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’ Pedagogic Orientation and Attitudinal and Personal
Attributes Related to Their Success in Integrating Students with
Special Needs into Their Regular-Education Classes

Dr. Simcha Ben-Yehuda
Talpiot College, Tel-Aviv, Israel
simchab@macam.ac.il

The present study focuses on the characterization of teachers who have been successful at the social integration of students with special needs into their regular classes. The impetus point for this study was the Special Education Law enacted in Israel in 1988, a law similar those enacted in many Western countries. A central point in these laws is the mandate to integrate students with special needs into regular educational settings. This integration presents a complex task both to educators in regular classes and to the teachers’ education programs.

Research findings from Israel and overseas indicate that teachers usually do not hold positive attitudes toward integration and are unwilling to make the necessary adaptations in their teaching insofar as these concern curricula, teaching aids, and an  instructional environment aimed at addressing the needs of students with special                    needs (Minke, Bear, Deemer & Griffin , 1996; Yasutake & Lerner , 1996 ).  

Research procedure and uniqueness

Two components made this research unique: first, the means of evaluating teachers who had been successful in the social integration of students with special needs; second, the study method, which combined quantitative and qualitative research. The evaluation of teachers who had been successful in social integration was based on two criteria: (1) Random distribution of sociometric scores of students with special needs among the scores of classroom peers ( Mann-Whitney test In: Siegel, 1956): (2) A relatively limited distribution of sociometric scores of students with special needs in the lower third of sociometric scores in the class. Teachers who met both criteria were identified as having been successful in social integration, while those who met neither criteria were identified as not successful in such integration.

The second component unique to this research was the simultaneous use of two research methods to examine the characteristics of teachers who were successful in the social integration of students with special needs. Using a semi-structured interview, the qualitative method revealed opinions of teachers (all female) who participated in the main stage of the research, regarding five content areas, while the quantitative method evaluated the parameters of these opinions.

This study had two stages (1) the pre-research stage and (2) the main stage based on the content areas identified in the first stage.

During the first stage, members of the Superintendent staff at the Central Division of the Ministry of Education were asked to recommend teachers, from various schools, who are perceived as those who have been successful in integrating students with special needs into regular classrooms. Eight teachers were recommended, based on the personal evaluation by the School Superintendent and on the opinions of the school principals who viewed these teachers as successful mainstreaming teachers. In discussing each teacher with the researcher, the principals reported no significant differences in academic achievements and social behavior between the children with special needs and their peers in the classrooms of these teachers. This method of selecting teachers who would participate in the research narrowed the variance between teachers in both stages. In the first stage, four out of the eight teachers were randomly selected; these teachers were interviewed in their homes. The interviews (each lasting 75-90 minutes) were presented to the teachers as participation in a “pre-research” project to identify what mainstreaming teachers thought about integration in general and specifically about integration in their own classrooms.

Data from the interviews were analyzed in accordance with the “field-referenced theories” approach (Glazer & Strauss, 1967 ). This technique enabled the researcher to identify five content areas: the teacher’s pedagogic orientation, her attitudes toward mainstreaming, sense of efficacy regarding teaching, view of teamwork between teacher and teacher’s aide, and personal variables of the teacher that support her successful mainstreaming.

The second stage – the main research – included 24 teachers identified as successful mainstreaming teachers by the Superintendent and by the principals of the various schools in which these teachers taught. Of the 24 teachers identified as successful mainstreaming teachers, 6 met both criteria of social integration (i.e., (1) Random distribution of sociometric scores; (2) A relatively limited distribution of sociometric scores.) and 6 met neither. The remaining 12 met only one criterion. The two research methods were used to examine the differences between teachers who were identified as being successful at social integration and between those who were identified as unsuccessful, with the aim of identifying attributes characteristic of successful mainstreaming teachers.  

 Major findings

Both research methods employed revealed statistically significant differences between the 6 teachers who were identified as successful in social mainstreaming and 6 who were identified as unsuccessful in social mainstreaming, in the following content areas:

• Pedagogic orientation. In this area three distinguishing components were found between the two groups: first, in the importance that the successful teacher attributed to the inner world (thoughts and feelings) of the mainstreamed student during the teaching process; second, in the importance that these teachers attributed to the real world (familiarity with the student’s background and contact with the student’s family) of the mainstreamed student; third, being supportive of the mainstreaming of students with disabilities in a regular class.
• Attitude toward the mainstreaming . The attitude of the successful teacher was characterized by two attributes that distinguish between the attitudes of the teacher groups: first, including the all spectrum of disabled students in a regular classroom; second, the expectation that the mainstreamed student will benefit both academically and socially from being placed in a mainstream classroom.
• Personality variables. Three personality variables were found to distinguish between the two teacher groups: first, the ability to identify the student’s distress; second, the ability to give time and love to the mainstreamed student during the school day; a strong sense of teacher’s efficacy, namely the teacher’s belief that he or she can impact upon the academic and social growth of the mainstreamed student.
• Teamwork of two teaches in a classroom . The teachers who were successful mainstreaming teachers held more “daily conferences” to support the mainstreamed student.

Findings relating to teachers’ background variables pointed to additional variables that characterized teachers who were successful at social mainstreaming: first, teaching experience of up to 10 years; second, participation in in-service training in special education.

The differences found between the teacher groups enable us to draw a tentative psycho-educational profile of teachers who are successful at social mainstreaming. This profile includes the afore-mentioned background variables, the three content areas in which differences were found between the two teachers’ groups, and their tendency to be engaged in teamwork.

Conceptual and research background

A review of the research literature on teachers’ “pedagogic orientation” revealed that the findings are related to two focal points: first, the shaping of the teacher’s pedagogic orientation; second, the impact of this orientation on the teacher’s work in the classroom (Richardson, 1996 ). Regarding the former, we have noted that the teacher’s pedagogic orientation is shaped years before he or she enters a teacher’s training college (Konarzewski, 1998 ). As for the latter, the impact of the teacher’s orientation about classroom work, it would seem that there are those who believe that teacher’s beliefs indeed direct, determine, and shape their approach to all aspects of school and class life, except those related to discipline, and these beliefs do not tend to change over time (D.Anderson, A.Anderson, Mehrens,& Prawat, 1990; Tillema, 1998).

As to the other content areas – the teacher’s attitudes toward mainstreaming, it has been found that these have a major effect on the actual success of mainstreaming (B.Cook, Tankersley, L.Cook, & Landrum,   2000 ). Findings of teachers’ attitudes tend to be inconsistent, with some studies showing positive attitudes, while other studies show negative attitudes (Villa, Thousand, Meyers, & Nevin, 1996; Yasutake & Lerner , 1996 ).

In the third area, two terms have been used in the research literature to discuss personality attributes of the teacher who is successful at mainstreaming – the teacher’s self-image and the teacher’s sense of self-efficacy. The sense of teaching efficacy has been found empirically to be a personality factor that impacts on the quality of a teacher’s work ( Soodak, Podell,   & Lehman , 1998 ). It was found that teachers who have a high level of self-efficacy had a greater tendency to adopt changes in their work as compared to their peers with a lower sense of self-efficacy ( Soodak et al., 1998 ) . However, studies that examined the relationship between a sense of efficacy in teaching and adoption of effective teaching methods for students with special needs have been inconsistent ( Bender, Vail, & Scott , 1995 ).

In conclusion, it may be stated that the professional literature did not reveal consistent findings regarding the relationship between two out of the three context areas presented here (teacher’s attitudes toward mainstreaming and sense of teaching efficacy) and successful mainstreaming. As for “teacher’s pedagogic orientation,” it would seem that research is only in its earliest stages. This study addressed many of the methodological difficulties presented in the research literature, and identified the psycho-educational profiles of teachers who were successful at social mainstreaming.

Educational implications

The educational implications of this research refer both to teacher preparation programs and to in-service training for teachers regarding mainstreaming students with special needs into regular classrooms. Regarding teacher education, an examination should be made as to which of the attributes of the psycho-educational profile which characterize teachers who are successful in social mainstreaming can be modified during pre-service education programs. The literature review reveals that two content areas, pedagogic orientation and attitude toward integration, are difficult to change. It would therefore seem that two routes can be taken in order to help students in teachers’ colleges to cope effectively with the teaching demands in mainstreaming classrooms.  

 The first involves prior identification of trainees whose pedagogic orientation supports the emotional needs of students with disabilities. For these trainees, a special workshop-type learning unit can be designed, as part of their studies. This unit would foster those attributes that are modifiable, and which characterized teachers who were successful at social mainstreaming. Examples of such attributes are: the ability to detect student’s distress and respond to it during instruction; the ability and will to devote individual time, and personal attention, to the mainstreamed student throughout the school day; and the ability to work as a team member during daily conferences. It is our evaluation that workshops that combine cognitive and emotional aspects may enhance the sense of efficacy for teaching among students who are prepared to teach students with disabilities.

The second route involves the field experience. Our findings show that this training should emphasize the ability to identify student classroom behavior that is indicative of distress, and the ways to provide students with personal attention throughout the school day.

The main educational implication of this study regarding in-service training is the need to improve the sense of teaching efficacy of educators who teach in mainstream classrooms. Improving the sense of teaching efficacy may increase likelihood that these teachers would use instructional methods which accommodate students with disabilities. Therefore, these in-service training sessions should emphasize:

• improved teaming skills, (2) improved ability to identify distress of the mainstreamed students and address them appropriately throughout the day. As mentioned, these two content areas were identified in our study, to be characteristic of teachers who were successful at mainstreaming and can be modified during the phase of teacher training programs.  

References

Anderson, D. B., Anderson, A. L. H., Mehrens,W., & Prawat, R. (1990 ). Stability of educational goal orientation held by teaches. Reaching and Teacher Education, (6), (4), 327-335.

Bender, W.N., Vail, C. O., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers’ attitudes to increased mainstreaming implementing effective instruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 87-94.

Cook, B.G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., & Landrum, T.J., ( 2000 ). Teachers'  attitudes toward their included students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, (67 ), 115-135.

Glazer,B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine

Konarzewski, K. ( 1998 ). Education ideologies of Polish teachers.  Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, (4), (2),  259-271.

Minke, K. M., Bear, G. G., Deemer, S. A., & Griffin, S. M. (1996). Teachers' experiences with inclusive classrooms: Implications for special education reform. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 152-186.

Richardson, V. (1996 ). The role of attiudes and beliefs in learning to teach.  In Siikula, J. (Ed): Handbook of research on Teacher Education, Macmillan Library,N.Y.

Siegel, S., ( 1956 ). Nonparametric Statistics for the behavioral sciences.  International student edition. McGraw-Hill Kogakusha.

Soodak,L.C., Podell, D.M., & Lehman, L.R. ( 1998 ). Teacher, student, and school attributes as predictors of teachers' responses to inclusion . The Journal of Special Education , 31, 480-497 .

Tillema, H.H. (1998). Stability and change in student teachers' beliefs about teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, (4), (2), 217-228.

Villa, R.A., Thousand, J.S., Meyers, H., & Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher and administrator perceptions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children, 63, 29-45.

Yasutake, D., & Lerner, J., ( 1996 ). Teachers' perceptions for students with disabilities: A survey of general and special educators. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, (7), (1), 1-7.  

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