Citation
Perceptions of Korean Special Education Teachers regarding the Importance and Extent of Administrative Support

Material Information

Title:
Perceptions of Korean Special Education Teachers regarding the Importance and Extent of Administrative Support
Creator:
Choi, Nari
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (171 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Special Education
Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies
Committee Chair:
CROCKETT,JEAN B
Committee Co-Chair:
BROWNELL,MARY T
Committee Members:
LOMBARDINO,LINDA J
MILLER,DAVID

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
principals -- support
Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Special Education thesis, Ph.D.

Notes

Abstract:
Administrative support from school principals is considered to be an important factor influencing special education teachers' (SETs) job satisfaction, their work stress, retention and commitment to their work, and potentially the achievement of their students. Despite the importance of administrative support, few researchers have investigated the value of different kinds of administrative support as perceived by special education teachers. Furthermore, data suggest special education teachers are not always provided with the support they want or need to receive the most. In South Korea, about 60% of special education teachers (SETs) are employed in general education schools. General school principals are legally responsible for overseeing the delivery of special education, but little is known about how SETs receive administrative support from their principals and what kinds of support they believe are most important. This is a timely and relevant problem to address because appropriate administrative support could help to reduce the reported challenges experienced by these Korean SETs. The purpose of this study was to measure the validity of the Administrative Support Questionnaire (ASQ) for use in examining the perceptions of SETs regarding administrative support provided by principals in South Korean general education schools. In addition, this study was also conducted to understand the SETs' perceptions of both the importance and extent of the administrative support provided by their school principals, and to identify the gap between the extent of and importance of administrative support. House's (1981) four-dimensional framework of social supports provided the conceptual foundation that informed the study's survey methods. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) results provided validity evidence of the ASQ for use in Korea. The EFA of survey data from 141 SETs in a rural Korean province revealed that four types of administrative support were considered important: emotional, appraisal, informational, and instrumental support, as posited by the House (1981) framework. For the extent of administrative support, however, only one type of administrative support was found indicating SETs identified any support they received as general support. SETs perceived emotional and instrumental support to be more important than appraisal and informational support. Furthermore, a paired t-test revealed significant mean differences between the extent of and importance of administrative supports. SETs' comments indicate the need for principals to have greater knowledge and understanding of special education and the need for guidelines regarding suitable workload assignments for SETs in general schools. The results of this study could be used to improve Korean policies related to administrative support and to inform Korean policymakers about supports needed by SETs to teach students with disabilities in general education schools. ( en )
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.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2017.
Local:
Adviser: CROCKETT,JEAN B.
Local:
Co-adviser: BROWNELL,MARY T.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Nari Choi.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
LD1780 2017 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

PERCEPTIONS OF KOREAN SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE AND E XTENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT By NARI CHOI 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 201 7

PAGE 2

201 7 N ari C hoi

PAGE 3

This dissert ation is dedicated to my count r y South Korea

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am truly blessed t o have had such a wonderful advisor and committee members for my dissertation process -Drs Jean Crockett, Mary Brownell, Linda Lombardino, David Miller ; without their support, this accomplishment might not have been possible. Especially, I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Jean Crockett, for her support and dedication throug hout this dissertation journey. I earnestly appreciate the way she led me to think more broadly and beyond current issues. In addition, she helped me keep motivated toward what I want ed to know and also listened to my ideas carefully. I am not sure, one day, I could be an advisor or committee member to my students as she has be en to me. I sincerely appreciate Dr. David Miller for helping me analyze and interpret dissertation data. I also thank you for Drs Mary Brownell and Linda Lombardino for support ing me throughout this dissertation. In addition, I also appreciate my collea gues and professors outside of my dissertation committee. I would also like to express my gratitude to the provincial supervisor of special education and special education teachers who participated in my dissertation project as the subject. Finally, I wo uld like to thank my family and friends in Korea and the U.S

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ................................ ................................ ......... 14 Context for the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 14 Definition of Administrative Support for Teachers ................................ ................... 14 Importance of Administrative Support for SETs ................................ ...................... 16 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 21 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ .................... 21 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ......................... 22 Assumptions ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 23 Definitions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 23 Administrative/ Principal Support ................................ ................................ ...... 23 Special Education Class ................................ ................................ ................... 24 Inclusive Education ................................ ................................ .......................... 24 Signific ance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 24 Overview of the Dissertation ................................ ................................ ................... 25 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 26 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 26 Comparison of Specia l Education Contexts in the United States and South Korea ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 27 Schools in the United States ................................ ................................ ............ 28 Schools in South Korea ................................ ................................ .................... 33 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 51 Different Types of Administrative Support ................................ ............................... 5 2 Emotional Support ................................ ................................ ............................ 52 Appraisal Support ................................ ................................ ............................. 53 Informational Support ................................ ................................ ....................... 53 Instrumental Support ................................ ................................ ........................ 54 Applying the House Framework in American Studies ................................ ............. 54 Applying the House Framework in Korean Studies ................................ ................. 63 The Importance of Validity for the Administrative Support Questionnaire ............... 67

PAGE 6

6 The Importance of Reliability for the Administrative Support Questionnaire ........... 69 Discrepancies between the Importance and Extent of Administrative Supports ..... 70 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 74 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 74 Survey Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 75 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 75 Validity and Reliability of the Instrument ................................ ................................ 76 Survey Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 77 Emotional Support Questions ................................ ................................ ........... 79 Appraisal Support Questions ................................ ................................ ............ 81 Informational Support Questions ................................ ................................ ...... 82 Instrumental Support Questions ................................ ................................ ....... 84 Design of the Questionnaire ................................ ................................ ................... 87 Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 88 Data Analysis Procedures ................................ ................................ ....................... 89 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 92 The Results of Data Analysis ................................ ................................ .................. 92 Description of Demographic Data ................................ ................................ ..... 92 Descriptive Statistics ................................ ................................ ........................ 93 Construct Validity of the ASQ When Applied in South Korea ........................... 95 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results ................................ ........................ 96 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results ................................ .......................... 98 Reliability of the ASQ When A pplied in South Kore a ................................ ........ 99 Type of Administrative Support S ET s Have Received the Most ..................... 100 Types of Administrative Support SETs Think Are Important ........................... 100 Discrepancies in the Extent and Importance of Administrative Supports ....... 102 Additional Information ................................ ................................ ..................... 103 Analysis of Comments for Administrative Support ................................ .......... 103 5 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 120 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 120 ............... 121 Question 3: Types of Support Received Most ................................ ................ 126 Question 4: Most Important Types of Support ................................ ................ 127 Question 5: Gap between the Extent and Importance of Administrative Support ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 127 ................................ ................................ ........................... 128 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 132 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 133 Implications for Policy and Practices ................................ ................................ .... 135 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ............................... 136

PAGE 7

7 APPENDIX A ................................ ...... 137 B SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (KOREAN VERSION) ................................ ............. 139 C SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ ................ 147 D QUESTIONS TO ACCORDING TO EACH FACTORS ................................ ......... 155 E EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS IN THE RESULTS ................................ ... 157 F PAIRED T TEST RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................. 158 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 159 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 171

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Survey questions for emotional support. ................................ ............................ 90 3 2 Survey questions for appraisal support. ................................ ............................. 90 3 3 Survey questions for informational support. ................................ ....................... 90 3 4 Survey questions for instrumental support. ................................ ........................ 91 4 1 ................................ ...................... 106 4 2 ................................ ........................... 106 4 3 Frequency distribution for years of special education teaching experience. ..... 106 4 4 Frequency distribution of the number of students in special education class. .. 106 4 5 Frequency distribution of responses by current teaching grade level. .............. 106 4 6 Mean and standard deviation for the overall extent and importance of administrative support. ................................ ................................ ..................... 106 4 7 Mean and standard deviation for the extent and important of administrative support survey questions. ................................ ................................ ................. 107 4 8 Frequency distribution for the extent and importance of administra tive support survey questions. ................................ ................................ ................. 110 4 9 Factor loadings with oblique rotation ................................ ................................ 113 4 10 Factor correlation matrix for administrative support factors. ............................. 113 4 11 ted measures with ANOVA. ................... 114 4 12 Repeated measures ANOVA on the importance of administrative supports. ... 114 4 13 Mean and standard deviation for the importance of administrative support. ..... 114 4 14 Bonferroni post hoc comparison on the importance of administrative support 115 4 15 predictors. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 116 4 16 Regression for the importance of emotional support demographic predictors. ................................ ................................ ................... 116

PAGE 9

9 4 17 Regression for the importance of appraisal support demographic predictors. ................................ ................................ ................... 116 4 18 Regression for the importance of informational support demographic predictors. ................................ ................................ ................... 116 4 19 Regression for the importance of instrumental support demographic predictors. ................................ ................................ ................... 117 4 20 Respondents comments for administrative support. ................................ ......... 118 F 1 Paired samples test. ................................ ................................ ......................... 158

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 Means of the importance of administrative support ................................ .......... 115 E 1 Scree Plot for the Extent of Administrative Support. ................................ ......... 157 E 2 Scree Plot for the Importance of Administrative Support. ................................ 157

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Emotional and Behavioral Disorders Principal Component Analysis Principal Support Scale

PAGE 12

12 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 PERCEPTIONS OF KOREAN SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE AND E XTENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT By N ari C hoi May 201 7 Chair: J ean Crockett Major: S pecial Education Administrative support from school principals is considered to be an important retention and commitment to their work, and potentially the achievement of their students. Despite the importance of administrative support, few researchers have investigated the value of different kinds of administrative support as perceived by special education teachers. Furthermore, data suggest special educatio n teachers are not always provided with the support they want or need to receive the most. In South Korea, about 60% of special education teachers (SETs) are employed in general education schools. General school principals are legally responsible for over seeing the delivery of special education, but little is known about how SETs receive administrative support from their principals and what kinds of support they believe are most important. This is a timely and relevant problem to address because appropriat e administrative support could help to reduce the reported challenges experienced by these Korean SETs

PAGE 13

13 The purpose of this study was to measure the validity of the Administrative Support Questionnaire (ASQ) for use in examin ing the perceptions of SETs regarding administrative support provided by principals in South Korean general education schools. of both the importance and extent of the administrative support provided by their school principals, and to identify the gap between the extent of and importance of administrative support. dimensional framework of social supports provide d the conceptual foundation that inform ed E xploratory factor analysis (EFA) results provided validity evidence of the ASQ for use in Korea. The EFA of survey data from 141 SETs in a rural Korean province revealed that four types of administrative support were considered important: emotional, apprai sal, informational, and instrumental support, as posited by the House (1981) framework. For the extent of administrative support, however, only one type of ad ministrative support was found indicating SETs identified any support they received as general sup port SETs perceived emotional and instrumental support to be more important than appraisal and informational support. Furthermore, a paired t test reveal ed significant mean difference s between the extent of and importance of administrative support s comments indicate the need for principals to have greater knowledge and understanding of special education and the need for guidelines regarding suitable workload assignments for SETs in general schools. The results of this study could be used to improve Korean policies related to administrative support and to inform Korean policymakers about supports needed by SETs to teach students with disabilities in general education schools.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Context for the Study Administrative support from school principals is considered to be an important Kang & Park, 2002; Lee, 2012; Lee, 2014; Littrell, Billingsley, & Cross, 1994), their work stress ( Kim, 2006; Kim, 2010a : Lee, 1996; Oh, 2008; Wheeler & LaRocco, 2009 ; You, 2008 ), job commitment and intent to staying in teaching (Conley & You, 2016; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Tickle, Chang, & Kim, 2011). Despite the impor tance of administrative support, few researchers have investigated the value of different kinds of administrative support as perceived by special education teachers (SETs). Some studies suggest special education teachers are not always provided with the su pport they want or need to receive the most ( Cancio, Albrecht, & Johns, 2013; Cross & Billingsley, 1994; Littrell, Billingsley, & Cr oss, 1994 ). Furthermore, some studies indicate that, on average, school administrators perceive they provide support to teachers to a greater degree than their Definition of Adm inistrative Support for Teachers Defining administrate support for teachers is not easy (Billingsley, 2004). There is no clear definition for this term (Cancio et al., 2013; Prather Jones, 2011; Yoon & Gilchrist, 2003) and only a l imited number of research ers ha ve described how they used the term. Littrell (1992) stated administrative support is provided by a school principal support, (c) instrumental support, and (d) informat According to Broughton and Hester (1993), high support administrators focus on

PAGE 15

15 p.173). Later studies defined administrative support more comprehensively. Rafoth and day for meetings, (b) in service training, (c) reimbursement for time outside th e school day, (d) credit toward school district service requirement, (e) clerical/record keeping support, (f) emotional support, (g) parental support, and (h) direct involvement with ative support for teachers as meaning, such as student discipline, instructional methods, curriculum, and adjusting to the In response to the lack of a clear defini tion, Prather Jones (2011) conducted interviews with 13 SETs of students with emotional and behavior disorders using their descriptions to illustrate the supports they desired from their school administrators: Teachers looked to principals to enforce reas onable consequences for student misconduct, and to include them in the decision making behind these consequences. Teachers felt supported by principals who made them feel respected and appreciated. Teachers need support from the other teachers in their s chools, and principals play an important role in developing these relationships. (p. 4) Definitions of administrative support are multi dimensional, thus, it is not easy to define the term; however, descriptions of it have been developed and the importance of these supports has been examined.

PAGE 16

16 Importance of Administrative Support for SETs Man y existing studies demonstrated the importance of administrative support for SETs. Gersten, Keating, Yovanoff, and Harniss (2001) determined that principal support According to Billingsley (2007), the most challenging concern in the special education field is the shortage of SETs and retaining SETs is very crucial to resolvi ng this problem. For novice teachers, administrative support was revealed as an important factor that influences the retention of general education teachers (GETs) and SETs in the teaching profession (Darling Hammond, 2003). Specifically, administrative su pport their jobs and their intent to staying in their positions. Numerous studies have shown that administrative support is strongly related to and intent to stay in teaching (e.g., Ax, Conderman, & Stephens, 2001; Albrecht et al., 2009; Boyd et al., 2011; Cancio et al., 2013; Conley & You, 2016; Cross & Billingsley, 1994; Fish & Stephens, 2009; Gehrke & Murri, 2006; Gersten, Keating Yovanoff, & Harniss, 2001; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Liu & Meyer, 2005; Loeb, Daring Hammond, & Luczak, 2005; Miller, Brownell, & Smith, 1999; Ott & Arnold, 2005; Plash, & Piotrowski, 2006; Prather Jones, 2011; Schlichte et al., 2005; Stephens, & Fish, 2010; Tickle, Ch ang, & Kim, 2011; Worthy, 2005). Among the 237 Emotional and Behavioral Disorders ( EBD ) teachers in Wisconsin who participated in the Ax et al. (2001) study, 25% mentioned the lack of administrative support was the primary reason for leaving. According to Ingersoll and Smith (2003), who used the 1994 1994 SASS data, 26% of teachers cited poor administrative support as their

PAGE 17

17 reason for job dissatisfaction, which led to leaving their teaching positions. Conley and You (2016) used the 2007 2008 SASS data set a nd found that administrative support .19, p < .05). In addition, administrative support influenced work commitment ( .58), career commitment ( = .10), and job satisfaction ( .44), which are three mediating variables of Furthermore, Tickle, Chang, and Kim (2011) used the 2003 2004 SASS teacher questionnaire data and found that administrative support was the most significant predictor for .399, p < .01) in comparison to other predictors such as teaching experience ( .042), students behavior ( .243), and teacher salary satisfaction ( most .230, p < .01). In stay ( .030, p < .01). According to the report from the National Comprehe nsive Center for Teacher Quality and Public Agenda (Rochkind, Immerwahr, Ott, & Johnson, 2008), administrative support is more important for teachers rather than higher salaries. When teachers were asked to choose a school by selecting between higher salar y and strong administrative support controlling other conditions, 81% of elementary teachers responded that they would select the school with administrative support. Furthermore, Boyd et al. (2011) recruited all novice teachers in New York City to examine the influence of school administration on teacher retention decisions. Boyd et al. (2011) found that administrative and collegial support were the greatest influence on teacher

PAGE 18

18 retention. The SETs are not exceptional. Billingsley (2007) stated administrati ve support an d could improve the quality of special education services. Other studies similarly stated the importance of administrative support because it would ultimately enhance Third, adm Administrative supports are crucial for SETs especially because SETs are more likely to be isolated from their co workers and often need to rely on themselves to figure out their own problem ( Hansen, 2007). According to Correa and Wagner (2011), SETs could be the only teachers in the schools working with special populations and thus feel isolation; and gave SE Ts resources for instruction were instrumental in helping SETs feel needed Furthermore, Otto and Arnold (2005) found that SETs felt less isolated when they had a conversation with school administrators. Fourth, administrative support could play an i mportant role for inclusive education. Several studies have indicated the positive influence of administrative support on inclusive education (e.g., Daane, Beirne Smith, & Latham, 2000; Shade & Steward, 2001). Villa, Thousand, Nevin and Liston (2005) state

PAGE 19

19 the practices [for inclusive education] was the most powerful predictor of a general .43). In another study, Santoli, administrative support or would be supported by their prin cipal in issues pertaining to Administrative support from principals is important not only for teachers in the U.S. but also for those in South Korea. In South Korea, administrative support from school principals is also 2002; Lee, 2012; Lee, 2014) and their work stress (Lee, 1996; Oh, 2008; Kim, 2006; Kim, 2010a ; You, 2008 ). Kang and Park (2002) and Lee (2014) found that there is a positive relationship bet According to Kim (2010a), 147 SETs in special schools ( M = 3.24 SD = 71) experienced more stress from their relationship with principals than did 162 GETs in general schools ( M = 2.93 SD = 72) of Gyeongwon province. The difference was statistically significant ( t = 3. 860, p < .000). In contrast, there were no significant differences in the stress experienced by GETs and SETs from their relationships with students, parents, and colleagues. In a recent study, Lee (2014) found that GETs were dissatisfied with the school were dissatisfied with the lack of recognition of their work by administrators (28%).

PAGE 20

20 GETs we dissatisfied when administrators failed to recognize their work. outcomes, nor is it related to teach systems (i.e., special education curriculum, appointment of principals by promotion and achievement, teacher positions g uaranteed by the government, and high teacher retention rates). In addition, the school context for South Korean SETs and special education is different from the U.S. In Korea, 60% of special education teachers (SETs) are employed in general education sch ools where results of numerous studies reveal that they receive limited supports from their principals and have difficulties operating special classes (Hwang, 2006; Kim, 2009; Kim, Kim, Choi, & Kwon, 2011; Lee, 2005; Lee, 2008; Lee & Park, 2009). Additiona l results indicate SETs in general schools have difficulties with implementing the national curriculum for students with disabilities (SWD) (Kim et al., 2011; Yeo, Cho, & Bak, 2004), co teaching and collaborating for inclusive education ( Kim, 2009; Kim Ki m, Choi, & Kwon, 2011; Lee, 2005 ; Lee, Han, & Yi, 2009 ), budgeting for the operation of special education classes (Kang & Par k 200 2 ; Lee, 2005; Nam & Ahn, 2013) and supervising their class (Lim & Park, 2009 ; Tae & Park, 2007 ). Furthermore, g eneral school principals are in charge of implementing the operation of special education classes including implementation of inclusive education and curriculum for SWD based on the Special Education Act for Individuals with Disabilities and Others ([SEAIDO], 2008). How ever, little is known about to what degree SETs

PAGE 21

21 receive administrative support from the principal and what kinds of principal support SETs believe are important. This is a timely and relevant problem to address because appropriate administrative support co based challenges. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was administrative support using survey methodology and to provide evidence of the A dministrative S upport Q uestionnaire ( A SQ) for Korean use In addition, this study examine d the gap between the kinds of support SETs believe are important and the perceived extent to which they receive these supports from their principals. This i nvestigation was intended to raise public awareness of the importance of administrative support for SETs employed in general education schools in South Korea. Furthermore, the results of this study provide implications for policy and practice to improve administrative sup port for Korean SETs. Conceptual Framework This study was guided by the perspective that social supports provide assistance through social relationships (House, 1981). House focused on the role of social supports in reducing work stress and improving healt h. framework, supports can be categorized across four dimensions that include emotional, instrumental, informational, and appraisal support. Littrell, Billingsley, and Cross (1994) applied these four dimensions of social support to ad ministrative support provided to teachers in school settings. The first dimension, emotional support, is indicated when administrators establish and maintain supportive and open communication with The second, appraisal

PAGE 22

22 support, is indic ated by offering frequent and productive feedback to teachers regarding their work performance. The third informational support, is indicated by providing advice and recommendations for instruction and offering sugg estions for improving classroom management. The last, instrumental support, is indicated by providing needed resources and materials to help teachers perform their duties; this inc l udes allowing teachers to have sufficient planning and preparation time. I nvestigating the types of administrative support helps principals know how to support teachers better (Littrell et al., 1994). For this reason (1981) four dimensions of social support form ed Research Questions This study examine d emotional, appraisal, informational, and instrumental supports) provided by school principals. Specifically, this study was designed to measure the validity of the Administrative Support Q uestionnaire for use in Korea The research questions and assumptions are as follows: 1. What is the construct validity of the Administrative Support Questio nnaire when applied in South Korea? 2. What is the reliability of the Administrative Support Questionnaire when applied in South Korea? 3. What type of administrative support have SETs received the most from general school principals? 4. What type of administrative supports do SETs think are important to receive from general schoo l principals? 5. ons of the extent of and the importance of the four types of a dministrative support?

PAGE 23

23 Assumptions This study depended on the following assumptions. With regard to the first question, it was assumed the A SQ would comprise four factors (i.e., emotional, appraisal, informational, and instrumental supports) when applied in South Korea. With regard to the second question it was assumed the reliability ( Cr ) of the ASQ would be higher than 0.7 (Kline, 1999) for the internal consistency of the survey questions. For the rest of research questions the assumptions were as follows: H 0 3 (null): There are no significant difference s among the types of support that the SETs received. H A 3 (alternate): There are significant difference s among the types of support the SETs received. H 0 4 (null): There are no significant difference s among the types of support that the SETs think are important. H A 4 (alternate): There are significant difference s among the types of support that the SETs think are important. H 0 extent of and importance of the four types of principal support H A extent of and importance of the four types of principal support. Definitions It is important for the reader to understand how terms are defined in this study. Administra tive/ Principal Support behaviors: (a) emotional support, (b) appraisal support, (c) instrumental support, and (d)

PAGE 24

24 Special E ducation Class Special education class is a class that is established in South Korean general schools for the inclusive education of students with disabilities (Special Education Act for Individuals with Disabilities and Others [SEAIDO], 2008, Article 2, C lause 11). Inclusive Education Inclusive education means the appropriate education that students with disabilities receive in general schools with their peers, considering their individual needs, and that does not discriminate based on the types and degree s of student's disabilities (SEAIDO, 2008, Article 2, Clause 6). Significance of the Study This study is significant in being the first to validate the ASQ for use with SETs in South Korea n general education schools There is limited evidence regarding the importance and extent of administrative support provided to teachers in Korea. support to teachers, then it is imperative that they b e aware of what teachers perceive importance and the perceived extent of administrative support by SETs to determine whether there is a gap between them, with its end goal being that Korean administrators could provide those supports to SETs who work in special education classes in general education schools. The results of this study could be used to update professional learning for school principals and to inform polic y regarding the provision of administrative supports valued by SETs. This study is also significant for educational policy in South Korea because it (a) reviews the growing body of information related to administrative support for teachers in

PAGE 25

25 the U.S. and in South Korea, (b) describes the contexts of special education in the U.S. and South Korea that could be influenced by administrative support, (c) contributes to the in service training of South Korean principals in charge of inclusive education, and (d) supports SETs in South Korea by encouraging administrative support from school principals. The findings from this study could be used to improve Korean policies related to administrative support for teachers and to inform Korean policymakers about the imp ortance of support for SETs in the context of inclusive education Overview of the Dissertation This study is presented in five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the importance of administrative supports for SETs and includes the statement of the problem, res earch questions, theoretical framework, assumptions, definitions of terms, and significance of the study Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature related to the definition of and importance of administrative support for SETs. The different contexts f or providing special education in general schools in both the U.S. and South Korea are included. Furthermore, the theoretical framework of administrative support and the major findings of research into administrative support for SETs are documented In add ition, the importance of validating the survey questionnaire is included. The discrepancies in the ideal perceptions and the current experiences of SET s regar ding administrative supports are also discussed. Chapter 3 presents a description of the methodology and procedures for conducting this study, including the population, sample, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis. Chapter 4 provides the results of the analysis, and Chapter 5 concludes wi th a discussion of the major findings of this study with implications for policy and practice and recommendations for future research.

