<%BANNER%>

The Relationships between Secondary General Education Teachers' Beliefs and Practices for Included Students with Disabilities

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042703/00001

Material Information

Title: The Relationships between Secondary General Education Teachers' Beliefs and Practices for Included Students with Disabilities
Physical Description: 1 online resource (274 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Kiely, Mary Theresa
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: beliefs -- disabilities -- english -- exceptional -- inclusion -- language -- reading -- secondary -- teacher -- writing
Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Special Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: General education teachers support the inclusion of students with disabilities, but researchers have found supports for students with disabilities in general education settings to be less than adequate. How teachers make decisions about supporting the learning of included students with disabilities is not well understood and may well be driven by teachers? own beliefs. A better understanding of the relationship between secondary teachers? beliefs and their practices for supporting students with disabilities is critical for efforts to help teachers improve their practice. Four secondary level general education language arts teachers were interviewed and observed 4 times to investigate how their beliefs were related to practices to support students with disabilities. Data were analyzed according to guidelines for grounded theory; the grounded theory was expressed as a series of proposition statements related to the core phenomenon of negotiating support for included students with disabilities. The propositions delineated relationships between teachers? beliefs and practices found in this dataset (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Teachers? beliefs about the content area, the needs of students with disabilities and their own roles and responsibilities influenced their practices for providing support for their included students with disabilities. The results have implications for researchers, teacher educators, professional development providers and administrators seeking to influence teachers? practice in the area of supporting students with disabilities within general education classes.
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 Mary Theresa Kiely.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Brownell, Mary T.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042703:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042703/00001

Material Information

Title: The Relationships between Secondary General Education Teachers' Beliefs and Practices for Included Students with Disabilities
Physical Description: 1 online resource (274 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Kiely, Mary Theresa
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: beliefs -- disabilities -- english -- exceptional -- inclusion -- language -- reading -- secondary -- teacher -- writing
Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Special Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: General education teachers support the inclusion of students with disabilities, but researchers have found supports for students with disabilities in general education settings to be less than adequate. How teachers make decisions about supporting the learning of included students with disabilities is not well understood and may well be driven by teachers? own beliefs. A better understanding of the relationship between secondary teachers? beliefs and their practices for supporting students with disabilities is critical for efforts to help teachers improve their practice. Four secondary level general education language arts teachers were interviewed and observed 4 times to investigate how their beliefs were related to practices to support students with disabilities. Data were analyzed according to guidelines for grounded theory; the grounded theory was expressed as a series of proposition statements related to the core phenomenon of negotiating support for included students with disabilities. The propositions delineated relationships between teachers? beliefs and practices found in this dataset (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Teachers? beliefs about the content area, the needs of students with disabilities and their own roles and responsibilities influenced their practices for providing support for their included students with disabilities. The results have implications for researchers, teacher educators, professional development providers and administrators seeking to influence teachers? practice in the area of supporting students with disabilities within general education classes.
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 Mary Theresa Kiely.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Brownell, Mary T.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042703:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE RELATIONSHIP S BELIEFS AND PRACTICES FOR INCLUDED STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES By MARY THERESA KIELY A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Mary Theresa Kiely

PAGE 3

3 For Scarlett, Rory and their newborn baby brother Each drop of water, a world contained

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my former students at Evander Childs High School in the Bronx, Key West High School, and Homestead Senior High School for inspiring me to ask questions about education particularly about decisions that were made in far away places that affected their education. I came to the University of Florida seeking answers. I found only more questions a nd harder questions, one of which became the basis for this dissertation. most sincere gratitude to the teachers who allowed me to come into their classrooms and spe nt so many hours talking to me about their beliefs and practices. I would also like to thank their students for welcoming me as a guest in their classes and the school and district administration that allowed me to conduct my research in their schools. My committee has given me so much support and encouragement throughout the years of my doctoral program. I am so grateful to my chair, Mary Brownell, and to Paul Sindelar, Jean Crockett, and Dave Miller for their interest in my questions and all of their adv ice along the way. It was my great privilege to have worked with the members of my committee on this and other projects and I am proud to count them a mong my colleagues and friends. My fellow doctoral students helped me in many ways and I will be grateful always for the friendships forged in the fire of the doctoral program Melinda Leko and Charlotte Mundy listened to hours of agonizin g discussion about my rationale and kept my spirits up throughout the program. Yujeong Park and Kristin Murphy picked up wh ere they left off most fortunately for me. Amber Benedict talked me through a few rough spots and gave me some great advice about timing my writing at the very end of the proc ess that helped me a great deal. My longtime friends, Julie Birmingham Minogue a me. I will not name all of my cousins, but I am grateful I was born into such a wonderful

PAGE 5

5 extended family on both sides and I am thankful for their friendship, encouragement and confidence in me, espe cially Barbara Kiely Murphy, Esther Kiely Regan, Denis Kiely, Denis J. Kiely, Mark Kiely, Maryann Kiely Lovelace and Kathleen Kiely Gouley. I would also like to thank my godmother, Nuala Costello, for her cheering notes and news updates by text throughout my program I would like to ackno wledge others who g ave me advice and encouragement or otherwise helped me make it through this challenging process: Meg Kamman, Tara McLoughlin, Brian Barber, Nancy Corbett, Tyran Butler, Seonjin Seo, Anne Bisho p, Erica McCray, Lisa Langley Anna Osipova Mary Dingle, Alison Gould Boardman, Jennifer Drake Patrick, Stephen Smith, Holly Lane, Penny Cox, Cyndi Griffin, Dorene Ross, Shaira Rivas Otero, Michell York, and Vicki Tucker. My cohort, Melinda Leko, Aile Montoya, and Todd Haydon went through all the tough times together, and now, we all are finished. I have benefitted from my association with each and every one of the people named here and throughout the acknowledgments. I greatly appreciate my colleagues and friends and I am looking forward to working with them during my career. The LLC crew helped me ev ery day with the grant, and several of them also acted as my independent data analyzers: Laura King, Alexandra Lauterbach, Brian Trutschel, Susanne Long, Yujeong Park, Kristin Murphy, Amber Benedict, Jenna Stephens, Cecelia Ribuffo, Melissa Kummer and Michelle Judkins. Caitlin Penny and Kelli Parisi helped me in so many ways, every day. Mary Kay Dykes encouraged me to apply to the doctoral program, and I will always be grateful to her for seeing the potential for doctoral study in me during a summer course I took when I was a teacher forget I could do this, especially near the end.

PAGE 6

6 My nieces, Scarlet t and Rory, were born during my program and my nephew was born the day I submitted this manuscript I would like to thank Scarlett and Rory for sharing their joy and laughter with me throughout my program. I thank my parents, Lillian and Denis Kiely, and m y sister Colleen and her husband Bill for their constant confidence in me and support of my goals even though pursuing those goals kept me from visiting my family as often as I wanted. My en a lifelong inspiration to me. I always read the acknowledgements section. I was greatly relieved to read that others had found this process as excruciating as I was findi ng it. The sense of solidarity and shared trial I derived h elped me to keep going during the h ardest days. A nd so I would like to share my thoughts on dissertation writing with doctoral students who may read mine in hopes of helping them along as others h ad helped me how I would finish it. Everything seemed to nee d hours, even days, of my time, energy and attention. I seemed to have lost my way. Chapter 2 was a c ollection of vague and unconnected ideas; chapter 3 needed something every time I visited it; chapter 4 seemed insurmountable; and as for chapter 5, the grounded theory stubbornly refused to coalesce as Strauss and Corbin promised. Then there came a point when I just decided I decided I had to write it anyway. That moment constituted a singular act of c ourage: t o face the empty page and cover it with unformed thoughts and incoherent in klings, trusting that I could someh ow shape them into an argument. I wrote without a clear idea of how I wa s going to make sense of it all which was bewildering for

PAGE 7

7 me was my credo. W riting without a detailed and logically developed plan was something I had never done before But I had to. I had nothing. So I just wrote. U ntil there the dissertation finally lay: in pieces rough and incomplete, my thoughts naked and shivering on the page, demanding every last ounce of stamina, intellect and creativity that was in me. And then I felt like Doroth y must have when Gli I t somehow se emed to me I had been writing my dissertation all along that I had always had the ideas I finally came to be able to write down I had always known how to do this, b ut I had to learn it for myself. Writing this dissertation forced me to become a writer, that is, someone who writes every day or close to it. Becoming a writer is a kind of birth, and like any b irth, there is pain. But the pain finally ended, replaced by a sense of wonder and pride that I had produced such a thing as a dissertation. I did it.

PAGE 8

8 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 12 LIST OF FIGURE S ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 13 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 16 Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 21 Purpose ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 23 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 25 2 TEACHING INCLUDED STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ................................ ........... 26 ................... 26 The Literature Search ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 27 Defining Teacher Beliefs ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 28 Defining Teacher Practice ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 30 Disabilities who are Included in General Education Classes ................................ .............. 30 ................................ ........................... 31 Beliefs about the Subject Area or Discipline ................................ ................................ .. 34 Beliefs about Teaching and Learning ................................ ................................ .............. 41 Beliefs about Students with Disabilities and Ability/Disability ................................ ...... 50 Beliefs about Inclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 55 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 59 Purpose and Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................ 64 3 RESEARCH DESIGN ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 65 Theoretical Perspective ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 65 Researcher Subjectivity ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 66 Part icipants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 67 Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 67 Primary Data Sources: Interviews ................................ ................................ .......................... 68 Secondary Data Sources ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 70 Concept Maps ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 70

PAGE 9

9 Observation Field Notes ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 71 Teac her Lesson Plans and Instructional Materials ................................ .......................... 71 Student Work Samples and Other Artifacts ................................ ................................ .... 72 Data Sheet ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 72 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 72 Establishing Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................ ................................ ......... 74 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 75 4 ................................ ................................ ......... 96 The School ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 98 Maggie ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 100 ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 100 My Class ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 101 Influences on My Class ................................ ................................ ................................ 103 Students with Disabilities and My Class ................................ ................................ ....... 104 I Believe ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 108 ...... 110 Procedural supports for learning ................................ ................................ ............ 110 Behavioral supports ................................ ................................ ................................ 112 Affective and psychological supports ................................ ................................ .... 113 Academic supports ................................ ................................ ................................ 116 Nora ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 120 ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 120 My Class ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 120 Influences on My Class ................................ ................................ ................................ 123 Students with Disabilities and My Class ................................ ................................ ....... 124 I Believe ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 126 .......... 127 Procedural supports ................................ ................................ ................................ 127 Behavioral supports ................................ ................................ ................................ 129 Affective and psychological supports ................................ ................................ .... 130 Academic supports ................................ ................................ ................................ 131 Dan ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 135 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 135 My Class ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 137 Influences on My C lass ................................ ................................ ................................ 139 Students with Disabilities and My Class ................................ ................................ ....... 140 I Believe ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 143 Beliefs and Practices to Support Students with Disabilities ............ 145 Procedural supports ................................ ................................ ................................ 145 Behavioral supports ................................ ................................ ................................ 147 Affectiv e and psychological supports ................................ ................................ .... 148 Academic supports ................................ ................................ ................................ 150 Monica ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 155 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 155 My Class ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 157

PAGE 10

10 Influences on My Class ................................ ................................ ................................ 161 Stud ents with Disabilities and My Class ................................ ................................ ....... 162 I Believe ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 170 ...... 171 Procedural supports ................................ ................................ ................................ 171 Behavioral supports ................................ ................................ ................................ 175 Affective and psychological supports ................................ ................................ .... 178 Academic supports ................................ ................................ ................................ 179 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 183 5 THE GROUNDED THEORY ................................ ................................ .............................. 189 Overvi ew of the Grounded Theory ................................ ................................ ....................... 190 The Causal Condition ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 193 The Co re Phenomenon: Negotiating Support through Trial and Error ......................... 195 Context ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 195 Intervening Conditions: Teacher Beliefs ................................ ................................ ....... 196 ................................ ................................ ........ 199 ................................ ................................ 201 ................................ .................. 202 Action/Interaction Strategies: Supports for Students with Disabilities ......................... 203 Consequences ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 206 Propositions ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 210 of Supports They Provided for Students with Disabilities ................................ ........ 21 0 Beliefs about Students with Disabilities were Related to the Properties .................. 214 Related to the Kinds of Supports Provided. ................................ ............................... 217 about Self) were Related to the Overall Amount of Support Provided. .................... 220 Knowledge is Transmitted or Constructed was Related to ................................ ....... 223 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 225 6 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 243 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 245 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 248 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 250 APPENDIX A RECRUITMENT AND INFORMED CONSENT FORMS ................................ ................ 253 B INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS ................................ ................................ ................................ 260

PAGE 11

11 C TEACHER DATA SHEET ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 265 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 267 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 274

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 ................................ .............. 77 3 2 Teacher Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 78 3 3 Data Collection Timetable, 2009 10 School Year ................................ ............................. 79 3 4 Data Summary Table ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 80 3 5 Open Codes from Maggie Interview One Pages 1 4 Organized into Categories and Subcategories during Axial Coding ................................ ................................ ................... 81 3 6 Grounded Theory Categories and Dimensions Summary of Core Phenomenon: Negotiating Support for Students with Disabilities ................................ ........................... 84 3 7 Properties of Selected Dimensions of Core Phenomenon: Negotiating Support for Students with Disabilities in Secondary General Education Classes ................................ 87 5 1 Descriptive Beliefs Inventory ................................ ................................ .......................... 227 5 2 Practices to Support Included Students with Disabilities Inventory ................................ 234

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Photo of set of index cards of identified supports prepared for one participant. ............... 89 3 2 Photo of emergent theory presented to one participant in Interview Four ........................ 90 3 3 Field notes exampl e. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 91 3 4 Open codes from pages 1 ................................ ................... 92 3 5 Axial Coding categories and colored flags used to code interviews. ................................ 93 3 7 Outline of grounded theo ry axial coding ................................ ................................ ........... 95 4 1 Concept Map: Maggie.. ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 185 4 2 Concept Map: Nora ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 186 4 3 Co ncept Map: Dan.. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 187 4 4 Concept Map: Monica ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 188 5 1 Diagram of grounded theory of negotiating support for included students with disabilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 237 5 2 ................................ ............................ 238 5 3 .......... 242

PAGE 14

14 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy BELIEFS AND PRACTICES FOR INCLUDED STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES By Mary Theresa Kiely December 2011 Chair: Mary Brownell Major: Special Education General education teachers support the i nclusion of students with disabilities, but researchers have found supports for students with disabilities in general education settings to be less than adequate. How teachers make decisions about supporting the learning of included students with disabilit for supporting students with disabilities is critical for efforts to help teache rs improve their practic e. Four secondary level general education language arts teachers were interviewed and observed 4 times to investigate how their beliefs were related to practices to support students with disabilities. Data were analyzed according to guidelines for grounded theory ; the grounded theory was expressed as a series of proposition statements related to the core phenomenon of negotiating support for included students with disabilities The propositions delineate d relationships between teache (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) T the needs of students with disabilities and t heir own roles and responsibilities influenced their practices for providing support for their included students with disabilities. The results have implications for researchers, teacher educators,

PAGE 15

15 professional development providers and administrators seeking to in the area of supporting students with disabilities within general education classes.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The defining characteristic of education in the United States throughout the last 50 years is a relentless press for reform to improve educational outcomes fo r all students. For students with disabilities, the most dramatic aspect of reform concerned where they received their education. Today, most students with disabilities spend the majority of the school day in general education classrooms and are taught mai nly by general education teachers (U. S. Department of Education, 2010 ). The greater part of the responsibility for the education of students with disabilities within cation teachers. How willing and able general education teachers are to provide support for students with disabilities, therefore, is an important influence on the success of students with disabilities. The largest numbers of students with disabilities in cluded in general education classrooms are those that have been identified as having specific learning disabilities; students with l earning disabilities comprise 39 % of students with disabilities, and are the single largest disability group. In the fall of 2006, the most recent year f or which data is available, 59 % of students with specific learning disabilities ages 6 21 received all or most of their instruction in the general education classroom, that is, they were outside the regular school class less th an 21% of the time (U. S. Department of Education, 2010 ). In the 2007 08 school year, students with specific learning disab ilities made up 5.2 % of all students enrolled in public K 12 schools (U. S. Department of Education) chances are good that a general education teacher will have at least one student with specific learning disabilities. encountering a student with a learning disability wi thin the general education classroom are even

PAGE 17

17 larger, increasing the probability that a student with a learning disability will be among the students in a genera l education class. The structure of the school day in secondary schools also increases the likelihood that a general education teacher will be providing instruction for students with learning disabilities. Usually, teachers specialize in one or two content areas and see several groups of students per day. The sheer number of students they encounter increases the likelihood they will be responsible for the instruction of students with learning disabilities. Unfortunately, this structure also decreases the ti me a teacher is able to devote to any individual student and presents challenges for supporting students with learning disabilities in several other ways. Schumaker and Deshler (2001) described three main barriers to success for students with the tasks they are expected to be able to do gets wider, the diffic ulty of closing that gap is intensified by the increasing complexity of the skills students need to master to perform well. Second, the time to provide intensive skill and strategy instruction is not available within the fast paced, goal driven curricula o f many secondary classrooms (Schumaker & Deshler). Finally, the organizational structures of secondary schools mitigate against the likelihood that teachers can provide much student centered learning, sufficient instructional attention, or integrated suppo rt for a student across all of his or her classes (Schumaker & Deshler). For students with disabilities to succeed within such a structure, secondary general education teachers must be knowledgeable of how to support students with disabilities in achievi ng academic outcomes, and willing both to seek out such knowledge and apply it in their classrooms. As the complexity and amount of work increases in the upper grades, students with learning disabilities continue to need specific kinds of support to be suc cessful in mastering content. In addition, students with learning disabilities often need to learn new strategies to deal

PAGE 18

18 with having multiple teachers in multipl e locations. Teachers ideally would be knowledgeable of favorably disposed towards including students with disabilities in their classes. General education teac hers, overall, indicate that they support the concept of inclusion, and most are willing to include students with disabilities in their own classes. In an analysis of 28 studies conducted across a time span of almost 40 years, Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996 ) found that 65% of teachers supported the concept of mainstreaming/inclusion of students with disabilities, particularly if the students had less severe disabilities and if students did not have although a prerequisite for successful inclusion, has not been enough in itself to guarantee a high quality education for inclusive students in the eyes of many special education researchers. Several researchers have found that teachers were not in fav or of taking on extra responsibilities associated with the inclusion of students with disabilities. Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) reported that teacher willingness to include students with disabilities decreased as additional responsibilities increased. Studies of secondary inclusion seem to indicate that general education teachers are concerned with content coverage and are not willing to invest the time and effort in implementing inclusive strategies (Crockett, 2004). In a study of 12 teachers across g rade levels, Schumm, et al., (1995) found that teachers overall did little planning for students with disabilities in their classes, and that secondary teachers did less planning to meet the needs of students with disabilities than elementary teachers did. Baker & Zigmond (1995) observed 10 students with learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms in six elementary schools in five states and concluded that although teachers seemed

PAGE 19

19 genuinely in favor of including students with disabilities and did provid e students with disabilities some supports for learning, teachers nevertheless did little that could be considered special education. Schumm & Vaughn (1995) reported five reasons general education teachers did not make accommodations for students with d isa bilities. Using data from several studies conducted in inclusive classrooms, Schumm & Vaughn found that teachers had concerns that accommodations would have a negative impact on their instruction, planning time, and the students themselves. Teachers indica ted that accommodations: took too much time to plan and prepare, interfered with management of the larger class, diluted and slowed the content instruction, placed unwanted attention on students with disabilities, and did not encourage students to be indep endent (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995). It is puzzling that teachers seem mostly willing to include students with disabilities, and yet unwilling to undertake the implementation of strategies that might help students achieve greater success. The explanation for w hy general education teachers do not do more to support the learning of included students with disabilities, at least in part, may be related not only to the scarcity of time and organizational challenges posed by providing increased levels of support as d and as such, a consideration of teacher beliefs is critical ly important to any attempt to understand and beliefs they already hold, and so teachers may discount any evidence or practices that contradict

PAGE 20

20 on teachers, working with students with disabilities, likely hold a variety of beliefs that are not always easily identified that may affect how and to what extent they provide support for students with disabilities. These beliefs include beliefs about the needs of students with disabilities relative to becoming proficient in a content area and how best to support the progress of students with disabilities towards instructional goals. to learn and how knowledge is developed within a particular domain may be at odds with the views of special education researchers, and may be deeply rooted in their understandings of their discipline, especially at the secondary level. The school subject i tself is an important context and influence on the beliefs and practices of secondary school teachers (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995). In an analysis of comparative studies that looked at the subject matter beliefs of secondary teachers in various disciplines Grossman and Stodolsky concluded that the subject matter context affected competition for scarce resources at the school level, b.) the various subjects are thought by teachers to have different degrees of coherence and sequentiality and thus, more or less freedom for teachers in terms of choosing what topics to include and exclude, and c.) the department structure reinforces the subject area subcultures a beliefs and practices, resear chers should be aware that the teachers are operating within a subculture defined by the particular subject matter that may be exerting a strong influence on

PAGE 21

21 teachers do in terms of providing support for students with disabilities included in their classes tudents with disabilities relative to their understanding of their content area. Problem Research that attempts to paint a richer and more nuanced portrait of teacher beliefs about the students that they teach and how those beliefs are borne out in pract ice has been called for by researchers for decades (e.g., Brophy & Good, 1974; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Richardson, 1996). (Munby, 1982; Pajares, 1992), yet there beliefs in relation to how they support students with disabilities despite the prevalence of inclusionary instructional models in schools today. des and beliefs about the inclusion of students with disabilities found that teachers were mostly favorably disposed towards including students with learning disabilities (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). Researchers that looked at how general education teach that although teachers were not against including students with disabilities, teachers did not plan specific supports for students with disabilities and were reluctant to provide extra support th at other students in the class did not get (Baker & Zigmond, 1990; Schumm & Vaughn, 1992). general education teachers supported the instruction of students with disabilit ies included in their continuum from Pathognomic to Interventionist. Teachers who had Pathognomic beliefs about students with disabilities believed that disability resides in the student and that intervention is

PAGE 22

22 best undertaken by specialists; teachers who had Interventionist beliefs believed they could help students make progress through instructional accommodations and that it was their responsibility to do so. Dif Teachers with Pathognomic beliefs interacted less with students with learning difficulties, and their dialog contained less academically focused talk than teachers with more I nterventionist beliefs (Jordan & Stanovich). own understandings of wh at is important for students to know about that subject area and how students learn in the subject area. Within the secondary subject area of English/Language Arts in shown that English/Language Arts teachers believe they have a great deal of individual freedom to determine curricular content and specific learning goals (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995). These kinds of beliefs could have important implications for how suppo rts for students with disabilities are conceived and implemented, especially in domains such as secondary English/Language Arts in which the content is complex and less hierarchical than in other subject areas. There is almost no research on secondary gene beliefs about student with disabilities included in their classes. In a study focused on secondary rged as one of five main domains of those understandings; the other four were knowledge of content, knowledge of pedagogy, knowledge of students and context (Kiely, 2008). Teachers in the study believed that writing was a vitally important skill for studen ts to master, that students with disabilities can make progress in writing and that they were able to

PAGE 23

23 help students make progress. They spoke of scaffolding instruction so that students could make progress toward smaller, articulated goals, repeating tasks until skills were mastered, and building student motivation and task commitment. This study, however, was not focused on supports provided by the teachers i n practice. effective kinds of instruction for students with disabilities. There is little research on general ilities or how those beliefs are translated into practice, particularly at the secondary level. This study fills gaps in the literature in several ways. First, few studies considered teachers in the high school context where arguably the challenges for stu dents with disabilities increase given the increasing rigor of the required work and the increased autonomy of students within the high school context. Second, although there ut teaching those subjects, few studies addressed Language Arts. The omission leaves a large gap in the research as Language Arts teachers in the high school assume most of the responsibility to impart foundational literacy skills that are essential for st beliefs about students with disabilities and the practices teachers employ to support student learning. More research t and practices, especially in terms of instruction for students with disabilities included in secondary level general education Language Arts classes. Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between secondary Language

PAGE 24

24 classes and the supports they provide for those students. Through interviews and observations with participant teachers I was able to explore disabilities in meeting the challenges of secondary level general education Language Arts classes and how those beliefs we re related to the ways they help st udents with disabilities make progress towards instructional goals. Research questions included: supports for learning they provide for students with disabilities included in their classes? What are the supports for learning secondary general education Language Arts teachers provide for students with learning disabilities included in their classes? What kinds of beliefs are related to teacher practice in the area of providi ng support for included students with disabilities?

PAGE 25

25 Definition of Terms Beliefs. There is no one universally accepted definition of beliefs in the literature of sp ecial education, general education, or educational psychology and indeed it may be impossible to disentangle beliefs from knowledge and actions in reality. Following Eisenhart, Sh rum, Harding, and Cuthbert (1988 ), who derived this definition from the field of cognitive individuals to organize their experience, make decisions, and predict outcomes (p. 53). Disabilities. This study is focused on teacher supports for students with high incidence learning disabilities who were included in general education language arts classes. All references to disabilities, as in students with dis abilities, refer to specific learning disabilities. The teachers I observed did not teach students with severe disabilities or developmental disabilities. Practices. In this study, teacher practice includes all thought and action relevant to supporting s tudents with disabilities in general education classrooms, whenever and wherever they occur.

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 2 A REVIEW OF THE LITE BELIEFS RELATED TO T EACHING INCLUDED STUDENTS WI TH DISABILITIES and Students with Disabilities T all aspects of their practice, from the moment decision making to reflection and planning (Calderhead, 1996; Fang, 1996; Nesp or, 198 7; Pajares, 1992). A large body of research including comprehensive reviews that emphasize d Calderhead, 1996; Paj ares, 1992; Richardson, 1996) Studies that focus specifically on general education not been reviewed. It seems critical to look at such studies as a group now, for s everal reasons. The majority of s tudents with disabilities spend most of their school days in ge neral education classrooms (U. S. Department of Education, 2010 ). Teachers in general education classrooms typically serve relatively large numbers of students in a demanding high stakes context and must answer to several constituencies including students, parents, school and district administrators, and federal and state officials. In this complex and multidim ensional domain beliefs play an important role in de termining teacher acti ons (Calderhead, 1996). S tudents with disabilities may require more and different kinds o f support than other students; whether or not they get this support often depends on the individual teacher an d likely Co nsiderable research in general education demonstrates that teachers classroom are related to their beliefs about content, curriculum, and student learning ( Borko & Putnam, 1996 ; Calderhead, 1996; Nespor, 1987; Richardson, 1996). The interr elationship between beliefs and instructional practice is especially relevant to the education of students with disabilities, as a number of researchers have shown that what teachers believe about students

PAGE 27

27 with disabilities included in general education cl assrooms is likely to affect their ability to provide effective instruction for these students. curriculum and instructional practic es (Kang and Wallace, 2004), how teachers know if students are learning (Brickhouse, 1990), and how teachers support students who struggle (Jordan & Stanovich, 2010). These kinds of choices on the part of the individual teacher may have a critical impact on whether or not a student with a disability is able to progress success fully. The Literature Search The literature reviewed in this chapter includes all available published research papers on working with students with disabilities. Specifically, studies that were focused on examining the relationship between general education in the review. Previous researchers of teacher cognition, which includes teacher beliefs, characterized teacher behavior as instinctive and intuitive rather than reflective and ratio nal (e.g., Clark & Peterson, 198 6). In the dynamic, complicated domain of teaching, in the absence of reflective and rational decision making, it seems possible be dri ven largely beliefs (e.g., Munby, 1982) Thus, it is important for understanding teacher pract ice to beliefs play in their practices. Research studies were identified through: a.) consulting handbooks such as The Handbook of Research in Teacher Education; b.) searching conference proceedings books published within the last five years for AERA, CEC, and TED; c.) hand searching the table of contents of the following journ als: Journal of Special Education, Exceptional Children, Learning Disabilities Quarterly, Journal of Teacher Education, Teacher Education and Special Education, and Remedial and Special Education; d.) searching publications on the websites of pertinent cen ters, including NCRTL, NCRTE, COPSSE, SII, and CALDER, e.) searching databases and search

PAGE 28

28 engines, including Google Scholar, ERIC, Web of Knowledge, and the University of Florida Library Catalog using a mat rix of search terms that included: teacher, belief s, attitudes, perceptions, students with disabilities, special education, and exceptionalities. Electronic search results were pursued until items returned seemed only tangentially related to the original search terms in most cases no more than 400 items Relevant literature was further narrowed through reading abstracts I discarded those that were not empirical studies focused on : to their practice. I further narrowed the group of studies to focus on students with high incidence disabilities because it seemed to me that although the issues surrounding the inclusion of students with low incidence disabilities and physical disabilities certainly overlapped with those of students with high incidence disabilities, many of the issues and concerns were different. Finally, studies were identified through ancestral and progeny searches of selected studies by consulting reference lists and using Google Scholar to identify papers that cited the selected studies. Studies were also found in informal ways, including conversations with other rese archers Studies that consisted of empirical research published in peer reviewed journals were included. The review includes three mai n sections In the first, teacher beliefs are briefly defined. The second is a summary of the kinds of beliefs that have been found to be related to teachers practice with regard to educating students with disabilities The last section is the discussion Where possible, studies selected for review concerned secondary teachers. Defining Teacher Beliefs In coherent systems that enable individuals to organize their experience, make decisions, and predict outcomes ( Eisenhart,

PAGE 29

29 Shrum, Harding, and Cuthbert, 1985, p. 53). Beliefs are deeply felt, closely held notions of relationships among phenomena; beliefs may be unexamined or even partially or wholly unknown to the holder. Beliefs may conflict with one another and influence thought and action variably; they may be generalizable or context specific (Eisenhart, et al., Schommer, 1993). This variability may be att ributable to how deeply or strongly held some beliefs are as opposed to others: some beliefs seem to be core beliefs, deeply held and strongly interconnected with other beliefs whereas other beliefs seem to be more peripheral (Brownl ee, Boulton Lewis & Pur die, 2001 ; Kagan, 1992; Rokeach, 1968 ). beliefs as a major category of research, little progress was made between beliefs and knowledge in existing research in education. Pajares also synthesized thinki ng on beliefs in cognitive psychology research (e.g., Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Rokeach, 1968) brief, Pajares argued beliefs are: difficult to change, intertwined wit h knowledge, organized into learning, perceptions of events, and actions. Pajares concluded his review by calling for research he relationship between beliefs, on the one hand, and teacher A great deal of research on teacher beliefs has been performed in the last 20 years, but research that investigates how still is scarce.

PAGE 30

30 Defining Teacher Practice Teacher practice happens on several levels; at once, it includes what the teacher does habitually and what the teacher does at any given mome nt. Practice includes thinking as well as actions. It can include actions inside and outside the classroom, as well as before, during and their students as well as other adults such as: parents, cooperating teach ers, support staff, colleagues, and professional development providers. In this review, teacher practice includes all thought and action relevant to supporting students with disabilities in general education classrooms, whenever and wherever they occur. Ki nds of Beliefs Relative to Supporting Students with Disabilities who are Included in General Education Classes A great deal of literature has focused on defining beliefs developing measures of beliefs and clarifying re lationships among beliefs R esearchers only recently have focused on figuring out Linking beliefs to practice is important because making and so are an essential consideratio n for efforts to improve teacher practice (Clark & Yinger, 1987) How beliefs are related to practice s for supporting students with disabilities included in general education classrooms however, has not been well researched Investigating the li nks between beliefs and practic e is important because and beliefs affect student learning through practice, not directly. Among the kinds of beliefs researchers hav e linked s relative to students with disabilities included in general education classrooms beliefs about the subject area or discipline, beliefs about teaching and learning, beliefs about students with disabilities, and beliefs about inclusion.

PAGE 31

3 1 eachers Teacher effi cacy is one of the most studi ed constructs in the area themselves There are several kinds of teacher efficacy, but two main constructs underlie much of the research: a.) general teaching efficacy, the extent to which a teacher believes that student learning is influence d by teachers rather than other aspects of the environment; and b.) personal teaching efficacy, the extent to which the individual teacher believes that she personally is able to influence student learning. In th e construct of teacher efficacy in a general education context the authors found the practices of highly efficacious teachers were different from the practices of less efficacious teachers, suggesting a link between efficacy beliefs and practice After analyzing o bservations of the prac tices of 8 elementary teachers, Gibson and Dembo found h ighly efficacious teachers spent less time in small group instruction, provided more opportunities for students to get a correct answer, and did not criticize student onses. The link between efficacy beliefs and practice also was found in some studies focused on tea chers in inclusive classrooms. survey ed 127 first through eighth grade tea chers in mainstream classes about their eff icacy and about the use of effective practice s for instructing included students with disabilities They found teachers with higher personal effica cy reported that they used effective instructional practices for mainstreaming more frequently (Bender, Vail & Scott, 1995) In a study of 188 first through twelfth grade teachers, t eachers with higher efficacy recommended regular classroom placements for students with disabilities more often than teacher s with lower efficacy (Soodak, Podell & Lehman, 1998 ). In a study of 220 first through third grade Graham, Harris, Fink Chorzempa and MacArthur (2003) found that neither

PAGE 32

32 teaching efficacy for teaching writing nor general teaching efficacy fo r teaching writing predicted the number of adaptations they made for struggling writers. There are several possible reasons for the different findi ngs in these studies The influence of the school setting is so strong that it may not be valid to compare teacher efficacy across different typ es of settings (Gibson & Dembo 1984 ). Differences in the context s of the participants may have contributed to the uneven results. Also, participant samples were recruited and designed differently. Bender et al. (1995) surveyed 127 teache rs in 11 schools in 3 districts; they did not report data on school location or type. Soodak et al. (1998) were the only researchers to include both general and special education teachers a difference not only in participant characteris tics from the other studies, but also possibly in the teaching context. T o recruit participants, they distributed surveys to teachers enrolled in classes at 3 universities, asked those teachers to distribute surveys at their schools, and distributed survey s to schools. Of the 188 participants, 80.9% of the teachers taught in urban settings and 85.6% taught in public schools. Only 35.6% of the teachers reported having students with special needs in their current classes (Soodak et al.). In contrast, among Gr settings, and 74% taught in public schools. They did not report the percentage of teachers with were receivin g special education services. These differences in contextual variables, especially the large discrepancy in the percentages of teachers working in urban settings, may have had an impact on the results. Graham et al. (2003) surveyed a national stratified random sample of 153 fir st through third grade teachers and performed a nonhierarchical regression analysis on their outcome measure, number of teaching adaptations, and the following contextual variables: school location

PAGE 33

33 (urban, suburban or rural), public vs. private school, c lass size, percentage of students receiving special education services included in the class amount of time students spent writing and writing program in use as well as teacher demographic variables. Contextual variables that account ed for variance in the number of teaching adaptations were the percentage of students receiving special education services included in the class ( p = .007) and the amount of time students spent writing ( p = .026). The percentage of students receiving spec ial education services accounted for 6% of the variance; taken together, the context variables accounted for 16% of the variance in teacher adaptations provided, lending strong support to the importance of considering school contexts when linking teacher e fficacy to practice. In addition even though the studies described above are similar in that the researchers investigated links between teacher efficacy and practice, the practice outcomes in these studies d iffer greatly. Soodak et al (1998 ) considered p lacement practices that is, how likely a teacher was t o refer a student for services provided outside of the inclusive classroom Bender et al. (1995) examined e ffective instructio nal practi ces for mainstreaming. T hese differed substantially from each other as well as from the adaptations for struggling writers described in the Graham et al. (2003) study. Finally, t eachers at the upper grade levels may have less self efficacy for teaching students with disabilities included in their classes (Bender et al. 1995 ). Participant sample s in the three studies differ greatly in terms of the grade levels taught by the participants: Bender et al., first through eighth; Graham et al., first through third; and Soodak et al., first through twelfth grades. The m ixing of elementary, middle, and high school teachers variously in the studies makes it construction or not.

PAGE 34

34 A less studied area t their t eaching ability that seems related to how teachers support included students with disabilities is responsibilities. General education teachers vary in the degree to which they accept responsibility for the learning o f included students with disabilities and in terms of their ideas about what kinds of support provision is and is not part of what they believe their role as a teacher to be. For instance, Schumm, Vaughn, Haager, McDowell, Rothlein and Saumell (1995) inter viewed, observed and surveyed 12 general education teachers across grade levels in a study focused on how general education teachers planned for included students with disabilities They was their responsibility to provide a strong support system to promote learning for students with learning disabilities igh school teachers in contrast, ponsibility to provide anything different for students with disabilities ; secondary teachers were focused on preparing students for independence in adult life (p. 349). practices. mentioned briefly in the report and were present in the qualitative The study is included in the review because the findings suggest t their own roles and responsibilities may be a vital area to investigate. Beliefs about the Subject Area or D iscipline the different terms used by researchers. Que stions about teaching orientations, personal practical theories or philosophies are often Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about t he nature o f knowledge (Hofer & Pintrich, 2002) and how it is attained or

PAGE 35

35 constructed (Schommer Aikens 2002). E pistemological beliefs include beliefs about the subject domain, such as what it c ontains and how it is organized and what are legitimate sources of knowledge Epistemological beliefs are related to teacher practice: teaching involves the organizing of knowledge and grappling with questions concerning how best to ensure students gain knowledge How teachers define th at knowledge is fundamentally related to what they choose to teach and how they teach. In 1986, Shulman called for research that recognized the subject area as an important context for teaching. There are, however, few empirical studies that investigate s ubject matter consid erations, especially at the secondary school level and none were found that focused on instruction for students with disabilities in general education classrooms. The lack of studies level subject areas and instruction for students with disabilities is a major omission given the strong role that these beliefs play in classr oom practice suggested by studies in general education. Studies focused on general education students in secondary environments demonstrate that the way teachers conceptualize the subject area or domain they are working in is related to their instructiona l practices (e.g., Konopak, Wilson & Readance, 1994 ; Stipek, Givvin, Salmon & MacGyvers, 2001; Yerrick, Park & Nugent, 1997). a ) what form knowledge takes in a subject area and b ) what expertise in the subject is influence the top ics they select, the tasks they assign, and the ways they assess progress. The most studied subject areas in this literature are science and math and representative studies from each will be discussed; there are only a few studies in other areas: social studies (Konopak, Wilson &

PAGE 36

36 Readance, 1994 ), art (Bullock, 1992), English as a second language (Borg, 2006 ; Farrell, 2005) ; music ( Burnard, 2008 ) and foreign languages (Shanahan, 1997). Kang and Wallace (2004) investigated the relationship between th ree experienced high specifically lab activities. Teachers participated in an initial interview during which they g ton, 1995 p.1 ) that required teachers to decide on spontaneous actions that revealed their beliefs. Teachers participated in 7 10 interviews each and were observed 7 10 times ; interview and observation data were transcribed Data were analyzed in two phases In the first phase, researchers developed descriptive codes and the following categories using the constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990): teaching goals for labs, beliefs about students, teachin g strategies, beliefs about science, beliefs about learning, and beliefs about inquiry. In the second phase, epistemological beliefs were so rte d as to: a ) ontological, that is, related to whether one views knowledge as certain truth or uncerta in multiple truths ; and b ) relational, whether one of knowledge ( Kang & Wallace p. 142 ). Teachers were found to have varying levels of sophistication in terms of their epistemological beliefs and the more sophisticated their epistemologies were, the less obvious the link s between their beliefs and their practices were The specific c related not only to their beliefs, but also to demands created by mandated assessments, curricula and the needs of students

PAGE 37

37 Kang and Wallace (2004) concluded that ontological b eliefs seemed students were receivers of factual information and that her primary goal was delivering information, consistent with her de cision to replace all lab activities with demonstrations. Another teacher seemed to have a dual epistemology in place He viewed his students as passive receivers of knowledge, but also engaged students in activities that required problem solving and had multiple possible answers. The last subject was different from science as a field and had different epistemol ogical beliefs for each. harder it is to l ink them to actual p ractice. They further asserted that there are many influences on such as mandated curricula, a graduation test, and the needs of students (Kang & Wallace, 2004). The results of this study, however, must be interpreted with caution as the findings about epistemological beliefs might be confounded by context. Two of the teachers in this study were in technical prep schools for low achieving students and the third tea cher was in a college prep school for high achieving students. The striking difference between the school contexts of these three teachers may have played a stronger role in their classroom practice than their beliefs about their subject and discipline. Al so, the puzzling results for the teacher that seemed to be in two worlds might indicate that an adequate understanding or the relationship between beliefs and practices needs to be sp ecified differently Finally, one teacher was found to have a dual view of science: science in

PAGE 38

38 the world was different from science in school, and different epistemologies applied. Based on the data provided, it seems possible that this duality could have been interpreted as an influen ce of the context. It is worrisome that the authors we re not able to explain the data for 2 of the 3 participants satisfactorily It is possible that what the authors describe as the difficulty of connecting sophisticated epis e attributable to a somewhat insensitive or superficial analysis of the data or related to the contextual differences in the schools. Brickhouse (1990) included both experienced and inexperienced teachers in her study. She observed and interviewed three secondary science teachers an d concluded that the two more an the one second year teacher. Additionally, s differed greatly from each other in ways that were clearly reflected in their practice. One experienced teacher believed theories were tools to solve problems, that observation and experimentation were theory driven processes, t hat knowledge in science c hanged as scientists mad e new observations or reinterpret ed previous observations, and that learning new concepts required an understanding of fundamental concepts. In practice, she often asked students to predict the results of experiments based on theo ry and to analyze why they had or had not gotten the results they expected. The second experienced at following procedures leads to discovery of the truth. In practice, his instruction was activity focused and he attributed difficulty or errors to failure to follow directions. He believed that knowledge was ga ined by accumulating facts. The second year teacher also saw knowledge growth as a process of accumulating facts and this was demonstrated in his questioning techniques. Most of the second

PAGE 39

39 discussion questions focused on asking students to recall facts. His instruction, however, was m ore often inconsistent with his expressed beliefs due to several contextual constraints described The inclusion of a second subject matter beliefs a nd their practice was inadvisable given that teachers with only one year of experience are still in an early stage of development in terms of establishing their practice Thus, the difficulties that the author reported interpreting the practi ce of the seco nd year teacher is not surprising and for the reader, the confusion is exacerbated by the lack of information about the should be interpreted with caution given that data seemed to be summarized rather than analyzed. Although the author briefly described data collected and spent a great deal of time (35 hours per teacher) in the field, the methodology section includes no data analysis procedures and features only a des c ription of the participants, an explanation of how they were recruited, and a description of how the member check was performed. The data reported, however, anecd otally point to the existence of their practice. Researchers in the subject area of mathematics also report ed subject matter influence d their practice. Thompson (1984) observed three junior high school mathematics teachers with more than three years of experience daily for four weeks and interviewed them after the lessons in the last two weeks. Teachers also completed six written responses to questions about the goals of their instruction and their relative importance, reas ons students may struggle, and their own teaching effectiveness. Data were reviewed daily and hypotheses and inferences formed influenced subsequent interview questions. The three teachers had different beliefs about mathematics, and their beliefs were ref lected in their practice. The

PAGE 40

40 most marked differences among the teachers were in: conceptions of mathematics and teaching, in reflectiveness (p. 119). For example, one teacher believed ma thematics i s composed of facts and has exact answers that can be found by following correct procedures with little opportunity to be creative (Thompson, 1984) She believed the teaching of mathematics to entail the transfer of information from the teacher to the stud ents who learn by observing correct demonstrations of procedures. She believed it was important to encourage students to ask questions and to relate mathematics to real life, but the last two beliefs were not evident in her practice which consisted main ly of lecture, demonstration, and seatwork and allowed little interaction with students. She said she spent little time in planning and did not reflect on her practice. The second teacher saw mathematics a s a tool, something people use to achieve a particular purpose. She also believed mathematics wa s constantly changing and incorporating new advances in to the field To teach mathematics, she believed students should be encouraged to use logic to solve problems that the teacher should support them, and that t he teacher should look for student misconceptions that prevent students from understanding an idea During class, she often encouraged students to solve problems on their own, and emphasized the importance of reasoning in problem solving to learning mathem atics. She reflected often on her teaching and her practice was found to be mostly consistent with her beliefs. The third teacher believed mathematics content to be fixed and coherent; it was a way of expressing ideas in the physical world symbolically an d it was composed of interrelated topics She believed the teacher should control all instruction and emphasize the logic of mathematical rules and procedures. Her beliefs were not always evident in her practice, but they were not inconsistent with her practice. She seemed unable to react to

PAGE 41

41 many things appear to tant few omissions that make it the findings less trustworthy. For one, he did not describe the 3 sch ools the participants worked in although their grade level and classes were given. Context is an important consideration in this literature and because the school is also the setting for the study, it is surprising this information is missing. Also, d ata a nalysis procedures were not detailed. Thomspon described her data collection procedures in a detailed manner, but did not explain the analysis. A lthough there was no mention of any credibility measures, triangulation could be inferred and rich, thick data description was easily observed. Findings are best taken as exploratory and t entative rather than conclusive, similarly to the other studies examined in this section. The studies do, however, provide support for the need for further investigation of the i Beliefs about T eaching and L earning On a philosophical level, e pistemological beliefs about knowledge in a particular domain are distinct from beliefs about teaching and learnin g in the domain (Hofer, 2002). For example, teachers may believe that knowledge in the domain is fixed and yet employ teaching strategies that encourage students to construct their own knowledge, consistent with a more relativist view of knowledge in the d omain (Hofer). Beliefs about how people become proficient in the domain are related to teacher practice; t seem to be closely associated with how they choose to support student learning

PAGE 42

42 epistemological beliefs are closely related to their beliefs about teaching and learning and often the distinction is not relevant to researchers or to teachers. sometimes called pedagogical beliefs or teaching orientation include beliefs ab out the role of the teacher and beliefs about specific kinds of learners and subjects. B eliefs about specific practices and beliefs about teaching a particular subject may b e different at the child, classroom, school or theoretical leve l s deeply intertwined with their practice. In a study that derived 121 first grade special and ge neral self report of hypothetical practices, Cunningham, Z ibulsky, Stanovich and Stanovich (2009) could be placed on a continuum from phonics emphasis to literature emphasis. Teachers with strong beliefs about either phonics or l iterature reported that they would use different allocations of time for various kinds of practices. For example, teachers who believed literature should be emphasized reported that they would spend considerably less time than the mean reported for all tea chers on activities related to phonics and phonemic awareness, spelling and grammar, and reading comprehension. In contrast, teachers who believed phonics should be emphasized would spend more time in phonics instruction, but would allocate approximately e quivalent amounts of time to other areas of reading instruction. Thus, the time allocated for different reading practices by teachers with a strong phonics emphasis seemed more similar to the allocations of the teachers whose perspectives were more balance d between the two positions A closer examination of the instrumentation raises several concerns. First, the Language Arts Activity Grid was simply two columns on a piece of paper, one for percent time and one for the description of the activity with instructions for the teacher to:

PAGE 43

43 Please indicate what kinds of activities you would engage in when teaching language arts (which would include your reading instruction). What proportion of a two hour Language Arts instruction block would be spent on each activi ty? (Cunningham et al., 2009 p. 422 ) Although the authors were using this report as a measure of implicit beliefs about reading, no method of validating the instrument for that use was reported. The authors, for instance, could have corresponded to a more thorough exa mination of their beliefs. Or, they could have used other could validly be inferred in this way. Furthermore, the instructions we re vague and may have confused teachers. It is not clear from the wording whether teachers should record what they ideally would do if they could, what they habitually did, what they p lan to do in the future, or an example of a specific day. It is likely teachers interpreted instructions variously. Finally, even though the authors limited the study to first grade teachers, they did not contexts and so were unabl e to responses. For instance, if teachers were using a mandated curriculum or teaching students that had severe reading difficulties, it seems plausible that their catalog of practices would be influ enced. Results should be interpreted keeping these issues in mind, particularly in light of the rather tautological design that resulted in the formation of 2 groups of teachers based on differences in time allocation to phonics based or literature based p ractices who were then found to have differences in time allocation to other types of reported practices. comprehension instruction, Richardson, Anders, Tidwell and Lloyd (1991) interviewed 39 4 th to 6 th grade teachers in 6 elementary schools regarding their beliefs about teaching reading comprehension and observed them twice Fourteen of the teachers were videotaped a third time.

PAGE 44

44 views were coded as: Learning to Read, Reading, Reading Comprehension, Teaching Reading, and Basals. Coded material was analyzed to determine Theoretical orienta tions include beliefs not only about what kinds of knowled ge the subject area includes but also how that knowledge is attained by students ; thus, in this case, it is a little difficult to separate beliefs about the subject from beliefs about teaching and l earning Theoretical orientations to reading in this study were similar to those reported elsewhere in the reading literature (De Ford, 1985; Sacks & Mergendoller, 1997 ) ranged from fa voring skills based instruction featuring systematic instruction in decoding to more cognitively based instruction featuring constructivist approaches based on authentic texts. Based on the interviews, researchers were able to p terms of practices that dif ferentiated between orientations: use of a basal, having students read orally or silently, error of context. There also was a strong relationship between teacher observed practice in the same six categories; percentage agreement between stated beliefs and observed practice ranged from 66% to 92%. Because the authors described several means of ensuring the credibility of their co nclusions and the quality of the research design and methods, their findings can be interpreted g and their practices. Procedures for analyzing data, including coding processes for interviews and observations, were explicitly stated and examples were provided, and it was easy to understand how author s reached their conclusions. The authors provided the interview questions used, the coding system used, and a detailed profile for 4 te achers selected to represent beliefs categories. One set of

PAGE 45

45 researchers derived codes from the observations and videotapes and another set used the codes to predict the practices in the videotapes from the interviews. The study also provides strong support for the use of interviews, as op about the subject area itself and about teaching and learning within the subject area for the purpose of relating beliefs to practice. Graham et al. (2003), menti oned previously in the efficacy section, found no connection between 220 first through third grade responses about their practices to support struggling writers on a 19 item questionnaire (Pressley, Rankin & Yokoi, 1996) surveying their use of specific instructional activities. To assess instructional activities, teachers indicated how often they engaged in : basic writing skills and writing processes as well as specific activities such as having conferences with students, minilessons, reteaching, modeling, using a computer, peer conferencing, and encouraging indep end and invented spellings. Teachers respo nded to questions using a Likert type scale ranging from 1 = never to 7 = several times a day. Beliefs were measured by the Writing Orientation Scale (Graham, Harris, MacArthur & Fink, 2002 ) designed to assess grade level ching writing in three areas: a ) the role of explicit instruction, b ) the i mportance of correctness, and c ) the role of natural learning area of investigation in this study, b ut the results can be interpreted as suggesting that the instrumentation may need more development before being used for the purpose of ascertaining responses to the practices questionnaire and their actual practice, i.e., the validity of the

PAGE 46

46 reports of how often they engage in practices on the questionnaire bear litt le relation to their actual practice. A judgment of how often a teacher reports performing the practices in the according to more criteria than frequency. Given the questions that were not answered about the should be interpreted cautiously. ing and inclusion and the ir practice, specifically, the nature of writing instruction provided. Two teams of first through fourth grade collaborating teachers, one with three teachers and the other with two, each in a different school, were interviewed twice and observed 55 times total Each team had at least one special education teacher and one general education teacher. Data were analyzed qualitatively; Berry marked key phrases, isolated beliefs statements and metaphorical statements, developed theore tical categories and performed thematic analysis. Berry found both t eams believed students with disabilities should be included in general education classrooms and neither totally skills based no t metaphors they used to describe their instruction and the rationale for their instruction that Berry differences were directly related to instruction. Team 1 believed in a structured, sequenced curriculum with steps and levels students iting skills were seen as out of order or broken; therefore, instruction inv

PAGE 47

47 (Berry, 2006, p. 18). Each student learned at his or her own pace within the same curriculum. Team 2 understood writing as relational rather than structural, i.e., they believed wri ting was primarily a tool for communication rather than a skill in itself. They supported students with disabilities within a structure that moved students from whole group to small group to independent work that provided opportunities for peer support. St udents with disabilities were study l end credibilit y to her findings, although the presentation of her findings seemed to be less synthesized and organized than the rest of the study was She spent a great deal of time in the field, collected multiple forms of evidence, and verified her teacher description s with the participants. She also described her methods in detail, explaining her coding and her rationale. Missing however, was an explanation of how her coding led to her conclusions. Her interpretations seem valid based on the large amount of data she provided, but she did not help the reader understand how the categories that evolved were connect ed with the major themes she articulated when describing her findings opting for a descriptive rather than an analytic approach to sharing results. Such description is typical and desirable in reports of case study research, but the reader is hard put to follow some of the logical leaps. None theless, the study provides mod erately strong evidence for the assertion that the that two teams of teachers shared several kinds of beliefs, including beliefs about the nature of disability, a commitment to inclus ion, an environmental orientation to teaching writing, and the use of the process writing approach, and yet their practice differed substantially. Berry attributed the differences to what she termed em

PAGE 48

48 appears to be epistemological beliefs as it wa writing is (set of skills or tool for communication) and their conception of what progress in writing looks like (acquire skills or communicate successfully ). Overall, the study highlights the complicated nature of the relationships among beliefs and practices and provides support for the use of interviews and observations to tease out those relationships ; it also underscores the emological beliefs to their practice. Pajares and Graham (1998) interviewed 27 middle school language arts teachers with two or more years of experience about how they would respond to a hypothetical case about a the study. Teachers were asked to respond to the responses Pajares and Graham used f ive formalistic beliefs derived from a pilot study with perservice teachers enrolled in a language arts methods class responses Formalistic beliefs, or formalisms, are beliefs that influence action regardless of context or circumstances. Formalisms identified in the pilot study included : a te acher must alway s respond positively; stu dents should, a bove all, be praised and encour aged; criticism is the enemy of creativity; evaluative questions should be redirected to the student; and the value of poetry is relative and cannot be judged were coded for the same formalisms, as well as for strategies and beliefs that emerged during i ncluded a greater quan tity of subject matter instruction than responses of the preservice teachers who ut responses relied just as heavily on the formalistic beliefs as the preservice teach ers

PAGE 49

49 their imagined practice because they shaped how teachers s aw themselves responding to student work. For example, teachers said they would praise the poem even if it was not praiseworthy, or redirect the question to the student. Only three of the teachers described their response as dependent on characteristics of also included a great deal of formalisms. The authors concluded that teachers who believed they must always respond positively and be c and self esteem reported that they would tell the student the poem is good rather than provide specific critique and instruction that might help the student to i mprove. It is difficult to determine how well this study provides support for the connection between formalistic beliefs and teacher prac tice given the entirely context free nature of the task that was posed to the teachers. The ponses to the hypothetical student and their actual responses to real students in the context of their classes was not investigated. In a natural classroom setting, writing task, the importance of the task to th e goals, the history of the individual student, and the purpose for writing the poem are just a few of the possible influences on nevertheless provides an impetus for further research on the influence of formalistic beliefs o n teacher practice and good evidence to practices. In fairness, the aim of the study was not to relate beliefs to practice but to investigate beliefs. The wa responses bore some verisimilitude to their actual practice. If such a relationship does not exist

PAGE 50

50 there i s no point to the investigation; researchers would be prudent to inc lude some context for tasks when designing measures such as this one. Beliefs about Students with D isabilities and Ability/D isability are also considered epistemological beliefs because beliefs about the natur e of knowledge and how knowledge can be gained are related to Jordan and Stanovich (2001; 2003; 2004; 2010) found teacher beliefs about disability and the role th ey play in instructing students with disabilities, were related to the use of effective teaching practices. Jordan and Stanovich (2003) developed an interview for use with teachers th at produced a narrative scored using a rubric; the resulting score was interpreted as falling on a continuum from Pathognomic to Interventionist (P I) beliefs During the P I Interview, teachers responded to questions about referral and assessment, setting goals and monitoring progress, makin g accommodations, collaborating with others in the school and communication with paren ts (Jordan & Stanovich, 2003). Pathognomic teachers believed disability was an inherent, unchangea ble characteristic of a student that teache rs could do little to remedia te and that responsibility for instructing students with disabilities belonged to someone other than the classroom teacher. Interventionist teachers believed tha t disabilities could be addressed successfully with accommodations and that the classroom teach er is responsible for ensuring student learning. measured by the P I Interview and effective instructional practice. Effective instructional practice was assessed accor ding to the Classroom Observation Scale (Stanovich & Jordan, 1998) that c ontained items in two parts: 1) the class as a whole, and 2 ) interactions between the teacher

PAGE 51

51 and three students: one with a disability, one regularly achieving, and one at risk of fa ilure. Whole class instruction was observed using three categories : time management, classroom management, and lesson delivery. Interactions were rated according to a 5 point scale, including: no dialogue with the student, manage rial comments, instructional comments, and interactive dialogue. In summing up several studies in which they used the Pathognomic Interventionist Interview with the Classroom Observation Scale to investigat e the relatio n beliefs and practices Jordan and Stanovich disabilities are related to effective teaching practices ( Jordan & Stanovich, 2010). In studi es that used the P I Interviews (e.g., Jordan, Lindsay & Stanovich, 1997; Jord an, Kircaali & Diamond, 1993 ; Jordan & Stanovich, 2002; White, 2007) researchers concluded that about 20% of teachers had Interventionist beliefs, 25% had Pathognomic beliefs, and about half had mixed beliefs. Teachers who had Interventionist beliefs were judged to be more effective overall (Stanovich, 1994; Stanovich & Jordan, 1998). Interventionist teache rs spent more time on instruction, spent more time engaged in individual and small group talk, spent more time in academically focused talk, and organiz ed their class routines effectively so that there was little or no wasted time. In another set of studies (Jordan, Lindsay & Stanovich, 1997; Jordan & Stanovich, 2001) nine I beliefs were compared to scores on a measure of teacher to student interactions. Transcripts of teacher to student dialogue d uring lessons were coded for type of student and nature of the dialogue. Students were coded as exceptional, typically achieving or at risk. Dialogue was coded as academic or non academic, and frequ ency, length and level of student engagement were scored. Pathognomic teachers had the least amount of interaction with

PAGE 52

52 at risk or exceptional students, and their dialogue with students was mostly non academic. Teachers who were neither pathognomic nor int erventionist demonstrated classroom practices that more time interacting with at risk and exceptional students, and spent more time engaged in academically focused dialogue with all of their students. Interventionist teachers interacted with low achieving students for almost twice as long as other students and their interactions overall were more frequent and characterized by higher levels of cognitive engagement. O verall, I beliefs were found to be related to the amount and frequency of academically focused dialogue with low achieving students and to the overall amount of instructional time allotted them well managed and routinized, which seemed to allow teachers to spend more time engaging students in academically focused dialogue. body of work over the past 20 years makes a strong case to support the findings that teachers differ i n their beliefs about ability and disability and P I beliefs are related to the effectiveness of their practice, not just for students with disabilities but for all students. Their findings are substantiall y consistent across the studies, pr oviding strong support also for the use of the P consistently provided detailed descriptions of the methods and instruments they used and evidence that they were appropriate for pursuing the questio ns they asked. They reported evidence of validity and reliability for their instrumentation and reported inter observer reliability for ratings They also provided interviews and observations were coded and evaluated, substantial evidence that they worked from their data to their findings in a clear and consistent fashion. The authors included tables

PAGE 53

53 displaying correlation coefficients and the estimate of the probability that their findings resulted by ch ance ( p values). The nature of the correlations computed, however, was not detailed. The assumptions associated with the different ways to compute correlation vary considerably and may have an impact on the interpretation of the analysis In addition, a di scussion of the shape of the distributions for both the inter view and the observation data would be useful to other researchers. Finally, their work was confined to teachers at the elementary school level and is not appropriate for generalizing to secondar y school teachers. Overall, Jordan and Stanovich made a substantial and robust case for their assertions about implication from their work that effective ins truction for students with disabilities is effective instruction for all is problematic however 1 200 3 2009 p. 536 ). Certainly, the studies do not support such a conclusion as they did not report data on student outcomes T here is no way to tell if effective teaching as they defined it was effective in promoting student achievement gains In a nother study that included the analysis of tea about student ability/disability and practices, 21 4 th to 6 th grade teachers in Los Angeles County completed a beliefs survey at the beginning and at the end of the school year and were videotaped twice teaching adding and comparing fractions (Stipek, Givven, Salmon & MacGyvers, 2001 ). The survey included 57 statements T eachers indicated the strength of their agreement with the statements by means of a 6 point Likert scale with responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree The survey provided information about the following beliefs: 1) math as mostly facts and procedures vs. math as creative thought; 2) primary goal as correct answers vs.

PAGE 54

54 understanding; 3) teacher control vs. some child autonomy; 4) entity vs. incremental view of ability; 5) extrinsic vs. instrinsic motivation; 6) confidence to teach math; and 7) enjoyment of teaching math. Teachers also completed a questionnaire about how they weighed effort, relat ive scores, creativity and independence when assigning grades. Videos were coded separately for whole group instruction and small group or individual instruction in the following areas: emphasis on performance outcomes, emphasis on speed, degree of risk fo r students, degree of teacher control of learning activities, emphasis on effort rather than ability, focus on mastery of beliefs were fairly stable over the course of the year. A principal components factor analysis resulted in 2 factors with high alphas (coherence) that were negatively correlated to one another. Teachers that subscribed to a transmission theory of instruction (the first factor) scored low on the second factor : confidence in and enjoyment of teaching math (Stipek et al., 2001 ) Correlations were computed between the 5 scales comprising the first factor and the 7 ratings of classroom practice. Several teacher b eliefs were associated with instructional practices. This study was not focused on students with disabilities, but g iven the conclusions of Jordan and Stanovich, the belief that would seem to have the most relevance to the instruction of students with disa bilities is number 4, the degree to which teachers believe ability is an unchanging entity as opposed to one that can change incrementally. T eachers who perceived math ability as unchangeable were likely to engage in practices that emphasized student perfo rmance, such as responding correctl y and completing assignments and they were less concerned about what students were learning and understanding Correlations between the beliefs scales and the reports

PAGE 55

55 of grading practices indicated that teachers holding strong entity beliefs about ability assessed students according to independence rather than effort, relative performance or creativity. The high quality of the design and report of this study lend strong credence to the findings. Procedures, measures, ana lyses and results were thoroughly documented and explained and tables of correlation results that included correlation coefficients as well as p values were given. Steps were taken to ensure reliability both of participant measures and rater interpretation s of video data. For example, 12 of the videos were rated by 2 raters independently; the authors gave the results in a table that provided the percent agreement for each of the 7 coding categories. These ranged from 83% to 92% within one point. Taken toge ther, the work of Jordan and S tanovich and Stipek et al. (2001 ) Beliefs about Inclusion A belief that students with disabilities should be includ ed in general education clas srooms seem s to be necessary but insufficient to guarantee teachers will use appropriate practices to support the learning of included students with disabilities (Brighton, 2003; Cook, Tankersley, Cook & Landrum, 2000; Howerton, 2006; Lombard, Miller & Hazelkorn, 1998; Moni, Jobling, van Kraayenoord, Elkins, Miller & Koppenhaver, 2007; Schumm et al., 1994). Researchers have found that overall, general education teachers believe that students with disabilities should be included, but may lack the knowledge, skills, or motivation to provide instructional support, especially as students get older. Two studies we re found that focused on the relationship between with disabilities. Researchers in Australia investigated how 37 middle school inclu sion were related to writing instruc tion in inclusive classrooms where 57 students with

PAGE 56

56 disabilities were served. Teachers were participating in a three and a half year long professional development effort to improve their writing instruction (Moni et al., 2007) Four instruments were used: 1.) a form on which and recorded supports provided, and the roles of other people in providing the support using a 6 point Likert type scale 2.) teachers provided feedback about the professional development, 3.) teachers recorded responses during workshop discussions, and 4.) researchers used the WriteIdeas classroom observation tool to record interactions and activities during lessons and information about the delivery mode, grouping subject area, differentiation, and support for students with disabilities during 2 observations for each teacher (Moni et al., 2007) The researchers concluded that there Even though most teachers had positive attitudes towards inclusion most did not use the strategies they had learned during instruction In the 70 observations of regular classrooms, the students with disabilities were observed completing the same tasks as oth er students, under the same conditions. In the 14 observations in which support personnel were in the class, no extra supports were provided to students with disabilities in almost half of the classrooms. Only 5 instances of group work and 4 of peer or pai r work were observed. Teachers reasoned that all students were going to have to pass mandated assessments, so all students had to do the same work. When teachers did create a differentiated lesson or assignment, they often ended up doing it with the whole class anyway (Moni et al.). The researchers did not give any description of data analysis or of procedures for rating teacher observations. Results were presented more as a summary than an analysis of the data collected. The study was included in the review because the substantial observation data reported seems rather self explanatory no extra support was provided to students with disabilities in any

PAGE 57

57 of 70 observations d be included. The researchers said contextual factors seemed almost impossible to ove rcome for teachers, especially the use of mandated assessments and mandated assessment criteria teachers in secondary schools were required to use for each task. These assertions should be interpreted with caution, however, due to the lack of description o f data analysis procedures. Robinson (2002) reached similar conclusions after a study of 4 high school science inclusive classes in New York. O ne teacher from each grade and its corresponding subject (9 th grade Earth Sc ience; 10 th grade Biology; 11 th grade Chemistry; and 12 th grade Physics) in 3 public schools and 1 private school participated. Teachers played leaders hip roles in the profession: they were involved in state level curriculum and assessment reform and th ey educated other teachers on the reforms Researchers interviewed teachers twice and observed 1 or 2 class periods to determine practices they considered or used for instructing students with disabilities during planning, i nstruction and assessment Duri ng observations, researchers noted interactions between teachers and included students with disabilities as well as between stude nts with disabilities and their peers when working in cooperative groups. Both interview and observation d ata were coded and analyzed using the constant comparative method. Key themes related to identified. All four teachers believed that students with disabilities should be included in general education classes They implemented a ccommodations as indicated in IEPs and provided in class supports for students with disabilities such as establishing a signal to warn they would be calling on the student and having students work with stronger peer partners. Strategies for

PAGE 58

58 questioning, c ooperative learning and alternate learning modalities emerged as important areas of concern for teachers as did assessment modifications. Teachers believed that since learning outcomes were the same for all, instruction should be similar, and so made one lesson plan for all students. Instructional strategies teachers used were based on their beliefs ab out the best teaching practices in general. Teachers reported that they used one plan for all students because so few students with disabilities were include d, they had limited planning time, and they had to prepare students for mandatory high stakes assessments administered at the end of the school year. The lack of detailed descriptions of how data were analyzed and interpreted limits the plausibility o f the findings in this study. and their nonuse of supportive instructional practices for th em (Moni et al., 2007; Robinson, 2002) about preparing students for required tests. Although it seems counterintuitive that teachers would prepare students for these tests by not providing any It is also possible that beliefs about inclusion are not the kinds of beliefs that are closely linked to instructional decisions. Teachers believed students benefited from inclusion, but reported they lacked support, resources, and knowledge for addressing the needs of included students with disabilities. Although these 2 particular studies do not provide clear and convincing evidence of their claims, this finding is pervasive in the beliefs and practices for including students with severe disabilities (Carter & Hughes, 2006) and students wi th physical disabilities (Hodge 2004) have drawn simi lar conclusions.

PAGE 59

59 Taken together, the studies suggest secondary level teachers who believe students with disabilities should be included do not do much to accommodate these students despite their positive attitudes and beliefs. T eacher beliefs that student s with disabilities should be included seem necessary but insufficient to guarantee teachers will provide them with any support for learning. Summary research that seems to have persisted in the emergent stage despite the fact that the first study appeared more than two decades ago (Thompson, 1984). With the notable exception of the work of Jordan and Stanovich, the studies reviewed are a somewhat motley assortment o f singleton studies, and are diverse in their methods and purposes. It is not possible to trace the development of a clear and well specified line of research in this area. In several of the studies, the analysis of fs and practices for supporting included students with disabilities is only a small part of an investigation focused on a related question (Graham et al., 2003; Soodak et al., 1998 ; Schumm et al. 1994 ). In part, the novice nature of the research is likely due to the difficulty researchers have encountered in relating teachers practices and to a certain extent weakly conceived and executed studies The establishment of a robust line of resear ch in this area seems warranted and even urgent at t his time when one considers the large numbers of students with disabilities who now are receiving most of their education in general education classrooms. The studies reviewed above are plagued with methodological issues that severely compromi se the concl usions that can be drawn from them Definitions of beliefs are sometimes imprecise and of ten overlap. Measures for both beliefs and practices were often idiosyncratic (e. g., Cunningham et al. 2009 ) and lacked proof of validity, making it difficult to dra w conclusions

PAGE 60

60 from the individual studies and thus, the literature as a whole. Researchers described many and Researchers sometimes faile d to account for the influence of context in the ir design s despite the strong Some studies included only vague descriptions of data analysis procedures. It is clear from the studies discussed that fs are relate d to practice, but further research that considers how beliefs are related to practice is warranted Observations and Data derived from observations of actual pra ctice in conjunction with conversations with teachers about real problems of practice faced in real contexts seem more valid for reaching conclusions context free beliefs measures and imagined practices measures d escribed in two of the studies Indeed, the strong influence of the context was one finding that was consistent across all the studies. Other idea s that bear investigation and consideration of support, the influence of beliefs about the subject area on practice, and the influence of beliefs about ability and disability (this last in contexts other than elementary language arts classes). Beliefs about the particular subject or content area hav e proven to be important for teacher practice studies in the general education literature, however, few researchers sought to understand how subject area beliefs of general education teachers might be important for their practice related to students with d isabilities (e.g., Berry, 2006). Researchers have found subject specific beliefs to be MacArthur & Fink, 2002; Stipek, Givven, Salmon & MacGyvers, 2001; Yerrick, Parke &

PAGE 61

61 thinking about the kinds of supports they provide for students with disabilities. Subject specific beliefs may be even more important for secondary level teache rs given that their teacher identity is associated with only one subject and they generally teach only one subject. Furthermore, departmental structures in secondary schools reinforce the disciplinary fiefdoms; each department has its own culture within th e larger school culture and even its own governance in the form of the department chair. It seems the subject area is an important contextual factor that cannot be ignored. There are only a relation to students with disabilities at the secondary level. Two studies that did, M oni et al. (2007) and R obinson (2002) focused mainly on b road beliefs such as beliefs about inclusio n but omissions in their reports limit the usefulness of their findin gs. This is a glaring gap in the literature. Consideration of the needs of students with disabilities is largely absent from the literature in general education researchers who look ed at how general educ ation teachers we re supporting included students with disabilities have pointed out the shortcomings of general education teachers (Baker & Zigmond, 1990; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Fuchs, Fuchs & Bishop, 1992; McIntosh, Vaug hn, Schumm, Haager & Lee, 1993; Peterson & Clark, 1978; Schumm Vaughn, Gordon & Rothlein, 1994). General education teachers seem to make few changes to their instruction to accommodate included students with disabilities, and the few changes they are will ing to make are mostly easily implemented, in class actions such as moving the student closer to the front of the room or having a partner take notes or providing accommodations that are required by students Individual Education Plan (IEP).

