teacher perceptions of their ability to teach in inclusive

Elizabethtown CollegeJayScholar

Education: Student Scholarship & Creative Works Education

Spring 2019

Teacher Perceptions of their Ability to Teach inInclusive ClassroomsMatthew T. VanCleefElizabethtown College, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://jayscholar.etown.edu/edstu

Part of the Education Commons

This Student Research Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Education at JayScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Education:Student Scholarship & Creative Works by an authorized administrator of JayScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Recommended CitationVanCleef, Matthew T., "Teacher Perceptions of their Ability to Teach in Inclusive Classrooms" (2019). Education: Student Scholarship& Creative Works. 18.https://jayscholar.etown.edu/edstu/18

https://jayscholar.etown.edu?utm_source=jayscholar.etown.edu%2Fedstu%2F18&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://jayscholar.etown.edu/edstu?utm_source=jayscholar.etown.edu%2Fedstu%2F18&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://jayscholar.etown.edu/education?utm_source=jayscholar.etown.edu%2Fedstu%2F18&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://jayscholar.etown.edu/edstu?utm_source=jayscholar.etown.edu%2Fedstu%2F18&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/784?utm_source=jayscholar.etown.edu%2Fedstu%2F18&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://jayscholar.etown.edu/edstu/18?utm_source=jayscholar.etown.edu%2Fedstu%2F18&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

TeacherPerceptionsoftheirAbilitytoTeachinInclusiveClassrooms

AthesispresentedtothefacultyoftheDepartmentofEducationatElizabethtownCollegeinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeofMasterofEducation.

MatthewT.VanCleef

B.A.EnglishSecondaryEducation’18ElizabethtownCollege

FacultySponsors:

Dr.CarrollTyminskiAssociateProfessorofEducation

Dr.ShannonHaley-MizeCo-Chair,DepartmentofEducation

May2019

TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Dr.CarrollTyminskiAssociateProfessorofEducation

Dr.ShannonHaley-MizeCo-chair,DepartmentofEducation

TheDepartmentofEducationatElizabethtownCollege

ElizabethtownCollege

TheCentralDauphinSchoolDistrict


CONTENTSCHAPTER1:INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................4STATEMENTOFTHEPROBLEM....................................................................................................................................................................4PURPOSEOFTHESTUDY...............................................................................................................................................................................6RESEARCHQUESTIONS.................................................................................................................................................................................6DEFINITIONSANDTERMS............................................................................................................................................................................7

CHAPTER2:LITERATUREREVIEW...................................................................................................................................8HISTORYANDLEGISLATION.........................................................................................................................................................................8GENERALEDUCATIONTEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFSTUDENTSWITHSPECIALNEEDS....................................................................11GENERALEDUCATIONTEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFINCLUSION...........................................................................................................13COLLABORATIONAMONGGENERALANDSPECIALEDUCATIONTEACHERS.......................................................................................14TEACHERTRAININGPROGRAMS...............................................................................................................................................................16PRESERVICETEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFSTUDENTSWITHSPECIALNEEDS.....................................................................................18PRESERVICETEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFINCLUSION............................................................................................................................20BESTPRACTICESFORINCLUSION..............................................................................................................................................................21GENERALEDUCATIONTEACHERS’PERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRPREPAREDNESSFORINCLUSION........................................................24SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................................................................................25

CHAPTER3:METHOD.........................................................................................................................................................26PARTICIPANTS..............................................................................................................................................................................................26INSTRUMENT................................................................................................................................................................................................27PROCEDURE..................................................................................................................................................................................................28DESCRIPTIVEDATAANALYSIS...................................................................................................................................................................28

CHAPTER4:RESULTSANDFINDINGS...........................................................................................................................29QUANTITATIVEDATA.................................................................................................................................................................................29Theme1:Attitudesandbeliefs.........................................................................................................................................................29Theme2:Perceivedlevelofpreparedness..................................................................................................................................31Theme3:Anticipatedchallengesandneededsupports........................................................................................................32Theme4:Planningandpreparation.............................................................................................................................................33

QUALITATIVEDATA....................................................................................................................................................................................34Question1:Challengeswithinclusion...........................................................................................................................................35Question2:Preparednessforinclusion........................................................................................................................................35Question3:Recommendationsforcollegeprograms............................................................................................................36

CHAPTER5:DISCUSSION...................................................................................................................................................38REVIEWOFTHEFINDINGSBASEDONCONTEMPORARYLITERATURE................................................................................................38LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................................................................................................40IMPLICATIONSFORFURTHERRESEARCHANDTEACHERPREPARATIONPROGRAMS......................................................................41SUMMARYANDCONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................................................................42

REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................................................43APPENDIXA:SURVEYQUESTIONS.................................................................................................................................47APPENDIXB:SITECONSENTFORM...............................................................................................................................49APPENDIXC:PARTICIPANTCONSENTFORM.............................................................................................................51


CHAPTER1:INTRODUCTION

Thischapterprovidestherationaleforthecurrentresearchstudy.First,astatementof

theproblemthatinspiredthecurrentstudywillbeprovided.Second,thepurposeofthestudy

willbestated.Third,theresearchquestionswillbelisted.Finally,definitionswillbeprovided

forrelevanttermsusedthroughoutthethesis.

StatementoftheProblem

TeachercertificationintheUnitedStatesrequiresthosewhowanttoteachaspecific

gradeorcontentareatocompleteateachertrainingprogramingeneraleducation,while

thosewhowishtoteachstudentswithspecialneedsarerequiredtocompleteaprogramin

specialeducation.However,inclusivepracticeshaveplacedstudentswhowouldhavebeen

inthespecialeducationclassroomintogeneraleducationclassrooms.Consequently,

generaleducationteachershavehadtoadaptboththeirpracticesandtheirperceptionsof

studentswithspecialneeds.

Goldstein,Ward,andBrody(2013)surveyed370generaleducationteacher

candidatesregardingtheratesofstudentswithdisabilitiesintheirstudentteaching

classroomassignments.94%or348studentteachersreportedstudentswithdisabilitiesin

theirrespectivegeneraleducationclassrooms.Ofthose348studentteachers,204reported

studentswithspeechandlanguageimpairments,196reportedstudentswithspecific

learningdisabilities,196reportedstudentswithAttentionDeficitHyperactivityDisorder,


74reportedstudentswithemotionaland/orbehavioraldisorders,63reportedstudents

withAutismSpectrumDisorder,and26reportedstudentswithintellectualdisabilities.

Table1:PercentageDistributionofStudents(ByDisability)ServedUnderIDEAintheFallof2014

IDEADisabilityCategory

PercentageofStudentsSpending80%orMoreoftheSchoolDayinGeneralEducationClassrooms

AutismSpectrumDisorder 39.9

Deaf-Blindness 22.6

DevelopmentalDelay 63.6

EmotionalDisturbance 46.1

HearingImpairment 60.0

IntellectualDisability 16.4

MultipleDisabilities 13.2

OrthopedicImpairment 54.3

OtherHealthImpairment 65.1

SpecificLearningDisability 68.8

SpeechorLanguageImpairment 87.0

TraumaticBrainInjury 49.9

VisualImpairment 65.8

ThemostrecentdatapublishedbytheU.S.DepartmentofEducationwasobtained

intheFallof2014fromall50statesandtheDistrictofColumbia.Thedataindicatesthat

62.2%ofallstudentswithdisabilitiesspend80%ormoreoftheschooldayinthegeneral

educationclassroom.Table1showsthepercentageofallstudentsintheU.S.witha


particulardisabilitywhoparticipateinthegeneraleducationclassroomfor80%ormoreof

theschoolday(AdaptedfromNationalCenterforEducationStatistics,2016).Clearly,there

aremanystudentswithspecialneedsparticipatingingeneraleducationclassrooms.

Therefore,thequestionarises:Shouldgeneraleducationteachersreceivemoretrainingto

effectivelyteachthesestudents?

PurposeoftheStudy

Thisstudyaimedtosolicitgeneraleducationteachers’attitudesandperceivedlevel

ofpreparednessforteachingstudentswithspecialneedsintheinclusive,generaleducation

classroomtodeterminewhat,ifany,factorsaffectperceivedlevelsofpreparedness.This

studyalsoaimedtosolicitrecommendationsfrompracticinggeneraleducationteachers

forteacherpreparationprograms.Theinformationgatheredinthisstudywasnota

statementofparticipants’teachingqualifications,butrathertheeffectivenessofteacher

preparationprogramsinpreparinggeneraleducationteachersforinclusion.

ResearchQuestions

RQ1: Whatattitudesand/orbeliefsdogeneraleducationteachersholdregardingstudents

withspecialneedsandinclusiveeducation?

RQ2: Dogeneral education teachersbelieve theyareprepared to teacher studentswith

specialneedsintheinclusive,generaleducationclassroom?

RQ3: What challengesdogeneral education teachers experience teaching studentswith

specialneeds?


RQ4: Whatrecommendationsdogeneraleducationteachershaveforteacherpreparation

programstobetterpreparefuturegeneraleducationteachersforinclusion?

DefinitionsandTermsAccommodation Supportsandservicesprovidedtostudentsreceivingspecial

educationservicestohelpthemaccessthegeneraleducation

curriculum.

GeneralEducation

Teacher

Ateacherwho(1)doesnothaveadegreeinspecialeducation

and(2)doesnotteachanycoursesexplicitlylabelled“special

education.”

IndividualizedEducation

Program(IEP)

Acomprehensive,legallybindingdocumentcreatedforeach

studentwhoqualifiesforspecialeducationservicesunderThe

IndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationAct.TheIEPlistsgoals,

objectives,accommodations,modifications,etc.TheIEPis

mandatedbythefederalgovernment.

InclusiveEducation Educationwhichseekstoincludestudentswithspecialneeds,to

thefullestextentpossible,intheLeastRestrictiveEnvironment.

InclusiveEducationismandatedbythefederalgovernment.

SpecialEducation

Teacher

Ateacherwho(1)hasaspecialeducationdegreeand(2)teaches

courseswhichareexplicitlylabelled“specialeducation.”

StudentswithSpecial

Needs/Disabilities

Studentswhoqualifyforindividualizedspecialeducation

servicesunderthe13disabilitycategoriesofIDEAorSection504

oftheRehabilitationAct.

Typically-Functioning

Student

Astudentwho(1)doesnothaveanydisabilitiesand(2)doesnot

qualifyforindividualizedspecialeducationservicesunderIDEA

orSection504oftheRehabilitationAct.