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Overview The purpose of this study is to measure the validity of the Administrative Suppo rt Questionnaire (ASQ) for use in provided by principals in South Korean general education schools and to identify the gap between the importance and extent of administrative support so that school principals can assist them appropriately. Administrative support plays an important role in retaining teachers in the U.S (Conley & You, 2016; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Tickle et al 2011), and studies have been conducted on the relationship b etween administrator work stress. In South Korea, however, the context of administrative support for teachers 99%), so administrative support studies administrative support (Kang, 2001; Lee, 2012). This review of literature covers special education in the context of general education schools both in the U.S. and South Korea. This chapter presents a review of the literature regarding: (a) contexts of special education in general schools both in the U.S. and South Korea, but with emphasis on the South Korean context, ( b ) the conceptual framework of social support guiding this study (House, 1981) and administrative support studies that have used this framework, ( c ) importance of validation of administrative support questionnaire, and (d) discrepancies in the ideal perceptions and the curr ent experiences of SETs

PAGE 27

27 Empirical and theoretical literature, as well as national policy documents published in the U.S. and South Korea were used in the development of this review. To locate literature in the U.S. regarding special education in the cont ext of general schools and administrative support, PsycInfo, ProQuest, and Education Resource Information Center (ERIC) databases were searched through the University of Florida library system. Keywords such as beginning/novice special education teachers, administrator support for special education, principals and special education, elementary special inclusive education teachers were used. These terms were searched from 20 00 2016. Furthermore, influential theoretical frameworks and empirical studies published earlier, or in books and chapters were also reviewed to include seminal research addressing administrative support for SETs. Lastly, the references of each study were reviewed for further resources. To conduct a review of the Korean literature addressing administrative support and the delivery of special education in the context of general education schools, DBpia, Research Information Sharing Service (RISS), and the Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS) databases were searched through the Daegu University library system. The same keywords for locating the U.S. literature were used. Those terms were searched from 2000 2016. Finally, the reference sections of the identified articles were checked for further resources. Comparison of Special Education Contexts in the United States and South Korea This section compares the context of SETs and special education in general schools in both the U.S and the South Korea. The South Korean special education

PAGE 28

28 perceptions of the extent and importance of administrative support provided by principals in Korean general education schools. Schools in the United States The context of teaching special education in the U.S. is presented first. Specifically, special education in the conte xt of general education schools, the challenges for SETs and school principals and special education in the U.S. are presented in this section Special education in the context of general education schools. In the U.S., special education laws have influen ced SETs and SWD. SETs were typically employed in special schools as well as residential settings before the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975 (Shepherd, Fowler, McCormick, Wilson, & Morgan, 2016). After the passage of the EAHCA, f ree and appropriate public education defined (Shepherd et al., 2016). In addition, this Act required SWD to be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE) accordin program (IEP) (Sumbera, Pazey, & Lashley, 2014). In 1997, the amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which was the renamed EAHC A significantly highlighted the importance of access to academic content for SWD, and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002 required access to the general education curriculum for all students, including those with disabilities (Petersen, 2016). Furthermore, the NCLB required school principals to incl accountability whether or not they made adequate yearly progress (AYP) (Sumbera et al., 2014). Because of the laws, more SWD have been educated in the context of general education (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).

PAGE 29

29 By 2013 20 14, 13% of public school s enrolled students identified as SWD and 6.5 million SWD were served under IDEA (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016.). Of these students, 35% were identified as having specific learning disabilities, 21% as having speec h or language impairments, 13% as having other health impairments, 8% as having autism, 7% as having intellectual disabilities, 6% as having developmental delay, 5% as having emotional disturbance, 2% as having multiple disabilities, 1% as having hearing i mpairments, and the remaining 1% as having orthopedic impairments (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). 95% of students were enrolled in general schools. Sixty two percent were placed in general classes for 80% of more of the school day, and 19% were educated for 40% to 79% of the school day in general classes. The remaining 14% of SWD were placed for less than 40% of school time in general classes in 2013 14 (National Cent er for Education Statistics, 2016). Challenges for special education teachers in the U.S. More than half of SWD are placed in general classes in general schools for most of the school day; consequently SETs frequently work in general classes to support t hem by assisting, co teaching, and consulting with GETs ( Wasburn Moses, 2005). Wasburn Moses (2005) (a) teaching reading and writing, content, and skills, (b) working with students, i ncluding making adaptations or accommodations, managing behavior, and consulting with students on their caseload, (c) working with others, such as general education teachers, parents, 59 special educator s in a recent study by Urbac h et al. ( 2015) identified various roles played by SETs, including : (a)

PAGE 30

30 instructor, (b) resource manager, (c) collaborator, (d) communicator, (e) relationship builder, and (f) student supporter. Based on the Digest for Education Statistics 2014 (Snyder de Brey, & Dillow, 2016), 364,000 SETs worked nationwide; however, studies report that many SET leave their teaching positions (Albrecht et al., 2009; Prather Jones, 2011). Thus, many studies iculties in the workplace are often described in the context stressed and not satisfied with their job, they are more likely to leave their position. Tyler and Brun ner (2014) categorized factors that challenge teachers and could influence their attrition. The factors include (a) administrative support, (b) professional development, (c) workplace conditions, (d) teacher preparation, (e) teacher mentorship/induction, a nd (f) workplace decision making. To understand the attrition phenomenon specifically, Tyler and Brunner adopted Bronfenbrenner's model and described three levels including the microsystem (teacher classroom interactions), mesosystem (teacher school intera ctions), and exosystem (teacher district, teacher state, and teacher satisfaction, ultimately affecting their career decisions. In other words, SETs encounter difficulties on three diffe rent levels. Based on the literature, Tyler and Brunner found that student contact time, classroom resources, caseload size, and classroom technology pertained to the microsystem. The scheduling of students, availability of instructional assistance, and co nsultation/collaboration time constitute the mesosystem. Furthermore, professional development, due process paperwork, and curriculum/instruction form part of the exosystem.

PAGE 31

31 overwhelmin g amounts of paperwork, (b) unmanageable caseloads, (c) insufficient administrative support, (d) limited curricular and technological resources, (e) inadequate opportunities to plan with their colleagues, and (f) inadequate professional caseload, and lack of collaboration are emphasized in the following discussion. Excessive paperwork and caseload SETs face different challenges such as alized Education Program (IEP) compared to GETs (Berry, Petrin, Gravelle, & Farmer, 2011). In addition to IEPs, SETs have more paperwork including evaluations, meeting notices, minutes, reports, and progress documentation (Manning, 2008). Stephens and Fish (2010) examined the motivation factors toward pursuing a career in special education by conducting semi structured telephone interviews with15 SETs. The common themes were the excessive demands related to paperwork and one SET stated that all the testing, but all of the paperwork and reporting. You (diagnostician) have a lot of duties, I feel more so than SETs understood the importance of IEPs and paperwork; however, they expressed frustration due to an excessive amount of time spent on paperwork tasks rather than teaching (Manning, 2008; Stephens & Fish, 2010). Furthermore, Williams and Dikes (2015) found a positive correlation between the additional hours that SETs spent to complete paperwork and the evidences o f burnout. Williams and Dikes (2015) also found that caseload number is positively

PAGE 32

32 teachers who I have talked to have left special education because their caseloads are (p .591). One fourth of the 1,153 SETs in Billingsley (2004) analysis also felt that their caseload was unmanageable. Lack of collaboration. SETs and GETs should work together to provide an appropriate education for SWD in acceptable and comfortable educational settings inquiry and found SETs referred to lack of collaboration with GETs. In addition, one of the five SETs articulated limited acceptance of her students by GETs. The SET stated SETs (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005; Santoli et al., 2008). SETs in the Santoli et al. (2008) study stated that they did not have enough time for collaboration while participating in meetings related to their SWD, or preparing for their teaching responsibilities. School principals and special education students (Lashley, 2007; Simpson, LaCava, & Graner, 2004). According to Stevenson Jacobson, Jacobson, and Hilton (2006), principals spend between 36% and 58% of their work time on special education. Cobb (2015) noted that principals wear many hats such as supervising curriculum delivery, facilitati ng professional development, providing feedback to teachers, hiring teachers, and confirming that they implement services

PAGE 33

33 education law but also be prepared for possible lega In order for principals to understand their role for special education aligning with special education law, the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), the Council for Except ional Children, and IDEA Partners published joint guidelines for principals to implement IDEA (NAESP, 2001). This guideline indicated the handbook illustrated the princi (A) The principal ensures that both regular and special educators share responsibility for the educational achievement of children with disabilities (p. 17) (B) The principal accepts responsibility for hiring and/or recommending for hiring qualified special education and related service personnel, (C) The principal ensures that all staff are knowledgeable about IDEA requirements and demonstrate effective instructional practices for ch ildren with disabilities and (D ) The principal is r esponsible, along with the special education director, for allocating staff and other resources as required by the IEP and ensures that all services are provided as specified in the IEP (p. 24). Advanced preparation standards for special education administ rators were recently revised by the Council for Exceptional Children (2013). The standards address administrative competencies for special education including knowledge and skills of assessment; curricular content knowledge; knowledge of programs, services and outcomes; research and inquiry; leadership and policy; professional and ethical practice; and collaboration. Schools in South Korea Administrative support in South Korea is quite different because the contemporary context of special education in Kor ea is different from that of the U.S.

PAGE 34

34 Becoming a public school teacher in Korea is quite competitive due to guaranteed tenure until retirement at age 62 by the government, and the higher social status of teachers (Ingersoll, 2007). Thus, the overall retent ion rate for GETs and SETs is 99%, and limited pre service teachers are accepted into special education preparation programs ( easier for entering than elementary general education preparation programs) (Center on International Education Benchmarking, n.d). Currently, fewer than 500 pre service SETs (elementary and secondary level) pass the National Assessment of Teacher Education (NATE) each year, but more than 1,800 SET candidates from 39 universities graduate every year nationwide (Ministry of Education [ MOE], 2015). About 5,600 pre service elementary GET pass the NATE each year out of 6,000 pre service teachers that graduate each year from 12 national universities of education. Each of the teacher training programs follows the minimum standards set by the Teacher Certification Authorization Act (Korean Education Development Institute [KEDI], 2006). International Education Benchmarking, n.d), and 98.1% of current SETs hold a national SET certification (MOE, 2015). Typically, becoming a principal in Korea is quite difficult and is earned by promotion (KEDI, 2006). Once teachers pass the NATE, they work an assigned school by municipal or provincial offices of education for a m aximum of five years before rotation. To be a principal, teacher candidates have at least 25 years of teaching experience and high work performance, training, and additional bonus scores (KEDI, 2006). In general, only 5 out of 100 teachers could be a princ ipal at the end of their career. Principals are not authorized (offices of education and MOE are authorized) to

PAGE 35

35 more honorary than authoritative (KEDI, 2006). Principa ls are not involved in allotting the salary for teachers; since 1979 teachers are entitled to receive the same amount of salary and incentives from the government whether they are in private schools or public schools (Kim, 2005). Principals both in public and private schools (99% of special education private schools are funded by the government) operate the school with almost equally assigned budgets from the local offices of education (80% of local budgets are funded by the central government) and the nati onal curricula. Newly appointed principals are encouraged to take 16 hours of on site training at the Korean National Institute for Special Education (KNISE) when inclusive education is implemented in their schools (KNISE, n .d). Principals are not required SWDs in Korea are encouraged to take general assessments (MOE, 2015), however, The administrative support for special education in general schools is quite unique in Korea due to the above factors higher retention rate (99%) and over supply of teachers, honor ific position of principals, and central system of budget and curriculum. The context of special education in gene ral schools is discussed below. Overview of special education in general school in South Korea Approximately 6,789,267 K 12 school age students are educated in Korean schools. Of these, only 1.2% (n = 88, 067) students are identified as having disabilities (MOE, 2015). Special education services are provided to eligible students whose disabilities a re classified into 10 categories similar to those used in the U.S. However, unlike the

PAGE 36

36 U.S, more than half (54.2%) of Korean SWD are classified as having intellectual disabilities ranging from mild, moderate, to severe. Students with physical disabilities comprise the next largest percentage (12.6%), followed by students with autism (11.4%), developmental disabilities (4.9%), hearing impairment (4.0%), specific learning disabilities (3.1%), emotional behavior disorders (2.9%), visual impairments (2.4%), spe ech impairments (2.3%), and health impairments (2.2%). Each student eligible to receive special education services is provided with an individualized education program (IEP). SWD in both private and public schools are eligible for complete government fundi ng (free education for SWD ages birth 21 years and mandatory education for students ages 3 17 years) (SEAIDO, 2008, Article 3, Clause 1) since the legislation of Special Education Promotion Act (SEPA) in 1977. Seventy percent of Korean SWD (n= 61,973) are taught in general education schools (MOE, 2015). Nationwide SWD receive special education services in various settings: in special schools (30%), special classes in general schools (50%), or regular classes in general schools (20%). GETs are the sole provi ders of instruction to 85% of the SWDs placed in regular classes in general schools. The SETs associated with special education support centers provide itinerant education for the remaining 15% of SWD in regular classes ( MOE 2015). Korea has no official d ata about the average amount of time SWDs spend in regular classes and the average time they spend in special class because there are no existing criteria to separate inclusive education and separate programs (Lim, 2003). Little is known about how SWDs in general schools receive education tailored to their needs when they are in regular classes (especially, if there is no special class in

PAGE 37

37 the general school); however, general education teachers are trying to help them. According to SEAIDO (2013), national a nd local governments should provide in service training or education services for general educators in general schools to support the inclusive education of students with disabilities (Article 8, Clause 2). GET s are encouraged to participate in 60 hours of in service training for special education (MOE, 2015). Nationwide, 21,609 GETs have participated in special education professional development, and 593 GETs are enrolled in the 29 general education research associations for inclusive education (MOE, 2015) A total of 31 general schools (out of about 10,000 schools nationwide) are model schools tasked with implementing curriculum, developing textbooks and materials, and applying the plan developed for inclusive education (MOE, 2015). The Korean Society of I nclusive Education has published numerous articles for inclusive education study and has supported teachers for inclusive education since 2003. The inclusive education concept is limited in Korean education (Choi & Han, 2010; Kim, 2013; Kim & Cho, 2005; L ee, 2007; Lim, 2003; Lee & Cho, 2009; Ryu, 2013; Shin, n.d). On the one hand, the term appears in Korean educational policy. General educators should take a special education introduction course in pre service programs since 2009 (MOE, 2015). The minister of MOE and the superintendent should include increase public awareness of special education, also, offer and operate in service training courses related to special educat ion for general educators in implementing inclusive education (SEAIDO enforcement, Article 5). Furthermore, when students are placed in regular classes in general schools (as opposed to special education classes in

PAGE 38

38 general schools), the regular class is re (MOE, 2015, p. 6). Inclusive education, on the other hand, means something very different in Korean schools. Unlike in the U.S., there is limited collaboration between GETs and SETs (Kim, Kim, Choi, & Kwon, 20 11; Kim, 2013; Ryu, n.d.). Ryu (n.d) stated that most GETs do not welcome other teachers, such as SETs, in their class, even though they have a limited knowledge of special education. Moreover, SETs prefer being a homeroom teacher in special schools and in special education classes to being considered an the current status of inclusive education and the opinions of 42 SETs and 13 GETs in Gwangju municipality using a survey method. The biggest barriers to inclusive education according to SETs were that GETs have no interest in special education and neglect SWD in class (37.5%), while GETs blame SWDs for interrupting the learning of regular students (36.4%). There is a small inclusive education (e.g., Choi, 2008; Kim, 2012) and the importance of in service training for them. Choi (2008) surveyed 536 elementary school principals in 2 municipalities and 2 provinces to exam inclusive education in South Korea. The principals understood the importance of inclusion, however, they perceived that special schools were more appropriate educational placements for SWD. They perceived t heir own schools lacked staff, support, or administration for operating inclusive education. Furthermore, SWD did not receive adapted curriculum and instruction. With regard to their perceptions, this study

PAGE 39

39 suggests that the more principals understand inclusive education, the more they have positive attitudes toward inclusive education. In addition, an empirical study by Kim (2012) demonstrated different perceptions of inclusive education by educators and cultural conflicts involved in the policy adopt ion of Korean and western cultures. Kim conducted a qualitative case study about inclusive education in Korea by focusing on one school principal, two general education teachers, and two special education teachers in high school. The results from in depth semi structured interviews of all participants revealed that they perceived educating students in special classes as inclusive education and inclusive education was interpreted GETs perceived inclusive education as physically placing SWD in general education settings without instructional adaptations, and expecting the SWD to spend most of the school day in special education classes. The principal expected inclusive education to mean that the two different education systems were housed in one general school with general education classes and special education classes. SETs understood inclusion to mean providing academic accommodations to SWD in general education classes. Kim point (p.118). Inclusive education was mandated in 1994 when the Special Education Promot ion Act (SEPA) was completely revised, however, special education classes were mandated as a supplement to support inclusive education. When the SEPA was replaced with SEAIDO in 2008, inclusive education meant the appropriate education

PAGE 40

40 that students with d isabilities received in general schools with their peers, considering their individual needs, and that did not discriminate based on the types and degrees of education clas s is a class that is established in general schools for the inclusive education of students with disabilities (Article 2, Clause 11). In addition, according to enforcement of SEAIDO, the principals in general schools should establish and operate special cl asses following the special education establishment criteria when inclusive education is implemented in the schools (Article 27, Clause 1). Ryu (2013) maintained the trend in national agencies, such as the KNISE, of evaluating inclusive education practices by focusing on the establishment of a special education class is related to the fact that no additional regulations and enforcement regarding an inclusive education implementation plan are stated in current law. In a current educational setting, a special education class is seen as a tool to implement inclusive education (Kim, 2013; Lim, 2003; Ryu, 2013). Challenges for Korean special education teachers The first special education class for students with intellectual disabilities in a general school was e stablished in Daegu in 1971 (Park, 2005). In 1973, the Korean Association for Special Education held the first seminar for the management and establishment of special education classes (Kim et al., 2002). This seminar clearly articulated that special educa tion classes in general schools were for students with intellectual disabilities. The MOE advised that every district or city should install at least one special education class in the general school by 1974. Therefore, 177 special classes were established in that year (Park,

PAGE 41

41 2005) and 9,868 special education classes are currently in general schools nationwide (MOE, 2015). Currently, 60% of SETs (n = 10, 185) work in special education classes. SETs are assigned to general schools when the sufficient number of students to operate a special class is attending each school. For establishment criteria, the SEAIDO (2008) mandated one kindergarten special education class for every four SWDs, one elementary and middle school special education class for six SWDs, and one high school special education class for seven SWDs (Article 27, Clause 1). In general, one or two novice SETs are assigned to one general school (Lee, 2005; Lim & Park, 2011). According to Lim and Park (2011), 35 out of 100 SETs reported that they are the only SET in the elementary school, and 80 out of 100 SETs were novice teachers who started their career working at the general schools. SETs operating special classes in general schools have complex and different responsibilities compared to GETs, as well as SETs in special schools (Choi, 2013) In general, SETs working in special education classes provided hourly (as opposed to all day) special education services to students with mild disabilities by mixing special and general education curricula ( Ki m, Han, & Yi, 2009; Lee, 2005 ; Shin, Ahn, & Kim, 2013 ). In addition, SETs in general school are expected to teach students with different types of and various degrees of disability. Unlike special schools where SETs work and collaborate with each other equ ally, only one or two SETs in general school are expected to take full responsibility for all aspects of special education work, so they have additional burdens (Kim & Chung, 2016). According to high school SETs in Kim, out of 62) take full responsibility for special

PAGE 42

42 education work exclusively, 40% (25 out of 62) assume special and general education responsibility, as well. Special education teachers have many challenging responsibilities: Implementing the national curr iculum for SWD, co teaching and collaboration, managing the budget for the special education class, and supervising SETs in general schools. These responsibilities are demonstrated in detail below. Curriculum for students with disabilities The national level special education curriculum was developed in 1983 and the central government including KNISE oversees this curriculum for SWD (Yoon, 2011). The national level special education curriculum was recently revised in 2015 and is comprised of a kindergart en education curriculum, a basic education curriculum, a common education curriculum, and a professional subject education curriculum (MOE, 2016). The basic education curriculum is for students with severe disabilities from elementary to high school levels who cannot be educated appropriately through the common education curriculum. The common education curriculum for students with visual, hearing, and physical disabilities (including mild disabilities) is a modified version of the general education curricu lum from elementary to middle school levels. The professional subject education curriculum is applied to the high school level for students with visual, hearing, and physical disabilities (including mild disabilities). SETs have reported the complication o f mixing special and general education curricula when applied to individual students with a disability (Kim et al., 2011; Yeo, Cho, & Bak, 2004) because teachers are responsible for constituting the curriculum (Lee & Park, 2009) and because there are no st andardized rules for special education

PAGE 43

43 class curriculum (Jung, 2014). According to Shin, Ahn, and Kim (2013), 70% of elementary school SETs, 74% of middle school SETs, and 55% of high school SETs mixed special and general education curriculum for SWDs. In a comparison study on the management of special classes for elementary, middle, and high schools nationwide, Yeo, Chu, and Bak (2004) found that 44% of SETs (116 out of 264) mixed the special and general education curricula and constructing the curriculum was the primary difficulty in managing special education classes for elementary SETs. In another study, Jung (2014) examined the perceptions of 36 Seoul high school special education class teachers on their needs related to teaching subjects and found tha t 42% of the SETS focused more on teaching the special education curriculum. Another 42% of SETs balanced the special and general education curriculum. Jung stated that special education classes are housed in a general education school, but they operate se parately in terms of curriculum. An additional study, Lee and Park (2009) focused on who chooses curricula. They investigated current curricular issues in an elementary special education class with 97 elementary SETs in Gyeongi province. Eighty four perce nt of the respondents reported that SETs themselves chose the curriculum for special education classes while 14% stated that they collaborated with principals about curricular decisions. The special education curriculum for general middle schools presents a similar situation. According to Choi and Son (2007), 84% (73 out of 86) of SETs chose the curriculum for middle school special education classes by themselves. Co teaching and collaboration for inclusive education. Teachers in many studies (Kim, 2009; K im et al., 2011; Lee 2005 ; Lee, Han, & Yi, 2009 ) acknowledged the

PAGE 44

44 importance of co teaching and collaboration; however, neither of these are common interviewing 15 elementary scho ol SETs in Gyeongnam province. The SETs in his study were skeptical of co teaching, citing the unfriendly attitudes of GETs toward SETs in general classes. In addition, SETs reported that the development of instructional plans and delivery of instruction t ogether was a rare effort between GETs and SETs, though institutional practices and policies account for part of this problem. Thus, most novice SETs limited their responsibility to operating special classes. esults. Kim interviewed five novice SETs on their professionalization and the challenges of working in general education schools. She found that SETs perceived that they were the only people invested in co teaching. A recent study, Kim, Kim, Choi, and Kwon (2011) examined the perceptions of inclusion by 15 elementary GETs` and 15 SETs The focus group interview results revealed that both GETs and SETs acknowledged the importance of collaboration, but that collaboration was not active. The barrier was consid ered to be the lack of support systems for collaboration and differences in the educational certification processes of SETs and GETs. According to Lee Han, and Yi (2009) who surveyed 62 SETs to examine the status of special education class operation in general high schools, 80% of SETs collaborated with GETs, but not on a regular basic. Furthermore, 15% of SETs reported that they worked only together when there was a problem for a SWD. SETs regarding inclusive education and burnout. Kim (2014) surveyed 108 elementary GETs

PAGE 45

45 and 108 elementary SETs from 7 municipalities and provinces to examine the Th e more principals supported teachers with relevant information, the less teachers experienced burnout. GETs experienced less burnout than SETs. Principal support was considered important not only for SETs, but also for GETs regarding inclusive education. F urthermore, in service training regarding inclusive education for GETs is important as well. The 60% of elementary, middle, and high school SETs (157 out of 265) in Shin et al. (2013) insisted that school level in service training for GETs regarding inclus ive education support for SWD is necessary to operate special education classes in gen eral schools. Lack of support Overall, SETs perceived a lack of support in schools and felt ed special education work by themselves and could not ask other personnel for help because other personnel do not have an interest in special education and lack special education knowledge. Furthermore, SETs felt isolation and frustration due to the school Hwang (2006) examined the adaptation process of 9 novice SETs in special schools and 11 SETs in special classes in general schools in Busan municipality. The teachers participated in a qualitative study, and the SETs in the special class reported that the y worked by themselves when implementing special education plans in order to avoid conflicts with GETs. Hwang stated that SETs in special classes had a determined will to support SWD; however, they confronted unfriendly working conditions, which led

PAGE 46

46 to fru stration. In addition, SETs in general schools could not share common ideas and interests; they had uncomfortable relationships with GETs and felt isolated. findings indicating lac k of support for SETs. Lee conducted a qualitative study on the experiences of four SETs in general and special schools. Unlike SETs in special schools in which SETs could help each other, SETs in general schools felt isolated. SETs felt that no one in the school supported them; they felt ignored. A recent study reported that there was no one to help them when they were assigned in general schools. The SETs did not recogn ize what they could and could not do; furthermore, they could not ask GETs for help regarding special education issues. Many SETs felt they received limited support from school administrators. SETs in rs had no interest or lacked understanding of special education. Furthermore, school administrators preferred operating schools for convenience rather than securing the educational rights of SWD. According to Lee (2005), novice SETs were more likely to be disappointed with school administrators at the first meeting due to the authority and formal attitudes of principals, so they tried to avoid meeting them. The SETs felt school administrators treated them 009) study also believed that administrators were skeptical of special education, so when the teachers inquired about support them. Thus, SETs were frustrated with adm

PAGE 47

47 have open minds about special education and did not understand its uniqueness. Furthermore, school administrators in general schools were not clear about their duties importance of special education was respected or was neglected. negative as mos study had difficulties in building relationships with principals, not because of conflicts with the administrators, but because of the hierarchies among teacher positions. When SETs had conv ersations with principals, they were careful in their behaviors and wording due to the fact that principals are the chief of the schools. Unlike the majority of school admi nistrators for being respectful of special education and supporting SETs by helping them and asking them questions about special education (Lee, 2005). Budgets for special education classes. Only a few studies discussed budgets for special education classe s and school administration. To operate special education classes, the municipal and provincial offices of education allot a certain amount of money to each school for each special class (MOE, 2015). The funding for special education operation could be the same across the grades or different for elementary, middle, or high schools depending on the municipality and provinces. Currently, there are no regulations for detailed estimation, distribution, and execution of budgets for special education class operat ions resulting in gaps in the amount of funding among the municipal and provincial offices of education (Nam & Ahn, 2013).

PAGE 48

48 When Kang and Park (2002) conducted a study of principal support by SETs nationwide, they surveyed whether principals support teache survey questions and conducted a content validity for confirming the appropriateness and vagueness of survey questionnaires with one special education professor, two professionals, eight SETs, and one GET. The content validity revealed the importance of financial support for special education class operation and conflicts between principals and SETs about special education budgets. In another s study (2005) reported that the special education class operation budget assigned by municipal or provincial offices of education was not implemented well at the school pecial education purposes is important; however, if the principal does not collaborate, the budget cannot be used for its initial purpose. A recent study found interesting results regarding special education budgets. The census of special education class teachers in Gangwon province reported that if there is not enough money for operating plans, half of special education teachers modified the plan to fit the budget (Nam & Ahn, 2013). If the funds are not spent in the first semester, however, the remaining special education class operating budget is carried forward to for general education (73%) and for special education (15%), and is a possibility that special education budgets could not be used for SWD, but rather for general education students since there is no fiscal regulation or legislation for overseeing special education class budgets.

PAGE 49

49 Supervision of SETs. Researchers have paid some attention to the supervision of teaching in special education classes since 2000, with limited research focused on the supervision of SETs by school administrators or school supervisors. Tae and Park (2007) conducted a qualitative case study about planning and implemen ting IEPs in elementary schools. One of five elementary SETs in this study stated that the supervision provided by school administrators was superficial and not professional. According to Tae and Park in service training should be offered to school admini strators about how to supervise SETs in order to improve the quality of special education classes. Lim and Park (2009) recruited 100 novice elementary SETs in 2 municipalities and 1 province. Thirty six percent of these SETs did not receive any type of te aching supervision. Among those who were supervised, half of the SETs were provided only one time teaching supervision. The remaining teachers were supervised more than two times. In most cases supervision was provided by principals and vice principals (42 %), research lead teachers (21%), SETs (13%), GETs (13%), and school supervisors (7%). SETs were eager to receive instructional supervision, however, they did not use the feedback. More than half of the SETs preferred to receive supervision from a SET with more than five years of teaching experience (62%), an assistant teacher in a special education class (28%), a special education supervisor (7.4%), and school principals (1.5%). Lim and Park (2009) concluded that school administrators should receive in ser

PAGE 50

50 SETs have reported a lack of support from school administrators so far. The next section will demonstrate the responsibilities of principals of general schools regarding special education. School principals an d special education According to the SEAIDO (2008) principals are in charge of providing special education services and operating special education classes in schools. Thus, principals play a crucial role in supporting SETs and in setting an environment w herein SWDs could learn appropriately. Principals are in charge of curriculum, IEP, and inclusive education. The Ministry of Education (MOE) developed the national special education curriculum and the principals of general and special education schools ar e expected to (Article 20, Clause 2). Principals should build an IEP team of guardia ns, special, career and general educators, and special education service personnel in order to provide the appropriate education for the educational needs of SWDs (Article 22, Clause 1). In terms of inclusive education, principals should make an effort to create an inclusive educational mission by implementing a variety of education plans (Article 21, Clause 1). Additionally, principals who have SWDs in their schools should develop and implement an inclusive education plan for modifying curriculum, providi ng professionals with assistive technology, and supporting professional development (Article 21, Clause 2). Furthermore, according to Article 21 Clause 3, when inclusive education is implemented, the principals of general schools should establish and opera te special classes following the special education establishment criteria (Article 27, Clause 1). So

PAGE 51

51 far, little is known about how principals in general schools manage the tasks based on the SE A IDO (2008) and how principals support SETs who actually opera te special education classes and have felt a lack of support from administrators and colleagues. Summary SETs both in the U.S. and South Korea have similar challenges. They feel isolated and overwhelmed. In addition, they have difficulties in collaboratin g with GETs and feel as if they receive limited support from school administrators. In South Korea, however, SETs also face slightly different challenges in: (a) mixing general and special education curricula, or modifying the special education curriculum in special education classes, and (b) securing the special education budget provided by the central government within schools. Furthermore, there are three additional differences between the U.S. and Korea. First, SETs face different, as well as similar c hallenges. Second, Korean school challenges are of ten described in the context of job satisfaction and intent to stay in teaching, In Korea, however, the selves is often the purpose of such studies. In addition, researchers are trying to identify their challenges and to provide recommendation for supporting them. Unlike the U.S., the responsibilities of Korean general school principals regarding special ed ucation are mandated based on SEAIDO (2008). According to SEAIDO school principals in Korean general schools are in charge of the implementation of

PAGE 52

52 curriculum, inclusive education, and IEPs for SWD. Those responsibilities are related to attempting to provide inclusive education. Currently, however, limited research exists on how general school principals in Korea support SETs to resolve their challenges. Different Types of Administrative Support Malecki and Demaray (2002) defined social support as an individual s perceptions of general support or specific supportive behaviors (available or enacted upon) from people in their social network, which enhances their functioning and/or may buffer them f rom adverse outcomes (p. 2). According to Letvak (2002), health and well being are influenced directly by social support and she emphasized the importance of social support for rural residents mental health. Demaray and Malecki (2003) examined the import ance of social support for students bully behaviors Furthermore, House (1981) emphasized that social support also appears capable of reducing the level of at least some occupational stressors and of directly promoting aspects of health as well (p. 7). House (1981) examined the role of social support to help reduce work stress and to improve health. Specifically, House conceptualized social support as occurring across four dimensions: emotional, appraisal informational, and instrumental support. Littrell et al. conceptual framework, which is one of the most often used to examine administrative Emotional Support According to House (1981 ), emotional support includes offering caring, empathy, trust, and love to other people. This support is considered the most import support type

PAGE 53

53 support when they are being supportive (House, 1981). Littrell et al. (1994) posited that trusted professionals and worthy of concern by such practices as maintaining open communication, showing appr emotional support including school climate, job awareness and appreciation, and collaboration and colleague support b ased on the existing studies. Appraisal Support Appraisal support includes informing people about how well they are performing instructional leaders, principals are charged with providing ongoing personnel appraisal, such as frequent and constructive feedback about their work, information about what constitutes effective teaching, 298). Bozonelos (2008) organized the sub categories of feedback, evaluation, and praise. Informational Support Informational support is offering information to people that they can use for solving (House, 1981, p.25). Littrell et al. (1994) believed that information by principals could be pro service workshops, offering practical information about effective teaching practices and

PAGE 54

54 Bozonelos (2008) o rganized the sub categories of informational support including induction and mentoring support, and professional development. Instrumental Support Instrumental support means providing help directly to people in need. Specifically, instrumental support inc ludes helping other people pay their bills, do their work, and taking care of them (House, 1981). According to Littrell et al., (1994), related tasks, such as providing necessary materials, space, and resources, ensuring adequate time for teaching and nonteaching duties, and helping with managerial (p. 298). Bozonelos (2008) organized the sub categories of instrumental support including resources and caseload as well as instructional range. Many r esearchers used the four types of administrative support to examine the and/or intent to leave their positions in both in the U.S. and Korea. Applying the House Fram ework in American Studies framework for SETs have been conducted; however, most of them are dissertations (e.g., Balfour, 2001; Cihak, 2015; Combee, 2014; Dolar, 2008; Ewy, 2007; Kerr 2013; Littrell, 1992; Manning, 2008; Wilson, 2009). A limited number of studies are published in peer al., 1994; Roderick & Jung, 2012). Littrell (1992) was the first to al settings to

PAGE 55

55 their intention of staying in teaching survey questionnaire. Cancio et and recruited teachers for students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD) to focus on their attrition teacher retention literatur conceptualized (i.e., emotional, instructio nal technical were used in subsequent survey questionnaires focusing on the importance of administrative support as viewe d by SETs and principals (Roderick & Jung, 2012), and in hard to staff schools (Hughes et al., 2015). Littrell (1992) surveyed 385 Virginia SETs and 313 GETs to study t he effects of and intent to stay in teaching. The principal support questionnaire (PSQ) for administrative support (N = 40) were developed with the following procedure s: (a) interviewing results from SETs and GETs, (b) reviewing administrative support studies, email, and (d) conducting an expert review for suggestions. The reliability coe fficients were reported (ranging from .80 to .90); however, factor analysis results confirming construct validity of the survey question categories were not included. A total 40 questions included: (a) emotional support (n = 12), appraisal support ( n = 7), informational support ( n = 8), and instrumental support (n = 13). The findings indicated that teachers who perceive high levels of administrative support tend to perceive greater job satisfaction and school commitment, and experience fewer personal health issues.

PAGE 56

56 The re was a statistically significant mean differences between GETs ( M = 3.27) and SETs ( M = 3.10) for their intention to stay in teaching ( p < .05). of administrativ e support. A four point Likert scale from one (no extent) to four (great extent) was used to measure extent of support. In addition a four point Likert scale from six (not important) to nine (very important) was used to measure the degree of importance of support. There were mean differences for all types of administrative support between the extent of and importance of support. All GETs and SETs perceived that administrative support was important, but they did not feel they received as much as they could. The SETs believed they received emotional support ( M = 3.10, SD = 0.67) the most, followed by appraisal ( M = 2.92, SD = 0.67), informational ( M = 2.64, SD = 0.73), and instrumental support ( M = 2.62, SD = 0.64). They perceived emotional support ( M = 3.63, SD = 0.35) was the most important support, followed by appraisal support ( M = 3.42, SD = 0.51), instrumental support ( M = 3.30, SD = 0.47), and informational support ( M = 3.10, SD = 0.66). blication (Littrell et education field and are considered landmark studies. In these investigations however, both GETs and SETs were the participants; the survey questionnair e was not designed for SETs specifically. Furthermore, no information wa s provided about factor analysis results for categorizing survey questions to con trust my were under the appraisal support rather than the emotional support dimension. DiPaola

PAGE 57

57 (2012) moved those two questions from appraisal to emotional support based on factor analysis results. DiPaola (2012) validated the administrative support questionnaire from Littrell et With a sample of 118 educators for the pilot study, he conducted an exploratory principal component analysis (PCA) for data reduction. The several survey items such as high loading on several factors and l ow loading were deleted, thus the survey questions were reduced from the original 40 to 16. The 16 survey questions have high factor loading s The emotional, instrumental, and appraisal support were the same as Littrell et (p.119). F urthermore, DiPaola provided higher reliability coefficients (ranging from .87 The four questions for four types of administrative support were finalized and renamed as the Principal Suppo rt Scale (PSS). The emotional support survey questions included such as gives me a sense of importance that I make a difference supports my decision trusts my judgment in making classroom decisions and shows confidence in my actions The professional support survey questions included such as gives me undivided attention when I am talking is honest and straightforward with the staff provides opportunities for me to grow professionally and encourages professional growth Th e instrumental support survey questions included such as provides adequate planning time provides time for various nonteaching provides extra assistance with I become overloaded and equally

PAGE 58

58 distributes resources and unpopular cho res The appraisal support survey questions included such as provides data for me to reflect on following classroom observations provides frequent feedback about my performance helps me evaluate my needs and provides suggestions for me to improv e instruction When DiPaola validated the reduced 16 survey questions (PSS) with a new sample of 1,276 high school GETs using a principal axis factor analysis (varimax rotation) with an eigenvalue greater than one crite r ion, only two factors were found. DiPaola renamed two factors, which were expressive and instrumental support. The expressive support (eight items) is comprised of emotional and professional support, while the instrumental support (eight items) is comprised of both instrumental and apprais al support The factor loadings of survey items ranged from .652 to .893, which are high factor loadings. In addition, t he reliability for the both of expressive and instrumental support was .95, which were high reliability. DiPaola (2012), however, do n ot provide detailed information of survey questionnaire whether he used the six point Likert scale that Littrell (1992) used as well and he examined only the extent of administrative support rather than both of the importance and extent of administrative support. Cihak (2015) dissertation used the PSS to examine the role of administrative support in the retention of 12 novice teachers. This phenomenological study revealed the ways in which all s upport dimensions were important in influencing the novice teachers to remain in their teaching positions. As with the original Littrell et al. questionnaire, the PSS questions were intended for both GETs and SETs. Thus, the survey questionnaire did not ex

PAGE 59

5 9 Cancio et al. (2013) surveyed 408 teachers of students with EBD to examine the relationship between administrative support and attrition. Cancio et al. examined the perceptions of short term and long term teachers regarding the gap between the extent of and importance of administrative support. The survey questions were developed experienced by teachers nces. An expert review and pilot study were conducted. A four t important) to four (very Cancio et al. already categorized four areas of administrative support before conducting factor analysis based on their literature review : guidance and feedback, opportunity for growth appreciation, and trust Furthermore, based on results of factor analysis with a maximum likelihood extraction with a varimax rotation four factors (guidance and feedback, opportunity for growth, appreciation, and trust) and 20 questions ( originally 43 questions ) for administrative support were finalized. When survey items loaded on multiple factors or had low factor loading s such as below .50, those survey items were eliminated Among the 20 questions, 18 questions originate from Littrell et al. s (1 994 ) study. The reliability of each factor ranged from .898 to .907. Cancio et al. found a significant correlat ion between administrative support and intent to stay ( p < .05). Furthermore, teachers (both short term and long term) indicated higher scores for the importance of administrative supports and lower scores for the extent to which they re c eived these supports. Compared to short term teachers, long term teachers believed that they received more administrative support, and t test results revealed st atistically

PAGE 60

60 significant differences for three administrative support types with the exception of guidance and feedback, which was a sub category question ( p < .05). In terms of the importance of support, no statistically significant differences were found between short Cancio et al. (2013) conducted a factor analysis for construct validity and reviewed the literature ; however, they added only 2 new questions and the remaining 18 questions were the same as used by Littrell et al. Cancio et al., however, limited providing information for categorizing survey items into four dimens ions ( guidance and feedback, opportunity for growth, appreciation, and trust) instead of House s (1981) framework (emotional, appraisal, informational, and instrumental support). Cancio et al. recruited teachers of students with EBD, which limits generaliz ation of the findings to teachers working with this population. The survey questionnaire used in the remaining two studies was based on the administrative support needs of 436 novice SETs. survey questions were developed the teacher retention literature and findings from focus group interviews with eight based on the Ho use (1981) framework and included emotional, instruction, technical, and environment support. The survey included 15 questions for emotional, 12 questions for environment, 13 questions for instructional, and 8 questions for technical support. Balfour condu cted a content analysis for the survey questions with focus group

PAGE 61

61 interviews and expert reviews. The reliability of the questions ranged from .71 to .93; however, construct validity was not reported. Roderick and Jung (2012) examined the perceived importa nce of administrative support by school administrators and special education teachers using a modified set of five secondary SETs and 59 school administrators participated in the survey. Roderick and Jung (2012) ch anged environment support to the instrumental domain without explanation, but all of the point Likert scale was used and rang ed from one (not valuable at all) to four (extremely valuable). A total of 52 survey questions were included: (a) 16 questions for the emotional domain, (b) 12 questions for the instrumental domain, (c) 13 questions for the instructional domain, and (d) 11 questions for the technical domain. There were statistically significant differences between the perceptions of SETs and administrators for the emotional, instructional, and technical domains ( p < .05). No statistical differences between the two groups were found for the instrumental domain. Furthermore, the mean scores for the two groups were the same for the instrumental domain. There were mean score differences between the two groups in the other three domains (ranging from 0.35 to 0.43). The em otional domain mean scores for SETs ranged from 2.41 to 3.49, while for school adm inistrators they ranged from 2.94 to 3.69. The instrumental domain mean scores for SETs ranged from 2.29 to 3.37, while for school administrators they ranged from 2.29 to 3.61. The instructional domain mean scores for SETs ranged from 1.66 to 2.97, while f or school administrators they ranged from 2.17 to 3.44. The technical domain mean scores for SETs ranged from 2.05 to

PAGE 62

62 3.07, while for school administrators they ranged from 2.63 to 3.49. Across all four domains, school administrators perceived administrati ve support as more important than those of SETs overall. For teachers, the emotional ( M = 3.10) and instrumental domains ( M = 3.08) were those where support was valued the most. For example, the top mean scores ranked by SETs were as follow s school staff that special education students and teachers are an important part of the 2011, p.62). The top mean scores ranked by administrators were different from those of SETs ; municates to the school staff that special ound that there is a noticeable difference between what SETs and administrators perceived a s valuable support. Therefore, Roderich and Jung (2012) insisted that administrators should provide the supports that SETs feel are valuable. 012) is the first study to recruit both SETs and school administrators to examine their perceptions of the importance of administrative support. Roderich and Jung found statistically significant differences between SETs and school administrators regarding their perceived importance of administrative support. One of

PAGE 63

63 the weakness of this study is that the sample size was too small (e.g., 35 SETs and 59 school administrators). Furthermore, there is no information of factor analysis results for construct validi ty. Hughes et al. stay in hard to staff schools, and perceived principal supports. Forty one teachers and 17 administrators from 20 sites in a western U. S. state par ticipated in the survey A strong statistically significant correlation was found between all of the support areas and The mean difference in total administrative scores for principals and teachers w as 12.41 for instructional support, 7.31 for technical support, 6.94 for environmental support, and 5.76 for emotional support. Hughes et al. recommended that administrators take a look at their leadership style and support for teachers to Hughes et al. (2015) study was conducted with GETs rather than with SETs Furthermore, there is no information about whether the mean differences between significan t differences This study also did not report construct validity. Applying the Hous e Framework in Korean Studies Few studies have examined administrative support for special education satisfaction, while in the other three studies, administrative support wa s a sub category of SET work stress causes/levels (Kim, 2006; Kim, 2010a; Lee, 2014). Only two studies

PAGE 64

64 (Kang & Park, 2002; Lee, 2012) (1994) survey questionnaire. Kang and Park (2002), for example, recru ited 291 elementary and 60 secondary SETs in general schools nationally using a stratified sampling method to investigate the the PSQ (Litterell, 1992) for the contemp The Korean was also used. A four point Likert scale was used ranging from one (not at all) to four (very likely). Survey results reveale d that the teachers received emotional ( M = 2.96, SD = .48), instrumental ( M = 2.64, SD = .50), informational ( M = 2.39, SD = .59), and appraisal ( M = 2.36, SD = .59) support in descending order, and a significant difference between the support types was f ound ( p < .001). Older teachers perceived they received more support than younger teachers ( p < .001), but there is no significant difference between teaching experience and perceived support. Elementary SETs ( M = 2.73) perceived that they received more support than secondary SETs ( M = 2.59), but there was no significant difference. Overall, there was a positive correlation between principal support and job satisfaction ( r = .62, p < .01). Kang and Park concluded that principals respect SETs as profession duties, all of which are very important. Korean context. Kang and Park conducted a focus group to modify survey questions for contemporary use in the Korean context, and thus, six questions were deleted due to

PAGE 65

65 vagueness and inappropriateness. Another six questions were revised to clarify the meaning of the quest ions. One question related to the special education budget and another question about planning for special education were added. In addition, one question about emotional support was added, as well. Kang and Park (2002), however, did not conduct factor an alysis of construct validity. Furthermore, most of the survey questions remained the same as those in Littrell et al. (1994), which means only limited survey questions were Ten years later, Lee (2012) recruited the census of elementary SETs in Daegu satisfaction using a survey method. One hundred twenty six of the 211 SETs responded to the questionnaire. PSQ wa s used and the s A five point Likert scale ranged from one (not at all) to fi ve ( very likely) with survey results revealing that the teachers received emotional ( M = 4.05, SD = .78), appraisal ( M = 3.79, SD = .85), instrumental ( M = 3.40, SD = .89), and informational ( M = 3.29, SD = 1.03) support in descending order and a significa nt difference between the types of support was found ( p than instrumental support. There was no significant difference between teaching experience and the perceived support. There was a positive correlation between r = .613, p < .01). Lee found that SETs in

PAGE 66

66 sig nificant differen ce between ages of SETs and principal support. Kang and Park (2002) and Lee (2012) examined the relationship between revise context after completing an analysis of content validity. Lee subsequently used the survey questions that Kang and Park (2002) revised. Both surve y questions related to job satisfaction. Different survey questions were used in Most Am Cancio et al., 2013; Hughes et al., 2015 ; Littrell, 1992; Littrell et al., 1994) while Korean studies are Li ttrell et al. (1994) insisted administrative support was a crucial factor in th e retention of teachers. administrative support studies. As described in an earlier session, K

