Expectations of Teacher on the Organizational Skills of Students - Research Proposal Example

?REVIEW OF LITERATURE Available literature and the studies conducted have been clearly in support of the impact of teacher’s expectations on the organizational skills and consequently achievement levels of the students in general; with studies describing ‘Pygmalion Effect’, ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’, and ‘expectancy effect’. The influence is much higher on younger students in higher grades (Cotton, 2001). Further, the problem of teachers expectations are aggravated in middle schools since this level of teaching-learning involves specific course content and sequential curriculum. In contrast to elementary schools, students at middle schools are expected to be independent with respect to the arrangement of their study material, plan the tasks provided to them, keep track of their material and their schedule, meet deadlines and therefore exhibit specific organizational abilities (Salend, 1998). The present section aims to explore the available literature investigating the expectations of teachers’ from students with learning disability (LD), with special reference to the expectations of teachers’ regarding active participation of students with learning disabilities. Initiation of studies exploring the impact of teachers’ expectations on the performance levels of students with LD can be traced back to 1970s. The earliest studies established the negative effects of labels such as ‘mentally retarded’ leading to the development of ‘learned helplessness’. On the basis of early investigations the demarcations and differences in attitudes were clearly established. While lack of achievement in regular students was considered to be as a consequence of lack of effort; the same in case of LD students was attributed to lack of ability. This is in congruence with the attribution theory, which asserts that success or failure in an endeavor can be attributed to ‘sin or sickness’ that is the ‘efforts’ and the ‘ability or disability’. An investigation for the above theory was conducted by Clarke (1997) in a study involving 97 elementary school teachers. Evidences available from the study indicated that teachers attributed the low performance of students with disabilities with their lack of ability and were found to exhibit emotions of sympathy and pity towards the. This attitude of teacher sent non-verbal signals to the students that their competence levels are lower than the regular students in their class. On the basis of this rationale, they were able to justify their below par performance. Seminal early investigations involving 100 teachers and 1500 sixth grade students revealed significant trends in the expectation of teachers and their impact on students. The impact of high as well as low expectations was found to be lower in case of high achieving students, while the same was reported to be significant in low achieving students. Thus the low achievers performed much better in response to high expectations of the teacher; and conversely, exhibited significantly poor performance as a consequence of low expectations of teacher (Madon et al., 1997). The low expectations of the teachers however are sometimes unavoidable as in case of organizational behaviors of students with LD, since it is a highly frustrating aspect of classroom behavior, and disrupts the progress of classroom teaching-learning process repeatedly. Studies involving students from middle school students have revealed that these students often do exhibit failure to remember important assignments, materials required for the class, and class schedule (McMullen et al., 2007). Researchers have been able to attribute two specific causes for these behavioral problems and failure of LD students to meet teachers’ expectations of organization. The primary contributing cause has been specified to be that the LD students as a consequence of their deficits lack the ability of temporal-sequential organization. They lack the planning skills, are not able to assign time to different tasks, allocate time for completion of specific problems involved in a task, meet deadlines, and solve problems similar to these. Further they also exhibit material spatial disorganization and hence are not able to find their textbooks, notebooks, stationary and other material possessions. The inability to meet teacher’s expectations of organizational ability can be attributed to these deficits among students with LD (Smith et al., 2001). Another causal factor accounting for the lower organizational ability of LD students as perceived by teachers is the lack of clear and precise instructions. Teacher’s in inclusive classrooms, especially those who have not been provided training for educating children with disabilities or those who do not have prior experience for the same, fail to provide explicit instructions that can be understood by the students. Most children with LD are unable to understand multiple and complex instructions. The instructions for such tasks need to be broken down in to specific and small steps so that each step of instruction can be followed by easily achievable targets. Further certain basic behaviors need to be mastered by students with LD prior to providing them specific instructions for the accomplishment of complex and multiple step tasks (McMullen et al., 2007). During the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) study conducted by National Center for Special Education Research experiences and assessments of secondary level students with LD in general education classrooms was investigated on the basis of surveys involving both students and teachers. Approximately 94% of the students with LD were reported to take at least class in general classrooms with approximately 80% taking one or more. Further for more than half of these students certain amount of modifications are made in existing curriculum to make it suitable for them. The study reported that despite the special modes of instructions used by the teachers for these students such as small group instruction or individualized instructions; the participation of students with LD differs markedly from that of the class as a whole. Only 37% of the students with learning disability were reported by the teachers to respond frequently to questions put up orally in the classroom, with the rest 66% not being able to do so. 21% of the students were reported either rarely or never to have responded to oral questions. An important aspect of the study was that the teachers considered the placement of these students in the special groups appropriate and the instructions provided to these students were reported to be same as those for mainstream students. However the academic grades as well as the participation of students with LD was much lower than the regular students (Newman, 2006). In a study involving 12 teachers as participants, McMullen and associates (2007) attempted to investigate the expectations of middle school teachers regarding the organizational behavior of students with LD. The pilot study used COBS and involved science and social teachers from two middle schools in Georgia, with one to 20 years of experience of teaching. The 12 items included in COBS were classified into the three categories including representing temporal sequential skills or pre-class planning, material spatial skills or competence levels and compliance. According to the survey seven of the 12 behaviors were assigned ranks above three on Likert scale (ranging from 1 indicating no problem to five indicating major problem). While sitting in classroom was considered by most teachers as the most followed task; ‘turning in homework’ was the least followed. Tasks involving compliance as well as competence; such as completing homework or classroom tasks, starting work immediately after it is assigned, and requesting help when required were stated as major problems. Though the conclusions derived from the study are gravely limited by the small sample size; however the study is highly significant in understanding the teacher’s expectations as well as the cause of their frustration with respect to classroom specific organizational behavior of students with LD. The results were in agreement with those derived from another study exploring the causes of difficulties in homework completion by students with LD (Bryan & Burstein, 2004). Bryan & Burstein attributed homework problems of LD students to two specific factors; students’ inability with respect to motivation, comprehension, and organizational skills; and teachers’ inability in assigning tasks suited for the students’ levels. Teachers either assign too complex a task, or are unable to provide precise and explicit instructions to the students while assigning them the homework. Hence homework fail to improve the academic performance of the students, and thereby fail in their goal. The authors make specific recommendations for future research in organizational abilities of students with LD, understanding their nature and devising methods to improve them, so that the gap in academic performance due to lack of organizational skills can be overcome. Another study conducted by Montague & Rinaldi (2001) to investigate the classroom dynamics with respect to young, at risk (AR) students and students with learning, emotional and behavioral disorders (LD/ EBD) showed that teacher’s perceptions and expectations from this group of students varied significantly compared to the same for not-at-risk (NAR). General classroom teachers’ perception of the AR and LD/EBD students was negative and they reported that these students spent much lesser time on the assigned task. Another important finding of the follow up during this study was that the negative perceptions and lower expectation of the teachers were correlated with the development of negative self concept in these students after one year. Further evidence are available for the negative impact on the self perception of students with LD/EBD as a consequences of the disability labels assigned to them. It was further evidenced by the study that general classrooms teachers exhibit a lack of willingness to recommend LD/EBD students for gifted programs and prefer similarly described regular students for these programs (Bianco, 2005). A significant study involving 663 LD students and 57 teachers for the comparative assessment of students’ self concept and teacher’s perception towards their levels revealed marked discrepancy in the opinions of the two groups. The assessment were made for general self concept, academic self concept and self awareness through questionnaires focusing on the performance of students in nine academic and organizational domains including reading, writing, spelling, math and organization skills. Students’ perceptions of their strategic ability and competence was significantly high ranging from average to above average in seven of nine fields; yet below the self ratings of average regular students. On the other hand according to teachers’ ratings, the students with LD were significantly weak in strategic abilities and below average in all the nine selected academic and organizational fields. A comparative analysis of these two aspects of the study revealed the marked discrepancy in the self concept of students with LD and teachers’ perceptions of the abilities of these students (Meltzer et al., 1998). Understanding of the organizational skills of students with LD has been made possible through recent studies exploring organizational learning mechanisms in this group of students. Schechter & Feldman (2010) conducted case study involving three LD students of three functional levels; low, medium and high. The authors assert that organizational skills are a product of institutionalized structures and procedures, and of learning values or culture of special education. Thus it is the responsibility of the teachers and schools to create a learning environment suitable for the development of organizational skills. Further self management procedure has been recommended as an important strategy in classrooms for management of behavior problems and the improvement of organizational skills. A multiple baseline study on students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), evaluated the impact of a self management approach for improving behavioral problems in school setting. The focus of the approach was on providing training to students for skills that help them in planning and preparing for class. The results indicated that these self management approaches reduced behavioral problems of the three participants with ADHD (Gureasko-Moore et al., 2006). The researches support the hypothesis that teachers’ have lower expectations from students with learning disability. Further, evidences are also available for the impact of teacher’s negative perceptions and lower expectations on the student self concept and achievement levels. This issue can have severe and long term repercussions since teacher is one of the biggest influences in the academic life of a student. These influences though lessen with advancing age and grades; however there are still significant during the middle school levels. The students with LD have been able to reach high levels of achievement; besides being a part of mid-level performing group of the class, as well as the low performing group. The proportions are higher in the last group, but that does not undermine the accomplishment of the high performing LD students (Olson, 2004). Hence this situation deserves further exploration especially with respect to the impact teachers’ expectations on students’ organizational skills which influences general achievement levels and success in interpersonal relationship, both at present and during later years. METHODOLOGY Participants and Data Collection The study will involve teachers teaching students of middle school for the duration ranging from one to twenty years. A questionnaire will be provided to the teachers with specific and relevant information regarding the nature and purpose of study. Instructions for the filling up of questionnaire would be provided to the participants along with terms of confidentiality. The questionnaires would be based on a thorough review of available literature and after informal conversations with middle school teachers with experience of teaching students with LD in regular classrooms. Teachers would further be asked to respond to COBS (Classroom Organizational Behavior Survey) and rate the organizational behavior of their students on a Likert scale, assigning them a grade from 0 to 5; i.e. ranging from no problem to major problem as shown in table 1. Table 1: The Classroom Organizational Behaviors (COBS) (McMullen et al., 2007) Students with learning disabilities... Not a problem------------------Major problem 1. bring books to class 1 2 3 4 5 2. bring pencils to class 1 2 3 4 5 3. bring paper to class 1 2 3 4 5 4. bring pens to class 1 2 3 4 5 5. sit in assigned seats 1 2 3 4 5 6. turn in homework 1 2 3 4 5 7. return signed homework 1 2 3 4 5 8. attend to teacher directions 1 2 3 4 5 9. start work immediately 1 2 3 4 5 10. request help 1 2 3 4 5 11. finish work 1 2 3 4 5 12. copy homework assignments 1 2 3 4 5 Data Analysis To enable conclusions from the gathered data; specific features in COBS would be categorized into discrete domains such as pre-class planning, competence, compliance etc. Results would be analyzed and interpreted for the teachers’ expectations of the students ability in each of these domains. FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Students’ behavior, competence and compliance are important factors influencing the academic achievements of students, especially those with learning difficulties. Thus classroom organizational behavior is an important aspect of student behavior that deserves in depth investigation. Disability is often misconstrued to mean low intelligence. The assessments of teachers’ perceptions of abilities of LD students are highly influenced by this belief. Further the basic concept of inclusive education being to modify the curriculum to according to the levels of the students adds to the disadvantage. Instead of aiming higher and making efforts for the same, it becomes easier to lower the targets. Future researches need to further explore the abilities of students with specific disabilities and the role of teachers in devising strategies to aid them perform better irrespective of the disabilities. Students in regular classrooms need to be provided additional, specific and stepwise instructions through the use of aids and technology rather than alterations in the curriculum. Teachers’ belief regarding the abilities of LD students needs to be developed in accordance. This on one hand requires teacher training and awareness development programs; and on the other hand further researches to understand the implications of teacher’s expectations on student performance. REFERENCES 1. Bianco, M. (2005). The Effects of Disability Labels on Special Education and General Education Teachers' Referrals for Gifted Programs. Learning Disability Quarterly , 285-93. 2. Bryan, T. H., & Burstein, K. (2004). Improving Homework Completion and Academic Performance: Lessons From Special Education. Theory into practice , 213-9. 3. Clark, M. D. (1997). Teacher response to learning disability: a test of attrbutional priciples. Journal of learning disabilities , 69-79. 4. Cotton, K. (2001, January). Expectations and students outcomes. Retrieved 2011, from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/4/cu7.html 5. Gureasko-Moore, S., Dupaul, G. J., & White, G. P. (2006). The Effects of Self-Management in General Education Classrooms on the Organizational Skills of Adolescents With ADHD. Behavioral Modifications , 159-83. 6. Madon, S., Jussim, L., & Eccles, J. (1997). In serach of the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. Journal of personality and social psychology , 791-809. 7. McMullen, R. C., Shippen, M. E., & Dangel, H. L. (2007). Middle school teachers' expectation oforganizational behaviors of students with learning disabilties. Journal of instructional psychology , 75-80. 8. Meltzer, L., Roditi, B., & Houser, R. F. (1998). Perceptions of Academic Strategies and Competence in Students with Learning Disabilities. Journal of learning disabilities , 437-51. 9. Montague, M., & Rinaldi, C. (2001). Classroom Dynamics and Children at Risk: A Followup. Learning Disability Quarterly , 75-83. 10. Newman, L. (2006, July). Facts from NLTS2. Retrieved November 2011, from National Center for Special Education Research: http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pdf/20063001.pdf 11. Olson, L. (2004). Enveloping expectations. Education week (quality counts) , 8-21. 12. Salend, S. J. (1998). Effective mainstreaming: Creating inclusive classrooms (3rd ed.). NJ: Merril/Prentice Hall. 13. Schechter, C., & Feldman, N. (2010). Exploring organizational learning mechanisms in special education. Journal of Educational Administration , 490-516. 14. Smith, T. E., Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., Dowdy, & A, C. (2001). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive settings. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Read More