This article was downloaded by: [Universidad de Sevilla]On: 18 November 2014, At: 02:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Educational ForumPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

A Study of Preservice Teachers'Attitudes toward InclusionJoyce A. Rademacher , Dr. Ronald W. Wilhelm , Bertina L.Hildreth , Deanna L. Bridges & Dr. Melinda F. CowartPublished online: 30 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Joyce A. Rademacher , Dr. Ronald W. Wilhelm , Bertina L. Hildreth , DeannaL. Bridges & Dr. Melinda F. Cowart (1998) A Study of Preservice Teachers' Attitudes towardInclusion, The Educational Forum, 62:2, 154-163, DOI: 10.1080/00131729808983802

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131729808983802

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A Study of Preservice Teachers'Attitudes toward Inclusion

by Joyce A. Rademacher,Ronald W. Wilhelm,Bertina L. Hildreth,Deanna L. Bridges, andMelinda F. Cowart

We must not ignore the call to reformteacher-preparation programs to meet theneeds of an increasingly diverse studentpopulation (Levine 1992) . Few teachers areunaware of the challenge they face in creat­ing positive learning communities that meetthe academic and social needs of studentswith specific learning disabilities, withemo­tional or behavior disorders, who are gift­ed and talented, from culturally and lin­guistically diverse backgrounds, and/or atrisk for school failure due to a lack of moti­vation to learn. Clearly, academic diversityprevails among these students who may beperforming in the high-, average-, or below­average ranges as measured by teacher,school district, state, or national standards.Both preservice and in-service programsmust rethink their current configuration ofteacher preparation to help teachers modifycurricula, deliver effective instruction, andemploy alternative- assessment strategiesto meet the needs of diverse learners (Lara1994) .

The movement to restructure teacher­preparation programs is occurring simulta­neously with the reorganization of specialeducation into a more unified system ofservice delivery. Thus, exceptional students

are being included for longer periods oftime in regular classrooms as opposed toreceiving a larger part of their instruction insupport settings (Yell 1995). Inclusive edu­cation signals a philosophical change thatdemands attention from pedagogical insti­tutions. General education teachers at thepreservice level must receive opportunitiesto develop adequate knowledge, teachingskills, and positive attitudes concerningspecial education students. Also, we mustnot exclude special education from reforminitiatives that will ultimately affect ser­vices for special education students andthose adults who teach them (Kysilko 1992).

One growing national response to therestructuring of teacher-preparation pro­grams has been the establishment of Profes­sional DevelopmentSchools (PDS). Ina PDS,the university and the public school form acollaborative partnership for the purpose ofimproving teaching and learning for all stu­dents (Meyen 1988;Schlechty1990; Zimpher1990). Participation by university and pub­lic school special educators as integral com­ponents ofPDS learning activities may offerone way to improve instructional practicesof future and experienced regular class­room teachers.

The Educational Forum' Volume 62 • Winter 1998154

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

2:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

THE COURSE CONFIGURATIONS

Most student teachers preparing to be­come regular classroom teachers have hadlittle real life or educational experience withsp ecia l-learning-needs populations. There­fore, an assessment of the impact of instruc­tion about teaching children with specialneeds could offer important insight into thetype of preparation deemed useful by fu­ture teachers. We shall now offer a descrip­tion of three special education course con­figurations experiencedby 78 senior studentteachers in elementary ed uca tion. Thecourses were delivered through a tradi­tional on-campus intensive class that lastedthree weeks, a one-semester PDS site, and atwo-semester PDS site. The course descrip­tions are followed by an analysis of studentteachers' responses on a pre- and post-courseattitude survey.

University CampusThree-Week Intensive Class

Of the 78 senior student teachers in thisstudy, 35 enrolled in a one-credit-hourcourse called Special Education in the Main­stream; it was offered during the first three

IResearchIn Practice

weeks of the semester in which they studenttaught. Some of these students were con­currently enrolled in two other one-credit­hour courses: Multicultural Awareness forElementary Teachers and Educational Mea­surement. The class met Monday throughFriday and was taught by a doctoral studentin special education at the university.