CHAPTER2:LITERATUREREVIEW

Thisreviewwillprovidethetheoreticalframeworkforthecurrentresearchstudy.First,

abriefhistoryofinclusiveeducationandrelevantlegislationwillbeoutlined.Second,general

educationteachers’perceptionsofstudentswithspecialneedsandinclusionwillbeexamined.

Third,collaborationamonggeneralandspecialeducationteacherswillbediscussed.Fourth,

teachertrainingprogramsandpreserviceteacherperceptionsofstudentswithdisabilitiesand

inclusivepracticeswillbeanalyzed.Fifth,bestpracticesforinclusionwillbeconsidered.Finally,

currentresearchdirectlyrelatedtothetopicofthisresearchstudywillbepresented.

Thisstudyaimstodeterminepracticinggeneraleducationteachers’perceivedlevelsof

preparednesstoteachstudentswithspecialneeds,socurrentresearchonthistopicwassought.

Resultsindicatethatthereisanoverwhelminglackofresearchregardinggeneraleducation

teachers’preparednessforinclusion.Infact,onlytwocurrentstudieswerelocated,oneofwhich

was not directly focused on students with disabilities. Consequently, any relevant studies

regarding teacher perceptions of students with disabilities and inclusion, teacher training

programs,andbestpracticesforinclusionwerelocated.

HistoryandLegislation Priorto1975,theinclusionofstudentswithspecialneedsinthegeneraleducation

classroomwasnotonlyunheardofbutdiscouragedintheUnitedStates.Manybelieved

thatthebestplacetoservestudentswithspecialneedswaseitherintheself-contained


specialeducationclassroomor,forthosewithseveredisabilities,aninstitution.Infact,

manyschoolsdidnothavespecialeducationclassrooms,andstudentswithdisabilities

wereexcludedfrompublicschoolandrefusedapubliceducation(Kirby,2016).

WithlandmarkcasessuchasBrownv.BoardofEducation,1954andtheCivilRights

Movementofthe1960s,manyadvocacygroupsbeganformingtosupporttheeducational

rightsofstudentswithspecialneeds.PublicpressureonCongresstoensurerightsfor

thosewithdisabilitiesculminatedinthepassageofSection504oftheRehabilitationActin

1973(Yell,2016).Section504prohibitsdisabilitydiscriminationinanyinstitutionthat

receivesfederalfunds(RehabilitationAct,1973).However,accesstoeducationwasnot

guaranteedonafederalleveluntil1975whenCongresspassedtheEducationforAll

HandicappedAct(EHA).EHAwascomprehensivelegislationthatguaranteedeverychildin

theUnitedStates,regardlessofability,therighttoa“FreeAppropriatePublicEducation,”

betterknownasFAPE(EducationforAllHandicappedAct,1975;Individualswith

DisabilitiesEducationAct,2004).Parentsofchildrenwithdisabilitiesnolongerhadtopay

forprivateschoolorworryiftheeducationtheirchildwasreceivingwasmeaningful.

In1990,CongressreauthorizedEHAandrenamedittheIndividualswithDisabilities

EducationAct(IDEA).TheActwasreauthorizedin1997and2004withsignificant

revisions.TheactwasrenamedtheIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationImprovement

Act,butitstillcommonlyreferredtoasIDEA.Whiletheactisextremelycomprehensive,

thethreemainprovisionsofIDEAareFAPE,theIndividualizedEducationProgram(IEP),

theLeastRestrictiveEnvironment(LRE).AnIEPisalegallybindingdocumentwhichmust

becreatedforallstudentsthatqualifyunderoneofthethirteendisabilitycategories:

AutismSpectrumDisorder,deaf-blindness,hearingimpairment,visualimpairment,speech


orlanguageimpairment,specificlearningdisability,intellectualdisability,multiple

disabilities,developmentaldelay,emotionaldisturbance,orthopedicimpairment,

traumaticbraininjury,andotherhealthimpairment.TheIEPdescribestheservicesand

accommodationsthatthestudentwillreceiveinthepublicschool,regardlessofwhether

theyareinaspecialeducationclassroomorageneraleducationclassroom.TheLRE

mandateofIDEArequiresthatallstudents,tothefullestextentpossible,beeducatedinthe

generaleducationclassroomwiththeirtypically-functioningpeers(IDEA,2004).This

mandateiscitedasthecausefortheincreaseofstudentswithspecialneedsingeneral

educationclassrooms(Kirby,2016).

GiventhatstudentswhoqualifyforservicesunderIDEAareplacedintheLRE,

whichisusuallythegeneraleducationclassroom,generaleducationteachersnowhave

federallymandatedresponsibilitiestothesestudents.Namely,generaleducationteachers

mustadheretotheservices,accommodations,andadaptationsthatareoutlinedintheIEP,

regardlessofwhethertheyagreewiththeprovisions.Manyhavecriticizedteachertraining

programsandprofessionaldevelopmentopportunitiesfornotadequatelypreparing

generaleducationteachersforinclusion(Kirby,2016).

ThecurrentresearchstudywillbeconductedintheCommonwealthof

Pennsylvania.SpecialeducationisuniqueinPennsylvania,inthatschoolsmustadhereto

stricterLREguidelinesduetocaselawestablishedbyGaskinv.PennsylvaniaBoardof

Education,2005.Thisclass-actionlawsuitrepresentedover200,000studentsreceiving

servicesunderIDEAintheCommonwealth.Inshort,asettlementagreementwasreached

afterelevenyearsoflitigation.TheagreementrequiresallPennsylvaniaschooldistrictsto

ensurethatstudentsareplacedinthegeneraleducationclassroomwithsupplementary


aidsandservicespriortobeingplacedinamorerestrictiveenvironment.Onlyifastudent

cannotsucceedinthegeneraleducationclassroomwithreasonablesupport,cantheybe

removedfromthegeneraleducationclassroom.ThecaselawestablishedbyGaskinv.

PennsylvaniaBoardofEducation,2005requiresgeneraleducationteacherstoadapttheir

teachingpracticesandwelcomemorestudentswithspecialneedsintotheirclassrooms.

GeneralEducationTeacherPerceptionsofStudentswithSpecialNeeds

Thefewstudiesthathavesoughttodefinegeneraleducationteachers’perceptions

ofstudentswithdisabilitiesfoundthatthoseviewsaremostlypositive.Generaleducation

teacherswelcomestudentswithspecialneedsintotheirclassroomsandbelievetheycan

learn.However,learninggoalsareoftenrelatedtosocialdevelopmentandbehavior

management,notacademicsuccess(Zagona,Kurth,&MacFarland,2017).Infact,academic

successseemedtobeinsignificant.Manygeneraleducationteachersreportedthatthe

behaviorandsocialproblemswhichaccompanysomedisabilitiestakeprioritysincethey

canbeadistractionintheclassroom.Classroommanagementwasanoverwhelmingfactor

inthegoalsthatgeneraleducationteacherssetforstudentswithspecialneeds(Cameron&

Cook,2013).

Whilemanygeneraleducationteachershavepositiveviewsofstudentswith

disabilities,HarkinsandFletcher(2015)suggestthattheseviewsdifferdependingonthe

typeandseverityofthedisability.Studentswithmilddisabilitiessuchasspeechand

languageimpairmentsandspecificlearningdisabilitiesweretypicallyviewedmore

favorablythanstudentswithseveredifficulties.Manyoftheteacherssurveyedexpressed


thatstudentswithAutismSpectrumDisorderandEmotionalDisturbancesshouldbe

educatedinaself-contained,specialeducationclassroom.

Similarly,Cameron&Cook(2013)suggestthatthetheoryofdifferential

expectationsoccursininclusive,generaleducationclassrooms.Differentialexpectations

referstoteacherssetting“inappropriatelylowgoalsfortheirincludedstudents...because

theyperceivethelikelihoodthatstudentswillexperiencegainsfromtheirteachingefforts

areminimal”(p.27).Inotherwords,generaleducationteachersoftensetmuchlowergoals

forthestudentswithspecialneedsintheirclassroomsbecausetheyfeelthatthetypical

expectationsareunattainable.AccordingtoCameronandCook(2013),thisviewisvery

common,butitcouldbedetrimentaltotheacademicsuccessofstudentswithspecialneeds

becausetheyarenotexpectedtoimprove.

Otherstudieshavesoughttofindcorrelationsbetweengeneraleducationteachers’

age,gender,yearsofexperience,etc.,andtheirperceptionsofstudentswithspecialneeds.

ÇelikandKraska(2017)conductedthemostrecentofthesestudiesinAlabama.Though

theyfoundcorrelationbetweengeneraleducationteachers’genderandageandtheir

perceptionsofstudentswithspecialneeds,theresultswerestatisticallyinsignificant.

Furthermore,theresearcherswarnedagainstmakingcountry-widegeneralizationsbased

onastudyconductedonlyinAlabama.ÇelikandKraska(2017)recommendanation-wide

attitudesurveyofgeneraleducationteachers.

Overall,generaleducationteachers’perceptionsofstudentswithspecialneedsare

overwhelminglypositive.However,perceptionsdependonthetypeandseverityofthe

disabilityandthesymptomsthataccompanyit.Generaleducationteacherswanttodo


whattheyfeelisbestfortheirincludedstudents;but,withouttraining,differential

expectationscananddooccur.

GeneralEducationTeacherPerceptionsofInclusion

Theinclusionofstudentswithspecialneedsinthegeneraleducationclassroomis

oftendebated.Whilefederallegislationrequiresinclusionintheleastrestrictive

environmentforallstudentswithspecialneeds,manyfactorsaffectwhethergeneral

educationteacherswelcomestudentswithdisabilitiesintotheirclassrooms.Recentstudies

havefoundthatgeneraleducationteachers’attitudestowardinclusionarefairlypositive.

Infact,manygeneraleducationteachersagreethatstudentswithspecialneedsbenefit

fromboththegeneraleducationcurriculumandinteractionwiththeirtypically-

functioningpeers(Harkins&Fletcher,2015;Hwang&Evans,2011;Kargin,Güldenoglu,&

Sahin,2010;Kurth&Forber-Pratt,2017).Whilemanybelieveinclusionisbothpositive

andnecessary,HwangandEvans(2011)foundthatoverhalfofthegeneraleducation

teacherssurveyedintheirstudydidnotwishtoteachstudentswithspecialneedsintheir

classrooms.Aboutathirdalsoreportedtheywereill-preparedtoteachstudentswith

specialneedsanddidnotfeeltheycouldethicallyteachthem.

