1ME=ASURING EFFECTIVE TEACHING IN INCLUSIVE CLASSROOMS

Melissa Romain McGee

A thesis su bmitted in conformity with the requirernents for the degree of Master of Arts

Department of Curriculum Teaching and Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the

University of Toronto

O Copyright by Melissa Romain McGee (2001)

National Library 1*1 of Canada Bibliothèque nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Weüington Street 395, rue Wellington Oîîawa ON K1A ON4 O(tawa0N KlAON4 Canada Canada

Your Ni Vœm r/Ymme

OLW & WR

The author has granted a non- exclusive licence dowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell copies of this thesis in microfonn, paper or electronic formats.

The author retains ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantiai extracts fkom it may be printed or othewise reproduced without the author's permission.

L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette thèse sous la fome de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.

MEASURING EFFECTIVE TEACHING IN INCLUSIVE CLASSROOMS

Melissa Romain McGee Master of Arts

Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning University of Toronto

2001

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among teacher

variables in general education classrooms that included students who were designated as

exceptional and at-risk, through the larger contexts of Stanovich's and Roach's tested path

models of inclusion effectiveness.

Thirteen teachers and their 329 students from a suburban Catholic school system

in southem Ontario participated in this study. Effective teaching behaviors were measured

wi th two instruments: one that evaluated classroom management, time management, and

tesson presentation skills, and another that evaluated indi vidual student-teacher

instructional interactions as instructional adaptations with students designated as

exceptional and at-risk, as well as non-designated students. Two measures of teacher

attitudes toward inclusion and one rneasure of teacher efficacy were also obtained.

Intercorrelations among the fi ve teacher variables were calculated. A signi ficant

positive relationship emerged between the two teaching behavior measures, although

other correlations were not significant. The results are discussed in terms of their

implications for adaptive instruction in inclusive classrooms.

ACKNO WLEDGEMENTS

First, 1 would like to thank my cornmittee memkrs, Dr. Paula Stanovich and Dr.

Anne Jordan, for inviting me to be a part of the SET (Supponing Effective Teaching)

Project. They gave me the awesome opponunity to be a part of the research that shapes

the future of inclusive education. which is an opponunity that 1 wish al1 teachers had. I

also thank Dr. Donna McGhie-Richmond for her constant friendship, encouragement, and

support as we worked together on the SET Project. Paula, Anne, and Donna, the three of

you have dramatically influenced rny professional development as an educator by opening

my eyes and helping me realize what effective teaching should mean to everyone

involved in promoting academic achievement for students. 1 tnily admire your

strength, intelligence, and wisdom.

1 must also thank my fellow SET Project team members, Henk Demeris, Kathryn

Underwood, Tasha Cate, Bridget Gambell, and Cecilia Kwon, for their camaraderie,

cooperation, and col laboration.

A great deal of thanks goes to my parents, Marie and Herman Romain, as well as

my brother. Byron Romain. From childhood to adulthood, your unwavering faith in my

ability to accomplish anything 1 set my mind to, is evident in every goal I set for myself,

as well as every mi lestone 1 cross.

1 thank my husband, Jay McGee, for the unending amount of patience he must

have with me. His willingness to place his own professional pursuits on hold. so that 1

may succeed in my own academic advancement, is a truly selfless charactenstic that

seems to elicit responses of absolute respect from everyone we know and meet. Thank

you, Jay, for the sacrifices you have made for me, and also, for always rerninding me how

proud you are of me for doing this.

Finally, and most important of all, 1 would iike to thank my grandmother who's

presence in rny life was the driving force behind my desire to be a special educator.

Almost a decade ago, when we al1 thought her time here on earth was up, little did we

know that God still had plans for her and that some of her most important work on this

earth was yet to corne. Through her persona1 experiences with disability and loss, she hüs

served as a confidant, a friend, a counselor, and an inspiration to those around her. Her

optimism about life and her ability to laugh in the face of adversity, are qualities that

have, and always will, leave lasting impressions on the hearts and souls of everyone she

meets. For al1 of the joys, sorrows, accomplishments, and tribulations that we have shared

and experienced together, E am etemally grateful. 1 know 1 have made you proud, Granny.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.. ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ i i

... ACKNO WLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. .III

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

..................................................... A Framework for Understanding Effective Inclusion 3 Teacher Behaviors ......................................................................................................... 11

Generai Effective Teaching Practices ................................................................. I I Individual Student-Teacher Interactions and Enstmctional Adaptations ................... 12 Variations in Student-Teacher Interactions and Di fferential Treatment ................... 15 The Validity of Macro-Level Versus Micro-Level Measures of Effective Teaching Behaviors ................................................................................................................... 17

....................................................................................... Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs 18 Implications of Teacher Beliefs on Teaching Behaviors ........................................ 18 Teacher Beliefs and the Use of Effective Instructional Strategies with Students with Disabilities ................................................................................................................. 19 Pathognomonic-Interven tionist Perspectives .......................................................... 30

73 ........................ Operationalization of Teacher Attitudes with Questionnaire Versus ,,

37 ................................................................................................... Interview Measures ,,

...................................................................................................... Teaching Efficacy 24 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................... 2 5

CHAPTER 11 METHOD .......................................................................................................................... 26

Participants .................................................................................................................... 26 Partici pating teachers ............................................................................................... 3 6 Students ..................................................................................................................... 26

Measures ........................................................................................................................ 28 Teacher Behavior Measures ...................................................................................... 28

Adaptive Instruction Observation (AIO) ............................................................. 28 Classroom Observation Checklist (COC) ............................................................ 30

............................................................... Measures of Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs 31 ..................................................... Pathognomonic-Interventionist Interview (PU) 31

Attitude Toward Inclusive Education Scale (ATIES) .......................................... 3 2 ............................................................................... Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) 33

Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 3 5

CHAPTER m RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 37

.......................................................................................................................... Scoring 37 ................................................................... Adaptive Instruction Observation (AIO) 37 ................................................................ Classroom Observation Checklist (COC) 3 8

Pathognomonicnnterventionis t Interview (PII) ......................................................... 39 Attitude Toward Inclusive Education Scale (ATIES) ............................................... 41 Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) ................................................................................... 41

Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 41

CHAPTER IV ................................................................................................................... DISCUSSION 43

Non-Findings ................................................................................................................. 44 The Intercomelations Between the NO, COC, PH. ATIES, and TES ...................... 44

................................................................................................... Confirmed Hypothesis 44 The Relationship Between the Micro-Level A I 0 and Macro-Level COC ................ 44 Individual Student-Teacher Interactions with Students Designated as Exceptional and At-Risk Versus Non-Designated Students ......................................................... 47

..................................................................................... Limitations and Future Research 49

..................................................................................... Operationaiization of the AI0 50 ............................................................................................... Differential Treatment 52

The Affect of Small Sample Size and Policy Changes on the Validity of the PU Measure of Teacher Attitudes ................................................................................... 54 Validation of the ATIES ........................................................................................... 56 Personal Teaching Efficacy and Effective Teaching Behaviors ................................ 56

............................................................................................... Implications for Practice 57 ..................................................................................................................... Conclusion 59

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 61

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Distribution of Teachers by Sex. Grade Level. Class Size. Years of Teaching Experience. Highest Degree Attained. and Special Education Training ............ 27

Table 2: Cornparison of Adaptive Instruction Observation ( N O ) Scores with Classroom Observation CheckIist Scores ............................................................................. 39

Table 3: Intercorrelations Among the Five Teacher Variables ......................................... 42

LIST OF FiGURES

Figure 1. Feedback mode1 of effective inclusion. .......................................................... 3

Figure 2. Stanovich's (1 994) proposed path mode1 displaying teacher and school ............ 6

Figure 3. Roach's (1998) proposed path mode1 displaying teacher and school variables and operationalizations. ................................................................................. 7

Figure 4. Stanovich's (1994) results of path analysis with significant beta weights identified. ........................................................................................................... 8

Figure 5. Roach's (1998) results of path analysis with significant beta weights identified. ............................................................................................................ 9

Figure 6. Scattergram showing the Interrater Reliability Correlation Calculated for the Pathognomonic-lnterventionist Interviews. ................................................. 40

Figure 7. Teachers' level of adaptation with non-designated students compared to students designated as exceptional and at-risk, with or without an educational

.................................................................................... assistant (E.A.) pïcssfit. 49

Figure 8. Number of teachers scoring on 7-point scale of level of interaction for Item #1 of the Adaptive Instruction Observation - individual Teacher-student instructional interactions with non-designated students during seütwork. ....... 5 1

Figure 9. Number of teachers sconng on the 7-point scale for Item #2 of the Adaptive Instruction Observation - Individual student-teacher instructional interactions with students designated as exceptional and at-risk during seatwork ............... 53

... V l l l

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDK A SET Project Adaptive Instruction Observation 99/00 .............................. ... ......... 67 Examples of Individual Student-Teacher Instructional Interactions ............................. 70

APPENDIX B SET Project Classroom Observation Checklist .......................................................... 7 1

APPENDM C SET Project Coding Cntena for Pathognomonic-Interventionist Interview ................. 75 SET Project Teacher Pathognomonic-Interventionist Interview ................................... 78 SET Project Pathognomonic-Interventionist Interview Scoring Form .......................... 82

APPENDIX D SET Project Attitude Toward Inclusive Education Scale ............................................ 86

APPENDIX E SET Project Teacher Efficacy Scale .............................................................................. 88

C H A m R I

INTRODUCTION

Now. more than ever, general education teachers are being required to meet an

increasingly diverse range of learning needs in their classrooms for a variety of reasons:

the number of at-risk students is increasing (Berliner & Biddle. 1995). immigration is

increasing the number of students for whom English is a second language (Natnello,

McDill, & Pallas, 1990), and the inclusion of students with disabilities in general

education is occuning increasingly (Baker & Zigmond, 1995). As a result of these

pressures, the general education classroom teacher's job is more difficult. It is imperative

that teachers be given the tools that they need to be effective in these heterogeneous

classrooms. In order to assist them, we need to understand what variables impact the

success of their efforts. For example, in what ways do teachers interact with pupils of

differing ability? Do such differentiated interactions have any relationship with other

variables of effective instruction?

A debate still exists about the effectiveness of inclusion. As it has been claimed

that segregated special class placement is inappropriate for the education of students wi th

disabilities. it is still not clear whether inclusive placement of students with disabilities in

general education classrooms will provide optimal learning opportunities (Carlberg &

Kavale, 1980). For instance. it has been found that many instructional adaptations that are

known to foster academic achievement and successful inclusion for students with

disabilities (Friend Br Bursuck, 1996) are not being provided in inclusive general

education classrooms (Kauffman, 1995; Kauffman, Gerber, & Semmel, 1988). However,

as many students in the general education clrissroom experience cultural, behavioral, and

linguistic differences that would benefit from the provision of instructional adaptations

(McIntosh, Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, & Lee, 1993), it is important that general

education teachers' provision of instructional adaptations is also addressed in an attempt

to gain a better understanding of the success of teachers' efforts in inclusive classrooms.

Previous inclusion efforts to merge general and special education in order to

create a more unified education system, such as that seen with the Regular Education

Initiative (Reynolds, Wang, & Walberg, 1987), were based on many assumptions, one

being that good teachers can teach al1 students (Kavale & Forness, 2000). This

assumption emanates from research on effective schools where "Many have contended

that effective instruction as practiced by teachers in regular classes can be appropriately

i mplemented for al 1 chi ldren and can accommodate the indi vidual di fferences among

pupils characterized by special educators as students with disabilities" (Semmei,

Abernathy, Butera, & ksar, 1991, p. 9).

Ultimately, i t has been suggested that teachers who are effective teachers with

students with disabilities are effective teachers with al1 students (Englert, Tarrant, &

Mariage, 1992; Larrivee, 1986). Within this context, general education classroom

teachers are the key to effective inclusion, and in being so, need to be effective teachers

as well as possess the ability to provide adaptive instruction, or systematically Vary

instructional accommodations and learning experiences in order to adequütely meet the

diverse learning needs of students (Walberg & Wang, 1987). Furthemore, many

researchers have found that effective inclusive practices, such as the use of instructional

adaptations, appear to be related to effective instructional practices, in general (Brophy &

Good, 1986; Englert et al., 1992; Jordan & Stanovich, 1998, Larrivee, 1986).

A Frarnework for Understanding Effective Inclusion

General education classrooms that include students with disabili ties are very

complex places. There are many school, classroom, teacher, and pupil characteristics,

which interact to at least partiitlly determine the success or failure of inclusion. Though

much work has been done on individual variables that impact the success of inclusion,

not much work has been done toward developing a framework that would help us

understand how the myriad variables interact with one another. Stanovich and Jordan and

colleagues (Jordan, Lindsay, & Stanovich, 1997; Roach, 1998; Stanovich, 1994;

Stanovich & Jordan, 1998; Stanovich, Jordan, & Perot, 1998) are among the few

researchers who have atternpted to develop a unified framework for predicting the success

of the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms (see Figure

1).

Figure 1. Feedback mode1 of effective inclusion.

Teacher Teaching Attitudes Behaviors

L

Student Outcomes

J

~ 1 4 - ~ 1 4 - 1 Experiences

From a longitudinal perspective, if a teacher is to perform a set of teaching

behaviors that have been shown to be effective for his or her pupils in an inclusive

classroom, performance of those behaviors would be determined by the teacher's attitude

about students with disabilities and his or her roles in meeting their educational needs,

and the school nom (subjective nom), or the attitudes of the teacher's colleagues and

principal about inclusion. The teacher's attitudes about students with disabilities and his

or her roles in meeting their educational needs, are in turn, determined by his or her

persona1 teaching efficacy (perceived behavioral control), or the teacher's belief about

whether or not he or she is capable of performing the set of effective teaching behaviors.

Furthermore, a teacher's positive or negative accumulated experiences resulting from

positive or negative student outcornes, determine his or her level of personal teaching

efficac y.

The cyclical influences of teacher and school variables on the success of inclusion

can be seen in the feedback Ioop demonstrated in Figure 1. For example, if a teacher uses

a specific strategy with a student who is having a leaming difficulty, and as a result, the

student makes an academic gain, then the teacher has accumulated a positive teaching

experience with that student. The teacher's knowledge that he or she has the skill to help

that student make an academic gain. increases his or her level of teaching efficacy. which

in tum influences the teacher's attitudes about that student and his or her roles in meeting

that student's educational needs, in a positive way. This increased willingness to take

responsibility for the educational needs of that student, influences the teacher's behavior

in that he or she will attempt to use the specific strategy again with that student, or

perhaps with other students who may be having leaming difficulties. I-Iowever, if a

teacher's efforts to work with a student who is having learning difficulties, results in a

negative student outcome or academic failure, then the teacher will accumulate a negative

experience in working with that student. This negative expenence demonstrates to the

teacher that he or she may not possess the necessary skills that are needed in order to

effectively teach that student. Therefore, the teacher may believe that the educational

needs of that student should not be his or her responsibility, which may result his or her

reluctance to continue to try certain strategies or to work with that student.

From the simplified framework shown in Figure 1, Stanovich (1994) and Roach

(1998) developed path models for testing the relationships among the identified variables

(see Figures 2 and 3), but differed in how they operationalized some of these teacher and

school variables that influence inclusion effectiveness. The major difference between the

two models was in the operationalization of effective teaching behaviors. Stanovich

(1994) chose to use a more global or macro-level measure of effective teaching behaviors,

which was a classroom observation checklist that did not measure specific teacher-

student interactions, but rather observed teachers on three dimensions: (a) classroom

management, (b) time management, and (c) lesson presentation. Performance on the

classroom observation chec klist was predicted strongl y by school n o m and moderatel y

by teacher attitudes about inclusion, as measured by the Pathognornonic-Interventionist

interview (sec Figure 4). The Pathognomonic-Interventionist interview is a semi-

stmctured interview designed to elicit teacher attitudes through sel f-reports of teaching

efforts with students wi th disabilities.

Fi eure 2. Stanovich's (1994) proposed path mode1 displaying teacher and school

variables and operationalizations.

Sc ho01 Norm

Principal: P- 1

Questionnaire ATMS REITS

Perceived Behûvioral

Control

Tericher Efîicacy Scale

Teacher Attitudes

P-1 Interview ATMS REIT S

Teaching Behaviors

Classroom Observation

Ratine

7

Fiaure 3. Roach's (1998) proposed path mode1 displaying teacher and school variables

and operationalizations.

School Norm P-1 Questionnaire: Principals GETS, SERT'S Collaboratioti Qrt est iotina ire: Teacher CETS. SERT'S, EA 's Attitudes

P-1 Quesriotttinire

Resources

Teacher

-- - -

Instructional Interactions

Clnss rooni 06sen.atiotis of Tecrciier-Stirdetit i~zteractioris

Efficacy Scale Collnborntior~ Questionriaire

Figure 4. Stanovich's (1994) results of path analysis with significant beta weights

identi fied.

I Teaching Efficacy I

Be haviors I

However, according to Roach (1998), Stanovich's (1994) macro-level classroom

observation checklist did not address effective teaching behaviors that take place at the

individual student-teacher level, it did not address how effective teaching behaviors occur

in relation to student differences, particularly differences based on disability, and it was

based on the assumption that al1 students in a classroom get equal treatment (Englert et

al., 1992; Lmivee, 1986). Therefore, Roach (1998) operationalized effective teaching

behaviors with a more specific micro-level observation measure that addressed individual

student-teacher academic and nonacademic interactions with students designated as

exceptional, at-risk, and typically achieving. Roach (1998) found that individual student-

teacher instructional interactions were predicted moderately by school nom and teacher

attitudes. Roach's (1998) three measures of teacher attitudes converged in her study to

fonn a composite variable of teacher attitudes (See Figure 5).

Figure 5. Roach's (1998) results of path analysis with significant beta weights identified.

Acadernic Instructional

Attitudes lnteractioas

Teacher Resources Efficacy

Teacher Resources Coltaboration

Although Roach (1998) suggested that a measure combining teacher-class and

individual student-teacher interactions may lead to a greater likelihood that instructional

interactions can be predicted by the other teacher and school variables in her path mode1

of effective inclusion, she did not include a macro-level measure of effective teaching

behaviors in her study, as did Stanovich in her earlier (1994) study.

For this reason, i t may be important that future testing of the model include both

types of measures of effective teaching behaviors: a rnacro-level measure that addresses

teaching behaviors on the dimensions of classroom management, time management, and

lesson presentation, and a micro-level measure that addresses individual student-teacher

instructional interactions. However, before we include both measures of effective

teaching behaviors in the further testing of the model of effective inclusion, we need to

first see how these two different measures of effective teaching behaviors relate to each

other and if they relate similarly or differently to the other teacher variables (teacher

attitudes and teacher efficacy) included in the previously tested rnodels of effective

inclusion.

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between a macro-level

observation measure of effective teaching behaviors that would include classroom

management, time management, and lesson presentation (i.e., the observation used by

Stanovich, 1994) and a micro-level observation measure of effective teaching behaviors

which focuses on individual student-teacher academic interactions as instructional

adaptations (Le., the observation used by Roach, 1998). Additionalty, this study will also

explore the relationship between the micro-level observation measure and other teacher

characteristics that have been found to correlate positively with the macro-level

observation measure of teacher behaviors.

Teac her Behaviors

Generai Effective Teaching Practices

According to the general and special education Iiterature, there are certain

identifiable effective teaching behaviors that have been linked to student achievement

(Brophy & Good, 1986). These effective teaching behaviors are equally beneficial with

students with disabilities. as weil as al1 students (Englert et al., 1992; Lanivee, 1986), and

are therefore assumed to promote positive outcomes for students with disabilities who are

included in general education classroorns (Stanovich, 1994).

Englert et al. (1992) developed a self-rating checklist of effective teaching

behaviors by synthesizing the literature on effective teaching. This sel f-rating checklist is

the basis for Stanovich's (1 994) operationalization of effective teaching behaviors, which

is a classroom observation checklist that addresses effective teaching behaviors on three

dimensions: (a) classroom management, (b) time management, and (c) lesson

presentation. Components of the checklist are founded on the following research findings.

Teachers who are effective classroom managers organize ph ysical space in order

to mini mize disruptive traffic patterns and procedures, i mplement niles and procedures

for instructional and noninstructional events, and enforce classroom niles that involve

respect. When non-cornpliance of rules occurs, the broken rule is cited as non-compliance

is immediately consequated. Effective classroom managers position themselves in their

classroorns in order to attain high degrees of visibility, they frequently scan the room,

they use nonverbal signals as often as possible to redirect disruptive behavior, and they

contingent1 y use speci fic praise statements (Englert et al ., 1992).

Effective time managers maximize instructional time, state seatwork and

transition expectations in advance, and signal clear beginnings and ends to lessons by

establishing clear lesson routines. They are able to gain students' attention at the

beginning of lessons and maintain it at high levels throughout instruction. Effective lime

managers monitor transitions and seatwork by scanniiig and circulating around their

classes, they are able to maintain students' attention at high levels during seatwork, and

their seatwork assignments, which are ciearly related to acadernic goals, require active

participation on the part of their students (Englert et al., 1992).

During lesson presentation, effective teachers review previously learned concepts,

provide clear overviews of upcoming lessons, and actively mode1 and demonstrate

effective leaming strategies and procedures for problem solving. They maintain a bnsk

pace throughout their lessons and constantly evaluate students' mastery of lesson concepts

by providing frequent questioning, including "what, how, when, why" questions, while

maintaining high accurate response rates. They also review difficult concepts at the

beginning and end of lessons, summarize and integrate lesson content with that of other

lessons and experiences, and forecast future lesson content (Englert et al., 1992).

Indi vidual Student-Teac her Interactions and Instructional Adaptations

According to Marshall (1992), good teaching involves teachers' abili ty to cali brate

the content of their academic interactions based on each individual student's level of

understandi ng, prompting the leamer's engagement in the construction of

developrnentally progressive conceptual networks. Although knowledge of individual

student characteristics has been listed as a knowledge that is crucial to expert teaching

(Shulman, 1987), there is still a lack of research that addresses how teachers adapt their

knowledge and skills in interactive learning contexts with individual students according

to their indi vidual characteristics (Jordan et al., 1997).

Jordan et al. (1997) operationalized individual student-teacher instructional

interactions into three levels of adaptive instruction. At Jordan et al.'s (1997) first level of

adapti ve instruction, cortzprelierisiorz niorzitorirzg, the teac her ac knowledges or prai ses the

student for the correct answer or negates it if incorrect and moves on to another question

or student regardless of how the student answers the initial question. At the second level

of adaptive instruction, partial cognitive exterzsiort, the teacher either provides the correct

answer or requests another attempt if the student answers the question incorrectly. The

third level, which is the most specialized instructionaI adaptation of the three, is Bill

cogrritive exîertsior~, where the teücher acknowledges the student's response and elaborates

on it while trying to extend the student's knowledge further. Full cognitive extension

reflects social constructivist theones of how learning occurs in that the teacher

demonstrates the ability to calibrate questions and statements that are responsive to

individual student levels of comprehension (Marshall, 1993).

Roach (1998) proceeded to measure effective teaching behaviors wi th an adapted

version of Jordan et aI.'s (1997) operationalization of instructional interactions as

adüptive instruction. Roach's ( 1998) seven-point scale was used to measure effective

teaching behaviors, reflecting both the quality (retaining the comprehension monitoring,

partial cognitive extension, and full cognitive extension aspect from Jordan et al., 1997)

and quantity (the consistency of occurrence) of individual student-teacher instructional

interactions. Roach's (1998) seven-point scale is as follows:

O: No academic contact.

1: The teacher inconsistently checked the student's work and moved on

but did not engage the student in dialogue.

2: The teacher consistently checked the student's work and moved on but

did not engage the student in dialogue.

3: The teacher inconsisten tl v transmitted information - engaged in a

student-teacher interaction but on 1 y accepted and praised a correct

response or gave the answer to an incorrect response.

4: The teacher consistentl~ transmitted information - engaged in a student-

teacher interaction but only accepted and praised a correct response or

gave the answer to an incorrect response.

5: The teacher inconsistent IV elaborated on student responses, engaging the

student in academic dialogue with at least three tums in tum taking at each

student-teacher interaction.

6: The tericher consistentl~ elaborated on student responses, engaging the

student in academic dialogue with at least three turns in turn taking at each

student-teacher interaction.

The essence of Levels 1 and 2 is that there is no direction given by the teacher,

only end-of-project evaluation. For Levels 3 and 4, the teacher transmits an evaluation, as

he or she directs lesson responses. For Levels 5 and 6, the essence is cognitive

engagement of the student with academic concepts (see Appendix A for examples of

interactional exchanges).

Variations in Student-Teacher Interactions and Differential Treatment

Roach's (1998) findings were concurrent with much of the research on the

provision of instructional adaptations in that, on average, teachers tend to implernenl

more of what Scott, Vitale, and Masten (1998) and others (i.e., Baker & Zigmond. 1990;

Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bishop, 1992; Schumm & Vaughn, 1991) describe as typical/roictine

instructional adaptations (relatively minor adaptations that can be made for any student).

as opposed to srtbsta~~tial/specialized instructional adaptations (adaptations that are

indi vidual ly tai lored to meet the speci fic needs of students wi th disabi lities). In general,

Roach (1998) found that teachers tended to check and move on rather than transmit

information or elaborate on student responses according to individual student levels of

understanding, regardless of students' designation as exceptional, at-risk, or typically

achieving.

As the result of many studies indicate that students with disabilities, who are

included in general education classrooms, receive the same instruction as the rest of the

students in their class, it has also been found that although included students appear to be

accepted by their teachers, are treated fairly, and participate in the same activities as their

peers, instruction is not differentiated to meet their diverse needs (Baker & Zigmond,

1995; Fuchs et al., 1992; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Phillips, & Kams, 1995; McIntosh et al.,

1993; Roach, 1998; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995; Schurnm, Vaughn, & Saumell, 1994).

Jordan et al. (1997) however found differential instruction offered to students with

and without disabilities in inclusive cfassrooms. Accordingly, a large body of research has

shown that teachers, in general, interact differentially with lower-achieving students,

compared to higher-achieving students. Di fferential treatment is desirable if done so

within the context of adaptive instruction where the diverse leming needs of students are

adequately met through the systematic variation of instructional accommodations and

learning experiences (Wal berg & Wang, 1987). However, differential treatmen t is not

desirable if it does not benefit certain groups of students, or is provided to the

disadvantage of certain groups of students (Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simrnons, 1997).

Fuchs et al. (1997) cite several studies that exemplify teachers' tendency to orient toward

students they feel are teachable, and away from students who are "difficult to teach"

(Gerber & Sernmel, 1984). According to Fuchs et al. (1997) it has been found that as

teachers interact with students they feel are difficult to teach, in comparison with students

they feel are teachüble, they:

1. tend to provide less wait time for answers (Allington, 1980);

2. supply correct responses nther than try to improve incorrect responses

(Brophy & Good, 1974);

3. cnticize more often for failure (Babad, Inbar, & Rosenthal, 1982);

4. interact less frequently (Adams & Cohen, 1974) and in a less friendly

manner (Babad et al., 1982);

5. provide briefer and less detailed feedback (Cooper, 1979); and

6. make few substantial modifications in instruction (Baker & Zigmond,

1990; Durkin, 1990; Fuchs et al., 1992; Fulk & Smith, 1995; McIntosh et

al., 1993; Peterson & Clark, 1978; Zigmond & Baker, 1994). (p. 177)

However, Roach (1998) along with Jordan et al. (1997) and Jordan and Stanovich

(2001) found that teachers varied in the extent io which they spontaneously provided

instructional adaptations in response to student confusion. Roach (1998) and Jordan and

Stanovich (2001) also found that those teachers who were more effective teachers, as

measured by the quantity and quality of their instructional interactions, were equally

effective wi th those students who were designated as exceptional, at-risk, and typically

achieving.

The Validity of Macro-Levet Versus Micro-Level Measures of Effective Teachinq

Behaviors

According to Stanovich (1994), "A teacher who focuses on the learning

environment and is capable of modifying it, is a teacher who has a set of effective

teaching behaviors in his or her 'bag of tncks'. . . Such adaptive instruction is indeed one

component of effective teac hing" (p. 70).

Although Stanovich's (1994) macro-levei measure of effective teaching behaviors

was criticized for its global nature (i.e., focused on teacher-class interactions, not

individual student-teacher interactions; Roach. 1998), certain aspects of Stanovich's

(1994) classroom observation checklist incorporate the same social constructivist theories

of how learning occurs. The teaching behaviors encompassed by Roach's (1998) micro-

level measure of effective teaching behaviors are reflectcd pûrticularly within the

dimension of lesson presentation. Accordingly, i t would seem natural to assume that if a

teacher is able to demonstrate those behaviors that are listed in Stanovich's (1993) lesson

presentation dimension of the classroom observation checklist, then he or she would be

interacting wi th students at the individual student-teacher level of elaboration of

instructional interactions.

