A SURVEY OF EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES AND TEACHING PRACTICBS AS PERCSrYED BYRBGO'LARCLASSROOlt TEACHERS FOR TBIl: J:NTEGRATIOH OF
STtJDENTS WI'l'B HILI) LBAIUIIHG DISABILITIES
by
Rhonda Hoddinott. B.A . (Ed.)•• a.ss,Ed.
AThesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requiremente for the degree of
Master of Education
Departmentot: CUrriculum and Instruction Memorial University of Newfoundland
1+1
NaliOnalole.-UbraryA.cQuiSibonsand (MeehandesacquisitiOnSeI BibliographicsevcesBranch dessewcesbibliogr:>pt;ques :J95We1lrQ1onS/foel 39S.rueWelngll'J'l
~Onaro ~~l
The author has granted an Irrevocable non-exctuslve licence allowingthe NalionalLibrary of Canad a to reproduce , loan , distribut e or sell copies of hl::l/herthesisby any meansand Inany form or format,making thisthallisavailableto Interested persons.
The author retainsownershipof the copyright in his/h erthesis.
Neitherthe thesis norsubst ant ial extract s fromit maybeprintedor otherwise reproduced without his/herpermission.
l'auteur aaeeerde unelicence irrevocable at non exclusive permellant iI la Blbllcthsque nationale du Canada de reprodulre,prete r,dlstribuerOU vendre des copiesde sa these de quelque menrere at sous quelque formeque co ...oltpour mettre des exempla lresde cette these il la disposition des personnesInteressees.
L'auteurcc nse-v e la proprletedu droit d'auteur qui prot ege sa these.Nllathese nldesextrait s substantlels de celle-ci ne dolvent etre lmprtrnes ou autrement repro dult s sans son autorlsatlon.
ISBN 0- 612- 13905-0
Canada
Abstrac t
This study was designed to utilize a questionnairebased on current research that explores successful teaching practices that educators feel are vitalfor integrated classroomswhere there are studentswithlearningdisabilities. It will also investigat ewhetherthese teaching practicesare viewed asbe i ng imp o r t a n t thr o ug h the use of a questionnaire, by regular, full ti meteachersin the ConceptionBay South Integrated School Board. Finally, the researcher wi llidentify ifthe r eis a differencebetween background variables and the attitude of teachers towardstrategies and practices used in an integrated cla s s r o om. The eightbackground variablesare asfo llo ws: gen d e r ; pre s e n t teachi ngassignment; number of years teaching experience ; present teachinglevel; number of university level, specialeducationcours es; in s e r v i ce training; number of students with mild learning disabi litiespresently integr~tedinto the teacher'sregularclassroom; and, class size fo r re gul ar teachers wit hintegra ted stude nts.
Teache rsgene ral lyagreed tha t effective te a c h ing practices unde r th ecategory he a d i ngs : assessment/diagnos is, instructional con t e n t , instructional pract ices, managing student behavio r, pla nni ngandmanaging the tea c hi ng andlear ni ng environmentand mo ni t oring evaluation proc edur e s were allkey componentsof a suc c ess f u l in tegration prog ram,however, statis t ica l ly signif ican t dif f e renc e sdi d exis t. All background varia b le s were slightly or mod er a te l yrela t ed to teacherresp onse s onthis
iii que s t ionna ire. Grade level taught and <;lenderwere most stron Qlr relat e d to teac he rpercep t i o ns of specificteach ingpractices.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks areextend e dto the AssistantSuperint e nd ent, '<l r. R. Re c c o r d , principalsand teac hersof the Conception Bay South Integra t e d School Board fo r theirkind co-operatio n and pa r ticipat ion in t:his researchprojl!ct.
The wri te r wis he s to expresshe r gratitude to her supe rvisor, Dr.M.Glassman, fo r hisconstant guidance, suppo rt andassistan c e. Appre c i a t i on is also expressed toMr . J.White forhi s kno wl ed ge andhel pwith the st a ti s ti c al partof this resear c h pa per and Hr.J. Nearyfo r his word processin g expertise . I woul d alsoli ke to thankOr. N. Sheul l fo r his insi ghtfu l cri t i c ismandsuggestions.
In part i cular , I wouldlike to thankmy parents for instill ingin me th ewi sdomandcourage to re a ch at t a inabl e goal s.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter one. INTRODUCT:ION
overview Introduction
Statement of the problem Selected review of lite r a t ur e Design of thestud y Questions Limitations
Chapter Two. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Overview
As sessment /D iagnosi s Instructional cont e n t Instructional practices Managing studentbehevfor Planning and managing the teachingand learning environmen t
Monitoring /Eva l u a t i on procedures Conclusion
Chapter Three. METHODOLOGY Ove rview
Designof study De s c r i p t i on of popu lation
Nature an d construct ionof theinstr ume n t Validity and reliability
Collectionof the data
Page
12 13
15 15 18 20 27 32
3' 39
40 40 41 42 43 44
Ana l ys i sof the da ta Chap t o r pour .»reccss ros01"FJ:NDINGS
45 vi
De scripti on of the popula tionsurveye d 48
Teachers ' perc eptionsof te a ching strategiesan d
practice s 54
As ses s rnen t\Olagn osis 54
Instruct i on a l conten t 57
Instru c tional pra c t i c es 60
Ma n ag i n g student behavior 66
Planningand managing th e teachi n g andlearning
env i ro nmen t 68
Mo nitoring/Evaluati onproc e d ure s 73
Tea che r differences 78
Gend e r 79
Pr es en t tea ch i ng assignment 87
Numbe r ofyears tea chi n gexpe rience 96
Presentte a c hinglevel 101
Number of universitylevel,
spe cial educat ioncou rses 106
Number ofstud e n tswi th mild le a r ni n g di sabilities pre s entl y int e g r ate dinto the teacher'5
regularclas sroom 107
Cl as ssize forregulartea c he rs
with integratedstudents 111
In servi c e Training 119
Co nclus i ons 124
CBAP'l'ER FIVE.CONCLUS I ONS Assessment /Diagnosis Instructionalcontent Instr u c t i o n a l practices Managingstudentbehavi or Planning and managing the tea c h i ngand learning environment
MonitoriogIEvaluati c n procedur es Summary and Recommendati ons REFERENCES
APPENDIX
A.Teacher Questionnaire B.Study Le t t e r s
vii
129 131 132 134
136 13' 140 144
150 165
LIST Of TABLES Table1-- Gender
Table2-- Present teachingassignment Table 3 --Number of years teaching
exp er i e nc e
Table 4-- Presen t teach ing le vel Table5 -- Numbe r of university
lev el, special educa t ioncour s es Ta b l e 6-- Nwnber of students
with mild le a r n i ng disabilities presently in t e gra t e d intothe teac her'sre g ula r classroom
Tab l E:7-- Class si z efor re gu l ar te a c he r swi t hin tegr ate d stud e nts
Tab l e8-- In serviceTraining Table 9 -- Teachers ' rating s of the
category:assessmentIdiagnosis Ta ble10-- Teacher s' rat i ng s of th ecategory:
ins t r uc tional con ten t
Table11 -- Te acher s ' rat ings of th ececeacrvr instructionalpractic es Table 12 -- Tea cher s 'ra tings of the categor y:
man aging stude n tbeha vior Table 13 -- Te a chers' ratings of theca t e g o ry:
plannin g andman aging the te aching andle a r n ingenviro nmen t Table 14 --Teachers' ratings ofthe category :
monitoring/evaluation proced ure s Table15 -- Significant rela tions h ipsbetween
gender andass e s sment /diagnosis Table 16 -- signiticantrelationshipsbetween
gender and instruct i o nalcontent
vii i
49 49
50 51
51
52
53 53
56
59
62
67
70
74
81
82
Table17-- Significant relationships between gender and instructionalpractices Table18--Signifi cant re l at i on s h i p s betwe en
genderand managing student behavior
Table19 -- Significan t rel a t i o n s hi p s between gende r and planning and managing the teaching and learning envir onmen t Table 20 -- Sign ificantrelat ionsh ipsbetween
pr esent teaching assignment and as s e s s me n t / d i a gnos i fJ
Table21 -- Significantrelationships between present teach ingJ.ssignment and instructiona lconte n t
Tabl e22--Signif i cant re l a t i on s h i p s between pr es e ntteachingassignment and instruct irma1practices Table23--Significan t re l a t i o n s hip s between
pre sentte ac hingassignm ent and managingstudent beha v ior Tabl e 24 -- signi ficf.mt rel atio n s hi p s betwee n
presen t teachi ng assignmentand planningandmanaging thete a c h i ng andle arni n g environment Tab le 25-- Signi fic ant re l ation s h i p s between
presentte a c h ing assignme n t and mo ni t o r i n g /ev alu ation proce du r es Tabl e26 -~Sign ificant re lation s hi p s between
nWllber of years te ach i ng expe r ience and mana g i ngstude n t behaviors Table27-- Si gn if i can t relationship s be tween
nwnberofye ars teaching experi e nc e an a planning and managing the teachi n g andle a r n i ngenvironment
Tabl e 28 --Signi fi can t rel atio nshi ps bet we e n pre s ent te ac hing level and instruc t i o nalpractices Table 29 -- Significantrelationships be t ween
presentteaching leve l and managingst ud e n t be h a vior
ix
83
8'
85
88
89
90
91
93
94
97
99
103
10'
Ta b le30 -- Significant relationships between pr esent teachinglevel and planningand managing the teaching andlearning envi ronmen t Table31-- Sign i fican t relationships between
number of universitylevel,special education courses and instructional cont ent
105
107
112 Ta b le 32--Signi fic:an t rela t ionships between
numbe r of studentswit hmildle a r n i ng disabilit ie s pr e sent l y integrated in to the tea c her's regular cl as s r oom and planni ng and managing the
teachingand learningenvi ronmen t 109 Ta ble 33 --Significant re l a tion sh i p s between
number ofstude n tswi thmildlea r ning dis abi lities pr ese nt ly integra ted into the teache r'sregu lar classroom
and mon i t oring/eva luat ion proc e d ure s 111 Ta b le34 --Significant re lat i o nshi p s between
clas s size fo r regular teachers wi th in tegratedstude n tsand assessment/diagnosis
Table35-- Sig ni fi c an t rela tion ship s between class si ze fo r re gularte acher s wi th integra ted studen tsand inst ruc t-i onalcontent Ta b l e 36 --Signif icantrela t i ons h ipsbet wee n
classsi z e forregul ar teache rs withintegrated stud ents and instruc tional prac t i ces Table 37 -- Signific antrelation ship s between
classsi z e forregularte ac her s wi th in teg r a t e d students and andma na g i ngst ud e n t be h av ior Table38 -- Significantrelationshipsbetween
cl a s s size forregu larteach ers with integrated studen t s and and planningand managingthe te a c h i n g and learning environment Table39-- Significantrelationships betwe en inse rvice tra ining and man aging stude n t behavior
113
115
116
118
119
CRAPTER ONE IN'1':RODOC'1'ION
Th ischa p t e r will focus on many asp ectsof the research which is to fol low:the int roduc t ion will de s c r i bethe proposed re s e arch andpu t it intocon tex t, alongwi t h ident i f ying key ter ms; thestatement of the prob l em will give backgroundto the study and descr ibethe purpose andsigni fica nceof it; there v i e w of the lite raturewill enlightenthe issue under investigationby focus i n gon a conc e ptua l frame wor k; thedesig nof this stu:::y will pr ese n t a rationalefo r the res earch and the methodo log yalong withadescriptionof the data col lec t i o nand analy sis ;the last two sec t ions of this cha p te rwi l l present th e questionstobe answered aswe l l as the limitat i ons of thi s study.
Introduction
The impetus forintegration inCana d a andthe Uni t ed Sta te s hascome frommany sourc e s , inc l ud inged u cat ion a l research , co u r t de c i s ion s, legislation , andcivilrights concerns. Win z e r (19 8 9) de f ined mains treaming of st udentswith learn i ng dis a bi litie s in t o the re gular cl a s s as both a philosophyandapro c ess , she believe s :
It is thephysical, intellectual , soc ial, and emotional integration of excep tionalstudents into the regular educational milieu.Mainstreaming demands individual programming , co-operati veplanning, and a range of educational and support services. (p.20 )
Blankenshipand Lilly (1981). sey that studentswho ar e deaf, blind, and phys ical lyhandicapped,have participated succ e ss full yinin t e g r ati o n programs. The la r ge ror o u p of candidatesarc seucenes tradi tionallycategor izedas,,,,,e n t ally re tarded, learni ng disabled, and behaviordisordered. Students wi t hmildle arni ng disabilities will be the focusfor this re searc h (o f t enstudents with behavio r problems ar e in clud e d in this catego r ybe c au s ethe y possesslearningdisabilities). These studentswouldbede s cr i b e d as ·s p e c ia l ne e ds studen ts· in Newf ou ndlandandLa b rador schoolsandwouldhave an in dividual ed uc at i on prog r amplandevelopedbyeducators to help them achiev e some levelof success within there g ular program.
St ude n ts with mild learningdisabiliti e sha ve bee ndescribed aspo s s essing anumber of common characteristics. Profess ionals haveusua l ly ag ree dupon the followingcharacter isticsto be inheren t inthe ove ral l definition. According to Blankenshipand Li lly (198 1):
1.Adi s crepan cy exists betwe e n abi l i t y to lear n and actualachievemen t.
2.Othe r handicapping con d itionsmust be ruledou t befo r e a pro b l em can be def i ne d as a lea rning disability.
3.Mo s t de fi n i t ions oflea r n ing disabilitiesexc lude cul t ural di s a d v a n t a ge (Gearha rt, 1973).The Lear n i ng Disabledstud e n t doesnotperfo rmwe ll inthe regular classsi t u a t ionand thu s, the treatmentof le arning disabilities hasdev e lope d asa categoryof spec i al educ a t ion services. (p.1 3 -l4 1.
In t eg ra t ionor mai n str e aming is amovement wh i chha s dev e l o p e dove r the past twenty years. Accor dingto Blan kens h i p and Lil y (198 1 ), th e 1960's prove d tobe theye a r s when the r e
were many questions raised as to the effectiveness of placing students with le a r n i ng dis abilities i~special segregated classes. The reasoning behind such placement was in de e d evident. It was due to traditio naland organizationa l concernsrather than a student'suniqueindi v i d u a l needs. Today, educatorsbelieve tha t studentswith mild learning disabilities can beeducatedin the re g u l a r classroom with the appropriatesupport services pr o v i d e d for regularteachers and integratedstudents.
The r e has been much eviden c e to support the move toward integration . Bla nke n s h i p and Lilly 119Bl} explain that all studentsdif fe r on a continuum of func tionalabilitylevelsand st ud e ntswith le a rn i ng disabilities are more likethe i r chronological age-mates th a n not.They go on to say that traditional specialclasses,with th e i r separatecurricula, tend to widenrathe r thannar rowthedif fe rencesbetweenspecial educat ion students and their regular cl a s s pee r s. They believe tha t specialclass esintroduce studentsto anar t i ficia l atmospherewhe reclass size is smal lerandexpe c t at i on s are often re d u c e d , whichmakeslater reintegrationintothere gu lar classroomincreas inglydifficu l t. This literature pointsout th a t spe c ial classservice ssegrega testuden tsfrom thei rpee rs byplaci ng the m in a roomwi th le s s than desirable reputation among othe r st udents in the school. Also, specia l classes preventinteg ratio nwithstude ntsof averageor above average abi l ity. In addition, Bla nke nshi p andLilygo on to saytha t in an in tegrated pr og r am, clas s r oo mte ac h ers are enco u raged tolearn
new techn i qu e s andapp r oa c he s (e.g ., reading and writi ng strategies , tes t modifica tions andclassroom mana gemen t techniques ) .
The Newfoundlandand La bradorDepartmen t of Educa tio n (1 99 3) reports that12 , 182specia l educati on st ude n ts receivedmost of their education in the regular educationclassin the 1991-92 scho ol year,whereas before , ma ny st ud e n ts withlearning disabilit ieswereisol a t edin segregatedcla s s r oo ms. This dramat icchange inthe direction of integration occu r redwi t hina twoyearperiod . Integrationisbeingimplementedin mos t schools , in some manner, irr e sp e c t i ve of whether the re is agreementor disagreement wi t h the philoso phyfor suc h amov e. For this reason and becauseintegrationse ems tobea desirable placementfor students withlearningdisabilities, there is a need to understandhow knowledgeableteachers are, so that universi ty pr ograms canbuild on this expertiseor she d further light on integration practices.
cenn c n, Idol and West (l 9 ~ 2 ), usingan int erd i s c i p l ina r y panel of 105 experts, evenlydi vided in t o university-basedand field-basedparticipantsfrom35 states, identified96 of 125 practices as being essentialfo r effective teachingof .mainstreamedstuden tswithmildlearning disabilities. The
presentstudy is an extensionof Cannon'swo r k, inthat this researcherfocused on classroom teachers' perceptions of the highest rated teaching practicesidentif iedin Cannon's stud y.
The targetgroup studiedin thisresearch iscompr i s ed of
full- t imeregular ectaeeeoes at the primary, elementary, intermediateand high school le v e l s since these individuals mur,t implementeffectiveteaching practices into the i r programs to acconunodate all students, including those with learning disabilities. Gipps,Grossand Goldstein (1987) purp o r t that the philosophybehind integration is that in orde r to reach the fa il i n g le arn er it is necessary to involveclass teachers.
Statement oftheproblem
The research studypresented in this thesis is an at t e mp t to identify specific teachi ngpractices that re gul ar teach ers fe el ar eessent ialfor worki n gwith students who have mildle a rni n g disab i litiesintheintegrated classroom. The basic design invol vesa comprehensive reviewof teacher effec tiveness litera t ure and specialeducationliteratu re. It also ide nt i fi e s teacher bac Kground variablesthatmay affectteachers' per ception s ofthe ef fe c tivenessof teaching practices in an integ r ated cla s sro o m. Future inservice and teach e rtraining prog ramswh ich foc u s uponef f e ctive teach i ngpractices shou ld consi d e r the ide as that re gular teachers de em to be imp o r t ant .
Ho w teach e rs per ceiv e the effe c t i ven e s s of teac h i ng stra tegiesandpractices is importantto the succ ess f u l impl ementation of integ ration. Recent research report e d by canni ng,Kenn edy and St r ong (19 93 ) , points outthat teache rs fe el unprepar ed toteach stu dents with disabili t ies inthe regular classroom . Ifthe unive rsity andinse rvice pro g ramscan demonstra te to tea c he rs tha t th e y arenot as ill- pre paredasthe y
thi.:.k the y are, thenpo s s ibly there will be more supportfor integra t i on . If no t, there willbe aneedto provide support and knowledgeabo u t te ac hi ngpra c t i ce s at theselevel s.
Regularteachersshouldbe knowl edgeable abo ut inte gration practicessuch as masterylearning (Bloom, 1980 ) , coop e r ative learning , peer andcross - ag e tutor ingandcurricul um"a da pt ati ons . They must alsokeep in mindthateff e c tive teachingmeans effective teac h ingforall st ude nt s .
Cannon (1990) ident i fied sev e r al teach i ngprac ti ces th a t were importantforinte g rating stude n ts withmild lear n ing disabilities in t o the regular clas s room, ho wever , there has bee n no re s e a r c h todate thathasst ud"i edhow regu lar teacher s in Newfoundla ndpercei vethe importanc e of suc hteachingpractic e s. According to Cannon(19 90 ), teachers have be en known to effect positive changein the livesof students. therefore , it is necessary thatwe include the ideas of this group of educatorsin ou r planning. Thisis the largestgroupofind ivi d ual s whowi ll have towor kwi th studentswhohave mildlearning disa b ili t i e s.
Selectedn:viewQfthe Ijter[!tllre
will (1 986), believesthat the regularclassroomisth e most enhancingenvironme nt for studen t sandtha t inst r u c tio n al methods for aeuceneswithdisabilitiesare more alike thanunli k e tho se used with higher achieving stu d e nt s.
As Schloss (199 2 ) notes, many of the effective practices tha t areused for regular students can alsobe used forstu d e nt s with disabi lities. Some of these practices include: increasing the
amount of time studentsspendsuc c e s s f u l l y engaged in educational tasks, teachingst ud ents to accomplishobjective sby following an instruc tionalprocedurewherethey are exposed toteacher demonstration, guided practice .independent pra c t i ce . and reviewing/r e t e a ch i ng.
Whitworth (1991 ) explainsthat ou r educational system oft e n insists that we -s he n e- or -mo.ld- children aroun d the needsof the system, ratherth e n molding ourIn strucci.onaround the needs of students . He believes that this is the single biggest obstacle to effectiveintegrated classrooms. According toUpt c n (1 9 9 1),ch i l dr e n withlea r n ing disabilities experience signif icantdiffi cultiesin school. He believesthatth i s maybe a result of curriculum problems. Upton goes on tosa y that teachers are , at times, unableto provideclassroomexperiences that are meaningful andrelevant , giventhe interests, experiences, and existing skills andknowledge of particul<Jr children. A major focusof the integration movementis th e need to improve schooling in ways that will enable all stiuderrt.e to achieve success. The primary question that will be addressedin this thesis is. "How do we helpal lch i l d r en, in particular, students with mildle a r ni ng disabilities, to learn within the mainstream of a regular classroom?"
Larrivee (1985) identified many factors in her research which support thevi e w that effective integration entails effective teaching for all students. She explains thatte a che r s who were successful in integrating students into their classrooms
had higha:;hieve men t expect a t ionsfor in teg-ratedstuden ts al ong with person alwa.rmt h andrespo nsi vene-s stowa r d s them. The se tea che rsorgani z e dand mana ged thei r cla s srooms aseffi cie nt learning envir onmentstha tmaximiz ed studen t Invckve men t;wi th eced eeuc tasksandminimized timespent rc,rimand i ng students for inap p ropr i ate behl1lfi or. 'I1leyse l ect edacti v ities tha t allo wed the seudenee tomai ntai n continuous proqressandprovid~a balan c ed approachto instructionwhe retherewa s agr e at dealof activegr o u p tear-hing. Reci t at ionanddi s c uss ionlessonswer e a part of th ecur r icul umin add ition toindiv idua l ' .e at work.
La r ri ve e (198 5 ) se e non to ;!xplai n that st.ud en t s who ha ve learningdisabi li tieshave si mi lar need s; toacuden es inreg ula r cla ssrooms who come fro mlow soc io- ec on omicbackgrounds, or who have lowacade mic abi lity . Teachershavealway s ha dtopro v ide forthose indi vidu als in thei r cf e asroc es and, there fo re, are probablylI\Or eknowl edgeable th an theythin k about effe c tive teaching pra c tices.
The pro fe s sionalwho ismost respo n si ble for in tegr ating stud ent sis the reqularclass room eeecb er.Therefore , L.a rriv@e. (19651 not e s,thisindivi d ua l shcu l dbepa r tof the pro ces sof id@ntifying effect i ve te a c hingpractice!;:. LArr ivee (19 851. fee ls that in orderto have an impact on the tea ch erpopulation which isresponsi b lefor in t e gra t e d students , the focusmust be on teachi ng behav i o r sand pract ice sthat have been va lidatedin t@rtns of th e irrelationshipto successful performa nceof in t e gra t ed stud ents.
DesignQfth e study
This study isdesigned to gatherin fo rma t ionabou t teachi no pra c t i c e s perceivedby r~ularclassroo mteachers toberelev an t for in t egra t i n g students wit h mildlearn i ngdisabilities . Ano t her aspectof this study is toshowdifferencesbetween back ljJroundvariablesand teachers' percep tion s of theseteachi ng practices.
The descriptivemethod of researchwas chosenas it seems a most eff e c t i ve me ansfor determiningvariablesthat bea rupon teache r at t i tudesconcerning teac h i ng practices releva nt to successfulin tegr atio n. Thisstudy unc ove r e d somesigni fic ant findingsconcernir.g regularclassroom teachers' opinions about integration . Due toa teacher'sun i qu e situation , adifference exists between teacherpercep t ionsaboutte a c hi ng practices and ce r t a inbackgroundva riable s. This informa t i onmaybe of inte res t to policymakers atthe provincialandsc hoo l board level .
It was decidedby there s e a r c he r that thisresearchwo u l dbe r.arr i e doutas a pi lot studl'~n ly. According to Borgand Gall (19891 , apilotstudy ean provide ideas, approaches, and cl ues no t foreseenpriorto a larger st ud y, permitathorough checkof theplannedstati st ical andana l y t ical procedures, reduce treatmenterrorsandreduc e exp e n d i t u re of tirne and money on researchthatyieldsve ry little.
10 This researc his. therefor e,limited to the views of teachersin oneschoolboard concerningteaching practices relevan t to in t egra t i on. Furtherre s e a r c h maybe carriedout at a later time on al lsc h oo l s in NewfoundlandandLabrador to providea broade r viewof teac hers' opinions.
Th i sres e arch is anextensiontoCannon's {19901, work in thatit usesadi f feren t popul at ion and go e s beyond an attitude surveybyus i ng background var iables. The title ofCannon 's resea rc his, "Educa t i ng StudentswithMildHand icaps in Genera l Clas s r o oms : Es s ent i a lTe a c hi ng Pr ac t ic e sfo r General andSpe c i a l Educ a t ors·. Accordi ngto Cannon(1990), the focusof thestud y was to valida teessential tea ch i ng prac ticesneeded byboth ge ne ra l and spe cial edu c a t or s to successf u llyed ucatest uden t s withmild handicapsin gene r al classrooms.
In this study, there se arche r chose regular classr oom teac hers as the populat ionto bestu died, since they ar e most res po ns ible for teachi ng stude ntswithlearnin gdisab i l ities.
Cann on (19 90l,on the othe r ha nd,chose a 105me mber expert pa ne l which inc ludedadm i nis t ra to rs, prog r amsupervisors,teacher educa to rs and resear che rswhohe l ped to val idate teachi ng pra c tic e s .
This re sea r ch will involvehavin greg u l ar classroom tea c he rs rank theimp o rtan ceof tea ching prac t ices fr omthe poi n t of vi ew of a final(~urricu lumimplementor, rn s t e a d of us i ng Cannon's full attitude survey, the pres entresearc he r adopted fift y -fou r sta t ement afrom Cannon's ques t i OMaire. Th e se statementswere
11 chosen fo r thisstudy basedon the hi g h e s t ratings receivedfrom Cannon's study. Educators fromCa nnon' s research had 9S to100 percent co ns en s u son their questionnaireinfa vour ofth e particular tea c h i ng practicesused in the present researcher'5
questionnaire.
The da t a collection procedureinvolveda que sti o~ a i r eas the research ins t r ume n t. The primary analysisconsistsof descriptivetabulationsandchi-s qu a.r e tes ts of independence to evaluatedifferences between teachers' perceptions of selected aspects of Cannon's sixcategory variableswh en theteacher populationis su b - g r o uped accordingto the followingeight backgro undva ria ble s: gender;present teach ing assignmen t; numbe r of years te a c hing experience :present teaching level:numbe rof univers i tylevel, specialeducationcourses; ins e r v i c e training;
number of students wi thmildle arn in g disabi lities pre s en t l y integrate dinto the teacher'sregularclassroom: and,class size for re gu larteacherswith inte gratedstudents.
12
Speci fica l ly, theresearc h questionsad dressed by thi s invest igation areas fol lows:
1. Wha t are the teaching practices thatteac he r s feelare impor tan t in order tomeet theneedsof stud ents whoare classifiedas mild lea r ning di s a b ledinaregularclassroom setting?
Inan attempttoanswe r th i s res earchquestion.se v e ra l statements from ll.Delphist udydeve l op e dby Cannon (1990). were adopted in the development of a res earchque s tionna i r e des ig ned for us e withteachers . The questionnairecanbefoundin AppendixA.
2. What is thediff e rence betwe e nregu lar eee cnee at t itu de s towa r dteachingpractices forineeg ratin; st udents with mild learni ngdisabilitie s int o requ la r classrooms as th eyrelate to various backgro undvariab l es,namely: gen de r; pre sen tte ac hi ng assignment;number ot: yearstea c h ingexpe rienc e;present teach ing' le v e l;nwnber ofuni ve rsi c yrevea, spec ialeducati o ncours~s;
inser vic etraining; number of students with mildlearning disabil i tieRpresent lyin t e g ra t e d into the teacher'sregular classroom,and, class size forregul ar teache rswith integ rated students?
As are su l.tof th isre s e arc h quest ion, severa l questions weredevel<:lp e d bythe researc her for usewi t h teachers and can be found in Append ix B.
13
Ininterpr e t inQ't:.h e dataof thi s study the follow ing limi tation s were considered:
1. This s tudyis limi ted to an investigati on ofthe teac h ing pra c tices and st ra teg i e s th at wer e identitied bya105 member expe r tpane l (e.o., school adminis tra tors.programsuperviso rs . teac hereducator s and re search er s, wi th half of the member s fr om ge n e ral educationand half fr omspecia l educat ion)as being importa nt fo r tea c hing stu d ents whohave learninq di s ab il i t ies in the integratedcla ssroom.
2. Thi s studyislimi t ed to theres ul ts of a oelphi inv e s t i ga tion developedby Cannon (1990).
3. This study i slimited toeig ht specific ba c kgr oundvariables. namely:gender; pre s ent teachingassignme nt; nwa.ber ofyea rs tea chingexperience; pre sentteachinolevel: n~rof un iversity leve l,spe cial education co urs es; inse rv icetr aining;numberof studentswithmildle arningdisabi l i ties prese n tly integrated into the teacher'sregularclas sroo mlan d,class size for requ lar teache r swithintegrl\ted ee udene s.
4. Sinc e this is a pi lo tstudy, general izati onsto ot her popu lations shou ldbe undertakenwitha degree of caution.
5. Cl ari t y of que s ti o nn ai r e items inse c tion one is a l im i tation of th i sstudy. Accordingto Cann o net a l. (1992), th~researchers modifiedth e questi ons for clar it y onRound2, howe v er,many statementssti l 1 remainedcomplex . They felt that tophrase1111
14 .sta t e men t s insimp lesentence swou ldtake Awayfromthe holistic mean i ng'.thus.reducing statement s toan a.ccumulationof indiv idual . discretebehavior s.
6. Alt hough questionnai res to tea c herswerereturnedwithout ident ification,i t was unlike lythatther e woul d have beena 100\
returnrate.
15
Chapte r 2 REVIEWorRELATEDLI'l&RA.TORE
Thischa p ter willfo c us on thete a chi n g practices and strateqies as they re l ate tointegr a t in g st.u den tswit hmild le arn ingdi sabi li t i e sintothe regularclassroom. The six categ'or iesto bediscussedas iden tif i edby Cannonet a L.119921 areas follows:a) As se s sment /Oiagnosi s : bJ Instruc tional con t en t ;c) I:n s tru c t ionalpr a ctices; dlManaq l ng stud ent behaviour: e) Planning and man a ging thete ach ing and lea r ning environment; and. f)MOn i toring/Eval uationprocedures. These ca t egor i es we r estu diedspecifically in the areasof teacher eff ec t iv eness and special education l i te r a tu r e to furthe rsup po rt the....orkofCanno n' sresearch. It is irrporeant to not e that this review is dir ectly re l atedtoth e 54 statements chose n from Cannon' sstudy for this questionnair e.
AsstssmentlDiaonqsis
Accord ingto Benn et t 119911,assessme ntis verba l or wri t t enteache rcomments concerning thequa1 ity ofch ild r en':J work. Diagnosisonthe other handis the teacher' sattempt to ac qui r e acle a r viewof a pup i l's unders t andings or mi sconcept i ons thr o u ghanalys i s of ch ildren 's workand quest ioning . This sec t i on wi ll atte mpt to explainhowthe
16 student with learning disabilitiescan best beund e r s t o od in relationto asse ssmentanddia gn o s i s . It wi l lfo c us on th e idea that learning forlow achi eve rsisdifferentfrom th a t of high achievers. In addition, this sectionwill describe the importanceof evaluationand cooperat ivegrouping.
Benn~tt (1 9 91), believes that the qualityof lea:rning experiences forlow achieving children is not the same as that for average or high achievers . For low achievingindividuals there is too lit t l e consolidation . Teachers ofte ngivest u d e n ts tasks which overestimate their capabilities . Ifte a c he r s present lessons poorly, it affectslow achievers more severely andth e i r work rateis of t e n slower. Inadequate assessment and diagnosis can lead to a student having superficialunderstanding and less than optimal curriculum prog r e s s i o n. Teachers must be awareof the intellectual demands in tasks, togetherwith strategies that will help to diagnose a students strengthsand needs. Su c h strategies shouldinvo lvefocused tas kobservationsand clinical interviewingtechniques.
Haglund and Stevens (19 801, explaintha t evaluationisthe final steptowa r d the teaching and learningprocess. Evaluation refers to the formal or informal assessment of the academic and personal development that is dependent upon the objectives stipu latedwithin the individualized education program plan. Evaluation may take the formof standardized tests, criterion referenced instruments, informal, written or oral quizzes, or anecdotal records . According to Brophy and Evertson(197 6 ) .
ev al uationshouldbe used for di ao no s isand reteachingpurpo se s ratherthan simply forassign i ng grade s. The y fe eltha t tests have lit tle importance in theirownrigh t. At....ell (198 1), bel ievesstudent s shouldbeevalua t e dona con ti nu al basis so that teachers will have anac c u ra t e id e aof st r e ng ths an d ne eds.
Such in f o rmati o ncou l d helptoprovidestrategies or alternate teach ingmethods.
As HaglundandStevens 119801, point out,whatever for m evaluationmay ta ke in the integ ratedclassroom, it is tobe emphasized that equi t a b l e , re a s on a b l e , individualizedapproaches mu s t be create dand implemented. Assessmentmustbebasedupon whathas been learned, rathertha n what ha sn't be e n. If ·what ha s been taugh t has not beencaught,· re teach ingusingdifferent ap proa c he s is necessary. Ma cfa dd an (19 93), expl ains that there mustbea highdegreeof trust in a cla ssroomwhere thereare no negative sanctions forfa ilure, but r:1ther an environmentthat pro motes self-directedlearners.
Evaluationof theexcep t i o nal student in the integrated classroomshouldbe based on ind ividua l diffe r e n c e s. If students with le arn i ngdis ab i l i t i e s can achieve the sameobj e c t i v e s as theirpeers,but throug ha differ ent formofevaluation le.g. , oral tes t i ng) thenthe y sho uldbe evaluated inth i smanner .
It is somet ime s fe l tthat unlessteache rseva l u a t e stud en tsina classroom inthe same manner anduse the same sou rces forda t a, anelemen t of unfairn ess en ter s into the evaluation. Sucha viewpenal i zes st u de n ts wi th spe cia l needs whore qu i r e modificationsinthe eva l uat i o nproce s s it their ed uca t i on a l gr owt h is going
18 to be assessedaccurat ely.Ea ch studen t isuni qu e.
Each studenthas strengths , abilities, and areasof relativeweakness . Recogn ition ofthese st rengt h s an d weakne sses, as wel l asknowledge of indi vidua l learning styles , shouldbe th eba s is formodification ofboth instructionand evaluat ion . (Ne wf oundla nd Dep ar t ment of Education 1990, p.22)
Ha glu n d and Stevens (198 0),believe that as a result of in cre a s ed indiv idualiz ed inst r uc t ion. the necessityfor lower
teacher/studentratiosmay emergeand smaller class size s wi l l become a reality .
vy g o ts ky (19 62), arguedthat ach i ld's potential for learning is revealed and of t en realizedinin t e r a c t i ons withmor e knowledgeable others. Bennett (1991 )hasshown in hiswor k that implementing formsof cooperative groupingimproves pupil involv e me n t andou t co me s.
Bennett (1 991 ). concludesthat effective schooling should in volv e a shift in our mindset from a -fixed- system for implementing thecommo n cu rriculumto a flexiblesystemthat will allowallstudents to acquire the common curriculum. It is import a nt to ke e p in the forefrontof ou r mind thatsome st ude n t s re qu i re moretime and extraordinary amou n tsof instructional support to achieve such goals.
Ins t.DlC' t i o na l content
The te a c h e r must be capableof modifying curriculum inorde r for studentsin the integ ratedclassroom tofe el a sense of accomplishment. The impo r t anc e of havingcurriculum materials th atmatch up with students' in s t r uc tion a l levels and learning styleshas beenemphasizedby Li b erman (19 82 ). McLoughlinand
19 Ke r s hman 119791.belie v e thatthe tea cher ' s ingenuityinad a p t inQ mat eri a l s and desi g n ing alterna tive forms of ,,"c ti vities for childrencan enhan c e children'sgr owt h and deve lop me n t Ip.S41. This sec tio n will therefor e foc us ontwovalua b le curri c ulum ada p t ation s ;multi-level inst ruc t ionand le s s onpla n adapt at i on s.
Por t er and Ri c hler119 9 1 1. believe stu de n tssho u l dbe exposedto multi-level in str u c t i on whereplanningassumes individuali zation, fle xibilityandinclusionofall students regardlessof their personal levelof skills. This may inc l ud e a varie tyof tea ch e r techniques:considering stude nt lea rn i ng st yle s whenplanningpresentationmethods; inv olvingall stude nts in theles s o n throug h ques tioningaimedatdiff e r e nt le v els of thinki ng; allowing thatsome students will need adjus ted expectati ons :giving stud en ts a cho ic e in what met ho d they will use todemonstrate the irund e r s t an dingof the conce p t bei ng ta u g h t ; acceptingthat thesedifferentmethodsar e of equal val u e; and, evaluat ingstuden tsbased on the ir ind i v i du al differences. This ki ndof instructionallows the teacher toplan for all studentswithinone le s s on , therebyde creasingthe necessity for separateprogramswhil eallowingthe teacher to weaveindividu a l goalsin t o the classroom con t e nt and in s tructionalstra t e g i e s.
Wood andMiederhoff (1 98B) explaintha t le s s on adaptat i on is necessa ry forthe in t e gra t e d stu de n t. They feel tha t it is importan t that te a c hersunderstan dthat st ude n t s emp loy a variety of perceptu a l styles tole a r n. The integoratedstudent, howeve r,
20 often has one or more deficient percep tualmodalities,which oftencontributes to learningproblems. Teachers can, for ex ampl e , adapt the content format through task analysis; type inste a d of handwriteallworksheets; and/or, re duc e the number of ite!!ls perworks heet to be completed.
It seemsev i d e n t tha t ifteachers are to include all childrenwithlearningdisabili tiesintotheir classrooms, the y have to make modificationsto theirinstructional contentso that i tis poss ible to meet the needsof al l individuals. Te a c h i n g for masterylearningmakesit possible for allstudents to ac hieve levelsof succes swith i n a program . Te a c h e r s haveto employmethods inthei r educational methodology and practices that will ma ke learning fo r allstudentsan eventuality, that is, if we areto mee t the goalsof oureducational ins t i t u tion s and thegoals of society.
InstZ1u,tionalPraC' '' i C§ §
It is imperat i ve tha t regu l arcla s s r oo mte a c h ers have knowledge about ins t r uc tionalpracticesi ftheyar eto help st ud e ntswho have learning disabilities. McIntosh (1985 ), explains tha t specificle arn i ng strategiesfor integrated stude n ts are keyto successat the inte r vent ionlev e l. This section wil l fo c u s on mastery le arning , dif fe r en t typesand quali ti e s of ins t ruc tion, lear n ing whichis made easy, amount of ti mene e de d to learn concepts,adaptiveins tructio nalapproaches, group study procedure s , tuto rial he l pand co-ope rat ive te a c hin g .
Tho usan d an dVi lla(199 1). descr ibe an ins t r uct iona l
21 approach which is a strong focus in the effective teaching li t era tu re. This approach is referred to asmastery learning or outcomes-basedinstructional models (Bloc k and Anderson . 1915;
Brookover et 41.. 19 82; Guskey, 1985; Vi c t er, 1988). Cornmon to all of these modelsare the following teach erbehaviors : a) frequent. bri ef diagnostic assessmentof each :~t\ldent:
bl ind ividu a l iza t i onof learningob j e c t i ve s with clear pre-set masterycr i t e r i a; c}frequent specificfeedback providedto studentsregardingtheir performance; and. d) su p pleme ntat i o nor adjustment ofte a c h i n g , learning methods or practice timefor thosestudents who do notyet meet theirmastery cr i t e r i a.
According to Bloom (19811 . individualstudents may need very differenttypes and qualities of in s tr uc tionto achi evemaste ry of learning. He believesthat int e g r a t e d studentsmay needma ny concreteillustrations and explanations, much approva l and reinforcement , and several repeti tionsof an explana tion. Scruggs and Ma s t r opieri (19 92), explaintha t modifying the rate and presentationof the curriculum is veryimportantfor stude nts who ha ve difficultyattend i ng . If inf or mat ionis presentedat toofa s t a ra te, or at too abstrac t a level of conceptua lization.
studentsattentionmaydec rease simply becausethey may "g e t lo st"in the con ten t. Direc t questioning of informat ionto be remembe red is agood waytoimpr o v e recal l. Also. fr e qu e n t l y hig hlig h t ing targ et information cangive st ud e n tsmore opportuni ty to proces sinforma tionand inco rpo r a te it into thei r knowl e d ge base. Te a ch ers canalsoenhanc e effecti ve encodi n gof
22 knowledg e by relatingi t to stu dent spr i o r kno wl edgeas muc h as possible .
Bloom (1 9Bl ), points out that there is l i t tle reas on to ma ke
le a r n i n g so difficult tha tonly a small proport i on of stude n ts can persevere to mastery. The demandsfor perseverancemay be sharply reducedi fstudents are providedwit hinstructional resources most appropriate for them. Freque n t feedback accompanied by specific help in instruc tion asneeded ca n red uce the time (and perseverance )required . Impro ve me n t in the quali ty of instruction (o r explanat i on s and illustrations )may reduce the amount of perseverancenec es saryfor a give n task. Sc ruggs and Mastropleri (1992) goon tosa y that explicit te ac h i ng of cognitive strategiesne c e ssa r y for efficient academic tasksha v e beenshown to beve ry helpful . Te achers shouldcarefully consider the purpo.seof their ins tru c tio n. If, for ex a mp l e, knOWledge of content is most important,themethod bywhich content is acquired should be of secondary importance . That is, while some studentscould be encouraged to engagein"d i s c o ve r y"
activities, other students, less capableof discovering school - re l eva n t content on their own, couldbe providedwith more direct approaches to acquire conten t knowledge.
Ca r r o l l (1963), believes thatthe time a student·spends learningnew material isve r y important to actually understanding it. His basicassumptionis that aptitude determinesthe rate of le arn i n g and that most, ifnot all studentscan achievemastery if they devotethe amount of time neededtothe learning.
23 Ac cording to Bloom(198 11, thisimplies thatstudentsbe affo rded cbetime they need to masterun ders t a nding. The amount of time a st u de nt ne e d s is like l y to be affectedbythe student's apti t ud e s , his or herverbal abili ty, the qualityof instruction.
and the helprece i ve d outsideof the classroom. Scrugg s and Mas t r opier i (1 992), rep o r t thattime tole ar n conten tcanbe achie ved by ha vingthete a c her aide, or a peer monitoradditiona l content coverage. This can be done perhapswhen othe r class membersar e en g Bge d inanind ependent "enrichment"activity , Ano t he r option couldbe to arrange for special educat ion te a ch e r s tore view conten t outsideof integra tedclassti me. Teachers could als opro videpa r ents withsuf ficientinforma t ion soth at their son or daug hte rcanpractisewiththe con te n t at home. All of theseoppor tunit ies forle arn i ng wil l depend upon schooland teacherorganizat ionas wellas flexib ili t y.
Wang (1991 ) , exp l a i ns that programs using the adaptive instruc ti on approac haredesignedso that stud ents learnin differentway s and atdiffere nt rates. Anot her goal of this program is to ensu rethat effec tiv e instructioninvolvesthe recognition and ecc ommodatLc n of the unique lear ni ng ne e d s of individu al studen ts , while enhanc i ng eac h stude n t 'sab il ity to achieve int e nd e doutcomes. Al t ho ughadap tive in st r uction call s for in divi d u a l i z e d planning, te ache rs not onlywork with stud e n ts ona one-to-one ba sis,but als o inc orporate sma ll group ins tru c t ion andot he r gro up tasks whe ntheyare deemed particularlysuited for achie ving cer t a i nstude n t out c omes.
24 Th o usand andVi l la (1991). repo rtthat grouplear ningmodels are adap tion approacheswhich ha ve be e nwidely researc hed {Gotti Ieb, 19 B?} , The y explai n that cooperative learning models share fiv eco mmonelements. suchas: a) face-eo-face inte rac tion among the hete r oge n eo us groupof student s ; b)pos i t i ve int e r de p e nd e n c estructured throughcommongoals or pxcducta , joi n t reward s , divisionof labourand role s , divis i onof mat e rialsor info r mat i o n; e: teachi ng ot: smal l group interper s onal ski l ls;d} regu l a r as s e s s men t and go al set t ing rega r d i ng the appropriate use ofsmallgroupand inte rpers o n a l sk i ll s; and, e) individua laccoun tabil ity for achi ev ing indi v idualized academic and socialobj ect ives.
Johnson andJohns on (l 987c l havedescribed sev eralproven strategies th athav ehe l pe d stude n t s wi th le arnin g di sabi l i t i es become act ive par t i c ip a nts insmal l gro up si t ua t ions. One st ra t e gy involve s ass i g ni ng the ch a l lenge dst ud e nta sp ec i f ic role which promot es par ticipation and minimizes anxietyabout co- op era ti ngwi t hmor e capable ot h e r s. Examples of appropriate rolesare checkingthat all memberscan expla inthe group 's answer , sunma r i z i ng thegroup' s an s we r andpraisingmembers for the i r con t r i b u t ions. Anotherstrategy cou l d involvepre-training studentswith leal:n i ng di sabil ities in academic or collaborative skill s. so they ha veuniqueexp e r t i s e to br ing to the gr o up. In add i t i o n tothis. regular cl assr oo mte a ch e rsco u l d adapt lesson requirements forindivid ua l students wi t h learningdisabilit ies. Different successcrite r iamay be~l!ledforeach gro upmember . In
25 this caseth e amount of work expected of each member may be adjusted. or group members may study andcoachone anotheron differentwords, problems ,reading and so forth. If the group is tested. the entire group may earn points based upon thedegree to which each memberexceeds indi v idualsuccess cr iteria.
Bloom(1981), advocates thatteacherssho uld use group study procedures on lywhen students who have learning disabilities need the m. Learni ng shouldbeturned intoa cooperative proce sswhere allmembers of the groupca n benefit. It isimportant to note that much depends on thecompos ition ofagrou p and the opportunit ies i tgives eachstude n t to exposehi s or her dif f i c u l t i es without demeaning one person andelevatinganother . If thegroupdynamicsare right. the more able studentswill have opportunities to strengt hentheir own learningin the processof helpinganotherstudent. This canbe done by explainingan idea or conceptthroughalternat iveways. Bloom (1 981), suggests that tuto r ia lhelp wou l d be anothe r strategy that couldhelpstudents understand instruc t ion. He cautions tha t this shouldnot be done wit ho utcare fu l consideration, sincea one -to-onere l at i o ns h i p betwee n the teacher and thele arne r representsthe most cost ly type of help. He goes onto say thatsuch a strategy shou l donly be used wh e n alternativeprocedures are not effective . The tutor id eally sho u ld be someone otherthan the teac he r, sinceheor she sho uldbr inga fre sh wayof viewing theidea or the process to the learne r. This personmust be skil fu l inide n tifyi ng learn i ng proble msandhelpinway sthat the student will not be
26 continuallydependant . Clearly , students sho u ldknowthat there are alternativesfor them when they donot unde rsta nd a particular conc e p t or idea withinthe regular class program.
Bowie and Robertston U986 ), explaintha tco-operative teaching can be an effective way to help facilitate the integration movement . The special needs teacherand th e regu lar teacher can become awareof a student'sneeds throu ghobserva ti on and participationin lessons. Bothtea c he r s can thendec ideon the modificationsth a t wouldbe s t meet the needsof the st u de n t with learning disabilities.
Friendand Cook (19 9 2),believeth a t co-te a c hingcanbe an effectivewa y to enhance child r e n's learninginthe integrated classroom . One teachermayte a c h thewhole class , whileth e otherci r c u l a t e s to help. At othertimes, bot h teac hers te a c h the whole group, one modelling a sk il l , whilethe other describe s it. Another alternative arrangement forteaching and helping could involvehavingone teacherwork with a small remedial group, while the other teacherteaches enrichment activities to a more advanced group.
Fri.end andCoo k (1992).go on to pointout that there are many advantages to co-operative teaching. Firstof all, students can avoid the stigma associated with going to a different classroom. Their learning becomes less fragmented because the special education teacheris more able to relate remediation to the regular subject. Also, studentscomment on the fact that
27 thereis always a teacher tohelpthe m. In add i t ion , behavior problemsalwaysde c r e a s einco-taught clas srooms. Finally . st u d entsare expo sedto different optionsfor learning.
Each individual student is uniquein hisor her own right and teachers must re c ognizethatwhen they ta ke a stude n t a little further in their learning ; theyhav e to appea ~to all members in classrooms who have vary ing ab i l i t i e s, differen t interests, a.nd particularstrengths. Whether we decide cnet;
di f f e r en t kinds and ratesof instruction are needed, tutorial or peer grouping wouldbe pr e f e r red, we must draw up on our own expertise and consult wi t hot he r professionals tome e t the needs of all st u de n t s within our classrooms.
Managingstudent:behavior
Good student behaviorcan come as a resultof having a well managed classroom. Thissec t ion will thereforehighlight several aspects of the well-managed classroomsuch as, se a t i ng plans, sc he d ule s, teacher-studentrelationships, peer modelling, class rules, soc i a l reinforcement, academic success ,lesson presentation, consequencesfor severeaffectivebehaviorsor motivationalproblems and behavior co n s u l t a t i on.
There are many class management techniques that Smithand Misra (1 9 92) suggest for creating apo s i tive environment. First of all, they feel that teachersshould take the time tocreate a well arrangedand carefully thought-outseating plan. They believethat more able studentssho u l d be assignedtoseats arranged in a scattered patternwhere theyca n serve as modelsor
28 provideassistanceforless able peers. If studentsof varying abilityare scat tered, then teachers will be morelikely to dist ributeattent ion,questions , and reinforcement to students in a largerareain thecl a s s r oom.
Smi t h and Misra (1992 ), go on to say that teachers should have dependabledaily schedules. A classro omscheduleallows everyoneto predictwhatis going to happen duringthe day.
Te ac he r s shouldtherefore avoidrevising schedules as thiscan cause conf us ion. Ifrevisionsare necessary, they should be announcedand postedassoonas possible ,preferably at the beginningof th e school day .
Teachers ca n cultivaterelat ionships that helpstudents feel morecomfortab le in an"academicsetting. Smith and Misra (19 9 2).
believe th atth is ca n be doneby speaking to students in concrete terms. using vocabularyand syntax appropriateto the students comprehension le v e l.
Themajor i tyof studentshave good behaviorand therefore shouldserve aseff e c tiv e rolemodels for their lesswe l l - be haved pe e rs. Again. Smith and Misra(19 9 2l. believe th a t peers can modela numbe r of app ropriatebehaviorssuchas, demonst ra tinga specific skill for a studentwho does not possess it,prompting an appropr iate behavior thestudenthas, but doesnot use, or inhi b i tan ina p p r opria t ebehavior. Peer modellingis an ef f ective ante c edentcont ro l techniqueand usua l lyinstills approp r iat e beh avio r in allstudents if teachersusehi g h- s ta t u s peers who feel compet e ntto perfo rmskil lsandarematu re en o u g h
29 to accept reinforcement by the te a c her at theapp ro p r i a t e times.
Affleck, Lowenbraun andArcher (19 80 1 . sugg e s t that establish ing cl a s sroom rules is a powerful procedure for ch a ngi ng stude n t behav ior . They belie ve tobe effective ,ruleswi thi nthe classroomsh ou l d: be very few in number; st a t e the behav i or that is desired rather than stating all thebe h a v iors the teacher do not wish children toexhibit ; be simple andcle a rl yst a t e d; and be guidelinesthat the teacher,can directly enforce .
They gOon to say that social reinfo rcement is yetan o t h e r tool to use in the classroomthat can preventuna cceptable behavior. When a student acts appr op ria t e l y the teacher shoul d praise the child verballyand referspe c i fi c a lly tothe de sired behavior. Smith and Misra{1992},expla inth at othe r soc i a l reinforcement may includesmi lingat a st u de n t, st a nd i ng next to and patting a st u d e n t on the back,saying "go odwor k". or telling a student you likethe way.he or she is working quietly.
Brophy (1 981 ) , pointscu t thatsoc i a l reinforcement should begu i d e dbyfourprincipals. First, it should be delivered contingently on target behaviorand reward. Secondly, it must emphasize student effort in the achievement of success rather than attributing performance to luc kor chance. Thirdly, it must clearly specifystudent accomplishment. Finally, reinforcement should have variety and spontaneityin order to be credible.
Scruggs and Mastropieri (19 921, believethat a student's behavior has been seen to improve dramatically as he or she becomes academically successful. Smi t h and Misra (1992), suggest
30 tha t th e selection of appropriateinstruct i onalmaterials minimizesdisciplineproblems. The teachermust ensurethat mat er i a l s areage-appropriateand functional lyrelevantifa studen t'sin t e r e s t and on-taskbehavioraretobe maintained.
Br ophy and Evertson (1976 ) , explained in thei r researc hthat succ ess fu l tea ch erswere those whose studentsworked.cons iste ntly at the i rseatwo rk. Each studen t knewwhat his or her assignment wasandif help was needed, the studentcould get it fromthe teache r or from some designa tedperson. Heor sh e was acccun ceb fe fo r completi ng assignmentsappropriately because the studentknewthat the y wouldbe checked. All of this was accomplishedwithina systemof regulations that onth e oneha nd ma de it possi b le for studentswho needed help to getit, butat the same time made it possible for the teache r to concent rateon read inggroupswithout bei ngcontinually interruptedby students who wanted to ask questionsabout seat work.
Sc rugg s and Ma s t ropie ri (1992) ,cautionthatwhenstudents succeedat a tas):, thede g r e e of successsh o uldbe att r ibutedto thedeg re e of ef f o r t, pe rseve r a nce, an dappropriatestra tegyus e by st u d en ts. Student sth e nle a r n tha t they are incontro l of thei r effort, wh ichisres pons ible for school success.
Smi thand Misra (19 92) repo rt tha t fewerpro ble ms occurwhen lessonsar e pre s ente din a clearandorg an i zed fashion. Success inles sonimple me n t a t ion result s fro macombina tionof factors.
I tbegins withadvan c e planning , is putint opr act i c e throug h clearcOIMlunication ofexpectati ons ,and is mai n tained through
31 consis ten t foll o....-up. This resul tsin fewer inter ruptio ns, less confusionabout what todo next, andle s s need forbacktrac king.
Teachers canrespond moredir e c t l y to more serious undesirable beha vi or, according to Affleck,Lo we nbra un and Archer
119801. bypu t t i ngstudentsinti me- out.remov i ng privileges. havi ng st ude n ts stay after school,having follow · throug h conseque nces at home. or developingindividual behaviorprograms. In anyca se , ...hensevereaff ectiv e ormot i va t i o nal probl em s arise, teacher s sho u l d consu l t: withth e schoo l psy c ho log i s t or ot h e r supportpers onnel inorde r tode te r mi ne the most app rop r ia t e cours e of action.
Ac c o r di n g to El l iotandShe r i da n (19921. behavioral consu l t a tionappears
to
havethemost defined st ruc ture for facili t a t i ng problem- s olvi n g. Be h avio ra lconsulta t ion refersto a seriesof stages tha t dir ec tand focusthe problem- so lving inquiries betwee n a consultantan dconsultee. The ac t i v i t i e s of the consu ltan ts aremulti fac e ted in thatthere are oppor t u nities for interviews , observation alass e ssme nts. tr e a tmt::nt ofa targ e t behavior. andev aluat i o n of thetre atmen t.AsSurrelloand Wrigh t (1993) suggest , theremus tbe a var i ety of components at work whi chwil l make the inclusion of beha viorallychalleng edstudents pos sible . Th ese components includecollaboration among teachersandadmi n is t r a t o r s, coo p e ra t i v e learning, joint ownershipfor studentintegrat ion , effective teachingpra c ticesand dev elo pme n tof teacher skill s in adap ting and modifyingthe cu rriculumtomee t students ' needs.
32 AsAffl e c k , Lowe nbr a un andArc her (1980)po int out, te ache rs' pr imarymanagement ef f o r t s should foc u s on prevention rather than tr ea tmen t of behavioralprob lems. Telling ch ildren wha t beha v iors arede s i red , demon stra t i ngor model l i n g the behaviors . andprovidi ng feedbac k and re infor c eme nt for appropriate be h a v i ors are particularlyimportant .
Planning and managingtheteaching andlea rn i n gMyi ronmen ti Brophy and Evert s on (1 976), de fine "cla ss r oom mana ge men t"
the planningand theorga n i z a tion of ac t ivitiesinanord e rly fashion , wherest ud e n t sare actively engag ed inle s sons and sea t workac ti v i ties withami nimumofdisrup t ionsand dis cipline problems. Thissectio n will there foredesc r i b e howre gu l a r teache r s can :helpst u de nts to stay on tas k ; pr e v en t or con t ro l disciplineprob l e ms; run smoo th cla s s r ooms and, bec o me ef f ec t ive motiv ator s . In addi t ion, thissectionwill exp lain the importance of pr e-andpost-serv ice, tea ch e r chara c t erist ics.
students ' previous achievement ,andthe roleof thespecia lneed s teacherin the future.
Brophy and Evert s on fo u ndth at student engagement in lessons and activit ieswas indeed key tosucces sful classroommanageme nt. The successful teachersransmooth ,well-pacedles sonswithfew interr uptions. and their st uden t s wor ke d con sistentlyat their seatwork. The cur r i c u l um wasin t e r est i ng,varied . app r opri a t e and ind ividualized for eachparticularst udent.
Discipline wasnever a problemin well-managedclassrooms . Most of the teachers workedinsmallgroups. sotha t it was
J3 ea sie r to mon i to r even ts going on else where. Beca use tea ch ers we r eawa r e of....hat was goingonat all tim e s in thero om, potentialprob lems were spotte d and ·nippedinthe bud· befor e they everbecameseriou s.
These teachers alwa yshan dl ed prob lems cal mlyand effectively . It se e med clear that teacher s who had fewer disc ipl ineproblems had mor e time availablefor teac hing andwere moresu ccessfulatgett i n gconc e pt s across to st u d en t s .
Again, the succe s sful classroommana g e rs hadcl a ssroo ms that se emed torunsmoot hly, almos t "auto ma t i c al ly'. Thiswas a resul t ofth e te a ch e r' s organization and carefu l planningof where and howtous e classroo mmonitors. These monitorswere responsible forcertainda ilybusinessthat couldcause frustrating delays and wast e timeif ne eha ndledeffic i ently . The organizedteachers als ohad fewerclas s r oomruleswhi ch were explainedwell at the begi nningof the ye a r . These ruleswere fairlygeneral,ha vingtodowit h: attenti on;respect fo r the te a c h er and fellowclas s mates : walkingin anor derlyfa shi on;
and, remainingquiet. Als o, these rules were fairl yf le xi ble50 that thete ache r could interpre t themstrictlyor loosely.
de pending upon the inmediatesitua t ion .
Porte r and Richler (1991) fe el thatsmoothly runn i ng cl assrooms ha vete a c hers whoaremotivators. These ed uca to rs ha ve regulardiscussionswith their stude n tson thebenefit s of sha r i ng id e as,problem-solving techni que s and respons ibility. They pointout th a t providing motivation includesde si gning '"
J4 wide range of activitiesand multi-level le s s on s which s tudents fi n d interesting and challengi ng.
Porter and Richler (1 9 9 1). go on to sa y that the physical La y o u t; of the classroomshould reflect a well-organizedsetting wherematerialsare organizedand vi s i b l e, instructions for activities are posted, specificplaces for completed assignments are established, as are procedures for leaving the classroom, arrivinglate and using free time. At all times students know exactly what they are supposed to be doing, while the teacher is responsible for designing, initiating , and monitoring all activities.
ACCording to Ainscow (1991 ), thereshouldbe pr e- and post- service where teachers are re-educatedabou t inclusive teaching, rather than manl\ging individual problemsas theyoc c ur in the integrated classroom.
Ainscow goes on to say that effective integratedsc ho ol s we refoundto have teachers that were supportive , inviting and no t afraidto asserttheir views about management and decision making withthestaff. Also, theyprovided a structuredlearning situationwherefreedom and personal responsibility were encou raged. Thr ou g h the use of flexible whole-classand individual contacts, communication was maximizedfo r each student. Furthermore,by li mi t i n g their focus within a session, teachers' attention was lessfr a g me nt e d,and the opportunities for presentingchallengingworkto pupils were increased.
35 Ainscow(1 9 91). goes on tosa yth at thecha lle n g e forall teachersand sc hoo lsis to deve lop furtherteach ing st r at egie s whi c h re c ogni z e th e di f fe r e ntprev iousattainmen t s ofpu p ils.
Al l ne eds shou l dbe me t byhav i ng st uden ts mo v e fromone le vel to the nextthro ug h a cur r i '; u l umthat has a bu i l t - inprog ress ion.
Ainscow(19 91) , con tin u es toexplai n th a t the ro leofthe spe c ial ed uc ator inourschoo lsof the rutu x ewill be to assist infind ing thebes t differe nt i ated curricu lumfor all,rather than a few. Hepoin tsout tha t theywi ll needto employ their expe r t iseinad vis ing on teachi ngand le arni n gra t h e r th a n st ric t l y on 's p e c i a l ne e d ee• Al s o , the y willneed to decideon
planning fordif fer ent i ati on , on re s ourceprodu c tion to ens ure that the r e ismate rial availabl e in each clas sto suppor t the le arni ng of al l pupilsir r esp ec t iveof the irpr e v ious at t a i nme n t s. Fu r t he r mor e, theywill be respon sible for coll a bo r a t i ng aboutcl a s s r oom st rateg i e s, indi vid ual and group wo r k, as se s sment andaccuratelymat ch ingthe curriculum of fe r ed to each pupil's ab i l i ty lev e l.
Mo r timore (19931, sums upth eef fec t ive clas s room asone in wh i c h expectation sarepi tc he d high an d are sustainedover ti me. He believesthat cla s sroom mana ge me nt is sys tema t i c and fair and stresses re wardsrather tha npunishment. Also , he poi nt s out tha t the effecti v eclassroom inv o lvesa ba l a n c ed curriculumwhich iswell prepared,where stud e nts areable to receivedetailed and positive feedbackalon g wit h support and supplementaryhelpif th e need arises. He goes on tosay that these factorsaresimpl y
36 a means toward the endof effectiv elea rn i ng andno n e, by thems elves , arelik e ly toguara n teesu c cess fuloutcomes.
MDnitqring / evaluati on procedyres It is ve r yimportant tha t te ache r s moni torand evalu ate the i r cla ssroominst ru c t ion and stude n t management programsif theyare to experience the optimum level of effectiveness. Thi s sect io nwi ll foc us onthe signif icance of diffe ren t types and qualiti esof instruct ion, precise and systematic te a c hi n g , adj ustmentto classroomma nagement, evaluationprocedures.
pr epara t ionof the in structional sequence and knowl edgeof instructiona l procedures .
Bloo m,Ma dausand Hast i ngs (1981). pur p or t that individual st u dents mayneed ve rydif fe ren t type s and qualiti esof instructionto ac hi e v e maste ry. As was mentionedea rlie r in this cha p ter, some stude n tsmay needconceptsexplaine d seve raltimes th roughteacher demons t rationandpractical • hands-on"
experience ,while others may need onl y to haveaconc ept explained ver b a lly. In any ca se , the curricu lumshouldbe flexible enough to provi de wha t eve r he l pis required in order fo r a studentwith learningdisabi lit ie sto ach i ev e ma stery.
Af f 1 e ck, Lowenbrau nand Arc h e r (1 980), be liev e that precise and syst emat i c te achingdepe nds ona teacher whois constantl y awareof a stu d ent's abili ty, 50 tha t dec isionscan bema de to ef f i cient l y use ins t ruc t i o n a l time. It is importan t thattoo mu ch ti me isnot spent retea ching or to o lit t leti me is sp en t teac hing .
)7
Brophy and Evertson 11976}.conclude thatclassroom managementshould bead j u sted to take into accou ntchange sin childr enas th ey occur. Differ entch ildren,an d even the same childr e nat different leve ls of deve 1opmen t,re quirediff er ent tre atmen tfor opt i mal res ult s, forexample . ast ud entdu ring the mi ddl e of the termNY needlessind ividual hel p than heor she neededatthebegi nning.
Ma daus (1981 ).exp l ainsthatin order torevalu ation proced u r estobe fair an dva l i d , theyhav e tobe geared tothe actual educat ional expe r ience ofth e st ud e n ts . Itis also import a n ttha t teacher s askthemselve s if theeva l uat ion proce d u res area direct resu l t ofth e ob je c t ives of th e inst r ucti on. The evalu ation proceduresmustreflect th e objec t ives inthe mos t directwaypo s sibleifthe y ar e to infl u e n c e and re infor ce theinstruc t ional processdes i g nedto achi eve these obj ec t ives.
Ev a l uationshould no tbe limitedto re call andrecognition of facts. Bloom (1981). argues the ne ed for asse ssin g all types of skil ls.abil i ties.at ti t ud e s.and fee l i ngs . Hepoi ntsou t that onlyby de s i gning eval uationpro ceduresthat permit student s toex hibit the se multipleskil ls wil l therebe anyas sur anc e tha t studentsat tempt to acqu irethem.
Te a cher s sho u ld mak esure that pu pi l s are preparedfor a particula r inst ruc t iona.l sequ enc e. Ma da u s (1981), goesonto say that evalu a t ionprocedurescan assureth a.t the pupilis properly placed byus ingsuchthings as pretests, intervie....e. and
38
behav ioral ch e c k l i sts. Evalua tionprocedur e scan contribute to the imp rov em ent oftea c h!n; and learni n; atseve r a lpoints in the ins t r u c tional.proce ss. Bloom 11981). poi n tsout that evaluati on should not besolelyfOrqra d i nq andIMrk i no .butus ed asit
feedbackmec hanism"bl e hhelp s teachersand learners identify and corre c t weaknesses,whilethereisstill anopp o r tunity to redirect ef E o rts.
Te achers mus t beprooressi\'eindividua lswhoare compet e n t enough to seek kno wl ed g'e abou t; widely ach ie vedin s t ruc ti ona l prog r ams and implement them as best they can. Acc ordingto Prat t
(1989 ). research er s in elemen taryan dsecondaryeduca tionhave provided evi. d ence to suggest tha t learner per fo rmance in several subject are a s can be signif icantlyin cr e ase di t theteac her follows cert ainprocedures. The most significant bod y of knowl e d g eto supportthisvi ewcomes frommastery learn i ng
(Bloom , 1984 ) and direct ins tru ction (RoSenshin e andSt even s . 1986J.
Teacher s must beco nst antly evaluatingwhat they knowand wha t theyneed to know about cu rren t teachi~practices,so that theycancre a t e the most enhancing en vi ronment forall students . As Ful l.an(1 9 931 sugges ts, te ac her s shouldbekno wledgeable about. committed to , andskil l. e d in devel opin g andapplying knowl e d geof cur r iculum, inst r u c tio n. pri nciples otle a rni ng. and evaluation needed to implemen t and moni tor effec t iv e andevol.ving proqrams fo r all lear ners.
3.
Aseducators. teac he rsmust learn to "bridge the gap· betwe en special educat i on an d regulareducation. They mus t draw upon the teachingpracticesand strate9i es that. will meet the need sof all students, whe r e collaboration and problem-solving are part of the curriculum. Ainscow (19 9 1 1. purports.tha t a sc h ool that isbas edupo na cooperati ve str uc t u r e islike l yto mak e good us e of the expertiseof allpersonnel,provide sou rces of stimulat ionand enrichmenttha t willfoster the i r profess ional developme n t . and encou ragepo s iti v e at titudestothe introdu c tion of newwaysof working.
