Middle school teachers' expectations of organizational behaviors of students with learning disabilities.

The purpose of this pilot study was to investigate the specific classroom organizational behaviors that middle school inclusive teachers report as expectations for students with learning disabilities. Practicing middle school science and social studies teachers (n = 12) responded to a survey about organization behaviors of students with learning disabilities. Findings indicate that teacher expectations of classroom organizational behaviors may be dependent on both the compliance and competence of students with learning disabilities. Implications for teacher practice include the need for students with learning disabilities to be given explicit instruction in classroom behavioral expectations in order to be compliant and competent.

**********

One of the greatest frustrations that teachers in inclusive general education classrooms experience is having students who fail to meet their expectations. Salend (1998) suggested that these expectations become more stringent for middle school students who have learning disabilities than for those who do not. This stringency often results in increased academic and behavioral deficits for students with learning disabilities in middle school (Knowlton, 1983; Lenz & Mellard, 1990). For example, middle school students with learning disabilities are reported to have difficulty remembering (a) important assignments, (b) materials for class, or (c)class routines (Ellett, 1993). Failure to meet teacher expectations often contributes to teacher frustration (Hughes, Ruhl, Schumaker, & Deshler, 2002).

Two major reasons are proposed for why students with learning disabilities fail to meet teacher expectations in inclusive general education classrooms. First, these students have deficits that limit the development of organizational behaviors (Levine & Swartz, 1995; Smith, Polloway, Patton, & Dowdy, 2001). Some students with learning disabilities exhibit temporal-sequential disorganization which may cause difficulty in allocating time, following schedules, meeting deadlines, and solving problems within the classroom. These challenges may be attributed to deficits in preplanning for tasks (Hughes, Ruhl, Schumaker, & Deshler, 2002). Also, students with learning disabilities may have material-spatial disorganization which causes them to have trouble keeping track of possessions, maintaining notebooks, and arranging desks; all may be attributed to deficits in competency. Overall, deficits in organization may contribute to students' failure to meet teacher expectations.

Second, some students with learning disabilities fail to meet teacher expectations because they have not received explicit instruction on how to perform classroom organizational behaviors necessary for success in inclusive general education classrooms (Racino & Taylor, 1989: add new references). Racino and Taylor argue that students with learning disabilities may not be prepared to meet organizational expectations in inclusive settings. Consequently, inclusive educators are now responsible for teaching an influx of students with learning disabilities who may have both academic and organizational deficits. Educators must understand that the lack of student preparation for inclusive general education classrooms contributes to their failure to meet teacher expectations.

Researchers have investigated classroom organizational behaviors and found that certain behaviors must be mastered for students to be successful in inclusive general education classrooms. Clees (1994-1995) identified behaviors such as bringing materials to class or turning in class work. Ellett (1993) identified behaviors such as following routines or remembering important assignments as critical for success in general education classes. Ellett surveyed inclusive general education teachers to determine which behaviors they expected. Results indicated that coming to class prepared, completing homework, and turning in homework ranked highest.

Although Clees (1994-1995) referred to these behaviors as teacher expectations, Ellett (1993) labeled the same behaviors organizational behaviors. Classroom organizational behaviors refer to discreet teacher expectations that can be discriminated as occurred or not occurred (Clees). The need for students to be independent in their performance of organizational behaviors increases in secondary schools (Ellett).

Middle School Challenges for Students with Learning Disabilities

In middle schools, the content-driven environment requires students with learning disabilities to meet expectancies for standard course requirements in content areas (Bigg, 1988). For the first time, many students with learning disabilities must learn how to (a) plan ahead, (b) gather appropriate materials for school tasks, (c) prioritize steps to complete assignments, and (d) keep track of their work. Collaborating about the demands placed on students after transitioning to middle school may help inclusive general education teachers become more aware of the need for explicit instruction when teaching classroom expectations (Racino & Taylor, 1989).

In addition to transition challenges in middle school, another factor contributing to the failure of students with learning disabilities in general education classes may be teachers' negative attitudes toward the mandate for inclusion (Vaughn & Schumm, 1994). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) continues the requirement that students with learning disabilities be served in general education classrooms, as appropriate. The trend of including students with learning disabilities in general education classes has steadily increased. For example, over an 8-year period from 1990 to 1998, the number of students with learning disabilities who were placed in general education, inclusive classrooms increased from 17.6% to 42.4% (Lerner, 2000). Additionally, 45% of students with emotional behavioral disorders received more than one third of their educational services in general education classes (U.S. DOE, 1999). Even so, some inclusive general education teachers are uncomfortable providing services to students with learning disabilities (Vaughn & Schumm).

Another challenge for students with learning disabilities in middle schools relates to the preparation of those who teach them (Vaughn & Schumm, 1994). Vaughn and Schumm surveyed general educators at the middle school level to determine their attitudes about planning for students with learning disabilities. They found that the majority of teachers surveyed did not report planning or accommodating for students with learning disabilities. A majority of teachers also reported that they were not trained to teach students with learning disabilities. Most teacher preparation programs require prospective teachers to take only one course in the field of special education (Billingsley, 2004), many general education teachers do not know how to make accommodations or even understand the need for them. Consequently, educators who serve those with learning disabilities may be unaware of students' poor organizational behaviors (Bryan & Burstein, 2004). Given that students with learning disabilities frequently have deficits in organizational behaviors; the purpose of this study was to investigate the specific classroom organizational behaviors that middle school teachers report as expectancies for students with learning disabilities.

Method

Participants and Setting

Of the 12 teachers who responded to the COBS, 11 were Caucasian and one was African American. All participants were female. Years of teaching experience ranged 1 to 20 years. This study was conducted in two middle school located in central Georgia. The first author met with the 6th grade science and social studies, inclusive general educators at both schools. The teachers were asked to complete a survey about their expectations of the classroom organizational behaviors of students with learning disabilities. The survey was developed by the authors based on a review of the literature and informal conversations with practicing middle school teachers.

The participants (n = 12) rated organizational behaviors on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (e.g., 1= not a problem to 5 = major problem). See Table 1 for the Classroom Organizational Behaviors Survey (COBS) instrument used in this study.

Analysis and Results of Organizational Behavioral Domains of Survey

After the survey was completed by the participants, the authors analyzed the COBS items and categorized them into three operational behavioral domains. These domains were identified as (a) pre-class planning (temporal sequential skills), (b) competence (material spatial skills), and (c) compliance. Of the 12 items on the survey, 50% were operationalized as both competence and compliance based behaviors. Table 2 illustrates the categorized behavioral domains of each item on the COBS

Descriptive analysis results of the participant's responses indicate that the teachers in this study ranked seven of the 12 behaviors above a 3 on the scale of 1 to 5 (e.g., 1= not a problem to 5 = major problem). Teacher rated "sitting in assigned seat" (1.3) as the least problematic organizational behavior and "turning in homework" (3.8) as the most problematic organizational behavior. The highest ranked classroom organizational behaviors were the behaviors that were operationalized as both competence and compliance based behaviors. These organizational behaviors were copies homework assignments, finishes work, requests help when needed, starts work immediately, and turns in homework. Table 3 provides the participants' mean ranking of the behaviors.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the specific classroom organizational behaviors that middle school teachers report as expectations for students with learning disabilities. The participants in this study identified behaviors that are both competence and compliance based as most problematic. For example, the behavior that ranked as most problematic was "turns in homework". To perform this expectancy, the student would need to exhibit both competence in the skills to complete the homework and compliance in following the prescribed classroom protocol for submission of homework.

Individuals with disabilities may lack organizational behaviors that are required for multiple settings for three major reasons related to competence or compliance. First, students with learning disabilities may not have a thorough understanding of teacher expectancies. For example, when instructed to copy homework assignments correctly, students with learning disabilities may omit words, phrases, or sentences. Completing homework may be a problem related to competence and supports the fact that many students with learning disabilities may need explicit instruction in teacher expectancies.

The second challenge related to competence is that some students with learning disabilities may not have had the prerequisite meet teacher expectancies. In order for teachers to ensure that students with learning disabilities are successful at meeting their expectances, specific actions can be taken. Teachers must create responsive environments by (a) providing and modeling clear routines, (b) providing students with a list of materials and expectations needed for each task, (c) providing schedules and deadlines to students, (d) writing assignments on the board and requiring students to copy them, (e) checking for accurate copying before students leave and incorporating follow up within the classroom routine, (f) training students with learning disabilities to self-monitor classroom behaviors, and (g) checking for accurate self-monitoring (Clees, 1994-1995; McCleskey, Hoppey, Williamson, & Rentz, 2004; Speece, Pericola, & Molloy, 2003; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995).

Finally, it is possible that some students with learning disabilities are not motivated to meet teacher expectancies. Deshler and others (1998) argue that students who have experienced repeated failures need strategies to help them become motivated. Teachers must implement motivational techniques that encourage adolescents to understand teacher expectancies, develop prerequisite skills, and increase academic performance in inclusive settings.

Limitations and Future Research

This study is not without substantial limitations. First, the small number of participants clearly limits the generalizability of the findings. Also, only descriptive data are provided which limits the external validity. Finally, a pilot study such as this must be viewed with caution.

Future, research in the area of teacher expectations of the organizational behaviors of students with learning disabilities in middle school is warranted. A student's competence and compliance in organizational behaviors may directly impact academic performance (Clees, 1994-1995). Understanding teacher's expectations in light of students' capability is worthy of further investigation.

Conclusion

Although this paper focused on middle school teachers' expectancies of classroom organizational behaviors of students with learning disabilities, we believe that teachers at all levels and in all settings should promote the explicit teaching of their expectancies for students. Teachers also must consider the student performance from both competence and compliance domains. By providing students with clear, explicit, and measurable framework of organizational expectancies, teachers will increase the likelihood that student will exhibit the desired organizational behaviors.

References

Bigg, J. ( 1988). Curriculum based instruction for special education students. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Billingsley, B. (2004). Special education teacher attrition and retention: A critical analysis of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 39-55.

Bryan, T. & Burstein, K. (2004). Improving homework and academic performancef: Lessons from special education. Theory into Practice, 43(3), 213-219.

Clees, T. (1994-1995). Self-recording of students' daily schedules of teachers' expectancies perspectives on reactivity, stimulus control, and generalization. Exceptionally, 5(3), 113-129.

Ellett, L. (1993). Instructional practices in mainstreamed secondary classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 56-64.

Georgia Professional Standards Committee. (2004). Teacher certification section: Special Georgia requirements. Retrieved June 26, 2004 from http://www.gapsc.com/TeacherCertification.

Hughes, C.A., Ruhl, K. L., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2002). Effects of instruction in an assignment completion strategy on the homework performance of students with learning disabilities in general education classes. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17(1), 1-18.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Pub. L. No 108-466.

Knowlton, E. K. (1983). Secondary regular classroom teacher's expectations of learning disabled students (Research Report No. 75). Lawrence: University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.

Lerner, J. W. (2000). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies. (8th Ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Lenz, B. K., & Mellard, D. P. (1990). Content area skill assessment. In R. A. Gable & J. M. Hendrickson (Eds.), Error patterns in academics: Identification and remediation (pp. 117-145). New York: Longman.

Levine, M. D., & Swartz, C. W. (1995). The unsuccessful adolescent. In Learning Disabilities Association of America (Ed.), Secondary education and beyond: Providing opportunities for students with learning disabilities (pp.3-12). Pittsburg, PA: Learning Disabilities Association of America.

McLeskey, J., Hoppey, D., Williamson, P., & Rentz, T. (2004). Is inclusion an illusion? An examination of national and state trends toward the education of students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 109-115.

Racino, J. A., & Taylor, S. J. (1989). New directions in living: Community living for adults. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, The Center on Human Policy, Research and Training Center on Community Integration.

Salend, S. J. (1998). Effective mainstreaming: Creating inclusive classrooms (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N J: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Smith, T. E., Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., & Dowdy, C. A. (2001). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive settings. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Speece, D. L., Pericola, L., & Molloy, D. E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 147-156.

Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1994). Middle school teachers' planning for students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15(3), 152-161.

U.S. Department of Education (1999). Twenty-first annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rebecca C. McMullen, 217-C Kilpatrick Education Center, CBX072, Milledgeville, GA 31061; Email: rebecca. [e-mail]

Rebecca C. McMullen, Middle Georgia College and University; Margaret E. Shippen, Auburn University; and Harry L. Dangel, Georgia State University.

Table 1 The Classroom Organizational Behaviors (COBS)
Survey Please rate each of the organizational behaviors
below from 1 to 5 to indicate the extent to which students
with learning disabilities exhibit them in your inclusive
class.

My students with learning disabilities ...

                          Not a problem------------------Major problem

1. bring books to class               1    2    3    4    5
2. bring pencils to class             1    2    3    4    5
3. bring paper to class               1    2    3    4    5
4. bring pens to class                1    2    3    4    5
5. sit in assigned seats              1    2    3    4    5
6. turn in homework                   1    2    3    4    5
7. return signed homework             1    2    3    4    5
8. attend to teacher directions       1    2    3    4    5
9. start work immediately             1    2    3    4    5
10. request help                      1    2    3    4    5
11. finish work                       1    2    3    4    5
12. copy homework assignments         1    2    3    4    5

Table 2 Operational categories of organizational behaviors

                              Pre-class
Organizational Behaviors      Planning    Competence   Compliance

Sits in assigned desk          [check]                  [check]
Brings boos to class           [check]
Returns signed papers          [check]
Brings pens to class           [check]
Brings paper                   [check]
Attends to teacher                         [check]      [check]
Brings pencil to class         [check]
Cope s homework assignments                [check]      [check]
Finishes work                              [check]      [check]
Requests help when needed                  [check]      [check]
Starts work immediately                    [check]      [check]
Turns in homework

Table 3 Mean participant rankings of
organizational behaviors

Organizational                 Mean
Behaviors                     Rating

Sits in assigned desk          1.3
Brings books to class          1.8
Returns signed papers          2.5
Brings pens to class           2.8
Brings paper                   2.8
Attends to teacher             3.1
Brings pencil to class         3.2
Copies homework assignments    3.3
Finishes work                  3.3
Requests help when needed      3.3
Starts work immediately        3.5
Turns in homework              3.6