This article was downloaded by: [University of New Hampshire]On: 06 October 2014, At: 00:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Meeting the Needs of Students withHandicaps: Helping Regular TeachersMeet the ChallengeH. William Heller a , Melba Spooner b , Fred Spooner c , BobAlgozzine c , Alice Harrison b & Brian Enright ca College of Education and Allied Professions , University of NorthCarolina , Charlotteb Department of Curriculum and Instruction , University of NorthCarolina , Charlottec Department of Teaching Specialties , University of North Carolina ,CharlottePublished online: 03 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: H. William Heller , Melba Spooner , Fred Spooner , Bob Algozzine , Alice Harrison& Brian Enright (1992) Meeting the Needs of Students with Handicaps: Helping Regular Teachers Meetthe Challenge, Action in Teacher Education, 13:4, 44-54, DOI: 10.1080/01626620.1992.10463121

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.1992.10463121

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

00:

19 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

MEETING THE NEEDS OF STUDENTS WITH HANDICAPS: HELPING REGULAR TEACHERS MEET THE CHALLENGE

H. William Heller Melba Spooner Fred Spooner Bob Algozzine Alice Harrison Brian Enright

H . William Ileller is Dean of the College of Educa- tion and Allied Professions, University of North Caro- lina, Charlotte.

Melba Spooner is Director of Field Experiences in the Department ofCurriculwnandInrtruct~n, University of North Carolina, Charlotte.

Fred Spooner is an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Department of Teaching Specialties, University of North Carolina, Charlotte.

Bob Algozzine is a Professor in the Department of Teaching Specialties, University of North Carolina, Charlotte.

Alice Harrison is Coordinator of Field Experiences in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Uni- versity of North Carolina, Charlotte.

Brian Enright is an Associate Professor in the De- partment of Teaching Specialties.University of North Carolina, Charlotte.

Principles embodied in the call for a partner- ship between regular education and special edu- cation in meeting the special learning needs of students have become known as the “regular education initiative (REI).” Called the “hottest debate in special education” (Viadero, 1988, p. l), deciding whether and how to improve services provided to students with handicaps has sparked controversy throughout the field (Lipsky & Gartner, 1989; Stainback & Stainback, 1985). Conferences, professional presentations, and nu- merous articles and special journal issues have been devoted to praising or maligning profession- als who believe that regular education should assume more responsibility for students with spe- ciallearning needs (Grosenick &Reynolds, 1978; Kauffman, Gerber, & Semmel, 1988; Kauffman. Lloyd, & McKinney, 1988; Keogh, 1988; Lloyd, Crowley, Kohler, & Strain, 1988; Wang & Walberg, 1988; Wang, Reynolds, & Walberg, 1987). Kauffman (1989) characterized the regu- lar education initiative as a flawed policy that did not have support of critical constituencies. He called the movement a “trickle-down theory of education for the hard-to-teach” and suggested that “it rests on illogical premises, ignores the issue of specificity in proposed reforms, and re- flects a cavalier attitude toward experimentation and research” @. 256). His position was reaf- f m e d and critically reviewed by other profes- sionals (Goetz & Sailor, 1990; Kauffman & Hallahan, 1990; McLeskey, Skiba, & Wilcox,

Winter ‘Y1-’92. Vol. NU, No. 4 page 44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

00:

19 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

1990; Pugach, 1990). After all the dialogue, the question of where and how best toeducate students with special education needs remains, and preser- vice training programs addressing the needs of regular education teachers in this process are conspicuously sparse.

Research documents the problem reasonably well . A study by Williams and Algozzine (1979) indicated that:

teachers who were unwilling to partici- pate in mainstreaming efforts had two major concerns. First, they felt that they did not have the technical abilities nec- essary to work with students who were handicapped. Second, they were con- cerned that these students would take too much time from their responsibility to provide educational service to the students who were not handicapped. (p.143)

A study by Johnson and Cartwright (1979) investigated regular classroom teacher’s knowl- edge about and attitudes toward handicapped students as impacted by (a) information about handicapped children, (b) classroom experiences with handicapped children, or (c) both informa- tion about and classroom experiences with handicapped children. The authors’ findings in- dicated that experience in some form with children with special learning needs is critical to successful integration. Similar conclusions have been re- ported by others (Alberto, Casmcone, & Cohen, 1978; Gallagher, 1985; Leyser, Johansen & Abrams, 1984; Leyser & Bursuck, 1986; Stone & Brown, 1986-1987)

While information is useful, interaction with children who are handicapped in an instructional setting results in making teachers more aware of the strategies for mainstreaming with a better understanding about the children’s capabilities as learners. Additionally, Warger and Trippe (1982) found regular classroom teachers mofe favorable to the reintegration or integration of some types of students with handicaps than others. According to these investigators, “students with emotional impairments seem to give teachers particular difficulty” (p. 247). They also indicated that pre- service preparation which provided for supported classroom experiences with students with handi- caps appeared to be the single most promising

approach to impacting future general education teachers attitudes.

The purposeof Project REACH was to provide student teachers with intensive summer school training experiences for learning about and work- ing with students with handicaps in regular edu- cation settings. The program focused on accom- modation and practical training in regular edu- cation settings. The Project’s objectives were:

1. To provide post-baccalaureate and lateral entry, and other preservice students with direct experience with mainstreamed children with mild handicaps;

2. To provide training in models of teaching which are conducive to effective instructional accommodation of children with mild handicaps in regular education classrooms;

3. To provide an introduction to a variety of instructional strategies which have been found to be effective in the instruction of the mainstreamed children with mild handicaps;

4. To develop positive attitudes in preservice classroom teachers regarding their willingness to accommodate mainstreamed students with mild handicaps in regular education classrooms:

5. To familiarize preservice regular education student teachers with the Individualized Educa- tion Plan (IEP) and its relationship to instructional programming for mainstreamed children with mild handicaps;

6. To access competence/preparedness for teaching children with handicaps in regular edu- cation settings.

Method

Selection placement decisions for the Model Clinical Cooperating Teachers (CT) in this spe- cial summer experience were made early in the Spring Semester, 1990. Concurrently, participat- ing student teachers were being selected. A series of training sessions were subsequently held on the cooperating university campus to assist these CTs in carrying out their duties. At the same time, the teachers began the process of formulating the content for the summer school experience. Ex- amples of the material that was developed at this stage were local communication forms and evalu- ation instruments.

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION page 45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

00:

19 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Procedures

Model Clinical Cooperating Teachers met with their respective student teachers in March. Fol- lowing this initial meeting, and an orientation for both the CTs and student teachers, the student teachers spent one week, 20 hours, observing in the CTs regular classroom.

Student teachers participated in a 30 hour in- tensive training program designed toprepare them to respond to the instructional needs of special needs students enrolled in the summer school classrooms. The required college procedures for placement and supervision of student teachers, as well as methodological considerations for meet- ing the needs of students with mild handicaps in the regular classroom setting were emphasized in the program. Participants received a basic orien- tation to the student teaching experience which included an application session on supervisory observations. Information on evaluation was also included to familiarize the student teachers with the university’s appraisal process, expectations, and standards. The students also had the oppor- tunity to familiarize themselves with the instru- ment being used to evaluate their performance. Specific instructional sessions addressed behav- ior management, informal assessment, classroom discipline, curriculum-based assessment. and ef- fective teaching principles; student teachers also were involved in sessions which assisted them in writing effective lesson plans and critiques. Concurrent with this training, the student teachers had pre-student teaching responsibilities which ran for the two week period and consisted of 40 hours in the CT’s regular classroom.

Subsequent to the 60 hours of classroom expo- sure (20 hrs. active observation plus 40 hrs of pre- student teaching responsibilities) and 30 hours of inservice instruction, the intensive summer teaching experience began. Each school system where the student teachers were placed typically conducted a team meeting where expectations were explained and questions answered. Addi- tionally, this experience provided each partici- pant with intensive contact with children who were deemed “at risk” and who had many charac- teristics of students with mild handicaps. Student teachers were required to develop extensive les- son plans pertaining to the aspects of the teaching

day. Typically, students were observed two to three times per week by their CT, the regular university supervisor, and a special education supervisor. Each student teacher was also ob- served by at least one local education administra- tor. Weekly seminars and debriefings were held between the student and hisher supervisor(s). Another team meeting was held during the final week of the summer student teaching experience to bring closiue to the experience and to collect feedback from all members involved as to ways to improve the total program.

