INCLUSIVE GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON
INCLUSION: A QUALITATIVE CASE STUDY
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation, School
Psychology, and Deaf Studies
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Education
(Special Education)
by
Katherine Victoria Flores
SUMMER
2012
INCLUSIVE GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON
INCLUSION: A QUALITATIVE CASE STUDY
A Thesis
by
Katherine Victoria Flores
Approved by:
______________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Kathleen Gee
______________________________, Second Reader
Dr. Jean Gonsier-Gerdin
________________________________
Date
ii
Student: Katherine Victoria Flores
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
_______________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Dr. Bruce Ostertag
__________________
Date
Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation, School Psychology, and Deaf Studies
iii
Abstract
of
INCLUSIVE GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON
INCLUSION: A QUALITATIVE CASE STUDY
by
Katherine Victoria Flores
The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics and behaviors of inclusive
general education elementary teachers who were including a student with significant
disabilities in their classes. In-person interviews of the three general education
elementary school teachers were conducted and transcribed. In addition, the author
observed the teachers at least seven different days throughout the spring semester and
collected artifacts as well. All data compiled were analyzed using categorical coding
procedures to identify themes related to the teachers’ attitudes. The themes that emerged
included: a strong sense of classroom community, giving choices, utilizing engaging
activities, having high academic expectations for all students, the teacher’s personal
experience with people with disabilities, intentional teaching methods, collaboration
between the general education teacher and the special education teacher, and the
relationship between the paraeducator and the general education teacher.
_____________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Kathleen Gee
_________________________________
Date
iv
DEDICATION
This is dedicated to my parents who knew from the start that I could do this. I would also
like to dedicate this to Dr. Gee who believed in me. And to the three participant teachers,
who I aspire to be like when I grow up, thank you for all your help and support.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication ............................................................................................................................v
List of Figures ................................................................................................................. viii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................3
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................4
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................4
Definitions of Terms ............................................................................................6
Assumptions.........................................................................................................8
Justification ..........................................................................................................8
Limitations ...........................................................................................................9
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................................................10
Introduction ..........................................................................................................10
Inclusion of Students with Severe Disabilities in General Education Classes....10
Support Systems...................................................................................................11
Collaboration........................................................................................................13
In-service Training ...............................................................................................17
Preservice Training ..............................................................................................20
vi
Experience with Supported Inclusion ..................................................................23
International Perspective ......................................................................................27
Summary ..............................................................................................................28
3. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................29
Setting and Participants........................................................................................29
Procedure and Data Collection ............................................................................31
Data Analysis .......................................................................................................32
4. RESULTS ....................................................................................................................34
Findings................................................................................................................34
5. DISCUSSION ..............................................................................................................94
Impact of the Study ..............................................................................................94
Implications Towards Practice .............................................................................95
Limitations ...........................................................................................................96
Future Research ...................................................................................................97
Conclusions ..........................................................................................................97
Appendix A Copies of Participant Consent Forms ..........................................................101
Appendix B Semi-Structured Interview Questions..........................................................104
Appendix C Definitions for Coding .................................................................................110
References ........................................................................................................................113
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1
Example of a Morning Meeting Message ...........................................................37
2
Student Journal Examples ....................................................................................39
3
T1 Textbook References ......................................................................................73
viii
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background of the Problem
With the first passing of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
in 1990, a greater emphasis on educating students with multiple and severe disabilities in
general education classrooms was placed on the public school education system.
Researchers who examined the increase in inclusive education programs found that
between 1989 and 2000, the proportion of students who were labeled as “mentally
retarded” (the current term is “intellectual disability”) and taught in general education
classes for at least part of the day grew from 27% to 45%, and the proportion of students
with intellectual disabilities placed in separate facilities decreased tremendously
(Williamson, McLesky, Hoppey,& Rentz, 2006).
In 2005, 69% of California students with an intellectual disability (formerly
labeled as mental retardation) spent the majority of their school day outside the general
education classroom (United States Department of Education, 2007). While the concepts
of inclusive education have been around for a long time, many students were still not
afforded the opportunity to learn in a general education setting alongside their
nondisabled peers. This could be due to many factors including administrators’ attitudes
and general education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion (Kugelmass, 2001). Many
general education teachers who teach in inclusive public schools have become one of the
primary educators of students with significant disabilities. The attitudes of the general
2
education teachers, therefore, may affect the success of the inclusion program (Burke &
Sutherland, 2004).
According to Werts, Wolery, Snyder, & Caldwell (1996), the most critical factor
for successful inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms was
sufficient training of the general education teacher. Their research indicated that a central
aspect of the attitudes that general education teachers have toward inclusive education
was the amount of training they had received on how to implement inclusion successfully
within their classrooms. Understanding what inclusion may look like and what methods
it might include was a critical feature of meeting the needs of all students.
Other research indicated that a major factor in the success of the policy of
inclusion was the effectiveness of the collaboration between general and special
educators (Hunt, Soto, Maierm & Doering, 2003; Hwang & Evans, 2010). With positive
experiences, general education teachers may develop more positive attitudes toward
inclusion of students with disabilities in their classrooms. In one study, the perceptions
of the general education teachers increased in positivity over the course of three years
because of the experiences they gained working collaboratively in inclusive general
education classrooms (LeRoy & Simpson, 1996).
Without the understanding or knowledge of how inclusion can work, many
general education teachers have been unsure, apprehensive, or even unsupportive of
including students with severe disabilities at first (Janney, Snell, Beers, & Raynes, 1995;
Soodak, Podell, & Lehman, 1998). There is a need for more in-depth research of
successful general educators who are implementing inclusive education.
3
This study examined what factors made three inclusive general education teachers
successful at including students with significant disabilities in their classrooms.
Statement of the Problem
It was expected that an inclusive general education teacher would ensure that all
students felt a sense of belonging in the classroom and had a means to participate at all
times. From previous research, it was known that inclusive general education teachers
tended to value the input of all students, both with and without disabilities and provided
necessary supports to meet all students’ needs (Janney, Snell, Beers, & Raynes, 1995).
However, it was unclear as to what specific characteristics and behaviors of general
education teachers created an inclusive classroom.
Previous research had also shown that general educators did not always have
positive views of including students with disabilities in their classes (Carter & Hughes,
2006). A number of studies also showed that general education teachers had concerns
about including students with significant disabilities (Lohrmann & Bambara, 2006) and
that general educators without adequate resources thought there were barriers to inclusion
(Downing, Eichinger, & Williams, 1997). The research to date had not fully captured the
phenomenon of what “makes” an inclusive general education teachers. In other words,
what are the traits, internal values, practices, and ideas of general education teachers who
are thought to be successful with a wide heterogeneous range of students in their class?
This study examined three teachers in similar contexts who have been identified for their
successful inclusive teaching skills.
4
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the qualities of three successful
inclusive general education teachers. A case study approach was used to identify the
behaviors and philosophies that lead to success. A collective case study method was used
to describe and compare the perceptions and practices of three different general education
teachers that had been identified by their special education teacher colleagues as
successful (Stake, 1995). This study examined what the general education teachers did to
ensure success for all students in their class.
The following questions were examined in this study:
 What teacher behaviors enhanced students with significant disabilities’
membership in a general education classroom?
 How are general education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education
formed?
 What are the philosophies that general education teachers have towards
inclusion?
It was proposed that through field observations, interviews, and artifacts, the
researcher would gain a deeper understanding of how general education teachers who
were inclusive in nature can be models for other general education teachers who are
unsure about inclusive education.
Theoretical Framework
Inclusive education for students with severe disabilities is not a new concept.
Previous research has shown that students with significant disabilities make positive
5
gains academically and socially when they are taught in inclusive general education
classrooms (Downing, 2008; Hunt & Goetz, 1997). Inclusive classrooms enable all
students to be valued members of the classroom community no matter what their abilities
are. An inclusive classroom community can be described as an environment in which all
students participate in meaningful activities while forming relationships with their peers
(Gee, 2010). General education classrooms designed to accommodate a wide range of
students provide “communication-rich” activities, in addition to giving students with and
without disabilities access to the core curriculum (Downing, 2008).
Researchers in the field of education of students with severe disabilities have
identified the following factors as indicators of success for students with significant
disabilities in inclusive classrooms: an increase in their social and communication skills,
meaningful instruction related to the general education curriculum, full participation in
classroom activities, and active and informed learning (Gaylord-Ross & Peck, 1998; Gee,
1995; Soukup, Wehmeyer, Bashinski, & Bovaird, 2007). In other words, inclusive
education has had many benefits for students with significant disabilities. However,
simply putting a student in a general education, even with appropriate supports to meet
his or her needs, did not guarantee success for the student. Previous research has shown
that the general education teacher’s attitude towards inclusion played an important role in
how students with significant disabilities were accepted by their peers and by their
teachers within the classroom (Burke & Sutherland, 2004). An in-depth examination of
the general education teachers’ role in inclusive classrooms was a central aspect to what
makes inclusion successful or not (Lohrmann & Bambara, 2006).
6
Good & Brophy (1972) conducted extensive research to examine how teachers’
attitudes affected their behavior in the classroom. Results of this study found that the
teachers’ attitudes towards children correlated with their treatment of the students in their
practices. Namely, teachers identified their feelings of attachment, rejection, concern,
and indifference. This research showed how teachers’ attitude can influence their
practice.
The current study consisted of a qualitative collective case study design. This
type of ethnography allowed for an in-depth analysis of an issue in which there were
multiple “cases” or individuals who participated in exploring the issue (Stake, 1995).
The three participants provided insight into what made a successful inclusive general
education teacher. Through the collection of in-person interviews, artifacts, and
classroom observations, the researcher gathered all the data from the three different
general education teachers and coded the data to determine commonalties and themes
among all the participants. The original case study method of inquiry was developed by
Glaser and Strauss (1967) who created a means to study individuals with an in-depth
perspective on their ways of life.
Definitions of Terms
Inclusive education.
Inclusive education has been defined as “a value-based practice that attempts to
bring students including those with disabilities into full membership within their local
school community” (Udvari-Solner, 1996, p.101).
7
General education teacher.
A general education teacher is a teacher with a multiple subject credential who
teaches in a general kindergarten through eighth grade public school classroom.
Qualitative research.
Qualitative research is a paradigm in which the researcher examines a problem in
which the variables that contribute to the problem are unknown (Creswell, 2012). The
researcher begins with an open-ended approach to answer a question and gradually
identifies the themes and constructs that will explain the phenomenon.
Case study ethnography.
A case study ethnography is a type of qualitative research that allows the
researcher to describe, analyze and interpret a culture-sharing group’s pattern of
behavior, beliefs, or language over a period of time (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). A case
study is a kind of ethnographic research and specifies that the research will focus on a
“case” or a few individuals instead of an entire cultural group (LeCompete & Schensul,
1999). Case studies utilize an in-depth exploration of a bounded system based on many
different types of data collection (Stake, 1995).
Inclusive classroom.
An inclusive classroom refers to a general education classroom in which students
with significant disabilities are taught alongside their non-disabled peers for the majority
of or the entire school day and meaningfully participate in classroom activities. All
students, both with and without disabilities, are important and valued members of the
class in an inclusive classroom.
8
Students with significant disabilities.
Students with significant disabilities are individuals who have physical,
intellectual, and/or multiple disabilities that seriously affect their learning. Students with
significant disabilities often require adaptations and modifications in order to participate
in the curriculum.
Assumptions
For the purpose of this study, all participants chose to participate, gave
information voluntarily, and were currently teaching in an inclusive classroom setting.
The statements from participant interviews were reviewed by the participants in order to
ensure accurate information gathering by the researcher. The researcher was a participant
observer who gathered fieldnotes in addition to in-depth interviews. The researcher used
coding to interpret the fieldnotes and texts of interviews as the data were collected. By
doing in-depth interviews, taking observational field notes, and collecting artifacts,
common characteristics and teacher behaviors were identified.
Justification
This study sought to identify the crucial elements of teacher behaviors and
teaching philosophy that created successful inclusive programs for students with
significant disabilities. While the general education teacher was only one part of the
educational team, which included speech, physical, and occupational therapists, parents,
the special education teacher, the school psychologist, and administrators, it was
generally accepted that the general education teacher was an important part of the team
(Janney, Snell, Beers, & Raynes, 1995). It was well documented that to meet the needs
9
of students with significant disabilities in inclusive programs, collaboration among these
individuals was necessary (Downing, 2008; Orelove, Sobsey & Silberman, 2004;
Rainforth & York-Barr, 1997). While the skills of the special educator as well as the rest
of the team members may be crucial aspects of successful inclusion, this study focused
solely on one aspect—the general educators
Limitations
This study had multiple limitations because of its nature as a case study. The
small sample size and the fact that the general education teachers teach at only two
different schools made the results of this study limited. In addition, the amount of time to
conduct the interviews and collect the data was also limited to one semester. It was
essential to note; however, that the sampling was appropriate to the qualitative design, as
collective case studies include a small number of participants. The researcher, as a
participant observer, was another limitation to this study because it may have caused the
researcher to develop some bias throughout the research because of the in-depth amount
of time and presence maintained in the study.
10
Chapter 2
Review of Literature
Introduction
Inclusive education has been defined as “a value-based practice that attempts to
bring students including those with disabilities into full membership within their local
school community” (Udvari-Solner, 1996, p.101). Some authors have indicated that the
success of an inclusive education program depends on the attitudes of the teachers who
work with students with disabilities daily in their classrooms (Burke & Sutherland, 2004).
Since individuals’ attitudes towards policies affect their implementation of them, it may
be that general education teachers’ attitudes influence the implementation of inclusion
programs in their classrooms (Burke & Sutherland, 2004). This synthesis of research will
focus on how the attitudes of general education teachers towards the inclusion of students
with severe disabilities are formed, and what factors create positive views towards
inclusive education for all students.
Inclusion of Students with Severe Disabilities in General Education Classes
Since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was reauthorized in
2004, a push to include students with significant disabilities in general education
classrooms as much as possible has ensued. When school programs work to create
inclusive classrooms, the role of the general education teacher (for students with severe
disabilities) becomes much more central. While the special education support teacher
often takes the lead on adapting and modifying the curriculum for students with
significant disabilities, the general education teacher creates the climate for an inclusive
11
education and a sense of belonging for students with significant disabilities. Research
has indicated that the classroom teacher is the most important determinant of student
learning (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Many authors have indicated that teachers’ beliefs in
inclusive education affected their commitment to implementing it (Avramidis &
Norwich, 2002).
Support Systems
General education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion may differ based on the
supports and barriers they feel have been enhancing or hindering successful inclusive
practices. In a qualitative study by Lohrmann & Bambara (2006), 14 general education
elementary school teachers described their attitudes and perceptions of including students
with significant cognitive disabilities who engage in challenging behaviors in their
general education classrooms. The results of this study indicated that general education
teachers need sufficient supports in place (e.g. positive behavior support plans and
support personnel) in order to successfully include students. In addition, the general
education teachers’ confidence in teaching students with severe disabilities who engage
in challenging behavior in their classrooms increased as a result of ongoing collaboration
with the special education teachers (Lohrmann & Bambara, 2006). This study showed
that the more success the general education teachers experienced, the more they were
able to “buy into” the vision of creating a truly inclusive classroom environment for all
students. However, while this study indicated progress in creating collaborative
partnerships between general and special educators, the inclusive vision of the general
educators had conditions. Namely, 13 out of the 14 general education teachers who
12
participated in this study came up with a scenario in which a student with extremely
challenging behavior who put peers at risk should not be included in a general education
classroom (Lohrmann & Bambara, 2006).
Downing, Eichinger, and Williams (1997) interviewed 9 general education
teachers, 9 special education teachers, and 9 principals to gain insight on their views of
including students with severe disabilities in general education classes. The results of
this study showed that most participants had a positive view of inclusion of students with
severe disabilities, although they indicated that negative attitudes of some general
education teachers was based on the financial resources and barriers to implementing
successful inclusive practices. When not given the support they needed to meet the needs
of all students, the general education teachers had less positive views of inclusion
(Downing, Eichinger, and Williams, 1997). In addition, Coots, Bishop, & GrenotScheyer (1998) found that the general education teachers believed that the supports
necessary to the successful inclusion of students with severe disabilities were: the belief
that they were the decision makers, the practice of utilizing peer and aide support, and the
ownership they took of the students with significant disabilities. When these supports
were in place, general education teachers had more positive attitudes towards the
inclusion of students with severe disabilities in their classes. The effectiveness of
collaboration also influenced the belief systems and attitudes of inclusion (Coots et al.,
1998).
13
Collaboration
A considerable amount of research has been published on how collaboration has
helped to shape general education teachers’ attitudes towards including students with
severe disabilities in their classrooms (Carter & Hughes, 2006; Hunt, Soto, Maier &
Doering, 2003; Hwang & Evans, 2010; Zindler, 2009). Effective collaboration practices
in place with special educators can influence general education teachers’ attitudes
towards inclusion of students with severe disabilities. At the same time, openness to
inclusion and positive attitudes towards the policy of inclusion may yield more
opportunities for successful collaboration. Research has shown that a major factor in the
success of the policy of inclusion was the effectiveness of the collaboration between
general and special educators (Hunt, Soto, Maier, & Doering, 2003; Hwang & Evans,
2010). Attitudes of the general education teachers were influenced by the willingness of
the special education teachers to work in conjunction with and in support of the general
education teachers. In another study by Carter & Hughes (2006), 36 general education
high school teachers participated in a survey that examined the perceptions of inclusion
of general education teachers, special education teachers, administrators, and
paraprofessionals. The teachers rated the lack of collaboration time with the special
education teachers as one of the most substantial barriers to successful inclusion. The
other barriers to inclusion that were indicated by all participants included the lack of
resources and personnel in the general education classrooms and the behavioral
challenges exhibited by students with disabilities. In addition to indicating the barriers to
inclusion, participants were asked to identify the benefits of inclusion. Across all groups
14
of participants, the most prominent benefit for students with disabilities was the
opportunity to socially interact with classmates (Carter & Hughes, 2006).
General education teachers who committed to creating an inclusive classroom by
being an active participant in the students’ IEP teams were more successful in including
students with disabilities. This was evident based on a qualitative one-year study
conducted by Zindler (2009), a general education teacher in a public school in New York
City. Using her classroom as a basis for facilitating friendships and promoting a
community in which everyone despite their abilities belonged, she collaborated
consistently with a special education teacher to ensure that her seven students with
disabilities felt included in her second grade classroom. Results of this study showed
how the students with disabilities became accepted members of the class with the
ongoing collaboration between Zindler and her special education colleague (Zindler,
2009).
Additional studies have shown that collaboration has been an indicator to the
success of inclusion programs for students with moderate and severe disabilities
(Jackson, Ryndak, & Billingsley, 2000; Wallace, Anderson, & Bartholomay, 2002).
Villa, Thousand, Myers, and Nevin (1996) surveyed 578 inclusive general education
teachers to determine their perceptions of the inclusion of students with moderate severe
disabilities in their classrooms. The results of this study showed that general education
teachers preferred inclusion programs with collaboration among the general and special
educators more than pull-out programs. This study also supported the fact that
15
collaboration and co-teaching partnerships influenced the general education teachers’
attitudes (Villa et al., 1996).
Berry (2011) attempted to examine experienced general education teachers’
perceptions of inclusion by interviewing 46 general education teachers in focus groups.
The participants were divided by their experiences (early career and veteran), and the
types of school districts in which they taught (rural, suburban, and urban). All focus
groups were led by the researcher and were audio-taped. Participants in each focus group
followed the same routine that included the completion of a written questionnaire, the
creation of a list in response to a verbal prompt about suggestions for new teachers in
inclusion classrooms, and a candid discussion about their written lists. Many teachers in
this study listed ideas associated with creating a sense of an accepting classroom
community (Berry, 2011). The veteran elementary teachers indicated that having a
positive affect towards students with disabilities created a more inclusive classroom for
students with disabilities as well as collaborating with colleagues.
In a mixed methods design study which examined the collaborative practices at 4
inclusive high schools across the United States (Wallace et al., 2002), one of the themes
that emerged was a sense of equality between general and special education teachers.
The attitudes of the general education teachers towards including students with
disabilities were based on the school-wide commitment to an inclusive culture as well as
the notion that all teachers worked together for the benefit of all students (Wallace et al.,
2002). The administrator at one of the high schools in the study made a commitment to
building a culture of inclusion by setting the expectation that all teachers would be
16
responsible and take ownership of all students, including students with disabilities, and
therefore general and special educators were given the time to collaborate on a regular
basis. Another theme that emerged from this study was the commitment to collaborative
school structures to support inclusion. This theme was derived from the components
which supported collaboration among staff members. These components found at all the
high schools to varying degrees included an inclusion initiative, block scheduling, and
joint professional development opportunities between general and special educators.
Kugelmass (2001) conducted another study in which administrators’ expectations
influenced general education teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. This study focused on
how one school created a culture of inclusion by instilling a collaborative nature to all
classes. The “our” kids approach instead of “your kids” versus “my kids” enabled the
special education students to get what they needed in regard to supports within the
general education classroom because of the collaborative practices of the teachers
(Kugelmass, 2001).
In a qualitative study by Smith and Leonard (2005), which examined the attitudes
and perspectives of general education teachers, special education teachers, and principals
at two newly inclusive elementary schools and two newly inclusive middle schools in
Louisiana, the researchers used interviews, focus groups, participatory observations, and
review of documents and records, to gain insight on the participants’ views towards
inclusion. The participants included 7 special educators, 14 general educators, and 3
principals. The researchers found that only a small number of general education teachers
saw the possibility of success for students with disabilities. They discovered that the
17
principals whose priorities included collaboration among general and special educators
were able to foster positive attitudes towards inclusion (Smith & Leonard, 2005). By
working for a principal who valued inclusion for students with disabilities through the
collaboration among teachers, general education teachers developed positive attitudes
towards inclusion (Smith & Leonard, 2005; Wallace et al., 2002).
In-service Training
Some authors have found that general education teachers’ attitudes often
depended on the knowledge and information they had received about the benefits of and
reasoning for inclusion of all students in a general education classroom. Buell, Hallam,
Gamel-McCormick (1999) surveyed 202 general education teachers in order to examine
the factors that support the inclusion of students with disabilities within the general
education classroom. In this study, Buell et al. (1999) found that 78% of the general
education teachers indicated that they needed, but did not have in-service training
opportunities about inclusive education. In-service training could provide the general
education teachers with the opportunity to learn why and how students with disabilities
can and should be successfully included with their non-disabled peers in the general
education classrooms.
As previously explained above, Berry (2011) interviewed veteran and early career
teachers from different environments to examine their perspectives of inclusion through
interviews and focus groups. Additional results indicated that training on how to work
with students with disabilities was also important in creating an inclusive classroom.
When examining the advice veteran general education teachers provided to beginning
18
teachers about how to include students with disabilities within their classrooms, the 36
experienced general education teachers who participated in interviews shared specific
supports which increased inclusiveness within the classroom including knowing the
abilities and challenges of the child as well as being trained to work with students with
disabilities (Berry, 2011).
Cook (2001) surveyed 70 general education teachers to examine their attitudes
towards students with disabilities in their classrooms. The general education teachers
overwhelmingly indicated that they would be unable to discuss the progress or skills
currently being worked on with the parents of students with severe disabilities. The
author discussed how this result could be attributed to the fact that teachers may not
know how to effectively teach and engage students with significant disabilities, and
therefore, would feel unprepared to discuss the students’ progress with parents. One of
the most compelling findings from this research, however, was the fact that given the
choice between removing a students with mild disabilities or a student with severe
disabilities from one’s class, the majority of general education teachers stated that they
would rather have a student with mild disabilities be moved to another classroom rather
than a student with severe disabilities (Cook, 2001). This showed that while the general
education teachers were willing to work with students with significant disabilities in their
classroom, they lacked the training necessary to successfully do so. Training may afford
general education teachers the chance to dispel myths about the challenges of inclusion
and ask questions about strategies and techniques that will encourage the inclusion of
students with significant disabilities in all activities in their class.
19
Cook (2004) conducted a second study of general education teachers’ attitudes
towards inclusion by surveying 46 inclusive elementary general education teachers and
asking them to nominate three of their students in the categories of attachment, concern,
indifference, and rejection. In the category of concern, teachers were asked to nominate
students who they felt they could devote all their time to, if given the opportunity to do
so. The chi-square analysis indicated that the teachers nominated students with mild
disabilities significantly more than students with severe disabilities. The theory that
Cook (2004) proposed was that teachers adjusted their expectations for students with
severe disabilities and thus did not have a sense of accountability or concern about their
academic or behavioral progress. The findings of this study indicated that general
education teachers may not have been as closely involved with students with severe
disabilities and needed training on how to meet the needs of students with severe
disabilities and an understanding that they were responsible for the education of students
with severe disabilities—not the paraprofessionals (Cook, 2004).
When examining the amount of training necessary to change general education
teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, some authors indicated that it was essential to
realize that attitudes change over time (Buell, et al., 1999; Cook, 2001). “One-time”
trainings may not yield more positive attitudes towards inclusion; however, consistent
training on how to successfully incorporate all students in the class into all lessons, in
addition to specific adaptation and modification strategies, may create a shift in general
education teachers’ perceptions of inclusion over time. It was suggested that perhaps
general education teachers’ attitudes were influenced by a variety of factors associated
20
with teaching in an inclusive classroom. Werts, Wolery, Snyder, & Caldwell (1996)
investigated general education teachers’ perceptions on the important supports and
challenges in inclusive classrooms by surveying 129 general education elementary school
teachers. The most critical factor, according to the researchers was sufficient training
(Werts et al., 1996). In addition, general education teachers indicated that help from
additional personnel in the classroom was also critical to the success of an inclusion
program.
In another study which surveyed 124 general education teachers, researchers
found that in order for inclusion of all students to be successful, teachers must be
provided with the necessary supports, time, and training to change their beliefs and
attitudes towards acceptance of all students (Pearman, Huang, Barnhart, & Mellblom,
1992). Training, therefore, was one way to ensure that general education teachers
understand how successful inclusion can work. However, while training can give general
education teachers the information and knowledge about the policy of inclusion, it cannot
guarantee that general education teachers will have positive attitudes towards the practice
of implementing inclusive education (Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick (1999); Cook,
2004; Werts, et al., 1996).
Preservice Training
In response to the challenges general education teachers face without sufficient
training on inclusion, a number of preservice general education teaching programs have
considered re-structuring their programs to ensure that future general education teachers
receive the training and experience working with students with severe disabilities prior to
21
them becoming teachers (Cook, 2002; Shippen, Crites, Houchings, Ramsey, & Simon,
2005; VanLaarhoven, Munk, Lynch, Bosma, & Rouse, 2007). After interviewing preservice general education teachers about their attitudes towards including students with
disabilities within their classrooms, Kirk (1998) found that the general education teachers
did not feel adequately prepared to teach students with disabilities in their classrooms. In
a study by Shippen et al. (2005), the researchers examined the attitudes of future general
education teachers on their hostility/receptivity and anxiety/calmness regarding teaching
students with disabilities in their general education classrooms at the beginning and at the
end of an introductory course on special education. The 236 students from three different
teacher preparation programs at three different universities who completed the survey
(using a Likert scale) included 96 future special education teachers, 149 future general
education teachers, and 68 future dually certified teachers in both special education and
general education. Results of this study indicated that both future general education
teachers and special education teachers became slightly more receptive to the idea of
inclusion after the completion of the introductory course. The explanation of the
importance of teaching all students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment
may have decreased the teachers’ fear or hostility towards the practice of inclusion.
Shippen et al. (2005) indicated, however, that because the general education teachers’
attitudes did not move much beyond the “neutral” category, resistance towards the policy
of inclusion still remained. One substantial finding of this study was that the more
information the future general educators gained, the less anxious about the
implementation of inclusion they became. This supported the notion that if general
22
education teachers were more knowledgeable and educated about inclusion and less
anxious about it, they might be more likely to successfully implement it (Shippen et al.,
2005).
McHatton and McCray (2007) also examined the perceptions of future general
education teachers towards inclusion. Specifically, they compared the attitudes of
elementary education majors with secondary education majors towards including students
with disabilities in their classrooms. The participants included 128 elementary education
majors and 33 secondary education majors who completed a Likert scale survey at the
beginning of a class on special education, and then took a survey again after completing
the class. The survey asked participants how strongly they agreed or disagreed with
statements regarding their attitudes towards inclusion. The results indicated that the
majority of both groups of students were less likely to agree that students with cognitive
disabilities should be taught in a general education classroom (McHatton & McCray,
2007). When the researchers compared the overall attitudes towards inclusion of future
elementary school educators with those of future secondary educators, a significant
difference was found; namely, the elementary education major students had a more
positive attitude towards inclusion than the secondary education major students. The
most predominant finding derived from this study, though, was that there was a need to
address working with students with disabilities throughout teacher preparation programs
instead of only in one course (McHatton & McCray, 2007).
Another study, which looked at the effects of special education courses on
preservice teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, was conducted by Cook (2002). This
23
study surveyed 181 undergraduate preservice general education teachers who were
enrolled in a series of four seminar courses which included topics of inclusion and special
education. The results of this study showed that the future general education teachers’
attitudes towards inclusion varied based on the type of disabilities the students had.
Students with learning disabilities were more accepted in preservice teachers’ classrooms
than students with severe disabilities, including cognitive disabilities or multiple
disabilities (Cook, 2002). While participants overall believed that inclusion for all
students, no matter what disabilities they may have, was beneficial for the included
students, they also believed that the lack of instructional experience in working with
students with various disabilities in the teacher preparation programs was detrimental to
their future abilities to teach all students in inclusive classrooms (Cook, 2002).
Experience with Supported Inclusion
Despite a lack of training and collaboration practices, some general education
teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion were influenced by experience simply working in an
inclusive classroom (Giangreco, Dennis, Colninger, Edelman, & Schattmann, 1993). In a
study that investigated the attitudes of general education teachers during the
implementation of a systems change process of inclusion in the public school system in
Michigan, LeRoy and Simpson (1996) found that inclusion was a gradual process, not an
event. The perceptions of the general education teachers changed to more positive
perceptions over the course of three years because of the experience they gained (LeRoy
& Simpson, 1996). By the end of the second year of implementation of inclusion, all
general education teachers perceived segregated settings for students with significant
24
disabilities as undesirable. This gradual shift towards positive attitudes towards including
students with severe disabilities in their classrooms was mirrored by the fact that by the
end of the second year of implementation, all general education teachers took complete
ownership and responsibility of the students with significant disabilities’ education
(LeRoy & Simpson, 1996). The authors noted that the positive attitudes were a result of
the experience of having a student with significant disabilities in their classrooms as well
as the development of the trust in the collaboration process.
In a qualitative study that examined 11 general education teachers’ attitudes
towards inclusion of students who used augmentative and alternative communication
(AAC) systems to communicate, Kent-Walsh and Light (2003) reported that general
education teachers shared both positive and negative attitudes about including students
with complex communication needs in their classrooms. Namely, the participants
discussed that there was a possibility to have teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion change
over time, but the participants also indicated that teachers who were resistant to the
policy of inclusion of students with AAC systems in their classes usually did not allow
for successful inclusion. The participants shared that a positive attitude and an openness
to inclusion were necessary characteristics for a positive inclusive classroom environment
for all. Kent-Walsh and Light (2003) found that the experience of including students
with complex communication needs led to more positive attitudes towards inclusion for
some general education teachers.
Consistent with this finding were the results of a qualitative study conducted by
Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman, and Schattman (1999) in which the researchers
25
interviewed 19 general education teachers about their experiences including students with
severe disabilities in their classrooms. They found that 17 of the 19 general education
teachers underwent a transformation of their attitudes towards inclusion over a period of
a year in which they included a student with severe disabilities in their class. This shift in
attitudes was apparent as the ownership of the students with severe disabilities changed
from the responsibility of special educators to the responsibility of the general education
teachers. The initial negative attitudes towards inclusion were replaced with more
positive and accepting attitudes as the year progressed and led to the general education
teachers taking an active role in the students’ education by directly supporting them and
involving the students in all aspects of the class (Giangreco et al., 1999). The researchers
also found that the general education teachers saw the benefits to inclusion for the
students with severe disabilities as well as their nondisabled peers. It is important to
note, however, that simply placing the student with severe disabilities within a general
education classroom did not ensure a shift to a positive attitude towards inclusion. While
17 of the 19 general education teachers reported a more positive attitude towards
inclusion after the experience of teaching in an inclusive classroom, 2 of the general
education teachers did not change their negative attitudes towards inclusion at all during
the course of the year (Giangreco et al., 1999).
Without experience, research has shown that general education teachers can have
negative attitudes towards inclusion. In a study by Vaughn, Schumm, Jallad, Slusher, &
Saumell (1996), the majority of the interviewed teachers who were not inclusive (e.g. did
not include students with disabilities in their classroom) indicated they had strong
26
negative attitudes towards inclusion. Soodak, Podell, and Lehman (1998) investigated
how general education teachers’ attitudes are affected by the experience of being an
inclusive teacher. To do this, they used a survey to determine 188 New York general
education teachers’ hostility/receptivity and anxiety/calmness towards including students
with different types of disabilities in their classrooms. The results indicated that the type
of disabilities affected the attitudes of teachers. The general education teachers felt more
anxiety and hostility for students with severe cognitive disabilities than for students with
only physical disabilities. In addition, the results showed that the more experienced the
teacher, the more hostility towards inclusion they had for all disability groups (Soodak et
al., 1998).
Janney, Snell, Beers, and Raynes (1995) also looked at the attitudes of general
education teachers in five different districts undergoing a systems change towards
inclusion of students with severe disabilities and found that the predominant aspects of
success included a willingness to change and an understanding of the reasons for
inclusion and how its benefits are multifaceted. The general education teachers who
participated in the interviews insisted that the time and effort needed to successfully
include students with severe disabilities were not overwhelming, and therefore, explained
how their jobs did not change drastically because of the implementation of inclusion.
Coots et al. (1998) also found that a transformative process occurred in general education
teachers’ attitudes in the first year of teaching students with severe disabilities with their
discovery that the general education teachers’ commitment to creating a classroom
27
community in which all students had a sense of belonging and all were respected was
important for successful inclusion.
International Perspective
Inclusion has become an international movement, and therefore, the attitudes of
general education teachers across the globe were important to examine because they
offered insight into how inclusion of students with severe disabilities in general education
classes has been viewed across cultures. In a study conducted in Korea, Hwang and
Evans (2010) investigated the general education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion.
Using both interviews as well as surveys, the researchers found that of the 29 general
education teachers who participated in the study, 41.37% had positive attitudes towards
inclusion, although 55.16% percent would be unwilling to actually teach in an inclusive
classroom. In addition, 78.85% of the general education teachers surveyed believed that
students with disabilities would receive a better education in a special education
classroom. These results indicated a disconnect between theory and practice (Hwang &
Evans, 2010). In a parallel to the study in Korea, research conducted in England showed
similar results (Glazzard, 2011). The perspectives of teachers towards inclusion were
examined and the results of this study indicated that attitudinal barriers were a challenge
to the successful implementation of inclusion If teachers were not committed to the
vision of inclusive education for all, then inclusion would not be successful.
Researchers in Italy examined middle school general education teachers’ attitudes
towards inclusion (Zambelli & Bonni, 2004). Zambelli and Bonni (2004) found that of
the 23 teachers who participated, all seemed to be divided on their views towards
28
inclusion. Some participants, both with and without inclusive teaching experience, had
negative views towards inclusion, and insisted that students with severe disabilities
belonged in special schools. Other participants, both with and without experience in
inclusive classrooms, agreed with the inclusive model and insisted that all students, no
matter what disabilities they have, should be educated in the general education classroom.
Summary
Because general education teachers are important individuals in the
implementation of inclusive education, it is essential to have their “buy in” and support of
this policy. Without the understanding or knowledge of how inclusion can work, many
general education teachers can be unsure, apprehensive, or even unsupportive of
including students with severe disabilities at first (Janney, et al., 1995; Soodak, et al.,
1998).
Ensuring that all students receive the quality education to which they have the
right can be challenging when general education teachers do not support the principle of
inclusion for all students. With training and collaboration with special education
colleagues, however, general education teachers can become more confident in their
ability to support students with severe disabilities in their general education classrooms.
Creating opportunities for general education teachers to change their belief systems so as
to align with the premise that all students, no matter what their abilities or disabilities
may be, belong and are accepted as valuable members of a class is important in changing
the attitudes of general education teachers which will in turn create more successful
inclusive education programs.
29
Chapter 3
Methodology
Setting and Participants
The researcher used a case study ethnographic design as the method of inquiry
(LeCompte & Schensul, 1999). This was used because it enabled the researcher to study
multiple individuals who were in similar situations. Through data collection that
consisted of interviews, artifacts, and observational notes, this method of research
allowed the researcher to analyze three different teachers’ data to compare similarities
and differences among the participants.
Purposeful sampling was used to select the three participants. This type of
sampling allowed for participants who would most likely give information related to the
desired topic to the researcher (Creswell, 2012). Two different public elementary schools
in Northern California were used in this study. School I was a kindergarten through
eighth grade elementary school that had been implementing inclusion for many years.
There were twenty-one general education teachers who worked in the school and four
inclusion support teachers. This school was located in a semi-rural area. The majority of
the students come from low-income families and diverse backgrounds. The other
elementary school used during this study was School II. This kindergarten through sixth
grade elementary school was located in an urban environment. The majority of the
student population was from minority and low-income households. This school recently
underwent an entire faculty and staff change; the first year of inclusion occurred the year
this study was conducted.
30
The primary criteria that were used to select the general education teachers were
recommendations by their special education colleagues who asserted that the teachers
were inclusive in teaching all students, including students with significant disabilities, in
their classrooms. The special education teachers were asked to select general education
teachers who demonstrated a willingness to directly work with students with significant
disabilities in their classroom on a consistent basis and who were willing to collaborate
with the special education teacher to determine how to meet the needs of the students
with significant disabilities in the classroom.
The special education support teachers who were asked to nominate colleagues
had worked with, and knew, the researcher well. Because of this relationship and their
known success in the field, their recommendations were taken. All participation by both
general and special education teachers was voluntary in nature. No compensation or
inducements were offered to the general education teachers for participating in this
research. Informed consent was obtained from the participants using a signed permission
slip. (See Appendix A for copies of the consent forms.)
The three participants were elementary level teachers who were teaching in
inclusive classrooms. T1 was a fourth grade general education teacher at School I. She
had been teaching in public education for twelve years and in inclusive classrooms for
nine years. T1 had worked with the special education support teacher who nominated her
to participate for many years and knew the researcher for the last two years. T2 was a
first grade teacher at School II during this study. She had been teaching in public
education for thirteen years and had some experience including students with various
31
disabilities in her classrooms at other schools. This was her second year of teaching at
School II. T3 was a second grade teacher at School II during this study. She had been
teaching in public schools for thirteen years. The year of this study was her first year of
teaching in an inclusive classroom.
Procedure and Data Collection
Interviews.
Data were collected using multiple methods. In-person interviews were
conducted by the researcher with all participants. The participants were audio-taped;
however, participant confidentiality and anonymity were ensured. Because the
interviews were recorded, the researcher later transcribed and then coded the texts. After
transcription of the interviews, the audiotapes were destroyed. The general, initial
interview questions can be found in Appendix B. Follow-up questions were asked
according to the participants’ answers. Interviews focused on the teachers’ background,
teaching philosophy, and views towards inclusion of students with significant disabilities
in general education classrooms. Interviews were conducted at the beginning of the study
and at the end of the study, eight weeks later, except for one teacher who only
participated in the initial interview due to time constraints. In addition, the special
education teachers (ST-1 and ST-2) who recommended the participants were interviewed
and audio-recorded. These interviews were also transcribed and coded.
Observations.
The researcher was a participant observer and classroom observation fieldnotes
were taken. The researcher spent nine full days in each teacher’s classroom. As a
32
participant observer, the researcher had the opportunity to gain an insider’s view to dayto-day life in the classroom (Creswell, 2012). The researcher focused on notes about the
teachers’ behavior and communication within the classroom. The data recorded during
the observations was shared with an informed colleague who helped the researcher code
the data.
Artifacts.
Documents such as photographs of student work, books which have influenced
the teachers’ attitudes, and classroom materials were collected over the course of the
qualitative study.
Data Analysis
As data were collected over the course of the study, the data were coded for
themes. The data was analyzed through the use of general qualitative guideline
procedures (Creswell, 2012). The coding allowed the researcher to make sense of the
data. The data was divided into text segments and assigned a code word or phrase to
describe them (Creswell, 2012). Periodically, throughout the study, the transcribed
themes were discussed with an informed colleague. This external audit process allowed
an outside individual to review the different aspects of the research while the study was
being conducted (Creswell, 2012). New interview questions were generated based on the
discussions. (See Appendix B for a list of the follow-up interview questions).
In order to improve the accuracy of the study, the data collected by the researcher
were triangulated. In the triangulation process, the researcher used multiple sources of
data to corroborate the evidence in order to validate a theme (Creswell, 2012). In other
33
words, the researcher supported the themes and interpretations of the data with more than
one type of data collected (e.g. fieldnotes, quotes, artifacts, descriptions); the different
types of data collected all demonstrated the same concept.
The researcher also utilized the process of member checking. This process
allowed the participants in the study to check the accuracy of the data gathered such as
from an interview (Creswell, 2012). By giving the participants the interview notes and
transcriptions as well as copies of the researcher’s observational notes, it allowed the
participants the opportunity to make sure the interpretations and descriptions were
accurate and valid.
34
Chapter 4
Results
This study sought to identify the common characteristics, behaviors, and teaching
practices of three general education elementary school teachers who were identified by
their special education teacher colleagues as “successful” at including students with
significant disabilities in their classrooms. The collection of data included: initial
interviews with the special education inclusion teachers who identified the participants;
eight classroom observations with each of the three participants, and interviews with the
three general education teacher participants—T1, T2, and T3. Both initial and final
interviews were conducted for T1 and T2 while only an initial interview was conducted
with T3.
The data yielded eight major themes, including: 1) classroom community, 2)
choices, 3) engaging activities, 4) high academic expectations, 5) personal experience, 6)
intentional teaching, 7) collaboration between the general education teacher and the
special education teacher, and 8) the relationship between the paraeducator and the
general education teacher.
Findings
The definitions for coding and themes can be found in Appendix C. For the
purpose of the data analysis, and to ensure confidentiality, students’ names have been
changed. Students with disabilities are denoted as STUD-initial (e.g. STUD-R) and
students without disabilities are denoted as STUW-initial (e.g. STUW-A).
35
Classroom community.
One theme that was consistent with all participants was the strong sense of a
classroom community. All three participants made a purposeful effort to create a
welcoming classroom environment in which all students felt like they belonged. T1
discussed her teaching philosophy for all students along with her goals and insisted that,
“The classroom is set up so they feel like they are in a safe environment and that they
have a sense of belonging and that they are able to take risks and try things.”
The peer support utilized in all three classrooms showed another aspect of the
importance of building a classroom community. T2 discussed how creating an
environment in which all students worked together was important:
I’m really big on natural supports. So, for instance, at the beginning of the school
year, I didn’t sit down with the kids and have a whole conversation about
differences...My thought about that is, kids will make their own observations and
they will naturally come to certain conclusions about things and people and
situations and so in here, a lot of the support systems are formed naturally. [sic]
but then I do use very specific and intentional buddying. My one student who
does not communicate orally...I gave him a buddy who is very helpful. She has a
younger sister at home that she helps take care of. So she is very helpful. So she
knows the difference between help and doing for and that’s a big difference. And
that’s a very intentional support. At the same time, the same student has
developed many natural supports which you will see when he needs help tying his
36
shoe or when someone is picking on him at recess...so I think it’s both of them, let
it happen naturally but be strategic and intentional in some instances.
Another example of the use of strategies to create an inclusive classroom
environment was demonstrated when T1 explained her method of building peer support
systems within the classroom:
So we have (like) our leveled groups and stuff and sometimes we’ll work as teams
in that way. And sometimes I’ll partner people up and sometimes it’s their
choice. Oh, who would you like to invite to be your partner.. And we talk about
how if someone invites you to be their partner, then you can accept or say that
you want to read by yourself. But if you say that you want to read by yourself,
then that’s really what you’re going to do. So it’s not like you can wait and pick
someone else.
And another example of how T1 created the inclusive atmosphere in her classroom was
clarified when T1discussed her partnering and small group discussion activities:
Basically anytime it’s a work time, if, um, it’s something where they can support
each other then they have that ability to do that. And then we’ve done a lot of,
“ok, here’s this question…turn to your group and talk about that.” It’s hard in this
large of the group to get everyone on. I mean it’s nice if you can like, mingle and
see if everyone is actually talking about the question.
T1 also used a daily opening in which all students came together to build a sense
of classroom community. Figure 1 shows an example of a Morning Meeting message.
37
March 26, 2012
Good Morning!
Find a partner and find out: their Top 5 from their
weekend. Take a turn to share your Top 5 with them.
Love,
T1
Figure 1. Example of a Morning Meeting Message.
T1 wrote this on the easel for the Morning Meeting
on March 26, 2012.
The partner activities used by T1 were often interactive, included movement, and
were centered around an academic concept. An example of this was seen during a
Morning Meeting activity.
Fieldnote: T1 gave students the opportunity to create similes with their peers as
they walked around the classroom. While the students were sharing with each
other, T1 circled the classroom and checked in with partners and then made sure
everyone’s voice was heard in the whole class discussion. She said, “What did
you find out, STUW-K? One thing that will help us here would be if everyone but
STUW-K turns their voices off...to really be a listener, we talked about what it
takes to be a good listener. So we’re going to move into a circle to be good
listeners. STUW-K was trying to tell us about why her dad needed stitches. And
some of you didn’t care and weren’t listening to her.”
38
T3 paralleled this by having a daily morning meeting with her students in which
they previewed the schedule for the day as well as sharing random acts of kindness they
observed.
All three teachers also worked directly with the students with disabilities whether
or not the paraeducator was in the classroom. An observation that demonstrated this was
when T1 included STUD-L in a classroom writing activity.
Fieldnote: T1 called on STUD-L like she did every other student by choosing her
name card and asking her a question. She asked STUD-L if she was planning on
writing a story during the writing time
Another example was when T1 assisted STUD-L when it appeared she needed help.
Fieldnote: The class was going out to recess. STUD-L was at her table waiting.
T1 asked STUD-L if she needed help. T1 went to table and asked if she was done
with her spring card. Then she asked if she wanted help putting her social studies
book away. STUD-L nodded her head. T1 put the book away for STUD-L in
cubby area.
T2 and T3 also demonstrated a willingness and desire to work directly with the
students in their classes with significant disabilities. While working directly with the two
students with disabilities, STUD-C and STUD-A, it was evident that T2 saw the
importance of giving students with disabilities the chance to make choices as well. This
was shown during the following observation.
Fieldnote: T2 leaves STUD-C after explaining how he needs to draw what he saw.
T2 then goes to STUD-A’s desk and draws dot prompts on his paper and then
39
stops and asks (using sign language) if he wants dots or yellow (highlighter)
prompts. He chooses yellow using sign language so then she stops and gets a
yellow marker and gives him words to trace then tells him to trace and then shows
him a previous drawing he made and then tells him to draw the habitat. (See
Figure 2 for example).
STUW-T: general education student
journal example
STUD-A journal example with
highlighted prompts
Figure 2. Student Journal Examples. T2 modified the journal work by using
highlighter prompts so STUD-A could participate in the journal activity. The
journal entry of a general education peer is shown for comparison.
T3 also demonstrated how she worked directly with STUD-R when she worked
one-on-one with her to help her complete her writing assignment while the rest of the
class worked independently at their desks. The paraeducator roamed the room helping
any student who needed assistance.
40
Another aspect of the classroom community was the positive language the three
teacher participants used. This fostered the social and emotional development of all
students in the class and helped create an inclusive classroom environment for all. T1
used positive language to redirect or remind students of rules instead of reprimanding
them. The teachers created a safe, inclusive classroom community with their provision of
clear behavioral expectations with immediate corrective feedback. An example of this
occurred during an observation in which T1 used a respectful and firm voice to try to
change a student’s behavior.
Fieldnote: T1 said, “I’m concerned. When I start to talking to you, you are not
paying attention. Other people are sharing and you are turning and
talking...Today, I just said what we were going to do and I did a countdown from
five. As soon as I started talking to you, you got up. It’s either you don’t know
what to do or you do know what do, and you’re choosing not to do it. I know you.
You do great work and you’re capable of doing and meeting high expectations.
What do you want to do?” T1 let him explain and then gave him specific
directions to go get the stapler he said he needed and then go back to his desk to
continue with his work.
T1 conducted class meetings on an as-needed basis and challenged her students to
meet her expectations during these meetings after reviewing the rules and procedures of
the classroom and giving the students opportunity to discuss with one another problems
and challenges they faced. An example of how she made sure everyone had an
opportunity to participate was seen during an outdoor observation.
41
Fieldnote: The students went outside to do a song. Students lined up across one
another in two circles. STUD-L was without a partner so she raised her hand.
Seeing this, T1 found a partner to be with STUD-L. Before they started moving,
T1 asked STUD-L if there was enough space to move her wheelchair during the
song. She also asked STUD-L if she was ready to move. After they went back
into the classroom after the song and dance was completed, the students reflected
on how the song and movement went.
T1 also used positive language during writing time to encourage her students.
Fieldnote: Students were writing in their writer’s notebook. T1 was at her desk.
She said, “Find someone you have not spoken to already and share. Make sure
everyone has a partner. If you don’t have a partner, put your hand up quick. A
student (boy) came up to STUD-L and read what he wrote to her. T1 was sitting
in a chair at a student’s table. She listened as two students shared what they
wrote. STUD-L used her Dynavox to read her story/writing aloud to her partner.
T1 shared with the three girls about how she was working on a sample for a
project they were doing later today. T1 then announced to the class to move and
find a new partner that they have not shared with yet. Students got up and walked
around the classroom, both standing and sitting as they shared their writing and
talked with one another. A student who was partnered with T1 talked with her.
T1 told her quietly that she had a great idea and that she should use the twentyfive minutes to get her ideas down and that she should probably have more than 2
42
sentences down. She used kind words and positive language to encourage her to
push herself in future writing.
Each morning as the students gathered on the carpet, T2 handed out tickets for
making a good choice by being responsible and ready to learn. T2 reminded students
what she told them for directions—wrote their name on the ticket they earned at the rug.
T2 might say: “I love the way you came right back to the rug and made smart choices.”
T2 used this kind of specific verbal praise throughout the day during various activities. I
observed her complimenting her students for using math vocabulary words while making
comparisons on the weather graph during the morning routine daily as well as when
students were sitting correctly with focused attention during lessons. Her positive
behavioral support approach allowed students to have a clear understanding of acceptable
behavior in the classroom.
T3’s approach to building an inclusive classroom community was similar to both
T1 and T2, although her method/philosophy differed somewhat. As she asserted below,
T3 was careful to make sure that everyone was an equal member of the class:
I treat the students with special needs the exact same way as I treat every other
student in my classroom. Um, I know that, that they, um going out into their
homes and meeting their families was key to me. To see what their special needs
are, what I need to do differently to help them. So doing home visits before the
school year and of course working with my colleagues because we’re kinda all in
the same boat. We’ve never, um, had an included classroom (before). I’ve had
43
push in and pull out but I haven’t had a student with special needs in my class all
day. I think just trying new things and listening to others.
Choices.
Another theme that was evident throughout this study was that the three
participants also provided their students with choices throughout their daily teaching. By
giving choices to their students, the teachers showed that the students were responsible
for their education. All three participants emphasized the need for all students to have a
sense of ownership of their learning.
An example of how T1 highlighted the need for students to be self-directed
learners was evident in her response in the interview about her teaching style:
That would be my ideal classroom. You still are the one in charge. You’re still
leading the way, you’re still bringing things to them. You’re still teaching. But
they have a lot that they get to do and you’re free to move through the room and
coach and be like, “Ok, how is that going to help you meet your learning goal?”
“How is that going to help you?” “Well, what if I did…” You know, they’re kinda
directing it.
The data suggested that the three participants allowed for unique ways to give
students choices. This was evident in all three classrooms since not everyone had to do
the activities the same way. Students were given the opportunity to meet their own needs
by giving them options. Some choices given to the class by the teachers included:
seating/environment, materials, kinds of activities, who to work with, whether or not to
participate in sharing, and higher level thinking questions. An example of being given
44
the choice of the seating or environment was shown when T1 allowed a student to make a
choice about where she wanted to sit during a lesson.
Fieldnote: T1 said, “We’re trying to practice how to be good listeners. When
you’re alert, you’re aware of where your body is with good posture so you can
listen. STUW-M, is that a good spot?” The student replied with a yes. T1 replied
with, “I disagree. Do you want to pick a new spot? Or do you want me to pick for
you? There’s a spot by L. There’s a spot by STUW-J.”
She also gave the students the freedom to spread out around the room to find their own
space while students were working independently on projects or during the “read to self”
time.
T3 also allowed students to make choices of where to sit. During one observation
of a math lesson, T3 modeled the problems for the students using the document camera.
Some students were sitting on the carpet doing their math work and other students were
doing the work at their desk.
T1 allowed students to make choices about the activities they did within the
structure of the lesson. When the class went to the library to work on a math program on
individual laptops, T1 gave the students the choice to type up their story on the computer
for an allotted period of time.
Fieldnote: T1 said, “Ok, how else are you going to decorate your project? I know
you like to draw. You can read what you wrote and add some illustrations.” (She
left to go to a desk). Students came to the desk to ask individual questions of T1.
Students talked quietly or worked independently at tables on the writing of their
45
choice. T1 was working independently at a desk with a student on a project that
needed to be printed.
During another observation the students were spread out around the room, working on
various reading and writing activities. Namely, three students were working on the
computer, four students were reading silently at their desks, and four students were
whispering to one another at their desks.
T2 agreed with the notion that students should be given choices -- evident through
the fiednotes describing how students made choices on who they wanted to work with
during various classroom activities. When asked during the interview about students
working with one another, she replied:
I think that just comes from day one, well, week one, setting the expectations that
sometimes you will work independently. Sometimes you will work with a
partner. Sometimes you will work in small groups and mixing it up. And choice
is huge. You might hear me say sometimes during math, you have a choice now,
you can either by yourself, or pick a partner, or work in a group or if you want to
work with me or [ST-2] that’s fine. So I think the students having a choice of that
probably fostered some of that. So it’s not like ‘oh my gosh, I have to go help soand-so again.’ You know. ‘Ooh, we get to work together’ Together being the key
word.
It appeared that T2 saw the value in letting students become responsible for their own
learning. This is echoed with her answer to the question in the final interview as to why
she chooses to embed choices within her teaching:
46
Well, I think, or I know, actually, that when kids have choices, and I don’t want to
use “buy in” but that’s really what happens, they take more ownership of their
learning. And overall it teaches them the huge responsibility it teaches them the
how to. And on the flip side, if you’re not doing what you’re supposed to be
doing, that choice can be taken away from you so they’re learning logical
consequences along the way. I just think that giving them choices help them to
own what they’re learning and what they’re doing.
T2 provided ways for STUD-A to make his own choices.
Fieldnote: STUD-A was finished with his work at his desk. T2 saw this and
asked him if he was finished. Then said, “Now what?” He did not respond with
anything so she gave him the choice—“read (and points to book boxes) or math”
and showed him worksheets in his hand. He pointed to math. She then used her
fingers to model the subtraction problems on her and his fingers. She counted
with him. She gave him a high five after he correctly answered it. Then she gave
him the choice if he wanted to color on one side or keep doing math on the other.
Then she took a crayon and asked him to point to all the number sevens on the
front of the worksheet, then she made a crayon mark for him to indicate that was
where he should color with the crayon.
Another type of choice that T2 gave her students was the choice of whether or not
they wanted to participate in some activities. When T2 chose students’ names using
popsicle sticks, she gave the students the choice as to whether they wanted to share or not
47
during group sharing. If they did not want to share, the students gave the signal that they
did not want to share with the class and T2 continued with the next student.
All three of the focus teachers utilized the Daily Five balanced literacy approach
(Boushey & Moser, 2012). This type of language arts program allowed the students to
make a choice as to which activity they wanted to participate in: read to self, read to
buddy, work on writing, word work, or listen to reading. An example of how T2 used
this approach was shown when observing the Daily Five time in the classroom.
Fieldnote: T2 successfully managed all students at the same time--lots of choice
in the room—one student was laying on big pillows in back of the classroom with
a book (read to self); another student was at the listening center. The majority of
the students were working at their desks on their word work. A student was
working on a book report at a desk by himself. T2 was at the back U shaped table
with STUD-C and STUD-A, who were working independently while she tested
students individually on a reading test.
T3 also allowed her students to choose the activity they wanted to participate in
during the Daily Five. She went over the expectations for each of the different activities
they could choose from. Then she asked, “Who wants to work on writing? Thanks for
choosing quickly” and dismissed students who raised their hands.
During another observation, the students in T3’s classroom were engaged in many
different activities and projects throughout the room in small groups, independent desks,
or with partners.
48
Fieldnote: The group she was teaching was playing tic-tac-toe. The special
education support teacher was doing reading games with another small group at
the back table. A student was sitting in the back of the room in a bean bag chair
reading to self. The student with significant disabilities, STUD-R, was at her desk
working independently. T3 had allowed the students to choose their activity; not
everyone was doing the same thing at the same time so those students who were
engaged in activities which differed from the main curriculum because they
needed to be modified or adapted were not distinguishable.
When discussing her teaching style, T1 insisted that her favorite way to teach was
to embed choice within the lessons:
To me, the best style of teaching is when you can do a little bit of instruction and
teaching and then send them off. You know, say this is their learning goal and
say one of the things we’re studying is, last year, like magnetism. Now I would
bring the unit in some forms either have a day of exploration with different stuff
or do some stuff from the textbook or whatever. We’re gonna do some
demonstrations. And then they would have the goal, you know, like, show ten
facts that you know about magnetism. And then everyone is working for like a
couple of days and researching some more. Either trying the hands on stuff,
looking at the book, or looking at some videos on the website. You know
whatever they’re going to do to research more. And they would have some
choice on how they were going to display that. Whether it’s make a poster or
make a powerpoint or do a report or a little book. Or however they want to go
49
about doing it. And then they show their piece. And then at the end they come
back and they do like a reflecting phase. Um, there’s lots of different ways that
you could go about doing that. You know this style came from trainings I went to
for “Responsive Classroom.” They call it academic choice.
T1 also stressed the importance of students having ownership over their learning with her
answer to an interview question:
So to me, if you teach that way, and you teach in a way that the kids are able to
have some more ownership and some more buy in to what they’re studying about,
so you still have everyone is doing the same unit. You still have some
consistencies among the class but they’re strengths are really starting to come out.
So then when you have to teach something more directed, more teacher-led, then
you know who you have in your room. So you know, well, if I teach it this way,
this group will really thrive if I teach it this way. I think for to me, I learn so
much more about the class when you can give them much more responsibility.
During the final interview, T1 talked about how students should be given choices
especially in regard to higher level thinking questions:
The more that you feel like that you have some sense of power or control over the
situation, the more likely that you will have buy-in. And participate and engage
in that. And I think that for students, like, for students, when I look at, when I’m
setting up for, depending on what time of year it is. Like at the beginning of the
year, there would be less choices, but there would still be choice so whenever you
can structure something that allows them to make some decisions even if they
50
seem like they are really insignificant as an adult per say, but you know like
giving them that power to the kids so that they start to have more ownership and I
think that it helps them start determining their sense of independence and
responsibility for what they have control over and what they can do. So as you
move from the beginning of the year, choices might be, you know, what kind of
paper should we use for this poster or whatever to more like higher level thinking
questions, more academic as far as like you know, oh, you need to do this project.
We recently did a gameboard that was tied to social studies so it was like, you had
to choose ten facts that you learned from your book that you learned about the
gold rush times. And how are you gonna choose what you’re going to and like
everyone was like fully engaged. There were kids that and like I would bring in
examples and there were some kids that you know, on just a typical worksheet
assignment uninvolved completely it’s their choice, it’s their opportunity to sorta
play around with it a little bit. Even if they don’t always make the right choices,
that’s important too, you know because then you can step back and say “How did
that work for you?” Sometimes they need coaching on how to make responsible
choices. We try not to rescue sometimes and let them kinda see it through. I
didn’t see that coming. I think that you learn a lot stepping out of that and
observing.
Engaging activities.
Another theme noted about all the participants was their use of engaging activities
during lessons. One cornerstone principle of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is
51
engaging, interactive activities. UDL was developed by the Center for Applied Special
Technology (CAST) as a way for teachers to plan lessons that are differentiated for many
different types of learners (Spencer, 2011). UDL focuses on principles which include:
multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement, and is used to help
teachers motivate their students and give equal access to the different types of learners.
In addition, using technology, multiple modalities, and group activities to give students
choices, teachers who utilize UDL seek to engage students through meaningful lessons
and activities (Spencer, 2011). According to Rose (2000), children are given the
opportunity to experience changes in their knowledge and skills while growing in their
capacity to learn more; universal design for learning focuses on the goals of the
curriculum rather than its contents. During a visualizing activity, T1 allowed students to
connect the curriculum in a new way—through art, using multiple modalities.
Fieldnote: T1: “This isn’t a project that we’re going to finish in one day. We’re
not even finished with the book. Just using colored pencil so the other side will
be fine. Will be like a map of his journey. I will be giving you a paper.
You
will be folding it in half and then in half again. Do a fan fold. (like a zig zag type
of a line). You want your book to open looking like a book...For the next 12
minutes, we’ll plan. We’ll do a thumbnail sketch.” T1 held up a picture in the
book and talked about how they can pull something from their pictures and the
time period. She talked about how she started doing research about one of the
student’s questions about the invention of the camera. What stands out to them
about that time period that is different from 2012? The students just do a quick
52
sketch. They have 10 minutes to see what they can come up with. “Then we’ll
build this into an art piece.”
Engaging activities also included utilizing physical activities. T2 utilized
movement exercises throughout her lessons. When students reviewed their letter sounds,
students used body movements for each sound. T2 ensured that students were engaged in
the lessons by keeping the pacing fast and not allowing for lag time between activities.
Students spent the majority of the time away from their desks—either on the carpet or at
small tables at the back or the side of the classroom. The desks were used mostly for
independent work. She appeared to “read” her students well and knew when to transition
to new activities or to continue with lessons. An example of this was seen when she told
the students it was time for a brain break.
Fieldnote: T2 chose a student by pulling a popsicle stick with her name out of the
cup. She asked the student if she would like to lead a brain break and if so, to be
assertive and tell the class in her loud voice which brain break she has chosen.
The student chose the “Disco” brain break and led the class in a movement and a
corresponding song.
Another example of an activity which utilized the principles of UDL was seen
when T2 was teaching a lesson about butterflies. Using multiple modalities (writing,
drawing, observing), students engaged in the interactive lesson.
Fieldnote: T2 told them they would have 10 minutes to do their journal
observations of the butterflies (drawing and writing). T2 called one row at a time
53
to go up to butterfly net and do observations. The remaining students waited
without talking on the carpet.
T3 also demonstrated her ability to teach in a creative and engaging manner. An
example of an activity is in the following language arts lesson.
Fieldnote: T3 was standing next to the computer. STUD-2 sat at the desk to click
to the next slide. T3 stood in front of the smart board and pointed to words; the
students read aloud with her. She was at the front, asking questions; students
were very engaged and she showed her work as she wrote the steps on the board.
She allowed students to use her fingers if they needed to. She used lots of verbal
praise to students individually who offered the answers to her questions. She was
very dynamic, using a loud, engaging voice and lots of energy/enthusiasm to read
and answer questions—whisper to your neighbor what you think it goes to. She
said, “Thank you so much” to student.
Another example in which UDL principles were evident was when T3 gave the
class the opportunity to read and respond in their journals to the passage they had just
read in the “read aloud” Diary of a Wimpy Kid (Kinney, 2007). The students wrote about
what they thought about the passage that T3 had read to them, allowing the students to
reflect on the reading with their own opinions. T2 also used fun, interactive language arts
activities to motivate the students.
Fieldnote: Students had fun as they said aloud the sounds the letter cards made.
When they did not get the sounds correctly the first time, T2 put the card back in
the stack in a silly way in which some students laughed. They began to do short
54
vowel chants: “The short O in the fox” and used laminated big posters so that
both visual cues along with the auditory clues were available. T2 also engaged
students by playing a game called “Line, Word.” She got out the dice. She
explained that the pink dice is for line number and the blue dice is for the word
number. The students took individual turns playing in front of the class while
their peers checked their work.
High academic expectations.
Another theme that emerged from the data was high academic expectations for all
students. This was most evident with T3 who very definitely stated that she had high
expectations for all her students. When asked to describe her teaching style, T3 answered
with a description of how she sees herself:
I would say, I’m a pretty strict teacher. I have high expectations of all my
students no matter if they have special needs or don’t have special needs. Um,
and I hold them to that. And I don’t, uh, because of the school where it’s located,
or whether they come from low-income families or anything like that. I don’t
water down my expectations I guess you could say and um, it translates into the
children know my expectations. They know when I’m here what I expect of
them. They know when I’m not here what I expect of them. And um, positive
rewards and negative rewards for those behaviors. And that they also see
themselves grow and learn.
This was also evident as she corrected some writing the students had done during an
observation.
55
Fieldnote: While checking work, T3 said, “What’s this say? You know how to
write a complete sentence with a capital letter at the beginning and a period at the
end. Go do it again.” Students wait silently in line to be checked. “Go do it again.
Complete thoughts.” She makes students correctly do it before she says it’s ok.
Will say “Good” when it is ready. “Do you think I can read that? I have seven
people on the floor already. I need more.” “I don’t know what that says. What
does it say?”
T3 held students accountable by making them correct their mistakes for all work.
She provided them with individual attention to make sure they have an understanding
about the errors they had made. This was evident multiple times during the observations
and included the following examples of her language.
Fieldnote: T3 checked a student’s paper and told him to go back and spell the
word “think” correctly because he did not spell think. T3 asked two students to
come up and bring their work to the front table for her to read. T3 told a student it
was unacceptable when he showed her incorrect work. The two students who
were still working on the page had to bring their books up to her and she corrected
them individually and had them fix the problems they missed right in front of her
on the carpet. STUD-2 was standing at the back of the carpet. The students were
silent on the carpet. T3 told the students that they will do it over if it’s messy. T3
was sitting on the stool at the desk, using the document camera. She was facing
the students. “Underline the clues, circle the question.”
56
T2 and T1 also demonstrated a standard of high academic expectations. An
example of T1 doing so was seen when she interrupted an independent class activity to
remind the students they should have already been working for some time.
Fieldnote: “Class, let me interrupt for a minute. I’ve had a lot of questions about
what we are doing.” She then talked about how they were not tracing over the
book. T1 discussed and modeled how they would be doing the sketching and
making a plan and related it to how writers plan out what they write. She
continued by saying, “As I have been talking, I noticed a lot of students who are
working. In the classroom, it is important to get started right when I tell you to
get started. Because then right when you get into it, it’s time to stop.”
An example of how T2 displayed high expectations for her students was evident
as she expected them to use academic language during their science unit.
Fieldnote: T2 modeled how they should head their journals using the document
camera. T2 talked about how they should use good science vocabulary words in
their writing (i.e. miconeum) and metamorphosis. T2 talked about how they are
scientists and should use very descriptive language (i.e. Painted Lady butterflies).
T2 used a soft, gentle voice as she wrote and read what she wrote. Lights were
still off. Students were sitting on assigned spaces on the carpet.
In addition, while STUD-C was off task during a bellwork writing activity, T2 redirected
him by saying in a stern voice, “Get back on track!” As is evident, she held all students,
including the students with disabilities, to a high standard of achievement.
Experience.
57
A theme of the teachers’ personal experience with people with disabilities also
emerged as a possible factor which helped create their positive attitudes towards
inclusion. Experiences included both one’s life such as a childhood friend or family
member with a disability, as well as the training the general education teacher had
received about inclusion. When asked about the training she had received, T1 explained:
Mostly, here at [School], like, just working with the staff members that are here.
And you know, I had the basic class that you take for special education. Mostly,
it’s all been on site here at school. There’s been a couple trainings that have been
one day workshop on the Dynavox when I was going to have a [student] a couple
of years ago. But nothing like really like formal training at all. It’s mostly been
working with the OI specialists and working with students and just getting like the
immediate training or experience.
Like T1, T2 described how she had received a limited amount of training in her
education including college, credential, and professional development classes:
So I remember in college taking one class and it was called mainstreaming, and I
don’t know what I learned there. As far as a professional, I’ve had about 6 hours
of training. A lot of it you learn as you go. You use your colleagues who have
more expertise as support.
The training provided by the school district was limited in nature and according to
T3, did not provide meaningful tools and strategies in order to successfully include
students with significant disabilities on a daily basis:
58
I did take a class going through my credential program. But it was an online class
so it wasn’t too intense and we had to do some reading and no observations or
anything. Um, the training, I, we were given was probably about a three hour
training at the beginning of the school year and it was just on, um, brain tease
builders and how to take brain breaks. Those type of things. No real training on
how to deal with the everyday issues of having students with special needs in the
classroom.
Another aspect of the participants’ experience with individuals with disabilities
was the acknowledgment and understanding of the way in which the experience of
having students with significant disabilities in their classes has shaped their beliefs about
inclusion. Namely, all three participants had a different experience in teaching prior to
this year. T1 discussed her experiences in inclusive classrooms:
Well, I think that the biggest thing that’s changed for me is my own personal
knowledge and like I even learn from the kids. Like when we’ll be doing stuff and
they’ll just jump in and be like “well, I can help with such and such…” and
you’re like oh cool, I didn’t think of that. Oh cool great idea. And just have that
confidence in what I’m doing and my own curriculum and how I’m doing and
how you can help bring in to different things for students with different needs.
You know from year to year I’ve had different students that were really close
academically to the grade level curriculum and I’ve had students who were really
far from the at-grade level curriculum. So I think, the larger the gap is, the more
challenging it is, so you want them to understand things and grasp it but it’s not
59
fair to think that they will at the same level but you don’t want to short change
them and think that they can’t do it. I think that more for me it’s like believing
how can they, especially when you have a student who can’t communicate that
well, especially verbally.
To parallel this, T2 had some experience including students with disabilities in
her general education classrooms in the past although she explained that the process
differed some from what they she was doing during the observations and interviews.
So one year, I had a student with cerebral palsy. She used a walker to walk. She
didn’t communicate orally. She was very hard to understand. Very lacking in
motor skills. She had a full time aide who was there to specifically support her
whereas here we have classroom aides. Who are here to support everyone. And I
didn’t have any training. I had to do my own research as to what cerebral palsy is
and you know, how it affects the body. That, I remember that being a fun year.
At the beginning of the year, T2 was including three students with significant
disabilities within her class. In the middle of the year, however, one of the students with
significant disabilities left her class. Her account of the experience was described in
detail:
I didn’t have a big worry until I met [STUD-W]. You don’t know what you don’t
know. So I didn’t know that I might have a students that is going to up and run
out the door, I didn’t know a student would be overtly aggressive and try and cut
someone’s hair. Do you know what I mean? So none of those questions came to
me until I saw it. Now I am not saying he can’t be included but what I am saying
60
is what is the construct to be included. He doesn’t want to sit on the rug with
anyone else and that is fine by me, sit where you are most comfortable. I am
however concerned that he might not be learning anything because he is not
attending so is he just in the classroom to be in here. That is not right. You know
what I mean? So, it is just common sense.
The ownership that T3 took of all her students, including her students with
disabilities, was seen as she discussed how hard it was to have one of her students with
significant disabilities leave her class during the school year:
So, thinking of my little one who was taken from me, initially, I was
overwhelmed and I was like what am I supposed to do. I was not familiar with
the disability or the behaviors that were presenting because of this disability. I
don’t know what to do with that. So I struggled with what are the best ways to
support, and again, I had a good co-teacher that I could ask questions of. Now,
I’m thinking if he had a 1-on-1 aide, well, we actually made it that way. Well, we
were told that, the aide was the classroom aide. But it was clear to me from day
one that he needed an aide. For himself. So we made that adjustment. But again,
not being familiar with the disability, I felt that at one point we were torturing the
poor little guy because he was in shock. It’s big. It’s loud in hear. It became
apparent quite quickly that loud noises kinda set him off. Well, it’s a classroom,
and we get loud sometimes. He wouldn’t eat lunch in the cafeteria because it was
too loud. There was too much going on. You could just see the panic in his eyes.
So my heart was just breaking for him and I’m like I don’t know how to fix it and
61
no body else seems to know how to fix it. Yes, I believe that all kids can be
included but you need to have the common sense. Given his specific disability
and his specific needs what structures are we going to put into so that he can be
successful so that I can teach? But the same way that I do with the one that I was
talking about before you can scream out and run out and destroy things but that is
not okay so how do we work with that? And nobody knew. They were all like it
will be okay they can work it out. Seriously? So he missed a lot of school because
his mom was also not on board. She didn’t want him in a general ed classroom.
She thought he was safer and those were her words. And the SDC classroom that
he came from and that school didn’t want him here and she was supportive so
every little issue that came up was more evidence for her why he shouldn’t be
here. So he was a runner. I haven’t been trained in how to deal with a runner.
What am I supposed to do when he runs out of the classroom. I have 25 other
students that are looking at me saying, “What are you gonna do about that?”
Luckily, we had the aide that was here all day. And we just did the best that we
could, but I just felt in all my heart that it wasn’t what was best for the other
students and it wasn’t what was best for me. Because I don’t want to be crying at
the end of the day because I didn’t know where he was, how safe is that? What
happens when he gets hurt on my watch? Not on my watch. You know it’s like
emotions and things to think about. And as a team we pulled together and when
something didn’t work out…okay let’s try something else and we tried to get as
many people involved as possible. It was supposed to be all day, and then we
62
modified it to whenever we thought that he needed a break. We would take him
out of the classroom, do what they call sensory breaks with him. But he was sort
of funny because he made his own sensory breaks and when he decided that he
had enough he would run out. It was even a struggle for his family some days to
get him through the door, and we would start the day off like that as a battle. I
think its an equity issue, I think that it is a social justice issue. But again with
common sense. I wouldn’t say “Oh, he has Down syndrome he cannot be in this
classroom.” I would say, “Cool he has Down syndrome and this is his classroom,
what is he going to need to be successful in this classroom?”
T3 discussed how her perceptions of inclusion changed throughout the year since
this was her first year teaching in an inclusive classroom. Her experience has included
much apprehension and adjustments:
I could probably say at the beginning of the year, I was terrified to have any
students with disabilities in my room. Just because when I got their IEP and
trying to read it. Not even knowing how to read an IEP was difficult for me. Um,
it was just a very big learning experience. Um, I’ve…now I see it’s probably
benefitting my general education students just as much as it is my students with
special needs. They are way more empathetic. At the beginning of the year
especially, my one with, uh, special needs, um, they were teasing her quite often
about being in diapers or being delayed. And now if anybody teases her on
campus, they’re the ones that defend her. I don’t have to worry about going up
and defending her at all.
So, it’s quite interesting, quite fun.
63
Of the three teachers, two of the teachers—T1 and T2, have had personal
experience of growing up with a family member or friend who had a disability. T1
discussed this in both the initial and final interview:
I know for me, I had a cousin who was paralyzed from the waist down. At my
school, we didn’t have a full inclusion program. If you grow up knowing people,
then it’s more the norm. I really enjoy working with [the special ed teacher] who
is always an advocate for the kids and can see the possibility in the kids. There
are different takes depending on who I’ve worked with. The special ed teacher is
looking out for both having a sense of belonging and can this child read, write,
more than just what we might perceive them. It’s helped me to see that there is so
much more to it.
T1 also had personal experience working with students with significant
disabilities as a substitute teacher. She believes this affected her perception of inclusive
practices today and her belief system:
When I subbed, there was a school that I subbed at and maybe that’s part of it. I
was so horribly offended with like I never went back to that school. So I got there
and I was supposed to be doing like a special ed class but and the way the plans
were written I would go to the regular ed classroom and pick up the kids but they
only got to be there for five minutes so I didn’t really understand why they were
even in that class. Like it was so weird. And then so I picked up a couple kids
from one room and then a couple more and then we all marched down to like this
special ed class where I had like eleven or twelve kids and it was like a spectrum
64
of one girl was just like a brand-newcomer to the United States so didn’t speak
English and she didn’t really have any other need just was a newcomer. And then
I had like several kids who were like on medication so at different times I had this
big schedule of like when to go and send them to get their meds and like some of
them didn’t actually take it. And it was very interesting. And then I had another
student that I couldn’t, again as a sub you don’t know their whole story but I
couldn’t figure out why he was even in there like there weren’t any noticeable
things and he wasn’t even one of the ones who had to take medication. So it was
just this like really bizarre setting. So then at lunch time, the other class would
come by the room and we had to go out and wait on the ramp for the other class to
come and then we would like file at the end of their line and like march down to
lunch together. And I had one that was out because she hadn’t really taken the
medicine when I sent her to go do but since I was the sub, it was so disheartening.
Especially for that new girl who was just a newcomer like what was she thinking.
It was really sad to me that you’re gonna take some of the neediest kids and like
put them all in this room and then they’re made to feel like they don’t really sit
with the rest of the class and you have to come and file at the end of the line and
go and eat and then you’re back here and it’s just bizarro to me. And I just
thought “Oh my gosh!” And to me, now being a parent, because at the time I
wasn’t, but like even more so now, it’s like what if that was your child? Like
would you want them being treated that way? If your child is at a school that
65
doesn’t include them or doesn’t respect them as a person then, you know, it’s no
one speaking up for them.
T1 described her attitudes and her perspective of growing up with an individual
with disabilities by elaborating on this individual in the final interview:
My cousin who was born with spinal bifida and was in a wheelchair his whole life
and I grew up with him and I don’t think I even consciously realized and you
know that was just sorta who he was. So maybe that’s part of it too. So if you
know somebody personally, I think you maybe have a different perspective on
them deserving to be a person and not seen as like an outcast.
T2 also had the opportunity to grow up with an individual who had a disability.
She described how her personal life and upbringing may have influenced her attitudes to
including students with disabilities in her class. Namely, she stated her relationships with
people with disabilities:
I have a cousin with cerebral palsy. And I grew up pushing her around in her
wheelchair and having to listen very carefully to make out what she was saying
and just supporting her in any way I could. So that probably started it but I have
an aunt who is a special education teacher and has been for awhile. Like 30 years.
I never knew exactly what that meant and I would even go in her classroom
sometimes. Of course it was high school so it looked a lot different but I never
really knew what that meant even though I knew she was a special ed teacher she
never talked about her students in a way that gave me any idea what that meant.
And when I was in her classroom, I couldn’t tell so that probably had a lot to do
66
with it as well so when it came up in my professional career I was like “Oh, that’s
what my aunt has been doing for like thirty years.
T2 further clarified her view as someone who knew an individual with disabilities in her
childhood in the second interview as she said:
I don’t know that I ever thought about it and maybe it was just a natural thing
because my cousin had cerebral palsy and she was in a wheelchair and she
couldn’t walk and she was deformed and she was hard to understand and she
couldn’t speak. And in our family, there was never any difference made between
her and a cousin without a wheelchair and it was all that we were all just family
and you helped out where you needed to help out. Not to mention the fact that
you probably would have gotten in deep trouble if you had said anything
inappropriate. So the cousin comes to mind. Now, I’m remembering another girl
at a cousin’s house across the street. We were all like family but we were really
good friends but there was a child over there that had Down syndrome and we
grew up with him and we played together. Now, I knew that he looked different
and I remember them saying, “Eddie has Down syndrome.” But nobody ever
explained what that was. That’s what that was. That’s what you need to know,
Eddie has Down syndrome. Ok, let’s go play. That’s just sorta how it was.
After reflecting on the aspects which led to her inclusive attitude, T2 suggested that her
own cultural background may have contributed to her attitudes towards students with
disabilities in some way:
67
Now, I’m gonna take it a step further and say that maybe some of it comes from
me being black. Because even though it’s not considered a disability, it’s
considered a difference so maybe I’ve always been a little sensitive to being
different or...and I know that I wouldn’t want anybody treating me a certain way
because of my skin color. So why would I treat anyone differently because of
anything else. Does that make sense? Now, keep in mind, I’ve never thought of
that, but that’s what I just thought of right now. Between growing up with friends
and family members with disabilities and knowing intuitively, that that’s just, I
don’t know, it just never came up. But I just had to throw that in there because
that has to have played into my psyche somewhere.
In contrast, T3 had little experience with people with disabilities in her personal
life. When asked what she thought had shaped her beliefs about people with disabilities,
she replied:
Just the students, you know, actually. I was probably wasn’t one to be on the
bandwagon at first. Believe it or not, no. (laughs) I really have to admit that. But
um, seeing the students. I was, um, probably way more terrified than any of the
other teachers probably around campus to have students with special needs in the
class. Not knowing how I could serve them best. And still not knowing if I’m
doing the best for them. You know. But knowing that I’m trying and they’re
growing. I guess is the bottom line. Yeah, I definitively wasn’t one who was on
the bandwagon.
68
T3 then discussed how she had no experience with people with disabilities as an
individual growing up:
No. No experiences at all. The only experience I could have, I guess was in
junior high when they were all in a different wing of the whole school. Maybe
that’s what terrified me the most. Because they would all go to lunch together
and they would all leave together and I never got a chance to interact with
anybody.
Intentional teaching.
Another theme that emerged was that all three teachers were “intentional” in their
teaching methods and practices. “Intentional teaching” included being reflective about
their teaching and making adjustments to lesson plans in order to meet the needs of the
students in addition to being organized, systematic, and thoughtful when preparing
structured lessons.
An example of how T1 was intentional in her teaching was when she allowed
students’ voices to be powerful. Students were playing with their pencils and papers at
their desks while T1 was talking and asking questions about rotational symmetry during a
math lesson.
Fieldnote: Two students were talking at a table, a girl asked them to stop talking.
They continued to talk. T1 asked them if they heard her ask them to stop and that
it is distracting her from learning.
69
By being intentional, the three teachers capitalized on teachable moments that
may have been unexpected and unplanned. For instance, T1 was attuned to the individual
needs of students within the class.
Fieldnote: During one math lesson, students were working at their tables; they
were talking loudly to each other. T1 was walking around to the tables to check
on students’ work. Some students had drawn three shapes already, whereas some
students had only traced one block. Some students were simply sitting and
talking to one another. T1 was going around to the table to model how you have
to go a quarter of a turn to see if the shapes will match up. T1 went up to a
student who was not participating in the activity and said “J, what shape are you
going to do? Pick a shape.”
Further, T1 reacted to the class’ behaviors and reflected on how to best teach
skills even if they were unplanned. One example of this was when the classroom had
gotten unorganized. T1 took the opportunity to read a book about messiness and taking
care of one’s space.
Fieldnote: T1 said, “How have you been taking care of our place? I’m going to
read one of my old favorites called Pigsty. There is trash, all sorts of stuff
scattered around the room. Hit my limit. I need to be more organized and I’m
disappointed that we got more stuff for next year when it was beginning to look
organized.” After reading it, the class had a discussion about what had happened
in the classroom. This shows how T1 was conscious that this needed to be taught
and attended to in the classroom.
70
Another example of a time in which T1 reflected on the class’s behavior and held
the students accountable for their behavior was when she intentionally reviewed what
behaviors were appropriate for which learning environments.
Fieldnote: T1 asked what are some things that could possibly get in the way of
getting to do the things they want to do. T1 started writing the list of the ideas the
students were coming up with at the bottom of the read to self list. (i.e. talking,
playing around, passing notes, not being a self-controlled student) “So all of these
things we put on, they take time to be able to do these things. Are there times in
the day to be talking? To play around? Lost self-control a little bit, when are those
times?” The students responded with suggestions such as recess, free time, PE.
T1 explained in her interview about how she reflects constantly on creating lifelong learners in her students. Intentional teachers also act purposefully with a goal in
mind and work toward reaching the goals they set forth as teachers:
For the goals for all students, for me, I think again, it’s like, helping them to see
that learning is really an ongoing process throughout your whole life and just
because you didn’t know something at one time, it doesn’t mean that you can’t
figure it out later on or maybe you’re just not ready for it yet…So for students to
know that learning is work and it’s hard and sometimes you’re not going to
understand it right away or you’re not going to know it right away but with time
and motivation and you know, effort you can do lots of different things.
71
All three teachers appeared to do things for a specific reason or purpose. Namely,
T1 explained why she always planned to teach in inclusive classrooms and how she
wants to instill a compassion for others within all her students:
I think that, it’s great on a lot of levels. Even though there are challenges to it at
times. I think that it’s really important for people, young and old, to understand
that there is all different people that you’re gonna encounter in your life and to
have that compassion for people who have different experiences than yourself or
different needs and all of that. You know when we get a student who comes to
[school] who have never been around students with disabilities or have never seen
a student in a wheelchair, that sort of thing can sometimes be really eye-opening
for them. Depending on the child, some students can also be a little bit fearful
and not know how to react. I think it’s a way to build compassion and learn to
interact with different kinds of people. I hope to always be a part of that type of
program if I were to leave and go somewhere else.
Another example of how her belief systems may affect her teaching practices was evident
when T1 discussed how shocked she was with a colleague who did not see the value of
inclusion:
One teacher was offended that there were kids included and she said, “I don’t
even know why they’re in there. And it was so hurtful to me, I didn’t know what
to say. It was like, ‘They’re in there because they’re a fourth grade child and they
deserve to be in a school. Like to me it just seems so normal. But it was very
eye-opening. Because here’s this veteran teacher, professional person supposed
72
to be doing what’s best for kids and as she spoke more she’s being required to be
sure everyone meets standards and is proficient in all these things. And she didn’t
feel like she could do that for these children and that that would take away from
some of her focus on getting the rest of the kids there or something, which to me,
is like weird but I’m not that person who is so driven by test scores. And I know
it’s important. I’m not like devaluing that. I know that’s the system we’re in...
And I think that in order to be open to changing or to having people accepting
inclusion and knowing that you’re not going to have everyone being on the same
page all the time. Like, I think it is a mindset that the adult in the room has to
have like for kids because I think that you’re never going to have a classroom
with everyone being the exact same.
When discussing the most challenging aspect of inclusion, T1 stated how when
reflecting on her teaching practices, she was always curious if she had done enough for
all her students, including the students with disabilities:
And then, I think for me, sorta, depending on how needy the student is, there is
always that little bit of “Am I doing enough to meet their needs?” I know that
there’s parts of my program that are like super powerful and that can reach
students more than they might in someone else’s classroom. And then there [sic]
are other pieces that I’m always the doubting of ‘Could I do a little more?’ Is
there a way to like, you know? But I do that with any student.
T1 also discussed, in both interviews, how two books helped to transform her
teaching and taught her how to be more reflective and intentional about her practices.
73
The textbooks included The Power of Our Words (Denton, 2007) and Yardsticks (Wood,
2007). (See Figure 3).
Wood, C. (2007). Yardsticks:
Children in the classroom ages 4-14.
(3rd ed.). Turner Falls, MA:
Northeast Foundation for Children, Inc.
Denton, P. (2007). The power of our
words: Teacher language that helps
children learn. Turner Falls, MA:
Northeast Foundation for Children, Inc.
Figure 3. T1 Textbook References. T1 utilized both texts and discussed how they
influenced her teaching philosophy.
Both T1 and T2 discussed the importance of flexibility and taking advantage of
teachable moments. When it appeared to T1 that her class was having difficult abiding
by the rules for “Read to Self” time, she offered a reminder instead of a reprimand to the
class and used the opportunity to teach the students what it should look like. She stated,
“Take a moment to revisit the expectations that we agreed on during Read to Self time.”
Then she proceeded to write on the board what went well and what are things they could
improve on. This allowed students to share their experiences and reflect on how well
they thought the “Read to Self” time went.
Another example was when T1 discussed with the class how she noticed
disappointing behavior as they walked to lunch earlier in the day.
74
Fieldnote: T1 created another teachable moment by telling her class how she
noticed that some students in wheelchairs were unable to get to the cafeteria with
their peers because the class was not in a single file line like they should have
been. Instead, she told the students, that her class was taking up the entire
walkway. Because this behavior was disappointing, T1 took advantage of the
opportunity and had the students practice walking in a straight line to the cafeteria
to ensure they respect others around them in the future.
T1 stated how it was challenging at times to maintain fluidity in lessons because of the
changes in schedule:
Flexibility is super important because this year not so much. But the past couple
of years before, you know, you had to be really flexible because schedule things
will change or come up or you’ll be like working on something and they’re pulled
for therapy and just being--feeling willing to know that it might not always end up
being like you had your vision of things going and knowing that you’re going to
have to be willing to learn and be willing to be open to you know changing what
your first impression of something is.
The intentionality that T2 demonstrated manifested itself in lesson design and
methods. She did everything with a goal in mind and tried to reach the end goal:
The main goal is that they love learning. I just, that’s when I feel angst when they
don’t care about learning. More than anything, I want them to be
passionate…and that they know that they can do and be whatever they want to be.
75
But they have to want it and it has to come from inside. It can’t be hoisted upon
you, so to speak. So that they will be life-long learners.
T3 echoed this statement by discussing how she had specific goals for her students:
I think my goal for my students…one of my goals for my students is to make sure
that, [sic], they’re growing. At their own speed. At their own pace. Um, I know
that having 26 different second graders in every student is going to go at a little
bit different pace. Just seeing that they are growing. Not necessarily that they are
being advanced or mastering all the standards but getting, getting there. Into a
place that they feel confident—challenging them a little bit above where they’re at
but not so that they are in tears. So that they still want to learn.
Both T1 and T2 modeled being reflective individuals and gave their students the
opportunity to practice this skill as well. In one observation, T1 modeled being reflective
about a lesson by having the students complete a reflection page about their math quilt
project. T1 said to her students, “Last week we worked on our math quilt. We’ll do our
reflection today since we didn’t have a chance to.” Another example of modeling
reflective practices was seen when following a language arts period, T2 asked her
students on the carpet how they thought the Daily Five went. One of the students
responded by saying it was awesome. T2 challenged the student to say why he believed
it had gone awesome.
ST-1, who worked with T1, agreed that her planning is always intentional during
collaboration times:
76
When she’s planning lessons, it’s part of her process of what the focus students is
going to do. It’s why she makes the time to meet with me. To her, it’s her
responsibility to make sure they’re engaged. With T1, I think that it’s almost just
an intuitive part. It’s just a part of who she is that every kid is important and that
every kid should be a part of things. It’s just the way that she perceives kids. It’s
not like in some other classrooms—they did things different and then after I
started working there, they changed their model. I mean T1 was already [sic] that
mind frame was already there the he should be or she should be a part of things
and what they are going to do and how they are going to do it.
Collaboration.
Another theme that emerged from the data was that all three teacher participants
collaborated regularly with their special education colleagues. The teachers met with the
special education teacher on a regular basis to plan instruction, modifications, and
adaptations for all students during collaboration time. Collaboration time differed in its
structure from teacher to teacher depending on when it was done. All three participants
emphasized the importance of meeting with their special education support teacher
colleague. T3 discussed how the collaboration meeting with the special education
teacher had progressed over the course of the year as she gained confidence in being able
to meet the needs of the student with significant disabilities:
I think we check in probably on a daily basis informally. We try to meet once a
week but it’s really difficult I know with all of our schedules right now...we were
meeting at least once a week for at least an hour but if not more, but right now, I
77
couldn’t say that that’s happening every week anymore. More informally, touch
bases.
When she described the best part about working in an inclusive classroom, T3
explained how the additional colleague support was good for her as she learned better
how to include students with disabilities. T1 agreed that she has many informal meetings
with her special education counterpart on a nearly daily basis:
We kinda go weekly. This year the dynamic that we have, like [the paraeducator]
will relay messages to [ST-1] cuz she and I have such a pretty good relationship.
Cuz you know the student that I have this year, she can do so much more. She
still has a lot of limitations but she is so active in whatever we’re doing. So I
don’t feel as pressured to meet as often as when I have had a needier group, I’ve
had to be more on about ‘ok, let’s try and meet and modify these things so’ I feel
like we’ve been able to not meet as often. But I think this year with just one
student and knowing the paraeducator so well we kinda like modify things
together. But I still meet with [the special education teacher]. In the past it was
like we would definitely meet once a week to kinda check in and talk about
what’s coming. And if I’m going to do some bigger project, or if I need help in
modifying it more, we definitely meet.
T2, who worked with the same special education inclusion teacher as T3, also
discussed how the relationship between the special education inclusion teacher and her is
good and full of respect for each other as professionals:
78
I think it’s working ok. I think it could be better. I think the way the system is
designed something could be tweaked so that there is our intentional planning
time built in to the day. She and I work well together because we’re both kinda
flighty, well, you know. We both try to not take something personally. We plan
informally, like all the time. A quick email or I see her in the hallway and I go
‘blah blah blah.’ As far as formal planning, we try to do that once every other
week. But there seems to be something else that always comes up, which is why I
say the inclusive practice structure needs to be such that the co-teachers, it’s
mandatory that you get together and plan. But we’re making it work without that
piece, but I think that that’s something that would fine tune it even more. But we
just work together. We play off each other. We have discussed, various coteaching models. We did kinda get that in that training. And so we try to switch
that up. So it’s not always one teach, one assist but literally co-teaching. I’m
going to do this part. You do that part. We’ve experimented with parallel
teaching. Stations teaching. And you know we do a lot with small groupings.
Because we really feel like that’s the most effective way to like get to specific
needs of all the kids. We both agreed though in our ideal world that the coteaching inclusive practices would look a lot different. This would be our
classroom. All day every day. Every subject would be co-taught. Everything
would be co-planned and co-taught. The way it is now is language arts or math
depending on the day and it’s just an hour a day. Four days a week. So, it could
be better. But you know, we’re making it work, but it could be better.
79
ST-2 agreed with T2 when she was interviewed. ST-2 stated, “I feel like we have
really great planning sessions. We’re really strategic about what my time spent doing in
her classroom. And so I feel like she utilizes the support she has really well. And she is
able to plan and collaborate in a really easy way.”
T2 also described the value she saw in keeping the communication with her
colleague honest. Because of the challenge of beginning inclusion at a new school at the
beginning of the school year, T2 discussed how she confided in and worked closely with
her special education colleague to ensure that she was doing all she could to meet all of
her students’ needs:
I did [have conversations with the special ed teacher about her frustrations and
feelings], and usually it was full of tears and snot, because I was overwhelmed
and that is the only word I can think of for it and the funny thing is she was sort of
overwhelmed too because the model of inclusion was new to her and she no
longer has her own classroom with her own kids. Her kids are farmed out and the
kids that would normally be hers are now farmed out and so it’s just different. We
definitely shared our feelings, our frustrations. We also celebrated the days and
said yes that worked, it isn’t going to work tomorrow but at least it got us through
today and that was huge, if not for her I don’t know how any of it would be
working.
The importance of open, fluid conversation between teachers was an aspect of
collaboration that was mentioned by all three participants. Namely, T1 discussed the
teamwork dynamic between the special education inclusion teacher and herself:
80
I guess for me I always have felt like it’s sort of a team effort. I felt like, um, I, I
can’t myself meet all of the demands of their IEP goals solely in the classroom.
It’s not, it’s not possible to, um, work that much one-on-one or two to three on
one or whatever, um, throughout the day because of 33 other, you know, there are
just like so many demands. And um, so, uh, you definitely could not do it without
another teacher who is like helping support that. Because last year I had a student
who was not in the OI [Orthopedic Impairment] program but he was working at
like a preschool level. And I had him for third and fourth grade and so, um, that
was when, like those two years were really eye-opening for like how that team of
teaching could really help and support. Because he was like closer to my OI
students in his abilities and what they were working on in some of their smaller
groups um for math and for reading. And so, um, like in the classroom, we
usually have a reading group that they are a part of when we’re doing that leveled
grouping. Sometimes it’s a little bit higher that where they can really work, you
know. Um, I think again, it helps bridge that sense of belonging in the classroom.
It helps them be a part of that group and it helps students that are in that lower
level group be sorta that lead you know because they often times don’t get to feel
that way, you know in the bigger classroom. Um, like I definitely could not, um,
do it without another person. Like I don’t think I’m the sole person in that
dynamic. Like I think it’s definitely in order to really give them a solid
foundation in you know meeting some of those goals like I don’t think you could
just do it in a classroom with just one teacher. For sure. I think, I don’t know if
81
I’m answering that question all the way. Like, I don’t know. To me, I guess I
have to support the specialist because I don’t feel like I would, like, I know I
could if I took some more training, you know, write all the goals and do all that.
Like I’m definitely not at a place for all that you know, having to do all that by
myself that’s how I feel about it. But I feel like I’m pretty good at taking what I
do really well and bringing it in or you know what’s coming from that side. Does
that make sense? Because I think that coming from, you know, working with
someone like [inclusion teacher’s name] where she has, you know, I’ll bring ideas
like ‘ok, this is what I want to do’ (laughs). And I think that we could do it this
way and sometimes she’ll tweak it like ‘well, ok, I’ll bring this to that project or
whatever.’ You know. Her expertise at modifying it. Because I don’t always
have that. You know. Like working with different people over time, I’ve learned
to sort of, think more creatively and how can you use, um, you know, one of those
devices which I’m still not a super expert on how to do all that (laughs). Like I’m
um, but. I think it’s definitely a partnership.
When asked what would foster more successful inclusive practices, all three
participants declared that having more time to collaborate with the special education
teachers would be beneficial for the students. T2 stated that it would be helpful if she had
more time to collaborate built into her schedule:
[The special education teacher and I] talk about [having more time to collaborate]
all the time. We talk about how we’re both cool with kinda flying by the seat of
our pants because there really isn’t that structure built in where that collaboration
82
is expected. Or it might be expected but nobody has built it into the day. So
we’re forever trying to figure out, where are we going to fit it in throughout the
day amongst all the other meetings we have. Um, but yes, I would love to have
more time to collaborate throughout the day. That might make it easier and seem
less chaotic. If you can’t tell, have you ever been in here when the co-teacher and
I were in here, and if you couldn’t tell we were flying by the seat of our pants,
then woohoo cuz there is no planning time. Literally. So sometimes, I’m calling
her on the phone ten minutes before she’s gonna come in this is what we’re doing
in math today, what do you think about that? And she’s like, “Yeah, let’s try it
that way.” And that’s just how it is. She and I can communicate through eye
contact. We haven’t planned a thing. So she walks in, we make eye contact and
somehow she discerns what I am saying or whatever. You know. Or there are
days. We try to experiment with different co-teaching models because we don’t
always want it to come across as one teach and one assist. Because truly, she is a
professional just like I am. And it took me a minute to get there. Because she’s
as much a part of the teaching as I am. It shouldn’t be I’m always doing all the
talking and she is monitoring kids. So we have learned together how to, we don’t
say, “Tomorrow we’re going to parallel teach.” Or on Thursday, we’re gonna do
stations. She can come in and judging by whatever is happening in the classroom,
or by the look I give her or she listens as I explain to the kids what’s about to
happen, she knows what we’re doing that day. It’s good but it’s bad. Because
just because it’s working for us this year, it’s not a good model. It’s not
83
something that I would want to tell somebody else to do but it’s been working for
us. But I think that being organized and prepared makes it easier to know where
or how it just kinda works.
The use of formal, scheduled meeting times weekly had worked with T1 in the
past although this year, she has seen a shift in the kind of collaboration she has been
doing:
For, my relationship right now, we don’t have to necessarily formally meet on a
regular schedule all the time where I know she does with some other teachers.
But she and I know each other pretty well and the student I have this year is easier
to modify for and is actively involved in everything we do so I don’t feel like I
need a whole lot of extra meeting time to get like what I need. But if we’re going
to do something bigger or something that I would like, need help with, I’m really
comfortable with going to her and say “Let’s talk about this” or here are the
things I’m going to do, what should I do [to modify for students with
disabilities]?”
According to the ST-1 who worked with T1, collaboration time was beneficial
because T1 usually was always in the planning stages of her lessons. It lended itself to
incorporating modifications and adaptations within lessons as opposed to backward
planning with lesson plans that had already been written:
With T1, collaboration is very informal because a lot of times when we
collaborate, she’s still kinda in the middle of, because we do it ahead of time, still
not in a written format. With T1, it’s always in the planning stage and I think
84
that’s very helpful. From the basic plan it already incorporated the ideas or
adaptations. It also helps me because I know that she’s thinking and I’m hearing
her planning versus when I see it on a lesson plan and they know and it’s already
pretty solidified in what they want it to look like but I don’t know.
All team members who were interviewed and observed appeared to be committed
to work with one another as professionals in order to benefit of all students.
One salient aspect of co-teaching and collaborating with a special education
teacher was the ability of the general education teacher to make sure that the special
education teacher was seen as a teacher within the classroom. During one observation,
the special education student teacher was having difficulty keeping her small group of
students at the back table on track. Noticing this, T2 observed from afar as she continued
to teach her own small group during language arts. When asked about what she was
thinking during this specific situation, knowing that some general education teachers may
have difficulty giving some of the control and management of the classroom to another
professional, she responded honestly:
I can remember specially what day you are talking about and luckily the group
that I was working with were being self-guided they were on task independently
because I don’t know if you noticed but my full attention was over there. It took
everything in me not to get up and walk over there and kinda settle everything
down and then walk away, because that is what I would normally do. So that was
a struggle, but I think I won. I just wanted to see, because that particular student I
have never seen him act like that before, ever! So I wanted to see what is
85
happening, what is causing this because he was out of character and what is she
going to do about it because she has to learn too, because when she is in her own
classroom there wont be anyone to come fix the situations? It took a lot of biting
my tongue and breathing deeply and I finally just said focus on the kids that are
sitting around you and they didn’t appear to be needing help and later on I just
mentioned it to the supervising teacher that there was a little struggle or whatever
because I wanted to stay out of it because I didn’t know how it was settled but I
just looked up and it was. I was thinking what a waste of time—fix it already, get
back on task, you are being a distraction to me, but I have to learn to let those
things go. Even with having an aide when you give directions to do something
and you know you just have to let it go and just let it happen. I had to teach
myself that because again I come from a traditional one teacher that is your class
mind set, I do everything, I correct homework, I staple paper, I discipline the kids,
and this is more a community setting. The co-teacher, the student teacher,
everyone has to be able to do it all. It is hard not to think of it as my classroom so
I practice saying “our classroom” and “the teachers” and “our students” and it is
just staying the vocab and the mindset. Now for good or for bad you don’t have to
be in control of everything even if you want to be. It is okay to sit back and see
someone else in action and maybe you will learn something too. Was it easy? No.
In T2’s classroom, ST-2 taught a lesson and prepared group activities with T2.
This observation gave an insight into how T2 and ST-2 were able to successfully
collaborate within the classroom.
86
Fieldnote: Students are on the carpet. T2 used direct instruction to explain how
students will be working independently at some rotations. “How are you going to
be working?” (students respond with “Independently.”) T2 asks the ST-2 to read
something for her. “You want to jot these down (to ST-2).” St-2 writes on board.
“What else did we talk about, ST-2?” ST-2: “Unique features.” T2: “I like those
words.” T2 goes on to explain each station. “When you are being an independent
worker, you might be…” (explains what it will look like) “Don’t be boring.
Don’t tell me it’s cute. We don’t care if it [the animal] is cute.” “You are
researchers. What are you?” Students: “Researchers.” Are you ready to be
scientists? “Move with a purpose so don’t be a distraction.”
Paraeducator relationship.
The final theme that emerged was that all three teacher participants had a good
working relationship with the paraeducator who worked in their classrooms. The
participants utilized the paraeducators as another professional in the classroom and
collaborated with them in order to meet the needs of the students with significant
disabilities that were included in the classes.
T2 discussed how it was an adjustment for her to become comfortable having
extra adults in the room because she was used to very traditional settings or paraeducators
who only worked with one student throughout the day:
It absolutely was a concern for me because of my background experience was the
traditional one teacher classroom full of kids shut the door and go about your
business and I didn’t have to think about you have done inclusion before it wasn’t
87
called inclusion. But you had students before with IEPs with the special needs.
And you figure out with an aide or without an aide and I have been both ways. So
I don’t know if it was the aide or if it was having it all lumped together it was just
overwhelming. Extra bodies. Extra responsibilities. Who is in charge of what?
Nobody knows. I was like how many bodies is that? Oh wow. So that took some
getting used to. And luckily the co-teacher—the special ed teacher, and I are more
alike. You figure out how to work together because we are all here for the same
reason and as for having the aide all day it is different because the aide before was
assigned specifically to a student her duties and responsibilities were well defined.
In this structure they are classroom aide. I have never had a classroom aide
before. So it was figuring out how to most effectively see a classroom aide who is
not supposed to shadow someone in particular. So how to make her feel useful
and needed. It was a bit much at first but like everything else you work through it.
I am more comfortable now that I was before. And my co-teacher and I have
talked about this, if we were to co-teach in it’s true form she and I would know
that we are co-teaching before the first week, and we could set up the classroom
together, it would truly be our classroom. She would be in here all day everyday.
As it stands now, she is just in an out an hour here and there and I understand that
but I don’t think it is effective at all and she would probably agree with me. And
the models that were shown to us where not models in elementary classrooms it
was interesting, they were in secondary setting where there was junior high or
high school. So the co-teachers were literally in that classroom all together all the
88
time it wasn’t coming and going. And you can say I put air quotes around that
training.
T2 went on to further explain how the paraeducator was a classroom aide not simply an
aide for the students with significant disabilities:
She is the classroom aide. She’s not their aide. So she, she helps where help is
needed. I think that’s the fine line we have to watch out for. Teaching learned
helplessness. And doing things for kids that they can actually do themselves. I
think that has been a challenge that I think we have kinda overcome. I think the
classroom aide now understands that you know your job is to support all the
students in the classroom and just because we have these two students with
specific needs, doesn’t mean that every time to get to work, you run to them.
Because we’re teaching them to ask for help when they need it and giving them
the opportunity to be independent. You know. And figure out when they need
help. And some of those natural partnerships. It was like one person saying, ‘I’m
going to help him all the time.’
The fieldnote observations showed this as well; an example was when the
paraeducator sat at the back table in the classroom assembling homework packets while
T2 was at the rug teaching the entire class. The paraeducators in both T2’s and T3’s
classrooms also were responsible for small group lessons at tables within or outside of the
classroom, working with students with and without disabilities. In one instance, T2 got
two markers, handed a marker to the paraeducator & told her to go around and check the
back of the paper for the correct answers. T2 went around and checked work—and put a
89
big happy face if all was correct—and told them (quietly) to go put it away and go back
to the rug. The paraeducator drew money signs and stars on correct papers to denote the
students had everything correct. This was an example of how both the pareaeducator and
teacher were doing the same thing and working together to ensure that all students
understood the concept by correcting their papers. They both appeared to be part of a
teaching team.
The paraeducator worked in conjunction with the teachers to ensure that the
students were able to participate successfully in activities the entire class was doing. T2
described working with the paraeducator during the interview:
Right now, Ms. [Paraeducator] is in my room everyday for five and a half hours.
So she leaves a half an hour early. Her focus is, I would say, during math, is on
my student [STUD-C]…so for the majority of the day, I really want her not to be
focused on one specific student. That’s more like a SDC class or a special ed
class when you have a one-on-one. And I want each student to feel like they are
supported by both of us. So, I think the only time I would say where my
paraprofessional is focused just one student is during math. And then the rest of
the day, we tag team it. We go to specific students. She has a list of students with
special needs who would need additional support during math or additional
support during language arts. Um, but even my general ed students struggle
during those times as well. So you never know who is going to be needing that
extra help.
90
An example of how T1 utilized the paraeducator within her classroom was
evident in her response to an interview question:
This year, she has really been an awesome support for the whole class. Like
management-wise because, um, she and I worked together not last year, but the
year before. You know, I’ve seen a huge amount of growth. Some of it comes
from, like, um, I talked to her about different things that I was learning about at
workshops that I had been to or you know the parent meetings at the preschool or
um, I have this one book called Yardsticks, it’s like stages of development for kids
and I had shared it with her when her daughter was in like 6th grade and so she
would read it and stuff so we started having conversation about, you know,
student behavior, and stages of development. And I think it sorta helped her know
me and my philosophy more. And how to help students. In the past, with her and
with other paraeducators I’ve worked with, they tend to work and support just that
one student and um the other students in the class don’t necessarily see them as
the teacher because they aren’t necessarily leading lessons. And so this year it’s
been awesome because she will help coach students like ‘what are we working
on…what are we doing?’ so she has sorta become more of a, um, teacher role in
the classroom as to how students look to her. There’s still some of that, you
know, depending on the particular student. Sometimes I think the students see
them and think, ‘I don’t have to listen to them. You know, they’re not my
teacher…’ that sorta thing around the campus so I think that the more you can
bring them in as the teacher role and the more they play a part, like in morning
91
meeting. I know in the past, I was trying to let my students have some
independence and you know so she’d kinda hang back out of things at times like
at morning meeting or something that she wanted that student to be able to
experience the whole thing on their own and not be like always right with them.
Which I think is important and powerful, but instead of dropping out all together,
go sit by other students. Or you know, go be with and coach, right now. So they
start to be that lead in the classroom, that there’s an adult who knows what’s
going on. Oh, they’re going to make sure that they’re learning too. So when I’m
doing reading groups, she’s been really good this year letting the student come
and be with me. Then helping coach other students, whether it’s on the computer
or at their seats. I think it’s a nice balance. If I needed her to come and help
support the OI student, then she’s there, but she’s also able to let her have that
independence with the group and feel that sense of “oh now I have that time and
be part of that.” And also giving her a chance to make those connections with
other kids in the room because I think you have a more powerful, functioning
classroom, when you can find ways for them to support. It’s like you want them
to have connections with more than just that student.
As T1 described how the paraeducator and herself worked together, it was apparent that
there was a consistent, open communication between T1 and the paraeducator in order to
plan ways in which students with disabilities can access the curriculum.
92
T1 also discussed in the final interview how she has witnessed a progression in
the paraeducator’s classroom management skills and her willingness to be part of the
classroom teaching team not just as a support person:
The person I work with this year. I love working with her. And it’s been fun
because I worked with her the year before last year. She and I have had a lot of
conversations about different things job articles, and I’ve shared with her over
time that she…she has her own two kids and so there was a parent meeting that I
had gone to that had connected and so we started talking about. She has taken it
upon herself to read some of the professional books I have on stages of
development. Like Yardsticks and it has connected to her personally as a parent
and it also has helped her in the classroom. Through building that stronger
relationship with her, she has become, like, a stronger presence in the classroom.
Like she’s become more comfortable and confident in what her role could be.
Whereas before she used to kinda just come in and help the student she was
assigned to. And she told me at one point, “I always felt like maybe I
misinterpreted the comment of like, ‘letting the students have a little bit of
independence not just always being at their side. So if it was read aloud or
something, then she would step away. Before, she used to just isolate herself
rather than ok, maybe you don’t want to sit with those students so they have some
time to just be them but go sit by those ones that might need you to be like, ‘Hey,
let’s find out what this story is about!’ Engage other students. And now she’s
doing that and it’s really great. So I think it can be a really powerful thing. And
93
I’ve had that connection with some of the other paraeducators and people that
have been in my room. And I’m not really uncomfortable with it at all.
Overall, the data from the interviews, observations, and artifacts over this six
month period gave the researcher new insights into the complexities of teaching in
general, and especially teaching heterogeneous groups of children. The organization of
the eight themes described above was an attempt to make meaning of these in-depth
discussions and observations. While there were many more quotes and observations, an
attempt was made to utilize only those which best illustrated the points most important to
take away.
94
Chapter 5
Discussion
This study yielded information that may be useful in examining general education
teachers’ inclusive practices in the future. Namely, the data collected showed that while
there is no one specific kind of general education teacher needed for implementation of
inclusion to be successful, there were many characteristics and behaviors that were found
across all three general educator participants.
Impact of the Study
The common qualities of general education teachers that enhanced their attitude
towards inclusion of all students with disabilities were identified as a result of the inperson interviews, classroom observations, interviews of the special education inclusion
support teachers, and collection of artifacts. The most prominent aspect of the results
was that the general education teachers all had a sense of ownership of the students with
significant disabilities in their classes. They all saw the students as their students who
were supported by the paraeducator as well as the special education support teacher.
Another important aspect of the results was that there was a strong sense of unity
among each class observed. There appeared to be a supportive, accepting belief among
the students that the teacher not only hoped for, but intentionally taught as well. There
was an emphasis on creating an atmosphere of respect for all individuals despite one’s
abilities or disabilities by all the teacher participants.
It is important to note that all the participants had formed some kind of attitude
towards people with disabilities before participating in this study. The personal
95
experiences or lack of experiences that they have had with people with disabilities
affected the way in which they supported their students with disabilities. While both T1
and T2 had grown up with individuals with disabilities who they always had treated with
respect, T3 had little experience during childhood and even adulthood with people with
disabilities. Consistent with the findings from Giangreco et al. (1993), T3 admitted that
her attitudes toward inclusion became more positive over time simply because of the
experience she gained having a student with significant disabilities in her classroom.
An aspect of the results, however, that cannot be learned necessarily as a teacher,
is the foundational belief that all students can learn and that all students deserve a quality
education. This sense of equality for all students was something that all participants
adhered to with strong beliefs. It is interesting to note, though, that T3 declared that,
while she strongly believed in the implementation of inclusion, she understood through
years of experience and listening to teachers who may be hesitant, that it may not be
something that all teachers are capable of successfully implementing.
Implications Towards Practice
As a result of this study, it is apparent that collaboration of the general education
teachers with other professionals was essential to ensure that students with significant
disabilities were able to participate within the classroom activities and lessons. The three
participants shared how both their relationships with the special education support
teacher and the paraeducators were important in order for the students with significant
disabilities to have their needs met. The joint team effort of the professionals was one
96
finding that could be used for professional development for teachers. Learning how to
successfully collaborate with other professionals is an important skill for any teacher.
Another finding of this study is that challenging students, by holding everyone to
high expectations, allows for students to see their peers with significant disabilities as
competent, hard-working peers. In other words, the three teachers were able to
differentiate instruction for all the students in the class and were able to challenge them to
gain more knowledge, social skills, and communication skills by doing so. The
participants’ positive language and approach as fair, but firm leaders of the class
translated into a cohesive, group of individuals who learned to cooperate, collaborate, and
listen to each other. The peer supports allowed for high expectations as students of
varying levels learned the importance of teamwork.
Limitations
The teachers selected for this study were recommended based on their positive
attitudes. The study focused on how their positive attitudes toward inclusion were
shaped, specifically what different factors may have influenced their perceptions of
including students with significant disabilities in their classes. The results described the
common qualities of these three teachers. However, the findings may not generalize to
all teachers. While patterns of behavior were identified throughout this study, the time
period was limited. Namely, the interviews and observations occurred over a span of six
months. Had the study been completed during an entire school year, the results may have
differed.
97
Future Research
This study yielded information that could be used as a basis for future studies
about inclusive general education teachers’ attitudes that are illustrated through their
practices and philosophy. Because teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion can change for
the better over a period of time, it would be interesting to see if preservice general
education teachers were given the opportunity to student teach in an inclusive setting if
their attitudes towards inclusion would be positive because they had practical experience
of working with students with significant disabilities.
Another possible area of further research that is based on the results of this study
would be to see if a correlation exists between teachers who are non-Caucasian and
positive attitudes towards inclusion. As T2 indicated, she reflected on how her ethnicity
as an African American woman had helped her identify with being someone, like a
person with disabilities, who may be perceived as different from others in the “majority”
group.
Conclusions
One question that was posed to each of the participants was what advice they
would offer to a general education teacher who was apprehensive about including
students with disabilities. These answers seemed to capture the essence of their belief
that all students have the right to be educated along side their same age peers. T3
answered this question having been a teacher with much apprehension about teaching in
an inclusive classroom:
98
I would say, and I didn’t get the chance to, but I would say, “Go and watch one.
Go and observe. Go get some hands on experience if you possibly can.” Um,
talk to teachers exactly like me who was very, um, leery. Very worried going to
the IEP. Like “How am I going to change this diaper? How am I going to teach
this child to not hit or not throw?” And then stepping back and realizing that
general ed students do that too. (laughs) You know, it’s not just my students in
special ed, actually it’s probably more my students who are not who are having
negative consequences more than my students with special needs.
T1 reflected on this question by saying:
I guess like, I’ve heard, there’s been time, where there’s different people where
there are huge gaps. But it goes back to treat people the way you would want to be
treated or what if it was your child. How would you want them to be treated or be
a part of having that ‘regular school experiences’ although it has it’s challenges,
the kids deserve to be a part of the community. They are in our world; they are in
our life. They deserve to be treated with respect. I subbed once in a classroom, I
don’t even know what the name of the class was everyone had special needs,
behavior, and one girl was brand new to the country. It was the scariest day ever.
There weren’t any role models. It was just one thing feeding off the other. If
someone was nervous about it, I would just share some of the great things about
it. What are your students going to gain from it instead of what are my students
going to be missing out of?
99
T2 agreed with T1 and declared that the students with significant disabilities are
kids first and foremost:
I would say, “Don’t worry about it.” The same way that you are able to connect
with, support students is the same way that you’re going to connect with and
support these students. And not to compartmentalize these students, those
students, my general ed, my special ed, How about they’re just kids. They’re
students. And anything that you feel like that you are lacking, like “I don’t know
how to do it, I don’t know how to handle it.” There’s support for that. She’s
called your co-teacher or your administrator or someone so you ask for help. And
don’t be afraid to switch it up. You might have to do things differently. It might
not be “cookie cutter” which it shouldn’t be anyway. But just don’t worry about
it. Just do it.
Perhaps what can be gained from this study is the notion that there is not one
“type” of general education teacher who can successfully include students with
disabilities within his or her classroom. Instead, this study appeared to show how with a
positive attitudes towards students with disabilities—understanding they are people first
who deserve a quality education like every other child—general education teachers can
support all students within their general education classrooms. T2 captured the essence
of this by saying in her responses to two different questions during the final interview:
From an ethical standpoint, yes, all kids can be included. All kids should be
included. We don’t want to start segregating, separating because if you can do it
with one segment of the population, why can’t you do it with another segment of
100
the population. But at the same time, we want to be equitable in how we do that
so we don’t just start shoving kids everywhere and thinking that’s it. Fix it. Make
it so that it works in their best interest. Some teachers will try that and some will
be like “Whatever . Sit over there in the corner. Don’t bother me, and I won’t
bother you.” You know and that’s not right. What is that kid learning? There’s a
lot more conversation that needs to happen from the top down...I think it is rooted
in your belief system. Is it your belief that all kids can learn? It just looks different
and you may not even recognize it. So with [STUD-W], was I saying is he even
learning anything? Because it didn’t look like what I thought it would look like.
And when he was taken from me, I noticed some differences in his behaviors and
academic abilities so apparently he was learning, absolutely. It wasn’t traditional,
it wasn’t how I would picture it in my own head, but he is learning. So, are there
students that aren’t able to handle being in a general ed classroom? Maybe. I
don’t know. Maybe if they are strapped in a hospital bed and can’t get here, you
know that I mean? Otherwise I think, I think it is about community, it is about, I
don’t know, exposure, that is just the gist of it. But for example with [STUD-W]
if he were in a classroom where all the kids had his same disability how would he
ever experience anything different. How would you know if he was able to do x,
y, and z if all he is every doing is this because that is the box that he was put in.
So on the one hand I could say that I think all kids could be included but to fall
back and say with some common sense.
101
Appendix A
Copies of Participant Consent Forms
102
March 12, 2012
Principal
XXXXXXX Elementary School
XXXXX XXXXXX XXX
XXXXXXX, XX ######
Dear Principal:
My name is Katherine Flores, and I am a graduate student in the College of Education at California State University,
Sacramento. Currently, I am a third grade general education teacher at an elementary school in Sacramento. In
addition, I am seeking to earn my master’s degree in education with a concentration in special education. I have
recently graduated from two California State University, Sacramento teaching credential programs. The two
credentials I currently hold include a California K-6 Multiple Subject credential as well as an Education Specialist
Credential for Students with Moderate/Severe Disabilities. The area of special education that I am most interested,
which is the focus of my thesis, is inclusive education for students with significant disabilities.
The purpose of this study is to examine the factors that make general education elementary teachers inclusive and
accepting towards students with significant disabilities in their classes. Two general education teachers at your school
have been identified by a colleague in special education as being successful inclusive teachers for all students.
The following information is provided to help you decided whether you wish to participate in the present study. You
should be aware that you are free to decide not to participate or to withdraw at any time without affecting your
relationship with this researcher or the university.
Data will be collected through in-person, audio taped interviews as well as classroom observations of the teachers. In
addition, artifacts such as student work, Individualized Education Plan notes and other relevant paperwork will also be
examined. The interviews and observations will be coded to ensure anonymity; all audio tapes will be destroyed after
they are coded. Dr. Kathy Gee will be an informed colleague during this research and will also be examining the data
for analyses and coding in addition only to the researcher, Katherine Flores.
Do not hesitate to ask questions about the study before participating or during the study. I would be happy to share the
findings with you after the research is completed. Your name will not be associated with the research findings in any
way, and only the researchers will know your identity.
There are no known risks or discomforts associated with this study. The expected benefits associated with your
participation are the information about the experiences in learning about what makes general education teachers
“inclusive” in their classrooms.
By signing this consent form, I agree to allow Katherine Flores to conduct this study in our school. I am signing it with
full knowledge of the nature and purpose of the procedures. A copy of this form will be given to you to keep.
______________________________________
Signature
Sincerely,
Katherine V. Flores
CSUS Graduate Student
(916) ###-####
March 12, 2012
______________________________________
Date
103
Teacher
XXXXXXXXXX Elementary School
XXXX XXXXXXX XXX
XXXXXXXX, XX #######
Dear Teacher,
My name is Katherine Flores, and I am a graduate student in the College of Education at California State
University, Sacramento. Currently, I am a third grade general education teacher at a private school in
Sacramento. In addition, I am seeking to earn my master’s degree in Education with a concentration in
special education. The area of special education that I am most interested, which is thus, the focus of my
thesis is inclusive education for students with significant disabilities. I have recently graduated from two
California State University, Sacramento teaching credential programs. The two credentials I currently hold
include a California K-6 Multiple Subject credential as well as an Education Specialist Credential for
Students with Moderate/Severe Disabilities.
The purpose of this study is to examine the factors that make general education elementary teachers
inclusive and accepting towards students with significant disabilities in their classes. You have been
identified as a successful inclusive general education teacher by a colleague in special education.
The following information is provided to help you decided whether you wish to participate in the present
study. You should be aware that you are free to decide not to participate or to withdraw at any time
without affecting your relationship with this researcher or the university.
Data will be collected through in-person, audio taped interviews as well as classroom observations of the
teachers. In addition, artifacts such as student work, Individualized Education Plan notes, and other
relevant paperwork will also be examined. The interviews and observations will be coded to ensure
anonymity; all audio tapes will be destroyed after they are coded.
Do not hesitate to ask questions about the study before participating or during the study. I would be happy
to share the findings with you after the research is completed. Your name will not be associated with the
research findings in any way, and only the researchers will know your identity.
There are no known risks or discomforts associated with this study. The expected benefits associated with
your participation are the information about the experiences in learning about what makes general
education teachers “inclusive” in their classrooms.
By signing this consent form, you agree to participate in this research. You are signing it with full
knowledge of the nature and purpose of the procedures. A copy of this form will be given to you to keep.
____________________________________
Signature
Sincerely,
Katherine V. Flores,
Graduate Student
California State University, Sacramento
(916)###-####
__________________________
Date
104
Appendix B
Semi-Structured Interview Questions
105
Semi-structured Participant Initial Interview Questions
Participant Number:
Researcher:
Date and time of interview:
Location:
Number of years taught in general education:
Number of years taught in an inclusive classroom:
Number of student without disabilities:
Number of students with significant disabilities:
1. What is your teaching philosophy?
2. What training have you received in regard to inclusion?
3. What are your goals for all your students?
4. What do you see your role/responsibility as to the students with disabilities who
are included in your classroom?
5. Describe your teaching style.
6. Has your attitude towards inclusion changed over time?
7. Do you use collaborative partnerships in your classroom, such as peer buddy
systems?
8. How do you utilize the paraprofessional in the classroom (if applicable)?
9. What do you see as your greatest challenge as a teacher?
10. How often do you collaborate with the special education inclusion teacher?
11. Describe your experience with students with disabilities as part of your classes
over the years.
12. Do you always plan on teaching in inclusive classrooms? Why? Or Why not?
106
13. What is the best part about working in an inclusive classroom?
14. Has anything in particular (a significant event, a challenging experience, a great
colleague) helped shaped your attitude/perspective towards students with
disabilities?
15. What would you say/advice would you give to general education teachers against
or worried about teaching in an inclusive classroom?
16. Do you do any specific ability awareness activities/discussions/etc. with your
students? How? When?
17. How are you able to prevent students from disabilities from simply being
“helped” by peers and instead thought of as an equal, competent member of the
class and friend to others?
107
Follow-Up/Final Participant Interview Questions:
I’ve noticed how you allow the students to have so many choices. Could you please talk
about your decision to embed choices throughout your activities?
I’ve heard you mention that not all student can be included. What do you mean by that?
Are you thinking about a student with certain disabilities? IF the student had a better
support system in place, do you think that would make a difference? Is it because you
have never seen somebody like the student you described be included successfully? Who
do you think could benefit from having all students included in general ed classrooms?
Or is it because you haven’t had the training for working with students with multiple
disabilities?
What are some of your emotions that you have felt through the inclusion process?
(Frustration? Excitement? Joy? Exhaustion?)
Did you have conversations with the special ed inclusion teacher about your feelings and
frustrations? Trying times?
How was inclusion introduced to you at this site?
What was the scariest part about including students in your classroom?
How do you feel like with the extra adults in the room? Do you like having extra adults
in the room?
T2: How did she feel when the student teacher did not have any management/control of a
small group, including the student with significant disabilities? Was she frustrated?
How does T3 feel when para is unable to get her student with significant disabilities to do
work?
What type of student do you think would not be able to be successfully included in your
classroom?
If you could ask for three things to improve inclusion and your practices as a successful
inclusive g.e. teacher, what would they be?
When have you/do you feel most successful about inclusion?
Do you feel like it would be more helpful to know more about the policies and special
education systems and what drives supports? How comfortable are you with the
terminology?
108
What do you think is the most important thing to make an inclusive classroom work?
I notice you’re very intentional in the way you talk to the kids…always with respect,
however, with high and clear expectations for their behavior. How did you come to be so
good at this? Is there a specific philosophy you follow?
To T2: Could you talk about the student with disabilities who ended up leaving your class
earlier this year and your experience with this?
I found it great that you take ownership over the students with disabilities in your class,
did you naturally do this & come to the conclusion that you are responsible for their
education? Or was it a process? How did it happen?
Would it be more helpful if the special ed teacher spent more time in and outside the
classroom collaborating with you?
109
Special Education Teachers Interview Questions
1) Why did you suggest the teacher(s) you suggested?
2) What do you think makes them so successful?
3) Do you collaborate with them recently?
4) What do you think her attitude towards inclusion is?
5) What kinds of things does she do that support your feeling that they are very inclusive?
6) Does she consider your students to be her students?
7) What has she done that makes you think that she believes in inclusion?
8) Does she participate in IEPs? Write reports? Home visits?
9) What kind of disabilities does the students in their classes with significant disabilities
have?
10) Have you talked about plans for the future in regards to inclusion (with this teacher)?
110
Appendix C
Definitions for Coding
111
Classroom Community: The general education teacher used positive language, had
clear behavioral expectations for all students, valued the social and emotional
development of the students, allowed for peer support and teamwork among all
students, and worked directly with students with disabilities.
Choices: The general education teacher gave multiple opportunities for students to make
different kinds of choices for themselves throughout the day.
Engaging Activities: The general education teacher created and implemented lessons
that were creative, engaging, interactive, and fun—a cornerstone of Universal
Design for Learning.
High Academic Expectations: The general education teacher held all students
accountable for: knowing the information, focusing on their work, and being on
task during lessons and activities.
Personal Experience: The personal experience of the general education teacher with
people with disabilities, included interaction with close friends or family members
and any training she has received on inclusion.
Intentional Teaching: The general education teacher designed organized, well-planned
out lessons to meet goals for all students; she is thoughtful and reflective about
her teaching practices and does not just react to situations without thoughtful
consideration and planning. She wants things to be good in the classroom and
demonstrates her love of teaching through the apparent love and care she shows
her students.
112
Collaboration with Special Education Colleague: The general education teacher met
regularly and communicated consistently to plan and discuss modifications and
adaptations of lessons for students with significant disabilities in her class; the
special teachers worked together inside and/or outside of the general education
classroom.
Paraeducator Relationship: The general education teacher used the paraeducator as a
respected member of the teaching team.
113
REFERENCES
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion:
A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2),
129-147.
Berry, R.A.W. (2011). Voices of experience: General education teachers on teaching
students with disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(6),
627-648.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Boushey, G., & Moser, J. (2006). The daily 5: Fostering literacy independence in the
elementary grades. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Buell, M. J., Hallam, R., & Gamel-McCormick, M. (1999). A survey of general and
special education teachers’ perceptions and inservice needs concerning inclusion.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46(2), 143-156.
Burke, K., & Sutherland, C. (2004). Attitudes toward inclusion: Knowledge vs.
experience. Education, 125(2), 163–172.
Carter, E.W., & Hughes, C. (2006). Including high school students with severe
disabilities in general education classes: Perspectives of general and special
educators, paraprofessionals, and administrators. Research and Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(2), 174-185.
114
Cook, B. G. (2001). A comparison of teachers’ attitudes toward their included students
with mild and severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 34(4), 203213.
Cook, B.G. (2002). Inclusive attitudes, strengths, and weaknesses of pre-service general
educators enrolled in a curriculum infusion teacher preparation program. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 25(3), 262-277.
Cook, B. G. (2004). Inclusive teachers’ attitudes toward their students with disabilities: A
replication and extension. Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 307-320.
Coots, J.J., Bishop, K.D., & Grenot-Scheyer, M. (1998). Supporting elementary age
students with significant disabilities in general education classrooms: Personal
perspectives on inclusion. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities, 33(4), 317-330.
Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).
Denton, P. (2007) The power of our words: Teacher language that helps children learn.
Turner Falls, MA: Northeast Foundation for Children, Inc.
Downing, J. E., Eichinger, J., & Williams, L. J. (1997). Inclusive education for students
with severe disabilities: Comparative views of principals and educators at
different levels of implementation. Remedial and Special Education, 18(3),
133-142.
115
Downing, J. (2008). Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical
classrooms: Practical strategies for teachers. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Co.
Gee, K. (1995). Facilitating active and informed learning and participation in inclusive
school settings. In N.G. Haring & L.T. Romer (Eds.), Welcoming students who
are deaf-blind into typical classrooms: Facilitating school participation, learning,
and friendships (pp. 369-404). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Gee, K. (2010). Developing curriculum and instruction. In F.P. Orelove, D. Sobsey, &
R.K. Silberman (Eds.), Educating children with multiple disabilities: A
collaborative approach (pp. 67-114). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Giangreco, M.F., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Edelman, S., & Schattman, R. (1999). “I’ve
counted Jon”: Transformational experiences of teachers educating students with
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59(4), 359-372.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Glazzard, J. (2011). Perceptions of the barriers to effective inclusion in one primary
school:Voices of teachers and teaching assistants. Support for Learning, 26(2),
56-63.
Good, T.L., & Brophy, J.E. (1972). Behavioral expression of teacher attitudes. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 63(6), 617-624.
Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (1997). Research on inclusive educational programs, practices, and
outcomes for student with severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 31(1),
3-29.
116
Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., & Doering, K. (2003). Collaborative teaming to support
students at risk and students with severe disabilities in general education
classrooms. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 315-332.
Hwang, Y., & Evans, D. (2010). Attitudes towards inclusion: Gaps between beliefs and
practice. International Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 136-146.
Jackson, L., Ryndak, D.L., & Billingsley, F. (2000). Useful practices in inclusive
education: A preliminary view of what experts in moderate to severe disabilities
are saying. Journal for the Association of Persons with Severe Disabilities, 25(3),
129-141.
Janney, R.E., Snell, M.E., Beers, M.K., & Raynes, M. (1995). Integrating students with
moderate and severe disabilities: Classroom teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about
implementing an educational change. Educational Administration Quarterly,
31(1), 86-114.
Kent-Walsh, J.E., & Light, J.C. (2003). General education teachers’ experiences with
inclusion of students who use augmentative and alternative communication.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19(2), 104-124.
Kirk, R.H. (1998). The link between university coursework and preservice teachers’
attitudes towards students with special learning needs. College Student Journal,
32(1), 153-157.
Kinney, J. (2007). Diary of a Wimpy Kid. New York, NY: Abrams.
Kugelmass, J.W. (2001). Collaboration and compromise in creating and sustaining and
inclusive school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(1), 47-65.
117
LeCompte, M.D., & Schensul, J.J. (1999). Designing and conducting ethnographic
research. In J.J. Schensul, & M.D. LeCompte, (Eds.), Ethnographer's Toolkit,
Vol. 1. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
LeRoy, B., & Simpson, C. (1996). Improving student outcomes through inclusive
education. Support for Learning, 11(1), 32-36.
Lohrmann, S., & Bambara, L.M. (2006). Elementary education teachers’ beliefs about
essential supports needed to successfully include students with developmental
disabilities who engage in challenging behavior. Research & Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 31(2), 157-173.
McHatton, P.A., & McCray, E.D. (2007). Inclination toward inclusion: Perceptions of
elementary and secondary education teacher candidates. Action in Teacher
Education, 29(3), 25-32.
Orelove, F.P., Sobsey, D., & Silberman, R.K. (2004). Educating children with multiple
disabilities: A collaborative approach (4th ed.). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
Pearman, E.L., Huang, A.M., Barnhart, M.W., & Mellblom, C. (1992). Educating all
students in school: Attitudes and beliefs about integration. Education and
Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 176-182.
Rainforth, B., & York-Barr, J. (1997). Collaborative teams for students with severe
disabilities: Integrating therapy and educational services (2nd ed.) Baltimore:
Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Rose, D. (2000). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology,
15 (1), 67-70.
118
Salend, S. J., & Garrick-Duhaney, L. M. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students with
and without disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education,
20(2), 114-126.
Shippen, M.E., Crites, S.A., Houchins, D.E., Ramsey, M.L., & Simon, M. (2005).
Preservice teachers’ perceptions of including students with disabilities. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 28(2), 92-99.
Smith, R., & Leonard, P. (2005). Collaboration for inclusion: Practitioner perspectives.
Equity & Excellence in Education, 38(4), 269-279.
Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M., & Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, student, and school
attributes as predictors of teachers’ responses to inclusion. The Journal of Special
Education, 31(4), 480-497.
Soukup, J., Wehmeyer, M.L., Bashinski, S.M. & Bovaird, J. A. (2007). Classroom
variables and access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 74, 101-120.
Spencer, A. (2011). Universal design for learning: Assistance for teachers in today’s
inclusive classroom. Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 1(1),
10-22.
Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Udarvi-Solner, A. (1996). Theoretical influences on the establishment of inclusive
practices. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(1), 101-119.
119
United States Department of Education. (2007). 29th annual report to congress on the
implementation of the individuals with disabilities education act (U.S.
Department of Education Contract No. ED06CO0062). Retrieved from
http://www2.Ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2007/parts-b-c/29th-vol-2.pdf
VanLaarhoven, T.R., Munk, D.D., & Lynch, K. (2007). A model for preparing special
education preservice teachers for inclusive education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 58(5), 440-455.
Vaughn, J.S., Schumm, J., Jallad, B., Slusher, J., & Saumell, L. (1996). Teachers’ views
of inclusion. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, 96-106.
Villa, R.A., Thousand, J.S., Meyer, H., & Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher and administrator
perceptions of heteorogenous education. Exceptional Children, 63, 29-45.
Wallace, T., Anderson, A. R., & Bartholomay, T. (2002). Collaboration: An essential
element associated with the success of four inclusive high schools. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13(4), 349-381.
Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Snyder, E. D., & Caldwell, N. K. (1996). Teachers’
perceptions of the supports critical to the success of inclusion programs. Journal
of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21(1), 9-21.
Williamson, P., McClesky, J., Hoppey, D., & Rentz, T. (2006). Educating students with
mental retardation in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 72,
347-361.
Wood, C. (2007) Yardsticks: Children in the classroom ages 4-14. (3rd ed.). Turner Falls,
MA: Northeast Foundation for Children, Inc.
120
Zambelli, F., & Bonni, R. (2004). Beliefs of teachers in Italian schools concerning the
inclusion of disabled students: A Q-sort analysis. European Journal of Special
Needs Education, 19(3), 351-366.
Zindler, R. (2009). Trouble in paradise: A study of who is included in an inclusive
classroom. Teachers College Record, 11(8), 1971-1996.