Teachers' Views of The Impact of Instruction in the Inclusion Model for students with Learning Disabilities - Dissertation Example

Teacher’s Views of the Effect of Instruction Within the Inclusion Model for With Disabilities by Philip Thompson EdD, Walden University, 2011 Proposal Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Doctor of Education-Admin. Ldrshp For Tch. Learning Walden University 2011 Abstract In the early nineteenth century, children with learning difficulties (LDs) were perceived as being ‘mentally retarded’. For this reason, they faced social ostracization, and were often sent away to mental institutions. It was only in the 1960s that a group of researchers conducted various, extensive studies into the subject of LDs and brought the view that children with LDs could not be termed as handicapped (mentally or physically); but they merely formed a deviation in the learning processes of an individual. With this concept came the theory of inclusive studies, where the children with LDs were put into general classrooms, albeit with some restrictions. Now in the twenty-first century, various experts have come forward with the view of total inclusion, where there would exist no differences between the students (with or without LDs). However, many educators have expressed serious reservations about this process of full inclusion, and they feel that special needs children should be segregated and taught only under the supervision of a special educator. My article will take an in-depth look at the term learning disabilities, while exploring the various perspectives as noticed within the general educators, in regards to students with LDs and the full-inclusive educational process. The research has been conducted with the express aim of developing a better understanding of the general educators' perception of children with LD in an inclusive environment, their perception of efficacy in relation to their training, and their perception of the support that they receive in educating these students. Teachers’ Views on The Impact of Instruction within  The Inclusion Model for Students with Learning Disabilities by PhilipThompson Ed.D,Walden University, 2011 Proposal Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Philip Thompson Walden University August 2011 Acknowledgments This is an optional page for acknowledgments. It is a nice place to thank the faculty, family members, and friends who have helped you reach this point in your academic career. No page number appears on any of the pages up to this point. If you do not wish to include this page, delete the heading and the body text; if a blank page remains, delete the page break above but leave the section break that you see below this text. Table of Contents List of Tables ii List of Figures iii Section 1: Introduction to the Study 4 Introduction 4 Backgroun 5 17 Use this table of contents (TOC) as an example of what one looks like. When it comes time for creating your own TOC, RIGHT CLICK anywhere in the Table of Contents, select UPDATE FIELD, then select UPDATE ENTIRE TABLE or UPDATE PAGE NUMBERS ONLY, and click OK. The table of contents will be generated using the style tags from the template; you will also be able to automatically update the TOC, both added headings and page numbers. List of Tables When you update the list of tables, the table number and title will come in without a period between them; you will need to manually add that period after all table numbers, as shown for Table 1. In addition, the title will retain the italics from the narrative when the List of Tables is updated. Once your list is finalized, select the entire list and change it all plain type. List of Figures Figure 1. Figure caption goes here xx The List of Figures is not set up to automatically update. If you have figures in your document, type them in manually here, following the example above. Section 1: Introduction to the Study Introduction The concept of inclusive teaching practices for students with learning disabilities (LDs) is relatively new in the education, despite past cases (during the early 1900s) in which public schools recognized and provided specialized, although segregated, services for children with physical, mental, or sensory disabilities (Swanson, Harris, & Graham, 2005, p. 110). However, children with LDs did not receive any special considerations until the 1960s due to a lack of social comprehension about the special needs of these children. A cursory glance at the social conditions of the late 19th century and the early 20th century shows individuals with LDs as socially categorized into three main classes: They were perceived to be: a) suffering from some emotional problem; b) mentally retarded; or c) or to be coming from a socially disadvantaged class. Another category was later added to this class: individuals with LDs were assumed to have suffered from some sort of brain damage (Cratty, and Goldman, 1996, p. 3). With such social perspective, it is little wonder that individuals with learning disabilities were segregated from the mainstream school educational facilities, as well as barred from taking part in the social and economic activities during the early half of the 20th century (Atkinson et al., 1997). Social exclusions and educational segregation were applicable also for individuals with physical and sensory disabilities (Humphries and Gordon, 1992). However, in modern times the perception of students with LDS has changed such that they are no longer viewed as mentally retarded. This shift in perception and various educational reforms has made it possible for the 21st-century educators to bring in inclusive practices within the educational system. There is no doubt that modern society is seeing “an increasing number of learning disabled students that are placed into the general education classrooms for academic instruction as part of inclusion” (Learner, 2003, 26); however, on the other hand, the general teachers feel the lack of resources, proper planning to implementation, and also a lack of comprehensive training to carry out the practice will hinder the desired results. Though supportive of the inclusive method, “Teachers... feel... hopeful, and desirous of what can be accomplished, but they... also feel [the] frustration, burden, fear, lack of support, and inadequacies about their ability to teach children” with LDs (Loucks, Horsley,  &  Roody, 1990, p. 54). In this context, it is quite natural that a certain section of the teachers would be skeptical of the actual impact of the inclusion models for students with LDs. Thus, it becomes imperative that to better the educational goals under an inclusive system we have to work towards developing a better understanding of the general educators' perception of children with LD in an Inclusive environment, their perception of efficacy in relation to their training, and their perception of the support that they receive in educating these students. Background  Large scale provisions for children with learning disabilities were made in the 1970s, after the implementation of Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (IDEA, Public Law 101-476). However, even before this law came into force, there have been many voices that have called for an effective ban on labeling children with LDs as mentally retarded. In 1962, Samuel Kirk, a well known psychologist, first brought in the term learning disabilities, and after the clear delineation of this term, the teachers for the first time understood the reasons for ‘unexpected underachievement,’ as seen in some students. Kirk in research on this issue used the term learning disabilities to signify a variety of conditions that affect not only an individual’s learning process, but also language development and communication skills. Thus, Kirk concluded that LDs are unexpected learning difficulties as seen in an otherwise normal child. Kirk defined LD as “a retardation, disorder, or delayed development in one or more of the processes of speech, language, reading, spelling, writing, or arithmetic resulting from a possible cerebral dysfunction and not from mental retardation, sensory deprivation, or cultural or instructional factors” (1962, 263). With Kirk’s definition delineating the students with LDs from mentally retarded students, and the 1975 enactment of the Public Law 101-476, many of the barriers pertaining to the segregation of children with LDs within the educational system, broke down. The definition and the act also created a comprehensive and clearly distinguishable legal definition of the term ‘learning disability’, which served to change the social and educational perspective towards LDs. The 1975 Act rejected almost all the apparent causes of learning disabilities; except those which fell under the provisions of neurological disorders. The term under this act, came to be referred to as “a disorder in one or more basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations including conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage” (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34, 10, cited in Swanson, Harris, & Graham, 59). This law safeguards all those with LDs from age 3 to 21 years, while those older than age 21 years are provided coverage by the ADA act of 1990. The ADA Act of 1990 is under the jurisdiction of the American civil rights law that under certain circumstances, declares discrimination based on disability as illegal. It provides for right to employment, right to transportation and other commercial facilities, thus providing equal treatment for any person (a child or an adult), diagnosed like having learning disabilities. After the passing, of the 1975 Act, the school districts that received support from the Federal purse were asked to implement the inclusive system for students with learning disabilities; failing which they would lose the right to receive Federal grants. The same year, under the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA, Public Law 94-142), Federal aid was further extended to states that were willing to implement free and inclusive education for students with learning disabilities. The EAHCA drew guidelines for the implementation of the inclusive systems under the public funding system, and the existing special classes for these children were asked to be stopped (Fernald, 1943). As the public schools program for the LDs grew under the Federal funds, so did the number of children diagnosed with LDs; and soon there were various amendments that slowly shifted children with LDs from special classrooms with specialized facilities to the general classroom under the special education guidelines (Zigmond, 1995). Within the next 10 years, observations revealed that U.S. had two forms of educational systems developing simultaneously within the sphere of a single classroom. To avoid too many disruptions within a general class room setting, the Resource Room model (with pull out special educational services for the LD students) as suggested by Kephart (1971, 208), came to be implemented and was quite popular. However, Madeline Will who was then the Head of the Office of the Special Education and Rehabilitative services, asked for an end to the existing dual system, and proposed that the children with LDs be integrated into the general classroom setting with appropriate support and facilities (Will, 1986). By this time, various researches revealed that the number of US children with LDs had increased manifold, forcing the authorities and the policy makers to root for this proposal. Though there were a lot of stiff opposition from many of the experts in educational reforms (Kaufmann, Gerber, & Semmel, 1988), the proposal in general received widespread support and soon became popular as the ‘full inclusion movement’. In 1997, we find that under the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, there were again further pressures for the implementation of this full-inclusion model under the existent educational system. However, what most of the supporters for the ‘inclusion model’ failed to comprehend was the fact that the term inclusion, like other terminology under the heading of educational facilities, was not a unified concept, and could be viewed from various perspectives by different people; herein lay the main problem. Thus, the chief question that arises here focuses on the general educators’ attitudes that bear the actual responsibilities for handling a practical classroom situation under the inclusion model. We need to ascertain like to how the general educators think about this new inclusive system of education, and examine their views on the expected outcome of the imparted instructions, within the inclusion model. Problem Statement Gerber strongly expressed his views against the process of the complete inclusion model within the educational system, and said that “the term ‘inclusion’ shrewdly offers itself as a remedy for the implied –exclusion-, and in doing so nimbly side steps many serious empirical questions about the organization of schooling and its effectiveness for all children” (1995, 181). A look at the term ‘inclusion model’ from the teachers’ perspectives revealed that there are three distinct views on this system. The first groups of teachers, who were averse to any changes within the educational facilities, perceived this model as little more than the presence of children with LDs within the realms of a general classroom. Teachers with the second viewpoint perceived this method as on e in which they had been given more powers through the novel concept of learning through cooperation, collaboration, and peer tutoring (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994). For teachers with the most radical views on this issue, inclusion model would pertain to wide-scale social and educational reformations, with no concept of any special educators or special educational facilities for the students and no delineation of individuals with LDs from the normal population, in terms of an epithet or placement (Stainback & Stainback, 1992). Teachers having the first view (the traditional perspective), did not feel that integrating the special needs children with the normal children within a general classroom would serve any group of students, instead it would create unnecessary deviations and disruptions in the process of imparting education. Here, Meltzer, et al., in their research papers reviewed that many of the general educators holding the traditional viewpoint had the preconceived opinion that “the LD students, with negative academic self-perceptions, as significantly lower in academic performance than their counterparts with no learning difficulties” (Meltzer, et al., 2004, p. 37), while Mastropieri and Scruggs (2004) said that many of the “teachers were less positive about including students with more severe disabilities, and were less likely to agree that the general education classroom was always that best environment for all students with disabilities” (p. 24). Thus, we find that general educators have a mindblock against teaching the special needs children within a general classrrom setting, that prevents them from trying to learn and cope with the new situation. In contrast, teachers with the second and the third viewpoints can be said to be ‘inclusionists’ in nature. As Dunn reported, “retarded pupils make as much or more progress in the regular grades as they do in special education” (1968, 8). Again, in 1978 Sindelar and Deno after conducting researches in this line, got results that were concurring with Dunn’s statement. However, Carlberg and Kavale in their reports in 1980 showed that special needs children, if taught in a special educational environment, produced slightly better results, than if taught within the scope of a general classroom setting. Given below are the differences between these two perspectives, as outlined by Fitch in his article Inclusion, exclusion, and ideology: Special education students’ changing sense of self, 2003, 238.  Traditionalist perspectives Inclusive perspectives 1. Diversity in schools and society is problematic. Diversity is expected and valued. Individual and group diversity contributes positively to classroom climate, learning outcomes, and community quality. 2. Disabilities are innate conditions of certain human being that are essentially different. Disability labels are inevitable, objective, fair, and beneficial. Human commonalities cut across socially constructed categories of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. It is unnecessary and damaging publicly to label and group people according to how they differ from the norm. 3. Support and interventions are most appropriately and effectively provided in separate settings by special education experts. Progress is accomplished by professional expertise, technology, diagnosis, and intervention It is in the interest of everyone to be in socially inclusive learning environments in which all individuals are valued. Teachers with different expertise can co-teach in inclusive settings while providing optimal social and academic results for all students 4. Special education and lower-achieving students will improve if they receive specialized, skill-based, intensive, individualized instruction in separate settings 5. Learning is primarily developmentally linear; it takes place one sequential step at a time. Knowledge and competence are purposely constructed in a variety of ways. 6. Competitive school structures are natural, fair, and expected; therefore, homogeneous grouping of students is inevitable. Competitive structures and activities are socially constructed and not inevitable. Collaboration, cooperation, and mutual support are preferred forms of interpersonal Interaction. 7. Special education is a rational system of services that helps those individuals labelled or identified. As the tussle between the ‘traditional’ and ‘inclusionist’ views continue over the issue of the expected outcomes of the inclusive model, the teachers’ also remain undecided over the issue of student integration (Brucker, 1994). Thus, here it be seen that inclusion is rather being made more subjective to organizational interventions, rather than being an educational interposition (Murphy, 1985), and focus in the recent times has unfortunately shifted to ‘where to teach’ rather than being on ‘what to teach’ and ‘how to teach’ (Baker and Zigmond, 1995). On examination of the teachers’ notions on their abilities to impart instructions effectively to an inclusive classroom (especially in the middle school section), we find that there are 3 theories that explain the teacher’s perspectives, as regards to an inclusive classroom. The 3 theories that explain teachers’ viewpoints are the self determination theory, Instructional self-efficacy theory and the self-worth theory. In the self determination theory as designed by Deci and Ryan in 2000, it was stated that individuals must be given autonomy, a scope to communicate with others, and they also must have a certain amount of competency in order to function effectively. Thus, according to this theory, educators who find that they lack the core competency to educate children with LDs in order to preserve their autonomy and self esteem, will give attention only to the children who perform well in class. In the Instructional self-efficacy theory as defined by Ashton and Webb in 1997, it was reported that the teachers, who were not capable of educating in an inclusive setting, failed to provide adequate efforts that would have otherwise created a conducive teaching atmosphere within the integrated classroom. The self-worth theory of Covington (2002) runs more or less on a similar line to that of the self determination theory, and here Covington claimed that teachers, who lacked the training and capability to teach children within an inclusive model, ended up avoiding such children, knowing well that they were ill prepared to impart instructions to such children. So the question is: how to develop a better understanding of the general educators' perceptions of children with Learning Disabilities in an inclusive environment, and how to shape their perception of efficacy, in relation to their training and support that they receive in educating these students? Nature of the Study In this study, the researcher will focus on three main questions in order to comprehend the general perspective of the teachers in relation to children with LDs, and to formulate ways so as to enhance this perspective and make teachers more effective within the inclusive model. Hypothesis How does a full inclusion classroom setting serve to affect the relationship between the educator and his students (both with and without LDs)? What are the educators’ perspectives of this process of full inclusion and does this perspective change as the educator starts using the process within a general classroom setting? How does the process of full inclusion affect the achievements of students within a general classroom setting? The general teachers after receiving suitable training and getting the desired support in the form of effective planning will be able to have a positive outlook on the inclusive process. This would be measured by recording the changes in teachers’ perspectives, and their increasing efforts in helping students with LDs within a general classroom setting. H0 the training and support given to the general teachers, in regards to inclusive educational facilities will fail to produce any positive results in terms of student achievements, and will also not work towards changing the negative view of the teachers towards students with LDs. Ha the negative views of the general teachers towards students with LDs and their instructional efficacious will change after given adequate support and the necessary training on inclusive practices to be used within a general classroom setting, thus helping to obtain positive outcomes in regards to students’ achievements. Operational Definitions of Technical Terms. Collaboration: This term is defined as “involving cooperation, effective communication, shared problem solving, planning, and finding solutions—[collaboration] is the process for ensuring that all students receive the free, appropriate, public education mandated by the Individual with Disabilities Act (IDEA)” (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2004, p. 29). Concerns-based adoption model (CBAM): CBAM is “a framework designed to provide measurement concepts and tools for evaluators and researchers to evaluate the effects or progress of implementation of an innovation or multiple innovations that may constitute a reform program. The CBAM has three diagnostic dimensions: the Stages of Concern8 (SoC), the Levels of Use (LoU), and Innovation Configurations (IC)” (Hord et al., 2006, 2). Full inclusion: “The practice of serving students with disabilities and other special needs entirely within the general classroom” (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2004, p. 8). However, a full inclusion program does not end with placing a child with LDs in a general classroom, along with other general students. It involves “1) appropriate educational achievement for all students; 2) provision of supportive services that include: training of all educators participating, the professional personnel, and assistive technology; 3) necessary modifications and accommodations, which include adjustments in assignments, materials, and teacher instructional strategies to allow the students to learn and demonstrate learning; 4) team that works together toward a common goal through shared decision making, resources, expertise, and accountability. (Wood, 2006, 20-21). Inclusion: “The practice of placing students with disabilities in the general education classes for instruction” (Learner, 2003, 26) Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): IDEA (2005) defined LRE for students with LDs as “To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including in public or private instruction 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”. Purpose of Study The purpose of this research study was to find the general educators’ perspective on the practice of full inclusion, a model which is being strongly promoted in all US schools. Bricker in her research papers (1995) defined three determinants that influenced the inclusive model in a school: I) attitudes, towards the inclusion process mainly by the educators who will be responsible for their wards; II) resources, which we have already noticed that many of the teachers complained that they did not get the desired support; and III) curriculum, which would promote more interaction within the school. However, as Bricker tells us, inclusion, more often than not, is countered "exclusively at the conceptual level [only]" (1995, 192). Here Bricker speaks of a particular concern expressed by Rick Brinker (February 26, 1993, in a personal interview to Bricker), "Of particular concern is the fact that little empirical effort is invested in describing what is actually happening in the integrated environment and how to support efforts so better things happen" (quoted in, Bricker, 1995, 192). Most of the research reviewed focused more on the survey data as how many suffer from this disorder; or on the signs and symptoms and possible treatment of this disorder. In 1996, Scruggs and Mastropieri conducted an investigation into the teachers’ attitudes towards children with LDs, and the inclusive mode of teaching. They located 28 research papers published between the years 1958 and 1995, which gave us figures on how the general educators felt about the inclusion model. Study and analysis led Scruggs and Mastropieri to conclude that a majority of the teachers (2/3rds of the total 10560 educators interviewed) were in favour of inclusion; however, when it came to devoting enough time, or having undergone special training to be able to handle children with LDs within a general classroom setting, only about one fourth of the teachers were able to answer in the affirmative. Thus, this proves the necessity of changing the general educators’ attitudes towards making an extra effort, in helping in the process of mainstreaming children with LDs. With a better comprehension of the general educator’s views on the subject of inclusive models, it will be possible for the researcher to find out ways to assist the teachers in changing their negative outlook. So in this paper, the researcher while trying to throw light on the teachers’ views on the inclusive process, and will also try to find measures that would work towards producing a better integrated classroom scenario and improved academic results. Meltzer et al. had commented in their papers that, changing one’s perspectives in an attempt to shift it towards having a more positive vision creates a certain degree of “awareness and experience that can lead to basic shifts in opinions first, then attitudes and beliefs” (2004, 55). Thus to achieve positive outcomes, the teachers perceptions must be first changed by appropriate training and adequate support, which would allow them to view the special needs children in a more favourable light. Significance of Study. The study is significant in the sense it helps one to comprehend the general teachers views on the integration of children with LDs. It would also allow the researcher to comprehend what steps are necessary to change this negative perception of the general teachers, like arranging for better training and creating a general awareness so that children with learning disabilities are not seen as mentally retarded. Thus, it is as Silva and Dana in their 2003 paper concluded, “When teachers research their own practice… they begin to envision alternative configurations of human and material resources to meet the needs of culturally diverse groups of students, teachers, and administrators. They are willing to invest more of their own resources and professional energy in larger efforts to reform classrooms and schools” (Silva and Dana, 2003, p. 40). Thus, the importance of the study is based on the fact that improving the teachers perspectives by providing them with adequate training and support, would work towards producing better academic results from children with special needs within a general classroom. Assumptions. The researcher made the following assumption in this contextual research: General educators have varied perceptions and efficiencies in imparting educational instructions, while working with children having LDs within the setting of a general classroom. Transition Statement. The researcher made studies on the varying perspectives of the general educators on children with LDs, and their perceptions on the entire inclusive system within a general classroom setting, as a whole. The main aim of this study was to find out means to better educational goals under an inclusive system, and work towards developing a better understanding of the general educators' perception of children with LDs in an inclusive environment; and change their negative perception of efficacy in relation to their training and support that they receive in educating these students. Since it is the general educators that would be handling the integrated classrooms, it is necessary that they are provided with adequate training and support in order to handle the situation better and more effectively. The researcher finally made various recommendations in order to bring about certain changes, as regards to the negative views of the general teachers on children with LDs, and to help in the process of achieving improved results in the full inclusive educational facility. The thesis paper will follow the order that will have six sections, Section 1- Presentation of the Problem; Section 2- Literature review; Section3- Presentation of Method and Methodology; Section 4- Data Collection and Analysis; Section 5-Conclusion; and Section 6- Recommendations. This paper will now move on to the next (second) chapter which is the literature review.  Read More