• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

An Exploratory Case Study of the Preparation of Secondary Teachers to Meet Special Education Needs in the General Classroom

Posted on: Tuesday, 19 July 2005, 03:01 CDT

Abstract

Teaching teachers to effectively adapt the general curriculum for students with disabilities in general education classrooms is a challenging and often overwhelming task for preservice methods faculty. In order to examine the preparation needs of secondary education teachers and the realities of todays secondary education classrooms, inservice secondary education teachers and preservice methods faculty were matched in intensive, asynchronistic, online discussions. An initial attitude, knowledge, and skills survey was completed by both groups of participants and compared to the results of the online discussions. Findings of this small case study revealed that (a) theoretical knowledge in best practices of special education are not adequately addressed in secondary education preparation programs, and (b) both methods faculty and inservice secondary teachers need to learn effective content enhancement practices, principles of strategy instruction, effective curriculum design, and technology skills. Educational implications of the findings for professionals in teacher education are discussed.

Since the reauthorization of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997), opportunities for students with disabilities to participate in general education classrooms have increased. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) legislation called for the use of scientifically based research to augment education programs and classroom instruction and for highly qualified teachers in every classroom. As more and more students with disabilities are placed in secondary general education classrooms, these legislative efforts bring two important questions to mind. First, how well are secondary general educators prepared to meet the responsibility of providing access to the general curriculum for all of their students? In addressing this question, it is important to ascertain if secondary general educators are privy to best practices for teaching mainstreamed students with disabilities. Second, what responsibilities do preservice methods faculty have in ensuring that secondary educators are highly qualified to meet the challenges of today's increasingly diverse classrooms? As part of this question, it is important to determine whether preservice methods faculty are knowledgeable in best practices for teaching students with disabilities in general education.

The increase in cultural diversity in the schools, the rise of inclusive schooling practices, and the requirements of special education and NCLB legislation may necessitate the need for change in the preparation of secondary teachers. State mandates, as well as IDEA-97 and NCLB, call for increased accountability for student performance. Special education laws require that students with disabilities have access to the general education curriculum and be included in statewide and district-wide testing programs. Unless students with disabilities are provided with effective instructional practices, they will be at risk for failure on these exams. These students require highly effective instructional programs to ensure adequate progress in their classes and success on the mandated state and district testing (Swanson & Deshler, 2003).

General and special education teachers may not possess the skills to effectively address the changing reality of diverse student populations (Meyen, Vergason, & Whelan, 1998; Warner, Cheney, & Pienkowski, 1996). In fact, sobering outcomes of inclusive schooling practices in both elementary and secondary schools have been reported (Zigmond & Baker, 1996), even though research-based, effective instructional practices for at risk students with learning disabilities have been delineated (Kame'enui, Carnine, Dixon, Simmons & Coyne, 2002; Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Graetz, 2003; Swanson, 1999). In addition, content enhancements and strategy instruction have been demonstrated to support learning and to improve the performance of secondary students (Deshler & Lenz, 1989; Hudson, Lignugaris-Kraft, & Miller, 1993).

Concern has been raised regarding the lag time that occurs between the introduction of effective teaching practices and their actual implementation (Malouf & Schiller, 1995) and the utility of traditional inservice training models to accelerate implementation of new ideas (Miller, Perkins, Suzuki, Odell, & McKinney, 2002). Improving preservice teacher preparation may be an alternative to inservice training models designed to infuse new ideas and pedagogy into schools. A review of the literature revealed surprisingly few empirical studies on preparation of secondary education teachers to meet the needs of diverse student populations. Preservice methods faculty may need to rethink and retool their own beliefs, knowledge base, and skills in order to adequately integrate successful strategies into their methods classes for preservice secondary teachers. This is particularly important, as modeling of effective instructional methodology by preservice methods faculty may be an effective way of ensuring that students learn to use these practices in their own classrooms (Jay, 2002).

Secondary education preparation programs need to effectively address the critical issues of special education. These needs were clearly recognized as a result of our attendance at an International Learning Disabilities of America (LDA) Conference when we were awarded a stipend to attend as a special/general educator team from the same teacher preparation program at Rivier College.1 The faculty teams were required to set goals to improve the collaboration and communication between general and special education faculty within their institutions. A proposal was developed and funding was received from the New Hampshire Department of Education's Special Education Bureau for ASSET (Accommodations for Success for Secondary Students). The overall programmatic objective of the ASSET project was to increase the ability of in-service secondary general education teachers to effectively deliver the general curriculum to students with disabilities by focusing on the preservice preparation of secondary general education teachers. The first phase of the ASSETS project was to collect data through online communication among secondary teachers and preservice methods faculty and through pre- and post-test evaluation. This initial set of data is included in this article.

The lack of special education instruction in Rivier College's secondary education preparation programs was a startling discovery made during the collaboration of this special/general educator team at the LDA Conference. The general education professor knew little of the existing range of best practices in special education for general educators, and the special education professor was unaware of how little general educators addressed special education issues in their secondary methods courses (usually one class session or less).

The need was recognized for a greater infusion of research-based special education instructional strategies across the range of secondary methods courses at Rivier College. Rivier College benefits already from a dual certification program in elementary and general special education. However, Rivier College has no requirement for dual certification for secondary education majors. As a result, preservice methods faculty may choose to not include state of the art information on effective curriculum design and instructional tools for diverse populations of learners in their courses.

It may be that preservice methods faculty do not have the knowledge or skills base to include this information in their coursework. Determining faculty attitudes and assessing the state of their knowledge bases may be helpful in identifying the range of professional development that would be appropriate. The need for preservice methods faculty to have more knowledge of special education instructional strategies is especially important, as they perform the dual role of ensuring that students learn to use effective instructional methodology and model effective curriculum practices in their own classrooms (Jay, 2002).

In order to explore issues related to the increased presence of students with disabilities mainstreamed in secondary education classrooms, inservice secondary educators, special education specialists, and preservice methods faculty were brought together to engage in wide scope conversations and dialog. The aim was to document the needs and realities of current, inservice secondary educators and to examine the practices of preservice teacher preparation.

Due to the logistical difficulties of bringing university faculty and inservice teachers together, asynchronous Web-mediated communication was employed. A review of the literature (Bennett, 1997; Rogan, 1997; Sanchez, 1996) suggests this style of virtual communication or "e-peer mentoring" may be considered a wise response to the perennial problem of the use of time-and lack of time-in educational reform efforts. In particular, research we conducted from 2000-2003 involving a K-16 audience engaged in threaded conversations helped us to see the value in promoting the kind of work that John Goodlad (1984)maintained leads to the necessary kind of simultaneous renewal of both the higher education world of teacher preparation and the inservice delivery of education to K-12 children. This kind of model encourages the use of job- embedded and just in time professional development for teachers and university faculty who have a difficult time arranging face-to-face meetings. Participants may pose questions and post comments to weekly focus questions more easily during breaks in the school day and on nights and weekends. Additionally, these virtual relationships may have the potential to spark future action research projects and other real time collaborations between secondary education methods faculty and secondary general education teachers. In collaboration with the National Institute for Community Innovation (NICI), a virtual group space with technical assistance called Virtual Campus was created for the project. Virtual Campus linked the university secondary education preservice methods faculty with the secondary education teachers from the two partnership schools for 4 weeks of moderated, threaded, asynchronous discussions.

Participants

Participating volunteers in the study included 15 secondary education teachers and 5 university faculty members. Teachers were recruited from two schools involved in a partnership with Rivier College. One of the schools is located in an upper middle-class, suburban area, and the other is located in an urban setting of markedly more mixed socio-economic status. The suburban high school classes are heterogeneously grouped, whereas the urban high school employs an achievement-oriented tracking process to facilitate between-class grouping. The secondary education teachers all taught at the high school level and represented five content areas (social studies, English, math, biology, and world languages) and special education. Fourteen of the 15 teachers reported teaching more than 4 years. All teachers reported experience working with a variety of students with disabilities in many of their classes. The university faculty members participating in the study had expertise in the 5 content areas represented by the participating teachers. One special education faculty member also participated.

Methodology

The study contained two components. The first was the completion of a survey of attitudes, knowledge, and current practice in working with students with disabilities. The second involved Web-based threaded discussions that were monitored and structured as weekly content seminars.

Teacher Survey

Because intentional attitudes (e.g., bullying and isolation) and unintentional attitudes (e.g., lack of awareness, knowledge, or understanding) have been identified as barriers to successful inclusion (Pivik, McComas, & LaFlamme, 2002), it was important to examine the attitudes of both Rivier faculty and the teacher participants with regard to special education. Prior to engaging in the online communications, faculty and teachers completed an adapted version (reduced to 11 items [see Table 1] and targeted toward the respondent's role) of the Teaching Integration Attitudes Questions (TIAQ) developed by Sideridis and Chandler (1997). Extensive validation of the 20-item TIAQ indicated that it could be used as a valid assessment of teacher attitudes toward inclusion (Sideridis & Chandler). Additional information was also gathered through the administration of nine additional questions that explored teachers' current practices, including use of effective principles of curriculum design, strategy training, and technology (see Tables 2 and 3).

Table 1

Survey Questions and Results for Secondary Education Teachers and Preservice Methods Faculty

Table 2

Additional Survey Questions for Secondary Education Teachers

Web-Based Discussions

Participants were originally asked to spend between 30 minutes and 1 hour per week online for a 4-week period responding to the Weekly Focus Questions. A 5th week was added as some participants continued to access the online environment and seemed interested in continuing the discussion.

Table 3

Additional Survey Questions for Preservice Faculty

All participants were trained in the online environment prior to the start of the conversation. "We posted a set of provocative discussion starter questions for each of the 5 weeks in the Group Space, asking both methods faculty and inservice teachers to respond. The broad themes for each week were challenges in secondary education classrooms, effective practices in secondary education classrooms, preservice secondary education training programs, recommendations for change in inservice education, and a week of summary and reflective concluding posts.

Results

Secondary Education Teacher Survey Results

Fifteen secondary education teacher participants received the surveys, and 12 of the teachers returned them. Because of the small sample size, no statistical tests were performed on the data, and only descriptive data are reported (see Tables 1 and 2). Each response to the 4-point Likert-type scale items was given a numeric code (1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, and 4 = strongly disagree). In our descriptions, we interpreted scores less than 2.0 as evidence for agreement and scores greater than 2.0 as indication of disagreement.

In general, secondary education teachers revealed attitudes toward inclusion that were positive. Teachers agreed that all students benefit from the placement of students with disabilities in the general education classrooms and that their students with disabilities experience success when they have appropriate access to the general education curriculum, despite the unavailability of adequate instructional materials.

Responses related to technology revealed that although half of the participants currently use technology to help students access the curriculum, teachers reported having little knowledge in the types of technology that could be used to help their students access the general education curriculum.

When asked about their preparation to teach students with diverse learning needs, secondary education teachers overall reported their college methods courses spent less than two class sessions on special education issues.

Higher Education Faculty Survey Results

Preservice methods faculty and one special education faculty member were also asked to complete a similar survey on self- perception of knowledge, attitudes, and skills regarding working with students with disabilities in their own classrooms. Surveys were returned by 4 of the 6 preservice methods faculty. One preservice methods faculty did not complete the project due to illness; the other completed the project but failed to complete the survey.

Results from the university faculty survey revealed trends similar to those of general education teachers in many areas, including positive attitudes toward inclusion (see Table 1). However, faculty reported less knowledge about disabilities in general and a lack of knowledge of instructional technology and how it might be used to help teachers accommodate to the needs of students with disabilities.

The texts that preservice methods faculty use in their methods courses generally do not include explicit content regarding differentiating instruction. Faculty reported they did not have adequate resources to teach preservice teachers about special education. Three of the higher education faculty members reported devoting no more than one class within their methods course to special education issues.

Virtual K-16 Conversations

Over the 5 weeks of threaded discussion, 254 posts were made by secondary education teachers and preservice secondary faculty members. A grounded theory approach (Altrichter & Posch, 1989; Charmaz, 1983; Glaser, 1998) was used to examine the data for trends and patterns without a priori categories. Although many posts overlapped more than one category, generally the threads of the e- conversations between secondary inservice teachers and preservice methods faculty separated into the following seven themes.

Knowledge of special education. Knowledge of special education refers to a rudimentary understanding of the laws, policies, and generally accepted best practices in special education. It was the third broad theme. Knowledge of special education was clearly a concern for both inservice teachers and preservice methods faculty. The gaps in secondary preservice preparation on special education issues were discussed, with some teachers reporting having had little preparation on how to work with diverse populations at the high school level. Despite their limited preparation for working with students with disabilities, teachers reported feeling confident in being able to accommodate students with disabilities. However, the discussion highlighted the need for training in special education and civil rights law.

Inservice teachers noted that teachers need to realize that the behaviors of students with disabilities vary greatly and that not all students with individual education plans (IEPs) will have or need modifications in a particular class. Teachers noted that many of the most challenging students are not identified as eligible for special education.

Many teachers were aware of the irony and damage caused by the practice of assigning the newest teachers to "the most impossible and low-level classes in tracked schools." One teacher shared how teachers are trained to be enthusiastic about their content area and the heights of possible achievement, but it is hard for new teachers (who were generally successful students themselves) to understand that poor readers struggle with the basics of comprehension.

Need for collaboration. Another major thread in the e- discussions was the necessity for collaboration between special and general educators. The need for collaboration refers to the importance of understanding the role of the classroom teacher in the \IEP process and in the use of collaborative teaching practices such as co-teaching. Teachers noted they were not socialized to ask for help, yet they must do so in order to help their students most in need. Peer coaching between general and special education teachers was recommended. New teachers were encouraged to network with veteran teachers and with other new teachers as well. Some inservice teachers reported having a learning specialist in their mainstreamed classroom, and they agreed it was invaluable help since the processing and reflection that occurred between co-teachers dramatically improved the teaching of all students.

Need for pedagogical skills and content knowledge. The need for pedagogical skills and content knowledge, the third theme that emerged, includes the awareness that effective pedagogy is at least as important as content knowledge in secondary classrooms, especially in the successful reaching of all learners. Although classroom management was by far the most mentioned concern through the 5 weeks of the discussions in the virtual Group Space, exchange on specific, effective pedagogy was surprisingly scant. Differentiating curriculum was the most mentioned pedagogical technique, although few teachers had had specific inservice or preservice training in such strategies. Conversations largely revolved around accommodations (multisensory presentations, additional time, hands-on learning, preferential seating, cooperative groups) that are routinely suggested for students with mild disabilities, rather than pedagogical principles. Although more preservice methods faculty posted comments stressing the importance of knowing one's content and continuing to keep that knowledge up- to-date, teachers tended to add comments such as, "It doesn't matter if you know your content if you can't get it across." Teachers argued that thorough, long-range planning and communicating clear and detailed expectations to students in a variety of modalities is crucial to their students' success.

Preservice methods faculty and inservice teachers offered a "short list" of effective practices for students with disabilities that included the following:

* Offering multiple and back-up activities,

* allowing more time on tests,

* providing extra help outside of class,

* presenting materials both orally and visually,

* using specific review strategies before presenting new information,

* frequently assessing student knowledge level,

* alternating between small group and individual work,

* modeling,

* providing an exemplar for everything a student is expected to do, and

* displaying flexibility and willingness to change and adapt.

Frustration with overwhelming social realities. Frustration with overwhelming social realities of the secondary education classroom was another theme that emerged from the data. This refers to the disappointment, bewilderment, and discouragement that teachers express in trying to teach students who do not come to class ready to learn, due to socio-economic and other demographic variables, a frustration that is especially keen during the first few years of teaching when the job is overwhelming. Teachers stated that they were unprepared to successfully handle the cognitive diversity as well as the social, behavioral, emotional, and psychological diversity that students bring with them into the classroom. Some preservice methods faculty responded that they struggle with how to prepare preservice teachers to meet the enormous variety of student needs they will face without scaring them away from the teaching profession.

All participants sensed a growing lack of respect for teachers. Most noted increases in interactions with hostile and challenging parents, along with a growing number of troubled or problem students with increasingly serious issues. Lack of community support was repeatedly mentioned as a discouraging job component for both new and veteran teachers, and again, something that they are underprepared to handle. As one secondary teacher complained, "It is hard to deal with parents who think they run the school and administrators who let them."

Classroom management. Classroom management, or the skill set of strategies that encourages a classroom climate conducive to successful teaching and learning, was the first broad theme-and by far, the most repeated throughout the conversation. The conversations revealed an overwhelming focus on concerns such as managing diverse groups of students, working in low-level tracked classes, and developing trusting relationships and environments where students can feel safe to learn. It was made clear that in teaching, particularly in teaching a diverse population, learning is most effective when it is engaging, connected, and relevant to the lives of students and their communities. Instruction that is delivered with authentic respect and honest communication between secondary teachers and their students is most effective.

Preservice methods faculty read teachers' posts that asserted, "subject knowledge is not as important as classroom management strategies." None of the inservice teachers believed they had had adequate preparation in classroom and behavioral management techniques. Teachers advised preservice methods faculty to stress the need to define clear expectations for students for both academics and for behavior, with consistent consequences. Teachers disagree to some extent over different management strategies, but all agreed explicit organizational strategies (e.g., setting up grade books and spreadsheets) were key. Some of the recommended methods considered mainstays of a productive classroom are listed below:

* Using signed (by parent and student) agreement forms on course expectations,

* developing deliberate and flexible group assignments based on different readiness and personality variables,

* starting each class with a quick, engaging activity of student work, using many constantly evolving and improving strategies to engage students,

* creating an environment of acceptance of all opinions,

* starting the day with an agenda written on board,

* working on student to teacher and student to student rapport during the first few weeks of class to build trust and create a positive atmosphere,

* setting and maintaining healthy boundaries, and

* anticipating a wide variety of behaviors.

In addition, all inservice high school teachers said that at least one course in behavior management is crucial.

Teacher preparation. The sixth major theme across the virtual discussions was teacher preparation. Teacher preparation refers to reflections and analyses of how well methods classes (in particular) prepared teachers to teach special needs students; it also refers to reflection on the part of preservice methods faculty as to what should and could be included in secondary content methods courses. Broad consensus was reached that preservice methods faculty must have substantial and recent knowledge of current classrooms in order to truly connect, and they should spend quality time in real classrooms, perhaps part of each year. Several veteran teachers stressed the need for local teacher preparation programs to provide more specific inclusion training for secondary teachers, including case studies of specific learning disabilities and express modifications.

Inservice teachers described education classes as "mostly irrelevant," with still "too much theory" and not enough practice. Teachers suggested more preservice experiences, with opportunities to observe excellent teachers, students with IEPs in real classrooms, and lower-level classes, in order to experience the reality of teaching large numbers of students with disabilities and/ or who were English language learners. Shadowing at parent conferences was cited as a potentially helpful preservice experience. It was also recommended that student teachers have more than one mentor teacher, so as to learn a broader array of skills and practices for addressing the increasing diversity in secondary classrooms.

Finally, teachers enthusiastically debated the value of lesson planning. Does the focus on detailed lesson plans for preservice and beginning teachers create a habit of mind or a way of thinking? Lesson planning is a pillar of most content methods courses, and preservice methods faculty argued that heavily detailed, written lesson plans are important exercises for preservice teachers- providing security, a reminder of materials needed, and a sequence of activities. Secondary education teachers were ambivalent about lesson planning. Some veteran teachers reflected that the typical plans done in methods classes are not real life and may be a waste of time or are just silly. Others believed that even veteran teachers might benefit from occasionally writing a few detailed lesson plans for their own professional development, linking activities more squarely with standards, instruction, modifications, and assessments. Another post maintained, ". . . teachers fail not just due to classroom management problems, but due to problems resulting from poor planning that is day to day instead of longer term." It was suggested that the real challenge is to find the time to do more planning backwards and long-term planning. The last word was by a participant stating that "thorough planning with backup planning" is what gives you the flexibility to change plans or to wing it successfully.

Inservice professional development. The seventh and last theme addressed better, teacher-led professional development or inservice training. This category of inservice preparation included discussion of how well professional development of inservice teachers actually improved teachers' classroom success in reaching diverse students. Criticism in general of professional development was broad, reflective, and sometimes damning. Teachers were outspoken about professional development and criticized the com\mon approach of professional development presentations-the large group, "expert" model. This mode of professional development violates almost everything we know about good teaching and learning. Teachers discussed not being trusted, respected, or empowered enough to pursue individualized professional development goals. Generalized professional development was not usually helpful or inspiring, as by the time a trend gets into a workshop format it is often already pass. In addition, professional development that has to be notarized by a third-party can be demeaning to teachers as professional educators.

Long-term, multi-session professional development, where the trainer knows the background and skill set of the participants, was cited as the most effective model. Secondary teachers discussed the need for inservice training on alternative assessments, rubrics, cooperative learning activities, project based learning, effective discipline strategies, planning, and information on special education laws. Finally, secondary teachers reported that inservice professional development on meeting the needs of students with disabilities is quite sporadic. Often teachers must independently pursue additional training. Others have had no additional training since they began teaching.

Final Thoughts

Using innovative methodology that could be called "virtual participant observation," substantive conversations were elicited online between inservice teachers and preservice methods faculty. This methodology deserves greater scrutiny for its usefulness and success in bringing together K-16 educators, especially those secondary methods faculty in the arts and sciences of higher education outside education departments.

The results of the exploratory surveys and the e-conversations revealed important questions that need to be explored further. The conversations over the 5 weeks showed a sustainability of discussion and a willingness to delve into issues. It is certainly difficult to ascertain who learned more-inservice general education classroom teachers or preservice methods faculty. Methods faculty are now more aware of areas where they are lacking in knowledge. These personal conversations helped methods faculty gain authentic insight even if they were carried on in a virtual format with practicing teachers. Inservice teachers realized they were providing a true sense of classroom reality to methods faculty, who may be immersed in their content at the expense of effective delivery of that content.

In many smaller institutions of higher education, the secondary education programs operate through a makeshift mix of content versus method and of knowledge versus certification. At these institutions, a secondary preservice methods faculty member is often a content- specific professor who must straddle the line between the arts and sciences department of the discipline in which the candidate will be teaching, and the certification demands and responsibilities housed within most education departments. This is especially true in the increasingly popular and content-driven master of arts in teaching (MAT) programs, where the demand for a sharp increase in content courses may squeeze out important education courses. Improving secondary education in order to produce the desired outcomes of educational achievement for all students is clearly difficult. In many secondary education preparatory programs, the content expertise is the responsibility of an arts and sciences department, and educational theory and practice, as well as certification, is housed in the education department. Producing the necessary changes to ensure that all teachers are highly qualified to teach all of their students may prove to be challenging. NCLB's highly qualified teacher status that requires teachers to be highly qualified in their content area with no specified requirements for effective pedagogy or classroom management skills is in sharp contrast to what secondary education teachers in this study reported as instrumental to their success in the classroom. Attempts to improve outcomes for students must target the preparation of content-specific general educators and must include effective strategies for diverse populations.

Training teachers, both inservice and preservice, to effectively bring the general curriculum to the student with disabilities may be a particularly daunting task for secondary education. This is compounded for preservice secondary teachers, simply due to the fewer education courses that most of them take compared to those taken by their elementary counterparts (Resta, Askins, & Huling, 1999). A continued need exists to bridge the gap between inservice realities and preservice training, as well as between the arts and sciences on one hand and education departments on the other.

Surprisingly few comments occurred from either the secondary education teachers or the preservice methods faculty in the e- conversations about specific, effective instructional pedagogy. It may be that the conversation was too general to find out about content specific pedagogy that works in the secondary level classroom. Differentiated instruction was the one pedagogical method that garnered some discussion. Other pedagogical topics centered on effective accommodations and modifications for students in general education classes. Effective content enhancement practices, strategy instruction, and effective curriculum design tools were not discussed (Deshler, Ellis, & Lenz, 1996; Kame'enui et al., 2002). Efforts to bring these topics to the forefront should be explored and encouraged. To that end, a recommended future direction for research is to further explore the content coverage in the syllabi of secondary education content methods classes. More extensive interviews of preservice faculty on the ways that they prepare students to work with students with disabilities are needed. The project highlighted the need to teach both inservice teachers and preservice methods faculty about universal design principles and how technology can be used to enhance the educational experiences of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Both groups expressed the need for additional training in technology.

Special education faculty might consider the development of training modules for preservice teachers in behavior management, differentiated instruction, special education awareness, effective curriculum design, and pedagogy to increase teachers' abilities to work with diverse populations of students. Secondary education classrooms necessitate well-trained teachers who embrace the principle that all students can learn. Likewise, teachers must be able to differentiate instruction and provide programming for all students within inclusive school environments.

Of special concern is the fact that inservice teachers believe themselves successful in providing access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities, although they admit lack of both theoretical knowledge and skill in best practices of special education. Are inservice teachers in general as successful in this task as those in our small study believe they are? Two questions may guide future research: (a) What is the role of pedagogy in the diverse secondary education classroom, and (b) who owns the responsibility for preparing teachers to ensure the success for students with disabilities in high schools? The answers to these questions will help direct pre-service methods faculty to effectively retool and refine their courses to help future secondary education teachers meet the challenges of working in increasingly diverse classrooms. This case study examination underscores the lack of consensus as to whose responsibility it is to prepare teachers to work with students with disabilities in general education classrooms.

1 Due to the fuitfulness of the collaboration, other professional educator organizations may consider replicating the LDA model of providing incentive for a pair or team of teacher preparation faculty to attend conferences across specialty areas of concentration.

References

Altrichter, H., & Posch, P. (1989). Does the grounded theory approach offer a guiding paradigm for teaching research? Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1), 21-31.

Bennett, D. (1997). Providing role models online: Telementoring gives students real-life connections in science and beyond. Electronic Learning, 16(5), 50-51.

Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research: A book of readings (pp. 109-126). Boston: Little, Brown.

Deshler, D. D., & Lenz, K. (1989). The strategies instructional approach. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 36, 57-65.

Deshler, D. D., Ellis, E. S., & Lenz, B. K. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities. Denver, CO: Love.

Glaser, B. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glatthorn, A. A. (1990). Cooperative professional development: Facilitating the growth of the special education teacher and the classroom teacher. Remedial and Special Education, 11, 29-34.

Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hudson, P., Lignugaris-Kraft, B., & Miller, T. (1993). Using content enhancement to improve the performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in content classes. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 8, 106-126.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. Pub. L. No. 105-17, 20 Stat. 1401 (1999).

Jay, J. K. (2002). Meta, meta, meta: Modeling in a methods course for teaching English. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29, 83-102.

Kame'enui, E. J., Gamine, D. W., Dixon, R. C., Simmons, D. C., & Coyne, M. D. (2002). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Malouf, D. B., & Schiller,E. P. (1995). The gap: Research into practice. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(2), 414-424.

Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T., & Graetz, J. E. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103-116.

Meyen, E. L., Vergason, G. A., & Whelan, R. J. (1998). Educating students with mild disabilities: Strategies and methods (2nd ed.). Denver: Love.

Miller, S. P., Perkins, P., Suzuki, C., Odell, S., & McKinney, M. (2002). Linking research to practice within a secondary teacher preparation program. American Secondary Education, 37(1), 2-26.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

Pivik, J., McComas, J., & LaFlamme, M. (2002). Barriers and facilitators to inclusive education. Exceptional Children, 69, 97- 101.

Resta, V., Askins, B., & Ruling, L. (1999). Issues in secondary teacher preparation. The Teacher Educator, 35(1), 57-67.

Rogan, J. (1997). Online mentoring: Reflections and suggestions. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 13(3), 5-13.

Sanchez, B. (1996). Online mentoring-A success story. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(8), 57-60.

Sideridis, G. D., & Chandler, J. P. (1997). Assessment of teacher attitudes toward inclusion of students with disabilities: A confirmatory. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 14(1), 51-65.

Swanson, H. L, (1999) Instructional components that predict treatment outcomes for students with learning disabilities: Support for a combined strategy and direct instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14, 129-140.

Swanson, H. L., & Deshler, D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 124-135

Warner, M. M., Cheney, C. O., & Pienkowski, D. (1996). Guidelines for developing and evaluating programs of secondary students with mild disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(5), 276- 284.

Zigmond, N., & Baker, J. (1996). Full inclusion for students with learning disabilities: Too much of a good thing? Theory Into Practice, 35(1), 26-34.

Susan Gately

Department of Education, Rivier College

Christy Hammer

Social and Behavioral Sciences/Education

University of Southern Maine at Lewiston-Auburn

Copyright Ball State University Spring 2005

Source: Teacher Educator, The

More News in this Category