International Journal Special Education

More documents

Recommendations

Info

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol 26, No: 3, 2011CLASSROOM STRUCTURE AND TEACHER EFFICACY IN SERVING STUDENTS WITHDISABILITIES: DIFFERENCES IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY TEACHERSMargaret E. ShippenMargaret M. FloresAuburn UniversitySteven A. CritesNorthern Kentucky UniversityDaShaunda PattersonMichelle L. RamseyDavid E. HouchinsKristine JolivetteGeorgia State UniversityThe purpose of this study was to investigate the differential classroom structure andefficacy reported by general and special educators at the elementary and secondarylevel. General and special educators (n = 774, return rate of 37%) from a large schooldistrict in the southeast US participated in the study. The participants completed amodified version of the Bender Classroom Structure Questionnaire in order todetermine their use of cognitive strategies, management strategies, and individualizedinstructional strategies. In addition, the teachers completed a modified version of theTeacher Efficacy Scale to probe their efficacy in serving students with disabilities. AMultivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine level ofvariance within and between participants. Findings indicate differences in classroomstructure between elementary and secondary settings and that special and generaleducators differed in their instructional practices.The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) mandates that each state be accountable for the continuousacademic achievement of all students. Under NCLB students with disabilities should also be heldaccountable for the same academic achievement as their peers without disabilities. Another challengeinherent in the rigorous mandates of NCLB is the legal mandate issued with the Individuals withDisabilities <strong>Education</strong> Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004). IDEA requires that the individualized needs ofstudents with disabilities be taken into consideration during education planning. How do today’seducators resolve the dissonance created by the contradictions in these mandates regarding students withdisabilities?NCLB mandated that each state have highly qualified teachers in all classrooms by the end of the 2005-06 school year. The shortage of qualified special education teachers may be the greatest challenge thathas ever faced public education (Billingsley, 2002; Boe, Cook, & Sunderland, 2008; Gilmore, Marsh, &Garza, 1999). With fewer qualified special education teachers, there are fewer opportunities for studentswith disabilities to receive appropriate services and thus compromise the likelihood for adequateachievement (Kaff, 2004). In relation, programs which have attempted to fill the shortage of teacherssuch as Teach for America and other alternative certification programs put teachers in classrooms withminimal training, summer prepatory courses and then provide pedagogical instruction to these teacherswhile on the job for two years at a time hoping these teachers will remain in the classroom (Teach forAmerica, 2005). Though these alternative routes to preparation provide teachers for classrooms, attritionand retention research of special education teachers has shown that under preparedness is a significantfactor in teachers leaving the field (Billingley, 2004; Gersten, Keating, Yovanoff, Harniss, 2001). Thusthere is no clear remedy to the shortage of qualified teachers in the near future.36
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol 26, No: 3, 2011To better understand the challenges educators face in today’s schools particularly in serving studentswith disabilities, the field must continue to investigate the perceptions and practices of classroomteachers. As has been reported in previous studies, teachers’ perceptions are critical features of classroomdynamics and classroom instruction (Lago-Dellelo, 1998; Semmel, Abernathy, Butera & Lesar, 1991;Bender & Ukeje 1989; Shippen, 2001; Villa, Thousand, Meyers, & Nevin, 1996). The differences inelementary and secondary settings may be a factor in teacher perceptions of serving students withdisabilities.Teachers’ Efficacy and Perceptions of Serving Students with DisabilitiesAs the direct service providers, general and special educators represent a vital link to successfulacademic and behavioral outcomes for students with disabilities in inclusive settings (Lago-Delello,1998). DeBettencourt (1999) found that general education teachers were concerned with the limitednumber of special education courses that they had taken as a part of their academic training. In addition,research has indicated that general educators are less supportive of inclusion than are special educators(Bender, Vail, & Scott, 1995; Minke & Bear, 1996; Monahan, Marino, & Miller, 1996; Scruggs &Mastropieri, 1996). Other studies have noted that even pre-service general educators have reportedconcerns about serving students with disabilities (Kirk, 1998; Shippen, Crites, Houchins, Ramsey &Simon, 2005).Teachers’ perceptions of the learning and behavioral characteristics of students with disabilities appear tomediate instruction and may influence classroom dynamics (Lago-Delello, 1998; Klingner & Hughes,2000). Positive teacher perceptions influence the success of students with disabilities in generaleducation classes and are directly related to accommodations teachers are willing and able to provide(Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Christenson, & McVicar, 1988). The accommodations that teachers provide maybe related to level of technical assistance that they receive in order to support students with disabilities(Gersten, Walker, & Darch, 1988). Cook, Semmel, and Gerber (1999) argue that there is a need to relateteacher perception to teacher practice. A starting point for relating teacher perceptions may bedifferences between elementary and secondary educators.Contrasts in Elementary and Secondary SettingsThousand, Rosenberg, Bishop, and Villa (1997) pointed out that differences in organizational andacademic structure between elementary and secondary schools make it difficult to develop inclusiveprograms at the secondary level. A critical issue that impacts secondary teachers’ ability to address theneeds of students with disabilities is the content-driven academic nature of secondary education. Thechallenge of serving students with disabilities may be further aggravated with the push for inclusion(Cook, 2004). Research has revealed that when students with disabilities are included in generaleducation classrooms, their teachers are unlikely to alter their traditional whole-group instructionalstrategies in favor of specific individualized adaptations (Scott, Vitale, & Masten, 1998).The mandate to deliver standards-based content to diverse students increases teachers’ responsibilities inthe inclusion of students with disabilities in both elementary and secondary settings. Because secondaryclassrooms tend to be teacher-centered and only rarely provide student-centered instruction, secondaryteachers may need a better understanding of how best to serve all students including students withdisabilities (Cole & McLeskey, 1997). Shippen (2001) found that more experienced secondary teachershad less positive attitudes toward including student with disabilities. These philosophical barriers mayimpact instructional choices for students with disabilities as academic achievement is now mandated byNCLB.In the elementary setting, classroom structure tends to be more student-driven. Studies have found thatsome of the same issues that exist on the secondary school level also exist within the elementary level(Stockall & Gartin, 2002). For example Cook (2004) found within inclusive elementary school settingsteachers’ perceived preparedness significantly influenced their ability to manage behavior and academicengagement. Diverse learning needs striated across many students cause significant challenges ininstruction in elementary schools.The diverse learning needs of students with disabilities have been facilitated by smaller groups andadjusting the learning objectives through individualized learning goals (Fuchs, Fuchs, Kazdan, Karns,Calhoon, et al., 2000; Stockall & Gartin, 2002). Generally in the early elementary grades, students arebeing instructed on how to learn (e.g., strategies) rather than what they learn (e.g., content). The strategicmethod of instruction is more widely accepted on the elementary level over content driven outcomes on37
Page 1 and 2: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL ED
Page 27 and 28: StronglyDisagreeDisagreeNeutralAgre
Page 35: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL ED
Page 69 and 70: Percent Correct (as of TA) .Percent
Page 87 and 88:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL ED
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295:
show all

International Journal Special Education

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?