1
Section 1: The Problem
Introduction
The move toward inclusion of students with disabilities in regular education
classrooms initially focused on those students who, at one time, had been excluded or
separated from their nondisabled peers. This focus is now more strongly on a notion of
equity and social inclusion (Sharma, Forlin, & Loreman, 2008). Educational leaders see
equity in education as having two dimensions: fairness and inclusion (Organization for
Economic Cooperation & Development, 2008). Ross-Hill (2009) stated that education
leaders have known for many years that more attention should be given to the nation’s
education system.
In 2001, President George W. Bush enacted the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) in an attempt to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority
students and their peers. NCLB (2001) also allowed regular and special education
administrators to see the importance behind the inclusion of students with disabilities in
the current reform on education. This reformation meant that students with disabilities
must be allowed access to regular education curriculum. Likewise, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA) encouraged the inclusion of
diverse and exceptional learners in all classrooms in the United States. Ross-Hill (2009)
stated that the success and failure of both laws hinged on the knowledge and attitudes that
teachers portray in the inclusive classroom.
The organizing system of educating students with disabilities is one that has
greatly evolved and undergone a major transformation. The transformation took place
2
because of the mandate to include students with disabilities into the regular education
classroom with their nondisabled peers. Fletcher (2010) stated that the need for
additional research in the area was suggested by data from the U.S. Department of
Education (1997) that showed that more than 90% of students with disabilities received
instruction in general education classrooms and resource rooms. Specifically, in 2004,
the majority (96%) of students with disabilities were being included in regular settings,
and just over half (52.1%) of these students spent most (79%) of the day in a general
education classroom. This mandate, unlike earlier forms of integration, was not based on
the performance of the exceptional learner or the ability of the exceptional learner to keep
up with the regular education curriculum. It was a mandate for all exceptional learners
regardless of the disability to have the right to be educated in the general education
classroom with the necessary support.
Students once referred to as special education students or sped students with
exceptionalities were not high on the list of priorities for many educational institutions.
There was a common misconception that these students were not capable of achieving the
same levels of success as their nondisabled peers (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). In the
early years of special education, students with exceptionalities were excluded from their
nondisabled peers because of the belief that they were not academically and, in many
cases, socially equal. As a result, students with exceptionalities were educated in self-
contained classrooms. This self-contained setting meant that these students remained
together throughout the academic day, and were taught each subject by the special
education teacher and the teacher’s assistants (Lindsay, 2007). Many special education
3
teachers were responsible for teaching several subjects, although they were not formally
trained in those subject areas. The educators had to teach these subjects to the best of
their ability.
Definition of the Problem
The separation and exclusion of exceptional learners were evident not only in the
classroom but also in extracurricular and social aspects of academic institutions. For
example, students with exceptionalities were excluded from the general education
population in that they would eat lunch together as opposed to eating with their
nondisabled peers. Many viewed this separation as extreme exclusion, and, as a result,
advocates began to speak out about the injustice of these actions (Foote, Kilanowski-
Press, & Rinaldo, 2010). McKlensky and Waldron (2011a, 2011b) took an in-depth look
into inclusive practices and to what extent full inclusion programs provided the support
and resources necessary for students with disabilities to be successful academically.
McKlensky and Waldron stated a controversy continued about the education of students
with exceptionalities in the regular education classroom. The study centered on high
stakes test scores for students with disabilities in the areas of language arts and
mathematics. The study revealed that although some students with learning disabilities
made progress, many of the students with learning disabilities who were provided a large
amount of support and were exposed to valuable resources still showed little progress.
Many schools and school districts have transitioned from self-contained
classrooms where the exceptional learner is only educated with disabled peers to
mainstreaming. This transition entails the exceptional learner being allowed to
4
participate in the regular education environment and curriculum and core subject areas if
deemed capable of keeping up with nondisabled peers. Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis,
Orsati, and Cosier (2011) questioned whether self-contained classrooms were the proper
placement for educating students with disabilities. In the 2007 national report to
Congress, the U.S. Department of Education stated that nationally, 49% of students with
disabilities received instruction in inclusive settings for at least 80% of the school day,
and approximately 23% of students with exceptionalities obtained their education in a
separate special education setting. Causton-Theoharis et al. stated that research
suggested higher achievement occurred in inclusive settings and mandated that support
services were available for those who were exposed to the general curriculum through
inclusive practices. The researchers advocated for educating students with
exceptionalities in settings that were self-contained (Kauffman, Lloyd, Baker & Reidel,
1995). The self-contained setting meant they would be educated alongside peers who
also had disabilities, but services or instruction would be provided solely by a special
education teacher. The researchers observed several self-contained classroom settings
between the years of 2002-2009. They observed not only the practices that took place
and the relationship between the teachers and students, but the interactions between the
students themselves. Causton-Theoharis et al. (2011) stated the research suggested
although students were in a self-contained classroom, many of the practices used could
easily be translated into an inclusive classroom setting. They also found that the
instruction that took place in self-contained classrooms was not superior to that occurring
into the general education classroom.
5
In an effort to advance the act of integration of students with exceptionalities or
disabilities with their nondisabled peers, services provided to educate students with
disabilities evolved into inclusion. Inclusion occurred when an exceptional learner was
educated alongside nondisabled peers in all courses, with the allowance of the areas of
exceptionality or their area of need. This movement finally evolved into full inclusion.
Fully inclusive classrooms are classrooms that contain all students, even students who are
moderately disabled. Although these students are educated alongside their nondisabled
peers, they are still to receive the support services necessary to be academically
successful (Fletcher, 2010).
As this transition has taken place and special education services have evolved,
many middle and high schools have eliminated inclusion, which incorporated resource
classrooms where the special education teacher would teach those students and assess
them in their areas of weakness. Although many special education teachers were not
formally educated in one particular subject area, they were educated on how to
individualize lessons and remediate, so that student could build the basic skills necessary
to be successful in those subjects (McKlensky & Waldron, 2011). Laws governing the
education of exceptional learners stated that students with disabilities must be granted
access to the regular education curriculum (Ross-Hill, 2009). The laws governing special
education also stated that students with disabilities must be educated in the least
restrictive environment (Bradley et al., 2011).
Many factors contribute to the success or failure of inclusive classroom settings.
Teacher attitudes toward inclusive practices are critical to successful inclusion; they
6
impact classroom practices and ultimately student achievement (Philpott, Furey, &
Penney, 2010). Inclusion is a program that not only focuses on the academic and social
success of students with disabilities, but it challenges educators to achieve high standards
for all students. With many schools and school districts transitioning to fully inclusive
special education programs, there is a great debate in the education community about
whether full inclusion is the program needed to include students with exceptionalities
while still meeting individual needs. The integration of this fully inclusive educational
program leads to the important question of whether schools in the United States can go
from a society of exclusion to inclusion (Simpson, 2005).
Evidence of the Problem from the Professional Literature
Roberts and Teigland (2008) focused on inclusion as the only successful way to
include students with disabilities and adequately prepare them for the high stakes testing
measures that are now used to determine yearly growth. Roberts and Teigland stated that
the move of students with disabilities into the general education classroom was the first
step toward creating an inclusive environment. Although this movement to inclusion was
a step in the right direction, the next step was to make those students with disabilities feel
as if they actually belonged in an inclusive setting alongside their nondisabled peers.
Roberts and Teigland stated that many schools did not make the yearly progress
standards set by the state and district because they did not meet the needs of students with
disabilities. Teachers cannot simply teach the curriculum as they always have.
Additional resources, strategies for differentiation, and collaboration are a few things
needed to ensure that inclusion is successful according to Roberts and Teigland.
7
Although full inclusion is now an option of placement for students with
disabilities, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1991 (IDEA) did not
require that students with disabilities be educated in a fully inclusive classroom, but these
students were to be educated in their least restrictive environment. Before a student with
exceptionalities could be placed in a fully inclusive program, it must be determined by
the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team that this setting was the most appropriate
and least restrictive environment, which was determined on an individual basis (Bradley
et al., 2011). IDEA also recognized that all students with disabilities could not or should
not be educated in the regular education classroom; as a result, a continuum of services
must be provided (Zigmond, Kloo, & Volonino, 2009).
The local school in this study had eliminated a service. The service eliminated
was a special education program that incorporated resource classrooms. This service
allowed students with exceptionalities to be taught in a classroom with their disabled
peers by a special education teacher. This exclusion was because the district moved to a
fully inclusive program and mandated that each school have full inclusion classrooms for
subjects that have an end of course (EOC) assessment.
McCrary and McHatton (2011) stated the concern becomes whether general
education teachers have the necessary skills to scaffold support in their classrooms. The
concern about the skill level of educators was not the only concern. Another concern was
whether the system supported collaboration, with not only special educators but also
other service providers and families to improve outcomes for all students. This concern
was also a local concern. At the time of data collection, there were not enough special
8
education teachers to service students in a fully inclusive capacity, provide the support
and one-on-one instruction needed, and have the time necessary to collaborate and plan
with the general education teachers. From a legal perspective, special education is
supposed to provide an avenue through which children with disabilities are guaranteed to
receive specifically designed instruction to assist them in maximizing their highest
potential (Obiakor, 2011). Forlin (2011) stated that for full inclusion to be successful,
professionals and staff must be trained to work at all levels of education, and such
training should incorporate disability awareness and the use of appropriate augmentative
and alternative modes, as well as other forms of communication and educational
resources and materials necessary to support students with disabilities.
Harr-Robins et al. (2012) stated that although students with disabilities were
explicitly excluded from measures of educational performance formerly, since the 1997
amendments to IDEA, states were required to include these students in state and district
assessments and report their participations as well as their performance. The
reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in NCLB even
further enforced the requirement in 2001. This act established students with disabilities
as an explicit subgroup to determine if schools make adequate yearly progress (AYP).
Many students with disabilities are able to keep up with the pace and objectives
presented in the regular education classroom; however, there are also students who are
too high functioning for a self-contained classroom but are not yet prepared for, or able to
be successful in, the regular education classroom. As a result of participating in a fully
inclusive program, some students fall through the cracks because there is no service
9
available other than full inclusion or self-contained programs. I investigated the
relationship between special education inclusive practices and special education
training/professional developments on how to work with students with disabilities,
teacher attitudes, and test scores to determine the success of the inclusion practices at this
local Southern high school.
In this study, I investigated the relationship between factors that could affect the
success of inclusion and inclusive practices. Those factors included, but were not limited
to, special education inclusive practices, level of special education training, teachers’
attitudes and perceptions, and student test scores. The school in question was one that
serviced 1,390 students. This school was a Title 1 school with 893 of the total number of
students on free lunch and another 80 students on reduced lunch. Of these 1,390
students, more than 200 were students with exceptionalities who were being educated in
the general education classroom. Even those students who were moderately disabled,
such as functionally delayed, were educated in the general education classroom and held
to the same standards as their nondisabled peers. I determined the level of effectiveness
of the fully inclusive program by the use of one-on-one interviews, surveys with teachers,
and an analysis of secondary data that consisted of EOC data. The analysis and
presentation of findings from both quantitative and qualitative data represented a mixed
methods approach (Creswell, 2012).
The Local Problem
At a local Southern high school, students with disabilities were integrated into the
general education classroom. Glazzard (2011) stated that despite inclusion dominating
10
the educational landscape, there was a lack of clarity regarding the translation of
inclusion into practice. Despite the implementation of inclusive practices, a lack of
academic success continued to occur among exceptional learners in a local Southern high
school.
Problem in the Larger Educational Population
Evidence of this problem was observed in below basic test scores based on the
EOC, which was used not only on a district level but on a state level as well to determine
AYP. Based on the state report card for Tennessee in 2011, of the 98% of students with
disabilities who were tested statewide, only 21% were at a level of proficient or advanced
on the Algebra I EOC compared to the 98.1% of nondisabled peers who were tested of
whom 50.6% performed at a level of proficient or advanced. In the area of English, 98%
of students with disabilities were tested, and 22.6% performed at a level of proficient and
advanced compared to their nondisabled peers 62.3% of whom performed at a level of
proficient and advanced. The percentage of nondisabled students who were tested was
98.1%. In 2012, 98% of the students with disabilities were tested in Algebra I, and
25.2% performed at a level of proficient or advanced. There was a 99% student test rate
for nondisabled students, and 59.3% performed at a level of proficient or advanced. For
English II, there was a 97% test rate for students with disabilities, and 25% of those
students performed at a level of proficient or advanced. There was a 99% test rate for
nondisabled students, and 65% of those students performed at a level of proficient or
advanced. There was a 29.1% gap size for the area of Algebra I in 2011. In 2012, there
was a gap size of 34.1% for students with disabilities versus their nondisabled peers
11
statewide. In the area of English II, there was a 39.80% gap in 2011 and a 40% gap in
2012.
The scores of exceptional learners on the EOC assessments were not only below
that of their nondisabled peers in the state of Tennessee but in other states as well. For
example, in the State of Georgia, based on the state report card for the 2010-2011 school
year in the area of literature and composition, 55% of students with disabilities scored
below basic, 39% scored basic, and only 7% scored at or above proficiency. Their
nondisabled peers scores were as follows: 14% scored below basic, 48% scored basic,
and 38% scored at or above proficiency. In the area of mathematics in Georgia, students
with disabilities scores were 75% below basic, 22% basic, and 2% at or above
proficiency. Students without disabilities scores were 35% below basic, 47% basic and
18% at or above proficient. In the area of biology, students with disabilities test scores
were 65% below basic, 28% basic, and 7% at or above proficient. Students without
disabilities scores for biology were 27% below basic, 44% basic, and 29% at or above
proficient. Other states, such as Texas, also used EOC scores to assess AYP. EOC
scores were reported for the area of Algebra I on the state report card. The state report
card presented the number of students tested and the average scale score. Scores revealed
that students with disabilities had an average scale score of 948 compared to their
nondisabled peers who had an average scale score of 1137.
The scores for the high school in question were below the percentages set not only
by the state but those percentages set by the district. This problem negatively impacted
exceptional learners by causing them to be retained in core subject areas needed to
12
graduate. Changes in legislation now mandate that student performance on EOC
assessments be directly linked to teacher effectiveness on teacher evaluations. Student
test scores represented 35% of teachers’ overall evaluation score, which raised the level
of teacher accountability. Possible factors for this problem included teacher attitudes and
perceptions toward inclusive practices, educational preparation, and experience in
teaching students with disabilities. Fletcher (2010) stated that one relatively new and
important federal policy that has received few large-scale empirical inquiries, yet is
responsible for sweeping changes in how and where children are taught, is the movement
to full inclusion.
The local setting extracted data from several subject areas, which required
inclusive services as a result of having an EOC assessment. Seven courses had EOC
assessments that were used to determine AYP. Those courses were Algebra I, Algebra II,
and English I, English II, English III, U.S. History, and Biology. Additional subject area
tests are being added each year. Full Inclusion classrooms are to take place for each of
those subject areas where the special education and regular education teachers worked
collaboratively. There were three Algebra I teachers, four Algebra II teachers, and three
Geometry teachers. The collaborative team for the mathematics department comprised
six mathematics teachers. Two special education teachers were assigned to the math
department to work collaboratively with those six teachers. There were two English I
teachers, two English II teachers, and three English III teachers. The English department
comprised seven language arts teachers and two special education teachers, who were
assigned to the language arts department. There were two U.S. History and two Biology
13
teachers. One special education teacher was assigned to the science department, and no
one was assigned to the history department. With an estimate of more than 200 special
education students taking those courses, the student service hours and academic need far
outweighed the level of teacher support provided from the special education teachers or
regular education teachers in the form of differentiation or accommodation and
modifications.
This local high school serviced more than 200 students with disabilities who
participated in a fully inclusive program. Those disabilities ranged from specific learning
disorders to Asperger syndrome. The only special education services that were offered
were in a self-contained or fully inclusive special education program. With only five
special education teachers working in the full inclusion program, it was difficult to
service students effectively. Although this collaboration of the regular education and
special education teachers was a major factor in whether or not students were properly
supported and serviced, another important factor was teacher attitude.
Teachers who feel unprepared to meet the diverse needs of students suffer
diminishing confidence in their own knowledge and skills (Philpott et al., 2010).
Guralnick, Neville, Hammond, and Conner (2008) discussed the importance of continuity
in placement for special education students. This continuity of placement was an
important aspect of special education because of the social as well as academic demands.
Over the past 2 years, students with disabilities at the southern high school have failed to
perform at a level of proficient or above and make AYP. This was not only a reflection
of student growth and progress but was also used as an indicator for teacher
14
effectiveness. To ensure that all educators were held accountable for student
achievement, performance on EOC assessments accounted for 35% of the overall teacher
evaluation score.
Rationale
Based on the AYP scores over a 3-year period and the state report card, students
with exceptionalities were not as successful as their nondisabled peers on the EOC
assessments. The state report card presented a trend of student success, which decreased
as they advanced to higher grade levels and spent more time participating in fully
inclusive classrooms. Ross-Hill (2009) stated that inclusive education was mandated by
federal law. Few hands-on training and practice models have been implemented in
school districts in the United States. The lack of such models has brought about tension,
stress, and strain for both teachers and students in inclusive settings.
Fletcher (2010) stated that although the language from Congress suggested that
well-founded reasons exist to move toward making regular education classrooms the
default location for children with special needs, the research on the effects of inclusion
was mixed in some areas and nonexistent in other areas. Guralnick et al. (2008) stated
that there must be continuity with student placement for exceptional learners to be
successful academically. This continuity of placement is an integral key to the academic
success of the exceptional learner.
The National Report Card for Tennessee reported proficiency percentages for
grades 3 through 10. A trend emerged from these data. Students in the lower grade
levels (e.g., 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades) who received a continuum of services and had more
15
one-on-one time with the special education teacher were more successful academically
than those exceptional learners in higher grades (e.g., 9th and 10th grades).
Harr-Robbins (2012) stated that students with disabilities were once excluded
from testing and accountability measures related to testing. Now, this group is explicitly
recognized in state and federal accountability systems. Exceptional learners as a whole
had a higher proficiency percentage at the lower grade levels. Additional data from the
Tennessee report card also revealed that the amount of time spent in the regular education
classroom increased, although the proficiency scores continued to decrease as exceptional
learners progressed. Although there is a wealth of knowledge about full inclusion and the
implementation, there is a gap in the literature and actual implementation. As a result,
student performance was suffering.
Research suggested that the most important factors effectively to include students
with disabilities into the regular education classroom are teachers’ attitudes and
perceptions. Teachers’ attitudes toward disabilities and toward inclusion have proved
crucial variables in the success of inclusion schemes (Gal, 2010). Forlin (2011) stated
that effective inclusionary practices have been found to depend to a noticeable extent on
the sentiments of teachers about the nature of the disability and their perceived roles in
supporting students with special education needs. Prior experience and knowledge about
students with disabilities have been found to be directly linked with more positive
attitudes by teachers toward inclusion (Burke & Sutherland, 2004). A better
understanding of teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion could contribute to the
improvement of the learning environment (Ross-Hill, 2009). Although the presence of a
16
positive attitude may be a strong and important factor for the success of full inclusion,
educators’ concerns are equally important and should be addressed to ensure that the
fully inclusive program is as effective as possible.
Intent
Accountability measures as a result of NCLB have required students with
disabilities to participate in standardized testing and report these data to determine levels
of achievement. An achievement gap exists in this school district and others in the state.
Administrators, school district personnel, and state education leaders have recognized this
problem and attempt to increase accountability measures, as well as incorporate strategies
that will increase the level of student achievement. In an effort to further ensure that all
teachers are working toward closing the achievement gap, special education teachers now
have individual Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVASS) scores. The
addition of TVAAS scores for special education teachers meant that student achievement
was now directly linked, not only to the regular education teacher, but to the special
education teacher as well. Therefore, the intent of this study was to investigate the
effectiveness of inclusion in a local Southern high school in an effort to provide
strategies, resources, and a support system that would assist with the incorporation of
inclusive practices that aid in the academic progress of all students.
Definition of Terms
Differentiated instruction: Differentiated instruction is the process of modifying
and adapting instruction, materials, content, student projects and products, and
assessment to meet the learning needs of individual students (Robb, 2004, para. 1).
17
Full inclusion: Full inclusion means that all students, regardless of handicapping
condition or severity, will be in a regular classroom or program full time. All services
must be taken to the child in that setting (Schultz & Higbee, 2007, p. 71).
Inclusion: Inclusion is a term that expresses commitment to educate each child, to
the maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would otherwise
attend. It involves bringing the support services to the child (rather than moving the child
to the services), and requires only that the child will benefit from being in the class
(rather than having to keep up with the other students). Proponents of inclusion generally
favor newer forms of education service delivery (Schultz & Higbee, 2007, p.71).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): IDEA was first enacted in
1975 as PL 94-142. The purposes were to (a) assume that all students with disabilities
have a right to a free and appropriate public education, (b) protect the rights of the
students and their parents in securing such an education, (c) assist state and local
education agencies to provide for the education of those students and assess and assure
the effectiveness of state and local efforts to educate those students (Schultz & Higbee,
2007, p.72).
Mainstreaming: Generally, mainstreaming has been used to refer to the selective
placement of special education students in one or more regular education classes.
Proponents of mainstreaming generally assume that a student must earn his or her
opportunity to be placed in regular classes by demonstrating an ability to keep up with the
work assigned by the regular classroom teacher. This concept is closely linked to
traditional forms of special education service delivery (Schultz & Higbee, 2007, p.71).
18
Significance
Inclusive practices are now a significant topic in the realm of special education
because of the current level of accountability. As a result of below average test scores for
the subgroup of students with exceptionalities, in the local system and statewide, based
on the state report card, a look into the effectiveness of inclusive practices has emerged.
Although students with disabilities were once excluded from accountability measures,
they are now explicitly included. Many of the students taking formative assessments
from which data are derived to determine if adequate growth and progress have occurred
are participating in fully inclusive programs. Data derived from the state report card
revealed that as students with disabilities progressed into higher grade levels, the time
spent in inclusive classroom settings also increased. Although the time spent in an
inclusion setting increased, test scores were decreasing. Some factors that played a major
role in student success were teachers’ attitudes and perceptions, special education
training, and exposure to students and others with disabilities (Kuyini & Mangope, 2011).
The investigation of the effectiveness of full inclusion, as it related to integrating
exceptional learners into the general education population as well as supported the
success and academic growth of those students, was not only relevant to my local
community but to those schools implementing fully inclusive programs all over the
world. Ross-Hill (2009) stated that inclusive education was designed to provide a value-
based practice that attempts to bring all students, including students with disabilities, into
full membership in their local school community. An attempt to include everyone,
regardless of disability, was an admirable mission, but do schools still exclude those
19
exceptional learners who cannot keep up with the general education curriculum? Are a
lack of special education training and negative attitudes and perceptions toward inclusion
a factor in the effective implementation of inclusion?
This investigation was a call for reflection. This reflection would hold not only
special and general educators accountable but administrators and district level personnel
as well. Finding the answers to those questions could be useful in the successful
implementation of inclusive classrooms. This inclusive environment would ensure that
students with disabilities as well as their nondisabled peers were provided with the
instruction, support, and resources necessary to show student growth and achievement.
Educators must not violate the needs and rights of exceptional learners just to be able to
say they were included. The job of an educator is not only to teach but also to act as an
advocate for those students being served, exceptional and general alike. It is the legal
obligation of academic institutions to ensure that all students are provided the program
and services necessary to be successful academically and grow socially.
When the topic of special education services is addressed, generally we think of
individualized education. Brown, Fortain, and Von der Embese (2011) stated that
students who fall under the umbrella of special education are not only students with
learning disabilities but also students with other health impairments, physical disabilities,
emotional disorders, and vision impairments, to name a few. Are fully inclusive
programs a one size fits all? Can this type of program successfully meet the needs of all
exceptional learners?
20
The local high school in this investigation, along with many high schools across
the nation, phased out other special education programs and focused on full inclusion.
Literature focuses on many types of disabilities and differentiated strategies to use with
these disabilities in the regular education classroom, but educators and administrators
need to know the basics and foundation of how to implement a full inclusion program
that would be beneficial for students across the board, no matter the disability.
This inclusive environment begins with a positive mindset and perception of
students with exceptionalities and continued training as well. The classroom
demographic that contains a heterogeneous mixture of students could include a wide
variety of disabilities. The goal of this investigation was not only to determine how
certain factors affected the implementation of full inclusion on the local level, but also to
create awareness and change by expanding the knowledge base and interactions of
educators and students with disabilities. This awareness and knowledge base would be
useful to the educational system because it has the ability to assist in the efforts to
decrease the achievement gap between students with disabilities and their nondisabled
peers.
Guiding Research Questions
This project study investigated the effectiveness of inclusion. Literature on the
subject of inclusion suggests several factors determine the effectiveness of inclusion.
Lund (2014) stated that IDEA mandated students with disabilities be educated in the least
restrictive environment, and this least restrictive environment ideally transformed what
was once exclusion to inclusion. Lund studied the importance of interaction with
21
students with disabilities and how those interactions affected the attitudes and mindset
that are formed about students who have a disability. The research questions focused on
the attitudes and perceptions of teachers and how these attitudes and perceptions affect
the inclusive practices in a local Southern high school and student achievement. The
research questions that guided this project study follow:
RQ1: What is the difference of teacher perceptions regarding inclusion, based on
level of education, support, exposure to students with disabilities, knowledge of
special education law, and level of achievement of students with disabilities
compared to their nondisabled peers?
H01: There is no difference in teacher perceptions based on level of
education, support, exposure to students with disabilities, knowledge of
special education law, and the level of achievement based on students with
disabilities compared to their nondisabled peers.
Ha1: There is a difference in teacher perceptions based on level of education,
support, exposure to students with disabilities, knowledge of special education
law, and the level of achievement based on students with disabilities
compared to their nondisabled peers.
RQ2: What is the influence of teacher attitudes and perceptions on the
implementation of inclusive practices in the regular education classroom?
Ross-Hill (2009) stated that the inclusion movement began in the 1980s as a result
of parents and advocates fighting for the rights of students with disabilities. They lobbied
the Congress for a mandate that would provide their children with a less segregated and
22
isolated education. This transformation was evident, not only in the educational practices
applied and laws advocating for the rights of students with exceptionalities, but the
increase of more rigorous goals and objectives for exceptional learners as well. As a
result, IDEA (2004) was reauthorized, and students with special needs were educated
alongside their nondisabled peers. Ultimately, this transformation led to the inclusion of
students with a multiplicity of disabilities into the general education classroom with their
nondisabled peers.
A school located in the Southern region of the United States failed to meet the
district or state AYP target for the past three years for the subcategory of students with
disabilities. Legislature called for a higher level of accountability. Students with
exceptionalities is a population, which was once excluded from accountability measures
and now is explicitly included in state and federal accountability measures. Student test
scores are now directly linked to teacher evaluations. All teachers (regular and special
education) who service students with disabilities are now held accountable for student
performance on EOC assessments.
An investigation of the success of inclusive practices in classrooms at a local
Southern high school took place along with how certain factors affected the level of
success in those classrooms. A mixed methods approach was used to provide a holistic
view of how teacher attitudes, level of teacher education, knowledge of special education
laws, exposure to people and students with disabilities, and level of support affected
inclusive services and ultimately the success of all students being educated in inclusive
23
classrooms. Can this type of program successfully meet the needs of exceptional
learners?
The services used for educating students with disabilities have undergone a major
transformation. Has the level of preparedness for educators as well as teacher preparation
programs evolved to ensure that educators are adequately prepared to service, not only
the students with disabilities, but foster a classroom environment that students, both
disabled and nondisabled, can work in collaboratively? Ernest, Heckaman, Thompson,
Hull, and Carter (2011) stated that preparing teachers effectively to teach an increased
number of students with challenging and diverse educational needs requires that teacher
education programs refine coursework and field experiences. Forlin (2011) stated that
following this movement toward an inclusive approach in schools for teacher education
also had to undergo a major shift or transformation to be adequately prepared for this
change.
The research questions aided in determining the factors that positively influenced
educators and fostered a more inclusive academic atmosphere where all students are
provided with the resources and support necessary to excel academically. Data collected
have the ability to be used to inform educators of the factors that contribute to the
creation of a successful inclusive environment. This project study could ultimately guide
professional developments and workshops that would lead to better instruction delivery
in inclusive environments as well as professional growth for educators.
The next section of this project study focuses on a review of literature on barriers
to inclusion, successful inclusive practices, the effects of teacher attitudes and
24
perceptions on inclusion, and inclusion on an international scale. To find research that
focused on these areas, I used resources from the Walden University library. The
databases that were used are ERIC, Education Research Complete, and Education from
Sage. The key words that I used were inclusion, mainstreaming, inclusive practices,
students with disabilities, attitudes toward inclusion, barriers to inclusion, and NCLB.
Review of Literature Addressing the Problem
This study investigated how teacher attitudes, special education training, and
experience in teaching students with disabilities affected the implementation of a fully
inclusive program for students with disabilities at a local Southern high school. Recent
research and literature reviews presented many studies that provided a wealth of
qualitative data about the perceptions and attitudes of teachers, parents, and
administrators and how it affected inclusive settings. Literature reviews also suggested a
lack of research exists on how teacher attitudes and perceptions, as well as level of
preparedness, affects students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers regarding
formative testing. Much of the research conducted was specialized and focused on a
particular disability. The research questions in this investigation were designed to
address all students with exceptionalities and provide a holistic view of the effectiveness
of full inclusion, based on the comparison of teacher attitudes/perceptions, special
education training, and experience teaching students with disabilities, and student test
scores.
The literature topics focused on for this investigation were full inclusion (what it
is, the laws governing it, implementation, and barriers), special education (the evolution
25
of special education, the transition to mainstreaming, inclusion, and full inclusion),
differentiation (Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence, strategies to meet the
different learning styles of students) and, finally, teacher attitudes and perceptions. The
literature presented in this investigation provided a holistic view of the field of special
education and its current practices. Literature that supported full inclusion was featured
along with literature that featured possible complications and barriers that have been
researched in the implementation of full inclusion.
Theoretical Foundation
The theoretical base for this research is Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple
intelligence. This theory states that students have different minds, and, as a result, they
learn, perform, and understand in different ways. According to this theory, "We are all
able to know the world through language, logical-mathematical analysis, spatial
representation, musical thinking, and the use of the body to solve problems or to make
things, an understanding of other individuals, and an understanding of ourselves”
(Douglas, 2008, p. 182). McFarlene (2011) stated that the theory of multiple
intelligences was the most sustainable methodology to meet the needs of increasingly
diverse classroom. Where individuals differ is in the strength of these intelligences, the
so-called profile of intelligences, and in the ways in which such intelligences are invoked
and combined to carry out different tasks, solve diverse problems, and progress in various
domains (Jackson, 2009).
McFarlene (2011) discussed how to identify the multiple intelligences of ones’
students. McFarlene stated that by identifying multiple intelligences, an educator has the
26
information necessary to meet the individual needs of his or her students. Beecher and
Sweeny’s (2008) study presented data collected over a period of 8 years, which
researched the use of differentiation as a way to bridge the gap between achievements. In
bridging the gap, educators had to meet students where they were on their academic level.
When students with disabilities were placed in the regular education classroom, it was
believed they deserved to be exposed to the same curriculum and rigor as their
nondisabled peers.
Douglas (2008) stated that NCLB mandated that schools stick to a curriculum that
promoted academic growth. One strategy that was used to promote academic growth was
to use Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence. Using this theory would allow educators
to meet the needs of all students because they would address each area of intelligence
through the curriculum. Saeidi (2009) stated that when teachers implement Gardner’s
theory of multiple intelligences, they must look at each student individually. Saeidi also
stated that consciousness of Gardner’s multiple intelligences prompted teachers to
discover ways successfully to educate all students, students with and students without
disabilities, in the regular education classroom. This theory of multiple intelligences
directly relates to the effectiveness of inclusion, as teachers working toward closing the
achievement gap must be able to tap into the multiple intelligences to meet the variety of
needs based on student strengths and weaknesses of those students with disabilities who
participate in fully inclusive programs.
Ernest et al. (2011) took an in-depth look into differentiation and how it affected
not only teacher efficacy but student success. When students are placed into special
27
education, they are initially tested to determine their areas of strength and weakness, and
a plan is devised to alter or accommodate and modify the curriculum to fit their academic
needs. When the idea of intelligence is rethought, educators can begin to meet students
where they are and work with them to reach a higher level of achievement. The use of
differentiation as an instructional tool to incorporate activities into a fully inclusive
classroom can assist in reaching students on different ability levels. For example, there
may be a student who is in a 10th grade language arts class, but he or she is functioning
on a third-grade reading level. If an educator were to incorporate Gardner’s theory of
multiple intelligences, and determine the areas of strength and weakness as well as
incorporate differentiation techniques, this student may show growth.
As a result of searching articles that focused on full inclusion and differentiation, I
found literature that provided readers with resources about bridging the gap in education
by using Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence. The term differentiation has been
used to describe the practices and strategies that should take place in an inclusive
classroom. This differentiation of objectives taught means that all students would be able
to participate in lessons and a variety of strategies would be used so that students on all
academic levels could comprehend the material being presented. Research shows that, if
teachers used Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence, they could accomplish
differentiation to achieve academic success.
Casale-Ginnola focused on inclusion and identified some of the things that work
as well as those things that need altering was written by Casale-Ginnola (2010). Casale-
Giannola conducted an investigation that used a qualitative method to examine inclusion
28
practices. Casale-Giannola stated that students with exceptionalities who are placed in
fully inclusive classrooms often struggled to learn course content only to gain peer
acceptance. These students often have poor academic achievement, a passive approach to
learning, organizational and study skill deficits, as well as motivational concerns.
Casale-Ginnola’s (2010) study was conducted over a 6-month period at two
vocational high schools. One of the schools was located in the inner city, and the other
school was located in the suburbs. In this study, a total of 30 lessons were reviewed.
Casale-Giannola used information from lessons that included web design,
horticulture/floriculture, cosmetology, business technology, electronics, carpentry, public
safety, performing arts, geographic information systems, and information technology.
Several challenges were identified during this study. The greatest challenge
identified was students’ basic skills. The cognitive skills needed to succeed in technical
careers were not achieved. The licensing exams would require reading comprehension
skills and the understanding of complicated terms. Casale-Giannola (2010) stated that
students with exceptionalities could not be successful in this area if they did not have a
solid foundation of those basic skills. One other important aspect that was identified as a
challenge was a lack of knowledge about special education laws and necessary support.
The researcher observer that many teachers did not understand or have effective
strategies to use as an aid or resource with the integration of exceptional learners into the
regular education classroom. Many of these teachers were unaware of the files that were
available, which provided the list of necessary accommodations and modifications for the
individual students with disabilities that they were to service. The fact that educators
29
were unaware of student accommodations and modifications showed that there was not
only a lack of knowledge but a lack of collaboration between the regular education and
special education teacher (Foote et al., 2010).