PAGE 67

67 survey questions, issues were included related to the special educa tion budget and responsibilities. The Importance of Validity for the Administrative Support Questionnaire validity, construct validity is one of the most important concepts in psychology and is necess ary for measuring variables that are not directly observable such as intelligence psychological test lacks construct validity, results obtained using this test or procedure will be Thus, construct validity is important when the researcher examines participants perceptions. Construct validity is confirmed by the use of factor analysis (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). Widaman (1995) also stated that factor analysis is primarily a method for accessing the construct validity of measures (p. 287). In addition, Widaman insisted construct validity is supported if the factor structure of the scale is consistent with the constructs the instrument purports to mea sure (p. 287). So far, only DiPaola (2012) and Cancio et al. (2013) attempted to validate Littrell (1992) principal support survey questionnaire using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). EFA is generally used when no specifications are made in regard t o the number of latent factors (initially) or to the pattern of relationships between the common factors and the indicators (i.e., the factor loading) (Brown, 2006, p. 14). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is usually conducted when conceptual or empiric al foundation s guide the number of factors and factor loading patterns (Brown, 2006). According to Brown

PAGE 68

68 (2006) EFA is typically used earlier in the process of scale development and construct validation, whereas CFA is used in later phases after the unde rlying structures ha ve been established on prior empirical (EFA) and theoretical grounds (p. 14). DiPaola and Cancio et al. are the only stud ies that have measured the construct validity of Littrell s questionnaire thus, validation of this principal supp ort survey questionnaire is i n the early stage of scale development. Both of the studies reported high factor loadings (above .60) with large sample size s (408 and 1,276) but used different extraction methods. DiPaola (2012) conducted a principal axis fac tor analysis. Based on the factor analysis extraction methods, the collected data by DiPaola might not be normally distributed. The principal axis factor analysis is generally used in case s of multivariate normality assumptions violations (Fabrigar, Wegene r, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). Cancio et al. (2013) used a different method of extraction, which is maximum likelihood extraction. The maximum likelihood extraction is generally used when the collected data are normally distributed (Osborne & Costello, 20 09). DiPaola s (2012) study, however had limitations in validating the principal support survey using House s (1981) f r amework. First, in terms of factor numbers, DiPaola identified only two factors rather than the four factors (e.g., emotional, instrumen tal, professional, and appraisal support) which comprise the ideal of administrative support type s suggested by House. Second, DiPaola did not include any information about his use of varimax rotations. Varimax rotation is one of the common orthogonal method s of rotation, which assumes factors are uncorrelated (Osborne & Costello, 2009). According to Osborne and Costello (2009), in the social sciences we

PAGE 69

69 generally expect some correlation among factors, since behavior i s rarely partitioned into neatly packaged units that function independently of one another (p.136). Church and Burke (1994) also supported that the variable of personality is not independent by nature. Thus, using orthogonal rotation results in a loss of valuable information if the factors correlated, and oblique rotation should theoretically render a more accurate, and perhaps more reproducible, solution (Osborne & Costello, 2009, p. 136). Cancio et al ( 2013) also had some limitations with construct v alidity even though Cancio et al. is the only study that validated both the extent and importance of Littrell (1992) administrative support survey items. First, in addition to DiPaola s (2012) study, Cancio et al. also used varimax rotation, but did not provide any information to justify its use In addition, Cancio et al. categorized four factors, which are different from House (1981) support types without providing information for justifying the categorization. Currently, there is no study in which a factor analysis has been conducted to validate Littrell (1992) principal support questionnaire (PSQ) in Korea. Based on the literature review, the Korea n contexts for SETs are different from those in the U.S. so, it is necessary to provide validity ev idence for the PSQ in the Korea n context. Overall, a have methodological issues regarding construct validity. The Importance of Reliability for the Administrative Support Questionnaire According to Nunnally ( repeatable and that any random influence which tends to make measurements different cording to

PAGE 70

70 equivalence of sets of items from the same test (e.g, a set of questions aimed at assessing quality of life or disease ncy provides an estimate of the reliability of measurement and is based on the assumption that items measuring the ability coefficient ranges between 1 and 0 and the closer coefficient to 1 has the greater internal consistency (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). Currently, many previous studies (e.g., Balfour, 2001; DiPaola, 2012; Kang & Park, 2002; Lee, 2012; Littrell et al. all of these previous studies found the reliability coefficient was above .70. Discrepancies between the Importance and Extent of Administrative Supports Current research about administrative support descr ibe the discrepancies in the ideal perceptions and the current experiences of SETs regarding administrative support. According to Cross and Billingsley (1994), SETs are not always provided the support that they want or need to receive the most. So far, the re are two studies examining differences/gaps in the degree of administrative support provided to SETs versus the support that SETs perceive as important. Littrell et al. (1994) investigated the extent of and importance of administrative support perceived by SETs and GETs. Cancio et al. (2013) examined the importance of and extent of administrative support perceived by SETs. Both studies showed that SETs perceived that administrative supports are important; however, their perceptions of the actual extent of administrative supports fell short of what was considered an optimal degree. Roderich and Jung (2012) found a gap

PAGE 71

71 administrative supports. In this study school administrators perce ived the importance of administrative support to be greater across support domains than did SETs. There were perceptions regarding the importance of the emotional, technical, an d instructional domain ( p < .05). Hughes et al. (2015), however, found that school administrators perceived they Dissertations have also examined the degree of and the difference betwe en administrator and teacher perceptions of the importance of administrative support. Hick (2013), for regarding administrative supports. Based on Roderich and Jung (20 12) and Hughes et al. (2015), the school administrators, as compared to SETs, placed a greater degree of importance on administrative support (Roderich & Jung, 2012), however, they provided administrative t al., 2015). In addition, the perceptions of teachers and those of principals regarding administrative support were slightly different (Powell, 2004). Roderich and Jung found a difference in the top mean scores ranked by school administrators and SETs. Th e top five survey questions ranked by school administrators in their study were totally different from those ranked by SETs. important administrative support while school

PAGE 72

72 So far, there has been limited American research examining the discrepancies in the current experiences of SETs and the ideal perceptions of administrative supports. Furthermo re, there are no Korean studies focusing on the administrative supports perceived by SETs and school administrators. In addition, there are no Korean studies examining how SETs perceive the importance of administrative supports and the extent to which they receive them from general school principals. The Importance of Exam ining the Discrepancies Based on the U.S. literature review, there are several important aspects about administrative support that could be useful in the Korean context. First, understanding and implementing knowledge of administrative support strategies could have a positive a n influence on SETs (Gersten et al., 2001). In particular, SETs in Korea encounter many challenges that could be supported by school administrators, such a s the implementation of curriculum and budgets to support special education inst r uction. Specifically, SETs could experience different outcomes were they to receive the role ambiguity/ conflict, isolation, lack of resources/supplies and resistance to including (p.23) Furthermore, Lynn (2015) insisted that even though SETs are expert in the specia l education field, they have limited power to secure materials and resources for SWD and principals are the primary decision makers for special education funding. education fu nding and inclusive education, they could make a difference in schools.

PAGE 73

73 Thus, it is important to examine how SETs perceive the extent of and the importance of administrative support, and to support SETs in ways they need it most. The U.S. administrative su pport studies illustrated the significant gap between import to examine whether there is a gap in Korea as well. Information about such a gap in the Korean context could b service training. There their challenges. According to Wakeman, Browder, Flower, and Ahlgrim Delzell (2006) ent, principals should have fundamental knowledge of special Gersten et al. (2001) reported that the most important role of school administrators in supporting SETs is to under stand their role in delivering services to SWD. Furthermore, Weber and collaborative relationship can be developed between the special education teacher and the admin Korean researcher Chung (2001) stated that when a principal has the positive will to support special education, the perceptions of GETs toward special education will be changed and co teaching encouraged. Thus, an understanding on the part of principals of are important. By understanding what types of administrative supports SETs perceive as important and to what degree a gap exists between the extent of and the importance of administrative support, school principals could support SETs meaningfully.

PAGE 74

74 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Method s This study attempted to measure the validity and reliability of the Administrative Support Questionnaire (ASQ) for Korean use. I n addition, this study was also conducted administrative support provided by their school principals, and to identify the gap between the extent of and importance of administrativ e support. Specifically, five research questions were examined: 1. What is the construct validity of the Administrative Support Questionnaire when applied in South Korea? 2. What is the reliability of the Administrative Support Questionnaire when applied in So uth Korea? 3. What type of administrative support have SETs received the most from general school principals? 4. What type of administrative supports do SETs think are important to receive from general school principals? 5. ceptions of the extent of and the importance of the four types of administrative support? SETs in South Korea were surveyed to determine their perceptions of the extent and the importance of administrative support provided by school principals in the follo wing four areas: emotional, appraisal, instrumental, and informational support These four areas of support are based on were later applied to administrative supports in schools by Littrell et al. (1994). A survey within the Korean context. An analysis of the construct validity (factor analysis) and reliability of the survey questions was conducted. Descriptive statistics,

PAGE 75

75 repeated measures o ne way a nalysis of variance ( ANOVA ) and a paired t test was used to analyze the collected survey data. The research procedures discussed in this chapter are divided into se ven categories: (a) survey design, (b) participants, (c) reliability and validity, (d) survey instrument, (e) survey procedures, and (f) data analysis. Survey Design This study was designed to validate the survey questionnaire used to examine how SETs per ceived receiving administrative support from the ir principal and what kinds of principal support the SETs believe d to be important. A survey design is proper to use in assessing these perceptions because it is intended to survey used in this study is cross (Qualtrics) was used because this method is efficient and the most economical way to collect data. Participants Currently 7,741 SETs work in 166 special schools (including private schools) and 9,880 SETs work in general education schools nationwide ( MOE 2015). Amon g 17 municipalities and provinces in Korea, the province in which the participants for this study work has the lowest rate (25%) of establishing special classes in general schools. In addition, there are 20 SETs per 100 students with disabilities in the province which is the highest ratio in the nation (Congress R eport, 2014). Therefore, it is possible that SETs would need more administrative support to teach students with disabilities and manage workloads in this province compared to other munic ipalities and provinces.

PAGE 76

76 Thus, this province located in a rural area was chosen and is referred to by the pseudonym of Rural Province in this study A total of 2,365 SWD in 565 special classes are educated by 566 special education teachers in general scho ols in Rural P rovince ( MOE 2016). Among 566 SETs, 419 SETs are female. Half of the SWD (n = 1,126) are in elementary schools and educated by 320 elementary SETs. Another 548 SWD are in middle schools and taught by 133 SETs. The remaining 655 SWD are in high schools and are taught by103 SETs ( MOE 2016). No specific sampling method was used because all special education class teachers in general schools were eligible to participate in this study. Validity and Reliability of the Instrume nt A content analysis of the PSQ developed by Littrell (1992), and adapted later for Korean use by Kang (2001), was conducted to determine the degree of validity of the Questionnaire for contemporary use in South Korean schools. For content validity in suggesting additional question items, deleting unnecessary items, and revising item wording, the draft of the survey was sent to six SETs in general schools not participating in the study. All of the SETs had at least five years of spec ial education teaching experience. The yes or no column indicated the appropriateness in the Korean context and the content clarity or vagueness of the survey questions. An additional comment space at the end of the survey draft helped allow these teachers to express overall opinions about the survey questions. Based on the content validity analysis results, the updated and revised survey questionnaire was sent to those teachers and three professor s in South Korean universities for reviews. Th e professors w ho had at least 10 years of teaching SET experiences

PAGE 77

77 confirmed the finalized survey questionnaire. ) and construct validity ( factor a nalysis) was measured after collecting the final data. Survey Questions The survey questions were developed based on the following resources. Six Korean SETs participated in the content v alidity analysis for revi sing the PSQ (Littrell 1992 ) It was necessary to revise Littrell s (1992) survey questions because they were originally intended for both GETs and SETs The Korean SETs added their comments about administrative support regarding special education curriculum, budgets, and supervision at the end of the content analysis section. In addition to the content analysis PSS to develop the survey questions. Furthermore, the Korean the literature review were also used to develop the survey questions. Thus, these administrative support survey questions were categorized into four dimensions ( i.e ., emotional, instrumental, informational, and appraisal supp ort) with content addressing principal supports regarding special education curriculum, co teaching, special education budgets, and supervision. Kang and Park (2002) were the first K orean researchers to adapt the PSQ developed by Littrell et al. (1994 ; Appendix A ) for Korean use and translated the survey questions in to Korean, and so the Kang and Park questionnaire was used as the To confirm the content validity of nd Park conducted a pilot study of face to face interviews and phone interviews with 12 participants including one special education professor, two experts, eight special educators, and one general educator. Among the

PAGE 78

78 original 40 questions, 6 questions wer e revised. The six questions were revised for clearer meanings (su onsider my ideas seriou sly about llows me input into eflect my opinions when the principals make a d elps me establish hen needed, the principal collaborates with me to plan schedules for not appropriate for Korean con Thus, a total of 37 questions were developed for the Kang and Park survey : (a) 14 questions for emotional support, (b) 4 questions for appraisal support, (c) 3 questions for informational support, and (d) 16 ques tions for instrumental support. The results of the content analysis for the present study are similar to those of (2002) in terms of the deletion and addition of questions. Based on the content analysis results, the most appropriate and cle ar survey questions were When more than half of the respondents (n 3) expressed the meaning of a question to be vague and/or inappropriate, the question was deleted. Furthermore, additional survey questions were

PAGE 79

79 address Korean special education contexts. A total of 27 Administrative Support Questionnaire (ASQ) items were develop ed: (a) questions 1 10 for emotional support, (b) questions 11 14 for appraisal support, (c) questions 15 20 for informational support, and (d) questions 21 27 for instrumental support (Appendix B ) The English version of the survey questions was also developed by the researcher (Appendix C) and two Korean professors reviewed the translated survey questions. Emotional Support Questions House (1981) stated that emotional support consists of offering empathy, trust caring, and love to people, thus t his support is considered the most import ant support type due to its influences on people The first 10 questions are related to an area of challenges ( Table 3 1) Based on the results of the content analysis, four questions from the PSQ ( Littrell et al. 1994 ) ( including acts friendly toward me is easy to approach gives me a sense of importance and that I make a difference and allows me i n put into decisions that affect me ) w ere deleted because more than half of the respondents (n = 3 ) found the meaning of these questions to be vague They expressed confusion about whether the questions applied to work or personal relationships. Another question ( is honest and straightforward with the staff ) was deleted because respondents perceived it to be in appropriate to the Korean context. Th re e other questions ( gives me undivided attention when I am talking supports me on decisions and treat s me as one of the faculty ) were also d eleted because they were perceived as being too general and not reflect ing the support context for Korean SETs. Thus, only 4 out of 12 questions from the PSQ (Littrell et al., 1994) addressing emotional support were included in this study, however, revisions were made for clearer

PAGE 80

80 meaning according to Korean SETs comments: (a) considers my idea to my principal considers my ideas for the special education operating plan (question 1) (b) show s genuine concern for my program and students rincipal pays attention to special (c) notices what I do to my principal understands my work and duties clearly and accurately (question 3) and (d) shows appreciation for my work to my princ ipal show s appreciation for the difficulties of special education work (question 4) The next five survey questions (questions 5 9) were taken from Balfour s (2001) study : my principal is interested in what I do in the classroom (question 5) my principal gives teachers recognition for a job well done (question 6) my principal is available to discuss teachers professional problems or concerns (question 7) my principal supports my decision in front of other teachers (question 8) and my principal supports my decisions in front of parents (question 9) There were no revision s needed in Balfour s five survey questions. The last question (question 10) is also taken from the PSQ ( Littrell et al. 1994) my principal trusts my judgment in ma king classroom decisions However, in the PSQ this question was placed originally i n the appraisal support rather than the emotional support section DiPaola (2012) however, conducted an exploratory principal component analysis with oblimin rotation to evaluate the component structure of the questionnaire (p. 118) and found this question item was loaded on the emotional support section In addition, according to the House (1981) framework, offering t rust, empathy, or caring to other people is considered to be emotional support rather than appraisal support Thus, question 10 was included as an emotional support question in

PAGE 81

81 th e present study. For clearer meaning, question 10 was revised to read my principal trusts my judgment when I make decision s for my special education class Appraisal Support Questions Appraisal support i s defined as evaluating people on their work performance (House, 1981), however, there are limited studies addressing the sup teaching in Korean general education schools (e.g., Lim & Park, 2009; Tee & Park, 2007 ). For example, Kang and Park (2002) included only four appraisal support questions when they ad a pte d the PSQ ( Littrell e t al. 1994) In th e present study the appraisal section also has only four questions (questions 11 14 Table 3 2 ) Of the original seven questions for appraisal support in the PSQ ( Littrell et al. 1994 ), one question was moved to the emotional support se ction as previously discribed and t hree other questions were deleted ( including gives clear guidelines regarding job responsibilities provides standards for performance and helps me evaluate my needs ) because Korean SETs perceived those questions as being more relevant to GETs than SETs in Korean contexts. An additional question show s confidence in my actions was also deleted because it was considered vague in meaning for Korean SETs. Thus, only two of the seven original questions on the PSQ (Littrell et al. 1994) for appraisal support were included in survey instrument for the present study Based on SETs comments, the two questions were revised to reflect Korean appraisal of SETs work in general schools. The first question, offers constru ctive feedback after observing

PAGE 82

82 my teaching was revised to read principal provide s constructive feedback for my class supervision (question 11). The other question, provides frequent feedback about my performance was revised to my principal provides frequent feedback about non teaching responsibilities (question 12) These questions were considered to address both instructional and non instructional performance. T wo additional questions were added based on the literature review indicat ing that SETs have challenges with co teaching and collaboration (e.g., Kim, 2009; Kim et al., 2011; Lee, 2005; Lee et al., 2009) Q uestion 13 was added to read my principal provides feedback about my collaboration with GETs for planning and delivering instru ction and question 14 was added to read my principal provides feedback for inclusive education practices Informational S upport Questions Questions 15 20 comprise the section o n informational support which means providing information to people so that they can solve the ir problems ( Table 3 3) Kang and Park (2002) adapted only three questions from the PSQ ( Littrell et al. 1994) ( including to knowledge of current legal policies For the present study, f our of the eight PSQ (Littrell et al.,1994) questions were deleted. T he was considered vague and was recommended for removal In addition, the question identifies resources and personnel to contact for specific problems he or she is unable to solve was not considered appropriate in Korean contexts in which SET s seek these resource s for the most part, by themselves. The question assists with proper

PAGE 83

83 identification of special education students was also deleted because it wa s not considered appropriate in Kor ean general education schools Identification of at risk students as SWD who require special education is conducted off campus at special education support centers where support center personnel evaluate students to determine their eligibility for service s Finally, the SETs analyzing the content of the questions determined that encourage professional growth was similar to provides opportunities for me to attend workshops, attend conferences, and take courses (question 17) so was not included in this study T wo informational questions taken from the PSQ ( Littrell et al. 1994 ) study without revision were used in this study : my principal provides information about current special education legal policies and administrative regulations (question 16) and provides opportunities for me to attend workshops, attend conferences, and take courses (question 17) E ven though all of the SETs responding to the content analysis agree d to the appropriateness of question 17 in Korean contexts that participating in service training after school or during vacations i s permitted for SETs, teachers could not attend when the professional development is held during the school hours. Another SET stated if the in serv ice training is more than one day, principals do not usually give permission to SETs because no other teacher could teach their classes If a principal, however is supportive, the principal will find a substitute SET. An other SET suggeste d a revision of t his question, my pr incipal allows me to participate in workshop, conferences, and in service training

PAGE 84

84 Two remaining PSQ informational questions w ere revised for clearer meaning. Provides information on up to date instruction techniques was revised to my principal offers practical information about effective teaching practices (question 18) and provides suggestions for me to improve instruction was revised to my principal provides suggestions to improve instruction and classroom ma nagement (question 20). T wo new survey questions were added for budget and curriculum reflecting Korean contexts A s pecial education budget question was added because several sources of literature in Korea, including Kang and Park (2002) point out the importance of administrators providing their SETs with an adequate budget. Thus, my principal gives advice for planning the special education budget (question 15) was included A question about support for special education curriculum was added as well because SETs have challenges implementing the national special education curriculum for their students Thus, my principal gives advice for the implementation of the special education curriculum (question 19) was included. Instrumental Support Questions S even questions address in strumental support (questions 21 27 ) which is offering direct help to people ( Table 3 4) Eleven of the 13 PSQ questions ( Littrell et al. 1 99 4 ) were deleted due to responses about the (1 question) and inappropriate ness in Korean contexts (6 questions) and for being too general (4 questions ) Three of the six SETs who participated in the content analysis were confused by the m eaning of classroom discipline in the question helps me with classroom discipline problems Thus, this question was deleted. Three questions s and planning time were also deleted because they were considered inappropriate for Korean contexts.

PAGE 85

85 problems were delet ed as well because they were not considered relevant in a Korean setting in which SETs are expected to communicate with GETs directly and proactively and to collaborat e active ly with them. Furthermore, the question, work with me to plan specific goals and objectives for my program and students was deleted because respondents stated planning of education program s for SWD is the SETs responsibility Only sometimes do principals provide suggestions. Three instrumental questions from the PSQ ( Littrell et al. 199 4 ) were deleted because they were considered by respondents to be too general and did not specify supports for SETs. Those questions were is available to help when needed helps me during parent confrontations, when needed and provide s material, space, and resource needs In addition SETs believed that principals must attend IEP meetings and parent conferences t hus, participates in child study/eligibility/ IEP meetings/ parent conferences was not included in this study. Only two i nstrumental questions from the PSQ ( Littrell et al., 1994 ) were adopted in this study The question my principal provides extra assistance when I become overloaded (question 26) was included without revision. One word was changed in the question, my principal fairly distributes resources and unpopular chores (question 27), by replacing the word equally with fairl y Korean SETs participating in the content analysis express ed that principals sometimes believe that SETs do not have to work as much becau se they work with smaller groups of students so principals give more work to SETs. T hree instrumental que stions were added to the survey based on SETs comments. Those questions were my principal allows the special education budget to

PAGE 86

86 be used for its original purpose (question 21), my principal provides resources and support to re construct the special education curriculum for use in special education classes (question 22), and my principal establishes an atmosphere that protects SWD from discrimin ation (question 23). Lastly, two additional instrumental questions were developed based on the literature review of SETs challenges. According to the literature review, SETs ha ve difficulties collaborati ng with GETs, thus, my principal provides resourc es and material for inclusive education in service training for GETs and general students (question 24), and my principal allows time for inclusive educational planning and practice with GETs (question 25) were developed for this survey questionnaire. Overall, the 27 questions for Korean SETs are categorized into 4 different administra tive support type. Specifically, some questions (nine questions) reflect Korean SET s challenges that were illustrated in C hapter 2: (a) curriculum for SWD (two questions), (b) co teaching and collaboration for inclusive education (four questions), (c) budgets for special education classes (two questions), and (d) supervision of SETs (o ne question). Question 19 and 22 such as my principal provides resources and s upport to re construct the special education curriculum for use in special education classes is related to SETs challenges of implementing curriculum for SWD. Questions 13, 14, and oration with teaching/ collaboration, which is another challenge for Korean SETs. Questions 15 and 21

PAGE 87

87 challenges with budgets for special education. Furthermore, q principal Design of the Questionnaire A seven point Likert scale questionnaire was selected for this study in order to see a greater me an difference between the types of administrative support and between the extent and importance of supports. According to Miller (1956), many psychological studies showed that people have difficulty making selections with more than seven options. Participa nts were asked to respond on a scale ranging from one (no support) to seven (very supportive) in terms of their perceptions of the extent of administrative support. The importance of administrative support scale was also on the right side of the survey ranging from one (not important) to seven (very important). The questionnaires covered two sections. The first section ask ed the SET participants about what kinds of principal support they believe d to be important and the second section examine d how the SETs perceived receiv ing administrative support from the principal. Additionally, demographic questions and additional space for feedback followed The final section addressed demographic information about gender, age, number of years as a special educator, the number of students with disabilities in the special education class and grade level of their students. The participants had the option of writing any comments about administrative support in the text box at the e nd of the survey questionnaire section. S ix screens were developed for the questionnaire in the online survey in addition to two screens for a cover letter and a thank you note.