Classsizeandaccommodationsalsoplayaroleingeneraleducationteachers’

perceptionofinclusion.Manygeneraleducationteachersreportthattheyalreadydonot

haveenoughtimetoplanforacademicinstruction.Planningtheaccommodationsfor

studentswithspecialneedsthenlimitstheamountoftimethattheyhavetofocusonthe

majorityofthestudentsintheirclassroom.Generaleducationteachersalsoreportedthat


largerclassesmakeaccommodatingstudentswithspecialneedsmoredifficult(Hwang&

Evans,2011).

Whilegeneraleducationteachersreportinherentchallenges,theydorecognizethe

importanceofimplementingtheaccommodationspresentinstudents’IEPs.Physical

accommodationstotheclassroomareimplementedfarmoreoftenthanadaptationsto

lessonandassessmentmaterials.Somegeneraleducationteacherscitetheirlackof

traininginadaptinglessonmaterialsforthisdisparity.Othersclaimadaptationstolesson

andassessmentmaterialsjeopardizetheintegrityoftheirteaching.Theyare,therefore,

reluctanttomakethosechanges(Kargin,Güldenoglu,&Sahin,2010).

Overall,generaleducationteachersrecognizetheimportanceofinclusivepractices

forstudentswithspecialneeds,eveniftheyarereluctanttoimplementthem.Manygeneral

educationteacherscitealackoftrainingininclusiveteachingpracticesfortheiropposition

toinclusion.Othersclaimthattheyarenotallottedsufficienttimetoadequatelyplanfor

studentswithspecialneeds,especiallywhentheyhavelargerclasssizes.Whilethereare

inherentchallengestoeffectivelyimplementinginclusion,researchindicatesthatmost

generaleducationteacherswanttoincludestudentswithspecialneedsbutdonothavethe

resourcesorexperiencetodoso.

CollaborationAmongGeneralandSpecialEducationTeachers Contemporaryteachingmodelsemphasizecollaborationamongteacherstoprovide

thebesteducationpossiblefortheirstudents.However,manyofthesemodelsneglectto

includecollaborationamonggeneraleducationandspecialeducationteachers(Orelove,


Sobsey,&Gilles,2017).Currenttrendsalsoseemtoshowalackofsupportfromspecial

educationteachersinthegeneraleducationclassroom(Mackey,2014).

Fewstudieshavesoughttodeterminetheeffectivenessofcollaborationamong

teachersinpublicschools.Furthermore,littleresearchexistsregardingcollaboration

amonggeneralandspecialeducationteachersforincludedstudents.Carter,Prater,

Jackson,&Marchant(2009)haveshownthatgeneraleducationteacherscollaboratemost

effectivelywithothergeneraleducationteachersinthesamecontentarea.Forexample,

EnglishteacherscollaboratebestwithotherEnglishteachers,whichistobeexpectedgiven

thattheyfocusonthesametypesofmaterialsonaday-to-daybasis.Thereisnocorrelation

betweenone’scertificationareaandtheirabilitytocollaborateeffectively(Lechtenberger,

Griffin-Shirley,&Zhou,2013).

Carter,Prater,Jackson,andMarchant’sstudy(2009)requiredgeneraleducation

teacherstoworktogetherwithadherencetoaspecificcollaborationmodel.Theyfound

thatteachers’personalbeliefsregardingpedagogy,methodology,andlesson/assessment

materialsaffectedtheirabilitytocollaborateeffectively.Inonecase,thesebeliefsimpeded

theteachers’abilitytocollaboratealtogether.Similarly,Zagona,Kurth,andMacFarland

(2017)foundthatgeneraleducationteachersfeltitwashardertocollaboratewithother

teacherswhowerenotasreceptivetoinclusion.

Collaborationamongteachersislackinginpublicschools,particularlyamong

generalandspecialeducationteachers.Whileitisunrealistictoexpectthespecial

educationteachertocollaboratewitheverygeneraleducationteacherwhohasastudent

withspecialneedsintheirclassroom,thespecialeducationteachershouldstillbeavailable

forsupport(Mackey,2014).Contemporaryteachingmodelsemphasizetheimportanceof


collaborationamongteachersbecauseithasshowntobethemosteffectiveandefficient

waytoeducatestudents.

TeacherTrainingPrograms

NearlyeverystateintheUnitedStatesrequiresallpublic-schoolteacherstohave

successfullycompletedanaccreditedteachertrainingprogram(usuallyatafour-year

collegeoruniversity)priortobecomingcertified.Teachercertificationismandatoryin

everystate,butteachertrainingprogramsvarydependingonstaterequirements.One

prevailingthemeinmostteachertrainingprogramsacrossthecountryisthelackofspecial

educationcourseandpracticumrequirementsforgeneraleducationcandidates(Allday,

Neilson-Gratti,&Hudson,2013;Leyser,Zeiger,&Romi,2011;Shani&Hebel,2016;

Thompson,2012).Manystudiesexistontheeffectivenessofteachertrainingprogramsin

general,butfewseektodeterminewhethertheseprogramsadequatelypreparegeneral

educationcandidatesforinclusivepractices.

Allday,Neilson-Gratti,andHudson(2013)examined109teachertrainingprograms

acrosstheUnitedStates.Theirstudycomparedtheproportionofspecialeducationcourse

requirementstocontent-specific,generaleducationcurriculum.Theyfoundthatgeneral

educationcandidateswereexposedtoverylittle,ifany,courseworkandtraininginspecial

educationandinclusivepractices.Specifically,only73ofthecollegesanduniversities

examinedrequiredamerethreecredithoursinspecialeducation,mostofwhichfocuson

disabilitycharacteristics.Coursesindisabilitycharacteristicsareheavilyconcernedwith

thedefinitionsofthethirteendisabilitycategoriesoutlinedintheIDEA,notinclusive

practices.Thesedefinitionsarediagnosticinnatureandpointtotheindividual’s


differencesinrelationtoatypically-functioningindividual.AccordingtoKurthandForber-

Pratt(2017),thesetypesofcoursesleadtoadeficit-basedattitudeofstudentswith

disabilities.Inotherwords,teachercandidatesonlyexposedtothedefinitionsof

disabilitiestendtonoticethediagnosticcharacteristicsofthedisabilityinanindividual,

whichareinherentlydeficit-based.

Allday,Neilson-Gratti,andHudson(2013)alsofoundthat3.9%ofallcredithours

requiredingeneraleducationteachertrainingprogramsaccountforspecialeducation.

Twenty-oneofthe109collegesanduniversitiesexaminedinthisstudydidnotrequireany

courseworkorpracticuminspecialeducation.Noneoftheteachertrainingprograms

requiredcourseworkininclusivegeneraleducation,behaviormanagement,orgeneraland

specialeducationcollaboration,thoughmostofferedthemaspartoftheirspecialeducation

degrees.

WhilemanyoftheteachertrainingprogramsintheUnitedStatesdonotrequire

specialeducationcoursework,someprogramshavebeguntoincludecoursesand

practicumexperiencesdirectlyrelatedtoinclusivepracticeswithingeneraleducation

candidates’contentareas.Thompson(2012)developedandpilotedacourseforsecondary

preservicemathematicsteachers.Thiscoursetaughtstudentsaboutinclusivemathematics

practicesandrequiredapracticumexperienceinaninclusivemathematicsclassroom.

Thompson(2012)foundthatstudentswhoparticipatedinthiscoursenotonlyhadmore

positiveattitudestowardstudentswithdisabilitiesandinclusionbutalsofeltmore

preparedtoimplementinclusivepracticesthantheirpeerswhodidnottakethecourse.

ThisissupportedbyasimilarstudyconductedbyLucasandFrazier(2014),wherein110

preserviceteachersweresurveyedbeforeandaftercompletingapracticumexperiencein


aninclusiveclassroom.Themajorityofstudentsreportedthattheirperceptionsof

studentswithdisabilitiesweremorepositive,andtheirconfidenceinimplementing

inclusivepracticesincreasedafterthisexperience.

Whilecoursesspecificallydesignedforinclusioningeneraleducationclassrooms

haveapositiveeffect,practicumexperienceseemstobeanecessarycomponent.Shaniand

Hebel(2016)foundthatstudentswhoparticipatedinsuchacoursewithoutapracticum

componentexperiencedadisconnectbetweenlearningaboutinclusionandactually

implementingit.Thestudentsreportedthattheywerenowmorefamiliarwithinclusive

practices.However,theyworriedthattheywouldnotbeabletoeffectivelyinclude

studentswithspecialneedsbecausetheyhadneveractuallyseensuccessfulinclusion.

Insummary,themajorityofgeneraleducationteachertrainingprogramslack

courseworkandpracticumexperienceinspecialeducationandinclusivepractices.Ifa

teachertrainingprogramrequiresspecialeducationcoursework,thatcourseisoften

definition-based,whichleadstoadeficitviewofstudentswithdisabilities.Courseworkand

practicumexperiencesininclusivegeneraleducationhavebeenshowntohavepositive

effectsonteachercandidates’attitudestowardinclusion.Overall,thenatureofteacher

trainingprogramscompletedbypreserviceteachersinfluencestheirpreparednesstoteach

theircontentarea,theirperceptionsandknowledgeofstudentswithdisabilities,andtheir

abilitytoeffectivelyimplementinclusioninthegeneraleducationclassroom.

PreserviceTeacherPerceptionsofStudentswithSpecialNeeds Moreresearchexistsonpreserviceteachers’perceptionsofstudentswithspecial

needsthanonpracticinggeneraleducationteachers’perceptions.Studiesindicatethat


preserviceteachers’perceptionsaregenerallypositive(Kurth&Forber-Pratt,2017;Lucas

&Fazier,2014;Mahar,Terras,Chiasson,Chalmers,&Lee,2010;Yuknis,2015).They

believestudentswithspecialneedscanlearninthegeneraleducationclassroomand

recognizetheimportanceofsettingappropriategoalsforthesestudents.Thispositive

attitudecanbeattributedtotheriseinspecialeducationcourserequirementsforgeneral

educationcandidatesinteachertrainingprograms(Lucas&Frazier,2014).

Mahar,Terra,Chiasson,Chalmers,andLee(2010)completedastudywherein56

preservicegeneraleducationteachersweresurveyedregardingtheirknowledgeand

attitudestowardstudentswithdisabilities.Althoughtheseattitudesweregenerally

positive,participantsreportedthattheylackedknowledgeofapplicablelegislation,specific

requirementsofgeneraleducationteachers,severeandmultipledisabilities,andIEP

developmentandimplementation.Preserviceteachersinsimilarstudiesalsoreporteda

lackofknowledgeregardingstudentswhoaredeaf,blind,orhavephysicaldisabilities

(Goldstein,Warde,&Rody,2013;Yukins,2015).

LucasandFrazier(2014)surveyed110preserviceteachersaftertakingapilot

specialeducationcoursewhichrequiredapracticumexperienceinaspecialeducation

classroom.Theresearchersfoundthatpreserviceteachers’perceptionsofstudentswith

disabilitiesweremorepositiveafterthisexperience,andtheiranxietyregardingteaching

studentswithspecialneedswasreduced.LucasandFrazier(2014)alsofoundthat

preserviceteacherswhocompletedgradeschoolinadistrictwhichimplementsinclusion

hadmorepositiveattitudestowardstudentswithdisabilitiesthanthosewhohadlittleto

noexposurepriortostartingtheirteachertrainingprogram.


Preservicegeneraleducationteachershavepositiveperceptionsofstudentswith

specialneeds,perhapsmoresothanpracticinggeneraleducationteachersduetothe

increaseinspecialeducationcourserequirementsinteacherpreparationprograms.

Althoughtheseattitudesarepositive,manypreserviceteachersdefinestudentswith

disabilitiesbytheirdeficitsratherthantheirstrengths(Kurth&Forber-Pratt,2017).

However,preserviceteachersthatparticipateinapracticumexperienceinaninclusive

classroomhavemorepositiveattitudestowardstudentswithdisabilitiesthanthosewho

donotparticipateinsuchanexperience.

PreserviceTeacherPerceptionsofInclusion

Again,moreresearchexistsonpreserviceteachers’perceptionsofinclusive

practicesthanonpracticinggeneraleducationteachers’perceptions.Manystudiesindicate

thattheseviewsaregenerallypositive,whichis,again,attributedtotheriseinspecial

educationcourserequirementsingeneraleducationcandidates’teachertrainingprograms

(Ajuwon,Lechtenberger,Griffin-Shirley,Sokolosky,Zhou,&Mullins,2012;Berry,2010;

Crowson&Brandes,2014;Kurth&Forber-Pratt,2017;Lechtenberger,Griffin-Shirley,&

Zhou,2013;Mahar,Terras,Chiasson,Chalmers,&Lee,2010).

Althoughpreserviceteachers’perceptionsofinclusionarepositive,manyare

apprehensivetoactuallyimplementinclusivepracticesintheclassroom.Foursimilar

studieshavesurveyedpreserviceteachersregardingthecurriculumoftheirteacher

trainingprogramandtheirreadinesstoimplementinclusion.Themajorityofparticipants

inthesestudiesreportedthattheirperceptionsofinclusionbecamemorepositiveonly

aftertakinganintroductoryspecialeducationcourse.However,manyalsoreportedthat


theywerenervoustoimplementinclusivepracticesbecausetheydidnothaveanypractice

intheirrespectiveprograms(Ajuwon,etal.,2012;Berry,2010;Crowson&Brandes,2014;

Mahar,etal.,2010).CrowsonandBrandes(2014)specificallyfoundthatoppositionto

inclusioninmanypreserviceteacherswastheresultofstereotypingandadefinition-based

curriculumintheirrequiredcoursework.Directinteractionwithstudentswhohavespecial

needsseemedtoalleviatethisopposition.ThisissupportedbyLechtenberger,Griffin-

Shirley,andZhou’sstudy(2013)whereinpreserviceteacherswererequiredtohave

practicumexperienceinaninclusiveclassroom.Studentsreportedthatdirectlyworking

withanexperiencedteachertoimplementinclusivepracticesnotonlylessenedopposition

butalsoincreasedconfidence.

Receptivityofinclusivepracticesincreaseswhengeneraleducationcandidatesare

exposedtospecialeducationcourseworkintheirtrainingprograms.Perceptionsof

inclusionalsobecomemorepositivewhenpreserviceteachersareaffordedthe

opportunitytoobserveaninclusiveclassroomwithanexperiencedteacher.Although

studiesindicatethatperceptionsaregenerallypositive,preserviceteachersarestill

nervous,apprehensive,and,insomecases,evenopposedtoimplementinginclusive

practicesduetothelackoftrainingtheyreceiveincollege.

BestPracticesforInclusion

Well-researched,evidence-basedpracticesareimperativeforthesuccessful

implementationofinclusioningeneraleducationclassrooms.Duetotherangeof

disabilitiesandseverityofsymptomsthatmaybepresentingeneraleducationclassrooms,

teachersmustbepreparedtoteachanystudentontheirroster.Aneffectiveandefficient


waytoimplementinclusionisthroughcollaborationwithstudents’specialeducation

teachersonlessonplans,accommodations/adaptations,andinstructionalstrategies

(Carter,Prater,Jackson,&Marchant,2009;Lechtenberger,Griffin-Shirley,&Zhou,2013).

Specialeducationteachershavemoretrainingforteachingstudentswithdisabilitiesthan

generaleducationteachers.Oftentimes,theyalsohaveanextensivecaseloadofstudents

withavarietyofneeds.Therefore,fullcollaborationisnotalwayspossible.Hallahan,

Kauffman,andPullen(2019)suggestcollaborativeconsultation.Collaborativeconsultation

differsfromfullcollaborationinthatthespecialeducationteacherisnotactivelyinvolved

intheplanningprocess.Instead,thespecialeducationteacherprovidesthegeneral

educationteacherwithstrategies,tips,andresources.

Whilecollaborationandsupportfromthespecialeducationteacherisideal,Vitelli

(2015)recommendstheuseofUniversalDesignforLearning(UDL).UDLisaframework

forlessonplanningwhichprovidesallstudents,regardlessofability,theopportunityto

learnthesamematerial,inthesameclassroom,atthesametime.TheUDLframework

containsthreemajorprinciples:(1)providemultiplemeansofrepresentation,(2)provide

multiplemeansofactionandexpression,and(3)providemultiplemeansofengagement.

WhiletheUDLframeworkrequiresteacherstospendmoretimeplanningforlessons,itis

oneofthemostevidence-basedstrategiesforimplementinginclusioninthegeneral

educationclassroom(CenterforAppliedSpecialTechnology).UDLisalsosupportedbythe

UnitedStatesDepartmentofEducation,which,undertheHigherEducationOpportunity

Act(2008),providesfundingtoteachertrainingprogramsthatincorporateUDLintotheir

curriculum.Vitelli(2015)completedastudywherein712collegeanduniversityfaculty

membersweresurveyedaboutthecurriculumfortheirspecialeducationcourses.Ofthese


712facultymembers,only55%or392reportedthattheythoroughlyunderstoodUDLand

taughtitinatleastoneoftheirclasses.

Althoughawell-researchedframeworkforteachingandlessonplanningisvery

effective,Yildiz(2015)suggeststeachers’awarenessoftheirresponsestostudentswith

specialneedscandramaticallyaffectstudentperformanceininclusiveclassrooms.Yildiz’

study(2015)examinedthetypesofbehaviorsstudentswithdisabilitiesexhibitedinthe

generaleducationclassroomandteachers’responsestothebehavior.Researchindicated

studentswithdisabilitieswereon-task58.58%ofthetime,off-task34.11%ofthetime,and

exhibitingproblembehaviors7.31%ofthetime.Teachersneitherapprovednor

disapprovedofstudentbehaviors92.1%ofthetime.Resultsfromthisstudyalsosuggest

thatteacherbehaviorsdidnotdirectlyaffectstudentbehavior,buttheiractionsand

responsesdid.Forexample,whenastudentexhibitingproblembehaviorwasmovedtothe

frontoftheroom,thebehaviorsworsened.Conversely,whenanassignmentwasadapted

forastrugglingstudent,behaviorimproved.CameronandCook(2015)alsosuggestthat

teacherresponsestobehavioraredisproportionatewhencomparingstudentswith

disabilitiestotheirtypically-functioningpeers.Insomeinstances,teachersignorebehavior

thattheywouldaddresswithatypically-functioningstudent,whereasotherbehaviorsare

morestrictlyreprimandedforstudentswithspecialneeds.Again,CameronandCook

(2015)refertothisdisparityas“differentialexpectations.”Theyrecommendenforcingthe

samerulesforallstudentsintheclassroomtoavoidisolationofthestudentwithspecial

needsandconfusionregardingclassroomexpectations.

Bestpracticesforinclusionvarydependingontheclassdemographicsandthe

natureofanyparticularstudent’sdisability.However,collaboration,UniversalDesignfor


Learning,andtheenforcementofthesameexpectationsforallstudentsarewell-

researched,evidence-basedstrategiesfortheeffectiveinclusionofstudentswithspecial

needsinthegeneraleducationclassroom.

GeneralEducationTeachers’PerceptionsoftheirPreparednessforInclusion Researchexistsonstudentswithspecialneedsandinclusivepracticesinpublic

schools,butonlytwopreviousstudiescouldbelocatedregardinggeneraleducation

teachers’perceptionsoftheirpreparednesstoteachthesestudents.Rowan,Kline,and

Mayer’sstudy(2017)focusedprimarilyon“diverselearners”inAustralia.Theydefined

“diverselearners”byrace,socioeconomicstatus,geographicallocation,and,toalesser

extent,disabilities.Therefore,theirstudywillbeexcludedfromthisreview.Thatleaves

onepreviousstudyregardinghowwellteachertrainingprogramsactuallypreparegeneral

educationteachersforinclusivepractices.

Thefindingsofthislimitedresearchsuggestthatnoviceteachersfeelslightlymore

preparedthanveteranteacherssinceteachertrainingprogramshaveonlyrecentlybegun

requiringspecialeducationclassesforgeneraleducationcandidates.Furthermore,

teacherswhotookacourseoninclusivepracticesfortheirspecificcontentareafeltmore

preparedthanthosewhotookonlyanintroductory,definition-basedspecialeducation

course.Finally,generaleducationteachersreportedthattheyfeltfarmorepreparedto

createawelcomingclassroomenvironmentforstudentswithspecialneedsthantoactually

implementtheaccommodationsandadaptationslistedinthestudents’IEP.Inthissingle

study,generaleducationteachers,forthemostpart,reportedthattheywereill-prepared

toteachstudentswithspecialneedsintheirclassrooms,primarilyduetoalackofexposure


toinclusivepracticesintheirteacherpreparationprogram(Zagona,Kurth,&MacFarland,

2017).

Summary

Thisreviewcoveredtentopics:(1)ajustificationforthecurrentresearchstudy,(2)

relevanthistoryandlegislation,(3)generaleducationteacherperceptionsofstudentswith

specialneeds,(4)generaleducationteacherperceptionsofinclusion,(5)collaboration

amonggeneraleducationandspecialeducationteachers,(6)teachertrainingprograms,(7)

preserviceteacherperceptionsofstudentswithspecialneeds,(8)preserviceteacher

perceptionsofinclusion,(9)bestpracticesforinclusion,and(10)generaleducation

teachers’perceptionsoftheirpreparednessforinclusion.

Overall,practicingandpreservicegeneraleducationteachersgenerallyhave

positiveviewsofbothstudentswithdisabilitiesandinclusion.However,manyalsoexpress

alackoftrainingineffectivelyincludingstudentswithspecialneedsintheirclassrooms.

Currentresearchalsosuggeststhatteachertrainingprogramsarenotadequately

preparingteachersforinclusion.Sinceasignificantnumberofstudentswithspecialneeds

participateingeneraleducationclasses,thequestionagainarises:Shouldgeneral

educationteachersreceivemoretrainingtoeffectivelyimplementinclusivepracticesin

theirclassrooms?Giventhelackofresearchregardinggeneraleducationteachers’

perceivedlevelsofpreparednesstoteachininclusiveclassrooms,thecurrentresearch

studyaimstobridgethatgap.


CHAPTER3:METHOD

Thischapterwilldelineatethedesignofthecurrentresearchstudy.First,participants

andgeneraldemographicinformationwillbepresented.Second,adescriptionoftheresearch

instrumentwillbeprovided.Third, studyprocedureswillbedefined.Finally, thedescriptive

dataanalysistechniquesusedinthecurrentstudywillbeaddressed.

Participants

Aninvitationtoparticipateinthisresearchstudywasextendedtoallgeneral

educationteachersatasuburbanmiddleschoolinsouth-centralPennsylvania.Inthis

study,thetermgeneraleducationteacherincludedteacherswho,atthetimeofthestudy,

didnotteachanyclassesspecificallydesignedforstudentswithdisabilities.Atotalof20

outof43possiblegeneraleducationteachersatthisschoolagreedtoparticipateinthe

studyandcompletedtheonlinesurvey.Table2showsthecontentarea(s)inwhichthe

participantstaughtatthetimeofthestudy.

Inadditiontocontentarea(s)taught,participantswereaskedtoselectfromfour

optionsregardingthenumberofyearsofteachingexperiencetheyhad.Oneparticipant

hadlessthan5yearsteachingexperience;fourparticipantshad5–10yearsofteaching

experience;sixparticipantshad10–15yearsofteachingexperience;andnineparticipants

hadmorethan15yearsofteachingexperience.

Finally,participantswereaskediftheyhaveeverbeenamemberofanIEPteam.17

participantsrespondedthattheyhavebeenamemberofanIEPteam,while3responded

thattheyhaveneverbeenamemberofanIEPteam.


Table2:Numberofparticipantspercontentarea(s)taught.

ContentArea(s)Taught NumberofParticipants

English 2

Math 2

Science 3

SocialStudies 3

Health/PE 2

MultipleSubjects 5

Other 3

Instrument

ThequestionsinthesurveyusedforthisstudywereadaptedfromHarkinsand

Fletcher’sEducators’AttitudesRegardingInclusiveEducationOnlineSurvey(2015)and

LeDoux,Graves,&Burt’sTeacherQuestionnaire(2012).Thesurveyaimedtosolicit

informationaboutgeneraleducationteachers’attitudesregardingstudentswithspecial

needs,theirperceivedlevelofpreparednessforteachingstudentswithspecialneedsinthe

generaleducationclassroom,andtheiroverallrecommendationsforteacherpreparation

programstobetterpreparegeneraleducationteachersforinclusion.Thesurveywas

administeredonSurveyMonkey.comandconsistedof3generaldemographicquestions,20

Likert-Scalequestions,and3open-endedquestions(SeeAppendixA).


Procedure

Anemailrequestingpermissiontocarryoutthecurrentstudywassenttothe

superintendentoftheparticipatingschooldistrict.Attachedtotheemailwasasiteconsent

form(SeeAppendixB)outliningallpertinentstudyinformation,includingbutnotlimited

tothefollowing:thepurposeandprocedureofthestudy;theabsenceofrisks,discomforts,

benefits,andcompensation;aconfidentialitystatement;andcontactinformation.The

superintendentagreedtoparticipateinthestudyandsignedtheconsentform.Allgeneral

educationteachersattheparticipatingschoolwerethencontactedviaemailandsentalink

totheonlinesurvey.Thesurveywasprecededbyaparticipantconsentform(SeeAppendix

C)withcontentsimilartothesiteconsentform.Tomaintainanonymityandconfidentiality,

signatureswerenotcollectedontheparticipantconsentforms.Instead,participantswere

madeawarethatcompletionofthesurveyindicatedtheirconsent.Participantsweregiven

twoweekstocompletethesurveyandasecondreminderemailwassentatthestartofthe

secondweek.

DescriptiveDataAnalysis

Attheendofthetwo-weekcollectionperiod,hard-copiesofthesurveyresponses

wereprintedfromSurveyMonkey.comtoanalyzethedata.Quantitativedescriptive

statisticsintheformofpercentageswerecalculatedforthedemographicandLikertScale

questions,whilequalitativedatawascollectedfromtheopen-endedquestions.Theopen-

endedresponseswerealsoanalyzedforthemes.Theresearcherattemptedtoanalyzethe

datainthecontextofteachercontentarea(s)andyearsofexperience,buttheresultswere

statisticallyinsignificantduetothesmallsamplesize.


CHAPTER4:RESULTSANDFINDINGS

Thischapterwilloutlinetheresultsandfindingsfromtheonlinesurveyusedinthe

currentresearchstudy.Thechapterisseparatedintotwosections:QuantitativeDataand

QualitativeData.SomeLikertScalequestionshavebeenomittedduetostatistically

insignificantresults.

QuantitativeData QuantitativedatawasobtainedfromtheLikertScalequestionsoftheonlinesurvey

anddescriptivestatisticsintheformofpercentageswerecalculatedinordertoanalyzethe

data.Thesurveyquestionswereseparatedintofourthemes:(1)attitudesandbeliefsof

studentswithspecialneedsandinclusion,(2)perceivedlevelofpreparednessfor

inclusion,(3)challengesandneededsupportstoeffectivelyimplementinclusivepractices,

and(4)planningandpreparationforinclusion.Theresearcherattemptedtoanalyzethe

datainthecontextofthedemographicinformationcollectedinthesurvey,but,duetothe

smallsamplesize,theresultswerestatisticallyinsignificant.Therefore,theresults

reportedinthesubsequentfoursectionsonlyreflecttheoverallpercentagesofLikertScale

responsesfromallparticipants.

Theme1:Attitudesandbeliefs.ResponsesvariedforLikertScalequestionswhich

askedparticipantstoidentifytheirattitudesandbeliefsregardingstudentswithspecial

needsandinclusiveeducation,thoughmostseemedtoalignwithcontemporaryviewsof

specialeducation.Forexample,whenaskedtorespondtothestatement,“inclusive

educationimpedesthelearningoftypically-functioningstudents,”75%ofparticipants


statedthattheydisagreeorstronglydisagree.Figure1showsthedistributionofresponses

forthatLikertScaleitem.

Figure1:ResponseDistributionforLikertScaleResponse#2

Similarly,whenaskedtorespondtothestatement,“studentswithspecialneedscan

learninthegeneraleducationclassroom,”100%ofparticipantsstatedthattheyagree,with

fiveparticipantsstronglyagreeing.Interestingly,eventheparticipantsthatbelieved

inclusiveeducationimpedesthelearningoftypically-functioningstudents,agreedthat

studentswithspecialneedscanlearninthegeneraleducationclassroom.Therefore,one

cansurmisethatevenwhenparticipantsbelieveinclusiveeducationisnotbeneficialforall

students,theydobelieveitisbeneficialforstudentswithspecialneeds.

Finally,participantswerealsoaskedtorespondtothestatement“studentswith

specialneedsarebestservedinthespecialeducationclassroom.”About79%of

participantsdisagreedwiththisstatement;oneparticipantchosenottorespondtothis

item.Whilethemajoritydisagreedwiththisstatement,fourparticipantsdidagreethatthe

3

12

5

0

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Inclusive education impedes the learning of typically-functioning students.


bestplacementforstudentswithspecialneedsisthespecialeducationclassroom.Given

thatthequestiondidnotspecifywhatkindofdisability,onecanassumethatthose

participantsbelieveallstudentswithspecialneeds,regardlessofdisability,arebestserved

inaself-containedenvironment.Figure2showstheresponsedistributionforthatLikert

Scaleitem.


Theme2:Perceivedlevelofpreparedness.Participantsgenerallyagreedthat

theirrespectivecollege-levelteacherpreparationprogramsdidnotpreparedthemfor

inclusioninthegeneraleducationclassroom.Forinstance,whenaskedtorespondtothe

statement,“mycollege-levelteacherpreparationprogramadequatelypreparedmetoteach

studentswithspecialneeds,”75%ofparticipantsdisagreed.Figure3showstheresponse

distributionforthatLikertScaleitem.Conversely,65%ofparticipantsagreedthattheyhad

athoroughunderstandingoftheIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationActandSection

1

14

4

0


Students with special needs are best served in the special education classroom.


504oftheRehabilitationActandtheireffectsongeneraleducationteachers.Giventhat

participantsdidnotfeelpreparedtoteachstudentswithspecialneeds,butfelttheyhada

thoroughunderstandingofrelevantlegislation,onemightsurmisethattheircollege-level

teacherpreparationprogramsfocusedheavilyonlegislationandnotinclusivepractices

(seeQualitativeDataformoredetails).


Theme3:Anticipatedchallengesandneededsupports.Responsesvariedfor

LikertScalequestionsregardinganticipatedchallengesandneededsupports.Infact,

challengesandneededsupportsthattheresearcheranticipatedwere,forthemostpart,not

perceivedaschallengesfortheparticipants.Forinstance,75%ofparticipantsdisagreed

withthestatement,“IEPsaredifficulttointerpret.”Similarly,90%ofparticipantsagreed

thatthereiseffectivecollaborationamonggeneralandspecialeducationteachersattheir

school.WhileparticipantsdidnotfindIEPsorcollaborationchallenging,80%didagree

7

8

4

1


My college-level teacher prepartion program adequately prepared me to teach students with special needs.


withthestatement,“teachingstudentswithspecialneedsinthegeneraleducation

classroomischallenging.”Figure4showstheresponsedistributionforthatLikertScale

item.Therefore,onemightgatherthat,effectivecollaborationandtheabilitytointerpret

anIEPdoesnotaffectactualinclusiveteachingpractices.