Although Casale-Giannola’s (2010) investigation presented data from one school,
schools across the nation face the same issues at the high school level. Students are
lacking the necessary foundation and knowledge base to keep up with the regular
education curriculum, and there is a lack of communication and collaboration on behalf
of the regular education and special education teachers. As a result, the students are the
ones who suffer and are academically unsuccessful (Eisenman, McGinley, Pleet, &
Wandry, 2011).
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this project study was grounded in the factors that
affect inclusion and inclusive practices. As a result of working toward providing a
holistic view of inclusion, this framework included factors that affect inclusion, strategies
that aid in creating a conducive inclusive atmosphere, as well as items that take away
from inclusive practices. There are literature reviews that will address each of these
areas. Sharp, Sadovnik, and Rivera (2011) stated that many schools and programs have a
difficult time supporting students with disabilities. The inability to support exceptional
learners in the regular education classroom was evident based on the EOC assessment
scores and the state report card of the state where this local Southern high school was
located.
30
Sanzo, Sherman, and Clayton (2011) conducted a study that focused on the
importance of administrators being instrumental in bridging the divide between the
achievement of students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers. These authors also
provided strategies that have the ability to assist educators and administrators with the
facilitation of inclusive practices in an effort to bring those students with disabilities up to
grade level. The conceptual framework focuses on a variety of factors that affect the
implementation of inclusive practices. As a result, the literature review focuses on
several factors. Those factors will include articles about on the pros and cons of
inclusion, barriers to inclusion, inclusion around the world, laws governing the educating
of students with disabilities, and perceptions and attitudes toward inclusion.
Review of Broader Problem
As previously noted, the literature reviews to follow focus on the pros and cons to
inclusion, barriers to inclusion, laws governing the educating of students with disabilities,
and the attitudes and perceptions of inclusion. The search for articles on inclusion took
place by accessing articles through the Walden Library. The ERIC database was used to
search for these articles. Some of the search terms used were inclusion, effectiveness of
inclusion, inclusion around the world, positive aspects of inclusion, negative aspects of
inclusion, attitudes and perceptions towards inclusion, and barriers to inclusive
practices. Although some articles focused on the pros and cons of inclusion and the
effects inclusion has on students, others focused on how this transition affected teachers.
Harr-Robins et al. (2012) stated that students with disabilities were once excluded
from testing and accountability measures related to testing. Now, this student population
31
is explicitly recognized in state and federal accountability systems. With this student
group now being held accountable for testing measures, they are held to the same
standards as their nondisabled peers. One important question that was answered with
these data stated: "What percentage of schools missed AYP because of the performance
of the SWD [students with disabilities subgroup]?" Nine percent of all public schools in
37 states missed AYP in the 2008-09 school years because of students with disabilities
(SWD) subgroup performance and other reason(s), and 5% missed it solely because of
SWD subgroup performance. Together these schools represented more than a quarter
(28%) of tested SWDs in all public schools in these states. Among schools accountable
for SWD subgroup performance in these 37 states, 26% missed AYP because of SWD
performance and other reasons, and 14% missed AYP solely because of SWD
performance in the 2008-09 school year.
The school in this investigation had a special education population that was also
held accountable academically. Those students took the EOC assessment and the data
derived from the EOC were used to calculate and determine AYP. The EOC assessment
accounted for 25% of the students’ overall grades. In many instances, if a student failed
the EOC, he or she would be in danger of failing the course. Harr-Robins et al. (2012)
stated that as a result of the EOC assessment weighing heavily on the overall grade,
failure on this assessment would make academic success difficult for many exceptional
learners. The state report card for the Southern state in which this school was located had
a decreasing rate of proficiency as exceptional learners’ progressed to higher grades. By
the time students are in the 9th and 10th grades, the proficiency rates were less than 55%,
32
which was well below the state proficiency target of 83%. The low proficiency rates and
decrease in success may have been caused by several factors. These factors included, but
were not limited to, the type of special education inclusion, special education training,
and teacher attitude/perceptions. This study investigated the difference between the
special education inclusion programs, level of special education training, teacher attitudes
and perceptions, and student test scores.
Many researchers have asked the question, does full inclusion allow educators to
meet the individual needs and different learning styles of students? IDEA mandates that
there is a need for individualized plans and curriculums because of the variety of
disabilities that fall under the umbrella of special education, which causes students with
disabilities to learn in a variety of ways (Bradley et al., 2011). Many times, these
alternative ways of learning do not fit into the cookie-cutter style of teaching that is
presented in high school settings, and, as a result, these students are left behind or simply
fall through the cracks. This form of inclusion, where students are physically present in
the regular education classroom but are not receiving the individualized support and
services necessary to be academically successful, was another form of exclusion.
IDEA was the legal backing that allowed the introduction of inclusion. IDEA
stated students with disabilities must be placed in their least restrictive environment.
Bradley et al. (2011) thoroughly reported on all aspects of IDEA (what it is and how it is
implemented) in the United States by addressing topics that range from the scope of early
intervention in special education, to identification, actual implementation, and the
positive outcomes of that implementation. A wide range of data were collected during
33
this research. The IDEA National Assessment Implementation Study (IDEA-NAIS) was
designed to use in the parameters of this study to provide a nationwide picture of state
agency and school district implementation of IDEA across Part C, which is the early
intervention, and Part B, which services students ages 3-21. Three state-level mail
surveys collected data from (a) state Part C program coordinators who are responsible for
early intervention programs serving infants and toddlers, (b) state Part B program
coordinators who oversee programs for preschool-age children with disabilities, and (c)
state Part B program coordinators who oversee programs providing special education
services to children and youth with disabilities. The fourth survey was a web-based
survey that collected data from local special education, or Part B program, administrators
in a national representative sample of 1,200 school districts. These surveys were fielded
in January of 2009 and had a 100% response rate.
Bradley et al. (2011) focused on the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA and began his
research by stating what IDEA was. The purposes of IDEA are (a) to ensure that all
children receive a free and appropriate public education; (b) to ensure that the rights of
children with disabilities and their parents are protected; (c) to assist states, localities,
educational service agencies and federal agencies, in providing an education for all
children with disabilities; (d) to assist states in the implementation of an interagency
system of early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their
families; (e) to ensure that educators and parents have the necessary tools to improve
educational results for children with disabilities and, finally, (f) to assess and ensure the
effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities (P.L. 108-446 § 601(d)).
34
Bradley et al. (2011) used data to define IDEA and provided a vivid picture of,
not only what it was, but what it could look like when implemented. The researcher
allowed one to travel through the journey of special education from the strategies that
were once implemented, to the laws governing special education currently, the
breakdown on a number of state programs reporting on students with disabilities, and
onto recruitment for educators who have the desire to work with students who have
disabilities. As a result, the reader obtained a complete view of special education
services, full inclusion, and how inclusion not only affects academics but the budgeting
and funding that are necessary to educate students in a fully inclusive classroom setting
(Bradley et al., 2011). One has to not only understand the laws governing the educating
of students with exceptionalities, but it is imperative to know what you are going to
teach, where these objectives are going to be taught, and how the objectives are going to
be taught.
Zigmond et al. (2009) stated that there have been many revisions to PL 94-142
since 1975, which required the free and appropriate education of all students. There are
several aspects that have continued to concern educators, legislators, and advocates alike.
These concerns include, but are not limited to, where, what, and how. Zigmond et al.
provided a perspective on just where students with exceptionalities should be educated,
what that education should consists of, and how those educational services should be
delivered to students with exceptionalities. Zigmond et al. stated that across the United
States, special education looks much different than it did decades ago. This difference in
implementation was because of the pressures of politics and policy. The avenue that
35
Zigmond et al. took to provide this perspective was to present four windows or examples
of special education service delivery in four different ways. Each of those examples was
based on elementary classrooms in Pennsylvania.
Special education has always provided a separate curriculum, which was based on
the needs of the students. Zigmond et al. (2009) asked if inclusion accomplished the
goals of PL 94-142. The researcher took a look at inclusive practices, and compared
them to the laws that were outlined in 1975 about providing a free and appropriate
education to students with disabilities. The researcher also looked at several court cases
that set the precedent for inclusion. These court cases included Board of Education v.
Rowley from 1982 and Gaskin v. Pennsylvania Department of Education, 1994.
Zigmond et al. stated that all students with disabilities were then and also now not
entitled to protection under special education laws. “A child is not handicapped for the
purposes of the law unless special education is needed,” explained Goldberg (1982, p.
27). Zigmond et al. (2009) explored the laws governing special education and relayed
what it meant in terms of where students with disabilities must be educated, options on
how they could be educated in terms of the material presented to them (i.e., regular
education curriculum or goals and objectives determined by the IEP team), and how they
can be educated in terms of their educational environment (e.g., does it have to be in the
regular education classroom?).
Through the careful review of PL 92-142 and the close observation of a variety of
special education services provided in four elementary classrooms, the researcher
provided examples of positive fully inclusive classrooms settings and negative fully
36
inclusive classroom settings where the student may have been better served in a resource
or self-contained classroom. Zigmond et al. (2009) questioned if full inclusion was the
least restrictive environment for all students serviced by special education. If it is not,
what factors are contributing to the lack of success with full inclusion? Is it a lack of
knowledge and experience on behalf of the educators, a lack of resources, negative
attitudes and perceptions, or a combination of all those factors?
Possible Barriers
Full inclusion is not an inclusive practice that begins later in childhood, but can be
seen in early childhood programs as well. Guralnick et al.’s (2008) study focused on the
continuity and change from full inclusion early childhood programs through elementary
school. The 3-year study observed and followed students with developmental delays
from preschool to elementary school. A total of 90 students were recruited for this study
through contact with more than 11 school districts. Announcements were distributed
through participating school districts to parents of those students that outlined an
opportunity that would allow students to build peer relations and friendships.
Information was automatically sent to all parents of students who had an IEP and were in
preschool. This study was a voluntary project; therefore, parents had to inquire and
accept to be a part of this research.
A screening and identification process took place (Guralnick et al., 2008). The
first requirement was that the student be in a full inclusion program. In addition to this
requirement, students also had to meet the following criteria: (a) be between 48 and 78
months of age, (b) have a current IEP, (c) experience difficulties in peer-related social
37
competence as expressed by parent concerns in a structured phone interview, (d) have a
primary female caregiver (minimum of a 6-month relationship, as mothers were our
primary informants), and (e) obtain a full scale IQ score between 50 and 90 on the
Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–Revised (Wechsler, 1989).
Guralnick et al. (2008) discussed the importance of continuity in placement from
preschool to elementary. Of the 90 students in the study, only 78 remained in fully
inclusive classroom settings. This continuity of placement was particularly important
because of the increased academic and social demands that the students faced. The lack
of continuity of placement could be one possible barrier to student success when they are
not in the appropriate classroom setting; the appropriate setting and resources that are
provided while in that placement are imperative to the academic success of the student.
When students transition and do not have the proper support or lose support and
resources, there can be academic regression. Research suggests that students spend more
time in inclusive settings in secondary grades, but it is at this time when decreases in
academic progress are seen. This decrease in academic progress suggests that not only is
continuity of placement important but continued support is as well.
Although placement is an important factor, other articles focused on the treatment
of students and people with exceptionalities, and the effects of this treatment could have
on students with exceptionalities and their nondisabled peers later in life. Smith (2008)
used his investigation to provide a perspective on the treatment of and inclusion of people
with disabilities in the Cook Islands. Smith focused on the treatment of students and
adults with disabilities and on the perception that many people have of students and
38
adults with disabilities. This perception included the thought that students and adults
with disabilities were an equal part of society, and worked to include all students and
adults who have learning disabilities, as well as those students and adults who do not.
Those efforts of including citizens with disabilities generally begins with mainstreaming
practices in schools, then gradually leads to fully inclusive classrooms, followed by
acceptance of those in society that have disabilities. The struggles and challenges that
one must face when labeled learning disabled and the difficulties that often occur when
attempting to build an inclusive society are also discussed in this article.
Smith (2008) stated that, although many viewed the Cook Islands as paradise, it
was not always open and receptive to building an inclusive society with those individuals
who had disabilities. Until recently, there was little to no support for students and adults
with disabilities. In past years, a small disability pension was provided for individuals
who were labeled disabled. A group of organized volunteers banded together to assist in
any way they could. This group was called the Cook Island Disabled Persons Center.
With little to no support, there were many barriers facing individuals with disabilities.
Two of the main challenges discussed were funding and sustainability. Although the
volunteers worked diligently to provide services in the areas of vocation and early
education intervention, many programs did not last because of a lack of funding. With no
source of funding, there was little sustainability.
Smith (2008) discussed the highs and lows of special education services in the
Cook Islands and how one principal decided to implement mainstreaming in his school.
This strategy became a success with this staff of educators, and they worked together
39
privately to fund the addition of a special education teacher to his or her staff so he or she
could have someone to collaborate with as well as assist with differentiation and
accommodations. The positive attitudes and perceptions of those educators were a great
motivator and ultimately a determining factor in their success to fund the addition of a
special education teacher. This leap of faith and work on behalf of a few ignited the
creation of a special needs policy that would ensure that all students were provided the
necessary resources and have someone to advocate on their behalf. Although positive
attitudes can yield great results, negative attitudes have the potential to yield no result or
results that are detrimental to the academic success of students.
Smith (2008) focused on positive attitudes and perceptions and how positive
attitudes can be a determining factor in success. Fuchs (2010) presented data that were
derived from a qualitative study based on general education teachers’ beliefs and
perceptions of mainstreaming and current mainstreaming practices. Fuchs stated the
question, which was the basis for this research, “What are the attitudes and beliefs of
regular education teachers on mainstreaming?” (2010, p. 31). The sample population for
this study consisted of five general education teachers. The researcher made contact
three times with each of the five participants of the study. Each teacher took part in one
focus group discussion, one individual interview, and one classroom observation. As the
interviewer and observer, the researcher used constant comparison analysis to ensure that
the themes in this naturalistic study emerged from the data. Major themes that emerged
were two-fold. First, the teachers generally agreed that responsibilities and expectations
of regular education teachers were unreasonable. The teachers had little formal education
40
or training with regard to mainstreaming practices. Second, the teachers felt there was a
lack of support from school administrators in the areas of professional developments or
work-shops that would focus on education and training, class size, collaboration and
planning time, and shared duties with the special education teacher in terms of workload,
or who would be the lead instructor (Fuchs, 2010).
These themes were emergent and at the forefront in the minds of many regular
education and special education teachers across the world. Fuchs (2010) provided
information that is critical to the success of special education because the collaborative
efforts attempted play a pivotal role in the level of success that can be achieved by all
students. Fuchs stated that although IDEA suggests the full inclusion of exceptional
learners, many regular education teachers felt ill-equipped to assist those students with
disabilities. If educators were not equipped, or do not feel comfortable working with a
particular student population, such as students with disabilities, it is the students who will
ultimately be negatively affected. These factors, along with others, need to be taken into
consideration when determining the collaborative team of regular and special education
teachers. It is important that both educators have the desire to aid and support all
students to reach their educational goals. This decision, along with a mandate for
continued training measures (e.g., professional development), must be incorporated to
ensure an effective inclusive atmosphere.
Brown et al. (2011) focused on the possible barriers and obstacles that could take
place when students with exceptionalities are included in the regular education
classroom. Brown et al. stated that students with exceptionalities were not limited to
41
those students with learning disabilities, but students who fall under this umbrella could
have other health impairments, emotional disorders, physical disabilities, and vision
disabilities, to name a few. Are regular education teachers prepared to handle this array
of disabilities and integrate the support and accommodations that come along with them?
The researcher focused on one disability and the problem behaviors that could arise when
these students are in the regular education classroom.
Legislation, such as IDEA, has strongly suggested the inclusion of students with
disabilities in the regular education classroom; however, students with autism spectrum
disorders (ASD) display a wide-ranging list of behaviors that could cause obstacles and
barriers to academic achievement in inclusive classrooms. Brown et al. (2011) stated that
there has been little research to identify effective practices that can be used to reduce
problem behavior while promoting inclusion for students with disabilities, especially
those students with ASD. The author piloted a methodical literature review of three
major psychological and educational electronic research databases to identify empirical
research articles of the past 10 years that included (a) students in kindergarten through
12th grade, (b) facilitated inclusion, and (c) reduced problem behavior. Results indicated
a lack of evidence-based practices that used inclusion as an independent variable. Brown
et al. highlighted four themes demonstrated to be effective: (a) functional behavior
assessments, (b) tiered models of service delivery, (c) behavioral approaches, and (d)
social skills training. Implications for educators were discussed, such as differentiated
strategies and tools that could be implemented in the regular education classroom to
42
decrease negative behaviors, which are taking place on behalf of those exceptional
learners or their nondisabled peers in inclusive classroom settings.
Inclusion focuses on students with exceptionalities and how being with their
nondisabled peers affects them in their social and academic success. Focusing on those
nondisabled peers, Arampatzi, Barkoukis, Evaggelinou, Koidou, and Mouratidou (2011)
framed an obstacle of implementing fully inclusive classrooms into the curriculum. The
aim of this study was to examine whether gender and inclusion settings are associated
with elementary school pupils’ aspects of social development. The aspects that were
focused on were aggression, social insecurity, and attitudes toward disability. The
sample used for this study consisted of 658 students from 15 primary schools including
306 boys and 352 girls. Of these participants, 353 of them attended schools with
inclusive settings, and the remaining 305 attended typical schools.
Data were collected through the use of several checklists, which included, the
Checklist of Aggressive Behavior, the Checklist of Social Insecure Behavior, and the
Children’s Attitudes towards Integrated Physical Education-Revised. Results indicated
that girls showed less aggressive behavior related to boys, and students in traditional
schools displayed higher attitudes toward disability compared to students in inclusive
schools. The data gathered from this study suggested that gender was a significant factor
for students displaying aggression but not social insecurity and/or adopting positive
attitudes toward disabilities and students with disabilities (Arampatzi et al., 2011).
Fletcher (2010) stated it was important for educators to understand the thoughts
and perceptions of students, which included students who were labeled as regular
43
education students and those students with exceptionalities alike. The perception of their
abilities was important to their academic success. We all have areas of strength and
weakness and must cultivate an environment where those areas of strength and weakness
are respected in others. The negative attitudes and perceptions of others about students
with disabilities could lead to disruptive behaviors that occur in the classroom. Those
negative attitudes and perceptions could also lead to the mental shutdown of those
students with disabilities. As a result of feeling afraid of the reactions of their peers, they
may not interact or participate in class at all.
Finding the balance between what is necessary for the success of students with
disabilities as well as what is necessary for the success of their nondisabled peers in
inclusive classroom settings is another aspect of inclusion that has been studied. It is
stated that the goal of any educational institution is to ensure that its students maximize
their fullest potential in inclusive environments. The policy of including students with
disabilities into the regular education classroom seems to be ideal, but it is still generating
a great amount of controversy. King (2003) stated that inclusive education is education
that allows all students in a school regardless of their strengths or weaknesses, or
disabilities in any area, to become a part of the school community. Inclusion was built on
the principle that all students should be valued for their exceptional abilities and included
as important members of their school community. Although the concept of inclusion is a
popular one and is a trend that is emerging across the globe, there are some practicality
and applicability problems with it.
44
In inclusive classrooms, students can feel that they are connected to their peers
and have access to a rigorous and meaningful regular education curriculum.
Approximately 70% of students with disabilities are educated in fully inclusive settings
with their nondisabled peers. Obiakor (2011) stated that from a legal standpoint, students
with exceptionalities were supposed to be provided with an avenue whereby they are
assured specifically designed instruction to assist them in maximizing their highest
potential. To achieve an equitable and inclusive placement, collaboration and
consultation of all stakeholders must take place and be at the vanguard of priorities.
The story of a student named Miguel was presented by Obiakor (2011). Miguel
was an eight-year-old, third-grade student with a learning disability. He was bilingual
and used Spanish in the home. Miguel enjoyed math and was showing growth and
progress in this area, but he had difficulty with reading and was not as enthusiastic about
reading. Because of the inability to stay in his seat and the concerns the teacher had
about Miguel’s reading levels, the regular education teachers recommended Miguel for
special education services. He was tested and found to be learning disabled. At that
point in time, he began to receive pullout services with the special education teacher for 1
to 2 hours per day.
During the time that Miguel was being pulled out for resource services, his
behavior did not improve, and he did not get to grade level for reading. He remained
focused and engaged when completing math assignments, even when the math consisted
of a large amount of reading. As time progressed, whenever Miguel had to leave the
regular education classroom to be pulled out to receive services from the special
45
education teacher, the behaviors did not stop. These behaviors would manifest
themselves when he was working in small groups and at a more intense rate than the
behaviors in the general education classroom. This behavior showed that Miguel would
have been better served in the regular education classroom.
Obiakor (2011) completed an analysis of the comprehensive support model
(CSM) to see if it would help with students such as Miguel to maximize their potential in
inclusive programs. The CSM involved the collaboration of several key participants.
Those participants included student, family, school, community, and government. It is
the combination of those key elements working together to foster a learning environment
that provides students with exceptionalities the opportunity to build a strong and
proactive foundation of access, equity, and inclusion.
Now that students with exceptionalities are a part of the assessment procedures
that determine AYP, one must look at how inclusion affects all students. Fletcher (2010)
stated that special education was currently one of the most controversial areas of
educational research. One policy that has brought about many changes to the way in
which we educate students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers is full inclusion.
Fletcher used the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K)
data to investigate the effects of inclusion by examining test score gains for children in
kindergarten and first grade who shared classrooms with students who had disabilities.
During much of the 20th century, many students with disabilities were taught in
separate classrooms from their nondisabled peers, or they received little to no education.
By the end of the 20th century, regular education classrooms were the primary placement
46
for approximately 55% of all students aged 6 to 11 who had a disability, and for 33% of
those students who fell in the 12 to 17 age range. It is stated that although Congress may
suggest that the regular education classroom was the best location for students with
disabilities; however, the research on the effects or effectiveness of full inclusion was
mixed in some areas and nonexistent in others. There was not substantial evidence on the
effects of inclusion on students with disabilities, and there was even less evidence of the
spillover effects of inclusion on the classmates of students with disabilities (Fletcher,
2010).
The data collected from the ECLS-K were a nationally representative sample of
kindergartners, their teachers, and schools. Information was collected in the fall and
spring from 1998 to 1999 for kindergarten, and 1999-2000 for first grade, the spring of
2002 for third grade, the spring of 2004 for fifth grade, and the spring of 2007 for eighth
grade (Fletcher, 2010). Those students came from both public and private schools and
attended both fulltime and part time kindergarten programs. Parents, teachers, and
administrators also participated in the study.
The relationship between achievement on math and reading tests and the
treatment of having a classmate with a serious emotional problem was determined using
several approaches. The first step was to estimate a standard OLS regression. The
second step was an OLS specification with school-level fixed effects. The results of the
OLS regression specifications examining mathematics test scores were presented in the
article. The pooled sample as well as baseline results for the kindergarten and first grade
class were presented. The results were consistent in the areas of mathematics and
47
reading. The test scores of students with classmates who had serious emotional problems
scored significantly lower than other students, although the results for reading were not
statistically significant (Fletcher, 2010).
Many authors present information on inclusive practices in their academic
institutions. Blanford (2010) stated the conceptualization and implementation of
inclusion on a secondary level was a complex task. Although inclusion has been a topic
that has dominated the educational society for many years as a way of reform, there has
been a great amount of difficulty with the terminology and actual defining of inclusion.
Inclusive practices are a form of social justice, as those exclusionary practices were used
for many years to educate students with disabilities to ensure they received an
individualized and one-on-one education. Although students with disabilities continue to
need this individualized education, advocates demand that they receive this education in
an environment that allows them to have access to the same curriculum and highly
qualified teachers as their nondisabled peers (Harr-Robins et al., 2012).
Blanford (2010) discussed data that were collected in the context of a 2-year
qualitative research study between the years of November 2003 and March 2005. This
research explored the interface between theories and policies for inclusion; the
interpretation translated into actual practice and the subsequent experience of the learner.
The research incorporated interpretive, ethnographic case studies of three schools that
were chosen by specific contextual features to examine how culture affected the
interpretation of policy. The study placed a high value on how cultures related to
teachers’ interpretations in terms of discourse, professionalism, and practice.
48
Data were collected through direct questions during semi-structured interviews on
barriers and difficulties identified in the implementation of policies. These data were
analyzed in comparison with thick description, which stemmed from an observation as
well as other discussions that were held with stakeholders who were directly or indirectly
involved in the education of particular children, who were chosen at each of the three
schools in the study. The case studies illuminated that in three different schools, the
same issue was identified. The issue identified at each of the three schools was a
resistance to change and limited acceptance and accommodations despite policy
initiatives concerning inclusive practices (Blanford, 2010).
The different factors that were acknowledged as barriers to change were discussed
extensively. The barriers were grouped into themes: (a) school culture as a barrier or
facilitator, (b) differentiation as a barrier, (c) time limitation as a barrier, and (d) teachers’
knowledge and conceptualization as a barrier. Barriers and concerns were issues that
continued to come to the forefront of the topic of inclusion, which indicated that there
was a mismatch between perception of capacity and expectations of policy (Causton-
Theoharis et al., 2011). The voices of teachers and other stakeholders should have been
heard, so that guidance and support could be provided and the difficulties that had been
associated with inclusive practices could be dealt with appropriately.
Effective Inclusive Practices
Professional development schools (PDS) are a component of teacher training and
are a critical component of the preparation for the implementation of fully inclusive
classrooms into curriculums across the country (Doktor, 2010). Professional
49
developments and trainings foster collaboration between practitioners and researchers in
several areas: (a) scholarship, (b) school improvement, and (c) teacher training. Doktor
examined the communal interests between partners in a PDS with an emphasis on
promoting inclusive classrooms and allowing special education students to assimilate and
receive a continuum of services in the regular education classroom. It focused on how
delivery models that obstruct inclusive practices inhibit the growth of PDS partnerships.
Therefore, it was in the best interest of all PDS partnerships to expand. The author
provided suggestions, which included encouraging special educators and related service
personnel’s active engagement in PDS activities as well as training teacher candidates on
the many practices and strategies that can be implemented in inclusive classrooms.
This research was important to the growth of full inclusion and practices in fully
inclusive classrooms (Forlin, 2010). One aspect that was highlighted in this study was a
continuum of services. Students with exceptionalities are to be educated in the least
restrictive environment. Although it is desired that this placement is the regular
education classroom, if not, there must be a continuum of services in place adequately to
service this student population. Teacher preparation is also an important component of
student success. If the educators are not adequately prepared to service all students,
which includes students with exceptionalities; they are going to do a disservice to those
students. There are a number of strategies and support services that must be provided
outside the realm of regular education. Those services and strategies, if not gained in a
teacher preparation program, could be obtained through the use of professional
developments.
50
The appreciative inquiry has been used to gain additional data on ways to promote
inclusion in secondary schools (Kozik, 2009). AI is a form of inquiry that allows for
future prospects and opportunities to remain open. It is a form of inquiry that attempts to
find the best in people. AI involves the exercise of asking questions that strengthen a
system’s capacity to apprehend, anticipate, and heighten positive potential. It centrally
involves the utilization of inquiry through the crafting of the unconditional positive
question. Kozik (2009) stated that the most successful organizational changes take place
through AI when plans are left open, when action plans are informal, and when
individuals volunteer their contributions.
These commitments and contributions represent what individuals and their
organizations can do and offer in terms of support in the short term to create inclusive
adolescent opportunities and prospects as well as to expand the positive outcomes in
schools for educating students with exceptionalities. The method of AI used to
implement this study of inclusive adolescent teaching and learning with a diverse group
of participants would be a viable means of encouraging collaboration in teaching
situations on co-teaching teams and in school-wide inclusive reform. It provided an ideal
tool for self-reflection and organizational assessment among teacher candidates and in-
service educators (Kozik, 2009).
Kozik (2009) used a sample population for this study that included 11 school
districts professionals (i.e., six secondary special education teachers, and five content
area teachers for math, English, and social studies), one middle school principal, and one
district superintendent. There was also a parent of a student with exceptionalities that was
51
a panelist. The project began with an interactive panel discussion; it was after this
discussion that the participants began the AI. Kozik provided information on how to use
AI to foster collaboration to the extent that it promotes inclusion.
The question is often asked, can the practices used to educate students with
disabilities be effective and inclusive? The author of Educational Programs for
Elementary Students with Learning Disabilities: Can They Be Both Effective and
Inclusive? provided a holistic view of special education and special education services.
There was a brief synopsis of the IDEA and how it affected special education services.
One focus of the author was the least restrictive environment. The least restrictive
environment is determined on an individual basis for each student with exceptionalities
(Tobin, 2007). The author attempted to answer the question of what extent students with
disabilities should be educated in the regular classroom and how can teachers and
administrators promote inclusion.
Kozik (2009) provided information that can be used as a tool for teaching and
learning about special education law and how to apply the proper services to individual
students, while educating exceptional learners as well as their nondisabled peers. The
authors expressed that the debate over whether or not and to what extent students with
disabilities should be educated in the regular education classroom has gone on for several
decades. With recent mandates about AYP and how it will affect the academic success of
exceptional learners, one needs to understand the law and what mandates govern the
environments in which an exceptional learner can be placed to receive his or her services.
52
Not only did Kozik (2009) provide information about the laws governing special
education, but he provided a brief review and summarization of research regarding the
nature of instruction that has the potential to create enhanced educational outcomes and
success. Ultimately, this author provided a solid foundation for full inclusion and how it
can be implemented. Full inclusion and strategies to be used in the confines of full
inclusion were reviewed, but resource and self-contained classes were discussed, as they
were important to provide a continuum of services.
Although it may be difficult to incorporate inclusive practices into the regular
education classroom, many articles focused on everyone participating. Teachers should
include students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers. Barton, Reichow, Wolery,
Chen (2011) focused on strategies that could be useful when incorporating inclusive
practices in the classroom uses students who have been diagnosed as autistic. Although
Barton et al. focused on students with autism, it showed how many of the same practices
could be used for a wide variety of disabilities. One of the barriers that face many
students and educators was that they are both unsure of how effectively to transition into
the regular education classroom dynamics. Barton et al. focused on circle time and how
to adapt the lesson so that students with learning disabilities, particularly autism, can be
included into the activities that are taking place in the classroom.
Although Barton et al. (2011) provided one specific example, they also provided a
wide spectrum of strategies because special education is one area that we are lacking in.
As educators, we need to have an arsenal of strategies to use in the event that we must
educate a student with disabilities. Teachers never knows what students they will have in
53
advance; therefore, teachers cannot speculate and say that they will only work with
students that have mild learning disabilities or no disabilities at all (Barton et al., 2011).
Teachers must be ready at all times to service all students, regardless of the disability.
Barton et al. (2011) stated that successful inclusion included, but was not limited
to, careful planning, collaboration, and consideration of individual needs. The
appropriate modifications and accommodations are to be created by the IEP team. It is
there that the team determines the placement for the child and brainstorms about possible
strategies and resources that are needed to ensure the inclusion and successful immersion
of the student into the regular education environment. This placement is determined by
and based upon the student’s strengths and weaknesses. One important factor that must
be recognized is that some strategies that work for students with learning disabilities
could be used for all students. These strategies can help to increase the areas of strength
for high performing students and work as devices of remediation for low performing
students. As a result of the incorporation of differentiated strategies, all students can be
properly serviced.
To determine ways to decrease the stress of incorporating inclusive practices into
the regular education classroom, Brackenreed (2011) replicated a study conducted by
Forlin (2001) that more accurately reflected the language and practice of inclusion in
Ontario. In Canada, no federal department of education establishes the educational
policies like the United States. The curriculum, delivery, and services, which include
special education services, are governed by provincial and territorial legislative
assemblies and may differ from each jurisdiction. One commonality across Canada is
54
that students who are served by special education receive services in the regular
education classroom. Stress was a major factor noted by teachers who were responsible
for educating students with disabilities. According to the Ontario College of Teachers in
2004, there was an attrition rate of 30% during the first 5 years for all new teachers as a
result of stress. Brackenreed (2011) stated the most common reason cited for leaving was
lack of support to adjust to the demands of the classroom.
Are our teachers adequately equipped to accommodate and educate students with
disabilities (Roberts & Teigland, 2008)? The question of teacher ability in reference to
inclusive classroom settings is a question being asked across the country because
inclusion is being implemented across the country. In this study, a survey found that
47% of teachers quit before retirement because of stress and frustration. The researcher
used the Teacher Stress and Coping Questionnaire to reflect the language and practice of
inclusion in Ontario. The population in this study consisted of teachers in Northeastern
Ontario who were teaching students with exceptionalities in the regular classroom. Four
English public school boards and four English Catholic school boards were included in
the study. With a population of approximately 4,175 elementary and secondary school
teachers, 269 teachers responded to the mailed, self-administered questionnaire. The data
collection included a Likert-type scale technique used with a set of statements where
respondents were asked to express agreement or disagreement on a 5-point scale.
Descriptive statistics were used to profile the sample of teachers, and open-ended
questions on the questionnaire were analyzed according to themes related to the
55
quantitative findings as described by the teachers through their responses to the
questionnaire.
Hall (2009) stated that individuals with disabilities accounted for approximately
15.1% of the population of the United States. This percentage consisted of people who
were 5 years of age and older. Although the disability rights movement has made
improvements for this population through education, physical accessibility, access to
information and services as well as forms of integration, physical integration does not
always mean social inclusion.
Hall (2009) focused on social inclusion as a component necessary to the
enhancing of a person’s quality of life. Although this form of inclusion is said to be
essential, it also causes many barriers for people with disabilities, especially students who
are being integrated into regular education classrooms to receive full inclusion services.
Hall found that individuals with mild intellectual disabilities had similar experiences of
social rejection and discrimination. All participants involved in Hall’s study mentioned
they were concerned about social acceptance. An important aspect of social inclusion for
students with a disability was that they were accepted as an individual (Smith, 2008).
The social inclusion of students with disabilities included that they be recognized as a
person, an individual, instead of being defined by the disability.
Social exclusion can be seen in many forms in the classroom. Some of these
forms of exclusion are avoidance, verbal taunts, and even physical abuse. Smith (2008)
stated the purpose of his study was to enhance future research and to help researchers
understand more about the importance of social inclusion as it pertained to students with
56
disabilities. The data collection procedures consisted of a qualitative meta-analysis. This
meta-analysis consisted of selecting primary research reports and preparing the data for
analysis. Purposeful sampling was used to select information rich cases for study so that
an in-depth or more comprehensive understanding could be gained of the phenomenon.
The primary reports selected were published from January 1990 to February 2008. These
reports contained a population of individuals with disabilities and discussed the social
inclusion of those individuals in their results.
The data were analyzed by organizing the data, reducing the data into themes
through a process of coding, and condensing the codes, then representing the data in a
table or through a discussion format. The results of the study included six themes that
emerged from the analysis. Those themes were being accepted as individual,
relationships, involvement in activities, support, living accommodations, and
employment (Smith, 2008). Each theme was discussed and supported through evidence
by quotes from the data.