PAGE 88

88 The informed consent form was obtained when the participants start ed the online survey. The screen for a cover letter included a brief introduction to the survey and Online survey data were collected using the Qualtrics su rvey program. Once the survey was developed, it was and all of the responses were downloaded from Qualtrics directly into SPSS. Procedures The provincial supervisor of special education in Rural P rovince has access to all the email addresses of SETs within the province. The provincial supervisor agreed to arrange for the online survey link including the survey questionnaire (Appendix B ) to be distributed to SETs on behalf of the researcher An individual email with a unique survey URL (Qualtrics) was sent to participants in October 2016. When the participants open ed the URL, they consent ed instructions for completing the survey was dis played. In addition, the cover letter inform ed them that (a) all respon ses would remain confidential and (b) their participation in the survey was voluntary The supervisor arranged for a n email reminder to be distributed every 1 0 days to all SETs to parti cipate with the online survey link. A total of two reminders were sent The first round of the online survey link was distributed electronically on Oct ober 20, 2016. Of the 566 SETs in general schools 106 SETs completed the survey questionnaire. Nine days later, a surve y reminder was sent on Oct ober 29. The final survey reminder was sent to all the SETs on Nov 7. An additional 83 surveys were received because of the second and final round of reminders. Of the 566 teachers, a total of 189 (response rate of 33%) responded to the online survey. One hundred sixty

PAGE 89

89 one (85%) of the respondents completed the online survey within 9 minutes, while the remaining 28 (15%) finished the survey within 18 minutes. Forty eight respondents (25%) completed less than 70% of the survey, thus, their responses were not included. Consequently, 141 surveys were used in the final analysis. Data A nalysis Procedures The collected data from the online survey were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), Version 24.0 and the Mplus 7. Confirmatory and E xploratory Factor Analysis ( CFA, EFA) was conducted to measure the construct validity of the ASQ for Korean use. The reliability of the survey questionn aire was also measured. Descriptive statistics (i.e., frequencies, percentages, mean and standard deviations) were used to summarize the Likert scale data. To examine the differences among the types of administrative support, repeated measures ANOVA was used. For any statistically significant difference, a Post Hoc test was conducted. For the last and the importance of the administrative support types, a pair ed T test was conducted to analyze the collected data.

PAGE 90

90 Table 3 1. Survey questions for emotional support Emotional support (question 1 10) 1. M y principal considers my ideas for the special education operating plan 2. My principal pays attentio n to special education classes and exceptional students 3. My principal understands my work and duties clearly and accurately 4. My principal shows appreciation for the difficulties of special education work 5. My principal is interested in what I do in the classroom 6. My principal gives teachers recognition for a job well done 7. 8. My principal supports my decisions in front of other teachers 9. My principal supports my decisions in front of parents 10. My principal trusts my judgment when I make decisions for my special education class Table 3 2. Survey questions for appraisal support. Appraisal support (question 11 14) 11. My principal provides constructive feedback for my class supervision 12. My principal provides frequent feedback about non teaching responsibilities 13. My principal provides feedback about my collaboration with GETs for planning and delivering instruction 14. My principal provides feedback for inclusive education practices Table 3 3. Survey questions for informational support Informational support (question 15 20) 15. My principal gives advice for planning the special education budget 16. My principal provides information about current special education legal policies and administrative regulations 17. My principal provides opportunities for me to attend workshops, conferences, and take courses 18. My principal offers practical information about effective teaching practices 19. My principal gives advice for the implementation of the special education curriculum 20. My principal provides suggestions to improve instruction and classroom management

PAGE 91

91 Table 3 4. Survey questions for instrumental support Instrumental support (question 21 27) 21. M y principal allows the special education budget to be used for its original purpose 22. M y principal provides resources and support to re construct the special education curriculum for use in special education classes 23. My principal establishes an atmosphere that protects SWD from discrimination 24. My principal provides resources and material for inclusive education in service training for GETs and general students 25. My principal allows time for inclusive educational planning and practice with GETs 26. My principal provides extra assistance when I become overloaded 27. My principal fairly distributes resources and unpopular chores

PAGE 92

92 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The Results of Data Analysis This study measured the validity and reliability of the Administrative Support Questionnaire (ASQ) for use with South Korean SETs Thus, confirmatory and e xploratory f actor a nalysis was used to measure construct validity and alpha was used to measure the reliability of the ASQ Furthermore, this study identif ied the perceptions of SETs regarding both the extent and importance of administrative support s provided to them by general school principals In this chapter, demographic information of the participants is introduced first Descriptive statistics (i.e., mean, st andard deviations frequencies, and percentages ) of Likert scale data are displayed to summarize overall data results The results of data analysis for the five questions follow s Lastly, analysis of comments regarding administrative supp ort are presented. Description of Demographic Data Demographic information was compiled from the collected survey data. Table 4 1 to Table 4 5 display the demographic data. Among a total of 141 participants, 71% of respondents were female ( Table 4 1) and 87% were under 40 years of age ( Table 4 2) The majority of respondents had less than 10 years of teaching experiences (66% ; Table 4 3) In terms of the number of SWD in special education class es about 79% ( n = 111) of the responding SETs teach fewer than 6 stud ents in their class ( Table 4 4 ). Furthermore, the m ajority of teachers (56%) work at elementary schools ( n = 79 ; Table 4 5 )

PAGE 93

93 Descriptive Statistics A total of 141 participants answered the 27 questions on the seven point Likert scale regarding the extent and the importance of administrative support. Responses of the extent of administrative support survey questions ranged from one (no support) to seven (very supportive) and the importance of administrative support survey questions ranged from one (not important) to seven (very important). Table 4 6 presents the o verall mean of the extent of administrative support ( M = 4.72, SD = 1.49) and importance of administrative support ( M = 6 .10, SD = .84). In terms of the extent of administrative suppor t, mean scores ranged from 3.64 to 5.74 ( Table 4 7) and f ive questions indicated a mean score below 4.0. The mean of q uestion 26 my principal provides extra assistance when I become overload ed was 3.64 ( SD = 2.16). The mean of question 16 my principal provides information about current special education legal policies and administrative regulations was 3.77 ( SD = 2.12). In addition, the mean of question 19 my principal provides suggestions to improve instruction and classroom management was 3.79 ( S D = 1.97). The mean of question 13 my principal provides feedback about my collaboration with GETs for planning and delivering instruction was 3.92 ( SD = 1.97). Lastly, the mean of question 18 my principal offers practical information about effective teaching practice was 3.99 ( SD = 1.95). The highest mean score for the extent of administrative support was question 1 my principal considers my ideas for the special education operation plan ( M = 5.74, SD = 1.52). Q uestion 10 my principal trusts my judgment when I make decisions for my special education class ( M = 5.58, SD = 1.45) and question 21 my principal allows

PAGE 94

94 the special education budget to be used for its original purpose ( M = 5.50, SD = 1.85) followed as the next highest mean scores For the importance of administrative support, mean scores ranged from 5.42 to 6.69 ( Table 4 7) The lowest mean score was for q ue stion 19 my principal gives advice for the implementation of the special education curriculum ( M = 5.42, SD = 1.64). Questio n 20 my principal provides suggestions to improve instruction and classroom management ( M = 5.553, SD = 1.58) and question 16 my principal provides information about current special education legal policies and administrative regulations ( M = 5.557, SD =1.56) followed as the next lowest mean scores The highest mean score for the importance of administrative support was question 1 my principal considers my ideas for the special education operation plan ( M = 6.69 SD = .844 ). Question 9 M = 6.53, SD = .832) and question 10 my principal trusts my judgment when I make decisions for my special education class ( M = 6.53 SD = .761 ) have the same mean scores. The question 21 my pri ncipal allows the special education budget to be used for its original purpose ( M = 6.39 SD = 1.07 ) followed as the next lowest mean scores Table 4 8 presents the f requency distribution (including percentages) for the extent and importance of administrative support survey questions response The frequency (percentage) ranged from 0 (0%) to 62 (44%) for the extent of administrative support while 0 (0%) to 116 (82.3%) for the importance of administrative support. Question 1 was the highest frequency (percentage) in the seven point response (very supportive /

PAGE 95

95 very important) for the both of extent of (44%) and importance of (82.3%) administ rative support. In terms of the extent of administrat ive support survey question 16, 19, and 26, the highest fre quency was displayed in the one point (no support) response For my principal provides extra assistance when I become overloaded (23.4%) participants responded that they have no support (one point). For question 16 my principal provides information about current special education legal policies and administrative regulations 29 (20.6%) participants answered with the one poi nt (no support) my principal gives advice for the implementation of the special education curriculum 26 (18.4%) teachers responded with the one point (no support). In terms of the importance of administrative support survey question 9 21, and 23, the highest frequency was presented in the seven point (very important) response. my principal supports my decisions in front of parents participants answered very important. For question 21, my principal allows the special education budget to be used for its original purpose 95 (67.4%) teachers responded seven point (very important). Lastly, question 23 my principal establishes an atmosphere that protects SWD from discrimination 96 (68.1%) participants answe red seven point (very important). Construct Validity of the ASQ When Applied in South Korea To confirm the construct validity of the principal support survey instrument, factor analysis was conducted. Currently, there are no Korean studies that have validated the administrative support questionnaire even though Kang and Park (2002) and Lee (2012) examined the perceptions of special education teachers in general schools regarding

PAGE 96

96 the administrative support using the PSQ ( Littrell et al. 1994 ) Thus, i n this study a C onfirmatory F actor A nalysis (CFA) was conducted to measure the construct validity of the survey questionnaire and examine the reliability of the questionnaire. According to the PSQ administrative support consi sted of four factors. T he survey questions for each support type were developed based on the content analysis of the PSQ and the House framework. Thus, t he researcher used CFA tors and the pattern of indicator This study assessed whether four factors are still applicable to South Korean school contexts. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results As the earlier survey instrument se ct ion presented, the administrative support survey consisted of emotional (question 1 10), appraisal (question 11 14), informational (question 15 20), and instrumental (question 21 27) support. Thus, a CFA using maximum likelihood (ML) parameter estimation w as used to examine the fit of the measurement model for the four different administrative support factors (e.g., emotional, instrumental, informational, and appraisal support) The ML estimator was chosen because it cal inference, such as significance Fabrigar et al., 1999, p.279). To assess the overall model fit, Chi squ are ( ) goodness of fit test, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Comparative Fit I ndex (CFI), Tucker Lewis index (TLI), and Standardized Root Mean Square R esidual (SRMR) were used for all of the 27 extent of admini strative support questions and all of the 27 importance of administrative support questions. The measurement model for the extent items representing four factors d id not achieve a good fit ( (322) = 875.242, p < .001,

PAGE 97

97 RMSEA = .113 90% CI [.104, .122], CFI = .862, TLI = .849, SRMR = .066). The Chi square ( ) test compar es observed values with expected values, so non statist ically significant results mean that the expected values equal the actual values. From the data results, however, a statistically significant result was found. According to Hu and Bentler (1999), RMSEA > .06 is often a questionable fit and a 90% CI should have an upper bound no higher than .08 and a lower bound no higher than .05. The analyzed data illustrate that RMSEA is .113, and the lower bound was .104 and the higher bound was .122. Furthermore, both the CFI and TLI are below <. 90, which represent s that the model is a poor fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The only statistic below a cutoff value was the SRMR at .066 which is lower than the cutoff point (.08) for adequate fit but higher than a good fit point (.05). In addition, t he measurement model for the importance it ems representing four factors d id not have a good fit either ( (322) = 1034.701, p < .001, RMSEA = .131 90% CI [.123, .141], CFI = .752, TLI = .730, SRMR = .142). First, the results were s tatistically significant for the Chi square ( ) test. RMSEA is higher than the cutoff (.60). The bound s for the RMSEA are well over the cutoff s ( .05 and .08) In addition, both the TLI and CFI are below <. 90, which shows the model has a poor fit. Lastly, SRMR is higher than the cutoff point for good (.05) or adequate (.08) fit Overall, the CFA results have not confirmed the factor structure of either the extent or the importance o f the four administrative support types. The results of this analysis illustrate d unacceptable model fit, and an EFA was conducted to determine the number of factors underlying the data

PAGE 98

98 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results Th e EFA was conducted to examine the factor structure of the ASQ EFA with ML extraction using obli que rotation was conducted for both of the 27 extent of and importance of administrative support survey items. For the extent of administrative support survey items, only two factors of the eigenvalues for correlation matrix were greater than 1.0 The Kaiser Guttman criterion, where a researcher retains factors that have an eigenvalue greater than 1, is one of most common criteria to decide the number of factors to retain from an exploratory factor analysis (Widaman, 1995). Another common criter ion is the scree test, which reveals the magnitude of the eigenvalues 1999). These two criteria suggest retaining two factors. The se two factors explain 70.3% of the variance in the items The correlation between the first and second factor, however, is 0.79, meaning they are highly correlated with each other and it can be concluded that only one factor general support, in the extent of administrative support type exists In terms of the 27 importance of administrative support survey items, 6 factors of the eigenvalues for correlation matrix were greater than 1.0. Based o n the scree test (Appendix E ) are four eigenvalues before 35, Preacher & MacCallum, 2003). According to Preacher and MacCallum (2003), retaining as many factors as there are eigenvalues that fall before the last large drop on a scree plot is another criterion to determine the number of factors. The four factors explain 67.6 2 % of cumulative variance. Table 4 9 presents the EFA results including factor loading s Even though four survey i tems moved (e.g., from instrumental support to informational support), the majority of items remained related in the same as expected factor (bas ed on the results

PAGE 99

99 of survey development). F actor one is named as emotional support and f actor two is named as a ppraisal support. F actor three is named as informational support and factor four is named as instrumental support. Question 17 loaded on instrumental support rather than informational support. Question s 25 27, however, loaded on informational support rather than instrumental support. The seven question survey items have below .5 factor loading (e.g., question 1, 4,8,10, 11, 12, and 25). O ne item is below .3, which is question 1. According to Brown (2006 salient survey item was eliminated because its loading is .283. The question 10 survey item was a cross load ing o f both emotional support (0.464) and in strumental support (0.484) Thus, the question 10 survey item could be interpreted as an aspect of both emotional and instrumental support. Based on the factor loading s nine items of emotional support (question 2 10) strongly load on factor 1. The four i tems of appraisal support (question 11 14) load on factor 2. The eight items of information support (question 15, 16, 18 20, and 25 27) load on factor 3. The six items of instrumental support (question 10, 17, and 21 24) load on factor 4 (Appendix D) All factors are positively correlated with one another, with correlations ranging from .260 to .648 ( Table 4 10 ), indicating that they are related but distinct factors. Thus, four factors exist for the importance of administrative support for Korean SETs. R e liability of the ASQ W hen A pplied in South Kore a In order to measure the internal consistency of the importance of administrative support and the extent of administrative support Cronb coefficients w ere calculated. for each of the four factor s of administrative support

PAGE 100

100 perceived to be important by the SETs include the following : (a) nine survey questions (questions 2 10) of emotional support ( = 923) (b) four survey questions (questions 11 14) of appraisal suppor t ( = 894), (c) eight survey questions (questions 15, 16, 18 20, and 25 27) of informational support ( = 926 ), and (d) six survey questions (questions 10, 17, and 21 24) of instrumental support ( = 881 ) The Cronbach s alpha for the one factor of extent of administrative support is .971 George and Mallery (2003) suggest ed the cutoff point for reliability coefficients as : e xcellent, > .8 g ood, > .7 a cceptable, > .6 q uestionable, > .5 p oor, and < .5 u 23 1). High reliability for all four different types was reported for the import ance of administrative support and the ex tent of administrative support perceived by SETs Type o f Administrative Support S ET s Have Received the Most Based on the EFA results, only one factor general support, was found for the extent of administrative support. Thus, this research question could not be answered because the data indicated no distinction among the different types of support. Type s of Administrative Support SETs T hink Are Important Repeated measures ANOVA s regarding the different types of administrative support. Based on the EFA results, there was only one factor (support type) for the exte nt of administrative support, but four factors for the importance of administrative support survey question s For the four support dimensions for the importance of administrative support, ANOVA with repeated measures was conducted to examine significant difference between the means of the different support types overall. T he mean s of the total score s for emotional support ( q uestion 2 9), appraisal suppo rt ( q uestion 11 14), informational support ( q uestion 15,16, 18 20, and

PAGE 101

101 25 27), and instrumental support ( q uestion 10, 17, and 21 24) were compared. As collected data violated the assumptions of sphericity and epsilon value is >.75 ( Table 4 11 ) the Huynh Feldt value is reported ( Lomax & Hahs Vaughn, 2012 ). Repeated measures ANOVA with a Huynh Feldt correction show ( Table 4 12 ) that the mean scores for the importance of four administrative support type s are statistically significant different at the p value of .05 ( p 2 = 2 31 F (2. 532 354.449) = 42.1 1 p < .001). The types of a dministrative support explain 23 % of the variance s of the degree of the importance of administrative support. The mean scores and standard deviation for the four different types of administrative support are also calculated. The mean scores for four support types are as follows: (a) e motional support ( M = 6.386, SD = 788 ), (b) appraisal support ( M = 5.78 7 SD = 1.22 ), (c) informational support ( M = 5.7 59 SD = 1.16 ) and (d) instrumental suppor t ( M = 6.32 SD = 819 ) ( Table 4 13 ). The mean scores for emotional and instrumental support were almost the same level (Figure 4 1). The mean scores for appraisal and informational support were also almost the same degree. A Bonferroni Post Hoc test was used to determine where the differences occurred for the four support types. Table 4 12 Illustrates the significance level for the differences among the different support type s No statistically significant mean difference be tween emotional and instrumental support, and between appraisal and informational support were found. Post hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction ( Table 4 14) found s tatistically significant differences between administrative emotional support and appraisal support between emotional support and i nformational support between appraisal support and

PAGE 102

102 instrumental support and between informational and instrumental support ( p < .001) Emotional support is more important than appraisal support, which is a sta tistically significant differen ce Emotional support is also more important than informational support. Instrumental support is more important than appraisal support, which is a sta tistically significant differen ce Instrumental support is also more i mportant than informational support. Thus, emotional and instrumental support are both more important than appraisal and informational support. Discrepancies in the Extent and Importance of Administrative Support s According to the EFA results, only one su pport type was found for the extent of administrative support while four types were found for the importance of administrative support Therefore, two way repeated measures ANOVA could not be conducted. As an alternative way, a paired t test was conducted. The paired t test compar ing importance of administrative support for the same questions was conducted. Statistically significant mean differences between the extent and the impor tance of administrative support for all of 27 survey items are found ( p < .001). In addition, the mean differences show that teachers perceived administrative support as more important than the support they received in the schools across the 27 items (Appe ndix F) The mean differences between the extent of and importance of admini strative support ranged from .84 to 2.08 The greatest gap s are found for question 26 my principal provides extra assi ( MD = 2.0 8, SD = 2.14 ), question 16 my principal provides information about current special education legal policies ( MD = 1.7 64, SD = 2.20 ), my principal fairly distributes resources ( MD = 1.76, SD = 2.02 )

PAGE 103

103 while the least gap s are found for the question 21 my principal allows the special education budget to be used for its original purpose ( MD = .84 SD = 1.99 ) question 17 my principal provides opportunities for me to attend workshops conferences, and t ake ( MD = 86, SD = 1.85 ) my principal trusts my judgment when I make decisions ( MD = 94 SD = 1.4 1 ). Additional I nformation A multiple regression was conducted to predict both the extent of and importance of administrative support based on teachers age, teaching years, teaching grade level, teacher s gender, and the number of students they teach Table 4 15 show s that t he teachers characteristics do not predict with statistical significance the extent of administrative support ( F (5,133) = 1.704 p = .138 ). In addition from T able 4 16 to 4 19 illustrates that t eachers characteristics do not predict with statistical significance the importance of emotional support ( F (5,133 ) = .985 p = 430 ) appraisal support ( F (5,133) = .179, p = .970), informational support ( F (5,133) = .465 p = .802 ), or instrumental support ( F (5,133 ) = 1.537 p = .183 ). Analysis of Comments for A dministrative Support At the end of the survey questionnaire, respondents provided their own comments about administrative support Thirty three of the 141 participants shared their opinions. The most frequent theme s addressed t he need for principals to have greater knowledge and understanding of special education (n = 1 4 ) and t he need for guidelines regarding suitable workload assignments for SETs in general schools (n = 1 1 ). Several r espondents commented that the budget for special education should be used for its intended purposes (n = 2 ) and criticized problems created by uninformed principals and

PAGE 104

104 the importance of SETs opinions in developing educational poli cy (n = 6 ) Table 4 20 presents organized by categories and the following theme s greater knowl edge and understanding of special education In terms of greater awareness of special education and the need for in service training for principals, participants expressed concerns that principals have limited knowledge and understanding of special education. Participants commented that principals should understand the nec essity of special education classes and inclusive education, and the importance of IEP s In addition, S ETs stated that principals should understand that SETs do not hav e an easy job even if SETs have a small number of students. Guidelines regarding suitable workload assignments for SETs in general schools Many part icipants mentioned the necessity of having clearer guidelines for and li m itations to what makes up the workload for SETs in general schools SETs commented that they have heavy work load s and are assigned additional general education tasks. SETs stated that they should have work guidelin e s so that they are not overwhelmed by general education tasks and can focus on special education task s exclusively. Current problems cr eated by uninformed principals and importance of Fi ve participants shared current problems created by uninformed principals and one participant remarked on the opinions in developing educational policy. One teacher shared the when it comes to a dministrative support principals give more work to SETs (instead of actually supporting SETs) Furthermore,

PAGE 105

105 another teacher ha d a negative perspective of administrative support, among SETs, frankly speaking, when the principals do not have an interest i n special education, it is more helpful to SETs Last ly one teacher pointed out the importance of SETs participations in developing special education policy One participant commented that the opinions of

PAGE 106

106 Table 4 Gender N % Male 40 28.37 Female 101 71.63 Total 141 100 Table 4 2 Frequency d N % Less than 29 years old 35 24.82 30 39 years old 61 43.26 40 49 years old 27 19.15 50 59 years old 17 12.06 Older than 60 years old 1 0.71 Total 141 100 Table 4 3 Frequency distribution for years of special education teaching experience Years of experience N % Less than 5 years 57 40.71 6 10 years 35 25.00 11 15 years 26 18.47 16 20 years 7 5.00 More than 21 years 15 10.71 Total 140 100 Table 4 4 Frequency distribution of the number of students in special education class Number of students N % Less than 6 students 111 78.72 7 students 11 7.80 8 students 9 6.38 More than 9 students 10 7.09 Total 141 100 Table 4 5. Frequency distribution of responses by current teaching grade level Position N % Elementary school 79 56.03 Middle school 38 26.95 High school 24 17.02 Total 141 100 Table 4 6. Mean and stan dard deviation for the overall extent and importance of administrative support. N Mininum Maximum Mean SD Extent 141 1.00 7.00 4.7274 1. 49527 Importance 141 2.77 7.00 6. 1055 .84498

PAGE 107

107 Table 4 7 Mean and standard deviation for the extent and important of administrative support survey questions. Questions N Mean SD Extent 1: My principal considers my ideas for the special education operating plan 141 5.7447 1.5278 Importance1 141 6.6950 .84467 E xtent 2: My principal pays attention to special education classes and exceptional students 140 5.4000 1.62179 Importance2 140 6.4786 .94806 E xtent3: My principal understands my work and duties clearly and accurately 141 5.2340 1.5704 Importance3 140 6.4500 .89221 E xtent4: My principal shows appreciation for the difficulties of special education work 141 4.6383 1.9613 Importance4 141 6.2482 1.20212 E xtent5: My principal is interested in what I do in the classroom 141 4.8936 1.6548 Importance5 140 6.2357 1.02213 E xtent6: My principal gives teachers recognition for a job well done 141 4.9858 1.79677 Importance6 138 6.2464 1.14504 E 141 4.8794 1.96932 Importance7 141 6.4397 .95893 Extent8: My principal supports my decisions in front of other teachers 141 4.8865 1.71586 Importance8 140 6.3000 1.16112 E xtent9: My principal supports my decisions in front of parents 141 5.1773 1.73322 Importance9 141 6.5319 .83284 E xtent10: My principal trusts my judgment when I make decisions for my special education class 141 5.5887 1.45441 Importance10 141 6.5319 .76114 E xtent11: My principal provides constructive feedback for my class supervision 138 4.5000 1.88443 Importance11 E xtent12: My principal provides frequent feedback about non teaching responsibilities Importance12 138 5.9783 1.22306 141 4.4397 1.94704 140 5.6929 1.44390

PAGE 108

108 Table 4 7. Continued Questions N Mean SD E xtent13: My principal provides feedback about my collaboration with GETs for planning and delivering instruction 141 3.9220 1.97510 Importance13 140 5.6286 1.50941 Extent14: My principal provides feedback for inclusive education practices 141 4.1560 1.93200 Importance14 141 5.8440 1.38504 E xtent15: My principal gives advice for planning the special education budget 141 4.7872 1.92283 Importance15 140 5.8214 1.36907 E xtent16: My principal provides information about current special education legal policies and administrative regulations 141 3.7730 2.12928 Importance16 140 5.5571 1.56982 E xtent17: My principal provides opportunities for me to attend workshops, conferences, and take courses 131 5.3664 1.83222 Importance17 141 6.2199 1.12181 E xtent18: My principal offers practical information about effective teaching practices 130 3.9923 1.95093 Importance18 139 5.6187 1.47636 Extent19: My principal gives advice for the implementation of the special education curriculum 131 3.7939 2.05208 Importance19 140 5.4286 1.64095 Extent20: My principal provides suggestions to improve instruction and classroom management 131 4.1985 1.98231 Importance20 141 5.5532 1.58306 Extent21: My principal allows the special education budget to be used for its original purpose 131 5.5038 1.85793 Impoartance21 141 6.3901 1.07420 Extent22: My principal provides resources and support to re construct the special education curriculum for use in special education classes 132 4.4427 2.00446 Importance22 140 6.0286 1.21704 Extent23: My principal establishes an atmosphere that protects SWD from discrimination 130 5.2154 1.69808 Importance23 138 6.5145 .88981

PAGE 109

109 Table 4 7. Continued. Questions N Mean SD Extent24: My principal provides resources and material for inclusive education in service training for GETs and general students 131 4.8931 1.93848 Importance24 139 6.2662 1.09396 Extent25: My principal allows time for inclusive educational planning and practice with GETs 141 4.9504 1.92103 Importance25 138 6.1812 1.12850 Extent26: My principal provides extra assistance when I become overloaded 140 3.6429 2.16270 Importance26 138 5.6957 1.60113 Extent27: My principal fairly distributes resources and unpopular chores 140 4.5071 2.02323 Importance27 139 6.2518 1.12349

PAGE 110

110 Table 4 8. Frequency distribution for the extent and importance of administrative support survey questions. (1) no support / not important (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) very supportive / very important E xtent 1 3 ( 2.1 %) 4 ( 2.8 %) 7 ( 5.0 %) 13 ( 9.2 %) 2 0 ( 14. 2 %) 31 ( 22.7 %) 62 ( 44.0 %) I mportance1 1(0.7%) 0 (0%) 1(0.7%) 4 ( 2.8 %) 2 (1.4%) 1 7 (12.1 %) 116 (8 2.3 %) E xtent 2 4 ( 2.8 %) 7 ( 5.0 %) 7 ( 5.0 %) 18 ( 12.8 %) 24 ( 17.0 %) 35 ( 24.8 %) 45 ( 31.9 %) I mportance2 0 (0%) 1 (0.7%) 0 (0%) 9 ( 6.4 %) 8 ( 5.7 %) 25 ( 17.7 %) 9 7 ( 68.8 %) E xtent3 4 ( 2.8 %) 5 ( 3.5 %) 8 ( 5.7 %) 30 ( 21.3 %) 20 ( 14.2 %) 38 ( 27.0 %) 36 ( 25.5 %) I mportance3 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.7%) 7 (5.00%) 11 ( 7.8 %) 30 ( 21. 3%) 91 ( 64.5 %) E xtent4 11 ( 7.8 %) 16 (11.3 %) 14 ( 9.9 %) 24 ( 17.0 %) 15 ( 10.6 %) 29 ( 20.6 %) 32 ( 22.70 %) I mportance4 2 (1.42%) 1 (0.7%) 2 (1.42%) 7 (4.96%) 14 (9.93%) 30 (21.28%) 85 (60.28%) E xtent5 3 ( 2.1 %) 11 ( 7.8 %) 16 ( 11.3 %) 25 ( 17.7 %) 30 ( 21.3 %) 25 ( 17.7 %) 31 ( 22.0 %) I mportance5 0 (0%) 1 (0.7%) 2 (1.4%) 8 ( 5.7 %) 14 ( 9.9 %) 4 2 ( 29.8 %) 73 ( 51.8 %) E xtent6 7 ( 5.0 %) 9 ( 6.4 %) 11 ( 7.8 %) 30 ( 21.3 %) 19 ( 13.5 %) 25 ( 17.7 %) 40 ( 28.4 %) I mportance6 0 (0%) 2 ( 1.4 %) 3 ( 2.1 %) 9 ( 6.4 %) 12 ( 8.5 %) 31 ( 22.0 %) 81 ( 57.4 %) E xtent7 12 ( 8.5 %) 10 ( 7.1 %) 14 ( 9.9 %) 19 ( 13.5 %) 18 ( 12.8 %) 28 ( 19.9 %) 40 ( 28.4 %) I mportance7 0 (0%) 1 ( 0.7 %) 1 ( 0.7 %) 7 ( 5.0 %) 10 ( 7.1 %) 29 ( 20.6 %) 93 (66. 0 %) E xtent8 7 ( 5.0 %) 8 ( 5.7 %) 12 ( 8.5 %) 30 ( 21.3 %) 25 ( 17.7 %) 28 ( 19.9 %) 31 ( 22.0 %) I mportance8 2 (1.4%) 0 (0%) 3 (2.1%) 8 (5.7%) 7 (5.0%) 36 ( 25.5 %) 84 ( 59.6 %) E xtent9 8 ( 5.7 %) 6 ( 4.3 %) 8 ( 5.7 %) 20 ( 14.2 %) 28 ( 19. 9%) 31 ( 22.0 %) 40 ( 28.4 %) I mportance9 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.7%) 7 (5.0%) 4 (2.8%) 33 (23.4%) 96 (68.1%) E xtent10 2 ( 1.4 %) 4 ( 2.8 %) 6 ( 4.3 %) 21 ( 14.9 %) 20 ( 14.2 %) 40 ( 28.4 %) 48 ( 34.0 %) I mportance10 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.7%) 3 (2.1%) 8 (5.7%) 37 (26.2%) 92 (65.2%)

PAGE 111

111 Table 4 8 Continued (1) no support / not important (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) very supportive / very important E xtent11 15 ( 10.6 %) 10 ( 7.1 %) 10 ( 7.1 %) 30 ( 21.3 %) 27 ( 19.1 %) 21 (14.9%) 25 (17.7%) I mportance11 1 (0.7%) 2 (1.4%) 2 (1.4%) 13 (9.2%) 18 ( 12.8 %) 42 ( 29.8 %) 60 ( 42.6 %) E xtent12 15 ( 10.6 %) 15 ( 10.6 %) 13 ( 9.2 %) 23 ( 16.3 %) 25 ( 17.7 %) 25 ( 17.7 %) 25 ( 17.7 %) I mportance12 1 ( 0.7 %) 6 ( 4.3 %) 6 ( 4.3 %) 13 ( 9.2 %) 23 ( 16.3 %) 38 ( 27.0 %) 53 ( 37.6 %) E xtent13 25 ( 17.7 %) 14 ( 9.9 %) 17 ( 12.1 %) 28 ( 19.9 %) 23 ( 16.3 %) 16 ( 11.3 %) 18 ( 12.8 %) Importance13 3 (2.1%) 5 (3.5%) 7 (5.0%) 11 (7.8%) 24 (17.0%) 40 (28.4%) 50 (35.5%) E xtent14 19 ( 13.5 %) 15 ( 10.6 %) 15 ( 10.6 %) 28 (19.9%) 22 ( 15.6 %) 24 ( 17.0 %) 1 8 ( 12. 8%) Importance14 2 (1.4%) 3 (2.1%) 5 (3.5%) 11 (7.8%) 24 (17.0%) 35 (24.8%) 61 (43.3%) E xtent15 13 ( 9.2 %) 11 ( 7.8 %) 9 ( 6.4 %) 22 ( 15.6 %) 23 ( 16.3 %) 31 ( 22.0 %) 32 ( 22.7 %) Importance15 1 (0.7%) 3 (2.1%) 5 (3.5%) 18 (12.8%) 16 (11.3%) 38 (27.0%) 59 (41.8%) E xtent16 29 ( 20.6 %) 19 ( 13.5 %) 23 ( 16.3 %) 16 ( 11.3 %) 13 ( 9.2 %) 20 ( 14.2 %) 21 ( 14.9 %) I mportance16 2 (1.4%) 5 (3.5%) 11 (7.8%) 17 (12.1%) 19 (13.5%) 32 (22.7%) 54 (38.3%) E xtent17 6 ( 4.3 %) 9 ( 6.4 %) 9 ( 6.4 %) 1 2 (8.5%) 16 ( 11.3 %) 29 ( 20.6 %) 50 ( 35.5 %) Importance17 0 ( 0 %) 1 (0.7%) 2 (1.4%) 13 (9.2%) 15 (10.6%) 28 (19.9%) 82 (58.2%) E xtent18 19 (13.5%) 13 (9.2%) 23 (16.3%) 23 (16.3%) 16 ( 11.3 %) 19 ( 13.5 %) 17 ( 12.1 %) Importance18 4 (2.8%) 0 (0%) 7 (5.0%) 21 (14.9%) 22 (15.6%) 33 (23.4%) 52 (36.9%) E xtent19 26 ( 18.4 %) 17 ( 12.1 %) 15 ( 1 0.6%) 2 3 (16.3%) 18 (12.8%) 14 (9.9%) 18 ( 12.8 %) Importance19 3 (2.1%) 6 (4.3%) 11 (7.8%) 19 (13.5%) 22 (15.6%) 27 (19.1%) 52 (36.9%) E xtent20 16 ( 11.3 %) 16 ( 11.3 %) 17 ( 12.1 %) 21 (14.9%) 2 1 (14.9%) 18 (12.8%) 22 ( 1 5.6%) Importance20 3 (2.1%) 4 (2.8%) 7 (5.0%) 24 (17.0%) 22 (15.6%) 22 (15.6%) 59 (41.8%)

PAGE 112

112 Table 4 8 Continued (1) no support / not important (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) very supportive / very important E xtent21 10 ( 7.1 %) 5 ( 3.5 %) 4 ( 2.8 %) 11 ( 7.8 %) 16 ( 11.3 %) 30 ( 21.3 %) 55 ( 39 %) Importance21 1 (0.7%) 1 (0.7%) 0 (0%) 8 (5.7%) 15 (10.6%) 21 (14.9%) 95 (67.4%) E xtent22 15 (10.6%) 15 (10.6%) 10 ( 7.1 %) 20 ( 14.2 %) 27 ( 19.1 %) 16 ( 11.3 %) 28 (19.9%) Importance22 0 ( 0 %) 3 ( 2.1 %) 4 (2.8%) 10 ( 7.1 %) 17 ( 12.1 %) 41 ( 29.1 %) 65 ( 46.1 %) E xtent23 4 ( 2.8 %) 7 ( 5.0 %) 13 ( 9.2 %) 14 ( 9.9 %) 27 ( 19.1 %) 25 (17.7%) 40 ( 28.4 %) Importance23 0 ( 0 %) 1 (0.7%) 0 ( 0 %) 6 (4.3%) 9 (6.4%) 26 (18.4%) 96 (68.1%) E xtent24 9 ( 6.4 %) 13 ( 9.2 %) 10 ( 7.1 %) 17 ( 1 2.1%) 21 ( 14.9 %) 24 ( 17.0 %) 37 ( 26.2 %) Importance24 0 ( 0 %) 2 (1.4%) 2 (1.4%) 9 (6.4%) 10 (7.1%) 37 (26.2%) 79 (56.0%) E xtent25 10 ( 7.1 %) 13 ( 9.2 %) 11 ( 7.8 %) 14 ( 9.9 %) 22 ( 15.6 %) 34 ( 24.1 %) 37 ( 26.2 %) Importance25 2 (1.4%) 0 ( 0 %) 2 (1.4%) 8 (5.7%) 11 (7.8%) 47 (33.3%) 68 (48.2%) E xtent26 33 ( 23.4 %) 23 ( 16.3 %) 1 4 ( 9.9 %) 19 ( 13.5 %) 13 ( 9.2 %) 18 ( 12.8 %) 20 ( 14.2 %) Importance26 5 (3.5%) 5 (3.5%) 5 (3.5%) 8 (5.7%) 24 (17.0%) 33 (23.4%) 58 (41.1%) E xtent27 17 ( 12.1 %) 14 ( 9.9 %) 11 ( 7.8 %) 22 ( 15.6 %) 18 ( 12.8 %) 31 ( 22 %) 27 ( 19.1 %) Importance27 1 (0.7%) 1 (0.7%) 2 (1.4%) 7 (5.0%) 16 (11.3%) 32 (22.7%) 80 (56.7%)

PAGE 113

113 Table 4 9 Factor loadings with oblique rotation (* significant at 5% level) Items Number Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Q1 0.283* Q2 0.723* Q3 0.618* Q4 0.464* Q5 0.720* Q6 0.664* Q7 0.764* Q8 0.444* Q9 0.788* Q10 0.464* 0.484 Q11 0.307* Q12 0.418* Q13 0.944* Q14 0.871* Q15 0.523* Q16 0.580* Q17 Q18 0.799* Q19 0.853* Q20 0.970* Q21 0.695* Q22 0.552* Q23 0.581* Q24 0.651* Q25 0.426* Q26 0.667* Q27 0.732* Eigenvalue 12.915 2.280 1.818 1.250 Cumulative Variance 47.83 56.27 63.00 67.62 Table 4 10 Factor correlation matrix for administrative support factors Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 1 1 Factor 2 0. 538 1 Factor 3 0.408 0.648 1 Factor 4 0.410 0.260 0.428 1

PAGE 114

114 Table 4 11 for repeated measures with ANOVA. Epsilon w Approx. chi square Df Sig Greenhouse Geisser Huynh Feldt Lower bound Importance .721 45.44 2 5 .000 .828 .844 .333 Note: May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Table 4 12 Repeated measures ANOVA on the importance of administrative supports . Df SS MS F P Partial Eta Squared Importance Sphericity Assumed 3 48.304 16.101 42.118 .000 .231 Greenhouse Geisser 2.484 48.304 19.448 42.118 .000 .231 Huynh Feldt 2.532 48.304 19.077 42.118 .000 .231 Lower bound 1.000 48.304 48.304 42.118 .000 .231 Error (importance) Sphericity Assumed 420 160.563 .382 Greenhouse Geisser 347.726 160.563 .462 Huynh Feldt 354.499 160.563 .453 Lower bound 140.000 160.563 1.147 a. Computed using alpha = .05 Table 4 13 Mean and standard deviation for the importance of administrative support. N Mininum Maximum Mean SD Emotional support 141 2.89 7.00 6.3863 .78896 Appraisal support 141 1.50 7.00 5.7878 1.22132 Informational support 141 2.38 7.00 5.7592 1.16698 Instrumental support 141 2.17 7.00 6.3277 .81915

PAGE 115

115 Table 4 14 Bonferroni post hoc comparison on the importance of administrative support (* significant at 5% level) (I) Importance (J) Importance Mean Difference (I J) Std. Error P 95% Confidence Interval for Difference Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2 .599 .079 .000 .388 .809 3 .62 7 .075 .000 .426 .828 4 .059 .055 1.000 .088 .206 2 3 .028 .069 1.000 .158 .214 4 .540 .086 .000 .771 .309 3 4 .568 .073 .000 .765 .371 Note: 1 = Emotional support, 2 = appraisal support, 3 = instrumental support, 4 = informational support Figure 4 1. Means of the i mportance of administrative support ( Note: 1 = Emotional support, 2 = appraisal support, 3 = instrumental support, 4 = informational support ).

PAGE 116

116 Table 4 1 5 Regression for the e xt ent demographic predictors. Model Df SS MS F P Regression 5 18.809 3.762 1.704 138 b Residual 13 3 293.604 2.208 T otal 13 8 312.413 a. Dependent Variable: extentmean b. Predictors: (Constant), grade, gender, years, number of students age Table 4 1 6 Regression for the importance of emotional s upport demographic predictors Model Df SS MS F P Regression 5 3. 097 619 .985 430 b Residual 13 3 83.646 62 9 T otal 138 86.743 a. Dependent Variable: emotional sup b. Predictors: (Constant), grade, gender, years, number of students age Table 4 17 Regression for the importance of appraisal support demographic predictors. Model Df SS MS F P Regression 5 1.382 .276 .179 .970 b Residual 133 205.134 1.542 T otal 138 206.516 a. Dependent Variable: appraisalsup b. Predictors: (Constant), grade, gender, years, number of students age Table 4 1 8 Regression for the importance of informational support demographic predictors Model Df SS MS F P Regression 5 3.226 .64 5 .46 5 .80 2 b Residual 133 184.714 1.38 9 T otal 138 1 87.940 a. Dependent Variable: informationalsup b. Predictors: (Constant), grade, gender, years, number of students age

PAGE 117

117 Table 4 1 9 Regression for the importance of instrumental support demographic predictors Model Df SS MS F P Regression 5 5.050 1.010 1. 537 183 b Residual 133 87.422 .65 7 T otal 138 92.472 a. Dependent Variable: instrumental sup b. Predictors: (Constant), grade, gender, years, number of students age

PAGE 118

118 Table 4 20. Respondents comm ents about administrative support. Category Themes Comments greater knowledge and understand ing of special education understanding of special education 1. Having a basic knowledge of special education (i.e. importance of IEP and assistive technology) 2. Having public promotion s about special education for principals 3. Understanding that SWD s do not result 4. Understanding the necessity of special education class es and inclusive education 5. Understanding that SETs do not have an easy job even if the y teach a small number of students 6. The status of SETs differs d epending on the principal s interest level in special education, 7. 8. 9. Treating or viewing SETs and GETs equally, not separately or discriminating against them Need for in service training for principals 10. More in service training for principals than now 11. Receiving more practical in service training to support special education classes and SWD 12. Expecting basic professionalism for special education f rom principals and vice principals Need for guidelines regarding suitable workload assignments for SETs in general schools Heavy workload 1. Assigning special education work exclusively for SETs rather than assigning them general education tasks additionally 2. Not being assigned additional general education work to SETs because SETs could not focus on the special education work due to other general education work 3. Not being assigned the additional tasks or chores that other GETs avoid Necessity of guidelines for workload assignment 4. Having special education work guideline so that SETs are not overwhelmed by the general education tasks 5. as being an easy job, and assigning all kinds of general education tasks that could be related to special education

PAGE 119

119 Table 4 20. Continued Category Themes Comments Budget for special education classes 1. Spending the special education budget for its intended purposes Current problems created by uninformed principals & importance of opinions in developing educational policy Problems created by uninformed principals 1. H aving little knowledge about special educatio n, but having strong administrative authority 2. Helping SETs more when principals ignore and have no interest in special education 3. Causing more serious problems when principals receive only several in service training s and make decisions by themselves without taking responsibilit y for the consequences 4. Receiving in service training emphasizing ideal inclusive education practices (that are totally different from the Korean context) 5. Understanding the difficulties of SETs work and changes their beliefs that SETs do easy jobs compared to GETs Importance opinions in developing educational policy 6. school administrators.

PAGE 120

120 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION S, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Discussion Administrative support from school principals is important for increasing job satisfaction (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Tickle, Chang, & Kim, 2011 ) reducing the work stress of SETs (Wheeler & LaRocco, 2009), and contributing toward their intent to stay in their teaching positions (Conley & You, 2016; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Tickle, Chang, & Kim, 2011). In addition, administrative support can influence positive attitudes toward inclusive educat ion (Villa et al., 2005). Previous studies, however, reveal that SETs in the U.S. have not received administrative support to the degree they expected (Cross & Billingsley, 1994; Hughes et al. 2015; Roderich & Jung, 2012). Korea is not an exception, and Ko rean SETs have many challenges working in general schools. Currently, there are limited studies of administrative support in Korea. Thus, this study administrative support, and the ga p that exists between them. So far, only two studies in the U.S. validated the PSQ (Littrell et al., 1994) by conducting a factor analysis; no Korean studies have examined the validity of an administrative support scale for SETs. Thus, this study attempte d to measure the validity and reliability of the Administrative Support Questionnaire (ASQ), developed for The fold support framework, wa s developed based on the content analysis results of the PSQ, several studies (e.g., Balfour, 2001; Kang & A total of 141 Korean SETs in one rural province participated in the ASQ. Major fi ndings are discussed in the

PAGE 121

121 following sections related to each research question : (a) f a lpha results, (b) t ypes of s upport r eceived m ost (c) m ost i mportant t ypes of s upport (d) g ap between the e xtent and i mportance of a dministrative s upport and (e) c hallenges. Questions 1 and 2: Factor Analysis and Cronbach s A lpha Results N ew survey question s were developed for the ASQ reflecting Korean school contexts Each question was based on House s (1981) social support fr amework and categorized into four support types. Thus, the researcher assumed questions 1 10 would be loaded on emotional support, questions 11 14 would be loaded on appraisal support, questions 15 20 would be loaded on informational support, and questions 21 27 would be loaded on instrumental support. The result s of the CFA, however, indicated that the model fit was not good for survey questions addressing either the extent of or importance of administrative support CFA is conducted when the number of factors and factor loading patterns are guided by theoretical perspectives (Brown, 2006). In this case, a lthough there were theoretical assumptions that specify how the questions are related to one another (i.e., theoretically the specified four factor mod el is correct), the CFA results were not aligned to the assumptions Part of this could be that the survey was translated to Korean, and this study is the first attempt to model the administrative support factor structure with Korean SETs. Additionally, Li on the results of the content analysis and the reflection of the Korean context, which could be related to the CFA results. The combination of these circumstances may have influenced the questions and changed the underlying relationship between them which appears to render the original theory incorrect.

