Next Article in Journal
Investigating the Impact of the Stratified Cognitive Apprenticeship Model on High School Students’ Math Performance
Previous Article in Journal
Development of the Checklist for Imitation, Exploration and Imagination Behaviour for Play Observation in Preschool Age
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/educsci14080897
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Peer Rejection and Academic Performance in Early Childhood: The Mediating Role of Special Educational Needs of Spanish Students

by
Luis J. Martín-Antón
,
Paula Molinero-González
*,
Miguel Á. Carbonero-Martín
,
Wendy L. Arteaga-Cedeño
and
José Luis Rodríguez-Sáez
Excellence Research Group GR179 Educational Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Valladolid, 47011 Valladolid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(8), 897; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080897
Submission received: 15 July 2024 / Revised: 9 August 2024 / Accepted: 13 August 2024 / Published: 17 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Special and Inclusive Education)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Peer rejection occurs at all stages of education, including infant education, and entails serious consequences, both immediately and in the future, in all areas of children’s development. This study aims to gain insight into the link between peer rejection and academic performance, mediated by the presence of special educational needs (SEN). The study involved the participation of 758 students (397 male) in the second cycle of early childhood education (3–6 years old) in Spain who were given a sociometric test to ascertain the sociometric distribution of each classroom. Their teachers were asked to record the academic performance of each student in terms of language, logic-mathematics, psychomotor ability, and overall performance. Teachers were also asked to identify whether or not students had SEN. By applying a multivariate variance analysis (MANOVA) that considered the presence or otherwise of peer rejection and the presence or otherwise of SEN as independent variables, results show that rejected students display poorer academic performance in all areas. The same was also found to be true for those with SEN. As a result, rejected students with SEN are seen to exhibit the poorest academic performance and suffer two-fold stigmatisation.

1. Introduction

Rejected students are those who, for a variety of reasons and circumstances, are unpopular with many of their classmates [1]. This can either prevent them from or seriously hinder their ability to acquire the basic social skills required to establish satisfactory relations with their peers, which in turn triggers serious negative consequences in both the long and short term [2,3,4,5]. Approximately between 10% and 15% of students in a classroom are rejected by their classmates [3,6,7,8,9], a percentage which nears 10% in infant education [9,10], with boys tending to be more affected [7,10,11,12,13]. Indeed, the negative impact this has on boys can be up to three times greater than on girls [9], with boys also tending to have only half as much chance of being popular [12]. Rejected students do not constitute a uniform or homogeneous group [14], although there do tend to be groups more prone to being rejected by their peers as a result of displaying certain characteristics, such as exhibiting special educational needs (SEN) or below-standard academic performance in areas such as language, logic-mathematics or psychomotor development, which are skills that involve a great deal of interrelation at the infant stage [15].
Social acceptance or rejection is linked to academic performance [16,17,18], with said performance often proving to be a cause of rejection when low [19], in particular as children progress through the education system [18], since feeling rejected impacts students’ academic performance, effectiveness, and academic engagement [19]. Studies have shown the importance of examining how peer relations and academic performance develop and have underscored the impact of positive and negative relations on student performance [16]. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that academic performance, as assessed by teachers, tends to correlate more closely to peer acceptance than when performance is measured through standardised tests [18].
Language and communication play a pivotal role in academic performance. Recent studies have shown that students with a lower capacity for oral communicative competence are more likely to be rejected by their peers [20,21], with gender playing no part and proving equally determinant for both boys and girls alike [21]. This is also reflected in self-concept since rejection affects low verbal and mathematical self-concept in students’ externalising behaviour [22,23]. It has also been shown that shy students [24] or those who display behavioural inhibition find themselves more isolated [25]. Broadly speaking, having a more limited capacity for communication leads to students tending to have fewer and poorer quality friendships, such that they are more vulnerable before their peers [26]. Indeed, the likelihood of students with language disorders—the most widely rejected group due to their communication problems [27]—establishing friendships is 50% lower when compared to other students [28]. Moreover, affinity in language terms can play a key role in emotional connection and when making friends since sharing a common language aids effective communication, fosters deeper mutual understanding and helps create strong ties of friendship [29]. It is important to remember that oral competence is developed, particularly at the infant stage, so encouraging and stimulating it in the classroom is crucial [30]. It is also believed that students who display more advanced motor skills tend to be more popular and forge more positive relations with their classmates when compared to those who are less competent in motor terms [31]. There is, however, little information on the link between motor skills and sociometric status and on the extent to which this impacts the self-perception of social status [32].
Students with SEN who find themselves in inclusive environments tend to achieve better academic competence (literacy, mathematics, reading, and science) [33]. It should be remembered that many SEN students in Spain—84.2%—are enrolled in regular education and that these are mainly students with serious behavioural (98.1%) as well as communication and language disorders (98.0%) [34]. Nevertheless, the percentage of students with special educational needs in inclusive schools who are less popular and who are more rejected when compared to their peers without SEN still remains high [35,36,37,38]. In general, it is more common to find students with SEN in the sociometric status of rejected or neglected students. Whereas 9.2% of children with SEN are rejected, those with SEN account for 29.2% of this sociometric status. Moreover, 15.2% of children without SEN are popular, compared to 4.7% of students with SEN [37]. In addition, any problems or different behaviours that these students might display could also further the risk of experiencing peer rejection and falling victim to negative situations in the school environment [39]. Although inclusive education practices worldwide have experienced significant growth over the last few years [40], both in visible difficulties (e.g., spina bifida, cerebral palsy, dysphemia) as well as in invisible difficulties (e.g., problems of behaviour, attention, hyperactivity), students continue to endure more rejection than their peers who have no such difficulties [41]. They also receive fewer positive nominations and more negative nominations than their peers who do not have SEN [38]. Nevertheless, as students progress through the various stages of education, there are certain disabilities—such as blindness—that do appear to be more widely accepted among students [42]. Students with SEN form quite a heterogeneous group who, despite being more rejected and less accepted by the rest, do not tend to differ in terms of their sense of belonging [35], although the rejection felt amongst this group does evidence certain common features [37]: (a) in addition to when in class, rejection may also appear during play, such that promoting recreational-cooperative strategies is necessary in order to boost personal relationships [43], (b) the perception of teachers and families vis-à-vis the social position of these students is more positive than is expressed by their classmates, and is slightly more accurately perceived by these students’ support teachers [44,45], (c) teachers tend to view them as being less competent, which can lead to the self-fulfilling prophecy, (d) there is a greater likelihood of this group being rejected, and it is uncommon for them to be popular, (e) they tend to feel more mistreated by their classmates (being hit, insulted, teased), and (f) they tend to have a worse social reputation and a more negative self-perception.
Peer rejection or acceptance is one of the most widely recognised determinants of development, since the experiences that occur in people’s environment help forge the necessary maturity required to develop healthy relationships in the future [46] and can affect students’ psychological [47] and emotional [48] well-being. This study seeks to gain insight into the link between peer rejection and academic performance, taking into account how this may be moderated by the presence or absence of special educational needs in Spanish students in early childhood. The results may help to promote specific educational intervention that fosters enhanced performance and social success for these students [49].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The sample is made up of 758 Spanish students from 39 s cycle infant education classes who attended eight urban and semi-urban schools in a province of the Spanish region of Castilla y León (Table 1), with 52% (n = 397) male and 48% (n = 361) female; 32% (n = 241) of the students are in first year infant education (3–4 years old), 30% (n = 226) in second year (4–5 years old), with the remaining 38% (n = 291) being in the third year (5–6 years old); 58% attend publicly owned schools (n = 438) whereas the remaining 42% (n = 320) attend semi-private schools (n = 50); 6.6% (n = 50) evidence special educational needs resulting from situations of personal disability (intellectual, physical, delayed maturity…), while a further 1.2% (n = 9) have special educational needs arising from contextual conditions (generally, not speaking the language). It should be remembered that at this stage of education, students who need compensatory strategies are not considered, as there is as yet no academic gap. Neither is starting school later taken into account since this stage of education is not compulsory.

2.2. Measures

The data collection instruments used were as follows:
Sociometric questionnaire of peer nominations (GREI, 2009; published in [50]). This is a peer nomination instrument wherein students must choose which classmates they would like to be with and which they would not, with no limit on the number of nominations in a class. It identifies the sociometric status of each student: popular, rejected, neglected, controversial or average. It is applied in the form of an individual interview. Given the participants’ age, the questionnaire was adapted to a question–answer game in which students are shown a picture of their personalised school bus. When shown the photographs of their friends and classmates, each student is told that they can take with them those they would like to go on a trip with, and that they can remove those they do not like, giving the reasons for their choice [50].
Classroom data sheets (ad-hoc, GREI adapted, 2014 [51]) in which each teacher notes down relevant sociodemographic data on their students (name, class number, gender, age) and whether they require special educational needs or not, and if so the nature thereof. The only students to be considered were those whose educational needs were due to personal situations that had been officially recognised by prior diagnosis, and who had undergone psycho-educational evaluation, and for whom approval had been granted by the education authorities. As regards educational needs due to contextual causes, the education authorities normally take this into account if there is a significant academic gap vis-à-vis what should be expected for a student’s age, which is not possible at this stage since education is not compulsory. As a result, the only SEN cases identified are those of students from other countries who do not speak Spanish. This instrument also collects information on the student’s performance, both in terms of acquiring various skills (language and communication, logic-mathematics, and psychomotor ability), as well as overall performance. These variables are rated on a scale of 0 (very low) to 5 (very high). For this, teachers had to take into account the assessment rubrics, notes and marks from the two previous evaluations carried out in the year (first and second term) of the knowledge areas related to the skills being measured, without taking into consideration performance marks or grades from previous years.

2.3. Procedure and Data Analysis

This study gained the approval of the Research Ethics Committee (CEIM, code 21-2335 NO HCUV) and of the education authorities. The eight schools were chosen at random from amongst those who responded positively to the invitation to take part, after being sent a letter detailing the study. Care was taken to ensure a balanced representation between public and semi-private schools. Once signed informed consent has been obtained from relatives or legal representatives, data were collected. This was performed by two researchers during teaching hours, and teachers were given a few days to fill in the classroom data sheet. When processing the data, any identifying details were codified in order to ensure their protection such that the researchers had no access to students’ names—only a code. The correspondence between the code and the students’ names was known only to the teachers.
Descriptive analyses were carried out to examine the sociometric distribution, and the chi-squared statistic was also calculated (χ2) to determine whether any significant differences existed. We also analysed whether there were any differences in sociometric distribution in terms of whether or not the student had specific educational needs. We also calculated the adjusted standardised residuals (ASR), taking as a criterion significant differences in frequency if the value exceeded the range [–1.96, 1.96]. After checking the parametric assumptions (principally, normal distribution of the scores, lack of multicollinearity, and equality of covariance matrices), descriptive and inferential analyses were carried out, applying, in the first instance, a two-factor multivariate factorial design (MANOVA). The independent variables were peer rejection and special educational needs (SEN), and the dependent variables were academic performance. The effect size was calculated using the partial eta square statistic, considering: 0.01 < η2p < 0.05 a small effect size; 0.06 < η2p < 0.13, a moderate effect size; and η2p > 0.14, a large effect size [52]. To examine in more depth the differences in the main effects, the parametric t-test for two independent groups was applied, and the effect size was also included by calculating Hedges’ g [53]. Cut-off points were established [52] as (a) g = 0.20, small effect size; (b) g = 0.50, moderate effect size; and (c) g = 0.80, large effect size. For this purpose, we used the statistical package IBM SPSS Statistics, version 29 (2023).

3. Results

3.1. Sociometric Distribution

Table 2 shows the sociometric distribution of the whole sample, wherein 11.4% of students are rejected by their peers. Nevertheless, this percentage is very different amongst those without SEN (9%) and those with special educational needs resulting from personal (36%) or social causes (56%). Much the same occurs with the popular sociometric status, wherein there is a much higher percentage of students who do not have special educational needs (9%). The high percentage of boxes with a frequency below five prevented the statistical test from being conducted. As a result, Table 3 shows the same analysis, but grouping the type of educational needs.
Significant differences also emerged between those who have or who do not have specific educational needs, χ2 (4, N = 758) = 53.28, p < 0.001, with a significantly higher percentage of rejected students amongst those who do have special educational needs (39%) compared to those who do not (9%), with an ASR value = ±6.9. The opposite is true as regards average sociometric status, wherein there is a greater percentage of students without SEN (69%) than with SEN (41%), with an ASR value = ±4.5.

3.2. Performance, Peer Rejection, and Educational Needs

As seen in Table 4, there is a tendency towards higher values in all the areas of academic performance of those who do not suffer peer rejection. The same trend occurs with students who do not have SEN.
Using a 2 × 2 multivariate factor (MANOVA) analysis, we examined the effects of the interaction of the independent variables—(a) peer rejection and (b) specific educational needs—on the target dependent variables. Variance inflation factor (VIF) values are between 1 and 5, indicating moderate multicollinearity. Nevertheless, equality of covariances was not met, Box’s M = 131.7, F (30, 25000) = 4.19, p < 0.001, such that we used Pillai’s trace since it is the most robust statistic in small samples or when the assumption of covariance homogeneity is violated. The MANOVA results (Table 5) revealed no interaction between the two independent variables. Nevertheless, statistically significant differences did emerge in the principal effects in the two independent variables considered in the study, both with a small effect size.

3.3. Main Effects of the Peer Rejection Variable

Table 6 shows that students who are rejected by their peers show lower scores in all areas of academic performance when compared to those who are not rejected, with a large effect size in the case of psychomotor ability and overall performance (g = 0.89 and g = 0.82, respectively), and a moderate effect size in language and communication, and logic-mathematics (g = 0.73 and g = 0.69, respectively).

3.4. Main Effects of the Special Educational Needs Variable

Statistically significant differences were found in all areas of academic performance (Table 7), with moderate effect sizes in logic-mathematics and psychomotor performance (g = 0.79 and g = 0.68, respectively) and a large effect size in language and communication as well as overall global performance (g = 0.98 and g = 1.01, respectively).

4. Discussion

Rejection rates in classrooms stand at between 10% and 15% [3,6,7,8,9]. In this study, 11.4% of participants were found to suffer peer rejection, which is closer to the 10% that tends to be encountered in infant education [9,10]. Data seem to indicate that there are certain groups of students who are more likely to suffer peer rejection [14], with one such group being those with special educational needs (SEN). These data evidence the importance of raising teacher awareness of the classroom reality and underscore the need for teachers to reflect on their thoughts concerning the education system with regard to issues such as student integration [54].
Of the 87 students who are rejected, 23 have SEN, with 39% of SEN students being rejected compared to 9.2% of students without SEN. These percentages are similar to those reported by Monjas et al. [37], who find that 9.2% of children without SEN are rejected—the same as in this study—and that those with SEN account for 29.2% of this sociometric status, with the percentage in this group being higher (39%). Students with SEN are also seen to be less popular [37]. Of those who took part in this study, only 3.4% of students with SEN are popular, compared to 9.4% of students without SEN. These data support the idea that a high percentage of students with SEN are less accepted and more often rejected compared to their peers who do not have special needs [35,36,37,38].
As a result, it is necessary to adopt classroom strategies that can provide a safe environment and increase openness, democracy and mutual respect among students [55]. Bearing this in mind, it is possible to carry out activities based on the principles of the Philosophy for Children (P4C) in which the studies by Ab Wahab et al. [56] have highlighted the beneficial impact for students and teachers, and which include (a) activities that foster student thinking, favour the expression of opinions without feeling judged, and gradually embrace adapted debates, (b) activities that foster democracy, furthering mutual respect and empathy towards vulnerable groups, (c) strategies that promote norms such as active listening, patience or treating peers and teachers in a kind manner, (d) proposals that forge the culture of thought amongst students, including activities that help them to think, listen, speak and discuss in the classroom, and (e) practical activities that create a safe classroom environment which encourages socialising and emotional regulation.
Feeling rejected affects students’ academic performance, effectiveness, and academic engagement [19]. Bearing in mind the importance of exploring the link between peer relations and academic performance [16], this study finds that rejected children score lower in all areas of academic performance (language and communication, logic-mathematics, psychomotor ability, and overall performance) compared to those who are not rejected. In order of importance, the principal differences appear to be (a) psychomotor performance, which might explain why students with better motor skills tend to be more popular and to establish more positive relations with their classmates [31]; (b) overall performance, which might prove key, given that it is an assessment variable that takes account of the global appraisal of skills, which is very closely linked to the infant stage [15]; (c) language and communication, which would seem to indicate that students who display low oral communicative competence tend to suffer more frequent rejection [20,21], have fewer and poorer quality friendships, and be more vulnerable before their peers [26]; and (d) logic-mathematics, with the effect of low oral and mathematical self-concept possibly impacting rejection in the student’s externalising behaviour [22,23]. These data support the notion that academic performance is linked to students’ social acceptance and rejection [16,17,18].
Finally, this study explores in depth the differences in academic performance, taking into account whether the student has SEN or not. Even though students with SEN in inclusive schools tend to achieve higher levels of academic competence [33], this study finds that these levels are not the same as for students without SEN. In all areas, students with SEN score lower when compared to students without SEN. In this case, it was found that the areas of global performance, as well as language and communication, were those in which students with SEN scored lower than students without SEN. It should be remembered that students who have problems with communication and language usually attend regular publicly-owned schools (98.0%) [34] and that students with language disorders are those most often rejected due to problems of communication [27], such that this may be one of the key factors triggering the greatest difference in this area of performance. Furthermore, if, at a general level, the class notices that students with SEN behave differently or evidence non-normative problems—both in visible as well as in invisible difficulties [41]—then the risk of peer rejection increases [39]. As a result, students who are rejected and who also have SEN are those who exhibit the lowest academic performance and are students who suffer twofold stigmatisation. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that small effect sizes did emerge in some results. This may be due to participant age since aspects of performance that are still very basic at this stage of development are being taken into account. Motor or language skills are still emerging at such a young age, meaning that major differences may not yet be apparent. However, as students progress through school, differences are to be expected in academic performance depending on whether or not students are rejected and on the degree to which their special needs are more acute.

5. Conclusions

This study seeks to offer insight into the link between peer rejection and academic performance, taking into account how this may be moderated by the presence or otherwise of special educational needs (SEN). In this regard, it was found that students who are rejected by their peers display significantly lower academic performance than the rest. This lower academic performance appears in all the areas of performance analysed, but particularly in overall global performance and psychomotor performance. Much the same was found when considering whether the student had SEN or not, regardless of sociometric status. In this case, it is the areas of global performance as well as language and communication in which SEN students have lower levels than non-SEN students. The combination of the two variables increases the differences, such that rejected students with SEN display poorer performance than rejected students without special educational needs, who, in turn, perform worse than non-rejected students without SEN. This trend is observed in all the areas of performance analysed, such that there is no significant interaction between the two variables.
This study also evidences certain limitations that should be pointed out. The main limitation concerns how academic performance is measured. Although teachers based their assessment on the records of grades and marks obtained, this is still biased due to the assessment standards established by each teacher, particularly at a stage of education that allows for great flexibility in assessment processes. As a result, future studies should apply standardised tests conducted by external evaluators. Furthermore, there are also limitations inherent in the study population itself, such as the communication difficulties experienced by such young children, especially those who are three years old. In a similar vein, the differences between children born at the beginning or at the end of the year are also a determining factor at these ages (especially in 3-year-old classrooms), as well as whether or not they previously attended school in the first cycle of early childhood education (0–3 years old). Added to this is the possible influence of other uncontrolled variables such as socioeconomic level, previous academic performance, or family participation. This latter aspect is particularly important since, although the degree of involvement and educational support shown by families at this stage of schooling is usually very high, it tends to be lower amongst students from socio-culturally or socio-economically disadvantaged families. However, these students are not identified as having educational needs derived from the context (compensatory education), as there is no academic gap. Only those who do not speak Spanish when they join the education system are identified as such. Finally, there are also limitations inherent to transversal studies, which measure a reality that is specific to this particular point in time and that will no doubt evolve throughout the child’s education. In Spain, teachers tend to stay with the same group for the three years of the second cycle of early childhood education. As a result, some second- or third-year teachers might have been influenced by a student’s performance from previous years, although they were instructed to only evaluate performance from the present year.
As a result, for future lines of research, it would be interesting to draw on an external evaluator to measure student performance or for teachers to be given common assessment rubrics, with performance items based on national or regional curricular proposals that would enable academic performance to be appraised objectively with greater accuracy. Likewise, other modulating variables related to performance, such as self-esteem, could also be included. In addition, longitudinal studies could be carried out, measuring sociometric indicators and academic performance throughout each student’s schooling in early childhood. Finally, an analysis could also be carried out of whether student sociometric status might influence teachers’ assessment of academic performance, specifically whether those who are rejected and marginalised may trigger teacher bias against these students, such that teacher bias may influence their neutrality in assessment.
In sum, rejection is a major issue at all stages of education, but especially during the first moments of school when children are fully immersed in their personal and social development. Suffering rejection has both present as well as future consequences, with these being exacerbated by the limitations of requiring special educational needs—whether due to personal or contextual conditions—which can trigger twofold stigmatisation.
As a result, it is essential for teachers to be particularly aware of these situations and to implement measures that minimise the consequences, thereby fostering students’ educational inclusion, especially in the case of children with SEN, since in addition to facing more demanding difficulties and challenges linked to their personal or contextual needs, on many occasions such children also lack the necessary socioemotional development skills. It is, therefore, vital for teachers to take account of the sociometric distribution of their classroom and the degree to which SEN students are accepted. Being aware of the reality of their classroom may individually and collectively help to foster socioemotional skills through standardised programmes and to establish pairs and teams—common at this stage of education—that may prove beneficial and promote relational exchange and opportunities with other peers.
It is imperative for teachers to be trained in practices and strategies that can encourage student inclusion and for teachers to engage in ongoing training in classroom diversity. Many of these practices and strategies can be included in the student’s own routine, such as organising classroom tables taking into account sociometric status, praising students’ prosocial behaviour, fostering individual and group communication, trying to keep disputes to the private domain, promoting emotional expression and regulation activities for both students and teachers, and fostering activities that boost self-esteem, empathy, respect for others, and that help to curb aggressiveness and disruptive behaviour in class.
It is, therefore, critical to conduct constant follow-up so as to pinpoint possible cases of rejection. It is also vital to take into account the curricular adaptations these students require, which will thereby make their education more accessible and realistic. Activities should be encouraged to help children enjoy a classroom atmosphere that is more respectful and empathetic, fostering prosocial behaviours and an acceptance of diversity.
The importance of having the support of other agents—both professionals and relatives—who can help boost students’ academic, social, and emotional skills should also not be forgotten, particularly when it comes to rejected students who have special educational needs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, P.M.-G. and L.J.M.-A.; methodology, L.J.M.-A. and P.M.-G.; formal analysis, L.J.M.-A. and P.M.-G.; research, P.M.-G., L.J.M.-A., M.Á.C.-M., W.L.A.-C. and J.L.R.-S.; resources, P.M.-G., L.J.M.-A. and M.Á.C.-M.; data curation P.M.-G. and L.J.M.-A.; writing—preparation of the original draft, P.M.-G. and L.J.M.-A.; writing—revision and editing, P.M.-G. and L.J.M.-A., M.Á.C.-M., W.L.A.-C. and J.L.R.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Excellence Research Group GR179 “Psychology of Education” by the University of Valladolid (PIP no. 063/231941), financial support was afforded by the Ministry of Universities through the Support for University Teaching Staff Training programme (FPU), reference FPU20/01301, and project “Improving Social-Emotional Competence and coexistence in Early Childhood Education: Teaching strategies to reduce peer rejection supported by e-learning technology” SOEMOEI. Call 2023 R&D&I Projects—Type B. Ministry of Science and Innovation and Universities. State Research Agency. Government of Spain, grant number PID2023-148603OB-I00.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (CEIM, code 21-2335 NO HCUV), and authorisation was given by the Regional Directorate General for Innovation and Teacher Training (Regional Ministry of Education at the Regional Government of Castilla y Leon).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from the families of the study participants.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the cooperation from the schools, teachers, and children who took part.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bianchi, D.; Cavicchiolo, E.; Manganelli, S.; Lucidi, F.; Girelli, L.; Cozzolino, G.; Galli, F.; Alivernini, F. Bullying and victimization in native and immigrant very-low-income adolescents in Italy: Disentangling the roles of peer Acceptance and friendship. Child Youth Care Forum 2021, 50, 1013–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Asher, S.R. Recent advances in the study of peer rejection. In Peer Rejection in Childhood; Asher, S.R., Coie, J.D., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990; pp. 3–14. [Google Scholar]
  3. Rodríguez-Gudiño, M.; Jenaro-Río, C.; Castaño-Calle, R. Students’ perception as an indicator of educational inclusion. Educ. XXI 2022, 25, 357–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kornienko, O.; Ha, T.; Dishion, T.J. Dynamic pathways between rejection and antisocial behavior in peer networks: Update and test of confluence model. Dev. Psychopathol. 2020, 32, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Zarra-Nezhad, M.; Moazami-Goodarzi, A.; Aunola, K.; Nurmi, J.E.; Kiuru, N.; Lerkkanen, M.K. Supportive parenting buffers the effects of low peer acceptance on children’s internalizing problem behaviors. Child Youth Care Forum 2019, 48, 865–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. García-Bacete, F.J.; Carrero Planes, V.E.; Marande Perrin, G.; Musitu Ochoa, G. Understanding Rejection between First-and-Second-Grade Elementary Students through Reasons Expressed by Rejecters. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Martín-Antón, L.J.; Molinero-González, P.; Carbonero, M.Á.; Arteaga-Cedeño, W.L. Distribución sociométrica en Educación Infantil: Razones de aceptación y rechazo a los iguales. Educ. XX1 2024, 27, 323–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hrbackova, K.; Hrncirikova, Z. The Perception of School Life from the Perspective of Popular and Rejected Students. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 801611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Suárez-García, Z.; Álvarez-García, D.; Rodríguez, C. Children rejected by their peers in Kindergarten education: Prevalence, gender, differences and association with externalizing problems. REIPE 2018, 5, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Molinero-González, P.; Martín-Antón, L.J.; Carbonero-Martín, M.A.; ArteagaCedeño, W.L. Estrategias docentes para reducir el rechazo entre iguales en infantil: Aplicación piloto. Rev. Fuentes 2023, 25, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cillessen, A.H.N.; Coie, J.; Terry, R.; Lochman, J.E. The role of gender in the behavior basis of children’s sociometric status evaluations. In Proceedings of the Biennial Meetings of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Quebec City, QC, Canada, 12–16 August 1996; ERIC. [Google Scholar]
  12. Luis-Rico, M.I.; De la Torre-Cruz, T.; Escolar-Llamazares, M.C.; Ruiz-Palomo, E.; HuelmoGarcía, J.; Palmero-Cámara, C.; Jiménez-Eguizábal, A. Influencia del género en la aceptación o rechazo entre iguales en el recreo. Rev. Educ. 2020, 387, 89–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Messetti, M. Le Relazioni Tra Pari in Età Prescolare e Scolare: Un’indagine Sui Fattori Associati al Grado di Accettazione e di Rifiuto Sociale. Ph.D. Thesis, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca IRIS, Milan, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hladik, J.; Hrbackova, K. Peer-rejected students: An analysis of their self-regulatory mechanisms. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2021, 126, 106030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sáez-Sánchez, M.B.; Gil-Madrona, P.; Martínez-López, M. Desarrollo psicomotor y su vinculación con la motivación hacia el aprendizaje y el rendimiento académico en Educación Infantil. Rev. Educ. 2021, 392, 177–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. García-Bacete, F.J.; Freire, S.; Marande Perrin, G.; Gamboa, P. Reasons for disliking a classmate: A comparative study with Spanish and Portuguese students. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2021, 105, 101700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Guo, Q.; Zhou, J.; Feng, L. Pro-social behavior is predictive of academic success via peer acceptance: A study of Chinese primary school children. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2018, 65, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wentzel, K.R.; Jablansky, S.; Scalise, N.R. Peer social acceptance and academic achievement: A meta-analytic study. J. Educ. Psychol. 2021, 113, 157–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Arslan, E. Investigation of Pre-School Childrens’ Self-Concept in terms of Emotion Regulation Skill, Behavior and Emotional Status. An. Psicol. 2021, 37, 508–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chen, J.; Justice, L.M.; Rhoad-Drogalis, A.; Lin, T.J.; Sawyer, B. Social networks of children with developmental language disorder in inclusive preschool programs. Child Dev. 2020, 91, 471–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Van der Wilt, F.; Van der Veen, C.; Van Kruistum, C.; Van Oers, B. Why can’t I join? Peer rejection in early childhood education and the role of oral communicative competence. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2018, 54, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Núñez, J.C.; Perálvarez-Estevez, M.C.; Tuero, E.; Suárez, N. Autoconcepto, motivación académica, actitud hacia el aprendizaje y rendimiento académico: Un estudio centrado en la persona (Self-concept, academic motivation, attitude toward learning, and academic achievement: A person-centered study). Rev. De Psicol. Y Educ. 2024, 19, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Passiatore, Y.; Grimaldi Capitello, T.; De Stasio, S.; Millioni, M.; Gentile, S.; Fiorilli, C. Children’s Mathematics and Verbal Self-concepts and Externalizing Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Peer Rejection at School. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Sette, S.; Baldwin, D.; Zava, F.; Baumgartner, E.; Coplan, R.J. Shame on me? Shyness, social experiences at preschool, and young children’s self-conscious emotions. Early Child. Res. Q. 2019, 47, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Druskin, L.R.; Novick, D.R.; Smith, K.A.; Chronis-Tuscano, A.; Wagner, N.J.; Pham, S.; Fleece, H.M.; Danko, C.M.; Rubin, K.H. Comparison of behaviorally 109 inhibited and typically developing children’s play behaviors in the preschool classroom. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1193915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Lloyd-Esenkaya, V.; Russell, A.J.; Clair, M.C. What are the peer interaction strengths and difficulties in children with developmental language disorder? A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Sureda, I.; Valera-Pozo, M.; Sanchez-Azanza, V.; Adrover-Roig, D.; Aguilar-Mediavilla, E. Associations between self, peer, and teacher reports of victimization and social skills in school in children with language disorders. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 718110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chow, J.C.; Granger, K.L.; Broda, M.D.; Washington-Nortey, P.M. Influence of child externalizing behavior on friendship centrality and reciprocity in kindergarten classrooms. J. Emot. Behav. Disord. 2022, 31, 235–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chow, J.C.; Broda, M.D.; Granger, K.L.; Washington-Nortey, M.; Danielle Dunn, R.S. A sociometric approach to understanding characteristics of same and other gender friendships in young children. Early Child. Res. Q. 2023, 62, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Van der Veen, C.; Van der Wilt, F.; Van Kruistum, C.; Van Oers, B.; Michaels, S. MODEL 2 TALK: An intervention to promote productive classroom talk. Read. Teach. 2017, 70, 689–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rytioja, M.; Lappalainen, K.; Savolainen, H. Behavioural and emotional strengths of sociometrically popular, rejected, controversial, neglected, and average children. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2019, 34, 557–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. De Medeiros, P.; Almeida Zequinão, M.; de Paiva Vieira, E.; Carvalho, H.P.D.; Rúbila Maciel, I.; Libardoni dos Santos, J.O.; Cardoso, F.L. El rol de las habilidades motoras en el estado sociométrico y el estado social percibido de los escolares. Andes Pediatr. 2021, 92, 862–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gebhardt, M.; Sälzer, C.; Mang, J.; Müller, K.; Prenzel, M. Performance of Students with Special Educational Needs in Germany: Findings From Programme for International Student Assessment 2012. J. Cogn. Educ. Psychol. 2015, 14, 343–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. MEFP. Estadística de Las Enseñanzas no Universitarias. Alumnado con Necesidad Específica de Apoyo Educativo Curso 2022–2023. 2024. Available online: https://www.educacionfpydeportes.gob.es/dam/jcr:fd110b44-403b-426b-a1ba-aa8e0b357abe/notaresumen-2023.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2024).
  35. Freire, S.; Roçadas, C.; Pipa, J.; Aguiar, C. Classroom social networks, students’ peer-related social experiences and sense of belonging: The specific case of students with SEN. Br. Educ. Res. J. 2024, 50, 1617–1635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gamboa, P.; Freire, S.; Anica, A.; João Mogarro, M.; Fátima Moreira, M.; Vaz da Silva, F. Correlates of rejection by the peer group: A study comparing students with and without SEN. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2021, 4, 381–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Monjas, M.I.; Martín-Antón, L.J.; García-Bacete, F.J.; Sanchiz, M.L. Rechazo y victimización al alumnado con necesidad de apoyo educativo en primero de primaria. An. Psicol. 2014, 30, 499–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Whal, S.; Trauntschnig, M.; Hoffmann, L.; Schwab, S. Peer acceptance and peer status in relation to students’ special educational needs, migration biography, gender and socio-economic status. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs 2022, 22, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Donoghue, C.; Rosen, D.; Almeida, A.; Brandwein, D. When is Peer Aggression ‘Bullying?’ An Analysis of Elementary and Middle School Student Discourse on Bullying at School. Qual. Res. Educ. 2015, 4, 26–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Alnahdi, G.H. Rasch validation of the Arabic version of the Chedoke–McMaster attitudes toward children with handicaps (CATCH-AR) Scale. Front. Psychol. 2020, 10, 2924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Jodra-Chuan, M. Factors involved in the educational inclusion of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): A systematic review. Rev. Psicol. Educ. 2024, 19, 96–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dimitrova-Radojičić, D. The High School Students Attitudes towards Peers with Blindness. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Eng. Educ. 2022, 10, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Vásquez-Delgado, L.E.; Cabrera Constain, V.A. Los juegos lúdico-cooperativos, como una estrategia favorable para las relaciones personales entre estudiantes. Revista UNIMAR 2022, 40, 54–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Koster, M.; Pijl, S.J.; van Houten, E.; Nakken, H. The social position and development of pupils with SEN in mainstream Dutch primary schools. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2007, 22, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pijl, S.J.; Frostad, P. Peer acceptance and self-concept of students with disabilities in regular education. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2010, 25, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Shehu, B.P. Peer Acceptance in Early Childhood: Links To Socio-Economic Status And Social Competences. J. Soc. Stud. Educ. Res. 2019, 10, 176–200. Available online: https://www.learntechlib.org/p/216540/ (accessed on 10 June 2024).
