation, in secondary education students with physical, intellectual, and multiple disabilities, who participate in common educational programs, and (b) to pinpoint the impact of the differences on the instructional support offered to the individuals belonging to these three disability groups.