final edited stephanie mued 680 document3

8/2/2019 Final Edited Stephanie Mued 680 Document3

1/78

Teacher Preference Toward the Inclusion of Special Learnersin Elementary General Music Classroom Settings

Stephanie Ann Ransome

A document submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

James Madison University

in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the degree of

Master of Music in Music Education

School of Music

Fall 2010


2/78

Table of Contents

List of Tables.

4

List of Figures

5

Abstract...

6

Chapter One: Introduction Statement of the

Problem 8

Research Questions.

8

Delimitations....................

.9

Limitations of

Study................. 7

Definition of Terms.

8

Chapter Two: Review of Literature

Inclusion in the Music Education

Classrooms 10

2


3/78

Adequate Training in Special Education for Music

Teachers... 12

Summary.

14

Chapter Three: Method

Subjects..........................

15

Survey of Teachers Attitudes toward

Inclusion... 15

Procedures.........................

16

Data Analysis......

16

Chapter Four: Results

Extent of Participation of Self-Contained Students with Disabilities

in the Music Classroom...

17

Research Question One: Extent of Involvement of General Music

Teachers in Decisions to Place Students with Disabilities

in the Music Class

20

3


4/78

Research Question Two: Perceptions toward Inclusion Comparing

Music Teachers Who Have Had Training in Special

Education to Those Who Have Not Had

Training.. 25

Respondents Suggestions Concerning

Inclusion 29

Summary..

32

List of References.

..................... 36

Appendices

A. Initial Contact Letter with Web Consent and Survey Link.

.. 41

B. Follow-up Contact E-mail...

41

C. Survey of Teacher Attitudes toward

Inclusion. 42

4


5/78


6/78

Table 7 Perception of special education participation with

assistance...25

Table 8 Participation in professional development

activities 26

Table 9 Comparison of Perceptions About Inclusion Concerning

Significant Changes in Classroom

Procedure...27

Table 10 Comparison of Perceptions about Inclusion Regarding

Making Recommendations for Accommodations and

Modifications... 27

Table 11 Comparison of Perceptions About Inclusion Regarding

Collaboration..

28

Table 12 Comparison of Perceptions of Whether Music Teachers Have

Sufficient Training in Special

Education.. 28

Table 13 Adapted Instructional Methods for the General Music

Classroom..29

List of Figures

6


7/78

Figure 1 Placement of Self-contained Students with Disabilities inGeneralMusic.

17

Figure 2 Percentages of Special Needs in a General Music

Class....19

Figure 3 Recommendations concerning

IEPs22

Figure 4 Communicating accommodations and modifications to the

IEP.22

Figure 5 Administration encouragement ofcollaboration.. 23

7


8/78

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the preferences of

general music teachers toward the inclusion of special needs students

into general music settings, and to examine the relationship between

and roles played by the general classroom music teacher and their

special education colleagues in the process of facilitating the successful

integration of special needs students into the mainstream music

classroom. The following research questions were posed: 1. To what

extent are general music teachers involved in the decision-making

process for placing special learners in elementary music classroom

settings? 2. What differences exist between the perceptions of

elementary general music teachers who have received training in

special education compared to those who have not with respect to

teaching self-contained (i.e. DEFINE) students with disabilities?

Subjects (N = 23) were derived from three school districts:

Richmond City; Henrico County; and Hanover County in the state of

Virginia. A survey asking thirty-five questions relevant to the topic was

designed and posted on the Survey Monkey website for subjects to

8


9/78

access via the internet. Questions were specific to the following topics:

music teacher assignments and responsibilities; special needs student

populations and processes; music teacher and school administrator

involvement, and collaborative efforts regarding special needs students;

music teacher preparation for working with special needs students;

inclusion in the general education setting; Individualized Education

Program (IEP) issues; and the facilitating of adaptations for special

needs students in the general music classroom.

Data collected from the subjects survey responses were recorded

and analyzed using t-tests, comparison ofspecial education status, and

free response.(NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN?) Results suggest that: 1.

Special needs students placement into general music classrooms varies

according to school system availability. 2. General music teachers

preferences toward advocating for students to have their own adaptive

music classes are influenced by the teachers level of higher education,

and the amount of professional development specific to inclusion

received.

9


10/78

Chapter One

Introduction

Recent increases in the number and variety of disabilities

identified among special education students in public education settings

have brought renewed interest in studying the preferences of music

teachers toward inclusion. The combined impact of the No Child Left

Behind Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004

on general music teachers in the public schools has necessitated that

10


11/78

music educators be trained to deal with the increasing realities of the

general music classroom specifically the realities and challenges of

making music participation available to all students, especially those

with disabilities. While one might like to think that all music teachers

should be open to the issue of inclusion for special education students,

the inherent challenges and potential lack or training in this area may

contribute to coloring music teachers perceptions about including

special students in their music classes. Therefore, the purpose of this

study will be to determine the preferences of general music teachers

toward the inclusion of special needs students into general classroom

music settings, and to examine the perceived relationship between

music and special education teachers from the perspective of the

general music teacher.

For the purposes of this study, a survey was designed to ask study

participants preliminary questions about their general music teaching

situations at the elementary school level in seventy-two Richmond

metro area public schools. In addition, subjects responses with regard

to their feelings of preparedness in the area of special education training

were examined in order to determine how the amount of training

previously received in this area affected their attitudes about inclusion.

A further intent of the study was to provide data to with those interested

in the opinions of music educators regarding inclusion, and the role

played by the use of music in special education classroom settings.

11


12/78

Furthermore, it was the researchers intent that special education

educators, music educators, music therapists, researchers,

administrators, parents and students use the findings of this research to

further strengthen the relationship between music specialists and

special education teachers as they continue to improve the inclusion

process for special education students in public education settings. An

additional goal of the study was to examine the need for professional

development in the area of special education, and in so doing a support

resource for music teachers in the school system included in the study.

Research Questions

Specifically, the researcher sought to answer the following research

questions specific to the schools by which subjects were employed:

1. To what extent are music teachers involved in the decision-

making process for placing special learners in the elementary

music classroom?

2. How do the perceptions of music teachers who have received

special education training differ from those who have had limited

or no training in special education with regard to the issue of

inclusion in the music classroom and with respect to teaching

students with disabilities music in self-contained settings?

12


13/78

Delimitations

The subject pool for this study was limited to a sample of public

school elementary general music teachers who teach inclusive music

classes in one area from the state of Virginia. Delimitations were as

follows:

1. This study was limited to music teachers in the Virginia Music

Educators Association District One area of the Commonwealth

of Virginia, specifically, Hanover County, Richmond City and

Henrico County.

2. This study examined inclusive learning practices in music

classrooms only at the elementary level.

3. The participants in this study came from both urban and rural

areas.

4. Data for the study were taken from survey responses to

questions designed to provide information specific to general

elementary music teachers perceptions about inclusion with

reference to: the support provided by their respective

administrations; how curriculum is developed and instruction

provided; instructional cycles; teachers beliefs and perceptions

about students in their music classes; and how the specific

13


14/78

requirements of students with special needs are served in both

general education classroom and self contained classroom

settings in the schools in which they teach.

Limitations of the Study

The following have been identified as threats to the validity

of this study by the researcher:

1. History was identified as a minimal threat to the internal

validity of this study. All of the participants in this study

responded within six weeks.

2. Maturation was identified as being a minimal threat to

the validity of the study since all respondents were

certified teachers.

3. Regression to the mean was not a threat since

participants responded only once to this survey.

