http://sed.sagepub.com/Education

The Journal of Special

http://sed.sagepub.com/content/13/4/453The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/002246697901300412

1979 13: 453J Spec EducAlex B. Johnson and Carol A. Cartwright

Attitudes About MainstreamingThe Roles of Information and Experience in Improving Teachers' Knowledge and

  

Published by:

  Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:The Journal of Special EducationAdditional services and information for    

  http://sed.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://sed.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Dec 1, 1979Version of Record >>

at EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIV on October 11, 2014sed.sagepub.comDownloaded from at EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIV on October 11, 2014sed.sagepub.comDownloaded from

THE ROLES OF INFORMATION AND EXPERIENCEIN IMPROVING TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE AND

ATTITUDES ABOUT MAINSTREAMING

Alex B. Johnson, Ph.D.Bowling Green State University

Carol A. Cartwright, Ph.D.The Pennsylvania State University

Research on mainstreaming suggests that

teachers are often ill prepared, both in termsof knowledge and attitude, to teach handi-capped children. The present research in-vestigated whether information about andexperience with the handicapped would im-prove prospective regular education teachers’attitudes toward and knowledge about

mainstreaming. In addition, data were gatheredand reported on the relationship betweenteachers’ attitudes and knowledge and certaincharacteristics, including term standing, areasof specialization, and grade-point averages. Theresults indicated that the teachers did not

increase their general knowledge about main-streaming as a result of only information aboutor only experience with the handicapped.However, attitudes toward mainstreamingsignificantly improved as a result of a combina-tion of information about and experience withthe handicapped and as a result of onlyinformation about the handicapped. Theresults also indicated that prospective teachers’attitudes toward and knowledge about main-streaming were not significantly influenced bytheir term standings, areas of specialization, orgrade-point averages.

The passage of P.L. 94-142, The Education For All Handicapped Children Actof 1975, represented, among other things, official recognition by the U.S. Con-gress of the growing dissatisfaction with the practice of placing handicappedchildren in self-contained special classrooms away from regular classrooms.This is embodied in the policy of &dquo;least restrictive alternative,&dquo; which is ofteninterpreted in educational practice as leading to or resulting in mainstreaming.As mildly and moderately handicapped students are placed in regular classes,

an inevitable concomitant of mainstreaming is the training and retraining ofregular school personnel (Alexander & Strain, 1978; Reynolds & Birch, 1977).Although educators have proposed a number of administrative (i.e., The Cas-cade System of Special Education Service) and teacher-centered (i.e., resourceroom) strategies (Deno, 1970; Bruininks & Rynders, 1971; Cartwright,Cartwright, & Ysseldyke, 1973) for implementing mainstreaming, many reg-ular teachers are still concerned about having handicapped children in theirclasses. Martin (1976) suggested that this concern might be due, at least in part,to teachers’ feelings that they lack the skills to teach handicapped studentswithout additional training. Vacc and Kirst (1977) explored the attitudes of

at EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIV on October 11, 2014sed.sagepub.comDownloaded from

454

regular teachers toward mainstreaming emotionally disturbed children. Theteachers they questioned believed emotianally disturbed children should besegregated in special classes, and 91% indicated that they needed special educa-tion courses to better prepare them for dealing with handicapped children.From another standpoint, Shotel, Iano, and McGettigan (1972) noted that theresistance of regular classroom teachers to contact with handicapped studentsreflects the fear that their classrooms will be disrupted.

Educators generally agree that in order for mainstreaming to succeed, thetraining and retraining of regular class teachers should be given top priority.First, it will be extremely difficult for regular class teachers to accept mildly ormoderately handicapped children in their classrooms unless they have beenconvinced of its desirability (Alexander & Strain, 1978; MacMillan, Jones, &

Meyers, 1976; Melcher, Note 1). Second, few regular class teachers have hadrequired coursework about handicapped children and have had little, if any,contact with them (Mac Millan, Jones, & Aloia, 1974). Finally, regular classteachers have a long record of resisting specialization of function and are notexempt from harboring negative attitudes toward handicapped individuals(Lortie, 1976; Martin, 1976; Scriven, 1976).

Since teachers’ attitudes are important to the educational and psychologicaladjustment of the mainstreamed child, it is significant to learn what factors liebehind the development of positive attitudes (Shotel et al., 1972). In most ofthe research, a consistent finding is that regular teachers prefer special classplacement of children classified as mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed,and learning disabled rather than mainstreaming. Moore and Fine (1978), inan investigation of teachers’ attitudes, found regular educators were generallyless accepting of mainstreaming practices than were special educators. Theregular educators were more supportive of mainstreaming for learning-disabled than for mentally retarded children. MacMillan, Meyers, and Yoshida(1978) reported that even when children are being maintained in regularclasses, teachers perceive them to be considerably below the class average inboth social acceptance and academic achievement.

Social psychologists Krech, Crutchfield, and Ballachey (1962) suggested thatattitude change is brought about through exposure to additional informationand direct experience with an attitude object. On a similar note, researchers inspecial education (Harasymiw & Horne, 1976; Klinger, 1972) concluded thatattitudes seem best modified when the shift is generated by new environmentalexperiences, such as a workshop designed to disseminate information about thehandicapped and offer direct experience with them. Other researchers(Donaldson & Martinson, 1977; Reid, Reid, Whorton, & Reichard, 1972) con-cluded that immediate and intensive contact with a variety of handicappedchildren is a beneficial practice that should be incorporated into teacher-training programs. A traditional teacher-training course, which often remainsat an abstract level, may not be adequate for changing attitudes toward andproviding the skill for mainstreaming.There have been relatively few systematic efforts designed to improve reg-

ular classroom teachers’ attitudes and skill with regard to teaching handicapped

at EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIV on October 11, 2014sed.sagepub.comDownloaded from

455

students. A recent review (Alexander & Strain, 1978) suggests that considerableresearch and development are needed regarding ways to improve the involve-ment of regular educators in mainstreaming.Training efforts usually focus on methods designed to give information

about (e.g., courses, seminars, and workshops) or to provide experience with(e.g., student teaching, practicums, and clinical experiences) handicapped stu-dents. Methods combining information and experience are generally lacking. Itcan be assumed that such a combination may be more effective in improvingteachers’ attitudes toward and knowledge about mainstreaming than is trainingin only one dimension (e.g., information about or experience with).Other factors also need investigation. For example, although it has been sug-

gested (Alper & Retish, 1972) that the formation of attitudes toward the handi-capped is not significantly influenced by the teachers’ choice of specialization,term standing, and academic grade-point average, these factors may influencethe improvement of attitude toward and skill in mainstreaming.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the efficacy of singletreatments of either information and experience or a combination treatment ofinformation and experience, and to ascertain which were most effective in im-proving prospective teachers’ attitudes toward and knowledge about main-streaming. In addition, data were gathered and reported on the relationshipbetween subjects’ attitudes and knowledge and certain subject characteristics:their major, term standing, and grade-point average.

Effects of the treatments were examined by comparing prospective teacherswho received both information and experience with those who received eitherinformation, or experience.The investigation asked the following questions:1. Do prospective teachers increase their general knowledge about main-

streaming when they take a course designed to give information about thehandicapped?

2. Do prospective teachers’ attitudes towards mainstreaming improve whentheir knowledge about the handicapped increases?

3. Do prospective teachers’ attitudes toward mainstreaming improve whenthey have experience with the handicapped?

4. Is a combination of information and experience with the handicappedmore effective for improving prospective teachers’ attitudes and knowledgethan is a single treatment of either information or experience?

PROCEDURE

ParticipantsThe experimental group consisted of 29 prospective regular classroom

teachers enrolled simultaneously in Educational Adjustments for ExceptionalChildren, a course designed to provide information about mainstreaming themildly and moderately handicapped, and Experience with Exceptional Chil-

at EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIV on October 11, 2014sed.sagepub.comDownloaded from

456

dren, a course designed to provide experience with the handicapped in a vari-ety of settings, both at The Pennsylvania State University. Two contrast groupsconsisted of (a) 27 prospective regular classroom teachers enrolled only in theInformation course and (b) 28 prospective regular classroom teachers enrolledonly in the Experience course.

Instrumentation

The participants were assessed both pre and post using the Rucker-GableEducational Programming Scale (RGEPS) (Rucker & Gable, 1974). Use of theRGEPS has been reported in numerous articles (Gillung & Rucker, 1976; Shaw& Gillung, 1975) and doctoral dissertations (Mosley, 1974; Myers, Note 2). De-veloped to measure attitudes toward and knowledge of appropriate main-stream settings, the RGEPS consists of 30 brief descriptions of actual childrenreferred for special education services. These items primarily describe childrenusually classified as mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, or learning dis-abled. Respondents are asked to choose what they feel is the best educational

setting for each child at the present time from among continuum choices ofseven educational programs or services ranging from regular classroom place-ment to placement outside regular or special education.The RGEPS scores are based on the respondent’s placement choices as fol-

lows. Knowledge scores are defined as agreement with special education ex-perts about placement. Attitude scores are thought of as a measure of the socialdistance teachers want to maintain between themselves and a variety of typesand degrees of handicapping conditions; attitude scores are also based on

placement choices. In addition to total knowledge and total attitude scores, sub-scores can be generated for knowledge about and attitudes toward each ofthree groups of handicapped children: those classified as mentally retarded,emotionally disturbed, and learning disabled. Split-half internal consistency re-liabilities range from .87 to .94 for total knowledge scales and from .86 to .94for total attitude scales.The RGEPS was administered to all participants at the beginning (pretest) of

their respective courses and again at the end (posttest) of the courses, approxi-mately 10 weeks after the initial assessment.

Treatment

Information. As stated, the course Educational Adjustments for ExceptionalChildren was the Information treatment. This 3-credit course met twice weekly,once for 75 minutes and once for 150 minutes. It is primarily designed to helpprospective regular classroom teachers develop and understand group and in-dividualized diagnostic-prescriptive teaching techniques applicable to the in-struction of mildly and moderately handicapped learners.

Experience. The course Experience with Exceptional Children was the Ex-perience treatment, also a 3-credit course. It provides supervised activities withhandicapped children in a variety of settings, including camps, schools, and/orinstitutions. The subjects traveled to their sites twice weekly and were assignedduties, by a cooperating teacher, similar to those of a classroom aide. In addi-

at EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIV on October 11, 2014sed.sagepub.comDownloaded from

457

tion, the prospective teachers met in weekly seminars with the course coor-dinator to discuss their experiences, obtain information, and analyze possibleproblems.

Information and Experience. Although the Experience course is considered aprerequisite to the Information course, trainees may enroll in both simultane-ously, and a great many do so. It was thus possible to assess subjects enrolled inthe Experience course alone, the Information course alone, or both.

Results

The computer program Analysis of Variance with Repeated Measures(ANOVR) (Games, Gray, & Herron, 1974) was used to analyze pretest andposttest RGEPS scores. Since the participants were already enrolled in intactclasses, random assignment was not possible. Thus, in order to support theassumption of homogeneous variances, it was necessary to determine whetherthe groups were homogeneous prior to treatments. The participants’ pretestknowledge and attitude scores were analyzed using ANOVR. The results re-vealed nonsignificant F-ratios (F = 2.25, df = 2/81, p > .05; F = 1.089, df =

2/81, p > .05). The interpretation was that there were no differences amongthe Information and Experience group, the Information-only group, and theExperience-only group on the initial assessment.

Analysis of posttest knowledge and attitude scores on the RGEPS also usedANOVR. In general, the results indicated that the Information course and Ex-perience course combination did not surpass the Information-only course orthe Experience-only course in improving general knowledge about mainstream-ing the handicapped. In fact, no single course proved to be more effective thanany other for improving general knowledge. However, the Information courseand Experience course combination and the Information-only course, equal ineffectiveness (F = 7.59, df = 2/81, p < .05), surpassed the Experience-onlycourse for improving participants’ attitudes (Table 1).The final analysis was concerned with ascertaining the relationship among:

1. posttest attitude scores2. posttest knowledge scores3. term standings

’

4. areas of specialization5. grade-point averages

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FORPOSTTEST ATTITUDE SCORES

*F .05 (2,81) = 3.15.

at EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIV on October 11, 2014sed.sagepub.comDownloaded from

458

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF THE CORRELATION AMONG POSTTESTATTITUDE AND KNOWLEDGE SCORES AND

CERTAIN STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

al = posttest attitude scores; 2 = posttest knowledge scores; 3 = term standings; 4 = areas of

specialization; 5 = grade point averages.br .05 (82) =.217.

This analysis used ANOVR, which, as an option, performs Pearson Product-Moment Correlations on all possible combinations of repeated measures in amultifactor analysis-of-variance design. All comparisons were nonsignificantwith the exception of knowledge-grade-point average, pair 2-5, which re-vealed a significant negative correlation (r = - .237, 82, p < .05) (Table 2).

DISCUSSION .

The data analysis yielded no evidence that information about the mildly andmoderately handicapped was a more effective method for increasing generalknowledge about mainstreaming than was experience with the handicapped.Two factors may provide explanations for this nonsignificant difference. First,since the Information course was somewhat structured (stepwise modular for-mat), such a setting might not have allowed for the development of specificskills related to placing or instructing handicapped children in regular class-rooms, as evidenced by the items on the RGEPS. Similar findings have beendemonstrated by other investigators (Gross, 1967; Harasymiw & Horne, 1976;Reid et al., 1972). Second, those in the Experience-only course met in weeklyseminars, and one can speculate that discussions of mainstreaming took placethere.

Neither the Information-only course nor the Experience-only course was ef-fective for improving attitudes toward mainstreaming. A probable cause for thediscrepancy among attitude scores on the RGEPS is twofold. First, the Expe-rience group had attitude scores reflective of individuals whose intentions wereto mainstream all or most handicapped children. These placement decisions,although based on the practice of mainstreaming, were not reflective of theunderlying rationale of placing handicapped children in settings that are leastrestrictive and commensurate with their needs and abilities.

at EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIV on October 11, 2014sed.sagepub.comDownloaded from

459

TABLE 3

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR

PRETEST KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDE SCORES

A second explanation might reflect what social psychologists (Krech &

Crutchfield, 1948; Wandt, 1952) have termed the &dquo;acquiescence effect,&dquo; whichreflects the tendency of individuals taking an attitude measure to respond in asocially acceptable manner, particularly on items not sufficiently disguised. Forexample, an individual familiar with the practice of mainstreaming but un-familiar with the underlying philosophy of the least restrictive alternative,might place a mildly handicapped child, as described on the RGEPS, in a reg-ular classroom without the necessary supportive services, simply because thatchoice reflects the current trend in mainstreaming.Data did not support the hypothesis that a combination of the Information

course and the Experience course would be more effective for improving at-titudes toward mainstreaming than would the Information-only course. Sinceboth groups were enrolled in the same Information course, it appears that thebasic content of the course conveyed a similar orientation to placing handi-capped children in the least restrictive alternative educational setting. On theother hand, the combination of both courses proved more effective for improv-ing attitudes toward mainstreaming than did the Experience-only course. Sinceboth groups were enrolled in the Experience course, it seems reasonable toconclude that the Information component of the Information and Experiencecombination had a great deal more to do with the improvement of attitudestoward mainstreaming than was initially anticipated.The results provided no evidence that the combined Information course and

Experience course was more effective than either the Information-only courseor the Experience-only course for improving general knowledge about main-streaming. While no literature was found to confirm or deny these findings,causal factors for the nonsignificance may be twofold. First, since subjects en-rolled in the combined courses and those enrolled in the Information-onlycourse received the same information, a reasonable conclusion is that the expe-rience provided in the combination group was less significant in improvinggeneral knowledge about mainstreaming than was the information they re-ceived. Second, as stated earlier, subjects in the Experience-only course did,indeed, receive information (possibly mainstreaming information) in weeklyseminars.The results of the Pearson Product-Moment Correlations indicated that those

with poor knowledge scores had relatively high grade-point averages. This re-

at EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIV on October 11, 2014sed.sagepub.comDownloaded from

460

TABLE 4

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FORPOSTTEST KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDE SCORES

sult is not surprising, since participants’ knowledge scores on the RGEPS wereconsiderably poorer in relationship to the mean scores outlined in the RGEPSManual. In general, however, attitude and knowledge scores were not sig-nificantly influenced by term standings, areas of specialization, or grade-pointaverages. Similar results were reported by Alper and Retish (1972).The literature has consistently pointed out that regular classroom teachers

are often ill prepared, both in knowledge and attitude, to teach handicappedchildren. The results of this single investigation do not validate the efficacy of acombination of information about and experience with the handicapped forimproving teachers’ attitudes toward and knowledge about mainstreaming.Further research is needed. It seems reasonable to conclude, however, thatsuch information and experience in some form will make teachers more awareof the possible effectiveness of mainstreaming and more knowledgeable aboutthe capabilities of handicapped children integrated into their regular class-

rooms. As a result, both regular and special education will become increasinglyresponsive to the needs of the handicapped.

References

Alexander, C., & Strain, P. S. A review ofeducators’ attitudes toward handicappedchildren and the concept of mainstream-

ing. Psychology in the Schools, 1978,15(3), 390-396.

Alper, S., & Retish, P. A comparativestudy of the effects of student teachingon the attitudes of students in specialeducation, elementary education, andsecondary education. The TrainingSchool Bulletin, 1972, 69, 70&mdash;77.

Bruininks, R. H., & Rynders, J. E.

Alternatives to special class placementfor educable mentally retarded children.Focus on Exceptional Children, 1971,3 (4), 1&mdash;12.

Cartwright, G. P., Cartwright, C. A., &

Ysseldyke, J. E. Identification and diag-

nostic teaching of handicapped childrenin the regular classroom. Psychology in theSchools, 1973, 10, 4-11.

Deno, E. Special education as develop-mental capital. Exceptional Children,1970,37, 229-237.

Donaldson, J., & Martinson, M. C. Modify-ing attitudes toward physically disabledpersons. Exceptional Children, 1977, 43,337&mdash;341.

Games, P. A., Gray, G. S., & Herron, W.L. Analysis of variance with repeatedmeasures main program. University Park:The Pennsylvania State UniversityComputation Center, 1974.

Gillung, T. B., & Rucker, C. N. Labels andteacher expectations. ExceptionalChildren, 1976, 43, 464-465.

at EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIV on October 11, 2014sed.sagepub.comDownloaded from

461

Gross, B. Challenging change in methods courses. Minnesota Journal of Education,1967, 47(5), 20-21.

Harasymiw, S. J., & Horne M. D. Teacher

attitudes toward handicapped childrenand regular classroom integration.Journal of Special Education, 1976, 10,393-400.

Klinger, R. L. A shift of emphasis in Texas education. Journal of School Psychology,1972, 10, 152-156.

Krech, D., & Crutchfield, R. S. Theory andproblems of social psychology. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1948.

Krech, D., Crutchfield, R., & Ballachey, E.Individual in society: A textbook of socialpsychology. New York: McGraw-Hill,1962.

Lortie, D. Discussion &mdash; changing publicpolicy: Roots and forces. In M. C.

Reynolds (Ed.), Mainstreaming: Originsand implications. Reston, Va.: Council forExceptional Children, 1976.

MacMillan, D. L., Jones, R. L., & Aloia,G. F. The mentally retarded label: Areview of research and theoretical

analysis. American Journal of MentalDeficiency, 1974, 79, 241-261.

MacMillan, D. L., Jones, R. L., & Meyers,C. E. Mainstreaming the mildly re-tarded : Some questions, cautions, andguidelines. Mental Retardation, 1976,14(1),3-11.

MacMillan, D. L., Meyers, C. E., &

Yoshida, R. K. Regular class teachers’perceptions of transition programs forEMR students and their impact on thestudents. Psychology in the Schools, 1978,15(1), 99-103.

Martin, E. Integration of the mildlyhandicapped into regular schools, InM. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Mainstreaming:Origins and implications. Reston, Va.:Council for Exceptional Children, 1976.

Moore, J., & Fine, M. J. Regular andspecial class teachers’ perceptions ofnormal and exceptional children andtheir attitudes toward mainstreaming.Psychology in the Schools, 1978, 15(2),253-259.

Mosley, W. J. The disproportionateplacement of black children in specialclasses and prejudice among whiteprospective teachers (Doctoral disserta-tion, University of Connecticut, 1973).Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974,34, 7076A-7077A. (University Micro-films No. 74-7129).

Reid, W. R., Reid, B. A., Whorton, J. E.,& Reichard, C. L. An experimentalspecial education program for collegefreshmen. Journal of Special Education,1972,6, 127-133.

Reynolds M. C., & Birch, J. W. Teachingexceptional children in all America’s schools.Reston, Va.: Council for ExceptionalChildren, 1977.

Rucker, C. N., & Gable, R. K. Rucker-Gable educational programming scale.

Storrs, Conn.: Rucker-Gable Associa-tion, 1974.

Scriven, M. Reaction: Some issues in the

logic and ethics of mainstreaming. InM. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Mainstreaming:Origins and implications. Reston, Va.:Council for Exceptional Children, 1976.

Shaw, S., & Gillung, T. Efficacy of acollege course for regular classroomteachers of the mildly handicapped.Mental Retardation, 1975, 13 (14), 3&mdash;6.

Shotel, J. R., Iano, R., & McGettigan, J.Teachers attitude associated with the

integration of handicapped children.Exceptional Children, 1972, 38, 677-683.

Vacc, N., & Kirst, N. Emotionally dis-turbed children and regular class

teachers. The Elementary School Journal,1977, 77, 309&mdash;317.

Wandt, E. The measurement of teachers’attitudes toward groups contacted in theschools. Journal of Educational Research,1952 46, 113-122.

Reference Notes

1. Melcher, J. W. Some questions fromschool administrators. In E. L. Meyen(Ed.), Proceedings: The Missouri conferenceon the categorical/noncategorical issue in

at EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIV on October 11, 2014sed.sagepub.comDownloaded from

462

special education. Columbia: The Uni-

versity of Missouri-Columbia, 1971.2. Myers, L. K. An evaluation of selected

Illinois public school administrators’ atti-

tudes toward and knowledges of main-streaming handicapped children. Un-

published doctoral dissertation, SouthernIllinois University at Carbondale, 1975.

at EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIV on October 11, 2014sed.sagepub.comDownloaded from