Running Head: FRUSTRATIONS in IMPLEMENTATION
Assisting General Education Teachers 1
Running head: ASSISTING GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHERS
Assisting General Education Teachers to Work with Students with Disabilities:
Literature Review
Sara
ED 512
Kaplan University
Literature Review
Since the mid-eighties, more and more students with disabilities have been educated within the general education classroom setting (Rea, McLaughlin & Walther-Thomas, 2002). The reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 1997 mandated the inclusion of students with disabilities in general state and district assessments (Carnine & Granzin, 2001), which resulted in general education teachers having more responsibility for the education of students with disabilities. Due to IDEA, there is much more focus on placing students with disabilities in the general education setting to help boost test scores. Bauer and Shea (as cited in Frolin, Hattie, & Douglas, 1996) noted that general education teachers are now required to cater to a more diverse range of student abilities. Due to increased push for students with disabilities to be placed in classrooms with their non disabled peers, general education teachers have been facing the stressful situation of teaching a group of students they do not feel prepared to teach.
This literature review seeks to provide information for special education teachers to use in order to act as resources for general education teachers. This review also seeks to assist special education teachers and general education teachers to be supportive of each other when working with students with disabilities in order to decrease frustration levels for teachers and students.
Teacher Attitude
There is a relationship between teacher attitudes toward their students and the quality of interaction that takes place in the classroom (Cook, 2001; Bender, Vail, & Scott, 1995). Stress seems to play a significant role in a teachers’ ability to be committed to and sympathetic toward their students (Farber, as cited in Frolin, Hattie, and Douglas, 1996). When asked, general education teachers indicated that it was 5 times more stressful to have a child with mild intellectual disability in their classroom; they also indicated that dealing with the children without disabilities when there is a child with disabilities in the classroom is 3 times more stressful than it would be if there were no children with disabilities (Frolin, Hattie, & Douglas, 1996). Teachers seem to “give up” on students with behavioral, social, and attitude problems (Cook). Bender, Vail, and Scott (1995) mentioned that general education teachers do not implement many modifications for students with disabilities other than those recommended by the teacher’s instruction manual that comes with the text books. Not implementing adequate modifications or implementing them incorrectly could inadvertently contribute to the level of stress that a classroom teacher feels, resulting in a negative attitude toward students with disabilities.
Collaboration
“Collaboration among general and special educators has been viewed as imperative to the success of learners with disabilities being served in general education classrooms” (Dettmer, Thurston, & Dyke; Friend & Cook; Johnson & Pugach; Voltz, as cited in Voltz, Elliott, & Cobb, 1994). Dover (2005) stated that special educators should be providing consultation and support to general educators and paraprofessionals as well as direct and indirect services to students with disabilities (p.32). Extra effort must take place in order to increase interaction and cooperation between general and special education teachers (Voltz, Elliott, & Cobb, 1994). Voltz, Elliott, and Cobb (1994) conducted a study of collaboration between special and general education teachers which indicated that a major barrier to collaboration between special and general educators is time. Neither group of teachers was provided any time during the contracted school day to meet; one teacher indicated that she met with the resource teacher in a bathroom due to the lack of common free time (p.534). With support from administration, general and special education teachers should be able to arrange for a common meeting time at least once per month or more frequently if necessary. Some school districts provide substitute teachers so that general education and special education teachers can have a shared planning day one or two days per year. The onus for collaboration should not fall explicitly on the special education teacher; rather it should be a team effort between the general and special educators (Voltz, Elliott, & Cobb, 1994). In a study done by Rea, McLaughlin, and Walther-Thomas, it was noted that special education teachers were not often members of grade-level general education teams, nor did they attend team meetings (p. 209). This information indicates that steps need to be taken to ensure adequate time and effort in collaboration between general and special education teachers.
Dover (2005) offers some suggestions for educators to work together to more appropriately support students with disabilities in the general education setting. Suggestions offered are:
· Develop written schedules to make it easier to schedule a common time for general and special education teachers to meet (Dover, 2005).
· Collaborate when developing an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) to gain important information about present levels of performance and develop appropriate goals Dover, 2005).
· Actively listen to any needs or concerns that may arise for general education teachers or paraprofessionals and address them accordingly Dover, 2005).
· Special educator may assist the classroom teacher to prioritize instructional objectives to make the most effective use of time (Dover, 2005).
· Review test results or other assessment materials with the general education teacher and develop an action plan together (Dover, 2005). pa
Dover (2005) also makes several additional suggestions for the special education teacher to implement in order to fully support the general education teacher and students with disabilities, such as taking over for a paraprofessional who normally provides services for a student with disabilities so as to gain a better understanding of the needs of the child (p.34). When teachers and other school personnel work together to do what is in the best interest of children, all children benefit, not just students with disabilities.
