Teacher Perceptions of their Ability to Teach in Inclusive ...
Transcript of 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
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 3
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 4
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,
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 5
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 6
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?
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 7
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.
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 8
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 9
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 10
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 11
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 12
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 13
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 14
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,
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 15
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 16
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 17
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 18
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 19
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.
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 20
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 21
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 22
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 23
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 24
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 25
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.
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 26
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.
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 27
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).
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 28
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.
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 29
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 30
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.
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 31
bestplacementforstudentswithspecialneedsisthespecialeducationclassroom.Given
thatthequestiondidnotspecifywhatkindofdisability,onecanassumethatthose
participantsbelieveallstudentswithspecialneeds,regardlessofdisability,arebestserved
inaself-containedenvironment.Figure2showstheresponsedistributionforthatLikert
Scaleitem.
Figure2:ResponseDistributionforLikertScaleResponse#7
Theme2:Perceivedlevelofpreparedness.Participantsgenerallyagreedthat
theirrespectivecollege-levelteacherpreparationprogramsdidnotpreparedthemfor
inclusioninthegeneraleducationclassroom.Forinstance,whenaskedtorespondtothe
statement,“mycollege-levelteacherpreparationprogramadequatelypreparedmetoteach
studentswithspecialneeds,”75%ofparticipantsdisagreed.Figure3showstheresponse
distributionforthatLikertScaleitem.Conversely,65%ofparticipantsagreedthattheyhad
athoroughunderstandingoftheIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationActandSection
1
14
4
0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Students with special needs are best served in the special education classroom.
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 32
504oftheRehabilitationActandtheireffectsongeneraleducationteachers.Giventhat
participantsdidnotfeelpreparedtoteachstudentswithspecialneeds,butfelttheyhada
thoroughunderstandingofrelevantlegislation,onemightsurmisethattheircollege-level
teacherpreparationprogramsfocusedheavilyonlegislationandnotinclusivepractices
(seeQualitativeDataformoredetails).
Figure3:ResponseDistributionforLikertScaleResponse#4
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
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
My college-level teacher prepartion program adequately prepared me to teach students with special needs.
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 33
withthestatement,“teachingstudentswithspecialneedsinthegeneraleducation
classroomischallenging.”Figure4showstheresponsedistributionforthatLikertScale
item.Therefore,onemightgatherthat,effectivecollaborationandtheabilitytointerpret
anIEPdoesnotaffectactualinclusiveteachingpractices.
Figure4:ResponseDistributionforLikertScaleResponse#9
Theme4:Planningandpreparation.ResponseswerevariedforLikertScale
questionsregardingtheplanningandpreparationprocessforinclusiveeducation.For
example,whenaskedtorespondtothestatement,“Ineedhelpimplementingthe
accommodationsinIEPs,”55%ofparticipantsagreedand45%ofparticipantsdisagreed.
Figure5showstheresponsedistributionforthatLikertScaleitem.Therewasnoindication
thatyearsofexperienceorthecontentarea(s)inwhichtheparticipantstaughtaffected
whetherornotaparticipantfelttheyneededhelpimplementingaccommodations.
0
4
14
2
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Teaching students with special needs in the general education classroom is challenging.
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 34
Figure5:ResponseDistributionforLikertScaleResponse#14
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
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
I need help implementing the accommodations in IEPs.
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 35
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 36
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 37
roleduringtheIEPmeeting,andmore.Otherparticipantsthoughtitnecessarytoprovidea
numberofpracticumexperiencesinaninclusive,generaleducationclassroomsothat
generaleducationteachercandidatescan“...seereal-lifeexamplesofhow[inclusion]works
effectively.”Overall,participantsfeltthat,whilethetraditionalmodelofproviding
disabilitydefinitionsandexposuretorelevantlegislationisimportant,practicalskillsmay
bemorebeneficial.
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 38
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).
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 39
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.
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 40
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.
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 41
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 42
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.
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 43
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 44
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.
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 45
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 46
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 47
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.
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 49
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
TEACHERPERCEPTIONSOFTHEIRABILITYTOTEACHININCLUSIVECLASSROOMS 51
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.