Inclusive Education Perceptions, DeSutter 1

Inclusive Education Perceptions, DeSutter 1 Exploring Teacher Candidate Perceptions of Abilities, Beliefs, and Preparation Related to Inclusive Education

Inclusive Education Perceptions, DeSutter 2 Abstract Current educational mandates and policies make it clear that inclusive education is an educational practice for which new teachers need to be prepared. As beginning teachers face increasingly diverse classrooms, gaining the perspectives of elementary and secondary/k-12 teacher candidates regarding inclusive education prior to entering the field may be helpful in informing teacher preparation faculty about ways to enhance their programs. This study explored the perceptions of elementary and secondary/k-12 teacher candidates during the semester prior to student teaching. A researcher developed survey was utilized to gather candidates perceptions of their abilities, beliefs, and preparation for inclusive education. Findings show a significant difference between elementary and secondary/k-12 candidates for each of the constructs related to inclusive education.

Inclusive Education Perceptions, DeSutter 3 Exploring Teacher Candidate Perceptions of Abilities, Beliefs, and Preparation Related to Inclusive Education Students preparing to teach (here after referred to as teacher candidates) in school districts across the country will face an increasingly diverse student population that includes students with a wide variety of needs. For example, the U.S. Department of Education reports that 59.4% of students with disabilities spend the majority of their school day in regular education classrooms (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, 2012). Furthermore, current educational legislation such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) require schools to be increasingly accountable for ensuring all students are performing at grade level across subject areas (Hardman, 2009); these reform efforts have created an increased emphasis on inclusion of students with disabilities in regular education classrooms. Consequently, understanding how to best prepare teacher candidates for today s diverse classrooms has become a concern of national focus (Hill-Jackson & Lewis, 2010). In order to respond to this critical need, many researchers have focused attention on gaining the perspectives of teacher candidates during enrollment in required coursework focused on K-12 students with exceptionalities (Alvarez-McHatton & McCray, 2007; Shade & Stewart, 2001). To assist in developing a clearer understanding of teacher candidates perceptions of abilities, beliefs, and preparation related to inclusive education, this study sought to examine elementary and secondary teacher candidates perspectives during enrollment in coursework the semester prior to student teaching. Previous Research on Inclusive Education and Teacher Candidate Perspectives Inclusion is a complex notion and its definition cannot be settled in a single sentence with a few well-chosen words (Booth, 2011, p. 304). Booth s statement summarizes well the

Inclusive Education Perceptions, DeSutter 4 challenge of inclusive education and teacher preparation. Yet, there is research to support achievement rises and tests scores improve when students with and without disabilities are educated in inclusive environments versus segregated environments (Blackorby, Wagner, Cameto, Davies, Levine, & Newman, 2005). Consequently, many authors argue inclusive educational outcomes could be further enhanced when regular classroom teachers possess belief systems that include feeling responsible for educating all students including those with disabilities (Hardman, 2009; Jordan, Schwarz, & McGhie-Richmond, 2009; Opertti & Brady, 2011). The challenge for teacher preparation programs lies in determining how best to instill beliefs systems related to inclusive education within each teacher candidate. Berry (2010) reports, If inclusive classrooms are to be effective, teachers must accept inclusion as necessary and beneficial (p. 90). Yet, when determining viewpoints related to inclusive education middle school and high school teachers represented the largest portion of resisters in Berry s study. Similarly, when studying the difference in perceptions between elementary and secondary education teacher candidates, Alvarez-McHatton and McCray (2007) noted that elementary education majors report more favorable attitudes towards inclusion (p. 28). Conderman and Johnston-Rodriguez (2009) also sought to gain the perspectives of elementary and secondary school teachers while studying beginning teachers views related to inclusion and collaboration. Results of this study reveal that both groups of teachers feel unprepared in many aspects related to inclusion. For example, both groups felt unprepared for promoting greater access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities and pacing and timing of instruction for students with disabilities (Conderman & Johnston-Rodriguez, 2009, p. 237). These results indicate that both elementary and secondary education teachers who