Therefore, it might also be asslimed, from Jordan et a1.k (1997) and Roach's

(1998) research results discussed previously (Le., teachers, regardless of the level of

individual student-teacher instructional interactions that they demonstrated, interacted

with al1 students at the same level, regardless of whether students were designated as

exceptional, at-risk, or typically achieving), that both measures are indeed tapping into a

similar constmct of effective teaching behaviors.

However, the findings of other studies suggest that we should take caution in

rnaking such assumptions. For example, the number of most effective teachers in Swank,

Taylor, Brady, and Freiberg's (1989) sample of 43 teachers (based on acadernic

interactions), dropped from 14 in their teacher-class observation, to 10 in their individual

studen t-teacher observation. Li kewise, their number of least effective teachers increased

from four in the teacher-class observation, to 18 in the individual student-teacher

observation. Based on these findings, when teaching effectiveness is measured at a more

global macro-level level of teacher-class academic interactions, it produces higher

estimates of teaching effectiveness than when measured at a more specific micro-level of

individual student-teacher academic interactions. Accordingly, it is imperative that

researchers, interested in the influence of effective teaching behaviors on the success of

inclusion, continue to investigate the relevance of the simultiineous or separate use of

both a macro-level and micro-level measlire of effective teaching behaviors.

Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs

Im~lications of Teacher Beliefs on Teaching Behaviors

Much of the process-product research has been pnmarily concemed with the

relationship between teacher behavior and student achievement in the classroom, and has

assumed that the relationship takes on a unidirectional path of causality. Recent research

has represented this relationship as a more cyclical pracess, involving not only teacher

behavior and student achievement, but also addressing how teacher beliefs influence, and

are influenced by, teaching practices and student outcornes (Fang, 1996).

According to Pajares (1992), al1 teachers hold certain beliefs about their

occupation, the students they teach, their area of expertise, and their roles and

responsibi li ties. Clusters of these beliefs around the particular "object or situation" of

teaching, ''forrn attitudes that become action agendas" (Pajares, 1992, p.3 19).

Accordingly, teachers' implicit theones about the nature of teaching and the nature of

knowledge acquisition have been shown to impact the ways in which they facilitate

learning. However, Prawat (1992) also suggests that as teachers vary in their implicit

theories of teaching and leaming, they also Vary in their provision of learning

opportuni ties in their classrooms.

Teacher Beliefs and the Use of Effective Instructional Strategies with Students with

Disabilities

Bender, Vail, and Scott (1995) investigated the types of instructional strategies

that were implemented in mainstreamed classrooms, and also, how the use of

instructional strategies related to teachers' attitudes toward mainstreaming. Although

Bender et al. (1995) found that teachers emphasized strategic thinking in their classroorns

most of them did not utilize more specific or substantive instructional strategies, such as

advanced organizers, self-monitoring, and token economies, which are instructional

strategies that are known to foster academic success for students with learning

disabilities. However, Bender et al. (1995) also found that teachers who had more

positive attitudes toward mainstreaming, tended to report more frequent utilization of

effective instructional strategies than teachers with more negative attitudes toward

mainstreaming, and that negati ve attitudes toward mainstreaming appear to have a direct

link to the infrequent use of instructional strategies that are effective in facilitating

mainstreaming. In addition, Bender et al. (1995) suggest that although their results do not

indicate any direction of causal effects, there appears to be the possibility of a "potentially

negative interaction cycle" (p. 93), through which teachers who are less positive about

mainstreaming, utilize effective teaching strategies less often, which in turn, may

contribute to a decrease in their mainstreaming efforts, therefore resulting in their

attitudes about mai nstreaming becoming even more negati ve.

Pathognomonic-Interventionist Perspecti ves

The results of many studies (Le., Jordan et al., 1997; Jordan & Stanovich, 301;

Roach, 1998) indicate that indi vidual di fferences in teacher behavior toward certain

groups of students may be influenced by individual differences in teacher attitudes and

beliefs about students with disabilities and their responsibility in meeting the educational

needs of those students. Accordingly, Stanovich (1994) and Roach (1998) both utilized

Jordan-Wilson and Silverrnan's ( 199 1) Pathognomonic-Interventionist (PI) continuum to

measure teacher attitudes and beliefs about students with disabilities and their roles in

meeting the educational needs of those students. A teacher holding a more

pathognomonic perspective believes disabi l i ty i s inherent in students and systemic

measures should be implemented in order to confirm eligi bility for special education,

which usually takes place outside the classroom. A teacher holding a more interventionist

perspective believes most children can benefit from instruction in the general education

classroom. Therefore, responsibility is accepted for the educational needs of al1 students

and miiny instructional adaptations are implemented before referral. The purpose of

assessment is not to label or venfy a student's need for specialized services, but to clürify

the student's learning characteristics and identify additional instructional approaches or

resources that might be beneficial.

Stanovich (1 994) used a semi-stmctured interview, developed by Jordan-Wilson

and Sil verman (199 1). to measure the PI perspectives of general education teachers in

inclusive classrooms. In these biographical interviews, the "grounded" attitudes of

teachers were elicited through self-reports of teacher behavior as teachers were asked to

descnbe their practices with the students in their classrooms who have disabilities, across

fïve topical areas: (a) referral and assessment. (b) programming, (c) review procedures,

(d) communication with staff. and (e) communication with parents. Stanovich and Jordan

(1998) descnbe the attitudes elicited in the PI interview as "groundeci" because they are

"attitudes that, if they are to represent a convincing response in the interview, must

somehow be attached to behaviors and cIassroom decisions that the teacher can discuss in

an articulate manner" (p. 231). Stanovich (1994) States chai the "irnplicit convenational

demands of the interview make it very hard for the teacher to display attitudes without

indicating how the attitudes are 'cashed out' in terms of actual ieaching behaviors and

decisions" (p. 67).

Stanovich (1994) found that the PI interview was a strong unique predictor of

effective teaching behaviors (see Figures 2 and 4). Accordingly, it has been found that

grounded interventionist attitudes seem to have a specific link to effective teaching

behavion as measured by a macro-level measure of effective teaching behaviors (Le.,

classroom observation checklist; Stanovich, 1994; Stanovich & Jordan, 1998), as well as

a micro-level measure of effective teaching behaviors (i-e., individual student-teacher

instructional interactions; Jordan et al., 1997; Jordan & Stanovich, 200 1).

Roach (1998) chose to develop and use a questionnaire to rneasure the PI

perspectives of general education teachers in inclusive classrooms, across the

aforementioned five topical areas that the PI interview covered, for the purpose of her

study. Roach (1998) found that the PI questionnaire was not a strong unique predictor of

effective teaching behaviors as measured by individual student-teacher instructional

interactions. However, Roach's (1998) PI questionnaire did converge with the other

measures of teacherst attitudes to form a composite variable, which moderately predicted

effective teaching behaviors as measured by individual student-teacher instructional

interactions (see Figures 3 and 5).

Operationalization of Teacher Attitudes wi th Questionnaire Versus

Interview Measures

As can be seen in Figures 2 through 5, Stanovich (1994) and Roach (1998) also

assessed teacher attitudes by using two measures other than the PI ineasure. The Attitude

Toward Mainstreaming Scale (ATMS; Berryman & Berryrnan, 1981) was used to

measure the desirability and feasibility of placing students with special needs in general

education classrooms. The Regular Education Initiative Teacher Survey (REITS; Semmel

et al., 1991) was used to evaluate teachers' perceptions about the current practices used to

educate students with disabilities who are served in segregated special education

classrooms, as well as inclusive general education cIassrooms. However, although the

ATMS and REITS questionnaires were initially expected to converge with the PI measure

in both studies to forrn a composite variable of teacher attitudes, they only did so in

Roach's (1 998) study.

When Stanovich (1994) addressed why her three measures of teacher attitudes

(the PI interview, ATMS, and REITS) did not converge as a single composite variable,

she notes that the interview was much more behavioral than the questionnaire measures.

Perhaps the interview rneasure lies somewhere on a continuum between the questionnaire

measures and the teacher behavior measures with regard to the path mode1 of inclusion

effectiveness (Stanovich, 1994). S tanovich (1 994) indicated that the ATMS and WJTS

questionnaires were independent of actually having to associate a behavior with an

attitude or belief, therefore largely measuring only attitudes and beliefs. Because Roach's

(1998) PI measure was a questionnaire, or a pencil-and-paper measure (as was the ATMS

and REITS), participants did not have to actually produce a behavior in order to justify

certain beliefs. However, it can also he speculated that the pencil-and-paper questionnaire

was a more transparent measure, which may have coiitiibuted to possible contamination

biases due to social desirability (Furnharn, 1986; Paulhus & Reid, 1991) that Stanovich

(1994) and Roach (1998) both addressed as they discussed how their use of questionnaire

measures may have produced diverging evidence with regards to the teacher attitudes

variable. As a result, Roach (1998) may not have been rneasuring the sarne construct that

Stanovich (1994) was measuring with the PI interview.

For the purpose of the present study, the Attitude Toward Inclusive Education

Scale (ATES) questionnaire was used, as opposed to the ATMS and REITS, in

conjunction with the PI interview as measures of teacher attitudes. Explanation of the

ATIES will be discussed in the Method section.

Teachine; Efficacy

One important aspect of research conceming how the beliefs of teachers may

influence their teaching behaviors is the concept of teacher efficacy, which Ashton and

Webb (1986) have defined as the situation-specific perceptions that teachers have about

their own teaching abilities. Teacher efficacy has also been defined as "the extent to

which the teacher believes he or she has the capacity to affect student performance"

(Bennan, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly. & Zellman, 1977, p. 137) and "teachers' belief or

conviction that they can influence how well students leam, even those who rnay be

difficult or unrnoti vated" (Guskey & Passaro, 1994, p. 4).

Many researchers have found that teachers' efficacy beliefs are indeed related to

their instructional practices with students who exhibit leming difficulties. High-efficacy

teachers are more open to experirnenting with new teaching meihods that might better

rneet the needs of their students (Berman et al., 1977; Guskey, 1988; Stein & Wang,

1988), they tend to be more persistent and work longer with a student who is having

difficulties (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). and they are less inclined to refer students who are

expenencing difficulties, to special education (Meijer & Foster, 1988; Podell & Soodak,

1993; Soodak & Podell, 1993).

Gibson and Dembo (1984) found that teachers, who have a high sense of teaching

efficacy. also demonstrate many of the previously described effective teaching behaviors

that were measured by Stanovich (1994) and Roach (1998). In particular, the tendency for

high-efficacy teachers to lead students to correct responses through questioning, as

opposed to just providing the answer or moving on to another student, is evident in both,

Stanovich's (1994) and Roach's (1998) operational definitions of effective teaching

behaviors.

As Stanovich (1994) and Roach (1998) have shown, teachers' perceived

behavioral control, as rneasured by a self-rating of their personal teaching efficacy with

the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). is a strong predictor of their

attitudes and beliefs about incl uding students with disabilities in their general education

classrooms. In Roach's (1998) case, this includes the PI questionnaire.

It is important to keep in mind, again, that these results may have been influenced

by social desirability that seems to be consistent with the use of questionnaire and survey

measures. However, Jordan, Kircaal i-Iftar, and Diamond ( 1993) found that teachers' sense

of teaching efficacy correlated significantly with their attitudes and beliefs as measured

by Jordan-Wi lson and Si l verman's (1 99 1) PI interview measure.

Hypotheses

1. The micro-level measure of student-teacher instructional dialogue will

demonstrate a positive relationship with the macro-level rneasure of

general effective teaching practices.

2. The micro-level measure of teaching behaviors will demonstrate a

positive relationship with the other tericher variables:

(a) Teacher attitudes as measured by the Pathognomonic-Intewentionist

interview and the Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education ScaIe

questionnaire, and

(b) Teacher efficacy as measured by the Teacher Efficacy Scale.

CHAPTER II

METHOD

Participants

Particivating teachers

The participants were 13 general education teachers and 329 of their students. The

teachers taught Grades 2 through 7 and represented three schools located in a suburban

Catholic school system in southern Ontario. The grade levels of the classrooms included

both split and non-split grades (Grades 2-3 = 4 teachers, Grade 4 = 3 teachers, Grades 5-7

= 6 teachers). Two of the teachers were male and the class sizes ranged from 20 students

to 29 students. Table 1 displays distribution of teachers by sex, grade level, class size,

years of teaching experience, highest degree attained, and special education training.

Students

The student population represented a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

Teachers filled out a checklist on which they indicated (a) which students were on an

Individual Education Pian (IEP), (b) the category of exceptionality for those students on

EPs, (c) which students were using English as a second language, and (d) which students

not currently on an IEP were being considered for one.

For the purpose of the present study, students were designated as exceptional if

they were on an IEP. According to Ontario policy, students do not necessririly have to be

identified with a category of exceptionality through formal Individual Placement and

Review Cornmittee (IPRC) proceedings in order to have an IEP. However, in practical

terms, students who are placed on E P s are exhibiting significant learning difficulties,

which would for the most part qualify them for categorization if the P R C procedure was

instituted. Only some of the students involved in this study. who were also on IEPs, were

deemed exceptional t hrough P R C proceedings.

Table 1

Highest Demee Attained, and Special Education Training

Teacher Sex Grade Class Size Teaching Highest Special

Experience Education Education

9 6 split

6/7 split

2/3 spli t

5

6

5

4

3

4

4

3

3

5

B.A./B.E~. SPED m

B.A./B.Ed. SPED 1

B.A./B.Ed.

-- --

B. A./B .Ed.

B.A./B.Ed.

B.A.TB.Ed.

-- --

B.S./B.Ed.

B.A./B.Ed.

B.A./B.Ed.

B.A./B.Ed.

B.A./B.Ed. SPED 1

Note. B.A. = Bachelor of Arts; B.Ed. = Bachelor of Education; SPED 1, II, and ID =

Special Education additional qualification courses (Special Education 1, Special

Education II, and Special Education ID); Dashes indicate that data was not obtained.

Measures

Teacher Behnvior Measures

There were two measures of effective teaching behaviors used in this study.

Observers were trained on the instruments as a group, where the two senior observers,

who were expenenced in observations such as this, held a training session for four

graduate students in which they lead group discussion and gave exarnples and

nonexamples of the teacher behaviors that were encompassed by both measures of

effective teaching behaviors. Further training took place dunng the first few classroom

observations, where it was decided with the teachers' permission that more than two

observers could sit in for the purpose of a training session. This type of observation

training continued until each trainee was able to attain a reasonable interrater reliability

with the other two observers. The approximate amount of time spent in training time was

11 hours: two hours spent in group discussio~i and usually about nine ho~irs (three

observations) of in-class training until reasonable interrater reliability was attained.

Adaptive Instruction Observation (AI01

The Adaptive Instruction Observation (AIO) was designed to measure effective

teaching behaviors at the individual student-teacher level of instructional interactions as a

form of adaptive instruction. It consisted of three items, two derived from Roach's (1998)

7-point scale and one derived from the adaptive instruction dimension of' Stanovich's

(1994) Classroom Observation Checklist (see Appendix A).

The AI0 consisted of three sections. The first section was the scoring sheet for the

instrument. Prior to each observation, observers were required to fil1 in their name, the

date of the observation, the time of the observation, the teacher being observed, and the

name of the school. Upon completing the observation, each observer recorded his or her

allotted rating for each of the following observation items on this page.

The second section contained a space at the top of the page, where each observer

was required to write in the name of the first lesson (math, spelling, etc.), followed by

three observation items that observers rated for the first lesson observed (Lesson #1). On

Item # l , observers were required to circle a rating of I through 7. based on the

predominant style of individual student-teacher instructional interaction that the teacher

demonstrated with students who were not designated as exceptional and at-risk during

seatwork. On Item #2, each observer was to assign a rating of 1 through 7, for the

predominant style of student-teacher instnictional interaction that the teacher

demonstrated with Target Student A and Target Student B during seatwork. The target

students were two students designated as exceptional and at-risk, who were randomly

selected by observers for the purpose of this measure. The individual student-teacher

instnictional interactions that were rated for Items #L and #2, were scored according to

the following 7-point scale (see Appendix A for examples of in teractional exchanges:

1: No interaction with students on lesson content during seatwork. If any

interactions occurred, they were non-academic (conceming organizatim or

classroom procedures, behavior management, status of the task at hand,

and affective or personal (Jordan et al., 1997).

2: The teacher circulates, checking work briefly and moving on (brief and

cursory) - inconsistenth (one or two times).

3: The teacher circulates, checking work bnefly and moving on (brief and

cursory) - consistcntlv (three or more tirnes).

4: The teacher circulates, transmitting and directing lesson responses (tells

students what to work on, how to correct it, and moves on) rare interaction

- inconsistently (one or two times).

5: The teacher circulates, transmitting and directing lesson responses (tells

students what to work on, how to correct it, and moves on) rare interaction

- consistently (three or more times).

6: The teacher elaborates (asks students questions about lesson material

concepts that require responses; frequent interaction requiring student

participation) - inconsistently (one or two times).

7: The teacher elaborates (asks students questions about lesson material

concepts that require responses; frequent interaction requiring student

participation) - consistentlv (three or more times).

On Item #3, observers were required to record "yes" or "no" for each target

student, for each observed !esson, indicating whether or not the teacher included that

target student in large-group instruction by calling on him or her or taking up his or her

responses.

The third section of the A I 0 followed the same protocol as the second section, but

observers îïlled in the n m e of the second observed lesson (LRsson #2), and assigned

ratings to Items #1 through #3 as they were observed in Lesson #2.

Classroom Observation Checklist (COQ

Stanovich's (1994) Classroom Observation Checklist (COQ was used to measure

effective teaching behaviors at the teacher-class level of interaction (see Appendix B).

Observers were required to rate the observed teaching behaviors on the checklist that

organized 3 1 items into four dimensions of effective teaching behaviors: (a) classroom

management, (b) ii me management, (c) lesson presen tation, and (d) adapti ve instruction.

The observations consisted of anywhere between one and four lessons that took

place during a three-hour pet-iod of time, or half day of instruction. Upon completing the

observation the observers were required to allocate a rating of "consistent,"

"inconsistent," "not in evidence," or "no opportunity to observe" for the first 27 items and

a rating of "yes" or "no" for the remaining four. However, because the provision of

instructional adaptations was addressed by the AIO, the scores from Items 28 through 3 1

of the classroom observation were not used in the analyses for this study.

Measures of Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs

Pathognomonic-Interventionist Interview (PU)

Teachers were interviewed using the Pathognomonic-Interventionist Interview

(PD; Jordan et al., 1993; Jordan-Wilson & Silverrnan, 199I), which is a semi-structured

interview designed to elicit teachers' beliefs about service delivery to students designated

as exceptional and at-risk (see Appendix C for PD coding criteria, interview questions,

and sconng form).

During each interview, which lasted approximately one hour, teachers were asked

to descnbe their practice with one or more students they designated as exceptional and at-

risk, including specific interventions. Each interview was recorded on an audiocassette

tape and subsequentl y transcri bed. Two researchers independentl y rated each

transcription across five topical areas: (a) referral and assessment, (b) programrning, (c)

review, (ci) communication with staff, and (e) communication with parents. For each of

the 20 items, a rating of "pathognomonic," "middle," or "interventionist7* was given.

Attitude Toward Inclusive Education Scale (ATES)

For the purpose of the present study, the Attitude Toward Inclusive Education

Scale (ATIES) was adaptedhpdated from the Attitudes Toward Mainstreami ng Scale

(ATMS; Berryman & Berryman, 198 1) that Stanovich (1994) and Roach (1998) used in

their studies as a measure of teacher attitudes, other than the Regular Education Initiative

Survey (REITS; Sernmel et al., 1991) and the PI measure. The ATIES was a

questionnaire that consisted of 16 statements with which teachers were required to rate

their level of agreement, based on a 6-point Li kert-type scaIe (ranging from 1 = stron~lv

disamee to 6 = stronclv a~ree). The ATES was designed to mesure attitudes by eliciting

teachers' level of agreement about whether certain students, based on their special needs

or specific leaming diffîculties, should be in general education classes. An example

statement from the questionnaire is "Students who use sign language or communication

boards should be in regular classes" (see Appendix D for the ATES questionnaire).

The ATIES was similar to Stanovich's (1994) and Roach's (1998) adaptations of

the ATMS in that teachers rated their agreement with several statements about

mainstreaming/including students with disabilities in genera1 education classrooms.

However, the ATIES was designed to elicit teachers' attitudes toward inclusive education

by having teachers rate their agreement with statements that were based, not only on

specific disabilities, but that included specific inferences to the extent of instructional

adaptations that are required for the effective inclusion of students with disabilities in

general education classrooms. Also, as Berryrnan and colleagues (Berryman, 1988, 1989;

Berryman & Berryman, 1981; Berryman & Neal, 1980; Berryman, Neal, & Robinson,

1980) noted in the development of the ATMS, teachers, parents, and members of the

general public tend to have more negative attitudes toward mainstreaming students with

behavioral problems. So, the ATIES was adapted to include more items (than the ATMS)

that address attitudes about including students with specific degrees of behavioral

problems in general education classrooms.

The terminology used in the ATIES has also been updated, from that used in the

ATMS, in order to reflect more acceptable usage of language when refemng to

individuals with disabilities, which avoids equating individuals with their condition

(Arnerican Psychological Association, 1999). In following, this updating of language,

including the use of the terrn "inclusion" on the ATIES as opposed to "mainstreaming,"

reflects the change in the nature of special education services over the past decade (Brice

& Miller, 2 0 ) , as mainstreaming and labeling have been identified as ineffective

strategies for students who receive special services (The National Association of State

Boards of Education, 1992).

The use of the REITS was discontinued for the purpose of the present study

because it did converge with the ATMS in Stanovich's (1994) and Roach's (1998) studies

to form a composite variable. The ATMS and the REITS appeared to be tapping in to a

similar construct.

Teacher Efficacv Scale (TES)

The Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES; Gibson & Dembo, 1984) used to measure

teaching efficacy in Stanovich's (1994) and Roach's (1998) studies, was a 38-item

questionnaire, that was adapted by Johnston (1993) and also used by Kircaali-Iftar (1992).

However, as Gibson and Dembo (1984) found that acceptable reliability coefficients only

resulted from 16 of their original 30 questionnaire items, suggesting that further research

be conducted with a revised 16- to 20-item questionnaire, those 16 highest loading items

were used to measure teaching efficacy in this study. Therefore, the adaptation of the TES

that was used in this study, consisted of 16 items, seven of which addressed generaf

teaching efficacy and nine of which addressed personal teaching efficacy (see Appendix E

for the TES questionnaire).

General teaching efficacy is descnbed as beliefs about what teachers in general

can accomplish and reflects how teachers' beliefs about teaching efficacy is influenced by

external factors such as the home environment or the emotional needs of students

(Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). An example of a general teaching efficacy item

from the TES is "The hours in my class have little influence on students compared to the

influence of their home environment."

Personal teaching efficacy is more specific and is a belief about teachers' efficacy

which is influenced by intemal factors such as their own ability to impact student leaming

because they feel they have the knowledge and skills to do so (Tschannen-Moran et al.,

1998). An example of persona1 teaching efficacy from the TES is "When a student gets a

better grade than he or she usually gets, it is usually because 1 found better ways to teach

that student."

Each of the 16 items on the TES was a statement, similar to the previous

examples, for which teachers were required to rate their agreement based on a 6-point

Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 = stronglv disagree to 6 = siron& amee).

Due to this study's focus on teacher characteristics that influence inclusion

successfulness, only the items that make up the personal teaching efficacy subscale were

used for analysis. According to Guskey and Passaro (1994). the intemal factor of personal

teaching efficacy "appears to represent perceptions of personal influence, power, and

impact in teaching and learning situations" (p.639), whereas the extemal factor of general

teaching efficacy "relates to perceptions of the influence, power, and impact of elements

that lie outside the classroom and, hence, may be beyond the direct control of individual

teachers" (Guskey & Passaro, 1994, p. 639). Therefore, only the ratings from Items 1, 5,

6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 were used for analysis.

Procedure

The teachers and students involved in this study were voluntary participants and

were recruited as part of a larger research project. Recruitment of teachers took place via

phone calls to their principals, information letters, and meetings that were arranged

during the first half of the school year. Recruitment of students took place via information

letters and consent forms that were sent home to their parents or guardians through their

teachers. Participation was contingent upon return of consent forms.

Data collection for this particular study took place in three phases. During the first

phase, teachers were interviewed with the PII at the beginning of the second half of the

school year (January/February). The PII took place in private, while two or three other

graduate students administered student outcome measures (as part of a larger study of

which this study is a component) to the students in that teacher's class. During the PII,

each teacher was asked to nominate those students in his or her classroom who have

formerly been identified as exceptional, and those who they felt might be at risk for

school difficulties in the foreseeable future, requiring special education assistance.

The second phase of data collection involved a visit to the classrooms in which

the two observation measures of teaching behaviors, the AI0 and the COC, took place

simultaneously. Each teacher was observed over two lesson periods in one half day,

which took approximately three hours. Two core lessons (Le., language arts, math,

science, social studies; not gym, art, li brary) were observed wi th al 1 students present

(none withdrawn). On the day of the observations, observers randomly selected rwo

students who were previously designated as exceptional and at-risk by their teacher, for

the purpose of the adaptive instruction observation measure (e.g., Target Student A and

Target Student B).

During the third phase of data collection, teachers completed the TES and the

ATIES at the end of the school year. The two questionnaires were left with teachers to

complete at their own convenience, which took approximately 20 minutes, and were

subsequently retrieved by researchers before the last day of school.

CHAPTER IIi

RESULTS

The correlates of teacher variables that have been found to impact the success of

inclusion were calculated with the data of the present study in order to explore the

relationship between the two measures of effective teaching behaviors (Le. the micro-

level Adaptive Instruction Observation and the rnacro-level Ciassroom Observation

Checklist) and the relationship between effective teaching behaviors and teacher beliefs

about inclusion (i .e., Pathognomonic-Interventionist Interview and Attitude Toward

Inclusive Education Scale) and teacher beliefs about their personal teaching efficacy (Le.,

Teacher Efficacy Scale). The methods used for the scoring of each instrument, dong with

the final scores that were used to calculate the intercorrelations of the five measures for

the present study, will also be presented.

Scoring

Adaptive Instruction Observation (AI01

For Item #1, which was a rating of the individual student-teacher instructional

interactions with non-designated students that occurred during seatwork, based on the 7-

point scale, the highest rating that each teacher received from either of the two obsewers,

dunng either of the two observed lessons, was used for data analysis. The same was done

for the interactions that took place with Target Student A and Target Student B on item

#2. which was a rating of individual student-teacher instructional interactions with

students designated as exceptional and at-risk dunng seatwork. based on the 7-point

scale, and Item #3, which was a "yes" (scored as 1) or "no" (scored as O) rating of

whether or not the teacher took up responses or called on students designated as

exceptional and at-risk dunng large-group instruction. However, the mean of the two

subsequent scores for each teacher's interactions with Target Student A and Target

Student B, was calculated for Item #2 and Item #3 and these single scores were used in

further analysis. The final score for the A I 0 that was used in the analysis of this study,

was a summed t-sore which was denved from standardizing al1 13 teachers' scores for

each of the three observation items and summing the three standardized z-scores for each

teacher. Teachers' scores ranged frorn 3 to 7 on Item #1, from 1 to 6.5 on Item #2, and O

to 1 o n Item #3. Table 2 displays the scores of al1 13 teachers, as well as the sample mean

and standard deviation for each of the three AI0 items.

Classroom Observation Chec klist (COC)

As indicated previously, only Items 1 though 27 of the COC were used in the

analysis of this study. The ratings given by the two most experienced observers, from

each observation, were scored and used for further analysis.

For each of the 27 observation items, an allotted rating of "not in evidence" was

scored as O, a rating of "inconsistent" was scored as 1, and a rating of "consistent" was

scored as 2. The interrater reliability was obtained by calculating the per cent agreement

between the two observers for d l 27 observation items across al1 13 teacher observations,

and was 73%. The means of the scores given by the two observers for each observation

item were calculated and summed for a total overall composite score for each teacher,

which was used for analysis. The highest score attainable was 54. The scores of al1 13

teachers ranged from 13.75 to 53.50. Table 2 displays al1 13 teacher scores and the

sample mean and standard deviation for the COC.

Table 2

Cornparison of Adaptive Instruction Observation (AI01 Scores with Classroom

Observation Checklist (COC) Scores

AI0 COC

Teacher Item #1 Item #2 Item #3 Summed Sum Score

z-score

TOS* 4.0 1 .O 1 -2.89 13.75

T22 5.0 3.5 O -2.89 19.50

T26 7.0 6.0 O -2 1 24.50

Tl9 4.5 4.5 .5 -1.41 27.25

T15* 3 .O 1 .O 1 -2.96 27.66

T25 7 .O 5.5 .5 .83 33.00

T37 7 .O 5.5 1 2.13 39.25

TS 1 6.5 6.0 I 2.05 43.50

T39* 7.0 4.5 .5 .30 43.50

T28 7.0 6.5 1 2.65 44.50

T27* 7.0 2.5 1 .56 45.00

T23 4.5 4.5 1 -. 1 1 48.25

Tl0 7.0 6.5 .5 1.35 53.50

Note. M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; Summed z-score = Sum of standardized z- - scores from AI0 Items #1, #2, and #3; * = Teachers who had an educational assistant

presen t in their cIassrooms during observation.

Pathognomonic/Interventionist - Interview (PII)

For each of the 20 items on the PU, a rating of "pathognûmonic" was scored as i . a

rating of "middle" was scored as 2, and a rating of "interventionist" was scored as 3. If an item

was not applicable (NA) to the interview. then it was dropped from analysis. An overall

composite score for each teacher was derived from the mean of the five topical scores by

summing the scores for al1 items included in each topical area. and dividing each sum by the

number of items in that topical area that were not rated as "not applicable." The mean of both

raters' allotted scores for each teacher, was then calculated and used for further analysis. The

thirteen PI1 scores ranged from 1.38 to 2.95. The sample mean for the PU was 2.12 with a

standard deviation of .47.

The internter reliability for the PD was obtained by correlating the ovenll means of

the composite scores given independently by both raters, for al1 13 teacher interviews, and was

+.63. However. a scattergram depicting this correlation reveals a fairly strong positive linear

relationship, with the exception of one distinctive outlier (see Figure 6). Subsequently, a

correlation. excluding both raters' final scores for that particular teacher interview. was

also calculated, resulting in a high interrater reliability of +.91.

Figure 6. Scattergram showing the Interrater Reliability Correlation Calculated for the

Pathognornonic-Interventionist Interviews.

Scores Given by Rater 1

Attitude Toward Inclusive Education Scale (ATIES)

For each of the 16 ATIES items, a rating of "strongly disagree" was scored as 1,

"moderately disagree" was scored as 2, "disagree slightl y more than agree" was scored as

3, "agree slightly more than disagree" was scored as 4, "moderately agree" was scored as

5, and "strongly agree" was scored as 6. The numerical scores for the 16 items were

summed for each teacher and used for analysis. The highest possible score attainable was

96. The 13 teachers' scores ranged from 55 to 85. The sample mean for the ATIES was

67.62 with a standard deviation of 9.94.

Teacher Efficacv Scale (TES)

For the 16 items on the TES, a rating of "strongly disagree" was scored as 1,

"moderately disagree" was scored as 2, "disagree slightly more than agree" was scored as

3, "agree slightly more than disagree" was scored as 4, "moderately agree" was scored as

5, and "strongly agree" was scored as 6. The final TES scores that were used for analysis

were the sums of the nine persona1 teaching efficacy items calculated for each teacher.

The highest possible score was 54 and the scores for the 13 teachers ranged frorn 36 to

5 1. The sample mean for the TES was 40.92 with a standard deviation of 4.39.

Analysis

Table 3 presents a correlation matnx of the teacher behaviors, teacher attitudes

and beliefs, and teacher efficacy measures. The relationships between the AIO, the COC,

the PH, the ATIES, and the TES were exarnined using a Pearson r one-tailed t-test with

significance set at the .O 1 level.

Table 3

Intercorrelations Among the Fi ve Teacher Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5

1. A I 0

2. COC

3. PII

4. ATIES

5. TES

Note. AI0 = Adaptive Instruction Observation; COC = Classroom Observation Checklist;

PI1 = Pathognomonic-lnterventionist Interview; ATIES = Attitude Toward Inclusive

Education Scale; TES = Teacher Efficacy Scale.

*e < .or

From the correlation matrix presented in Table 3, we can see that only one

relationship attained significance. The A I 0 displayed a strong positive correlation with

the COC (.76), as was predicted. Table 2 contains a breakdown of the Ai0 items and total

score of the COC according to teacher observation. The results of the present study are

not surprising, given the small sample size. However, given the limitation of a small

sample size, the one significant finding that is central to the purpose of this study, is quite

impressive.

CHAPTER N

DISCUSSION

There were two purposes for this study. The first main purpose was to examine

the relationship between two mesures of effective teaching behaviors: the micro-level

Adaptive Instruction Observation (AIO) measure of the interaction patterns of the teacher

with specific students, and the macro-level Classroom Observation CheckIist (COC) of

teaching techniques with the whole class. The second purpose of this study was to

evaluate how the micro-level AI0 measure of individua1 student-teacher instructional

interactions related to other teacher variables that have been found to correlate positively

with the macro-levet COC measure of generaf effective teaching behaviors: the

Pathognomonic-Interventionist Interview (Pm, the Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education

Scale (ATIES), and the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES).

The finding in the present study, that a strong positive relationship resulted

between the micro-level AI0 measure and the macro-level COC measure, demonstrates

that teachers' utilization of individual student-teacher instructional interactions as

adaptive instruction appear to be strongly related to teachers' general effective teaching

praciices of classroom management, time management, and lesson presentation. The

implications of this finding will be explored. There were no other significant positive

relationships that resulted from the correlations between the A I 0 or the COC and the PU,

the ATIES, and the TES.

Non-Findings

The Intercorrelations Between the AIO, COC, PLI, ATES, and TES

Although the PiI demonstrated a positive relationship with both measures of

effective teaching behaviors, absence of a strong positive relationship in both cases is

particularly disappointing, especially since the PII was found to be a strong significant

predictor of teacher behaviors as measured by the COC (Stanovich, 1994; Stanovich &

Jordan, 1998) and has demonstrated a strong positive relationship with teachers' use of

individual student-teacher instructional interactions that involve full cognitive extension

(Jordan et al., 1997; Jordan & Stanovich, 2001). The ATES demonstrated positive

relationships with both the A I 0 and the COC, but these relationships also did not attain

significance, which is consistent with the findings of Stanovich (1994). The negative

relationships that resulted between the TES and both measures of effective teaching

behaviors, are also consistent with the findings of Stanovich (1994) and Roach (1998),

but continue to be an anomaly due to the extensive suppon that the relationship between

teachers' beliefs about their teaching efficacy and their effective teaching practices has

received in the literature (Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).

Possible reasons for these non-findings will be dealt with in the Limitations section of the

present study.

Con tï rmed Hypothesis

The Relationshi p Between the Micro-Level A I 0 and Macro-Level COC

The challenge of this study was to find suppon for the combined use of a micro-

level measure of effective teaching behaviors and a macro-level measure of effective

teaching behaviors, because as other researchers have suggested, macro-level measures

alone do not address effective teaching behaviors at the level of individual student-

teacher interactions (Swank et al., 1989), nor do they address differential treatment of

individual students based on disability (Roach, 1998). The effective teaching behaviors

that occur at the micro-level of individual student-teacher instructional interactions in this

study, are based on teachers' calibration of acadernic exchanges with individual students

according to individual levels of student understanding in order to actively engage

students with academic content. Active engagement has previously been shown to be a

significant indicator of academic gains in students with disabilities (Bulgren & Carta,

1993; Sindelar, Smith, Haniman, Hale, & Wilson, 1989). As well, engaged behavior has

consistentl y been linked wi th active instructional styles that i nvol ve frequent prompts and

quick-paced in teractions between teachers and students (Bulgren & Caria, 1993; Carta,

Atwater, Schwartz, & Miller, 1990), which tend to occur more often in one-to-one and

small group instructional arrangements, than in whole-class arrangements (Logan,

Bakeman, & Keefe, 1997). Evaluation of teaching effectiveness at the micro-level of

individual student-teacher instructional interactions is further justified when such active

instructional styles Iead to follow-up questions, prompts, and hints that are used to nudge

a particular student forward, resulting in that student making academic progress (Pressley,

Hogan, Wharton-McDonald, Mistretta, & Ettenberger, 1996).

Given the very small sample size and the high correlation between the two

teaching behavior measures, the AI0 and the COC are clearly tapping into a similar

construct. This implication is very exciting because it lends some empirical support to the

convergent validity of most studies that have evaluated teacher and school characteristics

that influence inclusion effectiveness, using either a macro-level measure (Stanovich,

1994; Stanovich & Jordan, 1998) or a micro-level measure (Jordan et al., 1997; Jordan &

Stanovich, 2001; Roach, 1998). Particularly as we compare Stanovich's (1994) and

Roach's (1998) path models of inclusion effectiveness, the importance of such a

convergence can be seen. It merits the compilation of the results from the data sets of

both large-scale studies, which would greatly increase the empirical nature of available

evidence supportinp the predictiveness of certain teacher and SC ho01 variables on

inclusion effectiveness.

The results of the present study indicate that more effective teachers, who engaged

their students in the construction of academic concepts at the level of elaboration, also

had well-established routines and procedures for classroom management, time

management and lesson presentation. Furthetmore, those teachers who interacted wi th

students designated as exceptional and at-ri sk at the level of elaboration, interacted wi th

non-designated students at the level of elaboration, as well. Although the A I 0 and COC

appear to be tapping into a similar construct of effective teaching behaviors, this does not

mean that they are necessarily measunng the same thing. However, the relationship

between the teaching practices operationalized by both measures may be better explained

with Jordan et al.'s (L997) implication, that organizational, management, and planning

skills (such as those encompassed by the COC in this study) appear to be "prerequisite to

adaptive instruction" as it is measured by teachers' use of elaborative interactions or full

cognitive extension. According to Jordan et al. (1997), Teachers who have excellent

classroom and time management skills seem to be able to maximize their instructional

time with individual students, leading to an increased opportunity to concentrate on

interacting with students in ways that are cognitively extending" (p. 92).

In essence, based on the results of this study, we might be able to infer that

because those teachers in Stanovich's (1994) study were effective in their classroom

management, time management, and tesson presentation skills, they may have tended to

participate more often in individual student-teacher interactions that encourage the active

engagement of students in academic concepts, than their less effective counterparts. As

well, we might be able to infer that those teachers in Roach's (1998) study who

demonstrated the ability to frequently interact with students at the level of elaboration,

were able to do so because they had well-established effective classroom management,

time management, and lesson management routines which allowed the classroom to

operate very efficiently. Therefore the teachers in these classrooms may have been able to

minimize time spent on organizational procedures and maximize their time in instruction,

possibly leading to the increased time spent in elaborative interactions.

It is also important to note that cognitively extending teaching practices are indeed

included in the COC measure of effective teaching behaviors (Lesson Presentation Items

5, 6, and 8), inciicating the body of literature that places such practices into the repertoire

of effective teaching.

Individual Student-Teacher Interactions with Students Designated as Exceptional and At-

Risk Versus Non-Designated Students

The findings of the present study indicate that teachers do vary from each other in how

they interact with their students. F i g u ~ 7 shows the levets of intenctions reached by each

teacher on Item #1 (individual student-teacher instmctional interactions with non-designated

students) and Item #2 (indi vidual student-teacher instmctional interactions with students

designated as exceptional and at-risk) on the AIO. Those teachers who interacted with

students designated as exceptional and at-risk at the level of elabomtion, also interacteci with

non-designated students at the level of elabontion. However, teachers' use of elabrative

interactions wi th non-designated students did not necessaril y indicate that they intencted with

students designated as exceptional and at-risk at the level of elaboration. The majority of the

teachers in the sample of this study (9 out of 13 teachers) did tend to intenct similarly with ail

of the students in their class, regardless of whether or not students were designated as

exceptional and at-ris k. Wi th regard to the 7-point scale of individual studen t-teacher

instructional interactions with non-designated students (Item #1) and students designated as

exceptional and at-risk (Item #2), none of these nine teachers received scores that differed

more than L .5 points from Item #1 to Item #2.

Figure 7 also shows the levels of interactions reached on the 7-point scale by teachers

who had educational assistants in their rooms during their observations. These teachers

(Teacher T15, T08, T27, and T39) did not reach levels of interaction with those students

designated as exceptional and at-risk that were similar to their levels of interaction with non-

designated students. The presence of the educational assistants appears to be the most likely

factor that explains differential teaching of students designated as exceptional and at-nsk

cornpared to non-designated students in these classes.

Figure 7. Teachers' level of adaptation with non-designated students compared to

students designated as exceptional and at-risk, with or without an educational assistant

(E.A.) present.

Tl5 TOS Tl9 T23 T22 T21 T27 T39 T25 T37 T26 T28 Tl0

Teachers Ranked by Item #1 Scores (and if Equal, then Item #2 Scores)

I Level reached with non-designated students

El Level reached with designated students, no E.A. present

0 Level reached with designated students, E.A. present

Limitations and Future Research

Within the context of the present study, the combination of expected and unexpected

findings indicates that the explanation of possible limitations is in order. Issues regardmg

sample size, the operationdization of the NO, the influence of educational assistants on

tesichers' differential treatment of students designated exceptional and at-risk, changes in

educational policy, and the continued tack of a positive relationship between the TES and

measures of effective teaching behaviors wi I l be addressed.

Otlerationaiization of the AI0

The present study was a pilot study in which observers worked together to develop the

critena for the AIO. Because the development process imposed several ongoing changes

throughout the 13 teacher observations, the amount of consistent data was limited. In order to

preserve the essence of the individuai student-teacher instmctional interactions that were

observed, and report it through the presentation of data. the anaiysis of data for the A I 0 did

not follow traditional protocol. For al1 of the observation items, the highest score that was

given by either of the two observers, for the entire observation period for each teacher, was the

score used in analysis, not a mean of both raters' scores. Therefore, an internter reliability

could not be calcuiated. It was only when two target students were included, that the mean of

the highest scores from either of the two observers for student-teacher interactions with Target

Student A and Target Student B, were calculated. However, none of the raters' scores ever

differed by more than two points on the 7-point scale for any item for any teacher observation.

