Perceptions and Attitudes of Teachers on Effects of Labeling - Dissertation Example

? Effects of Labeling: Teacher Perceptions and Attitudes Lecturer Introduction By the year all with and without disabilities, must be grade level proficient as mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act 2001 (NCLB). In accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA), all students with special needs are allowed a free and appropriate public education (F.A.P.E.) and the right to be educated in the general curriculum with non disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate (Bolina, 2007). Labeling of disabilities is a special education funding process that allows a student with a disability the right of F.A.P.E. by providing the appropriate services to aid in educational progress and success (Westling, Trader, Smith & Marshall, 2011). However, labeling students with special needs also come with setbacks (Trohanis, 2008). Students with special needs have the problems associated with disabilities to overcome in addition to the social stigma that is attached to being labeled disabled (Trohanis, 2008). Labeling students with disabilities may also result into a broad spectrum of concerns and issues. Labeling disabled students may lead to isolation of such students (Leaf et al., 2011). The connection between self-esteem and social pressures for a disabled individual, is essential to determine how labeling and school trauma is associated with their disabilities impacts social adaptation and self esteem for a disabled person Bolina, 2007). In spite of the negative impacts of labeling, many educators still still label students with disabilities for a variety of reasons (Bolina, 2007). Categories of special needs continue to be used mostly because the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages. Labeling disabled students may allow teachers to generalize the promotion of academic and social development of students in a certain category (Peiro & Lunt, 2002). Labeling students with disabilities is however necessary for developing an individualized educational plan (IED) to ensure their right to a free and appropriate education; yet labeling students results into students being treated like objects instead of a unique individual (Tohanis, 2008). Students with disabilities have low self image and esteem resulting into dismal performance compared to those without disabilities (Broderick, Mehta-Parekh and Reid, 2005). Therefore we need to research on social and academic relationship among students with disabilities labeled by teachers and those students without disabilities, and how teachers are dealing with this problem through their teaching styles in order to meet the academic and social demands of the students (Anderson et al., 2009). If the proposed study is not considered, then the labeled disabled students may experience dismal performance academically as well as poor social relationship with other students. Problem Statement The problem exists due to the negativity associated with the exceptional labels on students with disabilities (Anderson, Munk, Young, Conley, & Caldarella, 2009). These labels lead to poor sociological problems. As mentioned earlier, labeling students with disabilities may lead to negative performance among the students. In fact given for identification and funding purposes, labels cause some teachers to have preconceived ideas of levels of performance (Anderson et al., 2009). According to the National Association of School Psychologists (2002), "labeling is frequently associated with stigmatizing, isolating and stereotyping individuals with learning, behavioral or physical differences; labeling appears unrelated to instructional needs and current systems of classification are unreliable" (p.1). Regardless of the extent of services, some teachers assume students with special needs function at a lower level and require specialized instruction beyond their capabilities in the general education classes, which could lead to earlier school dropout, higher absenteeism, poor performance and sometimes criminal records of students who are labeled (Anderson et al., 2009). From these established facts, my research will address the impacts of labeling students with disabilities and investigate the relationship that exists between the disabled students and students without disabilities. Labeling theories predict a negative relationship between school sanctions and educational attainment (Anderson et al., 2009). For example, labeling theory posits that individual deviants who are identified and sanctioned may interpret their offender stigma as a master status, thus altering the social identity, and consequently, the behavior (Anderson et al., 2009). Offenders may also encounter social obstacles that effectively bar them from the benefits of convectional society as a result of serious stigma. The specific problem addressed in this study is the deteriorating social and academic relationship between students with disabilities labeled by teachers and those students without disabilities. The research will also address how teachers are dealing with this problem through their teaching styles in order to meet the academic and social demands of the students. This will also include addressing the impacts of labeling disabled students on their academic performance (Anderson et al., 2009). If the proposed study is not considered, then the labeled disabled students may experience dismal performance academically as well as poor social relationship with other students. Research Questions 1. How does labeled disabled students and students without disability relate with one another socially and academically? 2. What are the impacts of labeling students with disability on their academic performance? 3. What teaching styles do teachers use to meet the academic and social demands of labeled disabled students? Purpose of study The purpose of this study is to learn the social and academic relationship between students with disabilities labeled by teachers and those students without disabilities. Through this research we will also learn how teachers are dealing with the problem of labeling through their teaching styles in order to meet the academic and social demands of the labeled disabled students. Finally, the study will also enlighten us on the impacts of labeling disabled students on their academic performance. These will be met through answering the research questions mentioned above. A grounded research method will be used to describe, explore, and/or to explain the hypotheses based on conceptual ideas. The study will also allow the researcher to evaluate in-depth how and why question through an assessment generated by constantly comparing conceptualized data on different levels of abstraction, and comparisons (Barnett, 2012). For example, the questions the researcher repeatedly asks in a grounded theory are "What’s going on?" and "What is the main problem of the participants, and how are they trying to solve it?" (Creswell, 2009, p.184). "These questions will be answered by the core variable and its subcores and properties in due course" (Creswell, 2009, p.13). In order to accomplish this purpose, three types of data will be collected from several school locations in Maryland. The instrument for this study will include a semi-structured interview using open-ended questions as well as observations, and a brief survey that will be used to gather data from the participants. The interviews will occur face to face at the school. An interview protocol and guide, consisting of open-ended questions, will be used to conduct the interviews. The study will utilize a purposeful sampling method to increase the likelihood that the participants will be able to provide the necessary information for the study. Selecting qualitative samples focuses on a collection of participants who provide specific narratives to clarify and deepen the exploration of the study (Neuman, 2006). As such, a sample of 50 general education middle school teachers will be recruited to participate in one-on-one interviews. This is a quantitative research method due to the use of the sampling method in data collection. The survey to be conducted is an example of a quantitative research method as explained in the paragraph below. A case study may also be appropriate because we cannot have all the disabled students interviewed. Hence, we can use a case study as well. In addition, an anonymous survey will be distributed to all the middle school teachers at the school, which will gather data from the population in terms of education level, years of teaching, age, gender, and race/ethnicity as well as information via multiple choice, open-ended, and/or likert scaled items with regard to teacher attitudes and perceptions of inclusion in their classrooms. Finally, classroom observations will be made in several classrooms to note classroom experiences with regard to inclusion. The types of sampling methods used can will either be clustered because they are (cost effective), stratified, or systematic sampling. References Anderson, D.H., Munk, J., Young, R.K., Conley, L., & Caldarella, P. (2010). Teaching organizational skills to promote acadmeic achievement in behaviorally challenged students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(4), 6-13. Artiles, A. J., & Trent, S. C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. The Journal of Special Education, 27(4), 410-437. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barnett, D. (2012). Constructing new theory for identifying students with emotional disturbance: A constructivist approach to grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review, 11(1), 47-58. Bolina, E. (2007). Yea, but I still don’t want to deal with it: Changes in a teacher’s conceptions of inclusion. Teacher Education, 18(1), 35-41. Broderick, A., Mehta-Parekh, H., & Reid, D.K. (2005) Differentiating instruction for disabled students in inclusive classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 194-202. Cavallaro, C., & Haney, M. (1999). Preschool inclusion. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co. Cowan, T. (2008). A conceptual analysis of Albert Bandura's account of self-efficacy and its educational implications. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68(9-A), 3727. Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage. Cecil, S.J. (2011). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568. Fasting, R.B. (2010). Inclusion through the concept of adapted education: A review of the Norwegian challenges. Special Education, 1, 179-190. Finkel, E. (2011). New directions for special ed. District Administration, 47(6), 51–57. Fisher, D., Roach, V., & Frey, N. (2002). Examining the general programmatic benefits of inclusive schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6(1), 63-78. Fitch, F. (2010). Inclusion, exclusion, and ideology: Special education students' changing sense of self. Urban Review, 35(3), 233-252. Fitch, F. (2010). Laggards, labeling and limitations: Re-connecting labeling deviance theory with Deweyan pragmatism. Philosophical Studies in Education, 41, 17-28. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general educaiton placement and services. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301-323. Gavish, B., & Shimoni, S. (2011). Elementary school teachers' beliefs and perceptions about the inclusion of children with special needs in their classrooms. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 14, 49-59. Gibb, K., Tunbridge, D., Chua, A., & Frederickson, N. (2007). Pathways to inclusion: Moving from special school to mainstream. Educational Psychology in Practice, 23(2), 109-127. Heit, E., & Rotello, C.M. (2010). Relations between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(3), 805-812. Hornstra, L., Denessen, E., Bakker, J., van der Bergh, L., & Voeten, M. (2010). Teacher attitudes toward Dyslexia: Effects on teacher expectations and the academic achievement of students with Dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(6), 515-529. doi: 10.1177/0022219409355479 Ingesson, S. G. (2007). Growing up with Dyslexia: Interviews with teenagers and young adults. Lund University, Sweden. School of Psychology, 28(5), 574-591. Jianwei, Z. (2012). Different images of knowledge and perspectives of pedagogy in Confucius and Socrates. An International Journal of Complexity & Education, 9(1), 75-81. Lauchlan, F., & Boyle, C. (2007). Is the use of labels in special education helpful? Support for Learning, 22, 36-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9604.2007.00443.x Leaf, J.B., Oppenheim-Leaf, M.L., Dotson, W.H., Johnson, V.A., Courtemanche, A.B., Sheldon, J.B., & Sherman, J.A. (2011). Effects of no-no prompting on teaching expressive labeling of facial expressions to children with and without a pervasive developmental disorder. Education & Training in Autism & Developmental Disabilities, 46(2), 186-203. Leiter, J. (2007). School performance trajectories after the advent of reported maltreatment. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 363-382. Le Moigne, J. L. (2011). From Jean Piaget to Ernst Von Glasersfield: An epistemological itinerary in review. Constructivist Foundations, 6(2), 152-156. Min, L. H., & Wah, L. L (2011). Teaching of speech, language and communication skills for young children with severe autism spectrum disorders: What do educators need to know? New Horizons in Education, 59(3), 16–27. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Obiakor, F.E., Harris, M., Mutua, K., Rotatori, A., & Algozzine, B. (2012). Making inclusion work in general education classrooms. Education & Treatment of Children (West Virginia University Press), 35(3), 477-490. Odom, S. L., Buysse, V., & Soukakou, E. (2011). Inclusion for young children with disabilities: A quarter century of research. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(4) 344-356. Peiro, J.M., & Lunt, I. (2002). The context for a European framework for psychologists' training. European Psychologist, 7(3), 169-179. Richardson, J. G., & Powell, J. J. W. (2011). In comparing special education: Origins to contemporary paradoxes. Stanford University Press. Ryan, J. B., Hughes, E. M., Katsiyannis, A., McDaniel, M., & Sprinkle, C. (2011). Research-based educational practices for students with autism spectrum disorders. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(3), 56–64. Saunders, G., Page, H., & Wood, G. (2011). Great science for autistic students. Science Scope, 35(3), 20–23. Savaria, E., Underwood, K., Sinclair, D. (2011). If only I had known...: Young peoples’ participation in the construction of their learning disability labels. International Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 92. Savolainen, H., Engelbrecht, P., Nel, M., & Malinen, O. (2012). Understanding teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy in inclusive education: Implications for pre-service and in-service teacher education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(1), 51-68. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2011.613603 Smelter, R. W., Rasch, B. W., & Yudewitz, G. J. (1994). Thinking of inclusion for all special needs students: Better think again. Phi Delta Kappan, 76. Strain, P.S., Schwartz, I.S., & Barton, E.E, (2011). Providing interventions for young children with autism disorders: What we still need to accomplish. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(4), 321-332. Thousand, J.S., Villa, R.A., & Nevin, A.I. (2006). The many faces of collaborative planning and teaching. Theory Into Practice, 45(3), 239-248. Takagi, K. (2011). Vygotsky's concept of age levels and its implications for contemporary sociocultural psychology. Japanese Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22(4), 391-398. Trohanis, P., (2008). Progress in providing services to young children with special needs and their families. Journal of Early Intervention, 30(2), 140-151. Wei, X., Blackorby, J., & Schiller, E. (2011). Growth in reading achievement of students with disabilities, ages 7 to 17. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 89–106. Westling, D.L., Trader, B.R., Smith, C.A., & Marshall, D.S. (2010). Use of restraints, seclusion, and aversive procedures on students with disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 35(3/4), 116-127. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research, Design and Methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications Thousand Oaks Calif. Read More