Inclusive Education Perceptions, DeSutter 5 have recently exited teacher preparation programs continue to feel challenged to meet the demands of inclusive educational environments. As Conderman and Johnston-Rodriguez state, The call for increased skills, expanded supports, and more authentic experiences to better meet the range and intensity of student needs found in today s classrooms is a critical and essential message to which teacher-preparation programs should respond (p. 243). Purpose of Study To determine if different experiences during teacher preparation influence teacher candidates perceptions related to their abilities, beliefs, and feelings of preparedness, this study seeks to answer the following research questions: 1. Is there a difference between elementary and secondary teacher candidates perceived abilities, beliefs, and preparation related to inclusive education? 2. Is there a difference between teacher candidates who are pursuing special education licensure along with general education licensure and teacher candidates who are only pursuing general education licensure in relationship to perceived abilities, beliefs, and preparation for inclusive education? 3. Is there a difference between teacher candidates who are pursuing a minor in special education and teacher candidates who are not pursuing a minor in special education in relationship to perceived abilities, beliefs, and preparation for inclusive education? Method Participants and Procedure Participants in this study represented two distinct programs at one mid-size Midwestern University. One group (n = 42) consisted of elementary education majors completing their final semester of coursework prior to student teaching. The other group (n = 20) consisted of

Inclusive Education Perceptions, DeSutter 6 secondary/k-12 (in the state where this study takes place licenses such as PE, music and art are K-12 licenses) teacher candidates completing a seminar course with a combined field experience prior to student teaching. The elementary program at this institution is unique because the program consists of three consecutive semesters of defined coursework referred to as embedded semesters. Students begin enrolling in the first embedded semester during the first semester of their junior year followed with consecutive enrollment in embedded semesters two and three. These semesters are referred to as embedded semesters because fieldwork is also a component of each course with each embedded block. The embedded semesters serves to provide a flexibly defined cohort of students as work towards completing the program occurs in a sequential and pre-determined manner. For the current study, one class, consisting of two sections, within embedded semester three was identified for participation in completing a survey designed to answer the research questions during the fall 2014 semester. The secondary/k-12 programs are much less structured with students often focusing on all content area courses prior to taking any education courses. The course identified for this study, however, is well known throughout the program as the field experience course prior to student teaching. Consequently, this course was considered an equivalent course to the course(s) elementary education majors complete during embedded three as both groups of students have completed the majority of their education coursework including a required introductory level course related to students with exceptionalities. Students in this class were also invited to participate in the survey during the fall semester of 2014. Data was collected from only one section of this course, due to the class not being in the identified room when the researcher arrived to collect data from the second section of students.

Inclusive Education Perceptions, DeSutter 7 For each group, students were recruited to participate during a faculty identified class session. Students were informed that the survey was for a class project being completed by the researcher and were asked to complete the survey in class at the beginning of the identified class session. The survey took approximately 5 minutes to complete. Of the 62 total participants, 13 were male and 49 were female, the average age was 22.5 years (SD = 2.67). The participants had a mean GPA of 3.52 (SD =.375), 25.8% (n = 16) of the participants were pursuing special education licensure and 9.7% (n = 6) of the participants were pursuing a minor in special education. Measures Three dependent variables (abilities, beliefs, and preparation) were assessed on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4 = slightly agree, 5 = agree, 6 = strongly agree). At the beginning of the survey participants were provided with this statement: The following questions relate to your beliefs and perceptions of your teacher preparation program. Read each item carefully and respond using the scale provided. To ensure the items within each factor were of high quality, a factor analysis was conducted on each scale and a varimax rotation was utilized to determine if the scales included more than one distinct construct. A discussion of each factor follows. Inclusion abilities. Seven items were included related to inclusion abilities. An example item stated, I feel competent when thinking about teaching students with disabilities in my future classroom. Results from the analysis of the inclusion abilities scale indicated that items abil3_1r, abil5_1, and abil6_1r be removed to increase the reliability of the scale ( =.871). Although the distribution of this scale was out of the normal bounds (skewness of -1.325 and

Inclusive Education Perceptions, DeSutter 8 kurtosis at 3.431), it was determined that further statistical analysis would still be valuable in answering the research questions. Inclusion beliefs. Eight items were included to measure inclusive education beliefs (e.g. Inclusion helps students develop friendships. ). Results from the analysis of this scale indicated that items belief5_1, belief6_1r, belief7_1, and belief8_1r be removed as the rotated component matrix indicated a lack of correspondence with the remaining four items. The reliability of the scale with the removed items was high ( =.822) and the scale was deemed to be sufficiently normally distributed with skewness and kurtosis remaining less than or equal to 1.00. Inclusion Preparation. Eight items were also included to measure teacher candidate perceptions of preparation (e.g. My teacher preparation program provides adequate training for implementing accommodations. ). The factor analysis of this scale resulted in only one component extracted, however, reliability analysis indicated that reliability could be improved with the removal of items prep7_1 and prep8_1r. Thus the decision was made to removed these two items for a final reliability of =.887. Final skewness of the scale was -.749 with kurtosis slightly outside of normal bounds at 1.321, yet, still within reasonable bounds for further analysis. Correlation of subscale constructs and measures of internal consistency for each construct are presented in table 1. Independent variables. Three independent variables were assessed using single response questions. The first independent variable (class) asked participants to indicate which class/semester they were completing the survey. The second and third independent variables asked students to mark yes or no in response to questions related to pursuing special education licensure or a special education minor.

Inclusive Education Perceptions, DeSutter 9 Results Table 2 shows items related to perceived abilities related to inclusive education among all of the participants. For all questions, teacher candidates had a strong sense of their abilities. The highest percentage of some form of agreement related to feeling confident about knowing when adjustments need to be made for students with disabilities (93.6%). The lowest percentage of some form of agreement related to having a thorough understanding of how to meet the needs of all learners in a classroom (88.7%). Table 3 shows that teacher candidates hold strong beliefs related to positive aspects of inclusion. For example, 100% of teacher candidates responded with some form of agreement that inclusion helps students develop friendships. Similarly, 98.4% of teacher candidates responded to the statement Inclusion is a good idea with some form of agreement. Table 4 relates to teacher candidates perceptions of the teacher preparation program in relationship to preparation for inclusion. Overall, teacher candidates agree in some form that the program prepares them for inclusion, but it should be noted that percentage of some form of agreement is noticeably lower for these items than the items in the previous two constructs. For example, 75.8% of teacher candidates responded with some form of agreement to the question related to have adequate training to meet the needs of students with emotional or behavioral challenges and 77.5% to a similar question related to coursework which develops abilities to manage behavioral difficulties of students with disabilities. Between group differences were also analyzed for each of the independent variables and each construct. Significant results indicated that elementary teacher candidates have higher perceptions of abilities (t (60) = 5.212, p <.05), beliefs (t (60) = 2.197, p <.05), and preparation (t (59) = 3.815, p <.05) than secondary/k-12 candidates. Other significant, but unsurprising

Inclusive Education Perceptions, DeSutter 10 results indicate that teacher candidates pursuing special education licensure have higher perceptions of abilities (t (59) = 4.029, p <.05) and preparation (t (58) = 2.62, p <.05). Discussion The main purpose of this study was to explore perceptions of teacher candidates related to inclusive education abilities, beliefs, and preparation. The results of the study support Alvarez-McHatton and McCray s (2007) findings related to differing perceptions between elementary and secondary education majors. This is an important finding because both groups of students complete a required introductory special education course. Previous researchers (Shade & Stewart, 2001) have claimed that these types of courses have positively and significantly changed attitudes towards inclusion, yet, the results of this study indicate that for secondary/k- 12 teacher candidates, a singular course may not be enough to create positive belief systems that ensure all teachers are fully prepared for the diversity in today s classrooms. As Alvarez- McHatton and McCray state, These results reveal a need to address attitudes and dispositions toward students with disabilities throughout a program of study rather than as a discrete course. This statement is also supported by the results of the preparation scale presented in this study. Implications, Limitations, and Future Directions The most significant implication of the current research relates to teacher candidates beliefs towards inclusion and their perceptions of preparation. Candidates uniformly agreed in some form to positive beliefs towards inclusion, yet, felt that their teacher preparation program did not prepare them for all aspects of teaching students with disabilities in the regular classroom. While Shade and Stewart (2001) state Inclusionary practices may be defeated if general education teachers do not have positive attitudes toward these practices (p. 38), the results of this study imply that teacher candidates have positive attitudes, but feel unprepared.

Inclusive Education Perceptions, DeSutter 11 This finding makes it imperative that teacher preparation programs continue to evaluate program elements intended to assist teacher candidates prepare for inclusive education. This research, however, does present a limitation in that the research was contained to one university. Future research should continue to explore these elements related to inclusive education at other universities to determine if differences between teacher preparation models produce significantly different beliefs and perceptions of preparedness regarding inclusive education. Finally, current educational mandates and policies (e.g., Least Restrictive Environment mandates, the Regular Education Initiative, and participation in statewide assessment mandates for all students) make it clear that inclusive education is an educational practice for which new teachers need to be prepared. This reality should alert teacher preparation faculty that they have a responsibility to fully prepare teacher candidates for diverse environments. Critically exploring and reflecting upon the perspectives of teacher candidates ready to enter the field may be a first step in fulfilling this responsibility.

Inclusive Education Perceptions, DeSutter 12 References Alvarez-McHatton, P., & McCray, E. D. (2007). Inclination toward inclusion: Perceptions of elementary and secondary education teacher candidates. Action in Teacher Education, 29(3), 25-32. Berry, R. A. W. (2010). Preservice and early career teachers attitudes toward inclusion: instructional accommodations, and fairness: Three profiles. The Teacher Educator, 45, 75-95. Blackorby, J., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., Davies, L., Levine, P., & Newman, L. (2005). Engagement, academics, social adjustment, and independence. Palo, Alto, CA: SRI. Booth, T. (2011). The name of the rose: Inclusive values into actions in teacher education. Prospects, 41, 303-381. Conderman, G., & Johnston-Rodriguez, S. (2009). Beginning teachers views of their collaborative roles. Preventing School Failure, 53(4), 235-244. Hardman, M. L. (2009). Redesigning the preparation of all teachers within the framework of an integrated program model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 583-587. Hill-Jackson, V., & Lewis, C. W. (Eds.). (2010). Transforming teacher education: What went wrong with teacher training and how we can fix it. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 535-542. Opertti, R., & Brady, J. (2011). Developing inclusive teachers from an inclusive curricular perspective. Prospects, 41, 459-472.

Inclusive Education Perceptions, DeSutter 13 Shade, R. A., & Stewart, R. (2001). General education and special education preservice teachers attitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 46(1), 37-41. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Digest of Education Statistics, 2011 (NCES 2012-001), Chapter 2. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59.

Inclusive Education Perceptions, DeSutter 14 Table 1. Correlation of Constructs and Measures of Internal Consistency for Teacher Education Candidates Enrolled in Elementary of Secondary/K-12 Program Construct Items Subscale C1 C2 Cronbach s Alpha C1 Abil1_1, Abil2_1, Inclusion.87 Abil4_1, Abil7_1 abilities C2 Belief1_1, Belief2_1, Inclusion.36*.82 C3 *p <.05 (2-tailed) Belief3_1, Belief4_1 Prep1_1, Prep2_1, Prep3_1, Prep4_1, Prep5_1, Prep6_1 beliefs Inclusion preparation.77*.44*.89 Table 2. Teacher Candidate Perceptions of Abilities Related to Inclusive Education Percentage of Some Form of Agreement, Mean, and Standard Deviation (strongly disagree = 1, strongly agree = 6) Question Number Abil1_1 Abil2_1 Abil4_1 Abil7_1 Inclusion Abilities Questions I feel competent when thinking about teaching students with disabilities in my future classroom. I have a clear understanding of how areas of exceptionalities influence learning for students. I feel confident that I will know when adjustments need to be made for students with disabilities in my classroom. I have a thorough understanding of how to meet the needs of all learners in a classroom. % Some Form of Agreement M SD 92% 4.55 0.94 91.9% 4.81 1.04 93.6% 4.63 0.79 88.7% 4.55 0.99

Inclusive Education Perceptions, DeSutter 15 Table 3. Teacher Candidate Beliefs Related to Inclusive Education Percentage of Some Form of Agreement, Mean, and Standard Deviation (strongly disagree = 1, strongly agree = 6) Question Inclusion Beliefs Questions Number % Some Form of Agreement Belief1_1 Inclusion is a good idea. 98.4% 5.63 0.66 Belief2_1 Inclusion helps students 100% 5.66 0.55 develop friendships. Belief3_1 Inclusion helps students with 98.3% 5.29 0.82 disabilities academically. Belief4_1 Inclusion helps regular students academically. 96.7% 5.24 0.80 Table 4. Teacher Candidate Perceptions of Preparation for Inclusive Education Percentage of Some Form of Agreement, Mean, and Standard Deviation (strongly disagree = 1, strongly agree = 6) Question Number Prep1_1 Prep2_1 Prep3_1 Prep4_1 Prep5_1 Prep6_1 Preparation for Inclusion Questions I have the training to implement inclusion successfully. My teacher preparation program provides adequate training for implementing accommodations. I have adequate training to differentiate instruction. My university coursework helps develop my ability to manage behavioral difficulties of students with disabilities. My teacher preparation program prepares all teachers to serve students of all academic levels. I have adequate training to meet the needs of students with emotional or behavioral challenges. M SD % Some Form of Agreement M SD 85.5% 4.52 1.02 87.1% 4.52 1.02 91.9% 4.68 0.90 77.5% 4.25 1.09 83.9% 4.34 1.01 75.8% 4.02 1.15