Theme4:Planningandpreparation.ResponseswerevariedforLikertScale

questionsregardingtheplanningandpreparationprocessforinclusiveeducation.For

example,whenaskedtorespondtothestatement,“Ineedhelpimplementingthe

accommodationsinIEPs,”55%ofparticipantsagreedand45%ofparticipantsdisagreed.

Figure5showstheresponsedistributionforthatLikertScaleitem.Therewasnoindication

thatyearsofexperienceorthecontentarea(s)inwhichtheparticipantstaughtaffected

whetherornotaparticipantfelttheyneededhelpimplementingaccommodations.

0

4

14

2


Teaching students with special needs in the general education classroom is challenging.



ParticipantswerealsoaskedtorespondtotwoLikertScalequestionsregardingthe

amountoftimetheyspendplanningforstudentswithspecialneedsanddifferentiated

instruction.65%ofparticipantsstatedthattheyspendmoretimeplanningfortypically-

functioningstudentsthantheydoforstudentswithspecialneeds,yet75%alsoexpressed

thattheyneededmoretimetoplanfordifferentiatedinstruction.Perhapsmoretime

allottedforplanningandpreparationwouldaffecttheseresults.

QualitativeData Qualitativedatawasobtainedfromthethreeopen-endedquestionsoftheonline

survey:(1)Whatchallengeshaveyouexperiencedteachingstudentswithspecialneedsin

yourclassroom?(2)Howdidyourcollege-levelteacherpreparationprogramprepareyou

toimplementinclusioninthegeneraleducationclassroom?And(3)Whatspecifickindof

trainingdoyouthinkshouldbeincludedinteacherpreparationprogramstobetter

2

7

10

1


I need help implementing the accommodations in IEPs.


preparegeneraleducationteachersforinclusion?Thesubsequentthreesectionsrevealthe

majorthemesthatemergedfromparticipantresponsestoeachquestion.

Question1:Challengeswithinclusion.Whenaskedaboutchallengesparticipants

haveexperiencedteachingstudentswithspecialneedsinthegeneraleducationclassroom,

twomajorthemesemerged:largeclasssizesandlackoftime.Manyparticipantsexpressed

thatlargeclasssizes(over30studentsatthisparticularschool)makesitverydifficultto

effectivelyandefficientlyimplementinclusivepractices.Infact,oneparticipantstatedthat

itisverychallengingto“...meettheneedsofstudentsingeneral,letalonestudentswith

specialneedswhenthereare36kidsintheclass.”Nineotherparticipantsagreedthatitis

difficulttobalanceworkingwithstudentswhoneedone-on-oneattentionwhenthereare

20-30otherstudentsintheroomwhoalsoneedtheirhelp.

Similarly,participantsexpressedthatthereisnotenoughtimeinaclassperiodto

givetheindividualizedattentionthatsomestudentswithspecialneedsrequire.One

participantstatedthatstudentswithspecialneedsoftenrequire“...additionaltimeontasks

whenthemajorityoftheclassisreadyforanewtopic.”Anotherparticipantwrotethat,in

theirexperience,studentswithspecialneedsrequiremore“one-on-onetimethanIcan

givetheminasingleclassperiod.”Overall,practicinggeneraleducationteachersseemto

credittheirchallengeswithinclusiontolargeclasssizesandthenotionthatstudentswith

specialneedstakelongertocompletetheirworkthanatypically-functioningstudent.

Question2:Preparednessforinclusion.Participantswere,forthemostpart,in

consensuswhenaskedhowtheircollegelevelteacherpreparationprogrampreparedthem

forinclusioninthegeneraleducationclassroom.Infact,15outofthe17participantsthat

respondedtothisquestionstatedthattheirrespectivecollege-levelteacherpreparation


programsdidnotpreparethemforinclusion.Oneparticipantstatedthattheywere“...not

preparedatall,”andanotherparticipantwrotethattheirteacherpreparationprogram

“...didnot[help].MostofwhatIlearnedaboutinclusioncamefrommebeing[ageneral

educationteacher]intheclassroom.”Inotherwords,practicinggeneraleducationteachers

feltunderpreparedforinclusionandhavebeenforcedtolearninclusivetechniquesonthe

job.

Whilethemajorityofparticipantsstatedthattheircollege-levelteacherpreparation

programdidnotpreparethemforinclusion,twoparticipantsthatchosetoanswerthe

questionfeltotherwise.Oneparticipantsimplystatedthattheyhadtakenseveralclasses,

andtheotherwrotethattheir“...experienceswerebeneficialandhelped[to]makethe

transitionfromcollegestudentteachertofull-timeeducator.”Thisparticipantalsopointed

totheirstudentteachingexperiencebeingamajorcontributortotheirpreparednessfor

inclusion,asthatclassroomwasawell-establishedinclusiveclassroom.

Question3:Recommendationsforcollegeprograms.Participantsprovided

manyrecommendationsforcollege-levelteacherpreparationprogramswhenitcomesto

betterpreparinggeneraleducationteachercandidatesforinclusion.However,therewere

tworecurringthemesintheresponses:explicitinclusiveteachingstrategiesandpracticum

experienceinaninclusiveclassroom.Anumberofparticipantsagreedthatitwouldbe

beneficialforteacherpreparationprogramstospendmoretimeteachingaboutexplicit

inclusivetechniquesand“...howtoactuallyreadandimplementanIEPand504plan”than

ondisabilitycharacteristicsandlegislation.Oneparticipantwrotethatitisnecessaryto

“prepareteachersforthespecifics,”andgaveexamplessuchasdifferentiationtechniques,

explicitaccommodationsthatwork,progressmonitoring,thegeneraleducationteacher’s


roleduringtheIEPmeeting,andmore.Otherparticipantsthoughtitnecessarytoprovidea

numberofpracticumexperiencesinaninclusive,generaleducationclassroomsothat

generaleducationteachercandidatescan“...seereal-lifeexamplesofhow[inclusion]works

effectively.”Overall,participantsfeltthat,whilethetraditionalmodelofproviding

disabilitydefinitionsandexposuretorelevantlegislationisimportant,practicalskillsmay

bemorebeneficial.


CHAPTER5:DISCUSSION

Thischapterwillprovideasummaryofthecurrentresearchstudy.First,areviewof

thefindingsastheyalignwithcontemporaryliteraturewillbediscussed.Second,limitations

willbehighlighted.Third,implicationsforfutureresearchandteacherpreparationprograms

willbesuggested.Finally,abriefsummarywillbeprovided.

ReviewoftheFindingsBasedonContemporaryLiterature

Overall,thefindingsofthecurrentstudyalignwithcontemporaryliterature.

Participantsinthecurrentstudyhavegenerallypositiveattitudestowardinclusionand

believethatstudentswithspecialneedscanlearninthegeneraleducationclassroom.

Manycontemporarystudiessupportthesefindings,andfurtherstatethatgeneral

educationteachersalsobelievethatstudentswithspecialneedsbenefitfrominstruction

withtheirtypically-functioningpeers(Harkins&Fletcher,2015;Hwang&Evans,2011;

Kargin,Güldenoglu,&Sahin,2010;Kurth&Forber-Pratt,2017).

Whiletheseviewsaregenerallypositive,thereareinherentchallenges.Participants

reportedthatclasssizeandneededsupportinimplementingtheaccommodationsin

students’IEPsplayamajorroleinnotonlytheeffectivenessofinclusiveeducation,butalso

generaleducationteachers’perceivedlevelsofpreparednessforteachingstudentswith

specialneedsintheirclassrooms.Contemporaryliteraturereinforcesthesefindings,one

studysuggestingthatthelackofsufficienttrainingininclusiveeducation,specificallythe

adaptationoflessonmaterials,causesgeneraleducationteacherstofeelthattheycannot

ethicallyteachthesestudents(Hwang&Evans,2011;Kargin,Güldenoglu,&Sahin,2010).


Finally,itisevidentthatcollege-levelteacherpreparationprogramsareintegralto

effective,confidentimplementationofinclusivepracticesbygeneraleducationteachers.A

prevailingthemeinmostteacherpreparationprogramsacrossthecountryisthelackof

specialeducationcourseworkandpracticumexperienceforgeneraleducationteachers,

andmanystudieshavesoughttodeterminetheeffectivenessoftheseprogramswhenit

comestoinclusion(Allday,Neilson-Gratti,&Hudson,2013;Leyser,Zeiger,&Romi,2011;

Shani&Hebel,2016;Thompson,2012).Thefindingsofthisstudysuggestthatgeneral

educationteachersareseverelyunderpreparedtoeffectivelyimplementinclusionupon

graduationbecausecourseworkisheavilyfocusedondisabilitydefinitionsandrelevant

legislation,notinclusivepracticesspecifictogeneraleducationcontentareas.

Contemporaryresearchsupportsthesefindingsandassertthatmorepracticumexperience

ininclusiveclassroomsisnecessarytoprovidegeneraleducationteachersthetools,

resources,andexperiencetoeffectivelyteachstudentswithspecialneedsintheir

classrooms(Lucas&Frazier,2014;Thompson,2012).

Overall,moreresearchisnecessarytodeterminethebestcourseofactionfor

adequatelypreparinggeneraleducationteachercandidatesforinclusion.Contemporary

literatureandthefindingsofthisstudyassertthatgeneraleducationteachersrecognize

thevalueofinclusivepracticesandwantstudentswithspecialneedstosucceedintheir

classrooms,butalackoftrainingimpedesthisdesire.College-levelteacherpreparation

programsplayamajorroleinthedevelopmentandacquisitionofskillsandresourcesfor

allteachers,andcurrentresearchseemstopointtoagapinthecurriculumofthese

programswhenitcomestoinclusioninthegeneraleducationclassroom.


Limitations

Anumberoflimitationsaffectthefindingsofthecurrentstudy.First,the

participantsinthecurrentresearchstudywereasampleofgeneraleducationteachers

fromoneschoolinsouth-centralPennsylvania,whichlimitstheabilitytogeneralizeresults

toallgeneraleducationteachers.Italsolimitstheresearcher’sabilitytomakeclaimsabout

theattitudesandbeliefsofeducatorsregardingstudentswithspecialneedsandinclusive

educationinotherschooldistricts,states,ornationaleducationaljurisdictions.

