1

EMPOWERING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

by
Cedric timbang
 2

ABSTRACT

For many years, the inclusion of kids with special needs in general education

classrooms has been a hot matter of debate. Inclusion education implies that all students,

regardless of their strengths and shortcomings, are included in the school community

("Sec. 300.8 Child With a Disability." n.d.). These children are entitled to full access to

all materials and social interactions available in a regular classroom. Many schools'

ultimate objective is to construct a classroom with the fewest restrictions possible to

satisfy the needs of all kids, including those with special needs. Many instructors, on the

other hand, have never been instructed how to educate pupils with special needs.

Students with special needs are still placed in general education courses despite

their lack of education (Hyunjeong et al., 2014, p. 16). Teachers want kids with special

needs in their classrooms, according to studies, but they are not equipped to properly

handle their educational demands.

Teachers should be given the chance to learn more about how to establish

inclusive classrooms that work. As a result, the goal of this research is to examine the

many teaching techniques that instructors might employ to create a successful inclusion

classroom. One research issue was addressed in this study: how can instructors develop

and sustain successful inclusion classrooms?

A survey of scholarly literature and observations in two elementary classes were

used to gather data for this study. The findings of the study revealed that teachers who

are familiar with a range of teaching styles can help children with special needs succeed.
 3

II: RELATED LITERATURE AND RELATED STUDIES

This study examines the different teaching strategies teachers use to set students

with special needs up for success. The first section, “The Beliefs of Teachers,” presents a

study concerning the feelings of multiple teachers in the United States and South Korea of

inclusion classrooms. The second section, “A Whole New Classroom,” explores how two

teachers changed their classroom structure to better fit the needs of students with special

needs. The third section, “Three Important Inclusion Strategies,” examines the strategies

three different teachers use to support students with special needs in their middle school

classrooms. Finally, all three articles concluded that inclusive education of students with

special needs was indeed important and that teachers needed education on effective

strategies for inclusion, and that the predictability of lesson plans made students in special

education more successful.

How the Schooling Process Creates Stress for Special Needs

Families Regarding the research articles that matched the theme of how the

schooling process creates stress for special needs families, all were qualitative studies that

relied on volunteer participants. The three studies accessed used interviews and

observation techniques to collect data on their research subjects. Most of the special needs

students in these studies were younger children, pre-school to early elementary grades,

with only one study using some students in grade 11 in its results (Edelman, Giangreco,

Luiselli & MacFarland, 1997). Janus et al. (2007) elaborated the solitary study to

interview only parents and not educational professionals as well. The three studies

researched different aspects of stress for special needs families that can occur in the

educational system
 4

How Schools Can Empower Special Needs

Families Three reviewed qualitative studies highlighted ways that schools, and

specifically special educators, can help to empower families of special needs children. All

three studies used parents of children from various age groups and had input from special

needs teachers. None of the studies commented on interviewing or receiving input from

classroom teachers. The data collected in these sections had to do with intangible aspects

of human relationships that can be hard to measure, such as empathy, compassion, and

mutual respect. Van Haren and Fiedler (2008) reported on a study that not only looked at

the unquantifiable resources needed to support families with special needs children but

also suggested practical methods for special educators to help special needs families;

therefore, this article straddles the last two categories of this research review. All three

articles dealt with the importance of giving empathy to families with special needs

children (Moriwaka, 2012; Turnbull & Turnbull, 2015; Van Haren & Fiedler, 2008).

Educators who display empathy to a special needs family help to empower the family

members. Educators may accomplish this goal when they focus on cooperative and

healthy communication between home and school (Moriwaka, 2012; Turnbull & Turnbull,

2015; Van Haren & Fiedler, 2008). When educators recognize and acknowledge that

every family’s situation is unique and that the family is the expert in knowing and

understanding its special needs child, they are practicing empathy and compassion

(Turnbull & Turnbull, 2015; Van Haren & Fiedler, 2008). When empathy and compassion

are used as the bedrock for home-school relationships, educators can move on to find

practical methods to empower parents and help reduce stress levels involved in special

needs children’s school experiences. Establishing relationships based on empathy,

compassion, and mutual respect is the first step in alleviating stress for special needs
 5

families.

Teaching Arrangements Students with severe disabilities received instruction

from a variety of adults and peers, and an individual (one-to-one), small-group (five or

fewer students), and large-group (six or more students) instructional arrangements. Adults

observed providing students’ instruction were general education teachers, paraeducators,

related services providers (e.g., occupational and speech therapists), special education

teachers, specials teachers (e.g., art teachers), and student teachers. Co-teaching was used

in nearly half of the observations in KDS, usually consisting of a general education

teacher and a special education teacher. Different models of co-teaching were observed

including one teacher and one assistant, station teaching, and team teaching. During the

majority of the observations, large group instruction provided by the general education

teacher occurred, such as when teachers were lecturing or reading aloud to students. In

over half of the observations, students were provided instruction from paraeducators and

instructional support from peers. For example, paraeducators were observed providing

individual support and instruction to students with severe disabilities in the majority of

observations, including providing prompting and coaching, across students. Students were

also observed working with peers in small table groups in a variety of instructional

activities throughout the majority of the observations.

Interactions Students interacted with peers and adults in non-instructional

manners. At times, an adult facilitated these interactions, and other times, the interactions

were spontaneous. These adult–student non-instructional interactions took a variety of

forms, but usually as praise or reinforcement, such as a student who showed a completed

worksheet to the general education teacher who responded by saying, “Another one
 6

already? No way! I’m so proud of you! Good job, keep going.” Other interactions were

purely social. For example, a student was overheard discussing with a paraeducator a

costume idea for Halloween. Students interacted with peers in contexts unrelated to

instruction during the observations. The majority of these interactions occurred during free

time, such as recess when students played together with little verbal communication.

These free time interactions also occurred in unstructured times in the classroom when

instruction was not occurring. Social interaction with peers also occurred during academic

times. For example, in an upper-grade classroom on a carpet area, a peer rubbed the back

of the student with disabilities while both listened to the teacher. In another classroom,

classmates wrote notes to the student on post-it cards. These notes contained statements

such as “Your [sic] my friend.” At the same time, the nature of some interactions was

helper–helpee (e.g., peers would get materials for a student with a disability, provide

instructional support, and prompt students to stay on task). Even so, interactions with

peers usually appeared to be reciprocally enjoyable

Activities The students with severe disabilities worked on a variety of tasks in

which elements of differentiation were and were not present. At times, the student

engaged in the same activity when performing the same task as the rest of the class with

no evidence of additional supports for access or meaning. Other times, the student

participated in the same task as classmates but had an alternative means for accessing the

materials (e.g., auditory version of a novel). Examples included students reading a book

with a magnifying device; taking notes on an iPad, rather than writing on paper; dictating

a story to ascribe, and using a label maker to fill in responses on a worksheet. In the area

of math, examples included using manipulatives and identifying dates on iPads. An

activity was considered adapted when the assignment or task was adjusted for the student,
 7

including changes to the quality, quantity, or materials. For example, students had books

their classmates were reading, but at lower readability levels, using large fonts with

supporting pictures; reductions in the number of questions to answer; access to word

banks; use of speech-generating devices to enable students to “read aloud” when called

on; and adapted assessments. The activity was found to be unrelated to the general

classroom activity when the student worked on a task that was substantially different from

the rest of the class, such as sorting shapes while the rest of the class practiced

multiplication. The qualitative notes of student activity were coded as unrelated in these

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at University of Kansas Libraries on October 29,

2015, 268 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 40(4) KDS schools

in less than 20% of observations, indicating that most students with significant disabilities

in these schools were engaging in very similar activities as their peers. Finally, students

were also observed engaged in the same activities as the rest of the class with no evidence

of differentiation or support. Generally, the absence of support was considered

appropriate, inclusive practice. This was deemed appropriate during the observations

when the student did not experience any challenges or limitations engaging in the task as a

result of having no support provided. For example, during a phonics lesson, an early

elementary student practiced making blends and digraphs with a group of peers.

Student Supports In addition to classroom supports, the schools provided student

supports that addressed unique learning or participation needs including behavior,

communication, physical, and sensory support. An early elementary student, for example,

was observed using a small wooden chair to support sitting on the carpet at approximately

the same level as other students during group instruction. Another student was observed

using a wedge to facilitate writing. Behavior supports were also observed. For example, an
 8

early elementary student was observed selecting from a variety of fidget items before

sitting on the carpet to listen to a story. “First-then” charts were also noted in several

observations, as were token economy systems. Communication supports provided in these

inclusive classrooms included iPads with speech-generating software, picture-symbol

communication boards to make requests and comments, as well as a communication

notebook that a student would use to circle responses to questions, comments, and

requests from adults. Sensory supports were least commonly observed and primarily

included closed-circuit television (CCTV) to magnify materials for a student with a visual

impairment. In one instance, a CCTV was located in a classroom, and the student was free

to take any worksheets, artwork, or text to the CCTV to magnify, as needed.

Engagement Students engaged in activities actively, passively, not engaged, or

not possible to be engaged. Active engagement included activities in which the student

was writing, drawing, reading, or talking in a manner that was on-task. Passive

engagement included listening or watching activities to be on-task. Not engaged included

activities when the student could have engaged but was off-task. Not possible to engage in

included activities when the student was not able to participate in an activity due to his or

her physical or sensory needs (e.g., an activity using hand gestures a student is unable to

make). Examples of active engagement involved students in academic tasks, classroom

routines, and free-time activities. In one instance, during a large group vocabulary lesson,

the teacher pointed to a word, and the whole class, including the student, said the word

aloud. The teacher then asked a question about the meaning and called for an answer from

a student with a raised hand. The student was very eager to participate and raised his hand

every time, indicating he was very engaged with little adult support. Some academic

engagement involved different but related tasks. For example, during “morning work
 9

time” a student and a special educator worked together with a primer level phonics book

as the student read aloud. This form of active engagement was typical during this time, as

opposed to distracting or stigmatizing because many students were talking quietly, and

two other adults were working with students. As an example of engagement during

classroom routines, a student visibly enjoyed participating in class transition time, as the

teacher called their attention to a new subject matter by asking the class to put their hands

up and then slap their desks 2 times and say “Science!” For another student, active

engagement during the free time involved walking with two classmates directly to a teeter-

totter; inviting a third classmate to play with them; followed by play and laughter the

entire recess period. As is typical of many classrooms, passive engagement was observed

in the majority of these classroom observations as well. For example, an early elementary

student sat on the carpet surrounded by peers listening to a teacher read a story about the

water cycle. Similarly, students were observed in lecture activities and whole-group read-

aloud activities and watching other students complete a task. For example, a student was

observed watching a peer complete a long-division problem on an overhead projector

along with the rest of the students in the class. Other times, students were not engaged. In

some instances, students with disabilities were not engaged in manners that are very

similar to students without disabilities. For example, an upper elementary/middle school

student was observed in a silent reading activity. This student had an adapted book to read

available on the student’s desk, but the book remained closed while the student stared

straight ahead or looked around the classroom. Other students in the classroom exhibited a

range of on- and off-task behavior as well. Other times, students were not engaged

because they couldn't do so. For example, students in an early elementary classroom were

told “if you can hear me, place your hands on your head.” Due to the student’s physical
 10

disability, the student was not able to participate in this activity

Classroom Supports A range of classroom supports was available to all students,

including personnel and systems and procedural supports. Personnel classroom supports

included co-teachers, paraeducators, and classroom volunteers who supported all students.

Paraeducators supported all students in the classroom in the majority of Downloaded from

rps.sagepub.com at University of Kansas Libraries on October 29, 2015 Kurth et al. 267

these observations, as opposed to focusing exclusively on the student with severe

disabilities. For example, in an upper-grade math classroom, a paraeducator was observed

walking around the classroom to assist any student who needed help. Collaboration

between instructional staff was evident as well. For example, in an upper-grade classroom,

special and general education teachers were observed discussing consulting notes. Staff at

this school completed these consulting notes daily to share information and strategies.

Finally, co-teachers were present in nearly one-third of the observations. These teachers

were almost always general educators and special education educators, who assisted

students with and without disabilities individually and in small groups. Various systems

and procedures also facilitated the learning of all students. Elements of universal learning

design (UDL) were observed, including adjustments to the presentation of material. For

instance, a co-teacher in a math class was observed rephrasing questions, providing

models of written responses, and adding visual examples to a lesson on graphing. Visual

supports were observed in well over half of these classrooms, as well. For example, an

early elementary classroom had a visual schedule for all workstations. Likewise, an upper-

grade classroom teacher referred a child with disabilities to check the posted classroom

schedule to determine where the student should go next.

This review of research articles has demonstrated that considerable amounts of

 11

stress can occur for families during a special needs child’s school years. Often, these

stressors are caused by various problems in the educational system, such as misuse of

resources or poor communication between school and home. There are, however, many

practical initiatives that educators can implement to help decrease family stress. The

research articles reviewed also demonstrate that there are specific strategies, such as

strong communication between home and school, that educators can use to empower

parents and families to reduce family stress levels. These methods of empowering and

equipping can create positive effects in special needs families, which then are refracted

back into the school community and home-school relationships. Researchers need to

continue studying possible causes of stress for special needs families in the educational

system, and various ways that educators can empower and equip parents to address the

effects of stress. A disturbing trend in the origins of stress for special needs families BU

Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, Volume 7, Issue 2, 2015 17 involves teacher

attitudes and views toward special needs students. Further study can be done to discover

the sources of these negative views and attitudes acquired by teachers, and to address

them. Research is also needed to find approaches and instructional methods to change

teachers’ views of special needs families and to train educators in compassion and

empathy for all. Also, schools may not be using current resources to the best of their

ability to benefit special needs families. Research needs to be done to learn how schools

can improve their use of human and material resources to benefit special needs families

most positively. As already stated earlier in this paper, there are three important categories

where more research is needed for understanding the impact of special needs children in

their lives and stress levels. More research needs to go into how the stress of a special

needs child affects male caregivers, and what ways males can be empowered and
 12

equipped to handle this stress. Similarly, more research needs to be done on the impact of

special needs siblings on nonspecial needs siblings. Investigators should examine what

empowering and equipping supports can be put in place to aid non-special needs siblings

in their growth. Finally, the effects of a special needs child on non-middle class families’

stress levels and daily lives need to be scrutinized at a deeper level. In summary, it is

important to acknowledge the role that the educational system plays in creating stress for

families with a special needs child. Teachers need to be taught in their preservice training

to identify potential stress factors for special needs families and to be given skills to

reduce or eliminate these triggers in their classrooms. For teachers already in the

educational field, time and energy must be provided to foster understanding of special

needs families’ stresses, to develop empathy and compassion for these families, and to

employ practical tools with these families and within their classrooms. As teachers begin

to adjust and adapt for families with special needs children, their initiatives will create

change at the micro-level of the classroom. Administration and specialty teachers, such as

resource teachers, as well as a school division and provincial personnel, need to focus on

creating change at a macro level. This focus would involve implementing change in the

school system itself. The school system as a whole, with insightful policies and practices,

must be willing to do what it can to help special needs families. The stronger and more

empowered the family unit is, the more it will aid the special needs child in his/her

development.

Veterans with Disabilities Following World War II, several public policy

changes occurred regarding the overall treatment and benefits for individuals with
 13

disabilities. As veterans returned to private life following World War II, federal public

policies changed toward soldiers with disabilities. Additional benefits such as the G.I. Bill

were initiated to assist with training and employment. Despite the G. I. Bill for veterans,

however, access to higher education remained elusive for many individuals with

disabilities (Goodchild 1997; Rubin, 2008). A breakthrough occurred during the

Eisenhower Administration in the 1950s which specifically identified individuals with

disabilities as a group of Americans who were disenfranchised from employment and

training opportunities. This may have been a result of President Eisenhower’s experiences

with, and empathy for, veterans with disabilities from World War II. This movement by

the Eisenhower Administration 19 insured some degree of employment for individuals

with disabilities and resulted in an increase in federal matching dollars for state programs.

These programs funded job placement and vocational-technical training and were later

expanded in the 1960s and 1970s to include a college education, which further increased

the likelihood of gainful employment (Rubin, 2008). More recently, the Post-9/11

Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (Post9/11 “New” GI Bill) was passed to

provide additional educational benefits for veterans who served after September 11, 2001,

many of whom experienced a disabling condition. This has already increased the number

of veterans with disabilities attending higher education institutions (GAO, 2009). In

addition, Church (2009) indicates that the Global War on Terror has resulted in veterans

having many ‘invisible’ wounds that will be barriers to using traditional services including

depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain injury. As a result

administration and faculty will “need to engage veterans and utilize their strengths in

designing welcoming campuses that facilitate success for adult learners” (p. 46).
 14

RELATED STUDIES:
The Beliefs of Teachers

In their study, Hyunjeong et al. (2014) sought to find out from multiple teachers

in the United States and South Korea concerning their feelings of inclusion in classrooms.

The phrase “inclusion classrooms” can be interpreted in different ways. For this study,

Hyunjeong et al. (2014) define inclusion as, “A policy where students with disabilities are

supported in general education classes in their neighborhood schools and receive

specialized instruction in a separate classroom” (p. 12). Inclusion classrooms are a major

part of the education systems in the United States as well as the education systems in

South Korea. In both countries, it is a legal requirement to include students with

disabilities in the general education classroom. Both countries have laws that are put into
 15

the place that promotes a diverse learning environment for all students with multiple abilities

(Hyunjeong et al., 2014). As the United States and South Korea try to determine the best

procedures for supporting students with disabilities, it is imperative to look at how inclusion is

implemented across different cultures and countries as well as find out how teachers feel about

inclusion classrooms. There were three main reasons why this study was conducted. First, it was

to consider and evaluate the thoughts of teachers concerning inclusive education in the United

States and South Korea. Second, it was to assess teachers’ knowledge and ability to use teaching

strategies having to do with inclusion. Third, it was to look at different practices that might help

teachers, in both countries, have effective inclusive classrooms, and understand what barriers

might be stopping this from happening.

The participants in this study consisted of elementary school teachers in the

The United States and South Korea. An email was sent to 780 teachers in the United

States and 490 teachers in South Korea. The email asked teachers to complete a survey

related to inclusion. Out of the 780 teachers that were emailed in the United States, only

74 teachers responded to the survey. Out of the 490 teachers that were emailed in South

Korea, only 54 teachers responded. To analyze the participants’ answers to the questions a

scale was chosen. The My Thinking About Inclusion scale (MTAI) was selected because it

included important questions to reveal teachers’ beliefs about inclusion. It included a

demographics section so the researchers would know the participants’ education levels,

training, grades taught, and experience. The MTA's scale used a 5-point system (1= strong

agree, 2= agree, 3= neutral, 4= disagree, and 5= strongly disagree).

 16

The participants were asked a total of 28 questions, that they answered based on the 5-

point scale. The inclusion beliefs of teachers in the United States and South Korea, about

inclusion, were reviewed using summary scores from the MTAI scale. After reviewing the

data, it was separated into three categories (Core Perspectives, Expected Outcomes, and

Classroom Practices). From there the researchers were able to examine the study's results.

Hyunjeong et al. found that the scores on the scale indicated a positive rating

toward inclusion classrooms in both the United States and South Korea. First, for the Core

Perspectives category, the United States teachers had a mean score of 3.45, and South

Korean teachers had a mean score of 3.28. Second, for the Expected Outcomes category,

the United States teachers had a mean score of 3.60, and South Korean teachers had a

mean score of 3.28. Lastly, for the Classroom Practices category the United States

teachers had a mean score of 2.62, South Korean teachers had a mean score of 2.72.

Although both countries thought inclusive education was an important part of today's

education system, it is apparent that classroom practices for inclusion are a weakness. In

South Korea, the teachers agreed, “Most education teachers lack an appropriate

knowledge base to educate typically developing students effectively” (Hyunjeong et al.,

2014, p. 17). The teachers also suggested that it was difficult to have an effective inclusive

classroom without knowing more about the effectiveness of an inclusive classroom. The

teachers in the United States disagreed with the teachers in South Korea on some

questions, but for the majority of the questions, they agreed.

There were some limitations to the Hyunjeong et al. (2014) study. First, the

study used only teachers that volunteered to do the survey.

 17

This provided a lack of random selection because the teachers were able to choose if they

wanted to do the survey or not. Second, the number of teachers who responded to the

survey, in both countries, was less than 12% of the number that were asked. This study

was based on a very small amount of participants, so there could have been different

results if more teachers had participated in the study.

Based on the survey results, Hyunjeong et al. (2014) concluded that teachers in

both the United States and South Korea both thought inclusive education was an important

part of today's education system, and that when it came to the teachers’ knowledge and

ability to use teaching strategies having to do with inclusion, the teachers in both countries

thought that they needed to be taught more about inclusion and how to have successful

inclusion classrooms. The researchers concluded that to learn more about different

practices that might help teachers in an inclusive setting, collaboration, and sharing of the

research associated with effective practices is critical.

Section B: A Whole New Classroom

Compared with Hyunjeong et al. (2014), which emphasized the importance of

teacher education for classroom inclusion, this new study by Connolly et al. (2009)

specifically observed a pair of teachers who changed their classroom structure to better

accommodate students with special needs. In their study, Connolly et al. (2009) examined

two teachers, in a middle school mathematics classroom, restructure their shared

classroom to better facilitate differentiation. One of the teachers was a mathematics

teacher while the other teacher was an inclusion teacher. The mathematics teacher would

teach in a lecture format.

 18

Then, without much review of the new concepts, this teacher would give the students a

math packet. The inclusion teacher would go around the classroom and make sure the

students were on task and taking notes. The inclusion teacher modeled the “one teach, one

assist” model. Connolly et al. (2009) do not disagree with this teaching style, but they

believe it should not be the only practice done in an inclusion classroom because it can

prevent students from becoming independent learners. Both teachers noticed that most of

their students were not making much progress academically. The students did not seem to

understand the material and did not show much confidence. Instead of blaming the

students, the teachers decided to reevaluate their instructional strategies. Although they

were already considered an “inclusion classroom,” the teachers felt like they could do

more to make it benefit the students. They wanted to differentiate their teaching to set all

of their students up for success. According to Connolly et al., “…differentiated instruction

allows the teacher to meet the needs of every learner by providing students with multiple

options for learning…” (p. 46). The purpose of this study was to further understand these

teachers’ restructuring process as well as offer suggestions to teachers who may want to

try their newly-created teaching strategy in their classrooms.

The participants in this study consisted of 18 middle school students. Ten of the

students were male while eight of the students were female. Five of the students were

African American, nine were Caucasian, three were Hispanic, and one was Asian. Eighty-

nine percent of these students received some type of help through 504 plans,

Individualized Education Plans (IEP), or Access for All Abilities plans. The 18 students

were specially selected for the inclusion classroom.

 19

First, any student with an IEP in mathematics was automatically placed in the class.

Second, if a student was recommended for the class by their teacher from a previous year

they were selected, and lastly, some students were randomly selected. This made the

classroom include students with all different learning abilities (Connolly et al. 47). The

two teachers took these selected students and split them up into four different groups.

When creating these groups they took into consideration each student’s gender, ethnicity,

academic ability, and personality. The teachers believed that assigning the students to

specific groups would help them learn how to work together, as well as co-construct

deeper understandings of math concepts. Within the groups, the teachers assigned a

specific role to each student. One student was the “leader,” whose job was to set the tone

for the group and provide an example for the other members. Another student was the

“messenger,” whose job was to report any concerns or questions to the teacher. Each

group also had a “distributor,” who would hand out the supplies, and a “collector” who

would return the supplies to their right location. Finally, each group had an “encourager”

who was the cheerleader for the group. These different jobs were intended to give the

students a sense of purpose in the classroom, which is important for the success of all

students (Connolly et al., 2009).

The class days were then split up into two different schedules, an “A” schedule

and a “B” schedule. The schedule alternated, Monday would be an “A” day, Tuesday

would be a “B” day, etc...This helped facilitate their “four-part instructional model,”

which split the teaching up into four sections: first, teach new instruction, second, review/

remediate basic skills, third, review new instruction, and fourth, computer-based review of
 20

new instruction and exposure to upcoming instruction (Connolly et al. 48). The class was

then split up into two different groups. One group would spend half of the class with the

math teacher and the other group would spend it with the inclusion teacher. Halfway

through the instructional time, the groups would switch. On an “A” day, one group

would spend the first half of their instructional time with the mathematics teacher to learn

new concepts and instruction. This lesson may have included hands-on math strategies,

while the teacher worked examples with the students. The second half was the review of

basic skills. These students would move to a separate part of the classroom, and they

would work with the inclusion teacher. During this half of instruction, the teacher would

often play games or sing songs with the students. This was a way to work with the

students' interpersonal musical/rhythmic learning styles. Also, the students would have

the opportunity to work on projects where they were able to put into action the concepts

they were learning in their preferred learning styles. The inclusion teacher would monitor

the students and respond to any questions.

The next day would be considered a “B” day. The class would be split into two

groups again. The first part of the instructional model was a review of the previous day’s

instruction. The inclusion teacher would review concepts learned during the “A” day and

clarify any misunderstandings. The students were asked to journal during the third

practice. They were to write about what they were learning and explain how they figured

out the answer. This was to assess whether the students were understanding the

mathematical concepts they were learning. After the review session, the students rotated

to the final component of the four-part schedule. The students worked through a computer
 21

the program, called Odyssey, has many engaging math activities. It is a program that

individualizes the learning process for each student. They would have the opportunity to

work through different games and activities that helped the students further develop their

math knowledge (Connolly et al., 2009).

The instruction during the four-part A/B rotation was based on multiple teaching

models. First, the teachers implemented “alternative teaching,” which according to

Connolly et al., “…one teacher introduces new material, and the other teacher either

reviews or reinforces” (p. 50). Second, the groups were small so the students were able to

work one-on-one with the teacher. Lastly, musical, kinesthetic, interpersonal, and verbal

approaches were used to ensure each student would be able to master basic skills through

his or her preferred learning style (Connolly et al., 2009).

Connolly et al. (2009) found that the students benefited from this new classroom

structure. The students were assessed, regularly, with the Measures of Academic Progress

(MAP) test, which is a computer test that provides teachers with information to improve

and to inform student learning. During the first few weeks of the school year, 66% of the

class was performing below grade level. At the end of the school year, the students were

given another test, and the results show that 67% of the students were meeting the

standards. Additionally, 78% of all the students made significant improvements overall.

The students were also given a survey about their perceptions of an inclusive classroom.

87% said that they preferred the current class structure over the previous one. Also, 87%

said that they felt they were learning more. 92% felt like they were receiving more
 22

individualized instruction and 87% felt more confident in speaking up in class (Connolly

et al. 51).

However, there were some limitations to the Connolly et al. (2009) study. First,

the study was done on a low number of students. Only doing it with 18 students, makes it

difficult to form conclusions about whether or not this classroom structure is beneficial.

The results show that the students improved, but it should be done in different

classrooms as well. Also, the small class and group sizes made it easier for the teachers to

differentiate their instruction. Based on the student tests and responses to the questions,

Connolly et al. (2009) concluded that the teachers restructured their classrooms in a way

that facilitated differentiated instruction and resulted in increased learning. The four-part

classroom instructional model helped the students learn more intentionally. The teachers

set their new classroom up for success not only for them as educators, but for the students

as well.

Three Important Inclusion Strategies

The next study, conducted by Mackey (2014), explores how different middle

school teachers use inclusion strategies in their classrooms every day. Mackey (2014)

studied three different experienced middle school teachers, to understand how they

included students with disabilities in their general education classrooms. One of the

teachers was a sixth-grade science teacher, another was a seventh-grade social science

teacher, and the third was an eighth-grade math teacher. All three of these teachers

displayed positive practices when it came to working in an inclusive classroom.

 23

An inclusive classroom, according to Mackey (2009), has about 59% of students with

disabilities that spend 80% or more each day in the general education classroom. There

have been many studies on the effectiveness of inclusion education, but there has never

been one done like Mackey’s. Her study explored many inclusion classroom interactions,

and the data was collected in many different ways (Mackey 6). The purpose of this study

was to examine the practices of middle school teachers in inclusive classroom situations.

These teachers in this study were selected as a purposeful sampling. The Director

of Instruction and Special Programs and the Associate Dean of Education of a local

university nominated middle schools that included teachers that had demonstrated the

following inclusion requirements. First, students with disabilities received their general

educational services in the general education classrooms with appropriate in-class support.

Second, cooperative teaching was utilized (Mackey 7). After three schools were selected,

the principals of those schools identified teachers that he/she thought implemented many

positive inclusion strategies. Coincidentally, in the end, three teachers from the same

middle school were selected. One was a Caucasian female in her late 20’s teaching

science. Another was a Hispanic male in his early 30’s teaching social studies. This

teacher was bilingual so he was also the school’s English Language Learner (ELL)

Coordinator. The third teacher was a Caucasian female in her late 30’s teaching

mathematics. The school where the research was conducted, had 30% of its students with

an Individualized Education Program (IEP), and 8% of its population were ELL students.

This made it the ideal school for inclusion education.

 24

Research conducted in different parts of the world have found that teachers' acceptance

of inclusion may be promoted by educating them about the characteristics and behaviors of

students with special needs (e.g., Carroll, 2003; Koay, Lim, Sim, & Elkins, 2006; Lanier &

Lanier, 1996; Papadopoulou, Kokaridas, Papanikolaou, & Patsiaouras, 2004). However,

numerous studies have indicated that regular education teachers feel that both pre-service and in-

service education programs were inadequate in preparing them for teaching students with

learning disabilities in regular classrooms (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006; Wilson, Loprete, &

Slostad, 2000).

Al Khatib (2007) investigated the Jordanian regular education teachers' knowledge of

learning disabilities and whether this knowledge differed as a function of selected variables. The

sample consisted of 405 regular classroom teachers teaching 1st to 6th-grade students in 30

schools in three Jordanian districts. Teachers completed a 40-item test designed by the

researcher, which had adequate psychometric properties. The results of the study revealed that

teachers had a moderate level of knowledge of learning disabilities. Female teachers were found

to be significantly more knowledgeable than male teachers. Teachers' level of knowledge was

unrelated to teachers' age, teaching experience, or academic qualifications.

Malusu & Kamau-Kang’ethe (2010) assessed the teacher awareness and intervention for

pupils with Learning Disabilities in inclusive education in Makadara Division. The study

concluded that: teachers were aware of inclusive education in their schools, teachers had

different interventions in place to ensure the success of inclusive education e.g. the use of

corrective approaches, direct instructions, systematic phonics, and using connectivity’ with

pupils’ individual learning needs and that teachers were not professionally prepared to cope with
 25

pupils with learning disabilities in inclusive education.

Aladwani and Shaye (2013) investigated Kuwaiti primary school teachers' knowledge of

the early signs of dyslexia and their awareness level of the related difficulties that dyslexic

children suffer. They concluded that Kuwaiti teachers are aware of this problem, but lack of

time, and being overloaded with daily school routines and responsibilities, prevent them from

helping and assessing these children.

Sharma & Samuel (2013) studied the awareness that teachers have about learning

disabilities and the provisions made by the government and CBSE board. It was a cross-sectional

study with a sample size of 100 teachers from private English medium schools in Ludhiana,

Punjab. They concluded that although the teachers claimed to know regarding

Learning disability but they only had a vague idea about it, only a few teachers were aware of

the provisions provided by the government. Most of the teachers blamed the student’s attitude

and home environment for performing poorly in their studies.

Various studies were carried out to investigate the knowledge and awareness of

teachers

regarding learning disabilities found out that the success of the inclusion of students with learning

disabilities partially depend on teachers’ awareness of these students’ needs (Campbell,

Gilmore, & Cuskelly, 2003; Lanier & Lanier, 1996; Papadopoulou, Kokaridas, Papanikolaou, &

Patsiaouras, 2004).
 26

References

“Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children.” (2016). Mayo Clinic.

Retrieved October 15, 2016, from http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-

conditions/ adhd/home/ovc-20196177.

Hyunjeong, J., Tyler-Wood, L., Kinnison, L., & Morrison, G. (2014). The US and

South Korean pre-k through 6 teachers’ beliefs about inclusion practices in

their countries: Cross cultural perspectives. The Journal of the International

Association of Special Education, 15(2), 11-23.

Mackey, M. (2014). Inclusive education in the United States: Middle school general

education teachers’ approaches to inclusion. International Journal of

Instruction. 7(2), 5-16).

BU Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, Volume 7, Issue 2, 2015

Kurth, J. & Mastergeorge, A. (2012). The Journal of Special Education 46(1), 36-48.

Kurth, J., Morningstar, M. & Kozelski, E. (2014). The Persistence of Highly

Restrictive Special Education Placements for Students with Low-Incidence

Disabilities. Research and Practice for Person with Severe Disabilities, Vol. 39

(3), 227-239.

Disabilities In Jordan, International Journal of Special Education, 22(1), 72-76. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ814471 dated December 14, 2013

Aladwani, Amel M; Shaye, Shaye S. Al (2013). Primary School Teachers' Knowledge and
Awareness of Dyslexia in Kuwaiti Students, Academic journal, 132(3).