Toblin (2007) discussed a collaborative research project of two inclusion teachers
and their principal. This collaborative project entailed ways to enhance the inclusion
experience for five inclusion students. Four of the students had mild intellectual
disabilities, and the other participant had a learning disability. Toblin stated that making
inclusion work took more than a philosophical commitment on the part of the teacher and
the administrator (Toblin, 2007). It required a school level integration, classroom
strategies, and positioning students as knowers in the classrooms. Toblin also stated that
inclusion had become a part of a critical reform movement to improve the delivery of
57
services for students with exceptionalities. For this type of reform to be successful in a
school, principals and teachers must first display positive attitudes and a commitment to
inclusion.
Causton-Theoharis and Theoharis (2008) stated that to create an inclusive school
that would apply to all students; the school would need to eliminate special pull-outs,
self-contained classrooms, and students being sent to other schools because of their
disabilities. Causton-Theoharis and Theoharis stated that this type of inclusive school
was not a new program, but a shift in the mindset and school culture and atmosphere.
Causton-Theoharis and Theoharis suggested that this atmosphere had to begin with the
attitude that all students should be appreciated for their talents and invited to participate
as significant members and an integral part of the learning environment.
According to Goodlad and Lovitt (1993), the decision to develop an inclusive
school depended largely upon leaders’ values and beliefs. The principal and other
administrators were in a position greatly to impact and increase opportunities for students
with exceptionalities. Administrators, when adequately prepared and knowledgeable,
have the ability to ensure that students with disabilities are truly included in the school
environment.
Goodlad and Lovitt (1993) revealed that one teacher could engage in positive
interactions in the classroom by positioning the exceptional learners as knowers among
their peers, while the second teacher could place an emphasis on enabling social learning
and creating an environment where the students had routines that were predictable. The
58
principal also played a part and had Good News Visits with the students one to two times
per week.
This study suggested that, although we as educators are to focus on the academic
aspect, we must also focus on the social and emotional aspects of education. If we are to
be successful with integrating exceptional learners into the regular education classroom,
we must teach all of our students about tolerance and acceptance. Using differentiated
instruction was one way to increase teacher efficacy for beginning special education
teachers (Carter, Ernest, Hull, Heckaman, & Thompson, 2011). Carter et al. provided a
description of how a special education teacher who was just starting in the profession
working in an inclusive setting used pre-assessment, self-assessment, and ongoing
assessments to implement the principles of differentiated instruction to enable her to
become more responsive to her students’ needs in a systematic way. A case study was
the research design for this study.
The preparation of teachers effectively to teach an increased number of students
with disabilities who have a wide variety of needs requires teacher education programs to
enhance coursework and field experiences. It was stated that research has revealed that
teachers who have a perception and belief that they are prepared and have the skills
necessary to influence student learning, regardless of the external factors present, were
more likely to adapt and differentiate or individualize the instruction. Differentiated
instruction is not a new concept. It is one that has been around since the first school,
when students of all ages were placed in a room and taught together.
59
Differentiated instruction is often referred to as a basket of strategies. The
definition of differentiated instruction is to make use of a variety of strategies to respond
to the individual needs of students. Patterson, Conolly, and Ritter (2009) stated that by
using differentiated instruction, teachers were able to provide the support and resources
necessary to accommodate the needs of a wide variety of learners by offering several
options for learning. This wide variety of options allowed each student to personalize
and internalize the objectives being presented, and it also offered a variety of ways to
express what meaning they have gained from the lesson.
Models of differentiated instruction include learning activities that are interesting
and relevant for each student. Carter et al. (2011) stated that the four areas that teachers
selected strategies from were content, process, product, and learning environments.
Content refers to the overall learning outcome. The content is the objective, or what one
wants the students to learn. Process refers to differentiation. The process is how the
content is going to be taught. The product is the artifact that comes as a result of the
content and process. The process can be changed and altered to suit the needs of
individual students. Finally, the learning environment refers to the physical space in
which learning takes place. This environment can be altered by the teacher as well. This
space may include individual work space, a choice of available technology, or flexibility
of movement.
Carter et al. (2011) was a beginning/provisional special education teacher
completing an online initial certification M.A.T. degree program leading to full
certification in special education. She had been hired by a school district to work fulltime
60
in the classroom as a teacher of record, and she worked on her special education
certification using asynchronous web-based technology. The teacher education
candidates (TEC) were responsible for three students in a first grade math class. The
candidate was to address three interrelated areas: data collection, data based planning,
and use of differentiated instruction as a systematic approach to individualization (Carter
et al., 2011).
During a 5-week period, the teacher used the following process. For the data
collection process, the TEC had to complete a self-assessment of the current practices and
determine the curriculum area of focus. Then, pretest data were collected. Examples of
these data included assignments, tests, and observations. The second phase of this
process was data-based planning. During this phase, the teacher focused on areas of
strength and weakness for individual students and identified at least two differentiated
strategies to use with those students. In the third phase, the TEC had to implement those
strategies of differentiation for at least a week. A reflection then followed. The results of
the case study showed a shift in how the inclusion teacher (TEC) and the general
education teacher collaborated. One of the barriers to differentiation and the
implementation of it was that it is often viewed as another fad.
Perceptions
Eisenman et al. (2011) provided an inside perspective on the transition to full
inclusion in high school, which is pertinent to the continued support of educators, parents,
and students alike on the changes that can and will occur in many districts across the
nation. In many cases, self-contained and resource classes will be phased out by the time
61
students reach high school. Because of the AYP requirements, students must be exposed
to the regular education curriculum, so they are prepared for the EOC or Gateway exams
that are necessary to graduate high school with a regular education diploma. Cosier
(2011) conducted a study that examined self-contained special education delivery.
According to one special education student who was educated in a self-contained
classroom for most of his academic career, the self-contained classroom was a demeaning
place.
Because of the recent changes in special education and the laws that govern
special education, many special education teachers who were once self-contained
teachers or resource teachers found themselves working in a different capacity. They
were removed from those positions and moved to the regular education classroom in a
collaborative manner. Roberts and Teigland (2008) stated that moving to an inclusive
setting was not an easy journey, but there are several steps to make sure inclusion
happens successfully. These items included to provide strong leadership, dispel the
myths concerning resources early on, ensure training, and recognize that passions run
high, gain access to expert advice if you do not already have it (Roberts & Teigland,
2008).
The transition called for them to work in conjunction with a highly qualified
regular education teacher to present the objectives and materials necessary to provide
academic growth for students with disabilities as well as their nondisabled peers.
Eisenman et al. (2011) used the perceptions and attitudes of those special education
teachers who were once in their own classrooms working exclusively with students
62
served by special education who had to make the transition just as the students who are
served by special education did. The author discussed how the transition to fully
inclusive classrooms was not only difficult for the students but teachers as well. Many
special education teachers felt that they were being viewed as assistants to the regular
education teachers. This mindset caused a strain on the collaborative efforts necessary to
ensure that the inclusion process was effective.
Ben-Yehuda, Last, and Yona (2010) investigated the correlation or relationship
between the attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs of educators and the socioeconomic status
of special needs students. These researchers employed a qualitative method to determine
the characteristics of those educators who were successful in their implementation of
inclusive classrooms. The educators in this study were not necessarily using fully
inclusive practices but were using mainstreaming as a method of delivery to educate
students with exceptionalities. The exploration of teachers’ attitudes toward fully
inclusive practices was addressed in this article. The attitudes were found to be linked to
several factors: (a) the severity and type of disability, (b) teacher training and experience,
and (c) gender.
Ben-Yudah et al. (2010) attempted to find a link between teachers’ beliefs and
socioeconomic status of exceptional learners. This link was an important factor in
inclusion because of the perception of students at a lower socioeconomic status as well as
their interaction and desire to interact with other students in the classroom. All students
want to be accepted and feel they are a part of a group. The level of acceptance or lack
63
thereof could have a profound effect on a student’s adjustment to a fully inclusive
classroom setting.
Ben-Yudah et al. (2010) stated that the success of social integration for students
with disabilities can be assessed and observed through a variety of approaches. Data can
be obtained from (a) peers, by using sociometric measures, observations and rating
scales; (b) teachers and school professionals, by obtaining information about social skills
and behavior of mainstreamed students, and by observing classroom interactions; and (c)
from students themselves, through the use of interviews, focus groups and measures such
as rating scales. Ben-Yudah et al. focused on socioeconomic status and how students and
educators alike may place a stigma on a person because of that status. As a result, it is
imperative that we consider this factor when implementing inclusive practices in our
academic curriculum.
Kuyini and Mangope (2011) focused on the perceptions and attitudes of teachers
regarding student teachers’ attitudes and concerns about inclusive education in Ghana
and Botswana. The researchers asked the reader to have a universal look on inclusion
and how it is applied in other parts of the world. The investigator in this study presented
data that expressed the importance of the attitudes, perspectives, and concerns of student
teachers. Data collected during this research were obtained through a three-part survey.
A questionnaire that consisted of background variables, attitudes, and concerns of various
student teachers was used. This questionnaire was completed by 202 students from four
teacher training institutions in both countries (i.e., Ghana and Botswana). One of the
64
institutions used in this study was a university, and the others were teacher training
colleges. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t tests, and an ANOVA.
The results that the researchers found were that the attitudes of the student
teachers were not a very positive one. They had many concerns about inclusion, and
what inclusion meant they would have to deal with in the classroom, as well as questions
about the resources and the modifications and accommodations needed to ensure
academic success. Kuyini and Mangope (2011) stated that the findings supported earlier
studies of attitudes and concerns of practicing teachers and provided a basis for
recommending that more needed to be done in teacher training courses in Ghana and
Botswana to enhance student teacher attitudes toward students with disabilities in regular
classrooms as well as reduce the existing concerns. Recommendations were made in
relation to improving student teachers’ disposition toward inclusive education. The
recommendations included teacher training institutions being used to teach skills that
would enhance trainees’ capacities to support students with disabilities in inclusive
classrooms, more support provided during in-service, and the reduction of concerns
through the implementation of day-to-day support services for teachers (Kuyini &
Mangope, 2011).
Elliot (2008) stated that the research conducted on teacher variables showed that
attitudes and perceptions were related to self-perceptions of aptitude or capability,
educational preparation, and experience in teaching students with disabilities. Glazzard
(2011) served as a guide to educators who could be in the same situation. Many
educators who have not experienced full inclusion are not very open and receptive to
65
trying it. This lack of exposure is why the attitudes and perspectives of educators are
important. Glazzard stated that inclusion would continue to be a difficult transition if
teachers are not dedicated to its principles, and if they are not willing to embrace their
role and responsibility to educate all students, regardless of their disability. It is
important that student teachers’ minds and perceptions are molded, so that they
understand the importance of appropriate education for all students. Moreover, if
education is to take place in the regular education classroom, they must be prepared for it.
Every child deserves the same appropriate education, so that they may have a chance to
achieve their academic goals.
This view on the attitudes and perceptions of teachers was not the only one found
in research. The attitudes of parents are also an integral factor in the academic
achievement of students in inclusive settings (Lesser, 2011). Lesser addressed the
perspectives and needs of parents of students who had learning disabilities. The parents’
voice was a voice that was not often heard. Lesser selected 68 parents to participate.
These parents responded to a survey on inclusion. One thing these parents had in
common was their children all had Angelman Syndrome, which is a complex learning
disability that can be difficult to deal with in the classroom. The parents were from
different areas of the United States, but they all attended the Angelman Syndrome
Foundation.
Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through this study. Parents not
only filled out surveys, but they were able to provide recommendations and suggestions
for educators. One surprising attitude that was consistent throughout the parent responses
66
was that they still had a desire to have their children educated in a self-contained
classroom. They felt that the regular education teachers were not as knowledgeable as
they should be about different disabilities, and they did not modify and accommodate
lessons appropriately (Lesser, 2011).
Many concerns that parents had about their children being educated in the regular
education classroom derived from the feeling that their students were being teased in the
regular education classroom, and they were resented by the regular education students
(Kirk & Leser, 2011). This fear of being resented and teased was an important concern
on the part of the parent and the students alike. This perspective should be taken into
consideration by educators, administrators, and other professionals who work in an
inclusive setting with exceptional learners.
Foote et al. (2010) conducted a study about inclusion practices in the general or
regular education classroom. This study was based on 71 regular education classrooms
and the perspectives of those special education inclusion teachers across the state of New
York. The special education teachers provided their thoughts and perspectives through a
survey. The aspects that were explored were co-teaching, one-on-one instruction, small
group instruction, and planning support. The teacher perspectives were explored and
related to class size, number of students with disability, and the severity of the disability.
Factors that were directly linked to the educators themselves were also examined.
Those factors included number of years of work experience, professional developments,
and preparatory classes that dealt with implementing inclusive practices into the
classroom (Foote et al., 2010). A quantitative study was conducted using a survey. The
67
author stated that, although co-teaching was one of the most cited practices for full
inclusion, it was the least documented and used based on the survey responses.
Foote et al.’s work (2010) can be a useful resource to gain firsthand information
about the effectiveness of certain inclusive practices. It is one thing to read about
practices, but it is something completely different to implement these practices. To gain
insight from inclusion participants who were affected by the outcomes of implementing a
variety of practices was one way to determine if those practices were appropriate for the
population of students being serviced in their classrooms.
The attitudes and perspectives of regular education students are often overlooked
and not taken into account (Wong, 2008). Wong allowed students to have a voice when
he researched the thoughts and perceptions of nondisabled students about students with
disabilities. The author examined the effects of mainstreaming on regular education
students. To gather these data, researchers examined a 47-question survey. This survey
was completed by 389 secondary school students at the beginning and end of the school
year. The assessment tool used was the Students’ Attitudes toward People with a
Disability Scale.
This study took place in Hong Kong, where there was a competitive academic
atmosphere. Students have a desire to be the best and may feel that participating in a
classroom with students with disabilities will slow them down or impede their academic
growth (Wong, 2008). This attitude was a barrier to education and the full inclusion of
all students. If students with disabilities were ostracized in the regular education
classroom or looked down upon by their peers, it could be a major setback for them
68
socially and academically. Although this study took place in Hong Kong, the negative
attitudes of others about students with disabilities as well as the ostracizing of this student
population are issues seen all over the world.
Fully inclusive classrooms affected more than students served by special
education and teachers. It affected many facets of education and must be looked at
holistically. To view the positive and negative aspects of inclusive settings is the only
way to ensure that inclusive classrooms are the best method for educating and supporting
students with exceptionalities. The regular education teacher and students must also be
taken into account. Inclusion in some cases means that you are taking students from an
environment where they feel safe, that allows them to be educated alongside peers who
are like them, to a placement that causes them to feel as if they are unwanted. This
feeling could be experienced not only by the students with disabilities, but special
education teachers as well. McCrary and McHatton (2011) stated that one major concern
was about whether or not the general educators are equipped with a capacity and skill
level that would allow them to scaffold support in the classroom as well as whether or not
the system in place supports collaboration between the general education teacher and the
special education teacher. This transition can be stressful. School districts,
administrators, and educators must take this fact into account when determining the
educational placement that will be the least restrictive for students with exceptionalities
and the collaborative teams that are formed between the regular education and special
education teachers.
69
Inclusive education is an important practice that is now known worldwide in
terms of students with exceptionalities (Lindsay, 2007). Lindsay provided a review of
literature on the effectiveness of full inclusion and/or mainstreaming. This review came
from eight journals: (a) Journal of Special Education, (b) Exceptional Children, (c)
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, (d) Journal of Learning Disabilities, (e)
Remedial and Special Education, (f) British Journal of Special Education, (g) European
Journal of Special Needs Education, and (h) International Journal of Inclusive
Education. The categories researched were comparative studies of outcomes, non-
comparative qualitative studies, including non-experimental case studies, teacher practice
and development, teacher attitudes, and the use of teacher assistants.
Inclusive education has continued to be promoted for a number of reasons. Those
reasons included that inclusion was more effective and students have the right to be
educated with their nondisabled peers. A wide variety of information was available about
the use of full inclusion. For the purposes of this research, the authors felt there was a
lack of substantial evidence about the effectiveness of mainstreaming or inclusion, and
the positive evidence that was found was only marginally positive. As a result, they
cannot theorize that mainstreaming and inclusion are a positive method for educating
students with disabilities. Cosier (2011) suggested that students educated in the regular
education classroom generally benefit both socially and academically.
Lindsay (2007) pointed out a great aspect about the quantity of viable research on
the topic of educating students with exceptionalities. There was a wealth of information,
but much of the research about inclusion and inclusive practices presented the
70
perceptions and attitudes of others. The mindset and opinions alone were not applicable
data, but this information can be used to assist with the implementation of full inclusion
or inclusive practices.
It was stated that the beliefs and attitudes of teachers are an important element in
the development of inclusive education and its associated practices (Beacham & Rouse,
2012). Teacher education was a crucial component to help develop positive attitudes and
beliefs. These positive attitudes and beliefs were necessary in the reformation of teacher
education to address the issues of inclusion and inclusive practices. Legislation and
policies have been created to bring about education reform, to promote inclusion, and to
decrease the incidence of exclusion and marginalism. Inclusion and inclusive practices
now include a wide range of disabilities. If changes are to occur, there must be teacher
education programs in place that adequately prepare pre-service teachers to not only deal
with inclusive practices, but a wide variety of disabilities. Gorman (2010) stated that
teacher workshops and professional development are essential to the success of inclusion.
Educators are expected to work with and have knowledge about special education and a
variety of disabilities, work with support personnel, and develop appropriate teaching and
management processes; as a result, they must be educated and/or trained to work in this
capacity.
Although many teachers expressed that inclusive practices were necessary for the
creation of an inclusive society, there was still apprehension about the actual execution of
inclusive practices. Much of this apprehension stemmed from teachers feeling they were
ill prepared to execute the implementation of mainstream practices. Beacham and Rouse
71
(2012) stated evidence suggested that changing experienced teachers’ beliefs and
attitudes toward inclusive education and practice was fraught with difficulties,
particularly when inclusion was imposed on schools, and that younger teachers were
more likely to be flexible in their thinking. Beacham and Rouse (2012) attempted to
answer the following questions:
● “What are student teachers’ views about inclusion, children, and schools at the
beginning of the course?” (p. 5)
● “What are their views on these issues at the end of the course?” (p. 5)
● “To what extent do student teachers’ views change over the course?” (p. 5)
● “Are there differences in views between male and female student teachers?”
(p. 5)
● “To what extent do the views of student teachers differ according to whether
they are training to teach in primary or secondary schools?” (p. 5)
● “Are there differences between students who studied the ‘Learning without
Limits’ (LwL) further professional studies course (FPS) and those who did
not?” (p. 5)
A questionnaire was used to compare the beliefs and attitudes of all student
teachers enrolled in one cohort of the reformed PGDE course in the School of Education
at the University of Aberdeen. The pre-course questionnaire consisted of nine sections
and included items about respondents’ details, previous experiences in schools,
expectation of importance of learning experiences, expectation of learning by the end of
the course, views about teacher’s characteristics, and views about children and schools.
72
The post-course questionnaire consisted of seven sections and consisted of items that
included questions to determine what was learned by the end of the course, views about
learning, views about teaching, views on children and schools, and views on their
continuing professional development needs. There were sections in both questionnaires
about inclusive and exclusionary education and practices that used a 5-point Likert-type
scale (Beacham & Rouse, 2012).
At the beginning of the course, the majority of the student teachers’ views were in
support of inclusion; however, there were a number of items where students neither
agreed nor disagreed. Overall, at the start, attitudes and beliefs were positive and
supportive of inclusive practices. By the end of the course, attitudes had not changed
significantly. Overall, this research suggested that the attitudes of student teachers were
generally positive, and with continued support and issues of inclusion incorporated into
the teacher education program, it could help to encourage and sustain pro-inclusion
attitudes. Overall, student views seem less sure about implementing actual inclusive
practices (e.g., grouping students based on ability levels). The findings also suggested
that for students who participated in further professional development, LwL were more
positive about inclusive practices by the end of the course and more negative about
exclusionary practices (Wong, 2008).
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO,
2003) classified social exclusion as one of the critical issues of our time. Orr (2009)
stated that one major issue was the continued exclusion from participation in social,
economic, and political life in their respective communities of exceptional learners. One
73
group that continued to be relegated was those persons with disabilities. This exclusion
generally began in the public school setting. It was stated that students with physical
and/or sensory impairments were immediately identified and suggested for special
programs. This type of labeling led to special programming and a curriculum that was
often separate from their nondisabled peers.
The findings reported was derived from an interview-based study that investigated
new special education teachers’ lived experiences with inclusion. This study used a
phenomenological investigation with 15 participants, all graduates of the same
Midwestern University. The selection process was based on purposive sampling, and
included 14 women and 1 man. A similarity of all the participants was they were all
recipients of a prestigious scholarship and considered to be great students with great
potential in the field of education (Orr, 2009).
Data collected were interviews with each of the participants. The interviews were
recorded and the conversations were later transcribed. Each interview lasted between 45
to 90 minutes. All researchers were asked to describe (a) the inclusionary practices of
their schools, (b) the barriers to inclusion they have observed and (c) any inclusion
supportive practices, pedagogies, or structures present in their teaching settings. Data
were analyzed using NVivo software, which was used mostly as an organizational tool as
opposed to using the software’s automatic coding features. Significant statements were
extracted from the interview data, which allowed the formulation of meanings and those
meanings were organized into clusters of themes (Orr, 2009).
74
The results displayed a wide variety of inclusionary practices. These practices
ranged from the participants acting as consultants, participants working as co-teachers,
and resource room teachers. Students assigned to these educators were typically seen in
the general education classroom or in the resource room for less than one or two hours
per day. Seven of the teachers taught in self-contained classrooms, which meant that
students spent at least half of the school day with them. The participants found a number
of barriers to be present in the implementation of inclusive settings. The three major
themes for these barriers included (a) negative attitudes of general education teachers, (b)
lack of knowledge, and (c) lack of administrative support (Orr, 2009).
Khudorenko (2011) stated that educating students in inclusive settings provided
the opportunity for them to become included in equal ways later in life. It has the ability
to be significant not only socially and academically, but it can reduce their isolation and
economic dependency. This information can be used not only with special education
teachers, but it can be as a resource to create an atmosphere and culture that fosters the
success of all students, students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers.
Fuchs (2010) explored the perceived barriers associated with inclusion. This
research was based on a qualitative study that examined the general education teachers’
beliefs and attitudes about the use of current mainstreaming practices. It was stated that
now more than ever; general education teachers are responsible for educating a student
population that consists of a wide range of learners (Fuchs, 2010). At one point in time,
students with identified disabilities were educated in a separate classroom, but now, these
students are to be educated in the general education classroom setting. Fuchs (2010)
75
stated that the push for the inclusion of students with disabilities has not always been
echoed by increased knowledge, collaboration, and pre service experiences for future
teachers. Laws that were created to help with the inclusion of students with disabilities
have created situations for greater inclusion, but general education teachers often feel
they are ill equipped to service the needs of such a diverse population.
Fuchs (2010) stated in this research that teachers’ beliefs about inclusion
influence their own ability to educate exceptional learners in the general education
classroom. Teachers consistently reported the need for more training in the area of
accommodations and modifications, not only in relation to instruction, but assignments
and strategies that could be used in the classroom as well. The beliefs and attitudes of
teachers about educating students with disabilities in the regular education classroom
required examination so that school and teacher preparation programs could have a better
understanding of the current challenges in the context of the teachers’ classrooms so
improvements could be made to pre service and in-service education. Runswick-Cole
(2011) stated that inclusion was not just about those students with exceptionalities but
was also about the attitudes and perceptions in schools changing to guarantee that no one
student was excluded.
The method for conducting this study was qualitative. It focused on the general
educators in a suburban area of a major Midwestern city. There were five participants
and each was current elementary school teacher. They were also members of a master’s
degree cohort in a teacher leadership program. Ten teachers initially volunteered to
participate. The participants were divided into two focus groups. Each focus group was
76
interviewed using a standard set of open-ended questions that were derived from the
research question. The research question posed was: What are general educators’ beliefs
about current mainstreaming practices? After the initial focus group was piloted, five
teachers were selected to participate in follow-up interviews and classroom observations.
Each of the five teachers met these criteria: (a) currently teaching in a general classroom
setting, (b) had experience with students with disabilities in the general classroom setting,
and (c) were willing to participate in all subsequent portions of the study (Runswick-
Cole, 2011).
Not only were focus group interviews conducted, but individual interviews were
completed as well. The group interviews focused on the beliefs and attitudes of teachers
about the current inclusion practices. Once data were collected, the data analysis began.
This analysis included constant comparison analysis of participant responses. This form
of analysis was used to provide the researcher with emerging themes and notable
information during the data collection process. The results revealed common challenges
that became a hindrance in the process of educating students with disabilities in the
regular education classroom. The following themes emerged from the data collected: (a)
lack of administrative support, (b) teachers’ perceived lack of support from special
educators and support staff, and (c) teachers’ lack of sufficient preparation in their pre-
service programs (Runswick-Cole, 2011).
Although these themes emerged from this study, these issues and other issues
similar have emerged through other studies about the perceptions and attitudes of
teachers regarding the educating of students with disabilities in the general education
77
classroom. This study can serve as a guide to factors that should be addressed and
discussed when discussing the implementation of a full inclusion or mainstreaming
program (Runswick-Cole, 2011).
Ross-Hill (2009) conducted research that investigated the attitudes and
perceptions of regular education teachers toward the mainstreaming practices in
elementary and secondary classrooms. This research sought to improve the inclusive
environment. This author examined whether or not there was a difference between
elementary regular education teachers and secondary regular education teachers. The
participants for this study consisted of 73 teachers from three public elementary and
secondary schools in the rural, Southeastern United States.
The author discussed the NCLB and the role that this law would play in closing
the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority youth and their peers. NCLB
also shed light on the fact that students with disabilities deserved to be educated with
their nondisabled peers (Ross-Hill, 2009). They must be granted access to the general
education curriculum. Although NCLB was acting in favor of students with disabilities,
it was not the only act being implemented. The IDEIA also encouraged the inclusion of
students with diverse learning needs and disabilities in the regular education classroom.
Placing students in the regular education classroom is a daunting task, and one
that cannot be escaped. The attitudes and perceptions of teachers overall have produced
mixed reports. Fuchs (2009) stated that the attitudes and perceptions that teachers have
about inclusion influence their perceptions about their ability and capacity to educate
students with exceptionalities in an inclusive setting. Background information provided
78
in this study showed when inclusion began, problems in the classroom emerged. One of
the problems that emerged was that teachers realized they were not prepared to teach
students with severe academic and social deficits.
Fuchs (2009) stated the participants in this study completed the Scale of Teachers’
Attitudes towards Inclusive Education, which consisted of 31 questions that address the
areas of general information, and advantages and disadvantages of inclusion and social
issues regarding inclusion. The format for this scale consisted of Likert-scaled questions.
The study used data derived from the survey that were coded and logged into a Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) database. The analysis of covariance was also
used to define the relationship between elementary and secondary regular education
teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion.
The results indicated that most teachers actually supported the practice of
inclusion and felt that all students, students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers,
had a right to be educated in the regular education classroom and to be exposed to the
general education curriculum (Fuchs, 2009). There were consistencies between the
elementary and secondary attitudes toward inclusion, and there was a large percentage of
positive attitudes and confidence in teaching students with disabilities if provided with
the proper training and support. If they did not completely agree with the practice of
inclusion, they were neutral on the subject matter.
Full Inclusion on an International Scale
Full inclusion and fully inclusive practices are sweeping across school districts
throughout the United States, but inclusion practices are also seen on an international
79
scale (Wu-Tein, 2007). Many countries are now incorporating fully inclusive practices
into their curriculum. Wu-Tein (2007) focused on the inclusive practices in Taiwan.
Although Taiwan is implementing inclusion, it was not necessarily full inclusion. Many
programs have been developed. They were first started on an experimental basis, but
slowly became a part of the curriculum.
Taiwan has not perfected its implementation of special education services through
inclusion, but some progress has been made. Although it is commendable that they are
putting forth their best effort to collaborate with other professionals to ensure that all
students are being educated to the best of their ability, there are also some downfalls.
These downfalls included, but are not limited to, a lack of preparation, or a feeling that
there has been a lack of acceptance into the regular education classroom, and little
confidence to name a few (Wu-Tein, 2007).
Gorman (2010) stated that Ireland was moving toward more inclusive practices.
A lack of teacher education about disabilities and working in the area of special education
had been observed. As a result, Gorman (2010) stated that more professional workshops
and educational opportunities regarding inclusion needed to be available to ensure the
success of inclusion in Ireland.
The United States is always compared to other countries, but do we have a grasp
on the practices used in the classrooms of other countries and how they can be helpful in
our inclusive settings? Wu-Tein (2007) conducted a study that explored the components
and characteristics that are critical when implementing a fully inclusive classroom.
Educators, administrators, and other researchers need to understand that they will have
80
many challenges. These challenges can range from disruptions and discipline issues, lack
of confidence, inadequate support, and a lack of education about inclusion to how it is to
be implemented to bring about academic success for all students. One must be careful
and pay close attention to the material acquired when conducting an inquiry to assist in
any educational task. With inclusive practices, we are still growing and learning how to
successfully modify and accommodate for students with disabilities. Special education
for that reason has become a hot topic in Taiwan, and diligent work has begun to ensure
that they educate all students (Wu-Tein, 2007).
Full inclusion is not mandated by the laws that govern special education (Walton,
2011). The laws that govern special education do, however, state that a student must be
educated in his or her least restrictive environment. South Africa has been dealing with
injustice and discrimination for many years. This discrimination is also the case with
education. Efforts are being made to provide an equal and appropriate education for all
students, but it is not as prominent as it needs to be. If discrimination and injustice are
going to cease, this transition must take place in the classroom as well. Students with
disabilities are educated in a separate space with a separate curriculum.
Walton (2011) provided a different perspective of special education and special
education services. South Africa is a poor country and could greatly benefit from
educating all of its students together in an inclusive setting, but they do not. The authors
have expressed that if South Africa is to break away from the negative treatment and
exclusion of any group of people, it must begin in the classroom and teach students how
to work together in spite of their differences. Walton stated that society often excludes
81
students who are different, but these students deserve the same support, resources, and
instruction as their nondisabled peers.
The authors did an excellent job of providing an example of how full inclusion is
supposed to be used, although it is not being implemented properly in many countries.
The United States is often compared to other countries and many try to review the
strategies that are used in the United States and how successful those strategies are so that
they might implement the same strategies. South Africa is attempting to make a move in
the right direction, but they are still behind in the education arena (Walton, 2011).
Forlin (2010) addressed the need for adequate teacher preparation in inclusive
classrooms globally. Before 2003, teacher preparation for inclusive classrooms was not a
major concern for educators in Hong Kong. In 2003 and continuing into 2007, measures
were taken to provide the opportunity for educators to take advantage of conferences,
seminars, and a self-funded, postgraduate program. A new initiative was introduced in
2007. This initiative was an attempt by the Education Bureau to provide consistent and
adequate programs to ensure that teachers are trained on inclusive practices. Hong Kong
transitioned to whole schools in 2003, so that teachers could attend those seminars and
conferences.
Brandes and Crowson (2009) considered the effects of the government funded
course on teachers’ outlooks on inclusive practices as well as their thoughts on self-
efficacy in terms of inclusion. One focus of this author was the importance of teachers’
attitudes toward inclusive practices. Brandes and Crowson suggested that one reason
teachers may have negative attitudes toward inclusion was based on their comfort level
82
about interacting with students with disabilities. These attitudes and perceptions were
created based on a number of factors. The author described many of the factors that
helped to configure attitudes about inclusion and the perceptions of teachers with more
positive attitudes about fully inclusive practices.
The procedure used for this study was a three-part survey, which was
administered two times: once at the beginning and once at the end of the study. The first
portion of the study addressed demographic information. The second portion was a scale
that contained 15 items. The scale used was the Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns
about Inclusive Education Scale. The last portion of this survey was the Teacher
Efficacy for Inclusive Practices Scale. This scale consisted of 18 items that used a 6-
point, Likert-type scale that ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree (Brandes &
Crowson, 2009).
Italy has incorporated fully inclusive practices since the 1970s because of a
national policy that states that all students, regardless of disability, must be integrated
into the regular education classroom (Begeny & Marten, 2007). For this purpose, many
advocates in the United States have looked to Italy for examples and strategies on how
successfully to implement fully inclusive classrooms. The author took an in-depth look
into the last 20 years of research on fully inclusive practices in Italy. Of the studies
researched, surveys were the most commonly used. Few studies used experimental
methodology as their approach to determine the effectiveness of full inclusion.
Begeny and Marten (2007) provided two views on inclusion. Those views were
full inclusion and how those practices actually affected students. It was stated that those
83
positive aspects and teachers who were in favor of inclusion were educators who
provided an avenue for social growth among students with exceptionalities, and inclusive
practices could help them in community living later in life. Another positive aspect was
that teachers grew professionally when teaching in inclusive atmospheres. Drawbacks to
inclusion ranged from inclusion being too complex, to the general education classrooms
not being equipped to handle students with disabilities. Inclusion models cannot be
successful unless a high volume of positive attitudes, accommodations, and adaptations
are already in place and supported by all professionals who are working with exceptional
learners. This group of professionals included the administrators and teachers’ assistants.
Bengey (2007) questioned the quality of the research obtained on inclusion and
inclusion practices. With a wide variety of research that was based solely on the attitudes
and perceptions of educators, can one take that information and definitively say that
inclusion is or is not a good practice? The author recommended that more empirical data
were needed to hypothesize about what inclusion is and how it can be useful to not only
students with exceptionalities, but all students.
Glazzard (2011) stated that the last 20 years have seen a significant policy move
both nationally and internationally toward educational inclusion. An attempt to change
the views and perceptions about students with exceptionalities has influenced not only
policy but practice and legislation as well. This legislation and practice now emphasizes
the rights of students with disabilities fully to participate and have equal opportunity
rights in every aspect of life. It was stated in this study that despite inclusion dominating
the educational realm, there was a lack of clarification regarding the actual translation
84
and implementation of inclusion in classrooms. Some literature suggests that inclusion
was not about where a student was located for educational purposes, but rather the quality
of learning and participation. Practitioners across the globe had different interpretations
of who, what, and how inclusion should be implemented, and this difference in
interpretation affects how inclusion is performed.
Glazzard (2009) assessed the barriers to inclusion in one primary school in the
north of England. Qualitative data were collected from teachers and teaching assistants
through the use of a focus group. The themes that emerged from the data collected were
identified as key barriers to the effective implementation of inclusion. The themes that
emerged were attitudinal barriers, one-to-one support, teamwork, standards agenda,
location, parental resistance, and training and resources. Although these themes
emerged, one theme was a key barrier to inclusion. Standards agenda emerged as the key
barrier to student participation and achievement.
The barriers were not only evident in this school, but literature suggested that the
themes were viewed as barriers in many schools across the nation. Further research is
needed to provide a deeper understanding of inclusion and create opportunities for
practitioners to reshape their practice (Glazzard, 2011). Orr (2009) stated that the
opportunities that students with disabilities missed while they were being educated in the
self-contained classrooms cannot easily be recuperated. Students with disabilities who
were educated in separate classrooms or facilities that were not equal to the education
being gained by their nondisabled peers may become ostracized, or negatively viewed
adults.
85
A belief exists that students who are considered at risk, or who are the most
susceptible, are students who need the most attention and support to be successful
academically. Many are attempting to improve diagnostic assessments for
schoolchildren, prevent the unnecessary closure of special schools, and remove the bias
toward inclusion (Cabinet Office, 2010). Runswick-Cole (2011) used this research as a
response to the call of the Cabinet Office to end bias toward inclusion and inclusion
practices. It was stated that when talking or writing about inclusive education, it can be a
difficult task because a lot of confusion exists about exactly what inclusion is. According
to the Centre for the Study of Inclusive Education, inclusion entails, but was not limited
to, (a) valuing all students and staff equally; (b) increasing the participation of students
in; (c) reducing their exclusion from the cultures, curricula and communities of local
schools; (d) reducing barriers to learning and participation for all students; (e) fostering
mutually sustaining relationships; and (f) improving schools for staff and students.
Gal, Schreur, and Engel-Yeger (2010) stated that teachers’ attitudes and
perceptions of educating students with disabilities in inclusive settings are integral
components to the success of inclusive practices. Runswick-Cole (2011) provided an
overview of laws governing the educating of students with disabilities as well as provided
both positive and negative implications surrounding the implementation of inclusive
programs. The bias toward inclusion was challenged in this literature. The use of a
critical disability studies perspective was applied, and Runswick-Cole drew on the idea of
ableism and critiques of neo-liberal market systems in education. Many of the barriers to
inclusion that are often hidden in our educational institutions were explored and revealed
86
through this literature. Gal et al. (2010) stated that there are other barriers to inclusion as
well. Although attitudes and perceptions were key components in the attainment of
inclusion, child factors and environmental factors must be taken into consideration as
well.
By acknowledging the possible barriers and biases that many parents, educators,
and other academic stakeholders have about the implementation of inclusion, educational
institutions have the ability to identify areas of weakness and brainstorm possible
remedies to these barriers and biased attitudes, so that all students are afforded a quality
education. Unless these barriers are explored and addressed, inclusion practices will
continue to present issues, for not only students with exceptionalities, but their
nondisabled peers and educators alike (Runswick-Cole, 2011).
In Russian society there have been many measures and attempts to protect people
with disabilities, but the present organization of education fails to meet the principles of
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Handicapped People (Khudeorenko,
2001). Some of the reasons listed for this failure included ineffective methods and forms
of schoolings, lack of support from society, negative attitudes towards people with
disabilities, and inadequate incentives as motivation to acquire a higher education. The
United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of Handicapped People to ensure
that the lives of people with disabilities were made easier by forbidding discrimination.
The perception that people with disabilities should be fully included was not one
that has completely registered with many in this region. Khudorenko (2011) stated that
educating students with disabilities offered them many opportunities. These
87
opportunities included, but were not limited to, joining the labor or workforce, being
socially active, and learning how to provide for themselves. Special education and
special education schooling was the only option for students with disabilities for many
years in Russia. Although students were provided with the resources and support they
needed, they were missing out on things, such as interacting with their external
environment. This form of schooling excluded opportunities for social integration and
reinforced segregation.
Inclusion of students with disabilities into the general school environment is not
widely used; as a result, the entire society begins to suffer. There were several
advantages of full inclusion, which included the absence of barriers during school,
education on the basis of up-to-date technologies, adaptation and integration into society,
opportunity for creative activity, shaping of students’ spirit of mutual assistance and
support, and competitive graduates. Although these were the potential advantages of
including students with disabilities in the general education environment and not
segregating them from their nondisabled peers, the students, and society will eventually
suffer with a negative mindset and perception of these students (Khudorenko, 2011).
Blandford and Paliokosta (2010) stated that part of the difficulty with incorporating
inclusive practices was that the vocabulary around the description of inclusion was by no
means consistent, and this lack of consistency leads to confusion. The suffering was
evident in higher education rates of students with disabilities and the job market as well.
Students with disabilities in Russian society generally had low paying jobs that were not
permanent.
88
Inclusion not only included what a student will be taught, but where the student
will be taught, and the environmental accommodations that must be made in the regular
education classroom (Obiakor, 2011). Obiakor took an in-depth look into the attitudes
and perceptions of teachers about inclusion and inclusive practices. Special education
and general education teachers alike were expected to cope with students who had a
variety of disabilities and learning needs in the regular education classroom. This form
of education called for a great deal of collaboration. Teachers may not be prepared or
supported successfully to implement this type of learning environment. Obiakor
identified child, teacher, and environmental barriers that could arise as a result of the
implementation of inclusion. Such barriers included the development of the failure
syndrome, placement decisions creating unrealistic expectations, a lack of social justice,
lack of knowledge of special education on behalf of the parent and a lack of
collaboration.
Inclusion was stated as a philosophy of acceptance and belonging to the
community so that a class was structured to meet the needs of all its students (Gal et al.,
2010). With inclusive practices, the law states that there must be a continuum of services
or placement options available for students to meet all needs. Those placement options
indicated the choice of an adapted environment for groups of individuals that have certain
characteristics and academic needs. This continuum of services is defined as the least
restrictive environment. Gal et al. (2010) focused on three categories, which included the
child category that covered various disabilities; the teacher category, which discussed and
focused on teacher attitudes; and the environment category, which focused on
89
environmental, administrative, and programmatic factors. The relationship among those
three factors was examined in this study.
The study was based on 62 preschool teachers who attended a workshop at a
clinical laboratory at the University of Haifa in northern Israel. Gal et al. (2010) stated
that the workshop’s aim was to raise awareness of children with special needs and of the
services available to those students and their families. Of the 62 teachers who signed in
at the workshop, a convenience sample of 53 teachers was recruited. Each of these
teachers signed consent forms. The teachers were asked to complete a questionnaire on
demographic characteristics, attitudes toward children with disabilities, and
accommodations they required for their integration into kindergarten. There were three
questionnaires that functioned as the investigation tool to determine the attitudes of
teachers and requirements for environmental accommodations. These questionnaires
were a demographics questionnaire, The Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale, and
The Environmental Accommodations of School.
There were nine items on the demographics questionnaire that consisted of
background information and work conditions. These items related to age, gender,
education, and health. The Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale consisted of 30
items, and respondents were to express their agreement or disagreement on a 6-point
scale. The Environmental Accommodations of School (EAS) research tool was
developed for this study. The questionnaire assessed the accommodations deemed
necessary to improve the participation of students with disabilities participation in the
kindergarten environment. The analysis of the data was performed using SPSS 14.
90
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to examine the internal consistency of EAS.
Independent t test was performed to assess the differences in the teacher’s attitudes and
perceptions of requirements for accommodation according to their personal
characteristics and work conditions. Gal et al. (2010) used the Pearson r to examine
correlations between independent variables, such as teachers’ characteristics and attitudes
towards people with disabilities.
The results showed that there was no significant relationship between total score
of ATCP and past experiences with people with disabilities; however, three different
kinds of past immediacy to people with disabilities proved to relate diversely to teachers’
attitudes. The three kinds of past experiences were with (a) children with disabilities in a
close environment, (b) friends with disabilities, and (c) family members with disabilities.
Teachers who had friends with disabilities showed a significantly more positive attitude
than teachers who did not have disabled friends. Teachers with family members who
were disabled were more conscious and aware of necessary accommodations than
teachers who did not have friends or family members with disabilities (Gal et al., 2010).
The results of this study showed that attitudes of teachers were generally positive. The
generally positive attitudes may be explained by special expectations or a combination of
expectations and teacher characteristics. Although attitudes were generally positive,
there was a discrepancy with teacher attitudes and some specifically negative attitudes
they expressed in keeping with findings of previous studies.
91
Teacher Preparation
Teacher preparation was another factor of inclusion and inclusive practices that
researchers have studied. Duchaine, Fredrick, and Jolivete (2011) focused on teacher
coaching and performance feedback and how this feedback affected praise in inclusive
classroom settings. This feedback was used to determine if teacher coaching increased
positive behaviors in inclusive classrooms. This form of teacher coaching with
performance feedback was called the behavior specific praise statements (BSPS). The
study was conducted using three high school mathematics teachers. The main objective
of this study was to provide teacher coaching that involved performance feedback to
determine the effectiveness this practice could have on inclusive classroom settings. This
study also observed the frequency of positive behaviors that appeared in class as a result
of the behavior specific praise statements.
Elliots’s work (2008) was important to teacher education and preparation for
working in fully inclusive classrooms. The author provided strategies that could be used
to promote positive behaviors in the classroom on behalf of all students. He also showed
the importance of teacher coaching and education when implementing inclusive practices
in the classroom. Educators must be properly educated and knowledgeable of the
strategies that work in inclusive classrooms, which can be used to promote the
participation and active engagement of all students (Elliot, 2008).
While educating students with disabilities, educators must ensure that the
necessary modifications and accommodations are applied, while also ensuring the
inclusion of exceptional learners in lessons and activities (Gal et al., 2010). This
92
inclusion was sometimes a difficult task. While participating in inclusive settings,
students with disabilities may have feelings of fear or shame. This population of students
may also have feelings of anxiety. These feelings were based on the fact that they may
be ridiculed by their nondisabled peers if they participate in classroom discussions and
activities and respond incorrectly. As a result, educators must have a variety of resources
and tools to use in these cases. The BSPS was one of those tools that can be used in
inclusive settings with students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers (Duchaine et
al., 2011).
Bert, Fullerton, McBride, and Ruben (2011) stated that many had expressed
concerns that both content area and secondary special education teachers are not
adequately prepared to help all adolescents learn academic content (Blanton & Pugagh,
2007). The concern over lack of preparation along with other concerns was that
educators, both regular and special educators, were not adequately prepared properly to
differentiate lessons, nor were they highly qualified in specific content areas. These
concerns were now coming to the forefront with more inclusive practices taking place
across the United States. These concerns were factors that can greatly affect the success
of a special education program, such as inclusion. Bert et al. (2011) stated that educators
were the determining factor to student success. If educators were the determining factor
to student success, teacher preparation should be at the forefront of the list of priorities.
Bert et al. (2011) identified the three types of teacher education programs,
detailed what they were, and the effects they had on the educating of students with
disabilities in inclusive settings. The three types of teacher preparation program models
93
are discrete, integrated, and merged. The discrete model was one that was most used.
The discrete model is when the special education and general education programs are
separate. The next model is the integrated model. The integrated model is when the
programs are still separate, but faculty members work together to create courses and/or
field experiences where the special education candidates learn about regular education
practices, and general education teachers learned about inclusive practices. The last
model of the three is the merged program. In this program, faculty members are to work
collaboratively to prepare general and special educators using one curriculum. The
courses and field experience were designed to teach future educators how to work will all
students.
The authors were all college professors in the school of education. They came
together to determine what strategies would be best to implement a curriculum that would
have the ability to teach all future educators the amount of information needed to
guarantee that students are adequately equipped to work with regular and special
education students. Bert et al. (2011) determined that a merged secondary and special
education curriculum was necessary. It was called the Secondary Dual Educators’
Program (SDEP). This program is a full time graduate program that would allow one to
obtain licensure as a secondary educator in a content area, licensure in secondary special
education, and a Master’s Degree in Education.
The participants for this study consisted of 44 teacher candidates, which included
26 females and 18 males. Graduates were licensed in the following content areas: 3 in
math, 12 in social studies, 4 in health, 8 in science (i.e., biology, integrated science, and
94
chemistry), 9 in language arts/English, 1 in Spanish, 1 in business education, and 6 in art.
Surveys and interviews were used to collect the data for this research. The data reflected
that graduates from the SDEP merged program worked as content area teachers and
introduced and engaged in collaboration with colleagues (Bert et al., 2011). Principals
stated that graduates made useful offerings to content area teams that reflected their
preparation in a merged program. Graduates reported that content area teachers
appreciated and used their methods for differentiating instruction.
Loiacono and Valenti (2010) focused on two factors that greatly affect education
today. The first factor was the alarming number of students with autism and autism
spectrum disorder in schools today. This problem was not one that was seen only in the
United States, but there were a large population of students with autism that can be
observed globally. The next issue was that teacher education programs were not
adequately equipping student teachers to work with this disability as well as many other
disabilities. The authors inspected (a) the increase of children diagnosed with autism in
the Southeastern region of New York over a 5-year period (2003-2007); and (b) the
number of applied behavior analysis (ABA) trained general education teachers in this
region who co-taught in inclusive classrooms that included children classified with
autism.
Dymond and Gilson (2007) examined the preparation that was needed for
educators to successfully educate students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The
authors stated that if special educators or general educators do not have the training
necessary to educate students who have been diagnosed with ASD, then one cannot
95
predict that the academic growth of these children will increase or improve (Dymond &
Gilson, 2007). Simultaneously, if these educators lacked knowledge in evidence-based
intervention methodologies as well as the necessary training to work with children
diagnosed with autism, are they considered to be highly qualified in keeping with the
spirit of NCLB? (Scheuermann, Webber, Boutot, & Goodwin, 2003).
The authors of this study recommended that future research be empirically
conducted to (a) compare the various ABA methodologies to determine the efficacy of
each intervention with children classified with ASD, and b) revise preparatory programs
for teachers in higher education to include ABA methodologies to ensure the proper
preparation of educators to teach children with ASD in inclusive settings. Based on the
research findings, institutions of higher education should continue to scrutinize their
curriculum and courses as well as revise their respective curricula to include ABA
intervention approaches, which would not only benefit children with autism but other
disabilities as well (Loiacono & Valenti, 2010).
Baber, Cooper, Kurtts, and Vallecorsa (2008) discussed the critical need for
highly qualified special education teachers in today’s society as described by current
legislation in NCLB (2002). Since the legislation has been enforced, recent initiatives
have signaled teacher education programs to examine performance standards in
demonstrating preparation of effective teachers for diverse learners. Baber et al. (2008)
stated that, with over 6,000,000 children across the country receiving services, the
increased need for well-prepared teachers was critical. Data on increasing teacher
96
shortages in special education as well as a number of studies have amplified various
aspects of this dilemma, including causes and possible remedies.
The purpose for this paper was to share (a) a process for creating an inclusion
survey for teacher education faculty, (b) results from administration of this survey in one
university setting, and (c) share examples of how outcomes of the survey were used to
assist teacher education faculty in their own preparation for ensuring that their students
meet state and professional standards required for teaching students with disabilities
(Baber et al., 2008).
The methodology used in Baber et al. (2008) consisted of an inclusion task force
that included representatives from the teacher preparation program, the university’s office
of disability services, and a member of the PDS partners, as well as both of the associate
deans. An online survey was created that had three purposes: (a) to what extent faculty
were including key inclusion competencies in course content and assessment, (b) how
faculty rated their own inclusion knowledge and skills, and (c) what resources faculty felt
they needed in order to more effectively integrate inclusion across program area. For
data collection, the inclusion task force identified all the required licensure courses in
core subject areas. Then, as many instructors as possible who taught these courses over
the previous 2 years were identified, and were contacted via email. There were 242
surveys sent to faculty members with a 30% return rate. There were three significant
limitations in the execution of the survey: (a) all faculties could not be located, (b) there
had been a change in some of the course numbers, and (c) only a snapshot over the 2-year
period could be provided.
97
The survey included both qualitative and quantitative feedback from faculty
members. The quantitative data were in the form of a Likert-type scale survey for
responses about the extent to which faculty included those key inclusion topics in course
content. A rating scale was also used to describe (a) their knowledge and skill level to
teach others to work with students with disabilities and (b) the extent to which their
current knowledge bases reflected current best practices. Descriptive statistics were used
to analyze these two sets of data. The qualitative data were in the form of open-ended
questions. The authors read and re-read the responses to these questions looking for
themes and seeking patterns across the data set.
Baber et al. (2008) stated that the results for each of the programs responses were
meant to inform the specific program of the extent to which key competencies were
addressed in content and assessment activities of the identified core courses of these
programs. As a result, survey outcomes were reported to department chairs and
department coordinators, and they were to decide how the information would be used.
This information could serve as an effective tool to the guiding of specific program
changes and needs in inclusive settings.
Furey, Penney, and Philpott (2010) explored the need for more innovative
leadership in teacher education with an emphasis on professional developments for
current teachers. Philpott et al. (2010) stated that, despite the fact that classroom teachers
were assuming more responsibility in meeting the needs of all students, many of them did
not feel prepared to instruct students of diverse cultural backgrounds or abilities. Similar
findings had emerged across the country. Globally, research and literature was voicing
98
similar concerns about teacher readiness to meet the needs of students with
exceptionalities.
Inclusive education once focused on the needs of those students with
exceptionalities, but now it was a concept that was much broader and focuses on all
students. With the expansion of this concept of learner differences, there was an urgent
need for leaders to redevelop training practices for current teachers. Inclusive education
was one that bridges the gap and embraces all differences (Zigmond et al., 2009). It
focused on diverse teaching strategies and the empowerment of the classroom teacher
with the tools, resources, and knowledge necessary to reach all students. Furey et al.
(2010) stated that teachers who felt unprepared to meet the needs of students suffered a
diminishing confidence in their own knowledge and skills. It was also stated that teacher
attitudes were critical for the success of inclusion and impact classroom practices. As a
result, this attitude can ultimately affect student achievement. There were six core areas
focused on in this study for renewed professional development: (a) professional
development for inclusive policy, (b) professional development for diversity, (c)
professional development to nurture positive attitudes, (d) professional development for
evidence based teaching strategies, (e) professional development for collaborative
teaching, and (f) professional development for meaningful teaching.
The conclusion of this research conducted by Furey et al. (2010) suggested that
providing administrators with the necessary support to enable teachers to engage in
shared leadership in inclusion, would call for new models of professional development to
be essential. These models of professional development must contain a wealth of
99
knowledge about meaningful and effective approaches to meeting the needs of a diverse
student population.
Brown et al. (2011) stated that there were three major priorities that should guide
leadership education when preparing leaders for their work of leading schools in a
democratic society. Those three priorities were teaching leaders to understand the
inequities of our society, teaching leaders to serve as agents for social transformation, and
teaching leaders to help each and every student learn and succeed.
Students with exceptionalities had often been isolated or excluded from the
classrooms and activities that their nondisabled peers had been allowed to participate in
(Zigmond et al., 2009). They had experienced forms of social isolation and exclusion
even after being integrated into the regular education classroom. Brown et al. (2011)
stated that it was the duty of our educational system to end such oppression, to increase
equity, and to make bold possibilities happen for all students. Brown et al. (2011)
focused on the importance of bridging the gap between theory and practice. It was
important to make connections between course material and the broader social context.
This connection may allow future educational leaders to implement a broader, more
inclusive approach in addressing issues of student learning and equity, as well as respect
for diversity and culturally inclusive education. It was stated that leadership education
needs to call educators to activism. Educational programs should promote educators that
will challenge exclusion, isolation, and marginalism and create opportunities for learning
for all students, those students with exceptionalities and their nondisabled peers by
dealing with issues of context and achievement.
100
Burden, Lunce, Runshe, and Tinnerman (2010) focused on balancing the need to
prepare pre-service teachers with the skills necessary to effectively participate in IEP’s
with the constraints of confidentiality as required by law. These skill sets were important
to special educators, especially educators who work in fully inclusive classrooms. The
need for adequate preparation led one university to develop scenarios that could be used
as tools for teaching in teacher preparation programs on what was expected with this
critical component of the academic career of a student with exceptionalities.
Three scenarios were created. Two of the scenarios were created for the
secondary level and one at the elementary level. Burden et al. (2010) stated that faculty
discussed the issue of meeting student educational needs while also observing the
confidentiality provision. The important aspect of meeting student needs coupled with an
effort to ensure student confidentiality was why the video simulation was developed.
Research suggests that the use of case studies in the classroom served to intensify the
learning experience for student participants. The use of both case studies and role play
had also proven to be very effective resources in preparing future educators.
The development of the simulations included several members of the faculty, one
member of the staff, and a graduate student. The faculty and staff members played the
roles of a special education teacher, general education teacher, and an administrator. The
graduate student played the role of the high school student. The simulations were
generalized so that they could be used for a number of teaching situations. Two
simulations were created to be used with secondary pre-service teachers. Both
simulations were based on a student named Robert X, who was a high school senior who
101
had a learning disability. These simulations were based on classroom instruction, the
interactions, and necessary collaborations of the regular education (general education)
teacher and the special education teacher. Each simulation lasted approximately 15
minutes (Burden et al., 2010).
The results were based upon junior and senior pre-service secondary education
students that completed a 5-week field placement. The students were asked to view the
two videos on secondary education and reflect on them through electronic journals. The
intended use for these journals was to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the case
studies. Pre-service K-12 special education teachers viewed all three videos and had
class discussions about the videos. Based on these in-class discussions and the ability
openly to reflect and discuss the videos, this group got a deeper meaning and
understanding from the scenarios (Burden et al., 2010).
Burden et al. (2010) stated that as the number of students served by special
education continues to grow, it is important that teacher educators provide the resources
necessary for both general and special education pre-service teachers to practice the skills
necessary to accommodate such a diverse population of learners. With new and creative
usage of technology, many of these obstacles can begin to be addressed. Future
implications and considerations for this research included the use of virtual simulations
that students can use to actively participate in particular case studies.
Having an understanding of inclusion, the purpose and how to implement
inclusive practices, and not being afraid to educate students with disabilities are all
important aspects of inclusion (Bradley et al., 2011). Bradley et al. provided readers with
102
background information about the NCLB. It was stated that in 2004 96% of students
with disabilities were being included in the general education setting, and over half
(52.1%) of these students were in the general education classroom the majority of the day
(79% of the school day). The past decade has shown a continuous progression toward
educating students with disabilities in the general education classroom, and the
importance of all teachers being prepared to work with a diverse student population.
With an increasingly rigorous curriculum and more stringent accountability measures,
one important concern was whether or not general education teachers had the skills
necessary to scaffold support in their classrooms and work collaboratively with special
educators, families, and other related service providers to improve academic success.
The study examined the perceptions of elementary and secondary education
majors toward the inclusion of students with disabilities prior to and after taking a course
on the integration of exceptional learners into the general education classroom. The
study was grounded and guided by Pajares’s (1992) framework on beliefs, which states,
“Successful teaching and learning in the inclusive classroom is largely predicated on a
teacher’s knowledge, skills, and dispositions, all of which can be undermined by a belief
system that is inconsistent with an inclusive paradigm” (McCrary & McHatton, 2011, p.
136).
General educators are now held accountable for and must take a more active role
in the educating of students with disabilities (Harr-Robins et al., 2012). As a result, this
research sought to answer: (a) What are the perceptions of elementary and secondary
education majors toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in their classrooms
103
prior to and after taking a course on integrating exceptional learners? (b) Is there a
difference in perceptions about inclusion between elementary education majors and
secondary education majors? And (c) What are the perceptions of general education
majors about their own professional development and continued needs as a result of
taking a course on integrating exceptional students? (Harr-Robins et al., 2012)
This study was conducted at a large urban research university in the Southeastern
United States. All participants were enrolled in a course on integrating exceptional
learners in the general education setting. This course was a two-credit course that met
one evening per week. The course was designed for general education majors in an effort
to provide a more in-depth understanding of the role they needed to play in the
integration of students with disabilities. The course met for 2 hours each week, for 16
weeks, in the fall or spring semesters, and 10 weeks throughout the summer. The course
was taught by an instructor or an adjunct instructor in the department of special education
who has at least a master’s degree in special education and had teaching experience
(McCrary & McHatton, 2011).
The participants were comprised of both undergraduate elementary education
majors and undergraduate secondary education majors who were enrolled in the course
on integrating exceptional learners into the general education classroom. McCrary and
McHatton (2011) collected data during the fall of 2006 and the spring and summer of
2007. The data were collected from different groups of students enrolled in different
sections of the course. The data collection began at the beginning of the course. During
this procedure, inclusion was not explicitly defined. During the second data collection
104
administration, which was at the end of the course, researchers were looking for an
understanding of teachers’ perceptions of inclusion and their sense of self-efficacy about
teaching exceptional learners in the confines of the general education classroom and how
their perceptions may have changed since the beginning of the course. To gain a deeper
understanding of these perceptions, a series of open-ended questions were asked. The
survey used in this research was an instrument that included 22 Likert-type items and had
a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .905. The response scales ranged from 1 to 5, with 1,
strongly disagree, and 5, strongly agree, as well as a neutral category in the middle.
The analysis of the quantitative findings consisted of descriptive statistics,
frequency of percentages of responses, and a repeated measures ANOVA to determine
changes between times 1, 2, and differences between groups. The findings yielded that
although participants were more positive about inclusion at the end of the course, 30.4%
either did not agree or were undecided when they were asked if most students with
disabilities could be educated in the general education classroom. The analysis of the
qualitative data included the transcribing of responses to the open-ended questions. The
responses derived from the qualitative data indicated that teachers were more willing to
work with students with learning disabilities and hearing impairments as opposed to
students with multiple disabilities. They also still generally viewed students with
disabilities from a deficit perspective. The use of phrasing such as, “help these types of
students,” and “feel more comfortable in educating them,” warranted further
investigation. In interpreting the response data, the authors wondered whether changed
behaviors naturally follow changed attitudes (McCrary & McHatton, 2011).
105
It has been suggested that attitudes and perceptions toward inclusion have an
effect on the level of success experienced by students (Fuchs, 2010). Casale-Giannola
(2010) conducted research to determine the relationship between teachers’ attitudes about
the inclusion of students with disabilities in a physical education classroom and the
amount of practice attempts performed and the levels of success achieved by students
with disabilities compared to their nondisabled peers. Physical education teachers are
now responsible for teaching students with disabilities (Casale-Giannola, 2010). These
students had mild to moderate disabilities. Possible disabilities may include, but are not
limited to, mental retardation, learning disabilities and emotional/behavioral disorders.
These students were being placed in physical education classes without the assistance of
an aid. This inclusion has become an issue for many physical education teachers. They
are trying to meet the needs of students with disabilities, without neglecting the needs of
their nondisabled peers.
Although many studies have assumed that a positive attitude toward the inclusion
of students with disabilities was necessary for the transition to be a successful one, many
variables must be taken into consideration (Beacham & Rouse, 2010). These variables
included the relationship between age of the teacher, teaching experience, gender, and
educational preparation to name a few. Elliot (2008) stated that student grade level and
the severity of student disability impact teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Students
with disabilities in the lower grades were viewed more favorably than were students in
the higher grades, and students with less severe disabilities were viewed more favorably
than were students with more severe disabilities (Ross-Hill, 2009).
106
Research suggested that teachers’ attitudes were related to self-perceptions of
competence, educational preparation, and experience in teaching students with
disabilities (Elliot, 2008). The attitudes and perceptions of the teachers would be better if
they perceived themselves as good teachers, had better preparation, and more experience
in working with students with disabilities. The measure used in this study consisted of
the PEATID-III questionnaire used to determine teachers’ attitudes toward teaching
inclusionary classes. This questionnaire consisted of a series of statements, which
required teachers to express their beliefs about teaching students with exceptionalities in
their regular physical education classrooms. The questionnaire was mailed to the school
address of all elementary physical educators in the district who had given the
administrator permission to conduct research in their schools. The main portion of this
questionnaire consisted of 12 statements, such as, “teaching students labeled as
mild/moderate mental disabilities in regular physical education classes with nondisabled
students will disrupt the harmony of the class.” The use of a 5-point Likert-type scale
was provided for the respondents to answer each question.
After reviewing the completed questionnaires, 20 elementary physical education
teachers were chosen as participants. Elliot (2008) stated these participants were
assigned to one of two groups based on their attitudes and perceptions towards inclusion.
Each group consisted of teachers that had experienced between 2 and 25 years. Each
teacher was sent a packet of consent forms to distribute to the students in their classes.
Students were observed in these classes if their parents consented to it.
107
Data from the observations were analyzed using a two-factor split-plot or mixed
ANOVA design. The results suggested that there was no significant interaction between
the teacher’s attitude and the type of student, but the number of practice attempts was
influenced by the teacher’s attitude. A comparison of the marginal mean revealed that
students taught by teachers with positive attitudes received significantly more practice
attempts than students taught by teachers with negative attitudes. Elliot (2008) suggested
that teachers with more positive attitudes were more effective teachers than those
teachers with negative attitudes.
The acceptance of students with disabilities is not only an issue in the United
States but abroad as well. Elliot’s (2008) research was a replication of the study
conducted by Forlin (2001) in Churchlands, Western Australia. The authors used
Forlin’s Inclusive Education Teacher Stress and Coping questionnaire, but it was adapted
to more adequately reflect the implementation of inclusion in Ontario. The inclusion of
students with disabilities was not only a trend in the United States but in other countries
as well. Most teachers in Ontario had to deal with the fact that they were going to have
the responsibility of educating students with disabilities in the setting of the regular
education classroom. This inclusive setting was a significant change. It was stated that
stress was not only an unavoidable by-product of significant change; it was an essential
condition leading to constructive change as long as it was in manageable doses.
The most common reason cited for teacher stress in Ontario and ultimately
quitting was a lack of support needed to adapt to the transition and changes that came
with fully inclusive classrooms. The Canadian Teachers’ Federation June 2001
108
Workplace Survey found that 47% of teachers quit before retirement because of stress
and frustration (Brackenreed, 2011). The behavioral problems of students with special
needs particularly presented a great challenge to many in inclusive academic settings.
Studies of teachers’ attitudes and perceptions were said to directly affect and influence
the decision making and behaviors of the teacher’s in the classroom (Glazzard, 2011).
Teacher burnout was accredited to an inability to cope with this type of classroom
environment.
This study, with financial assistance from Nipissing University, examined the
perceptions of teachers in Northeastern Ontario regarding the stressors of inclusive
classroom environments and the coping strategies used to deal with those stressors.
Brackenreed (2011) stated the population consisted of teachers in Northeastern Ontario
who were teaching students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers in the regular
education classroom. These teachers were from four English public school boards and
four English Catholic school boards from the region. From a population of 4,175
elementary and secondary school teachers, a sample of 269 teachers responded to the
mailed, self-administered questionnaire.
The Teacher Stress and Coping Questionnaire is comprised of four parts. Part A
sought information about students who have been identified by an identification
placement review committee (IPRC), those students waiting to be identified, or those
students who are considered at risk. Part B requested information about variables that
could be considered potential stressors as a part of an inclusive environment. Part C was
comprised of coping strategies that might be used by the teacher. Part D was composed
109
of a request for general information on external variables such as demographic
information of the school and personal teaching data. The data collected in Part C of this
study, which examined the usefulness of coping strategies, were discussed. The
responses to the open-ended questions were recorded, organized, and categorized
according to the findings of the questionnaire (Brackenreed, 2011).
With the measure, the Likert-type scale technique presented statements in which
participants were supposed to express their agreement or disagreement using a 5-point
scale. Each degree of agreement was given a numerical value between 1 and 5, where 1
being no use and 5 being a high level of usefulness. The data from the surveys, which
were returned, were listed in a frequency distribution and analyzed using descriptive
statistics of frequency, mean, and standard deviation of the distribution of the scores
(Brackenreed, 2011).
The top 10 strategies identified for coping fell into one of four categories:
personal coping strategies, professional coping, social coping, and institutional coping
skills. Maintaining a sense of humor was stated as the most useful coping strategy.
Ninety percent of the participants stated that discussing the situation with a colleague was
the most valuable coping strategy. Eighty percent stated that discussing the situation with
the principal was the next most advantageous coping strategy. The demands of educating
students with disabilities were stated to be “staggering” in the general education
classroom (Brackenreed, 2011). Although this concern was stated, many educators’
perceptions of mainstreaming were positive, and they felt that students with disabilities
would benefit from inclusion practices.
110
Hemmings, Kay, and Woodcock (2012) stated that moves toward the inclusion of
students with special needs into mainstream classrooms brought about greater attention
on how teachers were trained and supported. There was also a growing interest in the
way practicing and pre-service teachers perceive and respond to students with disabilities.
Questions have been raised about the preparation pre-service teachers were receiving and
whether or not this preparation was sufficient (Bert et al., 2011). This question brings
about a need to understand the beliefs, attitudes, and concerns that pre-service teachers
have about inclusive classrooms. This concern about adequate teacher preparation was
also a call to evaluate the effectiveness of current teacher education preparation programs
that incorporate inclusive education experiences.
Inclusion was defined as belonging to, being rightly placed in a group of people,
and having the rights and qualities that characterize members of that particular group
(Zigmond et al., 2009). Inclusive education was a concept that is based on the idea that
schools should provide the needs of all children in their communities, no matter the level
of their ability or their disability. To accomplish this goal, professional developments
have been a fundamental approach used to prepare in-service teachers for inclusive
education. However, a greater focus has been placed on university lectures and course
designs to prepare new teachers for the world of inclusion.
Hemmings et al. (2012) suggested that positive attitudes and confidence toward
teaching in an inclusive setting were likely to yield more positive results and a
continuation of success with the implementation of inclusive practices. It was surprising,
however, that many teacher education programs offered little in the form of inclusive
111
education or even failed to address inclusion at all. This claim was supported by the fact
that many new teachers had a great deal of apprehension about inclusion and working
with students with disabilities. Some researchers have been arguing that the
incorporation of actual experience where pre-service teachers may gain knowledge
through working with students with disabilities may be more advantageous than a course
on inclusive practices (Orr, 2009). This type of incorporation into a teacher preparation
program could potentially decrease stress and increase positive attitudes about
mainstream practices and exceptional learners. This incorporation also provides an
opportunity for pre-service teachers to work collaboratively with stakeholders, such as
teachers, support teachers, and teacher aids.
Hemmings et al. (2012) attempted to develop a better interpretation of the
concerns of pre-service teachers before and after they experienced a one-off inclusive
education subject and its related practicum. This study also monitored changes that
occurred in the beliefs in relation to inclusive education of those particular pre-service
teachers. Three research questions guided Hemmings et al.’s (2012, p. 3) study:
● “What are the levels of concerns expressed by pre-service teachers prior to
studying a subject in inclusive education? And, how do these measures relate
to each other and self-efficacy?”
● “What are the levels of concerns expressed by pre-service teachers following
completion of a subject in inclusive education? And, how do these measures
relate to each other and self-efficacy?”
● “What changes, if any, occur in the level of concerns through the study of an
112
inclusive education subject?”
The participants chosen were pre-service teachers who were enrolled in their third
year of a primary teacher education course at a large Australian regional university. The
sample population consisted of 97 pre-service teachers in the first phase of the study. A
survey was administered to those 97 pre-service teachers and was re-administered 5
months later to the same participants. Hemmings et al. (2012) used a survey as the sole
means of data gathering for this study. The survey was divided into a number of parts
and used a variety of question formats. Those parts and formats included Likert-type
scales and open-ended questions. The Likert-type scale items were drawn from two
sources: The Concerns about Inclusive Education Scale (CIES) and the Self-Efficacy
toward future Interaction with People and Disabilities Scale (SEIPD). The CIES
measured the participants’ degree of concern about implementing inclusive education.
The scale had 21 items. The SEIPD was made up of 15 items.
The participants were invited to complete the survey two times to assess if the
same issues and concerns emerged, and if new experiences across a 5-month period
would impact their responses. The first survey was carried out in a lecture held at the
beginning of the sixth session of the study. The second survey administration took place
at the conclusion of the session during the final lecture (Hemmings et al., 2012). In the
results, there were four main areas of concern: acceptance, workload, resources, and
academic standards. The concern for resources was the most important or the highest on
the hierarchy of concerns based on this study. The results also established a degree of
association between the four measures of concern. At both the pre-test and post test
113
phases, these correlations were generally at a moderate level. This study did indicate that
perceptions and attitudes did not change much over a 5-month period.
Society is moving toward not only more inclusive schools but a more inclusive
society. Hemmings et al. (2012) focused on pre-service teachers and their concerns about
working in inclusive settings in an attempt to provide information and education that can
ultimately create more successful inclusive classroom settings. With the demands being
set on all educators (i.e., special education and regular education teachers), Hemmings et
al. set a good foundation for others to follow. If we focused on pre-service teachers and
adequately provided the knowledge and resources that would help them to feel they as if
they were adequately equipped to service a variety of students and student needs, there
may be an increase in the success of inclusive classrooms.
Implications
With an opportunity to take a holistic view at the implementation of full inclusion
and factors that potentially determine the effectiveness of this implementation, this
investigation has the potential to change the culture of this local school and school
district. This investigation contains data and literature that will enlighten and educate
people who wish to implement a positive change for all students, not only students with
exceptionalities. The journey of correcting the barriers to success in our academic
institutions must first begin with knowledge and a solid foundation.
This knowledge base and foundation can be presented through a series of
professional developments for all teachers working with students with disability. The
presentation of inclusion, what it is, and how effectively to implement it, as well as
114
resources and a support plan are components of a professional development that could
positively affect how educators and administrators not only implement but facilitate
inclusive practices. This investigation provides that foundation. This foundation is one
that has the ability to extend to the creation of professional developments and workshops
about working with students with disabilities, full inclusion, collaborative working
environments, and teacher preparation. This investigation could also lead to further
investigations about the importance of teacher attitudes and perceptions, teacher
education programs, and the preparation that is necessary to work with an array of
disabilities. This investigation is important for special education and regular education
teachers as a result of the integration of students with exceptionalities into the regular
education classroom.
Summary
The investigation of the effectiveness of the implementation of full inclusion and
how certain factors can hinder or aid in this implementation is an important aspect of
academic success for exceptional learners. In this section of the project study, the local
problem has been reviewed, along with the rationale for conducting this study, the
significance of the problem, and a review of literature on the topic of inclusion. The local
problem was the failure of students with disabilities in a local southern high school to
meet the district or state AYP goals set for the past 3 years. Those students were
participating in a fully inclusive academic program. This project study was a vehicle that
was used to investigate the inclusive program at this school and determined how certain
factors affected the success of not only students with disabilities, but their nondisabled
115
peers as well. The factors that were focused on included teacher attitude/perceptions,
level of education, exposure to students/people with disabilities, knowledge of special
education laws, and level of support. This investigation used a mixed methods design
that included a survey and one-on-one interviews.
Orr (2009) stated, “A truly inclusive school reflects the democratic philosophy
whereby all students are valued, educators normalize difference through differentiated
instruction, and the school culture reflects an ethic of caring and community” (p. 229).
This investigation brought forth information that assisted in the growth and progress of
inclusive classrooms. Philpott et al. (2011) stated that inclusive education was the global
paradigm of care where the classroom teacher was seen as the primary support person for
all students and where good teaching was characterized by a broad skill set. All
necessary definitions have been defined, as well as a review of literature not only from
Southern states, but across the world, that focused on inclusion and inclusive practices.
Literature suggested there were positive aspects of inclusion and inclusive practices as
well as negative aspects. These aspects were based on several varying factors. Research
highlighted several factors, such as preparation, teacher perception, and level of
education about educating students with disabilities, as important aspects in creating a
successful inclusive atmosphere. I conducted an investigation to determine what factors
were present at a local Southern high school and how they affected the educating of
students with disabilities in the regular education classroom. This investigation consisted
of gathering data through the use of a mixed methods strategy that incorporated data from
a survey as well as one-on-one interviews.
116
Section two of this project study provided information about the study’s
methodology. The methodology section includes the methods for collecting data, and the
intent and justification for using that method of collection. The methodology section also
includes the instruments that were used in data collection. Those instruments were the
TATIS and one-on-one interviews. The evidence of the validity and reliability of those
instruments, as well as the analysis procedures that were used to analyze those
instruments, are located in the methodology section.
117
Section 2: The Methodology
Research Design and Approach Introduction
Educating students with exceptionalities in the regular education classroom was a
controversial and daunting task (Cullen & Noto, 2010). King (2003) stated that inclusive
education meant that all students in a school regardless of their strengths, weaknesses, or
disabilities in any area become a part of the school community. Cullen and Noto (2010)
stated that inclusion was the delivery model of choice among federal and state legislation
officials. Inclusion and inclusive practices were built on the principle that all students
should be valued for their exceptional abilities and included as important members of the
community. As a result of this concept and the implementation of programs that include
students with exceptionalities, many questions about the effectiveness of full inclusion
have begun to arise. Public schools have been forced to disaggregate achievement data
and take responsibility for the progress of students served under special education as a
discrete subgroup of learners through laws such as NCLB (Forlin, 2011). This
development brought about a need for greater exposure to the general education
curriculum through inclusive services and encouraged the standardization of outcomes
and measurements. Obiakor (2011) stated that although these derivatives were positive
and sometimes popular, full inclusion seemed to have applicability and practicality
problems, and as a policy, it continued to be controversial.
Intent for Mixed Methods Approach
I investigated in depth the implementation of full inclusion classrooms and the
success of these classrooms based on the level of achievement through a mixed methods
118
approach. The intent for using a mixed methods approach was that it provided a holistic
view of the implementation of inclusive services in this local high school and how those
services affected not only teachers but students’ progress and achievement levels as well.
The ability successfully to implement inclusive services and a more inclusive learning
community depends on several factors: (a) effective leadership and administrative
support, (b) sufficient funding, (c) effective implementation systems, (d) availability of
evidence-based supportive services, (e) stakeholder environment, (f) adequate
professional development opportunities for teachers and other support personnel, (g)
effective communication, and (h) problem-solving systems (Cullen & Noto, 2010).
The factors that were the focus of this investigation included teacher
attitudes/perceptions, level of education, exposure to students/people with disabilities,
knowledge of special education laws, and level of support in the classroom. I thoroughly
investigated those factors through a survey and one-on-one interviews with teachers who
worked in this high school at the time of data collection. A demographics sheet
accompanied the survey. This demographics sheet allowed for the comparison of new
teachers to novice teachers regarding the factors under investigation.
Before collecting any data, I obtained consent from the IRB (international review
board). The IRB number provided with permission to collect this data is 02-24-15-
0201623. I used a sequential mixed methods strategy in this project study. Data were
collected in a sequential explanatory method, which meant the demographics data sheet
and Teacher Attitudes Toward Inclusion Scale (TATIS) were completed first, followed
by one-on-one interviews. This strategy allowed the elaboration or expansion of the
119
quantitative data collected with the vivid words and descriptions gained from the
qualitative data. This method provided an opportunity for a comprehensive analysis of
the research problem. I collected and analyzed the quantitative data first, followed by the
collecting and analyzing of the qualitative data (Creswell, 2009). I used this method in
an attempt to gather data about the perceptions and attitudes of teachers on the topic of
full inclusion. I collected these data using the TATIS. The collection of qualitative data
followed in an attempt to elaborate and refine the results obtained from the quantitative
segment of the data collection. I also used EOC data as descriptive, secondary data.
Although these data were secondary, they helped to paint a powerful picture of how
factors previously stated affected the implementation of full inclusion at a local Southern
high school. I analyzed these data to provide an idea of where the students’ academic
level was at the beginning of the school year and at the end of the school year in inclusive
settings. These settings included a collaborative teaching environment (coteaching
involving a special education and regular education teacher), compared to students
participating in inclusive settings with the regular education teacher independently
servicing students with disabilities as well as their nondisabled peers.
Quantitative Data
The forms of data collection included the survey TATIS and one-on-one
interviews. I attempted to gain permission to use the TATIS by emailing the creator of
the scale. The contact information was no longer valid and the creator no longer worked
at the listed institution. I ultimately purchased the instrument through ETS.org. The first
phase of the project study included two forms of data extraction, the TATIS and a
120
demographics data sheet. The TATIS is a scale that was developed because of a need to
change teacher perceptions and shape attitudes and beliefs that are favorable to inclusion
(Cullen & Noto, 2010). Prior to the TATIS, the participants completed a demographics
sheet. The demographics sheet addressed (a) the subject area being taught, (b) gender,
(c) age, (d) highest level of education, (e) level of interactions with person/students with
disabilities, (f) level of training, (g) knowledge of the local legislation or policy that
pertained to students with disabilities, (h) level of confidence in teaching students with
disabilities, and (i) level of experience teaching students with disabilities. These data
were coupled with the TATIS to compare the attitudes and perspectives of novice
teachers compared to veteran teachers, special education teachers compared to regular
education teachers, and teachers who worked in collaborative/coteacher settings
compared to those regular education teachers who solely taught students with disabilities
and their nondisabled peers.
An attempt to provide a focus that would help achieve attitudinal change revealed
that it was necessary to identify the specific attitudes and beliefs that were critical to the
success of inclusive education. After an extensive review of literature, Cullen and Noto
(2010) described the critical attitudes and beliefs as (a) attitudes toward students with
disabilities in inclusive settings, (b) beliefs about professional roles and responsibilities,
and (c) beliefs about the efficacy of inclusion. Olson, Chalmers, and Hoover (1997)
found that positive teacher responses to students with disabilities were strong predictors
of the success of inclusion. Stanovich and Jordan (2002) found that teachers who
subscribed to a disease model of disability made consistent attempts to reduce diversity in
121
their classrooms. On the other hand, teachers who viewed disabilities as developmental
challenges that could be improved through effective teaching tended to be more accepting
of the diversity. These teachers were also more persistent in their teaching efforts and
were more likely to employ evidence-based teaching.
Cullen and Noto (2010) stated that teachers who departed from their traditional
roles by accepting team teaching assignments exhibited greater assurance in their ability
to teach special needs students and more confidence in their feasibility of inclusion. The
research objective of investigating the effective methods for engendering positive
attitudes and beliefs toward inclusion was a justifiable one, but this objective required an
assessment tool that could measure change regarding the critical attitudes and beliefs
previously mentioned. The TATIS was developed in response to that objective.
Upon the completion of the survey, a scoring sheet was available to tally all
responses. Once tallied, I compared factor and total scale scores to the normative
standards listed in the provided tables to obtain t scores and percentile ranks. The t scores
had a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. High scores meant that the participants’
attitudes and beliefs were highly supportive of inclusion. Low scores meant that the
participants’ attitudes and beliefs were more supportive or in favor of traditional methods
of delivery. Prior to the TATIS, participants completed a demographics sheet. I did not
use this information to identify individuals, but it was used as a means of tracking data
and comparing different groups of educators (i.e., novice teachers and veteran teachers,
special education and regular education teachers, coteachers and independent teachers). I
only used this sheet for the creation of subgroups that provided descriptive data about the
122
teachers participating in the project study. The demographics sheet included questions
such as the area of teaching/training (subject area), age, gender, level of education, level
of interactions with people with disabilities, and level of interactions with students’ with
disabilities.
Qualitative Data
The second form of data collection was one-on-one interviews with teachers who
were working in inclusive settings at the time of data collection. Those interviews ranged
between 45 and 60 minutes. The interview was semistructured and contained open-ended
questions that allowed for the presentation of perspectives on inclusion and inclusive
practices through words. The questions in the interview addressed (a) planning, (b)
administration/administrative support, (c) adequate supplies/support, (d) in-service
training/professional development, (e) inclusive school environment, (f) positive
inclusive practices, and (g) barriers successfully to implement inclusive practices.
Although I created and asked a specific set of questions, there was time and opportunity
for elaboration and personal stories/reflection based on the responses. The analysis of the
responses consisted of a hand transcription of each interview. Following this
transcription, I reviewed each set of transcriptions, took notes based on teacher responses,
and created the categories. The comparison of notes and categories from each interview
took place to identify common themes. I identified those themes and created a special
file for each that entailed specific quotes from the transcription.
The secondary data incorporated into this project study included student test
scores from the EOC assessment. These data only included student test scores from
123
inclusive classrooms. The use of the EOC assessment allowed for me and others
reviewing the data to determine student growth and success. These data were previously
collected and analyzed by an outside source who worked with the school district. I
requested these data through the Research, Evaluation, Assessment and Student
Information department. Upon approval, the department provided all necessary test
scores. The scores presented consisted of data that were previously collected and
analyzed by an outside entity working with the school district.
Justification
The research design I chose to use for this project study was the sequential
explanatory mixed methods design. Creswell (2012) stated that a mixed methods study is
conducted when a researcher has both quantitative and qualitative data, and both types
together can provide a better understanding of the research problem than either one can
alone. In this study, I investigated factors that affected the academic achievement of
students with disabilities in inclusive classroom settings. This study contained a
quantitative component, which was the attitudes and perceptions of teachers based on an
attitudinal scale. Although the study contained a quantitative component, it also
contained a qualitative one that focused on factors that affected student achievement.
These factors were (a) teacher attitudes and perceptions of inclusion, (b) level of
education, (c) exposure to people/students with disabilities, and (d) the knowledge of
laws that govern the educating of students with disabilities. Creswell (2012) stated,
“Quantitative data, such as scores on instruments can provide numbers that can be
statistically analyzed” (p. 535). I reviewed and analyzed student scores on the EOC
124
assessments for the past 3 years. These scores provided additional data used to elaborate
upon findings from the TATIS and one-on-one interviews and assisted in answering the
guiding questions. I needed not only to know how students performed on those
assessments, but I needed to understand why. Creswell (2012) stated that qualitative data
offered different perspectives on the topic and provided a complex picture of the
situation. This picture was painted with one-on-one interviews with teachers who were
currently (at the time of data collection) or had previously worked in an inclusive
classroom setting.
The justification for the use of a mixed methods design was to ensure that a
thorough investigation took place of inclusive classroom settings and the factors that
contributed to the success and/or failure of those inclusive classroom settings. It was not
useful to have quantitative data to determine whether teacher attitudes and perceptions
were in favor of more traditional or inclusive teaching methods unless I knew how those
attitudes and perceptions affected student achievement. The investigation of those factors
could help with the creation of more inclusive classroom settings where all students were
provided with the resources and support needed to reach academic success, ultimately
leading to an inclusive atmosphere in the local high school to ensure that all students
were viewed equally.
I incorporated a sequential explanatory method into this mixed methods project
study. The forms of data that I collected and analyzed included an attitudinal scale, the
TATIS, one-on-one interviews, and EOC assessment scores for the past 3 years. I
collected the data at the local Southern high school where the problem was identified. I
125
provided the teachers the survey at the school and asked them to put the survey in a
locked box in the library when completed. I also conducted the interviews at this location
unless the participant requested an outside location; however, no participant requested an
outside location.
The analysis took place at my home to ensure that no information was leaked and
that all data remained confidential. The transcription and analysis of that transcription
took place at my home as well. The integration of data included the initial analysis of the
quantitative data. In an attempt to understand the quantitative data, the qualitative data
were used to create common themes. The EOC assessment scores provided an added
level of data to understand and gain a deeper understanding of the quantitative data.
Setting and Sample
The sample for this project study was drawn from the realistic population of
educators who worked with students with disabilities at a local Southern high school. An
ideal population of all educators who worked with students with disabilities in inclusive
settings in this district was preferred. Because of the time constraints and limited
resources, the sample came from one school where the problem had been identified. The
profile of the school included a faculty that had a principal, vice principal, two assistant
principals, and 77 full-time teachers. This school profile included exceptional education
and English as a second language. The average teacher to student ratio was 22.5:1 for
academic and optional courses and 20:1 for career and technology courses. The support
staff consisted of a librarian/media specialist, a professional learning community (PLC)
coach, three professional guidance counselors, four secretaries, an in-school suspension
126
monitor, a hall monitor, a family services specialist, a study hall monitor, an instructional
computer technician, and nine paraprofessionals. This local Southern high school also
received part-time assistance from other professionals: a school psychologist, an
occupational therapist, speech pathologist, social worker, and a nurse. One hundred
percent of the teachers held a bachelor’s degree and a state teaching certificate/license.
Many faculty members held advanced degrees in either content area or education. The
student demographics consisted of 10% Asian, 85.77% Black, 6.52% Hispanic, and
6.97% White. There were 388 9th grade students, 361 10th grade students 313 11th
grade students, and 273 12th grade students. At this school, 70% of the students were
eligible for free and/or reduced lunch.
As a result of the small amount of time and limited resources effectively to collect
data from such a large population, a realistic population was selected. The realistic
population selection began with the teacher population that consisted of 77 faculty
members who worked in an inclusive setting. This inclusive setting meant they taught
courses that contained a mixture of students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers.
For the collection of quantitative data, the sampling method used was simple random
sampling. This sampling involved each person on the realistic population list being
assigned a number. A random sampling table was generated by a computer where
random number tables presented clusters of number strings that were randomly
generated. For the qualitative data, non-probability sampling was the method used. The
type of non-probabilistic sampling strategy applied was purposeful sampling.
127
The participants chosen to complete the questionnaire/attitude scale and
demographics sheet were used as the population from which participants were pulled to
complete the one-on-one interviews. Based on the desire to gain the
viewpoints/perspectives of both special education and regular education teachers, the
sample for the one-on-one interview used purposeful sampling. The sample size for the
interviews consisted of 15 participants, and the sample size for the survey and
questionnaire consisted of 40 participants. The secondary data of student test scores
consisted of the following participants for the EOC assessments in 2012 with swd used
for students with disabilities and nds used for nondisabled students:
● Algebra II, 27 swd and 340 nds
● Biology, 34 swd and 303 nds
● English I, 30 swd and 326 nds
● English II, 31 swd and 295 nds
● U.S. History, 27 swd and 308 nds
● Algebra I, 37 swd and 273 nds
The EOC assessment for 2013 included:
● Algebra I, 33 swd and 293 nds
● Algebra II, 20 swd and 210 nds
● Biology, 45 swd and 425 nds
● English I, 40 swd and 316 nds
● English II, 25 swd and 292 nds
● English III, 21 swd and 265 nds
128
● U.S. History, 19 swd and nds
The EOC assessment participants for 2014 included:
● U.S. History, 19 swd 287 nds
● Algebra I, 35 swd and 287 nds
● Algebra II, 23 swd and 265 nds
● Biology, 21 swd and 237 nds for
● English, 36 swd and 300 nds
● English II, 28 swd and 283 nds
● English III, 29 swd and 257 nds
The eligibility criterion for participants were that they had taught for at least 1
year, and they worked with students with disabilities in an inclusive setting. This form of
inclusive work meant that participants may or may not have been working in the role of a
teacher, but they could have been an administrator or facilitator who previously worked
in an inclusive setting. Working in conjunction with a special education teacher was not
an eligibility criterion because students with disabilities who were participating in a fully
inclusive program only received services in the areas of language arts and mathematics
(English and mathematics were the only courses where co-teaching took place), but they
were to receive modifications and accommodations in all other subject areas. Teachers of
other subject areas who did not include collaborative teaching were also to receive
support and the resources from the special education department necessary to ensure
academic success of those exceptional learners in their classrooms.
129
Those characteristics were critical to this project study and were present to ensure
that the participants had the knowledge base about students with disabilities and worked
with students with disabilities in an inclusive setting to answer the questions in the
interview and questionnaire/attitude scale. The justification for this number of
participants was that this number of participants was manageable based on the time frame
and resources available for data collection. Although there were only 15 participants
with the one-on-one interview, the questions presented during the interview were in-
depth and allowed for rich responses based on teacher experiences with inclusion and
inclusive practices.
Researcher-Participant Relationship
To establish a researcher-participant working relationship and ensure that
participants felt comfortable being open and honest with me and on the attitudinal survey,
I conducted an informal informational session. This session allowed me to provide
potential participants with an overview of the study and to answer any specific questions
that participants had. This time was also used to ensure participants of the procedures
that were taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. For those teachers in the
building whom I never worked with, the informational session was an opportunity for
them to interact with me on a less formal level and receive general information. All
participants were able to schedule a time to ask additional questions if they preferred to
speak to me privately about the project study.
130
Protection of Participants
The measures to ensure protection of participants began with asking for
permission from the principal of the high school. After permission was granted and a
sample population was chosen, numbers were assigned to each participant to ensure
anonymity. The number was placed on the attitudinal scale, so that the responses
remained confidential. During the data collection phase, data were not shared with any
individuals outside of the project or other participants. As a means of communicating
only with those teachers who wished to participate in the project study, I placed a letter in
each teacher’s box asking for participants. This letter contained an outline of the project
study, purpose, materials needed, and also guaranteed confidentiality. For those teachers
who showed an interest and stated that they would like to participate, an informed
consent letter was presented to them. At this point in time, even if participants changed
their minds and decided that they no longer wished to participate, I respected their
wishes. No harm came to any of the participants. The participants were only asked to
complete the TATIS, demographics data sheet, and possibly the one-on-one interview,
based on the purposeful sampling technique that was used to identify participants who
met the criteria needed to complete the qualitative portion of the project study.
The participants were not to put their names on the demographic data sheet or the
actual survey. The removal of personal information was another level of anonymity. The
survey and demographics data sheet were hand delivered to each participant, and they
returned the sheets to my school mailbox. Having teachers return the documents to my
mailbox and not directly to me ensured that I did not know how the individual
131
participants responded. The descriptive data that were used in the project study consisted
of student test scores that were analyzed by an outside entity. Data needed were
requested through the Research, Evaluation, Assessment and Student Information
division in the school district. This information did not contain any student names or
information, which could allow them to be individually identified.
Data Collection, Sequential Strategies
The strategy used for data collection in this project study was the sequential
explanatory design. Quantitative data were collected first and used as the main source of
data. The collection of quantitative data was then followed by the qualitative data.
Qualitative data were used further to explore and explain themes that emerged from the
quantitative data.
Qualitative Data Collection
Qualitative data were collected from one-on-one interviews with educators who
previously worked or were currently working at the time of data collection with students
with disabilities in an inclusive setting after the collection of the quantitative data. To
gain access to those participants, I communicated with the principal of the high school
and asked for permission to communicate with teachers by placing a letter in their
mailboxes requesting participants for the project study. The participants needed to
complete the interview portion of the project study were teachers at the local southern
high school or administrators who had worked in an inclusive setting. In conjunction
with requesting permission to reach out to the faculty and solicit participants for the
132
study, I also asked the principal for permission to use a small office located in the library
to conduct the interviews.
Upon receiving permission, a letter was placed in each teacher’s box who met the
criteria for the project study. Based on those teachers who agreed to participate, an ideal
population was randomly chosen. It was from that population that the participants for the
interview were reviewed, and 15 participants were purposefully chosen. This sampling
took place to ensure that the teachers who had the ability to provide the most information
or paint the most vivid picture of inclusive services at this local high school were chosen.
The ideal population list included special education and regular education teachers who
worked in inclusive settings. This population consisted of a variety of subject areas and
years of teaching experience. The interviews ranged in length from 45 to 60 minutes.
The interview was specifically designed to include novice and seasoned teachers as well
as special education and regular education teachers to ensure that I was able to elaborate
on the differences and similarities of both groups of educators. As a result of a limited
amount of time, and with only me to transcribe interview discussions by hand, the
number of participants was limited to 15 educators.
A letter with all necessary information pertaining to the project study was placed
in each teacher’s box who met the criteria. The letter provided information about the
project study, the purpose, and disclosed how the information would be used. Each
participant was asked again if he or she would like to participate in the study. At this
point in time, if the participants were willing to participate, we continued to the next
phase of the project study. A time was scheduled after school to meet and greet. The
133
meet and greet was a time of open discussion that was laid back where participants could
come and ask any questions they had or simply get to know me better and develop a
professional relationship before beginning the interviews.
Times were available before and after school to accommodate teachers’
schedules. If the times and location were not suitable for any participant, an alternative
to this space was made available. No teachers requested to meet in a different location.
Those aspects were discussed in the initial meet and greet, where participants had the
opportunity to ask questions about location, confidentiality, anonymity, and any other
concerns they had. This meet and greet was simply a time for the participant to get
comfortable with me and feel that he or she could trust me enough to be open and honest
throughout the data collection process.
The source of data for the interview consisted of questions about inclusion that
were researcher produced. The questions that were presented in the interview did not
directly ask participants if they were for or against inclusion; instead the questions
focused on the experiences teachers had with inclusion, the level of support they
received, whether or not they had a relationship or exposure to students with disabilities
on a personal level or only in the professional setting, the amount of education and/or
professional developments attended on inclusion, as well as their knowledge of the legal
parameters in reference to the educating of students with disabilities.
The system for tracking data gained from the interview sessions included
recording each interview. The interviews were then reviewed and transcribed by hand in
my home. After the data were transcribed, the transcriptions were reviewed and
134
prominent statements that stood out were highlighted, along with similar statements
amongst different participants. This highlighted text was then placed in an Excel
document and was reviewed to create categories. Each category received a folder.
Another review of the transcription was then done to determine if any other statements fit
into those categories. If so, they were added to those folders. The statements in each
category were analyzed to create themes. Those themes were used to gain a deeper
understanding of the quantitative data collected.
Triangulation
The credibility methods that were incorporated for the qualitative data included
the restating of comments and statements made during the interview to ensure that I had
an accurate account of what was said during the interview. I transcribed what they said
and only what they said and did not alter any information gained in the interview. The
direct transcription added to the triangulation of multiple data sources. Dependability
methods included the use of an audiotape to record the interview sessions with each
participant.
Methodological triangulation was used in this project study to establish validity.
The triangulation of data meant that I used not only qualitative but quantitative data as
well. The scores obtained from the TATIS, which determined if teachers were in favor of
more inclusive practices or traditional forms of instruction delivery, were the main source
of data. Although the TATIS was the main source of data collection, the use of different
methods of data collection was used to triangulate the data. The findings from the
interviews were incorporated as well as student test scores. These data were used to
135
corroborate or support themes that emerged from the quantitative data. I used the attitude
scale as my main source of data, but I used the interviews and secondary data (student
test scores) as well to triangulate the data. The quantitative data were collected first,
followed by the qualitative data, which were used to elaborate upon the quantitative data
collected. The descriptive data were then used as another means of elaborating upon and
acted as another method of explaining data collected through the quantitative segment of
the project study.
The qualitative data were recorded, transcribed, and coded. The qualitative data
were a basic outline or classification system that reflected recurring regularities or
patterns. Those patterns became the categories. These categories were analyzed and
subcategories were created when necessary. Files for each category were created. All of
the coded data were then placed in the necessary category file. Those files included the
participant’s identification numbers, line numbers, and all necessary excerpts. The
categories were named. Data were then organized and presented in a narrative format.
Quantitative Data Collection
The driving force for data collection was the quantitative data. The quantitative
data included the completion of the TATIS. The authors of the TATIS were Jess L.
Gregory and Lori A. Noto. In an attempt to get approval to use and reproduce the
TATIS, I emailed Jess Gregory to request permission to reproduce the instrument. I
received correspondence that the email address used was no longer valid. I then bought
the TATIS from ETS.org, (Educational Testing Service).
136
The TATIS was developed in response to the following observations. Those
observations were (a) the success of efforts to create inclusive learning communities
depends heavily upon the effectiveness of methods for engendering positive teacher
attitudes and beliefs toward inclusion, and (b) because of shifts in educational policy,
there have been dramatic changes in special education concepts, terminology, and
teaching pedagogy in the past 8 years (Cullen & Noto, 2010). The former observation
indicated a need for research on how best to assist teachers in the formation of positive
attitudes and beliefs toward inclusion. This observation would require instrumentation.
This instrument would need to be both reliable and valid in terms of measuring change in
the attitudes and beliefs that were essential to the inclusion of students with
exceptionalities into the regular education classroom. The observations along with the
author’s awareness to implement an effective practice for preparing American teachers
for their roles as inclusive educators, led to the conclusion that an adequate assessment
tool would need certain characteristics, as described by Cullen and Noto (2010, p. 5):
● Sufficiently broad to encompass the three key dimensions of teacher attitudes
toward inclusion described in the literature review;
● developed on both in-service and pre-service teachers to assure maximum
utility in all phases of professional development;
● developed in this country since attitudes on any subject tend to vary
significantly by culture;
● developed in the last eight years to reflect the significant shifts in education
that have occurred during this time frame;
137
● technically adequate in terms of validity and reliability.
Research about previous assessments that would meet these criteria was
conducted. It was determined that no such instrument existed. The first stage of the
project was the development of the Attitudes of Pre-Service Teachers Toward Inclusion
Scale (APTAIS, Cullen & Noto, 2007). The APTAIS consisted of a 14-item
questionnaire that was designed to measure the three discrete attitudinal factors described
in the review of the literature (i.e., attitudes toward students with disabilities in inclusive
settings, beliefs about professional roles, and responsibilities and beliefs about the
efficacy of inclusion). This instrument was administered to 217 pre-service teachers and
their responses were submitted to principal component analysis. This procedure revealed
that three primary factors accounted for 62.86% of total variance. These factors
exhibited primary component loadings ranging from .61 to .81 with a mean of .74.
Communality scores for the 14 items ranged from .51 to .71 with a mean of .62. These
results provided strong support for the construct validity of the instrument.
The internal consistency reliability of the APTAIS was confirmed with alpha
correlation coefficients of .84, .82, and .82 for the three components and .88 for the total
scale. After the construction and publication of the APTAIS, the author’s progressed to
the next phase of the project, which consisted of the refinement of the APTAIS into an
instrument that would be useful in measuring the attitudes of all teachers, including in-
service and pre-service teachers. To achieve this goal, a sample of 35 in-service teachers
was surveyed, and the differences in their responses were tested against those of
participants in the pre-service sample using a paired t test.
138
The results indicated that there was no item, factor, or total scale significant
differences between groups. Because of these results, the authors concluded that the in-
service and pre-service teacher samples were essentially the same. This conclusion was
strengthened based on the fact that the majority of the pre-service teachers sampled were
students in an internship-based master’s degree program in education. The program
requirements included that they work in public schools at least 30 hours a week while
they completed their coursework. As a result, the authors’ decided that a combined
sample would provide a sound basis for the standardization and technical adequacy of
what would be called the TATIS (Cullen & Noto, 2010).
The sample population for the TATIS consisted of 252 respondents with a gender
composition of 64% female and 36% male. Educational status consisted of 77% of the
respondents holding a bachelor’s degree, 14% held master’s degrees, and 9% held a
degree beyond master’s level. Of the participants, 82% had 0-3 years of teaching
experience, and 18% had 4 or more years of teaching experience. In this sample, 37%
was employed at an elementary school, 19% was employed at middle/intermediate
schools, and 30% was employed at the high school level. In regards to experience with
students with disabilities, 43% reported having minimal contact, and 30% reported
having considerable/extensive contact. To confirm validity, the TATIS was subjected to
a principal components analysis. This analysis confirmed its construct validity. The
three factors that were revealed accounted for over 58% of the variance. Communalities
for the 14 items ranged from .40 to .80 with a mean of .58. When the items were rotated
using the Equamax method with Kaiser Normalization, the component loadings ranged
139
from .584 to .88 with a mean of .72. The items were found to lead on the expected
factors and the communalities were similar to those items of the APTAIS from which the
TATIS was developed. Those results confirmed that the TATIS was aligned with the
three factors identified from the literature and was designed to measure. The results
revealed that the strong factor loadings indicated good content validity. The reliability of
the instrument was assessed using the Cronbach alpha correlation procedure. The
measure was found to have an overall correlation coefficient of .821. The reliability
coefficients confirmed that the TATIS was a reliable instrument for measuring teacher
attitudes toward inclusion of students with mild to moderate disabilities. The alpha
reliability for the three components follows: (a) teacher perceptions of students with mild
to moderate disabilities (POS) .803, (b) beliefs about the efficacy of inclusion (BEI) .863,
and (c) perceptions of professional roles and functions (PRF) .680 (Cullen & Noto,
2010).
The process needed to complete the instruments by participants was that they
simply complete the 14-question Likert-scale survey. Upon the completion of the survey,
the responses were tallied using the provided scoring sheet. Once tallied, the factor and
total scale scores were compared to the normative standards listed in the provided tables
to obtain t-scores and percentile ranks. T-scores had a mean of 50 and a standard
deviation of 10. High scores on the TATIS meant that the respondents’ attitudes and
beliefs were highly supportive of inclusion. Low scores suggested that the respondents’
attitudes and beliefs were more supportive of traditional service delivery models. The
raw data collected were available via the appendix section in the form of tables that
140
compared novice teachers to veteran teachers, special education teachers to regular
education teachers, and teachers who worked in a collaborative inclusive setting, to
teachers who do not. The comparison of different teacher groups (i.e., novice vs veteran,
special vs regular education teachers) was determined using a t test.
The t test is an analysis of two populations, which was used to determine if there
was a difference in the attitudes and perspectives of those different groups of educators
on the subject of full inclusion. Only the group that contained teachers who received
support versus those who did not receive support were used to answer the guiding
question. Additional t test was conducted to provide supporting details to the study. An
explanation of the data used and how they related to the factors that affected inclusion
and inclusive practices was presented in a narrative format. The narrative explained the
quantitative data that had been presented in the project study.
The archival data used were student test scores on the EOC assessments in the
areas of language arts, mathematics, history, and science for the past 3 years. This data
was analyzed using an ANOVA. To gain access to these data, a data request form was
submitted to the Office of Research and Student Data in the district. This request
included an outline of the project study and the IRB approval number. Once the
necessary requirements were fulfilled, this department provided me with all the of the test
scores in the necessary subject areas. Those scores were then analyzed and used as an
additional layer of information to better understand the effectiveness of inclusion.
Based on the sequential explanatory data collection, the quantitative data were
collected first. The data collection consisted of the scores on the TATIS, which
141
determined if teachers were in favor of inclusive practices or more traditional forms of
teaching. Upon the completion of this phase of data collection, the one-on-one
interviews were conducted. These data were transcribed by hand and analyzed, and
themes were created to gain a deeper understanding of the results from the quantitative
data. The archival data were then reviewed and analyzed to add a deeper understanding
to the effectiveness of inclusion. These data were received upon the completion and
submission of a proposal to the district office of Performance Management and Research.
Upon completion of data analysis, the raw data were placed in the appendices.
Integration of Data
The integration of the quantitative and qualitative data took place when the
qualitative data were reviewed and presented followed by the presentation of supporting
themes that emerged from the qualitative data. A narrative presenting the qualitative data
was used, and the results were presented in a way to help the reader understand and/or
explain the results of the quantitative data. For example, if based on the quantitative data,
one found that the attitudes and perceptions of teachers at this local high school were
negative toward inclusion, the qualitative data would then be used to explain why
teachers may have this negative attitude and vice versa, or present recurrent themes that
were identified as possible reasons for negative or positive attitudes toward inclusive
practices. The descriptive data were then used as another layer of information to either
support or dispute the fact that attitudes and perceptions affected student performance in
a negative or positive way.
142
Role of the Researcher
The role of the researcher in these data collection process had the potential to
become ethically complicated as a result of the data collection-taking place at a school
where I worked in an inclusive capacity. In the past, I worked as a special education
teacher who worked in an inclusive setting with Algebra I teachers. I was working in the
capacity of the special education coordinator at this local Southern high school during the
data collection process. As the coordinator, I oversaw the special education department
and acted as a liaison between the administrative staff and the special education teachers.
In an effort to remove bias, decrease the likelihood of a breach of confidentiality, and to
ensure the continuation of a positive professional and personal relationship, those
teachers whom I worked with in an inclusive setting did not participate in this study. The
exclusion of participants included two Algebra I teachers. Other teachers in the building
I knew only on a professional level, and I had not worked with them in an inclusive
setting, nor did I have a personal relationship with any other teachers in the building.
As a result of the exclusion of those teachers whom I worked with in an inclusive
setting, the information gathered through surveys and interviews provided the maximum
protection to the participants. The survey was anonymous. Participants were selected
randomly, and they did not consist of teachers I knew on a personal level or whom I
worked directly with. The focus of this project study was to produce information that
could be used, not only to increase the effectiveness of inclusive classrooms at this local
Southern high school, but to create a school wide atmosphere of inclusion. The focus on
creating a more inclusive school atmosphere by providing knowledge coupled with the
143
participant volunteering to participate in the study assisted in the decrease of bias. My
experience as a researcher, as well as a professional that worked in this local Southern
high school, allowed me to have a firsthand experience of the success and failures of
students with disabilities. I had a strong desire to ensure that all students were being
treated fairly and are provided the support necessary to reach their full potential. The
desire to see that fair treatment happened may have been a hindrance during the data
collection process.
Data Analysis and Validation Procedures
The data collection, analysis, and interpretation of data took place during different
phases of this project because a sequential explanatory design was used. After the first
phase of data collection, demographics data sheet and TATIS were completed. The
scores from the TATIS were tallied and compared to the normative standards to
determine if teachers were in favor of inclusive practices or more traditional methods of
educating students. Data from the one-on-one interviews were transcribed by hand and
analyzed to find any emerging themes that explained or expanded upon the information
gained as a result of the TATIS. Once all the data were collected and analyzed, I looked
at themes that emerged from the qualitative data, as well as the attitudes and perceptions
dominant in the quantitative data, and attempted to find connections between the two.
The TATIS was the sole method for collecting quantitative data. The scores for
this scale were calculated by tallying the scores. A scoring sheet was provided with the
scale to tally the responses. Once tallied, the factor and total scale scores were compared
to the normative standards. Those standards were also provided with the scale. The
144
comparison took place to obtain t-scores and percentile ranks. The t-scores had a mean
of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. High scores suggested that the participants’
attitudes and beliefs were supportive of inclusion, although low scores suggested that the
participants’ attitudes and beliefs were more supportive of traditional instruction and
delivery models.
Methodological triangulation took place to ensure the validity of both the
qualitative and quantitative data. I used the qualitative data to expand upon and find
connections between the quantitative data and the descriptive data used in the project
study. Once data were collected from the survey, the scores were used and compared to
the data collected from the one-on-one interviews. The questions asked in the one-on-
one interviews helped to explain some common trends found in the quantitative data.
Qualitative data were reviewed to find any common themes or trends among the
responses provided from the one-on-one interviews. Those forms of data were then
compared to the descriptive data to determine if teachers who had more positive attitudes
and perceptions of inclusive practices or negative attitudes and perceptions of inclusion
affected student performance on EOC assessments. The comparison assisted in
answering one of the guiding questions: What is the influence of teacher
attitudes/perceptions with the implementation of inclusive services?
Once all of data were collected and individually analyzed, these data were then
combined to compare different groups of educators. The groups were compared using a t
test effectively to analyze the quantitative data. Those groups included novice teachers
vs. veteran teachers, special education teachers vs. regular education teachers, and
145
teachers working in collaborative settings vs. teachers receiving consultation services.
Level of education, exposure to people/students with disabilities, and knowledge of laws
governing special education were compared to determine if those factors affected the
attitudes and perceptions of teachers incorporating inclusive services. The only group
comparison used to answer the guiding question consisted of those teachers who received
support in their classrooms compared to those teachers who did not. Upon completion of
the analysis and comparison, the descriptive data (student EOC assessment scores) were
used to compare each of the previously mentioned groups to determine how the attitudes
and perceptions affected those environments.
Time Table
The project study began immediately after receiving IRB approval. I began this
study by first speaking with the principal and asking permission to speak with the faculty
about the project study and provide detailed information on the project study, the data
collection instruments, confidentiality, and presentation of results. It was during that
meeting that I provided an outline of the study to all faculty, the consent form, and copies
of the TATIS. Teachers were then instructed to return the consent form to my mailbox if
they were interested in participating. Those participants were also instructed to complete
the questionnaire on their own time and to return the completed questionnaire to a locked
box that would be placed in the school library. The questionnaires were retrieved and
analyzed over a three-week time period. The one-on-one interviews were conducted,
transcribed by hand, and then analyzed. The analysis of the interviews was completed
over a two-week time period.
146
Data Analysis Results
Inclusion is defined as the process of including children with special needs into
the general education environment and providing their educationally relevant services in
this environment (Wisconsin Educational Association Council, 2012). As a result,
educators look at inclusion as a way to ensure that children with special needs receive the
same level of rigor as all students in the core content areas, and they achieve the scores
needed to demonstrate proficiency in those content areas (Barnes & Gaines, 2015).
A mixed methods design was used to gain an understanding of inclusion and to
complete this project study. A mixed methods research design is a procedure for
collecting, analyzing, and mixing both quantitative and qualitative methods in a single
study or a series of studies to understand a research problem (Creswell & Plano Clark,
2011). A sequential explanatory design was used in this project study. The quantitative
data (TATIS questionnaire) were collected and analyzed first. Upon completion of this
analysis, the qualitative data (teacher interviews) were then conducted, and these data
were analyzed to find any themes that would defend or refute the findings of the TATIS
questionnaire results. These data were analyzed to determine the attitudes and
perceptions of teachers in a local Southern high school to determine if those perceptions
had an effect on the successful implementation of inclusion and student achievement.
Quantitative Findings
The value and impact of education has been clearly defined as a balance not only
of achievement and learning, but also of the attitudinal, social, and personality-based
effects on students (Daniel, 2002). For many educators, however, the practice of
147
inclusion remains clouded in controversy (Cohen, Forgan, Vaughn, & Klinger, 1998).
Teacher attitudes and beliefs toward inclusion have been found to be powerful predictors
of successful efforts to create inclusive learning communities (Gelheiser & Meyers,
1996). Data collected from the TATIS were used to gain a broader perspective of
inclusion and services by looking at teacher perspectives and attitudes on inclusion and
how that affected not only the implementation of inclusion but academic student success
as well.
Quantitative data were collected using the TATIS. This questionnaire, along with
the scoring rubric, is located in Appendices D and E. This questionnaire focused on three
areas: (a) teacher perceptions of students with mild to moderate disabilities (POS), (b)
beliefs about the efficacy of inclusion (BEI), and (c) perceptions of professional roles and
functions (PRF). The data showed that the teacher attitudes toward inclusion were not
greatly in favor of inclusion, but they were not completely against inclusion either. This
finding is evident and can be supported by an average t score of 54.1675. The individual
participant scores are located in Appendix F. The scores from the TATIS were used to
answer the first research question, which asked:
RQ1: What is the difference between teacher attitudes, teacher level of education,
support in the classroom, exposure to students/people with disabilities, and
knowledge of laws governing special education and the level of achievement of
students with disabilities educated in full inclusion classrooms?
H01: When compared there is no difference of the amount of teacher
preparation, special education certification, teacher attitudes and perception
148
with the level of achievement of students with disabilities in full inclusion
classrooms.
Ha1: When compared there is a difference of the amount of teacher
preparation, special education certification, teacher attitudes and perception
with the level of achievement of students with disabilities in full inclusion
classrooms.
Data gained from the TATIS were used to compare different groups to determine
if the factors previously listed had a significant effect on teacher perceptions toward
inclusion. This analysis compared regular education teachers to special education
teachers using a t test. The p value and statistical significance for the two-tailed p
=.0306, t(38)=2.2462. It was found that by conventional criteria, this difference was
considered to be statistically significant. The confidence interval of the mean of regular
education minus special education equals -29.892. The 95% confidence interval of this
difference was from -56.832 to -2.952. The standard error of difference equaled 13.308.
Table 1 displays the t test results of the perceptions of regular education teachers
compared to the perceptions of special education teachers on inclusion. These data
showed that there was a statistically significant difference between teachers who held a
degree in special education and teachers who held a degree in regular education.
149
Table 1
Attitudes and Perceptions of Regular Education Teachers Versus Special Education
Teachers
Group
M
SD
SEM
N
Regular
education
48.936
33.276
5.793
33
Special
education
78.829
23.911
9.038
7
The next group analyzed was teachers who held a bachelor’s degree compared to
teachers who held a master’s degree. Table 2 shows the results for the p value and
statistical significance were as listed. The two-tailed p value was p =.1091, t(33) =
1.6468. By conventional criteria, this difference was considered not to be statistically
significant. The confidence interval of the mean of bachelor’s degree minus master’s
degree equals -20.084. There was a 95% confidence interval of this difference, which
was from -44.897 to 4.729. There was a standard error of difference equaled 12.196.
Table 2 displays the t test results of the perceptions of teachers holding a bachelors
degree compared to the perceptions of teachers holding a masters degree on inclusion.
This difference in score was not considered to be statistically significant in terms of the
perceptions of teachers who held a bachelor’s degree compared to teachers who held a
master’s degree.
150
Table 2
Attitudes and Perceptions of Teachers Holding a Bachelors Degree Versus Masters
Degree
Group
M
SD
SEM
N
Bachelors
degree
39.191
30.348
9.150
11
Masters degree
59.275
34.775
7.098
24
Table 3 presents data, which were comprised of teachers who held a master’s
degree compared to teachers who held an education specialist degree. The p value and
statistical significance are as follows. The p value and statistical significance p =.9631,
t(24) = 0.0467. By conventional criteria, this difference was considered to be not
statistically significant. The confidence interval included the mean of education
specialist minus masters degree equaled 1.225. There was a 95% confidence interval of
this difference from -52.905 to 55.355. The standard error of difference equaled 26.227.
Table 3 displays the t test results of the perceptions of teachers holding a specialist degree
compared to the perceptions of teachers holding a masters degree on inclusion. The
attitudes and perceptions toward inclusion were proven to be similar between teachers
that held a master’s degree and teachers who held an education specialist degree.
151
Table 3
Attitudes and Perceptions of Teachers Holding a Specialist Degree Versus Masters
Degree
Group
M
SD
SEM
N
Education
specialist
60.500
51.619
36.500
2
Masters degree
59.275
34.775
7.098
24
Table 4 presents an analysis of teachers who held an education specialist degree
compared to teachers who held a doctorate including the p value and statistical
significance for the two tailed p = .9181, t(3)= 0.1117. By conventional criteria, this
difference was considered to be not statistically significant. The confidence interval for
the mean of education specialist minus PhD equaled -3.50. There was a 95% confidence
interval of this difference from -103.25 to 96.25. The standard error of difference
equaled 31.343. Table 4 displays the t test results of the perceptions of teachers holding a
specialist degree compared to the perceptions of teachers holding a doctorate on
inclusion.
152
Table 4
Attitudes and Perceptions of Teachers Holding a Specialist Degree Versus PhD
Group
M
SD
SEM
N
Education
specialist
60.50
51.62
36.50
2
PhD
64.00
20.88
12.06
3
This group also proved to not have a statistically significant difference in the
attitudes and perceptions toward inclusion. The next group, which involved the
comparison of teachers who held a bachelor’s degree compared to teachers who held a
doctorate, had the largest difference in values. Although this group had a large difference
in values, the difference was not statistically significant including the p value and
statistical significance for the two-tailed p = .2134, t(12) = .13141. By conventional
criteria, this difference was considered to be not statistically significant. The confidence
interval for the mean of bachelor’s degree minus PhD equaled -24.809. There was a 95%
confidence interval of this difference from -65.944 to 16.325. The standard error of
difference equaled 18.879. Table 5 displays the t test results of the perceptions of
teachers holding a Bachelors degree compared to the perceptions of teachers holding a
Doctorate degree on inclusion.
153
Table 5
Attitudes and Perceptions of Teachers Holding a Bachelors Degree Versus PhD
Group
M
SD
SEM
N
Bachelors
degree
39.191
30.348
9.150
11
PhD
64.000
20.881
12.055
3
The analysis of these data showed that there was not a statistically significant
difference in the level of education in relation to the type of degree held by the
participant. This factor did not have a significant effect on the attitudes and perceptions
toward inclusion. The one area that did have a statistical significance was when I
compared teachers who held a degree in special education compared to teachers who held
a degree in regular education. This comparison revealed a statistically significant
difference. This difference showed that teachers who had specific training in the area of
special education and inclusion favored inclusive practices over traditional forms of
content delivery compared to teachers who received training in the regular education
field.
The next group that was compared based on the score results of the TATIS to
determine if this factor had an effect on the attitudes and perceptions of inclusion were
teachers who received support in the classroom compared to teachers who did not. This
support could be in the form of an inclusion teacher (special education teacher), a special
education assistant, or a special education teacher on a consultation basis. The p value
and statistical significance for the two-tailed was p = .5731, t(38) = 0.5684. By
154
conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant. The
confidence interval of the mean of Support minus No Support equaled -8.530. The 95%
confidence interval of this difference was from -38.913 to 21.852. The standard error of
difference equaled 15.008. Table 6 displays the t test results of the perceptions of
teachers who received no support from a special education teacher in the classroom
compared to the perceptions of teachers who did receive support from a special education
teacher in the classroom on inclusion.
Table 6
Attitudes and Perceptions of Teachers Receiving Support Versus No Support
Group
M
SD
SEM
N
Support
46.917
39.205
16.006
6
No support
53.447
33.014
5.662
34
These data showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the
attitudes and perceptions of teachers who received some type of support in the inclusion
setting and teachers who did not. The next set of data that were analyzed compared
teachers who had exposure or experience with people who have a disability outside of the
classroom setting compared to teachers who did not have any exposure or experience
with dealing with disabilities outside of the classroom setting. The p value and statistical
significance showed the two-tailed p = .0993, t(38) = 1.6898. By conventional criteria,
this difference is considered to be not quite statistically significant. The confidence
interval included the mean of No Exposure minus Exposure equaled -33.298. The 95%
155
confidence interval of this difference as from -73.190 to 6.593. The standard error of
difference equaled 19.705. Table 7 displays the t test results of the perceptions of
teachers having no exposure compared to the perceptions of teachers who had been
previously exposed to a person with a disability on inclusion.
Table 7
Attitudes and Perceptions of Teachers Previously Exposed Versus No Exposure
Group
M
SD
SEM
N
Exposure
23.367
22.957
13.254
3
No exposure
56.665
33.288
5.473
37
This data analysis showed that there was not a statistically significant difference
in the attitudes and perceptions of those who had personal relationships or outside
exposure/experience with a person(s) who had a disability compared to those individuals
who had not been exposed to anyone with a disability outside of the classroom. The last
category to be analyzed was comprised of those teachers who had a poor, average, good,
or very good knowledge of the laws governing special education. The data analysis for
the p values follows: the p value and statistical significance for the two-tailed p = .2547,
t(22) = 1.1695. By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not
statistically significant. The confidence interval was the mean of Poor minus Average
equaled 15.139. The 95% confidence interval of this difference was from -11.707 to
41.985. The standard error of difference equaled 12.945. Table 8 displays the t test
results of the perceptions of teachers having poor knowledge of special education laws
156
compared to the perceptions of teachers having average knowledge of special education
laws.
Table 8
Attitudes and Perceptions of Those Having Poor Knowledge Versus Average Knowledge
Group
M
SD
SEM
N
Poor
knowledge
58.500
28.027
11.442
6
Average
knowledge
43.361
27.291
6.433
18
The p values and statistical significance for teachers who had an average level of
knowledge compared to teachers who had a good level of knowledge about special
education laws were two-tailed p = .2127, t(27) = 1.2763. By conventional criteria, this
difference is considered to be not statistically significant. The confidence interval was
the mean of Average minus Good, which equaled -15.639. There was a 95% confidence
interval of this difference from -40.780 to 9.503. There was a standard error of
difference, which equaled 12.253. Table 9 displays the t test results of the perceptions of
teachers with an average knowledge of special education law compared to the perceptions
of teachers having a good knowledge of special education law.
157
Table 9
Attitudes and Perceptions of Those Having an Average Knowledge v Good Knowledge
Group
M
SD
SEM
N
Average
knowledge
43.361
27.291
6.433
18
Good
knowledge
59.000
38.750
11.684
11
The p value and statistical significance for teachers having a very good level of
knowledge compared to teachers who had a good level of knowledge are the two-tailed p
= .4111, t(14) = 0.8473. By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not
statistically significant. The confidence interval of the mean of Very Good minus Good
equaled -18.240. There was a 95% confidence interval of this difference from -64.410 to
27.930. The standard error of difference equaled 21.526. Table 10 displays the t test
results of the perceptions of teachers having very good knowledge of special education
laws compared to the perceptions of teachers having good knowledge of special
education laws.
Table 10
Attitudes and Perceptions of Those Having Very Good Knowledge Versus Good
Knowledge
Group
M
SD
SEM
N
Very good
77.240
42.676
19.085
5
Good
59.000
38.750
11.684
11
158
The p value and statistical significance based on the analysis of teachers who had
an average level of knowledge of special education laws compared to teachers who had a
very good knowledge of special education laws are the two-tailed p = 0.0412, t(21) =
1.478. By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be statistically
significant. The confidence interval based on the data consisted of the mean of Average
minus Very Good equaled -33.879. The 95% confidence interval of this difference was
from -66.280 to -1.478. The standard error of difference equaled 15.580. Table 11
displays the t test results of the perceptions of teachers having average knowledge of
special education laws compared to the perceptions of teachers having very good
knowledge of special education laws.
Table 11
Attitudes and Perceptions of Those Having Average Knowledge Versus Very Good
Knowledge
Group
M
SD
SEM
N
Average
43.361
27.291
6.433
18
Very good
77.240
42.676
19.085
5
The p value and statistical significance for teachers who had poor knowledge of special
education laws compared to teachers who had very good knowledge of special education
laws is the two-tailed p = 0.4034, t(9) = 0.8768. By conventional criteria, this difference
is considered to be not statistically significant. The confidence interval was the mean of
Poor minus Very Good which equaled -18.740. There was a 95% confidence interval of
this difference was from -67.089 to 26.609. The standard error of difference equaled
159
21.373. Table 12 displays the t test results of the perceptions of teachers having poor
knowledge of special education laws compared to the perceptions of teachers having very
good knowledge of special education laws.
Table 12
Attitudes and Perceptions of Those Having Poor Knowledge Versus Very Good
Knowledge
Group
M
SD
SEM
N
Poor
58.500
28.027
11.442
6
Very good
77.240
42.676
19.085
5
The p value and statistical significance for the data analysis for teachers who had
poor knowledge of special education law compared to teachers that had a good
knowledge of the law for the two-tailed p = .9782, t(15) = 0.0277. By conventional
criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant. The confidence
interval was the mean of Poor minus Good, which equaled -0.500. There was a 95%
confidence interval of this difference from -38.942 to 37.942. There was a standard error
of difference, which equaled 18.036. Table 13 displays the t test results of the
perceptions of teachers having poor knowledge of special education laws compared to the
perceptions of teachers having good knowledge of special education laws.
160
Table 13
Attitudes and Perceptions of Those Having Poor Knowledge Versus Good Knowledge
Group
M
SD
SEM
N
Poor
58.500
28.027
11.442
6
Good
59.000
38.750
11.684
11
There was no statistically significant difference between teachers who had a poor
knowledge of the laws governing special education, and teachers who had an average
knowledge of the law. There was no difference between teachers who had a good
knowledge of the law and teachers who had a very good knowledge of the law. There
was however, a statistically significant difference in the attitudes and perceptions about
inclusion of teachers who had an average knowledge of the laws governing special
education, and teachers who had a very good knowledge of the laws governing special
education.
Overall, the quantitative data collected showed that the factors listed did not have
a statistically significant effect on teacher attitudes and perceptions toward inclusion.
There were only two of the factors that had a statistically significant difference in
attitudes and perceptions. The first was under the category of education discipline. The
only group comparison that had a statistically significant difference was the comparison
of special education teachers versus regular education teachers. The second factor that
proved to have a statistically significant difference fell under the knowledge of laws that
govern special education category. In this category, there was a statistically significant
161
difference between teachers who had an average understanding of the laws that govern
special education and teachers that had a very good understanding of the laws that govern
special education.
Literature stated that there were several factors that affected the successful
implementation of inclusive learning communities. Cullen and Noto (2010) stated that
these factors included effective leadership and administrative support, sufficient funding,
effective implementation systems, availability of evidence-based supportive services,
stakeholder involvement, adequate professional development opportunities for teachers
and other support personnel, and effective communication and problem solving systems.
A couple of those factors were analyzed using the quantitative data. Those factors
included administrative or other evidence based supportive services in terms of an
assistant, inclusion teacher, or consultation. Other factors, including professional
development opportunities, understanding of inclusion, and support, were elaborated
upon with the addition of the qualitative data that were collected and analyzed.
Test scores received from the district office of research and development were
reviewed and analyzed to add dimension to the project study. These data received
consisted of the EOC scores for the years of 2012, 2013, and 2014. These data were used
to accept or refute the null hypothesis presented. The null and alternative hypotheses
stated:
● Ho1: When compared there is no difference of the amount of teacher
preparation, special education certification, teacher attitudes and perception
with the level of achievement of students with disabilities in full inclusion
162
classrooms.
● Ha1: When compared there is a difference of the amount of teacher
preparation, special education certification, teacher attitudes and perception
with the level of achievement of students with disabilities in full inclusion
classrooms.
The analysis of the EOC data consisted of the comparison of students with
disabilities and their nondisabled peers. These data were used as descriptive data to add
another layer of depth to the project study. The analysis of each EOC assessment through
the use of an ANOVA proved that the null hypothesis can be rejected. The F value for
each assessment was greater than the F critical value; therefore, the null hypothesis can
be rejected. The ANOVA analyses for each EOC assessment are located below.
2012 EOC assessment analyses. Table 14 displays EOC data, which compared
340 nondisabled peers to 27 students identified as having a disability. The statistical
analysis for this assessment included F(1,365) = 16.66, p < 5.49E-05.
Table 14
Algebra II
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
16.814
4.666
27
NSWD
22.661
7.336
340
163
Table 15 displays EOC data for Algebra I, which compared 273 nondisabled
peers to 36 students identified as having a disability. The statistical analysis for this
assessment included F(1,308)=36.02, p < 5.47E-07.
Table 15
Algebra I
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
19.756
9.607
36
NSWD
30.897
10.733
273
Table 16 displays EOC data for biology, which compared 303 nondisabled peers
to 34 students identified as having a disability. The statistical analysis included F(1, 335)
= 25.457, p < 7.43E-07.
Table 16
Biology
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
17.21
5.8
34
NSWD
24.01
7.69
303
Table 17 displays EOC data for English I, which compared 326 nondisabled peers
to 30 students identified as having a disability. The statistical analysis included F(1,
354)=66.13, p < 7.18E-15.
164
Table 17
English I
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
20.83
6.63
30
NSWD
34.21
8.81
326
Table 18 displays EOC data for English II, which compared 295 nondisabled
peers to 31 students identified as having a disability. The statistical analysis included
F(1,324) = 37.61, p < 2.5E-09.
Table 18
English II
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
22.83
6.68
31
NSWD
32.29
8.31
295
Table 19 displays EOC data for U.S. History, which compared 308 nondisabled
peers to 27 students identified as having a disability. The statistical analysis included
F(1, 333) = 65.73, p < 9.98E-15.
165
Table 19
U.S. History
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
22.9
8.10
27
NSWD
35.46
7.67
308
2013 EOC assessment analyses. Table 20 displays EOC data for Algebra I,
which compared 293 nondisabled peers to 33 students identified as having a disability.
The statistical analysis included F(1, 324) = 32.73, p < 2.41E-08.
Table 20
Algebra I
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
18.51
6.16
33
NSWD
28.61
9.94
293
Table 21 displays EOC data for Algebra II which compared 210 nondisabled
peers to 20 students identified as having a disability. The statistical analysis included F(1,
228) = 17.18, p < 4.77E-05.
166
Table 21
Algebra II
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
18.85
4.27
20
NSWD
26.66
8.29
210
Table 22 displays EOC data for biology, which compared 425 nondisabled peers
to 45 students identified as having a disability. The statistical analysis included F(1, 468)
= 31.16, p < 4.03E-08.
Table 22
Biology
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
19
6.87
20
NSWD
26.53
8.76
2101
Table 23 displays EOC data for English I, which compared 316 nondisabled peers
to 40 students identified as having a disability. The statistical analysis included F(1, 354)
= 61.31, p < 5.7E-14.
167
Table 23
English I
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
24.87
8.39
40
NSWD
35.73
8.20
316
Table 24 displays EOC data for English II, which compared 292 nondisabled
peers to 25 students identified as having a disability. The statistical analysis included
F(1, 315) = 24.94, p < 9.18E-07.
Table 24
English II
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
21.36
7.83
25
NSWD
30.98
9.32
292
Table 25 displays EOC data for English III, which compared 265 nondisabled
peers to 21 students identified as having a disability. The statistical analysis included
F(1, 284) = 25.90, p < 6.53E-07.
168
Table 25
English III
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
18.66
7.15
25
NSWD
28.49
8.63
292
Table 26 displays EOC data for U.S. History, which compared 306 nondisabled
peers to 19 students identified as having a disability. The statistical analysis included
F(1, 323) = 26.71, p < 4.13E-07.
Table 26
U.S. History
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
27.15
6.23
19
NSWD
35.84
7.15
306
2014 EOC assessment analyses. Table 27 displays EOC data for U.S. History,
which compared 287 nondisabled peers to 19 students identified as having a disability.
The statistical analysis included F(1, 304) = 19.61, p < 1.32E-05.
169
Table 27
U.S. History
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
27.31
7.91
19
NSWD
35.08
7.37
287
Table 28 displays EOC data for Algebra I, which compared 287 nondisabled
peers to 35 students identified as having a disability. The statistical analysis included
F(1, 320) = 35.30, p < 7.35E-09.
Table 28
Algebra I
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
18.28
6.98
35
NSWD
28.16
9.51
287
Table 29 displays EOC data for Algebra II, which compared 265 nondisabled
peers to 23 students identified as having a disability. The statistical analysis included
F(1, 286) = 17.05, p < 4.77E-05.
Table 29
Algebra II
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
17.52
7.52
23
NSWD
25.52
9.02
265
170
Table 30 displays EOC data for biology, which compared 237 nondisabled peers
to 21 students identified as having a disability. The statistical analysis included F(1, 256)
= 13.50, p < 0.00029.
Table 30
Biology
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
19.80
6.29
21
NSWD
27.34
9.20
237
Table 31 displays EOC data for English I, which compared 300 nondisabled peers
to 36 students identified as having a disability. The statistical analysis included F(1, 334)
= 40.71, p < 5.87E-10.
Table 31
English I
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
25.02
6.72
36
NSWD
33.97
8.09
300
171
Table 32 displays EOC data for English II, which compared 283 nondisabled
peers to 28 students identified as having a disability. The statistical analysis included F
(1, 309) = 29.58, p < 1.09E-07.
Table 32
English II
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
22.21
8.29
28
NSWD
31.61
8.79
283
Table 33 displays EOC data for English III, which compared 257 nondisabled
peers to 29 students identified as having a disability. The statistical analysis included
F(1, 284) = 18.332, p < 2.54E-05.
Table 33
English III
Group
M
SD
N
SWD
20.62
7.82
29
NSWD
28.40
9.10
257
The analysis of this data supported and answered the guiding question: When
comparing the amount of teacher preparation, special education certification, teacher
attitudes and perception with the level of achievement of students with disabilities in full
inclusion classrooms there is a difference. These data were evidence that students with
172
disabilities who participated in a fully inclusive academic program were not as successful
as their nondisabled peers for a time span of at least 3 consecutive years and did not meet
the target achievement gap for the subgroup for students with disabilities.
Although students with disabilities often perform below their nondisabled peers,
there is an achievement gap set by each district as a target gap for students with
disabilities compared to their nondisabled peers. The student population at this school
did not meet the target achievement gap and the gap widened each year. During the
identified 3-year period, the achievement gap was -34.4. The target gap was -31.5 to -
32.2. None of the groups were equally balanced. Tables containing the individual test
group comparisons are located in Appendix F. This lack of performance achievement
was linked to the lack of information and knowledge about inclusive practices, the
attitudes, and perceptions of inclusion, as well as the level of exposure or experience
working with students with disabilities.
Qualitative Findings
Qualitative data can provide information about the quality of standardized case
records and quantitative survey measures, as well as offer some insight into the meaning
of particular fixed responses (Engel & Schutt, 2014). I transcribed the interviews by
hand. This transcription consisted of me listening to the interviews and writing down the
dialogue between myself and the interviewee. This dialogue was then typed into a
Microsoft document. A list of the interview questions can be located in Appendix E. I
used member checking during the interview to establish credibility of the transcription.
A software program was not used to analyze the transcription data. From the data, six
173
nodes or categories were created. These categories are listed in Table 34. The following
sections describe each category and the themes that were created based on data drawn
from the interviews for each category.
Table 34
Coding Node/Categories, Explanations for Each Category and Emerging Themes
Coding nodes Explanation Emerging theme
1. Understanding of
inclusion
Does the teacher understand
what inclusion is? What is
their definition of inclusion?
1. Misunderstanding of
inclusion
2. Experience with
inclusion
What experiences has the
interviewee had with
inclusion? Have these
experiences been positive or
negative?
2. Inclusion is difficult; more
difficult with lower
functioning students
3. Exposure
Has the interviewee been
exposed/had a relationship
with a person who has a
disability outside of school?
And if so, how did this affect
their inclusive practices?
3. Lack of exposure makes
creating an inclusive
environment difficult
4. Support
What level or types of
support have been received
to aid with the
implementation of inclusion?
Has this support been
helpful?
4. More support is needed for
successful implementation of
inclusion
5. Inclusion
strategies
What strategies have been
introduced to create a
classroom where all students
have access to the
curriculum?
5. No actual inclusion
strategies; use of IEP
modifications/accommodations
only
6. Professional
developments
What professional
developments or workshops
have been attended on
inclusion or collaborative
teaching? Were they helpful?
Is more training necessary?
6. More workshops and
professional developments are
needed
174
Category 1: Understanding of inclusion. The practice of educating students
with disabilities in the regular education classroom is a practice known as inclusion.
Inclusion has become the service delivery model of choice among state and federal
education officials (Angelides, 2008). The first category focused on the individual
participants’ definition of inclusion. Royster, Reglin, and Losike-Sedimo (2014) stated
teachers did not feel they had the understanding and knowledge of inclusion and an
acceptable confidence level in implementing inclusion. This lack of understanding may
be one factor that caused the implementation of inclusion to not be successful.
Question one of the interview questions asked, “What is your understanding of
inclusion?” To this question, several terms and phrases were commonly used. Those
terms were least restrictive environment, co-teaching, collaborate, accommodations,
modifications and support services. There were statements by over 50% of the
participants that stated their understanding of inclusion was an atmosphere where a
special education teacher or a special education assistant worked collaboratively with a
regular education teacher to service a classroom population that consisted of both
students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers. Some of the comments were, “Yes,
inclusion is when two teachers plan, co-teach together and share the same classroom”
(Teacher A). “My understanding of inclusion where two teachers collaborate on lesson
plans and the content subject area to deliver instructions, to not only the regular education
population but also the special education population” (Teacher B).
One minor theme that emerged from these statements was that teachers were not
clear in their understanding of inclusion. Although many teachers stated that co-teaching
175
was the major component of inclusion, others stated that the special education teacher
was the one responsible for teaching those students with disabilities. Comments stating
this minor theme follow:
My understanding of inclusion is that the inclusion teacher is there to support
those students who have IEP’s first and foremost and the entire class as necessary.
To differentiate the instruction, re-state things in different ways, and make sure
the time requirements are being met, etc. (Teacher A)
Well, my understanding of inclusion is that the teacher, the regular education
teacher, will have inclusion students in her classroom and to help with the
teaching of the skills in the classroom. The special education teacher will come
into and assist the teacher to address any types of instructional strategies to help
the special needs students to understand a little bit more better than what the
regular education teacher is actually doing for the entire class. And the inclusion
teacher can help other students that are not special education students, I guess.
(Teacher B)
The third minor theme that emerged from the qualitative data were that teachers
felt that inclusion was merely allowing students with disabilities to go into the regular
education classroom or environment as often as possible. Literature stated that, more
often than not, inclusion had been misunderstood and/or abused by both special education
and general education teachers. In some instances, teachers still knew little about the
goals of inclusion and how to implement it effectively. Unfortunately, one common
practice was that, after the student was identified as having a learning disability and the
176
IEP was written, students were often included in the regular classroom with no IEP
modifications or accommodations at all (Costley, 2013).
The major theme or finding that was derived from the statements to question one,
after the analysis of transcriptions, was that there was a common misunderstanding about
inclusion. After further analysis, it was found that this understanding was not only on the
part of the regular education teachers, but some of the special education teachers as well.
Category 2: Experience with inclusion. The category, experience with
inclusion, focused on the teachers’ experiences with the implementation of inclusion.
Teachers were given the opportunity to provide stories or their thoughts about previous or
current inclusive practices. Urton, Wilbert, and Hemmemannm (2014) stated that current
research provided evidence of the positive influence of sense of self-efficacy and
personal experience regarding attitudes toward inclusion for children with special
educational needs. Question two of the interview questions stated: Tell me about your
previous experience(s) with the implementation of inclusion. The terms that were most
often used in the answers to this question were accommodations, modifications, and co-
teaching. There were three minor themes that emerged from this category: inclusion is
easier with an assistant or co-teacher, the success of inclusion is often dependent upon the
ability level of the students, and the co-teaching relationship is a very important aspect of
inclusion and the regular education teacher is not always receptive to receiving assistance
from a special education teacher.
Minor theme one focused on the special education teacher or assistant coming
into the regular education classroom and working collaboratively with the regular
177
education teacher to successfully implement inclusive strategies and to focus on those
students with disabilities. Comments to support this minor theme follow. “Some of my
experience has been fairly easy. Umm, especially when I have students who have
assistants. They help me with the modifications. I have not experience any, umm,
serious problems in my twelve years of teaching with modifications” (Teacher A). “Well
it has its advantages and disadvantages. Umm, the advantages are you have two teachers
working collaboratively to deliver instructions so where one teacher’s strengths are, the
other teachers may can learn cause that may be that teachers’ weakness” (Teacher B).
Minor theme two focused on the ability levels of students with disabilities. Based
on statements provided by various teachers, inclusion can be more successful when
working with students who have mild disabilities as opposed to students with moderate or
severe disabilities. Statements to support this minor theme follow.
I have positive feelings about it. I feel that every child, no matter what deserves
a chance to learn in the least restrictive environment. So, I do agree with that, so,
umm, I just feel okay about students being in the classroom if they are able to be
in the classroom. Now, low functioning, they may not be able to depending on
the special education teacher as far as them saying yes or no. (Teacher A)
It’s the ones who are on 1st, 2nd, 3rd level that I feel like I can’t really help them
and meet them especially with large class sizes, and I can’t really make sure that
the work is differentiated enough for them because the reading barrier prevents
them from understanding. (Teacher B)
178
Minor theme three focused on the co-teaching relationship and how that
relationship affected the success of inclusion in the classroom. This relationship was also
difficult to build upon if one teacher was not willing to give up control and work
collaboratively with other educators and/or paraprofessionals. Based on comments made
during the interview sessions, both special education and regular education teachers had
difficulty adjusting to a collaborative teaching relationship. Comments to support this
theme are as follows.
I know that inclusion really depends on what the co-teaching relationship is like,
and both teachers in the classroom sharing a common goal for students, as well as
common expectations of behavior. In my opinion, when inclusion works well, it
is because the teachers are both on the same page and when it doesn’t work well,
it is because the teachers have very different expectations that they don’t
necessarily find common ground in. (Teacher A)
Inclusion was hard at first. My inclusion, as far as the inclusion teachers coming
in, I was not very welcoming. Especially as far as allowing the teacher to give a
whole lot of input because I was so used to being the teacher in charge, that it
kinda, at the beginning kinda caught me off guard of how to release that control of
being in charge. (Teacher B)
Some teachers are more receptive of inclusion versus others because you have to
give up some control of our classroom and some teachers you can say are kind of
like old school. They believe that there should be one teacher in the classroom
179
and they might can have an assistant. But some will probably look at you as an
assistant although you have the same degree that they have. (Teacher C)
Upon further analysis of the minor themes, one major theme emerged: inclusion
can be difficult. The two key factors that have caused negative experiences with
inclusion have been based on the co-teaching relationship between regular and special
education teachers and the ability levels of those students with disabilities who are placed
in an inclusive environment.
Category 3: Exposure. Exposure in this project study referred to the amount of
time or the relationships built between the participant and a person with a disability
outside of school. Each participant was asked if he or she had friends or family members
with a disability, or if the only relationship or exposure on a direct basis was based on
classroom interactions with students. The interview questions that directly focused on
exposure/relationships with someone who has a disability follows:
● Have you been exposed to people with disabilities outside of school, or only
in the classroom?
● Do you feel that more exposure to students with disabilities makes it easier to
create an inclusive classroom setting?
Responses to these interview questions provided insight as to how more
experience or exposure/relationships with someone who has a disability affects how
teachers interacted with students with disabilities, or how they created an inclusive
atmosphere to ensure that students with disabilities were included. Several of the
participants had no outside relationships or direct exposure or interactions with someone
180
who had a disability. Although several members (26%) had no experience with someone
who had a disability, 40% of the participants were influenced to go into education
because of the experiences with someone (e.g., family, friend, and classmate) that had a
disability. There was only one theme that emerged from the analysis of the transcription
based on exposure: the lack of exposure can make creating an inclusive atmosphere
difficult. Direct statements to support this theme follow:
I think so. It would help me. You know, like I stated, this inclusion thing, I was
kind of like taken aback by it. Now, I’m more open to it, so, umm, you know, I
think that as you have more in the classroom, I think you will be able to
understand how to be able to assist them better with the help of the inclusion
teacher and then you would be able to okay, I guess really teach them in a better
way. So I think exposure is good. (Teacher A)
Teacher B said, “I think so. I think it would be more helpful just so you could have more
insight into how they function and what they need, what their needs are.”
Only 13% of the participants felt that exposure/relationships with someone who
had a disability would not be a factor in the successful implementation of inclusion or
inclusive services. These participants felt that as educators, it should not matter if a
student had a disability or not. The important factor was that they cared about students as
a whole.
Category 4: Support. Villa (2005) stated that one factor that significantly
affected teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion was support. The fourth category focused
on support. The category that focused on support specifically asked questions about the
181
levels and types of support that the participants were receiving to assist with the
implementation of inclusive practices. The interview question that directly addressed the
category of support was, “What level/types of support are you receiving, or have you
previously received?”
There was only one theme that arose when analyzing the statements that
correspond with this category: Teachers felt that they needed more support. Only 22% of
the participants received support from the special education department on a consistent
(daily) basis. There were statements that alluded to little or no support from the
administration, and those teachers who did not receive any support stated they felt the
support of the special education department was necessary for successful implementation
of inclusion. Teacher A stated, “I would like for someone from the special education
department to periodically come into the classroom and assist me with some of my
students. I don’t have the same one-on-one help; you know from the department like I
desire.” Teacher B stated, “I think my kappa kids get a lot of support from
administration, and I think beyond that, I don’t know how much the administration is
even aware of the other ones.” Teacher C stated, “For the first two years of teaching I
received nothing. I just kinda had to deal with it the best I could.”
These statements along with others provided statements that supported the theme
that teachers would feel more prepared and capable of providing the services necessary
for students with disabilities if they had additional support. For teachers who had not
been formally trained in the area of special education or worked in an inclusive
atmosphere, they were asked if they were provided with workshops or professional
182
developments by the administration to ensure the success of inclusion in their school; the
answer was no.
Category 5: Inclusion strategies. Category five focused on inclusion strategies.
This category specifically focused on the educational and/or environmental strategies that
were introduced or implemented to create an inclusive classroom environment where all
students had access to the curriculum. Haman (2013) stated that successful
implementation required that not only were all teachers highly qualified in their content
areas but that they are also capable of developing strategies and interventions to meet the
needs of a diverse population of students, including students with disabilities. The
recurrent terms and phrases that emerged during analysis were modifications, modify
assignments, and peer groups. The major theme that emerged from the analysis of
participant statements was that teachers may not understand or have not been trained on
strategies to use in an inclusive environment. Most of the participants used the
modifications and accommodations outlined in a student’s IEP. There were 60% of the
participants who gave specific strategies. Of that 60%, 100% stated that they used
grouping as their sole inclusion strategy. The interview question that focused on
inclusion strategies included, “What type of inclusion is/has been implemented in your
classroom?”
Participant statements that supported this major theme included the following:
I have my class set up into teams. We have five teams in the class. So I put
students together, higher achieving, middle achieving and lower achieving
students together so they can work as a team and so that the more challenged
183
students have a built in support system, so that if I can’t necessarily help them
because I’m helping somebody else, somebody on their team can help them, and
that way I’m giving my inclusion students a support system. (Teacher A)
Umm, I pair people up. I might, if a child has problems finishing 50 questions in a
timely manner, I will take what they can accomplish in the amount of time that
they can. And I will give extra time on tests. I rarely give tests because it’s all
work based learning. But for instance, they had a certification test. I gave them
two days instead of one day to do the test. (Teacher B)
Teacher B also stated, “A few inclusion strategies are read alouds, umm re-reading to
students for clarification, preferential seating arrangements for certain students and
frequent breaks, especially during assessments with students.”
There were only three other strategies mentioned from all of the participant
statements: providing handouts to students, large print for the visually impaired students,
and whole group instruction. The lack of inclusion strategies was an indicator that
teachers were not very knowledgeable about strategies that can be used to create a more
inclusive atmosphere.
Category 6: Professional development. Category six focused on professional
development. This category specifically focused on what types of professional
developments or workshops the participants have attended on inclusion or working with
students with disabilities in an inclusive setting. This category also focused on the aspect
of collaborative teaching, workshops, or professional developments about collaborative
teaching and whether or not these trainings were effective. Shady, Luther, and Richman
184
(2013) stated that teachers felt they had insufficient training and practical support, and
lacked access to information required to enable them to feel confident in implementing
inclusive practices. The interview questions that focused on the category of professional
development and collaborative teaching follow:
● What professional developments have you attended, to assist with the
educating of students with disabilities?
● What is collaborative teaching?
● Have you been given the opportunity to attend any workshops on
inclusion or collaborative teaching? And if so, was it helpful?
The major theme that emerged after the analysis of the participant statements was
that more professional developments were needed to ensure that teachers were adequately
equipped to service students with disabilities in an inclusive setting. Statements to
support this theme included, Teacher A stated, “I have taken none because I thought that
they were all geared for special education teachers. I didn’t know that we were allowed
to go to any of those. Are there any available?” Teacher B stated, “No. I have not had
any specified training or anything like that.”
Of the participants, 50% had never had any training or attended any workshops on
working with students with disabilities, or on inclusion. Of the 50% who had attended
workshops on inclusion, 70% were special education teachers who had formal training in
working with students with disabilities and attended workshops on a regular basis as a
mandate for their subject area.
185
The qualitative data that were analyzed provided information that can be used to
not only explain why the overall group scores on the TATIS were not greatly in favor of
inclusion, as well as answer the second research question. The second research question
asked, “What is the influence of teacher attitudes and perceptions on the implementation
of inclusive practices in the regular education classroom?”
The themes from the qualitative data showed that participants did not have an
accurate understanding of the goals of inclusion, did not possess a variety of instructional
strategies available or in place to create an inclusive environment, nor had many of the
participants received the ongoing training necessary effectively to implement inclusion.
As a result of the lack of training and a solid knowledge base on the part of the
regular education teachers, and limited support on behalf of the special education
teachers, the limited support and lack of training caused the participants to have a
negative attitude and/or perception of inclusion. The influence of this attitude and/or
mindset and the lack of knowledge accounted for the lack of instructional strategies,
implemented to ensure that an inclusive environment had been created. Although the
quantitative data showed that not all factors listed had an effect on the attitudes and
mindsets of the participants, one of the two factors that did prove to be statistically
significant was special education certification and knowledge of laws governing special
education. This evidence was directly linked to the emergence of the theme from the
qualitative data that participants need more training in the area of inclusion.
186
Conclusion
The inclusion of all students in regular schools was a result of the international
movement towards providing equal opportunities and access for all learners in the same
schools whenever possible (Forlin, 2011). With the movement toward more inclusive
education, it was deemed necessary that teacher education and preparation undergo a
major shift to ensure that educators were prepared for this change. Forlin (2011) stated
that effective inclusive practices had been found to depend to a noticeable extent to the
sentiments of teachers about the nature of the disability and their perceived roles in
supporting students with special education needs.
A mixed methods approach was implemented to determine the attitudes and
perceptions of educators at a local Southern high school and how these attitudes affected
the implementation of inclusive services in the regular education classroom. The
instrument used to determine whether these attitudes and perceptions were in favor of
inclusive methods or more traditional methods of service delivery was the TATIS. The
three factors that were focused on were (a) teacher perceptions of students with mild to
moderate disabilities, (b) beliefs about the efficacy of inclusion, and (c) perceptions of
professional roles and functions. A demographics data collection sheet was presented
with this scale. The demographics sheet asked questions, such as (a) you are teaching,
special education or regular education and subject area; (b) gender; (c) age; (d) highest
level of education; (e) level of training on educating students with disabilities;(f) level of
interactions with people with disability; (g) level of confidence in teaching students with
disabilities, and (h) level of experience teaching a student with disability. The
187
information gained from this demographics sheet was used to compare different subject
areas, the mindset of veteran teachers vs. novice teachers, and the difference in
educational trainings (i.e., teachers who hold bachelor’s degree compared to teachers who
hold a higher degree such as a master’s degree or higher), and special education vs.
regular education teachers. A comparison of the level of confidence in veteran teachers
compared to novice teachers and the level of training on educating students with
disabilities took place.
The qualitative data were collected through one-on-one interviews. The one-on-
one interviews were recorded and notes and memos were documented during the
interviews in the margins of an interview sheet. The interviews were then transcribed by
hand and analyzed. Important statements were documented so that codes could be
created. Each interview was analyzed and codes noted from each. The interviews as a
whole were then analyzed to find any common codes throughout the interviews. Those
codes were then used to create categories. The information gained from the one-on-one
interviews were used to explain why the attitudes discovered through the TATIS were in
favor of the traditional service delivery or inclusive service delivery methods. Statements
recorded in the interviews were used to support themes and categories found through the
TATIS. Secondary data were used in this project study. Student test scores (for students
with disabilities and their nondisabled peers) were presented for students participating in
fully inclusive educational programs. This descriptive data helped to paint a more vivid
picture of the effectiveness of full inclusion and how the factors previously stated
affected this implementation. By using a mixed methods design, an accurate description
188
of the factors that affected the implementation of inclusive services as well as how those
factors positively or negatively affected the implementation of inclusive practices was
investigated. The information gained was used to create a more successful inclusive
environment that met the needs of all students. The upcoming section of the project
study provides information about the specific data gathering procedures as well as the
outcome based on the data.
189
Section 3: The Project
Introduction
The integration of children with disabilities into the mainstream or inclusive
classrooms has been a main topic of debate for educational professionals for the past 25
years (Starczewska, Hodkinson, & Adams, 2012). Many teachers who work in an
inclusive capacity encounter challenges when they are faced with supporting group of
students with a diverse ability level. As school districts begin implementing inclusion
plans, the diversity in many classrooms has increased to encompass children with a
variety of disabilities. Based on the findings from the research, teachers in a local
Southern high school do not have a thorough understanding of inclusion. The data
analysis also revealed that teachers in this local Southern high school had a slightly
negative attitude and/or perception of inclusion. These factors may have contributed to
students with disabilities having less success than their nondisabled peers in the areas of
English I, II, III, Algebra I, II, U.S. History, and Biology based on EOC assessments.
As a result of the findings, this study will lead to a professional development.
This professional development will focus on inclusion and inclusive classroom practices.
Royster et al. (2014) stated that teachers in both regular education and special education
needed professional development to master effective instructional and interpersonal skills
in the delivery of classroom-based instruction for students with disabilities. The
components of this professional development include whole group presentations that
focus on inclusion, forms of inclusion (i.e., coteaching/consultation), inclusive classroom
strategies, and differentiation.
190
The adult learning theory supported the implementation of professional
development to create a solid knowledge base on the topic of inclusion and increase the
likelihood that educators will begin to incorporate more inclusive strategies into their
classroom practices. In 1984, Knowles developed the andragogical model of adult
learning and education (Royster et al., 2014). Andragogy posits that adult learning is
reliant on several factors, which include the prior experiences of adults, the level of
knowledge and understanding, and attitudes and beliefs (Weber-Mayrer, Piasta, &
Yeager Pelatti, 2015). Knowles’s initial framework of andragogy was based on the belief
that the presented content and material must be learner-centered. Weber-Mayrer et al.
(2015) stated that the andragogical framework of adult learning was one that urged the
presenters and creators of professional development events to understand the unique
characteristics of individual learners as well as their experiences and incorporate them
into the activities that will take place during the professional development as much as
possible.
Purpose
Nishimura (2014) stated that the purpose of professional development was to
increase the levels of knowledge to sustain and support new practices until that practice
became embedded into the teachers’ and schools’ daily practice. The purpose of this
training is to ensure that teachers have an understanding of how to adapt the curriculum
to meet the needs of a diverse group of learners in inclusive classrooms. The target
audience will include teachers, school facilitators, learning coaches, and school
administrators. Professional developments can prove to be effective when there is a
191
variety of participants. The content of the professional development will focus on
curriculum needs of all students and include research-based practices. It will be directly
linked to the district and school-wide goals. I propose that the professional development
training and evaluation be extended over a period of time to allow for active learning and
practice. Follow-up activities that provide coaching and feedback opportunities as well
as additional development activities should be included in professional developments
with an inclusion focus (Lee, 2013).
The purpose of this professional development is to ensure that educators and other
faculty and staff members have a solid foundation and thorough understanding of
inclusion and inclusive practices. This foundation is necessary to ensure that all students
are able to access the general education curriculum in the regular education classroom
and have an equal opportunity to achieve academic success. This series of three 5-hour
professional development sessions, which will be presented during teacher in-service
week, will make certain that all teachers are equipped with the resources necessary to
ensure all students have access the general education curriculum.
This series of workshops will not only include dissemination of information but
also hands-on activities that participants can engage in and work cooperatively with other
professionals to gain a better understanding of inclusion. This professional development
will take place during teacher in-service, which will occur the week prior to the start date
of school. Follow-up activities and discussions will take place monthly during team-wide
PLC meetings. At the conclusion of the professional development, participants will be
asked to complete an evaluation of the series of workshops and share information on
192
whether or not the series was useful and practical and regarding whether they could
implement and use the strategies presented in their classrooms.
These workshops will provide an in-depth look into inclusion, explain what it is,
provide tools and resources to assist with differentiation, and provide information about
the various forms of inclusion. The workshops will address six key areas of inclusion: (a)
inclusion defined, (b) planning for individual student needs in the inclusive classrooms,
(c) systematic instruction in inclusion classrooms, (d) peer relationships and support, (e)
collaborative inclusive service delivery, and (f) evaluation. As a result of completing the
inclusion professional development, the learning outcomes or tasks that teachers and
additional stakeholders will be able to complete include the learner being able to:
● define inclusion based on guidelines as established by IDEA, which will be
informally measured by the completion of a KWL chart at the conclusion of
the professional development;
● work collaboratively to gain a concrete foundation of inclusion and inclusive
practices, which will be informally assessed by the completion of a KWL
chart;
● adequately define and provide examples of differentiated instruction, which
will be assessed by the response to a handout in which the participant will be
provided information on a traditional classroom setting and they will
determine how to differentiate that setting and/or curriculum;
● assess the general education classroom environment and curriculum to
determine the level of accessibility to all learners that will be assessed by the
193
analysis of a sample curriculum and classroom environment, which the
participants must alter to ensure accessibility to all learners;
● assess the present level of performance for students and determine what
resources, accommodations, and modifications are necessary to achieve
academic success, which will be assessed by the completion of a needs
assessment; and
● effectively communicate and work collaboratively with general education
teachers, special education teachers, and community stakeholders, which will
be assessed by the completion of a lesson plan where a variety of stakeholders
are involved, such as a special education and regular education teacher.
A detailed, hour-by-hour outline of the daily events and activities is located in Appendix
A.
Rationale
Based on the data analysis, teachers in this local Southern high school not only
have an overall slightly negative attitude toward inclusion, but they also do not have a
strong understanding of the basics of inclusion. This fact may have played a role in the
lack of achievement of students with disabilities who participate in a fully inclusive
educational program compared to their nondisabled peers. As a result, the project chosen
was a professional development. The proposed professional development will provide
information necessary to build a solid knowledge base on inclusion and will provide
resources that can be implemented into the classroom.
194
Review of Literature
Philpott et al. (2010) stated that there has been much concern about the level of
preparedness and readiness of teachers, new and old, facing the challenges of
contemporary classrooms. Many teachers do not feel prepared to instruct students of
diverse cultural backgrounds or abilities (Philpott et al., 2010). Costley (2013) stated that
being prepared gives teachers a sense of ownership over their teaching and a real
commitment to their acquired beliefs about inclusion and inclusive practices.
Professional development is crucial in providing continual updates on effective teaching
practices, tools and technology, and providing support in areas of need or interest. The
National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (2011) reported that professional
developments were useful when attempting to prepare all educators to provide and
promote quality inclusive settings for all students. The professional development will
comprise 3 days of training to focus on the various aspects of inclusion. Royster et al.
(2014) stated that research revealed that effective professional development provided
regular education teachers with knowledge and skills in how effectively to communicate
for the purpose of solving classroom problems and providing continuity across
instructional settings.
Teachers involved in the instruction of special needs students must embrace
human diversity as an expected and valued characteristic among students (Lee, 2013).
To achieve this goal, a growing number of schools are implementing inclusion programs
in which students with disabilities are placed in the general classroom and participate in
activities with their nondisabled peers. There are many documented cases in the
195
literature that present effective inclusion programs. Inclusion has proved to be successful
when it concentrates on several key factors: (a) ongoing professional development for
regular and special education teachers; (b) teachers knowledgeable about special
education terms, laws, and issues; (c) positive teacher attitudes toward inclusion (d)
effective collaborations between special and regular educators; (e) individualized support
for students with disabilities; and (f) instruction that recognizes each student’s
chronological age, personal preferences, and individual potential structured around a
curriculum to accommodate learning styles of a diverse student population (Royster et al.,
2014). One method that can be used to ensure that students have access to high-quality
educational experiences in the regular classroom setting is to use professional
developments to promote the transition to high quality lessons and strategies being
implemented in the classroom (Weber-Mayrer et al., 2015).
Professional development opportunities and workshops/trainings are critical when
attempting to ensure success in any profession. These workshops help to increase
efficiency and the ability to compete in a global economy (Walker, 2010). Hunzicker
(2011) related the ineffectiveness of workshops to the great amount of information
disseminated during the presentation with little time for real classroom application.
Traditional approaches to workshops and professional developments are no longer
effective because they simply disseminate information and do not adequately prepare
teachers for the challenges they may encounter throughout their career when faced with a
wide variety of students and ability levels (Schleicher, 2011). Starczewska et al. (2012)
stated that mainstream teachers received little to no mandatory training on disabilities and
196
possible issues that may arise as a result of those disabilities. In many countries, to
ensure that teachers are adequately prepared, intensive professional developments have
been required (Forlin & Sin, 2010).
Gorman and Drudy (2010) stated that of school factors, teachers are the most
important factor regarding student achievement. Teacher effectiveness is directly linked
to teacher preparation. Therefore, teachers must be involved in professional preparation
and development to create an effective inclusion classroom (Gorman & Drudy, 2010).
The legislature has attempted to improve professional developments; in the process, they
addressed the role of the educator and the idea that professional training and/or
development is provided and necessary for professional growth (Lee, 2013).
In 2001 President George W. Bush signed into law NCLB. This act was one that
reauthorized the ESEA of 1965. As a result of NCLB, the term professional development
was one that encompassed activities and resources that made positive contributions to
teachers’ content knowledge based on the subjects they taught (Walker, 2010). Walker
also stated that professional developments were an integral part of schools and/or school
systems and their efforts for academic improvement. The knowledge gained from
professional developments is not limited to educators, but also to administrators and
school wide stakeholders. Professional developments have the ability to provide
professional growth regarding a knowledge base to provide the tools necessary
successfully to educate all students, as well as provide students an opportunity to meet
content and achievement standards; are high-quality, sustained, intensive, and classroom-
197
focused; are not short, one-day events; and support the recruitment and hiring of highly
qualified teachers (NCLB, section 910 (34); Walker, 2010).
McMaster (2012) stated that the aspiration or goal of Special Education 2000 was
to bring about or create a world-class inclusive education system. There were programs
and initiatives in place to ensure that effective professional developments on inclusion
were available for educators to participate in. The National Staff Development Council,
which was later named Leaning Forward, is one such group. This council has actively
investigated professional developments and has driven the creation of effective
professional development opportunities for educators. “Effective professional
development is not about meeting the requirements of a list, it is about carefully
considering and planning according to desired outcomes and standards that will
contribute to success” (Lee, 2013, p. 24).
Leaning Forward (2011) reported that the standards for staff development were
originally written as 27 standards and then revised to 12 standards for teacher
professional development. In 2011, NSDC made a second and final revision of the 12
standards to 7 standards for professional learning (Learning Forward, 2011). Learning
Forward depended upon a professional support system of other professional educational
associations and organizations to create and revise the seven standards for professional
developments. Those standards are learning communities, leadership, resources, data,
learning designs, implementation, and outcomes (Learning Forward, 2011).
Warren and Miller (2013) stated that the effectiveness of professional
development was dependent upon the interactions that occurred between the
198
learner/participant, the context, and what was learned. Darling-Hammond and
Richardson (2009) researched and reported on several studies that identified and
prioritized the professional needs of educators regarding professional developments.
They began with content, classroom management, teaching students with disabilities, and
finally technology.
Other researchers searched for information about the importance of professional
developments conducted interviews. Jenkins and Yoshimura (2010) conducted
interviews of inclusive classroom teachers and reported that they found little evidence
that those teachers were provided with information and/or resources concerning students
with disabilities or practices that could be effective in inclusive classroom settings.
Those limitations on resources and materials called for professional training that was
directly related to the increase of teachers’ abilities and confidence to teach and support
all students in an inclusive classroom setting, differentiate instruction, and participate in
professional collaboration (Lee, 2013).
Many general education teachers do not have confidence in their abilities to teach
a diverse group of students, which includes students with disabilities, because of a lack of
training and preparation on how to support the needs of students with disabilities in the
general education classroom (Jenkins & Yoshimura, 2010). “Effectively including
students in general education requires general education teachers to have a basic
knowledge about special education and the skills to teach students with disabilities”
(Jenkins & Yoshimura, 2010, p. 2).
199
Nishumura (2014) stated that the transition to inclusion would take the efforts of
several school stakeholders, including teachers, administrators, and other staff members,
to ensure they have the skills necessary to implement and support inclusion and inclusive
practices. Corkum, Bryson, Smith, Griffen, and Hume (2014) stated that educators’
beliefs regarding the efficacy of inclusion-based curricula correlated positively with their
level of training and/or professional development. Those teachers who have more
training demonstrated more positive attitudes toward inclusive based strategies.
Self-efficacy is stated to be a person’s mindset concerning his or her abilities to
carry out and perform certain tasks (Dodge-Quick, 2011). The mindset of many general
education teachers regarding their abilities successfully to educate students with
disabilities varies based on several factors: training/professional developments,
experience, knowledge, and the school culture. Dodge-Quick (2011) stated that many
regular education teachers consistently had a negative mindset and did not feel
adequately prepared successfully to implement inclusive practices or to ensure that all
students, even those with disabilities, had the access and support necessary to be
successful academically.
Many variables contribute to positive educational outcomes for students (Gorman,
2010). One such variable is teacher preparation. To ensure that educators are prepared to
work with a diverse group of students, they must participate in professional developments
that are grounded in research-based practices. In an effort to ensure that educators are
adequately prepared with the resources and knowledge, as well as feel more confident in
their abilities to work in an inclusive capacity, teachers must have some form of ongoing
200
training and/or professional development (Schleicher, 2011). Male (2011) stated that it
was generally accepted that teacher attitudes and expectation impacted significantly upon
students’ educational outcomes. Therefore, it is critical to the creation of a positive
mindset and school culture that is geared toward inclusion, to provide professional
developments that will not only provide a knowledge base for teachers, but also ensure
that they have a better attitude toward inclusive practices.
In this project study, several factors will be addressed during the interview portion
of the data collection, including experience with students with disabilities, knowledge of
the laws governing special education, type of inclusion that was implemented; whether it
was co-teaching or on a consultation basis, and level of support. Casale (2011) stated
that with limited foundational knowledge of special education legislation and limited
educational strategies to address the needs of those students with disabilities, general
education teachers need supplementary assistance and access to resources that will focus
on inclusion. The access to materials and resources about inclusion can be obtained
through professional developments and continued support from administrators (Casale,
2011). A great deal of research in the literature suggests there are many benefits of
effective professional development and coaching (Hadar & Brody, 2010).
Special education delivery is a service, not a place; as a result, the types of
inclusive programs and extent to which students are included and exposed to the general
curriculum varies from school to school. Thus, professional developments should not be
general, but should be directly linked to the objectives, goals, and culture of the school
(Starnes, 2011). Implications for Inclusive Schooling (2014) reported that effective
201
professional development was not about working in isolation, but facilitated and
empowered teachers to work collaboratively with their colleagues to create communities
of practice that were centered on a common goal.
Lee (2013) stated that we could not prepare educators for every disability and
every possible scenario based on that disability because that would be impossible. To
ensure that they are as prepared as possible, professional developments are vital. This
implementation of professional developments is an opportunity for educators to act as
lifelong learners and increase their knowledge base as well as allow them access to
instructional resources and strategies that could be used based on their deficit areas
regarding knowledge and information, the strengths and weaknesses of their students, and
what research has highlighted as best practices for use in inclusive classroom settings.
The transition from exclusion and separate placements for students with
disabilities to a more inclusive classroom and school culture has gradually happened
during the past couple of decades. This transition has taken place as a result of the
creation of laws and initiatives by advocates for more inclusive practices and for students
with disabilities to have access to the general education curriculum. Lupart, Irvine,
Loreman, and McGhie-Richmond (2010) stated that inclusion meant that all students,
regardless of their differences, have their educational needs met in the general education
classroom and school context. To ensure that this transition was successful, educators,
administrators and additional school stakeholders had to have support. This support is
provided by implementing professional developments and workshops that focused on
inclusion (Lee, 2013).
202
The search for information pertaining to the importance and success of
professional developments as a means of ensuring an increase in the use of inclusive
practices in the regular education classroom setting entailed the use of the ERIC database.
Search terms used were professional development, professional development and
inclusion, inclusive classroom practices, teacher attitudes towards inclusion and
inclusion workshops.
Project Description
The description for the professional development includes a three-day series of
workshops for teacher, administrators, instructional facilitators, PLC coach, and other
school stakeholders. The needed resources that I cannot provide personally are a facility
and the use of a Promethean board. Although this series of workshops can greatly assist
in the development of more positive attitudes and perceptions about inclusion, there are
also some barriers.
Barriers to Professional Development
Although there are many advantages to professional developments, there are also
disadvantages as well. Schlauch (2013) stated that colleges and universities that educate
and instruct students who are going into the field of education have the task of ensuring
that these students understand the importance of continued training to ensure that all
students are afforded a quality education in the least restrictive environment. This job is
not limited to higher education but to the public school systems as well. These
organizations should also promote a continuance of education through professional
development opportunities.
203
Many states do not mandate that teachers attend professional developments on
inclusion. The amount of required professional development as well as the types of
professional development vary between school districts and states. Schleicher (2011)
explained that teachers stated that there was not much of an incentive to attend or
participate in professional developments that focused on inclusion and inclusive efforts.
Administrators and school stakeholders must find a way to encourage educators to gain a
better understanding of inclusion because more and more students with disabilities are
placed in regular education classrooms. Strategies that prove effective in one school
might not be applicable in another based on unique needs and beliefs. An additional
factor is that many teachers are accustomed to working alone, and this approach to
instruction places great limitations on their knowledge, experience, and implementation
of best practices (Guskey, 2009).
Woodcock, Hemmings, and Kay (2012) stated that many single modules or
workshops on inclusion have limited or little change in the attitudes and perceptions of
teachers toward inclusion. Nishimura (2014) stated that professional developments,
when only used or exposed to once, may not be enough to sustain educators or resonate
enough with educators to cause them to use and implement more inclusive classroom
practices.
Lyndon and King (2009) stated that the time it takes to implement professional
development, the need for support from school administration, and cost are barriers to
continuous professional development. An additional barrier is a lack of teacher
204
engagement. Hadar and Brody (2010) stated that professional development programs are
not effective if teachers are not actually engaged in the workshop.
School culture is another limitation that could hinder the effectiveness of
professional developments. Lupart et al. (2010) stated that striving for authentic
inclusion through the day-to-day tensions was difficult for administrators, but it was
needed when working to create an inclusive school environment. The needs of educators
and students can vary greatly, but those needs have the ability to influence the strengths
and weaknesses of a school. This factor should guide administrative decisions regarding
professional developments on inclusion.
Barriers that exist to the successful implementation of effective professional
developments that have the ability to reform current dated practices when educating
students with disabilities must be recognized for academic institutions and public
education as a whole to progress to a state that guarantees all students are equally able to
access the general curriculum and achieve academic success. For this barrier to be
broken, there must be stronger affiliations between public school systems and
universities. There must also be more collaboration in school buildings. This
collaboration may allow for greater support of educators on their journey to
implementing inclusive classroom strategies (Guskey, 2009).
Actions can take place on the administrative level to support inclusion workshops.
For example, the school’s calendar, which should indicate important events, should
include professional developments as well as a designated time to conduct those
professional developments. Administrators should not stop there; they must consider the
205
current culture of the school, and what culture and climate they wish to create and plan
for professional developments based on those factors. Additional incentives that may
come in the form of support or teacher recognition for those teachers who have chosen to
participate should be a consideration (Lyndon & King, 2009; Schleicher, 2011).
Professional development and educator enrichment opportunities that are
provided during regular teacher work hours and during the actual work calendar may
offer the ability to build mastery and explicit experiences that are based on immediate
needs. Those educational improvements may have the influence to bring about change
when teachers and students have the option to take part in learning and professional
development opportunities that take place throughout the entire calendar year (Walker,
2010).
Professional learning communities are one way to incorporate yearlong learning
opportunities. Professional learning communities have the ability to influence teacher
behavior and affect their mindset and attitudes by presenting opportunities for
collaboration, professional growth, and reflection during real time implementation of
inclusive classroom strategies into their current practices and are proving to be a useful
form of professional development (Darling Hammond & Richardson, 2009).
Proposal Implementation
The proposal for implementation will take place in two forms. The first is in
written form to the school administration. I will formally request time during teacher in-
service week to present to the faculty about inclusion. If I am unable to have three days
during this time, I will then request a formal meeting where we can discuss alternatives to
206
this plan. Such alternatives include monthly workshops with the PLC Coach and those
teachers who have students with disabilities in their classrooms. The timetable for
submitting this proposal is by May 21st. This day was previously scheduled for all to
submit all requests of faculty and staff that wish to present during in-service week. This
request must be submitted in writing, outline the presentation, and explain why one
thinks it is necessary and/or beneficial to the faculty and staff as a whole.
The second form of implementation will take place in November. The Division
of Exceptional Children has a district wide, three-day conference each November. These
conferences focus on a variety of areas pertaining to special education. Participants who
wish to present at this 3-day conference must complete a proposal and provide a detailed
outline of the presentation to the Division of Exceptional Children, and they will
determine if one is allowed to present or not.
No students will be involved in this workshop. There will, however, be a review
of teacher data based on student test scores. Each individual teacher receives student
scores based on the formative assessments taken during the school year. Teachers will
have the opportunity to review their individual data and determine how the students with
disabilities compared to their nondisabled peers, identify the areas in which all students
performed poorly, the areas in which students with disabilities performed poorly, and
collaborate with colleagues to determine how more inclusive classroom strategies may
assist in increasing the level of achievement for all students in those classrooms. This
professional development is intended to be a group effort on the part of the
administration, classroom teachers, learning coaches, and school facilitators to review the
207
goals for the school, student data, and strategies that can be implemented to not only
achieve those school wide goals, but create a more inclusive atmosphere where student
achievement is expected of all students.
The roles of the teachers, administration, and other school stakeholders will be
that of the learner. They will participate in these series of professional developments to
gain a better understanding of inclusion and inclusive practices. All information and
resources directly provided will come from me. Additional information and resources
will be added as a result of collaborative activities in the professional development. All
participants will work in an academic setting; therefore, they may have additional
resources to add to these series of professional developments and will be welcomed
during that time. I will assume the responsibility of providing all of the necessary
information, handouts, data presentation, and other materials during the professional
development. I will request that a promethean board and space are available to
accommodate a large number of participants. As a result, the provided space and
technology will be the responsibility of the school.
Evaluation
Sallee (2010) stated that there is a direct link between professional developments
activities and teaching practices. Those schools that were distinguished held professional
development activities, which included an analysis of instructional practices, used data,
emphasized collaboration, used similar instructional strategies, and allowed for
evaluations of the activities by participants. As a result, this professional development
will have an evaluation that is comprised of several components at the end of this series
208
of workshops to determine if teachers feel that the workshop as a whole, and the
resources and strategies presented are helpful in bringing about a better understanding of
inclusion, inclusive practices, students with disabilities, and differentiated instruction.
The evaluation process for this professional development will be comprised of
several elements. Some of those elements will continue on after the professional
development. The first evaluation procedure will include the completion of a K-W-L
chart at the end of each day. The participants will notate throughout the presentation the
things they know, the aspects of inclusion they want to know, and what they have
learned. I will be able to gauge whether or not participants are gaining any new strategies
or gaining new information informally through this method. Participants will also be
asked to complete activities that focus on accessibility and differentiated instruction.
All participants will complete a survey at the end of the 3-day period. This
evaluation will be available for both the teacher in-service before the start of school as
well as the special education conference. The participants will leave this survey for me to
determine if the professional development did provide information needed to create more
successful inclusive classroom settings. The final component to the evaluation will be a
review of student formative assessment data at the beginning, middle, and end of the
school year. All students are required to participate in a universal screener, the MAP
assessment, which determines areas of strength and weakness. Student data will be
analyzed and discussed in monthly PLC meetings where teachers and the PLC Coach will
be able to determine and discuss the strategies being implemented to ensure that all
students are able to access the general curriculum and whether or not those students with
209
disabilities are making any gains, or are performing closer to the ability level of their
nondisabled peers. A more in-depth discussion will then take place about what strategies
have worked and which ones have not, as well as why these strategies have or have not
worked, and if they are in fact being implemented with fidelity.
The use of formative assessment data, which will include the analysis of student
data on beginning of the year, mid-year, and end of year assessments, will provide data
necessary to link the success of professional developments, implementation of new
inclusive practices, progress of teacher self-efficacy, and the academic achievement of
students (Casale, 2011). In an effort to ensure the effectiveness of many facets of the
professional development, a series of activities will be incorporated specifically to assess
the six learning objectives. Those activities include the completion of a K-W-L chart,
identification of differentiated strategies when provided a scenario outlining a traditional
classroom setting or curriculum, the collaborative creation of a lesson plan, and a needs
assessment sheet.
The key stakeholders who will participate in this evaluation process are the
classroom teachers and members of the administrative team. Individual teachers will
have the opportunity to review data several times throughout the school year in monthly
PLCs to determine if strategies that are being implemented are successful or not. It is the
goal of the professional development to provide such strategies that can be used in any
subject. It is also the goal of the professional development and evaluation process to
determine if teachers are differentiating instruction for all learning levels; if so, what
strategies are being used.
210
Project Implications
There has been much concern over the readiness of educators to face the
challenges that emerge as a result of contemporary classrooms that support students with
disabilities. Classroom teachers are taking on more responsibility and accountability to
meet the needs of a widely diverse group of students, but many of them do not feel
prepared to educate students with varying disabilities (Philpott et al., 2010).
School stakeholders must understand that providing professional developments
about inclusion and encouraging a positive attitude and/or perception of inclusion and
inclusive practices will not happen in a professional development by itself (Forlin & Sin,
2010). Professional development can, however, be effective in bringing about the change
necessary if it is supported through systematic changes in curriculum, pedagogy,
assessment, and an overall educational reform. Ongoing and consistent professional
developments are, however, an essential component of the move toward fully inclusive
classrooms, schools, and ultimately public education (Forlin & Sin, 2010).
There are many implications for social change as a result of this project study.
The focus of this project study was to investigate the effectiveness of inclusion. Data
allowed the emergence of the fact that many educators who do not have a special
education background do not fully understand inclusion or the critical role they play in
educating students with disabilities. As a result, the implementation of professional
developments has the ability to bring about a positive social change through the
presentation of resources and strategies, collaboration and co-teaching skills between the
regular education and special education teachers and an overall stronger foundation in
211
relation to the knowledge base that all school stakeholders will possess on the topic of
inclusion. This change has the ability to create a more positive mindset and perception of
inclusion, inclusive practices, and assist with the transition into a more contemporary
academic culture. The first implication for social change includes yearlong workshops or
professional developments that focus on inclusive classroom strategies and how to
effectively educate students with disabilities in the regular education classroom. The
introduction of ongoing professional developments has the ability to increase self-
efficacy and professional learning among professionals and ultimately increase success
for all students.
By establishing and encouraging professional developments for not only
educators, but members of the administrative staff as well, this form of training can assist
in the alignment of classroom practices, school culture, and organizational goals. The
results of this project study could stimulate an increase in special education courses that
are taught or special education content that is presented to pre-service teachers. As our
society is transitioning to become more inclusive in our educational institutions,
educators must have the foundation and knowledge necessary to service a wide variety of
students. This project study brought to light the importance of educators having a
knowledge base of effective inclusive practices not only in this local Southern high
school, but also for public education in general.
The IDEA calls for students with disabilities across the United States to have
access to the general education curriculum and to be reasonably included in general
education environments with their peers. Costley (2013) stated that one of the most
212
important aspects of an effective inclusion program was the positive attitudes of the
teachers. It is also important to understand how teachers perceive inclusion and inclusion
practices and gain an understanding of whether or not they have the knowledge necessary
to implement inclusive practices.
Costley (2013) also provided information based on a personal interview that,
more common than not, inclusion has been misunderstood and/or abused by school
districts, special education teachers, counselors, and teachers. In some instances,
teachers, principals, and special education teachers still know little about the
philosophy/goals of inclusion and how to implement and maintain the practice.
Unfortunately, one common practice is that after a student is identified with a disability
and the IEP is written, that student is often included in the regular classroom with no IEP
modifications at all. The teacher is left to struggle grasping for modifications with no
additional support system, which is the true intention of inclusion (J. Paxton, personal
communication, September 1, 2011). As a result of this issue, which was also identified
in this local Southern high school, a series of professional developments will be
implemented to ensure that teachers have a solid knowledge base effectively to
implement inclusion.
These series of workshops will consist of 3 days of training, which will involve
dissemination of information, collaborative groups, and team building activities for co-
teaching pairs. Teachers will have the opportunity to gain knowledge about inclusion,
create sample lesson plans, and learn how to differentiate based on different student
213
ability levels. There are six learning objectives that are linked to the series of professional
developments, which follow:
● Define inclusion based on guidelines as established by IDEA by the end of the
professional development, which will be informally measured by the
completion of a KWL chart at the conclusion of the professional development.
● Work collaboratively to gain a concrete foundation of inclusion and inclusive
practices, which will be informally assessed by the completion of a KWL
chart.
● Define and provide examples of differentiated instruction, which will be
assessed by the response to a handout where the participant will be provided
information on a traditional classroom setting and they will determine how to
differentiate that setting and/or curriculum.
● Apply strategies for assessing the general education classroom environment
and curriculum to determine the level of accessibility to all learners, which
will be assessed by the analysis of a sample curriculum and classroom
environment that the participant must alter to ensure accessibility to all
learners.
● Determine the present level of performance for students and determine what
resources, accommodations, and modifications are necessary to achieve
academic success, which will be assessed by the completion of a needs
assessment.
● Communicate effectively and work collaboratively with general education
214
teachers, special education teachers, and community stakeholders, which will
be assessed by the completion of a lesson plan where a variety of stakeholders
are involved, such as a special education and regular education teacher.
These objectives will ensure that teachers are adequately equipped with the tools
necessary to drive effective instruction and ensure that the classroom environment and
curriculum are accessible to all students.
215
Section 4: Reflections and Conclusions
Project Strengths and Limitations
Inclusion is a concept that teachers generally accept, but there are many concerns
about the implementation of inclusive practices (Higginson & Chatfield, 2010). Those
concerns include a lack of knowledge and experience as well as the need for continued
learning in a collaborative environment where support and resources could be provided
(Higginson & Chatfield, 2010). This investigation of inclusion and services provided
insight into the attitudes and perceptions of educators in a local Southern high school.
This study showed that teachers in a local Southern high school had a slightly negative
overall attitude toward inclusion. There was also a statistically significant difference
between the mindset and perceptions of regular education teachers compared to special
education teachers. This investigation uncovered the fact that students with disabilities
had scored considerably lower on state mandated assessments for at least 3 consecutive
years compared to their nondisabled peers.
This lack of academic achievement was partly because of the lack of knowledge
of and slightly negative attitudes towards and perceptions of inclusion. As a result, a
series of professional developments will be implemented into the teacher in-service week.
This series will provide knowledge about the concept of inclusion as well as strategies to
assist teachers in effectively implementing inclusive practices. This series of professional
developments will be followed up during monthly PLC meetings to ensure an ongoing
form of support to all teachers.
216
This study was a project study that used a mixed methods approach to ensure that
the data collected were both reliable and valid. This study included student test scores
from more than 200 students and survey responses from 40 educators. I completed the
analysis of the data by hand and not by an outside agency or service. As a result, the data
analysis process was sound and thorough. The project that will be implemented as a
result of the data, which indicated a lack of understanding of inclusion as well as a
slightly overall negative attitude toward inclusion, is a professional development. The
project has the ability to foster a more positive attitude toward inclusion and provide
valuable information that can transform classroom practices so that all students are able
to access the general curriculum and achieve academic success.
There were some limitations to the study, which included that the study was based
on and conducted in one local Southern high school. Inclusion programs and practices
vary greatly from teacher to teacher and type of school (i.e., elementary, middle, high).
As a result, the study may have been more reliable if it included data from each level of
schools. The professional development that has been created is geared toward the needs
and goals of one local Southern high school as opposed to other schools in that district.
There is a wealth of knowledge, strategies, and modeling that could assist educators with
the effective implementation of inclusion and inclusive practices. As a result, a 3-day
training may not suffice to provide the foundation for classroom and ultimately school
transformation. Additional trainings must be introduced to ensure that practices are
effective and successful with the student population present.
217
Recommendations for Alternative Approaches
Alternative approaches to addressing this problem could include a possible
evaluation of the inclusive practices in this local Southern high school and other high
schools in the region. This evaluation could include an evaluation of test scores as well
and a review of the inclusive practices that are being used in those schools. The
evaluations of these schools would bring about a discussion of inclusive practices that are
in place at those schools where students with disabilities are performing at the level of or
exceeding their nondisabled peers.
The second possible approach could be a revision to the curriculum. There is a
division of the district that is responsible for the creation of the curriculum. If data that
had been collected and analyzed were taken to this department and they were able to see
a trend in the lack of success of students with disabilities in inclusion programs, they
could create revisions to the curriculum or set certain accommodations and modifications
in the curriculum that focused on that subgroup of students specifically.
Alternative definitions to the problem may include that educators do not have a
negative attitude toward inclusion, but they have not had students with disabilities in their
classroom before; as a result, they are not used to implementing nontraditional forms of
content delivery. Other alternatives could include teachers having students who have
severe disabilities. As a result of those disabilities, students may need additional support
services successfully to access and retain the general education curriculum.
If either the lack of experience with or the severity of the disabilities of students is
the problem, teachers who have not had to service students with disabilities could be
218
provided a teacher mentor who is a special education teacher. These teachers would
collaborate on classroom strategies, accommodations, and modifications. The pair or
group would meet once or twice monthly after school to discuss progress and problems,
as well as solutions to those problems. Another solution would include an observation of
those students who fail to achieve academic success in the general education classroom.
After several observations, an IEP team meeting would take place to discuss the
observations and additional support services that could be added if necessary to assist this
student with academic achievement.
Scholarship, Project Development, Leadership and Change
Throughout the process of completing this project study, I learned of several key
factors. As a special education teacher, I had a great deal of background knowledge and
information that I once assumed was common knowledge. Researchers must take
themselves out of the position of persons who are well versed in the area of study and
delve into all possible research pertaining to their topic. In this case, I learned a great
deal about inclusion and the difference in inclusive programs in the United States and
abroad.
Advocates in the United States have worked diligently for decades to ensure that
students with disabilities were afforded the same rights as their nondisabled peers.
Nevertheless, there are still many states that have separate schooling for students with
disabilities. The process of gaining information so that a sound body of literature could
be presented was at times overwhelming. There is a wealth of information about
inclusion, but much of this information is specific to a certain disability, such as autism,
219
or specific learning disability. Little information guides educators on how to go about
educating students with disabilities in general.
The fact that many teachers are unaware of the actual disabilities that their
students have also emerged through the data collection process of this study. Teachers
are provided with copies of the necessary accommodations and modifications for
individual students, but this information does not specify the disability. This could
sometimes act as a hindrance to an educator. For example, if a student has ADHD and
continues to disrupt class because the student cannot stay seated or is easily distracted
and the assigned seat is in the back of the classroom where the student can view
everything that other students are doing, this disability can impede the success of that
student. Although being easily distracted is one aspect of educating a student with
ADHD, additional information could help ameliorate the situation. Thus, information is
critical to the success of inclusion and inclusive practices.
As a practitioner, scholar, and educator, I have learned a great deal about data
collection, data analysis, and strategies that could be useful as a special education teacher.
Many strategies are available to use in inclusive classroom settings, but as an inclusion
coteacher, I tried to emulate the practices of my coteacher to ensure that students with
disabilities were not singled out and that the content was not so modified that it did not
meet the requirements of the specified curriculum. As a result, I was not adequately
servicing my students.
The data collection and analysis process were tedious and time-consuming. I
chose the mixed methods design because it would make the collection process and
220
findings more valid and reliable. However, I did not realize just how time consuming the
analysis would be. The time and attention to detail when collecting and analyzing data
were critical to the success of this project.
Reflection on the Importance of the Work
This project study was one of great importance, even more so than I originally
imagined. Advocates for students with disabilities have fought to ensure that they were
no longer excluded and were at least afforded an opportunity to have access to the
general education curriculum and learn in a setting that contained not only students with
disabilities, but their nondisabled peers as well. While conducting research on inclusion
and services, there was a great deal of literature and research suggesting that in many
cases, inclusion was another form of exclusion. While students were physically located
in a setting with their nondisabled peers, they were still unable successfully to access the
general education curriculum and achieve academic success for many reasons. Those
reasons could include, but were not limited to, a lack of knowledge and understanding on
behalf of the teacher, a negative attitude and/or perception of the teachers and other
faculty and staff members, limited resources for students with disabilities in inclusive
settings, and a lack of implementation of the contemporary instructional strategies that
are needed to educate a diverse group of learners.
As a special education teacher, I was unaware of how much training regular
education teachers received on the topic of special education. I was also closed off to the
idea that there are people in our society who have never personally interacted with
someone with a disability. Therefore, I began the process of research and data collection
221
with the mindset that I had a solid foundation and understanding of inclusion and what
was necessary to create an effective inclusive atmosphere. However, I realized I was
learning a great deal about what strategies and resources it would take to ensure that all
students were academically successful. With a larger number of students with disabilities
working toward regular high school diplomas and accounting procedures and measures
created to directly link teacher effectiveness to student performance, it is critical that
teachers educate themselves on contemporary forms of content presentation and inclusive
practices. Inclusion is not limited to physical space, but is a movement that is focused on
the integration and academic success of students with disabilities.
Scholar
The Merriam-Webster dictionary stated that a scholar is a specialist in a particular
branch of study, specifically the humanities, a distinguished academic. In an attempt to
be a scholar on the academic topic of inclusion, I had to recommit to the role of a learner
and not that of a professional or specialist in that content area. My knowledge needed to
be refreshed and expanded upon in the areas of not only special education as a whole but
specifically inclusion. I have previously worked in an inclusive setting, but I have had
limited training in that area. When I completed my course of study, teachers were being
trained to work in a pull out capacity. Those students with disabilities were receiving
services from the special education teacher in the areas of language arts and mathematics
and remained in the regular education classroom with their nondisabled peers for the
remainder of their classes.
222
After reviewing a large amount of literature on the topic of inclusion, I felt that I
gained the knowledge necessary to act as a resource to other teachers and
academic/school stakeholders, as well as a change agent. I felt that I accessed
information and resources that I could use in my own co-teaching classroom setting, as
well as provide to other teachers and administrators in an effort to increase the inclusive
practices in my school.
Practitioner
Merriam-Webster defines a practitioner as one who practices or a person who
regularly does an activity that requires skill or practice. With this investigation, I had to
act as a practitioner and not only read about the topic of inclusion, but completely
immerse myself in the topic of inclusion and gain as much information as possible on the
topic. While I was learning about this topic, I was still working in a co-teaching
environment and used many of the strategies I read about in my inclusive classroom
environment. In an effort to ensure accessibility for all of my students, I shared those
resources with the teachers I worked with in a co-teaching environment.
Project Development
Thomas Eklund stated that a project developer is one that handles tasks that focus
on moving a project in an effort to ensure its success (Eklund, 2015). The investigation
of inclusion emerged in an effort to ensure that all students were provided with a quality
education where all students were held to a high standard. Through the course of this
investigation, I have gained a wealth of knowledge and learned about strategies and
available resources that would be instrumental in moving, not only my classroom, but my
223
school in a progressive state. One activity that has been added to my school environment
was the Best Buddies organization. This organization has allowed for one-on-one
interactions and exposure to students with disabilities outside of the classroom
environment. This organization assisted teachers and students as well who had not
previously had interactions with students with disabilities. The lack of exposure was one
of the targets focused on in this investigation. Other aspects of being a project developer
included the dissemination of information to my co-teachers and other community
stakeholders.
Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research
The implications for social change based on this project study have the ability to
change curriculum guidelines, revolutionize teacher education programs, and possibly
draw attention to the need for continued education on inclusive practices and who
effectively to educate students with disabilities. Research that was gathered during the
investigation of inclusion, as well as data collection, exposed the idea that many regular
education teachers have had little to no training about special education and working with
students with disabilities. As a result, students with disabilities are not receiving an
education that is individualized and based on their physical and academic needs. A
theme of a slightly negative attitude and/or perception of inclusion were one of the
themes that emerged from the data analysis. This theme was based on the responses of
teachers at a local Southern high school, but there are many other cases in the literature
that reported a lack of knowledge and a negative attitude toward inclusion for many
teachers who did not receive training in that area.
224
With high levels of accountability, teachers, schools, and school districts having
to transition to more contemporary forms of content delivery in an effort to ensure all
students are academically successful, teacher, and other school stakeholders must be
trained to work with a diverse group of students. If this transition to inclusion was
achieved, schools and school districts in this community as well as worldwide could
possibly see a transformation in student achievement that meets the rigorous standards
that are set before students today. By learning and implementing strategies that address
all learning levels, students will not only have the ability to witness (through modeling)
but also participate in high levels of learning. Students will be able to analyze,
synthesize, and apply the knowledge they have gained in the classrooms to not only
academic tasks, but in life as well.
When thinking about the ways in which we learn, many people are familiar with
three general categories: visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners. Beyond these three
general categories, many theories of and approaches toward human potential have been
developed. Among them is the theory of multiple intelligences, developed by Dr.
Howard Gardner, Professor of Education at Harvard University (Garner, 2009). The term
differentiation is one that is used when discussing inclusion and inclusive practices.
Differentiation is simply providing alternate ways to access the same content. The
differentiation of content is necessary when working with students with disabilities.
Many teachers are comfortable with and continue to use traditional teaching methods, but
this project study has the ability to propel educators to start implementing and using more
225
contemporary instructional strategies that will allow all students to have access to the
general education curriculum.
The recommendations for practice and future research are that additional research
is needed to investigate the effectiveness of inclusion and inclusive practices. This
research should focus on all school levels (K-12) and investigate the different types of
inclusion programs that are being implemented in various schools. Studies have shown
that teachers indicate a need for more training regarding teaching students with
disabilities in an inclusive capacity. Researchers should investigate and determine if
professional developments can bridge the gap in theory and practice when educating
students with disabilities.
This study was limited to one local Southern high school. Teachers who have
students with disabilities in their classrooms were solicited for participation in this study.
Therefore, there was a limited scope on the types of inclusive practices and school goal
regarding inclusive practices and creating an inclusive school atmosphere. The
generalizability of this study was limited to high schools that are comparable in size and
characteristics on inclusion and the type of inclusion program implemented. The
following list of implications for future research was compiled to generate further
thought.
● To what extent does the amount of pre-service education help or hinder the
implementation of inclusive practices?
● To what extent do professional development activities help teachers apply
effective inclusive practices in the classroom?
226
● To what extent are the inclusive practices implemented linked to, or a
reflection of the school vision and mission?
Conclusion
Inclusive education promotes educational values of diversity, equity, and social
justice. It is about entitlement of all children to a quality education, irrespective of their
differences (Gorman & Dublin, 2010). Upon completing an investigation of inclusion
and services, it was discovered that students with disabilities in a local Southern high
school, as well as state-wide, failed to measure up to their nondisabled peers. Upon
further investigation of inclusion, the fact that many teachers did not have a solid
foundation or understanding of inclusion was unearthed. This level of understanding is a
critical factor in the success of inclusive practices as well as student achievement because
educators are a pivotal element in student success.
Students with disabilities have been allowed to assimilate and join the general
education classroom, but data show that their educational needs are not being met. In an
era of high stakes testing and teacher accountability, it is imperative that teachers are
armed with the knowledge and confidence necessary to educate all students. To ensure
that inclusion does not become another form of exclusion, teachers, administrators, and
other school stakeholders must be cognizant of more contemporary forms of content
delivery that will allow students of all learning levels to not only access the curriculum,
but foster academic growth as well.
227
References
Angelides, P. (2008). Patterns of inclusive education through the practice of student
teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12, 317-329.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110601103253
Arampatzi, A., Barkoukis, V., Evaggelinou, C., Koidou, E., & Mouratidou, K. (2011).
Social developmental parameter in primary schools: Inclusive settings and gender
differences on pupils’ aggressive and social insecure behavior and their attitudes
towards disability. International Journal of Special Education, 26(2), 58-69.
Baber, C., Cooper, J., Kurtts, S., & Vallecorsa, A. (2008). A model for examining teacher
preparation curricula for inclusion. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35, 155-176.
Barnes, M. C., & Gaines, T. (2015). Teachers’ attitudes and perceptions of inclusion in
relation to grade level and years of experience. Electronic Journal for Inclusive
Education, 3(3), 1-21. Retrieved from
http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol3/iss3/3/
Barton, E., Reichow, B., Wolery, M., & Chen, C-I. (2011). We can all participate!
Adapting circle time for students with autism. Young Exceptional Children, 14(2),
2-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096250610393681
Beacham, N., & Rouse, M. (2012). Student teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about inclusion
and inclusive practice. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1),
3-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01194.x
Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum
enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story. Journal of Advanced
228
Academics, 19, 502-530. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2008-815
Begeny, J., & Martens, B. (2007). Inclusionary education in Italy: A literature review and
call for more empirical research. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 80-94.
https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325070280020701
Ben-Yehuda, S., Last, U., & Yona, L. (2010). Teacher educational beliefs and
socioeconomic status of special educational needs (SEN) students in inclusive
classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(1), 17-34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802327339
Bert, S., Fullerton, A., McBride, S., & Ruben, B. (2011). Evaluation of a merged
secondary and special education program. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(2),
45-60.
Blandford, S., & Paliokosta, P. (2010). Inclusion in school: A policy, ideology or lived
experience? Similar findings in diverse school cultures. British Journal of
Learning Support, 25, 179-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2010.01464.x
Brackenreed, D. (2011). Inclusive education: Identifying teachers’ strategies for coping
with perceived stressors in inclusive classrooms. Canadian Journal of
Educational Administration and Policy, 122, 1-26.
Bradley, M. C., Daley, T., Levin, M., O’Reilly, R., Parsad, A., Robertson, A., & Werner,
A. (2011). IDEA National Assessment Implementation Study (NCEE 2011-4027).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.
Brandes, J., & Crowson, M. (2009). Predicting dispositions toward inclusion of students
229
with disabilities: The role of conservative ideology and discomfort with disability.
Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 12, 271-289.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-008-9077-8
Brown, A., Fortain, J., & Von der Embese, N. (2011). Facing inclusion by reducing
problem behaviors for students with autism spectrum disorders. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 47(1), 22-30.
Burden, R., Lunce, L., Runshe, D., & Tinnerman, L. (2010). Video case studies:
Preparing teachers for inclusion. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 6(4), 2-
11.
Burke, K., & Sutherland, C. (2004). Attitudes toward inclusion: Knowledge vs.
experience. Education, 125, 163-170.
Cabinet Office. (2010). The Coalition: Our programme for government. London,
England: Cabinet Office. Retrieved from
http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/schools/
Carter, S., Ernest, J., Hull, K., Heckaman, K., & Thompson, S. (2011). Increasing the
teaching efficacy of a beginning special education teacher using differentiated
instruction: A case study. International Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 191-
201.
Casale, M. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of professional development: An exploration of
delivery models (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses. (3450417)
Casale-Giannola, D. (2010). Inclusion in CTE—What works and what needs fixin’. Tech
230
Directions, 70(10), 21-23.
Causton-Theoharis, J. & Theoharis, G. (2008). Creating inclusive schools for all students.
School Administrator, 65(8), 24-26.
Causton-Theoharis, J., Theoharis, G., Orsati, F. & Cosier, M. (2011). Does self-contained
special education deliver on its’ promise? A critical inquiry into research and
practice. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(2), 61-78.
Clayton, S., Sanzo, W., & Sherman, W. (2011). Students with special needs, reading
education, and principals: Bridging the divide through instructional leadership.
International Journal of Education Preparation, 6(1), 1-20.
Cohen, P., Forgan, J., Vaughn, S., & Klinger, J. (1998). Inclusion or pull-out: Which do
students prefer? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 148-158.
Corkum, P., Bryson, S., Smith, I., Giffen, C., & Hume, K. (2014). Professional
development needs for educators working with children with autism spectrum
disorders in inclusive school environments. Exceptionality Education
International, 24(1), 33-47.
Cosier, M. (2010). Exploring the relationship between inclusive education and
achievement: New perspectives. Retrieved from http://surface.syr.edu/tl_etd/228
Costley, K. (2013). Ongoing professional development: The prerequisite for and
continuation of successful inclusion meeting the academic needs of special
education students in public schools. Retrieved from ERIC Database.
(ED541075).
231
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Creswell, J., & Clark, P. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cullen, J., & Noto, J. (2007). The assessment of pre-service general education teachers’
attitudes toward the inclusion of students with mild to moderate disabilities.
Journal for the Advancement of Educational Research, 3(1), 23-33.
Cullen, J., & Noto, J. (2010). The Teacher Attitudes Toward Inclusion Scale (TATIS)
technical report. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED509930).
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters?
Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
Darragh, J. (2007). Universal design for early childhood education: Ensuring access and
equity for all. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 167-171.
Dodge-Quick, G. (2011). Use of professional development to improve attitudes of general
educators towards inclusion (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertation and Theses. (3440446)
Doktor, J. (2010). Promoting inclusive classrooms: The mutuality of interest between
professional development school partners. School University Partnerships, 4(1),
7-14.
Donaldson, M. L. (2010). No more valentines. Educational Leadership, 67(8), 54-58.
232
Douglas, O. (2008). The effects of the multiple intelligence teaching strategy on the
academic achievement of eight grade math students. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 32, 182-187.
Duchaine, E., Fredrick, L., & Jolivete, K. (2011). The effect of teacher coaching with
performance feedback with behavior specific praise in inclusion classrooms.
Education and Treatment of Children, 34, 209-227.
Dymond, S., & Gilson, C. (2007). Services for children with autism spectrum disorders:
What needs to change? Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18, 133-147.
Eisenman, L., McGinley, V., Pleet, A., & Wandry, D. (2011). Voices of special education
teachers in an inclusive high school: Redefining possibilities. Remedial and
Special Education, 32, 91-104.
Eklund, T. (2015). Leadership, management and development: Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.projectdeveloper.com/content/it-project-management/project-
developer-definition.html
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1966, Pub. L. 89-750, Nov. 3,
1966, 80 Stat. 1191
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1967, Pub. L. 90-247, Jan. 2,
1968, 81, Stat. 783
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1969, Pub. L. 91-230, Apr. 13,
1970, 84, Stat. 121
Elliot, S. (2008). The effect of teachers’ attitude toward inclusion on the practice and
success levels of children with and without disabilities in physical education.
233
International Journal of Special Education, 23(3), 48-55.
Engel, R., & Schutt, P. (2014). Fundamentals of social work research (2nd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Ernest, J., Heckaman, K., Thompson, S., Hull, K., & Carter, S. (2011). Increasing the
efficacy of a beginning special education teacher using differentiated instruction:
A case study. International Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 191-201.
Fletcher, J. (2010). Spillover effects of inclusion of classmates with emotional problems
on test scores in early elementary school. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 29(1), 69-83. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20479
Foote, C., Kilanowski-Press, L., & Rinaldo, D. (2010). Inclusion classrooms and
teachers: A survey of current practices. International Journal of Special
Education, 25(3), 43-56.
Forlin, C. (2001) Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers.
Educational Research, 43, 235-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880110081017
Forlin, C. (2010). Teacher education for inclusion. Changing paradigms and innovative
approaches. London, England: Routledge.
Forlin, C., & Lian, M. (2008). Reform, inclusion and teacher education: Towards a new
era of special education in the Asia-Pacific region. London, England: Routledge.
Forlin, C., & Sin, K. (2010). Developing support for inclusion teachers: a professional
learning approach for teachers in Hong Kong. International Journal of Whole
Schooling, 6(1), 7-26.
Fuchs, W. (2009). Examining teachers’ perceived barriers associated with inclusion.
234
Journal of the Southeastern Regional Association of Teacher Educators, 19(1),
30-35.
Furey, E., Penney, S. C., & Philpott, D. F. (2010). Promoting social leadership in the
ongoing professional development of teachers: Responding to globalization and
inclusion. Exceptionality Education International, 20(2), 38-54.
Gal, E., Schreur, N., & Engel-Yeger, B. (2010). Inclusion of children with disabiliites:
teachers’ attitudes and requirements for environmental accommodations.
International Journal of Special Education, 25, 89-99.
Glazzard, J. (2011). Perceptions of the barriers to effective inclusion in one primary
school: Voices of teachers and teaching assistants. British Journal of Learning
Support, 26(2), 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2011.01478.x
Goldberg, S. (1982). Special education law: A guide for parents, advocates, and
educators. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Goodlad, J. I., & Lovitt, T. C. (1993). Integrating general and special education. New
York, NY: Merrill.
Gorman, E. (2010). The context of professional learning for inclusion: A 4-ply model.
International Journal of Whole Schooling, 6(1), 39-52.
Gorman, E., & Drudy, S. (2010). Addressing the professional development needs of
teachers working in the area of special education/inclusion in mainstream schools
in ireland. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(1), 157-167.
Guignon, A. (1998). Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences: A theory for everyone.
Retrieved from
235
http://itari.in/categories/multipleintelligences/ApplyingMIinSchools.pdf
Guralnick, M., Neville, B., Hammond, M., & Conner, R. (2008). Continuity and change
from full inclusion early childhood programs through the elementary period.
Journal of Early Intervention, 30, 237-250.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815108317962
Guskey, T., & Suk Yoon, K. (2009). What works in professional development. Leading
Edge, 495-501.
Hadar, L. & Brody, D. (2010). From isolation to symphonic harmony: Building a
professional development community among teacher educators. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26, 1641-1651.
Hall, S. (2009). The social inclusion of people with disabilities: A qualitative meta-
analysis. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 3, 162-173.
Harr-Robins, J., Song, M., Hurlburt, S., Pruce, C., Danielson, L., Garet, M., & Taylor, J.
(2012). The inclusion of students with disabilities in school accountability
systems: Interim report (NCEE 2012-4056). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED532408).
Hemmings, B., Kay, R., & Woodcock, S. (2012). Does study of an inclusive education
subject influence pre-service teachers’ concerns and self-efficacy about inclusion?
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(6), 1-11.
Higginson, R., & Chatfield, M. (2012). Together we can do it: A professional
development project for regular teachers of children with autism spectrum
236
disorder. Kairaranga, 13(2), 29-40. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (EJ994983).
Hunzicker, J. (2011). Effective professional development for teachers: A checklist.
Professional Development in Education, 37, 177-179. Retrieved from ERIC
Database. (EJ919321).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. 91-230, title VI, as added Pub. L.
108-446, title I, Sec 101, Dec. 3, 2004, 118 Stat. 2647 (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1991, Pub. L. 102-119, Oct.
7, 1991, 105 Stat. 587
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-446, 118
Stat. 2647 (2004).
Jackson, A. (2009). Curriculum integration: The use of technology to support learning.
Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 6(7), 71-78.
Jenkins, A., & Yoshimura, J. (2010). Not another inservice! Meeting the special
education professional development needs of elementary general educators.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(5), 36-43.
Khudeorenko, E. A. (2011). Problems of the education inclusion of people with
disabilities. Russian Education and Society, 53(12), 82-91.
King, I. (2003). Examining middle school inclusion classrooms through the lens of
learner-centered principles. Theory into Practice, 42, 151-158.
Kirk, R., & Leser, Y. (2011). Parents’ perspectives on inclusion and schooling of students
with angelman syndrome: suggestions for educators. International Journal of
Special Education, 26, 79-91.
237
Kozik, P. (2009). Promoting inclusion in secondary schools through appreciative inquiry.
American Secondary Education, 38(1), 77-91.
Kuyini, A., & Mangope, B. (2011). Student teachers’ attitudes and concerns about
inclusive education in Ghana and Botswana. International Journal of Whole
Schooling, 7(1), 20-37.
Learning Forward. (2011). Standards for professional learning: Quick reference guide.
Retrieved from www.learningforward.org/standards/
Lee, S. E. (2013). Professional development and teacher perception of efficacy for
inclusion (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Electronic Theses and
Dissertations. (Paper 1131)
Lesser, L. (2010). Simple data sets for distinct basic summary statistics. Teaching
Statistics, 23(1), 9-11. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9639.2009.00408.x
Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive
education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 1-24.
Loiacono, V., & Valenti, V. (2010). General education teachers need to be prepared to
co-teach the increasing number of children with autism in inclusive settings.
International Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 24-32.
Lund, E. (2014). Early exposure to people with physical and sensory disabilities.
Education and Related Services, 33(1), 1-16.
Lupart, J., Irvine, A., Loreman, T., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2010). Educational
leadership to create authentic inclusive schools: The experience of principals in a
Canadian rural school district. Exceptionality Education International, 20, 70-88.