4. Selection of participants could threaten the external

validity of this study. The participants were amongst a

select group of music education teachers from Hanover

County, Henrico County and Richmond City Public

Schools in Virginia. Therefore, the results from this study

cannot be generalized to the broader population of

elementary music and special education teachers in

other districts or states.

14


15/78

5. Mortality was a threat to internal validity. Due to the

large numbers of music teachers who did not complete

the survey (N=72), the results may not precisely

represent the intended population.

6. Statistical regression was not a threat to the internal

validity of this study because each participant responded

to the survey only once.

7. Participants may have been affected by the wording of

the survey, or they might have misread questions, thus,

instrumentation could be considered a threat to the

internal validity of this study.

Definition of Terms

(1) The Education for All Handicapped Children Actof 1975 (Public Law

94-142): In 1975, Congress passed Public Law 94-142 (the Education of

All Handicapped Children Act). The National Information Center for

Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY, 1996) summarized the

major purposes of PL 94-142 as follows:

15


16/78

a) To guarantee that a free appropriate education, including

special education and related service programming, is available to

all children and youth with disabilities who require it.

b) To ensure that the rights of children and youth with disabilities

and their parents or guardians are protected (e.g., decision

making about special education and related services for children

and youth with disabilities).

c) To assess and ensure the effectiveness of special education at

all levels of government.

d) To financially assist the efforts of state and local governments

in providing full educational opportunities to all children and youth

with disabilities through the use of federal funds.

(2) Education of the Handicapped Act(EHA) became the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This federal law, enacted in 1990,

provides reauthorized in 1997, and revised in 2004. It protects the rights

of students with disabilities by ensuring everyone receives a free

appropriate public education and it provides the framework for special

education (United States Department of Education, 2008).

(3) Least Restrictive Environment(LRE): The definition of LRE within the

context of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act(IDEA) is: To the

maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including

children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are

educated with children who are not disabled and special classes,

16


17/78

separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the

regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or

severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular

classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be

achieved satisfactorily (United States Department of Education, 2008).

(4) Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE): The definition of FAPE in

relation to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) states

that educational experiences for individuals with disabilities: Must be

based on each childs identified special education and related service

needs, guarantees parents that special education services will be

provided at no cost to them and is determined by the childs unique

needs, not what is assumed by the special education category the

childs been assigned to. It ensures that there are no delays in

implementing a childs individualized education plan, once it has been

developed (Smith, 2004).

(5) Special Education: Individualized education for children and youth

with special needs (e.g. learning differences, giftedness or specific

disabilities).

(6) Inclusive Education: Educational inclusion is about equal

opportunities for all learners, especially the inclusion of special needs

students in general classrooms.

(7) Individualized education program or IEP means a written statement

for a child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in

17


18/78

accordance with 300.320 through 300.324. (National Dissemination

Center for Children with Disabilities, 1999).

(8) VMEA: Virginia Music Educators Association is the Virginia section of

the Music Educators National Conference.

Chapter 2: Review of Literature

Since the passage of Public Law 94-142 in 1975, special education

has relied on the music education classroom as an accepted and

appropriate educational placement for students with disabilities. Public

Law 94-142 demands full service in the education of students with

disabilities. Students with special needs have as much right to

experience the aesthetic responsiveness offered by the classroom music

setting as students without disabilities do (Forsythe and Jellison, 1977).

With the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(Public Law 101-476) in 1990 and 2004 (revised), the number of

students placed into the music classroom has increased. As a direct

result of the implementation of PL 101-476, special needs students may

receive as many necessary supplementary aides and services as

possible in the general music classroom setting. In addition, students

with special needs may be removed from the general music classroom

to receive any adaptations and accommodations that cannot be

provided in that setting (Hammel, 2004).

18


19/78

Inclusion Specific to Music Classroom Settings

Participation in music classes can provide a significant curriculum

component for students with disabilities. Consequently, music teachers

should be aware of the potential benefits of music instruction for special

learners, as well as understanding the strengths of diverse learners

when they plan, teach and evaluate their lessons. Participation in music

classes provides sources of stimulation for all students in the areas of

aural, cognitive, and visual skill. According to research, schools need to

give positive and clear guidance on how best to incorporate inclusive

music programs into mainstream classrooms (Nordlund, 2006).

Decisions regarding the placement of special needs students into

music classes are made by committees comprised of a combination of

special education teachers, general educators, principals, guidance

counselors, special education supervisors, and parents. In many

situations the professionals responsible for general education activities

including the music teacherhave been offered little or no input into

the decision-making process (Darrow, 1990; Hawkins, 1991; Thompson,

1990; Hock, Hasazi, & Patten, 1990). An all too common situation may

be that, after placement decisions have been made, the music specialist

is informed that a student with disabilities will be included into their

music classroom. Frequently placement decisions are based on

considerations not directly relevant to the ability of the disabled student

to participate meaningfully in the music classroom experience. While the

19


20/78

music specialist should be committed to providing music learning

opportunities for each child, non-inclusion in the placement process can

add to the music educators concern and confusion as to how to select

appropriate materials and adapt instructional strategies to meet the

need of students with special needs while also meeting the music

learning needs of other students in the class.

The inclusion of students with special needs into school music

programs requires that music educators be prepared to create a

learning environment that varies with the needs and abilities of their

students. The learning environment must also foster positive

relationships among all students. In accordance with the Americans with

Disabilities Act, music educators must explore methods through which

they can promote the musical and personal growth of all students in an

inclusive environment.

According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),

music educators have several rights and responsibilities related to

students with disabilities who attend their music classes. Firstly,

teachers have the right to see the Individual Education Plan (IEP) of

students in their music classes. Secondly, music teachers have the right

and the responsibility to attend IEP meetings for each student and to

provide input about each individual students music education. This

includes any information relevant to special goals, objectives,

accommodations, modifications, and support services that will have a

20


21/78

direct impact on the music class in which a special needs student is

being targeted for placement within. As the only music expert in their

school, only the music teacher can legitimately define and adapt

appropriate music goals for students with disabilities (Walter, 2006).

A number of studies have investigated the impact of teachers

preferences regarding inclusion. These studies have examined the

attitudes of both general education teachers and specialist teachers;

specifically, those in the subject areas of art, music, and physical

education. Gilbert and Asmus (1981) found that the general classroom

teachers whom they studied felt insufficiently trained to work with

special needs students, and that they often had negative attitudes about

inclusion that sometimes (whether directly or indirectly) resulted in the

special needs students in their classes feeling isolated and stigmatized

by others. Darrow (1990) found a positive correlation between perceived

success in music mainstreaming and the extent of administrative and

instructional support. Wilson and McCrarys (1996) study found that

more experience with lesson planning and implementation of

adaptations for special needs students was needed by teachers of

performance-based classes who are concerned that special-needs

learners negatively influence the experiences of other learners in their

ensembles.

Adequate Training in Special Education for Music Teachers

21


22/78

Stone (1980) studied general education and specialty area

teachers preferences to determine how their attitudes might influence

the educational quality of students with disabilities. Seventy-eight

percent of the teachers reported insufficient preparation to teach

students with special needs. Teachers who had previously taken several

courses in special education as students were more positive than those

who had taken no special education classes during their college or

university studies. Positive attitudes were also strongly related to the

increased age and experience of the teachers studied. A further finding

of the study was that teachers with masters or specialists degrees

tended to be more positive than teachers with only a bachelors degree.

One finding of the study that perhaps should be cause for concern was

that the secondary level music and art teachers who were surveyed

expressed more negative attitudes toward the idea of working with

students with special needs than their general classroom secondary

school colleagues.

Hock, Hasazi & Patton (1990) found that while the music

educators they studied reported being cognizant of their responsibility

to their students with disabilities, they did not feel that they had been

adequately prepared to meet the challenges posed by the inclusion

process. Results further suggested that the teachers surveyed perceived

that students with special needs demanded excessive amounts of

teacher time, could impede the progress of other students and might

22


23/78

often fall further behind other students in their classes without the

services provided in the special education classroom.

Massie (1993) investigated the effectiveness of having student

teachers collaborate with special needs trained resource teachers in the

modification of instruction for students with disabilities. The purpose of

this study was to improve student teachers positive perceptions of their

ability to adapt their instruction to ensure that the needs of special

students were successfully met and integrated into the context of the

regular classroom. Results suggested that student teachers perceptions

of their competency in adapting instruction for students improved

significantly during the course of the study. Specifically, student

teachers reported that they felt that planning with a resource teacher

and incorporating their suggestions for adapting lessons was

empowering. The student teachers also stated that training in lesson

plan modification should have been included in the content of their

undergraduate curriculum prior to student teaching.

Results from Colwell & Thompsons (2000) study suggest that

while many colleges and universities include mainstreaming course work

within their curriculum, further investigation of the nature of this course

work, including the influence of field-based experiences on student

teachers perceptions regarding inclusion should be undertaken. Kaiser

and Johnson (2000) examined the effect of an interactive experience on

music majors perceptions of how they might successfully go about

23


24/78

integrating music for students who are deaf into their teaching. The

Kaiser and Johnson study gave music education and performance majors

an experience interacting with students with special needs. The music

majors were given the opportunity to work with the children only once.

They were not allowed to practice planning or teach the activities to the

children prior to interacting with them. Van Weelden and Whipple

(2005) examined university students perceptions of special needs

students by having the students observe general elementary music

classes multiple times. They observed a lack of interaction between the

special needs students with general education students. Participants in

this study, reported high levels of comfort in their abilities to work with

students with special needs in different music education settings

following their field experience.

Summary

Current research does not examine the attitudes of the general

elementary music teacher toward collaborating with the special

education teacher. Hammel (2004) describes the responsibility of the

music teacher to consult with the special education teacher in order to

follow the specific goals of the IEP and to arrange the music curriculum

goals and objectives to develop an inclusive lesson. Therefore, the

purpose of this study will be to determine the preferences of general

music teachers toward the inclusion of special needs students into

general classroom music settings, and to examine the perceived

24


25/78

relationship between music and special education teachers from the

perspective of the general music teacher. A further outcome of the

study will be to identify specific strategies and solutions for improving

and to determine the necessity for increasing the amount of in-service

training and university training for general music teachers.

25


26/78

Chapter 3: Method

Subjects

Participants (N=23) in this study were employees of the Hanover

County (N=13), Richmond City (N=5) and Henrico County (N=5) Public

Schools for the 2010-2011 school year. As of April 2010, all were fully

Virginia licensed general elementary music educators and followed the

inclusion or self-contained method for teaching their music classes. In

order to solicit participants, a multi-step procedure took place. Initially, a

list of the names and contact information of all elementary general

music teachers in the Hanover, Henrico and Richmond City Public School

was compiled using the membership list for the District One region of

the Virginia Music Educators Association. A cover letter inviting the

teachers to participate in the study was emailed to those from the

targeted population. For those teachers choosing to participate in the

study, a web-based consent form and link to the web-based survey on

the website Survey Monkey.netwas also included in the initial emailed

cover letter.

Survey of Teachers Attitudes Toward Inclusion

The survey designed for use in this study was based on the

Survey of Teachers Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming tool from

Sharrocks (2007) dissertation which examined the preferences of

secondary school Choral directors with regard to mainstreaming. For the

purposes of this study, the questions were adapted to fit the proposed

26


27/78

subject group who were general music elementary public school

teachers from the state of Virginia. The questions were designed to:

(1)address issues relevant to the teaching assignments of the studys

participants; (2) determine the extent of placement of special need

students in the classes taught by the subjects; (3) explore the teachers

perceptions of their role in the process of mainstreaming; (4) collect

data specific to existing placement options for special students from the

schools the subjects work at; (5) record information about the extent of

the surveyed music teachers training in special education; and (6)

solicit suggestions for teaching special education students from the

subjects.

Method

Seventy-two District One general elementary public school music

educators were contacted by the researcher via an e-mail (Appendices

A) which provided an explanation of the study, a web-based consent

form, and a link to the web-based survey located at Survey Monkey.net.

By clicking the link the professionals gave their consent to participate in

the study.

Of the seventy-two elementary schools teachers contacted, only

twenty-three of the music teachers responded to the survey. Of the

initial e-mails sent, fifteen e-mails addresses were incorrect

consequently returned. A number of factors played a part into why the

additional thirty-four music teachers who had been invited to participate

27


28/78

chose not to respond. These music teachers who declined consent had

accidentally deleted the original e-mail, or had chosen to ignore the

study due to the lack of access to a computer during the summer

months that they were not at school. Fortunately, twenty-three general

music teachers did agree to participate and completed the survey.

Data Analysis

Upon collection and classification of individual subjects responses

to the survey questions, descriptive and inferential statistics were used

to analyze subjects responses from the Survey of Teacher Attitudes

Toward Inclusion. Numeric values were assigned to answer choices for

each multiple-choice question in order to calculate mean scores and

carry out t-tests. For questions related to teacher perceptions, the

values were: (a) Strongly- Agree-4: (b) Agree-3; (c) Disagree-2; and (d)

Strongly Disagree-1. Therefore, higher mean scores for responses

indicated more agreement with the statement. Numeric values assigned

for questions related to time were: (a)Always-4, (b)Occasionally-3, (c)

Rarely-2, and (d)\Never-1. Higher mean scoress indicated greater

frequency of occurrence of the event in question. The constant

comparative method was used for processing data gathered from the

open-ended questions

28


29/78

.

Chapter Four: : Results

The EExtent of Participation byof Self-Contained Students withDisabilities in the Music Classrooms

The Survey of Teacher Attitude Ttoward Inclusion begins with an

identification question that alloweds the subjects to acknowledge which

school system they teacher workeds in. Of the tThe twenty-three District

One respondents surveyed, the majority worked in Hanover County

(N=13), while equal numbers of survey participants worked in Richmond

City (N=5) and Henrico County (N=5) respectively.

Question two of the survey einquired about the location (i.e. the

music classroom or self-contained classroom) in which where the

primary music teaching of special needs students takes place at each

participants school, in the music classroom or in a self contained

classroom. Slightly more than nNinety-two point three percent (92.3%)

of the respondents taught special needs students in the music

classroom, and almost eight percent (7.7%) of respondents went to

reported that they taughtteach special the students in a separate their

own self-contained classroom.

29


30/78

Figure 1 Placement of Self-contained Students with

Disabilities in General Music

Question four examined considered the the reasons why special

needs for which the students were not integrated into a general music

classroom. Forty percent (40%) of the respondents indicated that

scheduling difficulties specific to the of the special needs students was

the most prevalent reason for scheduling issues due to the other

services that they receive. Respondents also reported a number of other

perceived included concerns with respect to inclusion. Twenty percent

(20%)of teachers believed about the musical ability level of special

needs students might prove problematic in the general music classroom,

while another twenty percent (20%) of subjects responded that(20%),

behavioral issues in thea classroom setting were potentially

problematic. (20%), Another twenty percent (20%) of teacher

30


31/78

participants reported concerns with special students behavior traditional

or in a performance settings (20%). None of the subjects reported

perceiving a one indicated that there was a lack of interest in music

from the special students, nor a lack of support from their schools

administration or parents apprehension with regard to the inclusion of

special students in their music classes. Two music teachers indicated

that at their schools an additional music class is scheduled to teach the

students with severe and profound disabilities in addition to their

general music class.

31


32/78

Table 1

Reasons for Not Including Students in the General Music Setting

32


33/78

33


34/78

The music teachers who indicated that self-contained students

were not placed in music classrooms did not answer questions six

through tquestion twenty-five of the survey since those questions dealt

with the services provided to these students in the classroom.

Therefore, the total number offor subjects answering these questions

was ill be fewer than for question five.

In questions six through ten of the survey, issues the relating

tofactors how general music classes were incorporated into the of

schedules ofing special needs students in the participants schools were

addressedinto the general music classroom is measured. Approximately,

eEighty-four point six percent (84.6%) of the music teachers surveyed

34


35/78

responded stated that special needs the students were placed into their

general music classes every year. The remaining other music 15.4% of

teachers (15.4%) indicated that special needs their students in their

schools occasionally joined the general music class. Of the students that

were included in the general classroom music settings, the majority

Ninety percent of special needs the students (90%) wereare placed in

the class for the entire year. Subjects also reported that tThe number of

special needs students that are placed in theira general music classes

never exceeded six students at onea time. Four teachers indicated that

they had experienced situations where there were four to six students

were placed in one class, but the majority of respondents (69.2%)

percent of the respondents indicated that only one to three students

were placed in their music classes at a time. When the students wereare

placed in a class, the percentage of students with special needs never

exceeded a quarter (25%) of the membership of the class.

Figure 2 Percentages of Special Needs in a General Music

Class

35


36/78

Research Question One: The Extent of Involvement byof GeneralMusic Teachers

iIn theDecision Making Processs to Place Students with Disabilities

in the General Music Classroom

Questions eleven, twelve, thirteen, seventeen, twenty-two,

twenty-four and twenty-five were designed to determine the extent to

which general music teachers were involved in decisions to place self-

contained students with disabilities in the general music classroom

setting. Issues specific to dDetermining whether accommodations were

necessary for teachers musicthe classrooms, providing examples of

additional general education classes that special t the students may be

are placed in (see Table 2), and the other criteria relating to the

placement of special for placing the students in the music classroom

were all questioned. (CHANGE BELOW TO VARIETY OF GENERAL

36


37/78

EDUCATION CLASSES USED FOR MAINSTREAMING OF SPECIAL NEEDS

STUDENTS RATHER THAN INTO WHAT etc

Table 2 Class placement of special needs students

The music tTeachers surveyed were also asked to note whether

music teachers areor not they were involved in IEP meetings designed

to address planning issues, accommodations, and the modification of

instruction for special needs studentsmeetings to plan and suggest

accommodations and modifications to instruction. In addition the

subjects Next, they were asked to explain the frequency with at which

they met with the music and special education teachers meet to plan for

the special needs studentchildrens instructional needs. Finally,

subjectsthey were asked to provide responses inquired about the

process through which they receiveding the information about updated

accommodations and modifications to special needs students deemed

necessary in the IEPs.

37


38/78

When addressing determining the relevance of having an

individualized music education plans for special needs students, all of

the teachers stated that they adjusted their instruction based on the

individual needs of theirir special needs students (see Table 3).

Table 3 CSignificant changes in classroom musicprocedures

for special needs students

Unfortunately, of the general elementary music teachers who that

responded totook the survey, seventeen out of twenty-three teachers

(73.91%) responded marked that they had are never given the

opportunity to attended IEP meetings for special needs students at their

schools(see Table 4). It should be noted that the survey questions did

not allow subjects to indicate whether or not they were the teachers

were invited to the IEP meetings at their schools, just whether or not

they had actually ever attended an IEP meeting or special review.

38


39/78

(WOW! THIS IS AN IMPORTANT FINDING OF YOUR STUDY STEPHANIE!!!

SCARY WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT.)

Table 4 Frequency of General Music Teachers Participation

in Music Teachers Attending Music Class Placement IEP

Meetings About Special Needs Students (to Place Students in

Music Class V v ersus a Non-Music Specific specialIEP R r eview

M m eetings) of the IEP______________

IEP Meeting Special Review of the IEPAlways 1 1

Occasionally 2 2Rarely 1 2Never 17 16__________________________________

In addition to information about music related and special review

the initial IEP meetings and special review IEP meetings, the survey

solicited information about teachers were asked how often the subjectsy

communicated about the progress and/or needs of the students with

special needs whothat attended their music classes. Slightly less than

half (46%) of the music teachers surveyed reported Forty-six percent

stated that they occasionally communicated in this way, while almost a

quarter (23%)twenty-three percent rarely reported on spoke about the

progress of the special needs students in their music classes(see Figure

3). This means that almost three quarters (75%) of the teachers

surveyed either rarely or occasionally reported on the progress of their

assigned special needs students. (WOW! STEPHANIE, ALSO A VERY BIG

FINDING IN TERMS OF WHAT IT SAYSAND THE RELATED IMPLICATIONS

FOR SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS).

39


40/78

Figure 3 General Music Teacher Input into the

Recommendations concerning IEP Recommendation Processs

Fortunately, every music teacher except for one reportedstated that at

their schools they receivedd updated IEPs for special needs students in

their classes that includedwith modifications and listed accommodations

listed (see Figure 4). Of these, tThirty-eight respondents stated that they

only received the updates occasionally. While this could be cause for

concern on the part of parents and advocates for special needs

students, this potential problem receive them which could be remedied

with strong communication between the general music teacher and thespecial education department.

40


41/78

Figure 4 Communicating accommodations and modifications

to the IEP

Questions sixteen through twenty-one were designed to measure

the perceptions of the subjects regarding the amount of effort that goes

into the of collaboration process between special education teachers

and the themselvesgeneral music teachers. Reponses According to

question eighteen of the survey, revealed that ninety-six percent (96%)

of the general elementary music teachers agreed that having music

teachers and special education teachers collaborate in the classroom

would be beneficial to all the students in the general music

environment. The subjects responses teachers were fairly positive about

the amount of times that they spend meeting to discuss a students

progress. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of the teachers reported that

they met as many times as needed for each student. Four subjects

reported people havingd monthly meetings set-up with the specific

special education teachers to note the progress of the student (SeeTable 5).

41


42/78

Table 5 Frequency of discussion about progress (TEXT FONT

CONSISTENT?)

Study participantsThe teacher attitudes regardingtoward the

amount of time and support provided for given to collaborative effortse

by the school administration suggested that a lack of these conditions

may can affect the working climate between the general music teacher

and the special education department at the elementary school level.

Questions fifteen and sixteen were developed to measure this

perception. The responses from the teachers are mixed when examined

asked about the extent to which encouragement of collaborative

effortsons between the general music teachers and the special

education faculty department from the school administratorswere

encouraged by the administrators of the schools in which the

elementary music teachers worked. Sixty-one percent (61%) of the the

study participantsteachers agreed with the statement that collaborative

efforts were encouraged, and an additional twenty-three percent (23%)

of the respondents strongly agreed with this statement. OThere were

only two people felt that they did not receive enough encouragement

42


43/78

from their administrators to initiatehave collaborative effortsion (See

Figure 5).

43


44/78

Figure 5 Administration encouragement of collaboration

Many of the music teachers surveyed appreciated the

assistanceccompaniment of the special needs teacher in to helping the

special needs the students from their classes learn the pertinent

information in relevant to the music classroom setting.: Qquestions

nineteen, twenty and twenty-one focused on this aspect. Twenty-three

percent (23%) of the subjects reported population finds that they felt

that bringing a special education aide or teacher into their general music

classroom would have an adverse effect on the climate of the

classroom. The surveyed teachers had differing opinions with regard to

receiving modification help with their own lesson plans from the special

education teachers. Forty-six percent (46%) of subjects respondedfelt

that they had not received adequate assistancehelp from the special

education teachers at their schools, while thirty-eight percent (38%) felt

that they had. There were also two outliers that strongly disagreed and

strongly agreed with the statement (see Table 6).

44


45/78

Table 6 Elementary music teachers pPerceptions about the

effectiveness of of assistance from special education teachers

from their school setting.

In an an ideal situation, a special education aide shouldmust also

accompany special education the students to the general music

classroom in order to assist with instruction and discipline. According to

the responses of the teachers surveyedresults, this is not always the

case in the elementary school music classroom. Fifteen percent (15%) of

the survey participants teachers reportedstate that the aides never

accompaniedy special the students to their classes, while e. Eight

percent (8%) respondedstate that special education the aides rarely

accompaniedy special needs the students to their music class. (See

Table 7) (ALSO, IMPORTANT BECAUSE ALMOST A QUARTER OF SPECIAL

NEEDS STUDENTS ARE NOT RECEIVING ASSISTANCE TO WHICH THEY

ARE ENTITLED TO BY LAW)

45


46/78

46


47/78

Table 7 Elementary general music teachers pPerceptions

about the participation of special needs students of special

education participation with assistance

In a high energy music classroom, it is imperative for the maintenance

of a safety and positive classroom climate that a the teachers aide

accompanies each special needs the student to their class. In some

situations, All too often the teachers aides may viewtake the music

class time as their break time if they view the since the perception of

music class ais a time for planning for the classroom teacher.

Research Question Two: How Perceptions About toward Inclusion Differ

Between Comparing Music Teachers Who Have Had Training in Special

Education Withto Those Who Have Not Had Training

The second main goal part of thise investigation was to compares

the teachers attitudes toward teaching special needs students in the

context of from a self-contained classroom environment and compare

their responses with their based on the level of special education

training that they have received. Responses Answers to the survey

questions that addressed these related to the perception differences

47


48/78

were compared using independent t-tests, since the two groups were

not related in anyway. T-tests with equal variance were used since the

numerical range of the answer choices was small. A probability p< 0.05

was considered to be statistically significant. A total of four music

teachers indicated that they had taken at least one college-level course

related to special education, while nineteen stated that they had never

had a course in this area. Half of the teachers state that they had

attended professional development workshops in the area of special

education (see Table 8).

Table 8 Participation in professional development activities

In question eleven of the survey, the elementary music teachers

were asked to provide information specific to about their perceptions

48


49/78

about of the frequency at which the presence of special needs the self-

contained students in self contained teaching settings required specific

changes in the teaching lesson plan or music classroom procedures.

Seventy-five (75%) percent of the teachers with training (M=2.75,

SD=.5) responded by saying that they occasionally adjusted their

procedure, whereas only fifty-three (53%) percent of the non-trained

teachers noted that they occasionally changed their classroom

procedure (M=2.1, SD= .77). There was more variation between the

answers from the teachers who haddid not received training in special

education than those who had previously received training in special

education (see Table 9).

Table 9 A Comparison of Differences in the Perceptions of

Elementary Music Teachers Specific to How the About Inclusion

Process RequiresConcerning Significant Changes in Classroom

Procedure

________________________________________________________________________Music with Music Teachers w/outSPED training SPED Training(N = 4) (N = 19)

49


50/78

________________________________________________________________________Always (4) 0 1 (5%)Occasionally (3) 3 (75%) 10 (53%)Rarely (2) 1 (25%) 6 (32%)Never (1) 0 2 (11%)

M= 2.75 M= 2.1SD= .5 SD= .77_______________________________________________________________________

In comparing subjects responses to a comparison of question

thirteen, music teachers with training in the area of special education

were more definiteabsolute in their decisions about the importance of

providing accommodations and modifications to the IEPs of special

needs students. The music teachers without training varied in their

responses which could be grouped into were spread out over the four

categories (see Table 10).

Table 10 Comparison of Elementary Music Teachers

Perceptions Aabout Inclusion Specific to the Regarding Making

Recommendation, ns for Accommodations and Modification

Processs

Music Teachers with Music Teacherswith No

Special Education Training Special EducationTraining

(N=4) (N=19)________________________________________________________________________Always (4) 0 3 (15.6%)Occasionally (3) 2 (50%) 6 (31.5%)Rarely (2) 0 5 (26.3%)Never (1) 2 (50%) 5 (26.3%)

M= 2 M= 2.21SD= 1.15 SD= 1.06

In response toFor question eighteen which examined the importance of

concerning whether music teachers and special education teachers

should collaboratinge, teachers who had previously undergone training

50


51/78

in special education had a mean scorehool slightly higher than those

teachers without training. Ninety-six percent (96%) of the teachers,

including those both with and without prior special education training

agreed that collaboration is an important part of the process necessary

to effectively to teach the students with special needs (see Table 11).

Table 11 A Comparison of Perceptions About Inclusion Specific

to the Regarding Collaborativeon Process Between the Music

Teacher and Special Education Teachers

Music Teacher with Music Teacherwith No

Special Ed Training Special EdTraining

(N=4) (N=19)________________________________________________________________________Strongly Agree (4) 2 (50%) 7 (30%)Agree (3) 2 (50%) 11 (58%)Disagree(2) 0 1 (4%)Strongly Disagree (1) 0 0

M= 3.5 M= 3.31SD = .577 SD=.58

________________________________________________________________________

Not surprisingly, the music tTeachers who had previously had with

training in special education during their own pre-service studies agreed

with responded to question twenty-three of the survey at a agreed much

higher rate in their belief that pre-service teachers receive to the fact

that there was sufficient training given for teaching special education

students (M= 2.5, SD= .71). Forty-seven percent (47%) of the music

teachers with no training felt strongly that there was rarely training

available to them either in their regular school setting or in the context

51


52/78

of professional development opportunities offered by their schools

(M=2.94, SD=.84) (see Table 12).

52


53/78

Table 12 Comparison of Perceptions Whether Music Teachers

Have Sufficient Training in Special Education

Music Teachers with Music Teachers with NoSpecial Ed Training Special Ed Training(N=4) (N=19)

________________________________________________________________________Always (4) 0 1 (5%)Occasionally (3) 2 (50%) 4 (26%)Rarely (2) 2 (50%) 9 (47%)Never (1) 0 5 (26%)

M = 2.5 M = 2.94SD =.71 SD =.84

________________________________________________________________________

Although there were not significant (DO YOU MEAN THIS IN THE

STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WAY? IF NOT AVOID USING THE WORD

SIGNIFICANT IN A RESEARCH STUDY)differences with regard to in the

ways in which that the music teachers adapted their classrooms and

discussed accommodations with special education faculty, there was a

noticeable large difference in the amount of education the music

teachers felt they needed to adequately provide the special education

services asked of them.

Respondents Suggestions Concerning Inclusion

In the final section of the survey, special education and music

teachers were asked to providegive suggestions for of strategies that

can be used in the general music classroom at the elementary level.

This section of the survey presentedey were given a list of

accommodations that could be used in a general music classroom

53


54/78

setting, and the subjects were asked to indicate if any of the strategies

were ones they are in currently used (see Table 13).

54


55/78

Table 13 Adapted Instructional Methods for the General Music

Classroom

In addition to the listed accommodations in Table 13, the subjects

teachers also indicated that they enlarged copies of music to make large

print materials for their partially sighted students, and used a Braille

machine to convert the pieces into Braille for their students who are

blind. The music teachers also reported that they simplified class the

requirements for the special needs students, and implemented used a

peer buddy systems between special needs and non-special needs

55


56/78

students to ensure a work with the student in order for the overall class

outcome to be positive classroom environment.

The survey participants teachers were also asked to provide one

helpful suggestion to aide in the inclusion of special needs students in a

general music classroom. One teacher response suggesteds to

alternatinge the activities from preferred to non-preferred activities

such as movement and then go in to the workstation tasks which are

either academic or IEP related. The lessons could be split up into a

more differentiated approach where there was more individualized

learning, such as stations. Another suggestion that could be used with

all students is when giving important directions, sing instructions to

them in a song. Special needs The students are more likely to pay

attention when listening with two different stimulations of the brain.

Another subject wrote: Students attempt to gain confidence

within the music room by staying as long as the student can manage

and then have a goal to increase that time throughout the year. The

more active the lesson, the more the students can stay involved. In

order to achieve this goal, having a consistent routine with frequent

repetition is essential. Preferential seating with the student seated in the

optimal place to allow them to pay attention to the teacher and to be

next to an assigned buddy that can silently help the student achieve the

goal as well is also an effective strategy in mainstreaming the special

needs child into the general elementary music classroom.

56


57/78

When asked about ways in which to facilitateing increased

cooperation between the special educators and the music educators,

and build support between the two, a few of the music surveyed

educators agreed that time needs to be set aside before the beginning

of the school year where everyone discusses how each can work

together for the benefit of the child. Another teacher added that one

must keep the lines of communication open among parents, all

teachers and administration.

One schools music education teacher recommended utilizinges

the inclusion method for interaction with other students but also

statedpromotes that there be a separate 30 minute slot in addition to

the general music time just for special education music based on

specific disabilities. Question thirty-two questioned whether an adaptive

music class was held in the subjects school in addition to the inclusion

classes and asked if not, in an ideal situation, would the teacher want to

teach such athe class. All but one teacher indicated that they would like

to have a class set-up for the students to be taught on their level of

musicianship. When discussing reasons against why to not havinge

special needs an the students included in the general classroom, one

teacher mentioned one experience in attempting to include special

students with stated of her severe and profound disabilities into her

music classroomstudents:, We tried that one year and it was not

successful. The SPED students showed no progress when integrated.

57


58/78

When seen by themselves, they made appropriate progress. The main

restrictions to this offering class now was time in the teachers schedule

and building administrators permitting allocations for a special

education class.

In Henrico County, music therapy is utilized for students who would

benefit from this type of instruction. It is a belief of the researcher that

thisThis philosophy should be extended to the entire greater Richmond

area toand would allow the music teachers to have an additional expert

to go to for help when planningith accommodations forting all students

with disabilities. Such a resourceIt would also give the special education

teacher, parents and administration another source of inputresource to

attend and contribute to attend IEP meetings that occur during the day,

when the music teacher is teaching.

In reponse toWith question thirty-three, teachers gaive

suggestions to help a class that might includes the special education

students participate in with the general music classes. The main

suggestion given was to keep the communication open with the special

education teacher by asking questions and being sure to obtain get all

of the facts available about of the students disability. By

communicating with the teacher and taking a look at the IEP, one

teacher suggested finding something in common with the student and

be willing to find unorthodox ways of teaching the information.

58


59/78

Chapter Five:Summary

The purpose of this study was to gather the data that reflected the

perceptions and attitudes of the elementary general music teachers in

the City of Richmond, Henrico County and Hanover County Public

Schools with regard to howas they adapt music instruction to meet the

needs of so that it complies with the 2006 Individuals with Disabilities

Act (PL108-446). Based on the previous literature on the topic ofon

special education and music education, the following questions were

developed to measure this: (MATCH THESE UP TO THE EDITED ONES

EARLIER IN THE DOCUMENT)

1. To what extent are the music teachers involved in the decision-

making process for placing special learners in the elementary

music classroom?

2. How do the perceptions of the music teachers who have received

training in special education compare to the perceptions of the

music teachers that have not with respect to teaching self-

contained students with disabilities?

Information gathered through the literature review was

supplemented by additional responses from the Survey of Teacher

Attitudes toward Inclusion in an effort to provide informed data and

recommendations additional information on the status of local inclusion

59


60/78

in music classes in some the Richmond area elementary schools. A

frequency analysis was used to document the extent to which self-

contained students wereare included in the general music classroom.

Teachers suggestions for facilitating instruction were summarized in a

report of teacher responses.

(MATCH THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS UP WITH THE EDITS I MADE

TO THE EARLIER QUESTIONS)

Question One: The Extent of Involvement of General Music Teachers inDecisions to Place Students with Disabilities in the Music Class

In the Richmond City and Hanover County Public Schools system

there does not seem to be a systematic framework to encourage an

inclusive music program as suggested by Norlund (2006). Henrico

County public schools seem to have more freedom with scheduling to

include a separate adaptive music class and access to a music therapist

as needed. The dedication of the music teachers to include all students

in their class without taking part in IEP meetings tends to closely follow

the finding of studies in the early 1990s of Darrow(1990), Hawkins

(1991), and Thompson (1990).

Gilbert and Asmus(1981) study, which found that general

teachers are not trained to work with students who have disabilities and

often have negative attitudes about teaching students with disabilities

that result in the students isolation and stigmatization, could explain

the teachers comment that music teachers need to have toleration-

pick your battles with the students. A trained teacher suggests that

60


61/78

students will be more willing to attend and behave if they felt the

teacher was being patent with them and encouraging them.

A systematic schedule beginning from the administration level

downwards would be helpful in facilitating for greaterthe collaboration

betweenof music teachers and special education teachers. Darrow

(1990) found a positive correlation between perceived success in music

inclusion and the extent of administrative and instructional support. One

of the music teachers surveyed in this study stateds that it is vital that

music teachers are made aware of special needs students and what

accommodations must be made for them to have an enriching musical

experience. An adaptive music teacher suggesteds that the special

education team and the music teacher meet before the school year

begins to discuss the accommodations and strategies to help benefit the

child.

A music therapist or an adaptive music teacher in addition to the

general music teacher in the building would providebe an excellentgood

solution to assistto assist with compensating for the lack of time for

communication and , attending IEP meetings, and would also provide an

additional expert for the music teachers without special education

training to look to for support. Students with special needs demand

excessive amounts of teacher time, impede the progress of other

students and often fall further behind without the services provided in

the special education classroom. This adaptive music professional would

61


62/78

be available to provide separate 30 minute slots in addition to the

general education music time just for special education music time

which is based on specific disabilities, as suggested by a special

education teachers survey response.

Question Two: Perceptions toward Inclusion Comparing MusicTeachers Who Have Had Training in Special Education to Those

Who Have Not Had Training

The music teachers in Richmond City, Henrico County, and

Hanover County Public Schools, according to the survey follow directly

along with the Hock, Hasazi & Patton (1990) study that found that music

educators are cognizant of their responsibility to their special needs

students, but nonetheless feel they have not been adequately prepared

to meet the challenge. Eighty-two percent (82%) of the teachers in the

survey responded that felt that they had not beenwere never provided

sufficient education to deal with their special education students.

Additional support from the public school system administration could

provide professional development sessions with music therapists,

college professors and expert music educators from other school

systems.

Currently, there is no requirement from the Virginia Department of

Education that higher learning institutions include special need training

for music education majors in the curriculum. There is currently only one

graduate class available in the state for music education for special

learners (Hammel, 2008). The Virginia Music Educators Association has

62


63/78

provided workshops at its annual convention for teachers to attend.

Much of the special education training available for the Virginia music

educator is only an afterthought once the teacher has received their

music education degree and Virginia Teachers License. There has not

been enough emphasis placed on educating the music educator about

the special needs students that they are going to encounter in a general

music class.

The power of the experiment was not as strong as it could have

been for this study. Because it was sent through a school e-mail

account, the e-mail was able to be ignored and unanswered, leaving

some of the stronger, older teachers opinions out of the results. The use

of the adapted survey from the Sharrock (2007) study showed the same

flaws as his Survey of Teacher Attitudes toward Mainstreaming. The

change in the survey allowed music educators to say their true extended

thoughts in a small comment box on the internet website. It would have

been easier for them to express their thoughts through one-on-one

conversations. It would have been good to have done a qualitative study

to gain even more information from the surveyed teachers.

Overall, additional studies on collaboration between general music

teachers and special education teachers could be continued. It would be

good to compare how other resource teachers, such as adaptive PE

programs or art programs conduct IEP meetings to set accommodations

and strategies for the students to learn. It would be good to measure the

63


64/78

attitudes of teachers throughout the entire state of Virginia. This could

be done through the VMEA website and convention goers.

On a personal level, the researcher plans I will be able to use the

findings of this study when approaching the administration and guidance

counselors of my own school to set up a schedule to incorporate an ideal

schedule where the students would get the best of both worlds including

accompanying peers to class and providing an adaptive music class for

them to work on their own musical skill level. (CONGRATULATIONS ON

RESEARCHING AND WRITING A SUBSTANTIVE, INFORMATIVE AND

IMPACTFUL RESEACRCH PAPER, STEPHANIE!!!!)

64


65/78

List of References

Atterbury, B. (1986). A survey of present mainstreaming practices in the

Southern United

States.Journal of Music Therapy, 23(4), 202-207.

Atterbury, B. (1990). Mainstreaming exceptional learners in music.

Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Charles, B. (1990). The personal and social development of children with

special

educational needs through musical activities. London: University

of London,

Institute of Education.

Chen, Y. (2008). A Research Procedure and Study of Elementary Music

Curriculum for

Children with Special Needs in Inclusive Music Programs. Ann

Arbor: ProQuest

Information and Learning.

Colwell, Cynthia Melissa (1995). Adapting music instruction for

elementary students

with special needs: A pilot. Music Therapy Perspectives, Vol.

13; Issue 2; pp. 97-103.

Colwell, C. M., & Thompson, L. K. (2000). Inclusion of information on

mainstreaming

65


66/78

in undergraduate music education curricula. Journal of Music

Therapy, 37(3), 20521.

Darrow, A.A. (1990). Research on mainstreaming in music education.

Update:

Applications of Research in Music Education, 42, 94-104.

Forsythe, J., & Jellison, J. (1977). It's the Law. Music Educators Journal,

64(3), pp.30-

35.

Gilbert, J.P. and Asmus, E.P. (1981). Mainstreaming: Music Educators

participation and

professional needs. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29,

283-289.

Harris, T. (1991). The development of teaching strategies for the

multiple-handicapped

music classroom. Louisville: University Of Louisville.

Hammel, A. (2004). Inclusion Strategies That Work. Music Educators

Journal, 90(5), pp.

33-37.

Hammel, A., & Sobol, E. (2008).An Attitude and Approach for Teaching

Music to

66


67/78

Special Learners. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Hammel, A (2008) Music and Students with Special Needs. Retrieved

October 28, 2008

from http://www.people.vcu.edu/

%7Ebhammel/special/types/autism/index.htm.

Hawkins, G. D. (1991). Attitudes toward Mainstreaming Students with

Disabilities

Among Regular Elementary Music and Physical Education

Educators.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(09), 3245A. Ann Arbor:

Proquest.

Hock, M., Hasazi, S. B. & Patton, A. (1990). Collaboration for learning;

Strategies for

program success. Music Educators Journal, 76(8), pp.44-48.

Jellison, J.A (1996). A content analysis of music research with disabled

children and youth with disabilities (1975-1993): Applications in

special education. In C. E. Furman (Ed.), Effectiveness of music

therapy procedures: Documentation of research and clinical

practice (2nd ed., pp. 167-229). Silver Spring, MD: American

Music Therapy Association.

67


68/78

Jellison, J. (1985). An investigation of the Factor Structure of a Scale for

the Measurement of Children's Attitudes Toward Handicapped

Peers within Regular Music Environments. Journal of Research in

Music Education, 33(3), 167-177.

Jellison, J., Huck, A., & Brooks, B. (1998). Structuring small groups and

music reinforcement to facilitate positive interactions and

acceptance of severely handicapped students in the regular music

classroom. Reston: Music Educators National Conference.

Jellison, Judith A. & Duke, Robert A. (1994). The mental retardation label:

Music teachers' and prospective teachers' expectations for

children's social and music behaviors. Journal of Music Therapy,

31(3), 166-185.

Jellison, Judith A. & Flowers, Patricia J. (1991). Talking about music:

Interviews with

disabled and non-disabled children. Journal of Research in Music

Education. 39(4), 322-333.

Jellison, Judith A. & Taylor, Donald M. (2007). Attitudes toward inclusion

and students

with disabilities: A review of three decades of music research.

Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education. 172, 9-23.

Kaiser, K. A., & Johnson, K. E. (2000). The effect of an interactive

experience on music

68


69/78

majors perceptions of music for deaf students. Journal of Music

Therapy, 37(3),

22234.

Massie, C.M. (1993). Preparing pre-service teachers for mainstreaming.

Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia.

National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY).

Individualized

Education Program. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from

http://www.nichcy.org/SchoolsAndAdministrators/Pages/KeyTerms.

aspx

Patterson, Allyson (2003). Music Teachers and Music Therapists: Helping

Children

Together. Music Educators Journal. 89(4), 35-38

Public Law 108-446-Dec.3, 2004. (2004, December 3). Retrieved Oct. 20,

2008, from

ies.ed.gov/ncser/pdf/pl108-446.pdf

Ropp, C., Caldwell, J., Dixon, A., Angell, M., & Vogt, W. (2006). Special

education

administrators' perceptions of music therapy in special education

programs.Music

Therapy Perspectives, 24(2), 87-93.

Sacks, O. (2008). Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain (Vintage).

69
http://iimp.chadwyck.com/articles/displayItem.do?QueryName=articles&Multi=&ResultsID=11A453F0DCA&ItemNumber=21&ItemID=iimp00280970&ItemID=iimp00280970&journalID=JID00274321http://iimp.chadwyck.com/articles/displayItem.do?QueryName=articles&Multi=&ResultsID=11A453F0DCA&ItemNumber=21&ItemID=iimp00280970&ItemID=iimp00280970&journalID=JID00274321http://iimp.chadwyck.com/articles/displayItem.do?QueryName=articles&Multi=&ResultsID=11A453F0DCA&ItemNumber=21&ItemID=iimp00280970&ItemID=iimp00280970&journalID=JID00274321http://iimp.chadwyck.com/articles/displayItem.do?QueryName=articles&Multi=&ResultsID=11A453F0DCA&ItemNumber=21&ItemID=iimp00280970&ItemID=iimp00280970&journalID=JID00274321http://iimp.chadwyck.com/articles/displayItem.do?QueryName=articles&Multi=&ResultsID=11A453F0DCA&ItemNumber=21&ItemID=iimp00280970&ItemID=iimp00280970&journalID=JID00274321http://iimp.chadwyck.com/articles/displayItem.do?QueryName=articles&Multi=&ResultsID=11A453F0DCA&ItemNumber=21&ItemID=iimp00280970&ItemID=iimp00280970&journalID=JID00274321


70/78

New York:

Vintage.

Salvador, Karen (2010). Who Isnt a Special Learner? A Survey of How

Music

Education Programs Prepare Future Educators to Work with

Exceptional Populations. Journal of Music Teacher Education.

October 2010 vol. 20 no.1 27-38.

Sharrock, B. (2008). A Comparison of the Attitudes of South Carolina

Special Education

and Chorus Teachers toward Mainstreaming Students with Mild

and Moderate

Mental Disabilities. Ann Arbor: UMI Proquest Information and

Learning.

Sideridis, G. D., & Chandler, J. P. (1995). Attitudes and characteristics of

general music

teachers toward integrating children with developmental

disabilities. Update:

Applications of Research in Music Education, 14(1), 1115.

Smith, D.D (2004) Introduction to special education (5th edition). Boston:

Pearson

Education, Inc.

Stone, S.J. (1980).A Study of teacher attitudes that affect the quality of

education for

70


71/78

exceptional children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41 (08),

3371A. UMI:

Proquest Information and Learning.

Thompson, K. P. (1990). Working toward solutions in mainstreaming.

Music Educators

Journal, 76(8), 30-35.

Walter, Jennifer S. (2006) The Basic IDEA: The Individual with Disabilities

Act in Your

Classroom. Teaching Music, 23-26

Wilson, Brian & McCrary, Jan (1996). The effect of instruction on music

teachers

attitudes toward students with disabilities.Journal of Research in

Music

Education, 44(1), 25-33.

VanWeelden, Kimberly and Whipple, Jennifer(2005). The Effects of Field

Experience on

Music Education Majors Perceptions of Music Instruction for

Secondary

Students with Special Needs.Journal of Music Teacher Education,

14(2), 62-70.

71


72/78

Appendices

Appendices A. Initial Contact Letter with Web Consent and Survey Link

Dear Colleague,

As a part of my final project for MUED 680 class at James MadisonUniversity, I am conducting a survey of those who teach general musicand students with special needs in all elementary schools in HanoverCounty, Henrico County and Richmond City Public Schools.

72


73/78

In addition to my graduate studies, I teach choir and music theory atPatrick Henry High School in Hanover County Public Schools in Virginia. Iam interested in how students with disabilities are involved with musicin our schools. In addition, I will be gathering information about teacherperceptions toward these students participation, as well as perceptions

about collaboration between music and special education teachers. Yourparticipation in this survey will help tremendously in accomplishing thisendeavor.I assure you that your responses will be kept confidential. However, thesurvey forms will be coded so that I will be able to pair teachers fromthe same school in order to compare teacher responses on theperceptions of collaboration.The entire survey should take only fifteen minutes of your time.Follow this link to survey monkey access your survey:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/musicteachersThank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to complete thesurvey. Thank you also for your time and effort in teaching music to allstudents.Sincerely,Stephanie Ransome

Appendices B. Follow-up Contact E-mailDear Colleagues,Thank you for those of you that have agreed to fill out my survey for mythesis. I have just had a request to send the link out again. So, I will justsend the whole e-mail once again. Once I have compiled my data, I'll letyou know the outcome and pass on any interesting ideas that we canuse in our classrooms.Sincerely,

Stephanie Ransome

Appendices C. A Survey of Teacher Attitudes toward InclusionElementary General1. What school system do you teach music in?

73
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/musicteachershttp://www.surveymonkey.com/s/musicteachers


74/78

2. Where does your primary teaching take place?music classroomself contained classroom

3. What is your primary teaching responsibility?

Music teacherSpecial needs teacher

4. Are students with special needs placed in your class as a part of theIndividual Education Plan for inclusion purposes?YesNo

5. Why are students with special needs not placed into the generalmusic classroom?Scheduling difficulties

Students are not interested in musicConcerns about the disabled students musical abilitiesConcerns about the disabled students performance abilitiesConcerns about the disabled students behavior in classConcerns about behavior in performance situationsParents concerns or wishesLack of support of administrationOther (please specify)

6. How often are students with special needs placed in general music?every year

occasionally(course placement changes from year to year

7. For what part of the year do special needs students typically remainin music?less than nine weeksnine weeksone semesterfor the entire year

8. Is there a maximum number of special needs students placed in anyone general music class?

yesno

9. How many students with special needs are placed in one music classat one time?1-34-67-10

74


75/78

more than 1010. Approximately what percent of the total enrollment of the class arestudents with special needs?0-10%11-25%

26-50%more than 50%

11. The inclusion of students with special needs requires significantchanges in regular music classroom procedures.AlwaysOccasionallyRarelyNever

12. The music teacher attends and participates in IEP meetings where

decisions are made to place students in to a music class.AlwaysOccasionallyRarelyNever

13. The music teacher makes recommendations concerningaccommodations and modifications to instruction for students withspecial needs.AlwaysOccasionally

RarelyNever

14. The music teacher participates in special reviews of IEPs for studentswith special needs who are included in the general music classroom.AlwaysOccasionallyRarelyNever

15. The school administration encourages collaboration between the

music teacher and the teacher(s) of students with special needs.Strongly AgreeAgreeDisagreeStrongly Disagree

16. The school administration facilitates collaboration between themusic teacher and the teacher of students with special needs.

75


76/78

Strongly AgreeAgreeDisagreeStrongly Disagree17. How frequently do the special education teacher and the music

teacher meet to discuss progress and/or needs of the students withspecial needs that attend music class?DailyWeeklyMonthlyAnnuallyAs Needed

18. Special education and music teacher should collaborate instructingstudents with special needs in the general music classroom.Strongly Agree

AgreeDisagreeStrongly Disagree

19. Bringing special education teachers into the music classroom canhave a disruptive effect on the classroom environment.Strongly AgreeAgreeDisagreeStrongly Disagree

20. The music teacher receives little assistance from special educationteachers in modifying instruction for students with special needs.Strongly AgreeAgreeDisagreeStrongly Disagree

21. A special education teacher or teacher aide attends music class withstudents with special needs to assist in instruction and discipline.AlwaysOccasionally

RarelyNever

22. The music teacher receives information concerning accommodationsand modifications deemed necessary by the IEP team.AlwaysOccasionallyRarely

76


77/78

Never

23. Music teachers have sufficient training to teach students with specialneeds.Always

OccasionallyRarelyNever24. Into what general education classes do IEP teams place studentswith disabilities?English/ Language ArtsPhysical EducationScienceSocial StudiesMusicMathematics

ArtLibraryGuidanceOther (please specify)

25. What criteria does the IEP team base their d

final edited stephanie mued 680 document3

Documents