A Program Evaluation of an Inclusive Model for Training Pre-Service General Education Teachers to Work with Students with Special Needs.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a program using an inclusive model (e.g., course work in special education and special education liaison support) on the beliefs, practices, and skills of pre-service middle and secondary general education teachers (n=26) regarding their preparedness to work with students with special needs. A preand post-survey, adapted from the General Education Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes toward Planning for Mainstreamed Students (GTBAP; Schumm, Vaughn, Gordon, & Rothlein, 1994) survey, was administered to participants in an urban research university in the Southeast. The graduate students were resurveyed while they were completing their practicum experiences. Statistically significant results were found in the post-survey indicating the inclusive model was effective for this program. Multiple dependent t-test analyses indicated that the overall beliefs, practices, and skills were improved for participants, t(25) = -4.156, p = . 000. Limitations and future directions are discussed. A Program Evaluation of an Inclusive Model for Training Pre-Service General Education Teachers to Work with Students with Special Needs With the push for inclusion of students with disabilities initiated by current federal legislation (NCLB, 2002; IDEA, 2004), students with special needs are included in the general education classroom at higher rates than ever before. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2008) over 75% of students with disabilities receive at least one segment of instruction daily from a general education teacher. Several studies have reported that general education teachers may not be comfortable serving populations of students with special needs (Bradley & MondaAmaya, 2005; Fisher, Frey, & Thousand, 2003; Otis-Wilborn, Winn, Griffon, & Kilgore, 2005; Pavri, 2004); however, the federal mandate requiring students be served in the least restrictive environment (LRE; IDEA, 2004) implies teachers must be prepared to work with diverse populations of students with disabilities (Arthaud, Aram, Breck, Doelling, & Bushrow, 2007; Lombardi & Hunka, 2001). In response to current federal legislation and inclusion rates of students with disabilities, pathways to state certification and the training to address working with students with disabilities are changing the way that teachers become prepared to enter the Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals (JAASEP) Spring-Summer 2012 35 classroom. This may contribute to general education teachers’ perceptions of preparedness to work with students with special education eligibilities (Kezar, 2005; Richards, Hunley, Weaver, & Landers, 2003; Welch & Brownell, 2002). Training pre-service general education teachers to work with students with special needs requires a focus on the elements necessary for serving students across the continuum of academic achievement in the classroom. Teachers need more than content knowledge, they need exposure to pedagogy for developing instructional and curricular practices that accommodate student diversity (Laprairie, Johnson, Rice, Adams, & Higgins, 2010; Thompson & Smith, 2005). General education teachers must feel confident in making accommodations and modifications, understand all disability categories, and fluently implement strategies for inclusion (CoombsRichardson & Mead, 2001; Laprairie et al., 2010). The projection of teacher shortages and the growth in teacher attrition in the southeastern U.S. has added to an expanding knowledge that teachers must have more support and assistance in order to retain teachers and to keep them effective (Feiman-Nemser, Schwille, Carver, & Yusko, 1999). Numerous models exist at colleges and universities to address the effective incorporation of these strategies into the teacher preparation curriculum. Some models simply require educators to take one course in special education content. Other models include coursework as well as infusion of special education topics into the general pre-service education course content by a special education department liaison. Unfortunately, some models do not require student teachers to work with individuals with special needs in practicum and student teaching experiences (Coombs-Richardson & Mead, 2001), even though the reality is that students with disabilities are in general education classrooms. To evaluate general education teachers’ preparedness to work with mainstreamed students with learning disabilities, Schumm, Vaughn, Gordon, and Rothlein (1994) analyzed the selfperceptions of 60 teachers through 10 categories of statements on three parameters: beliefs, practices, and skills. “Beliefs” were defined as the teachers’ agreement with belief statements about the inclusion of students with learning disabilities. “Practices” included the teachers’ ratings of the importance of specific practices associated with the beliefs. “Skills” included the teachers’ ratings of their own skill level in implementing a practice. These authors used the Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes towards Planning for Mainstreamed Students (TBAP) instrument to survey teachers. The survey was developed through a series of studies (Schumm & Vaughn, 1991; Schumm & Vaughn, 1992; McIntosh, Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, & Lee, 1993; Schumm, Vaughn, Haager, McDowell, Rothlein, & Saumell, 1995). Two studies focused on developing the survey instrument (Schumm & Vaughn, 1991; 1992) and two on intensive classroom observations to assess for reliability and validity of the instrument (McIntosh et al., 1993; Schumm et al., 1995). The survey was deemed both reliable and valid (Schumm et al., 2004). The 10 categories of statements examined by Schumm et al. (1994) were: 1) information sources; 2) long-range planning; 3) short-range planning; 4) group composition; 5) course content; 6) time and pace; 7) tests; 8); checks with students; 9) individualized instruction; and 10) individualized grading. These categories were developed from a survey of teacher’s planning Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals (JAASEP) Spring-Summer 2012 36 practices (Schumm & Vaughn, 1992) and focus groups with teachers on key components of teacher planning and adaptations. These categories were cross-referenced with beliefs, skills, and practices to produce the 30 question survey. Cameron and Cook (2007) examined the beliefs, practices, and skills of pre-service teachers regarding work with mainstreamed students with mental retardation using a modified version of the TBAP known as the Pre-service Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes towards Planning for Mainstreamed Students (P-TBAP) that specifically addressed working with students with mental retardation in mainstream settings. Cameron and Cook used two comparison groups consisting of general (n=34) and special education (n=23) pre-service participants enrolled in an undergraduate infusion teacher-training program. This teacher preparation model infused inclusion content into coursework rather than having students complete separate coursework on the topic. Results indicated that although the pre-service general and special education teachers believed in and would practice adaptations for students with mental retardation in their classroom, they did not believe they possessed the skills to do so. The current study further replicated the survey portion of the Schumm, et al. (1994), and Cameron and Cook (2007) studies, expanding the questions to all categories of special education eligibility and restricting the participants to middle and high school general education pre-service teachers. This replication survey examined teacher preparedness to work with mainstreamed students with any type of disability. This two-year study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a program using an inclusive model in preparing pre-service educators to work with students with exceptionalities that was employed at an urban public university in the southeast. The following research questions were addressed: What are pre-service general education teachers' beliefs, practices, and skills in planning and making adaptations for students who have special needs in the general education classroom? Do these beliefs, practices, and skills differ after exposure to an inclusive model for training pre-service teachers to work with students with special needs?