Bizzna Tutor
kih1125
unit_10_required_reading.docxEVALUATING EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Objective: Following completion of this course, the student will have sufficient knowledge of research theory that he or she will be able to effectively use a checklist in evaluating educational research journal articles.
The entire focus of some educational research classes is on learning how to evaluate or interpret educational research as a professional consumer. My personal view is that such an approach sells the student short, failing to prepare her or him as a producer of research. There will be many opportunities throughout your professional career where you will profit from being able to do your own research. Requests for proposals (RFPs) are seen more and more frequently and following this course, you’ll be well prepared to write a good grant proposal. You will be able to do more survey research with larger samples and more comprehensive instruments and should consider doing so and publishing results. Administrators and teachers serving on committees or boards could profit from being able to present a review of research literature as support for their points of view in dealing with controversial topics. Too many of your peers will be working from an uninformed and sometimes emotional base, but if you present formal printed copies of your review of literature related to the topic in question, and do so tactfully, you will gain in a couple of ways. First, and most importantly your research might settle the controversy under consideration. Secondly, you will stand out as a professional and gain the respect of your peers and supervisors, win or lose
That being said, being able to assess others’ research is an important skill and we will look at several points that you should keep in mind.
1. What is the research design and is it sound? Consider your answer on the basis of the concepts covered in this text.
2. Was there random sampling of subjects? Was the population adequate for the purposes of the study? If convenience sampling was used, was there any attempt to determine equivalence of the groups or clusters? Were volunteer subjects used? Was the sampling logical and unbiased? See the preceding section in this text on sampling for thoughts regarding this issue.
3. Was the sample large enough to ensure statistical power? A problem that you will encounter in your pilot research is that will a small sample it is almost impossible to detect significant differences between groups. There is a formula that one could use to give an estimate of the sample size needed prior to commencing the research. N (the number of subjects desired) = 2SD(t2)/D2 (Borg & Gall, 1979). SD would be the average standard deviation in similar studies and t would be the significant level of t found in previous studies. D represents the spread between the two means in previous studies that is thought to be of some practical value. For those of you who are mathematically inclined, you could use this formula to make a decision. Others can assume that a minimum sample size of 20-30 would be adequate. I think I know which will be the more popular approach.
4. Was the publication in a peer-reviewed journal? Peer review is a process by which professionals in the field that the journal represents review prospective articles for quality, with many being rejected. The more prestigious the journal, the more stringent the peer review process. If there was no peer review, there is a serious question regarding the rigor of the research. Good research is published in peer reviewed journals rather than online, in magazines, or in newspapers. However, no system is perfect and occasionally a bad piece of research is published in a peer-reviewed journal.
5. Was the research reported in the media or was it a journal article? If you got your information from the media, disregard what you read and go to the original report that appeared in a professional journal. It is more common than not that research reported in magazines and newspapers is sensationalized with little regard for precision in reporting.
6. Were reliability and validity reported for instruments used? Are there other indications of quality in terms of length of the instrument, discrimination ability, and comprehensive nature?
7. Was there a potential conflict of interest? This happens more and more as commercial ventures issue RFPs asking educators to evaluate their products. Because extensive funding is often involved, sometimes including consultation fees for the researchers, there is definitely a possibility of biased results. An obvious conflict of interest exists in such cases and whether it is just or not, when there is a conflict of interest I am no longer interested in the findings.
8. Did the study adequately address the criteria of Campbell and Stanley for validity? This is not a simple question, for each of their criteria must be addressed and multiple failures would cast doubt on the strength of the study. Most of these points will be addressed in the methods or procedures section.
9. After reviewing the methods or procedures section, could you precisely replicate the study? This section should have enough detail to satisfy that requirement. If anything is in question, structure of this section is lacking rigor.
10. Does the results and discussion section present the data and its interpretation in a cohesive and logical manner? Has the purpose of the study been fulfilled? Are tables and figures self-explanatory? Is the total paper readable and well organized? Did the introductory paragraphs sell the need for the research? Were citations of previous related works effective in laying the groundwork leading up to this research?
With greater professional maturity and experience in using research literature, you will become more proficient in evaluation of research papers. Addressing the ten items presented here will go a long way in helping you evaluate educational research articles.
Suggested reading
Borg, W.R. & and Gall, M. (1979). Educational research: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Longman.
Creswell, J. W. (2011). Ed ucational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th Edition) . Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson.
Hittleman, D. R. & Simon, A. J. (1997). Interpreting Educational Research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.
THE FINAL PAPER
Objective: Following completion of this course, the student will have completed a full manuscript describing a completed research project and the quality of this paper will be good to excellent.