PAGE 62

62 Few studies however, A better understanding of the forces shaping general included students with disabilities. explanations of their beliefs and practices and their ide as on how what they do is linked to what they believe, in the contexts they in habit physically and metaphorically, with the real students they have is essential for understanding the ep in linking beliefs to practices is a rich, multi l specific practices for supporting students with disabil i ties within the general education classroom. There is a need for high quality qualit ative research in this area that could contribute to laying the foundation for the development of instruments for understanding and measuring beliefs and practices and the genesis of a clear and consistent line of research that incrementally and logically define s and describe s domains of and practices and the relationships between them. Clark and comprising one of three parts of teacher cognition; the other two are planning and interactive tho ughts and decisions. Although my related to the needs of students with planning, and interactive thoughts and decisions are integrally bound, with aspects of each revealed through the other two; thus, my study was designed to allow for careful attention to planning and interaction with students through the interviews and obs ervations. s assessments of

PAGE 63

63 and teaching behaviors must all be included in assessments

PAGE 64

64 Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between secondary Language classes and the supports they provide d for those students. Through interviews and observations disabilities in meeting the challenges of secondary level general educa tion Language Arts classes, and how those beliefs were related to the ways they help ed students with disabilities make progress towards instructional goals. Research questions included: 1. related to the supports fo r learning they provide f o r students with disabilities included in their cl asses ? 2. What are the supports for learning secondary general education Language Arts teachers provide for students with learning disabilities included in th eir classes? 3. What kinds of beliefs are related to teacher practice in the area of providing support for included students with disabilities? 4. practices?

PAGE 65

65 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN Theoretical Perspective An under lying assumption of this study wa and the purpose of the study wa s to understand the meanings attribu ted to specific actions by the teachers themselves. s way of making sense of the world is as valid and worthy of respect as rotty, 1998, p. 58). This study wa s designed so that my int eraction with the teachers enable d me to understand the significance o f specific actions teachers identified as supporting the learning of students with disabilities within their classes, and especially, the with di sabilities. As such, the study wa s firmly rooted in t he constructivist perspective. A most Lincoln, 1994, p. 100). For constructivists, reality is: constructed by the individual, socially and experientially based, and local and specific in nature (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Findings are created through the interaction of the researcher and participants; through dialectical interchange between the researcher and participants, shared meanings are sought, constructed and refined (Lincoln & Guba, 1985 ). "T he constructivist paradigm assumes a relativist ontology (i.e., there are multiple realities), a subjectivist epistemology (knower and subject create understandings), and a naturalistic (in the natural world) set of method ological procedures" ( Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, pp. 13 14).

PAGE 66

66 My main purpose wa s to understand specific actions of the teachers in terms of the significance they ascribe d to them. A second purpose was grounded theory t hat explained how their beliefs were related to their practice in the specific circumstance of providing support for students with disabilities included in their classes. All names are pseudonymns. Researcher Subjectivity When employing qualitative methods, it is important to acknowledge that the researcher is are inseparable from the data, and thus must be acknowledged. As such, I bracket ed my subjecti ve responses by thinking deeply about my own beliefs and experiences throughout the study and recording my thoughts in a notebook I used the notebook during the analysis to help identify the biases within my interpretations and to help guard against the i mposition of my own The notebook helped me to identify ways I was imposing my own views on the data. For example, during the axial coding, one of the main categories I had Even thou gh there was a lot of data in this category, the data seemed to be part of other categories also and through the constant comparative method I was able to figure out how to re categorize the data. I read early entries in my jou rnal while I was thinking abo rationales, however, did not work out as a category in answering the research question in this study. So, the notebook helped me sort out my pre existing ideas and expectations and separate them from the data.

PAGE 67

67 Participants Teachers were sampled purposively from the group of secondary Language Arts teachers in one school, thus keepin g the contexts of school, grade level, and content area as similar as possible given that context is such an important influence on both beliefs and practice Five high school L anguage Arts teachers out of a possible 8 that taught secondary general educat ion classes in which students with dis abilities were included were invited to participate based on the pr re commendations of teachers that we re effective instructors of their included students with disabilities. Four teachers agreed to participate, and all four completed all phases of the study. The other teacher that was recommended had personal reasons for not wanting to participa te that were not related to the purposes of the study. hers had a combined total of 98 years of teaching experience; almost all of their years teaching were in inclusive settings. Teachers taught Language Arts as well as a few other courses in the English Department: Journalism, Reading, and Speech. Teachers f rom grades 6 12 were recruited because those are the Secondary Certification grades in t he state; participants taught grades 6, 7, 8, and 9. All participants held an English 6 12 state certification, 2 were certified to teach journalism, and 1 had a Gifted Endorsement. Teachers had few to no Special Education courses or workshops and conferred with Special Education personnel at the school 1 2 hours per week. Information about the teachers and their classes is given in Tables 3 1 and 3 2 at the end of the c hapter. Setting The schoo l was located in a small city in the southeast and included middle and high school grades. School demographics reflected the demographics of the town. In the 2009 2010 school year, there were 1139 students enrolled in the school. Slightly more than h a lf the students were white, 26% were black, 18% were Hispanic and 3% were other races or ethnicities. Sixteen

PAGE 68

68 percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced price lunch. Students with disabilities comprised about 10% of the student population, a proportion that is slightly lower than the national average. Numbers of students, classes, and numbers of students with disabilities included in classes for the teachers in the study are given in T able 3 2 Language Arts classes taugh t ranged from 18 27 students. Numbers of included st udents with disabilities varied widely among individual classes and ranged from 0 in one 9th grade honors class to 12 (44%) in one 9th grade class. Primary Data Sources : Interviews Teachers participate d in four interviews. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. See Table 3 3 for a data collection timetable and Table 3 4 for a data summary table. Interview protocols are included in the Appendix. Interview One wa (2003) Pathognomic Interventionist (P I) interview, a semi structured interview that helps the researcher and the teacher co epistemological beliefs about students with disabilit ies. The interview consisted of prompts that elic it ed a disability that was in one of his or her classes and wa s at risk of academic failure at the time of the interview Within a constructivist perspective, beliefs ar e specific and local. Providing the teacher with a specific, co ntextualized narrative subject wa s therefore consistent with a constructivist perspective. A set of probe questions was used (J ordan & Stanovich, p. 8): initial concerns about and assessments of the student instructional programming monitoring student progress communication with staff, and communication with parents.

PAGE 69

69 Interview Two wa s a str uctured interview that took place after Observation One and Observation Two. The purpose of Interview Two wa beliefs about what is important in the content domain and how knowledge is developed w ithin the domain. Teachers also explain ed how students with learning d isabilities can be supported in gaining proficiency in the domain. Finally, teachers d iscuss ed how they plan ned instruction in general and for students with learning disabilities. Interview Three took place after Observation Thre e and Observation Four and was a semi structured interview in three parts. Using the previous interviews and o bservations as a source, I select ed examples of specific supports provided to students with disabilities the teacher reported or I observed. An individualized set of index cards with one support on each card was prepared for each teacher. Figure 3 1 Teachers were asked to describe their rationale for using those specific supports and to evaluate how successful the supports were. Cards were presented to ea ch individual teacher during the interview to encourage elaborated responses about each individual strategy or support, which needs it addressed, how it was used, and whether or not it was successful. In the second part, teachers were asked to describe an upcoming assignment, the challenges one student with a learning disability might have in comple ting it successfully, and how they might support the student in that specific instance. In the third part, teachers were asked to explain how they assess student progress and work, particularly for students who have received a significant amount of support in order to clarify how they defined learning/progress within the content domain. In Interview Four, the first part focused on topics for discussion selected from previous interviews and observation data to firm up the emergent theory of beliefs about the relationship

PAGE 70

70 the needs of students with learning disabilities. Questions were framed to investigate both of those areas and the relationships bet ween them. T he second part entail ed examination and discussion of my preliminary analy sis of the data to ensure I had not misrepresent ed their ideas. Discussion center ed on clarification of the emerging representation of their beliefs, both for the purpo ses of member checking and to uncover any missed ideas. I also provide d teachers with a diagram of my emergent theory derived from the interviews and observations and ask ed the m to comment on whether it was a valid representation of their practices and how they would change my representation. See Figure 3 2 for an example of the emergent theory diagram that was presented to one participant. Secondary Data Sources Concept Maps Teachers were asked to draw two Concept Maps. The first one was created during Interview Two; teachers were asked to represent their ideas about planning for instruction visually. The second was creat ed at the end of Interview Four: I provided teachers with a preliminary concept map that represented my conception of how their beliefs were related to the supports they provided for students with disabilities based on my analysis of the data and selected ideas or practices drawn from the interview and observation data. Teachers were asked to comment on the validity of these representatio ns and to make changes as they saw fit. The purpose of the Concept Maps was to visually portray the relationships among key ideas from the viewpoint of the participant to serve both as a second form of member checking and another data source. Several char acteristics of the Concept Maps were analyzed, including relative positions of items, size of items, and the specificity or vagueness of items or concepts and hierarchical structures. Indicated or absent connections between specific items and the strength of those

PAGE 71

71 connections, level of detail provided, and any emphases that are indicated were also considered. The most important contribution of the Concept Maps turned out to be the thoughts teachers spoke aloud as they were creating their maps, which were re corded and transcribed as part of the interviews. ( Photos of the Concept Maps are included at the end of Chapter 4 Figures 4 1 to 4 4. ) Observation Field Notes Teachers were observed at least four times for 100 minute periods each time. Observations were videotaped to support analysis. Detailed fiel d notes were taken during each observation. See Figure 3 3 for an example of field notes. Observation One occur red after Interview One was performed so that I had some contextual information to support my observ ation. Duri ng Observation One, I took detailed field notes about the instructional approach and chosen methods, interactions with students, and the classroom context with the goal of being attentive to actions that support ed the learning of students with l earning disabilities included in the class. Observation Two occur red after the first interview and the first observation. T he pu rpose of Observations Two, Three and Four was similar to th at of Observation One, but also include d conscious attention to actio n s related to ideas emerging during data analysis. Teacher Lesson Plans and Instructional Materials Teachers were asked to provide lesson plans, particularly for observed lessons, to provide tructional practi ces the teacher used regularly and to provide a topic for discussion to help shape my understanding of the Teachers did not provide daily lesson plans, except for the do list on the board and l ists of assignments on their websites. Teachers were, however, able to discuss in detail their general plans for the unit, marking period, and school year during

PAGE 72

72 the interviews. Teachers provided me with all instructional materials during observed lessons, and copies of relevant materials from related lessons. Student Work Samples and Other Artifacts Copies and photographs of student work samples or other clas sroom materials or products were collected to help provide examples and details to illustrate speci fic beliefs the teachers hold and supports they provided. Student work collected included photocopies or photos of essays, worksheets, and projects. Other classroom materials and products included videos of student presentations, photographs of slides stud ents created, and copies of notes students produced during group work, for example. Data Sheet The Data Sheet was completed by each teacher and included questions related to background information about the teachers such as : number of years of experience and areas of certification, number of courses or other training sessions related to teaching students with disabilities they have completed, and how much consultation they are able to have with the special education teacher. The data sheet included a table for teachers to provide their schedule and class information. Please see Appendix C for the form teachers used. Data Analysis Data were analyzed according to the procedures for developing grounded theory described by Strauss and Corbin (1990). Central features of grounded theory include the interplay between the theory and the data during the research process, use of the constant comparative method, the asking of theoretically oriented questions, systematic coding, and the de velopment of theory. The development of theory occurs during data analysis and the procedures for analysis are inherently recursive. As data are collected and coded, theories that emerge from the data are constantly compared to the new data, and the theory is shaped to reflect the reality represented by the data.

PAGE 73

73 Grounded theory analysis is a systematic method of data analysis beginning with open coding, or searching for major categories of information (Creswell, 2007). Open coding begins close to the data and through comparison and grouping the codes become organized into concepts. S ee Figure 3 4 for a list of open codes from an excerpt of an interview. Concepts often derived from grouping observed actions or statements, then make up categories and subca tegories, or groups of ideas that are related to one another. S ee Table 3 5 for an example of how the open codes in Figure 3 4 were grouped into categories and subcategories. The second step in grounded theory analysis is axial coding. Axial coding is one step removed from the data the work is with the categories developed during open coding. Axial coding began with relating subcategories to categories See Figure 3 5 for the categories in the axial coding and Figure 3 6 for a photo of one page from an interview with open coding and axial coding. Relationships among categories we re refined through t he next steps in axial coding : the identification of the core phenomenon and the creation of the following categories around t he core phenomenon: causal conditions, strategies, intervening conditions, and con sequences (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) See Figure 3 7 for an outline of the core phenomenon and categories. Then, dimensions of categories we re specified (See Table 6 ) and prope rties of dimensions were clarified (See Table 7) The end re sult of the previous two steps wa s a thematic analysis or concept development in this case, the concept of negotiating support for students with disabilities included in secondary general education language arts classes. Theory production entailed further analysis and explication of the relationships among the categories especially in terms of the relationships among various categories, dimensions and properties in yet another step.

PAGE 74

74 The f inal step in grounded theory analysis is selective coding, in which the researcher develops statements about how the categories in the model are related. First, I developed and named a core phenomenon that encompassed the other categories : Negotiating Supp ort Then, I coded the dataset for the grounded theory categories. Next, I developed statements or propositions about the relationships among the categories, dimensions and properties. These statements comprised the theory Usually, the theory is shared to ward the end of a study and it can assume several forms, including a narrative statement (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), a visual (Morrow & Smith, 1995), or a series of hypotheses or propositions (Creswell & Brown, 1992). I created a series of propositions. Ques tioning the data -that is, asking questions such as why, wh ere, how and when -facilitated theory emergence (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Memoing of secondary data sources and of the evo lving theory throughout provided useful data to support the development of categories and codes. The theory is discussed in Chapter 5. Establishing Credibility and Trustworthiness In research within a constructivist paradigm, research quality concerns about internal and external validity, reliability, and objectivity in the positivist tradition are not consistent with the goals of the research and quality or rigor is judged according to authenticity and trustw orthiness. Strategies that ensure d the quality of my study include d : triangulation, member checking, rich to the collection of multiple pieces of evidence. I collected interview, observation, and artifact data Member chec king, or ensuring my data and interpretations accurately represent ed the though ts of the participants, was conducted throughout the interview process by checking my understandings in the interviews and through the conce pt maps. Specifically, t he third interview entailed participant verification of the supports for students with disabilities I identified in their interviews and observations and participant

PAGE 75

75 clarification of my understanding of their practices to support st udents with disabilities. In the fourth interview, participants considered and commented on an emergent version of the grounded theory. Through in depth examination of the data, I develop ed explicit and rich descriptions of the participants, their beliefs about the needs of students with learning disabilities and how these beliefs relate d to the supports they provid ed for those students with disa b i lities. To reduce personal bias, I employ ed peer debriefing measures by: conferring reg ularly with my advisor a nd colleagues and comparing my coding to the coding of other doctoral students who agreed to assist me by independently coding a porti on of my data. Specifically, after I developed the categories, 7 doctoral students each coded 2 interviews for the categor ies (almost half the dataset). Students were asked to code in chunks rather than line by line or word by word. I then compared their coding with my coding. I looked for patterns of difference, that is, I looked for examples of the second coder consistently choosing a different code when I chose a particular code. I discussed patterns of difference with the other coders, and ultimately, t his process was enormously he lpful in refining my codes and theoretical categories. Finally, I kept a reflective journal to help me recognize my biases, and I referred to it during the coding and analysis process. Limitations Limitations to this study include d the small number of participants. It is possible that the theory would change if data from more te achers were added, or more connections among the pr operties and dimensions of the categories would emerge. Another limitation is the varying ability of individual teachers to articulate their beliefs and practices. There were differences among the four teachers in terms of how long they considered questions posed to them in the interviews, how naturally verbose or taciturn they were, and how well they were able to remain focused on particular points of discussion that affected the quality, kind and amount of

PAGE 76

76 interview data g enerated. Finally, i t would have been beneficial to perform a second round of double co ding with the refined code set.

PAGE 77

77 Table 3 1. Class Title # students with disabilities/ # students in class Class Title # students with disabilities/ # students in class Class Title # s tudents with disabilities/ # students in class Class Title # students with disabilities/ # students in class Class Title # students with disabilities/ # students in class Maggie English 9 Honors 1/20 English 9 Honors 0/26 English 9 9/27 English 9 12/27 English 9 Honors 1/20 Nora Language Arts 6 5/24 Language Arts 6 3/18 Language Arts 6 2/22 Language Arts 6 4/25 Journalism 7 2/20 Dan Reading 7 8/14 Language Arts 7 3/23 Language Arts 7 4/22 Language Arts 7 2/23 Language Arts 7 3/23 Monica Language Arts 6 Gifted 0/23 Language Arts 7 Gifted 2/21 Language Arts 8 Gifted 1/19 Speech 1/19 Executive Internship 0/17

PAGE 78

78 Table 3 2. Teacher Data Name # years teaching experience # years teaching Language Arts Other subjects taught # years teaching in inclusive setting Special education courses Special education workshops # Hours per week consulting with special educator Degrees Certification Areas Maggie 3 2 none 2 0 1 workshop in teacher ed program 1 2 BA, Public Relations; MEd, English Education English, 6 12; Journalism, 6 12 Nora 38 33 Ed, Journalism 33 0 Many workshops 1 MEd, Education English, Speech, Journalism, Dan 12 12 Intensive Reading 10 0 0 1 BA, English Secondary English Monica 45 45 Gifted Enrichment 45 Gifted Endorsem ent (5 classes) Approxim ately 1 3 hour workshop per year 1 2 BA, English; MEd, Education English 6 12, Gifted Education

PAGE 79

79 Table 3 3. Data Collection Timetable 2009 10 School Year Maggie Monica Dan Nora Other 11 5 INT 1 11 6 OBS 1 11 10 OBS 2 11 17 OBS 3 11 18 OBS 4 11 18 INT 1 11 19 INT 1 12 01 OBS 1 INT 1 01 14 OBS 1 01 20 OBS 1 3 30 OBS 5 3 30 OBS 2 3 30 OBS 2 04 01 INT 2 3 31 OBS 2 04 14 OBS 6 4 13 INT 2 04 14 INT 2 04 15 OBS 3 04 15 Team Meeting 04 27 OBS 3 04 28 INT 2 04 28 OBS 3 05 04 OBS 4 05 05 OBS 4 05 07 INT 3 05 10 INT 1 (Redo) 05 28 INT 3 05 29 OBS 4 06 01 INT 3 06 07 INT 4 06 07 INT 3 06 14 INT 4 06 15 INT 4 06 15 INT 4

PAGE 80

80 Table 3 4. Data Summary Table Maggie Nora Dan Monica Sum Observations Total Time in minutes 600 500 400 400 1900 = 31.6 hours Interviews Total Transcribed Pages 1 33 21 27 28 2 28 27 35 42 3 36 39 48 48 4 20 18 22 25 Other 12 45 Summed Pages 117 105 144 188 554 pages Interviews Total Time in minutes per interview 1 48 35 59 52 194 2 54 49 49 102 254 3 87 65 75 144 371 4 40 39 55 72 206 Other 27 96 123 Total Interview Time 229 188 265 466 1148 = 19.1 hours Concept Maps 1 1 1 1 Artifacts Yes Yes Yes Yes Total time in field 829 min = 13.8 hours 688 min = 11.5 hours 665 min = 11.1 hours 866 min = 14.4 hours 50.7 hours

PAGE 81

81 Table 3 5 Open Codes from Maggie Interview One Pages 1 4 Organized into Categories and Subcategories during Axial Coding Open Code Category Subcategory Sub subcategory Curriculum undefined Beliefs Beliefs about Subject Area Nature of subject area Definition of her approach real world texts Beliefs Beliefs about Subject Area How students learn this subject Kinds of texts commercials, propaganda, speeches, and movies Beliefs Beliefs about Subject Area Beliefs about curriculum Unit topic persuasion Beliefs Beliefs about Subject Area Beliefs about curriculum Area of focus literature Beliefs Beliefs about Subject Area Beliefs about curriculum Example of a text autobiography Beliefs Beliefs about Subject Area Beliefs about curriculum Students need make transition to high school Beliefs Beliefs about Students in General Beliefs about student needs Class purpose Beliefs Beliefs about Subject Area Goals Goal prepare for the future Rationale Students Need It State tests Rationale Required Way to help (class focus) Supports Academic Support Modify goals Student needs tied to test Beliefs Beliefs about Needs of Students with Disabilities or Struggling Students Modify goals Planning tied to student needs Rationale Beliefs about Student Needs Belief that Students with Disabilities need more practice Approach to learning, way students learn independent learning Beliefs Beliefs about Subject Area Beliefs about how students learn Philosophy of education give students agency Beliefs Beliefs about Subject Area Beliefs about how students learn Value student agency Beliefs Beliefs about Subject Area Beliefs about how students learn

PAGE 82

82 Table 3 5. Continued Open Code Category Subcategory Sub subcategory Way to support students with disabilities give choice Supports for students with disabilities Affective Motivation Student needs to be challenged Beliefs Beliefs about Students in General Beliefs about how Students Learn Way to support all students let students choose what to read and write Supports (for all students) Affective Motivation Student agency important Beliefs Beliefs about Students in General Beliefs about how Students Learn Law IDEA Way to support students her notebooks about str Beliefs Beliefs about roles and responsibilities Data Trial and error way to Beliefs Beliefs about roles and responsibilities Persistence Consequences if student fails, gets kicked out Rationale Student needs it Problem participation Beliefs Belief about student with disabilities Beliefs about problems of students with disabilities have Characteristics of student unresponsive Beliefs Belief about student with disabilities Beliefs about problems of students with disabilities Student problem being in a social setting Beliefs Belief about student with disabilities Beliefs about problems of students with disabilities Way to support student with disabilities: one on one he lp Supports for Students with Disabilities Affective/Academic Student worry somebody is looking at him Beliefs Belief about student with disabilities Beliefs about problems of students with disabilities

PAGE 83

83 Table 3 5. Continued Open Code Category Subcategory Sub subcategory Student feeling weird around people Beliefs Belief about student with disabilities Beliefs about problems of students with disabilities Teacher insight Beliefs Belief about student with disabilities Beliefs about problems of students with disabilities Way to accommodate not require interactive work Supports for Students with Disabilities Affective Emotional issue Way to support use Supports for Students with Disabilities Academic Modifying task Way to support motivate Supports for Students with Disabilities Affective Motivation, self confidence Way to support different ways to meet the same goals Supports for Students with Disabilities Academic Modifying task School support academic contract Supports for students with Disabilities Procedural Way to support that failed explaining task Supports for students with Disabilities Procedural Way to help one on one help Supports for Students with Disabilities Academic Intensity of Instruction Way student presents challenges to teacher behavior Beliefs Belief about student with disabilities Beliefs about problems of students with disabilities

PAGE 84

84 Table 3 6. Grounded Theory Categories and Dimensions Summary of Core Phenomenon: Negotiating Support for Students with Disabilities in Secondary General Education Classrooms Grounded Theory Categories Dimensions Sub Dimensions Varies according to Causal Condition: Student Struggles or is Expected to Struggle G lobal P rocess related Student Skill deficit S tudent S ituated T ask Student C oncept Student Context Temporal Point in School Year C alendar Amount of Time Available for instruction, in or out of class Teacher schedule, responsibilities, and how teacher structures class Organizational Available Support/personnel Teacher beliefs in importance of Mandates/Initiatives Same for all, but influence varies re: efs about student needs Academic General: Overall Subject Area Definition Specific: Goals/Tasks Class Composition # students, # students with disabilities, other student characteristics Skill level Individual students Student Strengths Individual students Weaknesses Individual students Needs Individual students History Individual students Behavior Individual students Affect Individual students Motivation Individual students Intervening conditions Beliefs About Self: Roles/Responsibilities Provide individualized instruction in or after class Individual teachers Adherence to school policies Individual teachers Responsibility for student success Individual teachers Responsibility for whole child Individual teachers

PAGE 85

85 Table 3 6. Continued Grounded Theory Categories Dimensions Sub Dimensions Varies according to Knowledge transmission/construction stance Individual teachers Persevere with students with disabilities Individual teachers Beliefs About Subject Definition of Individual teachers How knowledge is attained within Individual teachers Nature of knowledge in Individual teachers Goals, purposes of instruction Individual teachers, class characteristics, individual students Kinds of tasks given Individual teachers, class characteristics, individual students Beliefs About Students with Disabilities Inclusion in general Individual teachers Ways students with disabilities struggle Individual teachers Needs of students with disabilities Individual teachers, individual students Nature of ability/disability Individual teachers Action/Interaction Strategies Procedural Supports Task specific supports Individual teachers, class characteristics, indiv idual students Supports that help with any task Individual teachers, class characteristics, individual students Behavioral Supports Part of school initiative Individual teachers Individual teachers, class characteristics, individual students Affective and Psychological Supports Motivational supports Individual teachers, class characteristics, individual students Teacher caring Individual teachers Teacher empathy Individual teachers Academic Supports Intensity of Instruction Individual teachers, class characteristics, individual students

PAGE 86

86 Table 3 6. Continued Grounded Theory Categories Dimensions Sub Dimensions Varies according to Format of Instruction Individual teachers, class characteristics, individual students Explicitness of Instruction Individual teachers, class characteristics, individual students Instructional Aids Individual teachers, class characteristics, individual students Adjusting Process Individual teachers, class characteristics, individual students Adjusting Product Individual teachers, class characteristics, individual students Strategy Instruction Individual teachers Consequences Student Academic Individual students, kinds of supports, properties of supports Affective Individual students, kinds of supports, properties of supports Psychological Individual students, kinds of supports, properties of supports Behavioral Individual students, kinds of supports, properties of supports Teacher Influence on beliefs Individual students Cost time, resources, materials Individual students, kinds of supports, properties of supports Affective (ex. Frustration) Individual students, kinds of supports, properties of supports Psychological (ex. Perseverance) Individual students, kinds of supports, properties of supports Class Academic kinds of supports, properties of supports

PAGE 87

87 Table 3 7. Properties of Selected Dimensions of Core Phenomenon: Negotiating Support for Students with Disabilities i n Secondary General Education Classes Dimensions Properties Considerations for Specifying the Property: Questions Determined by Beliefs Nature What is the belief? What is the content of the belief? Explicit teacher statement; inference from statement/action Strength How strongly does the teacher hold the belief? How definite or unambiguous is the beliefs? Repetition of the belief, valence of words describing the belief, explicit statement of strength of belief length of time talking about the belief degree to which belief can be inferred from practice Specificity 2 aspects: 1. How explicitly stated is the belief? Is there a distinction drawn between two similar beliefs? 2. Does the belief pertain to a single student, a specific kind of student, a class? Is it about the subject area in general or a particular portion? Does it apply in all situations or a defined situation? Analysis of specificity of expression of the belief in terms of the words used to limit the belief; specific verbal c ues such etc. Connectedness Does the teacher connect the beliefs to other beliefs, explicitly or implicitly? Are there logical connections between teacher beliefs? Causation words, i.e., because I believe x, I believe that y; consistency of expressed beliefs across interviews; analysis of content/nature of beliefs Practices Frequency How often is the support provided? Observation, teacher report Temporality Is the support provided before, during or after instructio n? Observation, teacher report Duration How long does the provision of the support last in a particular instance ? How long is the provision of the support extended throughout the year? Observation, teacher report Consistency Is the support provided each time a need a particular need is perceived? Observation, teacher report

PAGE 88

88 Table 3 7. Continued Dimensions Properties Considerations for Specifying the Property: Questions Determined by Reliability Is the support the same, and provided in the same way, each time a particular need is perceived? Observation, teacher report Specificity Is the support designed for a specific task/goal or can it be generalized to several tasks/goals? Is the task/goal proximal or distal? Is the support designed for a sp ecific student or is it used for several students? Is the support designed for only students with disabilities or is it used with the whole class? Observation, teacher report, analysis Responsiveness, Dynamicism Was the support adjusted or modified based on student response? Can it be adjusted to individual student needs? Observation, teacher report Strength of Rationale How convincing is the rationale for the use of the support ? What are the grounds for the rationale? Is the s upport used linked to stat ed student needs? If so, how tightly is it linked? Teacher report number of reasons, evidence for reasons, analysis Specificity of Rationale How explicitly articulated is the rationale for the specific sup port? Is the rationale for the use of the support linked to student needs relative to a specific task, a kind of task, a broader skills area, a specific student, students with specific characteristics, experiences with past students, or an observed instanc e for a specific student? Teacher report, analysis

PAGE 89

89 Figure 3 1. Photo of set of index cards of identified supports prepared for one participant.

PAGE 90

90 Figure 3 2 Photo of emergent theory presented to one participant in I nterview Four

PAGE 91

91 Figure 3 3. Field notes example.

PAGE 92

92 Curriculum undefined Definition of her approach Kinds of texts Unit topic Area of focus Example of a text Students need make transition to high school Class purpose Goal prepare for the future State tests Way to help Student needs tied to test Planning tied to student needs Approach to learning, way students learn Philosophy of education Value student agency Way to support students with disabilities Student needs Way to support all students Student agency important Law IDEA Way to support students Trial and error Consequences Problem Characteristics of student Student problem Way to support student with disabilities: one on one help Student worry Student feeling Teacher insight Way to accommodate Way to support Way to support motivate Way to support different ways to meet the same goals Requirements for students, goals Student problem, attitude, value School support School rule Student proble m Way to support that failed Way to help Figure 3 4 Open codes from pages 1

PAGE 93

93 Figure 3 5. Axial Coding categories and colored flags used to code interviews

PAGE 94

94 Figure 3 6. Photo of interview page with open and axial coding.

PAGE 95

9 5 Figure 3 7 Outline of grounded theory axial coding

PAGE 96

96 CHAPTER 4 D PRACTICES The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between secondary Language Arts classes and the supports they provide d for those students. Through interviews and observations t supporting students with disabilities in meeting the challenges of secondary level general education Language Arts classes, and how those beliefs were related to the ways they help ed students with disabilities make progress towards instructional goals. Research questions included: 1. supports for learning they provide for students with disabilities included in their classes? 2. What are the supports for learning secondary gener al education Language Arts teachers provide for students with learning disabilities included in their classes? 3. What kinds of beliefs are related to teacher practice in the area of providing support for included students with disabilities? 4. Are there discern practices? The purpose o f this chapter is to present their practices to support students with disabilities included in their secondary level general educ ation Language Arts classes. These data reflect about themselves, their students, and their subject area are related to the practices they use to support students with disabilities. Following a description of the school, e is p resented separately Each teacher description begins with a classroom followed by a narr ative co nstructed from the that provides detail

PAGE 97

97 about the particula : the course content and g oals, influences on the class, and students with disabilities and the class. The teacher narrative sections are followed by a discussion that ties the data to t he analytical catego ries identified in C hapter 3 The teacher narrative sections and included interview data from all of the four teacher interviews for each teacher There were four teacher narratives for each teacher: My Class, Influences on My Class, Students with Disabilities and My Class, and I Believe. For each of the four narrative sections for each teacher, first, I read all four interviews to find data related to the section. Next, I copied and pasted all relevant data into the section I gathered data on each section for one teacher and one section at a time. When I had gathered data for all of the sections for one teacher, I considered how I could edit and sha pe the narratives to convey the teacher s ideas in a way that was not only logical for the reader but also consistent with what the teachers said. ideas and was not imposed upon their ideas. All word and represented their viewpoints as accurately Finally, I looked for sentences t hat qualified or contradicted information in the narratives and removed anything that seemed ambiguous or that the teacher had expressed unclear or conflicting ideas about. Sentences from all four interviews were combined i n the sections to create the na rr atives. The teacher narrative sections are followed by a discussion that ties the data to the analytical categories identified in Chapter 3. The analytical categories were derived from ations. The discussion is

PAGE 98

98 disabilities are presented in four subsections: procedural, behavioral, affective and psychological, and academic. Teachers expres sed beliefs were organized into several categories in the analysis, but are discussed within the practices subsections as they were relevant to the specific practices subsection. The beliefs categories that emerged from the data were beliefs : abo ut students with disabilities and how they learn, about students i n general and how they learn, about themselves as teachers and their roles and responsibilities, and about language arts what it is a nd how students progress in it are identified at the end of each practices subsection. Practices and beliefs did not neatly correspond to one another in exclusive categories; certain beliefs appear to undergird several types of supports and beliefs are d iscussed in each instance they were relevant. All names are pseudonymns. The School Jefferson Secondary School sprawls across a rolling hillside in a small southern city. Athletic fields and grassy meadows border the long, low classroom buildings on one side; a quiet nei ghbor hood of one family homes abuts the campus on the other. Massive live oak trees heavy with Spanish moss line a lazy creek that ambivalently meanders through the campus, taking first one tack, then another. P alm trees and tropical vines peep out here and there. A small bridge crosses the creek, connecting classrooms lower on the hillside to those at the top of the hill. Classrooms are contained in one story concrete block buildings, 5 classrooms to each buildi ng, that radiate from a central walkway. Entry to the classrooms is from an exterior corridor; classroom windows look out on grassy areas between the cl assroom buildings. Vegetable gardens planted by students as class projects grow in the green areas. The heat is oppressive for much of the school year and the hum of the air conditioners blends with the sounds of the birds, crickets, and bull frogs that make their homes in the gurgling creek. Students laden with

PAGE 99

99 backpacks mill about during the change of clas ses, cell phones in hand. They shout greetings to friends, make plans for later, and exchange books and notes. The smell of fresh cut grass on a struggling little breeze almost refreshes those outside Beauty berry, camellia, jasmine, azalea hibiscus, and crape myrtle each make an appearance, each in its season here and there throughout the campus Although at first glance the school setting seemed idyllic, the school building s were aged and were in the process of being entirely replaced. The old air c onditioners often failed to achieve a comfortable temperature within the school buildings and condensation often formed on interior walls. Several classes took place in mobiles at the rear of the campus. During my investigation, the school was implementin g the first stage of a Response to Intervention (RTI) framework. This entailed the identification of ten students who were at risk of failure at each grade level. Typically, the grade level lists included several students with disabilities, but were not ex clusive to students with disabilities. Students were identified for the list due to low state test scores. Teachers kept an especially close eye on those students in their tudents, mostly about whether they had completed assignments and were attending classes. Teachers a special effort was made to pay attention to students on the list. The school is on a block schedule. Classes meet for 100 minutes on alternate days except for Mondays. A ll classes meet for 50 minutes on Mondays.