Instrumentation

For evaluative purposes, a multiple item questionnaire was developed. The first sequence of questions (questions 1-5) examined demo- graphic information from the participating student teachers. The second set of items explored goals associated with integrating students with handi- caps into regular classes. In response to these questions student teachers indicated the extent to which they agreed with statements such as the following: Principals should increase collabora- tive teaching arrangements among general and special educators; Teachers can increase instruc- tional time for special learners by keeping them in general education settings. Responses were re- corded on a five point scale (i.e., l=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree). Estimates of the degree of confidence that student teachers placed in se- lected strategies associated with integrating stu- dents with special needs in regular classrooms were queried in the next section of the instrument. This portion of the instrument contained items such as the following:

Please indicate your degree of confidence to do the following:

Pace instruction to meet the unique learning needs of students with exceptional i ties.

Make lesson relevant to students with special learning needs.

The items in this section were divided into sets related to strategies for improving students’ skills, strategies for improving teachers’ skills, and gen- eral strategies for effective instruction. Responses were obtained on a five-point scale reflecting

Winter ‘91-’92, Vol. X I I I , No.4 page 46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

00:

19 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

degrees of confidence relative to each item: l=Very Low, 2=Low, 3=Moderate, 4=High, 5=Very High.

The instrument was administered to each stu- dent teacher prior to the 30 hour intensive training workshop and one day after the student teachers completed the summer school teaching experi- ence. Comparisons of pre and post test differ- ences in confidence served as one indication of the effectiveness of the program. Dependent t-

tests were used to evaluate these pre-to-post test differences; the 0.01 level of significance was used as a criterion for determining statistical significance for these tests.

Results

Fifteen student teachers participated in Project REACH during the 1989 summer session. Most (47%) of the participants were working in el-

Table l Demographic Description of REACH Participants

Number of Percent of Variable Respondents Respondents

Present teaching location: (1) Preschool 0 0 (2) Elementary 7 47

(4) High School 0 0

(1) 0

(3) 6-10 0 0 (4) 11-15 0 0 (5 ) 16+ 0 0

(1) 0

(3) 6-10 0 0 (4) 11-15 1 7 (5 ) 16+ 0 0

(1) 0

(3) 6-10 1 7 (4) 11-15 1 7 (5 ) 16+ 0 0

(1) Bachelors 13 93 (2) Masters 1 7 (3) Specialist 0 0 (4) Ph.D. 0 0

(3) Middle/Junior High School 1 6

Years of general education experience: 11 73 4 27 (2) 1-5

Years of special education experience: 11 73 3 20 (2) 1-5

Number of special coursedworkshops: 3 20 13 86 (2) 1-5

Highest educational level completed:

Perceptions: Before After

Willingness To Have Special Needs Students 20% 80% I

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION poge 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

00:

19 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 2 Participants’ Agreement With Principles Associated

With Regular Education Initiative

RE1 Principle Pretest Posttest

Integrate “special learners” Mean 1.1 1.6 SD 0.3 1 .o

Increase instructional time Mean 1.3 1.3 SD 0.5 0.5

Increase collaborative teaching Mean 1.6 1.4 SD 0.7 0.5

Provide assistance without labels Mean 2.3 1.9 SD 1.1 0.8

Coordinate curricular activities Mean 2.7 2.4 SD 0.9 1.2

Difficult to teach Mean 2.7 3.3 SD 1 .o 1 .o

Instruct diverse learners Mean 2.9 3.4 SD 0.9 1 .o

Note: Extent of agreement was reported using the following scale: l=Strongly agree, 2=Agree, 3=Neutral, 4=Disagree, 5=Strongly disagree.

ementary school settings when the project began. No member of the group had more than 6 years of general education teaching experience and 73% of the participant had less than one year of special education teaching experience. All but three of the participating student teachers hadtaken comes or attended workshops dealing with meeting the special learning needs of students. Only one stu- dent teacher had a master’s degree. Prior to the Project REACH experiences, 20% of the student teachers were willing to have special needs stu- dents in their classrooms; after participating, 80% indicated a willingness to have students with exceptionalities in their classes. Demographic information for the participating student teachers is presented in Table 1.

Means and standard deviations reflecting par- ticipants agreement with selected aspects of education reform and regular education initiative are presented in Table 2. Prior to and after par- ticipating in intensive summer school experi- ences, student teachers exhibited similar degrees of agreement with key principles embodied in the regular education initiative. For example, they consistently agreed that integrating “special learners,” increasing instructional time, and in- creasing collaborative teaching were important

principles associated with the regular education initiative.

Means and standard deviations reflecting par- ticipants confidence toward strategies for irn- proving specific skills of students with exceptionalities are presented in Table 3. Prior to and after participating in intensive summer school experiences, student teachers consistently reported moderate to high degrees of confidence relative to teaching social skills and teaching cognitive strategies to students with exceptionalities in regular classrooms. Confidence using student- paced activities improved significantly after par- ticipating in Project REACH.

Analyses of participating student teachers’ opinions about the way in which the Project improved their confidence in selected strategies for their teaching skills revealed significant irn- provements in all but one skill. Confidence sig- nificantly improved for the following areas: in- clude specialized instruction, provide peer tutor- ing, use cooperative learning techniques, modify instruction, use behavior management strategies, establish appropriate goals, handle disruptions, adjust performance standards, identify demands of activities, make instructional modifications, and adjust instruction. The only teaching skill in

Winter ‘ 9 1 - ’ 9 2 , Voi.MIl, No.4 page 48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

00:

19 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 3 Participants’ Confidence In Selected Strategies

For Improving Students’ Skills

Strategy Pretest Posttest

Use student-paced activities Mean 3.1 4.1 SD 1 .o 0.8

Teach social skills Mean 3.5 3.3 SD 0.8 0.9

Teach cognitive strategies Mean 3.2 4.0 SD 0.8 1 .o

Note: Degrees of confidence to improve students’ skills are l=Very Low, >Low, 3=Moderate, &High, 5=Very High. Values in bold indicate significant improvement.

Table 4 Participants’ Confidence In Selected Strategies

for Improving Teachers’ Skills

Strategy Pretest Posttest

Include specialized instruction

Provide for peer tutoring

Use cooperative learning techniques

Modify instructional practices

Use behavior management strategies

Establish appropriate goals

Handle disruptions

Adjust performance standards

Identify demands of activities

Make instructional modifications

Adjust instruction

Use computers to assist instruction

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

M W SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

3.7 0.8

3.5 0.7

3.3 0.7

3.1 0.7

3.0 0.7

3.0 0.8 3.0 0.5 2.9 0.8

2.9 0.7

2.9 0.9

2.8 0.7

2.9 1.3

4.5 0.7

4.1 0.7

4.1 0.7

4.0 0.8

4.1 0.6 3.9 0.9

4.0 0.7

4.0 0.9

3.9 0.7

4.0 0.5

3.5 0.9

3.1 1.4

Note: Degrees of confidence for improving teachers’ skills are l=Very Low, 2=Low, 3=Moderate, &High, 5=Very High. Values in bold indicate significant improvement.

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION page 49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

00:

19 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

which change was not noted involved using com- puters to assist instruction; interestingly, no aspect of the Project REACH instructional activities addressed this competency. Means and standard deviations reflecting participants reported confi- dence toward these teachers’ skills are presented in Table 4; levels of improvement are noted in bold.

Confidence in selected strategies for effective instruction also improved. Among those vari- ables with significant differences between pretest and posttest ratings were: help students respond, manage classroom behavior, pace instruction to meet needs, make lessons relevant, individualize

feedback, select relevant instructional content, reallocate instructional time, individualize in- struction, and vary methods of practice. No dif- ferences were indicated for rating of confidence to increase rates of teaching behavior, provide for mastery learning approach, and use on-going monitoring. Means and standard deviations re- flec ting participants’ confidence toward effective instruction are presented in Table 5; again, sig- nificant changes are in bold.