  47. Timeo, S.; Riva, P.; Paladino, M.P. Learning to cope with everyday instances of social exclusion: A review of emotional and cognitive strategies for children and adolescents. J. Appl. Biobehav. Res. 2019, 24, e12173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nergaard, K. “The Heartbreak of Social Rejection”: Young children’s expressions about How they experience rejection from peers in ECEC. Child Care Pract. 2020, 26, 226–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rotheram-Fuller, E.; Locke, J.; Park, H.; Liou, D.D. Friendships, Rejection, and Standardized Test Scores Over Time. Sage Open 2022, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. González, J.; García-Bacete, F.J. Sociomet. Programa para la Realización de Estudios Sociométricos 2010; TEA Ediciones: Madrid, Spain, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  51. García-Bacete, F.J.; Jiménez-Lagares, I.; Muñoz-Tinoco, M.V.; Marande, G.; Monjas, M.I.; Sureda, I.; Martín-Antón, L.J.; Ferrà, P.; Sanchiz, M.L. El Rechazo Entre Iguales en su Contexto Interpersonal: Una Investigación Con Niños y Niñas de Primer Ciclo de Primaria; Dávalos-Fletcher: Castelló de la Plana, Spain, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  52. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; LEA: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  53. Hedges, L.V.; Olkin, I. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  54. Love, R.; Randall, V. Enabling dialogic, democratic research: Using a community of philosophical enquiry as a qualitative research method. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 2021, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Alsufyani, A.A. “Scie-losophy” a teaching and learning framework for the reconciliation of the P4C and the scientific method. MethodsX 2023, 5, 102417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ab Wahab, M.K.; Zulkifli, H.; Abdul Razak, K. Impact of Philosophy for Children and Its Challenges: A Systematic Review. Children 2022, 9, 1671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Distribution of the sample.
Table 1. Distribution of the sample.
CharacteristicsN%
Gender
 Male 39752.4%
 Female36147.6%
Year
 1st (3–4 years old)24131.8%
 2nd (4–5 years old)22629.8%
 3rd (5–6 years old)29138.7%
Ownership
 Public43857.8%
 Semi-private32042.2%
Special Educational Needs (SEN)
 Personal506.6%
 Contextual91.2%
 No needs69992.2%
Table 2. Distribution of sociometric status according to the type of special educational needs.
Table 2. Distribution of sociometric status according to the type of special educational needs.
Sociometric StatusTotal
(n = 758)		No SEN
(n = 699)		SEN
Personal Needs
(n = 50)		SEN
Contextual Needs
(n = 9)
Popularn (%)68 (9.0%)66 (9.4%)2 (4.0%)0 (0.0%)
Rejectedn (%)87 (11.4%)64 (9.2%)18 (36.0%)5 (55.6%)
Averagen (%)509 (67.2%)485 (69.4%)21 (42.0%)3 (33.3%)
Neglectedn (%)68 (9.0%)62 (8.9%)6 (12.0%)0 (0.0%)
Controversialn (%)26 (3.4%)22 (3.1%)3 (6.0%)1 (11.1%)
Table 3. Distribution of sociometric status according to special educational needs.
Table 3. Distribution of sociometric status according to special educational needs.
Sociometric Status No SEN
(n = 699)		SEN
(n = 59)
Popularn (%)66 (9.4%)2 (3.4%)
ASR a1.6−1.6
Rejectedn (%)64 (9.2%)23 (39.0%)
ASR a−6.96.9
Averagen (%)485 (69.4%)24 (40.7%)
ASR a4.5−4.5
Neglectedn (%)62 (8.9%)6 (10.2%)
ASR a−0.30.3
Controversialn (%)22 (3.1%)4 (6.8%)
ASR a−1.51.5
a ASR = Adjusted standardised residuals.
Table 4. Academic performance as a function of peer rejection and specific educational needs.
Table 4. Academic performance as a function of peer rejection and specific educational needs.
Peer-Rejected
YesNo
Academic PerformanceTotalSENNo SENSENNo SEN
Frequency758236436635
Percentage1003.08.44.883.8
Language and communication
M3.792.483.333.073.92
SD1.0791.2380.9931.4350.998
Logic-mathematics
M3.782.573.383.353.88
SD1.0331.4720.9001.1930.974
Psychomotor
M4.073.133.583.784.17
SD0.8741.2180.9731.1750.787
Global
M3.832.523.363.323.96
SD0.9190.9940.8041.0610.856
Table 5. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (2 a × 2 b).
Table 5. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (2 a × 2 b).
ΛFpηp2
Peer-rejected (A) a0.043F (4, 751) = 8.45<0.0010.043
Specific educational needs (B) b0.048F (4, 751) = 9.37<0.0010.048
A × B0.003F (4, 751) = 0.450.7360.003
a a1, Rejected; a2, Non-rejected; b b1, Educational needs; b2, Non-educational needs.
Table 6. Differences in Academic Performance as a Function of Peer Rejection.
Table 6. Differences in Academic Performance as a Function of Peer Rejection.
Peer-Rejected
Academic PerformanceYes
(n = 87)		No
(n = 671)		t (756)pg
Language and communication3.10 (1.121)3.88 (1.042)6.44<0.0010.73
Logic-mathematics3.16 (1.129)3.86 (0.993)6.04<0.0010.69
Psychomotor3.46 (1.054)4.15 (0.816)7.16<0.0010.82
Global3.14 (0.930)3.92 (0.878)7.79<0.0010.89
Table 7. Differences in Academic Performance as a Function of Special Educational Needs.
Table 7. Differences in Academic Performance as a Function of Special Educational Needs.
Special Educational Needs
Academic PerformanceSEN
(n = 87)		Non-SEN
(n = 671)		t (2, 756)pg
Language and communication2.84 (1.382)3.87 (1.011)7.25<0.0010.98
Logic-mathematics3.04 (1.353)3.84 (0.978)5.79<0.0010.79
Psychomotor3.53 (1.224)4.12 (0.823)5.06<0.0010.68
Global3.01 (1.009)3.90 (0.868)7.43<0.0011.01
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Martín-Antón, L.J.; Molinero-González, P.; Carbonero-Martín, M.Á.; Arteaga-Cedeño, W.L.; Rodríguez-Sáez, J.L. Peer Rejection and Academic Performance in Early Childhood: The Mediating Role of Special Educational Needs of Spanish Students. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 897. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080897

AMA Style

Martín-Antón LJ, Molinero-González P, Carbonero-Martín MÁ, Arteaga-Cedeño WL, Rodríguez-Sáez JL. Peer Rejection and Academic Performance in Early Childhood: The Mediating Role of Special Educational Needs of Spanish Students. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(8):897. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080897

Chicago/Turabian Style

Martín-Antón, Luis J., Paula Molinero-González, Miguel Á. Carbonero-Martín, Wendy L. Arteaga-Cedeño, and José Luis Rodríguez-Sáez. 2024. "Peer Rejection and Academic Performance in Early Childhood: The Mediating Role of Special Educational Needs of Spanish Students" Education Sciences 14, no. 8: 897. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080897

APA Style

Martín-Antón, L. J., Molinero-González, P., Carbonero-Martín, M. Á., Arteaga-Cedeño, W. L., & Rodríguez-Sáez, J. L. (2024). Peer Rejection and Academic Performance in Early Childhood: The Mediating Role of Special Educational Needs of Spanish Students. Education Sciences, 14(8), 897. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080897

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop