Transcript File

MIDDLE SCHOOL
INCLUSION: CASE
STUDIES OF THREE
GENERAL EDUCATION
TEACHERS
Megan Mackey
University of
Hartford
BACKGROUND
 “Inclusion” used loosely.
 Physical placement often emphasized over the
development of truly inclusive classrooms.
 Goal is to allow all students the opportunity to learn and
participate in a class that provides challenges and
opportunities for success.
 Methods, instruction, and supports help determine the
effectiveness of inclusive education.
Sources: Broderick, Mehta-Parekh, & Reid, 2005; Burstein, Sears, Wilcoxen, Cabello, & Spagna, 2004; Futernick,
2007; Hardin & Hardin, 2002; McGrath, Johns, & Mathur, 2004; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002; Smith & Tyler, 2011;
TASH, 2011.
RATIONALE FOR RESEARCH
 Inclusion significantly impacts students with disabilities, their
classmates, general and special education teachers,
administrators, and parents/guardians.
 Many studies have examined attitudes, outcomes, and models
of inclusion.
 The majority of studies involved surveys and/or interviews with
very little classroom observation.
 Inclusion research in middle school settings is scant, and
middle school case study research is even scarcer.
(e.g., Burke & Sutherland, 2004; Burstein et al., 2004; Cook, Cameron, & Tankersley, 2007; Cooper et al., 2008;
Downing & Peckham-Hardin, 2007; Hadadian & Chiang, 2007; Idol, 2006; Leatherman, 2007; McLeskey,
Hoppey, Williamson, & Rentz, 2004; Nougaret, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2005; Otis-Wilborn, Winn, Griffin, &
Kilgore, 2005; Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002; Santoli, Sachs, Romey, & McClurg, 2008; Strassburg,
2003; Sze, 2009; Wilkins & Nietfield, 2004)
PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH
 Explore specific strategies middle school general
education teachers utilize in order to include
students with disabilities in their classrooms.
 Add to the slim knowledge base surrounding the
real-life structure and implementation of inclusion
within middle school general education classrooms.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 Main Research Question:
How do three middle school teachers include students with
disabilities in their general education classrooms ?
 Research Subquestions Examined:
1. Preparation, training, and/or support.
2. Attitudes and beliefs.
3. Learning environment.
4. Planning.
5. Adaptations.
METHOD
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
 Knowledge is constructed through experiences in the classroom.
 Previous knowledge connected to new information and
experiences.
 Knowledge is further constructed through the intersection of
people and the give and take of social interactions.
 These include countless social exchanges with students,
teachers, support personnel, parents/guardians, and/or
administrators.
 Each exchange offers opportunities to connect connected to new
information and experiences with previous understandings.
CHARACTERISTICS OF AN INCLUSIVE
CLASSROOM

Curriculum and Instruction demonstrates

Strong, clear, and understood learning goals.

Differentiated instructional strategies (King, 2003; Voltz et
al., 2001).

Assignments and assessments evidence

High, but alternative and appropriate expectations for each
student.

Informal monitoring and assessment of student skills and
needs.

Modification of daily assignments, activities, and
assessments (Voltz et al., 2001).
CHARACTERISTICS OF AN INCLUSIVE
CLASSROOM

A learning environment where

Consideration is given to the physical classroom arrangement.

A philosophy of flexibility and acceptance is evident.

Numerous classroom management techniques are utilized.

There is engagement and active participation of all students.

Students achieve daily success (Renaissance Group, 2002).
 Cooperative teaching with special education teachers,
paraprofessionals, or other support personnel ( Mastropieri &
Scruggs, 2007) and/or collaborative consultation ( Salend,
2001).
RESEARCH METHOD
The Case Study approach allowed me to:
 Gain in-depth understanding.
 Focus on the processes in
classrooms.
 Offer thick descriptions and
analyses.
SETTING: RIVERSIDE MIDDLE SCHOOL
Incomes, Employment Status, Poverty Levels, and Per Pupil Expenditures
Category
Riverside
County
Nation
Per Capita Income
$22,402
$20,113
$24,020
Median Household Income
$47,569
$39,403
$44,684
Unemployment Rate
4.1%
4.1%
4.6%
Families Living Below Poverty Level
N/A
14.3%
9.8%
Individuals Living Below Poverty Level
N/A
16.8%
13.3%
$4,426
$4,620
$6,058
Per Pupil Expenditure
N/A denotes figures that were not available.
Free and Reduced Lunch Rates
Category
Free and Reduced Lunch
Riverside
District
County
65.50%
33.53%
51.05%
SETTING: RIVERSIDE MIDDLE SCHOOL
Riverside Middle School Demographic Data and Enrollment Summary
Hispanic
Black (NonHispanic)
Asian or
Pacific
Islander
Total
Students
40
26
1
1
68
7
45
32
1
0
78
8
57
24
0
0
81
Total
142
82
2
1
227
Grade Level
White (NonHispanic)
6
Total Number of Students with an English Language Learner Plan (ELL) = 18
Total Number of Students with and Individualized Education Program (IEP) = 30
Total Number of Students with an Individual Literacy Plan (ILP) = 85
PARTICIPANTS
 6 th grade Science teacher
 Caucasian female in her late 20s
 In 6 th year of teacher
 7 th grade Social Studies teacher
 Hispanic male in his early 30s
 In 6 th year of teaching
 Bilingual in English and Spanish (School’s English
Language Learner (ELL) Coordinator).
 8 th grade Math teacher
 Caucasian female in her late 30s
 In 7 th year of teaching
*Purposeful Sampling was used to select participants.
MRS. SCHULTZ
 6 th grade Science teacher
 30 hours of observation
Type of Plan
# of Students
IEP, ILP
13
ELL, ILP
6
ILP
5
None
39
Total Students
63
 One-on-one paraprofessional support in one class.
 Group paraprofessional and ELL paraprofessional in one class.
 No support in the third class.
MR. MORALES
 7 th grade Social Studies teacher
 28 hours of observation, plus a class field trip
Type of Plan
# of Students
IEP, ILP
3
IEP
2
ELL, ILP
7
ILP
8
None
31
Total Students
51
 No support services in any of the three classes.
MRS. PETERSON
 8 th grade Math teacher
 21 hours of observation
Type of Plan
# of Students
IEP, ELL
3
IEP, ILP
4
IEP
4
ELL, ILP
2
ELL
1
ILP
4
None
18
Total Students
36
 One-on-one paraprofessional support in one class.
 Special education teacher support in one class.
DATA COLLECTION
 Teacher Screening
 Pre-Observation Interview
 Classroom Observations
 Post-Observation Interview
 Informal Conversations/Artifact Collection
RESULTS
PREPARATION, TRAINING, AND SUPPORT
 Preparation / Training
 Inadequate undergraduate preparation and district -wide
training.
 Paraprofessional and Special Educator Support
 Present in 2 classrooms, but no collaboration or planning.
 Both teachers reported having adequate support.
 Expectations were not communicated. Paras and SPED
teacher carved out own role with no input from general
educators.
ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS
 All expressed positive attitudes about:
 Students with disabilities
 Inclusions impact on other students
 All expressed confidence in their ability to meet all students
needs through:
 Lesson Structure
 Instructional Preparation / Content Coverage
 Unsuccessful Students?
 All pointed to factors beyond their control (family, outside
influences, severe disabilities, emotional issues).
LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
 8 th Grade Math
 Extremely structured lessons with little variability between them.
 High level of engagement and participation by all students.
 Clear student expectations.
 6 th Grade Science
 Structured lesson with some variability between them.
 Inconsistent engagement and participation of students.
 Inconsistent student expectations.
 7 th Grade Social Studies
 Developed lessons, assignments, and assessments with variability built
in.
 High level of engagement and participation by all students.
 Clear student expectations.
 It was evident that his primary concern was making his students feel
welcomed, supported, and appreciated within the classroom.
PLANNING
 Collaboration
 All had time available, none used it to collaborate for
students with disabilities.
 Lesson Planning / Curriculum
 All believed that inclusion improved their planning.
 Two reported covering less curricular content.
ADAPTATIONS
 Instructional Strategies
 None of the teachers changed their teaching for students with
disabilities.
 All believed they met student need - stated that this had
improved overall during their teaching career so it met
student need.
 One teacher showed evidence of truly differentiated instruction.
 Activities, Assignments, and Assessments
 None of the teachers adapted these for students with
disabilities.
 Grading
 No accommodations or modifications.
INCLUSION
 Preparation / Training / Suppor t
 Limited for all 3.
 Attitudes / Beliefs
 All positive and confident.
 Learning Environment
 Varied across participants.
 Planning
 Not specific to students with disabilities.
 Instructional Strategies / Adaptations
 None specifically for students with disabilities.
 1 teacher – wide range of strategies and structures on a daily basis;
 1 teacher - small number of varied strategies on a consistent basis;
 1 teacher - utilized a number of different strategies, but
inconsistently.
DISCUSSION,
IMPLICATIONS FOR
PRACTICE, LIMITATIONS,
& FUTURE RESEARCH
DISCUSSION
 2 teachers’ classrooms reflected many of the ideals of
inclusive education, while 1 fell short in a number of areas.
 2 of the teachers remained engaged in the inclusive education
process over the course of the entire study.
 1 teacher’s engagement waned over the course of the study.
 Variation in supports
 1 had both a special education teacher and a paraprofessional;
 1 had paraprofessionals;
 1 had nothing.
DISCUSSION
 All three teachers were on their own to make sense of
inclusive education.
 Each developed their own unique approach.
 All three teachers successfully implemented many of the
defining characteristics of inclusive education.
 Again, left to construct their own understanding.
 Success or failure of inclusive education was dependent
upon individual teacher effort and commitment.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
 Challenge: Making mandated curriculum interesting, relevant,
and accessible to all students.
 Participants included a mixture of instructional strategies.
 Teachers need more opportunities to increase their
knowledge, understanding, and implementation of inclusive
practices within their classrooms.
 Developing collaborative relationships is essential to
improving teachers’ ability to enhance the learning
environment for students with disabilities.
 New teachers should be assigned a mentor teacher.
LIMITATIONS
 Three teachers in a single middle school.
 No conversations with, or observations of, other stakeholders
in the inclusion process.
 Qualitative case study conducted in an uncontrolled
environment – no cause and ef fect.
 Much evidence and data were omitted from the write up.
 Researcher judgments regarding the significance of the data.
 Dif ficult to present a truly representative picture of all of the
complex operations of a classroom in writing.
FUTURE RESEARCH
 Include more classroom observations.
 Include students, general education teachers, special
education teachers, paraprofessionals, related service
providers, parents, and administrators.
 What school districts need to do in order to get teachers and
staf f members to exert the time, ef fort, and energy necessary
to develop collaborative relationships.
 Research pertaining to the sustainability of those
collaborative ef forts and its resulting impact on the inclusive
classroom.
THANK YOU
Megan Mackey
University of Hartford
[email protected]