PAGE 122

122 The original PSQ (Littrell et al. 1994), however, had not previously been analyzed through CFA In t wo more recent studies about administrative sup port, DiPaola (2012) and Cancio et al. (2013) conducted a factor analysis, but they conducted exploratory rather than confirmatory factor analyses As stated earlier, EFA is used when scale development is in the early stage nu mber of common factors, and to ascertain which measured variables are reasonable indicators of the various latent dimensions (e.g., by the size and differential magnitude Because the ASQ is still in the early dev elopment stage and this is the first study to provide evidence for its construct validity i n Korea, it was appropriate to conduct an EFA. E xploratory factor analysis. Both Cancio et al. (2013) and DiPaola (2012) conducted EFA with varimax rotation, which assumes each factor is uncorrelated ( Osborne & Costello, 2009). Behavior or personality cannot be independent in social science ( Church & Burke 1994), therefore, oblique rotation, which assumes factors are correlated, was used in this study. The results o f the EFA for both the extent and importance of administrative supports are discussed in this section. Extent of s upport The EFA results confirmed that only one factor general support, was found for the extent of administrative support. ments indicated that SETs did not categorize the specific types of administrative support they received or about which they had concern. Concerns were expressed about the educ ation, rather than about the degree of administrative support that they received. In other words, SETs perceived receiving a slightly below average to above average

PAGE 123

123 extent of administrative support, but had additional concerns and did not categorize the support they were receiving. Previous American studies found two factors (DiPaola, 2012) and four factors expressive support (emotional and professional support) and instrumental support (instrumental and appraisal support). Before conducting a factor analysis, Cancio et al. (2013) already defined factors differently from Littrell et al. (1994) based on their literature review. They used the four terms guidance and fe edback, opportunity for growth, appreciation and trus t The present study is not exceptional in having only one factor general support, for the extent of administrative support. Importance of support EFA results found four factors for the importance of administrative support and most of the survey items under each factor remained, as expected. Thus, factors were labeled as emotional, appraisal, information and instrumental support Four out of 27 survey questions moved from instru mental support provides opportunities for me to attend workshops, attend conferences, and take courses PSQ (Littrell et al., 1994) was loaded as instrumental support rather than informational support. Results of the content analysis for the ASQ indicated in service training during conferences, and in service training is related to receiving direct help from principals (instrumental support) rather than

PAGE 124

124 principals providing information to SETs through profess ional development so that SETs could solve problems (informational support). Q uestions related to SETs work time and work load were loaded on information support rather than instrumental support: question 25 my principal allows time for inclusive educati onal planning and practice with GETs question 26 my principal provides extra assistance when I become overloaded and question 27 my principal fairly distributes resources and unpopular chores Although q uestion s 26 and 27 were loaded on instrumental support when DiPaola (2012) conducted the factor analysis i n the Korean context the results were different. According to Preacher and MacCallum (2003), loadings that are high in a single sample are corresponding high in other samples or in Thus, factor loading results could be different depending on the sample. Korean SETs in the content analysis express ed that principals sometimes believe that SE Ts do not have heavy workload s and so they assign more duties to them Thirty percent of the participants who provided c omments to the survey also confirmed SETs were assigned additional general education tasks, or chores that their GET colleagues avoid, in addition to their special education assignments. Based on comments from the content analysis and survey, SETs would like principals to appreciate that they have intensive workloads teaching students with disabilities, rather than assigning them both general and special education work. SETs might perceive t hat principals are not informed about SETs workload s and so they are not able to help SETs directly. In other words, SETs might perceive that support for their work time and

PAGE 125

125 heavy workload is not related to instrumental support provided directly by their principals but rather related to information needed by their principals to support the work of SETS and to help them solve their problems. Kim et al. (2002) and Kim et al. (2011) found similar results that SETs employed in general schools reported other teachers and school administrators lack special education knowledge and misunderstand their work Question 10 was cross loaded for two factors and question 1 h a d a factor loading of below my principal trusts my judgment when I make decision s for my special education class was cross loaded on emotional support and instrumental support Originally Littrell et al. (1994) placed the question judgment in the appraisal support category results determined the question was loaded on emotional support In the present study, participants might have perceived their principal s d irectly facilitates their classroom decision making. It should be noted that question 1 on the ASQ my principal considers my ideas for the special education operating plan was deleted because of low factor loading (.283) although the mean score for thi s question was ranked highest among the 27 importance questions with 82% of respondents selecting the very important response option (a score of 7 on the 7 point Likert scale). The EFA results demonstrate that four factors, aligned with the House (1981) framework, were found for the importance of administrative support. Thus, this study provides evidence for the construct validity of the ASQ for Korean use.

PAGE 126

126 Cronbach s A lpha resu lts (Reliability of the ASQ). The reliability coefficient results indicated internal consistency of the survey questionnaire (Kimberlin & Winterstein, 2008, p. 2277). (above. 80) for both the extent of and importance of administrative support survey questions indicate that the items for each support type measure the constructs well. Previously, Kang and Park (2002) and Lee (2012) reported .97 for reliability coefficients for the PSQ (Littrell et al.,1994). In the present study, many PSQ questions were revised and new questions were added This could explain why the reliability is lower than in previous Korean studies coefficients are high for the cutoff point > .8, suggested by George and Malley (2003). Question 3: Types of Support Received Most The EFA results indicate only one fact or (support type) was found for the extent could not be answered. In their comments, none of the participants mentioned the different type s of support they received, but they emphasized knowledge about special education and about the workload assignments of SETs. Thus, participants perceived receiving administrative su pport in genera l but they did not distinguish between the different types of administrative support they received. Previous studies (i.e., Kang & Park, 2002; Lee, 2012; Littrell et al., 1994) did not conduct factor analyses, but all of these studies found that emotional support was the administrative support type that teachers reported receiving the most. The rankings were different, however, for the rest of the administrative support types that teacher s

PAGE 127

127 received. Participants in Littrell et al. (1994) per ceived receiving appraisal, informational, and instrumental support in that order. Korean SETs in Kang and Park (2002) perceived receiving instrumental, informational, and appraisal support in that order. Korean SETs in Lee (2012) perceived receiving appra isal, instrumental, and informational support in that order. Question 4: Most Important Types of Support In terms of the importance of administrative support that SETs perceived in the present study, emotional and instrumental support were considered mor e important than appraisal and informational support. There was no statistically significant difference, however, between emotional and instrumental support, and between appraisal and informational support. SETs in Roderick and Jung (2012) also valued the emotional and instrumental domain s the most. In addition SETs in Littrell et al. ( 199 4 ) also perceived emotional support was the most important to be received from principals, following appraisal, instrumental, and informational support. None of the previous stud ies however, directly compared the types of administrative support that SETs perceived i mportant after factor analysis T hus, discussion of the importance of administrative support types is limited in both American studies and Ko rean studies. Question 5: Gap between the Extent and Importance of Administrative Support Four factors were not found for both the extent of and importance of administrative support ; th erefore a paired t test was conducted as an alternative way to analyz e these data. The significant mean differences between the extent of and importance of administrative support ( p < .001) demonstrated that SETs experience a gap between the support they currently receive and degree of support they expect to

PAGE 128

128 receive from pr incipals. The greatest mean differences were found for the tasks and chores areas such as question 26 , hould be noted that question 26 has the lowest mean scores for questions about the extent of administrative support. Furthermore, 23% of participants responded that they receive no support for extra assistance when they become overloaded ( average mean scor e of 1 on the 7 point Likert scale). These findings are s indicating that principal s fail to provide support s For example, Lee (2014) found that SETs were unsatisfied when administrators did not emphasized that the most crucial role of principal s in supporting SETs is to have a basic knowledge of their roles in educating SWD. Based on the literature review for this study, SETs in Korea face many challenges in general schools such as implementing curriculum for SWD, co teaching and collaboration with GETs, and securing budgets for special education classes. In addition, SETs have difficulties receiving supervision from school principals. Thus, the ASQ address e Curriculum for SWD Question s 19 and 22 were related to support for implementing the national special education curriculum for SWD. The mean score for the extent of administrative support for question 19, my principal gives advice for the implementation of the special education curri culum is the second lowest mean score of

PAGE 129

129 the 27 questions addressing the extent of administrative support ( M = 3.79 ). Eighteen percent of SETs responded that they receive no support for the implementation of the special education curriculum. The mean sco re for the i mportance of administrative support for question 19, however, is the lowest among the 27 importance of administrative support survey questions ( M = 5.42 ). The mean scores for both the extent and importance of administrative support for question 22 ( my principal provides resources and support to re construct the special education curriculum for use in special education classes According to SEAIDO (2008), school principals are expected to implement a re constructed or modifi ed special education curriculum and may perceive that receiving support from principals regarding the special education curriculum is less important than other types of administrative support. Previous studies (e.g, Kim et al., 2011; Yeo et al., 2004) found that SETs have difficulties in implementing curriculum and Jung (2014) claimed no existence of standardized rules for curriculum in special education class es None of the SETs in th e present study, however, mentioned the difficulties of implementing a special education curriculum in general schools in their comments at the end of the survey. Survey results could indicate that although administrative support is lower in this area, it would be hard for principals to support SETs in modifying and implementing the special education curriculum because they lack basic knowledge about special education pr actices Co teaching and collaboration. Questions 13, 14, 24, and 25 challenges with co teaching and collaboration as inclusive practices The mean score of the extent of administrative support for question 13, my principal provides feedback

PAGE 130

130 about my collaboration with GETs for planning and delivering instruction was one of the lowest mean scores among the 27 survey questions addressing the extent of administrative support. Twenty five SETs (17%) responded that they receive no support in this area Participants considered support for co teaching and collaboration important (average score of 5.6 on the 7 point Likert scale), however, they perceive d receiving less support (average score of 4.47) than expected given its importance. According to to underst and inclusive education and special education. Comments suggest current in service training for principals focus es on the ideal of inclusive education which differs from the reality of the Korean education context Kim et al. (2011), Kim (2013), and Ryu, (n.d.) also stated that inclusive education is different in Korean contexts Previous studies also suggest other reasons for limited support including that co teaching and collaboration are not common practices ( Kim, 2009; Kim et al., 2011; Lee 2005 ; Lee, Han, & Yi, 2009 ) in the Korean context, which relies on the use of special education classes within general education schools Budget for special education classes. Question s 15 and 21 are connected to in securing budget ary resources for operating special education classes. In responding to question 21 ( to b e used for its original purpose ), about 67% of SETs indicated a mean score of 6.38 on a 7 point Likert scale for the importance of ad ministrative support in this area. This is one of the highest scores among the 27 questions addressing the importance of administrative support The mean score for the extent of support in this area, however,

PAGE 131

131 is also high ( M = 5.5) which is the third high est score among the 27 questions addressing the extent of administrative support Two SETs shared their comments on the special education budget, insisting that the special education budget should be spent for its intended purposes. Previously, Lee (2005) found that the budget for special education class es is not implemented well in schools and Kang and Park (2002), Lee (2012), and Nam and Ahn (2013) also discussed the need for administrative support in this area B udget management for special e ducation classes is uncertain and budgets may not be used for their intended purpose. Supervision for SETs. Questions 11, 16, and 26 supervision of SETs assignments. More than 70% of the SETs indicated this was an important to v ery important aspect of administrative support. None of the SETs, however, shared comments about the supervision they received from their principals. Previous study, Lim and Park (2009) found half of SETs who received supervision had only one time supervis ion for their teaching and SETs in Tae and Park (2007) insisted supervision by principals was superficial. my principal provides extra assistance when I become overloaded extent of administrative support survey questions. In addition, the highest frequency was displayed in the no support response (score of 1 on the 7 point Likert scale) for this question. Furthermore, 11 SETs shared comments about the need for guidelines fo r adequate workload assignments for SETs in general schools. SETs stated that principals do not know that SETs are already overwhelmed by general and special

PAGE 132

132 education work, and principals think that they can add additional general education work workload. Responses to question 16 indicate that SETs might perceive that it is not necessary to receive information about current special education legal policies from principals. The mean for the importance of administrative support in this area was 5.55 which was the third lowest mean score for the 27 questions addressing the importance of administrative support. Data also show SETs receive limited information about special education policies. The mean score for the extent of administrative support in this area was 3.77 which was the second lowest mean score for the 27 questions addressing the extent of administrative support. In addition, the highest frequency (20%) of scores indicated a response of no support (score of 1 on the 7 point Likert scal e ) Limitations There are some limitations to consider when interpreting the results of this study First, the selection bias of participants affects the external validity of this study. The sample is comprised of SETs only from one rural province in Sout h Korea so the findings might limit generalization to SETs in other municipal or suburban areas and provinces. Second, there might be a non response bias in that the answers of respondents might be different from those of non respondents. This limitation is a general concern of survey design In addition, t he supervisor of special education for the rural province arranged for the Qualtrics survey link to be distributed ; there is a possibility that SETs response s (e.g., few answers for low support response options) might have been influenced by this approach A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for data reduction of the PSQ (Littrell et al., 1994) was not conducted for this study therefore, cross loading of one survey item

PAGE 133

133 (question 10) was not deleted. M ost of the items in the ASQ have moderate factor loadings. According to Yong and Pearce (2013), a factor loading for a variable is a measure of how much the variable contributes to the factor; thus, high factor loading scores indicate that the dimensions of the factors are better accounted for by the 81) thus, high factor loading ( > .70) would be assumed for future study. In addition, the sample size for this study ( n = 141) was relatively small which could be related to factor loadings. In terms of factor loading, seven survey question items (e.g., question 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 25) have below .5 even though factor loading of .30 is the suggested cutoff point ( Brown 2006). In addition, only four survey question items (e.g., question 14, 15, 19, and 20) have above .80 factor loadings. The factor loadings of the remaining survey question items range from .40 to .60. According to Fabriger et al. (1999), erate communalities (e.g., .40 to .70) (p.283). Furthermore, the sample size was not large enough to split in half to conduct a CFA after the EFA According to Fabrigar e t al. (1999) one half of the data providing the basi s for specifying a CFA model that can be fit to the 277). Conclusion This study provides evidence of construct validity for the use of the ASQ in Korea, and analysis of administrative support The factor analysis results indicate that SETs perceive the importance of four different types of administrative support (e.g., emotional, apprai sal,

PAGE 134

134 informational, and instrumental support) even though they perceive the extent of administrative support as being only one type of support In other words SETs consider the four types of support as being important for principals to provide, but they d o not distinguish among the types of support they receive. SETs are isolated in general education schools and teach in special education classes. School principals are less informed about special education and SETs may perceive that principals provide administrative support that is more generic than specific The statistically significant of administrative support represent that SETs do not perceive receiving the exten t of support to the degree they expect from principals given the importance of support for each item of the ASQ The data suggest, however, that SETs were receiving adequate administrative support. Although t test results demonstrated a significant gap be tween the perceived extent and importance of administrative support across the 27 questions this gap does not seem to be practical ly significant. S cores for the extent of support they received ranged from only slightly below to somewhat above average. Thu s, the SETs perceived receiving close to average levels of support, even though they consider ed the importance of receiving support across each item to be much higher knowledge of spe cial education and to understand that SETs have heavy workloads with general and special education tasks. According to Thornton, Peltier, and Medina (2007) responsibilities. In addition, Wakeman et al. (2006) insisted that principals should have

PAGE 135

135 a basic knowledge of special education and of current special education issues. The researcher can infer that discussing the extent and importance of administrative support by principa ls is in quite an early stage in Korea. SETs perceive that principals need a basic knowledge of the importance of special education classes and inclusive education to support SETs. Implications for Policy and Practices This study provides several implicat ions for policy and practices in Korea. These implications address (a) the need for policymakers to explore the reasons why SETs distinguish among four types of administrative support as being important, but fail to distinguish more than one type for the e xtent of support they receive; (b) the need of in service trainings for principals about basic special education ; and (c) the need for work guidelines about suitable workloads for SETs in general schools. T he EFA results determined only one type of suppor t for the extent variable indicating that SETs perceived no difference in the types of administrative support they received. However, the EF A results for the importance variable determined four factors. This suggests teachers are saying there is something important that distinguishes the four types of administrative support but they do not see the differences in practice. Policymakers might look more closely at the reasons why SETs perceive administrative support to be generic. Principals in Korea should receive in service trainings for fundamental knowledge of special education. According to SELIDO (2008), principals are in charge of offering special education services and operating special education classes in schools. In service training (professional d evelopment) should include the importance of IEPs and assistive technology, the necessity of inclusive education and special education

PAGE 136

136 uidelines about suitable workload s for SETs i n general schools should be developed with the input of SETs, and mandated to improve inclusive education in Korean schools. Recommendations for Future Research This study was the first study to provide construct validity evidence for the ASQ for Korean u se, therefore, replication stud ies would be necessary. Future research using ASQ with a different sample could confirm the relevance of the four factors for the importance of administrative support. According to Fabrigar et al. (1999), number of factors for a battery of measure variables is shown to be appropriate in more than one data set . a researcher can be more confident that the optimal number of Future research could focus more narrowly on administrative support for inclusive education. Even though the SELIDO (2008) indicates principals should attempt to accomplish an inclusive educational mission by creating education plans (Article 21, Clause 1), this study provides limited evidence to what degree and how principals should support SETs for inclusive education. In addition, little is known about how principals in general schools support SETs for inclusive education. In addition, future research could be conduct ed by recruiting both scho ol principals and SETs to examine the differences between what those two groups perceive to be the most important and the most valuable support to receive from principals. Roderick and Jung (2012) found a noticeable difference between what administrators a nd SETs perceived important support to receive. Currently, no Korean stud ies examine the administrative support perceptions of both SETs and principals in general school s therefore, it would be meaningful to conduct such a study.

PAGE 137

137 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTION S OF LITTRELL EL AL. Description of Factor 1 (Emotional Support) 1. Acts friendly toward me 2. Is east to approach 3. Gives me undivided attention when I am talking 4. Is honest and straightforward with the staff 5. Gives me a sense of importance and that I make a difference 6. Considers my ideas 7. A llows me input into decisions that affect me 8. S upports me on decisions 9. S hows genuine concern for my program and students 10. N otices what I do 11. S hows appreciation for my work 12. T reats me as one of the faculty Description of Factor 2 (Appraisal Support ) 13. G ives clear guidelines regarding job responsibilities 14. P rovides standards for performance 15. O ffers constructive feedback after observing my teaching 16. P rovides frequent feedback about my p erformance 17. Helps me evaluate my needs 18. T rusts my judgment in making classroom decisions 19. S hows confidence in my actions Description of Factor 3 ( Informational Support) 20. P rovides helpful information for improving personal coping skills 21. P rovides information on up to date instructional techniques 22. P rovides knowledge of current legal policies and administrative regulations 23. P rovides opportunities for me to attend workshops, attend conferences, and take courses 24. E ncourages professional growth 25. P rovides suggestions for me to improve instruction 26. Identifies resource personnel to contact for specific problems he or she is unable to solve 27. A ssists with proper identification of special education students Description of Factor 4 (Instrumental Support) 28. Is available to help when needed 29. H elps me establish my schedule 30. H elps me solve problems and conflicts that occur 31. E stablishes channels of communication between general and special education teaching and other professionals

PAGE 138

138 32. H elps me with classroom discip line problems 33. H elps me during parent confrontations, when needed 34. P rovides time for various nonteaching responsibilities (e.g., IEP, conferences) 35. Provides adequate planning time 36. P rovides material, space, and resource needs 37. P articipates in child/study/eligib ility/IEP meeting/ parent conferences 38. W ords with me to plan specific goals and objectives for my program and students 39. P rovides extra assistance when I become overloaded 40. E qually distributes resources and unpopular chores

PAGE 139

139 APPENDIX B SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (KOREAN VERSION) : . 15 20 (1 352 777 6326, nc7594@u fl.edu) irb2@ufl.edu . ' .

PAGE 140

140 27 (1= 7 = ) (1= 7= )

PAGE 141

141 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

PAGE 142

142 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 8. 9. 10. 11. / 12. / 13. ( ) / 14. /

PAGE 143

143 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 15. 16. 17. , 18. 19. 20. 21.

PAGE 144

144 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

PAGE 145

145 5 . 1. ? 2. ? 29 30 39 40 49 50 59 60 3. ? 5 6 10 11 15 16 20 21

PAGE 146

146 4. ? 6 7 8 9 5. ? .

PAGE 147

147 APPENDIX C SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Dear special education teachers: My name is Nari Choi, and I am a graduate student at the University of College of Education. I am conducting a study regarding special education teachers' perceptions of the importance and extent of administrative support they receive from their school principal. The questions should only take about 15 20 minutes to complete, and your responses are voluntary and will be anonymous. Your identity will be confidential and will be unknown to the researcher Only the researcher will have access to the information collect ed online. There is a minimal risk that security of any online data may be breached, but since no identifying information will be collected, and the online host (Qualtrics) uses several forms of encryption and other protections, it is unlikely that a security breach of the online data will result in any adverse consequence for you. Your name will not be recorded, and so your responses will not be identifiable If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Nari Choi by telephone, 1 352 777 6326, or by email at nc7594@ufl.edu. This study has be en reviewed and approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board, and if you have any questions about your rights as a participant in this study, you may contact them by email at irb2@ufl.edu I hope you enjoy completing this questionnaire and I look forward to receiving your responses. Thank you very much for assisting me with this important study. below to continue. In addition, y ou are free to withdraw your cons ent at any time without penalty. As a participant, you do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer Please note: The Korean Anti Corruption Bill (Kim young ran law) prevents compensation to public school teachers. There are no direct bene fits or risks to you for participating in the study. I agree to participate

PAGE 148

148 Thank you for re sponding to this survey. It contains 27 questions that are intended to help me understand your perceptions about administrative support. For each statement please mark to what degree you received administrative support (1 = no support, 7 = very supportive) and to what degree you think that kind of support is important (1= not important, 7 = very important). In addition, feel free to write down any c omments in the text box.

PAGE 149

149 The extent of administrative support The importance of administrative support no support (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) very supportive (7) not important (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) very important (7) 1. My principal considers my ideas for the special education operating plan 2. My principal pays attention to special education classes and exceptional students 3. My principal understands my work and duties clearly and accurately 4. My principal shows appreciation for the difficulties of special education work 5. My principal is interested in what I do in the classroom 6. My principal gives teachers recognition for a job well done. 7. My principal is available to problems or concerns.

PAGE 150

150 The extent of administrative support The importance of administrative support No support (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) very supportive (7) not important (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) very important (7) 8. My principal supports my decisions in front of other teachers 9. My principal supports my decisions in front of parents 10. My principal trusts my judgment when I make decisions for my special education class 11. My principal provides constructive feedback for my class supervision 12. My principal provides frequent feedback about non teaching responsibilities 13. My principal provides feedback about my collaboration with GETs for planning and delivering instruction 14. My principal provides feedback for inclusive education practices

PAGE 151

151 The extent of administrative support The importance of administrative support No support (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) very supportive (7) not important (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) very important (7) 15. My principal gives advice for planning the special education budget 16. My principal provides information about current special education legal policies and administrative regulations 17. My principal provides opportunities for me to attend workshops, conferences, and take courses 18. My principal offers practical information about effective teaching practices 19. My principal gives advice for the implementation of the special education curriculum 20. My principal provides suggestions to improve instruction and classroom management 21. My principal allows the special education budget to be used for its original purpose

PAGE 152

152 The extent of administrative support The importance of administrative support no support (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) very supportive (7) not important (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) very important (7) 22. My principal provides resources and support to re construct the special education curriculum for use in special education classes 23. My principal establishes an atmosphere that protects SWD from discrimination 24. My principal provides resources and material for inclusive education in service training for GETs and general students 25. My principal allows time for inclusive educational planning and practice with general education teachers. 26. My principal provides extra assistance when I become overloaded 27. My principal fairly distributes resources and unpopular chores

PAGE 153

153 I would like to know a little bit about your background as an educator. Please take some time to answer the five questions below. Please check the box that represents your response to each item 1. What is your gender? Male Female 2. What is your age group? Less than 29 years old 30 39 years old 40 49 years old 50 59 years old Older than 60 years old 3. How many years worked as a special education teacher? Less than 5 years 6 10 years 1 1 1 5 years 1 6 20 years More than 21 years 4. How many students with disabilities are you teachi ng in the special education class? L ess than 6 students 7 students 8 students M ore than 9 students

PAGE 154

154 5. Which grade level school are you working in? Elementary school Middle school High school Thank you so much for your time and participation in the survey! We look forward to sharing the results of this survey with researchers, teacher educators, and administrators, in order to improve the administrative support for SETs. Please let us know anything else that you think is important for us to know reg arding administrative support in the box below.

PAGE 155

155 APPENDIX D QUESTIONS TO ACCORDING TO EACH FACTORS Description of Factor 1 (Emotional Support) 2. My principal pays attentio n to special education classes and exceptional students 3. My principal understands my work and duties clearly and accurately 4. My principal shows appreciation for the difficulties of special education work 5. My principal is interested in what I do in the classroom 6. My principal gives teachers rec ognition for a job well done 7. concerns 8. My principal supports my decisions in front of other teachers 9. My principal supports my decisions in front of parents 10. My principal trusts my judgment when I make decisions for my special education class Description of Factor 2 (Appraisal Support) 11. My principal provides constructive feedback for my class supervision 12. My principal provides frequent feedback about non teaching responsibilities 13. My principal provides feedback about my collaboration with GETs for planning and delivering instruction 14. My principal provides feedback for inclusive education practices Description of Factor 3 ( Informational Support) 15. My principal gives advice for planning the special education budget 16. My principal provides information about current special education legal policies and administrative regulations 18. My principal offers practical information about effective teaching practices 19. My principal gives advic e for the implementation of the special education curriculum 20. My principal provides suggestions to improve instruction and classroom management 25. My principal allows time for inclusive educational planning and practice with general education teachers 26. My principal provides extra assistance when I become overloaded 27. My principal fairly distributes resources and unpopular chores Description of Factor 4 (Instrumental Support) 10. My principal trusts my judgment when I make decisions for my special education class 17. My principal provides opportunities for me to attend workshops, conferences, and take courses

PAGE 156

156 21. My principal allows the special education budget to be used for its original purpose 22. My principal provides resources and support to re construct the special education curriculum for use in special education classes 23. My principal establishes an atmosphere that protects SWD from discrimination 24. My principal provides resources and material for inclusive education in service training for GETs and general students

PAGE 157

157 APPENDIX E EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS IN THE RESULTS Figure E 1. Scree Plot for the Extent of Administrative Support PPENDIX D Figure E 2. Scree Plot for the Importance of Administrative Support E igenvalue Component number E igenvalue Component number

PAGE 158

158 APPENDIX F PAIRED T TEST RESULTS Table F 1 Paired samples t est Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference T D f Sig. (2 tailed) Lower Upper P air 1 extent 1 import 1 .95035 1.47516 .12423 1.19597 .70474 7.650 140 .000 P air 2 extent 2 import 2 1.09353 1.55523 .13191 1.35436 .83269 8.290 138 .000 P air 3 extent 3 import 3 1.20714 1.56166 .13198 1.46810 .94619 9.146 139 .000 P air 4 extent 4 import 4 1.60993 1.89651 .15972 1.92569 1.29416 10.080 140 .000 P air 5 extent 5 import 5 1.35714 1.49373 .12624 1.60675 1.10754 10.750 139 .000 P air 6 extent 6 import 6 1.27536 1.77068 .15073 1.57342 .97730 8.461 137 .000 P air 7 extent 7 import 7 1.56028 1.88365 .15863 1.87391 1.24666 9.836 140 .000 P air 8 extent 8 import 8 1.42143 1.77540 .15005 1.71810 1.12476 9.473 139 .000 P air 9 extent 9 import 9 1.35461 1.68241 .14168 1.63473 1.07449 9.561 140 .000 P air 10 extent 10 import 10 .94326 1.41307 .11900 1.17854 .70799 7.926 140 .000 P air 11 extent 11 import 11 1.45985 1.95168 .16674 1.78960 1.13011 8.755 136 .000 P air 12 extent 12 import 12 1.27143 1.84212 .15569 1.57925 .96361 8.167 139 .000 P air 13 extent 13 import 13 1.72857 1.94841 .16467 2.05415 1.40299 10.497 139 .000 P air 14 extent 14 import 14 1.68794 1.83278 .15435 1.99310 1.38279 10.936 140 .000 P air 15 extent 15 import 15 1.04286 1.88852 .15961 1.35843 .72728 6.534 139 .000 P air 16 extent 16 import 16 1.76429 2.20075 .18600 2.13204 1.39654 9.486 139 .000 P air 17 extent 17 import 17 .86260 1.85540 .16211 1.18331 .54189 5.321 130 .000 P air 18 extent 18 import 18 1.65891 1.97443 .17384 2.00288 1.31494 9.543 128 .000 P air 19 extent 19 import 19 1.64615 2.02259 .17739 1.99713 1.29518 9.280 129 .000 P air 20 extent 20 import 20 1.38931 2.00220 .17493 1.73540 1.04323 7.942 130 .000 P air 21 extent 21 import 21 .84733 1.99797 .17456 1.19268 .50197 4.854 130 .000 P air 22 extent 22 import 22 1.59231 2.13751 .18747 1.96323 1.22139 8.494 129 .000 P air 23 extent 23 import 23 1.32283 1.73151 .15365 1.62690 1.01877 8.610 126 .000 P air 24 extent 24 import 24 1.37692 2.00490 .17584 1.72483 1.02902 7.830 129 .000 P air 25 extent 25 import 25 1.24638 1.87107 .15928 1.56133 .93142 7.825 137 .000 P air 26 extent 26 import 26 2.08029 2.14222 .18302 2.44223 1.71835 11.366 136 .000 P air 27 extent 27 import 27 1.76087 2.02017 .17197 2.10092 1.42081 10.240 137 .000

PAGE 159

159 LIST OF REFERENCES Albrecht, S. F., Johns, B. H., Mounsteven, J., & Olorunda, O. (2009). Working conditions as risk or resiliency factors for teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Psychology in the Schools 46 (10), 1006 1022. Anastasi, A., & Urbina S. (1997). Psychological Testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ax, M., Conderman, G., & Stephens, J. T. (2001). Principal support essential for retaining special educators. NASSP Bulletin 85 (621), 66 71. Balfour, C. Y. (2001 ). Impact of certification status on the administrative support needs of novice special education teachers Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA. Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving graduation and employme nt outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children 66 (4), 509 529. Berry, A. B., Petrin, R. A., Gravelle, M. L., & Farmer, T. W. (2011). Issues in special education teacher recruitment, retention, and professional development: Considerations in supporting rural teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30 (4), 3 11. Billingsley, B. S. (2004). Promoting teacher quality and retention in special education. Journal of learning disabilities 37 (5), 370 376. Billingsley B. S. (2007). A case study of special education teacher attrition in an urban district Journal of Special Education Leadership, 20, 11 20. Billingsley, B., Carlson, E., & Klein, S. (2004). The working conditions and induction support of early career special educators. Exceptional Children 70 (3), 333 347. Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of educational research 78 (3), 367 409. Boyd, D. Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal 48 (2), 303 333. Bozonelos, J. (2008). Retention in special education: Reduc ing attrition through supportive administrative interventions. International Journal of Learning 15 (1). 149 157.

PAGE 160

160 Broughton, S. F., & Hester, J. R. (1993). Effects of administrative and community support on teacher acceptance of classroom interventions. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 4 (2), 169 177. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research New York: Guilford Publications. Cancio, E. J., Albrecht, S. F., & Johns, B. H. (2013). Defining administrative support and its relationship to the attrition of teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children 36 (4), 71 94. Center on International Education Benchmarking (n.d). South Korea Overview Retrieved from http://www.ncee.org/programs affiliates/center on international education benchmarking/top performing countries/south korea overview/ Cihak, M. L. (2015). Role of administrative support in novice teacher retention Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Co llege of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA Choi. (2008). Attitudes and perceptions of South Korean elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities Unpublished doctoral dissertations, University of Illinois at Urbana Champ aign, Champaign, IL. Choi. (2013). The comparison study on structure of practical knowledge to curriculum structure and management between special school and special class teachers. Journal of Special Education & Rehabilitation Science, 52 (1), 69 90. Choi & Han. (2010). A study on special school curriculum improvement in the full inclusion for students with special needs. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 12 (1), 71 87. Choi, & Son. (2007). A study on the present state, problem of middle school curric ulum for special class. The Journal of Special Education: Theory and Practice, 8 (3), 283 301. Cobb, C. (2015). Principals play many parts: A review of the research on school principals as special education leaders 2001 2011. International Journal of Inclu sive Education 19 (3), 213 234. intentions to leave: The effects of administrative support and teacher team efficacy in a meditational model. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Advance online publication. doi: 1741143215608859 Congress Report (2014). 2014 congress report results Retrieved from http://pokr.kr/bill/DD01297/text

PAGE 161

161 Combee. S.W. (2014). The relationship between administrative support and teacher efficacy in the professional life of special education teachers Unpublished doctoral dissertations. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. Council for Exceptional Children. (2013). What every special educator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines f or special educators (7 th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author. special education teachers. Special Education Leadership 24 (1), 17 25. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cross, L. H., & Billingsley, B. S. (1994). Testing a model of special educators' intent to stay in teaching. Exceptional children 60 (5), 411 421. Daane, C. J., Beirne Smith, M., & Latham, D. (2000). Administrators' and teachers' perceptions of the collaborative efforts of inclusion in the elementary grades. Education 121 (2), 331 Darling Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, wh at leaders can do. Educational leadership 60 (8), 6 13. DeMik, S. A. (2008). Experiencing attrition of special education teachers through narrative inquiry. The High School Journal 92 (1), 22 32. Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social support by students classified as victims, bullies, and bully/victims in an urban middle school. School Psychology Review 32 (3), 471 490. DiPaola, M. F. (2012). Conceptualizing and validating a measure of principal support, in M. DiPaola & P. Forsyth (Eds.), Contemporary Challenges Confronting School Leaders (pp. 111 120) Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Dolar., J. (2008). s of needs for administrative support. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA. Ewy, C. L. (2007). The value of administrative behaviors: A comparative study of special education teachers and building administrators in Kansas Unpublished doctoral dissertations, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KA. Fish, W. W., & Stephens, T. L. (2009). Special education: A career of choice. Remedial and Special Education 31, 400 407

PAGE 162

162 Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological assessment 7 (3), 286 299. education: Why they like it here. Teacher Educat ion and Special Education 29(3), 179 190 George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gersten, R., Keating, T., Yovanoff, P., & Harniss, M. K. (2001). Working in special education: Factors that enhance special educators' intent to stay. Exceptional children 67 (4), 549 567. Hansen, S. D. (2007). Ending special educators' isolation. Principa l Leadership 7 (9), 37 40. Hicks, C. (2011). Teacher and administrator perceptions of administrative support in schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertations, Northcentral University, San Diego, CA. House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company. Hughes, A. L., Matt, J. J., & O'Reilly, F. L. (2015). Principal support is imperative to the retention of teachers in hard to staff schools. Journal of Education and Training Studies 3 (1), 129 134. Hwang (2006). Adaption process of beginning special education teachers. The Korean Journal of Special Education, 40 (4), 185 210. Ingersoll, R. M. (2007). A comparative study of teacher preparation and qualifications in 6 nations. Philadelphia: University of P ennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational leadership 60 (8), 30 33. Jung. (2014). Perceptions of high school special classroom teaches on the s tatus of teaching subjects and support needs. Special Education Research, 13 (3), 349 360. Kang. (2001). The correlation between school administrator support and special Unpublished m s University, South Korea : Seoul.

PAGE 163

163 Kang., & Park (2002). A nationwide study on the correlation between general school Korean Journal of Special Education, 37 ( 2), 221 247. Kerr, M. B. (2013). T eacher stress and administrative support as predictors of teachers' self efficacy for special education teachers in california's central valley Unpublished doctoral dissertations, California State University, Fresno, CA Kim. (2005). The enactment of the special education promotion law and the consequent actions. Journal of Special Education: Theory and Practice 6 (1), 497 521. Kim. (2006). A study on the job stress and job satisfaction of special class teachers Unpublish Kim. (2009). The difficulties of new special teachers assigned to general elementary teaching profession. Journal of I ntellectual Disabilities, 11 (3), 335 350. Kim. (2010a). The relationship between job stress and job commitment for the regular school teachers and the special school teachers Unpublished Kim (2010b). Inclusive high school education in the republic of Korea Unpublished doctoral dissertations. University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI. Kim. (2012). Qualitative case study on school principal and general education nclusive education and classroom practices at college bound high school. Asian Journal of Education, 13 (4), 59 79. Kim. (2013). A study on institutional system reforms for improvement of inclusive educational environment. Korean Journal of Special Educati on, 48 (2), 1 18. disabilities and burnout of elementary teachers. The Journal of Inclusive Education, 9 (2), 23 43. Kim, & Cho. (2005). Policy and practical problems of inc lusive education in Korea: An international comparison. The Journal of Special Education: Theory and practice, 6 (4), 37 53. school. Korean Journal of Special Education 36 (4), 77 99. Kim, Han, & Yi. (2009). A survey on the current status of special classroom management in the technical high schools in the metropolises. The Journal of Inclusive Education, 4 (1), 31 60.

PAGE 164

164 Kim, Kim, Choi, & Kwon. (2011). Elementary special and genera l education law for individuals with disabilities and others. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction 15 (4), 989 1017. Kim, & Chung. (2016). An analysis of the relationship of participation in the decision making processes and teacher commitment compared between special education teachers and regular elementary school teachers. Special Education Research, 15 (1), 181 200. K im et al. (2002). The history of special education in Korea with photographs Korea. Author: Special education. Kimberlin, C. L., & Winterstein, A. G. (2008). Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. Am J Health Syst Pharm 65 (23), 2276 2284. Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Korean Education Development Institute. (2006). Improving school leadership country background report for Korea. South Korea: Author. Korean National I nstitute for Special Education. (n.d.). Annual in service training plan Retrieved from http://www.nise.go.kr/jsp/knise/institute/institute_outline.jsp?ki=0&main=1&s ub=2&leftsub=0 Kozleski, E., Mainzer, R. W., Deshler, D., Coleman, M. R., & RodriguezWalling, M. (2000). Bright futures for exceptional learners: An agenda to achieve quality conditions for teaching and learning Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Lee. (199 6). A comparative study of the coping strategies with job stress of special school teachers and special classroom teachers. Unpublished master degree, Ewha Woman s University, South Korea: Seoul. Lee. (2005). A study on the occupational socialization of be ginning special education teacher. Sociology of Education, 15 (3), 205 237. Lee. (2007). Conditions of general education for successful inclusive education. The Journal of Inclusive Education, 2 (1), 1 27. Lee. (2008). A qualitative study on the job experi ences of the special teachers at special schools and special classes Unpublished master thesis, Gyeongi University, South Korea: Gyeongi. Lee. (2012). satisfaction of special class teachers National University of Education, South Korea: Chung buk.

PAGE 165

165 Lee. (2014). Kyunghee University, South Korea: Seoul. Letvak, S. (2002). The importance of social support for rural mental health. Issues in mental health nursing 23 (3), 249 261. Lim. (2003). The legal comparison of integrated education between the U.S. and Korea. Journal of Special Education: Theory and Practice, 4 (4), 21 39. Littrell, P. C. (1992). The effects of principal support on general and special stay in teaching Unpublished doctoral disser tations, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Lee, & Cho. (2009). A qualitative study on the job experiences of the special teachers at special schools and special classes. The Journal of Special Education: Theory and practi ce, 10 (2), 1 32. Lee, & Park. (2009). Current issues and several suggestions on the curriculum on special classes for elementary schools. The Korean Journal of Visual Impairment, 25 (1), 87 110. Lim, & Park. (2011). Teaching supervision for newly appointe d special class teachers: Current status and suggestions for improvement. Special Education Research, 10 (2), 55 81. Liu, X. S., & Meyer, J. P. (2005). Teachers' perceptions of their jobs: A multilevel analysis of the teacher follow up survey for 1994 95. Teachers college record 107 (5), 985 1003. Littrell, P. C., Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1994). The effects of principal support on special and general educators' stress, job satisfaction, school commitment, health, and intent to stay in teaching. R emedial and Special Education 15 (5), 297 310. Loeb, S., Darling Hammond, L., & Luczak, J. (2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education 80 (3), 44 70. Lomax, R.G., & Hahs Vaughn, D.L. (2012). An introduction to statistical concepts (3 rd ed.). NY: Taylor & Francis Group. Lynn, J. D. (2015). Principal leadership of special education programs: An exploration of the practices and approaches of effective' special educational leaders Unpublished di ssertation. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.

PAGE 166

166 Manning, L. J. (2008). Retention of special education professionals: Perceptions of principal support. Unpublished dissertation. Portland State University, Portland, OR. Magiera, K. & Zigmond, N. (2005). Co teaching in middle school classrooms under routine conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with 316 disabilities in co taught and solo taught classes? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 20(2), 79 85. Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2002). Measuring perceived social support: Development of the child and adolescent social support scale (CASSS). Psychology in the Schools 39 (1), 1 18. Ministry of Education (2015). The 2015 special educati on annual report Cheongnam: Korea N ational I nstitute of S pecial E ducation. Ministry of Education (2016). The 2015 special education annual statistics Cheongnam: Korea N ational I nstitute of S pecial E ducation. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological review, 63 (2), 81 97. Miller, M. D., Brownell, M. T., & Smith, S. W. (1999). Factors that predict teachers staying in, leaving, or transferring from the special education classroom. Exceptional Children 65 (2), 201 218. operational cost for special education class. Korean Journal of Educat ional Research, 51 (1), 137 161. National Association of Elementary School Principals, Council for Exceptional Children, & IDEA Partnerships. (2001, March). Implementing IDEA: A guide for principals. Author. National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Child and youth with disabilities Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp Otto, S. J., & Arnold, M. (2005). A study of experienced special education teachers' perceptions of administrative support. College Student Journal 39 (2), 253 259. Park. (2005). Development and c urrent s tatus of s pecial e ducation in South Korea. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 6 (1), 15 24. adjustment to teaching profession. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 27 (2), 53 72.

PAGE 167

167 Petersen, A. (2015). Perspectives of special education teachers on general education curricu lum access preliminary results. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 41 (1), 19 35. Plash, S., & Piotrowski, C. (2006). Retention issues: A study of Alabama special education teachers. Education 127 (1), 125 128. Prather Jones, B. (20 11). How school administrators influence the retention of teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 84 (1), 1 8. Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repai ring Tom Swift's electric factor analysis machine. Understanding statistics: Statistical issues in psychology, education, and the social sciences 2 (1), 13 43. Rafoth, M. A., & Foriska, T. (2006). Administrator participation in promoting effective problem solving teams. Remedial and Special Education 27 (3), 130 135. Rochkind, J., Immerwahr, J., Ott, A., & Johnson, I. (2008). Lessons learned: New teachers talk about their jobs, challenges and long range plans (Issue No. 3: t eaching in c hanging t imes). Washington DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality & Public Agenda. Roderick, E. (2011). Perceptions of supportive leadership behaviors of school site administrators for secondary special education teachers Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California State University, Fullerton, CA. Roderick E., & Jung, A. W. (2012). Perceptions of supportive leadership behaviors of school site administrators for secondary special education teachers. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 1 (2), 1 20. Ryu. (2013). A study on the legal role of special education class for inclusive education. The Journal of Inclusive Education 11 (1), 1 20. Ryu. (n.d). Retrieved from http://weekly.chosun.com/client/news/viw.asp?ctcd=C02 &nNewsNumb=002 384100013 Santoli, S. P., Sachs, J., Romey, E. A., & McClurg, S. (2008). A successful formula for middle school inclusion: Collaboration, time, and administrative support. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 32 (2), 1 13. Schlichte, J., Yssel, N., & Merbler, J. (2005). Pathways to burnout: Case studies in teacher isolation and alienation. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 50 (1), 35 40. Seung. (2011). A survey of the current status of inclusive educa tion and special/general education teacher opinions: Focused on elementary schools in G wangju. Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 27 (4), 317 343.

PAGE 168

168 Shade, R. A., & Stewart, R. (2001). General education and special education preservice teachers' attitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 46 (1), 37 41. Shepherd, K. G., Fowler, S., McCormick, J., Wilson, C. L., & Morgan, D. (2016). The search for role clarity challenges and implications for special edu cation teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39 (2), 83 97. Shin (n.d.). Retrieved from http://news.kmib.co.kr/article/view.asp?arcid=0923503127 S hin, Ahn, & Kim. (2013). Current management practices and improvement plans for special education in three levels of schooling. Korean Council of Physical, Multiple, & Health Disabilities, 56 (4), 165 192. Simpson, R. L., Lacava, P. G., & Graner, P. S. (20 04). The N o C hild L eft B ehind act challenges and implications for educators. Intervention in school and clinic 40 (2), 67 75. Snyder, T.D., de Brey, C., and Dillow, S.A. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics 2014 (NCES 2016 006).National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC Special Education Promotion Act (1994). Act No. 4716. Retrieved from http://law.go.kr/LSW/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=54184&ancYd=19940107&ancNo=0 4716&efYd=19940701& nwJoYnInfo=N&efGubun=Y&chrClsCd=010202#000 0 Special Education Act of Individuals with Disabilities and Others (2008). Act No. 8852. Retrieved from http://www.law.go.kr/engLsSc.do?menuId=0&subMenu=5&query=%ED%8 A%B9%EC%88%98%EA%B5%90%EC%9C%A1%EB%B2%95#liBgc olor Stephens, T. L., & Fish, W. W. (2010). Motivational factors toward pursuing a career in special education. Education 130 (4), 581. Stevenson Jacobson, R., Jacobson, J., & Hilton, A. (2006). Principals' perceptions of critical skills needed for administration of special education. Journal of Special Education Leadership 19 (2), 39 47. Sumbera, M. J., Pazey, B. L., & Lashley, C. (2014). How building principals made sense of free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Leadership and Policy in Schools 13 (3), 297 333. Tae, & Kim. (2007). A qualitative case study about preparation and implementation of indivi dualized education plan on elementary schools special class. The Journal of Special Education: Theory and Practice, 8 (3), 261 281.

PAGE 169

169 Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of medical education 2 53 55. T ickle, B. R., Chang, M., & Kim, S. (2011). Administrative support and its mediating effect on U.S. public school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2), 342 349. Thornton, B., Peltier, G., & Medina, R. (2007). Reducing the special education teache r shortage. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 80 (5), 233 238. Tyler, T. A., & Brunner, C. C. (2014). The case for increasing workplace decision making: Proposing a model for special educator attrition research. Teacher Education and Special Education. 37 (4), 283 308. United States Department of Education. (2006). 28th annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educat ion. Retrieved from http://w \ vw2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2006/ parts b c/28th vol l.pdf. Urbach, J., Moore, B. A., Klingner, J. K., Galman, S., Haager, D., Brownell, M. T., & s accomplished special educators related to their roles and responsibilities. Teacher Education and Special Education 38 (4), 323 336. Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Nevin, A., & Liston, A. (2005). Successful inclusive practices in middle and secondary sch ools. American Secondary Education 33 50. Wasburn Moses, L. (2005). Roles and responsibilities of secondary special education teachers in an age of reform. Remedial and Special Education 26 (3), 151 158. Wakeman, S. Y., Browder, D. M., Flowers, C., & Ahlgrim Delzell, L. (2006). Principals' knowledge of fundamental and current issues in special education. N ASSP Bulletin 90 (2), 153 174. Weber, L. R. (2010). The lived experiences of special education teacher s who have transferred schools, resulting from a perceived lack of administrative support: A phenomenological study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Weisberg, H.F., Krosnick, J.A., Bowen, B.D. (1 996). An introduction to survey research polling and data analysis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wheeler, D. S., & LaRocco, D. J. (2009). Special education administrators: Who and what helps buffer job related stress? Journal of Special Education Le adership 22 (2). 85 92.

PAGE 170

170 Williams, J., & Dikes, C. (2015). The implications of demographic variables as related to burnout among a sample of special education teachers. Education 135 (3), 337 345. Wilson, S. (2009). The relationship between principal suppor t and new teacher attrition Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University, Washington, DC. urban school. International Journal of Qualitative Studie s in Education 18 (3), 379 398. Yeo, Chu, & Bak. (2004). Comparative analysis of special class management in elementary and secondary schools. The Journal of Korean Association on Developmental Disabilities, 8 (2), 27 43. Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in quantitative methods for psychology 9 (2), 79 94. Yoon. (2011). A study on policy making directions of special education curriculum. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 13 (4), 109 139. Yoon, J., & Gilchrist, J. (2003). Elementary teachers' perceptions of "administrative support" in working with disruptive and aggressive students. Education 123 (3), 564 569. You. (2008). MBTI and jot stress and coping strate gies of the special education teacher Gyeonggi.

PAGE 171

171 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Nari Choi completed her undergraduate degree at Daegu University, South Korea, where she received a Bachelor of Arts degree in s pecial e ducation in 20 09 She completed her m aster s degree in s pecial e ducation at the University of Texas, Austin in 20 12 Sh e is currently a Ph.D. candidate in special education at the University of Florida. Her research interests address issues of systems change and school reform related to improving policies and practices for implementing effective and culturally relevant spe cial education for students with disabilities.