Special education course content wasdelivered in five units. Unit topics includedExceptional Children and Criteria for Spe­cial Services, Child Identification and As­sessment Evaluation, Individual EducationPlans (IEPs) and the Educational Decision­Making Committee, Professional Responsi­bilities to Persons with Disabilities, andClassroom Modifications.At the end of eachunit, students in this on-campus course wererequired to answer questions from a Bul­lock (1992) textbook.

In addition to responding to unit ques­tions, each student teacher conducted oneobservation of a special-needs child in aregular classroom. The student teachersused an interview guide to query regularand special education teachers about theschool's organizational structure and ser-

Joyce A. Rademacher is Assistant Professor ofSpecialEducation and Advisor for the Student Council for

Exceptional Children at the University ofNorth Texasin Denton. Her research interests include inclusion

strategies for students with mild to moderatedisabilities, teacher preparation, and

professional development.

Ronald W. Wilhelm is Associate Professor ofEducation atthe University ofNorth Texas in Denton. His research

interests include multicultural education, socialstudies, and critical theory. Dr. Wilhelm is Counselor of

the Alpha Iota Chapter ofKappa Delta Pi.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

2:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Rademacher, Wilhelm, Hildreth, Bridges, and Cowart

vices related to special education. The in­structor administered a final examinationon the last day of class that covered infor­mation presented in the text and throughclass discussions. After the three-weekcourse, students reported to various schoolsthroughout the metroplex for their studentteaching assignments. There was no furtherinteraction between these students and theinstructor.

One-Semester PDS ProgramAnother 20 student teachers partici­

pated in a one-semester student teachingprogram during the final semester of theirsenior year. Of these interns, 15 seekingelementary certification were assigned to alarge, inner-city K-6 school. The remainingfive interns, seeking secondarycertification,were assigned to a middle school-grades 7and 8-two blocks from the elementaryschool. Both schools were located in a largeurban area 40 miles from the university.Student demographics for both schools in­cluded approximately 4 percent AfricanAmericans, 90 percent Hispanics, and 4 per­cent European Americans. About 81 per­cent of the students were considered to beeconomically disadvantaged, and 44.9 per­cent had limited English proficiency. Theelementary school housed four special edu­cation classes: including one self-containedunit for children with severe and profounddisabilities; one early childhood programfor children with mild to moderate learningdisabilities, behavior disorders, and mentalretardation; and two resource-type settingsfor children with mild to moderate learningdisabilities or behavior disorders. The chil­dren from the early childhood program andthe two resource classes were included tosome extent in general education classestaught by the interns.

The five interns at the middle schoolobserved students in two resource-typeclasses for children with mild to moderate

learning disabilities and behavior disordersand two self-contained classes for childrenwith moderate to severe behavior disor­ders. Students from these resource settingswere also included in general educationclasses taught by the interns.

The PDS faculty team included twouniversity professors, one adjunct instruc­tor-adoctoral student-inelementary edu­cation, and a special education professor.This university faculty team met regularlyto plan the integration of their course con­tent from three one-credit-hour courses forelementary student teachers and a three­credit-hour course for secondary studentteachers into an ongoing seminar experi­ence that would address the needs of di­verse learners in the school. We defineddiverse classrooms to include differences inculture, language, and special learningneeds. The PDS faculty settled on a four­week intensive program, the ProfessionalDevelopment Institute (PDI), that wouldincorporate content to help both elemen­tary and secondary student teachers achieveproficiency in teaching culturally, linguisti­cally, and academically diverse students.

The PDI curriculum consisted of sev­eral topics that offered interns opportuni­ties to explore their attitudes and to gainknowledge and instructional strategiesabout diverse, urban student populations.The principal topics and issues presentedduring the institute were later revisited inweekly follow-up seminars throughout theremainder of the semester. The overall learn­ing goal of the POI was for student internsto learn and practice a variety of teachingstrategies that would positively affect thediverse learners they encountered in theirdaily student teaching experience. Follow­ing the institute, the interns began theirstudent teaching practicum all day, Mon­day through Friday, for the remainder ofthe semester. Upon completion of their in­ternship, interns had acquired teaching ex-

The Educational Forum' Volume 62 • Winter 1998156

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

2:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

periences a t two different g rade levels.Student teachers in the POI examined a

variety of topics, including: share d respon­sibility, implementing effect ive classroomm odifications, so cia l skills for coopera tive­learning g ro ups, and teaching ro u tines forcooperative and productive classrooms.While ea ch topic was ty p ica lly pl anned andd eli vered by universi ty facu lty, schoo l andcom m unity personnel were also invited toshare their expertise . Each topic included afield-based assignment that w as to be com­pleted by the en d of the se mester.

Assi gnments related to special ed uca­tion topics included:visitations and writtenreactions to observations in three of the fourspecia l ed ucation programs housed in theschool; mentor teacher interviews to learnabou t th e ge neral educator 's ro le in thed evelopment and im p lemen ta tion of the

ResearchIn Pracdce

IEP; lesson plans that reflected ev idencethat the preservice teachers had app liedappropriate curricu lum and environmen­tal modifications; lesson plans that reflectedways to enhance instruction for studen tswith a variety of learning differences in th eclass; and an alte rnative-assessm en t assign­ment for a th ematic unit that incorporated avariety of op tio ns on how studen ts mi ghtdemonstrat e knowledge about the unit'scontent. In addition, the interns wrote anessa y on inclusion that emphasized whatth ey learned through the POI experien ceand through their direct experience withspecial ed uca tion students.

The in terns placed some of their assign­ments in their professional portfolio to show ­case the ev idence of their ability to teachan d manage studen ts with varying learningneeds. Thus, a t the end of th e student teach-

Bettina L. Hildreth is Associate Professor ofSpecial Education at the University ofNorth Texasin Denton. Her research interests include learning

disabilities, teacher training, and postsecondaryand transitional education.

Deanna L. Bridges is Adjunct Professor ofSpecial Education at the University ofNorth Texasin Denton. Her research interests include learning

disabilities, assessment, and technologicalapplications for special populations.

Melinda f. Cowart is Assistant Professor of Education atthe University ofNorth Texas in Denton. Her research

interests include bilingual education, English as asecond language, teacher education, and staff

development. Dr. Cowart is Associate Counselorof the Alpha Iota Chapter ofKappa Delta Pi.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

2:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Rademacher, Wilhelm, Hildreth, Bridges, and Cowart

ing experience, student portolios might in­clude examples of student work, lessonsand assignments that had been modified,the integrated thematic unit, and an essayreflecting their inclusion philosophy.

Two-Semester PDS ProgramAnother group of 23 interns partici­

pated in a two-semester, senior-year pro­gram at a small city elementary school nearthe university. The student demographicsat this site included 6.8 percent AfricanAmericans, 27.7 percent Hispanics, and 61.8percent European Americans. Atthis school49 percent of the students were classified aseconomically disadvantaged, and 15.1 per­cent had limited English proficiency. Fourspecial education classes that included twoself-contained units and two resource-typesettings were housed in the school. Stu­dents in these classes manifested the samelearningneeds as those previously describedfor the one-semester PDS . Interns observedchildren in these four settings and alsotaught students from the resource programswho were included in regular educationclasses. Three university faculty and onePDS scholar-a doctoral student-in el­ementary education were assigned to theschool to teach the methods classes and theone-credit-hour courses in multiculturalismand measurement. Another faculty mem­ber and a PDS scholar-a master's student­in special education were assigned to teachthe one-credit-hour special education class.Planning meetings were conducted to de­termine field-based experiences that woulddirectly relate to course content.

At this PDS, the interns spent a half-dayin a regular classroom practicum placementon Monday through Friday during the fallsemester and all day during the spring se­mester. Traditional university course workwas delivered on site and included up to 24hours in language arts, math, social studies,and science methods.Additionally, the three

one-credit-hour classes were offered.Upon completion of the internship, each

intern had acquired some valuable teachingexperiences at both the primary and upperelementary grade levels as well as observa­tion experiences at all grades from 1 to 6.Additionally, interns observed and partici­pated in a variety of support programs,including English as a second language andcomputer labs.

The special education one-credit-hourcourse content was delivered over the twosemesters. During the first semester, in­terns met four times and examined specialeducation laws, characteristics of specialpopulations, managing classroom behav­ior, and promoting social acceptance. Classtopics during the spring semester focusedon classroom modifications and collabora­tion. The special education faculty memberand the assigned PDS scholar facilitateddiscussions.

Course requirements for the specialeducation course included several smallprojects and a detailed case study. Internswrote two reaction papers on their percep­tions of special education before instructionand at the end of their school year. They alsoselected, critiqued, and shared articles fromprofessional journals on inclusion. Internsalso read juvenile literature books to ex­plore through literature the characteristicsof students with learning problems.

The interns' case-study assignment ofone student in their class who received spe­cial education services was the focus of theirclass discussions, experiences, and theprojects described above.For the case study,each intern conducted observations of hisor her student in a variety of settings, in­cluding one of the two resource programs;examined his or her student's confidentialfiles; planned lessons using modificationssuggested by the IEP committee; and taughthis or her student a self-management strat­egy (Ellis 1991). This strategy-which Ellis

The Educational Forum' Volume 62 • Winter 1998158

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

2:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

called SLANT-helps students to becomeactive learners during class by remindingthem to ~it up, Lean forward, Activate theirthinking, Note key information that is beingpresented, and Irack the talker.

When possible, each intern at this PDSattended the selected student's IEP meet­ing. The case study was filed in a portfoliothat chronicled the intern's professionalgrowth. The portfolio also contained a state­ment of the intern's goals related to teach­ing, a description of the PDS experience,selected assignments, evidence of compe­tency in program proficiencies, samples oflessons, and self-selected items showinggrowth and change.

THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

To evaluate the impact of instruction inspecial education, we asked all 78 interns tocomplete an attitude survey anonymously,both prior to and following course instruc­tion. The survey contained 17 statementsthat featured a 5-point Likert-type scale. Arating of 1 denoted "Strongly Disagree,"and a rating of 5 denoted "Strongly Agree."The survey was adapted from a similar oneused by building principals to assess stafffeelings and beliefs about including stu­dents with disabilities (Shinksy 1996).

Items 18 and 19 were open-ended ques­tions. For item 18, participants wrote whatthey believed to be the most positive as­pects of having students with and withoutdisabilities learn together in the generaleducation classroom. For item 19, they wrotewhat they believed to be the negative as­pects of such arrangements.

The 35 student teachers enrolled in theon-campus class took the survey on the firstday of class, prior to any instruction onspecial education topics. Post-course sur­veys were mailed to them during the finalweek of student teaching; 17 student teach­ers returned the survey.

The two PDS cohort groups also com-

ResearchIn Practice

pieted the initial survey during the firstclass period prior to instruction. At the one­semester PDS site, the university facultydistributed the follow-up survey to internsduring their final student teaching seminar;17 of the 20 interns completed the finalsurvey. For the two-semester PDS, the post­course survey was distributed during thefinal class period three weeks prior to thelast day of student teaching. The interns inthis cohort group were asked to submit thesurvey along with their final project; 14 ofthe 23 interns in this group returned thefinal survey.