PAGE 100

100 Maggie painted steel tables in the area outside the classrooms provide space for students to gather or have a snack. The room is rectangular, with the whiteboard taking up one o f the short ends immediately to the left of the entrance. Blue lockers line the opposite wall. Towards the rear, boxes are stacked high. opens from the right rear corner. It contains a computer, desk, an d 2 chairs. There is long counter against the wall on the right side of the room that looks like it was installed to hold about 6 classroom computers at one point Student desks face the center of the room: 6 rows of 2 desks on each of the long sides of the room. In the large space formed by the desks in the center of the room, there is a rectangular table that holds papers, files and projector aimed at the white board. Student work and photos are di splayed on the bulletin boards above the long counter. written on the whiteboard. Maggie stands in the hallway greeting students as they arrive in twos and threes. Students know what drawer, get materials from another, and look at the board This th year teaching. She has a BA in Public Relations and an MEd in English education. Sh e had one workshop during her teacher preparation on teaching students with disabilities, and she consults with the special education support staff 1 2 hours per week. analysis and representation of their approach to planning instruction. In this kind of research, participants are considered to be contributors to the research a n d members of the research team

PAGE 101

101 My Class I teach Language Arts propaganda, speeches and movies. We hit literature, but we did it in an autobiography way so we looked at a l ot of autobiographies I try to make it tie to things they will have to do in the future. We have in 9 th grade the FCAT exam in March. As we move toward FCAT, my honors cl ass goes in a different direction and my standard class stays a little more focused on reading comprehension in order to do we try to approach it in a way that is very independent learn ing, very student directed, so that whenever students have a topic that they are to write about or think about, they have a lot of agency I am able to cater to student s with disabilities as well as students who feel that they need to be challenged in a different way. I guess I try to let it come from them. learn, or the papers they have to write equipping them to function in the world. You know, my biggest reason why I became a teacher is because there are so many messages that are coming at kids, like from so many differ ent directions. I think I teach them to think critically about the world. I think language arts is a place that gives me a lot of freedom. homelessness. The goal is not necessarily to teach them about the issue of homelessness. That is learning to talk to people who might be different from us, and how to donate

PAGE 102

102 services for a purpo se, and a little bit about self sacrifice. And we are reading local news articles about the topic, and newsletters published by the woman who runs Home Van. I try to give the same thing to everyone, and just modify it a little bit. For example, if my second period class is extremely task oriented, and they work really really fast, so for that class, through that a lot faster than anyone else. So, I might have to add in something interactive like a speaking component to it as well And then, for a class that struggles with reading comprehension, I might have to say, okay, rather than everyone reading the paper individually, I might have to be like, read aloud in pairs. So, at the end, every student has gotten pretty much the same m narratives about people who have been homeless, biographies, and we are wri ting our own biographies and we are: reading, writing, and speaking; we are interviewing people who received and then sell them for proceeds to give to the she lter. [The kids are writing a biography of] someone who received services at St. Francis House. [I saw you were teaching the inverted pyramid when I was in the last class, and so that was part of the new s ] Yes, understanding how to read a news article. I would never have a class where we learn about the inverted pyramid in a day. There has to be a so what, how do I use this, how does this apply to the real world. w

PAGE 103

103 relevant to the real world. The whole world is about what you do communicate, by talking to each other, and by writing things down, and by reading things that each other write. Language is how we relate to each other, and it applies to everything we could possibly ever do involves some sort o f communication. The purpose of English is to learn how to and learning how to see different perspectives. Influences on My Class I use the Sunshine State Standar ds. Oftentimes and make su re that I have things on there. just go back and fill it in. I know that a lot of times kind of going along with school initi believe. Maybe negotiation is our beliefs of what students need to know and what the state or schools say they may need. And l first place. Everyone listens to other voices to do our jobs appro checked up on all the time. Kids become good readers, good writers, and good consumers of media by a lot of repetition and practice. I give a lot of time to independent reading and then finding ways for kids

PAGE 104

104 to talk about what [I structure their tasks] around their own interests or wonderings. When we do our fiction segment we talk about similar things in class, characterization and skill s they should learn like how to write a paper on a book, literary criticism. But as far as what to read, that should come Students with Disabilities and My Class hat the disability who struggles with his processing to commit to understanding and get them there.

PAGE 105

105 Timmy is the type of perso n that I 100% have to stay on. I cannot relieve myself of the responsibility or putting that into my grades, and I had this tinge of if I had stayed on him 100%, he could have made a B or a C, but I kind of stressed at the end of the year and relieved myself a little and saw his grade go down. And that happens on an everyday basis, too. For example, their final exam was the reflection essay, on everything we had done in the second se mester. He was writing and the prompt said to address each point: what did you learn, what work did you do or n ot do, and there were 5 points. And he numbered his rather than writing in narrative format. So, I went to him and said, instead of saying this i He took his numbers and wrote th em as paragraphs and I accepted them both and gave him a as if h e had because that was the most I could have expected of him given his capabilities. I felt that was the most fair way to assess him. not in the educational way, but as a human: having respect for them, paying attention to what o much. You make a judgment call at some point about when you need to kick a kid in the butt them, is an adult they feel actually respects them and cares. No one has paid attention to them actually are and what they care about.

PAGE 106

106 I want him to get to the place where he could achieve to the same level as his peers. I want to believe that he c because the world holds a high standard. For me, this is th grade and this is his chance to learn how to be successful there. You have to build a good relationship with him and then go and explain instruction to him personally. I let him read and I let him draw and then I go over and te thinking about. He comes in every Monday to see me after school for our tutoring. assignments a s so huge and boggling and he has all this work to do, and [I] kind of cut it down for him a little bit, help him see a beginning, middle, and end. Providing a scribe or reader, I have to organize that with Dr. Moon ahead of time, and important that a stud ent has a scribe so that what he cognitively can actually do is evident there, has learned or that he can pass. What I taugh disability. Laying it out ahead of time and setting goals, like for this unit, this is what I want my kids to be able to do, to be able to use these vocabulary words correctly and be able to organize an essay based on this formant, or whatever. One thing we worked on in our writing was varying want to test is his ability to use his hands to write the correct words. S o, if the support is then

PAGE 107

107 using a laptop, then I can more accurately assess what is going on. I can see he can use different structure with this everybody has a problem with sentence structure. One kid writes beautiful varied sentences, why would I want that student wasting three or four wee ks of her life when she already knows how to together. And practice, but practi And homeroom check in is part of the log thing. And I would say that these things are, the reason why I do it, the first reason why is because I was told to do it, which is actually a good thing cause I might not have conceptualized doing it in the way th if it helped and then change. One of the most helpful things is each teacher is responsible for th ree to four kids in particular that are kind of like on their radar, as high needs. The writing partnership is the coolest thing I do all year. Students would write an essay or whatever and then the college students would [give feedback]. The writing proc ess is so individual, and it really takes reading every word that they write, thinking in your head: where are they going with this and what mistakes did the make here, did they put this comma here, then why did they put it here, and that sort of thought p

PAGE 108

108 that I can do and I love doing it, but the fact that I have such help with the writing partnership teachers, we have such big groups of kids. I have 120 students and we have to take them from because they it. Multimedia is important because it addresses different learning needs. It gives students So it was me and Dr. Moon and we sat together for some vocabulary I wanted my kids to learn, and she had the great idea that the kids could act it out because there were slight differences in the words that they had to show. She helped me come up with the idea for that lesson and was also there for that lesson. Whenever the kids were getting together trying to figure out what to do, she was going around with me checking in on the kids. So, me standing up but, getting them in I Believe I believe English is not too hard for anybody. I believe English is accessible to anyone, no matter the level of disability, because iation in what you can create disability that prevents you fro m understanding and

PAGE 109

109 to get to that. they can say something and not be made to feel stupid or wrong and that they feel supported. My role is not to stand in front of the classroom a come to their own understanding, and when they struggle, to be there. I think everybody tries really hard, and every single teacher loves students. I really believe that. I would love to have one person who in special education and who would have a regular [meeting with me] to talk about my curriculum and then she can think, she can say, this is not going to work because what about your student who has tro uble with whatever. Then give me a technique, tactic, or idea. My English educati on has just been in English teaching and I love the program. I think that, you almost seems like I need another degree to do it, or another per son in the room all the time. I say ideally, an ideal situation would be I would have another degree, or I need another special education person that is in my ro om at least 50% of the time: on the front end, like curriculum wise and in the classroom.

PAGE 110

110 Analysis upport Students with Disabilities The analysis section for each teacher will include the practices the teacher used to support the learning of students with disabilities in their classes and a discussion of how those practices are linked to the beliefs th e teacher expressed Maggie identified a number of ways to support students with disabilities included in her classes. Supports she pr ovided are discussed below in terms of types of support s and the kinds of beliefs she expressed that were linked to specific ways to support the learning of students with disabilities. Procedural supports for learning Maggie provided several supports to her included students with disabilities that can be thought of as procedural, or supports that as sist ed students with procedures related to completing tasks. These kinds of supports are focused on helping students understand the task and organize their approach to the task. Maggie said that students with disabilities often need to have a task explaine d multiple times, in multiple ways. For example, during one observation, Maggie explained the task of writing a letter to the whole class. She supported her explanation with a handout containing the assignment steps and she also a projected image of the ha ndout on a screen during her explanation When she finished answering questions from the group, she sat down next to Timmy and talked to him for several minutes about the task until he was able to explain the task to her in his own words. She also helped h im get started by writing two sentences with him, thus helping him both to organize the task and to get started. Another procedural kind of support is continually encouraging the student to perform the task. In the same example, throughout the 100 minute class, Maggie frequently checked in on occasions, Maggie provided models of finished products, templates to help with the organization

PAGE 111

111 of content, and helped with brai nstorming ideas for writing. Maggie said it is also important to provide students with disabilities with written instructions and to clarify directions. Finally, to support Ti mmy in completing p rojects and assignments at home. The use of procedural supports to support the learning of students with disabilities can be explicitly included the belief that students with disabilities can be successful if they have im, remind him of simple things She said, revealing her beliefs about how students with disabilities may strugg le in her class a Maggie believed students must practice in order to learn and so it was essential that she was necessary for students to become go od readers, good writers, and good consumers of media, and so her use of procedural supports is also related to her beliefs about how students progress within the subject area of language arts. Because Maggie believed students must practice in order to lea rn, she therefore found ways to sup taking this responsibility upon herself is related to h er beliefs about herself as a teacher and her own roles and r esponsibilities : to their own understanding, and wh en they struggle, to be there tasks and continually checking in on their progress was also related to her beliefs about assessment. Because she saw her task s and assignments mostly as formative, that is, their

PAGE 112

112 purpose was to provide a learning experience rather than to test how much students already knew, providing help and advice during the performance of a task did not present a conflict as it might for a t eacher who believed students should be assessed on what they are able to do on their own. She helped students do the assignment, rather than remediating after they failed. Behavioral supports The behavioral supports category included teacher behaviors re lated to ensuring or checking on student behaviors such as attending class, completing assignments, and conducting themselves appropriately. Teachers included these kinds of actions as part of what they did to provide support fo r students with disabilities Many of these supports were required of teachers within the context of the school wide RTI implementation. RTI in this school was in the early stages of implementation and did not include any academic support. Rather, ten students who were at risk of fai lure were identified at each grade level. Teachers kept an especially close eye those students, mostly about whether they had completed assignments and were at tending classes. effort was made to pay attention to students on the list. Magg ie said she complied with RTI requirements, and that she made a special effort to keep track of the stu dents on the list. Timmy and she said: I think that me staying on his butt all the time is what has really helped him. life, to establish some sort of relationship. You keep up with their grades, you email their teachers regularly to see how they are doing in the classes and you contact m om and dad Other behavioral supports Maggie provided on her own included performing a systematic, regular review of student progress, behavior and attendance for students she had identified as

PAGE 113

113 struggling in her class and students with disabilities She b the s erring to the time before she developed a system to track students so regularly. obviously, her beliefs about her roles and responsibilities as a teacher included complian ce with school policies. Her provision of the RTI supports was also related to her beliefs about how students with disabilities learn in that she believed establishing relationships with students with disabilities and making them believe teachers cared was critical for motivating them to perform them, not in the educational way, but as a human: having respect for them, paying attention to what they need and how th ifference for them or not Paying to them was important; these beliefs also affected supports described in the next section. Affective and psychological supports for her students as human beings perm eated her approach to teaching and she spoke several times of providing supports that can be thou ght of as emotional or psychological well being. Supports in the affective and psychological supports student emotional well being, and student mot ivation were centered on building strong relationships with them. She said that Timmy, in the beginning of the year, was withdrawn and refused to do any work. She put a lot of effort into understanding the

PAGE 114

114 feeling inadequate and having high soci al problems One strategy she figured out to support him was to let him have some ch writing assignment in a comi c book format Maggie also figured out that within her online writing partnership activity, Timmy was greatly intimidated by the idea of putting his work on t iting partner comes to meet him instead of communicating w ith him online In order to help Timmy build confidence and feel comfortable doing the task, Maggie found a way to change the task both in terms of how Timmy would complete the task and how he would receive feedback. Maggie said that her strengths to help him complete the assignment contributed to the building of trust between them, and she attributed prove that to him, by com mitting to meet with him, and change that assignment, and slowing Maggie also made an effort to look for patte rns things like if there were people being ostracized or boyfriend and girlfriend stuff happens a lot. I Maggie phoned p behavior and talked to students about emotional challenges they faced. Finally, Maggie engendered student motivation by incorporating opportunities for student choice into her coursework and using multimedia. Even though these were things Maggie did for all of her students, she spoke of them in the context of supports for students with disabil itie s.

PAGE 115

115 Students were often allowed to choose their own novels within parameters Maggie set. Maggie used movie clips in class and often brought in a mobile laptop lab so that each student could work on a computer to create products that incorporated images and movies Even though Maggie said student so Maggie created her own Facebook page and Newsfeeds, something that she knew students y when they The affective and psychological supports Maggie provided were related to several of her beliefs. She believed that for some s tudents with disabilities, it was necessary for her to build a trusting relationship before the student could be helped academically. k a lot of people gap between content and relationship building, not see it as two dif ferent things She believed it was her responsibility to help students bullying, gett ing in trouble Maggie also believed it was her responsibility to make her class mea creating her own Facebook page and communicating with students through Facebook. Finally, supports were related to her beliefs about language arts and how students make progress within it. She believed that there were multiple ways to reach her academic goals and that it was important for student motivation for her to provide choices about reading material

PAGE 116

116 m going to give them to you allowing student s to choose reading material, products or processes. Academic supports Academic sup ports for learning were supports designed to help students with specific academic tasks or goals. Maggie employed several kinds of academic supports with her students with disabilities, including: scaffolding, graphic organizers, differentiation, increased intensity of instruction and on the spot responsiveness She also used exter nal support to implement some of the supports, including the school support staff and parents. Academic supports were provided before, during and after instruction. Scaffolding is a term used to describe sev eral teacher behaviors associated with using (Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976) Teachers might model a complex task repeatedly, gradually shifting responsibility to the student. Or, teachers might engage students in a discussion and use their partially correct answers to guide them towards understanding or questioning a new concept, thus assisting students to use prior knowledge to master new skills or content. Maggie pro vided scaffolding to students with disabilities on several occ asions. One time, Maggie explained a letter writi ng assignment to Timmy and went over the steps in completing the assignment several times. Finally, she wrote the first two sentences of the lett er with him. This gave him a start to the assignment and also served to provide an organizational structure for the rem ainder of his written response: A persuasive letter was the assignment. And he told me verbally what he wanted to do. At the top of the p him a few suggestions of what he wanted to cover. He wanted to write to a comic

PAGE 117

117 book publisher and persuade them to publish his comic. So, I kind of guided his thinking, like these are the things t hat you do well gave him a little list. Then I formatted the letter, Dear Blank. Then I put a few key sentences already in there, so he kind of had things to work around. It took time. But it gave him some parameters, I think g okay, so I have to write this letter. I kind of set it up for him so he could fill in the blanks Maggie helped the student think of things to write about, provided the fo rmat for the assignment, and helped the student start on the assignment. Maggie e xplicitly identified the instance were targeted at affective needs as well as organizational and academic needs. Maggie reported that she often used g raphic organizers to help students organize content. The use of a graphic organizer is an instance of a support that was developed initially with the needs of one or several students in mind that the teacher would then decide to use with the whole group. An examp le of the use of a graphic organizer I observed was in a lesson focused on the anatomy of a news arti cle. The graphic organizer was an inverted pyramid, a diagram that conveyed the organizational structure of a news article: most important details at the top, least important at the bottom. Students wrote details from a news article into spaces in an outline of an inverted pyramid. The inverted pyramid helped students stay focused on the task and remember how a news article is structured. It also helped stu dents focus on identifying the most important information, a foundational skill in reading comprehension. Maggie anticipated the struggles of her students with disabilities and consistently devised ways to support their learning when she planned her less ons. She considered the specific task s she was planning One way she supported students with disabilities in meeting her goals during planning was differentiating either processes or products An exam ple of differentiating the process for a student with d isabilities

PAGE 118

118 was when she arranged for the student to have access to a scribe while completing an assignment: Providing a scribe or reader, I have to organize that with Dr. Moon ahead of time, really helpful if I need anything. Same thing with extra people, providing cognitively can products. If he has trouble reading a long passage of text or understanding learned or that he can pas the disability. Laying it out ahead of time and setting goals, like for this unit, this is what I want my kids to be able to do, to be able to use these vocabulary words correctly and be able to org ani ze an essay based on this forma t, or whatever. Maggie stressed the idea of separating specific instructional goals in her course from reading or writing processes that students with disabilities may have difficulty with. She set content related goals th at she believed could be measured separately from reading and writing ability. To support students in meeting the goals she set for them, she also provided opportunities for students to differentiate products as long as they met expectations. For instance, she allowed students to choose alternate forms for writing assignments and read books of their own choice within certain parameters. Maggie s t ructured class time so there were opp ortunities to provide support to students who needed extra help, and also in creased the intensity of instruction through after school tutoring, arranging for support staff at the school to come into class to help students, and participating in a partnersh ip with the local university that paired college students in English Educatio n with students in her classes to provide individual feedback on writing assignments. Students came to her classroom and worked with her students and also communicated with students about their writing online. Maggie stressed the importance of on the spot responsiveness for supporting students in class:

PAGE 119

119 e like, okay, I have to be there, beginning there is planning and anticipation of student difficul ty and at some point understand. You could totally redesign the lesson or you could go talk t o the one kid that has a problem with it. her beliefs existed. students was evidenced in the extra time and work she put in to ensure that students had access to several different kinds of supports such as coordinating with school and university personnel. She spent a great deal of time thinking about the needs of her students and planning how to help them be successful. Maggie believed her role encompassed several sorts of activities, including being an after school tutor and providing individual help during class. Maggie believed that all of her students could improve in English no matter what challenges their disability brought, and she found ways such as working with a scribe or a reader, that allowed students to demonstrate knowledge could be separated from proficiency in the communicative process is related to her beliefs about the nature of language arts, her goals for students, and her beliefs about how students make progress in language arts. Because she had specific, well articulated goals in the s ubject area, she was able to allow for multiple ways to meet her goals and discriminate specific ways students struggled. She was thus able to provide support targeted specific ally to both student and task.

PAGE 120

120 Nora e middle of one exterior corridor of classrooms. Student work is displayed on bulletin boards lining the corridor and inside the classroom. The room is rectangular; the entry door is in a corner of the room and faces windows overlooking a grassy area. The windows fill the room with natural light. Blackboards and bulletin boards line the walls that meet at the doorway. Left of the windows, the far left corner of the classroom is partitioned with a com puter on it is set catercorner in front of the storage area, facing the door across the room. The wall on the left contains wooden storage lockers, painted blue. There is a television within one of them. Student desks face the wooden storage lockers and ar e arranged in 6 rows of 4 desks. Students sit down and begin copying homework from the board when they enter the room. A large monthly calendar with notes is displayed on the wall behind the students. Nora stands in the doorway between classes and hurries students along to their destinations She begins class before the sound of the bell has completely faded. Her agenda is detailed and fast paced, and she sticks to it. Stud ents are cooperative and engaged. Nora monitors student work continuously, encouragin g, correcting and helping students. with disabilities over the years. She sp ends about 1 hour a week consulting with the special education support staff. My Class literature based, always bringing in some vocabulary usage, writing and thinking s kills, speaking.

PAGE 121

121 I always try to provide at least 2 speak ing opportunities for the kids [so they are] getting some practice with that. That is the problem with language arts there is just so much that we are responsible for as English teachers. Just a wi her e frus hereas in math, you multiply, and be coming across different words and different concepts, so to me the difference b etween the two is great. In math or science, you have a set of knowledge you can just teach them: this is the fact, But I think it is all about them independently attacking t the book or practicing speaking. The more writing they do, the better they are at it, the more confidence they have. So all those things are tied together. You can give direct instruction, like, reading and writing, develops by practice, practice, practice. a big goal of a lot of the literature they read. Like, what is this saying about society or why did thi s happen? A book that makes you think about things is an important course goal for me, something that makes the students think or question or challenge their beliefs, just to get their minds going.

PAGE 122

122 I start off with short stories, usually, with terminology Then we will do a novel and do a non fiction unit or a science fiction unit. Then I do a poetry unit. U sually the poetry unit is before FCAT because they have a lot of things like that on FCAT and the kids like to have that acle W orker or a play. Then, science fiction again at the end when we do The Giver which is k ind of futuristic, and The Watsons Go to Birmingham, which is a classic that I do, which is historical fiction. Throughout that whole course we focus on the same l iterary terms, story elements, symbols, confli cts, and then of course writing grammar usage is part of it. The test has a lot of objective stuff, like those little terms that you saw, but then they have to pick one of the novels, and apply one of the lit talk about the point of view and the symbolism and the conflicts and the resolutions and just the whole thing. That way, it shows me that they understand the terminology, not just th e definition of it. risons, like before novels w e were reviewing ad, not just from this semester. W e talked about a common theme, and we first applied that theme to them all, and then they went and divided it up and did their individual focuses, just to make them realize that there just read a story to read a story, but because of the ideas it generates, because it makes you think S of it, I'm hoping to develop not just reading skills, but thinking skills.

PAGE 123

123 Influences on My Class I am always sure to cover Sunshine State standards. Instr uctional goals grow out of the Sunshine State standards. I think it is pretty clear that we are expected to cover those. We have to code our unit plans with the numbers now. But there are things that I have been teaching way before the sunshine state stand ards existed and that I am going to teach them: how to organize, I am going to do vocabulary. with disabilities, like I said with the end of the course requirements. A nd the state and flexibility if we wanted to make an assignment different for one kid, or someone had to do just 5 out of the 10, or something like that. now, like with FCAT. But we still have the state standards and are still supposed to do the reading, th e speaking, the writing, the comprehension s kills T his year with all the mythology going on outside, like the Percy Jackson ser ies and the Clash of the Titans, I could see that the kids h ave more background knowledge and were wanting more. So instead of j probably do a little bit less non fiction with them. So it is just play ing around and seeing what interested in. T here are some times like with one class I may not even do an acti kids are ready for it even t hough I do it with the other 3 or 4 classes, j ust those kind of day to day just the time of day someti mes is a factor, lots of things to take into consideration.

PAGE 124

124 Students with Disabilities and My Class I would certainly l ike to think that I provide [students with disabilities] more support than down, and in fact I wrote in her planne reat planner, Fatima lot of it is ju st lack of skills. [She has trouble with] reading and fin ding the meaning out of reading, interacting with the text, and then remembering vocabulary words, even though we use them over and over before their quiz. An d her grades are not really bad. S he had Bs and Cs, but she does struggle. You can see it takes her longer to get things. T here were a couple of times where she had excuses, but usual ly she wants to do well. A nd s not distracted in class distracted between classes, yes. S he maybe could spe nd more time studying. can relate to something, making the connections, you know all that stuff. Previewing the te xt, just those kinds of things, to a lways give them a lot of motivation, I hope, to read, especially been doing the readings to them while they're following along. Then of course, they have their own reading time too. She chos on his 3 rd book. She did an adequate job on her report, she missed some of the stuff that I

PAGE 125

125 now reading a second or t hird book by the author is good. T I think that when I plan for the kids with the exceptionalities just give them the list, but give them the flashcards or give them a computer program where they can go and play the games with it. W hen I introduce a unit or give them specific information that they would have to take notes, instead of having them take t he notes, I give them the notes, and then we go through and highlight it together and I originally started doing that because of the kids that had, back in the day they were called LD, but all the kids benefit from that because then they can listen to what I'm saying, and highlight instead of worrying about copying it down. S improved my instruction I think, being aware that it helps to give them the notes. N ow, maybe language arts pay attention than have to worry about copying it. Some kids like Fatima and Devon would still be copying the first 2 concepts while I'm discussing the 4 th or 5 th concept, so t that has been advantageous. When and the time s not well spent for anybody. One of the frustrations is that I always give the kids 4 or 5 day s practice with the terminology; we did poetry, they had 15 terms. T hey had to find the similes in a poem, they had to look for the personification, they had to look for the rhyme scheme, and then the y were given a quiz on those terms. A nd tha frustration, where n talking about symbols, themes. H

PAGE 126

126 b e able to make th at connection. most; in making the connection. T hen there a re even some kids that are like, I'm going to learn those words but then ou know they're learning the words for the quiz, t make sense. W hen I say to them you just told me yesterday on a quiz that you knew what point of view meant, so when I'm asking you point of view right now, s So tudying is also what they're supposed to be applying in class. They think, I'm studying for a test, not I'm studying it to learn l the short stories or whatever. Organization, figure out: h ow to stay organized and wh ich folders to bring which days. I actually did a couple of backpack checks in homeroom, and I said I Believe I believe in doing a wide variety of literature to try and appeal to all different interests. I things that they will refer to or be happy that they have had that background knowledge. I believe themselves. It is the most fun, exciting thing to teach but also the most challenging because there is so much involved in the grading and responsibility fo r the basic skills. I believe that there are so many skills in language arts that students with disabilities have to actively remember to do their bes t, like to make the application. I believe students with disabilities, especially if they're reading, if they're not efficient in reading or decoding, will somet imes not get the bigger picture. S o they're still stuck on trying to going on today. S illy example: when it was the NCAA basketball tournament, we talked about

PAGE 127

127 making allusions, and Cinderella teams, and I talked about what a n allusion was. T hen I did this whole thing with Cinderella, and the glass slipper, and clock striking 12, which I probably heard 20 ti mes during the course of the tournament, because they had a team that was i n it that was a Cinderella team. A nd those kids are still going, Cinderella? T conne ctions. I believe [students with disabilities] struggle t have the skills that allow them to take the next step. I believe they can still pass a class, but not always get the deeper isabilities Procedural supports Nora provided several procedural supports to ensure students knew how to navigate the tasks she set them. During class, Nora would consistently monitor the completion of tasks by perambulating the room while students were working She lo oked at what studen ts were doing and explain ed if a student was confused. For instance, during a lesson on Martin Luther King, given a list of metaphors and instructed to pick out the contrasting metaphors in the speech. Fatima busily wrote answers and flipped through the p ages of her book. Nora looked closely at her work and saw she was writing phrases from the speech, but she did not understand the task. Fatima knew what the word cont rast meant, but had difficult y applying that concept to the task. Nora explained again, completed a couple of examples with her and watched her do a couple on her own before moving to the next student. During another observation, students were assigned to review their individual parts in the students, and looked as though he was making great progress through the task. B ut Nora knew to

PAGE 128

128 check closely on what he was doing. She helped him to mark his parts off in the book so that he could more easily find them and thus focus his energy entirely on reading them. Nora habitually monitored her students with disabili ties to make sure they understoo d tasks: Like today, they did a class worksheet and I made sure that I spent 45 seconds asking her to, do you have any questions. A nd then I came back while she was working to see that she was understandin g and pointed things out to her. Nora also made a habit of ensuring her students with disabilities knew what to focus on for ometimes that 20 seconds checking in, can help them achieve more. ed inst ead of just dis tracted by stuff Nora would quickly ask students to identify the important things to study and tell them what they could skip. Nora believed th at it was her responsibility not only to provide tasks and directions to students, but a lso to ensure that students were proceeding in the correct manner. She accomplished that by checking in with students frequently as they were working and making sure they were able to discriminate important concepts to study. She believed that students wit h disabilities needed extra attention and often needed more specific, repeated instructions for tasks. She believed that students with disabilities could be successful if she provided extra support to ensure they understood the steps in a task and that the y often struggled to organize materials necessary for a task carefully structured to provide students with exposure to important concepts and she believed it was important that students with disabilities be supported in completing them successfully.

PAGE 129

129 Behavioral supports Nora tiative and spoke of the actions associated with the initiative as part of the support she provided for students with disabilities. She met with other grade level content teachers once a week to discuss the progress of specific needy students and kept notes on her interactions with those students. Nora paid close attention to student attendance and notified parents if there were any be planners to make sure they wrote down their assignments and important due dates and test dates. She made a point of having informal conversations with students about keeping up with their assignments a nd praised them for actions such as turning in work on time and beginning tasks promptly in class. All of these supports were intended to ensure students were behaving well: attending class, completing assignments, and staying out of disciplinary trouble. The provision of these behavioral supports was her responsibility to comply with school procedures, but in doing so, she came to believe that students with disabilities especially were benefitting from the extra attention she and their other teachers were giving students. She believed that students with disabilities often needed help organizing tasks and materials, and that reminding them to keep their planners updated helped the students stay current on assignme nts and remember to bring home materials to study. She believed that practice in language arts was essen tial for making progress, and that making sure students kept track of and completed assignments was the first step in providing adequate exposure to the material: Repetition, repetition, repetition. You know just making sure that she knows, that t to selecting the important parts.

PAGE 130

130 Affective and psychological supports relationsh ips with teachers, student emotional well being, and student motivation. By helping students make personal connections to texts, incorporating peer collaboration into tasks, and motivation to learn. Nora built opportunities for motivating students into every class and constantly encouraged students to make connections between the content and their own lives. She also created opportunities for students to build relations hips with the other students in the class. For example, Nora often provided students with opportunities to work coll aboratively in class. Students were placed in mixed ability groups and worked together to complete assignments. For example, before reading The Miracle Worker, students brainstormed a list of 5 things they would miss seeing if they were blind and then formed groups of 4 to share their lists. This allowed students to work together to generate 5 ideas if they were not able to do so on their own and also met the affective needs of young adolescents to socialize with one another. In addition, the activity increased their motivation for reading about Helen Keller by helping them to make connections with the character. Nora said that in a n honors cla ss, she might have just had students call out things they would miss seeing if they were blind needs of students with disabilities. Nora believed that students with dis abilities benefitted from working with peers because they need posit ive reinforcement and support: They need support from anybody th at can give it to them. T hey just need encouragement and the positive feedback if they can get it, and in general, kids are really good about t hat. I think they try to help them along. Fatima is very social, and she appreciates the attention, and her friends, they definitely try to get her back on track: think Fatima.

PAGE 131

131 Nora believed that it was important to increase the amount of individual attention given to students with disabilities in every way possible, and that they needed to know teachers cared well on a science test and She paid close attention to the pace and p rogress of individual students by watching them in class, communicating with parents and other teachers, and tracking student data that she generated or standardized testing data she could access. For Nora, these information gathering activities were part of her close noticing of students with disabilities. Nora believed motivation was critical for students with disabilities to be successful in language arts and that it was an essential part of he r role to motivate students to read and write. ask, how do you feel about this. the spot intervention with students to motivate them and often seemed able to anticipate student confusion by drawing on her years of experience. Nora also believed that her course content should reflect student interests, and spoke of expanding a mythology unit when several mythology related movi es for teens were popular Her flex ibility with regard to subject matter was related to her strong beliefs about how important motivation is for student learning in language arts. Academic supports Nora employed several kinds of academic supports with her students with disabilities, includ ing: flexibility, scaffolding, graphic organizers, differentiation, and on the spot responsiveness. She also used external support to implement some of the supports, including the school support staff Academi c supports were provided mostly during instruct ion.

PAGE 132

132 An important way Nora supported students with disabilities was through flexibility in students extra time to complete tasks if they needed it, but still held th em to a high standard of of the assignment. For instance, for one assignment that originally was a written report, she allo wed students to make presentations instead, so long as the c ontent was covered sufficiently: I assumed they were all going to do their research, and do a more traditional essay, and then they started asking about PowerPoint. And then I realized after they did it, they like doing bullets instead of paragraphs. They knew they had to do an oral piece to it, they had to present it, and so the PowerPoint gives them something very concrete to go thro ugh, when the y're making their presentation. Nora sometimes shortened assignments for students with disabilities, allowing them to complete fewer examples or read fewer pages. She expressed reservations about relying on simple reduction as a way to meet st The biggest supports for me to do are adjusting the pace and/or the amount of re time than to actually change the material. And I think that works well for most of the For example, during an observation students were matching words with definitions. Nora told Fa tima no that she would be going over them with the class, and that Fatima should just focus on doing the first 5 correctly. Another example of adjusting the amount of work was how Nora modified v ocabulary quizzes: One of the things that I do, one of the kids was really struggling on 10 word vocab number, and the ESE person actually worked with her and tested her, and that worked out bet ter, because she felt like she could handle it. And the last couple of tests, she did all 10. S he g ained confidence only having 5.

PAGE 133

133 This was also an example of collaborating with other school personnel to provide support for learning for a student with dis abilities. In thi s instance, Nora concluded not only that doing the confidence the student built by being successful on the shorter quizzes supported her in completing the longer quiz. Thus, this su pport had both academic and affective outcomes for the student. Another way Nora supported students with disabilities during assessment was that she allowed students to retake test s and quizzes if they wanted to: her grade up, and I always provide that Nora said, however, that often students would not bother to retake a test or would retake the test without doing any further preparation for it. Nora pr ovided several supports to help students with disabilities organize information especially information she wanted them to study She often provided graphic organizers, such as a Venn diagram. A Venn diagram consists of 2 overlapping circles and assists st udents with organizing comparison and contrast ideas. The overlapping portion of the 2 circles represents the comparison, or shared ideas or characteristics. The non overlapping portions of the diagram represent non shared ideas or characteristics. Another organizer Nora provided was 3 column notes. The first column contained main ideas or topics from the text. The second contained examples and details. The third was for comments, opinions or questions. Nora also provided flashcards, both on paper and throu gh a computer program, to help students with disabilities focus on important concepts to study. She provided study guides and worked with students to highlight the most important information in them. All of these supports were focused on discriminating amo ng ideas and helping students pick out the most important concepts.

PAGE 134

134 Nora paid close attention to what students with disabilities were doing in class. In the example based on the contrasting metaphor assignment descri bed above, Nora provided academic suppo r t as well as procedural support Fatima had had difficulty not only with understanding the task itself, but also with concepts such as contrast and metaphor that were necessary for completing the task. Even though Fatima could tell Nora that contrast mean t differences and a metaphor was a comparison between 2 unlike things, she was having great difficulty using all of that knowledge in conjunction with interpreting and selecting examples from the text. Fatima picked a couple of statements that were not con trasting metaphors, but did contain imagery of light and dark. Nora, through dialog and questioning, helped her to navigate the task and guided her while she completed a couple of examples. This was an example of scaffolding during on the spot responsivene ss. language arts, and her course was structured so that key concepts in literature and writing were repeated throughout the year. This is a practice called spiraling (B runer, 1960) that is, coming them. Nora had high expectations for students in terms of the amount of content she expected them to master: vocabulary, literary ana lysis, poetry analysis, reading skills, writing skills, speaking, and test taking skills. She believed it was her role and responsibility to help students organize concepts and information so that they could study and remember them. She believed that stude nts with disabilities often struggled to organize information and several of the supports she provided were targeted at organization. She also believed that students with disabilities sometimes needed more time to process information, and her provision of extra time, shortened beliefs about the

PAGE 135

135 content area of language arts were also related to the kinds of supports she provided. She believed that students needed to master a great amount of terminology and that the best way to do that was to keep exposing them to it in different works of literature. This was related to her supporting students with disabilities by allowing them to deal with fewer terms or concepts during assignments because Nora knew they would have the opportunity to learn those concepts in relation to another text later in the course Dan filled with brightly colored student work line the wall on the one side. Pink, green, purple and Jellyfish, crab, starfish and other marine life cutouts swim below the hands, Make it educational ere is a giant live oak tree with an octagonal bench built around its trunk. The classroom door opens at the front of room. Upon enteri ng, there is a whiteboard on the left wall and three overstuffed bookshelves beside and under the whiteboard Past the w hiteboard is a bulletin board wit h student work displayed on it and beyond the bulletin boards, there is a door to a shared office space. On the left side of the far wall, a bank of windows overlooks green space and student vegetable gardens. More bookshel ves overflowing with books for students to read are built in under the window. On the right hand side of the far wall, there is a chest high putty window with a lap top on it. A kidney shaped table opp the rear right hand corner Shelves display books, stacked files, and a boom box. The right hand wall

PAGE 136

136 is completely devoted to storage: cabinets at head height run the entire length of the wall. Beneath the cabinets is a counter atop a double row of cubbies. Books and assorted items are stored on top of the cabinets. The cabinet faces are decorated with student work, including more fish cutouts, but these ones are vocabulary fish contai definitions and sentences. The counter contains stacks of materials and milk crates full of papers and files. The wall to the right of the door has a whiteboard with bulletin boards on either side. There are short win dows above the whiteboard that meet the ceiling and let in light Chains made from colored paper cascade down the whiteboard and bulletin boards. Students create links for their chains when they finish a book and write i nformation about the book on a l ink. Some chains are long enough to loop around twice. Six sets of headphones hang above the bulletin board. More books stand on either end of a shelf above the whiteboard. Beside the door, the American flag is displayed. There is a long rectangular table immediately to the right of the entrance, placed perpendicular to the wall and extending several feet into the room. Each s tudent desk has an open storage space facing the user and a separate chair. Twe nty desks are arranged in five islands of four desks e ach, two facing two, spread throughout the room and oriented so that most students can see the whiteboard at the front of the room A sixth island is formed by a second rectangular table with four chairs. At one end of each island, there is a numbered crat e t hat contains materials for use when the class is rotating through work in centers. In front of the whiteboard, there often is a projector on a rolling cart. Dan stands in the doorway as classes change, joking with students and asking them about their da y or their assignments, and exhorting them to get to class on time. Dan and the students are obviously on friendly terms and he uses humor to get their cooperation.

PAGE 137

137 Dan has been teaching for 12 years. His B. A. is in English. He said he spends about an ho ur a week consulting with special education support staff. Dan teaches Intensive Reading as well as Language Arts. My Class Y ou need big picture questions That is the whole point to get them to play with the ideas. Then, you have to have stuff to do th ks. T he tasks have to keep moving you forward but then they still have to keep bringing you back around to these big questions T he stuff that they do has to help them with thei r reading, and their writing, and t heir FCAT skills. But at the same time, it has to be feeding the m back into these questions and making them think more and creating a need to move onto something bigger elective. But my class is all about process and I try to come up with a big theme, something that makes the work that we do real, some big purpose to it. Like rig ht now, we are talking about We sort of come up with some big wonderings that will carry us through. Then, we sort of plug in the need to do the stuff that I t each. We are going to email authors or we are going to email the experts, so you have to be able to write well. I secondary school. So that means there has to be a fair amo unt of choice, so we do a lot of book clubs and student s elected reading. We do basically a couple of novels together in the first part of the year and with those, we practi ce a lot of reciprocal teaching and work so they can practice consciously using rea ding strategies with the hope that they internalize them and use them when they are alone. T hat is what it is all about giving them tools to handle challenging text when we are not around. It is easy to help them when we are here, and then of course the motivation plays

PAGE 138

138 into that because if they are not hungry to find out what is in that text then there is no point in working at it. Well you know, it s sort of a double prong. You pra ctice it so much that it becomes doing it without thinking about it. C onsciously using the strategies will help them stay focused with the boring passages. It makes them tougher readers. Whenever you want to advance, re going have to do a text that the world is. And if you want to be the next level of firemen texts that are boring. T he tougher you are, the better FCAT is next week. W talked about. The SSR and learning summary frame and linear reciprocal teaching, and all these things that are proven score raisers. So then they feel better about it. And we talk about the test itself, and what the standards are and stuff e the test a little, just to get used to the kinds of questions but not very much. Kids who read well, do well on the practice for it a lot. Well, with writi ng it is so differentiated. The writing in class is run as a writing workshop. Everybody is at a different spot, so until you can conference individually with the kids about t individual conferencing and kind of breaking the room into centers and having them work their way through the process.

PAGE 139

13 9 T he centers thing, i only thing that will work. There will a lways be 25 of them. That is never going away, so how do you work individually with 25 kids? That is the only way I have figured it out. I t works great for they are doing it. The tradeoff is the instruction going on over here is really intense, especially in terms of writing and working with kids on their individual writing is very powerful. It is sort of an individual trade off. Is this being so positive t hat the other stuff can be a bit busier work to make sure this happens? Influences on My Class [The state test] is tough. But I think that [students] try pretty h that we have a lot more at stake with their FCAT score than th ey do. Kids do more at school than just take a reading test. T A & B students all through the school that are failing t he FCAT year after year and of course that makes the administration mad because how can a kid be successful if they ca e FCAT? W ell learne rs and good teachers T he ESE people are T the kids who are on the list of at risk. The ESE coordinator co teaches in the math class next know what her official title is. W different support teachers inv olved with instructio n going on in here T

PAGE 140

140 ms of instructional practices, b ut basically the centers and the group work. The whole scho ol is on this big Kaga n push. T tle schizophrenic right now at the school. W e are saying to have these targeted small groups. At the sa me time, we are all about Kagan so we have to be diverse and mixed for the group work to function. T he work that we do in here prett That right ther e is probably the main thing, ional development that is going to improve our craft. does not equal motivation. It has to be very carefully monitored. J id. They have to have their it technology people, like this i Students with Disabilities and My Class I have wonderful kids in my class, that are very talented in all their own ways and they are terrific kids. It is jus hy do I need to K ids who have paperwork are just paperwork. There em. some way. I

PAGE 141

141 deficit, so [There are] a deficit stop and the motiva tional issues begin? I something, your whole ed at the ones that quit on the process I guess in my One is background deficits and that exposure to enough, in terfering with their ability to read wel l. Those are tough, because the background deficit, I can teach them strategies, they work immediately and they start to read better. The kids w ith the organic problems I believe that everybody is capable of learni ng everything; how much time you spend working on it. So the ins tructional strategy is the same. I t s just that I but lly and successfully. Y ou g ot to keep hammering away at it; those are the tough fixes. They are just so disfluent that they read a sentence or two and they are sick and tired of it and they just want to physically difficult and so you just keep hammering away and try to get them to the point where they will at least have the motivation to keep pushing on this very hard thing that they are trying to do. But def initely the motivation piece, that is the critical piece They are all different you are going to

PAGE 142

142 functional readers, that is what we have to have. We have to function in society as a reader, so you just keep plugging away at what you believe ar e the best practices for them. Teaching kids where I tel l my interns when they come in: i t is not a class. I t is 23 different people and as soon as you start thinki ng it is a class, you are dead. Thinking of it as 23 different peo ple is really intimidating, but you hav e to go that way. So if I compromise, the small group. That is the only way to be able to handle this many kids in one ro om and instruct them individually. That is the only way I can figure out how to do it. I t is about carving out time to work with them individually to help them or building in mechanisms like i n cooperative learning they are required to h ave a part in the whole process. T and have somebody else interpret the text for them. But, they are masters at that the kids who one of those ways is to let th e good readers handle the interpretation of the text and they work from there. They take some other role. with disabilities. But it just happens period and not teach a room full of kids, but teach 24 different kids who are in your room at the thinking. You come in and they get to work; you go around and you have your finger on the

PAGE 143

143 D reading issue kids because I know what that means or what is really going on. And what that means in the long run. W e make accommodations, but good teachers a T heir accommod they want to do everything work. T he ESE kids who are successful, know who they are. They know that things are going to take longer and they know they are going to need help with certai n things, and they do great. [Other] ones want to slide o r are going to put the responsibility on their disability rather than on themselves. Self advocacy T s kind of spinning their wheels until they can get into a vocat program, or get out, or something. I Believe I believe that everybody can be successful, but And I think there needs to be some serious thought given to the way the state has decided to decide what success means and what that really means for the kids with disabilities at one end of the spectrum. They ar e all different, so we need to rethink how we are defining success. There is all be successful, all of them. I believe that being a functional reader is critical in our society. Y ou know the views of the ow w hat jobs our kids will have? but we can, the one thing we can do is make sure they can learn anything on their own, and so y important. Written communication is huge if you want to get somewhere within your chosen

PAGE 144

144 field, if you want to be the boss of the people in your chosen field whatever it is, engineering, firemen, or whatever. If you want to advance in that field, you hav e to communicate well with the written word. So reading and writing are huge, bigger than they have probably ever needed to be in terms of where society is going. reating this need to learn or it is just a big old book full of worksh eets. The teacher gives meaning to the work the kids are doing. I have two quotes, one is from Jeff Wilhelm who was an English teacher who died, book writer goo aknesses and errors identified. P eople are motivated to learn and they do so with a kind of joy when there is a social component to their purpose, assurance of assistance, visible signs of success, and the resulting capacity to do more independent and meaningful work in the world. hen my intern come we start. I list and everything that you do: does it have a clear purpose, is there assurance of assistance, i s there visible signs of success. We just work through those things over and over again. Them feeling like it has meaning in their future is huge. The other quote is something from Plato and how knowledge gained by force has no compulsion on the mind or so mething like that. Y orce someone to learn something. Y ou can only provide them the opportunity to learn it and help them with some good reason why the y ought to learn it. [Teachers] are truly, everybody is interested in kids being successful at the content that teacher loves; everybody wants that. you spend working on it.

PAGE 145

145 fs and Practices to Support Students with Disabilities Procedural supports Procedural supports are supports that help students understand the steps in completing a task or help students maintain focus to complete a task. Procedural supports Dan used incl uded: clarifying directions, ensuring students were focused on the task, minimizing distractions and pairing with a student that could help students understand the task. During one observation, the clarified the directions for the whole class by explicitly telling the students that the task was not a persuasive essay arguing for or against summer reading, but an expository essay in which they said he would help her in a minute, then he explained the scoring criteria briefly to the class and summarized the task again. He also emph asized the importance of providing support for ideas Then, Jenna kids have to read over the summer. If you were in charge, how would you g et kids to read over the summer? If I was in charge o Dan modeled a possible beginning for Jenna. it had to be and how long they had to complete it. T hen, he checked back wi th Jenna Dan said that students with disabilities often Throughout the writing time, Dan walked around and checked on for students with disabilities to help them stay on task.

PAGE 146

146 Dan also checked often to make sure students with disabilities were focused on the task during group work. Dan paid more attention, more often, to groups that included students with disabilities: In small group work, I float a lot. I try to work with one group at a time, but in reality what I wind up doing is working with them a little, getting them goin g on something and then checking in with everybody. That level of check in with his (a student with disabilities) group is much higher. I spend more time with his group, kids stuff. Dan said he also paired students with disabilities with partners that were able to help the student understand the task during group work. Another procedural support Dan s aid was helpful While working on individual tasks, students were a llowed to use their own headphones or borrow the classroom headphones to listen to music. Finally, Dan said he provided study guides to help students navigate tasks at home. his them on task. He believed many s tudents with disabilities had to work so hard to read and write and that it was essential that he do whatever he could to employed was important to Dan because he believed that students needed to build up the ability to stay focused on reading and writing tasks: them. You are doing them to build up yo ur stamina and that is kind of what we do, the strategies and stuff. And then there is just endurance training, working through the text.

PAGE 147

147 Dan believed that staying focused on a task was exceedingly difficult for students with disabilities; this belief was related to the several supports he provided to help them persevere. Dan also believed that practice, especially correct practice of reading strategies, was essential for all students to make progress in the subject area, and that students sometimes needed support in that is, provide not only opportunities for practice, but also supports for staying fully engaged in the tasks Behavioral supports The behavioral suppo rts category included teacher behaviors related to ensuring or checking on student behaviors such as attending class, completing assignments, and conducting themselves appropriately. Dan performed the check ins with students on the RTI list and discussed t hose students during grade level meetings, similarly to the other teachers in the study Dan said he also communicated with parents by telephone and email if students were habitually tardy or missing assignments But Dan said the most important way to ensu re students did what they were supposed to do in terms of showing up on time and behaving appropriately was to make sure students knew you were keeping an eye out for them: d classes, and just little comments and advice and stuff. Just like the other teachers, Dan performed the RTI check ins and participated in the grade level meetings because he believed it was part of his job to do so. But his checking in on students was well to teachers checking in on them. Finally, Dan strongly believed that students needed to be supported in making choices that were in their best interest to show up for class, to show up on

PAGE 148

148 time, to bring the work they were responsible for, and to behave appropriately because many students were not receiving support in those areas at home: Some of them know who they are and when they start to get antsy, they deal with it and they go outside. They have things that they do. Others are just like the way I am. I In this instance, Dan believed it was his responsibility to help students lea rn behaviors that would be beneficial to them as adults, especially if they did not receive support in those areas at home. Affective and psychological supports relatio nships with teachers, student emotional well being, and student motivation. Student ies in his class and he spoke at length about how he worked to motivate both students w ith disabilities and students in general in his classes ways: talking informally with kids about books, providing a purpose for reading specific texts, allowing students to choose books to rea d, creating book clubs, and personalizing instruction. So yes, so I talk a lot about books. I know a lot about books that they might like. I like to read books that entertain me, so I use that as a way to hook them into reading more than they normally wou pleasure now. W Dan provided silent reading time regularly so that students could read what they wanted to read during school and so that he had time to talk informally with students about books. During one observation, Dan had a 7 minute long discussion with one student solely about which book he would pick to read. Dan said student choice was important both in reading and in writing.

PAGE 149

149 motivation. The more choice they have, the more m Dan also stressed that providing a purpose for reading that was relevant to the real world was important to motivate students to read. As an example, Dan motivated students by building reading tasks around an upcom ing field trip to a spring. But we want to take intellectual work out of the classroom and put it somewhere in class because they are told to. They are out and do them beca use they are compelled to. We try to create that need. During one of my observations, students were reading a dispatch from a website called www.FloridaSprings.org that was about where springs come from and why it is important to protect springheads. During another observation, students were creating presentations for younger students to teach them what they had learned about the springs. The connection between the two assignments and the upcoming field trip, as well as the authentic nature of the tasks, i.e., real text and real audience, provided motivation for students. Well it comes back to that hunger: are they hungry to learn something? And if they are then y our work is done. If not then authentic texts, but also by connecting the texts to a field trip and providing a real audience for Dan believed provid ing motivation for students to persevere with tasks was critical for student success because practice is essential to student progress in literacy. T he one thing that [students with disabilities] need, that they all need, is practice. ng what they will stay engaged with this constant battle with practice and then be more fluent. It almost doesn't matter what the deficit is.

PAGE 150

150 role motivation plays in student perseverance and language arts is, and how students with disabilities make progress in language arts Dan clearly believed it was his responsibility to motivate students. He believed it was his responsibility as a teacher not to give up on students. Even though it may seem like a student is making little or no The importance of motivating students to persevere with reading and writing is also related to his beliefs about his class : what he believes language arts is and how he believes students and students with di sabilities make prog ress in language arts my job is to teach reading, writing. [My class] is all about writing skills, for all students, was to provide plenty of practice and the best way to do that was motivation Dan also has a great deal of empathy for how hard students with disabilities have to work at tasks, and this empathy is tied into his beliefs that it is important to respect and appr eciate the effort students make: These are kids that have be en working really hard at this since first grade. They are really bad at it and being asked to work on it more than anything else. So, just the fact that they will even show up is just impressive. for him to encourage them to persevere in reading and writing even though it was difficult. Dan also believed that collaborative student groupings helped motivate students. Academic supports Academic supports for learning were supports designed to help students with specific academic tasks or goals. Dan employed several kin ds of academic supports with his students

PAGE 151

151 with disabilities, including: individualized instruction, group work, increased intensity of instruction, strategy instruction and on the spot responsiveness. He also used external support to implement some of the supports, including the school support staff Academic supports were p rovided mostly before and during instruction. Dan structured his class to pro vide supports for students with disabilities in their areas of records, doing one on one testing, and performing ongoing formal and informal assessment. He looked fo r patterns that would point to areas of student we akness months before he even met his students: about than what they got this year, just immediately. o curriculum design incorporated the needs of students with disabilities. He addressed student needs by structuring his class to provide opportunities for individualized instruction, especially in writing. He reported holding conferences with student s about their writing and working with them individually on their writing during class. He also employed group work and rotating centers to increase the amount of individual instruction he could provide in reading: and every word is in a different context. What have I got so far that will help me solve this riddle of what this word means? When I work here. Dan employed group structures to achieve his goal of per sonalizing instruction for the students. M ixed ability groups provided support by enlisting stronger students to assist weaker

PAGE 152

152 students. Same ability groups allowed Dan to give more, and more appropriate support, to weaker students while stronger ones were able to complete tasks more independently. But, Dan said, group tasks had to be carefully planned and structured. Dan said the group dynamics were supported students in completing the tasks and motiv ated them to complete the task and als o, structurally, provided the opportunity for Dan to give more intensive and targeted support for the task. prepared tasks for students. This was the main activity dur ing two observations. One center was comprised of laptops set up with a reading activity program. At another, students created vocabulary fish by identifying words they did not know from their independent reading books, writing the sentence the word was in their own using the word. They wrote the information on fish shapes cut from colored paper, then taped them to the cabinets. Dan himself manned one of the centers and provided intensive instruction in reading. On one day, a member of the school support staff did the same at another center. Dan said the time spent in intensive instruction was essential. He said: kids, m their understanding. During one lesson in the intensive reading station, Dan was reading non fictional text with the students lated to the springs field trip He first alerted them to textual clues such as the photo, the photo caption, the title, and the section headers. Then, he had students read aloud together, stopping them to correct pronunciation. He asked them what specific words meant, and pointed out context clues if they did not know. After each paragraph, he asked them to tell the main idea of the paragraph and

PAGE 153

153 every so often, he asked a question about the overall main idea. The support staff person was asking similar ki nds of questions of a different group of students at another center Students spent about 20 minutes at each center. Dan said that during the reading instruction, student internalization of the vocabulary cues was his current goal: If I can talk kids throu They just go on happily not underst to support their comprehension. I want them to be aggressively trying to figure it out themselves. Dan also used groups to provide opportunities for students to practice using strategies he had taught them. These strategies were taught to all students, not just students with disabilities, but Dan talked about how the strategies met the needs of any student who was a struggling reader. Two of the most important strategies, he said, were Reciprocal Teaching (P alincsar & Brown, 1985) and Learning Summary F rame s In Reciprocal Teaching, as Dan explained it, each student in the group had a specific job related to a text: predict, clarify, summarize, or question. This strategy provided comprehension support, Dan sa id. Goals were to help students extract meaning and stay focused. Longer term goals, after much practice, were internalization of the strategy and independent use of the strategy Dan said he i nvest ed weeks in teaching the strategy. T he four kids working together happening all over the room is one of the only things that happens in a classroom where there is improvement in their skill and sarily the one doing it. T other and if they have the basics of the structure down, they really do progress in Another strategy Dan said was valuable for students with disabilities was Learning Summary Frames Frames were created by making sentences that summarized a text, but leaving blanks for students to fill in key words. Dan said the Summary Frames helped stude nts build summarization skills.

PAGE 154

154 Kids are told to summarize their whole lives, but no one actually talks to them about what it means to summariz e. And how do you decide what is more important Learning Summary Frames could also be adapted to help student s figure out the main idea of a hing to decide what the main idea of something is, and we all class for homework during two observations. The academic supports Dan provided were related to his beliefs in several ways. First, Dan believed his role as a teacher included the responsibility to provide individualized and/or intensive instruction Giving more support to students that need it is a must, he said, i hing that will work. H o The groups and centers groups of students within the traditional large group format. Dan also believed that the most imp ortant language arts goals are reading and writing, and he focused on skills in both areas to the exclusion of other language arts goals, for example, literature, speaking and listening, and media literacy. He believed that reading and writing were the ski lls that were essential for success in life and focused his class on them. He believed that students with disabilities made progress in reading and writing through targeted, intensive instruction in selected essential skills extensive practice in reading and writing, and strategy mastery and use. Dan believed that data both historical data and ongoing assessment data, was important for making decisions about instruction for students with disabilities So this one is a logistical problem, but super impor saying, it has to be small group or individual. rive

PAGE 155

155 instruction is related to his beliefs about the need for individualized or intensive instruction for students with disabilities to make progress in reading and writing. Dan believed that strategies such as Reciprocal Teaching were valuable resource s for ou should be questioning every single senten ce you read. I skip over. could be internalized through repetition and then, he hoped, students would use their strategies in other settings: T he internalization of the strategies and the fluency of their use of the strategy, o these things over and over again it when they t ake the FCAT. inter v iews that he had thought a great deal about what the purpose of his class was and what the needs of students with disabilities were relative to making progress in the class. Monica Monica said to get to her classroom go over the cree k to the end of the path and past the garden. Her classroom was a portable at the rear of the campus, set with two others in a row behind the gymnasium. In the area outside the classroom, she and her students had created a literary garden over the years. T stood, half painted, were ripening; some had fallen to the ground irch tree and mending wall kept company with Walden P ond. classroom door opens into the rear left of the room. A riot of words, quotes, books, student work and everything literar y fills every nook and cranny and every available surface. The walls are lined with an assortment of bookshelves bursting with books and knick

PAGE 156

156 knacks Quotes are mounted on colored pa per and hung around the perimeter of the room near the ceiling. Posters hang everywhere. Immediately to the right, there is the Fame and Glory bulletin board with student w ork on it and a television on a stand tucked into the near corner. In the right far corner, a storage closet is filled with books and supplies. Outside the closet, there is a brown rectangular table and a blue easy chair. The far wall is filled with bookcases. The next wall to the left is the front of the room. There is another bookcase, a table with files, a th 7 th and 8 th grade written on it, and a projector screen at the front of the room front left corner, a large desk heaped with papers and files facing the back wal l. There are 3 file cabinets beside and behind it and 2 printer s and a coffee maker atop the cabinets In front of the desk there is a projector on a cart aimed at the screen. Between the desk and the door are more bookshelves and posters Students sit at 6 rectangular white tables arranged in 3 rows of two, 3 students to a table. The tables take up all the space in the room. All of the windows are shaded with blinds. The students enter, full of energy. They bounce around, getting supplies and books and tal king to one another until the bell rings. Monica begins by going over the agenda. The students are attentive as they continue unpacking and getting ready. class. Most of the students have gifted Education Plans (EPs) and two 7 th graders and one 8 th grader also have special education Individual Education Plans (IEPs). create during 6 th 7 th and 8 th grades. They put writing assignments and examples of literature and poetry that they like in it, and in 8 th grade, they write reflective pieces throughout and make it

PAGE 157

157 into a book. They design the cover, make a table of contents, nu mber the pages and add illustrations. It constitutes the major portion of the end of the year grade for the students. Monica also refers to the school literary magazine that she is the faculty coordinator for. It is published once a year and includes art poetry and stories from the whole student body. Monica has a remarkable way of speaking. The phrase southern drawl somewhat captures her intonation, but her delivery is rapid, even urgent, within an altogether circuitous style of elocution. Thoughts el bow each other, fighting to get out as her words tumble one over the other, straining the seams of e laborate sentence constructions. E ach thought is accompanied by multiple supporting details strung along behind, sometimes briskly interrupted by another th ideas by switching into her teacher talk, as though she were addressing her students instead of me or switching into her own inner talk at some point in the past She is also quite animated, accentuating her ideas with gestures and expressions, so that the text that follows does not quite capture it all Monica has been an English teacher for 45 years. Her degrees are an English, B.A., and an Education, M.A. She also has a state gifted endorsement that required 5 graduate level courses She said she consulted with the special education support staff for one or two hours per week and completed approximately 1 3 hours of professional development in special educa tion yearly. My Class I want to teach them to be good people. I want them to really respect literature and poetry. My course goals are centered on the child and what the child is going to know how to do. My course goals are just what I think are the wonde rful things that all human beings in the world need to know how to do. Every time I start [planning]

PAGE 158

158 I change my course goals in relation to my students. I decide what to teach by the literature that I think is really important, what they need to know: pieces of literature that are going to help them be better people and better st ewards of the earth. T hrough Huckleberry Fin the usual literature: what is this se what strugg le is going on in in conflict with itself is alone, but makes goo d writing. How is he in conflict with himself? And these middle schooler s are. They're struggling. Are they going to go with the peer group, are they going to be good? What are they? They constantly struggle, struggle, struggle within themselves. e on society. I think Mark Twain is an extremely important writer, and so in 6 th grade, my kids read Tom Sawyer, and we study that. I show them the DVD of The Prince and the Pauper, and we look at a couple of short Mark Twain pieces. And 7 th grade, they study Huckleberry Finn. Eighth give them more and more. No child of mine is ever going to just get away from me without studying Huckleberry Finn an d they love it. And poetry, talking about all the things that poetry can do for humans and for language, teaching some of the basic language beauties. They can be taught to love it, and most kids come st stubborn kids that are going to hate poetry when you approach it through language, when you see what can be done with it and the prize at the end, the way that words are put together in love with poe try and they can write it.

PAGE 159

159 they're out. Emily Dickinson is my favorite poet, so they all get a dose of E mily. She is wonderful because so many of her poems are little puzzles. They are short. They are enigmatic, many of them. I love Robert Frost too, and the kids do. He is a story teller poet. I want kids to write so much. I believe writing is such a vi tal part of language arts. I like to give them lots and lots of writing assignments that are poems: because they're shorter, because have to grade a bazillion essays. And then they can turn poetry intro prose and prose into poetry. And kids who love poetry who are not as good at prose, I can just teach them: You love poetry. Get your first thoughts down in poetry, get your first thoughts down in a poem. Then pul l it apart. Then turn it into an essay. I tell them school. I learned by myself and I had to learn how to teach it. I like to show them some of the old writings that I did that w ere just horrible. They need to see that it takes hard work. They need to see that the teacher has struggled through some things. I have shown them everything I have ever had to write or do that I have hated that I have had to do, as we all do, the red tap e stuff that we have to write. I let the my nose pulled off than do some of that, but I have to do it. So I just do it. Here it is. Here is how I feel, and I hate it. It is okay if you hate to do it, you just have to do it I just share a lot of that and it is always a process, always a process, always a process. It is never finished, never finished. They need to know that, that their writing is never finished. Like Shelly Fraser Mickle just taught them how she spent 7 yea rs working on some book. I find examples that writers have said about their writing. I will share those with the kids, h, here I found this and I just want to share it with you, here it is.

PAGE 160

160 I always used the anthology and the portfolio. I always had ki ds producing a product like that, r ather than just me giving tests. I f I was teaching a particular story, I would find several oth you two look at this and then bring it back to the class and share just so they would have to sort of enrich each other I am a great believer i I tell them what I want them to find and give them approaches to it, but then they do it, and they bring it back and present it to the class and to me, and my jaw jus t drops at what my kids can do. I t jus t blows me away. My whole thing is it s better to know some of the questions than all of the answers, the Thurber quote. I want it to be open ended. but what am I going to do for each of them individually, within the scope of my course goals. Because there is so much option and choice within my course goals, and my course go als are pretty simp le in nature. I want them to love words, appreciate ot her people, learn from the past; I want them to feel about writing and reading the way I do. I guess I almost see myself as a parent more than a teacher: and I want to impart it to you guys and be the model of it. the goals of my course. [Kids become good readers, writers, and consumers of literature by] practice, practice, practice. It is all practice, and then they need to see examples. I think teachers need to put in front of their kids better examples of things. They need to not get just the middle school poets. They need to put some of the great poets because the kids ca always need to be dumbing it down to where everything in mid dle school is just cutesy tootsie I mean you can be fun, but so many of the great pieces of literature are just awesome. You have to

PAGE 161

161 help t he kids with them. W hen we did Mending W all, I broke it all up into little Kagan structures and whatnot. This group is going to try and make titles for t hese parts of the poem. This group I am going to cut the poem up and try to piece it together the way you think it was wr itten, playing with it. Also, Mending W all is the one that I just know when people say ood fences make good neighbors y think it means to put up a dad gum fence. It does not mean that! It means exactly the opposite. That is part of what I am t rying to teach. Anyway we all need to appreciate one another, love one another, learn from one another and not wall one anoth er out. We need to be accepting; the point is that. Just plainly, it is a good poem. Practice and good models: I t is really impor tant for the teacher to model for the kids what the teacher is asking the m to do. That is why I have an Antholio. T hat is why I write everything I ask them to write, every poem. I ask them to write I try too. M y students love to collaborate and work wit ly even producing group projects when they are working on individual projects. This is just really huge. T hey want to breathe. Influences on My Class I do look at Sunshine State Standards. Most of the time what I think is important to teach is I have a hard time because I am a pretty avi d reader. I read things and, oh, I need to share part of this with them O r I find a new poet and, oh it would just be perfect for the kids. The children are the children, and every year when I come in I have to start with them H ow are they going to feed into my course goals ? T

PAGE 162

162 all thi s, I need to give more emphasis to this, less emphasis to this. hy should I be doing that? Students with Disabilities and My Class Of all students, I think they have a great need to feel successful. I just think that success breeds success. And they also have a need to sort of bond and feel special to the teacher, that the assignments that I give them are long term, and they work on them, they worry about them. They time, reducing the number of assign ments, providing all of these things are just the things that I know help them do better. So when they do better, they are prouder of themselves. It also front ith. that before they start, then they are much more likely to do well. require 6 or 5, just fewer things, particularly if they're collecting thei r 10 favorite poems in all the world, get your 5, just do it, but just fewer things. m through my course goals and materials and whatever they can handle and whatever they can do and ng, and that makes me happy

PAGE 163

163 I have to follow the accommodations for the IEPs. Fortunately, so many of the IEP We have the notebooks wit h the IEP plans and the Xerox thing, and I know this and so I needs were, and I just try to keep the one or two biggest ones. But the notebooks the files, all of list that you can check off for each of your children. Please keep this in your room somewhere, in to go whipping out that accommodations folder wherever it has disappeared to, in the middle of a class when the kid look at is the work my kids do: the real stuff, the learning. The only accommodation w here I have trouble i n my class is often it says sit them right up near the front. And if I have several accommodation I find it better to sit them by themselves. more isolation spots. That sounds mean, but. And I think often particularly counselors and ESE teachers are so into charts and documents and checklists and all that stuff, and they give it to teachers, and I think, you all have either really internalize and do it because you or you don't. I know a lot of the other teachers in regular e d, they had meetings where they had to do stuff with the level 1 and 2 reading kids, and had to fill things out. I doubt they liked it mu me.

PAGE 164

164 T he behavio r piece is really difficult. In talking to the teachers in general about kids with teachers to handle I n the mainstream classes, it is much more difficul t than it is in my class or than it would be in a class of all ESE kids. Because, w e ll, my class is ESE, j ust the gifted ESE. But you know that sues with behavior. And so, everybody in the class sort of knows it f the behavior issues or not. And so the rest of the kids, when a couple of my kids are just really being terrible, t rest of the class. They may la ugh or they may act frightened so usually I can f igure out some way to solve the problem or get somebody in who can help me Right now Michael is f ixated on what he wants the cover of his A ntholio to look like, and he has nothing in it as far as I know. B ut he is fixated on that cover because he wants to bring some technology thing into his going to be the cover I bet he spent 3 or 4 hours fixating on the cover and he says, Michael Michael terested in it, but it never gets done.

PAGE 165

165 e home value education. I have another child who has got all kinds of learning issues and stuff and that child just does incredible. B ut I know the parents h is academic s is so important to them, and they know his issues and know how to work around them. I nterestingly enough in my class, most of my kids who have a whe their teachers are awar e and also their parents are almost hovering to be sure that they time and work With Michael basically, have much better communication. I see his cleverness, he feels comfortable with me, I think one on one W so his way of compensating is just to get silly or to walk ar ound or just try to do anything other than his work B ut he has a great deal of troubl e keeping just gotten in the habit of making a couple copies of everything extra because I know I need to give it to Michael. mo re capable then he seems to be. H e told me, o m just not willing to work hard H e likes being in here but anything he does is so half bu t write. I know he has trouble with sustaining his ideas together and illing to try the little steps. terrified about Antholio having work days now in class. nd the parents I call it May Day Help is on the Way sheet that th ey have, and their parents have. I t just has everything doing for the rest of the year. I mean this is the kind of thing he needs. I e kind of thing

PAGE 166

166 But all in all, as bright as Michael is, his brightness is not being captured in the language arts area of the classroom. And I did a lot more looking and talking to his elementary school t eachers and he seemed to do fine up until the 3 rd grade. And then after that, it just, he started ad that he chose to take. And the other thing I was so worried about was in the 8 th grade is when the FCAT is so done not well at all on the FCAT. He has made 8 th lo t of FCAT review. But some of the kids like this, these kids that have the various disabilities and all, you just wait until the end are children. They have For most of the day [one day] he was thinking about fiddling around with this thing, and he came up a nd asked me a question about it. I t was good, but he was a li ttle bit on the wrong track so I steered him back on the right one and he understood jus t like that what he needs to do.

