Increasing awareness and understanding of students with disabilities.

Abstract

The proliferation of both special education and inclusion in schools has prompted teacher preparation programs throughout the country to provide both courses and field experience relevant to inclusive education. While many of the student teachers enrolled in these programs have had limited or no experience working with students with disabilities, of greater significance is the fact that many cooperating teachers and field supervisors are similarly inexperienced. In responding to the needs of this latter group relative to the education of students with disabilities, members of the special education faculty at one university designed a professional development program to foster a greater awareness of the exceptional needs of diverse learners. This report presents the results of the pilot study of that program. Participants in the study were field supervisors from the university who completed a pre- and post-test survey. Subsequently, several were interviewed in depth. The "treatment" phase consisted of three two-hour seminars designed to provide an overview of the field of special education. Results of the survey and interviews indicated that a majority of participants believed the program was helpful and informative, and a comparison of pre- and post-test data showed a significant increase in the mean score, suggesting greater acceptance of persons with disabilities.

**********

Background

Over the last decade there has been a shift from a segregated model of teacher preparation to one in which there is shared accountability between general and special educators. This trend has created the need for new models of teacher preparation in which theory, methodology, and field experience reflect the need for educators who are adequately prepared to teach collaboratively in inclusive classrooms.

As Snyder (1999) noted, inclusion has primarily been a special education movement. However, the success of inclusion requires that general education faculty be prepared to work with students with disabilities (Smith, Polloway, Patton, & Dowdy, 1995). As more and more districts implement inclusion, general education student teachers find themselves working with diverse populations of children with different learning styles and disabilities. Many of these student teachers have limited or no preparation in special education; as such, they feel inadequate with respect to working with special populations. The situation is compounded by the fact that many cooperating teachers and university supervisors also come from a general education background with little special education experience or knowledge. Teacher preparation programs employ many part-time and adjunct faculty as field supervisors of student teachers. Many of these field supervisors are semi-retired persons who were formerly teachers, principals, and superintendents within various school districts.

Because models of inclusion were implemented only recently implemented (Austin, 2001), a large percentage of these supervisors are not familiar with the concept of inclusion or with models of collaborative teaching. However, due to the popularity of various inclusion models, growing numbers of student teachers are, of necessity, placed in inclusive classrooms. It is essential that field supervisors--if they are to provide effective oversight of their student teachers--become knowledgeable about the philosophy, legislation and methodology that serve as the foundations for educating students with and without disabilities in general education classrooms. The field supervisors at this university acknowledged such a need and requested that the special education faculty arrange a series of professional development seminars to provide them with information about inclusion. This request for professional development and support corresponds to current best practice. A number of studies recommend in-service programs as effective preparations for administrators and teachers of students with diverse learning needs (Austin, 2001; Hebert, 1998; Pace, 2001; Wiggle & Wilcox, 1996).

In response, members of the special education faculty developed a series of seminars that avoided presenting inclusion as a concept comprised solely of technical knowledge. While the technical information was valuable and would be included, it was recognized that limiting the seminars to discussions of strategies and techniques did not address the contextual nature of teaching (Holland, Clift, Veal, Johnson, & McCarthy, 1992). An understanding of inclusion requires that teachers realize that education is moving beyond integrating children with learning differences and disabilities into the existing classroom. As Avramidis, Bayliss, and Burden (2000) affirmed, "By contrast, inclusion implies such a restructuring of mainstream schooling that every school can accommodate every child irrespective of disability (accommodation rather than assimilation) and ensures that all learners belong to a community" (p. 191). In addition, these authors point out that "Such an argument locates the discussion in a social-ethical discourse which is strongly focused on values. The concept of inclusion thereby becomes part of a broad human rights agenda that argues that all forms of segregation are morally wrong" (p. 191).

When approaching the seminar training from this perspective, the attitude of the supervisors toward students with learning differences and disabilities becomes paramount. Consequently, the goal of the seminar series became not only to provide supervisors with the information that they sought, but also to expand their understanding of the philosophy of inclusive education. It was the intention of the authors that the seminars increase the positive attitudes of the supervisors towards individuals with disabilities, and toward inclusion in general. According to Pace (2001)

   [I]f a supervisor does not accept or is uncomfortable with a
   concept, such as inclusion, in all likelihood this will be
   communicated to the student teacher. Supervisors, either implicitly,
   by not reinforcing strategies that promote inclusion, or explicitly,
   in conversations about teaching and learning, will make their
   feelings known. Obviously, this can become a major barrier to
   educational change (p. 113).

The purpose of the pilot study was to examine the attitudes of field supervisors before and after participation in the workshops in order to assess the effectiveness of the professional development modules in increasing their awareness of and, thereby, appreciation for students with disabilities. The results of this pilot study were subsequently used to improve the quality of the all the planned workshops, while increasing sensitivity to the importance of inclusion.

Review of Literature

The popularity of inclusive education in the schools has been growing since the early 1990's (D'Alonzo, Giordano, & Van Leeuwen, 1997; Katsiyannis, Conderman, & Franks, 1995; U.S Department of Education, 2001); Villa, Thousand, & Chapple, 1996). In conjunction with this trend, there has been an increase in the use of a collaborative teaching model wherein both a general education and special education teacher share responsibility for the planning lessons, provide instruction, and assess student progress (Boudah, Schumaker, & Deschler, 1997; Dynak, Whitten, & Dynak, 1997). Teacher preparation programs have needed to respond to these changes in praxis with curricular modifications: namely, the development of courses dealing with inclusive education and collaborative teaching (e.g., Bixler, 1998; Hebert, 1998; Pugach, & Seidl, 1995; Wiggle & Wilcox, 1996). Despite the growing trend toward inclusion of students with learning differences and disabilities, some studies have revealed a reluctance on the part of many general education teachers to participate in inclusive practices (e.g., D'Alonzo, Giordano, & VanLeeuwen, 1997; Lackaye, 1997). One study has suggested that this reluctance may be due in part to a perceived lack of preparation to teach exceptional learners (Austin, 2001). The importance of teacher attitudes toward inclusion is reflected by the numerous studies conducted in that area. For example, Scruggs and Mastropieri's (1996) meta-analysis of 28 studies conducted from 1958 to 1995 found that, overwhelmingly, teachers support the general concept of inclusion. On the other hand, only one third of the teachers felt that they had the time, preparation, resources, and skills needed for successful inclusion. These findings highlight the difference between espoused theories and theories in use (Senge, 1990): Teachers would like classes to be inclusive but the realities of every day school life dictate otherwise.

Therefore, teacher attitudes about inclusion change when it is viewed from the inside of the classroom. Van Reusen, Shoho, and Barker (2001) found that high school teachers reported negative attitudes toward inclusion, viewing it as "an obstacle to the current teaching assignments and responsibilities" (p. 14). Van Reusen et al. (2001) noted that successful inclusive education in high school is dependent upon the attitudes of the teachers involved, as well as the support they receive during the implementation process. They recommended that "high school principals and other administrators contemplating inclusive education programs need to consider teacher attitudes and beliefs about inclusion prior to its implementation" (p. 13). These researchers felt that one-day workshops or one- time orientation meetings were not effective; there must be a move away from a purely technical approach of inclusion to an understanding of the larger issues involved. Further, they recommended that in order to improve teacher attitudes toward inclusion, on-going workshops and professional development programs should address their concerns about inclusion.

However, an examination of teacher or faculty attitudes toward inclusion does not provide sufficient insight regarding the core issue: working with children with disabilities. Cook, Tankersley, Cook, and Landrum (2000) pointed out that positive teacher attitudes toward the concept of inclusion do not correlate with successful outcomes for students in inclusive settings. The researchers found that "... certain students with disabilities present themselves outside of teacher tolerance" (p. 131). Therefore, the attitudes of teachers towards atypical students would more profoundly affect student-teacher interactions and learning outcomes than the predisposition of these teachers towards inclusion. In a related study, Cook et al. (2000) found that general education teacher attitudes toward students with disabilities reflect a feeling of insufficient preparation for teaching students with differences. Thus, the feelings of lack of efficacy in the classroom and personal attitudes toward individuals with disabilities on the part of the classroom teachers become key issues in creating successful inclusive classrooms.

Because general education teachers appear less receptive to students with disabilities (Cook et al, 2000), the question then arises as to which type of disability, if any, and what degree of severity these teachers might consider appropriate for inclusive education? Such a determination may reflect teacher attitude toward disability. In a relevant study, Avramidis, Bayliss, and Burden (2000) described research that found educators varied greatly in their perceptions of which students should be included. In addition, these researchers reported on a study that identified a hierarchy of students with disabilities who were considered acceptable for inclusion. Students with severe mental disabilities and multiPle disabilities were considered least acceptable, whereas students with medical or physical disabilities were considered most acceptable. Similarly, Clough and Lindsay (cited in Avramidis et al., 2000) found that some teachers were concerned about including students with learning difficulties as well as those with emotional/behavioral disorders, This finding and those of related studies leave very little to choose from when identifying an "acceptable" population for inclusion.

Finally, an examination of attitude studies of general education teachers also revealed that a lack of knowledge of disabling conditions affected the ability of these teachers to accept students with disabilities and differences. Furthermore, limited understanding increases anxiety and fear of individuals with differences (Avramidis et al., 2000). Thus, a careful examination of the attitudes of educators represents a starting point for coming to terms with teaching students with differences. It is the beginning of the move toward truly inclusive education.

Method

Participants

Twenty-five student teacher field supervisors for undergraduate and graduate students in general education formed the original sample. The supervisors, 16 female and 9 male, were all retired educators, and included both teachers and administrators from New York City or suburbs of the city on Long Island, New York. Although their experiences crossed grade levels and content areas none had worked in special education. All had worked as supervisors at the university for a minimum of one year and had supervised at least one student teacher in an inclusive classroom.

Instruments

The Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons--Form O (ATDP-O) (Yuker & Block, 1986) The Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons--Form O (ATDP-O) (Appendix A) is a 20 item survey that measures attitudes towards individuals with disabilities. The format is a 6-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging from -3 ("I disagree very much") to +3 ("I agree very much"). According to the authors, Yuker and Block, the individual item scores are of no value in and of themselves. It is the sum of the item responses that provide meaningful data. The aggregate scores fall within a range of 0-120, with higher scores corresponding to more positive attitudes on the part of the respondents. The summary of normative data presented by Yuker and Block (1986) identified 79.7 as the mean score across 38 studies. In addition the authors of the ATDP-O report over 50 correlations of the ATDP with other assessment measures of attitudes of people toward individuals with disabilities to establish concurrent validity. Adequate test-retest reliability for the ATDP-O with a median correlation of .83 for intervals of five weeks or less has been reported. The instrument has an alpha coefficient of .76. The ATPD-O was selected as a viable pre-test because of its documented reliability and validity in measuring the attitudes of participants toward persons with disabilities. Superficial modifications were made to the instrument for the purposes of this pilot study; specifically, the language was updated to reflect the "person first" spirit of IDEA (1997).

The Interview Script Of the participants who agreed to be interviewed three were randomly selected for an in-depth interview. The interview script that was used followed a semi-structured protocol developed by Cox (1996), and consisted of 10 sets of closed-ended questions with the opportunity for less structured elaboration (see Appendix B). In addition, two interviewers read the scripted questions in precisely the same way to minimize interviewer bias.

The Seminars A total of six seminars constituted the development program. The first three seminars were given in the spring semester of 2001 and were used for this study. The remaining three seminars were planned for the subsequent fall semester. The seminars were created as a professional development program with required readings and hands-on experiences. A decision was made to place the information about strategies and techniques within the historical and philosophical context of inclusive education. The goal was for supervisors to understand why we are now engaged in a movement toward inclusion as well as to accept and appreciate it. The following are overviews of the seminars presented and included in this study. We have also included the titles of seminars that complete the professional development project, but are not part of the present research.

Seminar I, entitled Historical and Philosophical Background of Special Education, launched the seminar series. The lecture focused on the change in attitudes toward individuals with disabilities over the last two hundred years.

Seminar II, The Law--IDEA, ADA, Section 504, CSE, IEP, An overhead and Powerpoint presentation of the different laws and the connection between education and civil rights followed. The emphasis during the discussion of the CSE and IEP centered on the role of the general educator.

Seminar III, Related Services for Children with Disabilities, introduced the transdisciplinary nature of inclusion. The session focused on eligibility requirements, the referral process, and the delivery of services.

The last three seminars in the professional development program include sessions on differentiated Instruction, accommodations and strategies for curriculum adaptation, and using the creative arts to facilitate inclusive education.

Procedure

At the beginning of the spring semester as part of the student teachers supervisors orientation meeting, the researchers introduced the professional development seminars on inclusion that would be offered during the term. Participation was voluntary but encouraged. Twenty-five of the 34 supervisors in attendance chose to attend all of the seminars offered. At the orientation meeting the supervisors completed the ATDP-O survey, anonymously using only the last four digits of their social security number as identification. Over the next four months of the semester the supervisors attended three seminars: Foundations of Special Education, Special Education Processes, and Related Services for Children with Disabilities. Reading assignments to be completed by the participants were passed out in advance of the sessions. In addition the supervisors engaged in hands-on activities that applied the information presented in the readings and lectures. After the third seminar the supervisors were asked to complete the ATDP-O, a second time, as well as to fill out a form that advised the researchers of their individual availability for an in-depth interview about this professional development experience. The supervisor interviews were conducted at the end of the semester.

At each administration of the ATDP-O, participants were instructed to record the last four digits of their social security numbers on the completed survey. Next, the completed surveys were paired by participant code, and the results of both surveys were tabulated according to the scoring directions provided in the ATDP manual, and the aggregate scores for each participant's pre-and post-test calculated. Finally, the pre- and post-test results of each participant were examined to determine whether there had been an increase or decrease in the aggregate score. A positive increase was interpreted as a potential correlate with the training seminars and, therefore, supportive of the hypothesized efficacy of the training. The ATDP survey assessed the supervisors' perception of individuals with disabilities before and after the professional development seminars. In an effort to expand qualitatively on the results of the survey the researchers decided to use in-depth interviews with some of the supervisors. Creswell (1994) and Miles and Huberman (1994) have given a number of reasons for linking qualitative and quantitative data. Multiple data sources serve to elaborate results. One method informs the other and may lead to new insights and ideas. The goal of these interviews was to explore just how the seminars affected supervisor perceptions and understanding of disabilities, differences, and inclusion. The interview responses were coded to permit their summary. The texts of the interview transcription were coded with keywords derived from both research questions and the data themselves. The final themes developed from the coded texts reflected the researchers intent of determining the effectiveness of the seminars (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996).

Results

Survey Results

In total, 20 of the original 25 supervisors completed the pre-test or post-test, and attended all the seminars. A comparison of the paired data of the participants (N=20) produced a mean score of 84.8 on the pre-test, and 89,2 on the post-test (see Figure 1). T-tests for correlated samples conducted on these pre-test and post-test scores revealed a significance level of p=.059. Although the result of this pilot does exceed the .05 cutoff it warrants further investigation because we observed increases in the scores of the majority of the participants on the post-test. Two thirds (N=13) of the supervisors' scores increased after participating in all three of the seminars. (See Figure 2) See issue's website <http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/sum2003.htm> Another result that also deserves further study is a decrease in the scores of 7 of the participants. This indicates less tolerance of individuals with disabilities for a sizeable minority of the supervisors.

Interview Results

Due to the fact that the third and final seminar in the study was presented near the end of the spring semester the availability of field supervisors for participation in a follow-up interview was severely impacted. This participant pool was further limited by the criterion that they must have attended all three seminars and that interviewees be randomly selected from the remaining sample. As a result, only three supervisors, one male and two females, were interviewed based on these selection criteria. The interviewees selected shared extensive experience in the public schools; one was a retired education administrator, one was a retired principal, and one was a retired teacher. All had attended every seminar. The interview questions centered on four aspects of the seminars including:

* Seminar content or information

* Helpfulness of the topics presented

* Supervisor sense of appreciation and understanding of disabilities and inclusion

* Format of the seminars

Seminar Content

Each supervisor described his or her knowledge of special education differently. One, a recently retired principal felt that she had "some understanding" since the district she had worked in had inclusion. The teacher interviewed has a son who has been classified with learning disabilities and felt that the experience of personally going through the process provided information. The other school administrator said "I've had little or no background in special education." All the supervisors interviewed found the information about legislation particularly helpful. "I also learned many things about the laws and the structure of law as it pertains" to special education. "I think the information about the laws was very good because it updated the little bit that I did know and I also explained a bit about the framework of what you're working in a classroom, what the responsibilities of the teachers are, which is very helpful for my (student teaching) seminar." "I particularly liked our discussion about the individual education, the IDEA and the very, very systematical way we went through the principles involved in IDEA." In addition to the information about the law, supervisors appreciated the historical review. This foundational background gave a perspective for understanding inclusion as well as a framework for the discussion of the legislation. "I liked the review that we had because some of it I had particularly forgotten. Some of the early litigation ... like Brown vs., and the review and recognizing that for a while we have said we cannot discriminate against students." The teacher observed, "I learned a great deal about the history that I was unaware of", and the retired administrator felt that the historical background "put it (inclusion) in perspective for us".

Helpfulness of Seminars

The interviewees found all the seminars helpful. Two reported that the information was new. One participant stated, "It certainly awakened some thinking or re-thinking about individual children. It was a good review of what I think I had some understanding of." The content presented was particularly helpful to one person who said, "I did know about that many years ago but beyond that, I'd really lost touch." One of the interviewees felt that the series of seminars were

   ... indicative of its [the university's] commitment to special ed.
   Students and their needs." She interpreted this as a signal to
   supervisors noting that, "It gave me, as a field supervisor, the
   impression that I should start to really look at how our student
   teachers were addressing the challenged learner on site.
   It keyed me that I should start to look more closely in the
   classroom configuration, support included children and to see if
   our student teachers were aware then and whether they were aware of
   what their IEPs mandated.

One supervisor came straight to the point when discussing whether the experience was worthwhile stating, " Well, anytime I pick up knowledge that I didn't have, I'm less ignorant than I was before, so it's a positive experience."

Appreciation and Awareness of Disabilities and Inclusion

While one of the supervisors expressed that, due to extensive personal experience, the seminars had limited effect on his professional awareness level, the two other participants reported greater understanding of students with disabilities. One person said that the seminars had "certainly awakened some thinking or re-thinking of individual children and how their challenges manifest in a classroom." Another supervisor noted, "I think that what I learned was ... you really have to observe students carefully to see how they're operating in a learning situation and then determine what you are going to do about it." She later went on to say that, "I think I also realized that no matter how children are identified, there's a range and you can't treat all children in a particular range the same."

Similarly, a supervisor remarked that, "... just having the seminar kind of awakened my thinking about what signals do children give us when they're in need and then it caused me to say to the student teacher, have you noticed that he consistently does that? What is he telling you? What implication does that have to you when you're assigning tasks? The seminars served as a reminder of how challenging it is to meet the needs of all children in the school setting." At the same time, some of the interviewees acknowledged the successes that are occurring in inclusive settings as supported by the following statement. "Any specific discussions that related to individuals who had overcome or who had confronted situations and were able to succeed, I found that to be, in some cases, inspiring, and at least interesting and those kinds of situations I can pass on to students (student teachers) that I work with."

Lastly, the need for student teacher edification was identified by all of the interviewees. For example, one supervisor reported that she "... did find some students who were unaware that students in the class have special needs and were identified as such." Another supervisor felt that student teachers would benefit from these types of seminars. "I would recommend some sort of a program for students, too, because I'm a dinosaur. I'm done. I'm finished. But these kids are going to be in a classroom for the next ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty years. I can only do so much. I think they should also have this kind of an experience. I encourage it."

Seminar Format

Supervisors reported that the format of the seminars worked well. One felt that the experiential exercises gave a "sense of ownership and responsibility." While the supervisors enjoyed the reading material, one of them was critical of the perspectives presented in one of the assignments. On the other hand this person also noted that there was "always" the opportunity to question and give feedback. "I raised my hand, I was recognized. I was able to speak and no one stopped me." All three interviewees offered valuable suggestions. The retired teacher recommended that we survey the audience to determine just how many people had personal experience with individuals with disabilities, because it is important not to make assumptions about what experience or lack of experience the supervisors "bring to the table." Relative to the improvement of future seminar formats, one participant recommended that the authors ask supervisors to bring in questions and concerns from their student teacher observations. This, she opined, would enable the supervisors to apply the curriculum presented in the professional development seminars to classroom practice. Another supervisor would have preferred a more condensed and intensive program provided by scheduling all three seminars in one week rather than a semester. This supervisor was also looking for specific strategies and techniques, which prompted her to suggest, "I think that what I would like and what everyone would like is sort of a 'how to'."

Discussion

The results of this pilot study are meaningful for directing the development of future professional development seminars. The question of attendance is of paramount importance. One premise of the study was that exposure to the information and experientials would increase supervisor acceptance of individuals with disabilities and in turn inclusive education. When first presented to the entire body of student teacher supervisors (N=34) 25 chose to attend the seminar series. Of those 25, 20 chose to participate in the pilot study by completing the surveys. The reluctance of supervisors to participate in the professional development program highlights one of the difficulties in providing student teaching oversight that reflects current best practice. In addition 20% of those who chose to attend the seminars did not complete the survey and therefore were not part of the pilot study. Whether this shows a lack of total commitment to the program or a discomfort with the questions on the survey needs to be investigated further to determine how best to present professional development to engage participants.

Another consideration for future seminars is the effects of the exposure to the three seminar sessions. The results indicate that a majority of the supervisors, 20 of the 25 showed an increase in their scores between the pre and post-test scores on the ATDP-O scale. The higher the mean score on the ATDP-O scale means a more accepting attitude on the part of respondents to persons with disabilities (Yuker & Block, 1986). The considerable increase in mean scores over the course of the three seminars would seem to correlate with the positive impact of these seminars. The fact that 13 of the 20 participants who attended all three of the seminars showed increases in their mean scores from pre to post-tests further supports the effectiveness of the seminars in facilitating greater acceptance of persons with disabilities. However an additional result also must be addressed. 7 of the 20 supervisors showed a decrease in their scores on the ATDP-O indicating less tolerance of the persons with disabilities than before the seminar series. This result is interesting and particularly relevant to curriculum development on two levels: what should be included and how should it be presented. Perhaps this group of supervisors was overwhelmed with new information on disabilities and the responsibility of the general education teacher in inclusive education. Now armed with knowledge about the extent of accountability in the classroom their response could indicate a disagreement with the concept of inclusion. The decrease in tolerance might actually represent a new found appreciation for the rights of individuals with disabilities and the affect on the responsibilities of general educators.

There the survey results provide three areas to consider in future professional development projects on inclusive education. First incentives for participation need to encourage even the reluctant individual to attend the seminars. The information presented needs to stress the transdisciplinary nature of inclusive education. This is a partnership between special and general educators. Not only is there support but also shared accountability. Lastly, the amount of information presented needs to be monitored to keep it from overwhelming and possibly turning off the audience.

Supervisor interviews provided additional insight into the effectiveness of the professional development seminars. All three persons interviewed communicated an appreciation of information about inclusion. They reported a keen awareness of the need to be able to prepare student teachers to work in classroom of diverse learners. A sense of practicality pervaded their assessment of the presentations, whether they were seen as the preferred focus of the university or the legal requirements of current legislation. An extension of this perception is that they considered their attendance at the seminars important. Whatever they might learn could facilitate their ability to be more effective during supervision.

All participants were reluctant to attribute any change in attitudes toward individuals with disabilities as well as toward a more accurate concept of inclusion to the seminars. This reluctance seems rooted in the concern that they might be viewed as intolerant. It also represents a sense of false clarity. False clarity can result when change is thought of in a simplistic way (Fullan, 1982). An example of false clarity can be found in a common teacher remark, "I already do that." Interviewees' references to past experiences, both personal and professional, were used to explain that they already had an appreciation of the need for the inclusion of individuals with disabilities. The results of the ATDP-O scale suggest that although participants maintained a certain sense of understanding and appreciation previous to the seminars, professional development did positively affect attitudes toward individuals with disabilities for the majority of participants.

Conclusions

Based on the results of the survey and the interviews, it would seem that the professional development seminars improved the awareness and attitude of the participants relative to persons with disabilities. Further, this improvement in attitude could infer a greater appreciation on the part of these field supervisors for the inclusive classroom placements of their student teachers. Many of these field supervisors indicated that they had learned more about the field of special education, its operational features and its legislative underpinnings, as a result of participating in these seminars. This new knowledge may improve their effectiveness as supervisors of student teachers that may be providing special instruction to students with disabilities. In addition, participant field supervisors voiced the opinion that general education students would greatly benefit from seminars such as the ones they had attended. This is a further indication of an appreciation for the changing landscape of education and the move toward inclusion. Teachers must be prepared to address the needs of diverse learners. This series of presentations has demonstrated some effectiveness, and provided a first stage for an expanded program that will include three additional seminars. Revisions in future seminars need to be made to increase participation of the supervisors. Various incentives including monetary remuneration or in-service credit might be considered. The time limitations resulted in overloading each session with information. Although the new knowledge was welcomed it could also be seen as overwhelming and a turnoff to participation and the very idea of working with students with disabilities.

Implications for Future Research

The movement toward inclusive education requires that all of us in the field reexamine our practice and evaluate how we might most effectively teach all the children in the classroom. As teacher educators we share a great deal of responsibility for the preparation of tomorrow's teachers: those who will be working in inclusive settings. Are our programs providing these future educators with all the support and knowledge that they need? Opportunities for further research lie in the areas of reassessing our curriculum and determining what curriculum and theory is most important to present. Are the courses given relevant to the classrooms that exist? What do our students need in order to feel competent in the inclusive classroom? In addition, we must make sure that our faculty and supervisors have the tools that they require as they prepare and support students during this time of educational change. Does professional development meet the needs of these professionals? Is it effective, and if not, what other avenues must we pursue? Lastly, more research needs to be conducted on how best to empower teacher educators to provide their students with viable and effective practices for use in the inclusive classroom.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.S. Sec.1210l et seq.

Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers' beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 245-255

Avramidis, E. Bayliss, P. & Burden, R. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school in one local education authority. Education Psychology, 20(2), 191-211.

Bixler, L. L. (1998). Perceptions of co-teachers: An exploration of characteristics and components needed for co-teaching. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(03A), 780.

Boudah, D. J., Schumacher, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1997). Collaborative instruction: Is it an effective option for inclusion in secondary classrooms? Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 293-316.

Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L. & Landrum, T. (2000). Teachers' attitudes toward their included students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67, (1), 115-135.

Coffey, A. & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications

Cox, J. (1996). Your opinion, please: How to build the best questionnaires in the field of education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

D'Alonzo, B. J., Giordano, G., & VanLeeuwen, D. M. (1997). Perceptions by teachers about the benefits and liabilities of inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 42, 4-11

Dynak, J., Whitten, E., & Dynak, D. (1997). Refining the general education student teaching experience through the use of special education collaborative teaching models. Action in Teacher Education, 19, 64-75.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1990). Collaboration as a predictor for success in school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1, 69-86.

Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hebert, P. L. (1998). Perceptions of general education teachers and special education teachers on the conditions, skills, and processes necessary for collaborative teams. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(02A), 455.

Holland, P.E., Cliff, R., Veal, M.L. Johnson, M., & McCarthy, J. (1992). Linking preservice and inservice supervision through professional inquiry. In C.D. Glickman (Ed.), Supervision in Transition (pp. 169-182). 1992 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1990). Washington, DC: Katsiyannis, Conderman, G., & Franks, D. J. (1995). State practices on inclusion: A national review. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 279-287.

Kephart, B. (1998). A slant of sun: One child's courage. New York: W.W. Norton.

Lackaye, T. D. (1997). General education teachers' views of academic interventions for students with learning disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(03A), 818.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Pace, D. A. (2001). Field Testing the Inclusive Teaching Rubric (ITR). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University, Herapstead, New York.

Pugach, M. C., & Seidl, B. L. (1995). From exclusion to inclusion in urban schools: A new case for teacher education reform. Education and Urban Society, 27,379-395.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri,M.A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming-inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 794.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, Doubleday.

Shapiro, J. P. (1993). No Pity: People with disabilities forging a new civil rights movement. New York: Times Books.

Smith, T.E.C., Polloway, E.A., Patton, J.R.,& Dowdy, C.A. (1995). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive Settings. Needham Heights, MA.: Allyn & Bacon.

Snyder, R. F. (1999). Inclusion: A qualitative study of inservice general education teachers' attitudes and concerns. Project Innovation Fall 1999, 120, (1), 173-180.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC.

Van Reusen, A. K., Shoho, A. R., & Barker, K. S. (2001) High school teacher attitudes toward inclusion. The High School Journal, 84, (2), 7-15.

Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Chapple, J. W. (1996). Preparing teachers to support inclusion: Preservice and inservice programs. Theory Into Practice, 35, 42-50.

Wiggle, S. E., & Wilcox, D. J. (1996). Inclusion: Criteria for the preparation of educational personnel. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 323-328.

Yuker, H. E., & Block, J. R. (1986). Research with the attitudes towards disabled persons scales (ATDP) 1960-1985. Hempstead, N.Y.: Hofstra University.

Darra Pace, Hofstra University, NY

Pace is assistant professor of special education. Her specializations include teacher preparation with special emphasis on inclusive education and teaching students with cognitive disabilities.