What Instructional Leaders Need to Know About the Effects of Inclusion

Abstract

Effective school administrators and teachers are those who provide the least restrictive learning environments for all students. The main goal of this study was to analyze the effects of inclusive science education on the general education population of middle school students’ scientific conceptual understandings. The study was designed as a quasi-experimental model and conducted in a middle school in a large urban school district in Midwestern US. Approximately 4% of students in the school were receiving special education services. The participants in the study were selected through non-random selection. The participants of this study included 20 students without disabilities in each classroom with a total number of 120 students from a total of six different middle school classrooms. The study included two classrooms (one inclusive and one non-inclusive) for each grade level (6, 7, and 8). The conceptual change of students without disabilities was measured using the Density Assessment, which included 20 multiple choice questions. SPSS program was used for data analyses. Paired samples t-test and a multivariate group analysis test were conducted to investigate significant differences on students’ conceptual understandings. The findings showed that the effect of inclusive education was significant and positive on the conceptual understanding of students without disabilities in inclusive science classrooms

Keywords

• Conceptual understanding, inclusive education, school leaders

Kaynakça

1. Agne, K. (1999). Kill the baby: Making all things equal, Educational Horizons, 77 (3), 140-147.
2. Aydeniz, M., Cihak, D. F., Graham, S. C., & Retinger, L. (2012). Using inquiry-based instruction for teaching science to students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 27(2), 189-206.
3. Baker, E.T., Wang, M.C., & Walberg, H.J. (1994). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 33-35.
4. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175-1184.
5. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
6. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York, NY: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
7. Bateman, D., & Bateman, C. F. (2001). A principal’s guide to special education. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
8. Dunn, C., Chambers, D., & Rabren, K. (2004). Variables affecting students’ decisions to drop out of school. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 314–323.

9. Fletcher, J. M. (2009). The effects of inclusion on classmates of students with special needs: The case of serious emotional problems. Education, 4(3), 278-299.
10. Forness, S. R., Serna, L. A., Nielsen, E., Lambros, K., Hale, M. J., & Kavale, K. A. (2000). A model for early detection and primary prevention of emotional or behavioral disorders. Education and treatment of children, 325-345.
11. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
12. Halvorsen, A. T., & Neary, T. (2001). Building inclusive schools: Tools and strategies for success. Needham Heights, MA: Pearson.
13. Hehir, T., & Katzman, L. I. (2012). Effective inclusive schools: Designing successful schoolwide programs. John Wiley & Sons.
14. Hewson, M. G., & Hewson, P. W. (1983). Effect of instruction using students’ prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(8), 731-743.
15. Hitt, A. (2005). Attaching a dense problem: A learner-centered approach to teaching density. Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 42, 25 –29.
16. Holveck, S. E. (2012). Teaching for conceptual change in a density unit taught to 7th graders: Comparing two teaching methodologies – scientific inquiry and a traditional approach (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3523345).
17. Imberman, A. S. (2011). The effect of charter schools on achievement and behavior of public school students. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7), 850-863.
18. Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., & Dibiase, W. (2012). Inclusive inquiry science using peer-mediated embedded instruction for students with moderate intellectual disability. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 301-317.
19. Kortering, L., & Braziel, P. (2002). A look at high school programs as perceived by youth with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 177-188.
20. Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387-423.
21. Lynch, S., Taymans, J, Watson, W. A., Ochsendorf, R. J., Pyke, C., & Szesze, M. J. (2007). Effectiveness of a highly rated science curriculum unit for students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 73(2), 202-223.
22. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Norland, J. J., Berkeley, S., McDuffie, K., Tornquist, E. H., & Connors, N. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science: Effects on classroom and high-stakes test. Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 130-137.
23. McDuffie, K., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2009). Differential effects of peer tutoring in co-taught and non-co-taught classes: Results for content learning and student-teacher interactions. Exceptional Children, 75, 493-510.
24. Mischel, W. (1969). Continuity and change in personality. American Psychologist, 24(11), 1012-1018.
25. Moores-Abdool, W. (2010). Included students with autism and access to general curriculum: What is being provided? Issues in Teacher Education, 19(2), 153-169.
26. Morris, G. R., & Higgins, E. G. (2010). Criminological theory in the digital age: The case of social learning theory and digital piracy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 470-480.
27. Okut, L. & Öntaş, T. (2015). Classroom management beliefs of primary school mathematics and science teachers. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences, 3 (2). 117-125.
28. Öntaş, T. (2016). Employment and first year experience of beginner primary school teachers at private educational institutions. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 6 (2). 195-208.
29. Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Collins, K. M., & Cutter, J. (2001). Making science accessible to all: Results of a design experiment in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 24, 15-32.
30. Rotter, J. B. (1954). The clinical measurement of personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
31. Salend, S. J., & Duhaney, L. M. G. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and without disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20(2), 114-126.
32. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional children, 63(1), 59-74.
33. Smith, C., Snir, J. & Grosslight, L. (1987). Teaching for conceptual change using acomputer-based modeling approach: The case of weight/density differentiation. Technical Report 87-11. Retrieved from ERIC database.
34. Smith, C., Snir, J., & Grosslight, L. (1992). Using conceptual models to facilitate conceptual change: The case of weight-density differentiation. Cognition and Instruction, 9(3), 221-283.
35. Smoot, S. L. (2011). An outcome measure for social goals of inclusion. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(1), 6-13.
36. Staats, A. W. (1975). Social behaviorism. Oxford, United Kingdom: Dorsey.
37. U.S. Department of Education. Office of Special Education Programs. (2003). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
38. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (2006). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved from https://www.ideadata.org/arc_toc8.asp#partbCC.
39. VanderHoff, J. (2008). Parental valuation of charter schools and student performance. CATO Journal, 28(3), 479-493.
40. Wagner, M. C. (1991). Dropouts with disabilities: What do we know? What can we do? Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
41. Wagner, M. C. (2005). The early post-high school years for youth with disabilities. In M. Wagner, L. Newman, R. Cameto, N. Garza, & P. Levine (Eds.), After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. Menlo Park CA: SRI International. Retrieved from www.nlts2.org/pdfs/afterhighschool_report.pdf
42. Waldron, N. L., McLeskey, J., & Redd, L. (2011). Setting the Direction: The Role of the Principal in Developing an Effective, Inclusive School. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(2), 51-60.
43. Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D., Lapp-Rincker, G., & Agran, M. (2003). Access to the general curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 24(5), 262-272.
44. Wild, T. A., & Trundle, K. C. (2010). Conceptual understandings of seasonal change by middle school students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104(2), 107-118.
45. Wolf, N. L. (2011). A case study comparison of charter and traditional schools in New Orleans Recovery School District: Selection criteria and service provision for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 32(5), 382-392.