Student Expectations
Students with disabilities are expected to participate in state and district wide assessments with accommodations (Carnine & Granzin, 2001). Studies have shown that students with disabilities who have been placed in inclusive classrooms with higher expectations, appropriate peer role models, and opportunities for generalization of skills have demonstrated a higher level of improvement than those who remained in pull out settings (Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002). When students are held to higher standards, it stands to reason that they will perform better, regardless of disability. The study completed by Rea, McLaughlin, and Walther-Thomas (2002) demonstrated that students with learning disabilities are able to be successful in a program that focuses on standard school curriculum and provides appropriate accommodations within a general education setting (p.219). With adequate support, the general education teacher should be able to provide the necessary accommodations so that students with disabilities can be successful with the general education curriculum. Special educators have devoted significant attention to working more effectively with general educators to provide a more appropriate education for students with disabilities (Cannon, Idol, & West, 1992).
Conclusion
There are many considerations to be made for a special education teacher when providing an appropriate level of support to the general education teacher. A major concern is finding adequate common meeting time during the contracted school day. With effort on both sides, positive changes can be made to better provide services to students with disabilities who are placed in a general education setting through collaboration and support.
References
Bender, W.N., Vail, C.O. & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers’ attitude toward increased mainstreaming: Implementing effective instruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 28 (2), 87-94, 120.
Cannon, G.S., Idol, L., & West, J. F. (1992). Educating students with mild handicaps in general classrooms: Essential teaching practices for general and special educators. Journal of Learning Disabilities 25 (5), 300-317.
Carnine, D. & Granzin A. (2001). Setting learning expectations for students with disabilities. School Psychology Review 30 (4), 466-472.
Cook, B.G. (2001). A comparison of teachers' attitudes toward their included students with mild and severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education 34 (4), 203-213.
Dover, W.F. (2005). 20 ways to consult and support students with special needs in inclusive classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic 41 (1), 32-35.
Frolin, C, Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996) Inclusion: Is it stressful for teachers? Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability 21, 199-217.
Rea, P.J.,McLaughlin,V.L.& Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with leaming disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children 68 (2), 203-222.
Voltz, D.L., Elliott, R.N., & Cobb, H.B. (1994). Collaborative teacher roles: special and general educators. Journal of Learning Disabilities 27 (8), 527-535.
Literature Review Assignment Rubric
Scoring Criteria/Course Level Assessment Criteria / Mastery Level
5 / Proficient Level
4 / Practiced Level
3 / Emergent Level
2 / Introductory Level
1 / No Progress
0 / Earned Points
and
CLA Score
Course Level Assessment (CLA) Criterion (Course Outcome #1)
Synthesize published research on identified topic/issue into written literature review.
250 POINTS / At all times, developed an:
· excellently written literature review
· sophisticated synthesis of published research
· on a well chosen specific issue/topic
· that demonstrates critical thinking
· outstanding understanding of current literature
· selection of at least seven outstanding peer reviewed research articles
· insightful and accurate interpretation of facts.
250-238 POINTS / Consistently developed a:
· well written literature review
· insightful synthesis of published research
· on a well chosen specific issue/topic
· that demonstrates critical thinking
· solid understanding of current literature
· selection of at least seven excellent peer reviewed research articles
· sophisticated, accurate interpretation of facts.
237-213 POINTS / Usually developed an:
· acceptably written literature review
· well written synthesis of published research
· on as acceptable specific issue/topic
· that demonstrates adequate thought
· adequate understanding of current literature
· selection of at least six relevant appropriate peer reviewed research articles
· accurate interpretation of facts.
212-188 POINTS / Inconsistently developed an:
· acceptably written literature review
· well written synthesis of published research
· on as acceptable specific issue/topic
· that demonstrates adequate thought
· adequate understanding of current literature
· selection of at least six relevant appropriate peer reviewed research articles
·
· mostly accurate interpretation of facts.
211-163 POINTS / Rarely developed an:
· acceptably written literature review
· well written synthesis of published research
· on as acceptable specific issue/topic
· that demonstrates adequate thought
· adequate understanding of current literature
· selection of at least six relevant appropriate peer reviewed research articles
· inaccurate interpretation of facts
162- 125 POINTS / Failed to developed an
· acceptably written literature review
· well written synthesis of published research
· on as acceptable specific issue/topic
· that demonstrates adequate thought
· adequate understanding of current literature
· selection of at least six relevant appropriate peer reviewed research articles
· misinterpretation of facts
0 POINTS / CLA Score (outcome #1): __5__/5
POINTS:
230
Writing Mechanics and Timeliness
30 POINTS / Assignment is free of spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors. Citations and reference list are properly formatted in APA style.
30-29 POINTS / Assignment has very few, if any, spelling, grammar, punctuation errors. Citations and reference list are properly formatted in APA style.
28-26 POINTS / Assignment has some spelling, grammar, punctuation and APA errors.
25-23 POINTS / Assignment has several spelling, grammar, punctuation and APA errors.
22-20 POINTS / Assignment has many spelling, grammar, punctuation and APA errors.
19-15 POINTS / Fails to use appropriate mechanics and APA.
0 POINTS / No CLA
POINTS: 25/30
Timeliness
20 POINTS / Submitted on time.
20-19 POINTS / Submitted 1-2 days late.
18-17 POINTS / Submitted 3-5 days late.
16-15 POINTS / Submitted 6-7 days late.
14-13 POINTS / Submitted 8-10 days late.
12-10 POINTS / Submitted more than10 days late.
0 POINTS / No CLA
POINTS: /20
Total Points:
____/300
Instructor Summative Comments: