Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

Teachers’ Democratic and Efficacy Beliefs and Styles of Coping with
Behavioral Problems of Pupils with Special Needs

Dr. Orit Almog
Beit Berl Academic College, Israel
Almog_o@bezeqint.net

The goal of this study was to examine how teachers actually cope with behavioral problems of included students. In order to understand the impact of individual differences on teacher's coping strategies, we looked at the relationship between these strategies and teachers’ democratic beliefs and self-efficacy.

Students’ behavioral problems, in general, and of students with special needs, in particular, present a great challenge to teachers in inclusive classrooms. Studies of teacher effectiveness indicate that teachers’ perceptions, attitudes and beliefs directly influence their decision-making and actual behavior in the classroom (Pajares, 1992). The current study focuses on teachers’ specific beliefs, including democratic beliefs and self-efficacy and on teachers' actual behavior.

Democratic Beliefs

Democratic beliefs consist of three basic values: freedom, equality, and justice

( Novak, 1994; Shechtman, 2002). These attitudes influence decisions that teachers make with regard to the ways of coping with students’ different needs in the classroom (Varvus, Walton, Kido, Diffendal & King, 1999). Teachers’ openness and sensitivity to social values may affect both their degree of preparedness and sense of obligation to implement inclusion in a responsible way, as well as their interpersonal interactions with included students.

A number of researchers have found relationships between teachers’ democratic orientations and positive classroom climate, students’ satisfaction with schools, as well as more equalitarian and less stereotyped teacher-student relationships (Novak, 1994; Vavrus et al., 1999). Moreover, teachers who scored high on democratic beliefs used helpful strategies in dealing with pupils’ behavioral problems, more than teachers who scored low on the scale (Shechtman, 2002).

Teacher Efficacy

“Teacher efficacy” is defined as teachers’ belief or perception of their ability to influence students' learning, including those students with various learning, social, or behavioral difficulties (Guskey & Passaro, 1994). Studies have shown that teachers high in self-efficacy adopted more helpful strategies such as the use of praise and reinforcement, and attributed the pupil’s problem to the interaction between the student and his/her environment. In contrast, teachers low in self-efficacy, preferred more restrictive strategies, such as referring the pupil for treatment outside the general classroom (Brophy & McCaslin, 1992; Jordan, Kircaali-Iftar & Diamond, 1993).

The task of inclusion requires teachers to invest considerable efforts in coping with difficulties and challenges. “Teacher efficacy” influences the amount of effort a teacher is prepared to invest and for how long he or she will persist in these efforts, in the face of difficulties and negative experiences.

Teachers’ Coping with Behavioral Problems

Students with special needs often have problems adjusting to normative behavior in inclusive classrooms. Teachers report that these problems represent a major obstacle related to inclusion (Cole, 1998). In our research, we examined behavioral problems in a broad sense, including a wide range of behaviors. This approach was adopted from Brophy and Rohrkemper, (1981) who identified 12 problem students' types that reflect common behavioral problems in the classroom. Included were: failure syndrome, perfectionism, under-achievement, low achievement, hostile aggression, passive-aggressiveness, defiant, distractibility, hyperactivity, social rejection, as well as, immaturity and shyness/withdrawal. As one can see, these encompass academic, social, attention and discipline problems.

Cunningham and Sugawara (1989) suggested that intervention methods used in relation to behavioral problems can be sorted into two coping styles: helpful and restrictive styles. A helpful style is characterized by the use of methods that emphasize active and empathic involvement with the student. The aim of the helpful style is to bring about long-term change, and includes strategies such as helping the student to acquire skills and alternative behaviors, setting aside time for a personal talk with the student, or changing the instructional method. In contrast, restrictive strategies are punitive in nature and are designed to bring about the immediate cessation of the problematic behavior through the use of authority. examples of restrictive strategies are: recommending transferal to another class, and withholding privileges.

The goals of this study were twofold:

(a) To investigate how teachers cope with behavioral problems of students with special needs in the inclusive classroom, and

(b) To examine the relationships between teachers’ democratic beliefs, teacher self-efficacy and the styles of coping with different behavioral problems.

Two hypotheses were generated based on the reviewed literature: First, teachers will more frequently adopt a helpful approach than a restrictive approach as a solution to behavioral problems of students with special needs. Second, teachers scoring high on democratic beliefs and self-efficacy will adopt more helpful responses than restrictive responses when compared to teacher who score low on both measures.

Method

Participants were thirty-three teachers in Israel, who teach inclusive classes (1 st to 3 rd grade). Data was collected through classroom observations, teacher interviews and questionnaires.

Instruments

The Teacher Democratic Beliefs Scale (TDBS) ( Shechtman, 2002) assesses teachers’ level of democracy. The questionnaire is comprised of 34 items representing the three central values of democracy: equality, freedom and justice.

Teacher Efficacy (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) was measured via a self-report questionnaire that examines the perception of “teacher efficacy” in a learning context .

Interviews

Individual interviews were held, and teachers’ responses to hypothetical incidents were analyzed. During the interview, teachers were presented with nine vignettes that were adopted from the 12 incidents developed by Brophy and Rohrkemper (1981).During these interviews, teachers were asked to read each hypothetical incident and to respond to each situation by describing the strategies they used when a similar incident occurred in their classrooms.A total of 31 interviews were conducted.

Classroom Observation

In order to examine how teachers cope with actual behavioral problems of included students, classroom observations were conducted. Observers spent one day a week in the classroom during the year in which the study was conducted. Observers documented authentic behavior incidents (10-15 each) that involved included students as well as teachers’ responses to these incidents.Of the 350 incidents that were collected, 287 incidents were included in analysis of results.

The analysis of the hypothetical and the authentic incidents was based on a scale developed by Cunningham and Sugawara (1988). It is based on the set of coping techniques originally suggested by Brophy and Rohrkemper (1981) and includes 12 statements that describe response strategies that can be sorted into “helpful methods” and “restrictive methods”.The instrumentwas used in our study to sort and analyze teacher's responses. Two judges rated separately the teachers’ responses as helpful or restrictive.

Research Procedure

The study was conducted in 33 classes ranging from first- to third-grade. Data was collected by 66 student teachers, whose practical training included experience in inclusive classrooms. While participations in the study, student teachers received on-going training as classroom observers. They documented the behavioral incidents (authentic incidents), gave out questionnaires, and interviewed the teachers (hypothetical incidents).

Results of this study can be summarized as follows:

• Contrary to expectations, and in contrast to what is generally reported in the literature, results showed that rate of restrictive approaches were higher than rate of helpful approaches among teachers when they actually dealt with authentic behavioral problems of included pupils. In contrast, these teachers revealed the relevant knowledge and expressed a preference to helpful approaches in response to hypothetical problem-solving situations.  
• Positive correlations were found between democratic beliefs and a helpful response style in relation to disobedience, passive-aggressive behavior and impulsiveness in authentic incidents, and in relation to passive-aggressive behavior and impulsiveness in hypothetical situations.
• Positive correlations were also found between teacher efficacy and a helpful response style with regard to authentic incidents of social rejection, shyness, low achievement and passive aggressive behavior. The correlations between teacher efficacy and a helpful response style were also positive with regard to all types of hypothetical incidents with the exception of the failure syndrome.

Discussion

This study attempted to shed some light on teachers' actual coping with behavior difficulties that students with special needs present in everyday classroom situations. It also wished to explore if individual differences in teacher coping strategies, are related to their beliefs in two areas: democratic beliefs, which represent a somewhat general orientation in education and teacher self efficacy, which is more specific to coping with difficult situations in class.

The results support two central conclusions. First, teachers in reality adopt restrictive responses more often than helpful responses. Restrictive responses, as explained previously , are punitive and restrictive in nature, Such an approach creates distance between teachers and students, restricts the communication and interaction between them and thus does not contribute to the successful integration of the challenging student in the classroom. According to a number of researchers, the use of restrictive approaches stems from insufficient knowledge, as well as additional factors such as a lack of experience, skills, time and resources (Elliot, Witt, Galvin & Peterson, 1984). Results of this study contradict the claim voiced by many teachers that they lack the knowledge required to deal with behavioral problems. In this study, data collected during interviews showed that teachers have sufficient knowledge regarding helpful approaches, but they do not use this knowledge in real classroom situations, as became apparent in the data collected during classroom observation.

The gap between teachers’ knowledge and actual behavior raises the question of why teachers do not apply their knowledge in real classroom situations. One explanation for this may be that teachers respond spontaneously to behavioral problems, without relating to different theories or previously acquired knowledge. Teachers seem to experience difficulties in bridging theory and practice. Moreover, the large classroom size (35 to 40 students) may create a classroom reality in which it is too difficult to apply an individualized approach in education.

Our second hypothesis suggested that individual differences among teachers may provide an explanation of teacher actual behavior in difficult situations in class. We selected democratic beliefs and teacher efficacy, because both were found to be related to teacher effectiveness in previous studies.  Teacher democratic beliefs were related to teacher effectiveness in several settings (Shechtman, 2002). Teacher efficacy was related to teachers’ greater degree of preparedness to teach in small groups (Gibson & Dembo, 1984), dealing with social problems in the classroom (Rich et al., 1996) and use of positive classroom management strategies (Emmer, 2001). Both constructs of teacher beliefs indicated promising explanations of teacher behavior and should be further explored.

Practical Implications

• Results underscore the necessity to reconsider the type of preparation given to teachers with regard to behavioral problems, and the need to increase teachers’ awareness of the importance of helpful approaches.
• Teacher education programs stress the application of theory into practice and teacher decision-making processes more strongly.
• Training prospective teachers to reflect on teaching practice and analyze authentic situations while considering theoretical principles and their application to real classroom situations.
• In addition to helping teachers acquire knowledge, techniques and methods, it is important to work with them and help them to crystallize an educational approach based on democratic values.

The current study poses unique research questions and methodology. The study draws some light on the actual behavior of teachers in inclusive classrooms, suggests an interesting avenue for explaining actual teacher behavior, stresses the importance of teacher values for classroom behavior, and suggests applications for practitioners in teacher education.   

Bibliography

Brophy, J. E. & Rohrkemper, M. M. (1981). The influence of problem ownership on teachers’ perceptions of and strategies for coping with problem students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 295-311.

Brophy, J., & McCaslin, M. (1992). Teachers’ reports of how they perceive and cope with problem students. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 3-67.

Cole, T. (1998). Understanding challenging behavior. In C. Tilstone, L. Florian, & R. Rose (Eds.), Promoting inclusive practice (pp. 113-127). London: Rutledge.

Cunningham, B. & Sugawara, A. (1988). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of children’s problem behaviors. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 34-39

Cunningham, B. & Sugawara, A. (1989). Factors contributing to preservice teachers’ management of children’s problem behaviors. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 370-379.

Emmer, T. E. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education.   Educational Psychologist, 36, 103-104.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher Efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.

Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher Efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627-643.

Jordan, A., Kircaali-Iftar, G., & Diamond, P.(1993). Who has a problem, the student or the teacher? Differences in teachers’ beliefs about their work with at-risk and integrated exceptional students. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 40, 45-62.

Novak, J. M. (1994). Democratic teacher education. University of New York press.

Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

Rich, Y., Lev, S., & Fischer, S. (1996). Extending the concept and assessment of teacher efficacy. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 1015-1025.

Shechtman, Z. (2002). Validation of the Democratic Teacher Belief Scale (DTBS). Assessment in Education, 9, 363-377.

Varvus, M., Walton, S., Kido, J., Diffendal, E., & King, P. (1999). Weaving the web of democracy: Confronting conflicting expectations for teachers and schools. Journal of Teacher Education. 50, 119-130.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact