Teacher Perceptions of Working with Children with Specific Special

The University of Southern Mississippi The University of Southern Mississippi

The Aquila Digital Community The Aquila Digital Community

Dissertations

Spring 5-2013

Teacher Perceptions of Working with Children with Speci;c Teacher Perceptions of Working with Children with Speci;c

Special Education Exceptionalities in the General Education Special Education Exceptionalities in the General Education

Classroom Classroom

Kimberly Geneva Fisher

University of Southern Mississippi

Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations

Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Elementary and Middle and Secondary Education

Administration Commons, and the Special Education Administration Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Fisher, Kimberly Geneva, "Teacher Perceptions of Working with Children with Speci;c Special Education

Exceptionalities in the General Education Classroom" (2013).

Dissertations

. 397.

https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/397

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted

for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more

information, please contact [email protected].

brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

provided by Aquila Digital Community

May 2013

The University of Southern Mississippi

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF WORKING WITH CHILDREN WITH SPECIFIC

SPECIAL EDUCATION EXCEPTIONALITIES IN THE

GENERAL EDUCATION CLASSROOM

Kimberly Geneva Fisher

Abstract of a Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate School

of the University of Southern Mississippi

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

ABSTRACT

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF WORKING WITH CHILDREN WITH SPECIFIC

SPECIAL EDUCATION EXCEPTIONALITIES IN THE

GENERAL EDUCATION CLASSROOM

by Kimberly Geneva Fisher

May 2013

The purpose of this study was to determine the degree to which general education

teachers in elementary schools believe they are prepared to teach children/students with

specific special education exceptionalities in the general education classroom. The study

addresses the exceptionalities of: autism, speech/language disorder, specific learning

disability, and emotional disability and using a multiple method quasi-experimental

design that yielded quantitative and qualitative data. The study used an original

instrument entitled the General Educators Preparedness for Inclusive Education (GEPIE).

The instrument used a vignette/scenario design to assess levels of perceived

preparedness. Third, fourth, and fifth grade teachers in South Mississippi were asked to

participate in the study. An original instrument was developed because there was not one

available that followed the vignette/scenario format.

For the quantitative phase, study data showed that general education teachers

appear to be largely uncertain about their preparedness to meet the needs of students with

special needs. There was a difference in general educators’ level of perceived

preparedness to work with students with disabilities based on the child’s eligibility

category; educators perceived they were better prepared to address the educational needs

of students with specific learning disabilities than those who were in one of the other

three disability classifications. Furthermore, data revealed that the level of perceived

iii

preparedness of general education teachers is related to selected background

characteristics that include level of education, the number of special education classes

taken during their training, years of experience, and the amount of professional

development in special education they have attended.

Qualitative results revealed that educators do not believe they are prepared to

teach students with disabilities in the general education classroom. Respondents

indicated the need for more special education classes during the teacher preparation

experience, including more practical hands-on experiences. Respondents expressed the

need for more collaboration with special education personnel and assistance with

resources, materials, and making modifications/accommodations in the classroom. Of

the four exceptionalities addressed in this study, teachers perceived they are most

prepared to serve students with specific learning disabilities and least prepared to serve

students with autism and emotional disabilities.

KIMBERLY GENEVA FISHER

2013

The University of Southern Mississippi

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF WORKING WITH CHILDREN WITH SPECIFIC

SPECIAL EDUCATION EXCEPTIONALITIES IN THE

GENERAL EDUCATION CLASSROOM

Kimberly Geneva Fisher

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate School

of the University of Southern Mississippi

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Approved:

__Michael Ward____________________

Director

__David Lee________________________

__J.T. Johnson______________________

_Marge Crowe______________________

__Susan A. Siltanen__________________

Dean of the Graduate School

May 2013

DEDICATION

This body of work is dedicated to my wonderful family. First, to my parents,

Clyde and Marthelma Breland, I miss both of you on a daily basis. Thank you for giving

me the best childhood anyone could ask for. Thank for always encouraging me to reach

for my dreams. I sincerely hope you both are proud of me. I’m extremely proud to be

your daughter.

To my brothers, Craig and Algenon, thanks for being awesome best big brothers.

Both of you have been supportive and encouraging throughout this process, and I thank

you for that. To Kenny, Tambra, Richard, Richard, Jr., and Rishad, I love all of you and

you have a special place in my heart. To Anita and Leslie, thanks for making me laugh

when I needed it.

To my wonderful friends, you are the best cheerleaders anyone could have.

Congratulations to those of you who have made it to the end of your journey, and good

luck to those of you who are almost there.

Last, but certainly not least, to my wonderful husband and son: Chris, there are no

words that can express how much I love and appreciate you. Thank you for being my best

friend, and encourager. Your love and support has gotten me this far and I look forward to

the years we will spend together! To Ra’mon, please know that I love you. Thanks for

understanding when Mimi had homework to do. I can’t wait to see what you achieve in

your lifetime. The sky’s the limit for you.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my professor, advocate, and dissertation chair, Dr. Michael

Ward for absolutely everything you have done for me. You expect excellence from all of

your students and accept nothing less. However, you guide us and give us the tools we

need to get there. Thank you for helping me achieve a level of excellence I never thought I

could reach. Thank you for all of the encouraging words and being available to answer

even the smallest questions. I would not have been able to complete this journey without

you. Thank you for absolutely everything.

Thank you, Dr. J.T. Johnson. You are the best statistician in the world. Thank you

for sharing your humor and knowledge with your students. And thank you for helping

numbers not look so scary.

To my other committee members, Dr. David Lee and Dr. Marge Crow, thank you

for all of your assistance. Both of you have shared your thoughts and time with me.

Thank you for your assistance and sharing your knowledge.

Dr. Leslie Locke. I sincerely believe you arrived at USM at the right time. Thanks

for all of your assistance and support. I may still come to some Coffee Break Saturdays

just for old time’s sake when I finish. Good luck in all that you do.

To each and every one of you, thank you. I would not have been able to complete

this journey without each one of you. Good luck in all that you do and may God continue

to bless all of you!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………ii

DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………………………...……v

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………….....vii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………..……….1

Statement of the Problem

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Delimitations

Assumptions

Definition of Terms

Justification

Summary

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE……………………………………...16

Background Information and Federal Mandates

An Examination of Selected IDEA Rulings

Theoretical Foundations

Pertinent Literature and Professional Perspectives

Summary

III. METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………50

Research Design

Research Questions/Hypotheses

Participants in the Study

Instrumentation

Procedures

Analysis

Summary

IV. RESULTS……………………………………………………………….60

Quantitative Results

Research Questions and Hypothesis Results

vii

Summary

V. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………82

Summary of Procedures

Major Findings

Discussion

Limitations

Recommendations for Policy and Practice

Recommendations for Future Research

Summary

APPENDIXES……………………………………………..……………………….102

REFERENCES………………………………………………………..……………118

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1. Cronbach alpha for Pilot Study and Dissertation ……………………….………57

2. Teacher Demographic Frequencies and Percentages …........................................64

3. Frequencies and Percentages of Special Education Classes Taken …..…………65

4. Frequencies for Professional Development ……………………………..………66

5. Descriptive Statistics for Vignettes ……………………………………..……….68

6. Descriptive Statistics for Vignette Items ……………………………..…………71

7. Descriptive Statistics for Differentiated Instruction ………………...…………..72

8. Coefficients of Specific Learning Disability ……………………...…………….74

9. Coefficients of Speech/Language Disorder ……………………………………..76

10. Coefficients of Autism …………………………………….…………………….77

11. Coefficients of Emotional Disability ………………………………………...….78

12. Frequency of Qualitative Responses of the Study ………..……………………....8

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to determine whether general education teachers in

elementary schools believed they are prepared to work with children/students with specific

special education exceptionalities. The widespread participation of U.S. public schools in

educating children/students with disabilities can be considered a fairly recent phenomenon

(Osgood, 2002). Historically, children/students with disabilities were educated in separate

schools. The rationale for separating children with disabilities from their non-disabled

peers was supported by an extensive belief that “the segregation and even isolation of these

children was in the best interest of pedagogy, school management, and social control”

(Osgood, 2002, p. 27). However, between 1930 and 1960, with improved research and

increased identification of children with disabilities, this trend changed dramatically.

During this time, various states passed laws allowing public school systems to set up

separate classes for students with special needs (Osgood, 2002). The movement to

include children/students with disabilities in the general education setting began to emerge

in the 1970s (Mungai & Thornburg, 2002). Kauffman and Hallahan (1995) noted “Until

the early 1970s, the special self-contained classroom was the primary service delivery

mode for providing special education” (p. 6). Passed in 1975, Public Law P.L. 94-142, the

Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), required states to develop and

implement policies that provided educational opportunities to children with disabilities in

order to receive federal funding. This law, which in its current iteration is entitled the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), guarantees children with disabilities a

free and appropriate education (FAPE). This federal statue changed and “improved the

way children/students with disabilities were identified, educated, and evaluated with trios

of initials such as IEPs, LREs, and LEAs” (Karten, 2008, p.4). The law guaranteed an

Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for children/students with disabilities, afforded them

the opportunity to learn in the least restrictive environment (LRE), and mandated these

services be provided by their local education agency (LEA). The Education for All

Handicapped Children Act also guaranteed children/students with disabilities and their

families due process protection. Due process is the procedure used by schools and parents

to resolve disputes (Wrights law, 2011). Over the years, EAHCA, which was reauthorized

as the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), was expanded to include preschoolers and

the birth to three years of age populations.

In 1990, EAHCA became P.L. 101-476 or the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA). This change symbolized “the beginning of people first language,

meaning it was not the disability that came first, but the individual” (Karten, 2008. p. 25).

Karten rewords the acronym IDEA to stand for It Delivers Educational Access. The

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of (2004, 1412) and its statutory predecessors

have increased access for children/students requiring special education services in the

general education classrooms through inclusion or mainstreaming (Karten, 2008; Mungai

& Thornburg, 2002; Yell & Katsiyannis, 2004). In many cases, the least restrictive

environment for these children is a general education classroom with their non-disabled

peers (Daane, Beirne-Smith, & Latham, 2000; McLeskey, Hoppey, Williamson, & Rentz,

2004). Not only have these changes in laws and policies provided new opportunities for

children/students with special needs, but they have also brought about new concerns.

Daane et al. (2000) contended the increased number of children/students with special needs

in the general education classroom has “raised numerous questions about the roles and

responsibilities of school personnel in providing appropriate education for all students

enrolled in our public schools.” (p. 331). In many cases, inclusion is beneficial to the

children/students with special needs; however, there are questions about how it affects

general education teachers. Most of these educators have little experience or training in

working with children/students with special needs (Forlin & Chambers, 2011; Petriwskyj,

2010). Perceptions of teacher preparedness is an important subject of inquiry. Knowing

how prepared teachers are to work with diverse learners is important because of the impact

inclusion may have on teacher effectiveness, teacher satisfaction, and student achievement.

Over the years, research has shown that teachers’ expectations in turn impact the nature of

their preparations for teaching (Daane et al., 2000). Because of this correlation, it is

important to assess general educators’ perceptions regarding the children/students

requiring special education services in their classroom and their own preparedness to

adequately instruct these students.

Statement of the Problem

Understanding how teachers perceive their students and their own capacities to

teach students with disabilities is a useful area of inquiry. It is also important to determine

if these perceptions are influenced by the actual disability category. “Federal guidelines

for special education, defined in the reauthorization of IDEA (2004), recognizes thirteen

different disability categories through which students may be deemed eligible to receive

special education and related services” (Maanum, 2009). These categories are:

1. Autism

2. Deaf-Blindness

3. Deafness

4. Emotional Disability

5. Hearing Impairment

6. Mental Retardation (Intellectual Disability)

7. Multiple Disabilities

8. Orthopedic Impairment

9. Other Health Impaired

10. Specific Learning Disability

11. Speech or Language Impairment

12. Traumatic Brain Injury

13. Visual Impairment (Including Blindness). (p. 2)

Furthermore, it is important to determine if general education teachers believe they

are prepared to meet the instructional needs of students in these categories and also

whether they believe they are more prepared to handle one type of disability over another.

This study measured quantitative data to address the degree to which general education

teachers believed they are prepared to work with children/students with disabilities. If

teachers did not feel prepared, qualitative data were gathered to understand what strategies

could be used to help better prepare them. To get a general look at various types of

disabilities, four disability categories were covered. The teachers were asked how

prepared they were to work with children who have qualified for special education services

in the areas of autism spectrum disorder (AUD), emotional disability (EmD), specific

learning disability (SLD), and speech/language disorder (L/S). These four categories were

chosen because they range from the fairly mild to the more severe forms of possible

disabilities that teachers may encounter in general education classrooms (Karten, 2008;

Maanum, 2009).

The need for general education teachers to be prepared to work with children who

exhibit varying abilities and needs has increased with the enactment of federal mandates

such as IDEA (2004) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2004) (Brown, Welsh, Hill, &

Cipko, 2008). IDEA (2004) requires children with disabilities be educated in the least

restrictive environment, while NCLB significantly changed accountability standards for

schools in that it mandated universal proficiency among students, including those with

disabilities, by the year 2014. No Child Left Behind further expanded on the required

accommodations for students with disabilities (Turner, 2003; Yell & Katsiyannis, 2004).

“No Child Left Behind mandates increased expectations and accountability for all students,

including those with disabilities, to access, participate in, and progress in the general

curriculum (Pisha & Stahl, 2005, pp. 69-70).

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2010), in 2008-

09, approximately 6.5 million children and youth were served under the Individuals with

Disabilities Act (IDEA) or 13.2% of all children and youth between the ages of 3-21.

Additionally, the aforementioned report also states during this same year Mississippi

served 64,407 children between the ages of 3-21 who had disabilities. During the 2008-

2009 school year, the state’s student enrollment was 491,194. Thus, approximately 13.1%

of children in Mississippi were served through special education. The National Center for

Education Statistics (2010) also stated that in the U.S., it was reported that approximately

58% of students with disabilities are outside the general education classroom less than 21%

of the school day. These data reveal in some situations children/students with disabilities

receive approximately 79% of their instruction in the general education classroom as

compared to other sources such as special education resource.

An increase in placement of children/students requiring special education services

in the general education classroom has increased the demand for educators who are

prepared to work with a variety of learners (Brown et al., 2008; Mungai & Thornburg,

2002). Grskovic and Trcinka (2011) explored what teachers needed in order to increase

their comfort level in working with students with mild disabilities. The researchers

discussed how federal and state initiatives to place children/students with disabilities in the

least restrictive environment have increased the number of children/students with

disabilities in the general education classroom. The authors state that teachers can expect

to have diverse learners in their classrooms. Even though the numbers of children/students

with disabilities in general education classes have increased, general educators continue to

report not feeling prepared to teach the disabled population (Grskovic & Trzcinka, 2011).

These authors theorized this lack of preparedness may be due to the fact that, “many

general education teachers in the work force today received their training prior to the

gradual implementation of inclusion in the 1990’s and they may not have adequate

professional development in that area” (2011, p. 95). Their study identified thirty-one

“essential” standards that helped prepare these teachers to work with children/students with

disabilities. These standards included instructional strategies, classroom management

techniques, collaboration strategies and professional and ethical practices. Results

suggested that educators need more, “knowledge of disabilities and more pre-service

experience interacting with students with disabilities” (Grskovic & Trzcinka, 2011, p. 95).

The attitudes of teachers can also play an important role on their effectiveness in

the classroom. Brady and Woolfson (2008) explored, “the relationship between teachers’

role, self-efficacy, attitudes towards people with disabled persons, teaching experience and

training, on teachers’ attributions for children’s difficulties in learning” (p. 527).

“Teachers with a higher sense of teaching efficacy and those with more experiences of

working with learners with additional support needs both attributed learners’ failure in

class more to external factors” (Brady & Woolfson, 2008, p.538). Researchers also

discovered that mainstream teachers were less optimistic about the abilities of

children/students with special needs (Brady & Woolfson, 2008).

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The purpose of this study was to analyze the perceptions of general education

teachers regarding their preparedness to teach students with specific disabilities. This

study assessed whether teachers believed they are more prepared to deal with students in

one special education category than students in others. To analyze these variables, the

following research questions were examined:

1. What are general education teachers’ perceptions of their capabilities to

differentiate instruction for children with the following special education

eligibilities: autism, speech/language disorder, specific learning disability, and

emotional disability in the general education classroom?

2. Are there differences in general educators’ level of perceived preparedness to

teach children/student with special needs based on the student’s eligibility

category?

3. Are the perceptions of the level of perceived preparedness of general education

teachers related to selected background characteristics that include: level of

education, current grade assignment, the number of special education classes

they took during their training, years of experience teaching, and time since last

professional development in special education?

4. What conditions will increase general educators’ level of perceived

preparedness to work with special needs learners?

The following related hypotheses were addressed in the study:

: There are differences in general educators’ level of perceived preparedness to

work with special needs learners based on the children’s eligibility category.

: The perceptions of the level of perceived preparedness of general education

teachers are related to selected background characteristics that include: level of

education, the number of special education classes they took during their

training, years of experience teaching, and most recently attended professional

development in special education.

Delimitations

Persons who participated in this study included only elementary school teachers in

districts located in the southern region of Mississippi. Participants had teacher certification

from the Mississippi Department of Education. This study was limited to an examination

of the participants’ preparedness to teach children who met the Mississippi Department of

Education eligibility requirements for the following selected areas of exceptionality:

autism, speech/language disorder, specific learning disability, and emotional disability.

This study focused on perceptions of preparedness rather than more direct measures of

teacher efficacy in teaching students with disabilities.

Assumptions

It was assumed that all respondents understood and followed the survey directions.

It was also assumed that all participants answered the survey items completely and

honestly. Finally, it was assumed that all respondents answered the survey items without

fear of retribution for their participation or responses.

Definition of Terms

The following terms were utilized throughout this study and were defined for use in

the context of this research.

Accommodations – Are changes in schools that are used to assist students in

working around their disabilities. (National Dissemination Center for Children with

Disabilities, 2010).

Autism (AU) – Autism or autism spectrum disorder refers to a developmental

disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social

interactions that adversely affects a child’s educational performance (Mississippi

Department of Education, 2009, p. 279).

Emotional Disability (EmD) – EmD exists when a student exhibits certain

characteristics over a long period of time and/or to a marked degree, adversely affecting

educational performance. EmD includes schizophrenia. The term does not refer to

children who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that they have an emotional

disability. (Mississippi Department of Education, 2009, p.285).

Inclusion – “Schools, centers of learning, and educational systems that are open to

all children and that ensure that all children learn and participate” (Wright & Wright, 1999,

p. 54).

Individualized education plan (IEP)– An IEP is a written statement, created by an

IEP committee, for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in

a meeting by the IEP team. (IDEA, 2004, n.d., para 1).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 – IDEA, originally

known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), is legislation which

regulates all special education services in the United States. This law requires all students

with disabilities be provided an appropriate education in the least restrictive environment

(Maanum, 2009; Winzer & Mazurek, 2002).

Language or Speech Impairment (L/S-A) – Is a communicative disorder such as

stuttering, impaired articulation, language impairment, or a voice impairment that

adversely affects a child’s educational performance. It can range from mild to profound.

A communication disorder may be the primary disability or secondary to other disabilities

(Mississippi Department of Education, 2009, p. 291).

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) – Placing a student in the least restrictive

environment refers to assigning him/her to a setting that is the most normal and where

he/she can have optimal interaction with his/her normally developing peers. (Winzer &

Mazurek, 2002).

Local education agency (LEA) – LEA refers to the local school district.

Mainstreaming – The practice of placing students with disabilities in classrooms

with their normally developing peers so that all students are exposed to and receive an

adequate education. (Winzer & Mazurek, 2002).

Modification – A change in what is being taught to or expected from a student with

disabilities (National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, 2010).

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 – Federal legislation enacted to help

close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice. (U.S. Department of

Education, 2011).

Self-efficacy Theory – A theory conceptualized by Albert Bandura, suggesting that

our belief in our ability to succeed in certain situations assists us in that success. The

concept plays a major role in Bandura's social learning theory which focuses on how

personality is shaped by social experience and observational learning (Cherry, 2011).

Social Development Theory – A theory by L. S. Vygotsky that emphasizes the

social nature of learning and the critical role that interpersonal relationships play in

promoting learning (Lerner, Lowenthal & Egan, 2003, p.18).

Specific Learning Disability (SLD) – a disorder in one or more of the basic

psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written,

that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or

to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain

injury, minimal brain function, dyslexia and developmental aphasia (Mississippi

Department of Education, 2009, p. 301).

Justification

“In the United States, inclusion has come to mean the education of all children in

the least restrictive environment to the greatest extent possible with non-handicapped

peers” (Mungai & Thornburg, 2002, p. 44). How a teacher handles his/her inclusive

classroom has the most immediate impact on the students’ success (Horne & Timmons,

2009; Mungai & Thornburg, 2002). The practice of integrating children/students with

disabilities with non-handicapped peers has increased the responsibility of some general

education teachers (Brown et al., 2008; Obiakor, Harris, Mutua, Rotatori, & Algozzine,

2012).

Research has shown that general education teachers may have some reservations

when teaching diverse learners. Kamens, Loprete, and Slostad (2003) explored “the

perceptions of practicing general education teachers related to their needs to successfully

teach students with disabilities” (p. 20). These researchers wanted to determine what

classroom teachers believed they needed to know to effectively teach children/students

with special needs. The data revealed many concerns that general education teachers have

when working with children/students with special needs. Some of the teachers’

perceptions include not being familiar with the specific disability of the child and how to

work with him/her. The teachers’ needs were as follows: to know many ways to adapt the

curriculum for the special child, to be better-armed with effective strategies, and to know

alternative procedures if a problem develops (Kamens et al., 2003). The authors of this

study also stressed the need for improved staff development and more special education

classes in teacher preparation programs. Furthermore the authors stated that in most cases

these teachers received a single course in special education while pursuing their degrees.

As a result of the data collected, the researchers suggested providing preservice teachers

more opportunities to modify curriculum for special needs students. This would give them

more practice in providing appropriate services to special needs children and help them be

more comfortable (Kamens et al., 2003).

Conderman and Johnston-Rodriguez (2009) studied how beginning elementary and

secondary special education and general education teachers perceived their new roles.

This study measured teachers “level of preparedness and their perception of the importance

of 20 skills related to inclusion and collaboration” in inclusion classrooms (Conderman &

Johnston-Rodriguez, 2009, p. 236). The authors discovered that these beginning teachers

believed that they were very prepared to deal with communicating with parents and

families and being sensitive to their needs. They also believed that they were prepared to

work with colleagues. However, in most cases, these teachers did not feel equipped to

implement accommodations/modifications, nor did they believe they had the information

they needed to plan for students with disabilities, or have the knowledge or time to provide

individualized testing criteria for these students. When discussing their teacher-

preparation program, the beginning teachers indicated that their, “preservice coursework

and field experiences were insufficient preparation for collaborative activities in the real

world of teaching” (Conderman & Johnston-Rodriguez, 2009, p. 240). The general

education teachers who participated in this study expressed the need for a foundation in

special education law during their training. Even in a collaborative setting, teachers did

not always believe that they were prepared to work with children/students with special

needs (Conderman & Johnston-Rodriguez, 2009).

A review of the literature revealed that in contemporary educational settings, the

number of children/students with special needs enrolled in general education classrooms

has increased (Grskovic & Trzcinka, 2011). General education teachers are being asked to

play a more involved role in the education of children/students who qualify for special

education services (Conderman & Johnston-Rodriguez, 2009). Although their role in the

lives of more diverse learners has changed, teachers’ preparedness according to some has

not (Kamens et al., 2003). Research shows that more teachers believe that they are not

prepared to adequately meet the needs of children/students with special education needs

(Horne & Timmons, 2009; Obiakor et al., 2012). For example, Kamens et al. (2003) noted

“Although the practice of inclusion has increased over the last several decades, it appears

that many general education teachers feel unprepared to teach an increasing number of

children with disabilities” (p. 25).

The increasing number of children/students with special needs being placed in the

general education classroom has revealed the need for general education teachers to be

better prepared to teach a variety of learners. Although research has been conducted on

aspects of how prepared general education teachers are to teach special learners, it has

been limited on the effect of the eligibility category. This study featured specific eligibility

exceptionalities in an effort to better reveal which exceptionalities present more challenges

for teachers. The results of this study can be used by school districts to develop

professional development programs in conjunction with their special education department

to help prepare general education teachers to work with special needs students. The results

of this study can be used by instructors in teacher preparation programs to develop more

comprehensive and inclusive instruction in special education for preservice general

educators. This study can also be utilized by policy-makers when developing educational

mandates that effect the classroom placement of students with disabilities.

Summary

The number of students receiving special education services in the general

education classroom is increasing (Kamens et al., 2003). Research has shown that general

education teachers can expect to play a more vital role in the education of special learners

(Grskovic & Trzcinka, 2011). However, some experts believe there has not been sufficient

change in the content of teacher preparation programs that address this responsibility

(Brown et al., 2008). This lack of adequate preparation may cause many educators to

believe they are ill-prepared to work with students who have special needs. The purpose of

this study was to analyze the perceptions of general education teachers regarding their

preparedness to teach students with specific special education needs. This study examined

whether teachers believed that they are more prepared to deal with students in one special

education category than students in other categories. Finally, if they did not feel prepared,

qualitative data were gathered to understand what strategies could be used to help them

better prepare.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In recent years, research has been conducted to explore the benefits and

complications created by the inclusion of children/students receiving special education

services in the general education classroom. With the role of many educators changing,

researchers have sought to discover how these educators cope with teaching various types

of learners. This chapter provides background information on special education inclusion,

theories that support the idea of including children/students with special needs into the

general education classroom, methods that school districts are implementing as federal

mandates change, and the ways that teachers recognize their ability to teach

children/students with special needs. This chapter also discusses the status of children

with autism, speech/language disorders, specific learning disabilities and emotional

disabilities who are being served in the general education classroom.

Background Information and Federal Mandates

“The hottest issue in special education during the 1980s and 1990s was where, not

how, a student with disabilities should be taught- the schools and classrooms they should

attend, not the instruction they should receive” (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999, p. 1).

Placement of disabled students remains an important issue in special education. From the

separate schools of the early 1900s to the push for full inclusion of today, where a

child/student who qualifies for special education services receives his/her education is of

great importance. The passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act

(EAHCA) in 1975 made the educational placement of disabled students controversial and

confusing (Crockett, 1999; Crockett & Kaufman, 1999; Yell & Katsiyannis, 2004). The

Education for Handicapped Children Act which is currently titled the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), gives specific guidelines to ensure that children with

disabilities receive a quality education. “The inclusion movement- which is now

international- emerged in the 1970s and 1980s from the Regular Education Initiative and

revisions of IDEA” (Mungai &Thornburg, 2002, p. 45). “Special Education law now

demands that the general education classroom be looked at as the first placement option

and least restrictive environment for students with disabilities” (Karten, 2005, p. 3). This

approach to service is very different than the one used when special education began.

In colonial North America people with varying conditions such as blindness,

deafness, unusual behaviors or a mental illness were habitually separated from the

mainstream population (Osgood, 2002). During this time in history, it became common to

place persons with disabilities in institutions for care. “By the early 1900s most states had

at least one residential facility for the deaf, the blind, or the mentally disabled, and many

had separate institutions for each of the three populations” (Osgood, 2002, p. 21).

However, the creation of large public school systems posed a problem to the institutional

care of disabled children. That problem was created by the existence of unknown or

hidden disabilities with in some children. These children with unidentified disabilities

found their way into the educational arena as public school systems became common in

urban life (Osgood, 2002). Unfortunately, large class sizes and inadequate training made it

difficult for educators to handle children with disabilities (Lerner et al., 2003; Osgood

2002). Teachers complained and called for the placement of students with disabilities

outside the general education classroom (Osgood, 2002). These concerns prompted the,

“establishment over the next several decades of a wide range of separate settings for

students who, it was believed, overtaxed the efficient operation of schools and classrooms”

(Osgood, 2002, p. 24).

The notion of inclusion resulted from a federal district court ruling. In the case of

Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Children in 1971, the court found

that, “children diagnosed with mental retardation in Pennsylvania were entitled to a free

public education and further stipulated that whenever possible they should be educated in

regular classrooms rather than segregated from the general education population”

(Horrocks, White, & Roberts, 2008, p. 1462). This decree was expanded to include all

children/students with disabilities in 1972 in Mills v. Board of Education District of

Columbia. These court decisions were later followed by federal legislation such as the

Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975 and the first version of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990.

“Over the past three decades, federal legislation, individual state requirements, and

the Regular Education Initiative have prompted tremendous growth in the inclusion of

students with special needs in the general education classroom” (Brown et al., 2008, p.

2087). The U.S. Department of Education (2004), Office of Special Education Programs

states:

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a law ensuring

services to children with disabilities throughout the nation. IDEA governs

how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education

and related services to more than 6.5 million eligible infants, toddlers,

children and youth with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education Office

of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 2004, para.1).

The EAHCA legislation of 1975, “paved the way for the mainstreaming of students

with disabilities, requiring that they be placed in the least restrictive environment” (Brown

et al., 2008, p. 2087). Mungai and Thornburg (2002) described two positions used by

schools to justify inclusive classrooms for students, “either all students with disabilities

have a right to go to school with their non-disabled peers, or all students with disabilities

should go to regular school” (p. 44). However, either of these philosophies, if poorly

supported and implemented, can cause difficulties for general education teachers. While

IDEA (2004) set mandates for including students with disabilities in the regular classroom,

it did not provide school districts with specific instructions. Even with governmental

guidance, student placement continues to be difficult for schools (Yell & Katsiyannis,

2004). The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) (2004) defines placement as, “the

process whereby the specific placement option, setting, or facility in which a student’s IEP

can be implemented is determined” (Yell & Katsiyannis, 2004, p. 45). This simple

language can be interpreted many different ways and is one of the reasons that student

placement under IDEA (2004) is often a contentious topic. Placement decisions are made

by the IEP team which includes school officials and parents. IDEA states that, “each local

educational agency or state educational agency shall ensure that the parents of each child

with a disability are members of any group that makes decisions on educational placement

of their child” (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1414(f), 2004).

The most contentious aspect of placement is the least restrictive environment

(LRE) provision. The IDEA (2004) specifically states:

To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including

children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated

with children who are not disabled, and that special classes, separate

schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular

educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the

disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of

supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C 1412 (5) (B)).

This condition of the law has two parts. First, children/students with disabilities must

receive their education in the general education classroom for the maximum amount of

time that is appropriate for them. The second part states that children/students with

disabilities cannot be removed from the general education classroom unless being in that

setting will keep them from getting an adequate education (Yell & Katsiyannis, 2004). It

can be difficult to find the most appropriate LRE for each child and a one size fits all

approach may not work for every student. The U.S. Department of Education stated in the

Letter to Estavan (1997) and the Letter to Trahan (1998) (as cited in Yell & Katsiyannis,

2004), these decisions should be individualized to each child based on their abilities and

educational needs. The IDEA also lists some factors that should not be taken into

consideration when making placement decisions. A student should not be placed in a

particular setting based on their category of disability, availability of services, and

availability of space or administrative convenience (Yell & Katsiyannis, 2004). Thus,

making the placement decision based on the best interest of the child is the most

appropriate thing to do.

“The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is a sweeping, comprehensive,

and powerful law that is changing the way public school students are educated” (Yell,

Drasgow & Lowrey, 2005, p. 130). This includes the education of children/students with

disabilities. No Child Left Behind sought to increase accountability for student

achievement. It was written to ensure that students in all public schools achieved specific

learning goals in safe and effective classrooms (Yell et al., 2005; Yell & Katsiyannis,

2004). “To increase student achievement, the law requires that school districts assume

responsibility for all students reaching 100% proficiency levels on tests assessing reading

and mathematics by the 2013-2014 academic year” (Yell et al., 2005, p. 131). Although

the federal government has provided funding to public schools for many years, the

authorization of NCLB somewhat changed the government’s role in education. Yell et al.

(2005) explained;

The federal role has evolved, however, from one in which the government

primarily provided federal assistance to the states to one in which the

federal government is holding states accountable for improving learning

outcomes and achievement of all students. (p. 130)

This evolution was made to improve the educational experience of public school students.

The NCLB (2001) legislation includes mandates for children/students with disabilities.

These students are expected to achieve standards for the grade in which they are currently

enrolled (Elliott & Thurlow; 2003, Thurlow, Elliott, & Ysseldyke, 2001). The NCLB

(2001) required that states enact assessments to measure student achievement, and required

that children/students with disabilities also be assessed. Children/students with disabilities

may be provided with accommodations, modifications, or alternate assessment as their IEP

team deems appropriate (Yell et al., 2005; Hager & Slocum, 2002). “The regulations of

NCLB give states flexibility to assess students with disabilities using alternate assessments

based on modified or alternate achievement standards” (Wakeman, Browder, Meier, &

McColl, 2007, p. 144). Alternate assessments are used when a child/student with a

disability is unable to participate in standard assessments. This is reserved for students

who have a significant cognitive disability (SCD). This decision is made by the IEP team

usually before standardized assessments begin in third grade (Wakeman et al., 2007).

“Title I of NCLB holds special education students and teachers to new and higher

expectations, which equates to a significant addition to the value of education for these

students” (Wakeman et al., 2007, p. 144). The U.S. Department of Education (2004) states

that the purpose of Title I is to, “ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant

opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on

challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments” (sec.

1001, para. 2). These new requirements have brought about new educational possibilities

for children/students with disabilities (Hagar & Slocum, 2002; Quenemeon, Lehr,

Thurlow, & Massanari, 2001). NCLB (2001) has become a driving force for reforms in

general and in special education (Wakeman et al., 2007).

An Examination of Selected IDEA Rulings

These sections begin an exploration of the selected exceptionalities that are the

focus of the current study. As was noted previously, this research addresses autism,

specific learning disability, emotional disability, and speech/language disorders. These

exceptionalities were chosen because they vary in severity and cover a broad range of

disabilities.

Autism

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) defines autism as:

A developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal

communication and social interaction, generally evident before age 3 that

adversely affects a child’s educational performance. Other characteristics

often associated with autism include engagement in repetitive activities and

stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental changes or changes in

daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences (sec 300.8(c)

(1) (i) para. 5).

In 2012, the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released the findings

of a 2008 study which estimated approximately 1 in 88 children have autism. This number

has increased from a 2005 estimation of 1 in 150 children. This simply means more

children have been diagnosed as having some form of an autism spectrum disorder than in

the past. A 2005 report by the United States Government Accountability Office estimated

that the number of children served under IDEA (2004) diagnosed with autism increased by

500 percent within a decade (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005). “Leo Kanner

first identified autism in 1943, as a psycho-emotional disturbance of early childhood” (as

cited in Horrocks et al., 2008, p. 1,463). Although there is still no known cause for autism

it is recognized as a developmental neurobiological disorder that affects the central nervous

system (Minshew & Williams, 2007). There is a wide range of characteristics and

behaviors associated with autism spectrum disorders. Among other things, students with

autism may demonstrate significant delays in language, socialization, and cognition

(Horrocks et al., 2008; Minshew & Williams, 2007).

“As the number of children diagnosed with autism increases, there are more of

these students in public schools recommended for placement in general education settings”

(Horrocks et al., 2008, p. 1,463). With the push for full inclusion steadily gaining

momentum in the U.S., it is no surprise that many children with autism are being placed in

the general education classroom with teachers who do not feel prepared to fulfill the social,

learning and behavioral needs (Marks et al., 2003). This study measured the degree to

which general education teachers believe they are prepared to teach students with autism.

Speech-Language Disorders

Marshall, Ralph, and Palmer (2002) described a student with speech and language

difficulties as follows:

A child with a ‘speech and language difficulty’ or a ‘communication

difficulty’ may be described as one who does not communicate verbally as

well as other children of the same age. For example, the child may have

difficulties in: pronouncing sounds, saying (complete) sentences, using

language in a socially appropriate way, understanding what other people

say, and using their vocal cords (voice). However, this group does not

include those children who experience difficulties in some situations

because English is not their first/main language. (pp. 199-200)

There are many types of speech and language disorders. According to the

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) (2012) a speech disorder exists

when a person has difficulty with pronouncing speech sounds correctly. A language

disorder describes difficulty expressing your thoughts through words or understanding

what others say to you. In a general education classroom, not being able to effectively

communicate can pose a problem. Teachers may also have a difficult time dealing with

children/students with speech-language disorders. A review of the literature revealed that

“negative attitudes are often held about children with speech and language difficulties and

that these attitudes may extend to attributes unrelated to their communication skills”

(Marshall et al., 2002, p. 202). Lindsay and Dockerall (2002) listed three main hindrances

to including students with speech and language disorders in the general education

classroom. These were a lack of time, lack of resources and a lack of training. These

hindrances were also found in previous research (Law et al., 2002; Lindsay, Dockerall,

Letchford, & Mackie, 2002). Though these difficulties exist it is expected that speech and

language impaired children will attend mainstream school and be included in the general

education population (Dockerall et al., 2002).

A study by Sadler (2005) revealed that teachers who work with students with

speech and language impairments overall have a positive attitude about children/students

with this specific exceptionality. However, Sadler noted the teachers felt less prepared to

work with the students because they had limited knowledge about the various speech and

language disorders. These teachers reported having very little training in speech and

language impairments, and lacking confidence in their ability to meet the special needs of

these students. Sadler’s participants also mentioned not receiving a good foundation in

normal speech and language development during their teacher training programs. Thus,

their limited knowledge of normal development hindered their ability to recognize and

work with disordered children. The teachers also reported having limited time to prepare

and limited resources to use (Sadler, 2005).

This study examined the degree to which general educators believed they were

prepared to work with children/students with speech and language impairments. It also

measured whether teachers believe they are more prepared to teach such students than

students with other disabilities. Speech-language disorders were one of the special

education exceptionalities discussed in this study.

Emotional Disability

The Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) (2009) defines an emotional

disability (EmD) as follows:

Emotional disability exists when a student exhibits one (1) or more of the

following characteristics over a long period of time and/or to a marked

degree, adversely affecting educational performance:

An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory or

health factors;

An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships

with peers and teachers;

Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances;

A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression; and/ or

A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal

or school problems.

Emotional Disability includes schizophrenia. The term does not refer to

children who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that they have

an Emotional Disability. (Mississippi Department of Education, 2009, p.

285)

Children who suffer from an emotional disability can create a unique situation in

the general education classroom. Research (Center, 1993; Fox & Gable, 2004; Kauffman,

2005) has shown that regular educators perceive children who display characteristics of

emotional disability differently. These educators perceive, “aggressive students as having

the greatest need for special services and in the most restrictive settings. Students the

tendency to be anxious/withdrawn were seen as having the least need for services and in

the least restrictive placements” (Center, 1993, p. 2). A review of the literature by Center

revealed that general education teachers thought the behaviors of these children were

disruptive in nature. As with other special education exceptionalities, it is believed that

children/students with an EmD ruling should be educated in the most appropriate and least

restrictive setting possible (Bullock & Gable, 2006). In many cases placing

children/students with an EmD ruling in the general education classroom is the goal, but

researchers have found that many children/students with an EmD ruling have a difficult

time in inclusive classrooms (Johns & Guetzloe, 2004). These students are often viewed

as trouble makers because of their disruptive behavior (Bullock & Gable, 2006). However,

teachers expressed that dealing with students with behavioral and emotional disorders can

be difficult and very rewarding (Bullock & Gable, 2006).

This study measured general education teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness

to work with children/students with an EmD ruling. The study measured if the participants

believed they are more prepared to work with these students than with others. The study

determined if there is a relationship between this special education exceptionality and the

others in this study.

Specific Learning Disability

The Mississippi Department of Education (2009) defines a specific learning

disability (SLD) as:

A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in

understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest

itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or to

do mathematical calculations. Including conditions such as perceptual

disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and

developmental aphasia. Specific Learning Disability does not include

learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor

disabilities of mental retardation, of emotional disability or of

environmental, cultural differences, or economic disadvantage. (Mississippi

Department of Education, 2009, p. 301).

Educational placement of children with learning disabilities (LD) is an issue that

causes some debate (Andrews et al., 2000). There are researcher and practitioner

perspectives that support placing students with LD in the general education classroom for

most of the day (McLeskey et al., 2004). While including these students in the general

education classroom is mandated by IDEA (2004, 1412), there are limited data available

on how various states have moved toward their inclusion (McLeskey et al., 2004).

This study has broadened the available research by measuring the degree to which

general education teachers believe they are prepared to teach children/students with an

SLD ruling. As with the other exceptionalities identified for this study, the research

measured general education teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness to work with

children/students with an SLD ruling and compared these perceptions of their preparedness

to teach students with other special education exceptionalities.

Theoretical Foundations

Social Development Learning Theory

The social development learning theory emphasizes how as social beings, humans

learn, grow and develop from interacting with each other. “Our only concern is that there

exist within the very nature of the educational process, within its psychological essence,

the demand that there be as intimate a contact, and as close an interaction with life itself as

might be wished for” (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 345). This quote helps to describe the social

nature of learning. The social theory of learning describes the social aspects of how

individuals learn.

“The social interactions between the child and others (parent, teacher, caregiver,

and other family members) are a needed ingredient in learning” (Learner et al., 2003,

p.18). Published in 1962, The Social Development Theory developed by Lev Vygotsky

“emphasizes the social nature of learning and the critical role that interpersonal

relationships play in promoting learning”( as cited in Learner et al., 2003, p. 18).

Vygotsky’s social theory of learning focuses on the zone of proximal development. “The

zone of proximal development furnishes psychologists and educators with a tool through

which the internal course of development can be understood. What a child can do with

assistance today she will be able to do by herself tomorrow” (Vygotsky, 1978. p. 87). The

zone of proximal development is a way to describe how children learn (Vygotsky, 1978).

It separates what a child already knows from what he/she will learn in the future

(Vygotsky, 1978). In other words, this theory emphasizes the social nature of learning.

Vygotsky states, “human learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process by

which children grow into the intellectual life of those around them” (p. 88). Vygotsky

believed that children could learn well beyond their individual capabilities by imitating the

actions of others. Humans do not simply learn by their own actions or study; they learn

from taking in information from those around them (Gindis, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978). The

social aspects of learning may help children achieve more in some cases.

According to Gindis (1999), “Special education was the main empirical domain

from which Vygotsky obtained data to support his general theoretical conceptions” (p.

334). Vygotsky believed that a child’s social environment can limit the course of his/her

development and lead to the differences we see in persons with disabilities (Dixon &

Verenikina, 2007; Gindis, 1999). For example, if children are only around disabled

children, they can pick up habits and traits of other disabled children. It was theorized that

children/students with disabilities need to learn and develop from normally developing

peers so they are not socially disadvantaged (Dixon & Verenikina, 2007, p. 199). “In

education, Vygotsky’s theory is viewed as a counterbalance to behaviorism, and more

importantly, as an alternative to the influential concepts of Piaget” (Gindis, 1999, p. 333).

Thus, Vygotsky thought of disabilities as a sociocultural phenomenon instead of a

biological impairment (Gindis, 1999).

John-Steiner and Mahn (as cited in Dixon & Verenikina, 2007), describe the social

development learning theory as, “co-construction of knowledge between the individual and

social processes” (p. 198). The theory of personal constructivism was developed by Swiss

cognitive psychologist Jean Piaget (1978) (as cited in Golding, 2011). In Piagetian

personal constructivism, when a learner comes across new information, he/she will either

adapt/learn this new information or learn how to deal with it (Golding, 2011). Taking the

social constructivists’ approach to inclusion can be beneficial to general education

teachers. Mallory and New (1994) (as cited by Bloom, Perlmutter, & Burrell, 1999) stated,

“a constructivist perspective offers an alternative to the traditional behaviorist’s

perspective by recognizing classrooms and schools as social places where social context

and social activity influence children’s thoughts and actions” (p. 132). It is likely that

embracing the social aspects of learning can make an inclusive classroom thrive. Bloom et

al., (1999) stated:

Teachers who provide nurturing climates, communicate clear expectations,

create a partnership with their students, and build self-worth may find the

inclusion of special children an asset rather than a nightmare. Inclusive

classrooms can provide a rich context for learning about diversity and

taking care of each other. It is our responsibility as teachers to explore

these possibilities and take advantage of the learning potential of social

interaction. (p. 136)

“Vygotsky formulated a unique theoretical framework for the most comprehensive,

inclusive, and humane practice for special education known in the 20

century” (Gindis,

1999, p. 339). The social development learning theory supports the idea that being

included in the regular classroom is beneficial for children/students with disabilities.

Special education uses the argument that there are not two categories of students, disabled

and non-disabled. Instead with in the social developmental learning theory there is one

cohesive student body and it is up to the educational system to meet all of their needs

(Cole, 1999; Dixon & Verenikia, 2007; Gindis, 1999). As the educational system

develops, inclusion is likely to become more commonplace as part of the educational

experience. In some places it is a routine approach to including children with special needs

in the general curriculum. At this point it is important to make sure educators are prepared

and ready to take on these new challenges.

Self- efficacy Theory

“Teachers operate collectively within an interactive social system rather than in

isolation. The belief systems of staffs create school cultures that can have vitalizing or

demoralizing effects on how well schools function as a social system” (Bandura, 1994, p.

78). The self-efficacy of teachers can play an important role in student performance. For

this reason, it is important to examine theories pertaining to the self-efficacy of educators.

The term self-efficacy comes from Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory. The self-

efficacy theory describes how individuals think, feel and motivate themselves to succeed

(Bandura, 1994). This success is produced through the cognitive, motivational, affective

and selection processes. Bandura theorized that “teachers with a high sense of efficacy

about their teaching abilities can motivate their students and enhance their cognitive

development” (p. 78). A strong sense of efficacy can increase self-motivation. In the field

of education, a highly motivated teacher can motivate his/her students.

Research has shown that efficacious teachers serve the special needs of their

students with disabilities well (Haverback & Parault, 2008; Lee, Patterson, & Vega, 2011;

Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). These teachers make less special education referrals because

they feel better able to handle their teaching situations (Haverbeck & Parault, 2008). A

2011 study by Gao and Mager demonstrated that for pre-service teachers, a higher

perceived sense of efficacy was positively associated with their attitudes towards inclusion

and working with a diverse socio-economic group.

Pendergast, Garvis, and Keough (2011) stated:

Teacher self-efficacy is an important motivational construct that shapes

teacher effectiveness in the classroom. Teachers with a high level of

teacher self-efficacy have been shown to be more resilient in their teaching

and likely to try harder to help all students to reach their potential. (p. 46)

Research has shown that highly efficacious teachers are very motivated and

effective in teaching a variety of students (Gao & Mager, 2001; Haverback & Parault,

2008; Lee et al., 2011). As mentioned previously, these teachers believe they are in

control of their classroom and better able to handle students with difficulties. Researchers

found a link between various aspects of teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and their ability

to encourage performance in the classroom by their students (Wolters & Daugherty, 2007).

A teacher with high self-efficacy may not find it difficult to work with disabled children in

their classroom. They possess the confidence in themselves to know they can accomplish

any goal (Gao & Mager, 2001; Lee et al., 2011; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007).

The self-efficacy theory can be interpreted to include children with special

education needs in the regular classroom. In this study Pendergrast et al. (2011) studied

the perceived level of self-efficacy of preservice teachers early in their educational journey

and then again at the end.

Summary

These two theories of learning align with the ideas that including children/students

with special needs in the regular education classroom positively impacts their achievement,

but that this impact is likely to be influenced by the self-efficacy of the teacher. The social

development theory reveals that learning in the general education setting gives

children/students with special needs the opportunity to learn, in part, via social interaction

with non-disabled peers in the instructional setting (Cole, 1999; Dixon & Verenikia, 2007;

Gindis, 1999). This inclusive setting also gives them the opportunity to learn from the

general and special education teachers. Bandura’s social cognitive theory explores the idea

that teachers with a higher sense of efficacy can motivate children/students with special

needs to improve their achievement. This study used social development theory to explore

how the perceptions of these regular education teachers impact the learning of their

students with special needs self-efficacy to explore how a teacher’s sense of capability

affects their comfort level in working with these children/students with special needs. And

finally, this study explored how a teacher’s sense of efficacy and perceived preparedness

affect their ability to work with children/students with special needs in the socially

preferred inclusive setting.

Pertinent Literature and Professional Perspectives

The practice of educating children/students with special needs in the general

education classroom with their normally developing peers has continued to increase over

the past four decades and affects every aspect of the school community (Ainscow & César,

2006; Cook, Cameron, & Tankersley, 2007; Forlin & Chambers, 2011). Due to this

continuous increase of children/students receiving special education services in the regular

classroom, researchers have studied how prepared general educators are to teach in this

setting (Cook et al., 2007; Forlin & Chambers, 2011). The role of the teacher has now

become an important factor in the success or failure of these inclusive practices (Forlin &

Chambers, 2011; Forlin & Lian, 2008). The following discussion will highlight some

studies that look at teacher preparation as it pertains to working with disabled students in

the general education classroom.

Teacher Preparation

Research has shown that general education teachers received limited opportunities

to study special education in their teacher preparation programs (Brown et al., 2008;

Grskovic & Trzcinka, 2011). If teachers received any preparation to work with disabled

students, it was usually from a single course requirement or survey (Kamens et al.; Welch

1996). Kamens, Loprete and Slostad found that these teachers wanted to know the

classification of the child’s disorder, receive suggestions of accommodations, and specific

information about the individual child. An increased level of support from administration

and colleagues is also needed (Cook, Semmel, & Gerber, 1999; Kamens et al., 2003).

Teachers often are not familiar with the specific disability of the child and how to work

with him/her (Brown et al., 2008; Daane et al., 2000; Kamens et al., 2003). Certainly,

teachers want to know techniques to adapt the curriculum for the special child, be better-

armed with effective strategies, and know alternative procedures if problems develop

(Kamens et al., 2003).

Some of these concerns can possibly be avoided with increased field experience

during teacher preparation programs. Having meaningful field-based experiences can help

prepare future teachers to work in a variety of settings and with various types of learners

(Conderman, Morin, & Stephens, 2005; O’Shea, Hammite, Mainzer, & Crutchfield, 2000;

Conderman & Johnston-Rodriguez, 2009). In many cases, student teachers are sent to

existing school cultures that may not represent effective practices and modern educational

trends (Conderman et al., 2005; McIntyre, Byrd, & Foxx, 1996).

General education teachers need more training on how to accommodate students

with disabilities as they deliver the curriculum (Daane et al., 2000). Administrators,

general educators and special educators tend to believe that general education teachers lack

skills in this area (Cook et al., 1999; Daane et al., 2000). Daane et al. (2000) asserted that:

Teacher education programs must do more to prepare general education

teacher candidates for accommodating all types of students. This can only

happen if they have had the opportunity to have quality fieldwork

experiences where collaboration takes place, as well as adequate academic

coursework in education. (p. 336)

Beginning teachers believe that they are very prepared to deal with communicating

with parents and families and collaborating with colleagues (Brown et al., 2008). In most

cases, however, these beginning teachers do not believe that they are prepared to

implement accommodations/modifications for learners with special needs, nor do they

believe they have information to plan for students with disabilities, or have the knowledge

or time to provide individualized testing criteria for these students (Carter, Jackson,

Marchant & Prater, 2009; Danne et.al 2000; Conderman & Johnston Rodriguez, 2009).

When discussing their teacher-preparation programs, beginning teachers indicated that

their, “preservice coursework and field experiences were insufficient” (Conderman &

Johnston-Rodriguez, 2009, p. 240).

Researchers have also sought to determine if better collaborative practices can help

teachers feel more comfortable when working with special needs students (Carter et al.,

2009). “Effective collaboration between special and general education teachers can

facilitate the successful inclusion of students with disabilities who are in general education

classrooms” (Carter et al. 2009, p. 60). Data show that the collaborative process between

special education and general education helps general educators learn to work with

colleagues and focus on the needs of students (Carter et al., 2009). One of the challenges

that teachers find is scheduling time to meet with their partners (Carter et al., 2009).

Although using a collaborative model is beneficial in some ways for teachers, it can also

present even more problem. Collaboration, at times, can be problematic due to the

difficulty of two adults working very closely together (Conderman & Johnston-Rodriguez,

2009; Snyder, Garriott, & Aylor, 2001).

Since studies have shown that general education teachers are not typically well

prepared to accommodate students with disabilities (Daane et al., 2000), it is beneficial to

examine how to increase the knowledge base of these teachers. The 2008 study by Brown

et al. (2008) examined the effectiveness of embedding special education instruction into a

teacher preparation assessment course. The researchers found that some general education

teachers are apprehensive when it comes to modifying or adapting examinations to special

learners (Brown et a.l, 2008). The researchers also found that a lack of training in the area

of assessment can cause teachers to use accommodations in testing procedures that violate

their own classroom standards. The Brown et al study was conducted by distributing

participants enrolled in an undergraduate evaluation and measurement course into two

groups. All participants were taught using one syllabus. The control group was taught the

material from the syllabus by a professor with little special education experience. The

experimental group was taught from the same syllabus but was given embedded instruction

on techniques to use with special learners. The professor of the experimental group had

experience and special training in working with special learners. “Results of this study

support the practice of embedding instruction regarding students with learning disabilities

into the content of general education teacher preparation courses” (Brown et a.l, 2008, p.

2,091). Participants in the control group exhibited expanded knowledge of key terms in

special education. Also, those receiving the instruction were able to create appropriate

interventions for traditional examinations (Brown et al., 2008). Results also suggested that

teacher candidates who received the special education instruction exhibited more

confidence in working with a diverse population of students. An improvement in

preservice teachers’ attitudes toward working with learning disabled students was also

noted (Brown et al., 2008).

“General educators need to come to the public schools armed with a deep set of

skills for students with exceptionalities learned not only by textbooks and coursework but

by seasoned professionals in the field” (Kantor, 2011, p. 118). Kantor studied the degree

to which a group of teachers believed that they were prepared to provide instruction to

students in a mixed-ability classroom. Three themes were mentioned repeatedly by

participants, “they are as follows: training for specific student populations, environmental

support, and comfort in professional knowledge and abilities” (Kantor, 2011, p. 101).

Kantor also found the following:

Teachers must make numerous decisions each day based on what they

believe will best support each individual child’s learning. Without

confidence in ones’ ability to make these decisions, this profession could

become extremely frustrating and overwhelming. It makes sense that

teachers would leave the field of education if they did have these feelings. I

do believe that teacher preparation may play an important role in the ability

to make decisions and as well as to be confident in them. (p. 106)

“General education teachers are assuming greater responsibility for the academic

progress of students with special needs” (Nutter, 2011, p. iv). Nutter examined the

relationship of knowledge base, skill levels, and attitudes of preservice teacher candidates

towards students with disabilities. Nutter found that the candidates perceived that they

have knowledge of laws pertaining to special education, but they were not confident in

implementing the procedures in the classroom. This suggests that preservice teachers

would benefit from more field experience and clinical practice to increase their comfort

level of implementing these procedures in the classroom (Nutter, 2011).

“Initially the inclusion movement focused mainly on children with disabilities; it

has in more recent years broadened in scope to encompass all students who may be

marginalized due to any form of special education need” (Forlin, Loreman, Sharma &

Earle, 2009, p. 196). For this reason, teacher preparation programs should ensure that new

teachers are able to meet the needs of a more diverse clientele (Forlin et al., 2009). These

programs cannot ignore the fact that inclusive education is here to stay (Forlin et al., 2009).

Research has shown that, “closer contact with people with disabilities and involvement in

teaching students with diverse needs has significant effect on improving attitudes towards

inclusion” (Forlin et al., 2009, p. 206). It is the responsibility of these teacher preparation

programs to produce graduates, “who have the appropriate knowledge, skills and attitudes

together with the confidence to be more proactive in furthering inclusion” (Forlin et al.,

2009, p. 207).

Revisiting the Study Foundations: Theories in Practice in the Classroom

“In a rich, caring classroom environment, children feel welcome and a part of the

group. A strong community creates a sense of belonging and shared purpose where

children learn to care for each other” (Bloom et al., 1999, pp. 132-133). A classroom is a

community, shared by the teacher and all of his/her students. Vygotsky (1978) stated:

Indeed, can it be doubted that children learn speech from adults; or that,

through asking questions and giving answers, children acquire a variety of

information; or that, through imitating adults and through being instructed

about how to act, children develop an entire repository of skills? Learning

and development are interrelated from the child’s very first day of life (p.

84)

A classroom likely will not be socially rich if the teacher does not feel prepared to

meet the needs of his/her students. Whether or not a teacher’s sense of self-efficacy

impacts his/her students is an important question. Pendergast et al. (2011) asserted that

“teacher self-efficacy is an important motivational construct that shapes teacher

effectiveness in the classroom” (p. 46). Thus, it is likely that a highly motivated teacher

will build a strong sense of community in the classroom and encourage his/her students to

achieve. However, lack of knowledge on how to meet the needs of children/students with

disabilities may hinder a teacher’s sense of self-efficacy which in turn may affect the

classroom community, and student achievement.

A lack of support for administrators, colleagues, and parents can also negatively

affect the school community. Children learn from every part of their environment, so

having support from other educational stake holders is also important (Gindis, 1999;

Mahn, 1999). A supportive administrator can help improve a teacher’s sense of self-

efficacy by providing the guidance and help he/she needs (Haverback & Parault, 2008; Lee

et al., 2010). Fellow teachers who have some experience in inclusive classrooms can assist

by sharing knowledge and resources. And finally, an active parent can help by supporting

the teacher and child.

Research has shown that the general education classroom can be a socially rich

environment where a child/student with disabilities can learn (Cole, 1999; Dixon &

Verenikia, 2007; Gindis, 1999). Moreover, a highly motivating, efficacious teacher

(Haverback, & Parault, 2008, Pendergast et al., 2011), can create an appropriate

environment where a child/student with special needs can learn. Combining these two

theories to support practice is likely to create an effective inclusive classroom.

Autism in the Classroom

“Autism has been declared a national health emergency” (Dahle, 2003, p. 65). As

stated earlier, a 2012 report from the CDC states that one in every 88 children will be

diagnosed with autism. This number has steadily increased. With these increased

numbers, there is a good chance that children/students with autism will be placed in

general education classrooms with some frequency. Furthermore, Dahle (2003) noted “at

these rates, in the next decade, autism could easily surpass mental retardation as the most

common developmental disability facing this country” (p. 65).

Autism is a disorder that has a wide spectrum of characteristics. Students with this

disorder possess varying ranges of abilities (Laushey, Heflin, Shippen, Alberto & Fredrick,

2009; Long, 2008). In the classroom environment, children with autism require additional

support from teachers and staff (Horrocks et al., 2008; Stainback & Stainback, 1990). A

person who is not familiar with autism, “may assume there is no disability and the person

is being ‘naughty’ when in reality they are reacting to stress or anxiety or are unable to

communicate their needs effectively” (Kairaranga, 2004, p. 13). These children can have

average skills in math and reading but are unable to write down their ideas or express their

opinions effectively (Laushey et al., 2009; Long, 2008). They may be easily distracted and

extremely sensitive to lights and sounds (Dahle, 2003; Darrow, 2009; Long, 2008).

Children/students with autistic students also find change and transition difficult (Laushey

et al., 2009). It is hard for them to move from one area of the curriculum to another

(Atwood, 1998). Using visual picture schedules and or timers can help with classroom

transition (Kairaranga, 2004). Some of these students may require a one-on-one assistant

or aide to help them throughout the day (Kairaranga, 2004). Unfortunately many districts

do not have the funding to provide such services which leaves the classroom teacher

without support.

With that in mind, it is important for teachers to know some ways to meet the needs

of children/students with autism in the classroom. Studies have suggested that developing

interventions that incorporate the child’s interest within the academic assignment can help

decrease his/her disruptive behavior and increase cooperation (Hinton & Kern, 1999;

Koegel, Singh, & Koegel, 2010, p. 1,057). Koegel et al. (2010) “incorporating

motivational components in academic tasks resulted in faster completion rates” (p. 1,065).

While many children/students with autism are highly intelligent, at times they lack the

motivation needed to complete academic tasks (Koegel et al., 2010). Increasing their

interest and motivation in academic work can help curve disruptive behaviors (Keogel et

al., 2010). Implementing these suggestions may help teachers deal with potential behavior

problems in the classroom.

Language/speech Disorders in the classroom

“The prevalence of communication disorders (speech, language, and hearing)

among school-age children continues to increase, making it imperative that the classroom

teacher be able to identify children in need of services” (Sunderland, 2004, p. 209). A

child’s performance in the classroom can be hindered by impaired communication skills.

Although the majority of the child’s therapeutic services may be provided outside the

classroom by a speech-language pathologist, it is still important for the classroom teacher

to understand what can be done in the classroom to help the child succeed. Sunderland

(2004) recommended that the classroom teacher, “consider his/her own rate of speech,

length and complexity of sentences, number of directives given at one time, positive to

negative reinforcement ratio, use of pre-corrects and voice” (p. 216). Sunderland also

recommends that teachers provide multiple opportunities for the child to practice using

good speech and language skills.

Children/students with communication disorders exhibit various difficulties in the

classroom. “The language demands of the classroom are already quite high, and

unfortunately, many school-age children have difficulty meeting these expectations”

(Nippold, 2012, p. 118). Elementary school children with a diagnosed language disorder

may have difficulty; reading words, comprehending what they have read, understanding

vocabulary, and using syntax correctly (Nippold, 2012). Many of these children have

social, academic and psychological issues that are associated with their communication

disorder that teachers should be aware of (Thatcher, Fletcher, & Decker, 2008). Research

has shown that children/students with communication disorders may not be able to answer

questions appropriately, have difficulty interacting with their peers and be unable to initiate

conversation (Pufpaff, 2008).

The National Joint Committee for the Communicative Needs of Persons with

Severe Disabilities, 1992 (as cited by Scherba de Valenzuela, 2002) defines

communication as:

Any act by which one person gives to or receives from another person

information about that person’s needs, desires, perceptions, knowledge, or

affective states. Communication may be intentional or unintentional, may

involve conventional or unconventional signals, may take linguistic or

nonlinguistic forms, and may occur through spoken or other modes. (p. 2)

“The critical role of communication in schools cannot be understated.

Communication skills are a necessity both in the academic and social atmosphere of the

school environment” (Thatcher et al., 2008, p. 579). Research has shown that there is a

strong association between speech and language skills and acquiring literacy skills

(Thatcher et al. 2008; Weigel, Martin, & Bennett, 2006). Difficulties in speech and

language may be manifested into difficulties with literacy (ASHA, 2012). If a child has a

hard time understanding spoken language, they may also have a hard time understanding

written language. A child with an articulation disorder may find phonics difficult since

they both deal with letter sounds (ASHA, 2012). It is important for teachers to understand

how these problems can manifest themselves in classroom work, as “communication is a

vital skill needed not only for success in the school environment, but within society”

(Thatcher et al., 2008, p. 580).

Children with Emotional Disabilities in the Classroom

It has been estimated that the number of children in school who suffer from

diagnosable mental, emotional and behavioral disorders is between 12 and 22% (Adelman

& Taylor, 2002). Disruptive behaviors can manifest themselves in various ways. Many

children/students with EmD are either anxious/withdrawn or aggressive (Bullock & Gable,

2006; Center, 1993). They can be antisocial, or act out in a disruptive fashion (Bullock &

Gable, 2006). “Because no one tolerates disruptive behavior, these students are viewed as

‘troublemakers’ and their behaviors are broadly considered unacceptable in the classroom”

(Bullock & Gable, 2006, p. 9). Children/students with EmD can also be easily distractible

and non-compliant (Bullock & Gable, 2006; Ducharme & Shecter, 2011). Bullock and

Gable (2006) stated:

It is often difficult to actively engage these students in learning activities.