PAGE 167

167 I f he could just engage in the work and ask questions about it, just enough to get goi ng, he st been so reluctant to work f or basically his school career school is just not something that I do He loves to respond. H e loves to give his opinion about things, which he can do in this class and he can be listened to, but the work ethic is just not there. A nd I think his mom is but I think she has no idea of the time investment that she has to give to him to get him on his feet. S he wants him to come to school to work with me, and he can but he always forgets I mean they just somehow have got to get it together to get him here He will not revise or does not. I t s not just like he says hat he does in s chool is just not in his f rame. H e just wants to play on the computer what he does at home because he tells me he studies at home which is just not true. Michael is A DD or any of that kind of thing. T hey say it s whatever the learning disability is his processing words and that kind of thing and maybe that affects him I think it habit. enough other boys like him in the ere he the only one but there is not a boy in the 7 th grade class that is focused. E very boy is just about in the same boat that in, except the with the parents that said I sat with my child until he did his d. I have help A nd I just keep telling them ome on, 7 th lot of it is just hormones

PAGE 168

168 have his folder. He left it at home. e m up before you get in the car: do you have your folder, let me see it do you have your memory stick. A I te iddle school particularly in a class where the demands are higher they need help from their parents so much A but they need it so much. A hey need to be reminded Michael is supposed to use his planner to help turn in his a H r each class. H e has a separate folder for my class. but t H attend after school help program s to keep up with his academics, IEP, so I mean what do you do? going to h elp. T he student ffects his involvement and progress in the general curriculum, because of his processing speed. H e also has difficulties with processing in reading ed with it, and I mean if he just even gets his [assignment] fo r chapter one together for his Antholio I will be ecstatic. A into the kin d of thing and then nobody sort of knows. And then I think I t s because like even these other ones that I mentioned I had had some successes with these other chi ldren, so I think ok ay, if I e mail the dad t ith this one over here e to make a C on his report card and that is going to shock th e living day lights out of him. And he will decide. A

PAGE 169

169 ut I e mailed her back and said s like to follow this little path he wants to follow and chang I mean if he would just come and sit here. I would have to si t with him, but he would do it. I he could stay focused Michael must hate doing the stuff I ask him. let me just see one thing at a time, word by word, one thing at a time, not the whole picture, but still no ot of them are most of the time. T hey just s ee the humu ngous amount of stuff they still have left to do and what on earth are they going to do? A nd they can t even get themselves to take the baby steps and I just tell them retend this i s the only thing you have to do and let I do love him, he has an adorability to him in many ways I mean you like him, you can t help it, even if he just ge ts on your last nerve sometimes. B ut I have not done one thing but give him some things to be interested in from time to tim e. A s far as him progressing as a student I have not done one thing to help him A s far as I can see, noth ing that I have done has worked. I do not understand as deeply and well as I would like to, but I know that some of the things that I do are probably things that would work for those kinds o f kids whether I know it or not. T where I am now, but I obvi ously I need some deeper things. A how to somehow get the parents consistently in, b e istent the parents I would love to make some type of support group, are being driven to distraction. T hey just need to meet for coffee, maybe that could be a thing, and I could offer it out and I definitely would

PAGE 170

170 I Believe Language arts, reading, writing is not something that you do just to satisfy teacher. Without it, we are just not human. If we cannot express ourselves in writing, if we cannot tell that, I really believe that. Another thing I really believe I believe in real world learning. That is why I wanted to do the literary magazine. That is why I want my kids going to the radio station doing little book reviews. I want their work to get beyond me. I want it to be out there for other people to see whe n it is really good. I want kids to write so much. I believe writing is such a vital part of language arts. I believe [in] how the [coaches] do their track you put the bar high. This is an age where they like to challenge and try and see who they are a that. I know at this school the resources are here, I do not feel abandoned. If anything came up that I could not handle I could get help immediately. Most of the people who work in the field are kind and good a nd approachable. The real world, on paper, looks good and all these charts and all these things that come going to humungous disconnect with all these charts and all these things and what is actually going on, especially with middle school kids and everyday. Some of those questions that it just takes so much experience and hope and pr ayer. of the biggest things. All these special workbooks and easier text. You can find things that are

PAGE 171

171 extraordinarily engaging that they want to read and do, that ught to be taught. The basic text and the regular text and the advanced text, all that used to make me mad. Who when the kids are in the regular class, but there needs to be so much choice, so that everyone can find their piece that they can engage and understand and be willing to work with. Teaching is harder than people think it is. tudents with Disabilities Procedural supports Procedural supports are supports that help students understand the steps in completing a task or help students maintain focus to complete a task. students, not just stude nts with disabilities, and she said they were helpful in meeting the needs of students with disabilities related to understanding and completing tasks. Procedural supports Monica used were: providing individual assistance, having the student tell the assig nment in his own words, comm unicating with parents, providing written directions, and providing models. Monica provided individual assistance to students in class and after school. During one observation, students were working on a parody project based on the work of William Shakespeare Students work ed with laptops in small groups: discussing ideas, taking notes, figuring out the steps in the task, and splitting up the work amongst them selves The assignment was to choose a scene from any work of Shakespeare and create a parody of it to share with the class. Students had considerable f reedom in interpreting the task, so long as their product was limited to 10 minutes and included a summary, demonstration, and parody. They could work alone, with a partner, or in a group. The summary and demonstration could be delivered any way students chose: they could make a movie, put on a performance or anything else they wanted. Most students worked in groups of 3 or 4

PAGE 172

172 Michael chose to work alone. He said he wanted to create a stick figure animation using the computer program Pivot that parodied the dagger scene in Macbeth murderous thoughts are so strong he has a vision of a dagger, covered with blood. Michael wanted to represent a boy who se hunger is so strong he has a vision of pancakes, slowly becoming covered with syrup. Monica moved from group to group, helping students figure out the task, for half an hour. Then, she had conferences with each group in turn at her desk about their plan s Michael had a laptop with Pivot loaded, and he was creating his stick figure and applying animations to it. During his conference, Monica pointed out that he had not written his summary, an idea The individual assist ance provided was focused on helping Michael to understand the steps involved in completing the task and remember all of the components that were required. Monica also provided individual assistance to students after school and made herself available for a n hour every day. Most of our interviews began at the end of that hour, and I was able to observe Monica providing similar assistance to students. Michael, however, did not avail himself of the after school help, she said. In the example above, Monica al so asked Michael to tell her the task in his own words. She asked him to tell her what he was going to do first. Monica did this to verify that he understood not only what the task was, but also how he was going to make his way through it. Another way Mon ica helped students understand tasks was by communicating her expectations to parents through emailed memos, phone calls, and the maintenance of a website.

PAGE 173

173 Monica also met with pare nts of students who were struggling in a regular support group Emails contained weekly updates about what the class was doing and what assignments were coming due. Monica phoned parents of individual students she was concerned about. Her website was her m ain vehicle of communication and repository of class documents. S he uploaded all of her course information and materials: course outlines, directions for completing projects, all of her handouts, supplemental reading, and models of completed assignments. d to do, but if the parents of students with suppose to be doing being willing to spend the time that it takes. Just like a teacher in the classroom has to work with the child who has the it. T hey need the same kind of one on one help and unfortunately not all of the parents can provide it. They don arents need to have the detailed instructions just as much as the kid. And the parents have told me before that my directi ons are complicated and long and hard sometimes but I try to cause a picture is worth a thousand words. Finally, Monica said a way to help students with disabilities to understand how to do a task is to provide models. A l some highlighting done on her guide sheet, and so I knew she had gone over it and she even highlighted the right things. It was just overwhe lming to her. So I told her, well first of all, I want you just to watch. You know, is it ok if she sees your powerpoint? [to another student]. So just look at her things. So models, I just love models, j ust looking at the model, seeing the t hing. And then I just turned to her and said, ok now, what do you think it is I want you to do, from having seen this and read that. And she was able to tell me. And then I said, ok, tell me now, looking at my directions what do you think the first thing i going to do when you start this assignment? And she, there it was. I mean it was already written down for her, but she just needed to tell me after seeing that. Monica believed it was her responsibility to ensure students understood what she wanted them to do. She believed

PAGE 174

174 that students with disabilities often had difficulty figuring out how to start assignments and organizing materials and ideas to complete the task. Th ey needed instructions repeated, several times if necessary and written down. She also believed that part of her role was to build responsibility to help them indiv idually, in and after school, and to enlist their parents in providing support. Monica also believed that to learn to love literature, students had to experience it for themselves and interact with it and work with it. Her class was designed as a series of projects that guided organized so that students worked with the literature to create a product of their own. T he creation of the website about: the needs of students with disabilit ies, the necessity of parent support, and her role in helping parents provide support. Monica believed that students needed to learn responsibility for themselves, and the website supported that goal by making it possible to access course materials any tim e they chose. It was also related to her beliefs about the subject area: that students needed to be exposed to a great deal of literature and needed to explore it themselves. T hrough the website, she provided literature resources and help ed students organi ze and acce ss the materials for her class ; she provided a resource for parents so that they could support their students at home. She believed students with disabilities needed written directions and that they often needed to be provided with handouts more than once. She also believed it was essential that parents assist their children, and the website was a convenience for both parents and students. See, I mean, they have to do it. I I hand a piece of paper into their hand. They have to go to it. They have to print it out. T hey are more responsible for it And models are on the website. T he written directions are on the website They just like websites better. If the writt en directions come by way of the websi o to the website, Here, let me give

PAGE 175

175 And the bottom line is child. I e said that a lot. Because [ to complete the Shakespeare project described above], and when they do they can get it. Many times for some of the kids who need thes e IEPs, I think they get told too much. You know, do this, do this, do this. And they maybe just aga in the time; provision of the website is related not only to her beliefs that students with disabilities need directions repeated and clarified, but also to her belief that models are essential for learning in language arts. She provided numerous examples of completed assignments for students to view when they were thinking about how they were going to approach a given task. She made these available to students on the website and in notebooks in the class: itten directions to likely to do well. Finally, the provision of the website as a support was rel ated to her beliefs that students needed to learn to take responsibility for themselves. Students were expected to know how to access handouts and resources for assignments. They were expected to check the website regularly for updates and due dates Monic a believed the website supported students in becoming independent learners. She emphasized that idea explicitly throughout our interviews and stated it several times to students during observations. Behavioral supports The behavioral supports category included teacher behaviors related to ensuring or checking on student behaviors such as attending class, completing assignments, and conducting themselves appropriately. Teachers included these kinds of actions as part of w hat they did to provide support for students with disabilities. Monica was not a part of the school wide RTI

PAGE 176

176 implementation, but she spoke of several ways she supported students with disabilities in developing behaviors that would help them in school. Moni acting out in class or not turning in work, to see if there were family issues that might have caused the behavior. She also communicated with other teachers to see if they were having similar issues, and with the special education support staff members. She said that problems [What does help me is] informal brainstorming with other teachers about t he kids just almost informal chats with other teachers and with the ESE support staff. I w Winnie. Winnie who is the ESE main support, oh she is so helpful to me. I just finished communicating with the teachers of fifth graders about my incoming sixth graders just to find out, ok who is going to need extra help? get specific answers, it just reminds me to pay attention to the needs of these kids. Monica encouraged the other students to remind Michael to complete assignments, as well as remin ding him herself. One way she did this way by giving group grades to encourage g to do and bring the work. Michael will not make it through high school if he cannot somehow get a footing to himself and become self motivating and self starting and self finishing and just see it to the end and figur got yet. T he check work and the plan several kids just constantly reminding him now If then his group come on Michael, come on! But oh L ord I The website, discussed above, was another way Monica enlisted others to remind students to complete their assignments. Parents were encouraged to check the website regularly. Mo nica

PAGE 177

177 also emailed parents weekly about what was coming due and phoned parents if work was not turned in. Finally, Monica said her high expectations for her students to supported good behavior for Michael. to be challenged, even though he The behavioral supports Monica provided are related to her beliefs in several ways. First, s he believed it was her responsibility to let parents know if their child was falling behind. She also believed that parents had to take responsibility for ensuring students completed assignments at home, and for reminding students about due dates and bring ing completed work to school. She ability to function in school and that problems in the home had to be addressed for students to make progress. In fact, Monica completed a case study on a child as part of her professional development in which she was able performance improved immediately, she said. to her belief that one of the most pressing challenges for students with disabilities is remembering to complete and turn in work. To that end, she enlisted parents and peers through the website and by providing incentives. The website also supported stude nts in taking responsibility for themselves and their own learning by making instructions, due dates and model assignments available to them on demand. Monica believed it was critical for students in middle school to develop a sense of responsibility and t he ability to organize themselves.

PAGE 178

178 Affective and psychological supports relationships with teachers, student emotional well being, and student motivation. Affective s upports for Monica tudents were centered on of doing things The projects in her class incorporated a considerable amount of freedom in terms of content materials and mode and she provided supports to motivate students and to bolster Of all students, I think they have a great need to feel successful. I just think that success breeds success. And they also have a need to sort of bond and feel special term, and they work on them, they worry about. They need to hear from my mouth One way Monica motivate d students and increas ed their self confidence in their ability to complete a task was by providing models: J ust to see what other kids have done, not just what you expe ct of yourself or not the, ok, this student I know who it is, that student can do it, so I know I can do it. Monica said motivation was important because if students were motiva ted, they would I up and do the couple of things that they hate to do. Incorporating the use of technology was another way Monica motivated students and bolstered their self confidence: Bu t I know the kids love technology so much. And particularly, sometimes kids can so they become the class czar for technology and it gives them confidence and, and they just you know, once succ ess leads to another. hey are more motivated if th Monica e ncourage d students to focus on just one part of the

PAGE 179

179 task so that the project was not so overwhelm ing, and she helped the student s break down the task s. For example, in the Shakespeare scenario above, Monica tried to persuade Michael to start with just one part of the assignment, i.e., reading the scene he was going to parody. The affective and psychol ogical supports Monica provided were related to her beliefs about herself and her students and that the element of student choice was powerfully motivational. A spects of her class design that she believed were motivating for students because they provided opportunities for individual student choice included : the flexibility in tasks, the freedom to use technology, the freedom to choose modes of expression and the freedom to collaborate or work alone. She also believed it was her responsibility to form relationships with students and help to build their self confidence ; she believed these were critical at the ea rly adolescent developmental stage. She built their self confidence through motivating them to do their work, thus building their confidence in themselves. Academic supports Academic supports for learning were supports designed to help students with specific academic tasks or goals. Monica employed several kinds of academic supports with h er students with disabilities, including : individual help, differentiation and individualization of curriculum, flexibility, use of technology, modeli ng, collaboration and scaffolding. She also used external support to implement some of the supports, inclu ding parents. Academic supports were provided before, during and after instruction. Monica provided i ndividual help for students with and without disabilities in class and after school

PAGE 180

180 want to ask unl ess they are here after school. But that is the best, more one on one. Moni ca said that one on one instruction was the best way to help students be successful, but said that it was often difficult to manage to provide it unless the student came after school. Her one on one suppor t sessions were not structured: she made herself av ailable to answer The o verall curriculum is structured to provide opportunities for differentiation and individualization along with flexibility in terms of ways of meeting goals. Monica provided opportunities for st She said choice provided support for students with disabilities because it helped them to figure out their strengths: D ifferentiation, flexibility, student choice, those are just huge. But all o f that, of An exampl e of a way Monica provided choice was in learning vocabulary. Students were able to choose among a number of activities to practice their words. Some created skits using the vocabulary words. Others wrote stories with the words, with partners or on their o wn. Another example was during an activity called concept creation. Students were assigned to write an essay that related a metaphor to a piece of literature. One student, immediately supported by a few others, asked if she could write it in poetry form. M onica reiterated the goals of the assignment and ensured that the students understood; the students discussed how they could do that as a that there are multiple ways to meet academic goals, so she was flexible as much as possible. A last way to be flexible, particularly for students with disabilities, was to reduce the number of

PAGE 181

181 items in an assignment or the total number of required assignments to reduce the formi dability of Monica said that using technology could help students with disabilities overcome slow writing or poor handwriting. Technology, I love being able to use technology. The kids do. I would use it more if I had like 2 nd that help them. She often brought laptops into the room and wrote passes for students to go to the computer lab. She arranged for Michael to be able to bring a school laptop home to help him do his assignments for her class. The use of technology was fully integrat differentiating instruction. Students were able to complete projects using any medium they could think of, including creating web pages, movies, slide presentations, and animations. Other supports for academic learning Monica used included modeling, collaboration and scaffolding. In one lesson, Monica was teaching how to write a thesis statement. Monica began by showing them a draft of an introduction she had intentionally written poorly. The whole group gave feedback on how to imp rove it. Then, students were split into groups. Each group was responsible for writing a different paragraph. One student in the group was the scribe. The students discussed ideas and created bullet points that they turned into sentences. Then, Monica had students put the paragraphs together and the groups wrote the transition sentences. For students to write transitions between paragraphs, they must understand how the paragraphs are related to one another, and to whole. That understanding, of the ideas in the essay and how they are related to one another, is a fundamental understanding for writing a thesis statement. So, even though no student wrote a thesis statement and supporting essay on their own, the lesson supported practice in the skills necessary t o do so.

PAGE 182

182 Step by step, dividing it into small manageable steps. One step at a time. And the kids with disabilities, and the one we were talking about in particular, he gave his much smoothing out of the paragraphs, but they could put in transitions. So they contributed in the group and therefore learned how to support a thesis, talking asked them to j ust write the whole thing could have done it. They learn from each other, they informally, during every one of my observations. I observed them explaining assignments and concepts to one another. Michael consulted other students about assignments as well, and was able to explain to another student what a parody was one day I observed him. He said it was like a scene in a play, but funny because you changed the people or something about the scene, which is accurate. The academic supports for learning Monica provided were mostly structures she had built ese were related to her beliefs about her roles and responsibilities, her subject area, and students with disabilities. Monica believed her role as a teacher was more of a guide or a coach. She created tasks and projects that provided an avenue for student learning, and guided students a s they completed them by providing individual assistance during class and after school and by enlisting parents to help students get the work done. She provided checklists of assignment parts on the website, to parents in email and in handouts to students. Students often needed help making decisions because of the great deal of choice involved in the assignments. For example, in the Shakespeare parod y assignment, students decided the Shakespeare play to focus on (content), the medium of the parody (product), and the group members and task distribution within the group (process). Many of the students needed help figuring out what to do and how to accom plish it, and Monica talked to groups in turn about ways they might approach the project and sent directions to parents

PAGE 183

183 so parents could understand the task enough to help their students at home. Monica believed that thei r children succeed in school by reminding them of tasks and helping with assignments. The way to learn in her class was to complete the tasks she assigned. Many of the assignments were complicated and required the production of different pieces over several weeks. Some involved meeting other students outside clas s to work on projects. This project based approach to instruction was related to Monica learning happened as students worked through the tasks and made connections among works of literature and their own work. She believed that students should grapple with authentic wor ks of literature rather than texts created for their age group. Monica provided opportunities to collaborate with other students in class, and this was related to her belief that knowledge in the area of language arts was gained by immersion in literature She believed students should be talking about, reading, writing, and creating artifacts relat ed to literature and poetry as much as possible She believed that students should be able to work to their strengths and believed strongly that student choice w as essential for motivating students. Motivating students to complete tasks was particularly important for Monica because the tasks were the main avenue to learning in her class. The tasks and projects were the center of the curriculum. Monica believed tha t students with disabilities often had difficulty with the length and the amount of work and a number of her supports were aimed at adjusting those so that students could complete at least part of a task, and achieve at least some of her goals. Summary Te achers identified several practices to support the learning of students with disabilities that could clearly responsibilities were important for many of the practices they described; t eachers often went far

PAGE 184

184 above and beyond what they were required to do to ensure students with disabilities had the help and support they needed to succeed. Teachers also showed a great deal of caring for the whole student their emotional lives, their hom e lives, their self confidence, and their need to feel valued. A great number of supports were aimed at ensuring students with disabilities understood the tasks required of them and at motivating students with disabilities to complete those tasks. Teachers firmly believed that what students with disabilities needed in order to learn was a great deal of encouragement and assistance with organ izing the steps in larger tasks. supports were often intimately linked with their subject area beliefs and g oals: they supported students in making progress in the aspects of the language arts curriculum the y believed were most important. There were, however, many differences in how teachers implemented supports and even in their rationale behind the implementat ion of the same supports. Some of the

PAGE 185

185 Figure 4 1. Concept Map: Maggie. Maggie started with her big idea, whatever it was about the world s he wanted to teach, for example, advocacy. Then, she considered tasks, thinking all the time about the standards an d the big idea. Last, she considered the underlying skills she would have to teach to enable students to successfully accomplish the end product and laid out a timeline. She described content as a funnel or channel that connected the big idea to the skills students were learning.

PAGE 186

186 Figure 4 grade level team and considered her department standards. She achievemen t and the previous necessary materials.

PAGE 187

187 Figure 4 represented to the left in the diagram. Instruction began and ended with the big questions, as indicated by the arrow s Student s worked to develop skills that would support successful performance on the state test through products, or assignments, that wer e related to the big questions. Dan provided ways for his students to

PAGE 188

188 Figure 4 sed in a star for excellence. Everything in the star points is related to language and words: activities, listening, writing, creativity and li terature. All of this is enclosed in a circle that represents the positive classroom atmosphere of: tolerance, ac ceptance, caring, questioning, and referencing the past.

PAGE 189

189 CHAPTER 5 THE GROUNDED THEORY I analyzed the dataset using the procedures for developing grounded theory detailed in Chapter 3. Grounded theory analysis procedures culminated in a theory specified through the identification of relationships among the properties and dimensions of catego ries that emerged from the organization of concepts formed from grouping observed phenomena such as action and talk present in the dataset. More specifically, the relationship between the categories and the core phenomenon is made explicit through a series of proposition statements. The grounded theory explanation begins with an explication of the core phenomenon and the related categories in terms of their properties and dimensions. Then, the derived proposition statements that specify the relationships be tween beliefs and practices are identified, explained and grounded in the data. their practices to support included students with disabilities. The grounded theory con tains only beliefs that can be linked to practice in the data, and not theoretical categories that might be logically inferred. To draw conclusions, categories must be full; data must exist for all teachers in the category. In other words, if only one teac her expressed a particular belief, linking that belief to her practice would not be a valid interpretation of the data. On the other hand, if that of a bel ief, then teachers could vary in their expression of that belief and interpretations of their practice would be valid. For example, Monica strongly believed that parents bore some of the her teachers expressed that belief. Therefore, there is no grounding for the data for interpretations of how that belief about sharing responsibility for stu dent success with parents was essentially an aspect of her

PAGE 190

190 beliefs about responsibility for student learning; all four teachers had beliefs about the responsibility for student learning. Thus, the category is full and can be specified on a continuum firmly student learning, through Dan and Nora who believe the responsibility is shared, but mostly with students, to Monica who believes responsibility is not only shared b ut resides largely in the students and parents. Each teacher expressed a belief in that category: conclusions therefore can practices and to other beliefs. Overview of the Grounded Theory The core phenomenon of a grounded theory can be thought of as a nexus; all of the categories in the grounded theory interacted with the core phenomenon. In this grounded theory and practices to support students with disabilities included in their secondary general education language arts classes, the core phenomenon that decision making abo ut how to support students with disabilities in a complex, dynamic making about how to provide support for their included students with disabilities was a complex proce ss that involved aspects of the context as well as their own beliefs. The process was complex for several reasons: beliefs themselves are changeable in response to circumstance, the context is dynamic and constantly changing, and the context is comprised p artially of aspects of the Grounded theory procedures were useful in coming to an understanding of components of making process. Strauss and Corbin (1990) provided an organizing paradigm for grounded theory categories that included the following: causal condition, core

PAGE 191

191 phenomenon, context, intervening conditions, action/interaction strategies, and consequences. The categories that emerged from the data fit into the paradigm categories as follows: Causal Condi tion: Student Struggles or Expectation that Student will Struggle Core Phenomenon: Negotiating Support through Trial and Error Context: Temporal, Academic, Structural and Individual Intervening Conditions: Beliefs about Self as Teacher, Beliefs about Subje ct Area, Beliefs about Students with Disabilities Action/Interaction Strategies: Procedural Supports, Behavioral Supports, Affective and Psychological Supports, and Academic Supports Consequences Every category contained dimensions and properties, and rela tionships could be specified among them. For example, the Causal Condition: Student Struggles category contained many classes: following directions, completin g assignments, and organizing tasks, for example. The struggles had properties such as frequency, severity, duration and so on. Relationships could be specified between those properties and the properties of any other feature of the model, for example, sta and practices, and specifically, how teachers negotiated support for studen ts with disabilities. This negotiating is essentially a decision, a psychological process, and so the immediate context although the categories may exist ex contextual influences on their ability to provide support, and the supports they provided for students with disabilities were the primary focus. As an example, the category, Causal

PAGE 192

192 Condition: Student Struggles, contains data about how students struggled, but it is data about how teachers believed students struggled. I did not do any independent verification of how students struggled that would allow me to reach a conclusion about how students struggled that beliefs that influenced the supports they provided for student s with disabilities and my and practices. In this section, the grounded theory model itself is described. Relationships among e specified and grounded in the data within the propositions sections that follow the description of the grounded theory model. Please see Figure 5 1 at the end of this chapter for a visual representation of the grounded theory. The large dark circle repr students with disabilities. Within the beliefs circle are three smaller circles, one each for Self, subject area of language arts (Subject), and students with disabilities (Student). On the outer edge Student Struggles, Context, Supports, and external reality I obse rved. school tutoring for students who were struggling. In terms of the model, the path traced started at

PAGE 193

193 circle. That sort of support took place without the teachers thinking much, if anything, about it. But it belongs in the model because th comprised of pa the supports teachers provided. The double headed arrows within the large circle represent s interacted with each of the other categories: Student Struggles, Context, Supports, and Consequences in a each of the categories. The Causal Condition The c ausal condition in this paradigm of Negotiating Support through Trial and Error was labeled Student Struggles. Teachers provided supports for students they perceived to be having difficulty with a task. Teachers also anticipated that students would have di fficulty with an upcoming task and planned to provide supports, so the expectation that a student would struggle was another dimension of the causal condition for Negotiating Support. Teachers identified several ways students with disabilities struggled or had difficulty in language arts. Teachers interpreted student performance broadly and their discussions were not limited to academic issues. Teachers said students with disabilities often displayed psychological problems such as a lack of motivation or a poor self image with regard to schoolwork or relationships with peers. Affective issues seemed particularly important for students at the early adolescent developmental stage. For example, students had difficulty focusing on schoolwork when confronted wi th instability in the home, boyfriend/girlfriend problems, or if they seemed to have a general distrust of teachers and the school system in general. Academic problems of

PAGE 194

194 students with disabilities that affected language arts performance teachers identifie d included: difficulty with written expression and organization, reading comprehension problems, inability to organize tasks, inability to work independently, and slow processing speed. Teachers identified Student Struggles in several ways. Teachers used records and consulted with other teachers to help themselves understand the ways a student struggled. Teachers relied on their own observations and interactions with students. Teachers consulted with parents and with support professionals at the school. F inally, teachers predicted how students might struggle based on past experience with both individual students and students with disabilities that they taught in previous years. Teachers also weighed the frequency, severity and duration of how students stru ggled in deciding an approach for supporting students and those properties were important influences on how teachers Negotiated Support for students. Student Struggles interacted with other categories in the grounded theory. For example, how students st ruggled could influence the context in a profound way. For example, Dan completely restructured his class to incorporate time for assisting students individually, thus e context initiative and provide professional development in how to use the Kagan (1989) approach to cooperative learning. Both the RTI initiative and the use of the Kagan groups affected the context for learning. Due to the RTI initiative, teachers did more checking up on students and discussed students identified to be at r isk with other grade level teachers. The use of the Kagan groups changed the instructional delivery model: teachers made a deliberate effort to have

PAGE 195

195 students working in mixed ability groups to complete assignments. How students struggled also influenced te The Core Phenomenon: Negotiating Support through Trial and Error disabilities is mult i dimensional and dynamic. In the process of making a decision about how to address the needs of students with disabilities included in their classes, all of the categories in the model interacted as teachers negotiated support. The Causal Condition, Stude nt Struggles, was the impetus for providing support and also a source of information about how to provide support. support. Contextual features also were part of the process of negotiating support, including, for example, what point of the school year it was, support staff available, and course goals or tasks. of stude nts with disabilities influenced the supports they provided and so were designated as Intervening Conditions. The supports provided comprised the Action/Interaction Strategies category, and they resulted in Consequences. Consequences sometimes included the need to beliefs affected how they interpreted the context, the kinds of supports they provided, and their willingness to persevere in the process of trial and err or to find out what worked for a student. The Context, Intervening Conditions, and Action/Interaction Strategies could be considered component categories of Negotiating Support through Trial and Error. Context Teachers Negotiated Support within multiple contextual layers: temporal, academic, structural, and individual. The temporal context included aspects of the context related to time, such as how much time was available in the class or how far into the school year it was. The

PAGE 196

196 temporal context also incl uded temporal proximity to important events such as state testing or report card issuance. The academic context had both general and specific dimensions. Specific tasks led to shorter term goals that were related to larger, more general goals for individua l students and for classes. The structural context included dimensions such as the class, the school site, and state and federal policies. Finally, the individual student with disabilities was part of the context for negotiating support. Each of the dimen sions varied according to a number of properties. Individual students could have behavioral, affective, psychological and academic issues that varied in severity, duration, frequency and kind. Classes varied greatly in terms of their makeup relative to stu dents with disabilities. In some classes, several students had disabilities; in others, there was only one. Classes also differed in terms of behavioral and academic properties, and these differences zation both supported and limited helpful in reminding them to focus on students who needed help, but the meetings took place during planning time that might h ave been used in other ways to support students. The state and what they prioritized. Teachers mentioned the tests several times in the interviews. The federal mandated the provision of specific supports. Intervening Conditions: Teach er Beliefs had 3 dimensions: beliefs about self, beliefs about subject, and beliefs about students with disabilities. Each dimension of beliefs had several subdime

PAGE 197

197 themselves included beliefs about their roles and responsibilities in following areas or subdimensions: instructional roles, their responsibility to adhere to policy, responsibility for student success, responsibility for th e whole child, their role in the construction or transmission beliefs about their subject areas included beliefs about: how knowledge is defined in the subject area, how knowledge is attained in the subject area, the nature of knowledge in the subject area, included beliefs about: ways students with disabilities struggle d, the needs of students with disabilities, and the nature of ability and disability. Each subdimension of beliefs could further be specified according to its properties. Properties of beliefs are characteristics of beliefs or ways beliefs vary. The dimen sions (and and when there was variance in the nature of Monica believed that stu definitely and unambiguously stated the belief is. There are two aspects to the specificity of beliefs: a) the explicitness and distinctness of the belief, that is, how well differentiated the belief is from other similar beliefs, and b) the degree of generalizability of the belief in terms of its relationship to students, subject area, and situati ons. A highly generalizable belief would apply to many students or many kinds of students, to several aspects of the subject area (e.g.,

PAGE 198

198 beliefs also varied in the degree of connectedness to other beliefs they expressed. Some beliefs depended on other beliefs or seemed to influence Negotiating Supports only when certain other beliefs were also involved. Other beliefs seemed to be singleton beliefs that did not appear to be connected to other beliefs. The specification of beliefs held by each teacher according to its dimensions, subdimensions and properties is necessary for the formation of the propositions. The propositions concern relationships among aspects of beliefs and between aspects of beliefs and practices. 5 2 for a representation o 2, the strength, rties glyphs, the red leg represents strength, the blue leg represents specificity and the green leg represents connectedness. The length of each leg corresponds to the intensity of the property: the longer the leg is, the more intensely the property was r epresented in the data for that teacher. The glyphs were helpful in spotting trends in the data. The most marked differences among the strength, beliefs abou t students with disabilities; all of the teachers had strong, specific, connected beliefs about language arts. Two of the teachers had less developed beliefs about students with iously in beliefs about instructional roles, the responsibility for student learning, the goals of language arts instruction, and beliefs about students with disabilities. The most marked similarity among the

PAGE 199

199 ey all believed it was their responsibility to adhere to school/district/state policies, although the degree to which they did so differed. The most about the su connected. following areas or subdimensions: how they would provide instruction, their responsibility to adhere to policy, responsibility for student success, responsibility for the whole child, their role in the construction or transmission of knowledge, and perseverance with students with to one another. Maggie and Dan beli eved their role as a teacher included a variety of instructional roles, such as whole class instruction and supervising group work as well as intensive one on one instruction. Nora and Monica also provided whole class instruction and supervised groups. The y made themselves available for individual consultation by students, but did not believe their role included the provision of planned, intensive, teacher directed instruction during those individual consultations. inclined to adhere to policy so long as it did not conflict with other beliefs they held. For instance, Maggie violated school policy by creating a Facebook page because she believed it enabled her to help s tudents keep up with assignments. In another example, Monica had students with disabilities sit by themselves to minimize distractions rather than seating them in the front of the room as stated in their IEPs. Because she moved around the room a lot and di d not spend a lot of time lecturing and writing things on the board, she believed that accommodation was not

PAGE 200

200 useful given her style of teaching. But overall, teachers believed it was their responsibility to follow school, state and federal guidelines. Teac hers varied greatly in beliefs about responsibility for student success. Maggie believed she was totally responsible for student success. Dan believed he was responsible for student success, but that students also bore some responsibility. Nora believed st udents shared even more of the responsibility for their own success. Last, Monica believed students and their parents were mostly responsible for student success. Maggie and Dan believed their roles included taking responsibility for the whole child, that role mainly was to provide instruction. It is evident from the glyphs that this area of belief for Nora and Monica is rather undeveloped: their beliefs lack strength, specificity, and connectedness. Maggie, Dan and Monica held constructivist beliefs about knowledge. They believed that students created knowledge through completing the tasks and assignments in the class and that the process of completing the tasks was the way to become proficient. The believed their role was to guide students in completing tasks successfully. Nora believed her role was to give or transmit knowledge to students. Nora held some constructivist beliefs, too, but overall her beliefs to her subject area beliefs and goals for students, because she believed la nguage arts included not only building reading and writing skills but also acquiring a real world and literary vocabulary and learning how to analyze literature.

PAGE 201

201 All of the teachers believed to some extent that students with disabilities would encounter d ifficulties in their classes no matter what they did. Two teachers, however, Maggie and Dan, believed that it was their responsibility to persevere until they found a way to help students succeed. The other two teachers had less strong, specific and connec ted beliefs not only in this area, but in the other two areas of self beliefs that affected supports for students with disabilities: a) assuming a variety of instructional roles, including the provision of intensive instruction, and b) responsibility for t nature, but also in their strength, specificity and connectedness. Beliefs in this area seemed related to beliefs about responsibility for student success: the teachers who bel ieved they were responsible for student success were the same teachers that believed it was their responsibility to persevere until they found a way for students to succeed. a included beliefs about the definition of language arts, how knowledge is gained in language arts, the nature of knowledge in language arts, and the and w ell connected. All the teachers believed knowledge in language arts was gained through practice. Monica believed that knowledge was also attained through immersion in and experiencing literature. Teachers were explicit about their subject area beliefs over all. Teachers had different beliefs about the nature of knowledge in language arts: Dan, Maggie, and Nora believed knowledge was definite and unchanging. They believed there were certain things students needed to learn in order to be able to read, write a nd interpret text, and that these things were unchanging. Tasks in their classes were structured to bring students to mastery of explicit, definite goals. Monica, on the other hand, believed knowledge in language arts was open to interpretation and constan tly changing. She believed students gained knowledge

PAGE 202

202 by experiencing literature and that the things students learn might be personal in nature. She also believed that what students can know could change as they became more experienced consumers of literatu re and she required students to revisit and reflect upon previous work. Goals in her class were experiential; the experience was the process and the goal. Dan believe d the goals of instruction in language arts were for students to master skills in reading and writing. Nora believed students should master those skills as well as other content de students with opportunities for enrichment or literature appreciation. Overall, there are obvious connections master skills believed that students made progr ess through practicing tasks structured to help were the most t raditional; she believed she was transmitting knowledge to students, and that students mastered content and skills through repetition and practice. ded beliefs about the nature of disability, the needs of students with disabilities, and beliefs about how students with disabilities more connected than the o always the same. Maggie believed strongly that the struggles of students with disabilities at least partially arose from the environment. Nora and Monica believed the causes of the struggles of

PAGE 203

203 students with disabilities needed specially designed instr uction; Nora and Monica believed students with disabilities needed the same instruction as other students, but might need more time or a shorter assignment, for example. Nora and Monica also believed that students with disabilities have a condition that li mits growth in language arts, but the weak, non specific and unconnected nature of their beliefs may indicate that they have not had opportunities to reflect on their beliefs. Maggie and Dan believed that students with disabilities can gain skills and know ledge through constant practice and hard work; their beliefs were strong, specific and connected. Action/Interaction Strategies: Supports for Students with Disabilities Supports provided for students with disabilities (also referred to as practices) com prise the Action/Interaction Strategies category. See Table 5 practices and Figure 5 following kinds or dimensions of support: procedural, behavioral, affec tive/psychological, and academic. Supports were categorized according to their purpose. Procedural supports were supports intended to assist students in understanding how to complete tasks. Procedural supports ranged from task generalized supports that were intended to support students in completing tasks in general (such the part of the stu dents, e.g., attending school, being on time for class, and turning in assignments on time. Some of these were individual to the teachers; some were part of a school initiative. Affective and psychological supports were aimed at establishing relationships with students, gaining the trust of students, caring about the emotional lives of students, and engendering or increasing student motivation. Academic supports were targeted at enhancing performance or knowledge in the subject area. These included: varying the intensity, format or explicitness of

PAGE 204

204 instruction, providing instructional aids, providing on the spot assistance and modifying the pace, process, or products of student work efforts. The dimensions of support varied according to the properties: frequ ency, temporality, duration, consistency, reliability, specificity, responsiveness or dynamicism, and strength and specificity of rationale. Frequency was how often a support was used. Temporality was whether the support was used before, during and/or afte r instruction. Duration was both how long an instance of support lasted and how long the use of the support was sustained over several instances. Consistency was the degree to which a support was provided each time a particular need manifested. Reliability was the degree to which the support was the same and provided the same way in response to a particular need. Specificity referred to the generalizability of the support across tasks or goals, how proximal or distal the goal for the support was, and whethe r the support was used only for an individual student, only for students with disabilities, only for struggling students, or with all students. Responsiveness or dynamicism was the extent the support was modified in response to student performance or to in dividual student needs. The reason for using the support that was linked to student needs (related to how explicitly stated the student needs were). The specif icity of the rationale was the degree to which it was explicitly articulated and whether it was linked to: a specific task, a kind of task, or a broader skills area; a specific student or students with specific characteristics; and/or an observed need of a n individual student or experiences with past students. No valence is implied in the specification of the properties; they are descriptive only and were created to provide a way for relationships among beliefs and supports to emerge in the analysis. For i nstance, the name of the property Reliability has a positive connotation. It may not,

PAGE 205

205 however, be more beneficial for students to receive the same support, the same way, each time a particular need is observed if that support does not appear to helping the student. Similarly, Responsiveness has a positive connotation; it refers to whether the support was adjusted based on student response. Adjusting a support may not be optimally beneficial to the student if the support is an evidence based strategy that re quires time for students to master and derive benefit. Furthermore, properties in this analysis cannot be conceived of as having been measured. beliefs and pr actices in an explicit way and thus to apprehend more clearly the relationships among them. Chapter 4, and so an overview is provided here. Only a few supports fo r students with disabilities were used by all four teachers. See Table 5 2 for the practices used by each teacher. One support all the teachers used was collaborative groupings. This is not surprising because teachers received professional development in t he Kagan grouping strategies and were strongly encouraged to use them. Structures also existed at the school that supported communication with other teachers, and all of the teachers named that as a way to support students with disabilities. All of the tea chers said contacting parents was a way to support students with disabilities, and all said they provided individual help to students with disabilities. All of the teachers reported providing some kinds of supports in each of the four support categories: P rocedural, Behavioral, Affective/Psychological, and Academic. The greatest number of strategies teachers reported was in the Academic Supports category and the fewest was in the Behavioral Supports category. Teachers seemed idiosyncratic in their support f or students with disabilities and I was not able to identify any other trends in the nature of their supports. Teachers were mostly observed

PAGE 206

206 providing Procedural supports and Academic supports. Teachers believed understanding the task was one of the bigges t challenges for students with disabilities, along with following through on a task once they understood it. Behavioral and Affective/Psychological supports were mostly T Only Maggie and Dan reported providing support for students with disabilities on a daily basis, and only Maggie and Dan planned their units and lessons with the ne eds of students with disabilities and supports for them in mind. Maggie and Dan also provided supports that took longer to provide and extended over a longer period of time than those provided by Nora and teachers. One exception to the above was in the area of motivation; all of the teachers believed motivation was a crit ical component of student success and their practices to support students with disabilities in this area were frequent, consistent, reliable and supported by an explicit rationale. Consequences The use of the Action/Interaction Strategies had consequence s for students, teachers, and classes. The word consequence has a negative connotation, but in this context it is neutral and refers to the outcome of the use of supports for students with disabilities. This category is unique, as it was the only category that included an exit from the model of Negotiating Support. Teachers stopped Negotiating Support when they believed a support they provided was successful and would continue to be successful. Another way to exit Negotiating Support was when a teacher beli eved she had done everything possible to support the student already.

PAGE 207

207 Individual students responded differently to the supports provided. The data collected in practices and are not appropriate for drawing conclusions about how the provision of different kinds of supports affected student outcomes. Therefore, the consequences for individual students provided in this section are for descriptive purposes. The teach ers described several student outcomes during the interviews. For example, one outcome was the end of the year grades to the next grade level. During the last interview, Maggie was unsure whether Tim was going to pass for the year. She said that he had made progress, but she was not sure he had made enough progress to deal with the demands of the next grade, and especially the state testing that happens in that failed the class. He had not turned in enough work to earn the grades to pass the class. r instance, found that having a support staff person to assist Destiny with her vocabulary quiz was a successful strategy and decided to continue it throughout the year, thus breaking out of the model of negotiating support for that particular student need Maggie found that the supports she was providing for Tim worked while she was with him, and she re entered the cycle of negotiating support as Tim continued to struggle to work independently and she continued to try to find ways to help him. In general, when teachers found a support that worked, they kept implementing it until there was a reason to change it and sometimes even after there was a reason to change it. For example, Dan believed using centers that created opportunities to provide intensive ins truction to small groups was effective in supporting struggling students in improving their reading skills. He therefore kept using centers even though some of his students

PAGE 208

208 about the effectiveness of intensive instruction in this case were strong, specific and interconnected, and he believed that the best way to proceed was to continue providing intensive instruction and give it more time to succeed. The provision of support s to students with disabilities also had consequences for classes, and therefore, the context for learning. For example, teachers reported that graphic organizers or supportive groupings they employed to support students with disabilities were often helpfu l to the other students. Dan restructured his whole class into a centers/groups format in order to provide more intensive support for struggling students. He believed the centers/groups format was also beneficial to all students. All of the teachers used g roup structures in some fashion and reported that groups allowed them to give more help to students that needed it. These were significant changes to the context for other students in the classes. Finally, there were consequences for teachers. Providing s upports to students with disabilities influenced their beliefs. For example, Maggie and Nora initially were not enthusiastic about the RTI initiative at the school, but as time went on, their beliefs changed as they came to believe that checking up on stud ents frequently and talking about students with other teachers helped the students in visible ways. Maggie even expanded the RTI record keeping and activities to other students she was concerned about. As teachers tried one thing and another, their beliefs about students with disabilities in a specific and in a general sense were affected. All of the teachers said they needed more knowledge of how to intervene with students with disabilities. Some teachers invested considerable time in devising ways to supp ort students or staying after school to help students, thereby incurring costs in terms of their time. Teachers sometimes became frustrated with students, especially when they had made unsuccessful efforts to help.

PAGE 209

209 Maggie and Monica also became attached to the students, and said that because they liked the students and they were aware that the grades they assigned had consequences for the students, it supports for st and strengths. As they tried supports, they adjusted their ideas about how effective supports were and what the needs of the students were. For example, Nora had long believed that shortening the length of assignment was beneficial for students with disabilities., When her student, Destiny, continued to have trouble with the sho changed. Nora renegotiated support for Destiny that included help from the special education teacher. When that extra help seemed to be effective, Nora exited the cycle of negotiating support. Overa ll, the consequences were interpreted by the teachers and affected their beliefs and depended on how strongly they believed they were responsible for student lea rning, how committed they were to persevering with students with disabilities and on how explicitly they struggle. Because she believed so strongly that parents sha red in the responsibility for student involved. She was not able to understand why Michael either could not or would not complete assignments despite having been t old several times how to do them and having had the assignments shortened to encourage him.

PAGE 210

210 Propositions Propositions are one way to express a grounded theory. (The diagram is another. Grounded theory can also be expressed through narratives that tell the story of movement through the categories.) Propositions are created by examining the data in light of the analytical categories, dimensions and properties; propositions consist of statements of relationships among these. Relationships specified may be among any of these data divisions: a relationship may be specified between 2 categories, for instance, or between a property of one dimension and a grounded theory dia gram, thus expressing how categories interact. The propositions I derived from the data follow, with a discussion that demonstrates how they are grou nded in the data. Figure 5 2 and Figure 5 3 practices. Proposition 1: The Supports They Provided for Students with Disabilities because Subject Matter Beliefs Exerted a Strong Influence on Both the Academic Context for Learning and the Perceived Needs of Students with Disabilities within that Context. ma students with disabilities were rooted largely in the academic context they created. These secondary language arts teachers all had strong and specific beliefs a bout the subject area that were well developed and interconnected. The nature of their beliefs, however, varied according to several dimensions that influenced the supports they provided for students with areas included beliefs about: how knowledge is

PAGE 211

211 defined in the subject area, how knowledge is attained in the subject area, the nature of knowledge in the subject area, and the goals or purposes of instruction. First, teachers defined their subject area i n different ways. Even though they differed, all Maggie and Dan saw language arts mainly as the study of communication skills such as reading and writing. The y believed knowledge was gained in reading and writing by practicing those skills. The goals of their classes centered on improving skills by providing authentic reasons for reading and writing. These goals were related to the tasks they created. Students read texts in class to improve reading skills and completed various writing assignments. Both teachers were h teachers structured their classes to provide plenty of time for closely supervised reading (Dan) and writing (Maggie) instruction. Knowledge was viewed as definite, unchanging and hierarchical, but jointly constructed by teacher and students. Nora emph asized literature and vocabulary as well as reading and writing, and her focus was as much on students mastering content as improving skills. She believed that repetition was the way for students to accumulate knowledge, and she structured her class to ret urn to topics she believed were important throughout the year. Goals in her class centered on helping students develop vocabulary, both a general vocabulary and a literary vocabulary, so that students could understand and interpret literature. In class, st udents read stories aloud together, learned vocabulary words, discussed literature, and wrote essays. Tasks were content driven and usually could be completed quickly: matching columns of vocabulary words, quick writes, answering

PAGE 212

212 questions on worksheets. H er class was highly structured and teacher driven. Knowledge was viewed as definite and was transmitted from teacher to students rather than constructed jointly. Monica believed language arts was about experiencing literature and growing to love literatu re and poetry. The purpose of her class was enrichment through literature and literature appreciation. She believed students learned through being immersed in literature and experiencing it for themselves. Tasks in her class were long term projects with mu ltiple steps products. Knowledge was viewed as fluid, changing, and subjective. Students constructed knowledge on their own. ct area were related to the ways teachers supported and th e supports they provided to students reflected their conception of the subject area as a collection of skills to be mastered. The academic context was characterized mainly by the in class practicing of reading and writing skills. When students struggled, M aggie and Dan drilled down into component skills of the tasks and remediated them with individual students. For before writing was an essential component skill for successful completion of the task. She then helped the student organize his thoughts by working with him on a graphic organizer she quickly sketched on his notebook page. Maggie and Dan believed students needed to practice component skills to mastery t o be successful readers and writers and the supports they provided reflected those beliefs. They were also the only teachers to emphasize the use of support staff and

PAGE 213

213 individual instruction, possibly because they were able to target specific skills to be r emediated by a support staff person or in an individual session with a student. believed that language arts included a great deal of content students needed to mast er, and the supports she provided were focused mainly on adjusting the amount of the content in a particular assignment or the amount of time the student spent engaged with the content. The academic context included tasks focused on helping students acquir e content knowledge on a daily basis. Students with disabilities were frequently allowed to learn fewer words, complete fewer questions, or read a shorter passage. Nora viewed the subject area as consisting of a body of content to be mastered and she suppo rted students with disabilities mainly by requiring them to master less. She was the only teacher to talk about shortening assignments and tests, allowing students to retake quizzes and tests, providing students with study aids such as flash cards and stud y guides, and spiraling (Bruner, 1960) her curriculum to return to important concepts as ways to support students with disabilities. Finally, Monica viewed the subject area in a more holistic sense and believed that experiencing literature and creating lit erary products was the way to learn in language arts. Supports for students with disabilities focused on enabling students to understand how to navigate the projects and tasks. The academic context was that of a workshop: students generally worked more or less independently on one of a variety of projects that were coming due at different times. They worked in groups and alone, and consulted Monica as necessary. Monica used other kinds of class structures, but the workshop format was the most prevalent duri ng my students understand how to do the tasks she created because she believed students learned by

PAGE 214

214 having the experiences necessary for completing tasks. She also believed that the flexibility inherent in the tasks students often could choose process, products and content was a kind of support for students with disabilities that motivated them to complete tasks and allowed them to use their strengths to be succ essful. Her supports centered on: a) providing written examples to motivate students and help them understand what to do, and b) helping students understand how to complete projects by explaining directions repeatedly, providing multiple copies of directio ns, what to do. Proposition 2: The about Students with Disabilities were Related to the P Support Included Students with Disab ilities, Including: The Degree of Responsiveness to or t he Supports Provided. The nature of Maggie and with disabilities needed specially designed instruction, that students with disabilities gained skills and knowledge through practice, and that it was their responsibility to persevere in tr ying to find ways to help students with disabilities. The last is a Self category belief, but it is included here because: a) it is also a belief about students with disabilities, and b) the patterns evident in the s about their responsibility to persevere are identical to beliefs about students with disabilities, shown in Figure 5 2 inter connected. During the interviews, they spoke of how they planned their curriculum with the needs of students with disabilities in mind, incorporated multiple and sustained opportunities for practice, and persevered in finding effective supports. For exampl e, Maggie said she always considered how students with disabilities might struggle with an upcoming assignment and planned how she would provide support. In one instance, Maggie knew some students, including

PAGE 215

215 Timmy, would find it uncomfortable to perform in terviews with homeless people at the shelter as part of an upcoming task. So, she had all of the students interview another student that they did not know well in class and write a short summary of the interview to give students a chance to practice interv did not like to interact with other people, and this gave him a chance to do so in a more familiar environment. In addition, he had never interviewed somebody before, so this s upport gave him a chance to see how the process worked. Finally, this support allowed him to practice the skills related to interviewing: crafting questions, taking notes during the interview, and writing a summary of the interview. Maggie said that she wa s not sure this support would be effective and that she would try something else if it was not or if he refused to do it. Maggie thus provided a for practice. In addition, she expressed a commitment to persevering in finding a way to help both student and task, and supported by a rationale that was clear and convincing. sentences that express the main idea or a summary of a paragraph or longer piece of text that ummary frames summarizing. Dan knew that students with disabilities often had trouble summarizing what they read and he believed summarizing was a fundamental sk ill that had to be mastered for students to be able to derive meaning from text. He said he believed good readers summarize as they read and if students did not do that naturally, they had to be taught to do it. He therefore had students complete summary f rames almost daily, as warm ups at the start of class or as short homework

PAGE 216

216 that students reading in the small groups were unable to summarize a paragraph they had just read. The use of summary frames is also highly specific. Even though this support was not rationale for using summary frames was explicit and convi ncing: he said summary frames addressed an observed weakness of students with disabilities and struggling readers and they seemed to be an effective way to both have students practice summarizing and remind them to keep summarizing in their minds while the y read. connected. They believed that the struggles of students with disabilities came from within the students, that students with disabilities needed basically the same kinds of instruction as other students get with some changes to processes or products, and that students with disabilities have a condition that prevents growth in skills and knowledge to some degree. They did not talk at length about these beliefs an d their beliefs in this area seemed less developed than the other less specific, and less supported by rationale. For example, Monica said providing models w as a way to support students with disabilities, and I observed several models on her website. needs. Providing models, to Monica, was part of good teaching in general. The models she provided were specific to the tasks she assigned, but the goals of those tasks were less specifically articulated. Her rationale for using models was that models helped students understand the task and motivated them to complete th e task. This rationale is general; it applies to all students and all tasks. In another example, Nora often shortened assignments for Destiny.

PAGE 217

217 This was a generalized support she used across several kinds of tasks. Nora did not explain clearly how shortenin more specific, and had stronger rationales than the supports provided by Nora and Monica. The se three properties of the supports teachers provided were related to the nature, strength, specificity Proposition 3: Beliefs about the Needs of Students with Disabili ties were Related to the Kinds of Supports Provided. students with disabilities. Maggie and Dan, on the one hand, believed that students with disabilities needed speciall y designed instruction. Nora and Monica, on the other hand, believed that students with disabilities needed the same kind of instruction the other students got, but that students with disabilities might need more help understanding a task, more attention w hile with disabilities needed were related to the kinds of support the teachers provided. For example, both Maggie and Dan often had students working in groups. Group structures allowed them to vary the intensity of instruction received by students, and to provide more individual instruction to students with disabilities. Maggie and Dan also were often observed working with students with disabilities individually in a way that was academically supportive during class for ten minutes or more. Maggie and Dan also worked to involve support staff and others in instructing students, another way to increase the intensity of instruction. Maggie participated in a partner ship with preservice English teachers at a local university; the college students worked with her students on their writing in class and online. Both Maggie and Dan solicited assistance from support

PAGE 218

218 personnel, and often had another adult in the room instru cting students with them. These structures allowed Maggie and Dan to focus their attention on students with disabilities and struggling learners who needed more individual help. Other adults were present in every one of Maggie and Dan differed in the behavioral supports they provided in that both spoke of providing a real world purpose for learning as an important way to motivate students. Both structured their courses around a broad question or goal and created projects, assignments and of the reading and writing assignments to a field trip to a natural spring that took place at the end of the year. Students read multiple articles about the springs, wrote about the springs, and made capacity for advocacy, and her assignments were structured around that goal. The homeles s person interview was one of the assignments related to that goal. Students also read articles about the homeless problem in the town and collaboratively created a book to sell to make money to donate to the homeless shelter. Finally, Maggie and Dan were the only teachers to emphasize reviewing student progress upcoming year towards the end of the year of this study. He looked for trends in performance and spoke consider how he would support them. He also spoke of reviewing student progress systematically throughout the school year to help him decide what was working and what ne eded to be changed. She said that she learned so much about the students from doing that that she expanded her

PAGE 219

219 tracking to include all of her students with dis abilities and struggling students. She regularly plan to review them systemati cally. Nora and Monica provided supports that were largely procedural in nature and were reactive rather than proactive. Their courses were structured to address the needs of most of their students, and they remediated with students with disabilities on t he spot as the need arose. For example, Nora was observed helping Destiny one on one to help her understand a task and shortening a task for her. These kinds of supports were typical of her support for students with disabilities: most of her supports were provided in class on an as needed basis. Monica emphasized helping students with disabilities understand how to do the tasks she assigned, and she provided directions for completing tasks in several ways including handouts, her website and emails to parent s. She also stayed after school every day to help students navigate tasks. Finally, Monica shortened assignments or made them less complex for students with disabilities. Taken together, there are different patterns of support among the teachers that were related to their beliefs about the needs of students with disabilities. Teachers who believed students with disabilities needed specially designed instruction solicited help from other adults and structured their classes to provide opportunities to work w ith students individually. They planned with the with a real world purpose for learning. Teachers who believed students with disabilities needed basically the sa me kinds of instruction as other students provided support by adjusting assignments so they were shorter or less complex and providing students help with

PAGE 220

220 understanding how to do tasks. Their supports were reactive rather than proactive, i.e., their support s happened after they noticed a student was struggling. Proposition 4: Beliefs about their Roles and Responsibilities (Beliefs about Self) were Related to the Overall Amount of Support Provided. fs about: instructional roles, being, role in the construction or transmission of knowledge, and responsibility to persevere with students with disabilities. The pattern amon of knowledge differed from that evident in the other Self beliefs and is discussed separately in Proposition 5: it appeared that whether a teacher held constructivist or transmissive beli efs was themselves and the strength, specificity and connectedness of their beliefs about themselves were related to the amount of support they provided for stu dents with disabilities. In the case of beliefs about student needs: together, these beliefs were related to the amount of support provided. The amount of suppo rt provided was determined by analyzing supports for duration, frequency, and consistency: how long or over how long a time period the support was implemented, how often the support was implemented, and how consistently the support was implemented. All of the teachers had fairly strong beliefs that it was their responsibility to comply with policies and procedures related to struggling students and students with disabilities and they reported that they did comply. Evidence from interviews and observations, however, showed the teachers seemed to comply with varying degrees of fidelity. Teachers sometimes complied with policies and procedures in a superficial way, meeting the minimum requirements. At other times,

PAGE 221

221 teachers complied in a more thorough way: they spent more time, more frequently and more consistently, implementing the policy or procedure. These differences were both within and teachers believed the require ments were helpful to students, they consistently complied. If, however, teachers believed the requirements were not helpful to students, they acted in what they thought were the best interests of the students. For example, the teachers believed the accomm example, said several of her students were supposed to be seated at the front of the room. She questioned the usefulness of that for her students since she rarely lect ured or wrote on the board and she usually moved around the room. She furthermore believed that seating students with disabilities and students with 504 plans all together at the front of the room was not advisable and that the students could work more eff iciently in an isolated, distraction free spot. Therefore, she complied with the policy when she thought it was beneficial to students and she devised her own seating plan when she thought other seating arrangements would be more beneficial. On the other h and, as Maggie became convinced of the effectiveness of the check ins and logs required students she was concerned about. She not only complied with the policy, bu t also applied it to more students than she was required to because she believed it was beneficial to students. To because teachers believed it was their respo nsibility to comply with policy, but they complied in a way that was frequent, consistent and of significant duration only if they already were or somehow became convinced that compliance was helpful or useful to students. In this instance, category beliefs about their responsibility to comply with policy interacted with

PAGE 222

222 amount of support teachers provided for students with disabilities. Maggie and D well being, and responsibility to persevere with students with disabilities were more similar to were strong, specific, hers. Maggie and Dan believed strongly and specifically that: a) their roles were multiple and included the provision of individual instruction as well as group facilitation and whole class instruction, b) they were responsible for student success, c) the y were responsible for the whole child, and d) they were responsible to persevere with students with disabilities; Maggie and Dan provided a greater amount of support for students with disabilities overall than Nora and Monica did. The best example of the frequency, duration and consistency of the support provided by Maggie and Dan is that both teachers altered the way their classrooms functioned in order to provide support for students with disabilities and students who struggled to learn. The pattern als o is evident in Table 5. Maggie and Dan both planned lessons with students with disabilities in mind and incorporated group work on an almost daily basis to allow for opportunities to interact with students individually and in small groups. In this way, th ey were able to provide support for students with disabilities almost every day that was of significant duration and highly consistent. Nora and Monica did not believe individualized instruction was part of their role and their beliefs in that area were l believed pretty strongly she shared responsibility for student success with students, but her

PAGE 223

223 stu dent success was shared mainly by students and parents, and her beliefs in that area were strong, specific and connected to other beliefs. She spoke often and emphatically of that belief. Nora believed she was responsible for the whole child; Monica less s o. Both Nora and Monica believed students with disabilities will have trouble in their classes no matter what they do, Nora less so than Monica. The only supports Nora and Monica provided frequently, consistently, and of significant duration were those rel ated to motivating students. All of the teachers believed motivation was critical to the success of their students. Nora and Monica also varied the format of instruction and included group work as well as whole class work occasionally, but they did not var y the format as much as Maggie and Dan nor did they include intensive or individualized instruction. Overall, the amount of support Nora and Monica provided for students with disabilities was less than the amount provided by Maggie and Dan and the amount p rovided was Proposition 5: The is Transmitted or Constructed was Related to: A) The Frequency with which they Supported Students with Disabilities by Allowing Student Choice, and B) The Aids They Provided to Assist Students with Homework. Maggie, Dan and Monica shared a constructivist epistemological stance; they believed that knowledge in the domain o f language arts was constructed by students. Thus, they designed tasks to provide students with opportunities to construct knowledge. Students worked to construct knowledge mainly by interacting with texts and creating their own texts. Nora, on the other h and, had a more transmissive epistemological stance. Nora believed she gave knowledge to the students, and the tasks she provided helped them to remember important concepts. Students received knowledge from the teacher and then worked to remember it, often by learning lists of

PAGE 224

224 vocabulary words or literary terms, completing short answer questions, and answering questions in class. disabilities. This was evident, for exam ple, in the difference between Maggie, Dan and Monica providing opportunities for student choice versus Nora providing flexibility with content These sound similar, but they are different. Opportunities for student choice provided included the regular inc orporation of student choice into lesson plans and assignments. Students were able to choose which stories or books to read. They could choose how to express their knowledge, i.e., by writing an essay or a poem or giving a speech. They could choose to work alone, with a partner, or in a group. Maggie, Dan and Monica consistently provided opportunities for students to choose. Nora, on the other hand, described flexibility with content as an adjustment in the needs. As an example, she extended the mythology unit because there were popular movies about mythology in the theaters when she was teaching mythology. Nora sometimes provided choices for students, for example, she allowed students to choose to do a slid e show for one assignment instead of an essay. Choice, however, was not consistently woven into her unit plans and assignments as it was for the other teachers. supports aids for independent work or homework. The constructivist teachers all said they often provided written instructions to help students navigate tasks when they were worki ng independently. The written instructions served to guide students through the experiences necessary to construct knowledge of reading and writing. Nora spoke instead of providing students with flash cards,

PAGE 225

225 both paper and digital, to help students learn t erms, concepts, and vocabulary words that they would be tested on. The flash cards contained the knowledge she taught, and provided students with a procedure for mastering it. None of the other teachers mentioned flash cards, and she did not mention provid ing written guidelines for students. Summary The grounded theory of negotiating support for included students with disabilities in secondary language arts classes was specified through a visual model and a series of propositions. The model portrayed the re lationships among the categories in the grounded theory. The categories were as follows. The Causal Condition was that the student struggled or was expected to struggle within the Context. The Core Phenomenon was Negotiating Support: teachers decided on Ac beliefs about themselves, the subject of language arts, and students with disabilities were Intervening Conditions that affected how they Negotiated Support and the Action/Interac tion strategies they chose. Use of the strategies had consequences. Depending on the consequences, teachers either ceased Negotiating Support, or noticed a continuance of Student Struggles and began Negotiating Support again. Each of the categories in the model interacted with the Five propositions about the relationships among the categories, dimensio ns, and properties of dimensions were derived from and grounded in the data. They are: supports they provided for students with disabilities because subject matter belief s exerted a strong influence on both the academic context for learning and the perceived needs of students with disabilities within that context.

PAGE 226

226 about students with d specificity of the supports, and the strength of the rationale for the supports pr ovided. to the kinds of supports provided. were related to the overall amount of support provided. transmitted or constructed was related to: a) the frequency with which they supported students with disabilities by allowing student choi ce, and b) the aids they provided to assist students with homework.

PAGE 227

227 Table 5 1. Descriptive Beliefs Inventory Maggie Dan Nora Monica Beliefs about Selves: Roles, Responsibilities, Efficacy Instructional roles Whole group and individual instruction; small group facilitating Whole group, small group and individual instruction; small group facilitating Whole group instruction; small group facilitating; individual consultation Whole group instruction; small group facilitating; individual consultation Responsibility to adhere to school/district/state policies Maybe negotiation is a good word for it, important and weighing out our beliefs of what students need to know and what the state or schools say they may need. The reason why I d o it, the first reason why is because I was told to do it. The work that we do in here pretty much is a result of what the professional received. We still have the state standards and are still supposed to do the reading, the speaking, th e writing, the comprehension skills. But there are things that I have been teaching way before the sunshine state standards existed and that I am going to teach them: how to organize, I am going to do vocabulary. I do look at [state] standards. Most of th e time what I think is important to teach is already in there, but I I have to follow the accommodations for the IEPs. Fortunately, so many of the IEP accommodations are just things that are built in; do it anyway. Responsibility for student success Timmy is the type of person that I 100% have to stay on. I cannot relieve myself of the poorly. I f they do enough in my class, my shortcoming. Dan believed it was his responsibility to provide plenty of opportunities to practice skills and to motivate students to engage in that practice. Nora believed students shared in the responsibility for student success. Monica believed students and parents shared the responsibili ty for student success.

PAGE 228

228 Table 5 1. Continued Maggie Dan Nora Monica Beliefs about Selves: Roles, Responsibilities, Efficacy Responsibility for whole child important part of my job, to get to know them and accommodate them, not in the educational way, but as a human: having respect for them, paying attention to what they need and how they a difference for them or not. Dan strongly believed that students needed to be supported in making choices that were in their best interest to show up for class, to show up on time, to bring the work they were responsible for, and to behave appropriately because many students were not receiving support in those areas at home. They need support from anybody that can give it to them. They just need encouragement and the positive feedback if they can get it. Monica believed it was her responsibility to form relationships with students and help to build their self confidence. Role in transmission/constructio n of knowledge getting them in groups to good teaching. Independent learning My role is not to stand in front of the classroom and tell them everything, come to their own understanding, and when they struggle, t o be there. Dan provided opportunities and supports for students to construct their own knowledge of reading and writing. includes both transmission of knowledge and providing opportunities for students to construct knowledge. g to be the model, the guide, the cheerleader, the one that leads them in the goals of my course. Monica sees herself construction of knowledge.

PAGE 229

229 Table 5 1. Continued Maggie Dan Nora Monica Beliefs about Selves: Roles, Responsibilities, Efficacy Role/responsibility to persevere with students with disabilities Maggie strongly believed it was part of her role to persevere with students with disabilities and find ways to help them be successful. hammerin g away at it. I believe that everybody is capable of learning of how much time you spend working on it. Nora was committed to providing the supports she discussed regularly. Monica provided supports like the website and after sch ool help. She believed that it was make use of them. Beliefs about the Subject Area: Language Arts Definition of The whole world is about what you do in communicate, by talking to each other, and by writing things down, and by reading things that each other write. Language is how we relate to each other, and it applies to everything we could possibly ever do involves some sort of communication. My job is to teach reading, writing. [My class] is all about process and communication. many of the skills: the writing obviously, the literature based, always br inging in some vocabulary usage, writing and thinking skills, speaking. Language arts, reading, writing is not something that you do just to satisfy teacher. Without it, we are just not human. If we cannot express ourselves in writing, if we cannot tell appreciate stories and not human beings.

PAGE 230

230 Table 5 1. Continued Maggie Dan Nora Monica Beliefs about the Subject Area: Language Arts How knowledge is attained within Kids become good readers, good writers, and good consumers of media by a lot of repetition and practice. doing is a huge part, in proficiency. instruction and practice, and motivation. Individual conferencing and kind of breaking the room into centers and having them work their way through the process. The internalization of the strategies and the fluency of their use of we do these things over and over again You can give direct instruction, but so much of it, you about the instruction that applying it individually. Proficiency in say, reading and writing, develops by practice, practice, practice. Repetition, repetition, repetition. [Kids become good readers, writers, and consume rs of literature by] practice, practice, practice. It is all practice, and then they need to see examples. Nature of knowledge in I think language arts is a place that gives me a lot of freedom. I just sort of on, so how I decide is interested in at the time. You can teach reading and writing through any kind of content. In math or science, you have a set of knowledge you can just teach them: this is the fact, these are the things to learn, but in language arts, dealing with the world. What I think are the wonderful things that all human beings in the world need to know how to do.

PAGE 231

231 Table 5 1. Continued Maggie Dan Nora Monica Beliefs about the Subject Area: Language Arts Goals and purposes of instruction them critical thinkers and equipping them to function in the world. The purpose of English is to learn how to communicate. My class is all about process That is what it is all about giving them tools to handle challenging text when we are not around. One of my goals is making kids think, having them question things. work on and you can relate anything to what arts, really. I want to teach them to be good people. I want them to really respect literature and poetry. Beliefs about Students with Disabilities Ways students with disabilities struggle in language arts Reading long texts Organizing writing tasks Understanding instructions Sentence structure Vocabulary Handwriting Spelling reading stamina higher level comprehension staying focused. where does the reading deficit stop and the motivational issues begin? Reading finding the meaning interacting with the text remembering vocabulary words takes her longer Organization I believe [students with disabilities] struggle the skills that allow them to take the next step. If he could just engage in the work and ask questions about it, just enough to get go ing, he been so reluctant to work for basically his just sort of locked in. is: school is just not something that I do.

PAGE 232

232 Table 5 1. Continued Maggie Dan Nora Monica Beliefs about Students with Disabilities Needs of students with disabilities I have a student who struggles with his processing time, so I already know ahead of have to say the going to have to give him a little more time to have to check in with him. And practice, but practice with feedback have any feedback, you doing wrong. motivation using data to drive instr uction strategy instruction more attention and direction, redirection to actively remember to do their best paying individual progress Of all students, I think they have a great need to feel successful. I just think tha t success breeds success. check sheet for assignments

PAGE 233

233 Table 5 1. Continued Maggie Dan Nora Monica Beliefs about Students with Disabilities Nature of ability/disability variation in what you can create and see in no disability that prevents you from understanding and flexible, very workable. Kids who have paperwork are just, for just the ones who have nothing different about disabled in some way and gifted in some way. background deficit vs. organic problems I believe they can still pass a class, but not always get the deeper meanings or the higher like them to. affects his involvement and progress in the general curriculum, because of his processing speed.

PAGE 234

234 Table 5 2. Practices to Support Included Students with Disabilities Inventory Practices/Supports Maggie Dan Nora Monica Procedural Explain task multiple times, clarify directions X X X X Provide written instructions or study guides X X X X Check individually that student understands task X X Have student explain task in his own words X X X Start the task with the student X Monitor progress during task completion X X X Provide models or templates X X Make parents aware of tasks that are due X X X Pair with stronger student X Minimize distractions X Put directions on website X Behavioral Check in logs X X X Communicate with other teachers X X X X Review student progress X X Review student attendance X Review student behavior X Communicate with parents X X X X Informal talk with students X X Consult support staff X Provide reminders on website X

PAGE 235

235 Table 5 2. Continued Practices/Supports Maggie Dan Nora Monica Affective/Psychological Build relationships with students, trust X X Provide opportunities for student choice X X X X X Look for patterns of behavior that might indicated a problem X Pay deliberate attention X X Collaborative groups X X X Track data to identify problems X Flexibility with content X Provide real world purpose for work X X Provide models X Academic Scaffolding X X X Graphic organizers X X Differentiation X Varying intensity of instruction X X On the spot responsiveness X X X Flexibility and Differentiation vary content, products, process, due date X X X Shorten assignments and tests X Retake quizzes and tests X Study aids flash cards, study guides X Spiraling X Strategy instruction X Use of support staff or others in classroom X X Use of data to build instruction X Curriculum/unit/lesson design Use of centers X Individual consultation X X X X Provide models X Collaborative groupings X X X X External supports X

PAGE 236

236 Table 5 3 Key for Figure 5 3. Regular font Bold font Bold and underlined font Frequency Intermittently Weekly to monthly Daily Temporality Only during lesson During and after lesson Before, during, after lesson Duration Brief support Moderate support Extended support Consistency Provided intermittently Provided sometimes Provided every time Reliability Support and provision changed Support or provision changed Same support, same way Specificity Generalizable Somewhat specific Highly specific Responsiveness Unresponsive to student/needs Somewhat responsive Highly responsive to needs Strength of rationale Weak or confusing Uneven Clear

PAGE 237

237 Figure 5 1. Diagram of grounded theory of negotiating support for included students with disabilities Context Consequences Supports/Practices Subject Student Self Student Struggles

PAGE 238

238 Figure 5 reen, connectedness. The length of the legs corresponds to the intensity of the property: long is high intensity medium l ength is medium intensity and short is low intensity or no representation in the dataset. The center black dot represents the nature relative to the descriptions in the first column Red legs have nothing at the end, green legs hav e a ball at the end, and blue legs have a serif.

PAGE 239

239 Figure 5 2. Continued

PAGE 240

240 Figure 5 2. Continued

PAGE 241

241 Figure 5 2. Continued

PAGE 242

242 Supports Frequency Temporality Duration Consistency Reliability Specificity Responsiveness Rationale Procedural Help student understand task M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O Help student complete task M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O Behavioral Part of school initiative M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O initiative M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O Psychological and Affective Motivational M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O Emotional M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O Academic Vary intensity M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O Vary format of Instruction M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O Increase explicitness of Instruction M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O Instructional Aids M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O Adjusting Process M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O Adjusting Product M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O Strategy Instruction M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O M D N O Note: The property specifications are descriptive and are not meant to be interpreted as measurements. The teachers are represented by their initials, except for M o nica, who is represented by O ( M aggie, D an, and N ora). T he key is explained in Table 5 3 Figure 5 Students with Disabilities

PAGE 243

243 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between secondary Language classes and the supports they provided for those students. Through interviews and observations with participant teachers disabilities in meeting the challenges of secondary level general education Language Ar ts classes, and how those beliefs were related to the ways they helped students with disabilities make progress towards instructional goals. Research questions included: 1. s upports for learning they provide for students with disabilities included in their classes? 2. What are the supports for learning secondary general education Language Arts teachers provide for students with learning disabilities included in their classes? 3. Wha t kinds of beliefs are related to teacher practice in the area of providing support for included students with disabilities? 4. practices? To answer the research questions I anal yzed the dataset using procedures for developing grounded theory detailed in Chapter 3. Grounded theory analysis procedures culminated in a theory specified through the identification of relationships among the properties and dimensions of categories detai led in Chapter 5. The grounded theory of negotiating support for included students with disabilities in secondary language arts classes was explained through a visual model and a series of propositions. The model portrayed the relationships among the categ ories in the grounded theory; the propositions expressed specific relationships. The Causal Condition was that the student struggled or was expected to struggle within the Context. The Core

PAGE 244

244 Phenomenon was Negotiating Support: teachers decided on Action/Int eraction strategies to arts, and students with disabilities were Intervening Conditions that affected how they Negotiated Support and the Action/Interaction str ategies they chose. Use of the strategies had Consequences. Depending on the Consequences, teachers either ceased Negotiating Support, or noticed the student continued to struggle and began Negotiating Support again. Each of the categories in the model int beliefs. Five propositions about the relationships among the categories, dimensions, and p roperties of dimensions were derived from and grounded in the data. They are: supports they provided for students with disabilities because subject matter beliefs exerted a strong influence on both the academic context for learning and the perceived needs of students with disabilities within that context. about students with disabiliti specificity of the supports, and the strength of the rationale for the supports provided. P to the kinds of supports provided. were related to the overall amount of support provided.

PAGE 245

245 transmitted or constructed was related to: a) the frequency with which they supported students with disabilities by allowing student choice, and b ) the aids they provided to assist students with homework. Discussion The results of this study are significant for researchers seeking to understand the especially in the secondary school context Pri or to my study, only two studies (Moni, Jobling, van Kraayenoord, Elkins, Miller & Koppenhaver, 2007; Robinson, 2002) examin ed how general education were related to their practice s for supporting students with learning disabilities included in their classes; both studies In this study, several specific lities included in their secondary level general education language arts classes were explained in the and practices. In addition, the grounded theory provide s a model for investigating the are several limitations to this st udy, the findings support and extend existing research and theory and have several implications for further research. In the following sections, I discuss links to the extant literature, limitations of the study and implications of the study. Grossman and Stodolsky (1995) said the school subject is an important context for and influence on the beliefs and practices of secondary school teachers. Other researchers in general ated to their instructional practices (Konopak, Wilson & Readance, 1994; Stipek, Givven, Salmon &

PAGE 246

246 MacGyvers, 2001; Yerrick, Park & Nugent, 1997). Their findings were supported by the findings d to supporting students with language arts were an important influence on what they expected students with disabilities would learn in their classroom s and how they supported them in meeting their instructional goals Teachers subject area beliefs influenced how they structured their classes and hence the demands they placed on students. Once they had placed particular demands, teachers provided supports that a ddressed those demands. the tasks or goals they set, and the supports they provided were related to those goals. n influenced the supports they provided for students with disabilities, supporting and extending previous research on epistemological beliefs influenced their practice for general education students (Brickhouse 1990; Kang & Wallace, 2004; Richardson, Anders, Tidwell & Lloyd, 1991; Thompson, 1984) This study also supported previous findings that general education teachers were favorably disposed to including students with disabilities (Baker & Zigmond, 1990; S chumm & Vaughn, 1992; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996) and two were even willing to go beyond what they did for other students Two of the four teachers in this study planned specific supports for students with disabilities and were willing to provide extra support for them, unlike the teachers described in earlier studies (Baker & Zigmond; Schumm & Vaughn). Perhaps things have changed in the 15 20 years since those stu dies were completed ; it is not clear from my data why my findings were different. The difference may be associated with the four individuals that participated in my study, differences in how teachers might perceive their subject, differences in some genera l

PAGE 247

247 education teachers views of their respo nsibility for students with disabilities, differences in the context, or other unknown influences. It is interesting that of the two teachers who were willing to restructure instruction for students with disabiliti es one was a relatively new teacher and the other had a background in reading intervention Additionally, the findings in this study support previous research on elementary education teachers working with students with disabilities. Just as Jordan & Stano vich established in their 2003 study, I found that practices to support them. Beliefs about students with disabilities in this study were related to the kinds of support provided for them This study also extends previous research by noting not only lated to were stronger, more specific and connected to other beliefs had clear relationships to their practice. Schumm, Vaughn, Haager, McDowell, Rothlein and Sa umell (1995) reported that general education teachers varied in the degree to which they believed they were responsible for the learning of included students with disabilities. Their assertion was supported by the findings of this study. One teacher believ ed she was solely responsible and the other three believed students, and in the case of one teacher, parents, shared in the responsibility for student learning. f urther; in this study, those beliefs were related to the amount of support provided for students with disabilities.

PAGE 248

248 I also found that Beliefs in each category for an individual teacher had similar properti within each category were consistent in terms of strength, specificity and connectedness within each teacher, lending support to the idea that beliefs are organized into systems. As in past research, interviews and observation s seemed to provide an adequate way of seemed especially helpful in that it gave teachers multiple opportunities to consider and express their beliefs. In addit ion, the concept maps were revealing and also provided good impetus for reflection because the teachers talked aloud while they completed them. Limitations There were several limitations to this study. Most importantly, it was not possible to determine ho w context specific the grounded theory is. F irst my study only involved four teachers providing language arts instruction. These same findings may not hold for other secondary language arts teachers or other secondary teachers providing instruction in mat hematics, science, social studies, etc. Second my study took place in one school, and unique features of that school context may make it difficult to generalize findings from this study to teachers in other secondary contexts. Rich descriptions of the tea provided to allow reader s to j u dge for themselves how applicable the findings might be to another context. The propositions detailed relationships between only two of the grounded theory the students, and the consequences of how teachers negotiated support for students with

PAGE 249

249 practi ces and did not include extensive data gathering on the other categories in the model that would enable conclusions to be drawn about relationships among them. other persons who may have significant influences on the model, such as: the special education support staff, administration, students, and parents. A better understanding of contextual influences would have been gained by interviewing more persons. In addition gathering data on more students per teacher in a more systematic fashion may have contributed to a fuller description of how the students struggled, what their needs were, and what they believed about the ways teachers provided support to them. There wa practices, and not on whether their practices were effective. The question of how teach beliefs are related to the use of effective practice, however, is an important one for future research. Finally, this study by its nature forced teachers to carefully consider their beliefs related to supporting students with disabilities. It is poss influenced by the study itself. Teachers knew that their beliefs and practices for supporting students with disabilities were being examined. In addition, the interviews required teachers to reflect on their b eliefs. Teachers were repeatedly asked to make their beliefs explicit. Finally, my observations for the express purpose of looking at practices to support students with disabilities may have influenced their beliefs and practices.

PAGE 250

250 Implications This study has several implications for future research on the relationships between ecificity and addressed the needs of students with disabilities and investigating the relationships between the ices seems to be warranted based on the findings of researchers the degree to which they used those practices. Further, researchers should consider some way o f establishing the appropriateness of implemented. The focus of this study was to provide an understanding of how teachers were related to their practices; future researc h ers should examine the degree to which the practices teachers select are indeed helpful to students with disabilities. This way, links between beliefs, practices, and the effectiveness of practices could be made. Researchers in special education have focused on developing effective interventions for students with disabilities. Researchers have considered less often however, how teachers select and implement interventions. Teachers varied considerably in terms of selection and implementation of suppor ts in the data gathered for this study. Research on how to assist teachers in both selecting appropriate strategies and supports and developing structures for implementing such supports for students with disabilities within the secondary general education context seems warranted. The teachers were willing to provide extra help to their students with disabilities, but

PAGE 251

251 they could not always overcome the limitations of the context. More research is needed on how to support teachers in incorporating effective i nterventions and learning how to do so within a context that traditionally has privileged undifferentiated whole class instruction. they provided for teaching students with disabiliti es. Teachers had considerable latitude in interpreting the goals of their language arts classes, and the differences in their beliefs may have implications for teachers emphasized skills, one emphasized content, and one emphasized immersion in literature. These beliefs affected the tasks they selected and the supports they provided. Investigating how content area beliefs affect supports and outcomes for students with disabilities seems like a the subject area, and they supported students mainly in meeting those goals. The two teachers that emphasized skills acquisiti on in this study provided supports that were more frequent, of Research connecting beliefs, supports provided and outcomes for students with disabilities seems productive, but in order to implement such studies, researchers will need to be able to quantify what are undoubtedly complex belief systems as well as practices and student achievement. Why two teachers were able to provide such comparatively comprehensive support, however, wa s not clear. There are many possible influences on teachers : life experiences, teacher preparation programs, and professional development for example Further research is warranted on the role various influences play in shaping secondary general education teachers beliefs about working with students with disabilities. On a related note, research is necessary on

PAGE 252

252 how teachers existing beliefs might affect how they use what they have learned during teacher preparation or professional development. provided. Specifically, two of the teachers believed that the provision of teacher directed individual instruction that was planned and focused was part of their role s and two did not. The other two teachers took a more reactive approach, providing supports after students had difficulty. Why some teachers believed that they should and were able to take more proactive, planful, and focused approaches to educating studen ts with disabilities is hard to determine based on this study. Finally, an urgent need in the current educational context is the development of a model for supporting students with disabilities within the secondary context. First, the field needs to come to agreement about what teachers need to know and be able to do to support students with disabilities within the secondary context. Second, structures need to be developed that ensure the systematic provision of that knowledge to teachers in the field and support for implementing it. In addition, the role of the special education teacher is in flux at the moment as more and more students spend more and more time in the general education classroom. Teachers in the study seemed unsure about how the special ed ucation support staff could support them or what their roles might be in implementing such support. Research is needed to inform policy decisions about how students with disabilities will be supported in this changing context and what kinds of structures f or supporting both student and teacher learning would confer the most benefit to students.

PAGE 253

253 APPENDIX A RECRUITMENT AND INFO RMED CONSENT FORMS Recruitment and Informed Consent Hello, I am a student researcher in the Department of Special Education at the University of Florida. I am conducting a study to examine beliefs about teaching and learning of teachers for students with disabilities included in general education classes. The study is being conducted under the supervision of Dr. Mary T. Brownell. I am contacting you because you have been personally recommended to me as a teacher who is working with students with disabilities within a general education secondary Language Arts class. The investigation of this study focuses on attempting to answer the qu estions: (a) What are the kinds of beliefs about language arts held by teachers who teach inclusive classes? (b) What are the kinds of beliefs teachers of inclusive classes hold about the relationship between the content and students with disabilities? (c) responsibilities? And (d) how do beliefs shape practice? I am particularly interested in this area learn. So many students with disabilities struggle to succeed in the general education curriculum, particularly at the secondary level. We need teachers with a high level of knowledge and expertise to address their needs. Teacher beliefs are important to whether and how teachers use what they know and also to how they learn. I decided to do this study because teacher beliefs about students with disabilities affect both knowledge and practice, but are not well understood. With your permission, I would like to inv ite you to participate in this research study. Here are the details that will help you determine if you are interested in supporting my efforts. If you agree to participate you will be asked to: (a) Allow me to observe and videotape 4 or 5 instruction period s in your classroom, and to take detailed notes on the instruction you provide. (b) Participate in 4 or 5 30 40 minute interviews during which you will be asked questions concerning your beliefs about the teaching and learning of students with disabilities. Th e interviews will be recorded. (c) Provide me with documents such as lesson plans, instructional materials, and student work examples. (d) Draw a concept map that visually shows the relationships among ideas you raised in the interviews. (e) Complete a checklist, a d ata sheet, and 2 questionnaires. (f) Assist in the collection of parent and child consent forms. You are not required to answer any questions that you do not wish to answer. The interviewer will be taking notes throughout the interview, which will be recorded Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. In order to protect your privacy and the privacy of

PAGE 254

254 your employing institution, all names will be replaced with a code number or pseudonym. Only the principal investigator will have access to the audio recordings of the interviews. These recordings will be secured in a password protected computer and will be destroyed at the conclusion of the study. A decision to participate in this study is completely voluntary. You have the right t o withdraw consent for your participation at any time without any consequence. I will be willing to discuss this study with you at any time and will answer any questions. There are no known risks or immediate benefits to the participation. There is no comp ensation for participating in the study, For questions regarding your rights as a research participant, contact the IRB at 352 392 0433. For other questions about this study contact: Mary Theresa Kiely Department of Special Education G 315 Norman Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 7050 Phone: 352 392 0701 ext. 282 or 305 304 4988 E mail: mary.theresa.kiely@gmail.com Or Mary T. Brownell, Ph.D. Department of Special Education G 315 Norman Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 7050 Phone: 352 392 0701 ext. 249 E mail: mbrownell@coe.ufl.edu By agreeing, you are granting your consent to be a participant in this study. Would you be willing to support my efforts? YES, I agree to be in this study. __________________________ Participant Signature

PAGE 255

255 Consent Form for Parents o f _______________________ _____________________________ Student name Dear Parent o r Guardian, I am a doctoral student in the Department of Special Education at the University of Florida and I called: The Relationship between Secondary Langua related to the Teaching and Learning of Included Students with Disabilities. has agreed to participate in this study that will assist me in gaining new insights that may help improve education fo r students with disabilities. The purpose of this study is to investigate the beliefs secondary teachers have about how to teach students with disabilities and how students with disabilities learn. I am looking at classroom instruction in order to be able to ask the teacher questions about specific instructional decisions and I will be video taping his/her lessons to better understand the instruction. The videotaping rts of any kind. Children involved in our study will not receive any compensation. the study will not affect his or her grades or treatment at school. Please note that you or your child may withdraw from the research study at any time without penalty. If you would like to give permission for your child to participate, please sign the attached letter under the word YES. If you wish to refuse participation there is also a space to sign. If you have any questions, please contact Mary Theresa Kiely at G 315 Norman Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611. You may also call (352) 392 0701 or email mtkny@ufl.edu Questions or concerns about Gainesville, Florida 32611, (352) 392 0433. Sincerely, Mary Theresa Kiely me: ___________________________ I have read the attached letter. I have received a copy of this description and hereby give consent for ________________________________________________________

PAGE 256

256 to be videotaped. YES, I will all ow my child to participate in this study. ____________________________________________________________________ Parent/Guardian Date NO, I refuse to allow my child to participate in this study. ____________________________________________________________________ Parent/Guardian Date

PAGE 257

257 ____________________________ Child Assent Script Good afternoon, children. Please follow along as I read this form to you. I am con ducting a research study as part of my doctoral degree study at the University of Florida. I am looking at how your teacher helps students learn. To help me understand what she is doing, I will be videotaping her teaching so I can look at it again, and loo king at some examples of student work so I can see how she helps students improve. You may appear in the tape, or your work may be selected as an example of student work. You can decline to participate without penalty of any kind. There is no benefit for participating. Do you agree to participate in my study? Please circle yes or no, and write or sign your name on the line. Yes ___________________________________ (your name) No, I do not want to participate. ________________________________ (your name)

PAGE 258

258 Script/Letter to Solicit Teacher Recommendations Hello, I am a student researcher in the Department of Special Education at the University of Florida. I am conducting a study to examine the beliefs of secondary Language Arts teachers of stude nts with disabilities included in general education classes. The study focuses on the following questions: (a) What kinds of beliefs about the teaching and learning of students with disabilities are held by general education secondary Language Arts teach ers? (b) What kinds of beliefs do these teachers hold about their roles and responsibilities related to students with disabilities in their classes? And (c) How are these beliefs related to practice? I am particularly interested in this area because teach what teachers do and on how they learn. So many students with disabilities struggle to succeed in the general education curriculum, particularly at the secondary level. We need teachers with a high level of knowl edge and expertise to address their needs. I decided to do this study because teacher beliefs about students with disabilities affect both knowledge and practice, but are not well understood. With your permission, I would like to invite teachers at your s chool to participate in this research study. Here are the details that will help you determine if you are interested in supporting my efforts. Participating teachers will be asked to: (a) Allow me to observe, videotape, and take detailed notes on 4 or 5 inst ructional periods. (b) Participate in 4 or 5 30 40 minute interviews concerning their beliefs about students with disabilities and the experiences that contributed to those beliefs. The interviews will be tape recorded. (c) Provide me with documents such as copi es of lesson plans, instructional materials, and anonymous student work. (d) Draw a concept map that visually shows the relationships among ideas raised in the interviews. (e) Complete a checklist, a data sheet, and 2 questionnaires. (f) Assist in the collection of parent and child consent forms. The identity of the district, school and teachers will be kept confidential. In order to protect the privacy of all concerned, all names will be replaced with a code number or pseudonym. There is no compensation for partici knowledgeable person at your school would recommend as b eing a more effective instructor for the students with disabilities included in their general education classes. These teachers do not all have to be in your school.

PAGE 259

259 If you do decide to support my research efforts, I would like to know what teachers you can recommend at your school, or, who else at your school I could talk to for a recommendation. Thank you. Sincerely, Mary Theresa Kiely For questions about this study, contact: Mary Theresa Kiely Department of Special Education G 315 Norman Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 7050 Phone: 352 392 0701 ext. 282 or 305 304 4988 E mail: mary.theresa.kiely@gmail.com Or Mary T. Brownell, Ph.D. Department of Special Education G 315 Norman Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 7050 Phone: 352 392 0701 ext. 249 E mail: mbrownell@coe.ufl.edu

PAGE 260

260 APPENDIX B INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS Interview One The Pathognomic Interventionist Beliefs Interview (Stanovich & Jordan, 2003) By the end of the interview, five topics will be covered i n whatever sequence they arose in student with disabilities that is struggling with the curriculum. The initial probe is: Tell me about your experiences over the c ourse of the school year with one of your students with disabilities who is struggling with the curriculum. The topics are: 1. 1. initial concerns about and assessments of the student, (collecting data and observations, gathering information from previous te achers, school records and parents, conducting informal assessment) 2. 2. instructional programming, (modifying curriculum, making accommodations in instructional and evaluation techniques), 3. 3. monitoring and reviewing student progress, (provisions for forma tive evaluation, working with the in school team), 4. 4. communication with staff, (whether and for what purpose the teacher collaborates with colleagues and resource staff about the student, whether programs are coordinated with those offered by resource per sonnel), and 5. 5. communication with parents (how often and for what purpose the teacher communicates with/reports to the student's parents). Interviewees will be prompted to provide information about the 5 topic areas as necessary. An example probe might be: Were you able to consult with any other school staff about the difficulties your student experiences?

PAGE 261

261 Interview Two Interview Two is a semi structured interview in two parts that will take place after Interview One. In Part One, teachers will be prompted to explain their rationale for selected statements from Interview One. For example, if the teacher reports during I nterview One that at the beginning of the school year she went to great lengths to obtain records and data pertaining to a specific student, in Interview Two I might ask the following questions: 1. Why did you put so much effort into obtaining the records? 2. Ho w did you know that you should get the records? 3. Did you obtain records for any other students? Why? 4. Did you have any past experiences that underscored the importance of obtaining student records early in the year? 5. How/were the records helpful? Decisions o r actions for discussion will be selected based on my assessment of the probability that they will provide a substantial basis for discussion. In Part Two, participants will be asked about various beliefs. The protocol is as follows: Inform the particip area and your roles and responsibilities relative to students with disabilities. If at any time in the interview you think of something that seems important, please feel free to inter rupt your respo uestions: 1. 1. Describe your beliefs about Language Arts. What kinds of statements could you make about your content area that begin: I believe .? How is your content area structured? What does it include ? How do you decide what to teach? How do you plan lessons, ie, in terms of time period, selection of content and materials, decisions about pacing? 2. 2. How well are students with disabilities able to perform within the Language Arts curriculum? What kinds of difficulties do they have? How well are you able to help

PAGE 262

262 students overcome those challenges? How might Language Arts be harder or easier for students with disabilities than other subjects? 3. 3. What are your roles and responsibilities relative to the st udents with disabilities in your classes? How do you figure out the needs of your students with disabilities and progress you were hoping to see? 4. 4. What kinds of supports are avai lable to you to help support your instruction of students with disabilities here at the school? Do you think more support should be available? What form would that take? 5. 5. What experiences in your life do you think have contributed to your knowledge, ide as, or beliefs about students with disabilities?

PAGE 263

263 Interview Three This interview will concern topics for discussion selected from previous interview and observations for the purpose of firming up (a) the emergent theory, (b) understandings about the teach be framed to investigate any of those three areas or the relationships among them. At the end of this interview, participants will complete the checklist of incl usive practices and the two questionnaires detailed below. Questions about practice might include items such as: 1. On Tuesday, I noticed that you broke the students into several groups. Why? 2. How did you determine who went in what groups? 3. Do students often work groups? Why/why not? 4. Do students stay in the same groups for a period of time? Why/why not? 5. Does this practice enhance instruction for students with disabilities? How? 6. Can you show me examples of the work they did? 7. How did the group technique make a difference for {student}? Did s/he make progress, master the objective? How can you tell? 8. How did you know to use this technique? 9. How is your use of this technique consistent with your beliefs about [communication, etc, something from previous interviews] OR before, you said that you believed individual mastery of curriculum goals by each student is critical to their future success. Is this inconsistent with group work? 10. How do you grade work done in groups? Why?

PAGE 264

264 Interview Four Interview Four will entail p analysis of the data to ensure I have not misrepresented their ideas. Discussion will center on clarification of the emerging representation of their beliefs. During this interview, participants wil l draw a concept map to represent the relationships among major ideas elicited in the interviews and observations.

PAGE 265

265 APPENDIX C TEACHER DATA SHEET Name and Room # Email address Phone number Certification area(s) Degree areas, levels, and institutions Number of years teaching (total) Number of years teaching at your school Number of years teaching Language Arts Number of years teaching Language Arts at your school Have you taught any other preps or subjects? Please describe. Number of years teaching in an inclusive setting How many courses have you completed related to students with disabilities or special education? Please describe. How many hours of workshops or professional development related to students with disabilities or special education have you completed? Please describe. How many hours per week do you spend in consultation with a special educator at your school discussing your students?

PAGE 266

266 Schedule and Students Period Room Class Title Grade Level Number of Students Number of Students with Disabilities like to make about the class or students

PAGE 267

267 LIST OF REFERENCES Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children 56 (6), 515 526. Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for students with learning dis abilities: Themes and implications from the five cases. The Journal of Special Education 29 (2), 163 180. Bender, W. N., Vail, C. O., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers' attitudes toward increased mainstreaming: Implementing effective instruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 28 (2), 87 94. Berry, R. A. (2006). Beyond strategies: Teacher beliefs and writing instruction in two primary inclusion classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities 39 (1), 11 24. Borg, S. (2 006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum. Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673 708). New York, NY: MacMillan. Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers' beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education 41 (3), 53 62. Brighton, C. M. (2003). The effects of middle scho ol teachers' beliefs on classroom practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 27 (2), 177 206. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher Student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Brownlee, J. M., Boulton Lewis, G. M., & Purdie, N. M. (2001). Core beliefs about knowing and peripheral beliefs about learning: Developing an holistic conceptualisation of epistemological beliefs. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology 2 1 16. Br uner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ Pr. Clark, C. M., & Yinger, R. J. (1987). Teacher planning. Exploring Teachers Thinking 84 103. Bullock, A. L., & Galbraith, L. (1992). Images of art teaching: Comparing the belief s and practices of two secondary art teachers. Studies in Art Education 33 (2), 86 97. Burnard, P. (2008). A phenomenological study of music teachers' approaches to inclusive education practices among disaffected youth. Research Studies in Music Education 30 (1), 59 75.

PAGE 268

268 Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709 25). New York, NY: Macmillan. Carter, E. W., & Hughes, C. (2006). Including high school students with severe disabilities in general education classes: Perspectives of general and special educators, paraprofessionals, and administrators. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 31 (2 ), 174 185. Clark, C. P., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255 96). New York, NY: MacMillan. Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., & Landrum, T. J. (2000). Teachers' at titudes toward their included students with disabilities. Exceptional Children 67 (1), 115 135. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Cr eswell, J. W., & Brown, M. L. (1992). How chairpersons enhance faculty research: A grounded theory study. Review of Higher Education 16 (1), 41 62. Crockett, & Jean, B. (2004). Taking stock of science in the schoolhouse. Journal of Learning Disabilities 37 (3), 189 199. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cunningham, A. E., Zibulsky, J., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2009). How teachers would spend th eir time teaching language arts. Journal of Learning Disabilities 42 (5), 487 510. DeFord, D. E. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly 20 (3), 351 367. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eisenhart, M. A., Shrum, J. L., Harding, J. R., & Cuthbert, A. M. (1988). Teacher beliefs: Definitions, findings, and directions. Educational Policy 2 (1), 51. Fang, Z. (1996). A revie w of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research 38 (1), 47 65. Farrell, T. S. C., & Lim, P. C. P. (2005). Conceptions of grammar teaching: A case study of TESL EJ 9 (2), 1 13. Fishbein, M ., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

PAGE 269

269 Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1998). Competing visions for educating students with disabilities: Inclusion versus full incl usion. Childhood Education 74 (5). Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Instructional adaptation for students at risk. The Journal of Educational Research 70 84. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology 76 (4), 569 582. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Fink Chorzempa, B., & MacArthur, C. (2003). Primary grade teachers' instructional adaptations for struggling writers: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology 95 (2), 279 292. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C., & Fink, B. (2002). Primary grade teachers' theoretical orientations concerning writing instruction: Construct validation and a nationwide survey. Contemporary Educational Psychology 27 (2), 147 166. Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher 24 (8), 5 23. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105 117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hodge, S. R., Ammah, J. O. A., Casebolt, K., Lamaster, K., & O'Sullivan M. (2004). High school general physical education teachers' behaviors and beliefs associated with inclusion. Sport, Education & Society 9 (3), 395 419. Hofer, B. K. (2002). Personal epistemology as a psychological and educational construct: An introducti on. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 3 14). Mahwah, N. J.: Psychology Press. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Personal epistemology : The psychology of belief s about knowledge and knowing Mahwah, N.J.: Psychology Press. Howerton. (2006). Thesis, University of Texas at Austin. Jordan, A., Glenn, C., & McGhie Richmond, D. (2010). The su pporting effective teaching (SET) project: The relationship of inclusive teaching practices to teachers' beliefs about disability and ability, and about their roles as teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studi es 26 (2), 259 266. Jordan, A., Kircaali Iftar, G., & Diamond, C. T. P. (1993). Who has a problem, the student or the teacher? Differences in teachers' beliefs about their work with at risk and integrated exceptional students. International Journal of Dis ability, Development and Education 40 (1), 45 62. Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2001). Patterns of teacher -student interaction in inclusive

PAGE 270

270 elementary classrooms and correlates with student self concept. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 48 (1), 33 52. Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2003). Teachers' personal epistemological beliefs about students with disabilities as indicators of effective teaching practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 3 (1), 1 14. Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2004). The beliefs and practices of Canadian teachers about including students with special needs in their regular elementary classrooms. Exceptionality Education Canada 14 (2), 25 46. Jordan, A., Lindsay, L., & Stanovich, P. J. (1997). Classroom teachers' instructional interactions with students who are exceptional, at risk, and typically achieving. Remedial and Special Education 18 (2), 82 93. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implication s of research on teacher belief. Educational Psych ologist 27 (1), 65 90. Kagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership 47 (4), 12 15. Kan g, N. H., & Wallace, C. S. (2004 ). Secondary science teachers' use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs goals, and practices. Science Education 89 (1), 140 165. Kiely, M. T. (2008, April). Examining teacher knowledge of writing instruction for students with disabilities included in secondary Language Arts classes Presentation at the annual Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Convention and Expo, Boston. and practices about content area reading in secondary social studies. In C. K. Lincoln, Y. S., & Gub a, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lombard, R. C., Miller, R. J., & Hazelkorn, M. N. (1998). School To Work and technical preparation: Teacher attitudes and practices regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities. Car eer Development for Exceptional Individuals 21 (2), 161 172. McIntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Haager, D., & Lee, O. (1993). Observations of students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children 60 249 249. Mo ni, K. B., Jobling, A., van Kraayenoord, C. E., Elkins, J., Miller, R., & Koppenhaver, D. (2007). Teachers' knowledge, attitudes and the implementation of practices around the teaching of writing in inclusive middle years' classrooms: No quick fix. Educati onal and Child Psychology 24 (3), 18 36.

PAGE 271

271 Morrow, S. L., & Smith, M. L. (1995). Constructions of survival and coping by women who have survived childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Counseling Psychology 42 (1), 24 33. Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers' beliefs in research on teacher thinking and decision making, and an alternative methodology. Instructional Science 11 (3), 201 225. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Cur riculum Studies 19 (4), 317 328. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1995). Critical incidents in the science classroom and t he nature of science. School Science Review 76 (276), 41 46. Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1998). Formalist thinking and language arts instruction: Teachers' and students' beliefs about truth and caring in the teaching conversation. Teaching and Teacher Educ ation: An International Journal of Research and Studies 14 (8), 855 870. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research 62 (3), 307 332. Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1985). Reciprocal teaching: A means to a meaningful end. Reading Education: Foundations for a Literate America 299 310. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Peterson, P. L., & Clar teaching. American Educational Research Journal 15 (4), 555 565. Pressley, M., Rankin, J., & Yokoi, L. (1996). A survey of instructional practices of primary teachers nominated as effe ctive in promoting literacy. The Elementary School Journal 96 (4), 363 384. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp 102 119). New York: MacMillan. Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal 28 (3), 559 586. Robinson, S. (2002). Teaching high school students with learning and emotional disabilities in inclusion science classrooms: A case study of four teachers' beliefs and practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education 13 (1), 13 26.

PAGE 272

272 Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attit udes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. orientation toward reading and student outcomes in kindergarten children wit h different initial reading abilities. American Educational Research Journal 34 (4), 721 739. Schommer, M. (1993). Comparisons of beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning among postsecondary students. Research in Higher Education 34 (3), 355 370. Schommer Aikins, M. (2002). An evolving theoretical framework for an epistemological belief system. Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing 1 103 118. Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2001). Implementing the regular education initiative in secondary schools: A different ball game. Journal of Learning Disabilities 21 (1), 36 42. Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1992). Planning for mainstreamed special education students: Perceptions of general classroom teacher s. Exceptionality 3 (2), 81 98. Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Meaningful professional development in accommodating students with disabilities lessons learned. Remedial and Special Education 16 (6), 344. Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Gordon, J. & Rothlei n, L. (1994). General education teachers' beliefs, skills, and practices in planning for mainstreamed students with learning disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education 17 (1), 22 37. Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Haager, D., McD owell, J., Rothlein L., & Saumell, L. (1995). General education teacher planning: What can students with learning disabilities expect? Exceptional Children 61 (4), 335 352. Schwandt, T.A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118 137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958 1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children 63 (1), 59 74 Shanahan, D. (1997). Articulating the relationship between language, literature, and culture: Toward a new agenda for foreign language teaching and research. The Modern Language Journal 81 (2), 164 174. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research p rograms in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3 36). New York: MacMillan.

PAGE 273

273 Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M., & Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, student, and school attribute s as predictors of teachers' responses to inclusion. The Journal of Special Education 31 (4), 480. Stanovich, P. J. (1994). behaviors as predictors of effective inclusion of exceptional and at risk students. Thesis, University of Toronto. Stanovich, P. J., & Jordan, A. (1998). Canadian teachers' and principals' be liefs about inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching in heterogeneous classrooms. The Elementary School Journal 98 (3), 221 238. Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers' beliefs and practices relate d to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies 17 (2), 213 226. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications, Inc. Thompson, A. G. (1984). The relationship of teachers' conceptions of mathematics and mathe matics teaching to instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics 15 (2), 105 127. U. S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. (2010). Free Appropriate Public Education for Students With Disabilities: Requirements Under Section 504 o f the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Washington, D.C. White. (2007). Characteristics of classroom teachers which contribute to their professional growth in implementing inclusive classroom practices. Thesis, University of Toronto. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17 (2), 89 100. Yerrick, R., Parke, H., & Nugent, J. (1997). Struggling to promote deeply rooted change: The filtering effect of teachers' beliefs on unde rstanding transformational views of teaching science. Science Education 81 (2), 137 159.

PAGE 274

274 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Mary Theresa Kiely PhD, of Collaborative Professional Development Groups and Coaching on the Literacy Instruction of efforts of personnel in 3 states and managing 2 re search sites in Florida. She contributed to most aspects of the project, including the development of materials and instrumentation and has developed expertise in managing large projects that involve liaising with school districts, collecting and maintaining large amounts of data, recruiting and collaborating with numerous participants, and coordinating more than 20 personnel. She also contributed to the research aims of the project by working with project personnel and doctoral students to produce papers and presentations, and she is competent in both qualitative and quantitative data analysis. Mary Theresa has delivered more than 25 presentations at national and international conferences, including: CEC, AERA, PCR C, IRA, and TED and is an author on 5 peer reviewed Leadership Award conferred in 2011. She is a member of the board of the Council for or Research. Her research interests include teacher learning, teacher cognition, reading, writing, language arts, and teaching and learning for students with high incidence disabilities. Prior to her doctoral program, Mary Theresa taught English at Homeste ad Senior High School and Key West High School in Florida and Evander Childs High School in the Bronx. She lish Literature an d Journ alism with a minor in Secondary Education from Iona College in New Rochelle.