The strong underlying relationship that was evident between the AI0 and the COC,

even with the small sarnple size, suggests that the Ai0 is a valid measure of effective teaching

behaviors. However, the skewed distribution of teachers' scores on Item #1 (individual

student-teacher instmctional interactions with non-designated students; see Figure 8), as

opposed to the more evenly disuibuted scores on Item #2 (individual student-teacher

instructional interactions with students who are designated as exceptional and at-nsk; see

Figure 9), represents a ceiling effect, which indicates that there is still much to be done in

order to strengthen the AIO as a diable measure of individual student-teacher instmctiond

interactions as adaptive instruction. For future research involving the use of the AIO, fonnd

observer training, involving more time spent in discussions of examples and non-examples

and severai classroom observation training sessions until internter reliability is established,

should be conducted. The use of audio r~cordings of student-teacher interactions, and

subsequent transcriptions of the recordings to be used for sconng purposes, as opposed to just

counting or tdlying the interactions as they are observed, might provide more accurate ratings

based on the 7-point scale, than what was recorded for this study. Also, the administration of

the AI0 by itself (not synonymously with the COC), dong with the adminisuaiion of multiple

AI0 observations over various lessons, would also provide the opportunity for observen to

establish the stability or consistency of student-teacher interaction levels, as one haif day may

not be enough time in order to accurately do this.

Figure 8. Number of teachers scoring on 7-point scale of level of interaction for Item # 1

of the Adaptive Instruction Observation - Individual Teacher-student instructional

interactions with non-designated students during seatwork.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Interaction Levels

Figure 9. Number of teachers scoring on the 7-point scale for Item #2 of the Adaptive

Instruction Observation - Individual student-teacher instructional interactions with

students designated as exceptional and at-risk dunng seatwork.

Interaction Levels

Di fferential Treatment

According to the empirical findings of the present study, there appears to be

evidence of teachers di fferentialt y interacting wi th students designated as exceptional and

at-risk, compared to students who are non-designated. By looking at Table 2 and Figure

7, which display teachers' scores on Item #l (individual student-teacher instructional

interactions with non-designated students) and Item #2 (individual student-teacher

instructional interactions with students who designated as exceptional and at-risk) this

differential treatment appears to be to the disadvantage of students designated as

exceptional and at-risk, particularly if attention is focused on Teachers T08, T15, T39,

and T27, whose scores on Item #2 ranged from 3 to 4.5 points lower than their scores on

Item #l. Two of these teachers did not interact with students designated as exceptional

and at-risk on any academic content at all. As it was previously mentioned, these four

teachers were the only teachers in the entire sample who had an educational assistant

present in their classroorn during the time of the observation.

Perhaps for future research, the presence of educational assistants should be

examined in greater depth, including investigations into the type and amount of

instruction that general education teachers delegate to educational assistants. However,

whi le the teachers who were assisted by educational assistants interacted at low levels

with their students designated as exceptional and at-risk, some of the other teachers also

varied in their interactions with students designated as exceptional and at-risk compared

to non-designated students. For example, Teacher T22 interacted with students designated

as exceptional and at-risk at the level of "check and move on" compared to the level of

"transmitting" with non-designated students. As well, Teachers T25 and T37 interacted

with students designated as exceptional and at-risk at the level of "transmitting"

compared to the level of "elaboration" with non-designated students. Such variations in

interactions indicate that some teachers may respond differentially to students designated

as exceptional and at-risk while others do not. This clearly needs further investigation.

The Affect of Small Sample Size and Policy Changes on the Validitv of the PI1 Measure

of Teacher Attitudes

Although the A I 0 demonstrated a strong positive relationship with the COC in

this study, the possible convergent vaiidity of the two measures would be that much more

impressive if the A I 0 and the COC were found to behave in a similar manner with the

PII, that they have been shown to do in other studies (Jordan et al., 1997; Roach, 1998;

Stanovich, 1994; Stanovich & Jordan, 1998). Unfortunately, this was not the case in the

present study, as the lack of strong positive relationships between both measures of

effective teaching behaviors and the Pil was disappointing but not surprising, particularly

when the small sample size is taken into consideration.

In addition, the small sample size also contributed to the low interrater reliability

of the PII. One single outlying score, on which the two raters varied in their overall

composite scores for one of the teacher interviews, significantly affected the outcome of

the correlation that was calculated for the interrater reliability of the PII (Figure 6). When

a second correlation was calculated, omitting the outlying data point, the interrater

reliability increased significantly from +.63 for al1 13 teacher interviews, to +.90 for the

remaining 12 teacher interviews. Obviously, further simultaneous testing of the PU in

relation to both measures of effective teaching behaviors, should involve a larger sample

size, as the use of a large sample size would increase the possibility of obtaining the

significant results of a strong correlation between the Pii and both measures of effective

teaching behaviors.

Change in educational policies is another explanation that may pmvide some

insight into why the Pii may not have been as valid a measure of grounded attitudes and

beliefs for this study as it was for past studies (i.e., Jordan et al., 1997; Stanovich, 1994).

Ontario education policies concerning identification and service delivery to students with

disabilities have changed since the interview and coding criteria for the PII were last

updated. Several of the interview questions conceming the general education teachers'

attitudes and beliefs about students who have formal ly been identi fied as exceptional,

were not applicable in rnany interview cases because, compared to studies conducted

under different policies, students are now able to be provided with an E P even if they are

not fomall y identified as exceptional through an PRC procedure.

For interviews that were conducted in studies before these policy changes,

students who were referred to as exceptional were put on iEPs only if they had formally

been identified as exceptional through IPRC proceedings. However, the recent nature of

these policy changes may have infiuenced the outcorne of the PII as teachers could have

variously understood the status of terms defined by Ontario provincial guidelines. For

example, if students were on IEPs, they were still referred to as exceptional when the

interview data was collected for this study. This may have influenced the dynamics of

how teac hers ' "grounded" beliefs were expected to be predictors of their behaviors,

particularly since the general education teachers' willingness to take responsibility for the

educational needs of included students is supposed to be reflected in their actual behavior

of planning for and delivenng instruction to these students. For future use of the PiI,

perhaps the terminology should be reviewed or updated and teachers provided with exact

definitions of tems as they appear in Ontario provincial guidelines.

Validation of the ATIES

As it has been previously indicated, this was a pilot study with a small sample

size. Although there were a few substantial changes in the adaptation of the ATIES, from

the ATMS used by Stanovich (1994) and Roach (1998), the sample size in this study was

not large enough to justify running factor analyses in order to substantially establish the

ATIES as a highly reliable and valid measure. Thus, factor analyses and other

comparative analyses with the ATMS must await a larger sample size.

Personal Teachin~ - Efficacy and Effective Teaching Behaviors

As noted previousl y, the negati ve relationships that the TES demonstrated wi th

the A I 0 and the COC, although consistent with the findings of Stanovich (1994) and

Roach (1998), are still unexpected outcomes. Although other researchers have found that

self-efficacy appears to be a strong predictor of behaviors (i.e., Bandura, 1997), the

results of Bender et al.'s (1995) study indicate that many teachers who have fairly

positive perceptions of their own effectiveness do not necessarily have positive attitudes

about programs that involve mainstreaming andor including students with disabilities in

general education classrooms. Furthemore, Tschannen-Moran et al. (1 998) state:

Self-efficacy has to do with self-perception of competence rather than

actual level of competence. This is an important distinction, because

people regularly overestimate or underestimate their actual abilities, and

these estimations may have consequences for the courses of action they

choose to pursue or the effort they exert in those pursuits. Over- or

underestimating capabilities rnay also influence how well people use the

skills they possess. (p. 2 1 1)

However, other researchers sugpst the skills and knowledge that teachers feel

they possess may be associated with their performance of instructional planning that is

shared with their colleagues, although the two concepts appear to operate in parallel to,

though independently of each other (Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Roach, 1998). Likewise, as

Jordan and Stanovich (1998) evaluated exemplary teachers in inclusive classrooms, they

indicate that teachers' "reflection about their craft with or wi thout li ke-minded

colleagues" (p. 37) is a possible contributor to their strong sense of self efficacy.

Therefore, further investigations into the relationship between persona1 teaching efficacy

and teachers' collaborative exchanges with colleagues, within the context of the model of

inclusion effectiveness, are wmmted.

Implications for Practice

The central fmding of this study certainly has implications for the professional

developrnent of teachers in diverse classrooms, particularly within the context of the

model of inclusion effectiveness. As a majority of the teachers in the sample of this study

interacted similarly with al1 students, it would appear that as teachers improved upon their

instructional interactions with al1 students, they would also be improving on their

teaching effectiveness with students with disabilities who are inciuded in their general

education classroorns (Roach, 1998).

However, as the macro-level COC measure of effective teaching behaviors was

based on the process-product 1 i terature, which indicates that certain teacher behaviors are

related to student achievement, Shulman (1987) indicates that policy makers took what

the research communi ty understood was "simpli fied and incomplete" and "accepted them

as sufficient for the definitions of standards" (p. 6). Therefore, the COC as a self-checklist

may prove beneficial in helping teachers better understand how their teaching practices

relate to student achievement for ail students in inclusive classrooms. Furthemore,

professional development programs that incorporate the combined use of the COC and

the AI0 as well as the process-product and social constructivist literature that gave rise to

them, could also prove to be an effective means through which teachers Ieam to translate

their theories about teaching and leaming into effective teac hing practices. In addressing

professional development for preservice teachers, Fang (1996) States:

Rather than feedinp them wi th a piethora of theories, teacher educators

should perhaps make more conscious efforts to help them realize what

theory, or combination of theories, is most effective in enhancing student

leaming. Once they are equipped with sound learning and teaching

theories, teacher educators will then need to look for ways (Le.,

pedagogical knowledge) that will help them translate their beliefs and

theones into effective instructional practice so the outcome of student

leaming is maximized. (p. 59)

AccordingIy, although the measures of teacher attitudes and teaching efficacy did

not show any significant relationships with either of the effective teaching behavior

measures in the present study, al1 teachers in inclusive classrooms (not only preservice

teachers) would benefit from professional development programs incorporating the use of

the PI1 criteria, the ATIES, and the TES, along with the A I 0 and the COC, within the

context of the feedback modei of inclusion effecti veness (see Figure 1). Such professional

development could be essential in raising teachers' awareness of their own beliefs about

inclusion, the origins of those beliefs, and how they possibly relate to their teaching

behaviors, which may prove to be an important aspect of teacher knowledge required for

the successfut implementation of inclusion.

According to Kennedy and Kennedy (1996):

Beliefs about the innovation, about its consequences and the contextual

variables associated with it are dl important in determining behavior and

are certainly as important as attitude itself. Awareness-raising of beliefs

and their origins will therefore be important if we wish to change or get

teachers to question their beliefs. (p. 359)

Conclusion

The initial intent of this study was to establish the equivalence of two rneasures

that are used separately as outcome measures of teaching practices in a mode1 of effective

inclusion. Although certain aspects of the results failed to confirm some hypotheses, the

significant relationship that occurred between the two measures of effective teaching

behaviors indicates that provision of adaptive instruction is related to teachers' general

teaching effectiveness. It is suggested that teachers' classroom organizational and

management skills possibly play an important role in their ability to rnaximize their time

spent in elaborative individual student-teacher instructional interactions. Furthemore, the

importance of using elaborative instructional adaptations with students with disabilities,

as well as with students without disabilities, justifies the continued evaluation of teaching

effectiveness at the micro-level of individual student-teacher instructional interactions.

The PD, the TES questionnaire, and the COC al1 have a suong foundation of

empirical evidence behind them to justify using them as operational measures of teacher

attitudes, teacher efficacy, and general teaching behaviors. They could be used in the

further developrnent of Stanovich's (1994) and Roach's (1998) path models of inclusion

effectiveness. The ATIES was adapted from the ATMS, which also has a strong empirical

base, but still requires analyses to establish its validity and reliability. The evolution of

the AI0 is still in the early stages and requires further development and testing in order to

increase upon its validity as a measure of effective teaching behaviors based on its

operationalization of individual student-teacher instructional interactions as adaptive

instruction.

REFERENCES

Adams, G., & Cohen, A. (1974). Children's physical and interpersonal characteristics that affect student-teacher interactions. Journal of Exwrirnental Education, 43, 1-5.

Allington, R. (1980). Teacher interruption behaviors during primary-grade oral reading. Journal of Educational Psvchologv. 72, 37 1-377.

American Psychological Association (1 999). Publication Manual of the American Psycholo~ical Association. Washington, DC: Author.

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.

Babad, E., Inbar, J., & Rosenthal, R. (1982). Pygmalion, Galatea, and the Golem: Investigations of biased and unbiased teachers. Journal of Educational Psvcholog;~, 74,459-474.

Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. ( 1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities? Exceptional Children, 56. 525- 526.

Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practices of inclusion for students with learning disabilities: Implications from the five cases. The Journal of Swcial Education, 29, 163- 180.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacv: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Bender, W. N., Vail, C. O., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers' attitudes toward increased mainstrearning: implementing effective instruction for students with iearning disabilities. Journal of Leaming Disabilities, 26(2), 87-94.

Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Mvths, fraud and the attack on America's public schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change: - Vol. VII. Factors affecting irnplementation and continuation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Berryman, J. D. (1988). Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming Scale: Factonal validity for a lay population. Educational and Psvchologicat Measurement, 48,23 1-236.

Benyman, J. D. (1989). Attitudes of the pliblic toward educational mainstreaming. Remedial and Special Education, 10(4), 4449.

Benyman, J. D., & Berryman, C. R. (1981, April). Use of the attitudes toward mainstrearning - scale with rural Georgia teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA.

Benyman, J. D., & Neal, W. R. (1980). The cross-validation of the Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming Scale (ATMS). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40(469-474).

Berryman, J. D., Neal, W. R., & Robinson, J. E. (1980). The validation of a scale to measure attitudes toward the classroom integration of disabled students. Journal of Educational Research, 73( 199-203).

Brice, A., & Miller, R. J. (2000). Case studies in inclusion: What works, what doesn't. Communication Disorders Ouarterlv, 2 1 (4), 337-24 1.

Broph y, J., & Good, T. L. ( 1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and conseauences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievernent. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: American Educational Research Association.

Bulgren, J. A., & Carta, J. J. (1993). Examining the instructional contexts of students with learning disabilities. Exce~tional Children, 59,182-19 1.

Carlberg, C., & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 14(3), 295-309. -

Carta, J. J., Atwater, J. B., Schwartz, 1. S., & Miller, P. A. (1990). Applications of ecobehavioral analysis to the study of transitions across earty education settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 13, 298-3 15.

Cooper, H. M. (1979). Pygmalion grows up: A mode1 for teacher expectation communication and performance influence. Review of Educational Research, 49, 389-410.

Durkin, D. (1990). Matching classroom instruction with reading abilities: An unmet need. Remedial and Swcial Education. 1 1, 23-28.

Englert, C. S., Tarrant, K. L., & Mariage, T. V. (1992). Defining and redefining instructional practice in special education: Perspectives on good teaching. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15(2), 62-86.

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47-65.

Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (1996). Including students with srxcial needs. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted leming strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal. 34(1), 174-206.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Instructional adaptations for students at risk. Journal of Educational Research, 86,7043.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, N. B., & Karns, K. (1995). General educators' specialized adaptation for students with leaming disabilities. Exceptional Children, 6 1,440-459.

Fulk, C. L., & Smith, P. J. (1995). Students' perceptions of teachers' instnictional and management adaptations for students with leaming or behavior problems. Eiementarv Schooi Journal, 95,409-4 19.

Fumharn, A. ( 1986). Response bias, social desirabili ty and dissimulation. Personali ty and Individual Differences, 7,385-400.

Gerber, M. M., & Semmel, M. 1. (1984). Teacher as irnperfect test: Reconceptualizing the referral process. Educational Psvcholo~ist, 19, 137- 148.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psvcholo~v, 76,569-582.

Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63-69.

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

Johnston, D. (1993). Teacher's Ievels of efficacv and belief systerns in relation to student problern tmes. Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Toronto.

Jordan, A., Kircaali-Iftar, G., & Diamond, C. T. 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 Disabilitv, Development and Education, 40(1), 45-62.

Jordan, A., Lindsay, L., & Stanovich, P. J. ( 1997). Classroom teachers' instructional interactions with students who are exceptional, at risk, and typically achieving. Rernedial and Special Education, 18(2), 82-93.

Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (1998, March). Exemplary teaching in inclusive classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2001). Patterns of teacher-student interaction in inclusive elernentaty classrooms and correlates with student self-concept. International Journal of Disabilitv, Development and Education, 48(1), 33-52.

Jordan-Wilson, A., & Silverman, H. (1991). Teachers' assumptions and beliefs about the delivery of services to exceptional children. Teacher Education and S~ecial Education, 14, 198-206.

Kauffman, J. M. (1995). The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of current special education bandwagon. - Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed.

Kauffman, J. M., Gerber, M. M., & Semmel, M. 1. (1988). Arguable assumptions underlying the regular education initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2 l(6- 12).

Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (7000). History, rhetoric, and reality. Rernedial and Special Education, 2 1(5), 279-296.

Kennedy, C., & Kennedy, J. (1996). Teacher attitudes and change implementation. Svstem, 24(3), 35 1-360.

Kircaali-Iftar, G. (1992). Teacher and student characteristics which influence teacher preferences for resource and consultation approaches. Un pub1 ished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.

Lamvee, B. (1986). Effective teaching for mainstreamed students is effective teaching for al1 students. Teacher Education and Special Education, 9(4), 173-179.

Logan, K. R., Bakeman, R., & Keefe, E. B. (1997). Effects of instructional variables on engaged behavior of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceritional Children, 63(4), 48 1-497.

Marshall, H. (1992). Seeing, redefining and supporting student learning. In H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining - student learning: Roots of educational change (pp. 1-32). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

McIntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Haager, D., & Lee, 0. (1993). Observations of students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Chi ldren, 60, 249-26 1.

Meijer, C., & Foster, S. (1988). The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral chance. Journal of Special Education, 22, 378-385.

NatrielIo, G., McDill, E. L., & Pallas, A. M. (1990). Schooling Disadvantaged Children: Racing aminst Catastrophe. New York: Teachers College Press.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy constnict. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvcholonv, 60, 307-3 17.

Peterson, P. L., & Clark, C. M. (1978). Teachers' reports of their cognitive process dunng teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 555-565.

Podell, D., & Soodak, L. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 247-253.

Prawat, R. (1992). Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning: a constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100, 354-394.

Pressley, M., Hogan, K., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta, J., & Etten berger, S. ( 1996). The chailenges of instructional scaffolding: the challenges of instruction that supports student thinking. LRarning Disabilities Research & Practice, 1 1(3), 138-146.

Reynolds, M. C., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1987). The necessary restructunng of special and general education. Exceptional Children. 53, 391-398.

Roach, D. A. (1998). Factors that affect the instructional interactions of teachers with exceptional. at-risk, and typicallv achieving students in intenrated classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.

Sindelar, P. T., Smith, M. A., Harriman, N. E., Hale, R. L., & Wilson, R. J. (1989). Teacher effectiveness in special education programs. The Joumal of Swcial Education, 20, 195-207.

Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for rnainstreamed students: General classroom teachers' perspectives. Remedial and Speci al Education, 1 2, 1 8-25.

Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Getting ready for inclusion: 1s the stage set? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 169- 179.

Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., & Saumell, L. (1994). Assisting students with difficult textbooks: Teacher perceptions and practices. Reading Research and Instruction, 34, 39-56. -

Scott, B. J., Vitale, M. R., & Masten, W. G. (1998). implementing instructional adaptations for students with disabilities in inclusive c1;ssrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 19(2), 106- 1 19.

Semmel, M. I., Abernathy, T. V., Butera, G., & ksar , S. (199 1). Teacher perceptions of the Regular Education Initiative. Exceptional Children. 58(1), 9-24.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 19(2), 4- 14.

Soodak, L., & Podell, D. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student probiem as factors in special education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27,66-8 1.

Stanovich, P. J. (1994). Teachers' sense of efficacv, beliefs about practice, and teaching behaviors as predictors of effective inclusion of exce~tional and at-risk vupils. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.

Stanovich, P. J., & Jordan, A. (1998). Canadian teachers' and principals' beliefs about inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching in heterogeneous classrooms. The Elementaw School Joumal. 98(3), 219-236.

Stanovich, P. J., Jordan, A., & Perot, J. (1998). Relative differences in academic self- concept and peer acceptance among students in inclusive classroorns. Remedial and Special Education. 19(2), 130- 126.

Stein, M. K., & Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 17 1-1 87.

Swank, P. R., Taylor, R. D., Brady, M. P., & Freiberg, H. J. (1989). Sensitivity of classroom observation systems: Measuring teacher effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Education, 57, 17 1 - 186.

The National Association of State Boards of Education. (1992). Winners d l : A cal1 for inclusive schools. The report of the NASBE study group on svecial education. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research. 68(2), 202-248.

Walberg, H. J., & Wang, M. C. (1987). Effective educational practices and provisions for individual differences. In M. C. R. M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg Pd.) , Handbook of svecial education: Research and practice (pp. 1 13- 128). Oxford: Pergamon.

Zigmond, N., & Baker, J. M. (1994). 1s the mainstream a more appropriate educational setting for Randy? A case study of one student with learning disabilities. Learninq Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 108-1 17.

SET Project Adaptive Instruction Observation 99/00

Observer: Date: Time: to Teac her: School:

Student A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

No Yes

Target Student B

3 - . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. No Yes

Target Student A

3 - . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. No Yes

Target Student B

2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. No Ycs

Lesson #l

1. During seatwork, what is the preduniinarit style of interaction between the teacher and al1 students? (academic interaction involving lesson material, not managerial interactions)

1 No

irctmciion with

studcnls on lesson content

2 Teac her

circulatcs. checking

work brietïy and moving on (bncf and

cursory ). lnconsistcntl

Y

3 Teacher

circulatcs. chccking

work bricfly and moving on (brief and

cursory). ConsisientIy

4 Tcacher circulatcs,

innsmitriny and dirccting lesson responscs (tells

studenb what to work on. how to corrcct it. and movcs on) rare

intenction. lnconsistently

5 Tcachcr circuiatcs.

tnnsmiiting and directing lesson rcsponses (tells

studcnis what fo work on, how to corrcct it, and movcs on) m e

intenction. Cnnsistently

6 Tcachcr claboratcs

(asks siudents questions about lesson matcrial concepts that

requirc responscs; frcqucnt

intcnction requiring student

panicipation). Inconsisiently

7 Tacher çlabontcs

( s k s studcnts questions about lesson mtenal concepts that

require rcsponscs: frequcnt

intcnction requiring student

participation). Cnnsisicnily

2. Dunng seatwork, the teacher uses what style of interaction with the target student: (refer to styles of interaction described in question #l and assign score of 1-7 for each target student)

Target Student A: Target Student B:

3. During large group instruction, are target student's responses taken up - is target child called upon? (record Yes or No for each target student)

Target Student A: Target Student B:

1. During seatwork, what is the predomirta~rr style of interaction between the teacher and al1 students? (academic interaction involving lesson material, not managerial interactions)

1 No

intcnction with

students on lesson conten t

2 T a c h e r

circu!ates. chrcking

work briefly and moving

on (brief and cursory).

lnconsisrcntl Y

3 Tcachrr

circulates. checking

work bricfly and moving on i bricf and

C U B O ~ ~ ) . Consistently

4 Tmcher circulates.

innsmitting and directing lcsson responscs (tclls students what to work on, how to correct it. and moves on) n r c

interaction. lnconsistentlv

5 Teachcr circu lates,

transmiiting and directing lesson responses (tells

students what ro work on. Iiow to correct it. and moves on) n r e

intcnction. Consistcntly

6 Teachcr çiabontes

( a k s students questions about lesson material concepts that

require responses: frequent

interaction requiring studcnt

participation). lnconsistentlv

7 Tcacher elabonies

( a k s students questions about tesson matcrial conccpts b a t

requirt: responses; frequent

inicnction requiring student

participation). Consistently

2. During seatwork, the teacher uses what style of interaction with the target student: (refer to styles of interaction described in question #1 and assign score of 1-7 for each target student)

Target Student A: Target Student B:

3. Dunng large group instruction, are target student's responses taken up - is target child called upon? (record Yes or No for each target studentj

Target Student A: Target Student B:

Examples of Indi vidual Student-Teacher Instructional Interactions

Adapted from Roach (1 998, p. 1 17).

1. Check and move on: The teacher moves on to another question or another student if

child respond correctly or incorrectly.

Teacher: John, what is three times four?

Student: Seven.

Teac her: Matthew ?

2. Transmit: The teacher acknowledges andor praises the student's response if it is

correct or slhe gives the student the correct answer if the student's answer is

incorrect, Le.,

Teacher: We've been leaming about the different parts to a novel.

What is the setting of this novet?

Student: The prairies.

Teac her: Yes. That's good.

3. Elabonte: The teacher acknowledges the student's response and elaborated on it

while trying to extend the student's knowledge, i.e.,

Teacher: What color on this map do you think represents water:

Student: Blue.

Teacher: Good. We use blue on the map because often water in real

life is blue. If that's the case, what color is going to represent

forests?

APPENDIX B

SET Project Classroom Observation Checklist

Observer: Date: Time: t o - Teacher: School:

ME = not in evidence Inc = inconsistent Con = consistent NA = not applicable

A. Classroorn Management C.

NIE Inc Con NA

NIE Inc Con NA

NIE Inc Con NA

NIE Inc Con NA

ME Inc Con NA

NIE Inc Con NA

NIE Inc Con NA

NIE Inc Con NA

Time Management

NIE Inc Con NA

NIE Inc Con NA

NIE Inc Con NA

ME Inc Con NA

NIE Inc Con NA

NIE Inc Con NA

NIE Inc Con NA

Lesson Presentation

NIE Inc Con NA

NIE inc Con NA

N E Inc Con NA

NIE Inc Con NA

ME Inc Con NA

NIE Inc Con NA

NIE Inc Con NA

NIE Inc Con NA

NIE Inc Con NA

NIE Inc Con NA

NIE Inc Con NA

Adaptive Instruction

Yes No NA

Yes No NA

Yes No NA

Yes No NA

8. NIE Inc Con NA

A. Classroom Management

B. Time Management

Arranges physical space to maintain minimally disruptive traffic patterns and procedures.

Rules and procedures exist for non-instructional events (e.g., movement about room, student talk, distributing materials, bathroom use, etc.) and for instructional events (e-g., getting ready for lessons, expected behavior of instmctional group, obtaining hel p, seatwork procedures, out-of-seat procedures, etc.).

Evidence of rules that involve respect for other members of class andhr provides verbal reminders to students about how to treat others.

Consequates rule noncompliance quickly; cites rule or procedure in responding to disrupti ve behaviors.

Positions self in room to providc high degree of visibility (e.g., can make eye contact with al1 students).

Scans class frequently.

Uses nonverbal signals whenever possible to direct students in a nondisruptive manner when teaching other groups of students.

Administers praise contingently and uses speci fic praise statements.

Allocates generous amounts of time for instruction (limits time spent on behavior management, recess, and nonacademic activities and talk, keeps transition time between lessons short).

States expectations for seatwork and transitions in advance (e.g., prepares students for transitions in advance by stating behavioral expectations and informing students that lesson is drawing to a close).

Establishes clear lesson routines that signal a clear beginning and end.

Gains students' attention at the beginning of the lesson and maintains attention during instruction at 90% level.

Moni tors transitions by scanning and circulating among students.

Maintains students' attention during seatwork at 86% or higher.

7. Circulates frequently among seatwork students to assist students and to rnonitor progress.

8. Provides active forms of seatwork practice clearly related to academic goals.

C. Lesson Presen tation

1 Provides review of previous day's concepts at beginning of lesson; actively tests students' understanding and retention of previous day's lesson content.

2. Provides a clear overview of the lesson: a. explains task in ternis of teachers' and students' actions b. States the purpose and objective of the lesson c. tells students what they will be accountable for knowing or doing d. introduces topic(s) of the learning task e. activates prior experiences and knowledge relevant to the topics, strategies

or ski Ils to be learned

Actively mode1 and demonstrate concepts, learning strategies, and procedures related to effective problem solving in the content area:

a. provides an organizational framework that will help students organize the lesson information ( e g , text structure genre, diagram of lesson topics and subtopics, concept maps, semantic web, etc.).

b. points out distinctive features of new concepts and uses exarnples and nonexamples to show relevant and imelevant features of the concept.

c. points out organization, relationships and ches in leming materials that elicit learning strategies.

d. models task-specific leming strategies and self-talk that will help students achieve ( e g , rehearsal strategies, retrieval strategies, etc.).

4. Maintainsa briskpaceduring thelesson.

5. Provides frequent questions to evaluate students' mastery of lesson concepts.

6. Evaluates students' understanding of seatwork tasks and cognitive processes by aslung students "what, how, when, why" questions related to the targeted skill or strategy .

7. Maintains high accurate responding rate (70-90%) in teacher-led activities: a. repeats practice opportunities until students are not making errors b. deli vers instructional cues and prompts c. provides error correction procedures d. using promptinp or modeling following errors rather than telling the

answer

8. Provides error drill on missed concepts or review of difficult concepts during and at the end of each lesson.

9. Gives s u m m q of the lesson content and integrates lesson content with content of other lessons or experiences.

10. Summarizes the Iesson accomplishments of individuals and group.

1 1. Forecasts upcoming lesson content.

D. Adaptive Instruction

1. Are the included students working on the same curriculum area as the other students:

2. Are al1 the students sitting in the same seat mangement/fomation?

3. Are al1 the included students called on to answer questions in teacher-led activities?

4. Are the included students regularly included in classroom routines and procedures?

APPENDIX C

SET Project Coding Critena for Pathognomonic-Interventionist Interview

Adapted frorn Jordan, Lindsay, and Stanovich (1997, p. 84-85).

Coding Criteria Stage in Del i very Process Pathognomonic Interventionist

Stage 1: Assessriient

Prereferral (at- risk pupils)

Assessment (at-risk pupils)

Referral (at-risk pupils)

Prere ferra1 (exceptional pupi 1s)

Assessment (exceptional pupi 1 s)

No prereferral activities prior to refening to a resource teacher or psychologist.

Student referred to assess student's deficits and confirm problem.

Teacher refers student as soon as possible (within 1 month of receiving).

Teacher seeks no previous information about student's leaming characteristics beyond information held on file (if any).

Teacher relies on file information and regularly scheduled class tests to assess student's current learning levels (nom-based).

Prereferral activities (collecting data observations, confemng with others) are used to try program adaptations

Student referred to clarify student's learning characteristics and to request altemati ve approaches for teacher to try

Teacher refers only after tying a variety of teaching approaches (more than 1 month).

Teacher accesses several sources of information (previous teachers, resource staff, parents) to find out about pupil's learning characteristics and programming approaches tned.

Stage 2: Prograrnrnirig (al-risk arzd exceptiarral pupils)

Teacher conducts in formal, individual tests, observations, and assessments of current learning events.

Setting goals Teacher does not monitor student Teacher monitors progress in order and objectives progress to adapt, update, or guide to adapt, update, or guide

instructional interventions. instructional interventions.

Pathognomonic Interventionist

Indi vidualized program

Organization of class (i nc l uded pupi 1 s)

Teaching Techniques

Teacher does not set or record individual objectives; expects siudent to perform on criteria set for total group/class.

No special accommodations for included pupils (no flexible groupings, peer pairing, class layout).

Teacher does not adapt teaching techniques (no peer tutoring, cooperative learni ng, individualized learning packages) to accommodate pupi 1 differences.

Teacher records and fol lows individual instructional objectives for al1 students in class and expects students to perform according to their individually set criteria. Teacher makes accommodations to layout of class, flexible groupings of pupils, etc., for included pupils.

Teacher adapts teaching techniques.

Stage 3: Revie w (ar-rîsk and identifieci plipils)

In-SC ho01 Teacher is unaware of team or sees Teacher uses team to seek team i t as a route to refer pupil for additional resources within the

withdrawal. classroom.

Monitoring Teacher reviews students' progress Teacher reviews students' progress at regularly scheduled testing times on a regular, ongoing basis. a d o r when required to report to others.

Stage 4: Corttnzunication wirh sran (at- risk and idenriflëd pripils)

Collaboration Teacher works usually alone, Teacher works cooperatively with except to refer student to resource resource staff teac her.

Planning Teacher uses no cooperative Teacher plans cooperatively to planning to carry over regular cmy over own objectives and program to resource teacher's content to resource teacher's program. program.

Coordination Teacher does not coordinate to Teacher coordinates and carries carry over resource or special over resource or special education education teacher's program into program into own program. own program.

Pathognomonic Interventionist

Information Teacher does not report to shari ng resource/special education teacher

the pupil's goals or progress, but assumes each teacher keeps track of his or her piece of student's program.

Stage 5: Cumntu~zicatior2 with parents

Contact Parents of at-risk students (at-risk) contacted only at regular reporting

times (e-g., report cards, parent rights, etc.).

Contact Teacher contacts parents if (exceptional) identified pupil exhibits new/major

di fficulties.

Report Teacher reports progress of at-risk, coordination exceptional students but only for a

portion of the program for which teacher is responsi ble.

Teachers meet a regular and systematic intervals to keep each other aware of pupils' progress.

Parents involved prior to regularl y scheduled meetings when risk first becomes apparent.

Teacher keeps in touch with parents weekIy by notes and phone calls, and requests parents to participate.

Teacher shares with special education resource teacher the reporting of information to parents at meetings.

SET Project Teacher Pathognomonic-Interventionist Interview

Teacher: Interviewer:

Grade: Sc hool :

Date: Time:

A. At Risk Pupils 1. Are there any students that are at risk that you are concerned about?

(names, sex, label, subjects?)

2. Tell me what happened when they first came to your attention. -with whom did you confer about your concems? -what steps did you take? -information? Ontario School Record, precious teachers, other? -contacts? staff, principal, parents? -school-based support team. how do they work together, whedhow often do they rnect? where worW who sets objectives?

-expectations/hopes? -how long did it take prior to referral? -steps taken to get back on track?

3. Did you do anything special to accommodate the child? (class organization , program adaptation)

4. Did you make a referral to the in-school team? (who, when, why, your role, hopes/expectations, satisfied?)

5. How did you evaIuate/monitor the situation? (what methods iised? frequency? how did you judge your success?)

6. Did you involve the parents? (when were they first contacted? How often were they contacted? Tell me about how you involved them?)

7. What about reporting to parents? (when, how often, who?)

B. Identified Exceptional Pupils 1. Do you have any pupils in your classroorn who have been identified as

exceptional by an Identification, Placement, and Review Cornmittee? -name, sex -label -subjects -amount of time in your room?

2. What do you see your role with those students as being? -goals/expectations for t hem? for yourself? -information you sought, number and variety of sources -usefulness and use of information gathered +teps, action

3. With whom did you work? -tell me how you worked with the school-based support teacher? -school-based support team? -others? -who set objectives?

4. How do you coordinate information with the school-based support teacher or team?

5. Do you attend team meetings about the child? (if yes, who, when, why, your role, satisfied?)

6. What are your feelings about collaboration?

7. Have you done anything special to accommodate the child? -class organization? -program adaptation? -materials? -teaching techniques?

8. What about evaluating and monitoring? -methods used? -your own? others? coordination of? -identification, placement, and review cornmittees?

9. What about record keeping and reporting? -your own? -others? -shared? -when -how often?

10. How would you judge how successful you were with these identified children?

11. How did you work with parents? (when first contacted, how often, how did you involve them?)

12. Reporting to parents? (when, how often, who?)

SET Project Pat hognomonic-Interventionist Interview Scoring Form

1 = Pathognomonic 2 = Middle 3 = Interventionist

1. REFERRAL AND ASSESSMENT A. At-Risk

1. No prereferral activities prior to bringing in the resource teacher or psychotogist (e.g., collecting data, observations, confemng with others), or prereferral activities are used for confirming student problem. 1 2 3 N/A Prereferral activities (collecting data, observations, confemng with others) are used to program for at-risk student.

2. Student referred to examine student's deficits and confirm student problem. 1 2 3 N/A Student referred to clarify student's learning characteristics and to request al temati ve prograrnming approaches for teacher to try.

3. Teacher refers student for psychoeducational, including Level 1 assessments, as soon as possible (Le., one month). 1 3 - 3 N/A Teacher refers student for psychoeducational, including LeveI 1 assessment, on1 y after trying a variety of teaching approaches.

4. Teacher views the problem within the student, and expects that student's problem to be dealt with by the resource teacher or other specialist. 1 3 - 3 NIA Teacher views the student's problem as a result of the student's interaction with hisker environment, and expects the student's problem to be addressed within the regular classroom.

B. Identified 5. Teacher sought no previous information about student's learning characteristics

beyond the information contained in the OSR. 1 2 3 N/A Teacher accesses a variety of sources (teachers, learning skills teacher, special education coordinator, resource teacher, principal, parents) to find out about students' learning characteristics in order to develop programming ideas.

6. Teacher relies on information in OSR, or from regularly scheduled board-wide tests to assess student's current leaming levels. 1 2 3 N/A Teacher conducts informal, individual observations and assessments of student's current learning levels.

Subscore of Section 1 :

II. PROGRAMMING (AT-RISK AND IDENTIFIED) A. Goals and Objectives

1. Teacher does not monitor student's progress in order to adapt, update and guide instructional interventions. Student's progress is checked only to report at formal

Teacher monitors student's progress in order to adapt, update and guide instructional interventions. Student's progress is checked throughout the year.

2. Teacher does not set or record individual objectives and expects students to perform on cri teria set for total class. 1 7 - 3 NIA Teacher records and fol lows individual instructional objectives for al1 students in the class, and expects students to perfonn according to their individually set criteria.

B. Organization and Teaching Techniques 3. Teacher does not do anything special to accommodate integrated students into the

classroom (e.g., flexible groupings, peer pairings or classroom layout). 1 2 3 N/A Teacher uses modifications to accommodate integrated students into the classroom (e.g., flexible grouping, peer painngs, or classroom Iayout).

4. Teacher does not adapt teaching techniques (peer tutoring, cooperative Ieming, individualized program packages) to accommodate differences among students. 1 3 - 3 NIA Teacher adapts teaching techniques (peer-tutonng, cooperative learning, individualized program packages) to accommodate differences among students.

Subscore for Section lI:

III. REVIEW (IDENTIHED AND AT-RIS K) 1. Teacher is unaware of ISRT, or sees i t as a route to getting the student to resource

people. I 7 - 3 N/A Teacher uses ISRT to seek additionai resources for self to use within the classroom.

2. Teacher sees the purpose of the IPRC as a route to confirming the student's identification and placement. 1 2 3 N/A Teacher sees the purpose of the IPRC as a process to review the student's progress and make appropriate adaptations.

3. Teacher reviews the student's progress at regularly scheduled testing (school- or board-wide tests) andor when required for reporting to others. 1 2 3 NIA Teacher reviews the student's progress on a regular, on-going basis.

Subscore for Section iIi:

IV. COMMUNICATION WTH STAFF 1. Teacher works largely alone, except to refer student out.

I 2 3 NIA Teacher works cooperativel y with resource andor special education teachers to solve student problerns.

2. Teacher uses no cooperative planning to carry over the regular classroom's program to the resource or special education teacher's program. 1 7 - 3 N/A Teacher uses cooperative planning to carry over the regular classroorn's program to the resource or special education teacher's program.

3. Teacher does no planning to carry over the resource or special education teacher's program into the regular classroom's program. 1 2 3 N/A Teacher does planning to cany over the resource or special education teacher's program in to the regular classroom's program.

4. Teachers do not report to each other about the student's progress but assume that each is keeping trac k of hisher piece of the student's program. 1 2 3 N/A Teachers meet at regular and systematic intervals to keep each other aware of the student's progress.

Subscore for Section IV:

V. COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS 1. Parents of at-risk students are contacted to report student progress only at

regularl y scheduled times, such as report card time. 1 2 3 NIA Teacher involves parents of at-nsk students early, and pior to regulxly scheduled meetings of at-risk students early, and prior to regularly scheduled meetings to discuss student's performance within the classroom.

2. Teacher contacts parents if identified pupil exhibits major problems. 1 2 3 N/A Teacher keeps in touch with parents weekly by notes home, phone calls or annotations on student's work to which parents are asked to respond.

3. Teacher reports the progress of identified and at-risk students to parents, but only for that portion of the program for which teacher is responsible: no coordination of reporting to parents is done. 1 2 3 NIA Teacher coordinates and shares the reporting of information on the student's progress wi th the resource or special education teachers to parents at meetings.

Subscore for Section V:

TOTAL SCORE:

SET Project Attitude Toward Inclusive Education Scale

Directions: For each statement below, select the response that best matches your level of agreement with that statement. Remember, al1 results are confidential, with only group responses king reported.

Scale: 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = disagree slightly more than agree 4 = agree slightly more than disagree 5 = moderately agree 6 = strongly agree

Students whose academic achievernent is 2 or more years below the other students in the grade should be in regular classes.

Students who are physically aggressive toward their peers should be in regular classes.

Students who cannot move without help from others should be in regular ciasses.

Students who are shy and withdrawn should be in regular classes.

Students whose academic achievement is 1 year below the other students in the grade should be in regular classes.

Students whose speech is difficult to understand should be in regular classes.

Students who cannot read standard print and need to use Braille should be in regular classes.

Students who are verbally aggressive toward their peers should be in regular classes.

Scale: 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = disagree slightly more than agree 4 = agree slightly more than disagree 5 = moderately agree 6 = strongly agree

Students who have difficulty expressing their thoughts should be in regular classes.

Students who need training in self-help skills and activities of daily living should be in regular classes.

Students who use sign language or communication boards should be in regular classes.

Students who cannot control their behavior and disrupt activities should be in regular classes.

Students who need an individurtlized functional academic program in everyday reading and math skills should be in regular classes.

Studen ts who cannot hear conversationd speech should be in regular classes.

Students who do not follow school rules for conduct should be in regular classes.

Students who are frequently absent from school should be in regular classes.

SET Project Teacher Efficacy Scale

Directions: For each statement below, select the response that best matches your level of agreement with that statement. Remember, al1 results are confidential, with only group responses being reported.

Scale: 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = disagree slightly more than agree 4 = agree slightly more than disagree 5 = moderately agree 6 = strongly agree

When a student does better than usual, many times it is because 1 exerted a little extra effort.

The hours in my class have little influence on students compared to the influence of their home environment.

The amount that a student can learn is primarily related to family background.

If students are not disciplined at home, they aren't Iikely to accept any discipline.

When a student is having difficulty with an assignment, 1 am usually able to adjust it to his/her level.

When a student gets a better grade thün he/she usually gets, it is usually because 1 found better ways of teaching that student.

When 1 really try, 1 can get through to most difficult students.

A teacher is very limited in what he/she c m achieve because a student's home environment is a large influence on hisher achievement.

Scale: 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = disagree slightly more than agree 4 = agree slightly more than disagree 5 = maderately agree 6 = strongly agree

9. When the grades of my students improve it is usually because 1 found more effective teac hing approac hes.

10. If a student masters a new math concept quickly, this might be because 1 knew the necessary steps in teaching that concept.

I l . If parents would do more with their children, 1 could do more.

12. If a student did not remernber information 1 gave in a previous lesson, 1 would know how to increase hisher retention in the next lesson.

13. If a student in my class kcomes disruptive and noisy, 1 feel assured that 1 know some techniques to redirect hirnlher quickly.

14. The influences of a student's home experiences can be overcome by good teaching.

15. If one of my students could not do a class assignrnent, I would be able to accurately assess whether the assignment was at the correct Ievel of difficulty.

16. Even a teacher with good teaching abilities may not reach many students.