Lehman, L.R., & Podell, D.M., & Soodak, L.C. (1998). Teacher, student, and school attributes as predictors of teachers’ responses to inclusion.Journal of Special Education, 31(4), 480-497.
Teacher, Student, and School Attributes as Predictors of Teachers’ Responses to Inclusion
Introduction
A survey research was performed to help predict general education teachers’ responses to inclusion. The results indicated that the type of disability was most strongly related to a teacher’s response to inclusion and teachers’ receptivity toward including students with learning disabilities diminishes with experience. Additionally, teachers are hostile to the inclusion of students with mental retardation, behavior disorders, and, with greater experience, learning disabilities, but they are not anxious about inclusion of students with mental retardation.
Research Design
This meta-analysis research design was conducted through a cross-sectional survey approach.
Research Questions
The following questions were investigated in the study:
Subjects selection and assignment
A volunteer sample of general education teachers to be surveyed were recruited in three ways. First, general education teachers enrolled in graduate education classes at three New York metropolitan area universities were asked to participate. Second, general and special education teachers within these universities were asked to distribute additional survey packets within their schools. Third, survey packets were distributed in other schools by the investigators. Of the 530 general education teachers that were sent surveys, 188 completed the survey completely and returned it. These were included in the data, yielding a 35% return rate.
The mean years of teaching for the group were 9.3 years. Females represented 85.1% of the study. The sample was 84.6% white, 6.4% African American, 5.3% Hispanic, and 2.7% Asian American. 35.6% of the teachers reported having students with special needs placed in their present classes.
Measures, Instruments, Task Used
Each participant received four surveys in a packet with a cover letter, instructions for completion of each survey, and a postage-paid envelope for return. When returning the survey, participants were asked not to include their names, to ensure anonymity. The four surveys were: (1) the response to inclusion survey, where participants were asked to respond to a set of 17 pairs of adjectives along a four-point scale continuum about a hypothetical inclusion situation, (2) a teacher efficacy scale, where participants indicated the extent to which they agree with a series of statements concerning their beliefs about their own effectiveness as teachers and the ability of teaching to overcome external influences on students, (3) a differentiated teaching survey, in which participants indicated on a six point scale the frequency with which they engage in specific teaching practices, and (4) a school climate survey, in which participants responded to three questions about school conditions and seven statements about their perceptions of the climate of their school.
Reliability and Validity of measures & Statistical and Analysis
A factor analysis of the semantic differential scale measuring teachers’ responses to inclusion was done, based on Cattell’s (1966) scree test and inspection of factor loadings. Two factors were pulled by selecting an orthogonal varimax rotation. A test-retest reliability was then computed for these two scales by using a sample of 42 teachers. The coefficients for the two scales were .87 and .77. Using a split-half method and the responses of the full sample of 188 teachers, the coefficients were .91 and .86. Finally, the coefficients using Cronbach’s alpha were .92 and .87. A regression analysis was also done for these two factors. These coefficients would suggest there is reliability.
A factor analysis was also performed for the teacher efficacy scale and consistent with prior research, these emerged as separate factors depending on the participant’s responses. Reliability for the differentiated teaching survey was done through a test-retest method, using the same sample of 42 teachers above. A coefficient of .81 was yielded. This number would also suggest some reliability. Finally, a test-retest was done for the school climate survey. However, each item was considered individually because the questions pertained to different aspects of the school climate. There were too many coefficients to mention due to the number of questions. However, the highest yielded coefficient was .66, which does not indicate a high level of reliability.
Internal and External Validity
The research does have some external validity in that the results were similar to that found in previous research. Further research on this subject would have to be conducted to establish generalization. However, the limited response rate, limited geographical area, and the hypothetical questions asked in some of the surveys are all threats to validity. In addition, the rate of integration in this particular area is low, which also threatens the validity of the research.
An additional threat to validity is the method the researchers chose to find participants. All three methods involved participants that were connected either by their university or their common geographical location. This is not true random assignment. It is likely that participants knew each other through the university or school setting.
Conclusions
Some of the results are what I would predict them to be. However, the limited number of respondents, limited geographical location, low amount of integration in the area, and the lack of random assignment cause me to be skeptical. I would like to see each of these areas increased and the research extended before I would agree with the researchers’ results. Many of the areas assessed were of a subjective nature and I think it is difficult, if not impossible, to generalize the results to another group or region. However, I think the results provide food for thought. General education teachers, especially new teachers with limited differential teaching practices, obviously need resources, support from administration, education about particular disabilities, and effective collaboration experiences with special education teachers if inclusion is to be successful for all.