Survey ResultsUsing the data gathered from student

teachers of the three cohort groups, internresponses were analyzed to determine pre­and post-course survey differences withinthe three course configurations. Table Ionpage 160 shows pre- and post-course sur­vey means for each question for each cohortgroup.

Within Course Configuration. We analyzedstudent teachers' pre- and post-test re­sponses to the questionnaire within eachcourse configuration using a two-tailed t­

test (p < .05) for paired samples. Of the 17attitudinal statements, student teachers inthe university campus intensive three-weekcourse demonstrated significant differencesbetween pre- and post-tests on items 1 (t

16=

3.05, P < .01) and 4 (t16 = 5.10, P < .001). Sig­nificant differences for interns at the one­semester PDS site were noted on items 2 (t

16

=3.18, P < .01),4 (t16 =6.06, P < .001), 9 (t16 =6.73, P < .001), 10 (t16 =3.04, P < .01), 13 (tIS=2.61, P < .05), and 14 (t16 = 2.67, P < .05).Interns in the two-semester PDS site dem­onstrated significant differences on items 1(t13 = 2.39, P < .05),2 (t13 = 3.04, P < .01), 3 (t13

=3.29, P < .01),4 (t13 =5.62, P < .001), 9 (t12 =5.47, P < .001),10 (t13 =2.41, P < .05), 11 (t13 =3.67, P < .01), and 13 (t13 = 2.51, P < .05).

The Educational Forum· Volume 62 • Winter 1998159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

2:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Pre- and Post-Course Survey Means of Student Interns on Attitude Survey

Questions University Campus One Semester PDS Two Semester PDS

Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post-

1. I bel ieve every student, regardless of disability, should have achance 4.18 3.41 * 4.06 3.88 3.79 4.43*to participate in a general educationclassroom.

2. I am appropriately prepared to work with any student in myclassroom who has adisability. 2.71 2.41 2.35 3.59- 2.71 3.86*

3. All students can learn in general education classes. 2.82 3.18 3.59 3.65 3.21 4.00-

4. I am familiar with the general characteristics of students who qualify for special education. 2.59 3.88- 2.65 4.41 - 2.07 3.86-

5. A person witha disability can be acontributing member of society. 4.82 4.88 4.94 5.00 4.71 4.86

6. Inclusion is a positive concept. 4.29 4.06 4.65 4.65 4.00 4.43

7. I am willing to dowhatever I can forastudent withadisability in myclass. 4.81 4.82 4.88 4.82 4.77 4.64

8. Astudent witha mild to moderate disability can succeed in generaleducation classes. 4.35 4.41 4.53 4.71 4.21 4.50

9. I haveagood understanding of the various disability support programs. 2.12 2.47 2.06 4.06* 1.92 3.71*

10. Many studentswith disabilities can be economically independent throughouttheir lives. 4.12 3.94 4.35 4.88* 3.71 4.64*

11 . Astudent with multiple disabi lities can benefit from participating in general education classes. 3.65 3.47 4.1 8 4.47 3.43 4.21 *

12. All students with disabilities have the rightto be included. 4.24 4.00 4.29 4.41 4.21 4.57

13. General educationteachers should make instructional modifications for 4.24 4.41 4.59 4.88* 4.00 4.57*students with disabilities in their classrooms.

14. General education teachers should make instructional modifications for 4.00 4.41 3.94 4.82* 4.00 4.36students withoutdisabilities in their classrooms.

15. I could successfully include any students with a disability given theappropriatesupport. 4.24 4.29 3.94 4.35 3.86 3.93

16. I can makeadifference in the lifeof astudent who has adisability. 4.35 4.29 4.56 4.71 4.21 4.14

17. The majorityof students in special education programshave mental retardation. 1.50 1.71 1.65 1.94 1.64 1.57

1=stronglydisagree, 2=somewhatdisagree, 3=somewhatagree, 4=agree, 5=stronglyagree- representsastatisticallysignificant differencebetween pre- and post-coursesurveys

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

2:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ResearchIn Practice

Student teachers also

gained an understanding

that they were not

adequately prepared to

meet the anticipated

challenges.

Free-Response Analysis. We analyzedquestions 18 and 19 from our assessmentsurvey to determine the major categories ofresponses. For question 18-What do youbelieve to be the most positive aspect ofhaving students with and without disabili­ties learn together in the general educationclassroom?-the majorityof the total 49 statementsthat we received from in­terns were grouped intofour categories: (1) stu­dents learn abouteach oth­ers' differences; (2) stu­dents benefit and learnfrom each other; (3) inclu­sion teaches acceptance;and (4) inclusion teachessocialization. Fewer re­sponses were groupedinto two other categoriesto indicate that: (1) stu-dents discover each others' similarities and(2) you learn strategies and modificationsthat can help all children.

For question 19 of the survey-What doyou believe to be the most negative aspectfor having students with and without dis­abilities learn together in the general educa­tion classroom?-the majority of the 52 to­tal statements that we received from internswere grouped into six categories: (1) a lackof supportexists for general education teach­ers; (2) more time is involved in teachingheterogenous groups; (3)studentdifferencesare highlighted; (4) teachers are not trainedto teach students with disabilities; (5) teach­ers have difficulty meeting all students'needs; and (6) inclusion creates a disruptiveenvironment. Fewer responses weregrouped into three other categories thatsuggested that: (1) students with disabili­ties require extra attention; (2) inclusionadds stress to teachers and students; and (3)inclusion creates planning difficulties forteachers.

Discussion of the SurveyAn analysis of the mean scores of each

course configuration demonstrates that thetwo-semester PDS interns manifested eightstatistically significant differences from thepre- and post-course surveys. The interns inthe one semester PDS evidenced five statis-

tically significant differ­ences, while the universitycampus student teachersshowed only two statisti­cally significant differ­ences from the pre- to thepost-course survey. Thethree cohort groups evi­denced no statistically sig­nificant differences oneight items-5, 6, 7, 8, 12,15, 16, and 17. This phe-nomenon may be largelythe result of initially strongpro-inclusion attitudes on

the pre-course survey.Respondents in both PDS sites showed

significant increases on the same five ques­tions (see table 1, items 2, 4, 9, 10, and 13).Both groups felt they were appropriatelyprepared to work with a student with adisability in their classroom. They had agood understanding of the general charac­teristics of students with disabilities andvarious disability support programs. Addi­tionally, both groups strongly believed thatmany students with disabilities can be eco­nomically independent throughout theirlives. They also strongly agreed that gen­eral education teachers should make in­structional modifications for students withdisabilities in their classrooms.

The student teachers in the universitycampus course indicated with item 4, to astatistically significant degree, that they hadgained knowledge about the general char­acteristics of childrenwith disabilities. Moreimportantly, however, these student teach­ers showed a statistically significant de-

The Educational Forum' Volume 62 • Winter 1998161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

2:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Rademacher, Wilhelm, Hildreth, Bridges, and Cowart

crease between their pre- and post-coursesurvey responses in their belief that everystudent, regardless of disability, should havea chance to participate in general educationclasses (item 1). The one-semester PDS in­terns also demonstrated a slight, but notstatistically significant, decrease in theirbelief on this same item. This phenomenonmight be explained by the fact that, althoughthe student teachers gained more knowl­edge about the characteristics of studentswith various disabilities, they also gainedan understanding that they were not ad­equately prepared to meet the anticipatedchallenges.

Study LimitationsBecause the on-campus group was

taught by a doctoral student from the spe­cial education program while the othergroups were taught by faculty members,student teachers ' perceptions of theinstructor's experience may have influencedthe results.In addition, the on-campus groupmet intensely for three weeks prior to stu­dent teaching. Although both PDS groupswere scheduled for a one-credit-hourcourse,they met weekly throughout their stu den tteaching experience. Therefore, the PDSgroups received more instructional time,with ongoing contact with an instructorand more direct contact with students withdisabilities. Both factors may have influ­enced the outcome of this study.

Another factor limiting this project wasthe low return rate for the final question­naire. In addition, these surveys were notcompleted anonymously; thus, the validityof some student teachers' responses couldbe questioned.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The preparation of teachers for inclu­sive education is an important focus for our

field (Shaughnessy 1996). With the move­ment toward a major reorganization of spe­cial education services to be delivered in amore unified model, restructuring of teachereducation programs becomes imperative.We must restructure in the midst of teachereducation reform. Educators everywhereare moving ahead without a database toguide us . Investigations such as the onedescribed here are very important in deter­mining the impact that specific models ofinstruction exert on the attitudes of ourfuture educators toward teaching studentswith disabilities.

Even given the previously describedlimitations of our study, the data that wehave gathered appear to indicate that stu­dent teachers' knowledge and attitudes maybe significan tly impacted by extensive field­based programs such as the PDS model.Student teachers' direct contact over timewith special education students in regularand special education placements, alongwith reflective discussions and assignments,appears to have a significant, positive im­pact on their attitudes toward students withspecial needs, inclusion, collaborative teach­ing, and their self-confidence.

The PDS course configurations are verylabor intensive for university faculty. Con­sidering the limitations placed on facultyand their other university responsibilities,it becomes important to weigh the benefitsof such participation. Does the expense ofthe PDS model support the minor differ­ences achieved in student teachers' atti­tudes and knowledge? Further researchshould examine which of the special educa­tion course components identified in thisstudy actually contribute to the enhance­ment of preservice teachers' knowledge andpositive attitudes toward responsible inclu­sion of special education students into gen­eral education programs.

The Educational Forum' Volume 62 • Winter 1998162

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

2:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

REFERENCESBullock, 1. 1992. Appropriate educationfor students with

disabilities, 3d ed. Minneapolis: Belwether Pres s.Elli s, E. 1991. SLANT: A starter strategy for class

participation. Lawrence, Kan .: Edge Enterprises.Kysilko, D., ed . 1992. Winners all: A call for inclusive

schools. Alexandria, Va .: National Association ofState Boards of Education. ERIC ED 381 916.

Lara, J. 1994. Demographic overview : Changes instudent enrollment in American schools. In Kidscome in all languages: Reading instruction for ESLstudents, ed . K. Spangenberg-Urbschat and R.Pritchard, 9-21. Newark, Del.: InternationalReading Association .

Levine, M. 1992. Professional practice schools: Linkingteacher education and school reform. New York:Teachers College Press.

Meyen, E.1. 1988.Schools ofeducationand the evolvingnature of partnerships. Educational Considerations15(3): 13-16.

ResearchIn Practice

Schlechty, P. C. 1990. Schoolsforthetwenty-first century:Leadership imperatives for educational reform. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Ba ss.

Shinsky, E.J.1996.Attitudes toward including studentswith disabilities in general education. In Theinclusive school-A n organiz ational guid e foreducators, ed . E. J. Shinsky, 5-7. Lansing, Mich.:Shinsky Seminars.

Shaughnessy , M. F. 1996. Working with multiplyhandicapped children .TheEducationalForum6(1):63-66.

Yell, M. 1. 1995 . Least restrictive environ men t,inclusion, and students with disabilities: A legalanalysis. Journal of Special Education 28(4): 389­404.

Zimpher, N. 1. 1990 . Creating professional de­velopment school sites . Theory into Practice 29(1):42-49 .

What office is there which involves more

responsibility, which requires more qualifications,

and which ought, therefore, to be more honourable,

than that of teaching?

-HARRIET M ARTINEAU

English feminist and social critic (1802-76)

© KappaDelta PI

The Educational Forum· Volume 62 • Winter 1998163

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

2:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14