Anothersignificantlimitationofthecurrentstudywastheverysmallsamplesize

(onlytwentyparticipants).Alargersamplewithmoreparticipants,perhapsfromavariety

ofschoolsacrosstheUnitedStates,wouldlikelyyieldmoresignificantresults.Moreover,a

larger,morediversesamplemightalsoallowresearcherstoanalyzethedatainthecontext

ofthegeneraldemographicinformationthatwasalsointhesurvey(e.g.contentarea(s)

taught,yearsofteachingexperience,andmembershiponanIEPteam).

Thenextpossiblelimitationofthestudyisthatallcollecteddatawasself-reported.

Giventhecontroversialnatureofanumberofthesurveyquestions,itispossiblethat

participantsmayhavechosenanswerswhichtheybelievedalignedwithcontemporary

viewsofspecialeducationandinclusion,nottheirownpersonalattitudesandbeliefs.

Finally,thesurveyinstrumentusedwasdevelopedsolelyforuseinthecurrent

studybyadaptingquestionsfromtwosurveysformtwopreviousstudies(SeeChapter3).

However,duetotimeconstraints,apilotstudywasnotconducted.Therefore,itispossible

thatsurveyquestionsmayhavebeenwritteninawaywhichcausedconfusion.Apilot

studywouldhaveeliminatedthisconcern.


Duetotheselimitationsandotherpotentiallimitationsnotrecognizedbythe

researcher,resultsofthisstudyshouldnotbeusedtomakesgeneralizingclaimsaboutall

generaleducationteachers.

ImplicationsforFurtherResearchandTeacherPreparationPrograms

Avarietyofimplicationsarisefromthecurrentstudy,bothforfutureresearchand

teacherpreparationprograms.First,toobtainmoremeaningfulresults,theresearcher

suggestscollectingsurveyresponsesfromavarietyofschoolsacrosstheUnitedStates.A

largersamplewouldallowresearcherstoanalyzethedatainthecontextofthegeneral

demographicinformationcollectedinthesurvey.Itwouldalsoallowresearcherstomake

moregeneralizedclaimsaboutthemajorityofgeneraleducationteachers.

Anotherpossibleresearchimplicationwouldbetoalsosurveyspecialeducation

teachersregardinghowwellpreparedtheybelievegeneraleducationteachersarefor

inclusion,aswellastheirrecommendationsforteacherpreparationprograms.Surveying

generalandspecialeducationteacherswouldnotonlyprovidemorerobustdata,buta

varietyofdifferentviewpointsontheeffectivenessofinclusioninAmericanschools.

Implicationsotherthanthoseforfutureresearchalsoarisefromthefindingsofthe

currentstudy,namelyforteacherpreparationprograms.Giventhatquestionsinthesurvey

askedabouttheeffectivenessofteacherpreparationprogramsandpracticingteacher

recommendations,agreatdealcanbesurmisedfromthesesurveys.First,ifprogramseven

requirespecialeducationcourseworkfortheirgeneraleducationcandidates,the

researchersuggeststhatthesecoursesgobeyonddisabilitydefinitionsandrelevant

legislation.Inotherwords,programsshouldofferandrequirecourseswhichteachexplicit


inclusivestrategiesforinclusioninthegeneraleducationteachercandidates’respective

contentareas(e.g.Mathteachercandidatesshouldbetaughtspecificstrategiesforteaching

mathtostudentswithspecialneedsinthegeneraleducationclassroom).Alongwiththese

courseadditions,practicinggeneraleducationteachersandtheresearcheralsosuggest

includingpracticumexperienceinaninclusiveclassroom.Thiswouldallowgeneral

educationteachercandidatesfirst-handexperiencepriortotheirteachingtheirown

studentsintheirownclassrooms.

Summary

Theresultsofthecurrentstudysuggestthatmoreresearchisneededregarding

generaleducationteachers’preparednessforinclusion.Resultsalsoindicatethatlevelsof

preparednessaredirectlyrelatedtoalackofsufficienttrainingininclusivestrategiesfor

generaleducationteachercandidatesfromcollege-levelteacherpreparationprograms.

Boththecurrentstudyandcontemporaryliteraturesupportgeneraleducationteachers

havingpositiveattitudestowardstudentswithspecialneedsandinclusion,but,again,due

tothelackofpropertraining,generaleducationteachersfindteachinginaninclusive

classroomchallenging.Withthenumbersofstudentswithspecialneedsparticipatingin

generaleducationclassroomsrisingeveryyear,thequestionagainarises:Shouldgeneral

educationteachersreceivemoretrainingtoeffectivelyteachthesestudents?Accordingto

thefindingsofthisstudy,theanswertothatquestionisyes.


REFERENCESAjuwon,P.M.,Lechtenberger,D.,Griffin-Shirley,N.,Sokolosky,S.,Zhou,L.,&Mullins,F.E.

(2012).Generaleducationteachersperceptionsofincludingstudentswithdisabilitiesintheir

classrooms.InternationalJournalofSpecialEducation,27(3),100-107.Retrievedfrom

http://www.internationalsped.com

Allday,R.A.,Neilson-Gatti,S.,&Hudson,T.M.(2013).Preparationforinclusioninteacher

educationpre-servicecurricula.TeacherEducationandSpecialEducation,36(4),298-311.doi:

10.1177/0888406413497485

Berry,R.A.W.(2010).Preserviceandearlycareerteachers’attitudestowardinclusion,

instructionalaccommodations,andfairness:Threeprofiles.TheTeacherEducator,45,75-95.

doi:10.1080/08878731003623677

Cameron,D.L.&Cook,B.G.(2013).Generaleducationteachers’goalsandexpectationsfor

theirincludedstudentswithmildandseveredisabilities.EducationandTraininginAutismand

DevelopmentalDisabilities,48(1),18-30.Retrievedfromhttps://daddcec.org

Carter,N.,Prater,M.A.,Jackson,A.,&Marchant,M.(2009).Educators’perceptionsof

collaborativeplanningprocessesforstudentswithdisabilities.PreventingSchoolFailure,54(1),

60-70.doi:10.3200/PSFL.54.1.60-70

Çelik,B.&Kraska,M.(2017).Attitudesofelementary-levelandsecondary-levelteachers

towardstudentswithdisabilities.E-InternationalJournalofEducationalResearch,8(1),1-13.

doi:10.19160/e-ijer.64318


Crowson,H.M.&Brandes,J.A.(2014).Predictingpre-serviceteachers’oppositiontoinclusionofstudents

withdisabilities:Apathanalyticstudy.SocialPsychologyofEducation,17,161-178.

doi:10.1007/s11218-013-9238-2

Goldstein,P.,Warde,B.,&Rody,C.(2013).Studentswithdisabilitiesingeneraleducation

classrooms:Implicationsforteacherpreparationprograms.TeacherEducationandPractice,26(3),

554-568.Retrievedfromhttps://www.rowman.com

Harkins,B.,&Fletcher,T.(2015).Surveyofeducatorattituderegardinginclusiveeducation

withinasouthernarizonaschooldistrict.JournalofMultilingualEducationResearch,6(1),61-90.

Hwang,Y.S.&Evans,D.(2011).Attitudestowardsinclusion:Gapsbetweenbeliefand

practice.InternationalJournalofSpecialEducation,26(1),136-146.Retrievedfrom

http://www.internationalsped.com

Kargin,T.,Güldenoğlu,B.,Şahin,F.(2010).Opinionsofthegeneraleducationteacherson

theadaptationsforstudentswithspecialneedsinthegeneraleducationclassrooms.Educational

Sciences:Theory&Practice,10(4),2455-2464.Retrievedfromhttp://www.estp.com.tr

Kirby,M.(2017).Implicitassumptionsinspecialeducationpolicy:promotingfullinclusion

forstudentswithlearningdisabilities.ChildYouthCareForum,46,175-191.doi:10.1007/s10566-

016-9382-x

Kurth,J.J.,&Forber-Pratt,A.(2017).Viewsofinclusiveeducationfromtheperspectivesof

preserviceandmentorteachers.Inclusion,5(3),189-202.Doi:10.1352/2326-69885.3.189

Lechtenberger,D.,Griffin-Shirley,N.,&Zhou,L.(2013).Beyondexposuretocollaboration:

Preparinggeneral-educationteachercandidatesforinclusivepractice.TheTeacherEducator,48,

244-256.doi:10.1080/08878730.2013.796030

LeDoux,M.,Graves,S.L.,&Winona,B.(2012).Meetingtheneedsofspecialeducation

studentsintheinclusionclassroom.JAASEP,20-34.


Lucas,D.&Frazier,B.(2014).Theeffectsofaservice-learningintroductorydiversity

courseonpre-servicesteachers’attitudestowardteachingdiversestudentpopulations.Academy

ofEducationalLeadershipJournal,18(2),91-124.Retrievedfromhttps://www.abacademies.org

Leyser,Y.,Zeiger,T.,&Romi,S.(2011).Changesinself-efficacyofprospectivespecialand

generaleducationteachers:Implicationsforinclusiveeducation.InternationalJournalofDisability,

Development,andEducation,58(3),241-255.doi:10.1080/1034912X.2011.598397

Mackey,M.(2014).Inclusiveeducationintheunitedstates:Middleschoolgeneral

educationteachers’approachestoinclusion.InternationalJournalofInstruction,7(2),5-20.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.e-iji.net

Mahar,P.,Terras,K.,Chiasson,K.,Chalmers,L.,&Lee,T.(2010).Preservicegeneral

educationteachers’attitudesandknowledgeofspecialeducation.JournaloftheAmerican

AcademyofSpecialEducationProfessionals,23-32.Retrievedfromhttp://www.aasep.org

Obiakor,F.E.,Harris,M.,Mutua,K.,Rotatori,A.,&Algozzine,B.(2012).Makinginclusion

workingeneraleducationclassrooms.EducationandTreatmentofChildren,35(3),477-490.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.educationandtreatmentofchildren.net

Rowan,L.,Kline,J.,&Mayer,D.(2017).Earlycareerteachers’perceptionsoftheir

preparednesstoteach“diverselearners”:Insightsfromanaustralianresearchproject.Australian

JournalofTeacherEd.,42(10),71-92.doi:10.14221/ajte.2017v42n10.5

Shani,M.&Hebel,O.(2016).Educationtowardsinclusiveeducation:Assessingateacher

trainingprogramforworkingwithpupilswithspecialeducationalneedsanddisabilitiesenrolled

ingeneraleducationschools.InternationalJournalofSpecialEducation,31(3),1-23.Retrieved

fromhttp://internationaljournalofspecialed.com

Thompson,T.(2012).Preparingsecondarypre-servicemathematicsteachersforinclusion.

