<%BANNER%>

Effects of a Training Module on Pre-service School Counselors' Knowledge and Self-Efficacy Beliefs about Working with St...

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024318/00001

Material Information

Title: Effects of a Training Module on Pre-service School Counselors' Knowledge and Self-Efficacy Beliefs about Working with Students in Exceptional Student Education
Physical Description: 1 online resource (110 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Leibforth, Teresa
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: counselor, school, special, training
Counselor Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: School Counseling and Guidance thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: An experimental research study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of a brief training program designed to increase pre-service school counselors? knowledge of exceptional student education (ESE) and to measure their beliefs regarding their ability to work with students with disabilities and their families. The two-and-a-half hour training program included didactic instruction, video modeling of effective versus ineffective communication skills, large group discussion, and role play as methods of instruction. Fifty-six graduate students representing three different universities participated in the study. Data were collected from a respondent demographic information sheet and two instruments designed specifically for the study were used to assess the effects of the intervention: the School Counselor ESE Knowledge Test (SCESEKT) and the School Counselor ESE Self-Efficacy Measure (SCESESES). The data were analyzed by multivariate analyses of variance and multiple linear regression analyses. Results revealed that the pre- and post-test groups? scores on the SCESEKT and the SCESESES differed based on participation in the training. Participation in the training significantly increased participants? knowledge of the laws and processes surrounding ESE, research related to the individualized education plan (IEP) meeting experience for students and families, and specific interventions school counselors can implement. Participation in the training also significantly increased participants? self-efficacy beliefs regarding their ability to work with students in ESE and their families. The results of this study lend support to the use of a brief training program to increase pre-service school counselors? knowledge of ESE and self-efficacy beliefs about working with students with disabilities and their families.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Teresa Leibforth.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Amatea, Ellen S.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024318:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024318/00001

Material Information

Title: Effects of a Training Module on Pre-service School Counselors' Knowledge and Self-Efficacy Beliefs about Working with Students in Exceptional Student Education
Physical Description: 1 online resource (110 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Leibforth, Teresa
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: counselor, school, special, training
Counselor Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: School Counseling and Guidance thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: An experimental research study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of a brief training program designed to increase pre-service school counselors? knowledge of exceptional student education (ESE) and to measure their beliefs regarding their ability to work with students with disabilities and their families. The two-and-a-half hour training program included didactic instruction, video modeling of effective versus ineffective communication skills, large group discussion, and role play as methods of instruction. Fifty-six graduate students representing three different universities participated in the study. Data were collected from a respondent demographic information sheet and two instruments designed specifically for the study were used to assess the effects of the intervention: the School Counselor ESE Knowledge Test (SCESEKT) and the School Counselor ESE Self-Efficacy Measure (SCESESES). The data were analyzed by multivariate analyses of variance and multiple linear regression analyses. Results revealed that the pre- and post-test groups? scores on the SCESEKT and the SCESESES differed based on participation in the training. Participation in the training significantly increased participants? knowledge of the laws and processes surrounding ESE, research related to the individualized education plan (IEP) meeting experience for students and families, and specific interventions school counselors can implement. Participation in the training also significantly increased participants? self-efficacy beliefs regarding their ability to work with students in ESE and their families. The results of this study lend support to the use of a brief training program to increase pre-service school counselors? knowledge of ESE and self-efficacy beliefs about working with students with disabilities and their families.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Teresa Leibforth.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Amatea, Ellen S.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024318:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

EFFECTS OF A TRAINING MODULE ON PRE-SERVICE SCHOOL COUNSELORS KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-EFFICACY BELI EFS ABOUT WORKING WITH STUDENTS IN EXCEPTIONAL STUDENT EDUCATION By TERESA NAOMI LEIBFORTH A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009 1

PAGE 2

2009 Teresa Naomi Leibforth 2

PAGE 3

To my mom and dad, for thei r unwavering love and support 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Although this document bears my name, it is r eally a culmination of the opportunities and support I have received from many people throughout my doctoral studies. I would like to thank Dr. Larry Loesch, the retired chair of my doctoral committee, for his initial encouragement to pursue the doctoral degree and for his ongoing su pport. His ability to help me keep my perspective and maintain my life priorities is what facilitated my su ccess throughout the doctoral program. It was truly an honor to have the opportunity to work with him. I would like to thank Dr. Ellen Amatea, th e chair of my doctoral committee, for her wisdom and mentorship throughout my doctoral studies. I would also like to thank the other members of my committee: Dr. Mary Ann Clark, Dr. Mary Brow nell, and Dr. Michael Garrett for their expertise and guidance thro ughout this process. I would like to thank the close friends I have made in the Department of Counselor Education. They have all made this journey so much more enjoyable. As we each go our separate ways, I will always remember the ma gical (and often hysterica lly funny) moments of professional and personal development that we have shared. In some respects I feel like I was able to ride on the coattails of classmates who went through the various rites of passage before me, especially Kisha Scott, Jill Geltner, Ja ime Jasser, Heather Hanney Rask, and Kelcey Killingsworththank you for making the effort to turn back and give me guidance and encouragement when it was my time. I hope that I have the opportunity to pay it forward to other doctoral students in the future. I would like to thank my colleagues at P.K. Yonge Developmental Research SchoolLisa Clemons, Sue Ireland, and Valerie Otero. Addi tionally, I would like to thank colleagues Amanda Adimoolah, Tanya Kort, and Colette Thom as for their assistance with my dissertation 4

PAGE 5

research. I would also like to thank my colleagues at O.T. 4 kidsGail Eichelberger Huecker and Kovee Wilson Schutt for their encour agement and support over the years. I would like to thank my friends outside of the Department of Counselor Education, especially Marci Schneider and Denise Maurer, for distracting me from my academic stress and helping me remember my priorities in life. I would like to thank the children and families I have had the privilege of working with over the years for their selfless encouragement of my studies. Seei ng their strength and resilience as they make it through each day inspires me time and time again, and I have become a better counselor and person through my interactions with them. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my mother and fa ther, who continually sacrificed to give me not only what I needed, but to also help me get what I wanted. My parents have always had faith in me, even when my fa ith in myself faltered, and for their love and support I am forever grateful. 5

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................8 ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .11 Scope of the Problem ..............................................................................................................12 Theoretical Framework ...........................................................................................................15 Knowles Andragogy .......................................................................................................15 The Role of Self-Efficacy in Adult Learning ..................................................................16 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................................17 Need for the Study ..................................................................................................................19 Purpose of the Study ...............................................................................................................22 Hypotheses ..............................................................................................................................22 Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................23 Overview of the Remainder of the Study ...............................................................................24 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................25 Legislation Related to Exceptio nal Student Education (ESE) ................................................25 The Individualized Education Plan (IEP) Meeting .................................................................26 School Counselor Involvement in ESE ..................................................................................31 Self-Efficacy ...........................................................................................................................35 Teacher Self-Efficacy ......................................................................................................36 Counselor Self-Efficacy ..................................................................................................37 Development of Self-Efficacy .........................................................................................37 Training School Counselors to Work With Students in ESE .................................................39 Training Programs ...........................................................................................................41 The Iris Center for Training Enhancements ....................................................................41 Understanding Special Education (USE) Curriculum .....................................................42 Summary .................................................................................................................................42 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................4 3 Variables .................................................................................................................................43 Population ...............................................................................................................................43 Sampling Procedures ..............................................................................................................44 Resultant Sample ....................................................................................................................45 Instrumentation .......................................................................................................................46 Instrument Development ........................................................................................................46 6

PAGE 7

ESE Knowledge Test .......................................................................................................46 School Counselor Self-Efficacy in Work ing with Students with Disabilities .................51 School Counselor Preparation Survey-Revised .......................................................52 School Counselor Self-Efficacy Scale .....................................................................53 ESE Self-Efficacy Scale ...........................................................................................54 Pilot Study ..............................................................................................................................56 Research Procedures ...............................................................................................................57 Training Module .....................................................................................................................58 Summary .................................................................................................................................59 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... .........61 Descriptive Statistics ..............................................................................................................62 Data Analyses .........................................................................................................................64 Hypothesis One ...............................................................................................................64 Hypothesis Two ...............................................................................................................66 Hypothesis Three .............................................................................................................69 Summary .................................................................................................................................73 5 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... ......74 Discussion ...............................................................................................................................74 Limitations ..............................................................................................................................76 Implications ............................................................................................................................78 Implications for Theory Development ............................................................................79 Implications for Practice ..................................................................................................79 Recommendations for Future Research..................................................................................80 Summary .................................................................................................................................83 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT FORM............................................................................................84 B PERSONAL DATA SHEET..................................................................................................86 C SCHOOL COUNSELOR ESE KNOWLEDGE TEST (SCESEKT).....................................88 D SCHOOL COUNSELOR ESE SELF-E FFICACY SURVEY (SCESESES).........................91 E SCHOOL COUNSELOR ESE TR AINING MODULE (SCESETM)...................................93 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................105 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................110 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 SCESEKT Total Variance Explained ................................................................................47 3-2 SCESEKT Item Loading ....................................................................................................48 3-3 SCESEKT Corrected Item-Total Correlations ..................................................................50 3-4 SCESESES Total Variance Explained ...............................................................................54 3-5 SCESESES Item Loading ..................................................................................................55 3-6 SCESESES Corrected Item-Total Correlations .................................................................56 3-7 Treatment Conditions for Knowledge ...............................................................................58 3-8 Treatment Conditions for Self-Efficacy .............................................................................58 4-1 Participant Demographic Information ...............................................................................63 4-2 SCESEKT Group Means and Standard Deviations ...........................................................64 4-3 SCESESES Group Means and Standard Deviations .........................................................64 4-4 Results of the Multivariate Analysis of Variance ..............................................................65 4-5 Univariate t-tests on Dependent Variables ........................................................................66 4-6 Correlations among SCESEKT Scores and Experience Variables. ...................................67 4-7 Multiple Regression Analysis Equation .............................................................................67 4-8 Full Model Multiple Linear Regression for Knowledge ....................................................68 4-9 Reduced Model Forward Stepwise Multiple Linear Regression for Knowledge ..............69 4-10 Correlations among SCESESES Scores and Experience Variables. .................................71 4-11 Full Model Multiple Linear Regression for Self-Efficacy .................................................71 4-12 Reduced Models Forward Stepwise Mu ltiple Linear Regression for Self-Efficacy ..........72 8

PAGE 9

Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy EFFECTS OF A TRAINING MODULE ON PRE-SERVICE SCHOOL COUNSELORS KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-EFFICACY BELI EFS ABOUT WORKING WITH STUDENTS IN EXCEPTIONAL STUDENT EDUCATION By Teresa Naomi Leibforth May 2009 Chair: Ellen Amatea Major: School Counseling and Guidance An experimental research study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of a brief training program designed to increase pre-service school counselors knowledge of exceptional student education (ESE) and to m easure their beliefs regarding thei r ability to work with students with disabilities and their familie s. The two-and-a-half hour tr aining program included didactic instruction, video modeling of effective versus ineffective communica tion skills, large group discussion, and role play as methods of instruction. Fifty-six graduate students repr esenting three different univer sities participated in the study. Data were collected from a responde nt demographic information sheet and two instruments designed specifically for the study were used to assess the effect s of the intervention: the School Counselor ESE Knowledge Test (SCESEKT) and the School Counselor ESE SelfEfficacy Measure (SCESESES). The data were analyzed by multivariate analyses of variance and multiple linear regression analyses. Results revealed that the preand post-t est groups scores on the SCESEKT and the SCESESES differed based on participation in th e training. Participation in the training significantly increased particip ants knowledge of the laws a nd processes surrounding ESE, 9

PAGE 10

research related to the individua lized education plan (IEP) meeting experience for students and families, and specific interventions school couns elors can implement. Participation in the training also significantly increase d participants self-efficacy belie fs regarding their ability to work with students in ESE and their families. The results of this study lend support to the use of a brief trai ning program to increase pre-service school counselors knowledge of ESE and self-efficacy beliefs about working with students with disabilities and their families. 10

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Working with diverse student populations has been and is a growing area of professional interest for school counselors. One student populati on garnering particular attention currently is students in exceptional student education (ESE) programs. With very few exceptions, ESE services in K-12 schools in the United States (U.S.) are rendered under the auspices of the Individuals with Disabilities E ducation Act (IDEA) Part B, an act which entitles children ages between ages three and 21 to a free a nd appropriate public education (FAPE). There is good reason for this current attention towards students in ESE: the number of students receiving these services has been rising steadily over the last several decades. For example, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (2007), 6,712,605 students in the U.S. received special education services under IDEA part B dur ing the 2005-2006 school year, an increase of 42.5 percent since the 1990-1991 school year. Much of the recent research related to school counselors working with students in ESE programs has been focused on school counselors feelings of preparedness to work with ESE students, and in particular on the gap betw een graduateeducation preparation and the knowledge and skills necessary to work with excep tional student learners. Over the past two decades, various researchers (e.g., Korinek & Prillaman, 1992; Lebsock & Deblassie, 1975; McEachern, 2003; Milsom, 2002) studied the ga p between training and practice, and all concluded that the gap remained over time despit e the changing role(s) of counselors in schools. The argument has been and can be made th at school counselors already possess unique knowledge, skills, and training that are beneficial to all stakehol ders in the special education process (Berry, 1987; Helms & Katisyannis, 1992 ; Kameen & McIntosh, 1979; Milsom, 2004). 11

PAGE 12

In particular, school counselors can use thei r specialized knowledge and skills during the individualized education program (IEP) process. Within the context of IDEA requirements and practices, if a child progresses through the special education process and is determined to be eligible for services, an IEP must be developed for the student. Typically, an initial IEP meeting is schedu led and the proposed IEP is documented in writing. The partic ipants in this meeting typically include the students regular and special education teachers, a school psychologist, a represen tative of the local education agency, related service providers (such as occ upational and speech therapists), the students parent(s) or guardian(s), and wh en appropriate, the student (US DOE, 2005). The IEP developed must include information regarding the students (a) current academic performance, (b) annual educational and other goals, (c) ap plicable special education and re lated services av ailable and to be used, (d) participation with nondisabled children, (e) pa rticipation record in state and districtwide tests, (f) dates and places of various spec ial activities, and (f) progress record toward established goals and objectives among other things (USDOE, 2000). The importance of this IEP meeting for the stude nts future education is undeniable. For example, Huefner (2000) noted that, The IEP has always been at the heart of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its pred ecessor (the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, also kn own as Part B of the Educati on of the Handicapped Act) (p. 195). The IEP meeting thus pr ovides opportunity for the people integrally involved in the students education and life, including the stud ents school counselor, to meet on the students behalf and attempt to enhance a nd enrich the students education. Scope of the Problem Although IEP meetings have been required by Federal and state legislation for over 30 years, there is relatively limited research on wh at happens during IEP meetings, the nature of 12

PAGE 13

participation in such meetings, or the perceptions of those involv ed. What research has emerged regarding IEP meetings is discomforting, especially from the viewpoints of students and families. For example, researchers have described IEP meetings as professionally driven (Martin et al., 2006; Thoma, Rogan, & Baker, 2001) meaning that parents have little influence over what is to happen, and deficit focused (Thoma, Rogan, & Baker, 2001), meaning that a students strengths and/or accomplishments typically are not discussed. A re latively recent trend is for students to be present during their IEP meetings. However, their participation in these meetings usually is not active or meaningful (Martin et al., 2006; Martin, Marshall, & Sale, 2004; Thoma, Rogan, & Baker, 2001). Important ly, it has been shown that parents often experience alienation during IEP meetings through actions of partic ipating professionals such as using professional jargon excessively, disres pecting parent perspe ctives, initiating noncollaborative actions, linearly associating specifi c problems with specific service provisions, and failing to establish networks among classrooms, schools, and agencies (Childre & Chambers, 2005; Spann, Kohler, & Soenksen, 2003). While the research reveals that the general experience for ESE student s and their parent(s) or guardian(s) is less than desirable, the situat ion is even more problematic for families from diverse ethnic, cultural, and lingu istic populations and even more unfortunately, students from diverse populations represent a disproportionate number of students recei ving special education services (Geenen, Powers, & Lopez-Vasquez, 2001; Harry & Anderson, 1994). Themes experienced by families of divers e students during the IEP proce ss have been identified through qualitative research, including stud ies related to language alienati on and lack of respect (Salas, 2004), and racism, discrimination, insensitivity, and cultural unresponsiveness (Geenen, Powers, & Lopez-Vasquez, 2001). Harry, Allen, and McLaughlin (1995) summarized that the 13

PAGE 14

parents/guardians of children in special e ducation programs have experienced growing disillusionment over the y ears, and that trend is associated w ith decreased levels of parent or guardian participation. A common theme in the literature surrounding the IEP process is a general lack of effective communication between schools and families. School counselors, who have extensive training in communication skills, have the potential to help imp rove the IEP process for all parties involved. As part of their professional preparation, school counsel ors receive training in verbal and non-verbal co mmunication, group dynamics, group management skills, and multicultural awareness. Additiona lly, involvement in the IEP process is considered appropriate for school counselors, and is supported by the Am erican School Counselor Association (ASCA). In ASCAs (2004) position statement on working w ith students with specia l needs, appropriate professional roles for school counselors include: Collaborating with other stude nt support specialists in the delivery of services Advocating for students with special need s in the school and in the community Assisting with the establishment and impl ementation of plans for accommodations and modifications Consulting and collaborating with staff and parents to understand the special needs of these students Making referrals to appropriate specialists within the school system and in the community In addition, the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2005) was developed to provide guidance for the effective implementation of school couns eling services and programs, and in so doing suggested appropriate roles and functions for sc hool counselors. Those standards provide that advocating for students at indivi dual education plan meetings, student study teams and school attendance review boards is an appropriate activity for schoo l counselors as part of the implementation a comprehensive school counseling program (ACSA, 2005, p. 56). 14

PAGE 15

Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework undergirding this stud y is based in adult le arning theory. Adult learning theory, in general, posits that adults br ing unique attributes to the learning process. Prior to the 1970s, learning theories were focused on general learni ng with little regard given to developmental differences; however, in the early 1970s researchers began to explore differences between learning in childhood versus learning in adulthood (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). Knowles Andragogy One of the most widely recognized theorists in the adult learning area is Knowles, whose theory is named andragogy Andragogy is focused specifically on how adults learn, and is based on six assumptions: 1. As a person matures, his or he r self-concept moves from that of a dependent personality toward one of being self-directing. 2. An adult accumulates a growing reservoir of e xperience that is a rich resource for learning. 3. The readiness of an adult to l earn is closely related to the de velopmental tasks of his or her social role. 4. There is a change in time perspective as people mature from future application of knowledge to immediacy of application. Thus an adult is more problem-centered than subject-centered in learning. (Knowles, 1980, pp. 44-45, as cited in Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner, 2007, p. 84.) 5. The most potent motivators for adult learners are internal rather than external (Knowles & Associates, 1984, p. 12, as cited in Merria m, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007, p. 84) 6. Adults need to know why they need to le arn something (Knowles, 1984, as cited in Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007, p. 84) Bushy (1992) compiled a list of strategies to enhance adult learning that included recommendations to: Facilitate congruency between learners goals with those of the educational experience. 15

PAGE 16

Articulate objectives of a program clearly so th at learners can assess fit of the content with their life experiences and learning needs. Allow learners some control in the learning experience, e.g., sequencing of the content, incorporating preferre d learning styles, and proceeding at a mutually agreed upon pace. Include learners in planning and implem enting educational programs; collaboration promotes independence and self-direction in learning. Use a variety of teaching/learning strategies that encourage active learner participation. Present new information in a manner that build s on learners life and work experiences. Place new content within the context of the familiar, and then expand on the ranges of application for the information. Have goal oriented educational programs so each learner can identify progress toward a specific role related-problem. Educate associatesto incorporate principles of adult learning theory in classes that they conduct. (p. 8) The Role of Self-Efficacy in Adult Learning Social cognitive theory is another learning th eory. Although it is generally not categorized as a theory of adult learning, it has component s that are useful in understanding the social nature of learning. Social cognitive theory co mbines attributes from both behavioral and cognitive orientations, and s uggests that a person learns by observing others (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). A major theorist in this area is Bandura. He theorized that learning could occur vicariously by observing others, and noted that, Virtually all learning phenomena resulting from direct experiences can occur on a vicarious basis through observation of other peoples behavior and its conseque nces for the observer (Bandura, 1976, p. 392, as cited in Merriam et al., p. 288). Self-efficacy beliefs, defined as our own estimate of how competent we feel we are likely to be in a particular environment (Merriam et al., p. 289), are considered to be at the core of social cognitive theory (Pajares, 2002). 16

PAGE 17

Kaufman (2003) provided the following suggestions for teachers to promote student selfefficacy: Modeling or demonstration Setting a clear goal or image of the desired outcome Providing basic knowledge and skills n eeded as the foundation for the task Providing guided practice with corrective feedback Giving students the opportunity to reflect on their learning (p. 8) Collectively, these theories and recommendations emphasize that adults learn differently than children, and suggest that educational experiences for adults should be both structured and presented differently for adult audiences than they would be for children. Therefore, the training module used in this study wa s developed to reflect these recommendations because the participants will be adults. Statement of the Problem Emerging research indicates that IEP meeti ngs are frequently unpl easant experiences for families and that lack of communication is a ma jor barrier to effective interactions between families and school personnel (e.g., Childre & Ch ambers, 2005; Spann, Kohler, & Soenksen, 2003; Thoma, Rogan, & Baker, 2001). Alt hough school counselors are trained in communication and counseling skills, and school c ounselor involvement in the IEP process has been deemed appropriate by professional school counselor organizations, previous research focused specifically on the nature of school c ounselor involvements in IEP meeting processes appears to be nonexistent. However, there is research to show that many school counselors do not feel prepared to meet the needs of students in ESE, and that a gap exists between academic preparation and practice (e .g., Korinek & Prillaman, 1992). Unfortunately, despite the fact that school counselors possess unique skills to help facilitate more effective co mmunication, it remains unclear whether school counselors are 17

PAGE 18

regularly involved in IEP processe s, or if they are involved, to what extent. Commenting on this situation, Wood-Dunn, and Baker (2002) wrote that, Although the federal mandates about serving students with disabilities are clear, the role of [school] c ounselors has been less clear (p. 8). They also indicated that while many school counselor educators provide recommendations for school counselor involvement with the ES E student population, actual school counselor academic preparation for working with studen ts in ESE and in the IEP process remains disjointed. Milsom (2002) noted that despite legislation such as PL 101-476 (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [I DEA] of 1990) and PL 105-17 (the 1997 Amendments to IDEA), little research has been conducte d to examine the actual roles that school counselors perform for those students (p. 331). However, in a nationa l survey of school counsel ors, Milsom found that the top seven activities school c ounselors engaged in with studen ts with disabilities included individual/group counseling (82.8%), providing f eedback for multidisciplinary teams (73.7%), making referrals (81.8%), advocating for student s (74.7%), serving on multidisciplinary teams (80.8%), counseling parents and families (79.8%) and assisting with behavior modification plans (74.7%). Similarly, Helms and Katsiyannis (1992) found that more than half of the school counselor respondents to their su rvey attended eligibility and/ or child study team meetings; however, 54% of their respondents repor ted no involvement in IEP committees. Although various school professiona ls are required to be involved in IEP meetings and processes, there is evidence to suggest that IEP processes are d irected by special education teachers. For example, Martin et al. (2006) found in the IEP meetings they observed that special education teachers frequently played a large ro le in the process and discussion, including that special education teachers started (presumably as the leader of the group) the IEP meetings 92% 18

PAGE 19

of the time and spoke approximately 51% of the time during the meetings. In comparison, family members spoke approximately 15% of the time, general education teachers and administrators (including school counselors) approximately 9% of the time, and students approximately 3% of the time. Clearly IEP processes can be conducted so that there is greater resu ltant satisfaction among the participants. However, positive change in th e IEP process is contingent upon change in how participating individuals behave in and/or per ceive the IEP process. It follows that positive change can occur only if current IEP practices are understood more clearly so that specific points of needed change can be identified. In part icular, increased unders tanding of how school counselors can be involved in the IEP process sh ould enable school counselors to fulfill their charges from the ASCA National Model effectively and successfully. Increased school counselor success in IEP meetin gs will result from better, more focused preparation about how to be effective in IEP me etings. Clearly it is unlikely that school counselor preparation in regard to IEP particip ation will be improved in existing programs until there is evidence that better preparation can be ac hieved relatively expeditiously. Therefore, the primary problem to be addressed in this study is that the effectivene ss of a specific training activity intended to increase and improve school counselors involvements in the IEP process is unknown. More specifically, the differences in pre-service school counselors knowledge about the IEP meeting process and appropriate areas of intervention resulting from participation in a training workshop are unknown. In addition, the di fferences in pre-service school counselors feelings of self-efficacy regarding their abil ity to work with students in ESE are unknown. Need for the Study The school counseling profession is undergoing transformation, particularly in regard to role reconstruction and definition. Historicall y, school counselors work focused on provision of 19

PAGE 20

direct services for individual students, primarily to provide remedial rather than preventative services (Colbert, Vernon-Jones, & Pransky, 2006). However, school counselors now are encouraged to work in ways different from those in the past. For example, Colbert, VernonJones, and Pransky described three bridges sch ool counselors must cross in the transition from former to newer models of school counseling, including focus on (a) service delivery versus addressing schoolwide concerns, (b ) responsive versus preventati ve action, and (c) individual versus community-building school counseling. Th ese bridges reflect key areas to which the focus of school counselors must shift in order to adopt school counselor roles currently being promoted by ASCA, the Council for the Accredit ation of Counseling a nd Related Educational Programs (CACREP), and the Education Trust (C olbert, Vernon-Jones, & Pransky, 2006). The Education Trust (an independent, non-profit educa tion group) established the National Center for Transforming School Counseling (NCTSC) in 2003. With an emphasis on closing the achievement gap between poor students, students of color and their more affluent peers (p. 4), the Education Trust promotes a (new) visi on of school counselors work encompassing leadership, advocacy, teaming a nd collaboration, counseling, and assessment and use of data (Education Trust, 2002). As the roles of school counselors change, so should the servic es they provide, including services for students in ESE. A ccording to Erhard and Umanksy: As a result of this changed perception of the role of the counsellor, they are expected to take key leadership roles in school reform, such as the inclus ion of students with disabilities by advocating for and providing high-quality services to students with disabilities, creating a healthy climate in the schools and serving as an essential resource for students, teachers, parents, and administrators. (2005, p. 176) As noted, the number of students in ESE program s has consistently increased over the last 15 years. Because school counselors are charged to provide services to all students in their schools, the vast majority thus are likely to en counter students in ESE more frequently in their 20

PAGE 21

work. At the same time, however, th ere is little research regarding how school counselors do or should work with students in ESE. Among other t ypes, research about the efficacy of short-term training programs in particular is necessary because a gap exists between academic preparation and practice. While Milsoms research ( 2002) suggested a correlation between school counselors feelings of prepare dness to work with students in ESE and the number of courses they took that included information on students with disabilities, McEachern (2003) found that 62% of counselor education programs she surveyed did not require students to enroll in an ESE course. Knowledge about the efficacy of an IEP meeting training program therefore will have implications for school counselor preparation, current practices in school counseling, future research, and theoretical ba ses of school counseling. Counselor educators can benefit from knowi ng the efficacy of a short-term training program because it may shed light on how best to prepare graduate students to work with students in ESE, including that short-term trai ning may not be the best way to accomplish the goal. Knowing the efficacy of a short-term training program also can impact future school counseling practice. For example, if the shortterm IEP training enhanc es the knowledge levels of graduate students in school counselor educa tion, it is likely that th e graduate students will become better involved in the IEP meeting proce ss in their future work as school counselors. Conversely, if the training does not have the desi red effect, then other methods to enhance school counselor education students knowledge of the IEP process will have to be developed and tested. If the efficacy of a short-term IEP training program was known, there also would be need for related research, such as if or how the knowle dge is translated into skills, if the training is functionally effective, or how it should be changed if it is not. Finally, the short-term training 21

PAGE 22

program to be provided is grounded in a well-accepted approach to teaching graduate-level students. Therefore, the results of this study ha ve implications as to the appropriateness of the theory for use in educational c ontexts and approaches such as the one used in this study. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a short-term training program designed to increase school counselor ed ucation (graduate) stude nts knowledge of the IEP meeting process in general, and the appl ication of group facili tation and communication skills in such meetings in particular. Specifical ly, this experimental research investigated the impact of a two-and-a half-hour training expe rience intended to increa se pre-service school counselors knowledge of exceptional student ed ucation (ESE) and to measure their beliefs regarding their ability to work with students with disabilities and their families. Hypotheses The following null hypotheses were investigated in this study: H o 1: There is no difference in pre-service school counselors mean scores on the ESE Knowledge Test and the ESE Self-Efficacy Survey based on participation in the training. H o 1a: There is no difference in pre-servi ce school counselors mean scores on the SCESEKT based on participation in the training. H o 1b: There is no difference in pre-servi ce school counselors mean scores on the SCESESES based on particip ation in the training. H o 2: There are no significant relationships among experience factors including age, number of credit hours, pr evious training, preparation, and/or experience in ESE, previous work experience as a K-12 teacher, previous work experience as an ESE teacher, and ESETM group [pre or post], and performance on the SCESEKT. H o 3: There are no significant relationships among experience factors including age, number of credit hours, pr evious training, preparation, and/or experience in ESE, previous work experience as a K-12 teacher, previous work experience as an ESE teacher, and ESETM group [pre or post], and performance on the SCESESES. 22

PAGE 23

Definition of Terms EXCEPTIONAL STUDENT EDUCATION (ESE) refers to special education programs and services provided to qualifying students in K-12 schools throughout the United States. These programs and services are provided under federal law, in cluding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B, whic h entitles children ages three to 21 to a free and appropriate public education. EXCEPTIONAL STUDENT EDUCATION TRAINING MODULE refers to the interactive presentation that was used duri ng this study, which included lectur e, videotaped examples, roleplaying, and other learning activit ies to provide participants w ith the knowledge necessary to participate effectively in the IEP meeting process. INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM (IEP) refers to the legall ybinding, written contract developed during an initial meeting with input from all participants and reviewed/updated annually. The IEP includes information regard ing the students current performance, annual educational goals, special educ ation services, and progress, among other things (USDOE, 2000). INITIAL IEP MEETING is defined as the first meeting that occurs after a st udent is found to have met the criteria for exceptional student education. KNOWLEDGE OF EXCEPTIONAL STUDENT EDUCATION refers to study participants understanding of ESE concepts pr esented in the training module, including the federal legislation governing ESE, the IEP meeting experience from the perspective of families, and the school counselors role in working with students in ESE. PRE-SERVICE SCHOOL COUNSELOR is a person currently enrolle d in a graduate-level school counselor education program. SCHOOL COUNSELOR is a person who holds state-level certification as a school counselor, and who has attained a graduate-level degree in school counseling (or a closely related field, 23

PAGE 24

such as mental health counseli ng, and who has subsequently taken coursework needed to become a school counselor). SELF-EFFICACY refers to a persons beliefs about their ability to perform a particular task or behavior. Overview of the Remainder of the Study An introduction to the study has been presented in this chapter. A review of relevant research and literature is pres ented in Chapter 2, and a description of the methodology for the study is presented in Chapter 3. The results of the study are presented in Chapter 4. The results of the study, implications, and recomme ndations are covered in Chapter 5. 24

PAGE 25

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW An overview of the professional lit erature relevant to th is study is presented in this chapter, including coverage of legislation related to exceptional student education (ESE), the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meeting process, school counselor involvement in ESE processes, school counselor self-efficacy, and training for professiona ls to work with students in ESE. Legislation Related to Excepti onal Student Education (ESE) The federal Education of All Handicapped Children Act (also known as Public Law [PL] 94-142) was enacted in 1975. According to Milsom (2002), Prior to the implementation of Public Law 94-142, many students with disabilities received either no services or inappropriate services in public schools (p. 331). Public Law 94-142 was intended to support states and localities in protecting the rights of, meeting th e needs of, and improving the results for infants, toddlers, children and youths with disabilities and their families (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). PL 94-142 therefore permits children with a variety of disabilities to have access to public education that is as close as possible to that for all other non-disabled students. In 1990, PL 94-142 was amended and renamed the Individuals with Di sabilities Education Act (IDEA). This change reflects the use of people-first language (Turnbull, Turnbull, Shank, Smith, & Leal, 2002, p. 20). An im portant principle underlying IDEA was, and continues to be, that of significant parent and student participation in proces ses required by the IDEA (Turnbull et al., 2002). This principle is manifest most commonly through implementation of an individualized planning meeting (IE P) to determine the most appropriate educational experiences for a child. 25

PAGE 26

Subsequent reauthorization of IDEA in 1997 strengthene d student participation by requiring that students 14 years of age and older be invited to their IEP meetings, and that the IEP reflect students interest s and preferences. Although the 2004 re-authorization of IDEA resulted in some changes regard ing IEP meeting attendance, the pr ovision for parent and student involvement remains clear. The Individualized Education Plan (IEP) Meeting Studies about parent and student participation in IEP meetings generally have been focused on issues related to educationa l transition planning in the mi ddle, junior high, or high school years. There have been few studies addressing pare nt and/or student involvement in IEP meetings during the elementary school years, although the first IEP meeting is the time when many students enter the ESE process initially. Martin, Marshall, and Sale (2004) noted that there is little quantitative information concerning how participants per ceive IEP meetings. Therefore, in their three-year study of middle, junior high, and high sc hool IEP meetings, they gathered quantitative data on team member roles (i.e., those who a ttended the IEP meeting) and part icipants perceptions of what happened during the meeting. Mart in et al. derived their data from 1,638 participants who had attended 393 IEP meetings in five different school districts in a southwestern state. The authors noted that each district had pa rticipated in a statewide transi tion system change project, which strongly encouraged student attendance at IEP m eetings (p. 287). Using a brief survey, Martin et al. found that when students participated in IEP meetings, parents be tter understood the reason for the IEP meetings, felt more comfortable expr essing their thoughts, understood more of what was said during the meeting, and better understood what to do next (2004). Further, when students attended their IEP meeti ngs, administrators and general education teachers behaviors and perceptions were impacted positively (2004). 26

PAGE 27

In a follow-up study, Martin et al. (2006) obs erved 109 middle-tohigh school transition IEP meetings. Teachers who volunteered to participate in this study were from seven different school districts in a southwestern state. To gather quantitative data, the researchers used a 10second momentary time sampling method, that is, at 10-second intervals throughout the meeting, observers were prompted to make an observati on of which IEP team member was speaking. Other data gathered during the meetings included the length of meetings, students level of involvement in meetings, identification of those who attended the meetings, and identification of those who led the meetings. Additionally, surveys were distributed to participants after each observed IEP meeting to obtain their perceptions of its process and success. An expanded (44 item) version of the questionnaire used in Mar tin et al.s 2004 study was distributed to adult participants, and a related 39-item survey was distributed to student participants. Martin et al. found that the average IEP mee ting in their study lasted approximately 31 minutes, a finding consistent with previous research that indicated that IEP meetings tended to be relatively brief interactions (V acc et al., 1985; Van Reusen & Bos, 1994). Martin et al. also found that special education teachers started the IEP meetings 92% of the time and spoke approximately 51% of the time. In comparis on, family members spoke approximately 15% of the time, general education teachers and other school personnel (including administrators and school counselors) approximately 9% of the tim e, and students approximately 3% of the time (2006). Although different people were present at various point s during the IEP meetings, not everyone stayed the entire time; in 72.9% of th e meetings, a team member left before the meeting was completed (Martin et al., 2006). Additionally, the research ers found that special education teachers dominated these meetings. Special education teachers direct the process, dominate the discussions, and appear to have the greatest amount of satisfaction with the ev ents and the issues that occur during the IEP 27

PAGE 28

meetings. Almost 40% of the special educati on teachers reported that students participate a lot during the IEP meeting. However, this is in sharp contrast with the objective evidence. (p. 196) In a study on transition planning, Thoma, R ogan, and Baker (2001) followed eight students as they transitioned out of public school and into adult life. The researchers used observations; student, parent, and teacher interviews; and records review to obtain data. They reported that the meetings were professionally-driven and deficit-focused, and also that: Methods of communication used during meetings discouraged active student involvement. Professionals saw their roles as providers of information, not facilita tors of student and parent involvement. Use of technical jargon, acronyms, and initials al l set professionals up as experts and controllers of information. Communication with students tended to be an afterthought, sometimes forced and awkward, ha ving the flavor of a quiz show where the student is asked to provide specific predetermined information. (p. 26-27) Thus, although more students (apparently) are now present du ring their IEP meetings, their participation in these meetings often is not ac tive or meaningful (Mar tin et al., 2006; Martin, Marshall, & Sale, 2004; Thoma, Rogan, & Baker, 2001) even though educational professionals continue to suggest that students should be en couraged to participate actively during their own IEP meetings. Using qualitative methodology, Childre and Cham bers (2005) studied family perceptions of a student-centered planning a pproach used during IEP meetings. Participants in their study included rural southeastern families with middle school students who rece ived special education services because of orthopedic and/or moderate intellectual disabilities. Six families were interviewed before their childrens IEP meetings to assess their perceptions of traditional IEP planning/meetings. IEP meetings were then conducted using a st udent-centered planning approach. Later, the families were interviewe d again to obtain information on their experience with the student-centered approach. 28

PAGE 29

Childre and Chambers found that prior to bei ng exposed to student-centered IEP meetings, parents described their primary m eans of participation in IEP meetings as passively listening to information about their childs education. In addition, parents described their primary role during traditional IEP meetings as being to agree with the other IEP participants. Apparently, the parents did not realize that they could be i nvolved in more meaningful ways. Childre and Chambers noted: Families did not consider the lack of profe ssional and family sharing a shortcoming of planning; their experiences with planning had shaped them to regard meeting as a means of determining services and annual goals wher ein the focus was on the school environment and short term planning. (p. 223) Childre and Chambers identified five ways in which traditional methods of managing IEP meetings alienated parents, including use of ja rgon, failure to understa nd parent perspectives, non-collaborative actions, problems with serv ice provision, and lack of networking among classrooms, schools, and agencies. Parents who experienced non-collaborative actions also were observed in a study by Spann, Kohler, and Soenksen (2003), who wrote that, Several individuals st ated that they were unable to contribute to the development of the IEP because this document had been written prior to the meeting (p. 235). Spann et al. conducte d telephone surveys with 45 families of children with autism to obtain information on their involve ment in and perceptions of special education services. The families were from six different counties in a mideastern state, and the families were recruited to participate through a pare nt support group. The authors used a 15-item questionnaire (modified from the one used by K ohler, 1999) to assess parent IEP involvements and perceptions. Indicated in th eir results was that while the ma jority of parents communicated with members of the school staff on a regular basis, greater than 40% of the parents perceived that the schools were doing little or nothing to address their most pressing concerns. 29

PAGE 30

Additionally, differences in pare nt satisfaction levels were noted between age groups, with parents of younger children indicatin g higher levels of satisfaction th an parents of older children. The researchers recommended that further research determine if differences in satisfaction are related to teacher variables, parents previous experiences, or other factors. While the overall experience for parents and students with disabilities typically is uninviting and uncomfortable, it is even worse fo r families from diverse cultures. It is known that students from diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds represent a disproportionately large number of students receiving special education services (Geenen, Powers, & Lopez-Vasquez, 2001; Harry & Ande rson, 1994). Although much has been written about parental involvement within the special educati on literature, scarce qualitative research exists that explores the unique experiences of ethnic subgro ups like Mexican Americans and their children (Salas, 2004, p. 182). Using in -depth interviews conducted in Spanish and observations, Salas gathered information on 10 Mexican-American mothers experiences with IEP meetings in elementary schools. Interview themes related primarily to language alienation and lack of respect emerged. In a qualitative study of African-American pare nts involvements in special education, Harry, Allen, and McLaughlin (1995) conducted in terviews with and direct observations of families and school personnel over a three-year period. Parents of 42 African-American preschool and kindergarte n students were interviewed; 18 of the students were enrolled in general education programs and 24 in special education programs. All of the students were enrolled in schools in a large, urban school district. They identified five professional behaviors that negatively impacted the participation and advocacy of parents, in cluding late notification and inflexible scheduling of conferences, lim ited time for conferences, emphasis on documents 30

PAGE 31

rather than participation, use of (educational and/or psychological ) jargon, and a power structure that undermined parental efforts at advocacy. Harry et al. also observed that parents of children in special education programs experienced growi ng disillusionment as the years passed, related primarily to the inappropriate peer groups to wh ich the children were e xposed in self-contained classes, isolation of special education programs from regular e ducation programs, and parents growing perception that the label mental retardati on was being used for their child (para. 29). Geenen, Powers, and Lopez-Vasquez (2001) studi ed culturally and linguistically diverse parents involvement in transition planning activ ities. The authors developed instruments to measure parents perceived level and importa nce of involvement and school personnels perceptions of parent involvement. Geenen et al. found that although sc hool professionals and culturally and linguistically dive rse parents agreed on the activities that were important for transition planning, culturally and linguistically diverse parents identified themselves as being active and involved in the proce ss while school professionals pe rceived these parents as less involved. Even when culturally and linguistically diverse parents did participate in transition planning, their ways of being invo lved often were not recognized by school personnel. Geenen, Powers, and Lopez-Vasquez noted that in addition to the general barriers to school participation faced by all parents, culturally and linguistically diverse parent s may also experience racism, discrimination, insensitivity, and cultural unresponsiveness (2001). School Counselor Involvement in ESE After the introduction of PL 94-142, school counselo rs began to consider further their role in providing services to students with disabilities. They also be gan to write about and research ideal roles and interventions for working with the population of ESE students. In 1992, Helms and Katsiyannis surveyed elementary school coun selors about their work with students with disabilities. The survey was developed by the authors and contained 31 items designed to gather 31

PAGE 32

information on professional training of counselor s and services provided to special education students; techniques and topi cs used by counselors in th eir schools; sa tisfaction, time involvement, and familiarity of counselors with characteristics of disa bled students and their rights; and counselor in-service activities with teachers and parents (p. 23 3). Their findings indicated that school counselors were using essentially the same (types of) interventions (e.g., individual and small group counseling and classroom guidance) with both students with disabilities and students in regul ar education. In other words, they were not changing their interventions for children with disabilities. W ith regard to committees, Helms and Katsiyannis found that more than half of the school counselor respondents attended eligibility and child study team meetings. However, 54% of respondent s reported no involvement in IEP committees. They also indicated that while some school c ounselors reported feeli ng comfortable conducting workshops for teachers and pare nts, most did not actually do s o. The authors concluded that while there was a variety of counseling services available to elementary school students with disabilities, services are not be ing provided to the extent reco mmended by current research in the field (p. 237). School Counselor Preparation : School counselor preparation to work with students in special education has been a t opic of interest for more than two decades (e.g., Lebsock & Deblassie, 1975; Skinner, 1985; Wilson & Rotter, 1980). In recent years, the majority of the quantitative research related to school counselors working with students in special education has been focused on school counselors feelings of preparedness a nd/or gaps between graduate school counselor education and knowledge necessary to work with exceptional learners. For example, Korinek and Prillaman (1992) survey ed school counselor ed ucators about their perceptions of the appropriate roles for school co unselors in working with exceptional learners. 32

PAGE 33

They found that 92% of the re spondents thought that school c ounselors should provide guidance and counseling services to exceptional learners and that 94% thought th at school counselors should provide services to parents and teachers of exceptional learners. The top six roles/tasks these counselor educators identified as most appropriate for school counselors in relation to exceptional learners were personal counseling of exceptional students (87 %), referrals (85%), vocational/career counseling (84%), academic couns eling (81%), parent conferences (79%), and teacher conferences (74%). Korinek and Prillaman also noted that the most frequently cited roles for school counselors with exceptional learners in th e literature are those of pare nt advocate and consultant to educators and therapists (1992). In the di scussion of their results, they wrote: Despite dramatic changes in role expecta tions for counselors working with special students, the results of this survey are si milar to research findings of Lebsock and Deblassie in 1975 and of Parker and Stodden in 1981. A discrepancy between identified need for counselor preparation to work with exceptional [student] populations and the training to meet that need still exists. A decade ago, researchers found that 50% of counseling faculty encouraged their graduates to work with exceptional students; this number has risen to 73% today. Despite this increase, few counseling programs surveyed have actualized their encouragement by requiring students to take specif ied course work in exceptionalities. (1992, para. 17) Wood-Dunn and Baker (2002) surveyed elementa ry school counselors in North Carolina. They found that school counselors identification of their own roles in working with students with disabilities was essentially the same as school counselors id entification of how significant others may perceive their roles. Descriptors that appeared on both lists included counselor, advocate, listener, team memb er, consultant, liaison, and problem solver (2002). Their analysis of their qualitative data revealed positive and negative themes regarding attitudes about a school counselors role in working with students with disabilities. Positive themes were considered to represent respondents legitimate expectations (para. 28) including working as an advocate, coordination and consultation, participating in teams, teaching, and sharing similar 33

PAGE 34

views of the counselors role with significan t others (para. 28). Negative themes were inappropriate expectations, incl uding being viewed as an expert while lacking proper training, responsible for IEP paperwork and testing, and/ or viewed as a fix-it person, and feeling overwhelmed because of time constraints and having little or no direct involvement with special education. Milsom (2002) surveyed school counselors abou t their perceptions of preparedness to work with students with disabilities. She found that the top seven activities in which school counselors engaged with students with disabilities were individual/group counsel ing (82.8%), providing feedback for multidisciplinary teams (73.7%), ma king referrals (81.8%), advocating for students (74.7%), serving on multidisciplinary teams (80.8 %), counseling parents and families (79.8%), and assisting with behavior modification pl ans (74.7%). These sc hool counselors reported feeling most comfortable provi ding individual/group counseling, fe edback for multidisciplinary teams, and self-esteem activities and least comforta ble assisting with trans ition plans, serving as a consultant to parents/staff, and assi sting with behavior modification plans. McEachern (2003) conducted a nation-wide study of counsel or educators on curriculum, certification requirements, perc eived level of importance of curriculum, and degree of satisfaction of current curriculum related to ESE. Her results were similar to the findings of Korinek and Prillaman (1992). The majority (62%) of her respondents indi cated that there were no specific ESE course requirements within th eir respective prepar atory school counseling programs. McEachern noted that, the signif icant relationship between state certification requirements and the inclusion of such courses suggested that state cer tification requirements influenced faculty decisions in this area (p. 322). 34

PAGE 35

In 2003, Milsom and Akos surveyed school c ounselors about their perceptions of the differences in counselor education programs ba sed on accreditation, content between specific courses on disability, and information on disabili ty incorporated into more general counseling classes. They found that 43% of their respondents i ndicated that courses relative to students with disabilities were required in their counselor preparation prog rams. However, they found no significant differences between programs that were accredited by CACREP and those that were not or programs accredited by NCATE and those th at were not. The aut hors noted that, rather than require disability courses or practical experiences with individuals with disabilities, many school counselor education programs are opting to integrate disability information [into other courses] as a way to prepare their students (p. 92). Self-Efficacy Banduras social cognitive theory advanced a view of human functioning that accords a central role to cognitive, vicar ious, self-regulatory, and self-r eflective processes in human adaptation and change (Pajares, 2002, para. 2). Social cognitive theory, which takes into account the interplay among personal factors (i.e., cognition, affect and/or biology), behavior, and environment (Pajares, 2002), bridges a gap between theories that overemphasize environment (such as behaviorism) and theories that overemphasize biologic factors (such as evolutionism) by focusing on the r eciprocal nature of the determ inants of human functioning (Pajares, 2002, para. 3). In Banduras social cognitive theory of lear ning, self-efficacy beliefs are instrumental. Self-efficacy has been defined as beliefs abou t ones own ability to successfully perform a given behavior (Bodenhorn & Skaggs, 2005, p. 14), and as a belief that has a considerable impact on our sense of responsibility (Erdem & Demirel, 2007, p. 573). Additionally, selfefficacy has been described as a future-oriented judgment that has to do with perceptions of 35

PAGE 36

competence rather than actual level of comp etence (Hoy & Spero, 2005, para. 5). According to Pajares (2002), Self-efficacy beliefs provide the foundation fo r human motivation, well-being, and personal accomplishment. This is because unless people believe that their actions can produce the outcomes they desire, they have little incentive to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties (para. 14). It may be noted that self-efficacy differs from self-esteem because selfefficacy is a task-specificsituation-specific c onstruct. Self-efficacy is a generative mechanism through which people integrate and apply their existi ng cognitive, behavioral, and social skills to a task (Larson & Daniels, 1998, p. 180). Self-effi cacy beliefs can influence choices, effort, perseverance, and resilience (Pajares, 2002). The sense of self-efficacy not only affects expectations of success or failure, but also in fluences motivation through goal setting. If we have a high sense of efficacy in any given area, we tend to set higher goals, be less afraid of failure, and persist longer when we encounter di fficulties. If our sense of efficacy is low, however, we may avoid a task altogether or give up easily when probl ems arise (Woolfolk, 1998, as cited in Erdem & Demirel, 2007, p. 574). Teacher Self-Efficacy According to Erdem and Demirel (2007), a separa te theory and research strand specifically addressing teacher efficacy began to develop out of Banduras work. Following Banduras theoretical framework (1993), teachers are more lik ely to engage in tasks they feel they can complete successfully. Theoretically, teachers w ith a high sense of self-efficacy will work harder and persist longer to improve student outcomes. Over the years, research has linked teacher s with higher self-efficacy to an increased ability to manage challenging student behavi ors (Baker, 2005), increased planning, organization, and enthusiasm (Allinder, 1994), increased persis tence in the face of ch allenging tasks (Gibson & Dembo, 1984), and various student outcomes including higher student achievement, higher 36

PAGE 37

student motivation (Midgley, Fe ldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989), and higher student self-efficacy (Anderson, Greene, & Lowen, 1988). Counselor Self-Efficacy Larson and Daniels (1998) defi ned counseling self-efficacy as ones beliefs or judgments about her or his capabilities to effectively counsel a client in the near future (p. 180). While several researchers have explor ed various components of teacher self-efficacy, counselor selfefficacy has not been as extensively investigate d. However, in general, self-efficacy has been found to be positively associated with school counselor role fulfillment. For example, Baggerly and Osborn (2006) found high self-efficacy to be a positive predictor of school counselors career satisfaction. Other, earlier studies linked counselor self-e fficacy with anxiety, performance, and supervision environmen ts (e.g., Larson & Daniels, 1998). Development of Self-Efficacy Bandura (1977) theorized four ways in which people form their self-efficacy beliefs, which he referred to as sources of efficacy expect ations: mastery experiences, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal (anxiety). Mastery experiences, defined as the interpre ted result of ones previous performance, have been cited as being most influential (Pajares, 2002, p. 7), pa rticularly with new teachers (Mulholland & Wallace, 2001). Experiences as a student teacher and as a first-year teacher (referred to as the induction year by Mulhol land & Wallace, 2001) seem to be of notable influence on self-efficacy beliefs. According to Hoy and Spero (2005), Banduras theory of self-efficacy suggests that efficacy may be most ma lleable early in learning; thus the first years of teaching could be critical to the long-term development of teacher efficacy (p. 343). Various researchers have investigated contri buting factors to counsel or self-efficacy, with mixed findings. Sutton and Fall (1995) found that colleague support was the strongest predictor 37

PAGE 38

of school counselors self-efficacy. Additiona lly, Sutton and Fall found that administrative support increased school counselors efficacy e xpectations, while the higher levels of noncounseling tasks performed by school couns elors decreased efficacy expectations. Perceptions of appropriateness of task may influence self-efficacy beliefs. In a survey of Florida school counselors, Bagge rly (2002) found that school counselors reported highest levels of self-efficacy for duties deemed appropriate, such as classroom guidance, individual counseling, small group counseling, and consulting w ith teachers, parents, and administrators. Conversely, lower levels of self-efficacy were re ported for duties deemed inappropriate, such as coordinating standardized te sting and disciplining students. Methods of instruction also have been show n to influence counselor self-efficacy (CSE) among counselor trainees. Regar ding increasing CSE, it seems that role plays and modeling combined are equally more effective than a cont rol group for novice counselors. It may be that modeling may be a lower risk intervention early on in training for increasing CSE; role plays may be a higher risk, yet more potent, intervention for increasing CSE (Larson & Daniels, 1998, p. 61). Positive performance feedback also seems to be an effective intervention for increasing CSE, whereas negative feedback appe ars to decrease CSE (Larson & Daniels, 1998, p. 61). Larson et al. (1999) conducted a study investigating the use of videotapes versus role playing on self-efficacy in pre-practicum couns elor education students. The researchers compared the effects of showing videotaped counseling sessions (i.e., demonstrated Banduras concept of vicarious learning) to having students participate in role play s (i.e., to demonstrate Banduras concept of mastery experience) and f ound that students subjective success ratings of the intervention had a moderating effect on counseling self-efficacy. More specifically, students 38

PAGE 39

who viewed the videotaped counseling session exhibited an increase in self-efficacy of two to five points as measured by the Counseling Self-Estimate Inventory. The researchers described this effect as modest but uniformly beneficial (para. 20). The self-effi cacy changes of students who participated in the role-plays showed significantly more variance depending on how they perceived their performance; students who belie ved their performance was very successful exhibited an increase in self-efficacy of (a n average of) 13.5 points, whereas students who believed their performance was mediocre exhibite d a decrease in self-efficacy of (an average of) 20 points (Larson et al., 1999). Finally, in an exploratory study of factors influencing self-eff icacy of counseling students, Tang et al. (2005) found that the length of internship hours and prior re lated experiences to counseling increased students self-efficacy scores. Training School Counselors to Work With Students in ESE While most school counselor ed ucators support the idea of sp ecial education training for pre-service school counselors (e.g., Isaacs, Gr eene, & Valesky, 1998; Korinek & Prillaman, 1992; Studer & Quigney, 2005), few models for trai ning school counselors in topics in special education are found in the professi onal literature. Un fortunately, there appear to be linkages among inadequate training, negative attitudes towards students with disabilities, and resulting reluctance and/or feeling unprepar ed to work with students with disabilities (Milsom, 2006). Milsom (2006) wrote that: Thus, school counselors who are uncomfortable with students with disabilities might choose to avoid participating in Individualized Education Prog ram meetings and/or rely on other school personnel to address those students academic, career, and personal/social needs. (p. 67) However, [t]o be effective advocates for students with disabilities, school counselors need to have a basic understanding of the laws rela ted to special-educa tion services and the 39

PAGE 40

implications of special-educa tion laws for school counselor s (Romano & Hermann, 2007, p. 87). Studer and Quigney (2005) also noted that, Because school counsellors often receive inadequate education and training wi th students with disabilities, they often relinquish services to special education personnel and ot hers perceived as more knowledgeable about special education issues (p. 57). From their survey of pract icing school counselors, they concluded that: Participants ranked pre-service training for the multi-factored evaluation process 18 th out of 34 identified activities; pre-service tr aining for the development and reviews of individualized education plans (IEP) ranked 24 th ; and promoting instru ctional collaboration among special and general education staff ranked 25 th From these findings it is clear that pre-service training does not correspond with th e expectations outlined by the ASCA. (p. 60) Studer and Quigney also noted that, Some of the lower ranking items [in terms of attention given in pre-service training programs] include such activitie s as participating in the deve lopment and review of IEPs, promoting instructional collaboration among special and general education staff, and consulting with professionals outside of the school setting, such as social service agencies. These areas are fundamental to the functioni ng of special education services and the success of students with special needs, and th erefore require more ex tensive coverage in pre-service preparation pr ograms. (p. 60) Given the limited amount of training relate d to students with disabilities completed by many school counselors, and given the research suggesting that more positive attitudes are associated with greater amounts of pre-service education, in-service or other professional development activities can be view ed as a critical intervention related to creating positive school experiences for students with disabilities. Thus, Praisner (2003) advocat ed in-service training related to students with disabili ties in general in counselor education programs. Importantly, Pace (2003) found that professional development seminars were effective in increasing awareness about students with disabilities among re gular education student teacher supervisors (Milsom, 2006, p. 69). 40

PAGE 41

In a survey of Texas school counselors about services provided to students in special education, perceptions of preparedness, and experiences contributi ng to the level of preparedness, Nichter and Edmonson (2005) noted that, the partic ipants indicated that training regarding special education laws and legal issues, disabilities characteristics, techniques for working with special education populations, an d medications and side effects would help participants feel better pr epared to serve special education students (p. 57). Training Programs While some literature indicates that pre-service school couns elors receive training in ESE through experiences integrated into more general coursework (Milsom & Akos, 2003), limited information is available on what those experien ces are and/or how they are incorporated. Formal, structured ESE training programs are scar ce in the professional lite rature for education. However, two training programs have been iden tified: the Iris Center developed a learning module specifically geared for school counsel ors and the Parent Educational Advocacy and Training Center developed a series of training modules for educators and parents of students with disabilities. The Iris Center for Training Enhancements The Iris Center, affiliated with Vanderbilt Un iversity and funded by the U.S. Department of Educations Office of Special Education Progr ams, has developed several Web-based learning modules for current and pre-servi ce educators. According to liter ature from the Iris Center, the learning modules are designed using the STAR Legacy cycle, a teaching approach based on Bransfords learning theory. One learning m odule was developed specifically for school counselors and entitled, Guiding the school counselor: An overview of roles and responsibilities. The roles identified in th is module include: (a) participating in the multidisciplinary team process, (b) assisting w ith behavior modificati on, (c) providing individual 41

PAGE 42

or group counseling, (d) assisting with transition planning, and (e ) making referrals to outside agencies. Understanding Special Education (USE) Curriculum The USE Curriculum, designed for educators and parents of students wi th disabilities, was developed by the Parent Educational Advocacy Tr aining Center (PEATC) and was used as part of the Families as Partners Project. The Families as Partners Project was a collaboration between the University of Connecticut and ten parent advocacy agencies located within the state of Connecticut during the years 2002 through 2005 (Whitbread, Bruder, Fleming, & Park, 2007). This curriculum included five training modules: (1 ) Steps in the Special Education Process, (2) Laws and Processes Affecting Special Education, (3) The Individualized Education Program, (4) Person-Centered Planning, and (5) Family School Partnerships. Through survey research with the participants in the Families as Partners Pr oject, researchers found that 93% of responding participants were satisf ied with the training sessions and th at 89% found the training content to be relevant and useful (Whitbr ead & Bruder). From the data co llected, the researchers concluded that the goals and procedures of this proj ect were acceptable and socially relevantand indication that this tr aining model is a valid one to use with parents and professionals in Connecticut (Whitbread et al., p. 11). Summary In this chapter, the literature reviewed indi cates a need for reconsideration of how team members (including students, pare nts/guardians, and school counselors) should be involved in the IEP meeting process. The av ailable literature al so reveals a gap between school counselors feelings of preparedness to work with students in ESE and the training they receive in graduate school. Additionally, the role of self-efficacy in professional performance has been reviewed, as well as ESE training programs designed fo r professionals and parents/guardians. 42

PAGE 43

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to determine th e effectiveness of a training experience on pre-service school counselors knowledge of ex ceptional student educ ation (ESE) and their beliefs regarding their ability to work with students with disabilities and their families. In this chapter, information relative to the study variables, population, sampling procedures, resultant sample, instrumentation, instrument development, research procedures, and training module is presented. Variables The independent variable for this study was participation in a two-and-a-half-hour ESE training program. The dependent variables for this study were graduate stude nts self-ratings of (a) knowledge of ESE guidelines and approach es for school counselor intervention and (b) beliefs of self-efficacy regarding ability to work w ith students in ESE. Data also was collected from the participants for the following dem ographic variables: (a) gender, (b) age, (c) race/ethnicity, (d) number of semester hours of counselor education program courses completed, (e) diagnosis of disability of self and/or me mbers of immediate family, (f) previous training, preparation, and/or experience in ESE, (g) previous work experience as a K-12 teacher, (h) previous work experience as an ESE teacher. Population The population for this study included graduate students enrolled in school counselor education programs at institutions of higher educ ation in the United States. Specifically, the population included students enrolled in school counselor education programs accredited by the Council for Accreditation of C ounseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). School counselor education programs that fulfill the CACREP accreditation standards include 43

PAGE 44

requirements that students enrolled in them succe ssfully complete a (a) core curriculum that includes coursework in professional identity, so cial and cultural diversity, human growth and development, career development, helping relati onships, group work, assessment, and research and program evaluation, (b) specia lized preparation to be a school counselor that includes coursework in foundations of school counseling a nd contextual dimensions of school counseling, and (c) supervised field work that includes a 600 hour internship in a school counseling setting (Standards for School Counseling Programs, 20 01). In 2008, there were 221 school counselor education programs accredited by CACREP in institutions of higher education in the United States (http://www.cacrep.org). Sampling Procedures The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (CFADT) provides a classification system for instituti ons of higher education in the U. S. to facilitate differentiation among them. Historically, CFADT categorized institutions as Research I, Research II, and Regional/Comprehensive based (primarily) on th e amount of federal funding received by the respective institutions. More recently, the CF ADT made extensive modifications to its classification system to make it multidimensional, and therefore more descriptively specific. Within the two graduate-level categories (Doctora te-granting Universities and Masters Colleges and Universities), there are now six classificat ions: (a) RU/VH [Research Universities very high research activity], (b) RU/H [Research Un iversities high research activity], (c) DRU [Doctoral/Research Universities], (d) Masters/L [Masters Colleges and Universities larger programs], (e) Masters/M [Masters Colleges and Universitiesmedi um programs], and (f) Masters/S [Masters Colleges and Un iversities smaller programs]. In an attempt to represent th e diversity of school counselor education programs and to increase the generalizability of the study results, school counselor education programs 44

PAGE 45

representing at least th ree different CFADT classifications were targeted for participation. Faculty members in departments of counselor education at several unive rsities throughout the southeastern United States were contacted by email and asked for their assistance to conduct the study. Contacted faculty members were asked to allow incorporation of the two-and-a-half-hour ESE training program into one (or more) of th e courses (in school counseling) they teach. Faculty members at the University of Central Fl orida (RU/H), the University of North Florida (Masters/L), and the University of South Carolina (RU/VH) agreed to assist. Students enrolled in the classes of the faculty members who agr eed to assist with the study were offered the opportunity to particip ate in the training. A standard procedure was used in each class; the in-class presentation (see Appendix E) began with a standard protocol of introduction to the study and brief descri ption of the activities within it. This introduction included distribution and retrieval of the informed consent form for the study (Appendix A). Resultant Sample The resultant sample consisted of 56 participants; 23 participants at the University of North Florida, 13 participants at the Un iversity of South Carolina, and 20 participants at the University of Central Florida. This sample size exceeded the minimum number required to allow for evaluation of whether (at least) a medium eff ect was achieved, based on the following formula for needed sample size presented by Ary, Jac obs, Razavieh, and Sorenson (2006): N = (1 / ) 2 ( z + z ) 2 where N = the necessary (minimum) sample size, is the specified effect size, z is the z score for the level of significance, and z is the z score for the desired prob ability of rejecting the null hypothesis. For this study, a 90 percent chance of rejecti ng the null hypothesis at the .05 level for a one directional test, which was cons idered reasonable because the training module 45

PAGE 46

was unlikely to reduce a participants knowle dge and/or perceptions of self-efficacy. Substituting, for this study, the (minimum) N = (1/.5) 2 (1.645 + 1.28) 2 = 22.24 participants. Instrumentation Three types of instrumentation were used in this study: (a) a personal data sheet, (b) a questionnaire to measure knowledge of ESE guide lines developed specifically for this study, and (c) a questionnaire to measure self-efficacy rela ted to working with students with disabilities developed specifically for this study. Personal Data Sheet: A personal data sheet was distribut ed to all partic ipants (Appendix B). Participants were asked to provide thei r gender, race, age, university, and number of program-applicable semester credit hours they had completed toward their graduate degree prior to the current semester. Participants also were asked to provide inform ation on the number of courses they had taken specifically focused on st udents with disabilities, the number of courses they had taken in which information about stud ents with disabilities was presented, and the number of fieldwork experiences with stude nts with disabilities they had completed. Additionally, participants were as ked if they have been diagno sed with a disability, if an immediate family member had been diagnosed w ith a disability, and if they had ever been employed as a K-12 teacher and/or ESE teacher. Instrument Development ESE Knowledge Test A school counselor ESE knowledge test (S CESEKT) (Appendix C) that contained questions regarding ESE information addressed during the training program was developed and administered. Questions consisted of multiple -choice and true/false items related to IDEA requirements and processes, families experiences of the IEP meeting process, the role of the 46

PAGE 47

school counselor in working with students in ESE, and effective means for school counselors to become involved in the IEP meeting process. A set of questions was developed by the res earcher for the SCESEKT and then reviewed by a panel with expertise in school counselor education. The panel included two university faculty members, two doctoral students in counselor education, a nd two practicing school counselors. Feedback from the panel was used to assess the appropriateness and content validity of the SCESEKT. After administration of the SC ESEKT was completed, standard test data (i.e., descriptive statistics) and an internal reliability coefficient were computed to allow evaluation of the initial psychometric propertie s of the SCESEKT. An exploratory factor analysis of the SCESEKT indicated that one factor accounted for 28% of the total variance. Four components were required to account for over half of th e total variance, possibl y indicating that the SCESEKT was measuring more than one construc t. The results of the principal component analysis are shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-1. SCESEKT Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 3.592 27.631 27.631 3.592 27.631 27.631 2 1.491 11.466 39.097 1.491 11.466 39.097 3 1.283 9.866 48.963 1.283 9.866 48.963 4 1.136 8.738 57.701 1.136 8.738 57.701 5 .969 7.454 65.155 6 .955 7.348 72.503 7 .752 5.786 78.289 8 .681 5.240 83.529 9 .543 4.180 87.709 10 .469 3.610 91.319 11 .417 3.207 94.526 12 .365 2.807 97.333 13 .347 2.667 100.000 47

PAGE 48

At the same time, item loading statistics supported the argument for one factor with the exception of 2 items, as shown in Table 3-2. Table 3-2. SCESEKT Item Loading Component 1 2 3 4 True or False: In the literature about parents of children with disabilities, a common theme is opportunities for new beginnings. 0.698199 0.064029 0.337971 -0.19646 Research has indicated that, during IEP meetings, team members: a. Focus on students strengths and abilities b. Disrespect parent perspectives c. Encourage student participation in meaningful ways d. Understand and accommodate for cultural differences 0.691241 -0.12325 0.252334 -0.17876 True or False: It is important for school counselors to have an extensive knowledge of ESE before working with students with disabilities and their families. 0.67515 -0.19569 0.271433 -0.1265 What have parents of a child with a disability lost? a. The expected perfect child b. The normal parenting role and its impact over time c. The possible loss of an independent adult d. B and C e. All of the above 0.589348 0.032152 -0.25907 0.223975 Which one of the following is a possible barrier to school counselor involvement with students in ESE? a. Other professionals have inappropriate expectations of how school counselors should be involved with students in ESE b. School counselors do not want to be burdened with inappropriate tasks c. School counselors may not feel prepared to meet the needs of students in ESE programs d. All of the above are possible barriers to school counselor involvement 0.573945 0.552473 -0.09867 0.177343 Which one of the following is not a step in the SOLVES meeting process? a. Setting up the meeting and preparing the student and family b. Orienting to purpose and process and introducing participants c. Listing students deficits and determining action plan for remediation d. Expanding solution ideas 0.545056 -0.30718 -0.19823 0.302144 48

PAGE 49

Table 3-2. Continued Which one of the following is not a step in the ESE placement process? a. Referral b. Family visit c. Evaluation d. Eligibility determination e. Placement 0.475001 -0.33459 -0.02277 0.004778 Which one of the following is not a strategy for blocking blame during IEP meetings? a. Reframing the situation in a more positive light b. Direct blocking of the blaming statement c. Illustrating what is being said by providing specific examples d. Explaining the blaming statement in detail so that others understand 0.459088 -0.27101 -0.32233 0.082383 True or False: Coping with a childs disability occurs primarily at the time of initial diagnosis. 0.415049 0.506314 -0.20496 -0.31896 True or False: The IEP meeting process is more problematic for families from diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic populations. 0.085098 0.601346 0.614949 0.277778 True or False: Students from diverse populations represent a disproportionate number of students receiving special education. 0.454865 0.400185 -0.55889 -0.12162 Which one of the following entitles children with disabilities ages 3-21 to a free and appropriate public education? a. FAPE b. IDEA c. Section 504 d. All of the above 0.327336 -0.18869 0.177975 -0.62484 According to the Ameri can School Counseling Association, which one of the following is not considered an appropriate task for school counselors regarding ESE? a. Advocating for students at individual education plan meetings b. Preparing individualized education plans c. Consulting and collaborating with staff and parents d. Making referrals to appropriate specialists within the school system and in the community 0.516846 -0.18232 0.215154 0.534358 The corrected item-total correlations for th e SCESEKT are presented in Table 3-3. 49

PAGE 50

Table 3-3. SCESEKT Corrected Item-Total Correlations Corrected Item-Total Correlation Which one of the following entitles children with di sabilities ages 3-21 to a free and appropriate public education? a. FAPE b. IDEA c. Section 504 d. All of the above 0.2353222 Which one of the following is not a step in the ESE placement process? a. Referral b. Family visit c. Evaluation d. Eligibility determination e. Placement 0.3742436 According to the American School Counseling Association, which one of the following is not considered an appropriate task for school counselors regarding ESE? a. Advocating for students at individual education plan meetings b. Preparing individualized education plans c. Consulting and collaborating with staff and parents d. Making referrals to appropriate specialists within the school system and in the community 0.4016311 True or False: The IEP meeting process is more problematic for families from diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic populations. 0.0362772 Research has indicated that, duri ng IEP meetings, team members: a. Focus on students strengths and abilities b. Disrespect parent perspectives c. Encourage student participation in meaningful ways d. Understand and accommodate for cultural differences 0.5719848 Which one of the following is a possible barrier to school counselor involvement with students in ESE? a. Other professionals have inappropriate expectations of how school counselors should be involved with students in ESE b. School counselors do not want to be burdened with inappropriate tasks c. School counselors may not feel prepared to meet the needs of students in ESE programs d. All of the above are possible barriers to school counselor involvement 0.4401645 True or False: Students from diverse populations represent a disproportionate number of students receiving special education. 0.3275852 True or False: In the literature about parents of children with disabilities, a common theme is opportunities for new beginnings. 0.5959236 True or False: Coping with a childs disability occurs primarily at the time of initial diagnosis. 0.308453 50

PAGE 51

Table 3-3. Continued What have parents of a child with a disability lost? a. The expected perfect child b. The normal parenting role and its impact over time c. The possible loss of an independent adult d. B and C e. All of the above 0.4336977 True or False: It is important for school coun selors to have an extensive knowledge of ESE before working with students with disabilities and their families. 0.5438434 Which one of the following is not a strategy for blocking blame during IEP meetings? a. Reframing the situation in a more positive light b. Direct blocking of the blaming statement c. Illustrating what is being said by providing specific examples d. Explaining the blaming statement in detail so that others understand 0.3397479 Which one of the following is not a st ep in the SOLVES meeting process? a. Setting up the meeting and preparing the student and family b. Orienting to purpose and process and introducing participants c. Listing students deficits and determining action plan for remediation d. Expanding solution ideas 0.4096544 Cronbachs Alpha for the SCESEKT was comput ed at .766, indicating adequate internal reliability. School Counselor Self-Efficacy in Wor king with Students with Disabilities To assess pre-service school couns elors self-efficacy beliefs in working with students with disabilities and their families, items were selected from the School Counselor Preparation Survey-Revised (SCPS-R) and the School Counselor Self-Efficacy Scale (SCSES), and adapted as appropriate to the purposes of this study to develop the School Counselor ESE Self-Efficacy Survey (SCESESES) (Appendix D). Items from the SCPS-R and SCSES were selected based on their relevance to the information presented duri ng the training program. That is, items for the SCESESES were developed so as to be conceptually aligned with the content of the ESE training program presented. In some cases, the original items were modified to focus on students with disabilities and their families, rather th an a general student population as is inherent in the SCSES. Additionally, the wording of some items was modified to increase clarity and understanding. 51

PAGE 52

School Counselor Preparation Survey-Revised Milsom developed the SCPS-R to assess the activities school c ounselors perform for students with disabilities, how prepared they feel to perform those activities, and the education (coursework, practical experiences or workshops) they received to work with students with disabilities (2002, para. 11). The SCPS-R is a nine-item instrument comprised of five different types of questions: (1) one open-ended item asks respondents to indicate the number of students on their caseload and the number of students with disabilities on their cas eload, (2) two Likerttype items ask respondents to rate their feelings of preparedness to provide services and various activities to students with disabilities, (3) one item asks responde nts to identify current activities in which they engage with students with disabi lities, (4) three open-ended items ask respondents to indicate the number of undergraduate or graduate courses, in-service programs, conferences, or workshops focusing on working with studen ts with disabilities in which they have participated, and (5) two open-ended items ask respondents what they found (or would find) most helpful in preparing to work with students with disabilities. To determine the specific activities listed in the items identifying feelings of preparedness and current activities school counsel ors engage in with students w ith disabilities, Milsom used the ASCA position statements that describes a school counselors recommended role with students with special needs (ASCA, 2000) and students with attenti on deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ASCA, 1999; 2002). Milsom conducted a pilot study of the survey with a random sample of 200 members of a mid-Atlantic state school counseling association and made unspecified modifications to the SCPS-R (Mils om, 2002). For the purposes of this study, only the items applicable to pre-service school counselors (i.e., items two, three, four, and five) were used. 52

PAGE 53

School Counselor Self-Efficacy Scale The SCSES was developed by Bodenhorn to eval uate school counselors beliefs of selfefficacy because previous measures of counselor self-efficacy were related (only) to individual counseling or career counseling (Bodenhorn & Skaggs, 2005). The SCSE is a self-report instrument composed of 43 items having Likert-type response scales. According to Bodenhorn and Skaggs, four studies have been conducted on the SCSE. The first study focused on item development, the second on item an alyses, the third on validity, and the fourth on factor analysis. Bodenhorn used the National Standards for School Counseling (Campbell & Dahir, 1997), CACREP school counseling program standards (2 001), and other unspecified counseling selfefficacy scales to develop the SCSES (Bodenhor n & Skaggs, 2005). Two studies incorporating reliability data have been conducted and presented by Bodenhorn and Skaggs, yielding coefficient alphas of .95 and .96 for the scale scor es, respectively (2005). The SCSE has been positively correlated with the Counseling Self-Es timate Inventory (COSE; Larson et al., 1992) at .41, the Social Desirability Scale (SDS; Crow ne & Marlowe, 1960) at .30, and the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale2 nd Edition (TSCS:2; Fitts & Warren, 1996) at .16 (Bodenhorn & Skaggs). Negative correlations have been found between the SCSE and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (-.42 State, -.32 Trait), indicating that anxiety scores decreased as self-efficacy scores increased in the population assessed (Bodenhorn & Skaggs). Factor analysis of the SCSES revealed five component factors: (1) Personal and Social Development, (2) L eadership and Assessment, (3) Career and Academic Development, (4) Collabor ation, and (5) Cultural Acceptance. Internal consistency reliability coefficient alphas were also calculated: Personal and Social Development (.91), Leadership and Assessment (.90), Career and Academic Development (.85), Collaboration (.87), and Cultural Acceptance (.72). 53

