integrating special needs students 1 running head...

Integrating Special Needs Students 1

Running head: INTERGRATING SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS

UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE

LA VERNE, CALIFORINA

INTERGRATING SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS INTO GENERAL EDUCATION

CLASSROOMS

A Paper Prepared for EDUC 504

In Partial Fulfillment of

The Requirements for the Degree

Master of Education

Denice Marie Bell

May 2009


Table of Contents

I. The Problem

a. Purpose of the Project

b. Importance of the Project

II. Literature Review

a. Introduction

b. Literature Review

c. Summary

III. Project Procedure

a. Approval

b. Development

c. Participants Involved

d. Implementation

IV. Project Evaluations

a. Individual Evaluations

b. Summary

V. Reference List

VI. Appendix: Demystifying Special Education


The Problem

Over the past decades, there have been many debates among the education field. There

are many different opinions as to what makes a good teacher and what does a good teacher look

like. Teachers currently must pass several different types of states exams in order to receive their

teaching credential. Generally the tests are based on core content rather than how to teach

students. According to the United States Department of Education the definition of a highly

qualify teacher was under much debate in 2004. After investigating how to define a high qualify

teacher final regulations were published in 2006 to the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act. As educators we are faced with obstacles on a daily bases.

Teachers, especially in California are under a lot of pressure to teach the California

standards set by the federal government and to prove mastery among their students. Due to the

state budget cuts to education staff development classes are being eliminated. Teachers are not

able to receive the appropriate training necessary to teacher special education students. Due to

the fact multiple subject teachers are only required to take one special education in order to

receive their credential there is a lack of understanding of how to teach special education

students and mainstreaming special needs students into general education.


The Purpose

The purpose of this creative project is to provide general education teachers with an

overview of special education. For example, eligibilities requirements of special education, how

students qualify for special education services and how to teach students with disabilities.

The idea to chose this topic came to mind because over the past nine years while working

as an aide in general and special education I have observed several debates as to the underlying

definition of special education and how to teach students with special needs. Several teachers do

not understand why some students qualify for special education while other students who are

achieving below grade level do not qualify. A guide booklet will be created for general education

teachers to use as a resource to understand the components of special education and how to

accommodate them in the general education classroom.

The Importance

The importance of this project is to educate general education teacher about the

laws and regulation of special education. Also to provide definitions and additional resources to

assist the teacher while teaching students with special needs. The guide booklet will include

general information about special education. More specifically, an overview of special education

that include the laws, eligibility, placement of students, teaching strategies, accommodations,

modifications, and learning disabilities.


Introduction

Twenty years ago, parents with children of disabilities were told to institutionalize their

children. The likelihood of learning disabled children successfully developing skills and

knowledge in a normal environment was unheard of. The integration of children with special

needs into general education classrooms has been a heated debate and widely discussed among

educators. Several studies have concluded that learning disable students benefit from explicit

instruction and implementation of a variety of strategies in small groups to support academic

achievement. In a recent descriptive study by David Paterson (2000), he found that students with

learning disabilities make up approximately 20% of the student population of general education

classrooms. Accordingly to Peterson, students with learning difficulties have individual and

specific learning characteristics. Many studies have concluded there are many benefits and

rewards of mainstreaming special education students into general education classrooms.

However, some results indicated little or no change in the student’s academic achievement, as

noted in the case studies conducted by Ysseldke, Thurlow, & Christenson in 1989 and Swanson

in 2001. Before teachers can successfully address the curriculum, they must take responsibility

of the instruction for their students with learning disabilities, (Boardman, 2001). This literature

review explores the possible outcomes of integration of special needs students into general

education classrooms.


History of Special Education

In an article written by Priscilla Pardini in spring of 2003, Pardini examines the history of

special education. Dating back to 1918, children with special needs were either institutionalized

or barred from attending public school. The provision of public education for students with

disabilities began as a reform movement spearheaded by parents who demanded equal access for

their disable children to attend American’s public schools (Bergeron, 2003). It was not until 1975

that congress finally revised and passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act.

Reauthorized in 1990 and 1997, the law was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA) or PL 94-142 requiring public schools to provide "free appropriate public

education" to students with a wide range of disabilities, including “physical handicaps, mental

retardation, speech, vision and language problems, emotional and behavioral problems, and other

learning disorders” (IDEA, 2004). The law held schools accountable and mandated the school

districts to provide such schooling for disable children in the "least restrictive environment" as

possible.

Pros of Integrating Special Needs Students

When students with special needs are integrated into regular education classes, studies

have shown that both types of students those with and those without disabilities benefit. A recent

study by Elizabeth Swanson addresses the pros of integration of special needs students with a

statement by Shinn, Powell-Smith, Good, & Baker, 1997, presents additional evidence that

indicates improved outcomes when students with learning disabilities are reintegrated into

general education. The results show the progress in oral reading at a rate equal to that of their


low-reading, nondisabled peers. Students benefited from gaining access to core curriculum thus

resulting in higher academic test scores. Swanson believes that appropriate strategies and explicit

instruction in small groups are not being implemented in general education classrooms.

However, in a descriptive study conducted by Peterson in 2000, he acknowledges that each

student has his or her own particular challenges that require specific instruction to meet his or her

individual needs. Nevertheless, the attention on student differences should be replaced by the

development of teacher’s knowledge about the individual student’s needs in order to develop

effective instructions techniques. In Peterson’s descriptive study, five junior high teachers

individually participated in a general education class that consisted of three to six learning

disabled students. Characteristics of individual participants were not a consideration in the

sampling process. The teacher’s experience ranged from three to twenty-seven years. There were

three types of data collected in this study: the first were observations that were recorded from

Peterson, the second were interviews which focused on participant’s experience of teaching

disabled and non-disabled students and their instruction practices, and the third was a recall

interview where the participants were asked to make retrospective reports based upon their

lesson. All participants were videotaped and observed during their instructions. Transcripts were

collected and used as recorded data. Peterson found that three of the five teachers went beyond

their general instruction practices and acknowledge their student’s individual with specific

instruction. However, the other two participants did see the student’s unique needs but did not

know how to provide the instruction needed. The two teachers were less experience than the

other three; Peterson noted that training workshops working with special needs students had not


yet been taken by these two participants. The author states, “One significant finding of this study

was that the teachers’ knowledge of students seemed unrelated to categories of students, such as

those with learning difficulties” (Peterson, 2000, p. 8). The academic growth of the learning

disabled students was not promising however, the students social skills and self-esteem grew.

Like Peterson’s results, Boardman did not fine a significant amount of evidence to

support academic growth. However, in both studies, students with learning disabilities benefited

in their social development. In the descriptive study conducted by Alison Gould Boardman, PhD

from the University of Texas, she observed the interactions between general education teachers

and students with learning disabilities and how they relate to academics in a learning community.

Boardman used qualitative methods to guide the observations and analyses of four fifth-grade

teachers and three target students. The population sample consisted of three target students that

were choose carefully which included one learning disabled, one low- achieving, and one

average-achieving student. The study was conducted over a four month period from February to

May in 2001. The data that was collected include three teacher interviews over the four-month

period, self- reflections, transcripts, and observations. Results indicated that teachers had a

higher rate of interactions with students with learning disabilities than with other target student

groups. However, despite the amount of time the teacher spent with the learning disabled student

there did not prove to be a significant amount of evidence of academic achievement. Through the

teacher reflections, three out of five teachers felt that the quality of interactions with the learning

disabled students helped them to see the student’s individual needs better.


Teachers who felt responsible for the education of their students with learning disabilities were

more knowledgeable about their students’ academic and social functioning (Boardman, 2001).

A recent qualitative research study conducted by Scruggs, Mastropieri, and Mcduffie in

2006 concluded that co-teaching in the general education classrooms increased cooperation

among their students with and without learning disabilities. The study focused on the following:

How is co-teaching being implemented?

What are perceptions of teachers?

What problems are encountered?

What are the benefits perceived to be?

Special and general education teacher’s role in co-teaching?

The data collected involved reports from 454 co-teachers, 42 administrators, 142 students in

special and general education classes, 26 parents, and five support personnel. The results were

positive overall and the majority of participants were in favor of co-teaching with special

education teachers. Team teaching where (both co-teacher share teaching responsibilities equally

and are equally involved in leading instructional activities) benefit all students with and without

disabilities. (Scruggset al., 2006). Almost all participants agreed that co-teaching contributed

positively to their professional development in both special and general education. Teachers

stated that co-teaching increased their knowledge and instructional skills to meet the needs of

their learning disabled and non-disabled students. There were little results showing any negative

impact on academic development. However a few teachers felt that co-teaching was an invasion

of their privacy.


Cons of Integrating Special Needs Students

In 1989, Ysseldke, Thurlow, & Christenson conducted a case study that included a total

of 122 students, thirty of which were learning disabled. There were few differences in academic

growth between students with learning disabilities and that of their non-disabled peers. Their

focus was a total of fifty-one general education classes and twenty-four special education classes

2nd

through 4th

grade. Two observations were administered per student one at the beginning of

the study and one after to chart the student’s progress. The teachers also participated in

interviews and observations. There was no considerable evidence noted that learning disabled

students significantly benefited from the general education instruction. In both studies teachers

conducted their lesson whole group without any explicit instruction, strategies, or small groups.

Ysseldke et al.,(1998) noted disturbing trends in the allocation of time spent in the general

education classes: an average of 20% of the time spent engaged in off-task behavior, waiting, or

classroom management.

Elizabeth Swanson’s descriptive study supports Ysseldke, Thurlow, & Christenston.

Swanson examined twenty-one observation case studies, which were conducted between 1980

and 2005. The studies were selected under the following criteria: that there was formal

observations in both general and special education classrooms; within each class at least one

student was diagnosed with a learning disability, the study was to take place in an elementary,

middle, or high school setting; and data collect in a variety of ways (e.g. interviews, surveys,

academic progress, and transcripts). Findings revealed generally low quality in reading

instruction for learning disabled, with little-to- no explicit instruction in the target areas. (2008)


Although there were some trends in student academic achievement observed from students with

learning disabilities learning in the general education classrooms, there was little or no

substantial amount progress in reading comprehension or fluency scores recorded. Based on the

opinions of Swanson and the interviews of the teachers, specific training, practice sessions, and

post-investigation debriefing would benefit academic instruction with learning disabled students.

Research on the Attitudes toward Integration

The purpose of this study was, “to determine whether attitudes toward students with

disabilities and toward their integration into regular classrooms would be influenced by viewing

videotapes that presented positive portrayals of persons with disabilities in regular settings and

by the disability characteristics of the professor who taught the course” (Beattie, Anderson, &

Antonak, 1995, p. 245). The study took place during the spring and fall 1992 semester.

This study was conducted by John Beattie, Ronald Anderson, and Richard Antonak, part of the

Department of Teaching Specialties at the University of North Charlotte. There were two

research questions that were investigated.

1. Does viewing videotapes that present positive portrayals of persons with disabilities in

typical settings differently influence the attitudes of prospective educators enrolled in an

introductory special education course towards with disabilities and toward their

integration into regular classrooms? Beattie, Anderson, and Antonak hypothesized that

prospective educators who completed an introductory special education course that

included a requirement to view videotapes presenting positive portrayals of persons with

disabilities in typical settings would express more favorable attitudes towards students


with disabilities and toward their integration into regular classrooms than would

prospective educators who completed the introductory course without viewing the

videotapes.

2. Do the disability characteristics of the professor of an introductory special education

course differentially influence the attitudes of prospective educators enrolled in the

course toward students with disabilities and toward their integration into regular

classrooms? They hypothesized that prospective educators who completed an

introductory special education course taught by a professor with a visible physical

disability would express more favorable attitudes towards students with disabilities and

toward their integration into regular classrooms than would prospective educators who

completed the course taught by a professor without a physical disability (Beattie,

Anderson, Antonak, 1995). The variables in this study are as followed, (independent)

treatment type (eg. the students’ exposure to videos or visual disable professor) and

attitude (dependent). Four hundred and thirty-three individuals how were enrolled in the

four sections of the introductory special education course were used. The age of

participants ranged from 18-60 years, the median age was 21 years. Out of the 433

participants 90 were male and 343 were women. The sample was obtained by clustering.

A quasi experimental study research design was used to see how the prospective educators’

attitudes changed over the semester. The data collected consisted of a 24 item summated Scale of

Attitudes Towards Disabled Persons (SADP; Antonak, 1982). Participantss were asked to rate

each statement on a 6 pt. scale ranging from disagree very much (-3) to agree very much (+3). In

order to split the potential response bias, half of the statements were worded in order for an agree


response that would represent a favorable attitude and the other half were worded to create a

disagreement to represent favorable attitudes. The other data collected were the 30-item

summated rating called the Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming Scale (ORM). A few changes

from the original were created which involved scoring and word usage. For example, the words

handicapped and special-needs were changed to disability, child was changed to student, and

mainstreaming was changed to integration thus changing the name of the scale to Scale opinions

Relative to integration. In order to match the same response items as in the scale sample SADP

each statement remained on a 6-point continuum. Each respondent was asked to state (-3)

disagree very much to (+3) agree very much. The data were complied into a four page booklet.

The first page entailed a questionnaire form which asked participates to provide information

about their sex, age, heritage and educational background. Lastly, the respondents were to

identify if they knew of someone with a disability. Five ordinal categories listed their choices: 1=

none, 2= acquaintance, 3= casual, 4= close, and 5= intimate. In order to clarify a response,

examples were listed after each. For example, 4= close (eg. roommate, relative). The other three

pages of the booklet consisted of the two attitude scales, the SADP and the ORI. There were two

booklet forms created and labeled A and 1 each consisted of a cover page followed by the SADP

or the ORI. The placement orders of the scales were reversed in the different booklets to prevent

any possible threats.


Discussion of Results

The Chi square was used to prove that there were no difference in the distributions of the

two booklet forms and the students who viewed and did not view video tapes. A t-test was

conducted to analyze the socio-demographic and experiential characteristics of the students

responding to form A and form 1. No differences in sex, heritage, relationships, and educational

were found. Also the t-test showed there was no difference in the two form groups in the mean

SADP scores. The chi and t-test concluded that the order in which the students responded to the

two attitude scales did not influence their scores. “Only participants who completed the

introductory special education course with a requirement to view the videotapes and who were

taught by the professor with a visible physical disability expressed significantly more favorable

attitudes” (Beattie et al., 1995, p. 255). There is a statistically significant difference in the

attitudes of new teachers who watched videos that displayed positive portrayals of students with

disabilities and that were educated by a visibly disabled professor between educators did not

watch the videos and were instructed by a non-disabled professor.

Conclusion

According, to the IDEA act, every individual has the right to be taught in a "free

appropriate public education” setting in the "least restrictive environment" as possible.

provide by the public schools. As research has shown, learning disabled students significantly

benefited from the general education instruction. When students with special needs are integrated

into regular education classes, studies have shown that both types of students those with and


those without disabilities benefit. Although a few studies stated the academic growth of their

learning disabled students was not promising when instruction was taught in the general

education setting, overall, all studies concluded that the disabled student’s social skills and self-

esteem grew. In order to provide the least restrictive environment for our learning disabled

students, teachers need to incorporate appropriate strategies and explicit instruction in small

groups to meet their students’ individual academic needs.

Barabara Gross Davis (2006) articulated the value of integrating special education students into

general education classes:

Students learn best when they are actively involved in the process. Researchers

reported that regardless of the subject matter, students working in small groups tend to

learn more of what is taught and retain it longer than when the same content is presented

in other instructional formats. Students who work in collaborative groups also appear

more satisfied with their classes.

Project Procedure

The development of this creative project took a lot of time and countless hours of

researching material. After I received approval to move forward with my project it was

smooth sailing. I began my quest first by researching articles about integrating special

education students into the general education classrooms. Next, I consulted with several

colleges and two administrated directors of special education at my local school district

in order to received clarity and additional information about my topic. I found that this


project would be worthwhile and extremely informative for general education teachers. A

I began to compile all of the data I had collected and started to form my resource booklet.

Approval/Development of Project

In order to develop this project I began in search of guidance and approval from my

university advisor, Dr. Valerie Boyer Beltran. After Dr. Beltran gave me the green light and

approval to move ahead with the project I began to create an outline of everything I needed to

accomplish in order to complete this project. Next, I filled out a pacing grid of all the

components of the project. I created due dates for myself to ensure I was on track. One obstacle I

encountered during this process was the difficulty at times to remain focus on the key topics.

About There were many reasons why I chose this topic. One main reason was the fact that I

wanted to clarify special education in the general education classroom. Another reason why I

chose this topic was because I wanted to increase new teacher’s knowledge about special

education and their outlook on integration of special education students. Throughout the

development of this project I consulted with colleagues, general and special education teachers,

mentors at my districts and my university advisor in order to receive feedback about the process

of my project.

Participants Involved

The following people listed below were prominent in assisting me preparing for this

project. Without their support, knowledge, and guidance I would have not been able to complete

this project:

Dr. Valerie Boyer Beltran University of La Verne Advisor


Linda H. Rand Resource/Assessment Specialist Pleasant Valley School

Lou Purdy Colleague University of La Verne

Kathy Wadley Elementary School Teacher

Kathleen Schaffer Special Education Resource Coordinated

Chris, Christopher, Anthony, My family

Randy, & Bob

Implementation

Due to the fact my project will be completed by March 2009, my plan is to have my

resource booklet bound and ready for my school and district to use as a resource guide in the

upcoming school year. Also, I hope for my colleagues who currently teach in general education

will enjoy increasing their knowledge about special education. I see my project being utilized

among first year general and special education teachers as an additional resource guide. As new

information becomes available I will keep my informational resource booklet updated.

Evaluation

After reviewing Deni’s project I found her appendix to be atheistically pleasing and

extremely informative and interesting. The project was easily to follow and understand. Her

manual was very complete and provided a lot of important factual information for general and

special education teachers.

Kathleen Schaffer Special, Education Resource Coordinated

Pleasant Valley School District


Deni’s overall project was a good reference material for general and special education

teachers. It was quick and easy to find answers to their questions. It was nice to have the

information all in binder. I have been a resource teacher for 33 years and have had to hunt to find

information among several different binders. It was refreshing to have everything at your finger

tips. This project will be extremely helpful to new teachers in our district. Deni did an

outstanding job and paid close addition to detail. I am looking forward to viewing my own

personal copy.

Linda H. Rand

Resource / Assessment Specialist

Pleasant Valley School District

Summary of Evaluations

After reviewing my evaluations I was extremely surprise to see that there were only a few

additional comments to improve my project. Linda suggested using different color paper

between the sections and stated that it was long overdue and about time someone put all of the

information in one book. Kathleen provided me with some additional information about IDEA

and how it defines the term learning disability. Overall, I was pleased with their comments,


guidance, and feedback. I was also excited to hear what role they feel my project will have in the

education field. Kathleen also informed me that she is anxiously waiting for my booklet to be

released to my follow teachers.


References

Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular classes equipped to accommodate

students with learning disabilities? Exceptional Children, 56, 515-526.

Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for

students with learning disabilities: Themes and implications from the five cases. The

Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 163-180.

Baker, S. (1997). The effects of integration into general education reading instruction for

students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 59-79.

Boardman, A. (2004). Interactions between Teachers and Students with Learning

Disabilities in General Education Classrooms. Austin, Tx: Ut Austin Press.

Peterson, D. (2000). Teaching in inclusive classroom in secondary schools [Electronic

version]. A study of teacher’s in-flight thinking. Journal of Learning Disabilities,

234, 427- 435.

Scruggs, T. E. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion [Electronic

version]. Remedial and Special Education, A research synthesis, 63, 59-74.

Swason, E. (2008). Observing Reading Instruction For Students with Learning

Disabilities [Electronic version]. Psychology Journals, 31, 115-133.

Ysseldke, J. E., Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L., (1987). Time allocated to

instruction of mentally retarded, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, and

non-handicapped elementary students. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 43-55.


Ysseldke, J. E., O’Sullivan, P.J., Thurlow, M.L., & Christenson, S. L. (1989). Qualitative

differences in reading and math instruction received by handicapped students.

Remedial and Special Education, 10, 14-20.

Nelson, L., Palonsky, S. B., & McCarthy, M. R. (2004). Critical issues in education.

New York: McGraw-Hill Press.

Hallaham, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (2006). Exceptional learners.

NewYork: Pearson Design and Production Services Press.

Eggen, P. D., & kauchak, D. P. (2006). Strategies and models for teachers.

New York: Pearson Design and Production Services Press.

Getskow, V., & Konczal, D. (1996). Kids with special needs.

Huntington Beach, CA: Creative Teaching Press.

Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Press.

Weis, C. (1996). Learning disability [Pamphlet]. n.p.

Weis, C. (1996). Integration of student’s with physical disabilities [Pamphlet]. n.p.

Koegal, R. L., & Carter, C. M. (1999). Pivotal teaching interactions for children with autism and

learning disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 28, 576-594.

integrating special needs students 1 running head...

Documents