Many of these students appear to be unmotivated, passive, and disinterested

in their schooling, whereas others may seem over anxious, phobic, or social

isolates. (p. 9)

These behaviors can make classroom management difficult. “Managing student’s

inappropriate behaviors is a time-consuming task that reduces the amount of time teachers

spend on teaching and the amount of time student spend on academic tasks” (Matheson &

Shriver, 2005, p. 202). Research has suggested that children who exhibit a compliance rate

of less than 40% are not benefiting from instructional opportunities and time (Rhodes,

Jenson, & Reavis, 1993).

“Dealing with student problem behavior is one of the most pressing concerns

facing educators in the classroom” (Ducharme & Shecter, 2011, p. 257). Research has

shown that teachers do not feel adequately trained to manage this difficult behavior

(Ducharme & Shecter, 2011; Rhodes et al., 1993). Ducharme and Shecter (2011) found:

The training that teachers receive before entering the classroom often does

not adequately prepare them for the behavioral challenges they are likely to

face. As a result, teachers may experience low self-efficacy in their efforts

to manage student behavior. Reactive approaches are the most commonly

used by teachers for dealing with problem responses and these strategies

may result in short-term reductions of problem behavior, but often at the

cost of long-term child well-being. (p. 270)

Effective classroom management is very successful in fostering student compliance

(Fox & Gable, 2004; Zabel, Kaff, & Teagarden, 2011). Previous research has

demonstrated positive correlations between well-managed classrooms and student

engagement in academic tasks (Matheson & Shriver, 2005). With good classroom

management a teacher may be able to avoid some disruptive behaviors and encourage

productive behaviors.

Specific Learning Disabled Children in the Classroom

The characteristics of persons with a learning disability vary from person to

person. However, a common aspect is that they can have a normal or above normal

intelligence (Cass, 2010; Nielson, 2009). Maanum (2009) defined a specific

learning disability as a disorder that:

Is manifested by interference with acquisition, organization, storage,

retrieval, manipulation, or expression of information and inhibits the ability

of the individual to learn at an adequate rate when provided with the usual

developmental opportunities and instruction from a regular school

environment. (p. 95)

Maanum (2009) further explained that this reduced learning rate is found in one or

more of the following areas: oral expression, listening comprehension, mathematical

calculation, basic reading skills, reading comprehension, and written expression. In the

past a student was required to exhibit a discrepancy between his/her intelligence and

academic performance to qualify for services under the category of specific learning

disabled, but it is not the case now (Karten, 2008; Maanum, 2009). Children/students with

specific learning disability are children who can learn, but learn differently. When being

compared to their normally developing peers, children/students with a learning disability

show difficulty with planning, organizing and revising written words (Cass, 2010; De La

Paz, 2007; Graham & Harris, 2003). Research has shown that how a child with a learning

disability is taught is as important as what they are taught (Grumbine & Alden, 2006;

Hughes, 2011). Children/students with a learning disability are expected to acquire

information from various modalities, store the information to enhance understanding, and

demonstrate the knowledge they have acquired (Hughes, 2011). This can be difficult for

them. Using specific learning strategies can help them learn, understand and remember

information better. Researchers have found that using task specific strategies that are well-

designed, effective and efficient can help increase a child’s independence in learning

(Graham & Harris, 2003; Hughes, 2011). “An effective strategy is a priceless tool in a

teacher’s toolbox” (Cass, 2010, p. 66).

One such strategy is the EmPOWER strategy. EmPOWER was developed by

Bonnie Singer and Anthony Bashir in 2004, (as cited in Cass, 2010). The acronym stands

for: evaluate, make a plan, organize, work, evaluate, and re-work. This strategy has steps

and prompts to help children/students with SLD improve their writing skills (Cass, 2010).

Using these steps may help a student organize and complete his/her work successfully.

A student with a learning disability needs to learn how to study and organize school

work before he/she is able to learn content (Gersten, Schiller, & Vaughn, 2000; Swanson,

Haskyn, & Lee, 1999). Some useful classroom accommodations maybe: to provide audio

tapes of presentations, reduce the number of items on a page or line, allow the child to give

verbal instead of written responses, give preferential seating, provide special test

preparation, and provide an outline of the day’s activities on the board.

Summary

“Difference is not an exception… but something that happens in the natural course

of things” (Stiker, 1997, p. 12). Disabled children are a natural part of the educational

arena. Their needs should be considered just as those of any other students. Federal

mandates such as IDEA (2004) and NCLB (2001) state that these children should be

educated with their normal-aged peers as much as appropriate, and are expected to achieve

as any other student. Banglieri and Knopf (2004) theorized:

Because so many in our society buy into difference as impairment, (i.e.,

they construct difference as negative), the normalizing discourse and

resulting social structures create barriers to access for individuals with

differences and frequency prohibit them from active participation in the

communities in which they reside. (p. 525)

These communities include their school community. As Vygotsky (1978)

theorized, learning has a strong social aspect. Children with disabilities should be allowed

to learn within their school community just like everyone else. As discussed earlier each

disability category has its own characteristics and criteria. This gives general education

teachers more information to take in, process, and prepare for. Pertinent research has

shown that the role of the general education teacher is changing (Brown et al., 2008;

Grskovic & Trzcinka, 2011). However, some experts believe there has not been sufficient

change in the content of teacher preparation programs that addresses this responsibility

(Brown et al., 2008). From the time they are teacher candidates, teachers should develop a

positive attitude and the confidence needed to teach a diverse group of students (Brown et

al., 2008; Forlin et al., 2009; Silverman, 2007). In today’s society, schools are being

blamed for not embracing inclusion, but it is, in part, the responsibility of teacher

preparation programs to ensure educators are ready to teach in inclusive classrooms (Forlin

et al., 2009). It is also the responsibility of school districts to provide professional

development for teachers that will prepare them to (Yell & Katsiyannis, 2004) work in an

inclusive setting.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the perceptions of general education

teachers regarding their preparedness to teach students with specific special education

needs. This study focused on the special education exceptionalities of autism,

language/speech disorder, specific learning disability, and an emotional disability. This

study determined if there is a relationship between the level of teacher preparedness and

the special education disability category. Finally, the study allowed the opportunity for

teachers to offer suggestions for strategies to better help them prepare.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Chapter III outlines the research design and methods that were used in this study.

The following section explains the research questions, hypotheses, independent and

dependent variables. Chapter III also describes the study participants, instrumentation,

study procedures and the analytical methods that were used.

Research Design

The purpose of this study was to determine whether general education teachers in

elementary schools believed they are prepared to teach children/students with specific

special education exceptionalities in the regular education classroom. A multiple method

quasi-experimental design was used in this study. The researcher obtained quantitative and

qualitative data to answer the research questions. Data were obtained from a questionnaire

completed by third, fourth, and fifth grade general education teachers. The questionnaire

gave the participants four vignettes that described behaviors and characteristics noted in

four specific special education exceptionalities (autism, speech/language disorder, specific

learning disability and an emotional disability). The participants answered responded to

items about their degree of perceived preparedness to work with the child described in each

vignette. Participants also had an opportunity to answer an open-ended question that

solicited their perspectives on conditions that would make them more confident in teaching

children with special needs.

Research Questions/Hypotheses

Discovering the degree to which general education teachers perceive that they are

prepared to teach in an inclusive classroom yielded valuable information. The results of

this study can be used by school districts to increase the number and subject matter of

professional development workshops used to improve teacher preparedness. Quantitative

and qualitative data were gathered. The following research questions and hypotheses were

addressed in this study.

1. What are general education teachers’ perceptions of planning differentiated

instruction for children/students with the following special education

eligibilities: autism, speech/language disorder, specific learning disability and

emotional disability in the general education classroom?

2. Are there differences in general educators’ level of perceived preparedness to

work with special needs learners based on the children/students’ eligibility

category?

3. Are the perceptions of the level of perceived preparedness of general education

teachers related to selected background characteristics that include: level of

education, the number of special education classes taken during their training,

current grade assignment years of experience teaching, and time since last

professional development in special education?

4. What conditions will increase general educators’ level of perceived

preparedness to work with special needs learners?

The following related hypotheses were addressed in the study:

: There are differences in general educators’ level of perceived preparedness to

work with children/students with special needs based on the students’ eligibility

category.

: The perceptions of the level of perceived preparedness of general education

teachers are related to selected background characteristics that include: level of

education, the number of special education classes taken during their training,

years of experience teaching, and most recently attended professional

development in special education.

Participants in the Study

After obtaining approval from superintendents in participating districts and from

the Instructional Review Board of the University of Southern Mississippi, the researcher

conducted the study. Elementary schools were identified in each participating district. A

sample letter to the superintendents and the related consent form are attached as Appendix

A. These districts and schools were chosen because of the convenience of their

geographical location. Furthermore these districts are reflective of the socio-economic and

racial/ethnic diversity of the state of Mississippi. According to the U. S. Census Bureau

(2010); the state of Mississippi has had a population increase. Of the counties served by

these school districts, only one had a significant loss in population (U.S. Census Bureau,

2010). The Hispanic/Latino population in the state has also grown slightly. While this

study does not address socio-economic and racial/ethnic factors as variables, it is useful to

note the degree to which the pertinent region is generally representative of the rest of the

state.

One hundred-ninety instruments were distributed to schools by the researcher.

Third, fourth and fifth grade teachers were asked to participate in this study. Of this

number, 52 individuals returned completed instruments, for a response rate of 27.3%. The

instruments were hand-delivered and mailed to school principals by the researcher.

Principals were asked to distribute the instruments to general education teachers in their

schools. Principals were asked not to distribute surveys to special education teachers at

their school. For the purpose of this study, the data on perceived preparedness to teach

students with selected disabilities came exclusively from general education teachers. All

third, fourth, and fifth grade teachers in each of the participating schools were asked to

participate.

Informed consent was obtained from study participants. The adult consent form is

attached as Appendix B. This document explained that study participation was strictly

voluntary and confidential. Although some demographic information was obtained, no

identifying information was needed or obtained. Demographic information included

gender, level of education, current teaching grade/position (school placement was not

identified), years of experience teaching, and participation in professional development.

Demographic information such as years of experience was used in the statistical analysis of

the data, but personal identifying information was not used or reported.

Instrumentation

This study utilized a mixed-method survey instrument that yielded quantitative and

qualitative data. An original instrument entitled the General Educators’ Preparedness for

Inclusive Education (GEPIE) was utilized to obtain data for this study; it is attached as

Appendix C. This instrument was designed by the researcher because there was not one

available that followed a vignette/scenario format.

Research has shown that using vignettes and narratives in research has been done in

education and the social sciences for many years (Hughes & Huby, 2002). These vignettes

or hypothetical scenarios are described as partial descriptions of life or situations to which

the subject is invited to respond to (Brauer et al., 2009; Finch, 1987). Researchers have

found several benefits to using the vignette approach. First, while it tells a story, a vignette

can be developed so that it is consistent with the research topic (Kayser-Jones & Koening,

1994; Schoenberg & Ravdal, 2000). Vignettes are also relaxing and interesting during the

data collection process (Kayser-Jones & Koening, 1994; Schoenberg & Ravdal, 2000).

Lastly, vignettes can help obtain information beyond the informant’s current situation

(Kayser-Jones & Koening, 1994; Schoenberg & Ravdal, 2000). Furthermore, Brauer et al.

(2009) noted “vignettes can be used in multiple contexts, with a range of professions

and/or community members, to elicit opinions, attitudes or preferences for action” (p.

1,943). Brauer and colleagues also found that this type of study design merits

consideration and should be further developed.

Though there are many benefits to using a vignette design for research, Schoenberg

and Ravdal (2000) describe some drawbacks. These authors noted “data collection and

analysis revealed three shortcomings of the vignette approach, including: (1) problems

related to response; (2) challenges of analysis; and (3) shortcomings inherent in

hypothetical scenarios” (p. 70). Another difficulty with this type of research design is the

fact that informants can interpret the vignette in a different way than intended and the

researcher can interpret the informants’ responses in various ways (Finch, 1987; Morse,

1998; Schoenberg & Ravdal, 2000). To minimize these concerns researcher sought out

assistance from the panel of experts to insure the vignettes were appropriate for the chosen

grades and were easy to understand.

The instrument for this study was divided into three sections. Part I asked for

demographic information; the participants responded to items about their current teaching

assignment, level of education, years of experience, number of hours in special education

taken, and when they had their most recent professional development in special education.

This section covered Research Question 3 of this study. Part II contained the vignettes and

Likert scale items. There was one vignette for each exceptionality identified for this study.

Vignette 1 discussed a specific learning disability. Vignette 2 represented a child/student

with a language/speech disorder. Vignette 3 discussed autism, and Vignette 4 discussed an

emotional disability. The vignettes described characteristics and abilities, related to each

exceptionality that may be observed in the classroom. After reading the vignette,

participants were asked to answer six items on a Likert scale of 1-6, with 1 equating to

strongly disagree, and 6 equating to strongly agree. The six items were similar from

vignette to vignette, but modified slightly from in order to be specific with respect to each

exceptionality. One of the items, Item 6, was reversed in polarity. Part II of the instrument

provided data used to analyze Research Questions 1 and 2. Part III asked open-ended

questions pertaining to educational experiences in special education, what teachers needed

from special education personnel to better prepare them, and which of the four

exceptionalities they believed they were most prepared and least prepared to handle. Part

III yielded data to answer Research Question 4.

The instrument was validated by means of an expert panel review. The panel of

experts was formed to ensure that the case study vignettes provided descriptions of

students that were consistent with MDE requirements for each special education category

used. The form used by the panel of experts is included as Appendix D. Panel members

were various professionals with knowledge of special education requirements and

characteristics.

Once the panel of experts completed its review, the instrument was edited and

finalized. Following Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, a pilot study was

conducted to ensure the reliability of the instrument. Twelve teachers were asked to

participate in the pilot study. These teachers were from schools outside of the schools

participating in the full study. All data obtained from the pilot study were analyzed by

using the statistical program SPSS. The Cronbach’s alpha was used to test the reliability

of the instrument. The test disclosed a reliability of greater than .900 for all four vignettes.

The results of Cronbach’s alpha test of reliability are further discussed in Table 1.

Table 1

Cronbach’s alpha for Pilot Study and Dissertation

Cronbach’s alpha Pilot Study Dissertation

Vignette 1 .933 .906

Vignette 2 .958 .936

Vignette 3 .967 .926

Vignette 4 .973 .937

Cronbach’s alpha was used during the formal study to assess the reliability and

internal consistency of the vignettes and Likert scale items. This test of coefficient

reliability was performed on all four vignette/item sets to determine how adequately it

measured a single concept. In order to be considered acceptable the Cronbach alpha result

must 0.70 or greater. As shown in Table 1 the test disclosed reliabilities of greater than

.900 during the pilot study and did so subsequently during the dissertation study.

Procedures

The study was conducted by using the following procedures. The researcher hand

delivered and/or mailed the questionnaires to the participating schools. The principals of

these schools distributed the surveys to the teacher participants. The completed surveys

were mailed to the researcher in a stamped envelope. Electronic surveys were also

available but were not requested. A letter was attached to each survey that provided

information and requested participation in the study (Appendix E). The letter explained

that participation was voluntary and completely confidential. It also advised participants

that filling out the survey implied consent to participate and that there would be no

negative consequences if they choose not to participate. Paper surveys were to be kept in a

locked file cabinet by the researcher for no more than one year. After that period they

were to be destroyed. The survey information was not shared with any persons other than

the researcher’s dissertation advisors. Upon completion, a summary of the findings were

to be shared with school districts that requested it. Once all data were collected, the results

were analyzed in Chapter IV and discussed in Chapter V.

Analysis

Descriptive, differential and correlational statistics were used to analyze collected

data. The researcher computed frequencies, standard deviations, and means for the data

collected, including demographic data. The demographic data were in turn used in the

analysis of Research Question 3. This demographic information included: level of

education, the number of special education classes participants took during their training,

years of experience teaching, and the amount of professional development in special

education that they have attended.

Descriptive statistics were computed for participant responses to each of the 6

items in the vignette subscales. The original, unreversed mean for Item 6 in each

exceptionality subscale, which was reversed in polarity, was reported first. The reversed

means were used in the calculation of the total subscale means and in the analyses

associated with the hypotheses. In addition to other applications, these data provided

information to answer Research Question 1, which relied purely on descriptive analyses.

The researcher also determined whether there were differences among the levels of

perceived preparedness from one exceptionality to another to gain further information for

Hypothesis 1 by comparing the means of the Likert scale items for each exceptionality. A

one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated to compare the

means of the variables. A prediction regression was used to analyze the level of perceived

preparedness to work with each specified exceptionality. These tests yielded data to

answer Research Question 2 and test Hypothesis 1.

A multiple regression and Pearson’s product-moment correlation (r) statistics were

used to determine if there was a relationship between the level of perceived preparedness

and the selected background characteristics, which included level of education, current

grade assignment, years of experience, number of special education classes taken, and the

occurrence of their last professional development. The multiple regression was run for

each exceptionality: autism, speech/language disorder, specific learning disability and

emotional disability. This test yielded information to answer Research Question 3 and test

Hypothesis 2. For this study the p-value was .05. The data were analyzed in SPSS to

obtain answers to the proposed research questions.

Results from the open-ended questions in Part III were analyzed using thematic

code development and/or grounded theory (Crestwell, 2009). This technique, originally

developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967), uses a set of systematic steps. For the first stage

of coding, the researcher generated categories or themes from the information provided by

open coding. Next, the researcher used axial coding to generate categories from these

themes and compared the relationships of the coded data (Crestwell, 2009). This

information was used to answer Research Question 4.

Summary

“The enrollment of young children and students with disabilities in regular classes

has been one of the most significant pedagogical challenges for education systems” (Dixon

& Verenikina, 2007, p. 192). It is clear that educators should be more knowledgeable

about disabilities, collaboration with other professionals, and the special needs of their

students (Hamil, Jantzen, & Bargerhuff, 1999). For this reason, this study utilized a

researcher-developed instrument, General Educators’ Preparedness for Inclusive Education

(GEPIE), to measure how prepared general educators were to work with special needs

students. The information obtained from this study demonstrated that educators do not feel

prepared to teach special needs students in the general education classroom. This study

also addressed participants’ recommendations for steps that can be taken by school

districts and teacher preparation programs to help prepare them to better meet the

instructional needs of students with disabilities.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Many benefits and complications have been created by the increased inclusion of

children/students receiving special education services in the general education classroom.

The purpose of this study was to measure general education teachers perceptions’ of their

ability to effectively teach children/students with specific special education rulings in the

general education classroom. This study focused on the special education exceptionalities

of autism, language/speech disorder, specific learning disability, and emotionally

disability. The study measured the relationship between the level of teacher preparedness

and the special education disability category. Lastly, the study provided respondents with

the opportunity to offer explanations of which exceptionalities they believe they are the

most and least prepared to work with. This chapter describes the results of the study and

includes both quantitative and qualitative information.

Quantitative Results

The research design for this study of teacher perceptions of working with

children/students with special education needs in the general education classroom was a

multiple method, quasi-experimental design. The instrument yielded quantitative and

qualitative information. An original instrument entitled the General Educators’

Preparedness for Inclusive Education (GEPIE) was utilized for this study. The instrument

used a vignette/scenario format and was divided into three sections. Part I addressed items

about demographic information. Part II contained four vignettes, one for each

exceptionality and Likert scale items. Part III contained open-ended questions used to

further assess teacher preparedness. Parts I and II yielded quantitative data while Part III

yielded qualitative data.

Descriptive statistics and one-way repeated measures analysis of variance

(ANOVA) were used to compare whether the level of teacher preparedness differed based

on the special education exceptionality of students. These analyses were used to answer

Research Questions 1 and 2 and test Hypothesis 1, which was associated with Research

Question 1. The study used a prediction regression to analyze the level of perceived

preparedness with each exceptionality. A multiple regression and Pearson’s product

moment correlation (r) statistic was used to determine if there was a relationship between

the level of perceived preparedness and the particular exceptionality. The multiple

regressions were run for each exceptionality: autism, speech/language disorder, specific

learning disability, and emotional disability. These tests provided information to answer

Research Question 3 and test the related hypothesis, Hypothesis 2. For this study the p-

value was .05. The quantitative results for this study are as follows:

Demographic Items

Five superintendents gave the researcher permission to contact principals and

conduct study research. One hundred-ninety surveys were distributed among 20 schools

through 3 of the five original districts. Two districts did not have any principals respond to

the request for participation. Of the 190 distributed surveys 52 (27.3%) of the teachers

returned the completed surveys. All respondents were female. Of those who completed

the survey, the majority had a bachelor’s degree or master’s degree. Only 1 respondent

had a specialist’s degree. The participants consisted of a fairly equal distribution of third,

fourth, and

fifth grade teachers, although there was a slightly higher percentage of fifth

grade teachers than of the other two grades. The largest proportion of respondents in terms

of experience was the group with one to five years of experience (34.6%). The frequencies

and percentages for gender, education level, current grade level teaching and years of

experience are listed in Table 2.

Table 2

Teacher Demographic Frequencies and Percentages

Variable Frequency Percent

Gender

Female 52 100.0

Education Level

Bachelor 28 53.8

Master 23 44.2

Specialist 1 1.9

Grade Level

19 36.5

13 25.0

20 38.5

Years of Experience

1-5 18 34.6

6-10 10 19.2

11-15 13 25.0

Table 2 (continued).

Variable Frequency Percent

16-20 3 5.8

21+ 8 15.4

The 52 respondents reported various levels of special education classes taken

during their teacher training. The largest proportion of respondents in terms of number of

hours of special education classes taken was the group with over 12 hours or four or more

classes (25%). On the other hand, a large proportion took either one special education

class (23.1%) or none at all (21.2). It is interesting to note that a large number reported

having no special education classes during their training. The frequencies and percentages

of hours of special education classes taken during teacher training are listed in Table 3.

Table 3

Frequencies and Percentages of Special Education Classes Taken

Hours taken Frequency Percent

None 11 21.2

3 (1 class) 12 23.1

6 (2 classes) 10 19.2

9 (3 classes) 6 11.5

12+(4 or more classes) 13 25.0

To further assess the level of preparedness of respondents to work with

children/students with special needs, the teachers were asked how recently they had

professional development training in the area of special education. The largest proportion

of respondents in terms of having recently attended professional development in the area of

special education was the group having attended professional development within the past

year (38.5%). On the other hand, a large proportion (28.8%) reported no special education

professional development. A small number reported attending professional development

training within the past four to five years or longer. Frequencies of professional

development are listed in Table 4.

Table 4

Frequencies for Professional Development

Years since last

professional development

Frequency Percent

None 15 28.8

Past year 20 38.5

1-3 9 17.3

4-5 2 3.8

5+ 6 11.5

Quantitative: Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics were computed in order to discern the perceptions of general

education teachers regarding their abilities to work with children/students with special

needs in the general education classroom. Each of four exceptionalities within which

students might be classified was presented to the respondents in the form of a short

vignette/scenario. The vignette presented some characteristics that could be exhibited by

the student in the classroom based on the specific ruling. This study focused on autism,

speech/language disorder, specific learning disability, and emotional disability. The

vignettes described strengths and weaknesses that could be displayed by a child/student

who might qualify for the particular exceptionality.

There was one vignette for each exceptionality identified for this study. Vignette 1

discussed a specific learning disability. Vignette 2 represented a child/student with a

language/speech disorder. Vignette 3 discussed autism, and Vignette 4 discussed an

emotional disability. After reading the vignette, participants were asked to answer six

different items on a Likert scale of 1-6, with 1 equating to strongly disagree, and 6

equating to strongly agree. These items were repeated for each vignette. The means and

standard deviations were calculated for each item in each vignette. Item 6 for each

exceptionality was reversed in polarity. The original, unreversed mean for Item 6 in each

exceptionality subscale, which was reversed in polarity, was reported first. The reversed

means were used in the calculation of the total subscale means and in the analyses

associated with the hypotheses.

The total mean for Vignette 1, specific learning disability (M=4.23) was the highest

mean among the totals for the four vignettes. The mean for Vignette 2, language/speech

disorder (M=3.87), Vignette 3, autism (M=3.66), and Vignette 4, and emotional disability

(M=3.67) were lower and were very similar. The total means and standard deviations for

the four vignettes can be found in Table 5.

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics for Vignettes (N = 52)

Exceptionality Mean SD

Specific Learning

Disability

4.23 1.15

Speech/Language Disorder 3.87 1.29

Autism 3.66 1.43

Emotional Disability 3.67 1.33

Note. Likert Scale 1= Strongly Disagree 6= Strongly Agree

There were six items following each vignette. The six items were similar from

vignette to vignette, but tailored where necessary for each exceptionality. The items were

designed to measure whether the teacher believed that he/she was prepared to teach the

student, prepared to address the student’s educational needs, able to make modifications to

the curriculum, make accommodations in the classroom, plan differentiated instruction,

and if having a child with a particular ruling in the classroom made him/her feel less

prepared to teach the child. The descriptive statistics for each item are further profiled in

Table 6.

Columns 2 and 3 of Table 6 profile means and standard deviations for the items

related to specific learning disability. Item 3, which reads as follows, “I am well prepared

to make modifications to the general curriculum for this student” had the highest mean

(M= 4.56) . Item 6, which reads as follow, “Having a child with a specific learning

disabled ruling in my class makes me feel less prepared to teach this child,” had the lowest

mean (2.83). However, it should be noted that Item 6 was reversed in polarity. The item

with the lowest mean that was not reversed was Item 2, which reads as follows: “I am well

prepared to address the special education needs of this student,” (M = 4.00).

Column 4 and 5 of Table 6, profile means and standard deviations for the items

related to speech/language disorder. Item 3, which reads as follows, “I am well prepared to

make modifications to the general curriculum for this student,” had the highest mean

(M=3.94). Similarly, Item 5, which reads as follows, “I am well prepared to plan

differentiated instruction for this child,” had the same mean (M =3.94). Item 6, which

reads as follows, “Having a child with a language/speech disorder in my class makes me

feel less prepared to teach this child,” had the lowest mean (2.85). However, it should be

noted that item 6 was reversed in polarity. The item with the lowest mean that was not

reversed was Item 2, which reads as follows,” I am well prepared to address the special

education needs of this student,” (M = 3.65)

Column 6 and 7 of Table 6 profile the means and standard deviations for items

related to autism. Item 1, which reads as follows, “I am well prepared to teach this student

in my class,” had the highest mean (M = 3.67). Similarly, Item 3, which reads as follows,

“I am well prepared to make modifications to the general curriculum for this student,” had

the same mean (M = 3.67). Item 6, which reads as follows, “Having a child with an autism

ruling in my class makes me feel less prepared to teach this child,” had the lowest mean

(M= 3.19). However, Item 6 was reversed in polarity. The item with the lowest mean that

was not reversed was Item 2, which reads as follows, “I am well prepared to address the

special education needs of this student,” (M=3.58).

Column 8 and 9 of Table 6 profile the means and standard deviations for items

related to emotional disability. Item 5, which reads as follows, “I am well prepared to plan

differentiated instruction for this child,” had the highest mean (M = 3.79). Item 6, which

reads as follows, “Having a child with an emotional disability ruling in my class makes me

feel less prepared to teach this child,” had the lowest mean (M = 3.31). However, Item 6

was reversed in polarity. The item with the lowest mean that was not reversed was Item 2,

which reads as follows, “I am well prepared to address the special education needs of this

student,” (M = 3.58).

Table 6

Descriptive Statistics for Vignette Items (N=52)

Specific

Learning

Disability

Speech/Language

Disorder

Autism Emotional

Disability

Question Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

1. I am prepared

to teach this

student in my

class

4.04 1.46 3.71 1.42 3.67 1.70 3.63 1.47

2. I am prepared

to address the

special education

needs of this

student

4.00 1.37 3.65 1.45 3.58 1.59 3.56 1.54

3. I am prepared

to make modify

the general

curriculum

4.56 1.23 3.94 1.39 3.67 1.63 3.69 1.54

4. I am prepared

to make

accommodations

to the classroom

4.21 1.30 3.83 1.54 3.65 1.68 3.69 1.62

Table 6 (continued).

Specific

Learning

Disability

Speech/Language

Disorder

Autism Emotional

Disability

Question Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

5. I am prepared

to plan

differentiated

instruction for

this student.

4.40 1.32 3.94 1.50 3.60 1.68 3.79 1.36

6. I am less

prepared to teach

this child due to

the exceptionality

2.83

1.67 2.85

1.60 3.19

1.78 3.31

1.64

Total 4.23 1.15 3.87 1.29 3.66 1.43 3.67 1.33

Note. Item 6 for each exceptionality was reversed in polarity. The original means for this item are reported in the row to the right of

the item. These means were reversed in the calculation of the total means in the bottom row

Research Question and Hypothesis Results

Four research questions and two hypotheses were examined and answered in this

study. Research Question 1 was worded as follows: What are general education teachers’

perceptions of planning differentiated instruction for children/students with the following

special education eligibilities: autism, speech language disorder, specific learning

disability, and emotional disability? This question required the analysis of descriptive

statistics only. Item 5 in each vignette in Part II of the instrument, reads as follows, “I am

well prepared to plan differentiated instruction for this student,” and addressed this

research question. While a statistical comparison of these means was not conducted, the

exceptionality with the highest mean on the scale of 1-6 was specific learning disability (M

= 4.40). The exceptionality with the lowest mean was autism (M = 3.60). The means and

standard deviations for Item 5 are profiled in Table 7.

Table 7

Descriptive Statistics for Differentiated Instruction

Exceptionality Mean Standard Deviation

Specific Learning

Disability

4.40 1.32

Speech/Language Disorder 3.94 1.50

Autism 3.60 1.68

Emotional Disorder 3.79 1.36

Hypothesis 1 was associated with Research Question 2 and stated as follows: there

are differences in general educators’ level of perceived preparedness to work with

children/students with disabilities based on the students’ eligibility category. The

hypothesis compares how educators’ perceive working with a child/student with one of the

four specified special education exceptionalities. A repeated measures ANOVA was

conducted to test Hypothesis 1. This test confirmed that there are differences in general

educators’ level of perceived preparedness to work with children/students with disabilities

based on the eligibility category as indicated by the Multivariate F-test, F(3,49)=6.77, p

=.001. This hypothesis, therefore, was accepted. Of the four exceptionalities, the

exceptionality of specific learning disabled, which had the highest mean (M = 4.23)

showed the most significant difference. The total means of the other three exceptionalities

were relatively equal and the difference were less significant indicating similar perceptions

among the participants regarding their ability to teach children/students with autism,

speech/language disorder, and emotional disability rulings.

Hypothesis 2 was stated as follows: The perceptions of the level of perceived

preparedness of general education teachers are related to selected background

characteristics that include: level of education, the number of special education classes

taken during their training, years of experience teaching, and how recently they attended

professional development in special education. A multiple regression analysis was

conducted to determine if there was a significant difference in the level of perceived

preparedness for each exceptionality based on the selected background characteristics. For

specific learning disability, the model summary reported an R

of 0.185, indicating that the

variability explained by the model was approximately 18%. Since the F is the average

amount of variability and is used to test the statistical significance of the model, the

ANOVA table indicates that the regression was not statistically significant with F (5, 46)

=2.095, p =.083. These results are shown in Table 8. The data explain that there is not a

significant relationship between the dependent variable, specific learning disability, and the

specified background characteristics. Of the five chosen background characteristics, hours

of special education classes taken were the most statistically significant. This means that

the number of hours taken in special education classes would have the most influence on

the level of perceived preparedness if the relationship was significant.

Table 8

Coefficients of Specific Learning Disability

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

Variables B Beta Sig.

(Constant) 3.58 .000

Education Level .328 .154 .331

Grade Level -.225 -.171 .232

Years of

Experience

.175 .215 .200

SPED Classes .153 .199 .196

Prof. Development -.117 -.128 .401

Note. Dependent Variable: Specific Learning Disability

The analysis of Hypothesis 2 continued with this exceptionality of a

speech/language disorder. The model summary reported an R

of 0.261 for the selected

background characteristics, indicating that the variability explained by the model was 26%.

Since the F is the average amount of variability and is used to test the statistical

significance of the model, the ANOVA table indicates that the regression was statistically

significant with F (5, 46) =3.253, p =.013. These results are shown in Table 9. The data

explain that there is a statistically significant relationship between the dependent variable,

a speech/language disorder and the specified background characteristics. Of the five

background characteristics tested, grade level and hours of special education classes were

the most statistically significant. This means that the grade level taught by the teacher and

hours of special education training received had the most influence on the level of

perceived preparedness.

Table 9

Coefficients of Speech/Language Disorder

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

Variables B Beta Sig.

(Constant) 3.868 .000

Education Level -0.12 -.005 .973

Grade Level -.466 -.315 .023

Years of

Experience

.054 .060 .707

SPED Classes .338 .390 .010

Prof. Development -.075 -0.73 .617

Note. Dependent Variable: Speech/Language Disorder

To further test Hypothesis 2, autism was analyzed. The model summary reported

an R

of .249, indicating that the variability explained by the model was 24.9%. Since the

F is the average amount of variability and is used to test the statistical significance of the

model, the ANOVA table indicates that the regression was significant with F (5, 46)

=3.045, p =.019. These results are shown in Table 10. The data explain that there is a

significant relationship between the dependent variable, autism, and the specified

background characteristics. The most significant characteristics were the number of

special education classes taken and professional development. This means that hours of

special education training and how recently the teacher attended professional development

in special education may have the most influence on the level of perceived preparedness.

Table 10

Coefficients of Autism

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

Variables B Beta Sig.

(Constant) 4.372 6.214

Education Level -.245 -.093 .543

Grade Level -.376 -.229 .097

Years of

Experience

.133 .131 .413

SPED Classes .337 .351 .020

Prof. Development -.396 -.348 .021

Note. Dependent Variable: Autism

The analysis of Hypothesis 2 concluded with the analysis associated with the

exceptionality of emotional disability. The model summary reported an R

of .180,

indicating that the variability explained by the model was 18%. Since the F is the average

amount of variability and is used to test the statistical significance of the model, the

ANOVA table indicates that the regression was not statistically significant with F (5, 46) =

2.019, p =.094. These results are displayed in Table 11. The data explain that there is not

a significant relationship between the dependent variable, autism, and the specified

background characteristics. The most significant background characteristic was

professional development. However the model shows us that these particular background

characteristics do not influence teachers’ level of perceived preparedness when working

with a child/student with an emotional disability.

Table 11

Coefficients of Emotional Disability

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

Variables B Beta Sig.

(Constant) 4.732 .000

Education Level .212 .086 .588

Grade Level -.384 -.252 .082

Years of

Experience

.040 .043 .797

SPED Classes .102 .114 .457

Prof. Development -.432 -.408 .010

Note. Dependent Variable: Emotional Disability

Qualitative Data Analysis

Part III of the GEPIE asked four open-ended questions to elicit responses about

participants’ level of pre-service special education training, needs from special education

personnel, and thoughts on which of the four exceptionalities they believe that they are the

most and least prepared to handle. The qualitative responses in this study addressed

Research Question 4 regarding the conditions that general educators perceive would help

to increase their level of preparedness to work with children/students with special needs.

This qualitative section was added to provide a deeper analysis of conditions that have

promoted the educators to perceive the degree to which they are prepared to work with

children/students with special needs.

Forty-seven of the fifty-two total respondents (90% of survey respondents, and

25% of the original sample) answered the questions in Part III of the instrument. A

separate protocol was used to analyze the qualitative data. All responses were recorded

according to the question number. Once recorded, the responses were analyzed for similar

themes. The responses were then categorized by theme. The themes were then compared.

The qualitative data from the respondents are reported below.

Question 1, which read as follows, “Did your teacher preparation program prepare

you to work with special education students? If not, what would you do to the program to

better prepare you?” asked about teacher preparation program experience. A total of 35

(74% of survey respondents) individuals answered no, 11 (23%) answered yes, and 1 (2%)

respondent answered not applicable to Question 1 of Part III.

The first major theme found in the responses to Question 1 in Part III indicated that

respondents wanted more special education classes as part of their teacher certification and

classroom training experiences. The largest percentage of respondents believed that one

class of general special education wasn’t enough. Most respondents reported taking at

least one special education class during their pre-service training. One respondent stated,

“No, I had little to no training on how to teach or deal with special education students. It

would have helped if I understood what to expect from SPED students.” Another

respondent stated, “The class I took prepared me to a certain extent. It did not, however,

prepare me for severe special education rulings. Most of my knowledge has come from

experience over the years.”

Another major theme disclosed the respondents’ need for more practical

experiences. Respondents asked for “more classroom experience,” “real life experiences,”

“observations of special education teachers implementing modifications,” and adding “real

life scenarios to the training.” One participant stated, “I would add a ‘lab’ with real-life

special education students. It should be required”. Another respondent stated, “Personal

experience trained me. More training in ‘realistic’ situations would be beneficial.

Question 2, which reads as follows, “What can special education personnel do to

help you be more prepared to teach special education students in your classroom?,” asked

about what teachers need from special education personnel. A large portion of the

responses centered around having collaboration (32% of respondents), practical assistance

(49%), more help and practical for the classroom (19%). In the area of collaboration,

respondents appeared to be describing a team approach that general education and special

education teachers should employ when working with children/students with special needs.

One respondent stated, “Collaboration between regular education teachers and special

education teachers is vital to the success of students.” Another respondent expressed,

“Have meetings with regular ed [sic] teacher. Give examples/ideas that would work in the

regular ed [sic] classroom. This collaboration would also include working closely with the

general education teacher during teacher planning to share specific ideas on

modifications.”

With regard to practical assistance, teachers asked for several things. They wanted

to be educated on specific methods that would yield results when working with

children/students with disabilities. For example, they would like for special education

personnel to provide ideas, strategies, and resources that are child-specific. One

respondent stated, “In addition to handing us an IEP to follow, give us information about

the child’s problem, previous strategies that have worked, and explain their own ideas of

how to best serve the child.” Another respondent recommended that districts, “Offer more

teaching materials tailored to the specific disability.” Lastly, another respondent explained

what is working in her district; she said “I feel that within our school we have an open door

policy with our educators in the SPED department. So this helps us greatly. They are

constantly giving us new ideas”.

Question 3, which reads as follows, “Of the four disabilities discussed in this study

(autism, speech/language disorder, specific learning disability, and emotional disability),

which special education exceptionality do you believe that you are the most prepared to

deal with? Why do you believe this?” asked about perceived preparedness. The majority

of the individuals, (57% of respondents), expressed that they were most comfortable with

working with a child/student who had a specific learning disability. Of the four

exceptionalities, they believed that they had the most experience serving children/students

with this difficulty. For example, one respondent said, “I am amply prepared for

differentiating instruction according to students’ needs/styles. Learning styles was

thoroughly addressed in my classes.” Another respondent stated, “SLD because there are

certain areas to address.” Another respondent said that, “Most general education teachers

have plenty of experience and knowledge for the specific learning disabled. The other

three present more diverse problems than most teachers have the resources to be able to

integrate into a regular classroom”. With regard to the other three exceptionalities, the

same number of respondents, 10 (21%), stated they were comfortable with

children/students who have an emotional disability and a speech/language disorder. Very

few respondents stated they believe they are prepared to work with a child/student who has

been given an autism ruling.

Question 4, which reads as follows, “Of the four disabilities discussed in this study

(autism, speech/language disorder, specific learning disability, and emotional disability),

which special education exceptionality do you believe that you are the least prepared to

deal with? Why do you believe this?” also dealt with perceived levels of preparedness.

The largest proportion of individuals, 20 (42% of respondents), stated they that they are

least prepared to work with a child/student with an autism ruling and a child with an

emotional disability. The respondents’ statements about their uneasiness regarding autism

centered on responses like “no experience,” “no training,” and “no understanding of the

disorder.” Though most of the reasons given appeared to relate to a lack of training or

experience; some respondents seemed to express apprehension based on stereotypes or pre-

conceived notions regarding autism. For example, one respondent stated, “I am least

prepared to deal with autism. I do not understand this exceptionality and I think that this

exceptionality would be the most disruptive.” Another teacher responded by saying,

“Autism. My classroom has many activities that are loud, transitions frequently – this is

not good when the autistic child doesn’t like noise of change.”

The respondents seemed to express trepidation regarding dealing with

children/students who have an emotional disability. Like autism, the respondents’

uneasiness with working with children/students with an emotional disability seemed to

stem from a lack of experience and training. Some teachers also expressed apprehension

associated with handling classroom disruptions. One teacher stated, “Emotionally

disturbed because these children can be so unpredictable.” Another respondent expressed,

“Possibly emotionally disturbed. Moods and actions change so quickly.” And yet another

one stated, “EMD – their actions/behaviors are so unpredictable that our classroom could

go from on task and productive to complete chaos in seconds.” The frequencies of the

qualitative data are listed in Table 12 below.

Table 12

Frequency of the Qualitative Responses of the Study (N=47)

Question Response/themes Number of Responses

1. Did your teacher

preparation program

prepare you to work with

special education students?

No 35

Yes 11

Not Applicable 1

2. What can special

education personnel do to

help you be more prepared

to teach special education

students in your

classroom?

Collaboration 15

Practical Assistance 22

More time/teachers 10

3. Of the four disabilities

discussed in this study,

which special education

exceptionality do you

believe that you are the

most prepared to deal

with?

SLD 27

EMD 10

S/L 10

AU 5

Table 12 (continued).

Question Response /themes Number of Responses

4. Of the four disabilities

discussed in this study,

which special education

exceptionality do you

believe that you are the

least prepared to deal

with?

AU 20

EMD 20

S/L 5

SLD 4

Note: On questions 3 & 4 some of the respondents listed two exceptionalities.

Summary

The purpose of this research study was to measure general education teachers’

perceptions of teaching children/students with specific special education exceptionalities in

the general education classroom. This study used a multiple method, quasi-experimental

design. An original instrument was designed and utilized in this study. The instrument

yielded quantitative and qualitative data. The data indicated that there are differences in

the levels of perceived preparedness to work with children/students with disabilities based

on the students’ eligibility category. Specific learning disability was the most statistically

significant special education exceptionality. The data also showed that selected

background characteristics are statistically related to the level of perceived preparedness

for teaching children/students with a speech/language disorder and autism. The data also

revealed that there is not a statistically significant relationship between the selected

background characteristics and perceived levels of preparedness to teach a child/student

with specific learning disability and an emotional disability. Chapter V provides a

discussion of these results.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this study was to analyze the perceptions of general education

teachers regarding their preparedness to teach children/students with specific special

education needs. Specifically, this study examined perceptions associated with four

specific special education exceptionalities: autism, speech/language disorder, specific

learning disability, and emotional disability. Third, fourth, and fifth grade teachers from

South Mississippi were asked to complete a mixed methods survey instrument entitled the

General Educators’ Preparedness for Inclusive Education (GEPIE). The instrument

yielded quantitative and qualitative data used for this study. This chapter presents a

summary of the procedures and findings, a discussion of the results and recommendations

for policy, practice, and future research.

Summary of Procedures

The data gathered from this research were obtained from 52 survey instruments

completed by third, fourth, and fifth grade teachers from school districts in South

Mississippi. Once the instrument was developed, an expert panel was organized to review

and validate the instrument. After permission was granted by five school districts to

conduct the research study, approval was sought and granted by the University of Southern

Mississippi’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB approval letter is attached as

Appendix F. Prior to beginning the study, the researcher sent a letter of request to conduct

research school principals (Appendix G). Of the five districts whose superintendents

granted initial permission, two districts had no principal response, so, a total of three

school districts participated in the final study. A pilot study was conducted to obtain data

to test the reliability of the instrument. These data were analyzed using the Cronbach’s

alpha test of coefficient reliably. The test disclosed reliabilities of greater than .900 during

the pilot study and did so again in the subsequent dissertation study.

The instruments were hand-delivered by the researcher or mailed to the

participating schools through the United States Postal Service in the middle of November

and December, 2012. The instruments were collected in December, 2012 and January,

2013. All participants returned their completed instruments in the self-addressed, stamped

envelopes provided by the researcher. As the instruments were received, the researcher

numbered each survey. The quantitative data were entered into a Microsoft Excel

spreadsheet. The qualitative data were recorded in a Microsoft Word document to be

analyzed. The study was a mixed-methods quasi-experimental study that provided

quantitative and qualitative data. Data were compiled and analyzed by the researcher. The

quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, a one-way repeated measures

ANOVA and a multiple regression. The qualitative data were categorized into themes and

analyzed using Grounded Theory techniques.

Major Findings

The data from this study provided interesting information, including findings

related to the items in the demographic sub-section of the instrument. All respondents

were female. The majority of the respondents had a bachelor’s or master’s degree. The

respondents consisted of a fairly equal distribution of third, fourth, and fifth grade teachers.

The majority of the respondents (53.8%) reported having 1-10 years of experience, and the

classification with the largest proportion (34.6%) of respondents was that in which teachers

reported being in their first five years of teaching. Respondents were asked to identify the

amount of time since their last professional development in special education. The

classification that the largest proportion (38.5%) of the study respondents selected was the

one in which they indicated that they had attended a special education-related professional

development within the past year. However, 28.8% said they had received no professional

development in special education, and 15.3% indicated that their last training dated back

four or more years.

The classification in which the largest proportion (25%) of respondents reported

teacher preparation course taking patterns related to special education was that which

indicated 12 hours (four classes) or more of special education coursework. Over 40% of

respondents had either no special education coursework, or only three hours (oneclass).

While 23% of respondents gave a positive answer to Question 1 in Part III of the

instrument, which asked, “Did your teacher preparation program prepare you to work with

special education students?” The majority of the individuals (74%) stated that they were

not prepared to work with children/students with special needs. It is of interest to note that

two respondents reported that they had previously taught in special education but were

now teaching general education classes.

The study results included descriptive statistics for participant responses regarding

their perceptions of their readiness to teach students/children with special needs. Research

Question 1 asked: What are general education teachers’ perceptions of planning

differentiated instruction for children/students with the following special education

eligibilities: autism, speech/language disorder, specific learning disability and emotional

disability in the general education classroom? Question 5 of the Likert scale items

associated with each vignette asked the respondents to rate their level of preparedness to

plan differentiated instruction. The means for the four exceptionalities range from 3.60 -

4.23. Specific learning disability had the highest mean (M = 4.23), suggesting that

teachers believe they are more prepared to plan differentiated instruction for

children/student with this exceptionality. The other exceptionalities received lower ratings

that resulted in fairly comparable mean scores.

The data revealed ambivalence about teacher perceptions of their preparedness to

work with children with disabilities. The highest total subscale mean was that for specific

learning disability (M = 4.23). This mean demonstrates a moderate level of confidence

from the respondents. The lowest mean was that for autism (M = 3.66), and the mean for

emotional disability was slightly higher (M = 3.67). The total mean for speech/language

disorder was (M = 3.87). These scores are just above the midpoint of the scale, which

suggests that these teachers were largely uncertain regarding their level of preparedness to

work with students with these rulings.

Descriptive statistics from individual items in the subscales yielded additional

insight into the perspectives of teachers. The study results showed that the uncertainty that

respondents indicated in the subscale totals for the four exceptionalities is likewise

reflected in the means for the related items. Item 1, which reads as follows: “I am well

prepared to teach this student in my class,” addressed whether teachers are prepared to

teach children/students with special needs in the general education classroom. The means

for the four exceptionalities range from 3.63 - 4.04. Specific learning disability (M = 4.04)

had the highest mean, while emotional disability (M = 3.63).

Item 2, which reads as follows: “I am well prepared to address the special

education needs of this student” addressed whether the teacher could meet the special

needs of the profiled student. The means for the four exceptionalities ranged from 3.56 –

4.00. Specific learning disability had the highest mean (M = 4.00), while emotional

disability (3.56) had the lowest. It of interest to note that Item 2 yielded the lowest

unreversed mean score of all items. This would suggest consistent uncertainty in how

teachers perceive their abilities to address specific student needs.

Item 3 reads, “I am well prepared to make modifications to the general curriculum

for this student addresses the perceptions of making curriculum modifications. The means

of the four exceptionalities range from3.67- 4.56. Specific learning disability (M =4.56)

had the highest mean, while autism (M = 3.67) had the lowest.

Item 4 reads, “I am well prepared to make accommodations in the classroom for

this student,” and refers to making appropriate accommodations to the classroom for

children/students with disabilities. The means for the four exceptionalities ranged from

3.65 - 4.21. Specific learning disability (M = 4.21) had the highest mean, while autism (M

= 3.65) had the lowest. These data suggest that teachers are uncertain about their ability to

make appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities.

Item 5 reads, “I am well prepared to plan differentiated instruction for this student,”

and addresses the need for differentiated instruction for students with disabilities. The

mean scores for the four exceptionalities range from3.60 - 4.40. Specific learning

disability (M = 4.40) had the highest mean, while autism (3.60) had the lowest mean.

Item 6, which reads, “Having a child with this exceptionality ruling in my class

makes me feel less prepared to teach this student,” was a unique item in that it was

reversed in polarity. Such items help to prevent item set. The original means were

reported, and then reversed for calculation of subscale total means and for use in

hypothesis analyses. The means for the four exceptionalities ranged from 2.83 - 3.31.

Emotional disability (M = 3.31) had the highest mean, while specific learning disability (M

= 2.83) had the lowest mean. Since this question was reversed in polarity the mean scores

suggest that these teachers disagreed slightly that they are not prepared to teach a student

with a specific learning disability or speech/language disorder because of the disability, but

were somewhat uncertain about their preparedness to teach a student with autism or an

emotional disability in light of the exceptionality.

Findings associated with the hypotheses also proved to be interesting. Research

Question 2 asked: Are there differences in the general educators’ level of perceived

preparedness to work with special needs learners based on the children/students’ eligibility

category? For the related hypothesis (H

), a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to

answer this question. The test revealed that there is a difference in the level of perceived

preparedness based on the eligibility category of students. Of the four exceptionalities

specific learning disability showed the most significant difference, with teachers

perceiving that they are better prepared to address the needs of students with this

exceptionality than those of students in the other three exceptionality categories. The

means for the other three exceptionalities were relatively equal and less significant,

indicating similar perceptions among the participants regarding their ability to teach

children with autism, speech/language disorder, and emotional disability.

Research Question 3 asked: Are the perceptions of the level of perceived

preparedness of general education teachers related to selected background characteristics

that include: level of education, the number of special education classes taken during their

training, years of experience teaching, and recent attendance of professional development

in special education? For the related hypothesis (H

), a multiple regression was used. The

dependent variables, which were the four special education exceptionalities, were analyzed

in conjunction with the independent variables, which were the selected background

characteristics, to determine if there were significant relationships. Two of the four

exceptionalities were found to have a statistically significant relationship with the

background characteristics.

The level of perceived preparedness to teach a child/student with a speech/language

disorder, or autism can be influenced by one or more of the chosen background

characteristics. In contrast, the level of perceived preparedness to teach a child/student

with a specific learning disability or an emotional disability is not significantly influenced

by the background characteristics analyzed in this study. For a speech/language disorder,

the grade that the teacher is teaching and hours of special education classes taken had the

most influence on level of perceived preparedness. For autism, hours of special education

training and how recently the teacher attended professional development in special

education had the most influence on level of perceived preparedness. There was not a

significant relationship between the background characteristics and specific learning

disability and emotional disability. Of the background characteristics examined,

professional development had the greatest influence on teaching a child/student with a

specific learning disability or a child/student with an emotional disability.

In the qualitative phase of the study, the teachers’ responses communicated

important messages. When asked if their teacher training programs prepared them to work

with children/students with special education needs, the largest proportion of the

respondents answered no. Respondents expressed a need for more special education

courses during their training and, asked for more practical experiences related to teaching

students with special needs. Respondents suggested observations of special education

teachers, or student teaching experiences that include children/students with special needs

in order to help increase teachers’ exposure to the special education population.

Regarding how special education personnel can help teachers become better

prepared to work with children/students with special education needs, respondents stated

that they need more collaboration, and practical assistance. Respondents believed that

collaboration between general education and special education teachers is a vital

component to student success. For practical assistance, the regular education teachers

asked that special education personnel provide ideas, materials and other resources that

will help yield positive results with students.

When asked which of the four target exceptionalities that they were most prepared

to handle, the majority of the respondents believed they were most prepared to teach a

child/student with a specific learning disability. Respondents expressed that they had the

most experience serving children/students with this exceptionality. It was mentioned that

teachers are taught how to vary instruction to address different learning styles. One

respondent, whose quote is representative of the comments of others, stated, “Specific

learning disabled. Once a specific disability is known, differentiated instruction and

accommodations can be made and put into practice, and the child is more likely to grow

and develop.” For the respondents, autism, speech/language disorder, and emotional

disability presented more challenges then a specific learning disability.

When asked which of the four target exceptionalities they believed they were the

least prepared to handle, the majority of the respondents chose autism and an emotional

disability. The respondents expressed uneasiness about these disabilities based on a lack

of experience, training, and understanding of the disorders. With regard to autism, some

the respondents expressed apprehension based on stereotypes and pre-conceived notions

about the disorder. Regarding a child/student with an emotional disability, some

respondents believed they were unprepared to handle possible classroom disruptions. A

representative response went as follows: “Emotionally disturbed or autism because

behavior can change so quickly and interrupt the other students.” Another respondent

stated, “Possibly emotionally disturbed, moods and actions change so quickly.”

To summarize, the respondents to this study supported the notion that general

education teachers do not believe they are well prepared to teach children/students with

specific special education needs. There also is a statistically significant relationship

between the level of perceived preparedness and the special education exceptionality. Data

showed that there is a significant relationship between background characteristics and the

level of perceived preparedness for addressing specific exceptionalities. Of the four

exceptionalities targeted in this study, the respondents perceived they are most prepared

and to teach a child/student with a specific learning disability in the general education

classroom. Teachers’ level of perceived preparedness is not strong, but fairly equal when

it comes to teaching children/students with a speech/language disorder, autism, or an

emotional disability. The majority of the respondents expressed the need for more classes

and hands-on experience with the special education population during their teacher

training. Furthermore, they would like more collaboration and practical assistance from

special education personnel to help them better prepare to work with children/students with

special needs in the classroom.

Discussion

Many of the findings of this study are consistent with previous research. The

responses to the quantitative items from the survey instrument indicated that, in general,

these teachers do not believe that they are well prepared to teach children/students with

special needs in the general education classroom. Such findings are consistent with those

of authors like Conderman and Johnson-Rodriguez (2009) and Grskovic and Trzcinska

(2001). The subscale total means revealed that teachers are uncertain about their

preparedness to work with children and students with disabilities, though teachers are

slightly more comfortable working with children/students with specific learning

disabilities. The means for speech/language disorder, autism, and emotional disability are

all slightly above the scale midpoint and were fairly similar, and revealed a level of

uncertainty among teachers for working with children/students across exceptionalities.

Responses from the qualitative portion of the study also revealed uncertainty from

teachers regarding their perceived preparedness. Responses from Item 1 from the

qualitative portion of this study revealed that teachers do not feel prepared to teach

children/student with special education needs. One respondent, whose comments are

reflective of others, stated, “I don’t feel like I was given enough background on the

different rulings. Also, I think we should be taught strategies for handling special

education issues like we are taught strategies for teaching curriculum.”

In both the quantitative and qualitative elements of the present study, respondents

revealed fairly limited exposure to special education in their teacher preparation

experiences. Teacher education programs to assign the responsibility of preparing teacher

candidates to work with children/student with special needs to the universities’ special

education programs (Jobling & Moni, 2004; Winter, 2006). In many cases teacher

candidates frequently take one course in special education (Kamens et al., 2003; Welch,

1996). This course often provides a, “cursory overview of disabilities” (Kamens et al.,

2003, p. 20). Many of the respondents in the present study expressed that they received

limited opportunity to study special education in their teacher preparation programs. In the

present study, a significant proportion (21.2%) of respondents reported not taking a special

education class. A similar proportion (23.1%) of respondents took only three hours (one

class) in special education. The responses to Item 1 in the qualitative portion of the study

reinforced these findings. One respondent said, “My training did not adequately prepare

me to teach inclusion students. I was only required to take one sped class in college.”

Another respondent stated, “I would definitely have benefited from more special education

classes, especially in the area of autism. I was taught how to identify a disability, but

never taught how to handle it in the classroom.” Another respondent suggested increasing

coursework and practical experience, “I think all regular education students should have to

take several classes concerning special education. I would also suggest student teaching

for a complete school year half in the regular classroom and half in the special education

classroom.”

Research has shown that general education teachers may have some reservations

when teaching learners with special needs. Kamens et al. (2003) found that teachers in

their study wanted to know the special classification or the disability of a child assigned to

them, receive suggestions of accommodations, and specific information about the

individual child. The same could be said of respondents in the present study. Qualitative

data revealed that 80% of study participants, when asked which exceptionality they are

least prepared to address, mentioned autism and emotional disability. One respondent

stated, “I feel I am least prepared to teach students that are autistic and emotionally

disturbed because I struggle in that area.” Another respondent said, “I am the least

prepared to work with a student who is emotionally disabled. I would not know what to

expect each day the student arrives at school and will need various strategies to deal with

mood changes.” With regard to a child/student with autism, one respondent simply said,

“Autism, don’t [sic] know enough about it.”

Respondents in the present study expressed the need for more training and practical

experience in the area of special education. This is consistent with extant literature. In

previous studies, research has shown that participants wanted to know the classification of

the child’s disorder, receive suggestions of accommodations, and specific information

about the individual child (Cook et al., 1999; Kamens et al., 2003). General education

teachers need more training on how to accommodate students with disabilities as they

deliver the curriculum (Daane et al., 2000). Concerning training and practical experiences,

respondents mentioned observing and collaborating with special education personnel. One

respondent stated, “Personnel should offer more workshops that goes [sic] in depth about

the needs of a student in special education.” Item 2 in Part II of the instrument, which

reads as follows: “I am well prepared to address the special education needs of this

student,” had the lowest mean of the Likert items across all exceptionalities. This supports

the idea that more training is needed for these teachers. In their qualitative responses,

participants recommended training on how to modify the curriculum, how to make

appropriate accommodations in the classroom, and how to implement specific instructional

strategies. Another respondent, in describing what was needed from special education

personnel when being assigned responsibility for a child with special needs, stated, “in

addition to handing us an IEP to follow, give us information about the child’s problem,

previous strategies that have worked, and explain their own ideas of how to best serve the

child.” Data from the study showed the teachers believe, albeit moderately, that they are

prepared to teach a child/student with a specific learning disability. However, they are

more uncertain with regard to the other three exceptionalities.

Teachers also indicated the need for support in working with special needs learners.

Respondents specified the need for specific materials and for ideas and resources that are

appropriate and will help increase student achievement. Item 2 in the qualitative phase,

which reads as follows, “What can special education personnel do to help you be more

prepared to teach special education students in your classroom?” resulted in the responses

that expressed the need for support from special education personnel. One participant

stated, “Share specific modifications with general education teachers. Work closely with

general education teachers during planning.” Another respondent stated, “Provide

materials when needed. Provide extra personnel when needed. Meet with teachers during

the year instead of just talking to them when there are problems.” These concerns are

consistent with available literature. Research shows that general education teachers asked

for increased levels of support from administrators and colleagues (Brown et al., 2008;

Cook et al., 1999; Daane et al., 2000).

In Chapter II of this study, the social development learning and self-efficacy

theories were discussed. The social development learning theory emphasizes how as social

beings, humans learn, grow and develop from interacting with each other. The self-

efficacy theory describes how individuals think, feel and motivate themselves to succeed

(Bandura, 1994). Previous research has shown that efficacious teachers are better

equipped to handle difficult situations and make less special education referrals

(Haverback & Parault, 2008; Lee et al., 2001; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). This

theoretical framework emphasizes the importance of having teachers prepared to teach a

variety of learners. Many of the respondents of this study stated they were not prepared to

handle certain special education exceptionalities because they were not trained or were

unfamiliar with the aspects of the disorder. Not being prepared to teach a child/student

may affect the teacher’s level of self-efficacy. If teachers are not trained or well prepared,

they may not believe that they can be as effective. A teacher with a lower sense of self-

efficacy may not be able to create the rich social learning environment that is so important

for learning.

Limitations

There were some factors that limited the findings of this study. Participants were

limited to the geographic region of South Mississippi; the reader should be appropriately

cautious about generalizing conclusions to other geographic regions. This geographic

limitation was exacerbated by the non-participation of two districts from which permission

to conduct the study had originally been received.

The number of responses, while sufficient to produce usable results, was not as

high as the researcher desired. A larger number of responses might have made a difference

in some of the findings, particularly when comparing the exceptionalities with selected

background characteristics. This study was also limited by the exploration of perceptions

of teacher from just three grade levels. Finally, there were no male respondents among

those who participated in the main study. While it is not clear that this would skew results,

it would be useful to have a more representative sample.

Recommendations for Policy and Practice

An increase in placement of children/students requiring special education services

in the general education classroom continues to increase the demand for educators who are

prepared to teach various learners (Brown et al., 2008; Mungai & Thornburg, 2002).

Federal mandates such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (2004)

and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2004) require that children/students with disabilities

be educated in the least restrictive environment and meet accountability standards like their

peers (Pisha & Stahl, 2005; Turner, 2003; Yell & Katsiyannis, 2004). Research has shown

that the manner in which a teacher handles his/her inclusive classroom has the most

immediate impact on the student’s success (Horne & Timmons, 2009; Obiakor et al.,

2012). In light of these policies and the continued push toward full inclusion, it is

incumbent upon the education system to equip general education teachers for effective

practice.

It is apparent from the results this study that teachers need better preparation in

special education. Such a conclusion is consistent with extant literature. As study

respondents stated, more instructional time and practical experience is needed in these

programs. Preservice teachers would benefit from observing special education teachers

and classes during student teaching. They would also benefit from learning how to make

accommodations to the classroom and modifications to the curriculum for their students

from special education personnel.

A more in-depth look into specific disabilities would benefit teachers. Respondents

in this study mentioned not being prepared to teach students with autism and emotional

disabilities due to a lack of understanding of the disorders. Respondents also mentioned

apprehension about teaching children/students with these exceptionalities because of

preconceived notions and stereotypes. Affording teachers the opportunity to learn specific

information about various disorders might help alleviate some of this apprehension.

Teachers would also benefit from information about the particular disability and

appropriate modifications for the specific disability. As one respondent mentioned, her

special education class in college, “gave me a general understanding, but not a deep

knowledge.” A deeper knowledge might help teachers feel better equipped to plan for

children/students with disabilities.

An increase in professional development is also needed. Data showed that there is

a significant relationship between how recently a teacher attended professional

development in special education and his/her level of perceived preparedness to work with

special education students. While 38.5% of the respondents of this study reported

attending a special education professional development within the past year, it is important

to remember that 28.8% reported having never received such training. If these teachers do

not receive an adequate amount of special education courses during their training, they will

certainly need some professional development once they begin their careers. School

districts should consider providing additional workshops on different special education

exceptionalities; such professional development should be delivered in a manner consistent

with optima; training practices and should equip teachers with ideas and strategies that can

be used in the classroom.

An increase in collaboration between special education personnel and the general

education teacher is needed. As the above mentioned respondent stated, teachers need

more than just an IEP to follow. They need ideas and strategies that work. They need to

be given materials and resources that are appropriate for the individual child/student. They

also need assistance with modifying assignments and exams to the student’s ability.

The mainstreaming of children/students with special needs in general education

classrooms can be very beneficial to the student; it is also arguable that the general

population of students benefits from such inclusion. But, if they are to benefit, and if they

are to get what they need educationally, the system has to undergird teachers with the

preparation, training, and support for effective practice. Otherwise, what is effective and

moral policy on behalf of such students becomes something far less in practice. It cheats

kids and it cheats the teachers who serve them. In other words, when teachers are not well

prepared to teach children/students with disabilities, no one wins.

Recommendations for Future Research

The following recommendations for future research would benefit the level of

perceived preparedness for general education teachers:

1. Future research is recommended in the area of teacher perceptions of working

with children/students with special needs. It would be beneficial to expand the

research area to obtain levels of teacher preparedness throughout the state and

country.

2. Future research should include a larger and more representative group of

respondents.

3. Future research in this area should explore other grade levels. It would be

useful to measure the perceived levels of preparedness among teachers in lower

and higher grade levels.

4. Research that examines the preparedness of teachers to address other special

education exceptionalities should be conducted. Since there are a total of

thirteen exceptionalities it would be of interest to know the degree to which

teachers believe that they are prepared to work with children/students with

other special education needs.

5. In an effort to gain a broader perspective on how inclusion affects educators as

a whole, future research should include special education personnel. It would

be of interest to compare the levels of preparedness of general education and

special education teachers. Such research might also examine the perspectives

of special education colleagues to effectively deliver instruction to children

with special needs.

Summary

The purpose of this study was to determine the degree to which general education

teachers in elementary schools believe that they are prepared to teach children/students

with specific special education exceptionalities in the general education classroom. Data

were gathered on the level of perceived preparedness of teachers to work with

children/student who are eligible to receive services in the areas of autism,

speech/language disorder, specific learning disability, and emotional disability.

The study involved a multiple method quasi-experimental design that yielded

quantitative and qualitative data. The study used an original instrument entitled the

100

General Educators Preparedness for Inclusive Education (GEPIE). The instrument used a

vignette/scenario design to assess level of perceived preparedness. Third, fourth, and fifth

grade teachers in the Southern region of Mississippi were asked to participate in the study.

An original instrument was developed because there was not one available that followed

the vignette/scenario format.

For the quantitative phase, study data showed that general education teachers

appear to be largely uncertain about their preparedness to meet the needs of students with

special needs. In addition, there was a difference in general educators’ level of perceived

preparedness to work with children/students with disabilities based on the child/student’s

eligibility category; educators perceived that they were better prepared to address the

educational needs of students with specific learning disabilities than those who were in one

of the other three disability classifications. Furthermore, data revealed that the level of

perceived preparedness of general education teachers is related to selected background

characteristics that include: level of education, the number of special education classes

taken during their training, years of experience and the amount of professional

development in special education that they have attended.

For the qualitative phase, study data revealed that educators do not believe they are

prepared to teach children/students with special education needs in the general education

classroom. Respondents indicated the need for more special education classes during their

teacher preparation experiences; such preparation should include more practical hand-on

experiences. Furthermore, respondents expressed the need for more collaboration with

special education personnel and assistance with resources, materials, and making

modifications/accommodations in the classroom. Of the four exceptionalities addresses in

101

this study, teachers perceived they are most prepared to serve children/students with

specific learning disabilities and least prepared to serve children/students with autism and

emotional disabilities.

The study also included recommendations for further research on the levels of

perceived preparedness of general education teachers to teach children/students with

special needs. Other recommendations also included suggested changes in policy and

practice. It was the researcher’s goal to expand the available data on the perceptions of

general education teachers relative to their preparedness for working with children/students

with disabilities in the general education classroom. It is hoped that this study furthers that

aim.

102

APPENDIX A

SUPPERINTENDENT’S PERMISSION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH LETTER

Date:

Name of Superintendent

Name of School District

Address

Dear Superintendent ______________________:

My name is Kimberly Fisher and I am a Speech-Language Pathologist with Harrison

County. I am also enrolled in the Educational Leadership doctoral program at the University of

Southern Mississippi. I have completed my course work and will be conducting research to

complete the requirements for my dissertation very soon. The topic I have chosen is teacher

perceptions of working with children with specific special education exceptionalities in the regular

education classroom. The study will focus on how prepared regular education teachers’ believe

they are to work with children who have been found eligible to receive special education services

for autism, speech/language services, specific learning disability and emotional disability within

the general education classroom. I am requesting permission to contact teachers in your district.

This study will measure the level of perceived preparedness of teachers working in grades 3-5.

While collecting the data, I will ask participants to read short case study vignettes. The

participants will be asked questions pertaining to their perceived preparedness to work with the

child described in the vignette. There will also be space provided for the participants to express

their ideas on what will help them feel more prepared to work with children with disabilities. The

instrument should take no longer than 20 minutes to complete. With your consent, the studies will

be distributed to teachers during a regular faculty meeting or online. Any identifying information

will be kept confidential.

As the inclusion of special education students increases, the roles and responsibilities of

general educators changes. The results of this study will provide information on what teachers

need to be prepared and successful in teaching children with disabilities. Once the study is

complete, I will be very happy to share the findings with interested persons in your district.

If you grant me permission to conduct this research with teachers in your district please

copy and paste the content of the enclosed consent form to your district letterhead, sign it, and

return it in the self-addressed, stamped envelope. You may also fax it to 228-832-8991.

If you have any question please feel free to contact me via email

[email protected] telephone 228-806-1066. My committee chair is Dr. Michael Ward

who can be contacted at mi[email protected].

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

103

Kimberly G. Fisher

Doctoral Candidate, University of Southern Mississippi

Enclosure

Cc: Dr. Michael Ward, Committee Chair

SUPERINTENDENTS’ PERMISSION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH:

CONSENT FORM

As superintendent of _________________________ District, I give Kimberly Fisher

permission to conduct educational research in the district during the ------ semester of the

20-- - 20-- school year.

This research will be conducted determine teachers’ perceptions of working with children

with specific special education exceptionalities. Permission is granted to distribute survey

instruments to teachers within the specified school district. I understand that participation

in this study is voluntary. All responses will be kept confidential. No individuals will be

identified in any of the reports.

_____________ __________________ ______ _____________ ___

Superintendent’s Signature Date

104

APPENDIX B

ADULT CONSENT FOR RESEARCH FORM

University of Southern Mississippi

118 College Drive #5147

Hattiesburg, MS 39406-0001

(601) 266-6820

Consent to Participate in a Research Study

Date:

Title of Study: Teachers’ Perceptions of Working with Children with Specific Special

Education Exceptionalities in the Regular Education Classroom

Researcher: Kimberly Fisher (228)806-1066

Email Address: ki[email protected]

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Mike Ward

________________________________________________________________________

What are some general things you should know about this research study?

You are being asked to participate in a doctoral research study. Your participation in this

study is completely voluntary and you have the right to decline participation. If you

decline to participate or decide to withdraw from participation at any time there will be no

penalty.

This type of research study is designed to gain new knowledge about a particular topic.

The information gained from this study will be used to benefit current and future

educators. However, please be aware that research of this sort may not provide direct

benefit to you as an individual and there are sometimes risks associated with participation

in research. In this instance, the risks are very minimal and are described in a subsequent

section of this document.

Details about this study are discussed in detail below. It is important that you understand

this information so that you can make an informed choice about your participation in this

study. If you have any concerns or questions please feel free to contact the researcher,

listed above.

What is the purpose of this study?

105

The purpose of this study is to determine teacher perceptions of working with children

with specific special education exceptionalities in the regular education classroom. The

study will focus on the degree to which regular education teachers’ believe they are

prepared to work with children who are eligible to receive education services for autism,

speech/language services, specific learning disability and emotional disability within the

general education classroom. For this study information is needed from 3

, 4

, and 5

grade teachers

How many people will take part in this study?

If you decide to participate in this research, you will be one of approximately 200

participants in the study.

How long will your participation in this study last?

You will be asked to complete a survey instrument that should take no more than 20

minutes to complete. You may request a report of my findings at the conclusion of this

study by emailing me at ki[email protected].

What will happen if you take part in the study?

You will be asked to complete the survey instrument. A completed, returned survey

instrument will serve as consent for your anonymous participation in this study. Upon

completing the survey, please return it in the pre-stamped, addressed envelope provided

with the instrument. The researcher will maintain confidentiality of your responses by

storing all returned instruments in a locked cabinet through the duration of the study. The

survey instruments will be shredded upon completion of this project.

What are the possible benefits of participating in this study?

The benefits of this study are related to the information it will provide to practitioners,

administrators, higher education teacher preparation instructors, and other researchers.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the perceptions of general education teachers

regarding their preparedness to teach students with specific special education needs. This

study will also examine teacher perceptions regarding the extent to which their preparation

and training have prepared them to work with learners who have special needs. Finally,

the study will invite teachers’ recommendations for improving preparation and training.

The information can be used by school districts and teacher preparation programs to

determine steps that can be taken to better prepare educators to work with a variety of

learners.

What are the possible risks or discomfort involved with being in this study?

Risks associated with this study are minimal. The risks are that participants may not feel

comfortable answering questions about how prepared they feel to work with special

education students, or that their responses might prompt negative consequences. To

alleviate these concerns, the researcher will ensure that their participation is anonymous

and confidential. The data collected will be kept strictly confidential in a locked cabinet in

the researcher’s home. Only the researcher and the committee members will have access

to the responses. All surveys collected for this study will be destroyed by shredder after

one year.

106

How will your privacy be protected?

Participants will not provide any personal information on the survey instrument.

Participants will not be identified in any report or publication about this study. The

collected surveys will be placed in a locked cabinet. Only the researcher and committee

members will view the actual surveys. The surveys will be shredded after one year.

What if you have questions about this study?

You have the right to ask any questions you may have about this study. Please feel free to

contact the researcher listed at the beginning of this document to get answers to your

questions.

What if you have questions about your rights as a research participant?

This study has been reviewed by the Human Subjects Protection Review Committee. This

committee ensures that all research fits the federal guidelines for involving human

subjects. Any questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant should be

directed to the Chair of the Institutional Review Board, The University of Southern

Mississippi, 118 College Drive #5147, Hattiesburg, MS 39406-001, (601)266.6820.

107

APPENDIX C

GENERAL EDUCATORS’ PREPAREDNESS FOR

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Part I

Demographic Information

(Please darken the circle that best reflects your demographics and teaching

experience)

Part II

The following vignettes represent children who may be students in your classroom.

Each vignette describes their current special education disability category and some the

strengths and weaknesses they exhibit in the classroom and during the evaluation process.

Please read the vignette and respond to the questions that follow each.

1. What is your gender?

o Male

o Female

2. What is your level of education?

o Bachelors’

o Masters’

o Specialist

o Doctorate

3. What grade do you currently

teach?

o 3

o 4

o 5

4. How long have you taught?

o 1-5 years

o 6-10 years

o 11-15 years

o 16-20 years

o 21 + years

5. How many hours of special

education courses did you take

during your teacher training?

o None

o 3 hours (1class)

o 6 hours (2 classes)

o 9 hours (3 classes)

o 12+ hours (4 or more classes)

6. How recently have you attended

professional development training

in the area of special education?

o To date, I have not attended

professional development

training in special education.

o Within the past year

o Within the past 2-3 years

o Within the past 4-5 years

o Over 5 years ago

108

Vignette 1

Austin is a student in the Sky Blue School district who recently received a special

education ruling in the area of Specific Learning Disabled. During testing, Austin received

an overall achievement standard score of 70. He presents with delays in reading, reading

comprehension, written expression, and math problem solving. In the classroom he has

difficulty understanding new ideas, organizing his thoughts, and using oral grammar

correctly. He also exhibits difficulty with finding the correct word to say due to having a

limited vocabulary. When answering questions, it is difficult for him to express his

thoughts cohesively. Austin has trouble telling a story, comprehending a story he has read

or maintaining the topic of a conversation. In math he is able to work simple problems, but

has difficulty understanding the language aspects of mathematics.

1. I am well prepared to Strongly Strongly

teach this student in my class. Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

2. I am well prepared to address Strongly Strongly

the special education needs Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

of this student.

3. I am well prepared to make Strongly Strongly

modifications to the general Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

curriculum for this student.

4. I am prepared to make Strongly Strongly

and recommend accommodations Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

in the classroom for this child.

5. I am well prepared to plan Strongly Strongly

differentiated instruction for this child. Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

6. Having a child with a Specific Strongly Strongly

Learning Disabled ruling in my Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

class makes me feel less prepared

to teach this child.

109

Vignette 2

Madeline is a student in the Red Apple School district. She was recently diagnosed

with a Language/Speech disorder with difficulties in both articulation and language. Due

to her severe articulation disorder, Madeline’s speech is very difficult to understand if the

listener does not know the topic of conversation due to her severe articulation disorder.

She also exhibits a limited vocabulary. She shows weaknesses in understanding basic

concepts (size and number), using appropriate sentence structure, using appropriate

expressions of greeting/farewell, and describing common objects. Madeline also exhibits

difficulty with: identifying personal information, identifying more/less/most, identifying

ordinals (first, next, last), describing common objects, using social/ functional language,

and using appropriate sentence structure.

1. I am well prepared to Strongly Strongly

teach this student in my class. Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

2. I am well prepared to address Strongly Strongly

the special education needs Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

of this student.

3. I am well prepared to make Strongly Strongly

modifications to the general Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

curriculum for this student.

4. I am prepared to make Strongly Strongly

and recommend accommodations Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

in the classroom for this child.

5. I am well prepared to plan Strongly Strongly

differentiated instruction for this child. Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

6. Having a child with a Language/ Strongly Strongly

Speech disorder in my class makes Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

me feel less prepared to teach this child.

110

Vignette 3

Christopher is a student at Orange Pumpkin Elementary School who was recently

given a special education ruling in the area of Autism. During a comprehensive

assessment at the beginning of the school year, Christopher received an Autism Index

score of 97 on the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale. This score placed him in the “Likely to

have Autism” category. He exhibits significant delays in the areas of expressive and

receptive language. He is extremely sensitive to bright light, loud noises and being seated

close to a classmate. When he is over stimulated he begins to clap loudly and pace the

room. He has difficulty transitioning from one activity to another because he has difficulty

with change. Chris enjoys reading and loves mathematics. He has a hard time completing

assignments because writing is difficult for him.

1. I am well prepared to Strongly Strongly

teach this student in my class. Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

2. I am well prepared to address Strongly Strongly

the special education needs Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

of this student.

3. I am well prepared to make Strongly Strongly

modifications to the general Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

curriculum for this student.

4. I am prepared to make Strongly Strongly

and recommend accommodations Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

in the classroom for this child.

5. I am well prepared to plan Strongly Strongly

differentiated instruction for this child. Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

6. Having a child with an Autism Strongly Strongly

ruling in my class makes me Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

feel less prepared to teach this child

111

Vignette 4

Kenny is a new student who re-located to the Yellow Sun School District. He

came to his new school with a special education eligibility ruling in the area of

Emotionally Disabled. Kenny’s 3.0 GPA fell to below a 2.0 in a short amount of time. He

is easily distracted in class and is frequently off task. Kenny gets frustrated very easily and

frequently disrupts the class. He insults his classmates and was involved in three separate

altercations with students within a one month period. He exhibits oppositional,

noncompliant and negative behavior toward teachers and other adults. Kenny appears

irritated for most of the day and experiences extreme mood changes frequently. He has a

vivid imagination and is only engaged when working on the computer.

1. I am well prepared to Strongly Strongly

teach this student in my class. Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

2. I am well prepared to address Strongly Strongly

the special education needs Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

of this student.

3. I am well prepared to make Strongly Strongly

modifications to the general Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

curriculum for this student.

4. I am prepared to make Strongly Strongly

and recommend accommodations Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

in the classroom for this child.

5. I am well prepared to plan Strongly Strongly

differentiated instruction for this child. Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

6. Having a child with an Emotional Strongly Strongly

Disability ruling in my class makes Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree

me feel less prepared to teach this child.

112

Part III

Please answer the following questions.

1. Did your teacher training prepare you to work with special education students? If

not, what would you add to the program to better prepare you?

2. What can special education personnel do to help you feel more prepared to teach

special education students in your classroom?

3. Of the four disabilities discussed in this study (specific learning disabled,

speech/language, emotionally disturbed, and autism), which special education

exceptionality do you believe that you are the most prepared to deal with? Why

do you believe this?

4. Of the four disabilities discussed in this study (specific learning disabled,

speech/language, emotionally disturbed, and autism), which special education

exceptionality do you believe that you are the least prepared to deal with? Why do

you believe this?

113

APPENDIX D

EXPERT PANEL REVIEW FORM

Thank you for agreeing to review my instrument. Please read each vignette and set of

questions. I tried to take characteristics of each exceptionality and describe them in ways

that would be observed in a general education classroom. The exceptionalities this

research is focusing on is autism, speech/language, specific learning disabled and

emotionally disabled. Please review the instrument and let me know if the described case

study is accurate to the disability. If there is information I need to add or subtract please

let me know by writing a short description below. Thank you again for your time and

assistance. Feel free to add any additional information. Please answer yes or no to the

question, and provide any additional information for question 3.

__________________________________________

Reviewers Credentials

Vignette 1 – SLD

1. Does this case history represent a child with an SLD ruling? _________________

2. Would it be easy for non SPED personnel to understand? ___________________

3. Any suggestions on things to add or subtract? Please share them on the space

below.

114

Vignette 1 – Speech/Language

1. Does this case history represent a child with a speech/language ruling? ________

2. Would it be easy for non SPED personnel to understand? ___________________

3. Any suggestions on things to add or subtract? Please share them on the space

below.

Vignette 3 – Autism

1. Does this case history represent a child with an autism ruling? _______________

2. Would it be easy for non SPED personnel to understand? ___________________

3. Any suggestions on things to add or subtract? Please share them on the space

below.

Vignette 4 – Emotionally Disabled

1. Does this vignette represent a child with an emotional disability ruling? ________

2. Would it be easy for non SPED personnel to understand? ___________________

3. Any suggestions on things to add or subtract? Please share them on the space

below.

115

APPENDIX E

LETTER TO ACCOMPANY SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Dear Participant,

I am conducting research on teacher perceptions of working with children with specific special

education exceptionalities in the regular education classroom. The study will focus on the degree

to which regular education teachers’ believe they are prepared work with children who are eligible

to receive education services for autism, speech/language services, specific learning disability and

emotional disability within the general education classroom. For this study information is needed

from 3

, 4

, and 5

grade teachers.

Please take a few moments to complete the enclosed survey. It should take no longer than 20

minutes to complete. The instrument is divided into three parts. Part I seeks pertinent

demographic information. Part II contains vignettes/scenarios and Likert scale questions. There is

one vignette for each exceptionality identified for this study. After reading the vignette, please

respond to the six items below the vignette. These items are on a Likert scale of 1-6, with 1

equating to strongly disagree, and 6 equating to strongly agree. Part III asks open-ended questions

pertaining to your educational experiences in special education, what you need from special

education personnel to better prepare you, and your thoughts about the exceptionalities that believe

you are the most and least prepared to address.

The data collected from the surveys will be compiled and analyzed. All responses will be

anonymous and confidential. Please do not write you name on the survey instrument. As the

researcher, I sincerely appreciate your participation; your completed survey will serve as your

consent to participate. However, your participation is voluntary and you have the right to decline

participation. If you decide to withdraw from participation at any time there will be no penalty.

This research study has been reviewed and approved by the Human Subjects Protection Review

Committee, which ensures that all research fits the federal guidelines for involving human subjects.

Any questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant should be directed to the

Chair of the Institutional Review Board, The University of Southern Mississippi, 118 College

Drive #5147, Hattiesburg, MS 39406-001, (601)266.6820.

Should you have any questions please contact: Kimberly Fisher, email: kim.fisher11@gmail.com.

This research is beings conducted under the supervision of Dr. Mike Ward with the University of

Southern Mississippi, email: [email protected], Dr. Ward’s phone number is (601) 266.5832.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Kimberly Fisher

Doctoral Candidate, USM

116

APPENDIX F

IRB APPROVAL

117

APPENDIX G

PRINCIPALS’ AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH: LETTER

Date:

Name of School

Address

Dear Principal:

I am Kimberly Fisher, a doctoral candidate at The University of Southern

Mississippi. I am currently conducting research to complete my dissertation. The topic I

have chosen is teacher perceptions of working with children with specific special education

exceptionalities in the regular education classroom. The study will focus on how prepared regular

education teachers’ believe they are to work with children who have been found eligible to receive

special education services for autism, speech/language services, specific learning disability and

emotional disability within the general education classroom. I have received permission from you

superintendent to conduct my research in your district. At this time, I’m requesting your

permission to have teachers at your school to complete this survey. This study will measure the

level of perceived preparedness of teachers working in grades 3-5. Participation is voluntary and

confidential. Completing the survey should take no more than 20 minutes.

This project has been reviewed by the Human Subjects Protection Review Committee,

which ensures that research projects involving human subjects follow federal regulations. Any

questions or concerns about the rights of research participants should be directed to the chair of the

Institutional Review Board, The University of Southern Mississippi, 118 College Drive #5147,

Hattiesburg, MS 39406-0001, 601-266-6820.

With your permission, I can come present the surveys to teachers during a faculty meeting,

provide a link to the survey online, or bring it directly to you for distribution. All hand completed

surveys can be returned via mail in a self-addressed, stamp envelope I will provide.

If you consent to participate in this research, please sign and date the enclosed consent

form and return it in the self-addressed, stamped envelope or via email at kim.fisher11@gmail.com

As the inclusion of special education students increases, the roles and responsibilities of

general educators has changed. The results of this study will provide information on what teachers

need to be prepared and successful in teaching children with disabilities. Once the study is

complete, I will be very happy to share the findings with interested persons in your district.

Thank you for your time and consideration. If you have any question please feel free to

contact me via email kim[email protected] or telephone 228-806-1066. My committee chair is

Dr. Michael Ward who can be contacted at mike.ward@usm.edu.

Sincerely,

Kimberly G. Fisher

Doctoral Candidate, University of Southern Mississippi

Enclosure Cc: Dr. Michael Ward, Committee Chair

118

REFERENCES

Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2002). School counselors and school reform: New

directions. Professional School Counseling, 5, 235-248. Retrieved April 3, 2012

from http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/publications

Ainscow, M., & César, M. (2006). Inclusive education ten years after Salamanca: Setting

the agenda. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(3), 231-238.

Retrieved from http://rpusm.lib.usm.edu/ebsco-web/ehost

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2012). Speech and language disorders

and disease. (para. 1&2). Retrieved from

http://www.asha.org/public/speech/disorders

Andrews, J., Carnine, D., Coutinho, M., Edgar, E., Forness, S., Fuchs, L., et al. (2000).

Perspective: Bridging the special education divide. Remedial and Special

Education, 21(5), 258-260, 267

Atwood, T. (1998), Asperger Syndrome. A guide for Parents and Professionals. London,

UK: Kingsley Publishers

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human

behavior, vol. 4 (pp. 71-81). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Banglieri, S., & Knopf, J. H. (2004). Normalizing differences in inclusive teaching.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 525-529

Bloom, L. A., Perlmutter, J., & Burrell, L. (1999). The general educator: Applying

constructivism to inclusive classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(3),

132-136. Retrieved from http://isc.sagepub.com

119

Brady, K., & Woolfson, L. (2008). What teacher factors influence their attributions for

children’s difficulties in learning? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78,

527-544. doi: 10.1348/000709907X268570

Brauer, P. M., Hanning, R. M., Archoa, J. F., Royall, D., Goy, R., Grant, A.,…Horrocks, J.

(2009). Creating case scenarios or vignettes using factorial study design methods.

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(9), 1937-1945. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-

2648.2009.05055.x

Brown, K.S., Welsh, L.A., Hill, K.H., & Cipko, J.P. (2008). The efficacy of embedding

special education instruction in teacher preparation programs in the United States.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2087-2094. Retrieved April 2, 2011 from

http://www.hwwilsonweb.com/lib.usm.edu

Bullock, L. M., & Gable, R. A. (2006). Programs for children and adolescents with

emotional and behavioral disorders in the United States: A historical overview,

current perspectives, and future directions. Preventing School Failure. 50(2), 7-13.

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

collaborative planning processes for students with disabilities. Preventing School

Failure, 54(1), 60-70. Retrieved from www.hwwilsonweb.com/lib.usm.edu

Cass, R. J. (2010). Empowering children with learning disabilities: A practitioner-based

reflection. Journal of Education, 191(1), 59-67

Center, D. B. (1993). What do regular class teachers think about emotional/behavior

disordered students? Paper presented at the 71

Annual Conference of the Council

for Exceptional Children, San Antonio, TX. Retrieved from

http://www.usm.edu/libraries. (ED357592)

120

Centers for Disease Control. (2012). Autism spectrum disorders overview. Retrieved from

http://www.cdc.gov.

Cherry, K. (2011, September 2). Self-Efficacy- Psychology definition of the Week.

About.com Guide. Retrieved from http://psychology.about.com/b/2011/09/02/self-

efficacy-psychology-definition-of-the-week.htm

Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (Eds.) (1978). Mind in Society.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Cole, P. (1999). The structure of arguments used to support or oppose inclusion policies

for students with disabilities. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability,

24(3), 215-226

Conderman, G., & Johnston-Rodriguez, S. (2009). Beginning teachers’ view of their

collaborative roles. Preventing School Failure, 53(4), 235-244. Retrieved from

http://www.hwwilsonweb.com/lib.usm.edu

Conderman, G., Morin, J., & Stephens, J. T. (2005). Special education student teaching

practices. Preventing School Failure, 49(3), 5-10. Retrieved from

http://www.hwwilsonweb.com/lib.usm.edu

Cook, B.G., Cameron, D.L., & Tankersly, M. (2007). Inclusive teachers’ attitudinal ratings

of their students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 40(4), 230-

238. Retrieved from http://rpusm.lib.usm.edu/ebsco-web/ehost

Cook, B. G., Semmel, M. I., Gerber, M. M. (1999). Attitudes of principals and special

education teachers toward the inclusion of students with mild disabilities: Critical

difference of opinion. Remedial and Special Education, 20(4), 199-207. Retrieved

from http://vnweb.hwilsonweb.com/lib.usm.edu

121

Crestwell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method

Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Crockett, J. B. (1999). The least restrictive environment and the 1997 amendments and

federal regulations. The Journal of Law and Education, 28, 543-564.

Crockett, J. B. & Kauffman, J.M. (1999). The least restrictive environment: its origins and

interpretations in special education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Daane, C. J., Beirne-Smith, M., & Latham, D. (2000). Administrators’' and teachers'

perception of the collaborative efforts of inclusion in the elementary grades.

Education, 121(2), 331.Early Childhood Education Journal, 3(1), 65-70. Doi:

1082-3301/03/0900-0065/0

Dahle, K.B., (2003). Services to include young children with Autism in the general

classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(1), 65- 70

Darrow, A.A. (2009). Adapting for students with autism. General music today, 22(2), 24-

26. Retrieved from http://rpusm.lib.edu/ebsco-web/ehost

De La Paz, S. (2007). Best practices in teaching and writing to students with special needs.

In S. Graham, C.A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald, (Eds.), Best practices in writing

instruction (pp. 308-328). New York, NY: Guilford Press

Dixon, R. M., & Verenikina, I., (2007). Towards inclusive schools: An examination of

socio-cultural theory and inclusive practices and policy in New South Wales DET

schools. Research Online, 1(1), 192-208

Ducharme, J. M., & Shecter, C. (2011). Bridging the gap between clinical and classroom

intervention: Keystone approaches for students with challenging behavior. School

Psychology Review, 40(2), 257-274

122

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.

Egyed, C. J., & Short, R. (2006). Teacher Self-Efficacy, Burnout, Experience and Decision

to Refer a Disruptive Student. School Psychology International, 27(4), 462-474.

doi:10.1177/0143034306070432

Elliott, J. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2003). Improving test performance of students with

disabilities… on district and state assessments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Finch, J. (1987). Research note: the vignette technique in survey research. Sociology, 21,

105-114

Forlin, C., & Chambers, D. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive education: Increasing

knowledge but raising concerns. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1),

17-12. doi: 10.1080/1359866X.2010.540850

Forlin, C., & Lian, J. (2008). Contemporary trends and issues in educational reform for

special and inclusive education. In C. Forlin & M.-G.J. Lian (Eds.) Reform,

inclusion and teacher education: Towards a new era of special education in the

Asia-Pacific region (pp. 3-12). Abingdon, UK: Routledge

Forlin, C., Loreman, T., Sharma, U., & Earle, C. (2009). Demographic differences in

changing pre-service teacher’s attitudes, sentiments and concerns about inclusive

education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(2), 195-209

Fox, J., & Gable, R. (2004). Functional behavioral assessment. In R. Rutherford, M.

Quinn, & S. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral

disorders (pp. 142-162). New York, NY; Guifford

Gao, W., & Mager, G. (2011). Enhancing Preservice Teachers’’ Sense of Efficacy and

Attitudes toward School Diversity though Preparation: A Case of One U.S.

123

Inclusive Teacher Education Program. International Journal of Special Education,

26(2), 92-107. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ937178

Gersten, R., Schiller, E., & Vaughn, S. (eds). (2000). Contemporary special education

research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instrumentational issues.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Gindis, B. (1999). Reshaping the practice of special education for the 21

century.

Remedial and Special Education, 20(6), 333-340

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing.

Golding, C. (2011). The many faces of constructivist discussion. Educational Philosophy

& Theory, 43(5), 467-483. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00481.x

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003) Students with learning disabilities and process of

writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S.

Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323-344). New York, NY:

Guilford Press

Grskovic, J.A., & Trzcinka, S.M. (2011). Essential Standards for Preparing Secondary

Content Teachers to Effectively Teach Students with Mild Disabilities in Included

Settings. American Secondary Education, 39(2), 94-106. Retrieved November 22,

2011 from http://www.hwwilsonweb.com/lib.usm.edu

Grumbine, R., & Alden P. B. (2006). Teaching science to students with learning

disabilities. Science Teacher, 73(3), 26-31

Hager, K.D., & Slocum, T.A. (2002) Alternate assessment: no child left behind during

statewide testing. Paper presented at the meeting of the Annual National

124

Conference Proceedings of the American Council on Rural Special Education

(ACRES), Reno, NV

Hamill, A. J., Jantzen, A. K., & Bargerhuff, M. E., (1999). Analysis of effective educator

competencies in inclusive environments. Action in Teacher Education. 21(3), 21-37

Haverback, H., & Parault, S. J. (2008). Pre-service reading teacher efficacy and tutoring: a

review. Educational Psychology Review. 20(3), 237-255

Hinton, L., & Kern, L., (1999). Increasing homework completion by incorporating student

interest. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1(4), 231.241.

Horne, P. E., & Timmons, V. (2009). Making it work: teachers’ perspectives on inclusion.

International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(3), 273-286. doi:

10.1080/13603110701433964

Horrocks, J. L., White, G., & Roberts, L. (2008). Principals’ Attitudes Regarding Inclusion

of Children with Autism in Pennsylvania Public Schools. Journal of Autism &

Developmental Disorders, 38, 1462-1473. doi 10.1007/s10803-007-0522-x

Hughes, C. A. (2011). Effective instructional design and delivery for teaching task-specific

learning strategies to students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional

Children, 44(2), 1-16. Retrieved from http://rpusm.lib.usm.edu/ebsco-web/ehost

Hughes, R., & Huby, M. (2002). The application of vignettes in social and nursing

research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37, 382-386

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 § 300.8(c)(1)(i)(para 5.). Retrieved

from http://idea.ed.gov

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C § 1412 et seq.(2004) Retrieved from

http://www.wrightslaw.com/idea/law/section1412.pdf

125

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C § 1414 (f) et seq.(2004). Retrieved

from http://www.wrightslaw.com/idea/law/section1414.pdf.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1990)

Jobling, A., & Moni, K. B. (2004, March). ‘I never imagined I’d have to teach these

children’: proving authentic learning experiences for secondary pre-service teachers

in teaching students with special needs. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,

32(1), 5-22. doi 10.1080/1359866042000206026

Johns, B., & Guetzloe, E. (2004). Inclusive education for children and youths with

emotional and behavioral disorders. In L.M. Bullock, R. A. Gable, & K. J. Melloy

(Series Eds.), Fifth CCBD mini-library series on meeting diverse needs of children

and youth with E/BD: Evidence-based programs and practices. Arlington, VA:

Council of Children with Behavioral Disorders

Kairaranga, J. T. (2004). The educational experiences of students with Asperger syndrome.

New Zealand Ministry of Education, 5(2), 12- 18. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ914554.pdf

Kamens, M., Loprete, S. J., & Slostad, F. A. (2003). Inclusive classrooms: what

practicing teachers want to know. Action in Teacher Education, 25(1), 20-26.

Retrieved from http://www.hwwilsonweb.com/lib.usm.edu

Kantor, K. (2011). General educators perceptions of preparedness to teach in mixed-ability

classrooms. Ed.D. dissertation, Walden University, United States -- Minnesota.

Retrieved June 6, 2012, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No.

AAT 3434585)

126

Karten, T. (2008). Embracing disabilities in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press

Karten, T.J. (2005). Inclusion strategies that work! Research-based methods for the

classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Kauffman, J. M. (2005). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children

and youth (8

ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall

Kauffman, J.M., & Hallahan, D.P. (1995). The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive

critique of a current special education bandwagon. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed

Kayser-Jones, J., & Koening, B. A., (1994) Ethical issues. In J. F. Grubrium and A. Sanker

(eds) Qualitative Methods in Ageing Research. pp. 15-32. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage

Koegel, L. K., Singh, A.K., & Koegel, R.L., (2010). Improving motivation for academics

in children with Autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 4, 1057-

1066. Doi: 101007/s10803-010-0962-6

Laushey, K. M., Heflin, L. J., Shippen, M., Alberto, P. A., & Fredrick, L. (2009). Concept

mastery routines to teach social skills to elementary children with high functioning

autism. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 39, 1435-1448. doi:

10.1007s10803-009-0757-9

Law, J., Lindsay, G., Peacey, N., Gascoigne, M., Soloff, N., Radford, J., & Band, S.

(2002). Consultation as a model for providing speech and language therapy in

schools: a panacea or one step too far? Child Langauge Teaching and Therapy, 18,

145-164. Retrieved from http://rpusm.lib.usm.edu/ebsco-web/ehost

127

Lee, Y., Patterson, P. P., & Vega, L. A. (2011). Perils of self-efficacy perceptions and

teacher-preparation quality among special education interns teachers. Teacher

Education Quarterly, 38(2), 61-76. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ926860.pdf

Lerner, J.W., Lowenthal, B., & Egan, R.W. (2003). Preschool children with special needs:

children at risk and children with disabilities. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc

Lindsay, G., & Dockerall, J. (2002). Editorial: Meeting the needs of children with speech

language and communication needs: a critical perspective on inclusion and

collaboration. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 18(2), 91-101. doi:

10.1911/0265659002ct229ed

Lindsay, G., Dockerall, J., Letchford, B., & Mackie, C. (2002). The self-esteem of

children with specific speech and language difficulties. Child Language Teaching

and Therapy, 18, 125-143

Long, C. (2008, February). Early intervention and inclusion open doors for children with

autism: Going mainstream. NEA Today. Retrieved from

http://www.nea.org/home/9384.htm

Maanum, J. L. (2009). The general educator’s guide to special education. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press

Mahn, H. (1999). Vygotsky’s methodological contribution to sociocultural theory.

Remedial and Special Education, 20(6), 341-350

Marks, S. U., Shaw-Hegwer, J., Schrader, C., Longaker, T., Peters, I., Powers, F., et al.

(2003). Instructional management tips for teachers of students with autism

spectrum disorder. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(4), 50-54

128

Marshall, J., Ralph, S., & Palmer, S. (2002). ‘I wasn’t trained to work with them’:

mainstream teachers’ attitudes to children with speech and language difficulties.

International Journal of Inclusive Education. 6(3), 199-215

Matheson, A. S., & Shriver, M. D. (2005). Training teachers to give effective commands:

Effects on student compliance and academic behaviors. School Psychology Review,

34(2), 202-219.Retrieved from http://rpusm.lib.usm.edu/ebsco-web

McIntyre, D. J., Byrd, D. M., & Foxx, S. M. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In

W.R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher

education: A project of the association of teacher educators, pp.171-193. New

York, NY: Macmillan.

McLeskey, J., Hoppey, D., Williamson, P., & Rentz, T. (2004). Is inclusion and illusion?

An examination of national and state trends toward the education of students with

learning disabilities in the general education classrooms. Learning Disabilities

Research & Practice, 19(2), 109-115

Minshew, N. J., & Williams, D. L. (2007). The new neurobiology of autism. Archives of

Neurology, 64(7), 945-950. Doi: 10,1001/archneur.64.7.945

Mississippi Department of Education, (2006). Superintendent’s annual report and

traditional report card. Retrieved from

http://orshome.mde.k12.ms.us/ors/reports.html

Mississippi Department of Education. (2009). State Policies Regarding Children with

Disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of

2004, p 279-310. Retrieved from

http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/special_education/policies/2009/Policy_06-17-09.pdf

129

Morse, J. M. (1998). Validity by committee. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 443-445.

Mungai, A. M., & Thornburg, D. (2002). Pathways to Inclusion: Rethinking Our Policy

and Practice. Encounter, 15(4), 44-53

National Center for Education Statistics, (2010). Retrieved from http://necs.ed.gov

National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY). (2010). Special

Education. Retrieved from

http://nichcy.org/schoolage/iep/iepcontents/specialeducation

Nielsen, L. B. (2009). Brief reference of student disabilities…with strategies for the

classroom. (2

Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Nippold, M. A. (2012). From the editor: Different service delivery models for different

communication disorders. Language, Speech, Hearing Services in Schools, 43,

117-120. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2012/ed-02)

No Child Left Behind of 2001. 20 U.S.C. § 16301 et seq

Nutter, M. Teaching. (2011). Students with Disabilities: Perception of Preparedness among

Preservice General Education Teachers. Ed.D. dissertation, Northcentral

University, United States -- Arizona. Retrieved June 6, 2012, from Dissertations &

Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3452477)

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

inclusion work in the general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of

children, 35(3), 477-490. Retrieved from http://rpusm.lib.usm.edu/ebsco-web/ehost

Osgood, R.L. (2002). The history of inclusion in the United States. Washington, DC:

Gallaudet University Press

130

O’Shea, D., Hammite, D., Mainzer, R., & Crutchfield, M. (2000). From teacher

preparation to continuing professional development. Teacher Education and

Special Education, 23(2), 71-77

Pendergast, D., Garvis, S., & Keogh, J. (2011). Pre-service student-teacher self-efficacy

beliefs: An insight into the making teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher

Education. 36(12), 46-57. Retrieved on April 3, 2012 from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ954836.pdf

Petriwskyj, A., (2010). Diversity and inclusion in the early years. International Journal of

Inclusive Education, 14(2), 195-212

Pisha, B., & Stahl, S. (2005). The Promise of New Learning Environments for Students

with Disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(2), 67-75

Pufpaff, L. A. ( 2008). Barriers to participation in kindergarten literacy instruction for a

student with augmentative and alternative communication needs. Psychology in the

Schools, 45(7), 582- 599. doi: 10.1002/pits.20311

Quenemoen, R. F., Lehr, C. A., Thurlow, M. L., & Massanari, C. B. (2001). Students with

disabilities in standards-based assessment and accountability systems: emerging

issues, strategies, and recommendations (Synthesis Report 37). Minneapolis, MN:

National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota. Retrieved

from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED452654.pdf

Rhodes, G., Jenson, W. R., & Reavis, H. K. (1993). The tough kid book. Longmont, CO:

Sopris West, Inc

131

Sadler, J. (2005). Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of the mainstream teachers of children

with a preschool diagnosis of speech/language impairment. Child Language

Teaching and Therapy, 21(2), 147-163

Scherba de Valenzuela, J. (2002). The definition of communication. Retrieved from

http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/defcomm.html

Schoenberg, N. E., & Ravdal, H. (2000). Using vignettes in awareness and attitudinal

research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(1), 63-74

Silverman, J. C. (2007). Epistemological beliefs and attitudes toward inclusion in pre-

service teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(1), 42-51

Snyder, L., Garriott, P., & Aylor, M.W. (2001). Inclusion confusion: Putting the pieces

together. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 198-207.

Stiker, H.J. (1997). A history of disability. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1990). Support Networks for inclusive schooling.

Baltimore, MA: Paul H. Brookes

Sunderland, L. C. (2004). Speech, language, and audiology services in public schools.

Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(4), 209-217

Swanson, H. L., Haskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for LD students: A meta-

analysis of treatment outcomes. New York, NY: Guiford Publications

Thatcher, K.L, Fletcher, K., & Decker, B. (2008). Communication disorders in the school:

Perspectives on academic and social success an introduction. Psychology in the

schools, 45(7), 579-581. Doi: 10.1002/pits.20310

132

Thurlow, M.L., Elliott, J. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2001). Testing students with disabilities:

Practical strategies for complying with district and state requirements. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Turner, N.D. (2003). Preparing preservice teachers for inclusion in secondary classrooms.

Education, 123(3), 491-495

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Redistricting map state of Mississippi: 2010. Retrieved from

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Title I – Improving the academic achievement of

the disadvantaged. Statement of Purpose. Section 1001, paragraph 2. Retrieved

from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Individuals with Disabilities Education

Improvement Act of 2004. Retrieved from

http://www.2ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/nonpublic/programsams.2.html

U.S. Department of Education.(2004). Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative

Services. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/index.html.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). Report to the Chairman and Ranking

Minority Member, Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness, Committee on

Government Reform, House of Representatives: Special education, children with

Autism. (GAO-05-220). Washington, D.C.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Educational Psychology. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

133

Wakeman, S. Y., Browder, D. M., Meier, I., & McColl, A. (2007). The implications of no

child left behind for students with developmental disabilities. Mental Retardation

and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 143-150

Weigel, D.J., Martin, S. S., Bennett, K. K. (2006). Contributions of the home literacy

environment to preschool-aged children’s emerging literacy and language skills.

Early Child Development and Care, 176, 357-378. DOI:

10.1080/03004430500063747

Welch, M. (1996). Teacher education and the neglected diversity: preparing educators to

teach students with disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 355-366

Winter, E. C., (2006). Preparing new teachers for inclusive schools and classrooms.

Support for Learning, 21(2), 85-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9604.2006.00409.x

Winzer, M.A., Mazurek, K. (2002). Special education in the 21

century: Issues of

inclusion and reform. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. And

teachers’ sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching experience

and academic level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 181-193. doi:

10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.181

Wolters, C. A. & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teachers’ sense of efficacy:

Their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 181-193. doi 10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.181

Wrights Law (2011). Due Process Hearings. Retrieved from

http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/dp.index.htm

Wright, P., & Wright, P. (1999). Wrightslaw: Special Education Law. Hartfield, VA:

Harbor House Law

134

Yell, M. L., Drasgow, E., & Lowrey, A. K. (2005). No child left behind and students with

autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities.

20(3) 130-139

Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis ( 2004). Placing Students with Disabilities in Inclusive Settings:

Legal Guidelines and Preferred Practices. Preventing School Failure, 49(1), 28-34

Zabel, R., Kaff, M., & Teagarden, J. (2011). Understanding and teaching students with

emotional-behavioral disorders: A conversation with Frank H. Wood. Interventions

in School and Clinic, 47(2), 125-132. doi: 10.1177/1053451211414189