Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
com/doc/127370723/Readiness-of-General-Education-Teachers-in-Handling-
Students-With-Special-Needs-in-an-Inclusive-Setting-By-Arville-Domingo-Mier-Keyser-and-Patena
Every teacher is the manager of the children’s learning. As a teacher, you influence the children you
teach-in many ways. Because of you, many of them learn things that they will remember for the rest of
their lives from him. Dean (1993) says that as a regular teacher how you discharge this responsibility
depends not only on the person you are and the relationships you are able to build with children and
colleagues, even though these are also important. The ability to organize children’s learning, the actual
teaching skills you posses, you ability to observe, select, assess, evaluate and so on, are crucial and make
all the difference between the group in inch most of the children come near to achieving their full
potentials and in which most are under achieving. Children are normally with the regular teacher for the
majority of the time so that he or she is able to know them well. Most regular teachers in primary
schools also have some freedom to plan the work as seem best to them. Inclusive education as the
name implies includes or accepts or welcomes all persons into a class, school or community as full
members not minding their conditions (abilities or disabilities, potentials or deviations) and also value
them. The center for studies in inclusive education (CSIE) as cited by Okoba (2007), defines inclusive
education as “a programme for all children and young people with or without disabilities or difficulties
learning together in ordinary primary provisions, schools, colleagues and universities with appropriate
network of supports”. He went further to explain that the essential marks of inclusive education are
that its client are not limited to exceptional children in the traditional delineation of die term, but
indeed all children having problems with learning and the normal children as well.
Inclusion receives a lot of press these days, as more and more special education students are included in
a general education classroom. There are some situations, however, in which is it difficult or impossible
for special education to join an inclusion classroom. In those cases, some schools will consider using
reverse inclusion instead.
Inclusive education is when all students, regardless of any challenges they may have, are placed in age-
appropriate general education classes that are in their own neighborhood schools to receive high quality
instruction, interventions, and supports that enable them to meet success in the core curriculum (Bui,
Quirk, Almazan, & Valenti, 2010; Alquraini & Gut, 2012).
The school and classroom operate on the premise that students with disabilities are as fundamentally
competent as students without disabilities. Therefore, all students can be full participants in their
classrooms and in the local school community. Much of the movement is related to legislation that
students receive their education in the least restrictive environment (LRE). This means they are with
their peers without disabilities to the maximum degree possible, with general education the placement
of first choice for all students (Alquraini & Gut, 2012).
Successful inclusive education happens primarily through accepting, understanding, and attending to
student differences and diversity, which can include the physical, cognitive, academic, social, and
emotional. This is not to say that students never need to spend time out of regular education classes,
because sometimes they do for a very particular purpose—for instance, for speech or occupational
therapy. But the goal is this should be the exception.
The driving principle is to make all students feel welcomed, appropriately challenged, and supported in
their efforts. It’s also critically important the adults are supported, too. This includes the regular
education teacher and the special education teacher as well as all other staff and faculty who are key
stakeholders; and that also includes parents.
Are regular classroom teachers really not qualified to teach students with special needs?
At about the same time Dr James Morton, who is Chairman of the AEIOU
Foundation and parent of a child with autism, in an interview on ABC radio
criticised universities for failing to prepare teachers to teach students with
disability. His chief complaint was that units specialising in autism are not
mandatory in undergraduate teacher education programs and accused universities
of not investing in Australia’s future.
Then we had Professor Kenneth Wiltshire of the UQ Business School who argued
via an opinion piece that the states had pulled a “con job… late last century” by
promising “disabled students could become mainstream in every way by being
included in conventional schools”. He then claims the states only supported
inclusion because they were “cost-cutting by closing many special schools”.
While confused and lacking any supporting evidence, Wiltshire’s article echoes
points made in the other two examples:
This does not mean that they will do well in mainstream schools built for a narrow
range of students. It means that local schools must evolve to cater to the full range
of students. And this means teachers and teacher preparation must also evolve.
The 2016 Australian Senate Report made recommendations for teaching skills that
would improve workforce capacity for inclusion: universal design for learning,
differentiated teaching, and cooperative learning.
With this knowledge, teachers can identify what support students need to access
the curriculum, engage in classroom activities, and achieve at school. These skills
are emphasised in the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, which since
2012 have underpinned the accreditation of university teacher education courses.
The Standards make clear that all classroom teachers are qualified to teach
students with disability and/or additional needs. To be accredited, university
teacher education courses must also cover four key focus areas that directly relate
to students with disability: (i) differentiating teaching to meet the specific learning
needs of students across the full range of abilities, (ii) supporting learning of
students with disability, (iii) supporting student participation and engagement, and
(iv) managing challenging behaviour.
Every graduating teacher must provide evidence that they meet each Standard to
achieve registration to teach. To maintain their annual registration, existing
teachers must provide evidence that they have engaged in professional learning
relating to the Standards.
Finally, the claim that places in special schools and classes have declined because
of inclusion and the subsequent closure of special schools is completely false.
Around the world, children are excluded from schools where they belong
because of disability, race, language, religion, gender, and poverty.
But every child has the right to be supported by their parents and community to
grow, learn, and develop in the early years, and, upon reaching school age, to go
to school and be welcomed and included by teachers and peers alike. When all
children, regardless of their differences, are educated together, everyone
benefits—this is the cornerstone of inclusive education.
What is inclusive education?
Inclusive education means different and diverse students learning side by side in
the same classroom. They enjoy field trips and after-school activities together.
They participate in student government together. And they attend the same
sports meets and plays.
Inclusive education values diversity and the unique contributions each student
brings to the classroom. In a truly inclusive setting, every child feels safe and has
a sense of belonging. Students and their parents participate in setting learning
goals and take part in decisions that affect them. And school staff have the
training, support, flexibility, and resources to nurture, encourage, and respond to
the needs of all students.
Clearly there is a need for us to rethink the way we have been preparing
teachers to teach in inclusive classrooms. Better prepared teachers not
only provide high-quality education to children with disabilities, all children
benefit in classrooms taught by competent, inclusive teachers (Sharma &
Loreman, 2014). One aspect that needs to be given significant attention
relates to addressing gaps between theory and practice of inclusion. Levine
(2006) in a comprehensive report “Educating School Teachers” indicated
that despite significant changes in teacher education in the United States,
there remain clear gaps between theory and practice. A comment made by
one pre-service teacher (PST) in the report highlights his point. “I could talk
about Carl Jung, scaffolding, cooperative learning groups, [and] the
advantages of constructivism, but had no idea what to do when Johnny
goes nuts in the back of the class, or when Lisa comes in abused, or when
Sue hasn’t eaten in three days” (p. 39). The comment by the participating
teacher presents “a symptom of a serious underlying problem described by
one education alumnus as ‘an abyss’ between theory and practice” (p. 39).
Recently a report on Australian teacher education programs also reported
significant disconnect between university-based teaching and school
experiences (Ingvarson et al., 2014). It stated that the disconnect is unlikely
to produce teachers who were ready to teach in our diverse classrooms.
The report stated there are significant consequences of inadequate
preparation of teachers, including higher turnover among poorly developed
pre-service teachers. The authors (Ingvarson et al., 2014) recommended
that we should focus our attention to meet the challenge. There is a need
for us to reform our teacher education programs internationally to ensure
true inclusion of all learners, including those with a disability, in mainstream
classrooms. A number of researchers have discussed ways teacher
education for inclusion could be reformed. For example, in one such
program Humberto (N.D.) suggested that an inclusive education teacher
needs to be prepared to recognize individual differences and implement
learning strategies for all. He further suggested that inclusive teacher
education programs should focus on equality: promoting the same
opportunities for all; quality: offering functional and meaningful learning;
and equity: responding to special educational needs. Other authors have
talked about various other means that inclusive teacher education
preparation should be undertaken. Various authors have talked about
various aspects of preparing teachers for inclusion ranging from using an
infusion approach to inclusion where content about inclusive education is
infused in all teacher education subjects rather than covered in just one
stand-alone teacher education subject (Loreman, 2010); use of reflective
teaching practice as a dominant frame for teacher preparation
(Sharma, 2010); and use of professional learning schools to provide field
experience for graduate teachers (Waitoler & Kozleski, 2010). Some
researchers have also talked about ways inclusive teacher education could
be evaluated to determine its effectiveness (Salend, 2010). Clearly, the
work done by these researchers have significantly moved the field forward.
In this article I make an attempt to build upon Shulman’s signature
pedagogies framework as a possible way to prepare teachers for inclusive
classrooms. It is important to recognize that Shulman’s framework was
mainly developed for preparation of regular classroom teachers. It is
important to acknowledge that Shulman’s framework in inclusive teacher
education has previously been applied by Florian and Rouse (2009) in
Scotland and has already shown promising signs in the field.
Prior to reviewing inclusive teacher education, it is important to define
inclusive education. UNESCO (2013) recognizes “inclusive education is a
dynamic process of change and improvement through which the education
system, and individual schools, school managers, and teachers address
the education needs of all children without discrimination” (p. 4).
Implementers of inclusive education make constant efforts to identify and
address barriers that might prevent learners from accessing education, and
participating in the learning process, and increasing their capacity both
academically and socially (UNESCO, 2013). Ainscow (2005) identified four
key elements of inclusive education that should form the foundation of
inclusive teacher education. First, inclusion is a process. He suggests that
inclusion is an ongoing process to search for ways to respond to diversity.
It is about an ongoing journey of learning to live with difference, and, also
about learning about how to learn from difference. Second, inclusion is
concerned with the identification and removal of barriers to learning.
Implementing inclusion requires collecting, collating, and evaluating
information from a variety of sources to plan for improving practice. Third,
inclusion is about the presence (i.e., attending schools alongside other
students), participation (i.e., the quality of experiences), and achievement
(i.e., learning and achieving across the curriculum not just examination
results) of all learners, not just those who have an identified disability.
Fourth, inclusion involves a particular emphasis on learners who are at an
increased risk of marginalization, exclusion, or underachievement.
Inclusion requires that we make serious attempts to ensure their presence,
participation, and achievement within our education system.
Methodology
Participants
Participants in the study consisted of 15 students with learning disabilities
and 68 students without disabilities, all of whom were enrolled in sixth-grade
classrooms that had adopted a full inclusion model. All participants were
from a single urban school district in southwest Ohio that had approximately
7,000 pupils. The school district policy was to educate all students with
learning disabilities in the general education classroom with same-age peers
for the entire school day. Students received academic assistance from the
special education teacher and other support personnel in the form of co-
teaching or small-group instruction within the general education classroom.
Students participating in the study were from 4 sixth-grade classrooms in
three elementary schools in the district, each with an enrollment greater
than 480 students. At least 40% of the students in each school were
receiving free or reduced lunch Only students who brought back signed
parental permission slips indicating consent to participate in the study were
included. Data collected from students in the participating classrooms who
had a diagnosed disability other than a learning disability were not included
in the present analysis. No a priori decisions were made regarding the
gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or language background of the
participants. Due to issues of privacy and confidentiality, researchers did not
obtain information regarding the intelligence or achievement levels of
participating students, other than that which ascertained their special
education status and label.
Students with learning disabilities were included in the study if they (a) met
the state of Ohio and district criteria (consistent with federal regulations) for
a learning disability and (b) were fully included in a sixth-grade general
education classroom for 100% of the school day. Of the participating
students with learning disabilities, 8 were boys and 7 were girls. Their ages
ranged from 10 to 13 years, with a mean chronological age of 11 years. All
students were native English speakers. Participants had diagnosed learning
disabilities in the areas of reading, writing, and math. Of the 68 sixth
graders without disabilities, 36 were boys and 32 were girls. Students
without disabilities were also between 10 and 13 years of age, with a mean
chronological age of approximately 11 years.
Students were seated in a semicircle so they could see all their classmates.
The students were instructed to look around the class and nominate peers
who best fit the given behavioral descriptions by writing their names on the
inventory following each item. If a child was absent on that particular day,
his or her name was written on the blackboard so students remembered to
include that child in their nominations. The proctor read the items aloud to
the whole class, and students were given time to respond to the item before
the next item was read. If they needed to, students raised their hands to
seek the assistance of the proctor in writing or spelling a peer's name or in
receiving clarification about the task, and the proctor quietly assisted them.
The items on the Peer Nomination Inventory formed two scales: "liked most"
(popularity scale) and "liked least" (unpopularity scale) that were used to
generate social impact and social preference scores. Of the 15 items, 8 items
made up the "liked-most" scale and the remaining 7 items made up the
"liked-least" scale.
Results
M 13.67 9.90
SD 6.21 5.50
Discussion
This study investigated whether students with learning disabilities who were
educated in inclusive general education classrooms differed from their same-
age peers without disabilities on the variables of social status and/or
perceived loneliness. The results indicated that sixth-grade students with
learning disabilities reported more feelings of loneliness than their classroom
peers who did not have disabilities. Furthermore, these same students with
learning disabilities were less popular and more controversial in their social
status than their classmates without disabilities.
The finding of higher levels of reported loneliness among students with
learning disabilities is interesting and to some extent consistent with the
existing literature (Asher & Gazelle, 1999; Guay, Boivan, & Hodges, 1999).
Students with disabilities in general have been found to report higher levels
of perceived loneliness than their peers without disabilities (Luftig, 1987;
Margalit, 1998). This finding has held true for students with diverse
disabilities, including developmental disabilities or mental retardation (Luftig,
1988), students with physical disabilities (King, Specht, Schultz, & Warr-
Leeper, 1997), gifted students (Kaiser & Berndt, 1985; Kline & Short, 1991),
and students with learning disabilities (Coleman, McHam, & Minnett, 1992;
Vaughn, Elbaum, & Schumm, 1996).
Loneliness is a perceived phenomenon. That is, people may feel lonely if
they are truly rejected by peers or if they do not adequately perceive or
understand their actual popularity among peers. Thus, of importance is why
these students perceive themselves to be lonely. Put another way, the
question may be asked as to how realistic or versed in reality are their
feelings of loneliness.
Two possible explanations exist. The first explanation is that students with
learning disabilities are actually disliked or ignored by peers and that thus
their feelings of loneliness are realistic. The second explanation is that the
social relationships of students with learning disabilities do not differ from
those of their peers without disabilities, and that thus their feelings of
increased loneliness are not grounded in reality and are largely a
misconception on their part.
In the present study, it appears that the loneliness of the students with
learning disabilities was realistic and related to their diminished social status.
The findings suggest that the students with learning disabilities were less
likely to be popular than their peers without disabilities and thus less likely
to be nominated for social activities by peers. Given such a lack of
nominations for social activities, it is not surprising that the students with
learning disabilities were aware of their social isolation and described
themselves as lonely.
Another new finding from the present study was the increased likelihood of
students with learning disabilities to achieve the controversial social status, a
situation where a student achieves a significant number of both positive and
negative nominations. Past studies have shown the controversial category to
be relatively small among students (Coie & Dodge, 1983), with the total
percentage of students falling in this category being about 5%. In the
present study, about 7% of the students without disabilities fell into this
category, whereas more than 13% of the students with learning disabilities
were classified as having controversial social status.
Why did a higher percentage of students with learning disabilities fall into
the controversial category? By definition, these students were engaging in
certain behaviors that caused them to be unpopular and popular at the same
time or, conversely, to be popular with some students but unpopular with
others. A number of researchers have found that students with learning
disabilities show decreased social acceptance by their peers without
disabilities (Asher & Taylor, 1981; Stanovich, Jordan, & Perot, 1998) and
that these students often are rejected by peers due to aggressive or
inappropriate social skills (Bryan, 1997; Heron & Harris, 1993). Yet the
present investigators found no studies that reveal significant differences in
the rate at which students with disabilities are nominated for the
controversial category.
It would have been beneficial to identify the specific behaviors that the
students with learning disabilities engaged in that resulted in their higher
incidence in the controversial category. This information is important
because evidence shows that students' behaviors are often a more accurate
indicator of their social status than the label placed on them for the purpose
of providing special education services (Raymond & Matson, 1989; Roberts &
Zubrick, 1993). Additional investigation is required regarding the specific
behaviors that contribute to the inclusion of students with learning
disabilities into the controversial category.
One interesting finding of the present study was that although students with
learning disabilities were less popular and more lonely than their classmates
without disabilities, they did not label themselves as being less socially
competent. This finding is consistent with earlier studies that found that
although students with learning disabilities were in reality less socially
competent than their peers without disabilities (Coleman et al., 1992), they
were also less accurate than their peers in assessing their own social status
and competence (LaGreca & Stone, 1990). Their inaccuracy may occur for a
variety of reasons relating to both development and cognitive functioning.
For example, Vaughn, Hogan, Kouzekanani, and Shapiro (1990) found
developmental differences in the accuracy of perceived social competence in
students with learning disabilities, with older students being more accurate
than younger students. However, Vaughn and others (1990) found that even
students as young as kindergarten or first grade could begin to accurately
assess their own social competence.
The students in the present study were enrolled in sixth grade and were
presumably mature enough to accurately assess their social competence.
Nevertheless, the students with learning disabilities assessed themselves to
be as socially competent as their peers without disabilities even though they
were decidedly less popular. Students with learning disabilities may
demonstrate a cognitive social deficit (or social metacognitive deficit) that
affects their social perceptions much as their cognitive learning deficits affect
their ability to learn academic material (Bruck, 1986; Luftig, 1987). Such a
metacognitive deficit would hinder their ability to adequately interpret
feedback from others.
Finally, it should be pointed out that the current findings as to the decreased
popularity and increased controversial status of the students with learning
disabilities occurred within the inclusive education setting. A variety of
studies have found that students often do not accept their peers who have
disabilities (Bryan, 1997) and that they are more likely to reject or to be
critical of the behaviors of such students (Stitt et al., 1988). Thus, it is
important to note that merely placing students with disabilities in inclusive
classrooms is not sufficient to allow for their social inclusion and that other
supports need to be in place to facilitate their acceptance and belonging in
the peer group.
In summary, it appears that students with learning disabilities were lonelier
than students without disabilities and that their loneliness appeared to be
versed in reality inasmuch as they were less popular and more controversial
than their peers. Although further research on the specific behaviors that
give rise to such isolation seems appropriate, it may be wise for classroom
teachers to deal with student feelings of loneliness and depression while also
teaching them required social skills.
Inclusive Setting This term describes a situation where all learners including those with special needs
participate in all activities in a community that recognizes and addresses the needs of each learner as
much as possible. Inclusive Education This refers to the philosophy of ensuring that schools, centres of
learning and educational systems are open to all children. This will enable the learners to be included in
all aspects of school-life. It also means identifying, reducing or removing barriers within and around the
school that may hinder learning. For this to happen, teachers, schools and systems need to modify the
physical and social environment so that they can fully accommodate the diversity of learning needs that
pupils may have.
In recent decades, public schools find themselves facing the greater needs of diverse student
populations, with varying cognitive abilities, maturity levels, and academic strengths and
weaknesses. While most typical elementary, middle, and high school students find themselves
immersed in a classroom of twenty to thirty peers with one lead teacher, most public schools also have
“self-contained” classrooms to provide alternative settings for enhanced academic support for the
children whose needs cannot be fully met in a general education classroom.
Unlike standard classrooms with a large number of peers, self-contained classrooms are typically smaller
settings with a fewer number of students. Created to help foster enhanced support for students with
special needs or specific difficulties, self-contained rooms are generally comprised of about ten students
with unique struggles who are most commonly instructed by a lead teacher with a certification in special
education. Self-contained classrooms will also have at least one paraeducator who provides
instructional support under the guidance of the classroom teacher.
Due to recent curriculum shifts, some self-contained rooms cater to the diverse needs of students, such
as those coping with autism spectrum disorder. A lead teacher, who is highly trained to help support
students with autism, is able to provide greater assistance than what these students would typically
receive in a classroom with a larger student-to-teacher ratio. Other examples of students who may be
enrolled in self-contained rooms include students with developmental issues, behavioral concerns,
students with specific academic struggles (i.e. in math, reading, science), or students learning to read
with dyslexia.
https://eric.ed.gov/?q=regular+teachers+in+inclusive+setting&ft=on