Participants’ confidence in selected strategies for effective assessment is illustrated in Table 6. Significant improvements were noted in all areas sampled (i.e., use formal and informal assess-

Table 5 Participants’ Confidence In Selected Strategies

For Effective Instruction

Strategy Pretest Posttest Help students respond

Manage classroom behavior

Pace instruction to meet needs

Make lessons relevant

Individualize feedback

Select relevant instructional content

Reallocate instructional time

Individualize instruction

Vary methods of practice

Increase rates of teaching behaviors

Provide for mastery learning approach

Use on-going monitoring

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

4.1 4.7 0.8 0.5 3.3 4.3 0.7 0.7

3.3 4.1 1 .o 0.8

3.2 4.1 0.8 0.7

2.9 3.9 0.8 1 .o 2.9 3.9 0.8 0.8

2.8 4.1 0.6 0.7

2.7 3.9 0.6 0.8 2.6 3.5 0.6 0.9 3.4 3.9 0.5 0.6

2.9 3.5 0.7 1.1

1.5 2.0 0.7 1.2

Note: Degrees of confidence for using effective instruction are l=Very Low, 2=Low, 3=Moderate, 4=High, 5=Very High. Values in bold indicate significant improvement.

Winter ‘91-’92, VoI.HI1, No.4 page 50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

00:

19 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 6 Participants’ Confidence In Selected Strategies

For Effective Assessment ~

Variable Pretest Posttest Using Assessment Effectively

Use formal and informal assessment Mean 3.7 4.5 SD 0.6 0.6

Differentiate use of tests Mean 3.4 3.9 SD 0.8 0.8

Apply curriculum-based assessment Mean 3.2 4.0 SD 0.9 0.9

SD 0.7 0.9 Administer individual reading test Mean 3.1 3.9

Administer individual math test

Identify error patterns

Accept individual differences

Translate test results to instruction

Mean 3.0 4.3 SD 0.8 0.6

Mean 3.2 3.9 SD 0.6 1 .o Mean 3.1 3.8 SD 0.6 0.9

Mean 3.2 4.3 SD 0.7 0.6

Note: Degrees of confidence for using effective instruction are l=Very Low, 2=Low. 3=Moderate, 4=High, 5=Very High. Values in bold indicate significant improvement in attitudes.

ment, differentiate use of tests, apply curriculum- based assessment, administer individual tests, identify error patterns, accept individual differ- ences, and translate results to instruction). Means and standard deviations reflecting improvements in participants’ confidence toward effective as- sessment are presented in Table 6; significant changes are in bold.

A comparison of Project E A C H participants and regular student teachers on selected variables related to planning, evaluation, knowledge, and communication is presented in Table 7. No sig- nificant differences were indicated in ratings obtained from those with aregular student teaching experience and those obtained from Project REACH participants. On a measure of students’ beliefs about preparedness for classroom instruc- tion, it appears that the intensive student teaching activities were perceived as comparable to activi- ties provided during more traditional student teaching experiences.

Discussion

Helping regular classroom teachers meet the needs of students with handicaps has been the subject of research for some time. For example, Alberto et al. (1978) found that teachers’ percep- tions of their ability to work with students with special needs improved with coursework and experience. Blair (1983) surveyed recently em- ployed regular classroom teachers to determine specific topics included in preservice training programsrelated to teaching students with special needs. The most frequently cited topics included characteristics, legislation, and individualized programming; the least frequently cited topics included working with parents, identification procedures, developing instruction, and selecting materials. Teachers generally indicated that more information was needed in areas related to teaching students with special learning needs. Similar con- clusions have been reached by others (Alberto et

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION page 51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

00:

19 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

al., 1978; Johnson & Cartwright, 1979; Leyser et al., 1984; Naor & Milgram, 1980; Tymitz-Wolf, 1982)

The purpose of this project was to provide an innovative experience to increase skills of teach- ers relative to accommodating students with handicaps in regular classrooms. Through a series of workshops and supervised student teaching experiences, regular education student teachers were introduced to and participated in general strategies for effective instruction as well as strat- egies for improving students’ and teachers’ skills. After participating in Project REACH, high de- grees of confidence were evident for student teachers’ ratings of strategies associated with

integrating students with special needs in regular classrooms. Ratings of confidence improved on several items: (a) making instructional modifica- tion, (b) increasing selected teaching behaviors, (c) providing instruction in varied groups. Rela- tively high degrees of confidence were main- tained for some strategies (e.g.. providing peer tutoring, providing for mastery learning) and no changes were indicated in an area not specifically targeted for instruction during presession work- shops or summer school experiences (i.e., using computers to assist instruction). Consistently high scores on some items suggest that the intensive summer school experience did not have a nega- tive effect on opinions (i.e.. confidence) student

Table 7 Comparison of REACH and Regular Student Teachers

Variable REACH Regular Short-term planning

Long-term planning

Evaluation of student performance

Self-evaluation of lessons

Knowledge of content

Instructional methods

Classroom management

Professionalism

Oral communication skills

Written communication skills

Knowledge of development

General knowledge

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

4.0 3.9 1.2 0.9

3.7 3.6 1.3 1.4

3.8 3.9 0.9 1.1

4.0 4.0 1.1 1.2

4.3 4.0 1.1 1.2

4.1 3.1 1.1 1.1

3.7 3.3 1.4 1.3

4.3 4.3 1.2 1.1

4.5 4.2 0.7 1.1

4.5 4.1 0.9 1.1

4.3 3.9 0.9 1.3

4.1 4.0 1 .o 1.2

Note: Degrees of preparedness of student teacher; l=Not well prepared, 5=Very well prepared.

Winter ‘91-’92, Vol. X l l l , No. 4 page 52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

00:

19 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

teachers had about selected strategies for meeting the special educational needs of students with handicaps in regular classrooms. Additionally, after participating in intensive experiences inte- grating students with exceptional needs, 60 per- cent of the student teachers changed perceptions about their willingness to serve students with special needs in the future.

By teaching student teachers in regular educa- tion classrooms to appropriately accommodate students with special needs. this projectaddressed a critical component of the RE1 movement (i-e., successfully blending regular education and spe- cial education). The participating beginning teachers gained exposure and experience with feedback to improve their skills in educating students with mild disabilities in a controlled student teaching situation. The work extends pre- vious research and training programs that focused primarily on providing and evaluating the effects of knowledge about students with handicaps rather than intensive, supervised experiences.

One of the responsibilities of a university pre- service training program is to prepare students for their future roles as teachers via classroom, lec- ture-type instruction. Content related to meeting the needs of students with special learning needs is often provided in a variety of comes (e.g., introduction to special education, curriculum, methods) but coursework alone will not impart the appropriate skills to work effectively with students with disabilities and handicaps. Fre- quently, regular education students do not get the appropriate supervised practical experience in educating students with special needs. These students need instructional strategies in a “hands- on” setting with feedback from a skilled profes- sional to be effective. The REACH summer ses- sion student teaching experience provided a more intense involvement in educating students with special needs, because there was more time to

focus on imparting the content to the student teachers.

The likelihood of new, fiist year teachers hav- ing students with mild disabilities in their class- room is high. Student teachers who were enrolled in the intensive summer experience will likely be better prepared as a new teacher to accommodate students with special needs. Additionally, based on the predicated success of these new teachers, it is equally likely that they will continue to have success in teaching. Continued success is more likely than if they did not have a successful fiist year of teaching, which may be impacted on adversely due to an inability to appropriately teach students with disabilities.

After Project REACH, participating student teachers responded positively with a greater awareness of the individual needs of students. Their responses were generally favorable to a variety of questions related to mainstreaming and philosophical concerns underlying the RE1 and accommodating students with special needs in regular classrooms. Student teachers’ opinions about selected important teaching behaviors im- proved as a result of Project REACH activities. They also indicated that the time available in the classroom and the small class size provided them with adequate experience to function in a regular classroom situation. In general, all participants benefited from the Project REACH experience and it represents a qualitatively different and valuable alternative to academic year student teaching. While opportunities to observe before student teaching are greater during the regular school year, the intensive summer teaching expe- rience provides more opportunities for actually teaching. The focus on the accommodation of students with special learning needs and the em- phasis on practical training are positive features of the program that can easily be extended in other student teaching projects.