Depending on the requirements of a journal editor, a particular professor or a department, there is generally a cover page that includes the title, author, and perhaps information regarding the course and date. PERRLA will take care of most of this automatically. If you are writing for publication, the publisher will dictate the format of the cover page as well as organization of the manuscript. While there are variations, the sections described below are very commonly seen in educational research papers. Your proposal, discussed in the preceding section, consisted of the first three sections that you will include in the final paper, written in future tense, plus your reference list. Going from the proposal to the final manuscript involves adding the fourth section, results and discussion, and appendices as well as changing tenses in the proposal A proposal is written in future tense, describing what you plan to do. Please see the model final paper in Appendix D. A final manuscript or research paper done for publication purposes is in past tense, describing what has taken place.
Introduction section
The introduction section should sell the reader on the importance of the paper. It should include, going from general to specific, background information with citation of a few of the most important supportive related studies. Logic should lead the reader through this general-to-specific background information to a point where a problem is identified. That problem will be explained as missing information, research being needed on a specific population that has been ignored, or some other spinoff from previous works. It should then end with a statement, “The purpose of this study was to compare perceptions of…” (Note the past tense – the study has been completed. It would be in future tense in the proposal. I know this might be the third time I’ve made this point!). This section might be a page or two in length. Depending on the professor’s preferences, you might also include at this point a research hypothesis and/or a null hypothesis. For this class paper you will finish with a statement of the problem and a null hypothesis in both the proposal and the final paper.
Review of literature
The review of related literature section should be an exhaustive compilation, logically organized by subtopics. The length of this section is often dictated by the professor for whom the paper is written. Some might ask for a certain number of pages; others might require a specific number of references. I have asked that a minimum of fifteen peer-reviewed journal articles be included in your review. You have permission to use LexisNexis in finding a current article that might help make the case for the study in the introduction and you can also use Internet sources, but these must be in addition to the peer reviewed journals.
Methods
The next section is entitled methods or sometimes procedures. The test of this section’s success is whether another individual could precisely replicate your study through reading this section. Subjects’ characteristics must be detailed, how experimental and control groups were selected is critical, details regarding the experimental treatment and testing, development of the survey instrument if one is used, description of any equipment or other instruments used, and the statistical treatment used must be included. No detail should be missed. Remember the test: Can anyone read your methods section and precisely replicate the study?
Results and discussion
Some professors and some journal editors prefer separating these into two sections, results in one, discussion in the other. I prefer the combination, for to me presentation of each part of the results is logically complemented by immediate discussion of what it means and how it relates to previous research. The latter implies the need to cite studies that agree or disagree with your findings. This section, like the Review of Literature, generally requires generous use of subheadings to assist the reader. For quantitative studies, figures and tables should be used to assist the reader. For your survey study, you should have a side heading for each item and each of these subheadings should have a figure and/or a table. You should address the null hypothesis in the results and discussion section. For each survey item, was it rejected or did you fail to reject it? Avoid listing numbers of subjects who responded this way or that way, but rather talk about group mean and whether they were significantly different or not. Be sure to translate what mean values refer to in terms of possible responses. For example, “The mean of 4.2 was close to agree”; “ The mean, 1.5, was about midway between disagree and strongly disagree.” Unlike in formal research, in this pilot study you must discuss insignificant differences. Were they in general agreement or was there an apparent difference (not significant) that makes you want to give it to a larger sample? If both groups are in strong agreement or strong disagreement, that is important to know and worthy of discussion. If you see a standard deviation that is obviously much larger than that of the other group, talk about possible reasons for the wide variance in their scores because that could negatively affect your ability to find a significant difference between the means. The bottom line? Look at your findings, think outside the box, and do a thorough discussion.
Conclusions and recommendations
This is a very brief summation of your findings and a general interpretation of the outcomes. Recommendations for follow up research should be included here. Two kinds of recommendations are required. First, where group differences exist, give some steps that could be taken to help bridge the gap in misunderstandings or disagreements. Second, make recommendations for adjustments to this pilot study that you’d make in implementing a formal follow up research project (For example, and larger samples, different groups, comprehensive survey instrument, etc.).
References
This section, developed, according to APA style ends the main body of the report. Following this semester, some day you might write a paper that is not oriented towards education and you find that the journal you seek to publish in requires another style. In that case, you would have to obtain an appropriate style manual and prepare your manuscript accordingly. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. I’ve done just that many times and it is an aggravation to move between manuscript styles. Of course, the easy way out is to stick to APA style journals!
Appendices
Appendices aren’t often included in journal articles, but for class papers of different sorts an appendix will sometimes be appropriate. Theses and dissertations almost always have one or more appendices. For this class paper, a copy of the informed consent and survey will be Appendix A. Appendix B will include a copy of part of the t-test spreadsheet that shows the raw data, the descriptive statistics, and the results of the t-test for each Likert-type item (see the spreadsheet for directions). Appendix D will contain tables of Fisher Exact Probability distributions and results (see the Fisher Test spreadsheet for directions). Appendix E will include all qualitative input from subjects, and Appendix F will have the common themes listed, with respondents’ comments that apply listed under each theme.
Each appendix should have a title page that includes the name of the appendix (Appendix D, for example) and the contents of that particular appendix (in this case, Fisher Test Distributions and Results) centered on separate double spaced lines, appearing about 1/3 of the way down the page. The pages immediately following will contain the material within the particular appendix.
Suggested reading
Murray, T. R. (2003). Blending qualitative & quantitative research methods in
theses and dissertations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Thyer, B. A. (2008). Preparing research articles [electronic resource]. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Model Final Paper
Comparison of Special Education Students and Their Teachers' Perceptions Regarding Mainstreaming: A Pilot Study
Mollee Thomason
Southern Arkansas University
At the beginning of the 20th century, children with a learning disability were not deemed educable” (Rae & McKenzie, 2010, p. 12). Now, children with learning disabilities both mild and severe are being educated in mainstreamed classrooms along with their nondisabled peers. All children have the human right to an education. All children should become lifelong learners and have equal access at all levels of society to those learning opportunities. The 48th session of the International Conference on Education (ICE) was held in Geneva in November of 2008. The outcomes of this session presented a broadened concept of mainstreaming or inclusive education. This concept includes education systems aiming and achieving quality education for all. A key role for teachers must be to meet the needs of such diverse learners’ and to promote mainstreaming in education. Mainstreaming or inclusive education is closely associated with international efforts in achieving and sustaining the Education for All agenda. The two main concerns usually focused on by policy discussion are the choice between special education or mainstreaming and how to respond to the needs and expectations of targeted excluded groups. These groups being linked to gender, cultural, ethnic, socioeconomic, and in some cases migrant factors. Nowadays, mainstreaming is considered to be high quality, friendly, and a diverse learning environment for all (Brady & Opertti, 2011).
Research regarding teacher perceptions toward mainstreaming is limited. Research regarding special education students’ perceptions toward mainstreaming is extremely limited. What are teacher perceptions towards mainstreaming in their classrooms? Given a choice, would teachers prefer no mainstreamed students in their classroom? What are student perceptions towards mainstreaming? Given a choice, would students prefer the mainstreamed class or a segregated class? More research should be done in order to answer these questions. The purpose of this study was to compare the perceptions of special education students and their teachers regarding mainstreaming. The null hypothesis was that there will be no significant statistical differences between the two groups’ perceptions regarding selected aspects of mainstreaming.
Review of Literature
In today’s world of education, students with disabilities from mild and moderate to severe are frequently being educated in the same classroom with their nondisabled peers as was the case prior to the emergence of special education. In the recent past, students with disabilities were just warehoused and kept separated from their nondisabled peers.
Special Education Beginnings
Specialized institutions were set up at the beginning of the 20th century by voluntary agencies to take in ‘idiot’ children with a learning disability that were not deemed educable. The aim of these agencies was to train these children to become productive and valuable members of society. At this time in society, these children were usually accommodated in classrooms separate from their peers and generally not entitled to an education (Rae & McKenzie, 2010). According to Rae and McKenzie, in 1978, this changed with the publication of the Warnock report. This report argued “that children with special educational needs, including those with a learning disability, should, where possible, be educated in mainstream classrooms” (Rae & McKenzie, 2010, p. 12). Special education in the mainstreaming movement operates by the ‘least restrictive environment.’ The least restricted environment is one in which all services are provided in the general education classroom. The general education teacher is provided support and consultation services from the special education department in order to give the student the necessary support to function fully in the general education classroom. This placement option serves as a bridge between regular education and special education and is critical to the success of the mainstreamed school (Junkala & Mooney, 1986). Those people with disabilities should, whenever possible have a lifestyle that closely resembles the lifestyles of the general population (Rae & McKenzie, 2010).
In relation to educating children with special educational needs, the term ‘integration’ has been replaced by the term ‘inclusion.’ Mainstream schooling has been restructured to accommodate the needs of all children regardless of their abilities or disabilities (Rae & McKenzie, 2010). Mainstream schooling or inclusive education is closely associated with an international effort to achieve and sustain an agenda of Education for All (Brady & Opertti, 2011). In recent years, students with disabilities are being educated side by side with their nondisabled peers with increasing frequency. These increases include both students with mild disabilities and students with severe disabilities (Cook, Cameron, & Tankersley, 2007). Research suggests that some teachers feel they haven’t received sufficient training to meet the special needs for this group of children. Not all teachers hold a positive attitude towards inclusion (Rae & McKenzie, 2010).
Teachers’ Attitudes
Attitudes stem from multiple factors. These factors include personal experience, observation of others, and emotional processes. Attitudes have a direct impact on behavior (Rae & McKenzie, 2010). Rae and McKenzie (2010) define attitude as a “predisposition to think or act in a particular way in response to a specific stimulus.” (p. 14). Implementation of controversial policies, such as mainstreaming of students with disabilities both mild and severe, can be facilitated or hindered by the attitudes of the professionals involved (Rae & McKenzie, 2010). Historically, teachers of general education have not had a favorable reaction to the increased number of students with disabilities mainstreamed into their general education classrooms. Early studies showed the apprehension of teachers about the quality of academic work produced by children with disabilities in these mainstream classes. These early studies also showed teacher concerns about their own levels of preparedness for the mainstreaming of these students with disabilities and the amount of one-on-one time that might be required for each individual disabled student (Bender, Vail, & Scott, 1995). More recent studies have shown that, “In general, teachers have expressed positive feelings toward the general concept of inclusion, but have been less optimistic about the degree to which they are adequately prepared to successfully implement inclusion” (Cook et al., 2007, p. 230). Teachers’ attitudes toward mainstreaming depend highly “on the degree of intensity of mainstreaming and the severity level” (Leyser & Tappendorf, 2001, p. 752). As the inclusive movement gains momentum in our society, teachers’ attitudes tend to become progressively more positive (Jones, Thorn, Chow, & Wild, 2002). Increased training and knowledge in mainstreaming relate to the formation of more positive attitudes. Teachers with a more extensive training in mainstreaming are known to use a more differentiated instruction more frequently than teachers with no or very little training (Leyser & Tappendorf, 2001).
Some teachers show a resistance to any contact with disabled students. This resistance leads to the perception that with the inclusion of these students with disabilities instructional time can be seriously strained (Johnson, 1987). Educators hold four attitudes toward their students. These attitudes are attachment, concern, indifference, and rejection. Based on these attitudes, a series of observational studies established that teacher/student interactions consistently differ (Cook et al., 2007).
Students’ Attitudes
The success of the inclusive movement or mainstream schooling is largely dependent on the attitudes of students, parents, teachers and administrators. In the past, research pertaining to this inclusive movement involved only the attitudes of teachers. To be successful, the attitudes of the students cannot be ignored. Whether or not the special needs student can learn to socialize with the regular education students in the general education classroom must be considered. Whether or not the regular education student will be receptive of students with special needs in the general education classroom setting is important as well. In general, attitudes of special needs students are positive, as well as the attitudes of regular education students. It is said that special needs students receive over 300 percent more social interaction in an inclusive mainstream classroom setting than in a segregated classroom. This social participation is likely the reason for the increased improvement in the academic performance of the special needs student in the inclusive mainstream classroom setting compared to the same special needs student in a segregated classroom setting. This is complemented by the fact that peer tutoring tends to reinforce and significantly boost performance levels of special needs students. These relationships are so important in inclusive classrooms. In order for the inclusive movement or mainstream schooling to be successful, it is imperative for these students, both special needs and regular education to have positive attitudes. Data that pertains to student attitudes seems to indicate a formation of positive social relationships between special needs students, even those with severe disabilities, in the inclusive classroom setting (Jones et al., 2002).
Special needs students have a positive attitude towards a student-centered approach to inclusion. Jones et al. (2002) showed that the attitudes of special needs students are significantly more positive than their parents and regular education students. This would indicate that special needs students are “more tuned in to the concept of inclusion than both their parents and the regular classroom students” (Jones et al., 2002, p. 631). Students with multiple disabilities, including deaf-blindness are increasingly being educated in an inclusive mainstream classroom with their nondisabled peers. Research has shown that students with multiple disabilities depend more on their teachers for communication. Also, these students are not very likely to initiate any type of interaction with their nondisabled peers. For students with disabilities to become part of the classroom and school community, all students in that school community, regardless of any weaknesses or their strengths, should be included even those with multiple disabilities and those with deaf-blindness (Correa-Torres, 2008). Students with multiple disabilities such as those with deaf-blindness have a greater chance to learn socialization skills within the inclusive mainstreamed classroom setting.
To enable students with special needs and physical disabilities to participate more fully and richly in various activities and inclusive classrooms, some schools have adopted the use of assistive technology devices (ATD). These devices can be high tech or low tech. Research has shown that assistive technology devices are not being used by students in a postsecondary education. Students’ feel the devices attract unwanted attention from their peers and therefore threaten their sense of fitting in. Hemmingsson, Lidstrom and Nygard (2009) argue that “A better understanding of the students’ views on and experiences of barriers to and facilitators of ATD use in school will help health professionals to suggest optimal ATDs for each child and situation” (p. 464). They found that students said they wanted to use ATD’s, but when actually provided with the ATD’s, the students would not use them. The study also showed that students were reluctant to use ATD’s provided to improve their performance later in life. Students were more prone to use the ATD’s when their function was increased. In this same study, observations showed that students’ tried to avoid ATD’s that made them feel different in any way or that might complicate or threaten any social interaction with their peers. Using assistive technology or not, in an inclusive mainstream classroom or not, students with disabilities want to be accepted by their peers socially. Regular education students want the same thing. All students want to be accepted socially by their peers.
Summary
There is a wide range of material available about teacher attitudes of inclusive mainstreaming. The material available about student attitudes is a much smaller range. Teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming did not start out in a favorable way. With training in strategies teaching students with special needs in an inclusive mainstream setting, teacher attitudes have been more positive. Most students with disabilities have a positive attitude about mainstreaming. Students with disabilities are just like any other student in that they want to be accepted socially by their peers and feel a part of the school community. These are students with mild disabilities to students with multiple disabilities such as deaf-blindness. Some of these students use assistive technology and some do not. The success of any program depends on the attitudes of those involved. The program of mainstreaming can only be as good as the attitudes of the students and teachers and others involved.
Methods
This pilot study was descriptive in nature, giving a snapshot of conditions as they existed rather than using an experimental design with an intervention. It involved a small sample so that the limited power would be unlikely to detect differences even if they existed. Further, because of time constraints, an abbreviated survey was used. This pilot study was exploratory in nature, designed to would precede formal research if such should be indicated following completion.
Subjects
All subjects were selected from the Fouke, Arkansas High School. Five participants in this survey study included special education students from grades nine through twelve. The questionnaire was also administered to five general education teachers who had special education students in their classes. Selection was random from lists of special education students and general education teachers who met the criterion stated.
Instrumentation
The researcher created a questionnaire that focused on perceptions regarding mainstreaming. The questionnaire consisted of six questions. It contained three Likert type items on which respondents answered with strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree. Numerical values of 1 to 5 were assigned to the responses for purposes of analysis. The questionnaire also had two yes-no questions and one open response item. It was validated by fellow experts in the field of education who included two classmates through discussion board interaction and the professor of the research methods class.
Procedure
The researcher distributed the survey personally to each subject on an individual basis. Each subject was notified via an informed consent document that the research would be used to gather information on perceptions regarding mainstreaming. There was an assurance of anonymity in the informed consent. Subjects completed the six question survey immediately upon receipt. Each subject provided basic demographic information as directed on the questionnaire. All responses were collected by the researcher immediately upon completion.
Analysis
Likert-type items. Means and standard deviations for both groups were calculated for each question. Analysis of differences between the means was accomplished by means of t-tests, with decisions on significance made at alpha=.05.
Yes/No. A table showing the number of yes and no responses for both groups was developed for each question. This was used to calculate the probability of such occurrences and if the value is less than alpha, .05, it will be considered that a significant group difference for that question had been detected.
Open-ended item. Analysis of the open-ended survey item was accomplished by standard qualitative methodology. Repetitive themes were sought and discussed in view of previous research findings.
Results and Discussion
The purpose of this study was to compare the perceptions of special education students and their teachers regarding mainstreaming. This study supports recent research in the field of special education where teachers hold a positive attitude towards mainstreaming. Teachers’ and students’ perceptions towards mainstreaming are generally supportive both understand the importance of learning. This study had a mandated five subjects per group, almost assuring no significant differences in the findings. As expected, there was failure to reject the null hypothesis for all of the first five survey items. Generally, insignificant differences are not discussed in formal research papers. For this pilot study, there will be discussion of findings from the statistical analysis of each survey item.
Likert-Style Items
Students with disabilities should be taught in general education classrooms with their nondisabled peers. The null hypothesis for this item was not rejected. There was no significant difference between teachers’ and students’ perceptions though means for the two groups were quite different (see Table 1). The general opinion of the students in this very
Table 1. Analysis results for mainstreaming
|
Likert-type item |
Group |
Mean |
SD |
t |
Sig? |
|
Students with disabilities should be taught in general education classrooms with their nondisabled peers. |
Teachers |
3.8 |
1.10 |
1.71 |
No |
|
|
Students |
2.2 |
1.79 |
|
|
small sample of subjects was that disabled students should be educated separately from the general education population, in apparent disagreement with opinions of teachers. Cook, Cameron, & Tankersley (2007) reported an increasing prevalence of mainstreaming students with mild and severe disabilities, a practice contrary to student attitudes found on this survey item. Present findings of nonsignificant differences might be reversed if the survey instrument should be administered to a much larger group of subjects. The relatively large difference between means and the value of t approaching significance certainly merits further investigation. There is also need for research on the reasons for this student resistance and perhaps on means to modify this negative attitude.
A teacher’s attitude towards mainstreaming affects the learning of all students. The null hypothesis for this item was not rejected (See Table 2). No significant differences were noted between means of the two groups. The mean for teachers, 4.8, indicated near unanimity
Table 2. Analysis results for teachers’ attitude toward mainstreaming
|
Likert-type item |
Group |
Mean |
SD |
t |
Sig? |
|
A teacher’s attitude towards mainstreaming affects the learning of all students |
Teachers |
4.8 |
0.45 |
1.31 |
No
|
|
|
Students |
3.8 |
1.64 |
|
|
Teachers need specialized training to effectively teach those students with disabilities who may be included in their regular classroom. The null hypothesis for this survey item was not rejected. The t-test showed no significant differences resulting in a value of 0.00, not surprising since the means were identical (see Table 3). Johnson says “a necessary
Table 3. Analysis results regarding specialized training
|
Likert-type item |
Group |
Mean |
SD |
t |
Sig? |
|
Teachers need specialized training to effectively teach those students with disabilities who may be included in their regular classroom. |
Teachers |
4.4 |
0.89 |
0.00 |
No
|
|
|
Students |
4.4 |
0.89 |
|
|
ingredient to successful mainstreaming is the training and retraining of regular classroom teachers” (p. 231), an opinion upheld to the same degree by beliefs of the two groups in this pilot study. This concurrence indicates that further investigation on this point would probably be a waste of effort.
Yes/No Items
The learning of the nondisabled student suffers by being educated in a mainstream classroom along with students with disabilities. The null hypothesis for this item was not rejected. Analysis revealed a Fischer Test value of .08, close to the .05 required for significance (see Table 2). All teachers said that no, the learning of the nondisabled student did not suffer
Table 4. Distribution of responses to survey item number four
|
The learning of the nondisabled student suffers by being educated in a mainstream classroom along with students with disabilities |
Yes |
No |
Fisher Exact Probability |
|
Teachers |
0 |
5 |
0.08 |
|
Students |
3 |
2 |
|
by being educated along with disabled students in a mainstreamed classroom, but a majority of students disagreed. These findings in such a small sample suggest a possible difference of opinion between teachers and students that merits further investigation with a larger sample of subjects. Rae & McKenzie (2010) reported that children with learning disabilities should be educated in mainstream classrooms and it would be of interest to learn more about the reasons for the dissenting students’ opinion on this survey item.
In a mainstream classroom, teachers spend more time with students with disabilities. The null hypothesis for this item was not rejected. Findings indicate there were no significant differences, with a Fischer Test value of .4, far from the alpha level of .05 required for significance. In-service training can assist teachers to facilitate instruction, provide positive reinforcement, and to initiate contact with the disabled student by using systematic instruction (Johnson, 1987). Both groups in this pilot study are in general agreement that this would require more time with the disabled students (70% of the sample responded ‘yes’; see Table 3. The
Table 5. Distribution of responses to survey item number five
|
In a mainstream classroom, teachers spend more time with students with disabilities. |
Yes |
No |
Fisher Exact Probability |
|
Teachers |
3 |
2 |
0.4 |
|
Students |
4 |
1 |
|
general agreement with this concept certainly opens the situation for criticism by parents of nondisabled students that such an arrangement puts their children at a disadvantage, but that is beyond the scope of the present research.
Qualitative Analysis
What is your main concern about mainstreaming? A qualitative analysis of teachers’ and students’ main concern about mainstreaming resulted in some commonalities in their perceptions. Teachers and students alike were concerned that the teacher does not have adequate time to spend with the disabled student to give one-on-one instruction. Four out of five of the teachers were concerned about not having adequate time for one-on-one instruction with the disabled students in their mainstreamed classrooms. One student was concerned that teachers spend more time teaching students with disabilities than students without disabilities while two others expressed concern over disabled students not getting enough attention. This is particularly interesting in view of responses to survey item 5 in which 70% of respondents said that teachers already spend more time with the disabled. Quite obviously, this is a matter requiring clarification through further research. One other repetitive theme was concern about the disabled student being picked on or made fun of by other students. This would be a form of bullying and if it occurs, surely teachers have the responsibility to deal with it. Because of the serious nature of the claim, this is another point that should be addressed in subsequent research.
Summary and Recommendations
Summary. The purpose of this study was to compare the perceptions of special education students and their teachers regarding mainstreaming. An analysis of data from both teacher and student respondents has shown there were no significant differences in their perceptions regarding mainstreaming, resulting in failure to reject the null hypothesis for any survey item. The majority of teachers believe that students with disabilities should be taught in the mainstreamed classroom with their nondisabled peers, but the majority of students surveyed disagreed. Both groups were in general agreement that the attitude of the teacher toward mainstreaming affects the learning of all students, with teachers’ opinions being stronger. Both groups agreed that teachers need specialized training to teach students with disabilities in a mainstreamed classroom. Seventy percent of respondents believed that the learning of the nondisabled student does not suffer by being educated in a mainstream classroom along with students with disabilities, with no significant group differences. The same percentage, again with no group differences, agreed that teachers spend more time with students with disabilities in a mainstreamed classroom. The main concern of both teachers and students is teachers having adequate time to spend with the disabled student and give one-on-one instruction.
Recommendations. Any program can only be as good as the attitudes of the individuals involved in the program, teachers and students in this case. This includes the attitudes of special education students as well as the attitudes of regular education students. This study indicated that teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming were general positive, but there was some negativity expressed or implied. More studies should be done with larger sample sizes, with a more comprehensive survey instrument, and with consideration of possible gender differences and views of disabled and nondisabled students. Thus, the attitudes of teachers and students regarding mainstreaming should be looked at more in depth and on a much larger scale. Further, the important thing is for all students, disabled and nondisabled, to be optimally educated and means must be sought or developed whereby students’ attitudes towards special education inclusion in the mainstream might be improved.
References
Bender, W. N., Vail, C. O., & Scott, K. (1995, February). Teachers’ attitudes toward increased mainstreaming: implementing effective instruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(2), 87-94, 120. Retrieved from http://webebscohost.com
Brady, J., & Opertti, R. (2011). Developing inclusive teachers from an inclusive curricular perspective. Prospects, 41, 459-472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11125-011-9205-7
Cook, B. G., Cameron, D. L., & Tankersley, M. (2007, Winter). Inclusive teachers’ attitudinal ratings of their students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 40(4), 230-238. Retrieved from http://webebscohost.com
Correa-Torres, S. M. (2008, May). Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 102(5), 272-283. Retrieved from http://webebscohost.com
Hemmingsson, H., Lidstrom, H., & Nygard, L. (2009, July-August). Use of assistive technology devices in mainstream schools: students’perspective. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 463-472. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.libproxy.saumag.edu
Johnson, A. B. (1987, Spring). Attitudes toward mainstreaming: implications for inservice training and teaching the handicapped. Education. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.comlibproxy.saumag.edu
Jones, M. N., Thorn, C. R., Chow, P., & Wild, C. (2002, Spring). Equifinality: parents’ and students’ attitudes towards a student-centered approach to integration. Education, 122(3), 624-635. Retrieved from http://webebscohost.com
Junkala, J., & Mooney, J. F. (1986, April). Special education students in regular classes: what happened to the pyramid? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19(4). Retrieved from http://webebscohost.com
Leyser, Y., & Tappendorf, K. (2001, Summer). . Are attitudes and practices regarding mainstreaming changing: a case of teachers in two rural school districts?, 121(4), 751-760. Retrieved from http://webebscohost.com
Rae, H., & McKenzie, K. (2010, December). Teachers’ attitudes to mainstream schooling. Learning Disability Practice, 13(10), 12-17. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.comlibroxy.saumag.edu
Appendix A
Survey Instrument and Informed Consent
Perceptions of Mainstreaming
|
Please check one of the following: _____ I am a student. _____ I am a teacher. |
Directions: Please answer questions 1-3 by marking an X by your answer of choice in regards to mainstreaming. Mainstreaming is educating special education students in the regular general education classroom with nondisabled students.
1. Students with disabilities should be taught in general education classrooms with their nondisabled peers.
_____ Strongly agree
_____ Agree
_____ Neutral
_____ Disagree
_____ Strongly disagree
2. A teacher’s attitude towards mainstreaming affects the learning of all students.
_____ Strongly agree
_____ Agree
_____ Neutral
_____ Disagree
_____Strongly disagree
3. Teachers need specialized training to effectively teach those students with disabilities who may be included in their regular classroom.
_____ Strongly agree
_____ Agree
_____ Neutral
_____ Disagree
_____ Strongly disagree
Directions: Answer questions 4-5 by marking either yes or no based on your ideas of mainstreaming.
4. The learning of the nondisabled student suffers by being educated in a mainstream classroom along with students with disabilities.
_____ yes
_____ no
5. In a mainstream classroom, teachers spend more time with students with disabilities.
_____ yes
_____ no
Directions: Please answer question 6 with your concern about mainstreaming.
6. Please discuss your main concerns about mainstreaming? If you need more space, please use the back of this page.
Thank you so much for completing this questionnaire on mainstreaming. Your consideration and time are greatly appreciated!
Informed Consent
There seems to be a possible difference of perceptions between teachers and students concerning the benefits and disadvantages of mainstreaming. Mainstreaming is educating special education students in the regular education classroom. The purpose of this study will be to compare the perceptions of these two groups. By pinpointing different ideas, the problems can be attacked by both groups working together effectively.
The survey will be completed anonymously and no one will have access to your responses. Your name will not appear anywhere on the survey and will not be used in reporting. You have the right to refuse to take part in the survey. You have the right to stop at any point while taking the survey if any part makes you feel uncomfortable. These are basic rights. Your refusal to take part or stopping at any point will not be a source of concern to the researcher. There will be no bad feelings on the part of the researcher.
I have had an opportunity to ask questions about the research and all procedures and now give my consent to participate.
_____________________________ _______________
(Subject’s signature) (Date)
_____________________________ _______________
(Witness’ signature) (Date)
____________________________ _______________ (parent’s signature for minor) (date)
Appendix B
Results of Statistical Analysis of Likert-type Items
Item 1: Students with disabilities should be taught in general education classrooms with their nondisabled peers.
|
|
Teachers |
Students |
|
|
4 |
1 |
|
|
4 |
1 |
|
|
5 |
1 |
|
|
4 |
5 |
|
|
2 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Means |
3.8 |
2.2 |
|
SD |
1.10 |
1.79 |
|
t |
1.71 |
|
|
probability |
0.13 |
|
Item 2. A teacher’s attitude towards mainstreaming affects the learning of all students.
|
|
Teachers |
Students |
|
|
5 |
2 |
|
|
5 |
5 |
|
|
5 |
5 |
|
|
4 |
2 |
|
|
5 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Means |
4.8 |
3.8 |
|
SD |
0.45 |
1.64 |
|
t |
1.31 |
|
|
probability |
0.25 |
|
Item 3. Teachers need specialized training to effectively teach those students with disabilities who may be included in their regular classroom.
|
|
Teachers |
Students |
|
|
4 |
4 |
|
|
5 |
5 |
|
|
5 |
3 |
|
|
3 |
5 |
|
|
5 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Means |
4.4 |
4.4 |
|
SD |
0.89 |
0.89 |
|
t |
0.00 |
|
|
probability |
1.00 |
|
Appendix C
Fisher Exact Probability Analysis Results
Item 4. The learning of the nondisabled student suffers by being educated in a mainstream classroom along with students with disabilities.
|
Data |
Yes |
No |
Total |
|
Teachers |
0 |
5 |
5 |
|
Students |
3 |
2 |
5 |
|
Total |
3 |
7 |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
p= |
0.08 |
(probability) |
|
Item 5. In a mainstream classroom, teachers spend more time with students with disabilities.
|
Data |
Yes |
No |
Total |
|
|
Teachers |
3 |
2 |
5 |
|
|
Students |
4 |
1 |
5 |
|
|
Total |
7 |
3 |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
p= |
0.42 |
(probability) |
|
|
Appendix D
Raw Data for the Open Response Item
What is your main concern about mainstreaming?
Teachers
T1- Is the student getting the best possible help they need? Many times one-on-one is needed yet limited in the classroom.
T2 - Having the extra time to spend with the children who have disabilities.
T3 - The IEP must be realistic. Having expectations that cannot be met by the student is defeating for the student and the teacher.
T4 - Is the mainstreamed student receiving enough one-on-one instruction?
T5 - Not being able to give adequate attention to all students. Expect too much or too little from mainstreamed kids.
Students
S1 - Teachers spending more time teaching students with disabilities than students without disabilities.
S2 - the kids would get picked on or they would not be able to learn as much as the other nondisabled kids.
S3 - That disabled students are not getting the attention needed for them to get the best education possible.
S4 - Disabled students not getting enough one-on-one instruction.
S5 - Nondisabled people making fun of disabled people and the people with disabilities not getting the attention they need.
Appendix E
Words or phrases under common threads
Data organized for discussion
Not enough time
T1 - one-on-one is needed yet limited
T2 - Having the extra time to spend with the children who have disabilities
T4 - enough one-on-one instruction
T5 - Not being able to give adequate attention to all students
S1 - Teachers spending more time teaching students with disabilities
S3 - disabled students are not getting the attention needed
S4 - Disabled students not getting enough one-on-one instruction.
S5 - people with disabilities not getting the attention they nee
Unrealistic expectations
T3 - Having expectations that cannot be met… defeating for the student and the teacher
T5 - Expect too much or too little from mainstreamed kids
Bullying
S2 - the kids would get picked on
S5 - Nondisabled people making fun of disabled
