Inclusion Teachers and Predictors of Employee Satisfaction
Submitted by
IE
W
Terri Danielle Keckler
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
EV
of the Requirements for the Degree
PR
Doctor of Education
Grand Canyon University
Phoenix, Arizona
July 18, 2023
IE
W
© by Terri Danielle Keckler, 2023
PR
EV
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
IE
W
EV
PR
GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY
Inclusion Teachers and Predictors of Intent to Stay
I verify that my dissertation represents original research, is not falsified, or
plagiarized, and that I accurately reported, cited, and referenced all sources within this
manuscript in strict compliance with APA and Grand Canyon University (GCU)
guidelines. I also verify my dissertation complies with the approval(s) granted for this
IE
W
research investigation by GCU Institutional Review Board (IRB).
PR
EV
____________________________________________
Terri Danielle Keckler
03-18-2023____________
Date
Abstract
The purpose of this quantitative correlational-predictive study was to assess if and to what
extent the Proportion of IEP Students, Years of Teaching Experience, and Grade Level
Taught in an inclusion classroom, individually and combined, predict Job Satisfaction
among general education teachers who teach in an inclusion classroom in the United States.
The theoretical foundation for this study was based on Spector’s theory of job satisfaction
and Herzberg’s two-factor theory. The sample for this study included all public K-12th
grade general education teachers that teach in an inclusion classroom in the United States.
IE
W
Data was collected using an online survey that consisted of a demographic survey and
Spector’s job satisfaction survey. SPSS was used to calculate the inferential statistics for
each of the predictor variables. None of the predictors, individually, predicted job
EV
satisfaction: Percent of IEPs β = .017, p = .933; Years of Teaching Experience β = 8.035,
p = .297; Grade Level Taught β = .260, p = .563. The variables combined did not predict
overall job satisfaction: Job Satisfaction F(3) = .593, p = .628. While there were no
PR
statistically significant findings between the chosen variables and job satisfaction for
teachers, it does show that there is still a need to research the issue further to help
understand what motivates teachers to remain in the classroom.
Keywords: Inclusion, job satisfaction, IEP, years of teaching experience, grade
level
vi
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this to my family. My loving husband Roy. He tried so
hard to help me with statistics and the numbers involved. Sorry about the tears and the
yelling. My children and their significant others – Kyle and Cheyenne, Kaitlynn and
Nathan. My grandchildren – Hazel, Zeke, and Kenni. My dad and brother – Kenneth and
Jonathan. And to my best friend, Jade. I love you all more than you know.
In loving memory of four very special women. My mother, Hazel, who was my
best friend and one of my biggest supporters always. My mother-in-law, Carol Ann, who
IE
W
raised a wonderful man and accepted me as his wife. My grandmothers, Bama and
PR
EV
JoAnn, who loved me as only grandmas can.
vii
Acknowledgments
A HUGE thank you goes out to several people. My husband, Roy, and my best
friend, Jade. You both supported and encouraged me along the way. Dr. Susan SteeleMoses: thank you for all the help and encouragement. You convinced me to give
numbers a try and I’m really glad I listened to you! Numbers are still scary but not quite
so much! To my committee members, Dr. Ruth Propper, Dr. Mark Duplessis, and Dr.
Nancy Bridier, thank you for the help and wonderful feedback. I would not have made it
PR
EV
IE
W
through this process without each one of you!
viii
Table of Contents
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................xiii
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................xiv
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study....................................................................................1
Introduction....................................................................................................................1
Background of the Study ...............................................................................................2
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................4
Variables for the Proposed Study .........................................................................4
IE
W
Terms Related to the Topic ...................................................................................5
Anticipated Limitations..................................................................................................6
Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study ..........................................7
EV
Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................10
Introduction to the Chapter and Background to the Problem ......................................10
Identification of the Problem Space.............................................................................15
PR
Inclusion..............................................................................................................15
Students with Disabilities ...................................................................................15
Years of Experience ............................................................................................17
Future Research...................................................................................................17
Theoretical Foundations...............................................................................................17
Review of the Literature ..............................................................................................19
Inclusion..............................................................................................................20
Teacher Shortages ...............................................................................................29
Teacher Attrition and Retention..........................................................................40
Problem Statement .......................................................................................................58
ix
Summary ......................................................................................................................59
Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................................................60
Introduction..................................................................................................................60
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................61
Research Questions and Hypotheses ...........................................................................63
Rationale for a Quantitative Methodology ..................................................................67
Rationale for Research Design.....................................................................................69
Correlational Design ...........................................................................................69
IE
W
Predictive-correlational .......................................................................................70
Descriptive ..........................................................................................................70
Experimental/Quasi-Experimental......................................................................71
EV
Comparative ........................................................................................................71
Ex Post Facto ......................................................................................................72
Population and Sample Selection.................................................................................72
PR
Quantitative Sample Size ....................................................................................73
Recruiting and Sampling Strategy ......................................................................73
Site Authorization ...............................................................................................74
Instrumentation and Research Materials......................................................................74
Validity.........................................................................................................................75
Reliability.....................................................................................................................76
Data Collection and Management................................................................................77
Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................................................78
Descriptive Statistics...........................................................................................80
Assumptions of Regression.................................................................................81
x
Inferential Statistics.............................................................................................83
Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................84
Respect for Persons .............................................................................................84
Beneficence .........................................................................................................85
Justice..................................................................................................................85
Informed Consent Procedures .............................................................................85
Compliance of Key Ethical Criteria....................................................................86
Data Management ...............................................................................................87
IE
W
Assumptions and Delimitations ...................................................................................87
Assumptions........................................................................................................87
Delimitations .......................................................................................................88
Summary ......................................................................................................................88
EV
Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results................................................................................89
Introduction..................................................................................................................89
PR
Preparation of Raw Data for Analysis and Tests of Assumptions ...............................91
Preparation of Raw Data for Analysis ................................................................91
Tests of Assumptions ..........................................................................................92
Descriptive Findings ....................................................................................................98
Data Analysis Procedures ..........................................................................................100
Results ........................................................................................................................101
Presentation of the Results................................................................................103
Limitations .................................................................................................................106
Summary ....................................................................................................................107
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ............................................109
xi
Introduction and Summary of Study..........................................................................109
Summary of Findings and Conclusion.......................................................................110
The Proportion of IEP Students in an Inclusion Classroom does not
Statistically Significantly Predict General Education Teacher Job
Satisfaction Within the Overall Model .............................................................111
The Years of Teaching Experience in an Inclusion Classroom do not
Statistically Significantly Predict General Education Teacher Job
Satisfaction Within the Overall Model .............................................................112
The Grade Level Taught in an Inclusion Classroom does not Statistically
Significantly Predict General Education Teacher Job Satisfaction Within
the Overall Model .............................................................................................113
IE
W
The Proportion of IEP Students, Years of Experience, and Grade Level,
Individually and Combined, do not Statistically Significantly Predict the
Job Satisfaction Of general Education Teachers who Teach in an Inclusion
Classroom..........................................................................................................113
Conclusion ........................................................................................................114
EV
Reflection on the Dissertation Process .............................................................114
Implications................................................................................................................115
PR
Theoretical Implications ...................................................................................116
Practical Implications........................................................................................116
Future Implications ...........................................................................................116
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Study............................................................117
Recommendations ......................................................................................................118
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................118
Recommendations for Practice .........................................................................120
Holistic Reflection on the Problem Space ........................................................121
References. .......................................................................................................................122
Appendix A. Ten Strategic Points ...................................................................................132
Appendix B. Site Authorization.......................................................................................135
xii
Appendix C. IRB Approval Letter...................................................................................136
Appendix D. Informed Consent .......................................................................................138
Appendix E. Copy of Instruments and Permissions Letters to Use the Instruments .......142
PR
EV
IE
W
Appendix F. A Priori Power Analyses.............................................................................145
xiii
List of Tables
Table 1 Alignment Table ................................................................................................... 9
Table 2 Variable Table..................................................................................................... 67
Table 3 Comparison Between Four Job Satisfaction Questionnaires .............................. 76
Table 4 Collinearity Diagnostics, Tolerance and VIF ..................................................... 96
Table 5 Level of Education.............................................................................................. 99
Table 6 Grade Level Taught ............................................................................................ 99
Table 7 Amount of Time Taken to Complete Survey .................................................... 100
IE
W
Table 8 Descriptive Statistics......................................................................................... 100
Table 9 Reported Cronbach Alpha Reliability............................................................... 101
Table 10 Percent Variance Explained ............................................................................ 103
Table 11 Coefficient Table ............................................................................................ 105
PR
EV
Table 12 ANOVA Table ................................................................................................ 106
xiv
List of Figures
Figure 1 Scatterplot, Studentized Residual by Unstandardized Predicted Value ............ 94
Figure 2 Partial Regression Scatterplot, Years of Experience on Satisfaction Total....... 94
Figure 3 Partial Regression Scatterplot, Percent IEP on Satisfaction Total .................... 95
Figure 4 Test for Homoscedasticity ................................................................................. 95
Figure 5 P-Plot ................................................................................................................. 97
PR
EV
IE
W
Figure 6 Histogram .......................................................................................................... 98
1
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Introduction
School systems across the United States are facing major teacher shortages.
According to a recent report by the Learning Policy Institute, teacher demand has
exceeded supply for grades K-12 in the country’s public schools by more than 100,000
(Cardichon et al., 2020). Typically, school leaders focus on teacher recruitment to help
solve these shortages. Less attention is typically given to teacher attrition and retention.
School leaders and policymakers often attempt to solve teacher shortages by focusing on
IE
W
teacher recruitment. Yet seldom is attention given to the role of teacher attention in
teacher shortages (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammonds, 2019).
Approximately 157,000 teachers leave the profession yearly with another 232,
EV
000 transferring to other school districts (Chambers et al., 2019). It has been estimated
that nearly half of all new teachers leave the profession within the first five years
(Madigan & Kim, 2021). Teacher loss can create economic hardship for d istricts as it is
PR
costly to recruit, replace and train new teachers. It is estimated that it costs districts
approximately $7 billion each year in the United States (Chambers et al., 2019). Teachers
of mathematics, science, special education, and foreign languages are more likely to
leave their school or the profession than those in other subjects” (Carver-Thomas &
Darling-Hammonds, 2019).
Education has shifted from self-contained special education classes towards more
inclusive education. The model of special education known as inclusion, or
mainstreaming, has become more prevalent over the past 10 years, and today, more than
60% of all students with disabilities (SWDs) spend 80% or more of their school day in
2
regular classrooms, alongside their non-disabled peers (Gilmour, 2018). According to the
research done by Gilmour (2018) the higher percentage of students with disabilities
increases the odds of teacher turnover.
Teacher turnover has led to a teacher shortage which in turn has created a
shortage of teachers in the schools (Chambers et al., 2019). Teacher turnover negatively
affects all the stakeholders involved, from the teachers to the students (Gilmour &
Wehby, 2019). Examination of the key factors that contribute to intent-to-quit in the
teaching profession can lead to specific retention strategies (Chambers et al., 2019). The
IE
W
purpose of this correlational-predictive study was to assess if and to what extent the
Proportion of IEP Students, Years of Teaching Experience, and Grade Level Taught in an
inclusion classroom, individually and combined, predict Job Satisfaction among general
EV
education teachers who teach in an inclusion classroom in the United States.
Background of the Study
Education has shifted in terms of how students are educated in the classroom.
PR
Prior to 1950 students with special needs or disabilities were taught in segregated or
isolated classes away from their peers without special needs or disabilities (Boroson,
2017). The landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) established that school
segregation denied students with equal educational opportunities and was applied not
only to students of color but to students with disabilities. The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was passed in 1975 and amended in 1990, 1997 and in
2004. According to IDEA students with disabilities must be given a free and appropriate
public education. And this education must be provided in the least restrictive
environment possible. What this means is that students with disabilities must be
3
integrated, to the fullest extent possible, into classrooms with non-disabled peers
(Boroson, 2017). The model of special education known as inclusion, or mainstreaming,
has become more prevalent over the past 10 years, and today, more than 60% of all
students with disabilities (SWDs) spend 80% or more of their school day in regular
classrooms, alongside their non-disabled peers (Gilmour, 2018). Students with special
needs or disabilities are now in classrooms with typical peers. Gilmour and Wehby
(2019) found that the odds of teacher turnover increases when teachers have a higher
percentage of students with disabilities in their classroom. Unfortunately, this can lead to
IE
W
teachers leaving the profession. Gilmour and Wehby (2019) found that the odds of
turnover increased as teachers had a higher percentage of SWDs in their classes.
Another factor that can have a negative impact on teacher retention is that of
EV
grade level. Maria et al., 2021, found higher levels of burnout among secondary school
teachers working with adolescents than among teachers working at primary school level
and that secondary teachers showed the highest levels of emotional exhaustion,
PR
depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment.
It is not known if and to what extent the Proportion of IEP Students, Years of
Teaching Experience, and Grade Level Taught in an inclusion classroom, individually
and combined, predict Job Satisfaction among general education teachers who teach in an
inclusion classroom. This study looked at licensed teachers in the United States. More
specifically, the focus was on general education teachers that teach in an inclusion
classroom setting. Convenience sampling was used to select study participants from the
target population. Inclusion criteria were those teachers who hold a teaching licensure in
the state of residence, were employed as a full-time general education teacher, taught in
4
an inclusion classroom, and had at least two years of teaching experience in an inclusion
classroom.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are operationally defined for the current study.
Variables for the Proposed Study
Grade Level. Is the primary categorical grade that the teacher teaches in (Wright,
2007). Operationally, these include Primary-grades K-5; Middle-grades 6-8; and High
School-grades 9-12. For the purposes of this study the grade levels were categorized in
IE
W
two separate groups: Primary and Secondary.
Job Satisfaction. This is a measure of how an employee feels about their job
(Cooper & Schindler, 2003).
EV
Primary Grade Level. For the purposes of this study, primary grade levels were
considered grades K through 5. These grades are typically taught in a single classroom
with one teacher for all academic subjects. (Alspaugh & Harting, 1995)
PR
Proportion of IEP Students. The number of students in a classroom that require
an individualized education plan (IEP) divided by the total number of students the teacher
is responsible for (Wright, 2007)
Secondary Grade Level. For the purposes of this study, secondary grade level
was defined as grades 6-8. Students in grades 6 through 12 generally switch from
classroom to classroom for each academic subject with a different teacher for each
subject. (Alspaugh & Harting, 1995).
Years of Experience. The number of years a teacher has been actively teaching
students in an inclusion classroom setting (Wright, 2007).
5
Terms Related to the Topic
Accommodations. Changes to how information is presented to the student or
responded to by the student (Wright, 2007).
Evidence-Based Intervention or Evidence-Based Practice. Interventions that
integrate research evidence with practice-based skills to promote the best opportunity for
a positive education outcome (Root et al., 2017).
General Education Teacher. A general education teacher is a certified teacher
that teaches students within the general education population (Wright, 2007). Generally, a
IE
W
specific content area is taught as well as a specific grade level 1st through 12th.
Inclusion. Students with disabilities are taught in the same classroom as their
non-disabled peers (Hornby, 2015).
EV
Individual Education Plan (IEP). A program developed to ensure that a student
with a disability under the law and is attending an elementary or secondary school
receives specialized instruction and related services (Lo, 2014). This plan is child specific
PR
and is created by a team that generally includes a general education teacher, a special
education teacher, the parent(s) and any needed service providers.
Intent to Stay. The likelihood an employee will remain employed with an
organization (Price & Mueller, 1981).
Job Satisfaction Survey. A nine-facet scale to measure employee attitudes about
the job. The JSS contains 36 items for measuring the various areas of the job (Spector,
1997).
6
Least Restrictive Environment. Students with disabilities are placed in the
general education classroom with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent possible
(Wright, 2007).
Modifications. Changes made to the curriculum and individualized to the student
with a disability (Wright, 2007).
Students with Disabilities. A student that is identified as having a disability that
has been evaluated and found to be eligible to receive special education services under
IDEA (Wright, 2007).
IE
W
Special Education Teacher. A teacher that has been certified to teach students
with disabilities from kindergarten through 12th grade (Wright, 2007).
Anticipated Limitations
EV
This section focuses on the limitations that are inherent to the current study.
Assumptions, delimitations, and limitations in the current study may impact the
methodology and the results. An assumption can be defined as an unverified assertations
PR
made by the researcher that are considered true within a study (Mertler, 2019). A
limitation is defined as those conditions that are not within a researcher’s control.
Delimitations can be defined as those characteristics that arise from limitations in the
scope of the study and by the conscious exclusionary and inclusionary decisions made
during the research (Simon & Goes, 2012).
The following limitations has been identified for this study:
1. Since the data is self-reported, the results are limited by the truthfulness of the
participant’s responses (Mertler, 2019).
2. Behaviors and activities in the environment are outside of the researcher’s control.
7
Self-reported data is considered a limitation but is ameliorated by the fact that it is
assumed that the participants honestly completed the questionnaire. Behaviors and
activities that are used in the classroom were not the purpose of this study. Although
these behaviors differ from teacher to teacher, they are an extraneous variable that the
researcher cannot control and do not necessarily affect the generalizability of the results.
Through the collection of data using a national database, the heterogeneity of the sample
was increased, thereby supporting the generalizability of the results.
Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study
IE
W
This study was organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 introduced the study, gave
a background of the study, defined the terms and variables relevant to the study, and
identified the anticipated limitations. Chapter 2 provided an overview of the literature
EV
related to the topic of teacher retention and turnover. This helped the researcher with
identifying the gap, foundational theories, and current literature related to the topic of
interest.
PR
Chapter 3 of the study set forth and explained the research methodology including
the design and data collection procedures. Research questions and hypotheses are stated.
A rationale is given for using a qualitative correlational-predictive design. The data to be
collected is identified as well as the method and instrumentation used for data collection.