References

Alberto, P. A., Castricone, N. R., & Cohen, S. B. (1978). Mainstreaming: Implication for training regular

Blair, C. W. (1983). Classroom teachers’ perceptions of preservice education related to teaching the class teachers. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 13,90-92.

handicapped. Journal of Teacher Education, 34,52-54.

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION page 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

00:

19 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Gallagher, P. A. (1985). Inservice! A mandated special education course and its effect on regular classroom teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 8,5945.

Goetz, L., & Sailor, W. (1990). Much ado about babies, murky bathwater,and trickle down politics: A reply to Kauffman. The Journal of Special Education, 24,334-339.

Grosenick, J.K., &Reynolds,M.C.(Eds.)(1978).Teachereducation:Renegotiating rolesfor mainstream&” Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.

Johnson, A. R., & Cartwright, C. A. (1979). The roles of information and experience in improving teachers’ knowledge and attitudes about mainstreaming. Journal of Special Education, 13,453-462.

Kauffman, J. M. (1989).TheReg~larEducationInitiativeasReagan-Bush education policy: Attickle-down theory of education of the hard-to-teach. The Journal of Special Education, 23,24,256-278,319-325.

Kauffman, J., Gerber, M., & Semmel, M. (1988). Arguable assumptions underlying the regular education initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21,6-12.

Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahn, D. P. (1990). What we want for children: A rejoinder to RE1 proponents. The Journal of Special Education, 24,340-345.

Kauffman, J. M., Lloyd, J. W., & McKinney, J. D. (1988). (Special Issue). Journal ofLearning Disabilities,

Keogh, B. K. (1988). Improving services for problem learners: Rethinking and restructuring. Journal of

Leyser, Y., & Bursuck, W. (1986). A follow-up study of regulareducation students trainedin mainstreaming

Leyser, Y., Johansen, J. M., & Abrarns, P. D. (1984). Training for mainstreaming: An evaluation of

Lipsky,D., &Gamer, A. (1989).Beyondseparateeducation: Qualityeducation forall.Baltimore: Brookes. Lloyd, J. W., Crowley, E. P., Kohler, F. W., & Strain, P. S. (1988). Redefining the applied research agenda:

Cooperative learning, prereferral, teacher consultation, and peer-mediated interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21,43-52.

McLeskey, J., Skiba, R., & Wilcox, B. (1990). Reform and special education: A mainstream perspective. The Journal of Special Education, 24,319-325.

Naor, M., & Milgram, R. M. (1980). Two preservice strategies for preparing regular class teachers for mainstreaming. Exceptional Children, 42, 126-129.

Pugach, M. (1990). The moral cost of retrenchment in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 24,326-333.

Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1985). The merger of special and regular education: Can it be done? Exceptional Children, 51,517-521.

Stone, B., & Brown, R. (1986-1987). Preparing teachers for mainstreaming: Some critical variables for effective preservice programs. Educational Research Quarterly, 11 (2), 7-10.

Tymitz-Wolf, B. L. (1982). Extending the scope of inservice training for mainstreaming effectiveness. Teacher Education and Special Education, 5(2), 17-23.

Viadero, D. (1988). Researchers’ critique escalates the debate over “Regular Education” for all students. Education Week, 7(28). 20.

Wang, M. C., Reynolds, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1987). Preparing the second system for students with special needs Review of Wingspread Conference on the Education of Children with Special Needs]. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Wang, M. C., & Walberg,H. J. (1988). Four fallaciesof segregationism. Exceptional Children,SS, 128-137. Warger, C. L., & Trippe, M. (1982). Preservice teacher attitudes toward mainstreamed students with

Williams, R., & Algozzine, B. (1979). Teachers’ attitudes toward mainstreaming. Elementary School

21(1).

Learning Disabilities, 21, 19-22.

competencies. Teacher Education and Special Education, 9,136-144.

attitudinal changes. Teacher Education Quarterly, 11,64-71.

emotional impairments. Exceptional Children, 49,246-252.

Journal, 80,63-67.

Winter ’91- ’92 , Vol.XIII, No.4 page 54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

00:

19 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014