NationalTeacherEducationJournal,5(1),53-62.Retrievedfromhttps://ntejournal.com


Vitelli,E.M.(2015).Universaldesignforlearning:Areweteachingittopreservicegeneral

educationteachers?JournalofSpecialEducationTechnology,30(3),166-178.doi:10.117

7/0162643415618931

Yildiz,N.G.(2015).Teacherandstudentbehaviorsininclusiveclassrooms.Education

Sciences:Theory&Practice,15(1),177-184.doi:10.12738/estp.2015.1.2155

Yuknis,C.(2015).Attitudesofpre-servicesteacherstowardinclusionforstudentswhoare

deaf.DeafnessandEducationInternational,17(4),183-193.doi:10.1179/1557069X15Y.

0000000003

Zagona,A.L.,Kurth,J.A.,&MacFarland,S.Z.C.(2017).Teachers’viewsoftheirpreparation

forinclusiveeducationandcollaboration.TeacherEducationandSpecialEducation,40(3),163-

178.doi:10.1177/0888406417692969


APPENDIXA:SURVEYQUESTIONSSelectthecontentarea(s)inwhichyoucurrentlyteach.☐ English☐ Math☐ Science☐ SocialStudies☐ Art/Music☐ Health/PE☐ ForeignLanguage☐ Other(pleasespecify)Howmanyyearsofteachingexperiencedoyouhave?☐ Lessthan5years☐ 5-10years☐10-15years☐Morethan15yearsHaveyoueverbeenamemberofanIEPteam?☐Yes☐NoLikertScaleQuestions

Eachofthefollowingtwentystatementswereproceededbya4-pointLikertScale.Participantswereaskedtoselecttheresponsewhichmostcloselyalignswiththeirexperiencesandbeliefs.

☐StronglyDisagree☐Disagree☐Agree☐StronglyAgree

1. Ihavehadpositiveexperienceswithinclusiveeducationinmyclassroom.2. Inclusiveeducationimpedesthelearningoftypically-functioningstudents.3. Iamadequatelypreparedtoteachstudentswithspecialneedsinmyclassroom.4. Mycollege-levelteacherpreparationprogramadequatelypreparedmetoteachstudentswithspecial

needs.5. Ihaveenoughsupporttoteachstudentswithspecialneeds.6. Thereiseffectivecollaborationbetweengeneraleducationteachersandspecialeducationteachersin

myschool.7. Studentswithspecialneedscanbebestservedinthespecialeducationclassroom.8. Studentswithbehavioralproblemsimpedethelearningofotherstudentsinmyclassroom.9. Teachingstudentswithspecialneedsinthegeneraleducationclassroomischallenging.10. Ineedmoretimeforplanningdifferentiatedinstruction.11. Ispendmoretimeplanningforstudentswithspecialneedsthanfortherestofmystudents.

TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 4812. Appropriatelygradingstudentswithspecialneedsischallenging.13. Physicalaccommodationstomyclassroomareeasiertoimplementthanacademicaccommodations.14. Ineedhelpimplementingaccommodationsinstudents’IEPs.15. Ineedmoreresourcesformodifyingcurriculumforstudentswithspecialneeds.16. Myschoolhasprovidedprofessionaldevelopmentforteachingstudentswithspecialneedsin

inclusiveclassrooms.17. IEPsaredifficulttointerpret.18. IhaveathoroughunderstandingoftheIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationAct(IDEA)andits

effectongeneraleducationteachers.19. IhaveathoroughunderstandingofSection504oftheRehabilitationActanditseffectongeneral

educationteachers.20. Studentswithspecialneedscanlearninthegeneraleducationclassroom.Open-EndedQuestionsWhatchallengeshaveyouexperiencedteachingstudentswithspecialneedsinyourclassroom?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Howdidyourcollege-levelteacherpreparationprogramprepareyoutoimplementinclusioninthegeneraleducationclassroom?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Whatspecifickindoftrainingdoyouthinkshouldbeincludedinteacherpreparationprogramstobetterpreparegeneraleducationteachersforinclusion?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________SurveyQuestionsAdaptedFrom:

Harkins,B.,&Fletcher,T.(2015).Surveyofeducatorattituderegardinginclusiveeducationwithinasouthernarizonaschooldistrict.JournalofMultilingualEducationResearch,6(1),61-90.

LeDoux,M.,Graves,S.L.,&Winona,B.(2012).Meetingtheneedsofspecialeducationstudentsintheinclusionclassroom.JAASEP,20-34.


APPENDIXB:SITECONSENTFORMPurposeofResearchThisstudyaimstosolicitgeneraleducationteachers’attitudesandperceived levelofpreparedness forteachingstudentswithspecialneedsintheinclusive,generaleducationclassroomtodeterminewhat,ifany,factorsaffectperceivedlevelsofpreparedness.Thisstudyalsoaimstosolicitrecommendationsforteacherpreparationprogramsfrompracticinggeneraleducationteachers.The informationgathered inthisstudyisnotastatementofparticipants’teachingqualifications,butrathertheeffectivenessofteacherpreparationprogramsinpreparinggeneraleducationteachersforinclusion.ProceduresByparticipatinginthisstudy,participantswillcompleteaone-timeonlinesurveysolicitinginformationabout their attitudes and perceived level of preparedness to teach studentswith special needs in theinclusiveclassroomand their recommendations for teacherpreparationprograms.Participantswillbecontactedviaemailandsentalinktotheonlinesurvey.Thedatacollectedfromthesurveywillbestoredelectronicallyinapassword-protectedfilefortwoyears,atwhichtimethefilewillbedeleted.Thedatawillbeanalyzedandcompiledintoanunpublishedmaster’sthesis,whichmaybepresentedatprofessionalmeetings.Allstepswillbetakentoprotecttheinterestsoftheparticipatingschooldistrict;nofinancialsupportisrequiredorexpected.RisksandDiscomfortsNorisksordiscomfortsareanticipatedfromparticipatinginthisstudy.BenefitsTherearenobenefitsfromparticipatinginthisstudy.CompensationThereisnocompensationforparticipatinginthisstudy.ConfidentialityThe information gathered in this studywill remain confidential, and participantswill not be asked toprovideanyinformationthatwouldmakeitpossibletoidentifythem.Onlytheresearcherslistedonthisformwillhaveaccesstothestudydataandinformation.Theresultsoftheresearchwillnotbepublished,butwillbereportedintheformofamaster’sthesis,andmaybepresentedatprofessionalmeetings.WithdrawalwithoutPrejudiceParticipationinthisstudyisstrictlyvoluntary;refusaltoparticipatewillinvolvenopenalty.Participantscanwithdrawfromthestudyatanytime.

ContactsandQuestionsIfparticipantshaveanyquestionsconcerningtheresearchprojectanditsproceduresorwouldliketoreviewtheresults,theymaycontactthefollowingindividuals:PrincipalInvestigator:MatthewVanCleef,GraduateStudent,[email protected]:Dr.ShannonHaley-Mize,AssociateProfessorofEducation,[email protected]

TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 50Shouldparticipantshaveanyquestionsabouttheirrightsasaparticipantinthisresearch,theymaycontacttheElizabethtownCollegeInstitutionalReviewBoardat(717)361-1133ortheIRBsubmissioncoordinator,[email protected]:

� Iaminthepositionofauthoritytoapprovethisstudy.

� Ihavereadtheaboveinformation.Ihaveaskedquestionsandreceivedanswers.Myorganizationiswillingtoparticipateinthisstudy.

� Acopyofthisconsentformhasbeenprovidedtome.NameofSite SiteRepresentativeName(Printed) Date SiteRepresentativeSignature Date InvestigatorSignature Date


APPENDIXC:PARTICIPANTCONSENTFORMPurposeofResearchThisstudyaimstosolicitgeneraleducationteachers’attitudesandperceived levelofpreparedness forteachingstudentswithspecialneedsintheinclusive,generaleducationclassroomtodeterminewhat,ifany,factorsaffectperceivedlevelsofpreparedness.Thisstudyalsoaimstosolicitrecommendationsfrompracticinggeneraleducationteachersforteacherpreparationprograms.Theinformationgatheredinthisstudy isnot a statementofparticipants’ teachingqualifications,but rather theeffectivenessof teacherpreparationprogramsinpreparinggeneraleducationteachersforinclusion.ProceduresByparticipating inthisstudy, Iwillcompleteaone-timeonlinesurveysoliciting informationaboutmyattitudes and perceived level of preparedness to teach students with special needs in the inclusiveclassroomandmyrecommendationsforteacherpreparationprograms.RisksandDiscomfortsNorisksordiscomfortsareanticipatedfrommyparticipationinthisstudy.BenefitsIwillnotreceiveanybenefitsforparticipatinginthisstudy.CompensationIwillnotreceiveanycompensationforparticipatinginthisstudy.ConfidentialityThe informationgathered in thisstudywill remainconfidential,andIwillnotbeaskedtoprovideanyinformationthatwouldmakeitpossibletoidentifyme.Onlytheresearcherslistedonthisformwillhaveaccess to thestudydataand information.Theresultsof theresearchwillnotbepublished,butwillbereportedintheformofamaster’sthesis,andmaybepresentedatprofessionalmeetings.WithdrawalwithoutPrejudiceMyparticipationinthisstudyisstrictlyvoluntary;refusaltoparticipatewillinvolvenopenalty.IfIinitiallydecidetoparticipate,Iamstillfreetowithdrawatanytime.ContactsandQuestionsShouldIhaveanyquestionsconcerningtheresearchprojectanditsproceduresorwouldliketoreviewtheresults,Imaycontactthefollowingindividuals:PrincipalInvestigator:MatthewVanCleef,GraduateStudent,[email protected]:Dr.ShannonHaley-Mize,AssociateProfessorofEducation,[email protected] I have any questions about my rights as a participant in this research, I may contact theElizabethtownCollegeInstitutionalReviewBoardat(717)361-1133ortheIRBsubmissioncoordinator,[email protected].

COMPLETIONOFTHISSURVEYINDICATESMYCONSENT.

teacher perceptions of their ability to teach in inclusive

Documents