Validity and reliability of the instruments to be used for data collection are discussed as is
the data analysis. Finally, the ethical considerations, assumptions and delimitations are
discussed. Chapter 4 presents an analysis of the findings and the results. A summary of
the data related to the variables is given and then the data is analyzed. And finally,
8
Chapter 5 provides an explanation of the findings, conclusions, implications, and
PR
EV
IE
W
recommendations for future research.
9
Table 1
Alignment Table
Purpose of the Study:
Variables:
Research Question:
PR
Hypotheses:
IE
W
Problem Statement:
Alignment Item Description
Previous research shows that there is a problem with teacher turnover and teacher
attrition rates. There are several factors that contribute to overall teacher satisfaction
and job satisfaction that could help with teacher retention.
It is not known if and to what extent the Proportion of IEP Students, Years of
Teaching Experience, and Grade Level Taught in an inclusion classroom ,
individually and combined, predict Job Satisfaction among general education
teachers who teach in an inclusion classroom.
The purpose of this correlational-predictive study is to assess if and to what extent
the Proportion of IEP Students, Years of Teaching Experience, and Grade Level
Taught in an inclusion classroom , individually and combined, predict Job
Satisfaction among general education teachers who teach in an inclusion classroom
in the United States.
Predictor Variables:
• Proportion of IEP Students in an inclusion classroom: this is the number of
students that require an IEP in the inclusion classroom as measured by
demographic questionnaire (Ratio).
• Years of Teaching Experience or the number of years the teacher has taught in
an inclusion classroom as measured by demographic questionnaire (Ratio).
• Grade Level is the predominate inclusion classroom category that a teacher
usually teaches in as self-reported on the demographic questionnaire (Primary
or Secondary) (Categorical).
Criterion Variable: Job Satisfaction as measured by the Job Satisfaction Scale
(Spector, 1985) (Interval).
RQ1: Does the Proportion of IEP Students, Years of Teaching Experience, or Grade
Level taught in an inclusion classroom individually and combined predict general
education teacher Job Satisfaction?
• H1a 0: The Proportion of IEP Students in an inclusion classroom does not
statistically significantly predict general education teacher Job Satisfaction within
the overall model.
• H1a a The Number of IEP Students in an inclusion classroom does statistically
significantly predict general education teacher Job Satisfaction within the overall
model.
• H1b 0: The Years of Teaching Experience in an inclusion classroom do not
statistically significantly predict general education teacher Job Satisfaction within
the overall model.
• H1b a The Years of Teaching Experience in an inclusion classroom do statistically
significantly predict general education teacher Job Satisfaction within the overall
model.
• H1c0: The Grade Level taught in an inclusion classroom does not statistically
significantly predict general education teacher Job Satisfaction within the overall
model.
• H1ca The Grade Level taught in an inclusion classroom does statistically
significantly predict general education teacher Job Satisfaction within the overall
model.
• H1d 0: The Proportion of IEP Students, Years of Teaching Experience, and Grade
Level taught in an inclusion classroom combined do not statistically significantly
predict general education teacher Job Satisfaction.
• H1d a: The Proportion of IEP Students, Years of Teaching Experience, and Grade
Level taught in an inclusion classroom combined do statistically significantly
predict general education teacher Job Satisfaction.
Quantitative/Correlational-predictive design
EV
Alignment Item
Problem Space Need:
Methodology/Research
Design:
10
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction to the Chapter and Background to the Problem
The purpose of this quantitative correlational-predictive study was to assess if and
to what extent the Proportion of IEP Students, Years of Teaching Experience, and Grade
Level Taught in an inclusion classroom, individually and combined, predict Job
Satisfaction among general education teachers who teach in an inclusion classroom in the
United States. Currently, school systems across the United States are facing major teacher
shortages. School leaders typically look to teacher recruitment to help solve teacher
IE
W
shortages. Less attention has been paid to teacher attrition and the reasons that teachers
leave the profession. School leaders and policymakers often attempt to solve teacher
shortages by focusing on teacher recruitment. Yet seldom is attention given to the role of
EV
teacher attrition in teacher shortages. (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammonds, 2019).
Current research shows that there are many reasons for the teacher shortage.
Barnes (2022) states that the current staffing crisis is compounded by a massive decline
PR
in undergraduate degrees in teacher education programs, low pay, and expanded
opportunities for women. Furthermore, he goes on to state that teacher burnout is a
driving force behind the nationwide teacher exodus. Chambers et al., 2019, points out
that there are approximately 157,000 teachers leaving the profession each year with
another 232,000 that transfer to other schools and districts. Turnover creates high costs in
terms of recruitment, replacing and training new staff and costs approximately $7 billion
each year in the United States. “The examination of the key factors that contribute to
intent-to-quit in the teaching profession can lead to specific retention strategies which
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.