PAGE 54

ESE Self-Efficacy Scale The School Counselor Exceptional Student E ducation Self-Efficacy Scale (SCESESES) consisted of 17 Likert-type items related to pr e-service school counselor s self-efficacy beliefs and feeling of comfort and preparedness to work with students with disabilities and their families during the ESE process. Initially, a set of 16 items was designed by the researcher using modified items from the SCPS-R and SCSES. This set of items was reviewed by a panel including two university faculty me mbers, two doctoral students in counselor education, and two practicing school counselors. F eedback from the panel was used to assess the appropriateness and content validity of th e SCESESES. As a result of this f eedback, several of the items were further modified to more closely align with the specific goals of the training program. After the SCESESES was administered, st andard item data and a Cronbachs Alpha reliability coefficient were computed to yield initial psychometric information for the SCESESES. An exploratory factor analysis of th e SCESESES revealed that one factor explained 65% of the total variance, indicating that the instrument was likely to be measuring one construct. The results of the principal component analysis are shown in Table 3-4. Table 3-4. SCESESES Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 10.980 64.587 64.587 10.980 64.587 64.587 2 1.017 5.985 70.572 1.017 5.985 70.572 3 .899 5.290 75.862 4 .796 4.684 80.546 5 .564 3.316 83.862 6 .483 2.839 86.701 7 .388 2.283 88.984 8 .377 2.220 91.205 54

PAGE 55

Table 3-4. Continued 9 .291 1.714 92.919 10 .276 1.625 94.544 11 .223 1.313 95.858 12 .189 1.113 96.971 13 .158 .930 97.900 14 .124 .731 98.632 15 .091 .538 99.169 16 .076 .445 99.614 17 .066 .386 100.00 Additionally, item loadin g statistics supported the argumen t for one factor, as shown in Table 3-5. Table 3-5. SCESESES Item Loading Component 1 2 Identify ways to improve the IEP meeting process before, during, and after the IEP meeting. .899 -.200 Contact students and family members pr ior to IEP meetings to help prepare them for what to expect. .889 -.189 Advocate for students with disabilities and their families during the IEP meeting process. .885 -.043 Demonstrate effective communication skills during the IEP meeting. .882 .192 Elicit information on student stre ngths during the IEP meeting. .862 .100 Serve on the IEP team to identify and provide services to students with disabilities. .847 .101 Identify barriers to effective IEP meetings. .845 -.238 Understand the viewpoints and experience s of students with disabilities and their families during the IEP meeting process. .838 -.045 Identify key differences between co llaborative and non-collaborative IEP meetings. .785 -.335 Identify time periods and transitions th at may be more stressful for parents of students with disabilities. .767 .231 Identify cultural differences regarding disability. .766 .073 Understand the special educati on eligibility process. .746 .487 Conduct IEP meetings using the SOLVES meeting process. .733 -.383 Use group counseling techniques to facili tate the IEP team process. .730 -.065 Block blame from teachers, students, and/or family members during the IEP meeting. .725 -.176 Understand the feelings parents may experience when learning that their child has a disability. .724 .113 Understand the legislation rela ted to special education. .689 .470 55

PAGE 56

The corrected item-total correlations for th e SCESESES are presented in Table 3-6. Table 3-6. SCESESES Corrected Item-Total Correlations Corrected Item-Total Correlation Understand the legislation rela ted to special education. 0.653466 Understand the special educa tion eligibility process. 0.709304 Understand the feelings parents may expe rience when learning that their child has a disability. 0.686652 Identify time periods and transitions that may be more stressful for parents of students with disabilities. 0.736936 Understand the viewpoints and experiences of students with di sabilities and their families during the IEP meeting process. 0.8126 Identify cultural differences regarding disability. 0.735765 Identify key differences between co llaborative and non-collaborative IEP meetings. 0.755084 Identify barriers to effective IEP meetings. 0.824499 Serve on the IEP team to identify and provide services to students with disabilities. 0.822083 Contact students and family members prior to IEP meetings to help prepare them for what to expect. 0.86823 Advocate for students with disabilities and their families during the IEP meeting process. 0.861811 Demonstrate effective communicatio n skills during the IEP meeting. 0.859892 Elicit information on student strengths during the IEP meeting. 0.835747 Use group counseling techniques to fac ilitate the IEP team process. 0.692924 Block blame from teachers, students, and/or family members during the IEP meeting. 0.690385 Conduct IEP meetings using the SOLVES meeting process. 0.704164 Identify ways to improve the IEP meeting process before, during, and after the IEP meeting. 0.884141 Cronbachs Alpha for the SCESESES was co mputed at .965, indicating high internal reliability. Pilot Study Following approval from the University of Florida Institutional Re view Board (IRB), a pilot study of the SCESEKT and the SCESESES was conducted. Convenience sampling was used; the participants for the pilot study were 16 pre-service school counselors having similar 56

PAGE 57

characteristics to the particip ants in the main study. The graduate students were recruited through a family-school collaboration class in th e Department of Counselor Education at the University of Florida. The purpose of the pilo t study was to detect problems with responding to the SCESEKT and the SCESESES or with their administration pro cedures. As the participants reported no difficulty in completing the instrument s, no significant changes were made to the format or the administration pro cedures of either the SCESEKT or the SCESESES. Research Procedures A modified single factor design with two levels was used in this study. The research design was implemented by having half of each class serve as the control group for the other half of the class. Prior to delivery of the training module, approximately half (N= 27) of the class completed the SCESEKT, while the other approxim ately half (N= 29) of the class completed the SCESESES and demographic data sheet. After th e training module was delivered, the half of the class that initially completed the SCESEKT then completed the SCESESES and data sheet, while the half of the class that completed the SCESESES and data sheet then co mpleted the SCESEKT. This allowed all students in each class to receive the training modul e at the same time while also allowing for use of a pre-post research design. Th e distinct advantage of this design is that it facilitated the research process by requiring fewer research participants and it assured equivalent training experiences for the expe rimental and control groups (i .e., did not require separate experimental and control groups, which would have been hard to equate). Another advantage to this design was that it maximized time for the training and reduced the likelihood of fatigue by allowing participants to spend less time completing the assessments (e.g., as compared to a traditional pre-post design which have required a ll questionnaires to be completed both before and after the training). Additi onally, this design minimized poten tial pre-test sensitization, which can be a limitation with a traditional pre-post design. By completing questionnaires 57

PAGE 58

before the training, some particip ants might have been primed to focus upon or retain specific information. As a result, participants post-test sc ores may have been higher than if they had not been exposed to the pre-test questionnaire. The modified single factor design used in this study circumvented the possibility of memory effect. An assumption of this design was that the groups within the classes were generally homogeneous. The calculated Box s M statistic indicated that th is assumption was not violated [ F (3, 634157.23) = 1.039, M = 3.248, p = .374]. The assessment conditions are depicted in Table 3-7 and 3-8. Table 3-7. Treatment Conditions for Knowledge R E: (1/2 of class) SCESEKT Pr etest Training SCESEKT Posttest* R C: (1/2 of class) SCESEKT Pretest* No Training SCESEKT Posttest Note: indicates actual data collected Table 3-8. Treatment Conditions for Self-Efficacy R E: (1/2 of class) SCESESES Pr etest Training SCESESES Posttest* R C: (1/2 of class) SCESESES Pretes t* No Training SCESESES Posttest Note: indicates actual data collected In this research design, the experimental gr oup for the self-efficacy measure served as the control group for the knowledge measure, and vice versa Training Module The ESE training module (ESETM; see Appendix E) consisted of didactic instruction, video modeling, role plays, and large-group disc ussion. The didactic instruction focused on IDEA requirements and processes, research rela ted to the IEP meeting experience for students and families, and specific interventions school counselors can implement. Modeling of both ineffective and effective communi cation skills was demonstrated through the use of videotaped 58

PAGE 59

(mock) IEP meetings. Largegroup discussion of problem-solving strategies was facilitated through the use of case examples. The training module was developed by the re searcher after extensive review of the available literature on the IEP m eeting process, parents perceptio ns of the meeting process, and previously developed training programs for teacher s, school counselors, and parents. The main topics of the training module were directly relate d to emerging themes in the literature, including the basic principles behind IDEA and ESE, the IEP meeting experience from the perspective of families, and the school counselors role in worki ng with students in ESE. The researcher had prior experience presenting components of the training module to undergraduate elementary education majors, graduate students in a school counselor preparation program, and practicing school counselors at state conferences. The learning objectives of the training were to: 1. Increase participants knowledge of federal le gislation governing ESE 2. Increase participants know ledge of IDEA requirements and the ESE determination process 3. Increase participants knowledge of research related to families experiences with ESE and IEP meetings 4. Increase participants knowledge of the ASCA guidelin es regarding school counselors roles in working with students in ESE 5. Model effective communication and group mana gement skills specific to the IEP meeting process 6. Increase participants knowledge of specific interventions school counselors can provide before, during, and after IEP meetings to in crease collaboration and family involvement Summary In this chapter, descriptions of the resear ch procedures, particip ants, instruments, and training materials for this study have been presented. The aim of this study was to determine the 59

PAGE 60

efficacy of a brief training module on pre-servi ce school counselors knowledge and feelings of preparedness regarding working with students in ESE. The results of this study will be presented in Chapter 4, and a discussion with implicati ons and recommendations will be presented in Chapter 5. 60

PAGE 61

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study was to determine th e effectiveness of a brief training program intended to enhance pre-service sc hool counselors knowledge and se lf-efficacy beliefs in regard to working with students in exceptional student e ducation (ESE) and their families. Specifically, this experimental study examined the impact of a two-and-a-half-hour ESE training program on pre-service school counselors knowledge of the Individuals with Disab ilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements and processes, research related to the individuali zed education program (IEP) meeting experience for students and families, and specific interventions school counselors can implement with this population of students. The particip ants self-efficacy beliefs and feelings of preparedness to work with students in ESE and their families also were explored. Presented in this chapter are th e data analyses and results. A pre-test-post-test control group experimental design was used. Students who agreed to participate were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. Data were collected from a respondent demographic information sheet and two in struments were used to assess the effects of the intervention: the School Counselor ESE Knowledge Test (SCESEKT) and the School Counselor ESE Self-Efficacy Survey (SCESESES). All participants completed the demographic information sheet and received the ESE training. However, participants in the first group condition completed the SCESEKT as a pre-te st and the SCESESES as a post-test, and participants in the second group condition comp leted the SCESESES as a pre-test and the SCESEKT as a post-test. The SCESEKT consisted of eight multiple-choice questions and five true/false questions designed to investigate particip ants knowledge of ESE laws a nd processes, experiences of parents of children with disabilities, and appropr iate interventions by school counselors. The 61

PAGE 62

SCESEKT score range was 0 to 13, with higher scores indicating greater knowledge. As noted, Cronbachs alpha for this measure was comput ed at .766, indicating adequate reliability. The SCESESES consisted of 17 Likert-type items requiring participants to indicate their feelings of comfort and preparedness in working with students with disabilities and their families during the ESE placement process. The SCESESES score range was 17 to 85, with higher scores indicating greater feelings of comfort and prep aredness. As noted, Cronbachs alpha for this measure was computed at .965, indicating high reliability. Descriptive Statistics The sample for this study was composed of 56 pre-service school counselors enrolled in graduate counselor preparation programs at thre e different universities: 23 participants (41.1%) at the University of North Florida, 13 particip ants (23.2%) at the Univer sity of South Carolina, and 20 participants (35.7%) at the University of Central Florida. Th ere were a total of 27 SCESEKT pre-test-group participants and 29 SCESESES pre-test-group participants. Frequencies were computed for the following de mographic data: partic ipants age, gender, race/ethnicity, university, diagnosis of disability in self or family member, total number of semester credits earned towards counselor educa tion degree, previous co ursework and fieldwork experiences related to students with disabilities, and previous employment as a K-12 or ESE teacher. This demographic informa tion is presented in Table 4-1. The sample was comprised of 49 (87.5%) females and seven (12.5%) males. This disproportionate split between genders was anticipat ed because of typically low enrollment of males in counselor education programs. The av erage age of participan ts was 29.1 years, with notable variation (SD = 8.0). Two (3.6%) of th e participants reported having a disability, and four (7.1%) of the participants reported having a family member with a disability. The average number of semester credit hours in their respective counselor education degree programs was 62

PAGE 63

22.5, with notable variation (SD = 13.4). With regard to coursework, the average number of courses taken specifically focusing on students with disabilities was .25 (SD = .6), and the average number of courses taken in which information about students with disabilities was incorporated was 2.7 (SD = 2.3). The average nu mber of fieldwork expe riences with students with disabilities completed was .36 (SD = .7). Twenty participants (35.7%) reported being employed as a K-12 teacher, and seven particip ants (12.5%) reported being employed as an ESE teacher. Table 4-1. Participant Demographic Information Variable Response n Percent Age Gender Females Males 49 7 87.5% 12.5% Race/Ethnicity Asian or Pacific Islander Black or African-American Caucasian or EuropeanAmerican Hispanic or Latino/a Native American Multiracial Other 1 8 45 1 0 1 0 1.8% 14.3% 80.4% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% University University of Central Florida University of North Florida University of South Carolina 20 23 13 35.7% 41.1% 23.2% Do you have a disability? No Yes 54 2 96.4% 3.6% Does anyone in your immediate family (such as a spouse, partner, sibling, or child) have a disability? No Yes 52 4 92.9% 7.1% As of the end of the last term, approximately how many semester cr edits towards your counselor education degree have you completed? 0-20 hours 21-40 hours 41-60 hours 61+ hours 17 32 5 1 30.9% 58.2% 9.1% 1.8% During your school counseling graduate program, how many courses specifically focusing on students with disabilities have you taken? 0 courses 1 course 2 courses 3 courses 46 7 2 1 82.1% 12.5% 3.6% 1.8% 63

PAGE 64

Table 4-1. Continued During your school counseling graduate program, how many courses have you taken in which information about students with disabilities was presented? 0 courses 1-3 courses 4-6 courses 7-9 courses 5 37 6 8 8.9% 66.1% 10.7% 14.3% During your school counseling graduate program, how many fiel dwork experiences with students with disabilities have you completed? 0 fieldwork experiences 1 fieldwork experience 2 fieldwork experiences 42 6 7 75.0% 10.7% 12.5% Have you ever been employed as a K-12 teacher? No Yes 36 20 64.3% 35.7% Have you ever been employed as an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teacher? No Yes 49 7 87.5% 12.5% The respective group means and standard devi ations are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. Group A completed the SCESEKT before the trai ning and the SCESESES after the training. Group B completed the SCESESES before the training and the SCESEK T after the training. Table 4-2. SCESEKT Group Means and Standard Deviations Variable Mean Valid N Std. Dev. SCESEKT Pre-test (Group A) 7.56 27 2.154 SCESEKT Post-test (Group B) 11.28 29 1.667 Table 4-3. SCESESES Group Mean s and Standard Deviations Variable Mean Valid N Std. Dev. SCESESES Pre-test (Group B) 44.83 29 15.700 SCESESES Post-test (Group A) 60.22 27 13.506 Data Analyses Hypothesis One The first major hypothesis tested was: H o 1: There is no difference in pre-servi ce school counselors scores on the ESE Knowledge Test and the ESE Self-Efficacy Surv ey based on participation in the training. The primary analysis conducted to determine st atistically significan t differences in the means between the groups was a 2 (group) by 2 (factors) Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) utilizing the Wilks La mbda test statistic. The alpha level for this analysis was p = 64

PAGE 65

.05. The Boxs M statistic was used to test th e equality of covarian ce matrices across the 2 groups. The null hypothesis assumed that there would be no difference between the groups; the Boxs M statistic suggested no significant violation of this assumption [F(3, 634157.23) = 1.04, p = .374]. The results of the MANOVA yielded a Wilks Lambda = .402 [F(2, 53) = 39.4, p < .001], as shown in Table 4-4. Table 4-4. Results of the Multivariate Analysis of Variance Wilks Lambda Effect df Error df FValue pvalue Intercept .029 2 53 8.725 < .001 Group .402 2 53 39.392 < .001 This null hypothesis was rejected because a statistically significant difference existed. The first sub-hypothesis tested was: H o 1a: There is no difference in pre-servi ce school counselors mean scores on the SCESEKT based on participation in the training. The second sub-hypothesis tested was: H o 1b: There is no difference in pre-service school counselors scor es on the SCESESES based on participation in the training. Because there was a statistically significan t result from the MANOVA, each dependent variable was analyzed se parately using univariate t -tests to determine on which of the two dependent variables the groups diffe red significantly. To prevent artificial inflat ion of Type 1 error rate, the Bonferroni correction was applied (T ype 1 error rate = .025). Table 4-5 shows the univariate t -test values and results for each variable. 65

PAGE 66

Table 4-5. Univariate t-te sts on Dependent Variables Variable post pre SE t df p 95% LL 95% UL SCESEKT 3.720 .513 7.256 54 < .001 2.692 4.748 SCESESES 15.395 3.927 3.920 54 < .001 7.521 23.268 Based on these results, both of the null sub-hypotheses were rejected. Hypothesis Two The second major hypothesis tested was: Ho2: There are no significant relationship s among experience f actors including age, number of credit hours, pr evious training, preparation, and/or experience in ESE, previous work experience as a K-12 teacher, previous work experience as an ESE teacher, and participation in the ES ETM and performance on the SCESEKT. To determine if prior experi ence factors would predict scor es on the SCESEKT, multiple linear regression analyses were conducted. Init ially, the number of cour ses specifically focusing on students with disabilities a nd the number of fieldwork ex periences with students with disabilities were obtained as continuous variab les; however, to maximize the validity of the regression model, these variables were changed to categorical va riables: none versus some for each. The variables for the SCES EKT full model included th ree continuous variables (participants age, number of semester credit hours completed in a school counselor education program, and number of courses ta ken that included information a bout students with disabilities) and five categorical variables (number of courses specifically fo cusing on students with disabilities [none or some], number of fieldw ork experiences with st udents with disabilities [none or some], employment at a K-12 teacher [no or yes], employment as an ESE teacher [no or yes], and ESETM group [pre or post]). 66

PAGE 67

Zero-order correlations among SCESEKT scores and the eight experience factors were computed and are presented in table 4-6. To tal scores on the SCES EKT were significantly associated with the number of courses including information about students with disabilities that participants had taken ( r = .31), employment as an ESE teacher ( r = .29), and ESETM pre-/posttest group membership ( r = -.71). Table 4-6. Correlations among SCESEKT Scores and Experience Variables. TKS AGE NSC NCS NCI NFW K-12 ESE TKS AGE .09 NSC .11 -.00 NCS -.04 -.08 .22 NCI .31* .00 .05 .06 NFW .06 .06 .07 .12 .26* K12 .21 .37** .00 -.02 .26* .35** ESE .29* .28* .14 .12 .27* .32** .52** GRP -.71** .08 -.14 .15 -.22 .00 -.04 -.17 Note: *p < .05 (one-tailed), **p < .01 (one-tailed), N = 54; TKS = total knowledge score, AGE = participants age, NSC = number of semester credits, NCS = number of courses specifically focusing on students with disabilities, NCI = nu mber of courses including information about students with disabilities, NFW = number of fieldwork experiences with students with disabilities, K12 = employed as a K-12 teacher, ESE = employed as an ESE teacher, GRP = group The resultant multiple regression analysis equation is shown in Table 4-7. Table 4-7. Multiple Regression Analysis Equation y = B 0 + B 1 (Age) + B 2 (Credits) + B 3 (Disability Courses) + B 4 (Related Courses) + B 5 (Fieldwork) + B 6 (K12) + B 7 (ESE) + B 8 (Group) + e, where: y = dependent variable (SCESEKT score or SCESESES score) B B 0 = intercept B B 1 = regression coefficient for Age Age = age of respondents B B 2 = regression coefficient for Credits Credits = number of semester credits completed in a school counselor education program B B 3 = regression coefficient for Disability Courses Disability Courses = number of courses specif ically focusing on students with disabilities 67

PAGE 68

Table 4-7. Continued B B 4 = regression coefficient for Related Courses Related Courses = number of courses taken th at included information about students with disabilities B B 5 = regression coefficient for Fieldwork Fieldwork = number of fieldwork experi ences with students with disabilities B B 6 = regression coefficient for K12 K12 = employment as a K-12 teacher B B 7 = regression coefficient for ESE ESE = employment as an ESE teacher B B 8 = regression coefficient for Group Group = preor posttest e = error term The variability in knowledge scores associat ed with these predictors was 56.6%. The results of the multiple regression analysis can be found in Table 4-8. The results reveal that pre/post-test group membership was a significant predictor of knowledge [ t (1) = -6.470, p = <0.001]. Table 4-8. Full Model Multiple Linear Regression for Knowledge b se b b s t df p -95% CI +95% CI Intercept 9.652 1.217 7.933 1 <0.001 7.201 12.102 Age 0.036 0.037 0.105 0.965 1 0.340 -0.039 0.110 Semester Credits -0.003 0.021 -0.016 -0.160 1 0.873 -0.045 0.038 Courses Specific 0.482 0.753 0.067 0.641 1 0.525 -1.034 1.998 Courses Related 0.154 0.131 0.126 1.173 1 0.247 -0.110 0.417 Fieldwork -0.251 0.702 -0.039 -0.357 1 0.722 -1.665 1.163 K-12 0.516 0.703 0.092 0.733 1 0.467 -0.901 1.932 ESE 0.540 0.981 0.068 0.550 1 0.585 -1.437 2.516 Group -3.664 0.566 -0.686 -6.470 1 <0.001 -4.804 -2.523 N = 54; R 2 = .566; F (1, 45) = 41.86; p = <.001. 68

PAGE 69

Because of concern that lack of significance mi ght have been related to statistical power (i.e., attributable to the high number of predictors relative to the sample size), a forward stepwise regression was conducted. The entry Type I error ra te was .10 and the exit Type I error rate was .20. This specification identified pr e-/post-test group membership [ t (1) = -7.316, p = <0.001] and employment as a K-12 teacher [ t (1) = 1.925, p = .060] as significant predictors of knowledge. The standardized coefficients suggest ed that pre-/post-test group membership was the stronger predictor of the two. A summary of the forward stepwise regression is provided in Table 4-9. Table 4-9. Reduced Model Forward Stepwise Multiple Linear Regression for Knowledge Model b se b b s t df p -95% CI +95% CI 1 Intercept 11.333 0.370 30.594 1 <0.001 10.590 12.077 Group -3.778 0.524 -0.707 -7.211 1 <0.001 -4.829 -2.727 2 Intercept 10.952 0.412 26.583 1 <0.001 10.125 11.779 Group -3.740 0.511 -0.700 -7.316 1 <0.001 -4.766 -2.713 Employed as a K-12 teacher 1.030 0.535 0.184 1.925 1 0.060 -0.044 2.105 Model 1: N = 54; R 2 = .500; F (1, 52) = 52.000; p = <.001. Model 2: N = 54; R 2 = .534; F (1, 51) = 3.705; p = .060. The prediction equation for this model was: Knowledge = 10.952 + -3.740 (Group) + 1.030 (K-12 teacher). This model explained 53.4% of the variability in knowledge of working with students in ESE. Based on these results, this null hypothesis was rejected. Hypothesis Three The third major hypothesis tested was: Ho3: There are no significant relationship s among experience f actors including age, number of credit hours, pr evious training, preparation, and/or experience in ESE, 69

PAGE 70

previous work experience as a K-12 teacher, previous work experience as an ESE teacher, and ESETM group [pre or post], and performance on the SCESESES. To determine if prior experience factors w ould predict scores on the SCESESES, multiple linear regression analyses were conducted. Init ially, the number of cour ses specifically focusing on students with disabilities a nd the number of fieldwork ex periences with students with disabilities were obtained as continuous variab les; however, to maximize the validity of the regression model, these variables were changed to categorical va riables: none versus some for each. The variables for the SCES ESES full model included th ree continuous variables (participants age, number of semester credit hours completed in a school counselor education program, and number of courses ta ken that included information a bout students with disabilities) and five categorical variables (number of courses specifically fo cusing on students with disabilities [none or some], number of fieldw ork experiences with st udents with disabilities [none or some], employment at a K-12 teacher [no or yes], employment as an ESE teacher [no or yes], and ESETM group [pre or post]). Zero-order correlations among SCESESES scores and the eight experience factors were computed and are presented in table 4-10. Scores on the SCESESES were significantly correlated with the number of courses taken including information about students with disabilities ( r = .38), the number of fieldwork experi ences with students with disabilities ( r = .25), employment as a K-12 ( r = .35) and/or ESE teacher ( r = .32), and ESETM pre-/post-test group membership ( r = .46). 70

PAGE 71

Table 4-10. Correlations among SCESESES Scores and Experience Variables. TSE AGE NSC NCS NCI NFW K-12 TSE AGE .17 NSC .12 -.00 NCS .21 -.08 .22 NCI .38** .00 .05 .06 NFW .25* .06 .07 .12 .26* K12 .35** .37** .00 -.02 .26* .35** ESE .32** .28* .14 .12 .27* .32** .52** GRP .46** .08 -.14 .15 -.22 .00 -.039 Note: *p < .05 (one-tailed), **p < .01 (one-tailed), N = 54; TSE = total self-efficacy score, AGE = participants age, NSC = number of semester credits, NCS = number of courses specifically focusing on students with disabilities, NCI = nu mber of courses including information about students with disabilities, NFW = number of fieldwork experiences with students with disabilities, K12 = employed as a K-12 teacher, ESE = employed as an ESE teacher, GRP = group The resultant multiple regression analysis equation is shown in Table 4-6. The variability in self-efficacy scores asso ciated with these pred ictors was 57.5%. The results of the multiple regression analysis can be found in Table 4-11. These results suggest that pre-/post-test group membership [ t (1) = 5.705, p = <.001] and the num ber of courses including information about students with disabilities are significant predictors of self-efficacy [ t (1) = 3.786, p = <.001]. Table 4-11. Full Model Multiple Lin ear Regression for Self-Efficacy b se b b s t df p -95% CI +95% CI Intercept 26.922 7.412 3.632 1 <0.001 11.992 41.851 Age 0.014 0.224 0.007 0.062 1 0.951 -0.438 0.466 Semester Credits 0.184 0.125 0.149 1.468 1 0.149 -0.068 0.436 Courses Specific 1.921 4.586 0.044 0.419 1 0.677 -7.316 11.158 Courses Related 3.020 0.798 0.402 3.786 1 <0.001 1.413 4.627 Fieldwork 0.190 4.279 0.005 0.045 1 0.965 -8.427 8.808 71

PAGE 72

Table 4-11. Continued K-12 5.580 4.285 0.162 1.302 1 0.199 -3.050 14.211 ESE 9.475 5.979 0.194 1.585 1 0.120 -2.566 21.517 Group 19.683 3.450 0.599 5.705 <0.001 12.735 26.632 N = 54; R 2 = .575; F (1, 45) = 32.550; p = <.001. Again, forward stepwise regression was used to determine if there were statistically significant, predictive relationships between self-efficacy and the eight predictor variables. The results of the forward stepwise regression sugge sted that pre-/post-te st group membership [ t (1) = 6.048, p = <.001], the number of courses taken including information about students with disabilities [ t (1) = 4.181, p = <.001, and employment as an ESE teacher [ t (1) = 2.993, p = .004] significantly influenced self-efficacy scores. A summary of the forward stepwise regression is provided in Table 4-12. Table 4-12. Reduced Models Forward Stepwise Multiple Linear Regression for Self-Efficacy Model b se b b s t df p -95% CI +95% CI 1 Intercept 45.148 2.864 15.761 1 <0.001 39.400 50.896 Group 15.074 4.051 0.459 3.721 1 <0.001 6.945 23.203 2 Intercept 33.563 3.442 9.750 1 <0.001 26.652 40.474 Group 18.703 3.498 0.569 5.346 1 <0.001 11.680 25.726 Courses Related 3.769 0.799 0.502 4.719 1 <0.001 2.165 5.372 3 Intercept 32.559 3.219 10.114 1 <0.001 26.093 39.025 Group 19.803 3.274 0.602 6.048 1 <0.001 13.227 26.380 Courses Related 3.204 0.766 0.427 4.181 1 <0.001 1.665 4.743 ESE 14.795 4.943 0.302 2.993 1 0.004 4.867 24.723 Model 1: N = 54; R 2 = .210; F (1,52) = 13.847; p = <.001. Model 2: N = 54; R 2 = .450; F (1,51) = 22.268; p = <.001. Model 3: N = 54; R 2 = .534; F (1,50) = 8.959; p = .004. The prediction equation for this model was: Self-efficacy = 32.559 + 19.803 (Group) + 3.204 (Courses Including Information about Students with Disabilities ) + 14.795 (ESE teacher). 72

PAGE 73

Because this model explained 53.4% of the variability in self-efficacy scores, this null hypothesis was rejected. Summary In this chapter, the results of the study we re presented. Descriptive statistics and data analyses including multivariate analysis of variance, univariate t-tests, and multiple regression were explained and discussed in relation to the studys hypotheses. A dditionally, preliminary reliability data for the instruments used was presented. In chapter 5, discussions of the results related to conclusions, limitations, implicat ions, and recommendations will be presented. 73

PAGE 74

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The number of students receiving exceptional st udent education (ESE) services has been rising steadily over the last seve ral years. Because ESE students are part of the general school population, clearly it is within a sc hool counselors role to work with these students. However, the limited literature available on this topic indicate s that many school counselors do not feel prepared to meet the needs of this population. Therefore, this study examined the effectiveness of a brief training program on pre-service schoo l counselors knowledge of exceptional student education (ESE) and their beliefs re garding their ability to work w ith students with disabilities and their families. The 56 study participants were drawn from three different university counselor preparation programs in the southeastern United States. Presented in this chapter are discussions of the findings, limitations, implicati ons, and recommendations for future research. Discussion It was determined that the preand post-test groups sc ores on the School Counselor Exceptional Student Education Knowledge Te st (SCESEKT) and the School Counselor Exceptional Student Education Self-Efficacy Survey (SCESESES) differed based on participation in the training. Pa rticipation in the training signif icantly increased participants knowledge of the laws and processes surrounding exceptional student education, of the research related to the individualized educ ation plan meeting experience for students and families, and of specific interventions school counselors can impl ement. Participation in the training also significantly increased participants self-efficacy beliefs regarding their ability to work with students in ESE and their families. It also was determined that participation in the training significan tly increased graduate students knowledge of ESE laws and processes, of experiences of parents of children with 74

PAGE 75

disabilities, and of appropria te interventions by school couns elors as measured by SCESEKT scores. This increase in knowledge was shown re gardless of graduate students age, number of program-applicable credit hours co mpleted, number of courses taken specifically focusing on students with disabilities, numb er of courses taken includi ng information on students with disabilities, number of fieldwor k experiences with students with disabilities, or employment as an ESE teacher. However, to a small extent, previous employment as a K-12 teacher increased graduate students knowledge of ESE laws and pro cesses, of experiences of parents of children with disabilities, and of appropria te interventions by school counselors. Participation in the training, number of c ourses taken that incl uded information about students with disabilities, and employment as an ESE teacher significant ly increased graduate students reported self-efficacy beliefs in work ing with students with disabilities and their families. However, the other experience factors assessed in the study (i.e., age, number of credit hours completed, number of courses taken specifi cally focusing on students with disabilities, number of fieldwork experiences with students with disabilities, or employment as a K-12 teacher) did not significantly incr ease graduate students reported self-efficacy beliefs in working with this population of students and their families. Self-efficacy beliefs, considered to be central to the social cognitive theory of learning, have been linked with positive professional outc omes (such as career satisfaction) for school counselors (Baggerly & Osborn, 2006). Additionally, teachers (on whom there have been more studies conducted) with higher se lf-efficacy beliefs have been found to be better able to manage challenging tasks and student behaviors and have been linked with positive student outcomes such as higher student achievement, higher student motivation, and higher student self-efficacy (Anderson, Greene, & Lowen, 1988; Baker, 2005; Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989). 75

PAGE 76

This study is a first step in identifying preservice school counselors self efficacy beliefs with this specific population of students and in investigating teaching methods for counselor educators to increase self-efficacy beliefs regarding working with this population of students and their families. Previous research has indicated that certain methods of instruction have been shown to influence counselor self-efficacy belie fs among pre-service counselors; these methods included role plays and modeling (Larson & Daniel s, 1998; Larson et al., 1999). Results of this study, which incorporated both role plays and modeling, lend support to the idea that these methods of instruction are effective in increasi ng counselor self-efficacy beliefs, at least in the short-term. Limitations This study was designed to minimize threats to internal and external experimental design validity; however, methodological limitations remain. Time available for the training was a limiting factor in this study. Th e training was initially designed to take approximately two-anda-half hours; however, after the pilot training, it became apparent that the material covered in the training would need to be scaled back in order to fit within a two-and-a-half-hour time frame. This was due, in part, to the rele vant questions and disc ussions initiated by the participants, and also to the increased amount of time required to watch video examples and participate in roleplay activities. Additionally, although the researcher requested a three-hour time period within which to conduct the training and pre-/post-testi ng, the actual time availa ble at each university varied from approximately two-and-one quarter hours to two-and-threequarter hours. As a result, there was some variability in the conten t of each training. Although the trainings at each of the three universities cove red the same didactic teaching, video modeling, and large-group discussion of possible interventions, there was so me variability in the time available for the practice of specific communication sk ills and review of case studies. 76

PAGE 77

Another possible methodological limitation was resear cher bias resulting from the fact that the researcher was also the pr esenter of the training module at all three universities. The researcher had a strong interest in this topic and the success of the training activity, and had previously presented components of the traini ng module to pre-servi ce and practicing school counselors. It is possible, th erefore, that other trainers/edu cators might not achieve similar results. Another potential limitation was the use of surv eys developed specifically for this study. The SCESESES was created because no other specific measure of school c ounselor self-efficacy related to working with students in ESE could be found. However, the psychometric credibility of the SCESESES was based upon the psychometric credibility of the SC PS-R and the SCSES, both of which were relatively good. In addition, pilot testing of the SCESESES allowed for modification and adaptation of the SCESESES. The SCESEKT was also developed specifically for this study and was an attempt to assess knowledge of the information covered in the training program, including IDEA requirements and processe s, families experiences of the IEP meeting process, the role of the school counselor in work ing with students in ESE, and effective means for school counselors to become involved in the IEP meeting process. While the preliminary factor analysis for the SCESESES supported on e factor (which explained 65% of the total variance), the preliminary factor analysis for the SCESEKT i ndicated that one factor accounted for only 28% of the total variance. Four factor s were required to accoun t for over half of the total variance on the SCESEKT, possibly indica ting that more than one component was being measured by the instrument. Nonetheless, th ese psychometric propertie s are relatively good for these types of instruments. Therefore, although there are always psychometric limitations, they do not appear to have been partic ularly substantive in this study. 77

PAGE 78

Because the SCESESES was a se lf-report measure asking particip ants to rate their feeling of confidence about various aspect s of working with students with disabilities and their families, it is vulnerable to social desirability bias. Pa rticipants may have felt compelled to over-report what they perceived to be preferred or co rrect answers for counsel ors-in-training, possibly skewing the scores for this measure. Finally, this study was conducted at three universities in the southeastern United States. Participants for this study were recruited through classes in which the professor agreed to assist in the collection of data for th is study. Not all of the profe ssors contacted responded to the researchers request, and some who responded were not able to include th e training program into their course. Additionally, while an attempt wa s made to include school counselor preparation programs at universities of various Carnegie clas sifications, not all classi fications or types of counselor preparation programs were represented. For these reasons, the results of this study cannot be generalized to all pr e-service school counselors. However, nothing occurred to suggest that there was any eviden t bias in the selection of par ticipants or that they did not represent counselor education students in school counseling programs in general. Therefore, although the participants did not fully represent the originally intended population, they did appear to be a fair sampling of school counselor education students. Implications Previous research regarding school counselors working with students with disabilities has focused on school counselors feelings of prepar edness to work with th is population and the gap that exists between graduate-education and the knowledge and skills nece ssary to work with exceptional student learners. By focusing on th e efficacy of a brief training module on working with students in ESE and their families, this study can be viewed as a first step towards 78

PAGE 79

determining effective practices of training a nd intervention for both counselor educators and practicing school counselors. Implications for Theory Development Knowles theory of adult learning (andragogy) was the theoretical framework undergirding this study, along with self-efficacy components of social cognitive theory. Andragogy posits six assumptions of how adults learn, including incorporation of previous life experiences, problemcentered rather than subject-centered l earning, and the importance of understanding why one need to learn specific information. Knowledge of the efficacy of the brief training program used in this study, which was designed with these as sumptions in mind, has implications for adult learning theory and methods of instruction for adu lt learners. More specif ically, in this study the use of a brief training program incorporating didactic learning, vide o role-plays, and group discussion was found to be an effective method to increase adult participants knowledge and self-efficacy beliefs regarding working with stud ents with disabilities and their families. Therefore, andragogy appears to be a useful and viable framework from which to understand at least some aspects of educati ng school counselor education st udents and/or school counselors. Implications for Practice As the number of students enrolled in ESE pr ograms continues to rise, school counselors will benefit from knowing how to work effectively with them and their families. If pre-service school counselors can learn about appropriate interventions they can provide with this population of students through brief training programs such as the one used in this study, they would be less likely to participate in inappropriate tasks rela ted to ESE (such as managing paperwork) when they begin working. Additionally, if pre-serv ice school counselors knowledge and/or selfefficacy beliefs regarding working with students in ESE can be increased through brief training 79

PAGE 80

programs, they may be more likely to accept or seek out opportunities to work with these students and their families. This study also has implications for the practic es of counselor educat ors. This study has contributed to the body of knowledge surrounding school counselors work with students with disabilities. Knowledge of pre-service school counselors knowledge of ESE and self-efficacy beliefs regarding working with this population ca n be useful when determining topics to be addressed in counselor education programs. In addition to knowledge of pre-service schoo l counselors knowledge of ESE and their self-efficacy beliefs regarding working with this population of students, the method of instruction used in this study has implications for counselor educat ors. As the results of this study indicate that the brief trai ning program used was effective in increasing the knowledge and self-efficacy beliefs regarding working with st udents in ESE and their families, counselor educators could use this training as a template for use within a vari ety of school counselor preparation courses. Results of this study also have implications for school counselor education programs that enroll large numbers of K-12 teacher s and ESE teachers, as their knowledge levels and self-efficacy beliefs regarding working with students in ESE may di ffer from other preservice school counselor populations In sum, this study demonstrat ed that even relatively brief exposure to important information about working with students with disabili ties is beneficial to pre-service school counselors. Therefore, the benefits of incorporation of these types of educational experiences into counselor preparation programs are evident. Recommendations for Future Research The results of this study rais e some questions and possibiliti es for future research. For example, the training module was a first attemp t to design a brief training experience about general components of working with students in ESE and their families for pre-service school 80

PAGE 81

counselors. It was by no means a comprehensive, all-inclusive training ex perience. Therefore, future research could include a study soliciting opinions from an expert panel of professionals (perhaps professors of counselor education and special education and school counselors, among others) ranking the importance of various contents such as the components of the ESE process, working with students with disabilities, and work ing with parents of st udents with disabilities within the school setting. Resu lts of a Delphi study could then be used to modify both the training module and the related instrumentation. The training module should also be evaluated in use at ot her universities, and by other facilitators, within school counselor preparation programs as part of a replicati on study to see if the results then are consistent with those found in this study. Additionally, this study highlights the need for investigation of the impact of more extensive ESE training programs, such as semest er-long courses. While previous research in school counseling has indicated that ESE training is necessary and desired, the brief training provided for this study conveyed only a portion of the available information on ESE relevant for pre-service school counselors. More extensive traini ng programs or courses could incorporate information and experiences about the manifestati ons of various disabilities, the experiences of children with disabilities as they progress through school, the dynamics within families of children with disabilities, the professionals w ho are involved in the care of children with disabilities, and community programs available to assist these children and families. Longerterm training programs and/or co urses that increase awareness of this type of information may benefit pre-service school counselor s as they consider the ways in which they can interact with and assist these students and familie s and should be further studied. 81

PAGE 82

Future studies regarding instrumentation shoul d seek validation of the SCESEKT. While the reliability of this measure was high, preliminary factor analysis revealed that one factor only accounted for 28% of the total variance. It took four components to account for over half of the total variance, possibly indicati ng that other factors besides know ledge were being measured by this instrument. Future studies should also look to replicate th e reliability and validity of the SCESESES. The results of this study suggest that changes in specific self-efficacy beliefs can occur in a short amount of time in pre-service school counselors. At the same time (borrowing from literature in a related field) rese arch looking at teacher efficacy i ndicates that self-efficacy beliefs fluctuate as students progress thr ough their university training and transition into their first few years of professional practice. Research conduc ted on pre-service and practicing teachers has shown that self-efficacy tends to be higher durin g college preparation, and then decreases during student teaching experiences and/ or the first few years of employment (Erdem & Demirel, 2007; Woolfolk-Hoy & Spero, 2005). This decrease in perceived efficacy has been attributed to new professionals high expectations of personal perf ormance combined with a large number of new responsibilities. According to Erdem and De mirel, the optimism of young teachers may be somewhat tarnished when confronted with the rea lities and complexities of the teaching task (p. 575). This study, conducted on graduate students in the process of re ceiving their school counselor education, can be cons idered a snapshot early on in the progression of professional development, and further research is warranted to determine if the re sults of this study are indicative of inflated feelings of self-efficacy. Fu rther research in this ar ea could also track the evolution of students self-efficacy beliefs about working with stude nts in ESE as they transition into employed school counselors positions. 82

PAGE 83

Finally, and most importantly, future resear ch should focus on the relationships among knowledge and self-efficacy beliefs regarding work ing with students in ESE and their families and actual skill acquisition demonstrated by school counselors. It would be interesting to see what, if any, specific interventions introduced in the training are la ter utilized by participants as they transition into school counselor positions. Additionally, the specific interventions employed can then be correlated with reported beliefs of self-efficacy, allowing us to begin to establish connections between utilizing sp ecific interventions and higher or lower self-efficacy scores. Ultimately, research in this area will benefit not only the students that school counselors serve, but also school counselors, c ounselor educators, and the couns eling profession as a whole. Summary The impact of a brief training program was examined to determine its effectiveness to enhance pre-service school c ounselors knowledge of exceptiona l student education (ESE) and their beliefs regarding their ability to work with students with disabilities and their families. Overall, the results of this st udy lend support to the use of a brie f training experience to increase pre-service school counselors knowledge of ESE and self-efficacy beliefs regarding working with students with disabilities and their families. 83

PAGE 84

APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT FORM Project Title: The effect of a training module on preservice school counse lors knowledge and self-efficacy beliefs regarding working with studen ts in exceptional stud ent education and their families Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of a training module on pre-service school counselors knowledge and self-e fficacy beliefs regarding working with students in exceptional student education and their families. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be given the opportunity to participate in a three-hour exceptional student education training consisting of brief lectures, small group exercises, role-plays, and large group discussions. In addition, you will be asked to respond to the following questionnaires, which will require approximately 15 minutes: (1) a demogr aphic data sheet requesting information such as age, race, gender, presence of disability, and previous educational experiences; (2) an 11question instrument designed to measure knowledge of policies, procedures, family involvement, and school counselors roles related to exceptional student education; and (3) a 12-question instrument designed to measure self-efficacy beliefs regarding working with students in exceptional student education and their families. Time required: Three hours Risks and Benefits: This research does not involve any known risks to you as a participant. Th is study is designed to benefit participants by increasing their excep tional student education knowledge and selfefficacy beliefs. Indirectly, the study will be nefit counselor educators by providing valuable information for improving the effectiveness of counselor preparation in exceptional student education. Compensation: No compensation is offered for your participation in this study. Confidentiality: 84

PAGE 85

Your identity will be kept confidential to the ex tent provided by law. You will not be asked to identify yourself by name in this study. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from th e study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Teresa N. Leibforth, Ed.S., Doctor al Candidate, Department of C ounselor Education, University of Florida, POB 117046, Gainesville, FL 32611-7046, (352) 359-5561, leib4th@ufl.edu Larry Loesch, Ph.D., Professor, Department of C ounselor Education, University of Florida, POB 117046, Gainesville, FL 32611-7046, (352) 392-0731, ext. 225 Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; phone 392-0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I volunt arily agree to pa rticipate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investig ator: ___________________________________ Date: _________________ 85

PAGE 86

APPENDIX B PERSONAL DATA SHEET The following questions are intended to gather demographic information about you as a participant in this research. You will not be as ked to identify yourself by name. Your responses will be reported only in general terms as they relate to relevant variables of interest. Thank you for your participation! ________________________________________________________________________ 1. What is your age? __________ years 2. What is your gender? Female Male 3. What is your race/ethnicity? African Asian Caucasian Hispanic Native American Multiracial Other 4. Which university do you attend? University of Central Florida University of Florida University of North Florida University of South Carolina 5. Do you have a disability? Yes No 6. Does anyone in your immediate family (such as a spouse, partner, sibling, or child) have a disability? Yes No 7. As of the end of LAST term, how many semester credits toward your counselor education degree have you completed? ______ credits 8. During your school counseling gr aduate program, how many courses specifically focusing on students with disabilities have you taken? ______ courses 86

PAGE 87

9. During your school counseling graduate prog ram, how many courses have you taken in which information about students with disabilities was presented? _____ courses 10. During your school counseling gr aduate program, how many fieldwork experiences with students with disabilities have you completed (for example, practica or internship)? ______ fieldwork experiences 11. Have you ever been employed as a K-12 teacher ? Yes No 12. Have you ever been employed as an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teacher ? Yes No 87

PAGE 88

APPENDIX C SCHOOL COUNSELOR ESE KNOWLEDGE TEST (SCESEKT) 1. Which one of the following entitles children with disabilities ages 3-21 to a free and appropriate public education? a. FAPE b. IDEA c. Section 504 d. All of the above 2. Which one of the following is NOT a step in the ESE placement process? a. Referral b. Family visit c. Evaluation d. Eligibility determination e. Placement 3. According to the American School Counseling A ssociation, which one of the following is NOT considered an appropriate task for school counselors regarding ESE? a. Advocating for students at indivi dual education plan meetings b. Preparing individuali zed education plans c. Consulting and collaborating with staff and parents d. Making referrals to appropriate specialists within the school system and in the community 4. True or False: The IEP meeting process is more problematic for families from diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic populations. a. True b. False 5. Research has indicated that, during IEP meetings, team members: a. Focus on students strengths and abilities b. Disrespect parent perspectives c. Encourage student participation in meaningful ways d. Understand and accommodate for cultural differences 88

PAGE 89

6. Which one of the following is a possible barr ier to school counselor involvement with students in ESE? a. Other professionals have inappropriate expectations of how school counselors should be involved with students in ESE b. School counselors do not want to be burdened with inappropriate tasks c. School counselors may not feel prepared to meet the needs of students in ESE programs d. All of the above are possible barrie rs to school counselor involvement 7. True or False: Students from diverse popul ations represent a disproportionate number of students receiving special education. a. True b. False 8. True or False: In the literature about paren ts of children with disabilities, a common theme is opportunities for new beginnings. a. True b. False 9. True or False: Coping with a childs disabi lity occurs primarily at the time of initial diagnosis. a. True b. False 10. What have parents of a child with a disability lost? a. The expected perfect child b. The normal parenting role and its impact over time c. The possible loss of an independent adult d. B and C e. All of the above 11. True or False: It is important for school counselors to have an extensive knowledge of ESE before working with students with disabilities and their families. a. True b. False 89

PAGE 90

12. Which one of the following is NOT a strategy for blocking blame during IEP meetings? a. Reframing the situation in a more positive light b. Direct blocking of the blaming statement c. Illustrating what is being said by providing specific examples d. Explaining the blaming statement in detail so that others understand 13. Which one of the following is NOT a step in the SOLVES meeting process? a. Setting up the meeting and preparing the student and family b. Orienting to purpose and process and introducing participants c. Listing students deficits and dete rmining action plan for remediation d. Expanding solution ideas 90

PAGE 91

APPENDIX D SCHOOL COUNSELOR ESE SELF-E FFICACY SURVEY (SCESESES) For the purpose here, students with disabilities are defined as individuals who would qualify for special education or rela ted services based on fulfillment of the criteria for one or more of the following: Autism Emotional Disturbance Hearing Impairment Specific Learning Disability Mental Retardation Orthopedic Impairment Speech/Language Impairment Traumatic Brain Injury Visual Impairment Other health impairment which adversel y affects educational performance (for example, ADHD) How confident do you feel currently to perform ea ch activity listed? Mark one box for each statement. Not Confident Slightly Confident Moderately Confident Generally Confident Highly Confident 1. Understand the legislation related to special education. 2. Understand the special education eligibility process. 3. Understand the feelings parents may experience when learning that their child has a disability. 4. Identify time periods and transitions that may be more stressful for parents of students with disabilities. 5. Understand the viewpoints and experiences of students with disabilities and their families during the IEP meeting process 6. Identify cultural differences regarding disability. 91

PAGE 92

Not Confident Slightly Confident Moderately Confident Generally Confident Highly Confident 7. Identify key differences between collaborative and noncollaborative IEP meetings. 8. Identify barriers to effective IEP meetings. 9. Serve on the IEP team to identify and provide services to students with disabilities. 10. Contact students and family members prior to IEP meetings to help prepare them for what to expect. 11. Advocate for students with disabilities and their families during the IEP meeting process. 12. Demonstrate effective communication skills during the IEP meeting. 13. Elicit information on student strengths during the IEP meeting. 14. Use group counseling techniques to facilitate the IEP team process. 15. Block blame from teachers, students, and/or family members during the IEP meeting. 16. Conduct IEP meetings using the SOLVES meeting process. 17. Identify ways to improve the IEP meeting process before, during, and after the IEP meeting. 92

PAGE 93

APPENDIX E SCHOOL COUNSELOR ESE TR AINING MODULE (SCESETM) SCHOOL COUNSELOR INVOLVEMENT WITH STUDENTS AND FAMILIES DURING THE INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PLAN (IEP) PROCESS I. Overview A. Goals of this presentation 1. Increase your knowledge of federa l legislation governing Exceptional Student Education (ESE) 2. Increase your knowledge of IDEA requirements and the ESE determination process 3. Increase your knowledge of research related to families experiences with ESE in general and IEP meetings in particular 4. Increase your knowledge of the ASCA guidelines regarding school counselors roles in working with students in ESE 5. Model effective communication and group management skills specific to the IEP meeting process 6. Increase your knowledge of specific interventions school counselors can provide before, during, and after IEP meetings to increase collaboration and family involvement B. How is this relevant to my future work? 1. The number of students receiving special education services has been rising steadily over the last several decades. 2. No matter what school setting or level you choose to work in, you will likely be interacting with students with disabilities and their families. II. Exceptional Student Education Laws A. A Brief Summary of Special Education Laws 1. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 2. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 3. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) B. The Americans with Di sabilities Act of 1990 1. Gives civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities 2. Guarantees individuals with disabilities equal opportunity and equal access to employment, transporta tion, state and local government services, accommodations and telecommunications 93

PAGE 94

C. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 1. Law that prohibits discri mination on the basis of disability in any program or activity that receives federal financial assistance (Newmeyer & Newmeyer, 2004) 2. The definition of a person with a disa bility is a person with a physical or mental impairment th at substantially limits one or more major life activities D. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 1. Began as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975 2. Amended in 1990, 1991, 1997, 2004 3. Part B: entitles children ages 3-21 to a free and appropriate public education E. The Special Education Process 1. Cyclical process that includes: a) Referral b) Evaluation c) Eligibility d) IEP e) Placement f) Instruction g) Annual Review F. Exceptional Programs 1. IDEA specifies the following categories: a) Specific learning disabilities b) Mentally handicapped c) Other health impairments d) Hearing impairments e) Autism f) Traumatic Brain Injury g) Deaf-Blindness h) Speech or language impairments i) Emotional disturbance j) Deafness k) Orthopedic impairments l) Visual impairments 94

PAGE 95

m) Developmental delay III. Families Experiences A. Childre & Chambers (2005) I felt like a lot of times they pretty well had the agenda set before we got therethe few things we would mention, it was like, Well that is great, then they would go back into the set agenda. It just kind of seemed like it was kind of a cut and dry thing basically before we got there (Ross). B. Salas (2004) When the director of special programs calls me to tell me about meetings for my little girl, I get very nervous and anxious because my English is not good. And when I go to meeting they only tell the things that she does wrong, nothing good. I tell my husband that I dont want to go back to meetings but he tells me that they will send welfare worker and then we w ill be in big trouble. I dont like those meetings; they are very frustrat ing because you cant say anything. C. Salas (2004) I dont like walking into t hose special meetings and ev erybody staring at me. All those people. They prete nd to care about us, but they dont know us. They dont ask us what we need or want. They always use those big words that I cant understand. I try to get there as early as I can so I don t look stupid. I dont even know most of those people at the special m eeting, only my childs teacher. I like to sit next to her. It makes me feel better and not so scared. D. IEP Meetings 1. Professionally driven (Martin et al., 2006; Thoma, Rogan, & Baker, 2001) 2. Deficit focused (Thoma, Rogan, & Baker) 3. Parents often feel alienation during IEP meetings because participating professionals 4. Use jargon 5. Disrespect parent perspectives 6. Demonstrate non-collaborative actions 7. Fail to establish networks among classrooms, school, and agencies (Childre & Chambers, 2005; Spann, Kohler, & Sokensen, 2003). 95

PAGE 96

E. Communication During IEP Meetings (Martin et al., 2006) 1. Who is talking? a) Special education teachers (51%) b) Family (15%) c) General education teachers (9%) d) Administrators (9%) e) Support staff (6%) f) Multiple conversations (5%) g) Student (3%) h) No conversation (2%) F. Socio-Culturally Diverse Families 1. Students from these families repres ent a disproportionate number of students receiving ESE services (G eenen, Powers, & Lopez-Vasquez, 2001; Harry & Anderson, 1994) 2. These families experience: a) Language alienation b) Lack of respect (Salas, 2004) c) Racism d) Discrimination e) Insensitivity f) Cultural unresponsiveness (Geenan, Powers, & LopezVasquez, 2001) G. How do families cope with learning thei r child has a disability? (Renzenbrink & Bruce, 2006) 1. What have parents of a child with a disability lost? a) The expected perfect child b) The normal parenting role and its impact over time c) The possible loss of an independent adult 96

PAGE 97

H. Some Key Points about Grief and Loss Regarding Disability (Renzenbrink & Bruce, 2006) 1. Coping with loss is ongoing througho ut the life cycle of the family 2. Time of diagnosis is not necessarily the only acute period of grieving 3. Concern for the childs future in a dulthood is often present at a very early age 4. Difficult feelings of anger, jealousy, and denial are part of the grieving process and professionals have a role in helping parents work through these feelings, even when they are projected towards them 5. Grieving can be experienced by fa mily members in quite different ways 6. Involvement of professionals should be positive for families, who sometimes feel they have no choice in the professionals involvement in their lives I. What are some of the feelings parents may experience after learning their child has a disability? 1. Anger 2. Resentment 3. Jealousy 4. Frustration 5. Embarrassment 6. Fear 7. Depression 8. Despair 9. Hopelessness 10. Abandonment 11. Disbelief 12. Shock 13. Guilt 14. Shame J. What are some things pa rents may ask themselves? 1. What did I do to cause this? 2. Am I being punished? 3. How will this affect the family? 4. What is going to happen to my child? 97

PAGE 98

5. What will happen when I die? 6. How are we going to afford this? 7. What will the future look like for my child? 8. What will the future look like for my family? 9. Why me? K. Times that may be more stress ful for parents (Meindl, 2006) 1. Time of initial diagnosis or time of acquiring the disability* 2. When additional disabilities are discovered 3. At school placement* 4. During adolescence 5. When the child becomes aware of his or her disability 6. During transition from school to work/adulthood* 7. During a subsequent pregnancy or parental illness 8. When siblings marry 9. During future care arrangements 10. At permanent care application 11. Aging of parents and death of a caregiver L. What may be some cultural differences regarding disability? (Lamorey, 2002) 1. Causation a) Supernatural or cosmic causes b) Fate c) Magic d) Religious beliefs 2. Parent Perceptions a) Divine plan b) Poor preparation c) Marital difficulties 3. Parent Experiences/Coping a) Religious beliefs b) Home remedies c) Community healers 98

PAGE 99

IV. School Counselor Interventions A. A Comparison 1. Emerging Themes a) Ineffective interpersonal communication b) Lack of awareness/ understandi ng of cultural differences c) Ineffective communication within school system and with community systems 2. School Counselor Training a) Interpersonal skills b) Group counseling c) Multicultural issues d) Community resources B. How can school counselors intervene? 1. We know that a) Parents may be reluctant to come to school b) School staff dont have much extra time to devote to extensive, new programs c) By law, parents need to be included as part of the IEP team 2. Start by building on routines that ar e already in place, such as the IEP process C. Less Effective Communication (show mock IEP meeting video) 1. A more traditional meeting: a) May or may not include the school counselor b) May or may not include the student c) Each staff member reports on their results and observations d) Minimal input is sought from family members e) Goals are pre-determined f) Paperwork is signed D. More Effective Communication (show mock IEP meeting video) 99

PAGE 100

1. A more collaborative meeting: a) May include the school counselor b) Includes the student c) Discusses findings that have been previously provided to the family d) Includes various perspectives, including those from the student and family members e) Primary concerns and goals are discussed from all perspectives, not just by the school staff f) Paperwork is important, but secondary to communication E. Appropriate professional roles for the school counselor include (ASCA, 2004): 1. Collaborating with other student suppo rt specialists in the delivery of services 2. Advocating for students with special needs in the school and in the community 3. Assisting with the establishment and implementation of plans for accommodations and modifications 4. Consulting and collaborating with staff and parents to understand the special needs of these students 5. Making referrals to appropriate speci alists within the school system and in the community F. What are some possible barriers for school counselors working with students in ESE? 1. Other professionals may have ina ppropriate expectations of how school counselors should be involved 2. School counselors may be burde ned with inappropriate tasks 3. School counselors may not feel prepared to meet the needs of students in ESE programs 4. Time constraints G. Ways for school counselors to be in volved in the IEP meeting process 1. Before the meeting: a) Communicating/preparing the family (1) Who will be attending? (2) What information will be shared? 100

PAGE 101

(3) When and how can the family contribute to the IEP? b) Coordinating with teachers c) Preparing the student 2. During the meeting: a) Logistical considerations (1) Where will the meeting be held? Consider the need for privacy. (2) When will the meeting be hel d? Is this a reasonable time for the family? b) Introductions c) Demonstrate effective communication skills (1) Active listening (2) Encouraging (3) Paraphrasing (4) Summarizing (5) Asking open-ended questions (6) Reflecting feelings d) Elicit and build on information regarding students and families strengths and resources e) Block blame (Amatea, 2008)(pract ice with video scenarios) (1) Direct blocking: signaling that the purpose of the interaction is not to blame but to solve a problem. (2) Reframing: providing an alte rnate point of view about a set of facts which gives th e facts a more positive, productive meaning. (3) Probing: eliciting additional in formation to clarify the context leading to blaming. (4) Refocusing: a statement that re directs the discussion from a non-productive or nonessential area to an area relevant to helping the student. (5) Illustrating: giving concre te examples of areas of concern. (6) Validating: recognizing th e validity of anothers perceptions and/or efforts. (7) Agreeing: confirming someones perception of a situation. 101

PAGE 102

f) Facilitate the group process (1) SOLVES Meeting Process (Amatea, 2008) (a) S etting up the meeting & inviting the student and family (b) O rienting to the meeting purpose and process & introductions (c) L istening and clarifying participants concerns & blocking blame (d) V alidating & checking for consensus about shared concerns (e) E xpanding solution ideas (f) S etting up an action plan & follow-up 3. After the meeting/ongoing a) Obtain feedback from IEP te am participants (including students and families) b) Organize inservices for teachers and school staff regarding multicultural awareness and issues related to disability c) Present workshops, in conjunction with other professionals, to students and families regarding development, disability, and learning. d) Check-in with families to see how they are coping with the information they have received. e) Seek opportunities to advance personal knowledge regarding the needs of students in ESE and the laws and regulations governing ESE. H. Case Studies 1. Matthew Matthew is a 6-year-old Asian ma le who has been diagnosed by his physician as having Pervasive Develo pmental Delay (PDD). After going through the special education referral and evaluation processes, the IEP team tells Matthews parents that he qualifies for special education services under the educational diagno sis of autism. Matthews parents make arrangements to attend the IEP meeting at Matthews school. Matthews parents are both physicians. The familys primary language at home is Mandarin. Both parents atte nd the IEP meeting and listen quietly as the various professionals at the meeting share their observations and 102

PAGE 103

test results. Matthews parents dont consistently make eye contact with the school staff during the meeting, and some of the staff members begin to wonder how well the parents und erstand English. The school professionals quickly review evaluati on results, and then discuss goals for Matthew and placement. Matthews parents have no questions for the school staff; at the end of the mee ting, Matthews parents thank the staff members for their time and expertise. After the parents le ave, a couple of teachers express relief that the parents did not ask any questionsthe teachers were intimidated by the fact that both parents were physicians. a) What are some of the key points that stand out for you as you read this case study? b) As a school counselor, what would you like to have more information about regarding this family? c) As a school counselor, what are some things you can do to improve the IEP meeting process for Matthew and his family? 2. Mary Mary is a 6-year-old Caucasian girl who has been referred for special education services. Mary was born pr ematurely and has had several health difficulties since she was an infant. Because of her health difficulties, Mary has been followed by several p hysicians and speech, physical, and occupational therapists in the comm unity. The school has initiated a referral for special education services because Mary is not keeping up with her classmates with regard to academ ic, motor, and social development. Marys parents understand the medical aspects of her health conditions, but they are surprised to learn that she continues to lag behind her classmatesespecially in academics a nd social development. They feel that, given a bit more time, Mary will catch up with her classmates, and they try to explain this to the IEP team Marys parents also want to share the developmental progress Mary has made over the last year through her therapies, but the school professionals indicate that they are pressed for time and need to move quickly through the meeting. One staff member in particular feels that Marys parents ar e in denial about he r disabilities, and that it is important to explain to Mary s parents how all of her deficits will continue to affect her for the rest of her life. During the IEP meeting, the school staff uses a lot of acronyms and educational jargon. Marys parents have several questions, but they do not feel encouraged to ask them. a) What are some of the key points that stand out for you as you read this case study? b) As a school counselor, what would you like to have more information about regarding this family? c) As a school counselor, what are some things you can do to improve the IEP meeting process for Mary and her family? 103

PAGE 104

3. Alan Alan is a 9-year-old African-American male who has been referred for special education services. Alan has had several absences due to illness and a couple of brief hospitalizations during this school year. Alans parents gave consent for the evaluati on process, and several tests were administered. The IEP team has deci ded that Alan qualifies for special education services under the other h ealth impaired disability category. Although Alans parents were pretty eas y to contact initially, the IEP team coordinator is now having a hard time getting in touch with Alans parents to set up an eligibility meeting; phon e calls and letters home are not being returned. The coordinator is getti ng frustrated and says she does not understand how parents can be so irres ponsible. Later on, a teacher who is close to the family mentions that the doctors are trying to figure out what is wrong with Alan, and that it may be cancer. a) What are some of the key points that stand out for you as you read this case study? b) As a school counselor, what would you like to have more information about regarding this family? c) As a school counselor, what are some things you can do to improve the IEP meeting process for Alan and his family? V. Concluding Remarks A. First Steps 1. Start small 2. Start with something you are more comfortable with 3. Build alliances with other sta ff members who see the need for improved communication B. Benefits to Involvement 1. Improving IEP meeting process for all participants 2. Enhancing perceptions of families 3. Promoting systemic change 4. Showcasing the training and skills that make school counselors unique VI. Final Questions/Discussion 104

PAGE 105

REFERENCES Allinder, R.M. (1994). The rela tionship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86-95. Amatea, E. (2008). Developing culturally responsive family-school partnerships: From theory to practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers and students thinking skills, sense of effi cacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34 (2), 148-165. American School Counselor Association [ASCA]. (2005). The ASCA National Model: A framework for school counseling programs (2 nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author. American School Counselor Association [ASCA]. (2004). The professional school counselor and students with special needs. Retrieved April 1, 2006, from http://asca2.timberl akepublishing.com//file s/Special%20Needs.pdf Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Razavieh, A., & Sorenson, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Baggerly, J. (2002). Florida sc hool counselors survey 2000: Results and recommendations. Florida Educational Research Council Research Bulletin, 33 (3). Baggerly, J., & Osborn, D. (2006). School counsel or career satisfaction and commitment: Correlates and Predictors. Professional School Counseling, 9 (3), 197-205. Baker, P.H. (2005). Managing stud ent behavior: How ready are teach ers to meet the challenge? American Secondary Education, 33 (3), 51-64. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Berry, J.O. (1987). A program for training teachers as counselors of parents of children with disabilities. Journal of Counseling and Development, 65 508-509. Bodenhorn, N., & Skaggs, G. (2005). Development of the School Counselor Self-Efficacy Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 38, 14-28. Bushy, A. (1992). Adult Learners: Consideratio ns for counselors in the educator role. Guidance & Counseling, 8 (1). Childre, A., & Chambers, C.R. (2005). Family per ceptions of student-centered planning and IEP meetings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40 (3), 217-233. 105

PAGE 106

Colbert, R.D., Vernon-Jones, R., & Pransky, K. (2006). The school change feedback process: Creating a new role for couns elors in education reform. Journal of Counseling & Development, 84 72-82. Education Trust. (2002). Challenging the myth s: Rethinking the role of school counselors. Washington, DC: Author. Erdem, E., & Demirel, O. (2007). Teacher Self-Efficacy Belief. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(5), 573-586. Erhard, R., & Umanksy, T. (2005). School counsello rs involvement in the process of inclusion in Israel. International Journal of Disabili ty, Development and Education, 52 (3), 175194. Geenen, S., Powers, L.E., & Lopez-Vasquez, A. (2001). Multicultura l aspects of parent involvement in transition planning. The Council for Exceptional Children, 67 (2), 265282. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. Harry, B., Allen, N., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Communication versus compliance: AfricanAmerican parents involvement in special education. Exceptional Children, 61 (4), 364378. Harry, B., & Anderson, M.G. (1994). The dispro portionate placement of African American males in special education program s: A critique of the process. The Journal of Negro Education, 63 (4), 602-619. Helms, N.E., & Katsiyannis, A. (1992). Counselors in elementa ry schools: Making it work for students with disabilities. School Counselor, 39(3), 232-238. Hoy, A.W., & Spero, R.B. (2005). Changes in te acher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21 (4), 343356. Huefner, D.S. (2000). The ri sks and opportunities of the IE P requirements under IDEA The Journal of Special Education, 33 (4), 195-204. Isaacs, M.L., Greene, M., & Valesky, T. (1998). Elementary counselors and inclusion: A statewide attitudinal survey. Professional School Counseling, 2 (1), 68-76. Kameen, M.C., & McIntosh, D.K. (1979). The co unselor and the individualized education program. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, December. 106

PAGE 107

Kaufman, D.M. (2003). Applying educational theory in practice. British Medical Journal. 326, 213-216. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7382/213 Korinek, L., & Prillaman, D. (1992). Counselors and exceptional students: Preparation versus practice. Counselor Education & Supervision, 32 (1). Lamorey, S. (2002). The effects of culture on sp ecial education services: Evil eyes, prayer meetings, and IEPs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34, 67-71. Larson, L.M., Clark, M.P., Wesely, L.H., Koralesk i, S.F., Daniels, J.A., & Smith, P.L. (1999). Videos versus role plays to increase couns eling self-efficacy in prepractica trainees. Counselor Education & Supervision, 38 (4), 237-249. Larson, L.M., & Daniels, J.A. (1998). Review of the counseling self -efficacy literature. The Counseling Psychologist, 26 (2), 179-219. Lebsock, M.S., & Deblassie, R.R. (1975). The sc hool counselors role in special education. Counselor Education and Supervision, December. Martin, J.E., Marshall, L.H., & Sale, P. (2004). A 3-year study of middl e, junior high, and high school IEP meetings. Exceptional Children, 70 (3), 285-297. Martin, J.E., Van Dycke, J.L., Greene, B.A., Ga rdner, J.E., Christensen, W.R., Woods, L.L., & Lovett, D.L. (2006). Direct observation of t eacher-directed IEP meetings: Establishing the need for student IEP meeting instruction. Exceptional Children, 72 (2), 187-200. McEachern, A.G. (2003). School counselor prep aration to meet the guidance needs of exceptional students: A national study. Counselor Education & Supervision, 42, 314-325. Meindl, S. (2005). Parental grief: Do we understand it? The National Association of Special Education Teachers. Retrieved January 20, 2008, from http://www.naset.org/545.0.html Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, R.S., & Baumgartner, L.M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (3 rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccl es, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student selfand task-related beliefs in mathematics du ring the transition to junior high school. Journal of Special Education, 81, 247-258. Milsom, A.S. (2002). Students with disabilities: School counselo r involvement and preparation. Professional School Counseling, 5 (5), 331-339. Milsom, A.S. (2004). Helping students with disab ilities through multidisciplinary teams. In B.T. Erford (Ed.), Professional school counseling: A handbook of theories, programs, & practices (pp. 659-666). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. 107

PAGE 108

Milsom, A.S. (2006). Creating positive school e xperiences for students with disabilities. Professional School Counseling, 10 (1), 66-72. Milsom, A.S., & Akos, P. (2003). Preparing scho ol counselors to work with students with disabilities. Counselor Education & Supervision, 43 86-95. Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher induction and elementary science teaching: Enhancing self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 243-261. National Center for Education Statistics (2007). Number and pe rcent of children served under Individuals with Disabiliti es Education Act, Part B, by age group and state or jurisdiction: Selected years, 1990-91 thr ough 2005-2006 [Table]. Retrieved January 24, 2009, from http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/ digest/d07/tables/dt07_049.asp Newmeyer, A.J. & Newmeyer M.D. (2004). Unders tanding 504 policies and procedures. In B.T. Erford (Ed.), Professional School Counselor's Handbook (pp. 655-658) Austin, TX : CAPS Press. Nichter, M., & Edmonson, S.L. (2005). Counseli ng services for special education students. Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory, & Research, 33 (2), 50-62. Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved September 11, 2007, from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff/html Praisner, C.L. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward inclusion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 135-145. Renzenbrink, I., & Bruce, E. (2006). Parental grief and adjustment to a child with a disability. Retrieved January 18, 2008, from http://www.education.vic.gov.a u/ocecd/earlychildhood/ library/publications/ecis/grief.html Romano, D.M., & Hermann, M.A. (2007). Advocates for all. ASCA School Counselor, 44 (6), 8689. Salas, L. (2004). Individualized educational plan (IEP) meetings and Mexican American parents: Lets talk about it. Journal of Latinos and Education, 3 (3), 181-192. Skinner, M.E. (1985). Counseling and special education: An esse ntial relationship. The School Counselor, 33 131-135. Spann, S.J, Kohler, F.W., & Soenksen, D. (2003). Examining parents involvement in and perceptions of special education services: An interview with families in a parent support group. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18 (4), 228-237. Standards for school counseling programs. (2001) Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.cacrep.org 108

PAGE 109

Studer, J.R., & Quigney, T.A. (2005). The need to integrate more special education content into pre-service preparation progr ams for school counsellors. Guidance & Counseling, 20 (2), 56-63. Sutton, J.M., & Fall, M. (1995). Th e relationship of school climate factors to counselor selfefficacy. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73, 331-336. Tang, M., Addison, K.D., LaSure-Bryant, D., Norman, R., OConnell, W., & Stewart-Sicking, J.A. (2004). Factors that influence self-efficacy of counseling students: An exploratory study. Counselor Education & Supervision, 44, 70-80. Thoma, C.A., Rogan, P., & Baker, S.R. (2001). Student involvement in transition planning: Unheard voices. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36(1), 16-29. Turnbull, R., Turnbull, A., Shank, M., Smith, S., & Leal, D. (2002). Exceptional lives: Special education in todays schools (3 rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. U.S. Department of Education. (2000). A guide to the individualized education program. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/ U.S. Department of Education. (2005). IDEA-reauthorized statute: Individualized education program (IEP) team meeti ngs and changes to the IEP. Retrieved August 10, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/ Vacc, N.A., Vallecorsa, A.L., Parker, A., Bonner, S., Lester, C., Richar dson, S. et al. (1985). Parents and Educator s Participation in IEP Conferences. Education and treatment of children, 8 153-162. Van Reusen, A.K., & Bos, C.S. (1994). Facilitating student participati on in individualized education programs through motiv ation strategy instruction. Exceptional Children, 60 (5), 466-476. Whitbread, K.M., Bruder, G.F., Fleming, G., Pa rk, H.J. (2007). Collaboration in special education: Parent-professional training. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39 (4), 6-14. Wilson, N.H., & Rotter, J.C. (1980). Elementary school counselor enrichment and renewal. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 14 178-186. Wood-Dunn, N.A., & Baker, S.B. (2002). Readiness to serve students with disabilities: A survey of elementary school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 5 (4), 277-285. 109

PAGE 110

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Teresa Naomi Leibforth was born in Tampa, Fl orida, in March of 1975. She is the only child of Robert and Susan Leibforth. Growing up, Teresa lived in Albany, Georgia, and Kailua, Hawaii, before her father retired from the military and the family settled in Seminole, Florida. Teresa graduated from Seminole High School in 1993 and then attended the University of Florida to pursue her undergradu ate studies. In 1997, Teresa gra duated from UF with a Bachelor of Health Science degree in occupational therap y. After working as a pediatric occupational therapist for a few years, Teresa returned to gr aduate school at UF and received her Master of Education and Specialist in E ducation degrees in school coun seling and guidance in 2004. While completing her doctoral program, Teresa worked as a school counselor at P.K. Yonge Developmental Research School. 110