University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The examination of the perceptions of general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel on the inclusion of students with special needs

(USC Thesis Other)

The examination of the perceptions of general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel on the inclusion of students with special needs

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS 1

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHERS,
SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS, AND SUPPORT PERSONNEL ON THE INCLUSION
OF STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

by

Crystal Ann Campbell-Shirley
______________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2017

Copyright 2017 Crystal Ann Campbell-Shirley
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 2

ABSTRACT
The Standards-Based Education Reform (SBE) in the United States and the Common
Core Curriculum has increased the importance of providing every student with a high-quality
and challenging curriculum. New accountability systems focus on program improvement and
student performance for all student populations, including students with special needs. Students
with disabilities must also have meaningful access to educational activities and be provided with
a quality instructional program because every child deserves an equal opportunity to engage and
learn in an environment alongside their non-disabled peers. For inclusion to be successful
teachers must be prepared for the challenges that the inclusive practice may present and teacher
perception of the inclusion process is imperative in order for inclusion to be successful and
effective. The educational program addressed in this study are the factors that impact the general
education teachers’, special education teachers’, and support personnel’s perceptions towards the
inclusion of students with special needs. This project used the Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis method to assist in clarifying Sun Valley Unified School District’s goal regarding the
inclusion of students with disabilities. This analysis focused on the causes for this problem due
to gaps in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational issues. Findings
within this study suggests that teacher and support personnel’s perception towards the inclusion
of students with special needs are a result of a number of complex variables, for example lack of
professional development and training on inclusive education and the lack of administrative
support which led to low teacher self-efficacy, and opportunities for collaboration between
general education, special education teachers, and support personnel, as well as the academic and
social impact for students with disabilities included into the general education setting.

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 3

DEDICATION
I dedicate this to my parents, husband, daughters, sister, niece, family, friends, and
teachers without whom it was almost impossible for me to complete my dissertation. For the last
couple of years, you have had to hear me say, “I have to go write.” Hopefully, you will not have
to hear me say that again. I appreciate your patience and understanding.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I could not have accomplished this Doctorate degree without the unwavering support of
my family and I dedicate this to them.
To my husband, Kevin, who has blessed me with your patience, love and encouragement
to continue learning. You have kept me grounded and been a rock for our family. I love you and
appreciate you.
To my oldest daughter, Kennedy, who prayed for me every day that I would complete my
assignments and called me on the hour during my writing sessions to keep me focused. You
have been very patient throughout my schooling. No more school for me Kennedy!
To my youngest daughter, Kyla, whose laughter kept me going when I felt overwhelmed.
You have also been very patient throughout my program. Can you believe it? School is over!
To my favorite niece, Deniece, who let me use the “Back Room” at Nana and Papa’s
house to log into class, even though I interrupted your favorite T.V. shows. You’re a smart,
sweet girl.
I hope me getting this degree helps my three girls, Deniece, Kennedy, and Kyla realize
how important education is. Strive to be life-long learners. You are all Amazing, extremely
bright, and talented young ladies. I LOVE YOU ALL!
To my mommy, whose faith is truly amazing. You have been an inspiration from the
very beginning. You helped watch my girls so I could study and encouraged me to continue
when I felt like giving up. You are a ROCK!! I could not have accomplished this goal without
you. You are the best mother, grandmother, and friend a girl could have. I LOVE YOU!!
To my daddy, who inquired almost every day, “How’s your school going?” You kept me
focused and always expressed how proud you are of me. Yep Daddy, you are right, I AM the
first Dr. in the family!
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 5

To my one and only big sister, Kimberly “Sissy”, who was ALWAYS on my mind
throughout this journey. I could often hear your voice throughout the program telling me what to
write and encouraging me during presentations by saying, “This too shall pass” because you
know how hard it was for me to do presentations. We went through every program together,
Bachelor and Masters Degrees, and you helped me get through them all. I wish that you were
physically here to celebrate the completion, but I know that you were watching over me the
entire time from Heaven and are super proud of me. We did it Sissy!! We are officially Drs!
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT 2
DEDICATION 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS 6
LIST OF TABLES 11
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 12
Importance of the Problem 15
Organizational Context and Mission 15
Organizational Performance Goal 16
Related Literature 17
Importance of the Evaluation 17
Description of Stakeholder Group 18
Stakeholder Group for the Study 20
Purpose of the Project and the Project Questions 21
Methodological Framework 21
Definitions 22
Organization of the Project 23
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 24
Historical Overview of Inclusive Education of Special Needs Students 24
Congressional Legislation on the Education of Students with Disabilities 24
Current Issues Related to the Inclusion Practice 26
Impact of the Inclusion Practice on Students with Special Needs 27
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 7

Academic Impact of the Inclusion Practice 27
Social Impact of the Inclusion Practice 29
Inclusion Process and the General Education Teacher 31
Teacher Attitudes towards Inclusive Practice 31
Training (Pre-Service) 33
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences 34
Knowledge and Skills 34
Motivation 40
Organizational Influences on the Inclusion of Special Needs Students 44
Support (Special Education Teachers / Administration) 44
Professional Development and Supports 46
Conclusion 49
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 51
Purpose of the Project and Questions 51
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 51
Assessment of Performance Influences 52
Validation of the Performance Issues/Needs/Assets 54
Validation of Performance Issues/Needs/Assets: Knowledge 55
Validation of Performance Issues/Needs/Assets: Motivation 57
Validation of Performance Issues/Needs/Assets: Organization/Culture/
Context 60
Participating Stakeholders 62
Sampling 63
Recruitment 64
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 8

Data Collection 66
Data Analysis Plan 68
Trustworthiness of Data 69
Role of Investigator 70
Ethics 71
Limitations and Delimitations 73
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 74
Introduction 74
Participating Stakeholders 75
Knowledge and Skills 76
Professional Development and Training 76
Intentional Teaching 80
Motivation 88
Self-Efficacy 89
Utility Value 92
Organizational Culture 98
Peer Support 99
Administrative Support 103
Document Analysis 107
Synthesis 109
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 111
Discussion 111
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 114
Knowledge Recommendations 114
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 9

Motivation Recommendations 121
Organization Recommendations 124
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 128
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 128
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations 128
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 129
Level 3: Behavior 130
Level 2: Learning 133
Level 1: Reaction 136
Evaluation Tools 137
Data Analysis and Reporting 138
Performance Dashboard: Inclusion Implementation Progress 140
Summary 140
Conclusion 142
Recommendations for Implementation 143
REFERENCES 147
APPENDIX A: FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS 156
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS: GENERAL EDCUATION TEACHER 157
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS: SPECIAL EDCUATION TEACHER 160
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS: SUPPORT PERSONNEL 162
APPENDIX E: RECRUITMENT LETTER 165
APPENDIX F: INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH 166
APPENDIX G: CODING AND THEMES 169
APPENDIX H: LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 EVALUATION 171
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 10

APPENDIX I: BLENDED EVALUATION 172
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 11

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals 19
Table 2 Knowledge Worksheet 39
Table 3 Motivational Worksheet 43
Table 4 Organizational Worksheet 49
Table 5 Summary of Assumed Issues/Needs/Assets for Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Issues 53
Table 6 Summary of Assumed Knowledge Issues/Needs/Assets and Validation 57
Table 7 Summary of Assumed Motivation Issues/Needs/Assets and Validation 59
Table 8 Summary of Assumed Organizational/Culture/Context Issues/Needs/Assets and
Validation 61
Table 9 Characteristics of Participants by Years of Teaching or Support Personnel Experience,
Years in an Inclusive Setting 76
Table 10 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 115
Table 11 Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 122
Table 12 Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 125
Table 13 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 129

Table 14 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 131
Table 15 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 132
Table 16 Components of Learning for the Program 135
Table 17 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 137

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 12

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Students with special needs are afforded many educational opportunities in relation to the
instructional content, program of study, and the quality of instruction they receive. As
accountability systems are now geared towards focusing on program improvement and student
performance for all student populations, every state, district, and school are held accountable for
providing students with special needs with meaningful access to educational activities and
quality instructional programs (Moore, Gilbreth, & Maiuri, 1998; Lehr & Thurlow, 2003). The
common core curriculum and standards-based education reform in the United States (SBE) has
intensified the importance of providing access to a rigorous and challenging curriculum and
accountability for all students, including students with and without disabilities (Shogren, Gross,
Forber-Pratt, Francis, Satter, Blue-Bannng, & Hill, 2015). Standards-based reform policies,
including the implementation of the Common Core state standards, standardized testing, teacher
perceptions, and accountability systems have impacted special education (Brantlinger, 2004).
Students with disabilities are often behind on grade-level standardized curriculum and would
benefit from having the support of a teacher who possesses a positive perception towards special
needs individuals and the inclusion practice, as well as having participated in the necessary
professional development in order to provide a non-traditional, differentiated teaching style.
The educational problem being addressed in this paper are factors that may impact
general education and special education elementary school teachers’ and support personnel’s
perceptions towards the inclusion of students with special needs into the general education
classroom setting. Inclusion is a term commonly referred to as students with diverse needs and
abilities receiving some or all instruction within the general education setting with needed
accommodations and/or instructional supports (Horne &Timmons, 2009). This is a problem
because not all teachers and support personnel are receptive towards inclusion practices
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 13

(Monsen, Ewing & Kwoka, 2014) and teacher’s attitudes towards inclusion is essential in
establishing a successful inclusive classroom environment. The success of inclusion depends on
several teacher and student related variables. Specifically, the attitudes held by teachers and the
quality of instruction they offer their students are both significant factors associated with a
successful inclusive program (Elliott, 2008).
Inclusion has bestowed changes within the make-up and structure of classrooms and
schools, adoption of the inclusive pedagogy approach, and roles and responsibilities of the
teachers. Student instructional supports in inclusion include curriculum changes, questioning
strategies, differentiated instruction, intensive individualized interventions, frequency of
assessments, and behavior intervention (“Adaptations, Accommodations”, n.d.). Florian (2005)
defined inclusion as the opportunity for persons with a disability to participate fully in all of the
educational, employment, consumer, recreational, community, and domestic activities that typify
every society. Further, inclusion allows neighborhood schools to establish classrooms consisting
of general education and special education students fully participating in academic and social
activities (Ajodhia-Andrews & Frankel, 2010). As classroom dynamics change and the diverse
abilities of students broaden, teachers must tailor their instructional program.
The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) was initially passed in 1975 and has been
amended several times, however the concept behind the IDEA has remained the same. The
intent behind the IDEA is to protect the rights of students with disabilities by educating them
within the least restrictive environment (LRE) whenever possible (Lee, n.d.). The mandates
within the No Child Left Behind Act 2002 (NCLB) was to hold individual states accountable for
closing the academic achievement gap and enhancing the quality of education for all students
and increased accountability for all schools and teachers throughout the United States. The
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 14

NCLB Act also established huge challenges. One of these challenges is adopting inclusion
practices in the general education classroom.
Researchers have identified both positive and negative secondary school teachers’
perception of the inclusion of students with mild and severe disabilities. General education
teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion of students with special needs change depending on the
severity of the student’s disability as well as the increased amount of responsibility required
when instructing students with special needs in the general education setting (Smith, 2000). The
findings of Smith’s (2000) study of urban high school teachers suggested that the severity of the
students’ disability strongly affects teacher acceptance of the inclusion of students with severe
disabilities. Smith (2000) also reported that overall, teachers seem to be more willing to accept
and include students with mild disabilities. A qualitative study by Avramidis, Bayliss, and
Burden (2000) found that teachers with experience in working with special needs students on the
secondary level expressed a more positive attitude than those who had no experience. However,
both groups of teachers had less positive attitudes towards working with students who had
moderate to severe learning difficulties.
Elementary school teachers’ perception of inclusion differs depending on the student’s
educational and behavioral challenges. A qualitative study by Cook (2001) examined whether
the severity of a student’s disability had any effect on teachers’ perceptions towards inclusion of
students with special needs. The results of this study indicated that teachers possessed
contrasting perceptions towards the inclusion of special needs students due to the severity of
their disability and/or disabilities that are more obvious, like mental retardation, autism, and
orthopedic disabilities. Ward, Center, and Bochner’s (1994) study concluded that teachers
agreed that special need students with mild disabilities were not as likely to need extra
instructional or behavior supports from the general education teacher. However, general
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 15

education teachers were not favorable to the idea of inclusion of students with more severe
disabilities because severely disabled students were viewed as being more behaviorally
challenged and required teacher expertise in inclusion practices.
The inclusion of students with special needs is an important problem to address because
every child deserves an equal opportunity to engage and learn in an environment alongside their
non-disabled peers. According to Horne and Timmons (2009), students with special needs gain
positive social peer interaction, self-esteem, and an increased sense of belonging to their school
community.
Importance of the Problem
General education and special education teacher’s perception of students with special
needs has a direct impact on student achievement and demands attention. Every child deserves
an equal opportunity to engage and learn in an environment alongside their non-disabled peers.
The major goal of inclusion is the development of social skill acquisition (D’Alonzo, Giordano
& Vanleeuwen, 2010). According to Horne and Timmons (2009), students with special needs
gain positive social peer interaction, self-esteem, and an increased sense of belonging to their
school communities. Given that the acceptance of inclusion practices ultimately affects teacher
commitment, the attitudes of general education teachers is a pivotal aspect in the success of
inclusion (Avamidis & Norwich, 2010). When teachers possess an idealistic perception
towards the inclusion practice, teachers are then able to provide students with special needs an
opportunity to have a positive and successful school experience (Familia-Garcia, 2001).
Organizational Context and Mission
Sun Valley Unified School District (SVUSD) is a large urban school district and enrolls
more than 435,000 students in grades kindergarten through twelfth. Currently, SVUSD has over
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 16

1,180 schools (“Enrollment Figures,” 2016-2017). Currently, throughout SVUSD there are
approximately a total of 61,000 students with special needs ranging from having mild to severe
disabilities enrolled on general education campuses.
The SVUSD boundaries expand over 400 square miles and serves students representing
an array of communities, cultures, ethnicities, native languages, sexual identities, religious
backgrounds, and countries of native origin (“Enrollment Figures,” 2016-2017).
Throughout the SVUSD, there are various instructional and operational departments.
Each individual department has developed their own mission statement to reflect their particular
department's core purpose and focus. However, the overarching mission statement for the Sun
Valley Unified School District states that in order to facilitate student learning and achievement,
all students will be provided with high-quality instruction and a rigorous and coherent
curriculum in every classroom (“Enrollment Figures,” 2016-2017). This overriding mission
statement describes how SVUSD’s employees are committed to educating every student to their
maximum potential.
Organizational Performance Goal
The Sun Valley Unified School District’s goal is that by June 30, 2018, 70% of students
with mild to moderate disabilities will be included into the general education setting for at least
80% of their instructional school day. This goal was established in order to meet compliance
with the federal special education laws of the Individual with Disabilities Act (IDEA). The
achievement of the Sun Valley Unified School District’s goal is measured by annual
performance data reports on the District’s progress and effectiveness conducted by the Data
Management and Reporting Team in partnership with the Planning and Performance
Management Team.

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 17

Related Literature
Teachers are now required to educate a more diverse range of students in the general
education classroom setting. The development of inclusive education policies is an advancement
towards advocating for the inclusion of special needs students in the general education setting
(Rombo, 2006; Connor & Ferri, 2007); Familia-Garcia, 2001). Numerous research studies have
suggested that teachers and support personnel have both positive and negative perceptions of the
inclusion of students with special needs (Avramidis & Norwich, 2010; Cambridge-Johnson,
Hunter-Johnson, & Newton, 2014; Smith & Smith, 2009; Weller & McLeskey, 2000; Smith,
2000; Monsen, Ewing, and Kwoka, 2014; O’Rourke & Houghton, 2009). Research shows that
there are several factors that influence the teachers’ support personnel’s perception and the
success of an inclusive program (Avramidis & Norwich, 2010; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996;
Lambe, 2011; D’Alonzo, Giordano, & Vanleeuwen, 1998). Policy further guides the need for
this study. IDEA as well as teacher preparation requirements show that meeting the needs of
special education students is part of our responsibilities as teachers.
Importance of the Evaluation
It is important to evaluate Sun Valley Unified School District’s (SVUSD) performance in
relationship to their performance goal of 70% of students with mild to moderate disabilities will
be included into the general education setting for at least 80% of their instructional school
day for a variety of reasons. The teacher’s role in the inclusion process must be addressed. In
order to successfully meet the overall district’s inclusion goal, teachers must be prepared and
ready for the challenges that the inclusive practice presents. An examination of this
organizational goal is needed in order to determine the factors and perceived barriers that may be
associated with and have an influence on teachers’ attitudes towards implementing the inclusion
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 18

practice. The importance of this study is also important in order to investigate the relationship
that exists between teacher training and professional development and teacher self-efficacy.
A positive teacher perception towards the inclusion process and teacher acceptance of
students with disabilities have been empirically demonstrated as being imperative in order for
inclusion to be successful and effective (Monsen et al., 2014; McCray & McHatton, 2011; Smith
& Smith, 2009; Avramidis & Norwich, 2010).
Description of Stakeholder Group
The stakeholders within the Sun Valley Unified School District include students,
teachers, support personnel, and administrators. This organization enrolls more than 435,000
students in grades kindergarten through 12
th
grade. The Sun Valley Unified School District
provides programs and services for approximately 61,000 students with disabilities. There are
approximately 14,000 elementary general education and special education teachers employed
throughout the district. For the 2016-2017 school year, this district employs 1,020 kindergarten
through 12
th
grade administrators, which includes school-based administrators and non-school-
based district and central office administrators (“Enrollment Figures,” 2016-2017).
Each stakeholder’s contribution to the achievement of the organization’s performance
goal varies. The students contribute to the performance goal by coming to school every day
prepared to learn new skills, understanding individual differences and by building positive social
peer relationships. All teachers and support personnel have the responsibility to teach and
encourage all general education and special education students. Teachers contribute by
providing a collaborative and inclusive classroom environment that supports every student with a
disability as well as their peers, and providing students with disabilities with a high-quality
education that would maximize their potential in the least restrictive environment. The school-
based administrator’s contributions to the achievement of SVUSD’s organizational goal are to
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 19

create conditions and environments for students with disabilities to flourish, develop and provide
professional development and targeted training to keep all staff members current on methods for
high quality instruction, services, and effective practices that promote student success, and
support opportunities for special education students to participate in the general education with
their non-disabled peers (“SVUSD Plan,” 2013-2016).
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission

Sun Valley Unified School District’s mission is to facilitate student learning and achievement,
all students will be provided with high-quality instruction and a rigorous and coherent
curriculum in every classroom (“Enrollment Figures,” 2016-2017).

Organizational Performance Goal
By June 30, 2018, 70% of students with mild to moderate disabilities will be included into the
general education setting for at least 80% of their instructional school day.

Stakeholder 1
General Education and
Special Education Students

Stakeholder 2
General Education Teachers,
Special Education Teachers,
and Support Personnel

Stakeholder 3
School-Site Administrators

Stakeholder 1
Proficiencies/Competencies
Necessary to Reach the
Global Goal

Demonstrate social
interaction between students
with special and general
education students

Understand individual
differences and uniqueness

Stakeholder 2
Proficiencies/Competencies
Necessary to Reach the
Global Goal

Expand opportunities for
students with disabilities to
participate in the general
education curriculum

Provide targeted instruction
using tiered model of
service delivery to improve
student outcome

Stakeholder 3
Proficiencies/Competencies
Necessary to Reach the
Global Goal

Apply a systemic process for
school-site monitoring, using
data to evaluate the
effectiveness of inclusion
practices

Create a collaborative and
integrated school culture

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 20

Stakeholder 1 Intermediate
Goals

By April 2018, all students
with mild to moderate
disabilities (specific learning
disabilities (SLD), speech or
language impairment (SLI),
or other health impairment
(OHI)) will receive
instruction in the general
education classroom setting
during extracurricular and/or
academic instructional time.

Stakeholder 2 Intermediate
Goals

By December 2018, all
elementary level general
education and special
education teachers and
support personnel will apply
inclusion strategies learned
from in-service trainings and
professional development in
order to support students with
disabilities in the Least
Restrictive Environment to
attain high levels of
academic, behavioral, and
social achievement

Stakeholder 3 Intermediate
Goals

By January 2017, all school
site administrators will
provide teachers with needed
professional development and
in-service trainings on
working with students with
special needs in the general
education classroom to attain
high levels of academic,
behavioral, and
social achievement.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although the collective efforts of all stakeholders will contribute to the accomplishment
of the Sun Valley Unified School District’s overall organizational goal of 70% of students with
mild to moderate disabilities will be included into the general education setting for at least 80%
of their instructional school day, the primary causes that prevent teachers from fully supporting
the inclusion of students with disabilities into the general education program will be examined.
Therefore, the stakeholders of focus for his study will be elementary level general education
teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel at a random school site within the
Sun Valley Unified School District. The stakeholders’ goal, supported by the school-site
administrators, is that elementary school teachers will apply inclusion strategies learned from in-
service trainings and professional development in order to support students with disabilities in
the Least Restrictive Environment to attain high levels of academic, behavioral, and social
achievement.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 21

Purpose of the Project and the Project Questions
The purpose of this project is to conduct a gap analysis to examine the primary causes
that prevent teachers from fully supporting the inclusion of students with disabilities into the
general education program. The analysis will focus on causes for this problem due to gaps in the
areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational issues. The analysis will begin by
generating a list of possible or assumed causes, and then by examining these systematically will
validate actual causes. While a complete gap analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for
practical purposes the stakeholders to be focused on in this analysis are the elementary level
general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel at a purposefully
selected school site within the Sun Valley Unified School District.
As such, the questions that guide this study are the following:
1. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that
influence Sun Valley Unified School District from achieving their Performance Goal of
70% of students with disabilities included into the general education setting for at least
80% of their instructional day?
2. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions?
Methodological Framework
The theoretical and methodological framework implemented in this study is the Clark and
Estes’ (2008) gap analysis. The Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis is a systematic, analytical
method that will help to clarify the Sun Valley Unified School District’s goal regarding the
inclusion of students with disabilities and identify the gap between the actual and preferred
performance level within this organization. Assumed barriers will be generated based on
personal knowledge and related literature. These elements will be validated by using interviews,
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 22

document analysis, focus groups, literature review and content analysis. Research-based
solutions will be recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
Definitions
For the purpose of this study, the following definitions were used:
Inclusion - Inclusion in education refers to providing students with disabilities all or some
part of their instruction in the general education classroom setting as appropriate with necessary
supports (Horne & Timmons, 2009).
Modified Consent Decree (MCD) - Requires compliance with laws that pertain to the
delivery of special education services.
Other Health Impairment (OHI) - Limited strength and alertness or an elevated alertness
to environmental stimuli that results in limited alertness due to chronic or acute health problems
such as asthma, attention deficit disorder (ADD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD), diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis,
rheumatic fever, sickle cell anemia, and Tourette syndrome. Any of these acute health problems
that may adversely affect a child’s educational performance would qualify a student as having an
eligibility of OHI (“Categories of Disability under IDEA Law”, n.d).
Specific Learning Disability (SLD) - A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological
processes that are involved in understanding or use of language, spoken or written, that may
manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do
mathematical calculations (“Categories of Disability Under IDEA Law”, n.d).
Speech or Language Impairment (SLI): Basic categories that might be drawn in issues of
communication that involve hearing, speech, fluency and language (“Categories of Disability
under IDEA Law”, n.d).
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 23

Student with special needs – A student who has been identified as having a disability,
which may include physical, behavioral, cognitive, and/or emotional. The identification this
student has been determined by the outcomes of formal and informal assessments and
observations, which includes but not limited to, norm-referenced, IQ testing and criterion-
referenced (Lipsky & Gartner, 2008).
Organization of the Project
This qualitative study is organized into five chapters. This chapter includes an
introduction, importance of the problem, organizational context and mission, organizational
performance status, related literature, importance of addressing the problem, organizational
mission and performance goal, description and performance goals of the stakeholder groups,
research questions, definitions of terms used in the study, and the methodological framework
used. Chapter Two provides a review of the current literature that surrounds the inclusion of
students with special needs into the general education setting. The review of the literature
includes: (a) the congressional legislation on the education of students with disabilities; (b)
current issues related to the inclusive practice; (c) the academic and social impact of the
inclusive practice; (d) general education teacher attitudes towards the inclusion of students with
special needs; and (e) general education teacher preparation to teach in an inclusive setting.
Chapter Three details the knowledge, motivation and organizational elements to be examined as
well as methodology when it comes to the choice of participants, data collection and analysis. In
Chapter Four, the data and results are described and analyzed. Chapter Five provides
recommendation for practice, evaluation plan, and conclusion based on data and literature as
well as recommendations for implementation..
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 24

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The purpose of this literature review is to examine teachers’ and support personnel’s
attitudes towards the inclusion of students with special needs into the general education setting.
First, the literature review will focus on the historical background related to inclusive education
of special needs students. This section will review changes in the Congressional Legislation on
the education of students with disabilities and the current issues related to inclusion. The next
segment will research the impact of the inclusion process for both students with special needs
and their general education peers. The third section of this literature review will then examine
the effects of inclusion on the efficacy of teachers. Finally, the following section will use the
gap analysis framework to examine the knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational factors
which may contribute to positive teacher support personnel perceptions towards the practice of
inclusion. The factors analyzed will include teacher support personnel experience, professional
development and trainings, school administrative support and resources.
Historical Overview of Inclusive Education of Special Needs Students
Congressional Legislation on the Education of Students with Disabilities
Prior to the 1970’s, students with disabilities were educated in private institutions. In the
United States, approximately 4,000,000 children did not receive any necessary educational
supports and approximately 1,000,000 students with special needs received no schooling
(Connor & Ferri, 2007). During the 1960s, the United States public schools faced challenges in
regards to economic and social inequalities. Questions regarding the overall academic rigor,
curriculum, organization and structuring of schools, and instruction of all students led to reform
efforts in education. Among the students included within the educational reform were students
with special needs (Osgood, 2008). The Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Topeka’s
unanimous decision of declaring segregation in public schools as being unconstitutional paved
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 25

the way in providing students with special needs meaningful access to educational activities
provided within general education classroom setting and has increased accountability for special
education students (Osgood, 2008; Shin, Lee, & McKenna, 2016).
The passing of the PL 94-142 landmark legislation, The Education for All Handicapped
Children’s Act (EHA) mandated a “free and appropriate education for all handicapped children
(FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for all disabled children” (PL 94-142, 1974)
changed the manner in which students with disabilities were educated and provided needed
services. Due to the lack of supporting data regarding the effectiveness of “pullout” special
education services and programs, the Regular Education Initiative (REI) advocates suggested
that the instructional services for students with disabilities be delivered within the general
education setting (Semmel, Abernathy, Butera, & Lesar, 1991). Madeleine Will, former
Assistant Secretary Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services within the U.S.
Department of Education described specific issues within the special education service delivery
system and developed solutions to remedy these issues within the general education setting
(Semmel et al., 1991).
In 1990, the EHA was reauthorized as Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), PL 101-476. According to the California Department of Education, IDEA is a federal
program which sanctions state and local assistance for special education as well as related
services for students with special needs. IDEA provided many benefits for students with special
needs. This federal act opened doors and increased educational rights and ensured access to
schooling increased services (Connor & Ferri, 2007). The reauthorization of this law brought
about the practice of mainstreaming and special education resource centers, which are designated
classrooms where special education students and general education students are taught
simultaneously by both a general education teacher and special education teacher.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 26

At the present time, the placement of students with special needs into the general
education classrooms has increased. A growing number of schools and school districts provide
students with special needs academic instruction in the general education classroom setting,
rather than pull-out classrooms (Putnam, Spiegel, & Bruininks, 1995). The practice of educating
students with special needs in the general education setting continues to flourish.
Current Issues Related to the Inclusion Practice
The inclusive education movement has not always been embraced by educators.
According to Lambe (2011), the definition of inclusion is often contentious and leads to dispute
among policy-makers and educational specialists. The terms ability and disability are culturally
constructed by those who are considered the dominant group in society and they label people as
‘those who can’ and ‘those who cannot’ (Lambe, 2011). Although the implementation of PL 94-
192 mandated FAPE for all handicapped students, professional debates continue to arise
regarding LRE. According to Connor & Ferri (2007), special education teachers have viewed
the inclusion process as tearing apart good existing special education programs and services for
students with disabilities. On the other hand, teachers viewed inclusion as being a way of life
and everyone is valued and belong (Connor & Ferri, 2007). Buell, Hallam, Gamel-Mccormick,
& Scheer (1999) found that sometimes the general education teacher views the inclusion process
as being as a forced practice and has raised concerns regarding the implementation of inclusion.
Connor & Ferri (2007) examined public debates involving the inclusion practice and
mixed views within special education that prevents the integration of students with special needs
into the general education setting. From 1987 to 2002, Connor & Ferri (2007) collected editorial
pages from major publications and found that advocates are concerned that inclusion will take
away special education funding from students who need it the most. Funding is provided to
students with special needs and is free to parents in order to meet the unique needs of children
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 27

with disabilities under the federal law. Parents felt that placing their child in a special education
classroom would better prepare them for mainstreaming in the future (Connor & Ferri, 2007).
Some parents also believed that inclusion was not the ultimate goal for their child. According to
Connor & Ferri (2007), they found that parents believe that placing their child in an inclusive
environment would be detrimental to their academic and social progress. Parents also concluded
that their child may also be viewed by the general education teacher as a burden and
unwelcomed.
General education teachers have been found to hold mixed perceptions towards the
inclusion practice. Connor & Ferri (2007) found that a common claim among general education
teachers was that they were unwilling and/or not prepared to accept student with special needs
into their general education classrooms and believed that inclusion was not an appropriate
practice for every special needs child, in particular those with severe and challenging behaviors.
Monsen, Ewing, and Kwoka’s (2014) study sampled 95 general education teachers ‘perceptions
towards the inclusion practice and found that teachers have significant preferences for including
students with certain types of disabilities. This study concluded that teachers are less likely to
include students with disruptive or multiple disabilities.
Impact of the Inclusion Practice on Students with Special Needs
Academic Impact of the Inclusion Practice
Researchers have documented an increase of academic achievement for students with
special needs and their non-disabled peers who participated in the inclusion program. According
to Salend & Duhaney (1999), the implementation of inclusion programs have led to academic
gains for students with special needs, proficiency in meeting their Individualized Education
Program (IEP) goals, and academic motivation. Waldron and McLeskey (1998) conducted a
comparison of mathematics and reading performance scores of 71 elementary special needs
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 28

students with learning disabilities (LD) who were included into a general education classroom to
that of seventy-three elementary special needs students with learning disabilities (LD) who were
taught in in a more traditional special education class. The findings of the Waldron and
McLeskey (1998) student concluded that those students who were taught in an inclusive setting
advanced in reading at a rate equivalent to their general education peers without disabilities.
However, there were no significant findings among the two groups of students in the area of
mathematics.
Research shows that the placement of students with disabilities into inclusive programs
has led to academic gains. A mixed-method research conducted by Banerji and Dailey (1995)
studied the academic effects of educating students with special needs in an inclusive setting. The
participants in this study consisted of thirteen elementary school students with learning
disabilities and seventeen elementary school students with average academic abilities in the areas
of reading and writing. All students within this study were taught in the same inclusive setting
for a total of 3 months. The outcome of the Banerji and Dailey (1995) study concluded that the
students with learning disabilities academic progress in reading and writing mirrored those of
their non-disabled peers (Banerji & Dailey, 1995). Similarly, a study conducted by Peetsma,
Vergeer, Karsten, and Roeleveld (2001) found that 7 and 8 year old primary students with
special needs within their study that were taught in an inclusive classroom setting resulted in
higher academic progress compared to those primary students with disabilities educated within a
special education setting.
A study conducted by Luster & Durrett (2003) found that after analyzing sixty-six school
districts within a southern state, they concluded that there is a relationship between the inclusion
of students with disabilities into a general education setting and the positive academic
performance of students with special needs on standardized state level assessments. The
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 29

inclusion movement appears to have a potential positive academic impact on students with
disabilities. Holmes (1999) examined the inclusion implementation in five different elementary
schools within the North Louisiana parish. In reviewing documents and reflective journals and
the facilitation of interviews with school administrators and teaching staff, Holmes (1999) found
that the majority of the students with special needs taught in the inclusion classroom setting
made academic gains with the assistance of modifications made by their teachers. The academic
gains were found to be equal to or even better than the previous grades they received in the
special day self-contained classroom setting.
Social Impact of the Inclusion Practice
In addition to examining the inclusion of students with special needs’ positive academic
performance, research has also proven that the inclusive practice also has positive social, non-
educational, and self-concept outcomes. Kennedy, Shukla, and Fryxell’s (1997) study examined
social relationships of 8 students with severe disabilities participating in the inclusive classroom
setting with 8 students from special education classrooms who did not participate in a inclusion
classroom. According to Kennedy et al. (1997), the students who received instruction in the
inclusion classrooms had a higher number of social interactions and contact with non-disabled
students. These inclusion students gained a larger level of social support behaviors and were
able to form relationships and network with their non-disabled classmates.
Banerji and Dailey (1995) also examined the increase of social interactions and self-
esteem of students with special needs included in the general education setting. This study
included thirteen elementary students with special needs and 17 non-disabled classmates. An
end-of-the-year survey was completed in this study by students, teachers, and parents, which
involved performance indicators related to self-esteem, motivation, and attitude towards school.
The findings of this research revealed that the students with special needs and their non-disabled
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 30

peers results were very similar in terms of affective outcomes that were surveyed. However,
surveys that were completed by teachers and parents revealed that the students with special
needs’ self-esteem and motivation mirrored and resembled the behavior of their non-disabled
classmates (Banerji and Dailey, 1995).
Integration and social skill acquisition of non-disabled students is a major goal of
inclusion. Research has shown that there are positive outcomes with respect to social skill
acquisition and the acceptance of students with special needs into a general education setting.
Cole and Meyer (1991) conducted a study of ninety-one students with disabilities between the
ages of 6 through 21. Of these ninety-one students, fifty-five attended segregated special
education schools that provided only special education services and thirty-six students with
disabilities attended integrated schools that provided both regular and special education services.
The findings of this study concluded that in the functional domain of social competence area of
this study, students with disabilities that were placed in an integrated setting demonstrated
significantly greater gains on a measure of social competence than those in segregated settings.
Salisbury, Palombaro, Berryman, and Hollowood (1992) conducted a study to examine
the peer interactions and social competence of 8 students with special needs and 8 randomly
selected students without disabilities in an inclusive classroom. This study consisted of
classroom observations, sociometric analysis, and social competence ratings. Data revealed that
interaction was initiated by the students without special needs and although the interaction
between the students with special needs and non-disabled students declined as the school year
progressed, the interactions that did occur seemed to be more natural (Salisbury et al., 1992). In
1998, Vaughn, Elbaum, Schumm, and Hughes conducted a study of one hundred eighty-five
third through sixth grade students’ social functioning in two different educational settings: co-
teaching and consultation/ collaboration teaching. The findings of this study concluded that
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 31

students who participated in the consultation/collaboration teaching model experienced more
gains in peer acceptance and improved self-concepts in the general education setting compared
to their peers who were educated in a more restrictive classroom environment. Overall, students
with special needs develop greater social networks, positive interactions, and friendships when
educated along-side their non-disabled classroom peers.
Inclusion Process and the General Education Teacher
Teacher Attitudes towards Inclusive Practice
Researchers have concluded that teachers possess both positive and negative perceptions
towards educating students with special needs depending on the student’s educational and
behavioral challenges. Regular education teachers’ perceptions change depending on the
severity of the student’s disability and the amount of extra responsibility required (Smith, 2000).
The findings of Smith’s (2000) study of urban high school teachers suggested that the severity of
the disability greatly affects general education teacher acceptance of the inclusion of students
with severe disabilities. Smith (2000) also reported that overall, general education teachers seem
to be more willing to accept and include students with mild disabilities in the elementary school
setting. However, the acceptance of the inclusion of students with mild and severe disabilities
diminishes as they transition into the upper grades. Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden (2000)
conducted a qualitative study of eighty-one primary and secondary teachers in the southwest
region of England and found that general education school teachers who possessed experience in
working with students with special needs had a more positive perception towards the inclusive
practice than those general education teachers who had little to no experience at all. Both
primary and secondary general education teachers had less positive attitudes towards working
with students who had moderate to severe learning difficulties.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 32

A qualitative study by Cook (2001) examined whether elementary school teachers’
perception towards the inclusion of students with disabilities differed according to the severity of
their disability. The results of this study indicated that teachers tend to have developed different
perceptions and expectations towards the inclusion of students depending on the severity of their
disability or obvious disabilities (e.g., mental retardation, autism, orthopedic disabilities). Ward,
Center, and Bochner (2007) conducted an elementary study which concluded that teachers
showed little disagreement about the inclusion of students with special needs with mild
disabilities because they were less likely to need extra instructional or behavior/social
management skills from the general education teacher. However, teachers were unanimous in
their rejection of the inclusion of children with severe disabilities. Students with severe
disabilities were seen as being too behaviorally challenged, posed additional problems, and
demanded extra teaching competencies.
General education teachers who exhibit negative perceptions of students with special
needs may have a negative impact on their success. Elliott (2008), selected twenty physical
education teachers to participate in a study to understand the relationship between general
education teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion practice of students with mild to moderate
disabilities and their level of success during the physical education setting. The findings
indicated that 10 of the teachers who held negative attitudes towards inclusion had lower
expectations for their students with special needs and teachers with positive attitudes had higher
expectations for their student with disabilities. General education teachers with positive
perceptions chose 93% of the components of the skills they would teach as the success criteria
for students with special needs during the physical education setting as opposed to those teachers
with negative perceptions who chose 85% of the components of the skills to be taught as success
criteria for their students with special needs. Teachers who held a more positive attitude towards
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 33

inclusion provided their students with special needs with more practice opportunities, which lead
to a higher level of success.
Training (Pre-Service)
Continuing education and pre-service programs that general education teacher participate
in do not prepare them adequately for the inclusion of special needs students in the areas of skills
and expectations. According to Lesar et al. (1996), the required three hour teacher education
courses in special education that is required for general education teachers are largely ineffective
in preparing teachers for the implementation of the inclusion practice. Teachers continue to lack
the skills and knowledge needed to successfully integrate students with special needs in the
general education setting. Individuals enrolled in general education teacher preparation
programs in many states are not required to enroll in any classes that pertain to special education
at all (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2004).
Now that general education teachers are becoming more responsible for the instruction of
students with special needs during the inclusive setting, teachers feel less prepared to meet their
academic, social, and behavioral needs (Freytag, 2001). Freytag’s (2001) research of 48 general
education teachers examined the impact of preservice experiences, which is defined by all
coursework and internships completed prior to working as a teacher. The findings of this study
concluded that the amount of inclusion courses provided during the preservice teacher education
programs are insufficient and left teacher ill-equipped in meeting the needs of students with
special needs during inclusion (Freytag, 2001). Vaughn, Elbaum, and Boardman’s (2001),
concluded that there are general education teachers that lack adequate preservice training needed
to provide students with special needs with appropriate instruction and supports in order to be
successful. Teacher education programs may need to be revamped in order to include universal
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 34

design planning of instruction and meet the needs of the diverse learning styles of all students,
especially those students with special needs.
The following section will focus on the presumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that may influence Sun Valley Unified School District from achieving
their organizational inclusion goal.
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences
Knowledge and Skills
The purpose of this part of the literature review is to examine the knowledge and skills-
related influences that are relevant to the achievement of the organizational goal of the Sun
Valley Unified School District (SVUSD). The organizational goal of SVUSD is that 70% of
SVUSD’s students with mild to moderate disabilities will be included into the general education
program for at least 80% of the instructional day. In order to achieve the district’s overall
organizational goal, the stakeholder goal, which states that all elementary level general education
and special education teachers and support personnel will apply inclusion strategies in order to
support students with disabilities in the general education setting attain high levels of academic,
behavioral, and social achievement, must be attained. This literature review will analyze
reviewed literature in terms of the type of knowledge presented.
Knowledge Types.
There are four different types of knowledge, which are factual, conceptual, procedural,
and metacognitive. According to Krathwohl (2002), factual knowledge refers to basic elements
that one must know to be familiar with in order to solve a problem. Conceptual knowledge
focuses on regrouping big understandings, organizes knowledge and makes connections between
concepts and can only be acquired through purposeful and reflective learning (Krathwohl, 2002).
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 35

Both factual and conceptual knowledge are considered declarative knowledge, which is
knowledge about something. They answer the question, “What?” On the other hand, Krathwohl
(2002) describes procedural knowledge as the information or knowledge that assists one in
engaging in a specific domain or area of study and is very skills involved. According to Pintrich
(2002), metacognitive knowledge is the awareness of one’s own cognition, knowing how to do
something and is very strategic about how to solve problems and cognitive tasks. The four
knowledge types are important to understand in order to build the necessary skills and to become
proficient in articulating and clarifying learning objectives.
Stakeholder Knowledge Influences.
The following section will examine literature that is relevant to the teachers, as
stakeholders, within SVUSD, and the stakeholder goal. Declarative knowledge, procedural
knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge influences will be identified that affect the overall
achievement of the general education and special education teachers’ implementation of
inclusion strategies during inclusion to support students with disabilities in the general education
setting.
Declarative knowledge influences.
Both factual and conceptual knowledge influences teachers’ ability to apply inclusion
strategies during instruction. McCray and McHatton (2011) conducted a study which examined
elementary and secondary pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion of students with
special needs before participating in courses on inclusion strategies. The results concluded
successful teaching and learning during inclusion rests on teacher’s knowledge, skills, and
disposition. General education teachers’ reservation in regards to inclusion may be reduced
when teachers possess the knowledge of inclusion practices that highlight instructional strategies
and accommodations to allow students with special needs access to the general education
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 36

curriculum during inclusion (Horne & Timmons, 2009). It is necessary that teachers have the
knowledge and understanding of working with the diverse needs of students within an inclusive
classroom setting (Monsen, Ewing, & Kwoka, 2014). According to McCray and McHattan
(2011), teaching and learning is largely dedicated to teacher’s knowledge and skills. The pre-
service teachers within the McCray and McHattan (2011) study, who were provided with
inclusion courses, leveraged their knowledge of inclusion strategies and the skills necessary to
scaffold support within the general education classroom. Teacher knowledge of the inclusion
process and strategies appear to play a vital role in working with diverse students.
Understanding the essence of the inclusion practice is necessary for both general
education and special education teachers and support personnel. Schools and classrooms should
mimic the changes in societal attitudes ensuring that everyone feels accepted and included.
Educators who teach in an inclusive program need to be aware of the variety of differences that
each student brings into the educational environment (Familia-Garcia, 2001). The inclusion
process allows for a divergent group of learners to participate in a common learning environment
while exposing students to the concept of diversity.
Procedural knowledge influences.
Procedural knowledge refers to the necessary steps or application involved in completing
a goal or possessing the knowledge of a technique or method for reaching a desired goal
(Krathwohl, 2002).
Having the skills necessary to apply inclusion strategies within the general education
setting is significant. According to D’Alonzo et al. (2010), although the benefits of inclusion are
crucial in meeting the academic, behavioral, and social needs of students with disabilities,
teachers’ need to have the necessary skills and knowledge involved with the inclusion practice.
Cooper, Kurtts, Baber and Vallecorse (2008), found that half of the teacher candidates within
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 37

their study shared identical concerns in regards to feeling unprepared to provide the
individualized instruction and learning environment within the general education classroom to
students with special needs due to their lack of knowledge and skills. General education teachers
also had extreme difficulty adapting the curriculum and lack the necessary skills to scaffold and
plan their lessons to meet the diverse needs of their students with disabilities (Daane et al.,
2000). This finding correlates with Giangreco and Broer’s (2005) finding that training and skills
place a huge impact on implementing appropriate inclusion. Edmunds (1998) also conducted a
study to determine the need for the inclusion practice and teachers’ knowledge and found that
teachers were not prepared for working with students with special needs and implementing
inclusive practices due to lack the of skills. Recommended skills and strategies within these
studies included understanding how to adapt their teaching methods and differentiate instruction
for mixed ability groups within the general education context, better collaboration and
information sharing among general education teachers, special education teachers, and parents,
as well as implementing co-teaching models (Giangreco & Broer, 2005; Edmunds, 1998).
General education teachers need to possess the skills and strategies that will prepare them to
teach students with special needs in an inclusive classroom environment.
Metacognitive knowledge influences.
Metacognitive knowledge refers to the awareness and understanding of one’s own state,
evaluating one’s own strengths and challenges, and self-awareness (Krathwohl, 2002). It is
important that teachers working with students with disabilities are aware of their own thinking in
regards to implementing inclusion strategies within instructional planning. An analysis
completed by McCray and McHatton (2011) concluded that both general education teachers and
special education teachers understand the need for acquiring additional information on inclusion
and planning instructional approaches and strategies for meeting the needs of their diverse set of
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 38

students. According to the findings in the Monsen et al. (2014) study, teachers who displayed a
more positive perception towards the inclusion practice planned lessons that adapted to their
students’ learning, social, and emotional classroom environment.
Teachers need to be aware of and understand the individual needs of their students and
take into account the extensive amount of factors involved in planning for diverse instruction
(Horowitz, Darling-Hammond, & Bransford, 2005). According to Horowitz et al. (2005), factors
for planning for diverse instruction include assessing student learning, understanding how to tap
into what students think and adapt instruction to meet their individual needs, and managing
classrooms. Lipsky and Gartner (2008) noted that teachers need to be cognizant of and prepared
to plan for a diverse population of students. Provided that teachers are at the forefront of the
transformation of the inclusion practice, planning instruction for the diverse needs of their
students and reflecting on the effectiveness of the inclusion process are needed in order to
determine what inclusion practices and instructional planning changes should be made.
The Knowledge Worksheet (see Table 2) describes in detail the overall organizational
mission and organizational global goal of SVUSD. The Knowledge Worksheet also includes the
specific stakeholder goal, which speaks to what the general education and special education
teachers and support personnel will do in order to prepare students with mild to moderate
disabilities in meeting SVUSD’s organizational global goal. This worksheet reveals how
cognitive principles may be applied to this dissertation problem of practice, particularly the
identification of assumed knowledge/skills of SVUSD’s stakeholder group. Column one,
Assumed Knowledge Influences, defines the factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
assumed knowledge influences which are impacting teachers and support personnel from
preparing them to apply inclusion strategies in the general education setting to support students
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 39

with disabilities. Column two, Knowledge Influence Assessment, clearly defines how those
impacts will be assessed.
Table 2
Knowledge Worksheet

Assumed Knowledge
Influence

Knowledge Influence
Assessment

Declarative:
(Factual):
Teachers and support
personnel need to
have the knowledge
of inclusion strategies.

(Conceptual):
Teachers and support
personnel need to
know the essence of
inclusion in the
general education
setting.

All teachers and
support personnel
were asked to define
list and describe
inclusion practices

All teachers and
support personnel
were asked to
describe inclusion
practices and
strategies.

Procedural:

Teachers and support
personnel need to
have the skills
necessary to apply
inclusion strategies
throughout their daily
lessons.

All teachers and
support personnel
were asked to
demonstrate an
inclusion strategy
within their classroom
setting.

Metacognitive:

Teachers and support
personnel need to be
aware of their own
thinking regarding
how to plan their
instruction to
implement inclusion

All teachers and
support personnel
asked to reflect on the
effectiveness of the
inclusion strategies
after implementation.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 40

strategies.

Motivation
According to Pintrich (2003), motivation refers to what gets individuals moving towards
the completion of a task(s) and gives purpose and direction for accomplishing a particular task.
Self-Efficacy and Value are the two motivational theories that will be discussed in this section
(see Table 3).
Self-efficacy. According to Schunk (1995), self-efficacy refers to one’s belief or
capability about organizing and accomplishing a desired task(s). Grounded in Social Cognitive
Theory (SCT), self-efficacy has an effect on what activities one chooses, the effort and
persistence one places on accomplishing a task, and the achievement of the task (Bandura, 1997).
Self-efficacy beliefs provide the root of human motivation and accomplishment. If people do not
believe that their actions can result in the desired outcomes, they will display little motivation in
acting and persevering in the face of adversity (Pajares, 2006).
General education and special education teachers. General education and special
education teachers’ self-efficacies in terms of motivation may influence the educational learning
environment for students. According to Stanovich and Jordan (2002), general education teachers
need to feel they have the expertise in modifying the curriculum to meet the needs of their
students with disabilities. A quantitative research study by Monsen et al. (2014) studied the role
of teachers’ attitude in successful inclusion of students with disabilities. This study found that
teachers who lacked sufficient information on inclusion and support enable them to feel
confident and the ability to implement inclusive practices. Teachers who feel capable of meeting
the needs of students with disabilities are less likely to hold negative attitudes towards the
inclusion practice (Monsen et al., 2014; Avramidis & Norwich, 2010; Praisner, 2003).
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 41

Avramidis and Norwich (2010) found that teachers lack self-efficacy because they do not feel
confident in implementing inclusive practices. Additionally, in a study conducted by Horne and
Timmons (2009), general education teachers lacked confidence in their need for providing
program and curriculum adaptations for their students with challenging needs. Lack of teacher
motivation influences whether or not teachers are able to successfully handle their work demands
and meet student needs.
Research shows that teachers lack self-efficacy in meeting the needs of students with
special needs. General education teachers’ less than optimistic attitudes towards inclusion
resulted in their lack of the requisite expertise and skills necessary in introducing and
successfully implementing inclusion reforms (Cook el al., 1999). Daane, Beirne-Smith, and
Latham (2000) found that general education teachers make great progress in accommodating
students with disabilities into the general education setting, however many lack confidence and
believe that they need assistance with planning instruction. General education teachers have a
greater responsibility on meeting the diverse needs of their students with disabilities (Colling,
Fishbaugh, & Hermanson, 2003). Based on the general education teachers’ increased level of
obligation, this may have led many general education teachers to feel unprepared in meeting the
needs of students with special needs (Colling et al., 2003). A perception of self-efficacy and
competence was found in classrooms that were supported by and co-taught with resource
teachers were more positive (Avramidis & Norwich, 2010). Maintaining a secure sense of self-
belief in supporting students with special needs in an inclusive classroom setting may be
essential for inclusion success.
Utility value theory. The utility value theory states that stakeholders must see that there
is an importance of working towards a particular task or performance goal. Eccles (2006)
defines utility value theory as how well the individual’s plans satisfy their overall goals. If there
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 42

is no value of following through with the individual’s plans, then one may be less motivated to
continue in their effort of working towards their task or goal (Eccles, 2006).
General education and special education teachers. Teachers need to understand the
value of applying inclusion strategies to support students with disabilities in the general
education setting. According to D’Alonzo et al. (2010), researchers found that both general
education and special education teachers share an understanding in regards to the beneficial
value of the inclusion practice. Teachers expressed mixed reactions in regards to most of the
benefits of the inclusion practice. However, teachers within this study overwhelmingly believed
that applying inclusive strategies would promote the acceptance of students with special needs in
the general education setting and teachers believe in the value of adapting student work
according to their students’ unique needs (D’Alonzo et al., 2010). Similarly, teachers understand
the importance in adapting the educational environment and implementing additional resources
to assist students with special needs which allows for greater participation and for student
learning to occur (Monsen et al., 2014). Scruggs and Mostropieri (1996) conducted a study of
general education teachers’ perception of including students into the general education setting.
The overall outcome was that most general education teachers supported and understood the
value and concept of the inclusion practice. Teachers’ understanding of the importance and need
for implementing the inclusion practice may likely benefit students with disabilities.
The Motivational Worksheet (see Table 3) describes in detail the overall organizational
mission and organizational global goal of SVUSD. The Motivation Worksheet also includes the
specific stakeholder goal, which speaks to what the general education teachers’, special
education teachers, and support personnel will do in order to prepare students with disabilities in
meeting SVUSD’s organizational global goal. Column one describes the motivational influences
that impact general education teachers, special education teachers’, and support personnel’s self-
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 43

efficacy and utility value while preparing teachers to apply inclusion strategies in the general
education setting to support students with disabilities. Column two refers describes what
method(s) will be used to assess general education teachers’, special education teachers’, and
support personnel’s level of self-efficacy and how valuable they believe the inclusion practice is
in supporting students with special needs in the general education setting.
Table 3
Motivational Worksheet

Motivational Indicator(s)
Mental Effort & Persistence

Assumed Motivation
Influences

How Will It Be
Assessed?

Self-Efficacy:
Teachers and support
personnel need to
believe they are
capable of meeting the
needs and supporting
students with
disabilities by
applying inclusion
strategies in the
general education
setting.

Focus Group Survey
Item:
“Are you confident
about your ability to
teach students with
disabilities in the general
education classroom, If
so, why or why not?”

Utility Value:
Teachers and support
personnel need to
understand the value
of applying inclusion
strategies to support
students with
disabilities in the
general education
setting

Interview Survey Item:
“Is inclusion a desirable
educational practice?
Can you give me a
specific rationale as to
why inclusion is a
desirable educational
practice? If not, why
not?”
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 44

Organizational Influences on the Inclusion of Special Needs Students
The term culture is referred to by organizational managers and leaders to symbolize
practices developed within organizations surrounding existing policies, employer-to-employee
relationships, or values (Schein, 2004). According to Erez and Gati (2004), organizational
culture defines core values and norms within an organization. These values and norms are
shared and transferred through modeling and observation over many years. By understanding
the culture of an organization (see Table 4), one should be able to identify and respond
appropriately to unfamiliar behaviors that arise from people within the organization and gain a
better understanding of the primary causes of such behaviors (Schein, 2004).
Support (Special Education Teachers /Administration)
Special education teachers and administration may have a positive influence on inclusion
reform. It has been documented that administrative support has been a vital aspect for successful
organizational change (Cook, Semmel, & Gerber, 1999). According to Cook et al. (1999), the
negative perception among general education teachers in regards to inclusion could be alleviated
by the positive attitudes of other prominent school-site personnel. General education teachers
rely on the support from the special education teachers and administration in the implementation
of inclusion strategies (Cook et al., 1999). Teachers must be convinced that the inclusion
process will be supported by administration and other support personnel that will enable them to
be able to meet the diverse needs and demands of their students with and without special needs.
If teachers feel unsupported by administration, they will begin to see little benefit in
implementing inclusion strategies (D’Alonzo, Giordano, & Vanleeuwen, 1998).
Several studies indicate that special education teachers and administration are important
factors in order for a successful inclusion program to take place. Funchs’s (2010) qualitative
study that examined general education teachers’ perceptions about inclusion agreed that there
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 45

was a lack of administrative support to teach a diverse range of learners, particularly those with
special needs. According to Guzman (1997), researchers found that there were several factors
that were common among successful inclusive schools; however the school administrator was
the most influential factor in creating a positive inclusive environment. Support from other
human support personnel (special education specialists, resource teachers, learning support
assistants, etc.) was also identified as a vital factor in supporting a successful inclusive
environment (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Schumm & Vaughn’s (1995) review of eighteen
studies also concluded that general education students expressed their lack of collaboration with
special education teachers, which affected teacher attitude towards inclusion implementation.
Embracing the general education teacher has not been an easy process in the movement
towards inclusive education. In fact, general education teachers have felt as though the
inclusion process was being forced upon them (Campbell and Fyfe, 1995). However, the
inclusion process relies on the partnership between the general education and special education
teacher (Buell, Hallman, Gamel-Mccormick, & Scheer, 1999). Using the Teacher Attitude to
Inclusion Scale (TAIS), Monsen, Ewing, and Kwoka (2014), surveyed ninety-five teachers to
explore perceived adequate level of support and acceptance of inclusion of special needs
students. The participants of this study were drawn from one-hundred and twenty schools with
between two hundred and four hundred students at each school. The outcomes of this research
revealed that positive teacher attitudes increased based on the adequacy of support teachers
received from both internal and external support services. These findings supported the notion
by Broderick, Mehta-Parekh and Reid (2005) that collaboration is needed in order for successful
inclusion to take place.
Hwang and Ewan (2011) conducted a study of thirty-three general education teachers
towards their attitudes regarding inclusive education programs. This study included three
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 46

primary schools in Seoul, Republic of Korea. A teacher questionnaire adapted from the
Inclusion Questionnaire for Educators and interviews as forms of data collection measures were
used. In this qualitative study, approximately 49% of general education teachers either felt that
they played an inferior role and involvement in providing support to their students with special
needs included into their classrooms and some teachers shared feelings of intimidation with
collaborating with special education educators. The collaboration and support between general
education teachers and special education teachers were viewed as a major component of
inclusion success as well as the teacher perceptions and the roles they play.
Although the roles of the special education and general education teachers have been
ideally viewed as being isolated, the perceptions of their roles in working with students with
special needs often times leads to turmoil between teachers when collaborating (Robinson &
Bully, 2007). According to Salend and Duhaney (1999), collaborative teaching problems
occurred due to lack of communication, conflicting beliefs and teaching styles, and coordinating
the responsibilities of each teacher. Educating general education teachers, special education
teachers, and support personnel about the roles and responsibilities of collaboration should take
place prior to teacher collaboration in order to fully comprehend the benefits of teacher and
support personnel professional collaboration and support they provide for one another (Gut,
Oswald, & Leal (2003).
Professional Development and Supports
School systems today are facing many complex challenges. These challenges include
working with a very diverse student population, including those students with special needs,
meeting the rigorous and challenging academic Common Core curriculum, holding high
expectations for all students, and accountability (Shogren, Gross, Forber-Pratt, Francis, Satter,
Blue-Banning, & Hill, 2015). Therefore, educators need to be able to enhance their instructional
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 47

knowledge. Professional development has been recognized as a primary force in the effort to
bring about changes in restructuring and transforming schools (Guskey, 1994). Avramidis and
Norwich (2002), found that pre-service and in-service training led to improvement in teachers’
perception towards the inclusive reform and without such training, inclusion would be
challenging for schools.
Research shows that the level of professional development and supports provided to
general education and special education teachers on the inclusion reform could be connected to
teacher attitude towards inclusion. According to Monsen, et al. (2014), educators that were
surveyed expressed insufficient professional development training, which enabled them to feel
inadequate when implementing inclusive strategies. Professional development opportunities had
an impact on the attitudes teachers held for the inclusive practice. A survey by Buell et al.
(1999) of general education and special education teachers’ perceptions of their needs for
necessary supports and services in order to implement an inclusive program concluded that
teachers felt that their lack of professional development led to them being unprepared in
implementing and planning a collaborative and inclusive educational environment. Similarly,
negative teacher perceptions towards the inclusion of special needs students were found in the
scarce amount of training, support, and school finances provided to the general education teacher
(Buell et. al., 1999). Horne and Timmons (2009) found that 85% of the teacher participants in
their study who possessed negative perceptions towards inclusion agreed that on-going in-service
and professional development was essential for integrating special needs students and shaping a
more positive teacher attitude of inclusion. Professional development and support is necessary in
creating a positive impact on teacher behavior and ensures effective integration takes place
An important school goal, especially for students with special needs, is to assist students
with planning and preparation for their future (Kellems & Morningstar, 2010). Over the years,
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 48

researchers, school districts leaders, and educational policy makers have been increasingly
apprehensive and are paying close attention on how to make professional development effective.
Researchers have been examining the common links between how professional development is
designed, what teachers are actually learning through professional development, changes in
classroom instruction as a result of receiving prior professional development, and student
outcomes (Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007). According to Vaughn and
Schumm (1995), in order for general education teachers and support staff to fully be able to have
a successful inclusive program, ongoing professional development must be present. Data
collected and examined within Vaughn and Schumm’s (1995) research concluded that providing
professional development for general education teachers was not considered in the
implementation of inclusion. General education teachers were less receptive to inclusion due to
feeling unprepared in meeting the academic and behavioral challenges of students with special
needs and professional development was desired among the general education teaching staff.
The inclusion process should be properly planned and supported. Educational-related
variables, both human and physical have been found to influence teacher perception towards
supporting the inclusion practice (Avramidis & Norwich, 2010). Human support services are the
use of support assistants, special education specialists, special education teachers, administration,
and other district and school itinerant personnel. Physical supports service include teaching
materials, technology equipment, altering of physical school environment, and other resources
(Avramidis & Norwich, 2010). According to Clough and Lindsay (1991) and Center and Ward
(1987), teachers possess a more receptive attitude towards inclusion when the availability of
support personnel and services are present within the school and district level.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 49

Table 4
Organizational Worksheet

Assumed Organizational Influences

Knowledge Influence Assessment

Cultural Model Influence 1:

There is a culture of lack of support
from school and district administration,
which hinders the stakeholder goal of
applying inclusion strategies during
inclusion.

Focus group or interview questions
about whether teachers feel
supported by administration.

Cultural Setting Influence 1:

There is a lack of professional
development opportunities for teachers
to attend on campus and throughout the
district to provide models on inclusion
strategies.

Focus group or interview questions
in regards to whether they know of
others on campus or within the
district teachers can inquire about
providing models of inclusion
strategies.

Conclusion
The passage of P.L. 94-142, which guaranteed a free and appropriate public education for
children with disabilities involves every teacher as participants in fostering student success.
Research on the general education teachers’ perception and attitudes towards the inclusion of
students with special needs have raised concerns in regards to training and skills, teacher’s role
and responsibilities, and support affecting the inclusion process. General education teachers are
at the forefront of managing and delivering an appropriate and relevant general education
curriculum as well as addressing and regulating the behavioral learning demands. Although
inclusion affords many opportunities for academic, cultural, and social awareness and acceptance
of special needs students all educators, in particular general education teachers, are critical for
successful implementation.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 50

The areas examined in this literature review are those that are forenamed as being
challenges that teachers face. Factors that have been identified as having an effect on teachers’
attitudes and perceptions of the inclusion of special needs students are: pre-service training,
professional development, general education teacher roles and responsibilities, and
administrative and other school-site personnel support. Throughout Chapter 3, I will describe
the methods and instruments used for collecting and analyzing data. The collection and
analyzing of data will focus on answering the research questions regarding teacher’s knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational influences that impact the inclusion of special needs
students.

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 51

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this section is to examine the possible knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that impact teachers, both general and special education, and support
personnel’s perceptions towards inclusive education. This chapter will include a description of
the participating stakeholders who contribute to the accomplishment of the district’s
organizational goal, the type of data collection and instrument used, the data analysis plan,
trustworthiness of the data, the researcher’s role, ethics and confidentiality, and the limitations
and delimitations within this study.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to conduct a gap analysis to examine the primary causes
that prevent teachers from fully supporting the inclusion of students with disabilities into the
general education program. The analysis will focus on causes for this problem due to gaps in the
areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational issues. As such, the questions that
guide this study are the following:
1. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that
influence Sun Valley Unified School District from achieving their Performance Goal of
70% of students with disabilities included into the general education setting for at least
80% of their instructional day?
2. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The theoretical and methodological framework implemented in this study is the Clark and
Estes’ (2008) gap analysis. The Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis is a systematic, analytical
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 52

method that will help to clarify the Sun Valley Unified School District’s goal regarding the
inclusion of students with disabilities and identify the gap between the actual and preferred
performance level within this organization. Assumed barriers will be generated based on
personal knowledge and related literature. These elements will be validated by using interviews,
document analysis, focus group, literature review and content analysis. Research-based solutions
will be recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
Assessment of Performance Influences
The Clark and Estes' (2008) definition of the gap analysis framework is to identify
performance gaps, develop perceived root causes, validate the causes of the performance gap,
and develops research-based solutions. The gap analysis process seeks to understand and clarify
the gaps that exist between the actual level of performance and the ideal level of performance
(Rueda, 2011). However, the gap analysis only provides the foundation of comprehension
necessary in order to create the ideal level of performance, not the action plan. The purpose is to
examine teachers’ and support personnel’s perceptions towards inclusion of special needs
students. Based on the review of the relevant literature and educational theories, possible causes
were created. Although in order to prevent misdiagnosis of the causes for the performance gap,
an in-depth investigation of assumed influences of stakeholder performance categorized as
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization will be discussed. These influences are displayed in
Table 5.

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 53

Table 5
Summary of Assumed Issues/Needs/Assets for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Issues
Assumed Influences on Stakeholder Performance
Sources

Knowledge

Motivation

Organization
Learning and
Motivation
Theory

Teachers and support
personnel need to
have knowledge of
the inclusion
strategies.

Teachers and support
personnel need to
believe they are
capable of
effectively meeting
the needs and
supporting students
with disabilities by
applying inclusion
strategies in the
general education
setting.
There is a culture of
lack of support from
school and district
administration, which
hinders the
stakeholder goal of
applying inclusion
strategies during
inclusion.

Teachers and support
personnel need to
know the essence of
inclusion in the
general education
setting.
Teachers and support
personnel need to
understand the value
of effectively
applying inclusion
strategies throughout
their daily lessons.
There is a lack of
professional
development
opportunities for
teachers and support
personnel to attend on
campus and
throughout the district
to provide models on
inclusion strategies.
Teachers and support
personnel need to
have the skills
necessary to
effectively apply
appropriate inclusion
strategies throughout
their daily lessons.

Teachers and support
personnel need to
know how to plan
their instruction to
implement inclusion

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 54

Validation of the Performance Issues/Needs/Assets
Justification of influences for assessment purposes
The literature revealed four possible knowledge influences, as displayed in Table 6. The
two influences that represent declarative knowledge were assessed through the focus groups and
interviews. One influence that represents procedural knowledge was assessed through the focus
groups and interviews. The metacognitive influence was assessed through focus groups and
interviews. The purpose of utilizing focus groups to assess the declarative and procedural
possible knowledge influences is to determine the participants’ initial perceptions towards the
inclusive practice. The qualitative data gained through the use of the focus group and interviews
helped clarify the qualitative data obtained through the focus groups.
strategies.

Related
Literature

McCray &
McHatton, 2011;
Horne & Timmons,
2009; Monsen et al.,
2014; Edmunds,
2000; Smith &
Smith, 2000; Osler
& Starkey, 2005;
Familia-Garcia,
2001; Denler et al.,
2009; Krathwohl,
2002; D’Alonnzo et
al., 2010; Cooper et
al., 2008; Baane,
Beirne-Smith, &
Latham, 2000;
Giangreco & Broer,
2005; Monsen et al.,
2014; Horowitz et
al., 2005; Lipsky &
Gartner, 2008

Stanovich & Jordan,
2002; Monsen et al.,
2014; Avramidis &
Norwich, 2010;
Praisner, 2003; Horne
& Timmons, 2009;
Cook et al., 1999;
Daane et al., 2000;
Colling et al., 2003;
Elliott, 2008;
D’Alonzo et al., 2010;
Scruggs &
Mostropieri, 1996;
O’Rourke, 2009;
Smith & Smith, 2000;

Monsen, et al., 2014;
Horne & Timmons,
2009; Familia-Garcia,
2001; Smith & Smith,
2000; Cambridge-
Johnson, Hunter-
Johnson & Newton,
2014; Avramidis &
Norwich, 2010;
Ajodhia-Andrews &
Frankel, 2010;
Scruggs &
Mastropieri, 1996;
Avramidis, Bayliss, &
Burden, 2000; Salend
& Duhaney, 1999;
Fuchs, 2009-2010
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 55

The remainder of Chapter 3 will describe how the assumed causes were validated in order
to determine which assumed cause may need solutions and which turn out not to be barriers at
all, in which case will need no solutions.
Validation of Performance Issues/Needs/Assets: Knowledge
Factual knowledge issues/needs/assets’ validation. In order to assess the factual
knowledge causes, general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel
were asked to participate in a focus group (Appendix A) and an interview (Appendix B)
(Appendix C) (Appendix D) that evaluated teachers’ and support personnel’s knowledge of
inclusion. Sample item include:
1. How do you define inclusion and how does the concept make you feel?

Conceptual knowledge issues/needs/assets’ validation. In order to validate conceptual
knowledge causes, general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel
were asked to respond to focus group questions (Appendix A) and interview questions
(Appendix B) (Appendix C) (Appendix D) about issues related to the understanding why the
inclusion of students with special needs is important. Sample items include:
1. Is inclusion a desirable educational practice? Can you give me a specific rationale as
to why inclusion is a desirable educational practice? If not, why not?
2. Do you believe that all students, regardless of the degree or type of disability should
be included into the general educational setting? Can you give me a specific example
of why all students with disabilities should be included in the general education
setting? If not, why not?
3. Is inclusion an example of best practices? Can you give me a specific rationale as to
why inclusion is a desirable best practice? If so, why not?
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 56

Procedural knowledge issues/needs/assets’ validation. In order to validate procedural
knowledge causes, general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel
were asked to respond to focus group and interview questions. Sample focus group and
interview questions include:
1. Have you been provided with specialized training or professional development
focused on inclusion strategies within the classroom setting? If so, why or why not?
2. What type of professional development or training did you receive prior to being in
an inclusive classroom? Can you provide a specific example of each professional
development/training?
Metacognitive knowledge issues/needs/assets’ validation. In order to assess
metacognitive knowledge causes, general education teachers, special education teachers, and
support personnel will answer open-ended focus group and interview questions assessing their
ability to reflect on how they plan their instruction to implement inclusion strategies. Sample
interview and focus group items include:
1. Have you received any support that is important for implementing inclusion practices
into your classroom effectively? If so, explain.
2. Have you been provided with specialized training or professional development
focused on inclusion strategies within the classroom setting? If so, explain why or
why not?
3. Do you modify/adapt the general educational curriculum in order to meet the
individualized academic need(s) of students who participate in the inclusive setting?
Can you provide an example as to how the educational curriculum is
modified/adapted?
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 57

Table 6
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Issues/Needs/Assets and Validation.

Assumed Knowledge
Issue/Need/Asset*

How Will It Be Assessed?

Teachers and support personnel
need to have knowledge of the
inclusion strategies. (F)

Teachers and support personnel
need to know the essence of
inclusion in the general education
setting. (C)

Teachers and support personnel
need to have the skills necessary to
effectively apply appropriate
inclusion strategies throughout
their daily lessons. (P)

Teachers and support personnel
need to know how to plan their
instruction to implement inclusion
strategies. (M)

Teachers and support personnel
will be asked if they are aware
of inclusion practices and
strategies.

Teachers and support personnel
will be asked to explain the
benefits of the inclusion
practice.

Teachers and support personnel
were asked to demonstrate an
inclusion strategy within their
classroom setting.

Teachers and support personnel
are asked to reflect on the
effectiveness of the inclusion
strategies after implementation.

*(F)actual; (C)onceptual; (P)rocedural; (M)etacogitive
Validation of Performance Issues/Needs/Assets: Motivation
The literature revealed two possible underlying motivational influences, as displayed in
Table 7. The two motivational theories are self-efficacy and utility value. The self-efficacy
theory is ones’ own belief about accomplishing a desired task(s) (Schunk, 1995). According to
Eccles (2006), utility value theory is defined as how well one plans to satisfy their overall
goal(s). Self-efficacy will be assessed through a survey and focus group. The purpose of
utilizing an open-ended focus group and interviews was to assess the possible motivational
influences and determine the participants’ own teaching efficacy in the area of inclusion. Utility
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 58

Value was assessed through an open ended focus group and interviews. In doing so, this will
provide a way to determine the participants’ initial value towards the inclusion practice.
Self-Efficacy validation. In order to validate the self-efficacy motivation cause, teachers
and support personnel will be asked to respond to an open-ended focus group and interview
question. A sample focus group and interview item include:
1. Are you confident with your ability to teach students with disabilities in the general
education classroom, If so, why or why not?
Utility Value. In order to validate the utility value motivation cause, teachers and
support personnel will be asked to participate in an interview.
Sample interview items include:
1. Do you think that all students, regardless of the degree or type of disability should be
included into the general education setting? Can you give me a specific example of
why all students with disabilities should be included in the general education setting?
If not, why not?
2. Do you think in relation to student educational outcomes (academic) that students
with mild disabilities (SLD, OHI, and SLI) are best served in an inclusive general
education setting? If so, why or why not?
3. Do you think in relation to student educational outcomes (social/behavioral) that
students with mild disabilities (SLD, OHI, and SLI) are best served in an inclusive
general education setting? If so, why or why not?
4. Are you willing to teach students with specific learning disabilities (SLD), speech and
language impairment (SLI), and other health impairment (OHI)? Why or why not?
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 59

a. Provide a specific example as to why you would be willing to teach students
with specific learning disabilities (SLD), speech and language impairment
(SLI), and other health impairment (OHI)? If not, Why not?
Table 7

Summary of Assumed Motivation Issues/Needs/Assets and Validation

Possible Underlying
Motivational Influence

Type of Indicator

Possible Underlying
Cause

How Will It Be
Assessed?

Self-Efficacy
Teachers and support
personnel do not believe
they are capable of
effectively meeting the
needs and supporting
students with disabilities
by applying inclusion
strategies in the general
education setting.

Mental Effort &
Persistence

Lack of efficacy (L)

Interview and Focus
Group:
Teachers and support
personnel will be asked
to respond to statements
about their belief and
confidence in their
ability to apply
inclusion strategies in
their classrooms.

Interview and Focus
Group:
Teachers and support
personnel will be asked
to respond to questions
about their belief and
confidence in their
ability to apply
inclusion strategies in
their classrooms.

Utility Value
Teachers and support
personnel need to
understand the value of
effectively applying
inclusion strategies to
support students with
disabilities in the general
education setting
Mental Effort &
Persistence

Lack of value (T) Interview and Focus
Group:
Teachers and support
personnel will be asked
to respond to statements
about the value of
inclusion of special
needs students in the
general education
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 60

classroom setting.

Interview and Focus
Group:
Teachers and support
personnel will be asked
to respond to questions
about their perceived
value of the inclusion
practice, the relation to
educational outcomes
due to inclusion, and
their understanding of
the value in applying
inclusion strategies to
support students with
disabilities.

*Personal Knowledge (P), Related Literature (L), Theories related to culture/context (T)
Validation of Performance Issues/Needs/Assets: Organization/Culture/Context
The assumed organizational causes for the performance gap at SVUSD include an
organizational culture of lack of support from school and district administration and lack of
professional development opportunities within the district for teachers, as explained in Table 8.
In order to validate these causes, general education and special education teachers and support
personnel participated in a focus group and interview to assess the possible organizational
influences contributing to the performance gap. The table below summarizes these causes and
how each cause was validated. Sample focus groups and interview items include:
1. Have you been provided with specialized training or professional development
focused on inclusion strategies within the classroom setting? If so, explain why
or why not?
2. Have you received any support that is important for implementing inclusion
practices into your classroom effectively? If so, explain.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 61

3. Do you believe you have the support(s) needed to teach students with special
needs in the general education classroom setting? Can you give me a specific
example of the types of support(s) you have? If not, why not?
a. Can you give me a specific example of how support(s) assist you in the
inclusion process?
4. Do you believe you have been provided with specialized training or professional
development in providing inclusive strategies? If so, explain why or why not?
5. Has there been any supports you believe are important for implementing the
inclusion practice in order for inclusion to be successful? If so, explain.
Table 8
Summary of Assumed Organizational/Culture/Context Issues/Needs/Assets and Validation

Organizational Issue, Need or
Asset

Possible Organizational
Influences(s)*

How Will it be Assessed?
Indicate the survey item,
interview question and/or
document analysis focus.

The organization is not
providing support from the
school level and district
administration, which hinders
the stakeholder goal of
applying inclusion strategies
during inclusion.

Organization is not
responsive to staff
issues/needs (P)

Lack of professional
development (P)(L)

Interviews and focus group
questions about whether
teachers and support
personnel feel supported by
administration.
Document Analysis to see
what professional
development, trainings, and
other supports are provided.

The organization does not
provide professional
development opportunities for
teachers to attend on campus
and throughout the district to
Organization is not
responsive to staff
issues/needs (P)

Interviews and focus group
questions in regards to
whether teachers and support
personnel know of others on
campus or within the district
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 62

provide models on inclusion
strategies.
Lack of professional
development (P)(L)
teachers can inquire about
providing models of inclusion
strategies.

*Personal Knowledge (P), Related Literature (L), Theories related to culture/context (T)
In summary, there were many issues that were validated in order to resolve the
organizational program of the general education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Each
critical knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes were validated using qualitative data.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders within the Sun Valley Unified School District (SVUSD) include
students, teachers and administrators. Sun Valley Unified School District provides programs and
services for approximately 61,000 students with various disabilities (“Enrollment Figures,”
2016-2017). All teachers and administrators have the responsibility to teach and encourage all
general education and special education students.
Although there is a collective effort of all stakeholders’ contribution to the
accomplishment of the district’s organizational goal, the sample for this study focused on the
elementary general education and special education teachers and support personnel. This
research was designed to discover teacher perception towards the inclusion of students with
special needs into the general education setting. The attitudes of teachers are a pivotal aspect in
the success of inclusion (Avamidis & Norwich, 2010; Bradshaw & Mudia, 2006). General
education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel contribute to the academic
success of special education students by providing a collaborative and inclusive classroom
environment that supports every student with a disability, and providing students with disabilities
with a high-quality education that would maximize their potential in the least restrictive
environment. This research was added to compliment the gap in related literature on the
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 63

teachers’ perception towards the inclusion of special education students into the general
education environment.
The target population for the purposes of this study was comprised of general education
teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel recruited from one pre-kindergarten
through 5
th
grade elementary school within the SVUSD. This school was selected for
participation because of the accessibility, familiarity, and availability of the researcher. The
participants were purposefully selected based on relevant exposure they had on the topic of
inclusion, which enabled them to adequately address the focus group and interview questions.
According to Merriam & Tisdell (2016), the purposeful sampling strategy, is used when you
want to “highlight what is typical, normal, and average”.
The focus group methodology was used to seek information and patterns that emerged.
According to Morgan (1997), the use of focus groups is to see what issues and related markers
form as a result of the interaction between focus group participants; however individual
interviews and document analysis will further support the validity of this study.
Sampling
Given that special education students are included into the general education setting
during inclusion, the general education teachers, special education teachers, and support
personnel are the primary participants in the inclusion process. There was 2 data collection
strategies used in this study, which were: Focus groups (Appendix A) and interviews (Appendix
B) (Appendix C) (Appendix D). Focus groups and interviews were scheduled based on school-
site administrators agreed upon day and time.

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 64

Focus Group Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Teachers and support personnel who support or teach in either grades pre-
kindergarten through fifth grade on an elementary school site within the Sun Valley
Unified School District.
Criterion 2. Teachers and support personnel who have had exposure to the inclusive
practice with the last 12 months.
Criterion 3. Teachers and support personnel who practice inclusion in their general
education classroom in an inclusive general education setting.
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Teachers and support personnel who support or teach in either grades pre-
kindergarten through fifth grade on an elementary school site within the Sun Valley
Unified School District.
Criterion 2. Teachers and support personnel who have had exposure to the inclusive
practice with the last 12 months.
Criterion 3. Teachers and support personnel who practice inclusion in their general
education classroom in an inclusive general education setting.
Recruitment
Focus Group Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The elementary school was selected using a convenience sampling qualitative method.
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), convenience sampling refers to selecting a sample
based on location, money, availability, and time. A meeting with the teaching and support staff
at the selected elementary school site was organized in collaboration with the school site
principal. During the school-site meeting, a descriptive cover letter was distributed to all
teachers and support personnel that introduced my research interest and described the study and
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 65

rationale for the research. The cover letter also included USC’s IRB guidelines, and the
importance of obtaining a high response rate from participants (Appendix E) (Appendix F).
Teachers and support personnel participated in this study on a voluntary basis.
Participants who agreed to participate were purposefully selected. All teachers and support
personnel were purposefully selected from one pre-kindergarten through 5
th
grade general
education elementary school site to participate in the focus groups. Purposeful sampling is a
logical method that will allow for small samples to be selected purposefully (Merrian & Tisdell,
2016). The rationale behind purposefully selecting teachers was to obtain only those teachers
who meet specific criteria, which are: teachers and support personnel who have had exposure to
the inclusive practice within the last 12 months or teachers who currently practice inclusion in
the general education classroom in an inclusive general education setting (Creswell, 2014).
Although the selection of participants was voluntary, the focus groups only consisted of three
separate group discussions among nine employees within the school site, which were: the first
focus group consisted of three general education teachers; the second focus group consisted of
three special education teachers; the third focus group consisted of three support personnel
employees. If the number of volunteers, who meet the specific criteria previously discussed,
exceed the number of participants needed to conduct this study, volunteers would have been
randomly selected to participate in the focus groups. In which case, all of those participants,
who were randomly selected, would have been notified through email by the researcher.
The focus group methodology was selected because this research was designed to capture
the perceptions of inclusion from a group setting. In doing so, teachers and support personnel
were able to build on each other's answers to see what patterns emerged as a result of their
interaction. Interviews and document analysis further supported the validity of this study.

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 66

Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Criterion and Rationale
Upon completion of the focus groups, the same teachers and support personnel who
participated in the focus group will also participate in a one-on-one interview. The purpose of
interviewing participants is to seek to understand the meanings of central themes that may arise
during the focus groups and understand the story behind the participant’s experiences (Kvale,
1996). Interviews can also be a useful protocol for gaining in-depth information surrounding a
particular topic to further investigate their responses to questionnaires, surveys, focus groups,
interviews, and more (McNamara, 1999). The interview method sought to gain specific
information on teachers’ perceptions to the inclusion practice, which will further support the
validity of the study.
Data Collection
Focus Group
Qualitative data was gathered during the focus group. Participants were asked to discuss
their views of inclusion, professional development background, educational outcomes, pre-
service training, and administrative support (Appendix A). During the focus group, participants
had the opportunity to engage in an interactive discussion by which data was generated (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016).
In order to ensure the accuracy of the data collected, the semi-structured focus group was
corded on audiotape along with my hand-written notes. The focus group lasted approximately an
hour and a half. Focus group questions were open-ended, but guided by the researcher.
According to Hatch (2007), depending on the participants’ responses, the focus group may veer
off into a different direction.

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 67

Interviews
Qualitative data was collected on the participants’ beliefs and concerns of the inclusion
practice and their ability to teach students with special needs in an inclusive environment. All
teachers and support providers that were randomly selected to participate in the interview
process were asked a series of questions that determined teachers’ and support personnel’s
perceptions towards inclusion.
In order to ensure the accuracy of the data collected, the one-on-one interviews were
recorded on audiotape along with my hand-written notes. The interviews lasted approximately
an hour. Interview questions were open-ended, but were guided by the researcher. According to
Hatch (2007), depending on the participants’ responses, the focus group may veer off into a
different direction.
Document Analysis
In addition to focus groups and interviews, document analysis is a major source of data
used in qualitative research. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), documents can be
defined to include personal papers, visual documents, physical materials and artifacts, public
records and popular culture documents. All types of documents assist the researcher with
uncovering the meaning, gaining a better understanding, and discovering insights that are
relevant to the research problem (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For this research, documents such
as, professional development agendas, Single Plan of Student Achievement (SPSA), and any
district training agendas were analyzed to gain an understanding as to the type of organizational
support that has been provided to teachers and support personnel geared towards working with
special education students in a general education inclusion environment.

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 68

Data Analysis Plan
The findings and themes that emerged from this qualitative study were discovered
throughout this data analysis. Data analysis is the process of interpreting and making sense of all
of the data collected (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In order to make sense of the data collected,
data must be consolidated, reduced, and interpreted. The findings and themes found in this study
served as the key variables of the teachers’ and support personnel’s perceptions towards the
inclusion of students with special needs into the general education setting.
Multiple stages of analysis were conducted. All data was collected and coded, using the
open-coding process and axial coding process, as well as analyzed. The first stage was data
collection from focus groups, interviews, and documents. Data collection and rudimentary
analysis occurred simultaneously. During this time, I not only collected data, but I also analyzed
rudimentary data looking for emerging themes, categories, and findings. Once data collection
was completed and saturation occurred, on-going data analysis continued to determine emerged
later as I continued to organize and assess the data collected.
The second stage of analysis was coding using both open-codes and axial codes.
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the process of coding involves creating notations
alongside the data collected that you feel are relevant in answering the research question. Open-
coding refers to the basic units of analysis. In other words, open-coding involves breaking down
data into first level concepts or themes. Axial-coding or analytical coding takes coding a step
further by grouping the open-codes and interpreting and reflecting on their meanings (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Focus group and interviews were coded first by jotting down notes, comments,
observations, or queries alongside the margins of the focus group and interview notes or
transcripts. Documents were coded into themes similar to those that emerged from the focus
groups and interviews.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 69

During the final stage of analysis, once focus groups notes, interview notes, and
documents were been collected and coded, they were further analyzed. All focus group and
interview notes were examined thoroughly individually. In doing so, it allowed for the data to be
broken down into distinct categories and compared with one another in order to find similarities
and differences among the data collected.
The data sources used in this study provided evidence as to the possible knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that impact teachers, both general and special
education, and support personnel’s perceptions towards inclusive education. Analyses of these
findings were presented as a narrative in Chapter 4 of this dissertation.
Trustworthiness of Data
Credibility or internal validity asks the question of how the findings of the research
actually mirror the reality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Credibility is determined by the rigorous
methods used throughout the study as well as the experience and training of the researcher.
According to Patton (2015), “trustworthiness of the data is tied directly to the trustworthiness of
those who collect and analyze the data”. In order to ensure trustworthiness, credibility must be
present. The researcher must be trustworthy in how they carry out their research and proceed in
an ethical manner (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Credibility of this study was addressed by triangulating data. Participant’s responses
from the initial focus groups were checked for interpretations by clarifying the findings during
the interviews and document analysis. Ensuring that this study’s findings were the result of the
participant’s experiences and not the researcher’s preferences spoke to the trustworthiness of this
qualitative research.
In order to conduct an investigation in an ethical manner, researchers must ensure the
validity and reliability in an ethical fashion. Validity refers to the degree in which the device
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 70

used for measuring a research problem is in fact measuring what it is intended to measure
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Reliability is synonymous with the quality of measurement. It is
the consistency or repeatability of the test, survey, observation, or other measuring device
(Creswell, 2014).
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Creswell (2009) noted that triangulation refers to using
multiple sources of data and cross-checking the data results by way of performing follow-up
interviews with the same participants or conducting observations at different times or locations.
The validity of the qualitative portion of this research was addressed by way of triangulation.
Triangulation in this research was established by comparing the information gathered from the
results of the focus groups, interviews, and document analysis.
Role of Investigator
I am a school-site administrator at an elementary school within the SVUDH. I oversee
entire special education department. My role consists of maintaining the operational and
instructional components of the special education department. The special education department
includes the special education teachers, special education paraprofessionals, and special
education students. My role as the principal researcher in this study is to conduct a problem
solving investigation of teachers ‘and support personnel’s perceptions towards the inclusion of
students of special needs in order to improve SVUSD’s inclusion performance. I conducted a
gap analysis of the organizational problem and proposed solutions that would assist SVUDH in
meeting their organizational inclusion goal.
Although I am a school-site administrator within the district, it was important to inform
the participants that the responses given throughout the survey were confidential and their
participation was voluntary and at any time throughout the research, participants were allowed to
dismiss themselves without any justification. Participants were informed of my role as the
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 71

principal researcher.
As an employer within SVUSD and working closely with the special education
population, research on inclusion may contribute to the gap within the literature on teacher’s
attitudes of the inclusion practice. The potential participants were made aware that I was
conducting this research project as a doctoral candidate at University of Southern California
(USC).
Ethics
To ensure the ethical conduct of my study, I submitted my research to the University of
Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure that my research study was
conducted in accordance with the federal, ethical, and institutional rules and guidelines prior to
data collection. Once clearance was given from the IRB, I searched for nearby pre-kindergarten
through fifth grade elementary schools within my organization that had at least one specific
learning disabilities (SLD) special day program on their campus.
Scientific background, subject protection, and data integrity are the three major pillars of
an ethical research study. According to Wong & Hui (2015) studies must be supported by
scientific evidence, which will aim to find a solution to the problem. Researchers have the
obligation to ensure the protection of all participants. They have the responsibility to protect
participants’ privacy and safety. In order to provide privacy and safety to their participants,
researchers must follow and adhere to the guidelines, regulations, policies, legal requirements,
and ethical declarations. Finally, data must be reliable, accurate, and consistent (Wong & Hui,
2015).
According to Corti, Day, & Backhouse (2000), research should be based on the
participants’ voluntary informed consent. The process of obtaining informed consent involves
two parts: informing the participants about the research and obtaining a signed consent form
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 72

(Appendix D). As a responsibility of the researcher, a complete and comprehensive explanation
and details of the study, as well as how it was disseminated was created. Since an informed
consent is an agreement between the researcher and the participants, a signed consent form must
be obtained before the start of any research activity (Wong & Hui, 2015). All participants must
also be aware of their right to refuse to participate in the study, how confidentiality will be
maintained, potential uses as to where the data may be placed, as well as be reminded of their
right to re-negotiate the terms of the consent (Corti et al., 2000).
This study involved human participants, so ethical considerations for all participants
acknowledged. Each participant was provided with a written overview of the study and a
consent form indicating their willingness to participate. In doing so, participants were made
aware of their rights pertaining to their participation in the research study. Participants know that
their participation is voluntary, the confidentiality of their identity, as well as their right to stop
participating in the research at any time.
Audio-taped interviews also took place with participants after the audio-taped focus
groups were completed. Permission was sought out prior to any audio recordings from the
participants. Audio recordings were transcribed in its entirety and provided a verbatim account
of the focus group interviews. If any participant requested to see the transcripts, they would be
provided, however all names or any other personal identification were not be included on the
audio recordings, surveys, or on any notes taken during the focus groups. Confidentiality and
anonymity were practiced during this research as to not identify any responses from participants
and great effort was put into preventing others outside of the study from connecting participants
with their responses (Corti et al., 2000).

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 73

Limitations and Delimitations
There were some limitations that result from this research study. First, this research was
limited because it was the assumption that all participants in this study interpreted the focus
group and interview questions in the manner in which they were intended. Secondly, this study
was based on three general education teachers, three special education teachers, and three
support personnel sample size perceptions, which was a small sample size.
There are also delimitations of this research project. The primary delimitation is that the
finding of this research cannot be generalized because it was specific to this organization’s
mission and goal. Other educational institutions may be able to benefit from the use of Clark and
Estes (2008) gap analysis process in order to impact change and improvement within their own
organization.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 74

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Introduction
The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify the factors and perceived knowledge,
motivational, and organizational barriers that may be associated with and have an influence on
teachers’ and support personnel’s attitudes towards implementing the inclusion practice. The
first three chapters of this study provided an introduction, a comprehensive review of the
literature, and presented the methodology and research design used within this study. The
collection of data was derived from four sources. These sources included: focus groups and
one-on-one interviews with general education teachers, special education teachers, and support
personnel and document analysis. The documents analyzed included school-site professional
development agendas, Single Plan of Student Achievement (SPSA), and any district training
agendas provided by the school site. This chapter will document the findings that were
discovered through interviews, focus groups, and document analysis. The emerging themes will
be organized by knowledge and skills, motivational, and organizational factors.
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis is the theoretical and methodological framework
implemented within this study. This gap analysis was used to examine the primary causes that
are preventing teachers from fully supporting the inclusion of students with disabilities into the
general education program. Two questions were presented to set the stage in investigating the
causes for this problem due to the gaps in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational issues. Such as, the questions are:
1. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that
influence Sun Valley Unified School District from achieving their Performance Goal of
70% of students with disabilities included into the general education setting for at least
80% of their instructional day?
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 75

2. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions?
Participating Stakeholders
Although there is a collective effort of all stakeholders ‘contribution to the
accomplishment of the district’s organizational goal, the stakeholders of focus for his study were
the elementary level general education teachers (GT), special education teachers (ST), and
support personnel (SP) at a random school sites within the Sun Valley Unified School District.
Teachers and support personnel years of teaching experience and years of inclusion experience
are included in Table 9. Each stakeholder participated in one focus group and an individual
interview. Stakeholders were placed in three separate focus groups, one focus group with three
general education teachers, one focus group with three special education teachers, and one focus
group with three support personnel participants who work within an inclusive setting. The
individual interviews comprised of three general education teachers, three special education
teachers, and three support personnel participants.
The findings of this study were reported through a presentation of themes which were
revealed during data analysis using the Connolly’s (2000) modified version of grounded theory
analysis. The themes have been clustered into three conceptual constructs and within each
conceptual construct, there are subthemes. The first conceptual construct is Knowledge and
Skills. The subthemes that emerged under this category were Professional Development and
Training and Intentional Teaching. The second conceptual construct is Motivation. The
subthemes that emerge under this category were Self-Efficacy and Utility Value. The third
conceptual construct is Organizational Culture. The subthemes that emerged under this category
were Peer Support and Administrative Support. The definitions for coding and themes can be
found in Appendix G.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 76

Table 9

Characteristics of Participants by Years of Teaching or Support Personnel Experience, Years in
an Inclusive Setting
*Participants listed using these abbreviations: General Education Teacher (GT), Special
Education Teacher (ST), Support Personnel (SP)

Knowledge and Skills

There are four different types of knowledge, factual, conceptual, procedural and
metacognitive which assist in helping to understand and build the necessary skills to become
proficient in articulating and clarifying learning objectives. Each of these knowledge and skills
factors were identified that affect the overall achievement of the general education and special
education teachers’ implementation of inclusion strategies during inclusion to support students
with disabilities in the general education setting. Within this conceptual category, there were
two prominent subthemes that emerged from focus groups and interviews with general education
teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel. In response to the research questions
that examined the factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge and skills,
which guided this research study, Professional Development and Training and Intentional
Teaching were the two subthemes that were revealed within this study.
Professional Development and Training
[General education teacher]. The first subtheme, Professional Development and
Training, emerged from focus groups and personal interviews. Professional development and

Characteristic

GT1

GT2

GT3

ST1

ST2

ST3

SP1

SP2

SP3

Teaching or support
personnel experience (yrs)

8

13

10

4

9

16

5

12

2

Inclusion experience (yrs)

2

3

2

3

2

13

4

2

2
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 77

training refers to ongoing training that one receives in order to gain new knowledge and insight
in a specific topic, to enhance their knowledge and/or skills in a particular topic, or to be
refreshed in a specific area as needed (Meador, 2016). The general education teachers expressed
that typically the general education teacher lacks the training, unlike the special education
teachers and support personnel. GT1 stated, “…I’ve never had any training to help me with
inclusion…that would be one thing that could help us. Maybe provide more training because
general ed. teachers aren’t really trained. We’re not very familiar with special education needs”
(personal communication, February 23, 2017). GT3 expressed,
It is important for us to be trained just like special education teachers are trained because
in order for inclusion to work, everyone has to be on board…I’ve worked along with a
special education teacher before when her students were included into my classroom and
I felt so relieved to have her because she was so much more trained in working with the
special needs students (personal communication, February 22, 2017).
GT2 shared the same feeling towards the need of professional development and training in order
to effectively work in the inclusion setting with special needs students. GT2 declared her
thoughts on what knowledge and skills she needed in order to be more effective in working with
students with special needs during inclusion as “provide general education teachers with
opportunities to attend trainings to develop more strategies” (personal communication, February
23, 2017). She also stated, “I don’t have a general knowledge of all of the different things that
can help students…we’re not as trained as our special education teachers” (personal
communication, February 23, 2017).
Research also mirrored all three general education teachers’ perceptions towards the
inclusion process. For example, according to Cooper et al. (2008), teachers felt unprepared to
provide individualized instruction in a general education inclusive learning environment to
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 78

students with special needs due to their lack of training. Consistent with each general education
teacher’s personal interview and focus group responses, general education teachers received no
professional development in inclusion and believe that in order to be effective teachers, working
in an inclusive general education classroom setting, professional development and training is
vital in order to increase their knowledge and skills in implementing inclusion strategies.
[Special education teacher]. The subtheme of Professional Development and Training
also emerged during focus groups and personal interviews with special education teachers.
Special education teachers expressed that they had received some professional development or
training regarding the inclusion of special education students into the general education setting.
During the focus group interview, one special education teacher stated, “…I think that I took
classes in the district…I went to the intern program… They did cover inclusion and how to be
successful at it and what to do when the gen-ed. teacher may be resistant to buy into inclusion”
(personal communication, February 7, 2017). Another special education teacher shared that she
had not been formally trained, she stated, “I was recently getting my credential and we didn't
have any specific class... only a dedicated chapter or unit” (personal communication, February 7,
2017). During interviews, when special education teachers were asked if they had been provided
with any specialized training or professional development in inclusion strategies, ST1 stated,
“Not at the district level, maybe within my credential classes, within a class, but we didn't have a
whole class devoted to providing inclusive strategies.” ” personal communication, February 16,
2017). ST2 replied,
Not necessarily on inclusion. I've had to take classes on dealing with children with
autism in the general ed. classroom, so that definitely helped. I think after 25 years of
practice hands-on training is the best, and especially when I've had people
that I've worked with that help teach me rather than PDs or trainings (personal
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 79

communication, February 14, 2017).
ST3 response to the question on professional development or training on inclusive education
mirrored the other responses by stating, “I had not attended any training that specifically focused
on inclusion, but there was a mention on how to best go about attempting to include special
needs kids in a gen ed. situation” (personal communication, February 16, 2017).
Consistent to each special education teacher’s response to training on inclusion, each
special education teacher that participated in this study had some professional development or
training on providing inclusion strategies within an inclusive general education setting.
[Support Personnel]. The Professional Development and Training subtheme also
developed as I conducted focus groups and interviews with the support personnel participants.
Support personnel were also asked about their participation in professional development and
trainings regarding inclusion strategies. During the focus group with three support personnel
participants, one participant shared, “I have attended a series of professional development about
behavior from the special education department in the district (personal communication, January
17, 2017).
When asked whether they received any training or professional development on inclusion during
personal interviews with support personnel, SP1 stated, “Yes, but it was very limited, but I think,
there has to be more instruction and trainings on how to work in a group with the general
education teacher, special education teacher, and special education assistants in an inclusion
classroom” (personal communication, January 24, 2017). SP2 expressed, “I never had training
on what an inclusive classroom should look like, but the district offered training to people on
how to help special education students with behavior that’s all which helps when they are in the
general ed. class” (personal communication, January 26, 2017). SP3 added,
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 80

I have gone through some of the district trainings on behavior, not inclusion
strategies…but what may help is actually being in that situation or in that setting, because
every child is different. So some things work, some things don't work. Some days it
works, other days it doesn't. So I think there's no better training than actually having that
with the child (personal communication, January 31, 2017).
Similarities within each support personnel’s personal interview and focus group
responses was that support personnel participants received some professional development on
specific inclusion strategies they all agreed that working in an inclusive classroom setting,
provided or will provide more hands-on opportunities for them helped them as they worked in an
inclusive environment. Engaging in hands-on work and activities enhances individual
knowledge of content and how to teach, especially if the content is in correlation with the
educational curriculum (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009, p. 47). Support personnel also
believe that professional development is necessary in order to for them to be effective working in
an inclusive setting.
Comparable to research which indicates that individuals need to possess the necessary
skills and knowledge involved with the inclusion practice (D’Alonzo et al., 2010), each teacher
and support personnel emphasized the importance of their participation in professional
development and trainings specific to working with students with disabilities in the inclusive
setting.
Intentional Teaching
[General education teacher]. The second subtheme, Intentional Teaching, emerged
from personal interviews and focus groups. Intentional teaching refers to teachers’ attitudes as to
whether inclusion is an example of best practices and their ability to design a rigorous,
purposeful and organized lesson plan that imbeds scaffolds and inclusive strategies to meet the
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 81

diverse needs of students, particularly those with special needs and teacher engagement in
reflection practices regarding their teaching practices (Epstein , 2007). A commonality
expressed by all participants is that general education teachers play an important role in the
inclusion practice, however they often times have difficulty in scaffolding their lessons to meet
the unique needs of special education students enrolled in the inclusive setting. According to
Daane et al. (2000), general education teachers have extreme difficulty adapting curriculum and
lack of the necessary skills to scaffold and plan their lesson to meet the diverse needs of their
students with disabilities. During the focus group, one teacher stated,
Sometimes I may give more time on a math timed test to complete the assignment, but
these are more accommodations than anything else. I don’t know what inclusion
strategies look like (personal communication, February 8, 2017).
The general education teachers’ overall response during the focus group was that they believed
that it is important for general education teachers and special education teachers, and the
assistants in the classroom to be able to work together in planning lessons to meet the diverse
needs of their student because the special education teacher is the one who is more
knowledgeable on what special education students need and how to plan the lesson much better
than the general education teacher.
During a personal interview with GT1, she stated, “I just don’t have a general knowledge
of all of the different things that can help students. We’re not as trained like our special ed.
teachers” (personal communication, February 16, 2017). Consistent with GT1’s interview, GT2
shared,
The special education teachers seemed to get the most training on working with students
with special needs, however if the district wants more inclusion practices to happen at the
schools, they need to really think about offering us that same training and allowing
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 82

special education teachers and general education teachers to plan and reflect on their
lessons…There are a lot more students with IEPs that have both academic and behavior
challenges and training and collaboration would definitely help us.
Finally GT3 shares her experience and perspective on her lack of skills in regards to
implementing inclusive strategies.
The times that I have worked in an inclusive classroom with a special education teacher,
we usually just have the special education students sit at a table together and work along
with the special education teacher because they can better address their needs…so it
wasn’t much of an inclusive setting… I am not trained to work with special ed. students
in an inclusive class (personal communication, February 22, 2017).
GT3 also shared, how valuable collaboration among teachers is in order to foster student
learning. It would be nice to be able to collaborate with the special education teachers we
work with during our early out Thursdays at least twice a month to lesson plan, so that we
are on the same page when we are teaching and planning effective lesson that would meet
the needs of the very diverse needs of our students. That would be powerful
(personal communication, February 22, 2017).
Overall, based on teacher responses during the focus group and personal interviews in
regards to Intentional Teaching, all three general education teachers expressed that they do
believe that as general education teachers, they play a key role in designing and delivering a
rigorous lesson plan that embeds inclusion strategies in an inclusive classroom (Colling,
Fishbaugh & Hermanson, 2003). All three general education teachers also stated that they are
not familiar with any specific inclusion strategies or planning a lesson to meet the diverse needs
of students with special needs. Only two of the three teachers expressed the importance of
engaging and collaborating with the special education teacher to plan lessons and reflect on their
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 83

lessons after it has been taught. According to research from Coskun, Tosun, and Macaroglu
(2009) general education teachers lack the skills and knowledge of implementing instructional
inclusion strategies in working with students with special needs.
Teachers were asked to state whether they believed that inclusion was an example of best
practices and give a specific rationale as to why or why not. Three out of three of the general
education teachers believe that inclusion is an example of best practices because it promotes
acceptance of students and benefits, not just special education students, but general education
students as well. GT1 commented on how inclusion supports social acceptance:
I feel that it [inclusion] is an example of best practices because I think that you expose
students to the real world. In the real world we're all different, and we have to learn to
work with each other. They need to see that there are differences, and it's just, I think, a
good place for them to begin as young children ... to begin to learn. To see that we are all
different, and that we can still work together (personal communication, February 16,
2017).
GT3 noted that she believes in the importance of adapting the educational curriculum to meet the
needs of special education students. GT3 responded by saying,
It is important to provide accommodations to students with special needs when they are
included in the inclusion setting because I have noticed that sometimes they become
frustrated and begin to “shut down” and give up…Adapting the lessons in math and
language arts or any content area makes them feel successful and participate more in the
classroom (personal communication, February 22, 2017).
Finally, GT2 noted that accommodation and adapting the educational curriculum is not only
beneficial for the special education students in the inclusion classroom setting, it also benefits the
general education student. All three general education teachers see the importance in
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 84

implementing inclusion strategies and maintaining high expectations for all students, which
includes the special education students in their class.
[Special education teacher]. During the special education teachers’ personal interviews
and a focus group, the subtheme of Intentional Teaching also developed. Special education
teachers were asked if they believed that inclusion is an example of best practices and if they
modify/adapt the educational curriculum to meet the individualized academic need(s) of students
who participate in an inclusive setting, ST1 stated,
Modifying and adapting lesson plans is what I do all day…to be successful in working
with special needs students in any environment, including an inclusive environment, you
have to be able to adapt lessons and modify them to meet your student needs (personal
communication, February 16, 2017).
ST3 shared that she is constantly adapting lessons to meet her students’ needs. ST3 expressed
the importance of collaboration by stating,
The issue is not so much me modifying and adapting the lesson for my students who are
participating in an inclusive general education classroom, the problem becomes when
you’re working in an inclusive setting with another teacher, you are supposed to be
working together during lesson planning and adapting the lesson…..the teacher you work
with has to be on board with developing engaging lessons (personal communication,
February 16, 2017).
ST2 also expressed the importance of modifying the educational curriculum.
I have many years of working with special education students, mostly in a self-contained
classroom and that was the only way my students were able to reach the standards…my
lessons had to be modified so that my students could even understand what was being
taught and what they were supposed to be learning (personal communication, February
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 85

14, 2017).
All three special education teachers used reflection practices daily as they prepared
lessons and after the implementation of a particular lesson. ST1 stated, “I am always curious if I
had done what I needed to do for each student in my class…Am I doing enough to meet their
individual needs?...Could I have done more for them?” (personal communication, February 16,
2017)? Both ST3 and ST3 shared how they refer to literature on teaching strategies, like
modifying and adapting lessons and other educational literature that have helped them to change
their teaching styles as well as taught them how to be more reflective, deliberate, and intentional
about their teaching practices.
The special education teachers overwhelmingly agreed to the idea of inclusion being an
example of best practices because they feel it builds a sense of community. They also believe in
the importance of implementing inclusion strategies in working with special education students.
ST1 commented on the importance of students working together:
I would have to say inclusion is definitely an example of best practices, for all
students, whether they’re in special education or general education. It just gives them
opportunities to have real life experiences with each other because a lot of times, I feel
like students with special needs are often singled out and neglected. As they get older,
that can hinder their abilities to integrate into the general education population…And visa
versa, young kids without disabilities need to also have the experience of working with
children with disabilities, from a young age (personal communication, February 16,
2017).
ST2 mirrored the comment made by ST1 by stating,
I think inclusion works well… I think it builds community. Children get to see other
students unlike themselves and they understand each other’s differences (personal
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 86

communication, February 14, 2017).
ST3 noted the importance of the inclusion practice and the implementation of inclusion strategies
to meet the needs of special with disabilities. ST3 stated, when asked whether she felt as though
inclusion is an example of best practices:
Inclusion is important. Students with special needs should be allowed the opportunity
to learn alongside their general ed. peers. It helps with so many things, like socialization
and building friendships…Using inclusion strategies, like establishing student’s prior
knowledge, starting with simple, then leading into more complex tasks, or breaking up
the learning into simple parts, using the step-by-step approach to teaching, and repetition,
repetition, repetition…All of these strategies work when teaching special needs students
in the inclusive setting…You have to be able imbed these strategies into lesson planning
and instruction in order for inclusion to be successful…when I pre-teach a lesson or read
a story ahead of time, before the others in the classroom, the special ed. students are more
engaged and they feel like they are really part of the class (personal communication,
February 16, 2017).
Special education teachers within this study possess the skills and strategies that they feel are
necessary to prepare them to teach students in an inclusive classroom environment and use the
reflective practice as a means to develop on-going lesson planning. Fostering a sense of
community and implementing inclusion strategies were key factors revealed in this study as
special education teachers responded to the benefits of inclusion and its value and reflected on
how to build an effective inclusive classroom.
[Support Personnel]. During the focus group and personal interviews, all three of the
support personnel providers in this study understand how to modify and adapt the curriculum to
meet the needs of diverse students in the inclusive setting. SP1 stated, “I would see what the
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 87

classroom was doing and I would just try to modify the lesson to their level…The student would
do their homework or classwork according to the modifications” (personal communication,
January 24, 2017). SP2 added,
…Adapting the assignments is extremely important for special needs students because
they learn differently, but it doesn’t matter because they still need to be able to meet the
standards (personal communication, January 26, 2017).
SP3 mirrored SP2’s comment by stating on the value of modifying and adapting the educational
curriculum to meet the needs of special needs students by stating:
I feel that it is my job to make sure that they [students with special needs] feel like they
are a part of the classroom…I found that students don’t want to feel like they are
different from the rest of their peers.” “…For that reason, I have to really work hard
trying to find creative ways of adapting their lessons so they understand what their
teacher is trying to teach them.” I feel like I have years of experience in this area,
however education is always changing so there is definitely room to learn more”
(personal communication, January 31, 2017).
SP3 also added how important curriculum modifications are in working with her preschool
inclusion classroom:
It’s ETK [Extended Transitional Kindergarten], where I'm at now. Most of our special
ed. children are able to do the work. We do have a couple, however, that we know are not
capable of actually sitting there and writing out every letter, writing out every number ...
For instance, today we did the letter “L” and not every kid can draw straight lines, so I do
have stampers that I use to have them shape out the letter with the stamps.”
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 88

Support personnel possess some experience in modifying and providing accommodations to
student assignments. They expressed the importance in implementing inclusive strategies to
support students with disabilities in an inclusive environment.
The overall findings from teachers and support personnel’s focus groups and interviews
revealed that general education teachers do not always believe that they are capable and prepared
to educate students with special needs within the inclusive general education setting. Higher
levels of self-efficacy has been linked to greater efforts and performance level of teachers
(Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, & Hoy (1998). Special education teachers and support
personnel expressed that have prior experience with working with special needs students,
adapting and modifying lessons and activities served as an advantage in working with students
with special needs in an inclusive classroom setting alongside their general education peers.
Motivation
Motivation was the second theme or conceptual category discovered within this study.
Motivation refers to what gets individuals moving towards the completion of a task(s) and gives
purpose and direction for accomplishing a particular task (Pintrich, 2003). Within this
conceptual category, the two prominent subthemes surfaced from focus groups and interviews
with general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel. In response
to the research question that guided this research study, this theme’s focus was on teachers and
support personnel’s confidence and willingness to implement inclusion strategies and working in
an inclusive setting, the degree of the student’s disability for the inclusion practice, and
participant’s perspective on the academic and social/behavioral outcomes associated with
inclusion. This theme focus is also on whether special education teachers, general education
teachers, and support personnel perceive inclusion as being a valuable practice and their belief of
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 89

the academic and social/behavioral educational outcomes associated with the inclusion practice.
Self-Efficacy and Utility Value were the two subthemes that were revealed within this study.
Self-Efficacy
[General education teacher]. The Self-Efficacy sub-theme emerged from support
personnel focus group and individual interviews. Self-Efficacy refers to one’s belief or
capability about organizing and accomplishing a desired task(s) (Schunk, 1995). During focus
group, general education teachers were asked if they feel confident in their ability to teach
students with disabilities in a general education inclusion class and if so, why or why not. The
responses received during the focus group were similar in the fact that all teachers felt as though
they require more training in working in an inclusive classroom setting. All three teachers did
not feel confident in teaching special education students included in the general education
classroom, especially those with behavior challenges.
When asked, during interviews, how confident teachers were with working in an
inclusive environment, all three general education teachers shared identical responses. GT1
stated,
I've had students that I've had difficulty knowing how to manage, and I'm not able to
fully meet their needs...I am able to work with students who have resource support
because they don’t always require much more than my general ed. Students, but if they
are students who would typically be in a special ed. classroom all day, that’s when I don’t
feel too comfortable…I don’t believe that I can meet their needs and the needs of the
typical kids in my classroom (personal communication, February 16, 2017).
GT2 shared, “No, I don’t feel that confident with the inclusion practice” (personal
communication, February 23, 2017). When asked to elaborate more as to why GT2 did not feel
that confident with the inclusion practice, GT2 continued by stating,
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 90

I don’t feel like I have the appropriate training and expertise to work with special
education students, especially those that have more serious behaviors…So I am not real
confident in working in an inclusive setting, I depend a lot on the special ed. teacher and
the assistant for a lot of help (personal communication, February 23, 2017).
GT3 also commented on how she did not feel confident in her ability to teach students with
disabilities in an inclusive classroom environment.
Based on the focus group and teacher interviews, all of the general education teachers do
not always believe that they are capable and prepared to teacher students with special needs in an
inclusive setting.
[Special education teacher]. The subtheme of Self-Efficacy also emerged during the
special education teacher focus group and individual interviews. Teachers were asked, “Are you
confident with your ability to teach or support students with disabilities in the general education
inclusive classroom setting, If so, why or why not?” Three out of three teachers who participated
in this focus group all shared the same feeling in regards to their level of confidence in working
in an inclusive classroom environment. Each special education teacher expressed that after
having experience in working with special education students, they feel comfortable and
experienced in utilizing those best practice teaching strategies into an inclusive setting and being
successful.
During individual interviews, ST1 stated, “Oh yeah, Yeah…I think after teaching here. I
can go back to gen. ed. and have students with disabilities in there and it would be a piece of
cake…” (personal communication, February 16, 2017). ST2 mirrored ST1’s statement by
replying,
Absolutely, I think coming from teaching an IDM [Intellectually Disabled Moderate]
classroom, the experiences I’ve had after that… Teaching a general ed. intervention
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 91

group, with 2
nd
grade students, I felt that I was much more confident and had a lot more
strategies that were useful in teaching them (personal communication, February 14,
2017).
ST3 responded, “Yes, absolutely. I had a terrific partner for 15 years and 2 great assistants
always. It’s been, I think, one of the best programs I’ve ever seen as far as teaching kids, or
including children” (personal communication, February 16, 2017).
Given that special education teachers possess the skills and knowledge of working with
students with special needs, the special education teachers in this study are confident in their
ability to apply inclusion strategies.
[Support Personnel]. The subtheme of Self-Efficacy developed during support
personnel focus group and individual interviews. When asked, during the focus group whether
the support personnel participants were confident in their ability to support students in the
inclusive setting and if so, why or why not, one participant responded by stating,
So far, I have felt confident with most of the students that I've had to deal with…There's
been days where I just ... I don't know what to do, and that we've tried everything, but for
the most part, I've felt very confident that I have the tools that I need around in the
classroom, and the support from the teacher as well (personal communication, January
17, 2017).
Another participant responded by saying, “I feel pretty confident at times. I carry a bag
of tricks because one day... one thing will work… something will work eventually” (personal
communication, January 17, 2017). One support personnel participant expressed similar feelings
regarding their level of confidence with inclusion:
On most days I feel pretty confident…I know the special ed. students in my class pretty
well…I know what kinds of accommodations they need so that they are successful and
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 92

so they don’t feel embarrassed that they, maybe, can’t complete the assignment given to
them by their teachers. I think I have the gift of making students feel included and part of
a class and not an outsider (personal communication, January 17, 2017).
During individual interviews, data revealed that all three support personnel felt confident
in their ability to support students with special needs in the inclusive setting. SP1 stated, “I am
confident because I feel, in my case, I've had many experiences where I feel confident” (January
24, 2017). SP2 responded by saying, “I feel comfortable” (personal communication, January 26,
2017). SP3 replied, “I specifically do, only because I have that support from the special
education teacher” (personal communication, January 31, 2017).
Throughout the focus group and individual interviews, support personnel expressed confidence
in implementing inclusion strategies.
Utility Value
[General education teacher]. The second subtheme, Utility Value, emerged from focus
groups and personal interviews with general education teachers. Utility Value states that
stakeholders must see that there is an importance of working towards a particular task or
performance goal (Eccles, 2006). During focus groups and interviews, general education
teachers expressed similar reactions in regards to the value of implementing the inclusion
practice.
GT2 commented on how the idea of inclusion assists students in socialization:
It’s great to have special ed. and gen. ed. students integrate because that could be an
opportunity for the special ed. students to work on socializing…work on social skills.
Maybe during recess and P.E. time to work on playing and socializing with others the
same age as them…Building friendships (personal communication, February 16,
2017).
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 93

GT1 responded by saying, “…Inclusion exposes general education and special ed. students to the
real world. I the real world we’re all different and we have to learn to work with each
other…Socialize.” GT2 also commented on the social aspect of inclusion:
…It would be great to integrate them throughout parts of the day. We could work on
those skills, on those social skills. Maybe they could join the students for recess, join the
students for PE, and other parts of the day.
When asked whether the general education teacher believes that, regardless of disability,
all students should be included into a general education setting, each general education teacher
shared similar beliefs in relation to academic outcomes of students with disabilities being
included into the general education setting. GT1 stated,
I think that it depends on the degree of the type of disability. Sometimes, I think that
they…it depends on the setting. For example, in an academic setting they may have
difficulty being able to perform the task. But maybe we could include them in other
areas, such as physical education or music, or other areas where they are able to work
with the group.
GT3 responded by stating:
Well, I think it depends on their ability. If they are able to perform and keep up with the
classroom, then yes, I think they're best served in the general education class... If the
class is too rigorous for them, then they might need to continue in their SLD class where
they would go at our slower pace, and things might have to be broken down into more
steps for them. It's difficult when you have a very large classroom, over 25 students, to be
able to serve everybody's needs if somebody is far behind the rest of the class.
Overall, general education teachers share a common belief in the value of implementing the
inclusion process as well as the academic and social outcomes of special needs students included
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 94

in the general education classroom setting. All three general education teachers feel that
inclusion is a valuable practice; however they do not feel as though inclusion is always
academically appropriate. Each general education teacher agree that socially, special needs
students may benefit from participating in the inclusion practice.
[Special education teacher]. The subtheme, Utility Value, also emerged during the
focus groups and interviews with special education teachers. Special education teachers were
asked the question of whether they value the inclusion process and the benefits of implementing
the inclusion practice. All three special education teachers agreed that inclusion is a valuable
practice, ST2 replied, “Yes, I think for the most part children with mild disabilities are best
served in inclusive classrooms…” (personal communication, February 14, 2017). ST1 stated, “I
think, as much as possible, students with disabilities should be included in general education
setting, however I think every child is individual” (personal communication, February 16, 2017).
ST3 stated, “Inclusion is the best way to go” (personal communication, February 16, 2017).
Although each teacher agrees that there is value in the inclusion process, each special
education teacher stressed the importance of the student with special needs to have support in
order to be successful in the inclusion process. ST3 stated, “It takes two people [general
education and special education teachers] who are willing to put in extra effort…If you have
both people on board, it’s the best way to go…This allows them at least partial ability to be with
their general ed. peers” (personal communication, February 16, 2017). ST2 responded to the
need of support by saying, “…It depends on the support…[Inclusion] could be difficult unless
the teachers and students aren’t fully supported” (personal communication, February 14, 2017).
In response as to whether special education teachers think in relation to academic and
social/behavioral outcomes students should be included into the general education setting, ST
responded,
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 95

…I think that it depends on the severity of how their disability is really affecting their
academics. How low or how high they’re really functioning academically. If they were
functioning on the higher end of you know, compared to their same age peer, then
definitely in an inclusive general ed. setting. But, if they are really struggling, I think the
cases may be individual…they can definitely learn from their general ed. peers and have
good models. That’s always something to consider with the mild disabilities” (personal
communication, February 16, 2017).
Another commented by stating,
“…Someone who has SLD or OHI eligibilities, maybe…It’s easier if their disability’s not
as severe as, say, an ID [Intellectual Disability] kid, to have them in an inclusive gen. ed.
setting, but it’s not always the best way because sometimes they need that specialized
help and the smaller class size and the smaller student to teacher ratio and all the
accommodations and modifications you have to do.
ST3 shared her thoughts on the social/behavioral outcomes of inclusion by stating that students
with special needs socially benefit from inclusion socially as long as teachers and support
personnel are trained to support special needs in the inclusive classroom. ST3 stated,
…Something you really have to think about is that in general ed. classrooms you have
children with behaviors. So, as long as the people are, as the teachers and assistant are
trained and can handle that, then I think that those mild disability students would be best
served in inclusive environment (personal communication, February 16, 2017).
ST2 replied by stating, “For social, yes…maybe for modeling better behavior” (personal
communication, February 14, 2017).
Three out of the three special education teachers ultimately shared similar responses
about the value of inclusion and its benefits and the academic and social outcomes of including
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 96

special needs students in the general education classroom setting. All three teachers commented
about how inclusion may not be as beneficial for those students with more severe disabilities.
[Support Personnel]. The subtheme of Utility Value developed as focus groups and
interviews were conducted with support personnel. Support personnel were also asked the
question of whether they value inclusion the inclusion of students with special needs in the
general education classroom setting and what they feel are the benefits of inclusion. All three of
the support personnel who participated in both the focus group and interview, value the idea of
inclusion. As interviews were conducted, every participant was in agreement about the value of
the inclusion practice. SP1 stated,
I think I've seen it benefit a lot. Most of the children that I've seen in the inclusion setting
benefited from the positive, mature environment, which they weren't in before because of
the different abilities in their special ed. class. So it made me feel comfortable and happy
that these children that I work with had the opportunity to be included and actually
benefit from a lot of positive (personal communication, February 24, 2017).
SP2 and SP3 shared their experience with inclusion in terms of modeling appropriate behavior.
SP2 commented by saying,
It [Inclusion] benefits them [special needs students], just, the model behavior that the gen.
ed. kids put out. You know, whether it's sitting on the carpet, or it's sitting down at the
table doing your work, these kids in some way, you could say, look up to the gen ed.
students, and so they like to model their behavior (personal communication, February 24,
2017).
SP3 described an example of how inclusion provided a positive peer model for behavior for her
class:
Being in music class, or something, they see the other kids sit, so they sit. They see
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 97

them pay attention, they sing. They also do it. They want to run around but they're like
"Wait, they're sitting, let's sit. Let's do what they're doing." And they stare at them, and
they're like "Okay, we'll do this!" (personal communication, January 31, 2017).
SP2 also added,
I feel that it helps them; it benefits them by copying positive behavior. It can be a very
successful practice, where children with disabilities are capable to be in grade level and
can be around their environment of school aged children. It can motivate them, to copy
and observe regular situations that, in a special ed. class with other kids that have more or
less disabilities, they wouldn't observe…Not only in the modeling of the so-called,
normal environment. But the children also, in the regular class, can also learn a lot of the
social interactions with children with disabilities, helping, understanding, caring, that
other children that are in society can also be included in their normal circle (personal
communication, January 26, 2017).
All three support personnel participants who participated in this study believe that the inclusion
of special needs students into the general education setting is a valuable practice.
Support personnel were also asked questions of whether they believe that inclusion is an
example of best practices, the degree of the student’s disability for the inclusion practice, and the
participant’s perspective on the academic and social/behavioral outcomes associated with
inclusion. All three of the support personnel who participated in both the focus group and
interview, value the idea of inclusion and believe that inclusion is an example of best practices.
The outcome of the support personnel focus group was that every participant did not believe that
every child with a disability would benefit from participating in a full inclusion program,
particularly those with severe disabilities. However, they did all agree that there are some areas
that would be appropriate for all students with disabilities to be fully included.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 98

During individual interviews with support personnel about whether all students,
regardless of degree of disability should be included into the general education setting, all three
participants feel do believe in the idea of inclusion, however they believe that students with more
severe disabilities and whose behaviors are more challenging would not benefit from inclusion.
SP3 stated, “…They will probably just regress instead of progress, because they’re just not
getting that support they need in the general education setting” (personal communication,
January 31, 2017). SP2 commented by stating, “I believe so, I just think sometimes behaviors
are a little more extreme than others and maybe not a good idea to participate in inclusion,
however if they have the support in the general ed. classroom, it might be okay” (personal
communication, January 26, 2017). SP1 answered, “Inclusion would not work for students with
severe disabilities, unless maybe for art, P.E., recess, maybe science, music…not so much
academics…Good for socialization maybe, but otherwise, no” (personal communication, January
24, 2017. All three participants also felt that inclusion is beneficial for students with mild
disabilities. They believe that students with more mild disabilities would be able see desired
behavior and model after the general education students who are behaving appropriately.
The overall findings from teachers and support personnel’s focus groups and interviews
revealed that although all teachers and support personnel value the idea of inclusion and are
willing to implement inclusion strategies in an inclusive general education setting, general
education teachers lack self-efficacy. Due to the lack of professional development and training
revealed previously in this study, general education teachers have not received adequate training
that would prepare them to effectively teach students with special needs.
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture was the third theme or conceptual category discovered within this
study. Organizational culture refers to the employer-to-employee relationships, values and
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 99

norms within an organization (Schein, 2004; Erez & Gati, 2004). Within this conceptual
category, the two prominent subthemes surfaced from focus groups and interviews with general
education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel. In response to the
research question that guided this research study, which focused on the cultural model and
cultural setting influences, this theme’s focus was on teachers and support personnel’s level of
peer support and administrative support received within this organization. Peer Support and
Administrative Support were the two subthemes that were revealed within this study. This study
revealed that while teachers and support personnel do get an adequate amount of support from
their peers, they do not get enough administrative or district level support on the implementation
of inclusion strategies.
Peer Support
[General education teacher]. The first subtheme, Peer Support, emerged from a focus
group and personal interviews with general education teachers. The idea of peer support has
been defined as when the general education teacher, special education teacher, and support
personnel assist each other by providing knowledge, experience, and emotional, social or
practical help to each other. When asked if they had received any supports that are important for
implementing the inclusion practice in order for inclusion to be successful, each teacher shared
that they do get some peer support from the special education teacher they work in the inclusive
setting with on a daily basis. GT1 shared,
The special education teacher and paraprofessional that work inside my classroom are
very supportive when it comes to assisting me with providing strategies in working with
the students with disabilities…They [special education teacher and support personnel]
have a lot of experience…They are much more familiar with the goals of each student
and their accommodations that are written in on their IEPs (personal communication,
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 100

February 16, 2017).
GT2 shared,
The special education teacher that works with me is very hands-on with my students,
although we may plan, she always comes in with new tricks up her sleeve to support our
students…I enjoy having that extra person there, she’s a real team player (personal
communication, February 23, 2017).
When asked if the participants could explain what the peer supports looked like, all three
general teacher participants stated that they collaborate at least twice a month with their special
education and paraprofessional colleagues. All three general education teachers stated that
during collaboration, the general education teacher, special education teacher, and sometimes the
paraprofessional lesson plan together and develop adaptations to the lessons for their special
education students. GT2 stated, “…Being given the opportunity to collaborate is a key
component to inclusion…It is a shared responsibility and everyone has to be accountable for
student success” (personal communication, February 23, 2017). GT1 added,
The special education teacher is better versed on all of the laws of special education
instructional strategies, and accommodations…I usually ask her expertise to see if I am
doing what I need to be doing to meet the special education student’s needs (personal
communication, February 23, 2017).
GT3 stated, “…I feel like I’m part of a team…It’s kind-of impossible to work with general
education students and have special education students included into the classroom and be able
to meet the needs of all students alone” (personal communication, February 22, 2017).
All three general education teachers were consistent in their response as to whether they
receive peer support when working with students with special needs in an inclusive environment.
The peer support general education teachers receive often comes from either the special
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 101

education teacher or the support personnel assigned to their classroom. Each teacher also shared
collaboration allows them the opportunity to effectively plan lessons to meet the needs of their
diverse students.
[Special education teacher]. The subtheme of Peer Support also emerged during the
focus group and personal interviews with special education teachers. Special education teachers
shared that they are not always supported by their peers. Two of the three special education
teachers feel as though they have received the peer support needed in implementing the inclusion
practice. ST1 shared,
Yeah, …I've done some art lessons in a gen. ed. class, with a gen. ed. teacher because I
had the support of my special ed. assistants, who understand and know my students, they
[special education assistants] were able to help integrate different groups and support the
teachers [general education teacher and special education teacher], while we were
teaching (personal communication, February 16, 2017).
ST1 also shared, “…And the support of the general ed. teacher…it has to be the right teacher,
who is willing and able and comfortable with working with special needs students and the
teacher” (personal communication, February 16, 2017). ST2 shared,
I come from an included classroom with a general ed. and a special ed. teacher and two
assistants…For the most part, I have great supports and it works well as long as the
teachers are trained and can buy into it. I've had instances where my partner was
fantastic and instances where my partner didn't understand how to best deal with children
with special needs. So, that's kind of the most important thing…I've had great
behaviorists that have taught me how to handle children, especially in relation to
behaviors…So, I think that definitely makes the difference (personal communication,
February 14, 2017).
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 102

ST3 expressed a key to making the inclusion practice successful and her level of support.
It’s [inclusion] easier said than done…The support of the teacher that you're sending the
child to has to be willing and able, so you have to lift each other up to make it
happen…The only supports I’ve gotten was from my special ed. colleagues and one or
two general ed. teachers at this school (personal communication, February 16, 2017).
Consistent to each special education teacher’s response to the supports they have and/or need in
order to teacher students with special needs in an inclusive classroom, all three teachers were
provided some level of support from either a general education teacher, another special education
teacher, or a paraprofessional.
[Support Personnel]. The subtheme of Peer Support also developed as I interviewed
support personnel participants. Findings were identified within the support personnel’s’
responses to the question as to whether they receive any supports that are important in
implementing the inclusion practice. SP1 stated,
Yes, I mean, having the special ed. teacher in the classroom…Like I mentioned before,
the different class work for the specific kids. We have that available to us. If I'm ever
confused, or if I ever need some help, then I can always refer back. She [special
education teacher] has goals available for us, so that we can refer back to them…Well
this is his goal, so let's work on this a little bit differently (personal communication,
January 24, 2017).
SP2 shared,
I'm in a PCC [Preschool Collaborative Classroom] program, so I feel like I have more
support because I work directly with the general education teacher and a special
education teacher…I feel that the general education teachers can have a little bit more
training because of this inclusion. They need to know what to expect and how to be able
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 103

to deal with them as well as the special ed. teachers. Right now, I don't feel the support
from the general education side (personal communication, January 26, 2017).
Lastly SP3 stated,
I believe so…from the assistant principal… from both the special ed. and sometimes
from the general ed. teachers…The most support usually comes from the special
education department because the general ed. teachers and principal are not always sure
what to do in instances like behavior challenges of students with special needs or
sometimes even how to work in the classroom with special needs students (personal
communication, January 31, 2017).
Findings from the support interviews suggest that support personnel three out of the three
support personnel participants expressed that they are provided support from the special
education teacher. Two of the three support personnel participants shared that they feel the
general education teacher would benefit by having more training on working in an inclusive
classroom setting and did not feel as though they [general education teacher] provided them with
much support during the inclusion setting.
Administrative Support
[General education teacher]. The second subtheme, Administrative Support, emerged
from a focus group and personal interviews with general education teachers. Administrative
supports refers to when the principal, assistant principal, or administrators within the district
assist the teacher and support personnel by providing knowledge, experience or practical
assistance in implementing the inclusion practice. When asked if they had received any supports
that are important for implementing the inclusion practice in order for inclusion to be successful,
in the area of general education teachers’ perception of administrative support during the focus
group and interviews mixed responses were revealed. Two out of the three general education
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 104

teachers shared that they do not get much administrative support from their principal, assistant
principal, or both. GT1 stated, “…I don’t get much support from my principal. The principal
does not make special education students a priority, so making sure that we have what we need
in order for inclusion to be successful doesn’t happen” (personal communication, February 16,
2017). GT1 also reported,
We are given the opportunity to collaborate with the special ed. teachers and T.A’s
[Teacher Assistant], however it often has to be done on our own time and it is not
coordinated by the principal…we [teachers] find ways to make it [collaboration]
happen (personal communication, February 16, 2017).
GT2 responded by saying, “…The support I get is not from my administrator, so no, not really”
(personal communication, February 23, 2017). GT3’s response was opposite of GT1 and GT2’s
response. GT3 stated,
The principal does give the special ed. teacher and I time to plan together, but it’s not
initiated by the him [the principal], we have to ask for the time…it’s kind-of like we have
to sell the idea to him [the principal]…Instructional materials, I have to ask for too, like
extra books, hands-on manipulatives specific to support the special ed. students…they
[manipulatives] help the general ed. students too, but things like that you know”
(personal communication, February 22, 2017).
One general education teacher expressed having some level of administrative support in
order to collaborate with the special education teacher and support personnel. Collaboration
appeared to be a key component to the success of inclusion. According to Cook et al. (1999),
general education teachers often rely on the support from administration in the implementation
of inclusion strategies.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 105

[Special education teacher]. The second subtheme, Administrative Support, emerged
from a focus group and personal interviews with special education teachers as well. When asked
if they had received any supports that are important for implementing the inclusion practice in
order for inclusion to be successful, in the area of special education teachers’ perception of
administrative support during the focus group and interviews, similar responses were revealed.
ST1 stated,
Support given to me to assist me with including special needs students in my class are
just allowing us to meet during grade level meetings with our special education at least
once a month……. My support comes from the assistants and outside support, like
support providers in the district…From my university (personal communication,
February 16, 2017).
ST2 reported,
It’s [inclusion] encouraged, obviously, by the assistant principal; there’s no one
saying ‘don’t do it’…It’s easier said than done…I need more support from the school,
from the teacher, from the district (personal communication, February 14, 2017).
ST3’s response was the opposite from ST1 and ST2. ST3 stated,
I come from an included classroom with a general ed. and a special ed. teacher and two
assistants. … I have great peer supports and it works, but administrative support is
lacking... So, that's kind of the most important thing (personal communication, February
16, 2017).
Consistent with all three special education teachers, administrative support was lacking within
this organization. Collaboration is often times not initiated or coordinated by the administrator.
[Support Personnel]. The subtheme of Administrative Support also developed during
support personnel interviews. Out of the three support personnel interviewed, two of the three
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 106

participants feel that they receive administrative support in order for them to successfully
implement inclusion strategies in an inclusive setting. SP2 stated, “I believe so…the assistant
principal supports us by giving us trainings on behavior…Sometimes even from the
coordinators…I think there's enough support” (personal communication, January 26, 2017). SP3
and SP1 had conflicting statements when asked if they receive administrative support on
implementing inclusion strategies. SP3 reported,
I haven’t had much support from administration, but if I go to the assistant principal with
an issue I’m having with a student, like with behavior, she is there to support me…She
has supported me by giving the aides a series of trainings on behavior, which are helpful
at times… I haven’t had any support with working in an inclusive classroom though or
what that should look like. I get my support mainly from the special education teacher I
work with while I’m in the class with the general education teacher and the special ed.
students (personal communication, January 31, 2017).
SP1 reported, “No, I haven’t received any support from my principal or any administrator
here…I haven’t had any outside training either about inclusion…I am not really sure what that is
supposed to look like in a classroom.” SP1 also stated that the district provides no professional
development or trainings of any kind for special ed. aide. SP1 reported, “It’s [Inclusion] been
discussed, but a little bit, it should be discussed a little bit more in detail.” When SP1 was asked
to clarify what she meant by inclusion being discussed, SP1 replied, “I hear teachers and the
principal talk about certain special ed. students being in an inclusion classroom, which is where I
work, but there is really no support for us” (personal communication, January 24, 2017).
Support personnel have been provided very little administrative support in implementing
inclusion strategies within their organization. They have been provided a series of behavior
trainings, which they feel could be helpful when working in an inclusive setting. However, the
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 107

majority of their support comes from the special education teacher who works in the inclusion
classroom setting.
The findings from the teachers and support personnel’s focus groups and interviews
revealed that there is not adequate amount of support from the school and district administrators,
which hinders the special education and general education teachers and support personnel from
applying inclusion strategies during inclusion. Although collaboration among teachers and staff
is essential for sustained, substantial school improvement DuFour and Eaker (1998), teachers and
support staff are not encouraged by administration to engage in collaboration in order to lesson
plan and reflect on instruction.
Document Analysis
In addition to focus groups and interviews, document analysis provided a means for
uncovering the meaning, gaining a better understanding, and discovering insights that were
relevant to this research problem (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For this research, documents such
as, professional development agendas over the last five years, the school’s most recent Single
Plan of Student Achievement (SPSA), and district training agendas, dated back five years, which
were provided to me by the school-site administrators, were analyzed. Documents older than
five years were not available for review because the school site discarded all agendas older than
five years. These documents were analyzed to gain an understanding as to the type of
organizational support that had been provided to the teachers and support personnel geared
towards working with special education students in a general education inclusion environment.
Document analysis indicated that there were no professional development or trainings
provided for teachers at the school site on inclusion within the past five years. However, support
personnel were provided a series behavior trainings within the 2016-2017 school year. These
trainings were not offered by the school site; they were trainings that were provided in the
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 108

district within the special education department. According to the administrators, these trainings
were mandatory for all support staff, however they were not specific on implementing the
inclusion practice. According to one support personnel interview, the behavior trainings did
provide strategies on how to support special education students with behavior challenges, but not
on the inclusion practice.
The findings from analyzing professional development agendas, staff rosters, grade level
meeting agendas and sign-ins revealed that teachers and support personnel were not provided an
opportunity to collaborate during banked time or selected Saturdays with their inclusion co-
partner in which two out of the three teachers expressed, during interviews, were important in
order to plan lessons and reflect. According to sign-ins, teachers worked within grade levels
only and special education teachers were not included to collaborate with their grade level
colleagues. The special education teachers had their own individual grade level sign-ins and
agendas. Support personnel had their individual agendas and sign-ins as well. Therefore,
consistent with the responses given by the participants within this study, teachers and support
personnel were not given the opportunity to collaborate to plan lessons to meet the needs of the
all students.
The findings from analyzing the SPSA revealed that within each focus areas, for example
English Language Arts and Mathematics, the action plan or tasks listed was to provide
professional development every Thursday after school during banked time for each grade level
and selected Saturdays. The SPSA stated that the professional development offered would be to
accelerate proficiency for the socially economically disadvantaged, Standard English Learners
(SELs), English Learners (ELs), Gifted and Talented (GATE) students and Students with
Disabilities (SWD). Although SWD’s were mentioned within the action plan, there was no
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 109

mention throughout the SPSA as to how or what strategies would be used. There was no
mention of professional development opportunities to address the inclusion practice.
Synthesis
The overall data in this study from focus groups, interviews, and document analysis
suggest that in order to improve teachers’ and support personnel’s perception towards the
inclusion of students with special needs, schools will need to focus on the knowledge and skills,
motivational, and organizational factors that impact the organizational goal.
Data analysis indicated that there was a strong connection between general education
teachers’ perception towards the inclusion of students with special needs and the lack of
professional development provided and administrative support. This lack of professional
development connected to the general education teachers’ motivation, specifically low self-
efficacy and the strong need for organizational support systems, both administrative and peer
support. According to research, Dodge-Quick (2011) also found that teachers reported low self-
efficacy on inclusion, which was based on their lack of professional development, skills, and
unpreparedness to teach students with special needs in an inclusive setting. However, special
education teachers and support personnel expressed that they had received some professional
development, which were useful in order to develop the knowledge base on inclusion. Special
education teachers and support personnel appeared to be confident and self-efficacious in
implementing the inclusion practice unlike the general education teachers who participated in
this study.
Document analysis was also used for data collection purposes using school-site
professional development agendas, Single Plan of Student Achievement (SPSA), and district
training agendas provided by the school site. The review of these documents further confirmed
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 110

teachers’ and support personnel’s response to the lack of specialized training or professional
development that focused on implementing inclusion strategies.
Data collection also concluded that although each general education teacher, special
education teacher, and support personnel value the idea of inclusion, they believe that inclusion
is an example of best practices and are willing to implement inclusion strategies in an inclusive
general education setting, however the general education teachers lacked the knowledge and
skills necessary in order to plan instruction and effectively apply inclusion strategies.
Data analysis revealed that every general education teacher, special education teacher,
and support personnel shared a common belief in that although they value the inclusion practice,
every participant in this research indicated that inclusion is not always academically appropriate
for students with more severe disabilities, however more severe special needs students may
benefit socially from inclusive education.
Findings within this study align to the literature review in Chapter 2, which also suggests
that teacher and support personnel’s perception towards the inclusion of students with special
needs are a result of a number of complex variables, for example lack of professional
development and training on inclusive education and the lack of administrative support which
led to low teacher self-efficacy, and opportunities for collaboration between general education,
special education teachers, and support personnel, as well as the academic and social impact for
students with disabilities included into the general education setting. Throughout Chapter 5, I
will discuss the recommendations, and integrated implementation and evaluation plan, and
recommendations for implementation based on these findings in this study.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 111

CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
This qualitative study was conducted to (a) understand what the knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational elements are that are impacting Sun Valley Unified School
District from achieving their Performance Goal of 70% of students with disabilities being
included into the general education setting and (b) recommend any knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational solutions. The first four chapters of this study provided an
introduction, review of the literature, methodology and research design, and the findings which
were revealed through focus groups and individual interviews with general education teachers,
special education teachers, and support personnel. Throughout Chapter four, the findings that
were discovered in this study through data analysis revealed emerging themes that were
organized by Knowledge and Skills, Motivation, and Organizational factors as measured by
focus groups and individual interviews with general education teachers, special education
teachers, and support personnel. This chapter will provide the overall conclusions,
recommendations for practice for future research based on the finding from this study, as well as
recommendations for implementation.
Discussion
Data analysis indicated that there was a strong correlation between general education
teachers’ perception towards the inclusion of students with special needs and the lack of
professional development opportunities and administrative support. General education teachers
expressed through interviews that they received no formal training on inclusion, unlike special
education teachers and support personnel. General education teachers felt unprepared to provide
instruction during an inclusive setting. The lack of professional development opportunities
within this organization connected to the low self-efficacy of the general education teachers as
well as the strong need for both administrative support. According to Horne and Timmons
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 112

(2009), teachers possess negative perceptions towards the inclusion practice and feel less self-
efficacious due to the lack of on-going in-service and professional development opportunities.
On the other hand, according to data analysis, special education teachers and support
personnel expressed that they were more knowledgeable and confident in the area of developing
lessons that embed inclusion strategies and applying accommodations and modifications to meet
the needs of the special education population of students included in the general education
classroom setting. Scott, Vitale, and Masten (1998) suggested that the implementation of
inclusive strategies affects student learning and is important for inclusion to be successful.
Special education teacher and support staff self-efficacy appeared to be due to the
opportunities they have had in receiving some professional development and trainings. All three
special education teachers had received training within college courses on the inclusion of
students with special needs and one special education teacher received professional development
on inclusion strategies and the collaborative models used within inclusion within the school
district. Also, support personnel expressed that they were required to attend a series of behavior
trainings within the district, which provided strategies that would support students in the
inclusive setting, however they believed that being engaged in hands-on work and activities
enhanced their knowledge of how to work with students with special needs in an inclusive
classroom was helpful.
The finding of this study that support personnel’s knowledge base of inclusion is stronger
than the general education teacher was surprising. The role of the general education teacher is
paramount in creating a successful inclusion program. The general education teacher has a
greater responsibility on meeting the diverse needs of their students with special needs than the
support personnel (Colling et al., 2003). However, the support personnel participants within this
study were more self-efficacious in applying inclusion strategies and accommodating and
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 113

modifying instruction for student with special needs than the certificated general education
teacher. The general education teacher should differentiate instruction daily to meet the needs of
their students, including students with special needs. Although each general education teacher
participant expressed that their role is important in the inclusion practice and they do
differentiate their instruction, they also stated that they often have difficulty in scaffolding their
lessons to meet each special education student’s unique needs. The general education teachers
did not seem to see the parallel between differentiating instruction to meet the diverse needs of
the general education students and differentiating instruction to meet the diverse needs of special
education students included within the general education inclusive classroom setting.
Teachers and support personnel believe that in order to be effective teachers and working
in an inclusive environment, professional development is vital in increasing their knowledge and
skills in implementing inclusion strategies. School administrators and professional development
were found to be the most influential factors in creating a more positive inclusive environment
(Guzman, 1997).
The results of this study also indicated that most participants agreed that collaboration
among teachers and support staff is extremely important for inclusion to be successful. Howes,
Davies, and Fox (2009) concluded that teacher and support staff collaboration and planning
together can enhance student learning during inclusion because during collaboration teachers
will be able to discuss issues that are relevant to student learning styles and modalities.
Participants within this study envision collaboration as the general education teacher, special
education teacher, and support personnel working alongside each other in an inclusive classroom
delivering instruction. Teachers and support personnel viewed collaboration as an opportunity to
effectively create lessons that imbed inclusion strategies to support and meet the diverse needs of
the students with whom they support in the inclusive setting. They also viewed collaboration as
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 114

an opportunity to reflect with their colleagues on the lessons taught throughout the day in order
to refine their instructional practice. Overall, inclusion is a shared responsibility between every
teacher and support personnel, therefore everyone has to be accountable for the overall success
of their students.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. The knowledge influences in Table 1 represent the complete list of
assumed knowledge influences and their probability of being validated based on the most
frequently mentioned knowledge influences to achieving the stakeholders’ goal during focus
groups, informal interviews, and supported by the literature review.
There are two types of declarative knowledge, factual and conceptual. Declarative
knowledge means having knowledge of something and seeks to answer the “what” (Krathwohl,
2002). The two types of declarative knowledge, factual and conceptual, seek to answer the
“what.” Factual knowledge consists of the basic facts that one must have to be familiar with a
discipline or to solve the problems which exist within it (Rueda, 2011). Conceptual knowledge
is complex and is considered organized forms of knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). Also, per Rueda
(2011), conceptual knowledge is the understanding of theories, classifications, categories, and
models within a specific discipline. Clark and Estes (2008) stated that declarative knowledge
about something is often critical to know before applying it to classify and identify, as in the case
of knowing the essence of inclusion and knowledge of inclusion strategies.
Procedural knowledge, in a nutshell, clarifies how to do something (Krathwohl, 2002).
Procedural knowledge is the specific methodology needed to accomplish a goal or task (Rueda,
2011). Metacognitive knowledge refers to the awareness of and having knowledge about one’s
own cognition or “thinking about thinking.” (Krathwohl, 2002; Livingston, 2003). According to
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 115

Rueda (2011), metacognition involves having knowledge about a task and about the strategies
that are needed in order to carry out that task.
In Table 10, it is anticipated that these knowledge influences have a high probability of
being validated and have a high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal. Table 10 also
shows the recommendations for these highly probable influences based on theoretical principles.
Table 10
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes,
No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers and
support personnel
need to have the
knowledge of
inclusion
strategies. (D)

HP Y Information learned
meaningfully and
connected with prior
knowledge is stored
more quickly and
remembered more
accurately because it
is elaborated with
prior learning
(Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006)

Increasing germane
cognitive load by
engaging the learner
and schema
construction facilities
effective learning and
encouraging
elaboration and
organization by
creating concept
maps, mnemonics,
advance organizers
and analogies
Conduct professional
development/
training to activate
teachers’ prior
knowledge and connect
newly learned material.
Teachers and support
personnel will be
provided a graphic
organizer (job-aid) of
inclusion strategies

Teachers and support
personnel will be
provided a graphic
organizer (job-aid) of
inclusion strategies.

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 116

(Kirshner et al., 2006;
Aguinis & Kraiger,
2009).

Providing learners
with the information
they need to know for
them to succeed in
accomplishing their
goal (Clark & Estes,
2008)

Teachers and support
personnel be provided
with specialized training
or professional
development focused on
inclusion strategies
within the classroom
strategies
Teachers and
support personnel
need to know the
essence of
inclusion in the
general education
setting. (D)

HP Y Increasing germane
cognitive load by
engaging the learner
and schema
construction facilities
effective learning
(Kirshner et al.,
2006)

Acquiring the “how-
to” knowledge and
skills assists the
learner in achieving
specific goals (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
Learning and
motivation are
enhanced if the
learner values the
task (Eccles, 2006).

Rationales that
include a discussion
of the importance and
utility value of the
work or learning can
Conduct professional
development/
training that will build
onto teachers’ and
support personnel prior
knowledge by utilizing a
document that outlines
inclusion strategies.
Newly learned inclusive
strategies will be
segmented into 4
professional
development/
training.

Provides the “how-to”
strategies so that teachers
and support personnel
know how to implement
inclusion strategies in
general education setting.

Teachers and support
personnel will provide
rationale as to the
importance and value of
inclusion

Teachers and support
personnel will participate
in an interview and focus
group with a focus on the
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 117

help learners develop
positive values
(Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003).
importance and value of
inclusion.

Teachers and
support personnel
need to have the
skills necessary to
apply inclusion
strategies
throughout their
daily lessons. (P)

HP

Y

Modeling to-be-
learned strategies or
behaviors improves
self-efficacy,
learning, and
performance (Denler,
Wolters, & Benzon,
2009)

Effective
observational
learning is achieved
by first organizing
and rehearsing
modeled behaviors,
then enacting them
overtly (Mayer,
2011).

Provide individuals
with a recipe for
achieving their
performance goals so
that they are able to
complete the task
independently (Clark
& Estes, 2008)

Assist teachers in
designing lesson plan
templates that incorporate
learned inclusion
strategies and provide
classroom demonstrations

Provide opportunities for
teachers and support
personnel to collaborate
with each other during
planning of instruction to
leverage their knowledge
of best inclusion
instructional practice

Provide opportunities for
teachers and support
personnel to practice
learned inclusion skills in
order for teachers and
support staff to complete
the tasks on the own.
Teachers and
support personnel
need to be aware
of their own
thinking regarding
how to plan their
instruction to
implement
inclusion
strategies. (M)
HP Y The use of
metacognitive
strategies facilitates
learning (Baker,
2006).

Conduct
professional/training
designed to promote self-
regulatory skills by using
debriefing, self-talk and
self-assessment of
strengths and weaknesses
of implementing
inclusion strategies.

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 118

To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire component
skills, practice
integrating them, and
know when to apply
what they have
learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006)

Education builds
upon individuals
capacity to resolve
novel problems and
handle problems as
they occur within
their organization
(Clark & Estes, 2008)

Teachers and support
personnel will be
provided opportunities to
model effective strategy
use, including “how” and
“when” to use inclusion
strategies and be
provided with
performance feedback
during modeling.

Allow teachers and
support personnel the
opportunity to create and
continuously refine
lesson plans that embed
inclusion strategies based
on the diverse needs of
their students during
grade-level meetings
*Indicate knowledge type for each influence listed using these abbreviations: (D)eclarative; (P)rocedural;
(M)etacognitive
Declarative knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Teachers need to
know the essence of inclusion in the general education setting. Kirshner et al. (2006) reported
that engaging the learner in rich and meaningful tasks would increase germane cognitive load
and facilitates more effective learning. Acquiring the “how-to” knowledge and skill assists the
learner in understanding and achieving specific goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). This would suggest
that providing teachers and support personnel with scaffolds and models of inclusion strategies
as well as connecting what the learner already knows with new information being presented
would support learning. The recommendation for assisting teachers and support personnel in
understanding the essence of inclusion and provide the learner with a rich learning opportunity
might be to activate teachers and support personnel’s prior knowledge during in-service trainings
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 119

that outlines the importance of inclusion implementation and newly learned “how-to” of
inclusion strategies.
Cambridge-Johnson, Hunter-Johnson, and Newton’s (2014) empirical qualitative
research studied eight high school teachers’ attitudes within New Providence District of the
Bahamas towards inclusive education. This study examined the implementation of inclusion and
the possible factors that may have influenced teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion process
due to the amount of training and support provided. Participants within this study emphasized
that in order to understand the essence of inclusion; all teachers must be educated as to the
meaning of inclusion. Providing training plays a critical role in understanding the essence of
inclusion and ideology of inclusion (Cambridge-Johnson et al., 2014). The recommendation for
this study would be to provide trainings that focus on the “how-to” of inclusion were relevant in
order to ensure that teachers and support personnel were equipped with the knowledge and skills
needed to understand the importance of and execute best practices.
Procedural knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. In order for
inclusion to be successful, teachers and support personnel need to have the skills necessary to
apply inclusion strategies throughout their daily lessons. Denler, Wolters, and Benzon (2009)
declared improving self-efficacy, learning, and performance require modeling to-be-learned
behaviors and strategies. Providing individuals with a recipe for achieving their performance
goals is valuable in order for one to complete a task independently (Clark & Estes, 2008). This
would suggest that in order for new behaviors or skills to be learned and for one to be able to
accomplish a given task on their own, it would be helpful to provide demonstrations and model
the preferred to-be learned task. The recommendation would be to assist teachers and support
personnel with designing lesson templates that incorporate learned inclusion strategies and
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 120

provide classroom demonstrations that model inclusion for the learner to emulate. In doing so, it
may enhance learning and boost self-efficacy among teachers and staff.
McCray and McHatton (2011) conducted a mixed-methods study which examined
teachers’ perceptions towards inclusion of students with special needs into the general education
setting. This study used 77 elementary school teachers within a large, urban school district. It
was found in this study that by providing teachers the necessary training and skills on how to
infuse instructional accommodations during instruction played a huge role in the success of the
inclusion process. As such, the recommendation being made is to provide opportunities for
teachers and support personnel to collaborate with each other during planning of instruction in
order to leverage their knowledge and skills of best inclusion instructional practice.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions or description of needs or assets. Teachers need
to be aware of their own thinking regarding how to plan their instruction on implementing
inclusion strategies. The benefit of implementing metacognitive strategies promotes learning
(Baker, 2006). According to Clark & Estes (2008), education is what builds upon individuals’
capacity to resolve novel problems and handle problems as they occur within their organization.
A suggestion for teachers and support staff would be to promote self-regulatory skills by
allowing teachers and support personnel the opportunity to debrief on inclusion strategies
learned, as well as engage teachers and support personnel in self-talk and self-assessment of their
strengths and weaknesses when implementing inclusion strategies.
Smith and Smith (2009) studied 75 kindergarten through 3
rd
grade general education
teachers’ perceptions of factors that compromise the success of an inclusion classroom. This
research expressed four major emerging themes: a) education and training, b) class load, c)
support, and d) time. It was found that within this study in order to have a successful inclusion
program, once education and training on inclusion strategies takes place, the teacher and support
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 121

personnel must be provided the opportunity to collaborate during planning and preparation time.
This was needed for teachers and support personnel to debrief on newly learned strategies,
evaluate, reflect, and check their progress, then adjust learning and implementation strategies as
needed. As such, the recommendation being made in this case study, teachers and support
personnel may also benefit from being provided time to collaborate with colleagues so that they
may share strategies and reflect and evaluate their teaching experiences and inclusion practices.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. Self-efficacy and utility value are the two assumed motivational
influences that may affect this organization from meeting their organizational goal. Table 11
represents a complete list of the assumed motivational influences and their probability of being
validated based on the most frequently mentioned motivation influences to achieving the
stakeholders’ goal during focus groups, informal interviews, and supported by the literature
review. According to Bandura (1995), self-efficacy is defined as the belief that an individual has
of oneself and what they can accomplish using their own abilities and skills an individual
believes he or she can accomplish using his or her skills under certain circumstances. Utility
value refers to how important and useful one believes the activity is in reaching the future goal
(Rueda, 2011). As such, as indicated in Table 11, it is anticipated that these influences have a
high probability of being validated and have a high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal.
Table 2 also shows the recommendations for these highly probable influences based on
theoretical principles.

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 122

Table 11
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes,
No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Self-Efficacy
Teachers and support
personnel need to
believe they are
capable of effectively
meeting the needs
and supporting
students with
disabilities by
applying inclusion
strategies in the
general education
setting.

HP
Y
High self-efficacy
can positively
influence
motivation
(Pajares, 2006).

School-site
administrators and
district personnel will
provide scaffolded
instructional support to
build on multiple
opportunities to practice
implementing inclusion
strategies.
Utility Value
Teachers and support
personnel need to
understand the value
of effectively
applying inclusion
strategies to support
students with
disabilities in the
general education
setting
HP Y Rationales that
include a
discussion of the
importance and
utility value of
the work or
learning can help
learners develop
positive values
(Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003).
By using data, the
administrator will
demonstrate how
inclusion strategies
impact overall levels of
academic, behavioral,
and social achievements
of students with
disabilities in the least
restrictive environment.

Self-Efficacy. Teachers and support staff need to believe they are capable of effectively
meeting the needs and supporting students with disabilities by applying inclusion strategies in
the general education setting. Pajares (2006) concluded that high self-efficacy can positively
influence motivation. Setting concrete and challenging goals will allow the learner to experience
success in completing a task (Pajares, 2006). This would suggest that providing teachers and
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 123

support staff with the training and interventions needed to apply inclusion would increase self-
efficacy. The recommendation for this organization would be for the school-site administrators
and district personnel to provide scaffolded instructional support and build on multiple
opportunities for practicing implementing inclusion strategies, which will gradually fade as the
individual’s self-efficacy increases.
Monsen, Ewing, and Kwoka (2014) conducted a quantitative study on the role of teacher
attitude in a successful inclusion setting of children with special needs. In this sample of 95
teachers selected from the South East of England, it was found that the lack of teacher training
and support caused the teachers in this study to lack self-efficacy. Teachers felt less confident in
implementing inclusion practices, suggesting that teachers must have access to resources and
support to assist them with the inclusion of students with special needs for them to feel
comfortable and confident in meeting the needs of special education students. As such, the
recommendation that would likely increase self-efficacy would be to provide teachers and
support staff with the necessary resources and supports to implement inclusive strategies within
the inclusive setting.
Utility Value. Teachers and support personnel need to understand the value of
effectively applying inclusion strategies to support students with disabilities in the general
education setting. Rationales that include a discussion of the importance and utility value of the
work or learning can help learners develop positive values (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). This
would suggest that in order for individuals to understand the relevance of a task, the tasks must
be connected to their reality and interest. The recommendation for this organization would be
for the school-site administrator to use existing student data to assist in demonstrating how the
implementation of inclusion has impacted the overall levels of students’ academic, behavioral,
and/or social achievements of students included into the general education setting.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 124

Hammond and Ingalls (2003) studied teacher attitudes towards the inclusion practice and
their commitment to the implementation of the practice. This quantitative research took place in
thirteen schools within 3 Southwestern Rural School Districts of the United States. The survey
results overwhelmingly revealed that these teachers were uncertain or disagreed with the benefits
and value of the inclusion practice, which resulted in the negative teacher perception of
inclusionary programs. This research suggests that teachers and support personnel must possess
the knowledge of and understand the importance of inclusion in order for the program to
succeed. The recommendation for this organization would be to provide teachers and support
staff with information, material, and activities that are relevant and useful to the learner so they
understand the importance and value of implementing inclusion strategies.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Table 12 represent a complete list of the assumed organizational
influences and their probability of being validated based on the most frequently mentioned
organizational influences to achieving the stakeholders’ goal during focus groups, informal
interviews, and supported by the literature review and the review of organizational and culture
theory. According to Clark & Estes (2008), organization and stakeholder goals are not always
accomplished due to the shortage or lack of resources and supports as well as the misalignment
of the stakeholders’ goals to the organizational mission and goals. The organizational features
considered in my analysis of organizational gaps are organizational culture, structure, policies,
and practices. Gallimore and Goldenburg (2001) introduced the notion of cultural models and
cultural setting. Cultural models help in shaping how an organization is structured, which
include values, policies, structures, and so forth (Gallimore & Goldenburg, 2001). Gallimore
and Goldenburg (2001) defines cultural settings as the more visible aspects and are considered
the who, what, why, where, when, and how of everyday living. Both organizational models and
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 125

settings must be aligned within the organization’s framework in order to achieve its mission and
performance goals. As such, as indicated in Table 12, some organizational influences have a
high probability of being validated and have a high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal.
Table 3 also shows the recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles.
Table 12
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes,
No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model
Influence 1:
There is a culture of
lack of support
from school and
district
administration,
which hinders the
stakeholder goal of
applying inclusion
strategies during
inclusion.
HP Y Cultural models
assist in shaping the
way that an
organization is
structured, which
include
communicating the
several resources,
organizational
values, policies,
practices, reward
structures, and so
forth (Rueda, 2011).

Administrators, teachers
and support personnel
will use effective
communication skills to
build and maintain a
positive relationship in
the effort to understand
what resources and
support are needed in
order for teachers and
support staff to feel
supported.
Cultural Setting
Influence 1:
There is a lack of
professional
development
opportunities for
teachers and
support personnel
to attend on campus
and throughout the
district to provide
models on inclusion
HP Y Organizational
structure is created
through shared
experience, shared
learning and stability
of membership. It
cannot be imposed
(Schein, 2004).

Teachers and support
personnel will be
provided the opportunity
to network with other
educators, both within
organization and outside
the organization who
have experience with
successfully
implementing inclusion
and modeling the
inclusion strategies
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 126

strategies. within their organization.

Cultural models. There is a culture of lack of support from school and district
administration, which hinders the stakeholder goal of applying inclusion strategies during
inclusion. According to Rueda (2011), cultural models assist in shaping the way that an
organization is structured, which include communicating the several resources, organizational
values, policies, practices, reward structures, and so forth. Cultural models are considered the
normative understandings or agreement as to how the organization works or how the
organization should work. As such, a recommendation would be for administrators, teachers and
support personnel to use communication skills to build and maintain a positive relationship in the
effort to understand what resources and supports are needed in order for teachers and support
staff to feel supported.
Smith and Smith (2009) conducted a study of seventy-seven randomly selected
kindergarten through 3
rd
grade students which analyzed teachers’ perceptions of the factors that
compromise success in an inclusive classroom. The findings of this study concluded that a
successful inclusion program requires adequate resources, administrative support, and planning
time. Teachers expressed that without the alignment of resources and support to the inclusion
practice, they are left carrying the burden of the success of inclusion. Hence, the
recommendation for this organization would be to communicate constantly and candidly
organizational goals and align the structures and the processes of the organization with the goals.
Cultural settings. There is a lack of professional development opportunities for teachers
to attend on campus and throughout the district to provide models on inclusion strategies.
According to Schein (2004), organizational structure is created through shared experience, shared
learning and stability of membership. Making connections with individuals who can extend the
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 127

organization’s performance goal or enhance the organization’s practices creates a shared learning
community. A recommendation would be for teachers and support personnel to be provided the
opportunity to network with other educators, both within organization and outside the
organization who have experience with successfully implementing inclusion and modeling the
inclusion strategies within their organization.
Providing professional development opportunities is needed for inclusion to be
successful. According to Vaughn and Schumm (1995), on-going professional development at
the school-site level is necessary for responsible inclusion programs to take place. Innovative
practices to enhance professional development would include teachers visiting other teachers’
classroom, and in-classroom mentoring from other educational professionals (Vaughn &
Schumm, 1995). In the case of teachers’ and support personnel’s perception towards inclusive
education, providing the knowledge and skills needed through professional development results
in the improvement in the inclusion practice. This further mirrors the position of Cooper, Kurtts,
Baber and Vallecorse (2008) in their examination of teacher candidate’s beliefs regarding
inclusive settings for students with disabilities, which concluded by stating that collaboration
during professional development among general education and special education teachers results
in shared learning and shared resources. Collaboration also provides opportunities for faculty to
engage in dialogue about inclusion. Staying current, both teachers and administrators, with the
field’s research and practice are correlated with increased student learning outcomes (Waters,
Marzano & McNulty, 2003). As such, it appears that the literature supports the necessity for
providing professional development opportunities to enhance the implementation of the inclusion
practice.

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 128

Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The model used to inform this implementation and evaluation plan is the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The New World Kirkpatrick Model is
based off the original Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). The New World Kirkpatrick Model suggests that effective training evaluation begins
before the program even starts. The New World Kirkpatrick Model revises the old practice of
workplace learning by reversing the order of the 4 levels, which formed the basis of the most-
used training evaluation model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Reversing the order of the
evaluation model allows the organization to keep focused on what is important and in doing so,
the “leading indicators” which help to bridge the recommended solutions to the organization’s
goals, are easier to identify and are closely aligned to the true target of the organizational goals.
The four levels in reverse begin with Level 4, which suggests that trainers must begin
with a desired result. Once the desired result is determined, trainers must decide on the type of
behavior that is needed in order to accomplish the desired result, which is Level 3. Next, in
Level 2, trainers must determine the attitudes, skills, and knowledge are needed in order to bring
out the desired behavior. Level 1 involves presenting the training in such a way that all
participants will not only learn vital information needed in order to reach the organizational goal,
but they will also find value in the training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The mission statement for the Sun Valley Unified School District states that in order to
facilitate student learning and achievement, all students will be provided with high-quality
instruction and a rigorous and coherent curriculum in every classroom (“Enrollment Figures,”
2016-2017). The organizational performance goal of SVUSD is that by June 30, 2018, 70% of
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 129

students with mild to moderate disabilities will be included into the general education setting for
at least 80% of their instructional school day. The educational problem being addressed in this
paper are factors that may impact general education and special education elementary school
teachers’ and support staff perceptions towards the inclusion of students with special needs into
the general education classroom setting. Teachers’ and support personnel’s perception of
students with special needs has a direct impact on student achievement and demands attention.
Therefore, once teachers and support personnel possess an idealistic perception towards the
inclusion practice, they will then be able to provide students with special needs an opportunity to
have a positive and successful school experience (Familia-Garcia, 2001). The proposed solution,
professional development, training and related on-the-job supports should produce the desired
outcome.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 13 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics, and methods for both external and internal outcomes for SVUSD. If the
internal outcomes are met as expected as a result of the training and organizational support for
the implantation of the inclusion practice, then the external outcomes should also be realized.
Table 13

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Increase the number of school
district workshops and trainings
on implementing inclusion
strategies
Number of workshops
and training present
on the school district
website
School district records
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 130

2. Decrease community’s
perception of the school not
being inclusive of students with
special needs
Number of complaints
from parents of
students with special
needs
School district and District’s Parent
Complaint Unit (CPU) records
Internal Outcomes
3. Ensure that student with
special needs who have mild to
moderate disabilities are
provided inclusion opportunities
Number of students
being included
Monthly report from administrator
who oversees special education
department
4. Increased opportunities for
teacher and support staff
collaboration during grade level
meetings
Number of complaints
from teachers and
support staff
Weekly reports from the principal’s
office with grade level feedback
5. Improved pedagogy for
students with special needs in
the inclusive setting
Checklist developed
principal and teacher
Informal unannounced
walkthroughs by principal and
administrator who oversees the
special education department on a
weekly basis

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are the elementary level general education
teachers, special education teachers, and support staff at a random school site within the SVUSD.
The first critical behavior is that teachers and support staff implement inclusion strategies within
the inclusive setting. The second critical behavior is that the teachers and support personnel
work together to create lesson plans that imbed inclusion strategies. The third critical behavior is
that general education teachers’ request information about each student included in their
classroom with special needs. The specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these
outcome behaviors appear in Table 14.

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 131

Table 14

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Teachers and support
personnel implement
inclusion strategies
within the inclusive
setting
Completed weekly
lesson plans
1a.Informal
walkthrough by
principal and
administrator
overseeing special
education department
1a. Weekly
2.Teachers and support
personnel work together to
create lesson plans
that imbed inclusive
strategies
Completed weekly
lesson plans
2a.Lesson plans
submitted to
principal and
administrator
supervising the special
education department
2a. Weekly
3.General education
teachers’ request
information about
each student included
in their classroom with
special needs

Teachers’ list of
students with
special needs at
ABC school
3a.Teachers list
compared to
administrator who
oversees the special
education department

3a. Trimester

Required drivers. Teachers’ and support personnel require support from their
administrator and the organization to reinforce what they learn in the professional development
and training they receive. They require encouragement in order for them to apply what they
have learned in implementing the inclusive practice at their school site. Rewards should be
established for achievement of performance goals to enhance the organizational support of
teachers and support personnel. Table 15 shows the recommended drivers to support critical
behaviors of teachers and support staff.

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 132

Table 15
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing

Team meetings to
troubleshoot collaboratively
with teachers and support
staff and for additional
training

Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Administrator overseeing
special education department
provides teachers and support
staff with a job aid that
includes information about
each student with special
needs included within an
inclusive classroom setting
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Encouraging

Teachers and support personnel
meet together to discuss
success in creating lessons
plans that imbed inclusion
strategies
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Teacher feedback and
coaching from administrators
and district personnel
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Rewarding

Public recognition of
teachers during professional
development who have
successful progress towards
implementing the inclusion
practice
Monthly 1, 2, 3

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 133

Providing teachers and
support personnel with the
opportunity to attend off-site
professional development and
trainings specific to the
inclusive practice
Ongoing

1, 2, 3

Monitoring. Strategies that can ensure that the Required Drivers occur within this
organization are: a) the administrator provide opportunities for teachers and support personnel to
collaborate to discuss successes during inclusion; b) once a month, during grade-level team
meetings, the administrator can ask participants to share their confidence level and self-efficacy
in job-related tasks; and c) the administrator can access the performance of the learner monthly.
Providing frequent quick checks can assist the organization in monitoring progress as well as
making any needed adjustments if the results are not meeting expectations.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended solutions, general education
teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel will be able to:
1. Understand and recognize inclusion strategies, (D)
2. Understand the essence of inclusion in the general education setting, (D)
3. Identify the skills necessary to apply inclusion strategies throughout their daily lessons,
(P)
4. Plan and monitor instruction when implementing inclusion strategies, (M)
5. Indicate confidence that teachers and support staff are capable of meeting the needs and
supporting students with disabilities by applying inclusion strategies in the general
education setting, (Confidence)
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 134

6. Understand the value of applying inclusion strategies to support students with disabilities
in the general education setting. (Value)
Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section, will be achieved with on-
going professional and training program that explores the implementation of collaboration
models of instruction. Teachers, support personnel, and school-site administrators will study a
broad range of instructional strategies that support inclusive education and meet the needs of
students with special needs. The training program is blended, consisting of several e-learning
modules available within the SVUDH Special Education website and quarterly face-to-face, on-
site and off-site professional development and application workshops.
During the asynchronous e-learning modules, learners will be provided a job aid of the
key inclusion terms, as well as a chart of the various types of collaboration models. The job aids
will be demonstrated on video using authentic scenarios and key terms will be defined with
examples and non-examples. The videos will pause periodically in order to check learning and
understanding of materials presented. Following e-learning modules, learners will be provided
the opportunity to practice implementing inclusion strategies using examples of the various
collaboration models within the inclusive setting and receive feedback from their peers and
school-site administrator.
During the asynchronous face-to-face on-site and off-site professional development and
application workshops, the focus will be on applying what learners have learned asynchronously
in professional development and trainings by role-playing, peer modeling and teaching back to
each other, and group discussions. Participants who have more experience in implementing
inclusion strategies and the implementation of the collaboration models of instruction within an
inclusive learning environment will share their personal experiences with the inclusion of
students with special needs utilizing inclusion strategies and one or more of the collaboration
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 135

models of instruction. More experienced participants will also share their view of the value and
benefits of the inclusive practice.
Components of learning. Prior to applying the knowledge to resolve problems,
possessing declarative knowledge is necessary. Evaluation of the learning for both declarative
and procedural knowledge is also critical. In order for the learner to implement newly learned
skills and knowledge after attending a professional development or training, the learner must
believe that it is valuable. The learner must also be confident in their ability to succeed in
applying newly learned knowledge and skills and commit to implementing them on the job. As
such, Table 16 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these components of learning.
Table 16
Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge tests/checks through group
discussions, “think-pair-share” and other
individual/group activities.
Continuously through professional
development and trainings.
Knowledge checks using multiple choice. Throughout the professional development and
training (prior to, mid-way, and after)
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Individual application of the skills within the
inclusive classroom setting
After professional development and trainings
Quality of feedback from colleagues during
group sharing
During professional development and
workshop
Demonstration in individually and in group
using job aids in order to successfully perform
skills learned
During professional development and
workshop
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Discussions regarding whether the participants During the professional development and
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 136

value what they are being asked to perform. training
Administrators observe participants comments
and actions as they demonstrate that they see
the benefit of what they are being asked to
perform on the job.
During the professional development and
training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Group or individual discussions or survey
using scaled scores following the practice
of applying inclusion strategies and feedback.
Throughout the professional development and
training
Group or individual discussions following
training and feedback

During the professional development or
training
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Create an individual action plan for how they
will apply inclusion strategies learned on the
job.
After the professional development or training

Discussions among participants following the
practice of inclusion strategies and feedback
Throughout the professional development and
training

Level 1: Reaction
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), the main purpose of Level 1 is to
quickly obtain the information needed in order to confirm that the quality of the program or
training is favorable, engaging, and relevant to the participants. The three components to Level 1
are: engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction. Level 1 is usually measured immediately
at the conclusion of the training because there is higher chance of evaluation forms being
returned to the supervisor. Level 1 is also the simplest levels to evaluate and the most familiar.
Such as, Table 17 below lists the methods used to determine how the participants react to the
learning event(s).
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 137

Table 17
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Asking meaningful questions During the professional development and
training
Anonymous Training Evaluation After professional development and training
Administrator observation During the professional development and
training
Relevance

Anonymous Training Evaluation
During and after professional development
and training
Pulse check periodically via survey
(online)
and discussion (on-going)
After each module/lesson during the
professional development and training
Customer Satisfaction
Anonymous Training Evaluation During and after professional development and
training
Pulse check periodically via survey
(online)
and discussion (on-going)
After each module/lesson during the
professional development and training

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Throughout the asynchronous e-
learning modules, data will be collected regarding when the participants begin the modules, and
whether or not participants have completed each module. Participants will also be tracked on
their level of engagement of the training material. The e-learning modules will also track the
participant’s level of satisfaction and relevance to the training materials.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 138

During Level 1, the instructor will conduct periodic knowledge tests/checks through
group discussions, “think-pair-share”, and other individual/group activities about what they
learned, how to apply what they learned on the job, and the relevance of the content to their
work. Level 2 will include formative exercises during the training, such as group planning of
lessons embedding inclusion strategies and role-playing using mock demonstrations which
would determine whether the participants is confident in their ability to apply the particular skills
and knowledge they have learned back on the job (Appendix H).
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately 4 weeks
after the professional development and trainings and again at 16 weeks, the administrator will
administer a survey using the Blended Evaluation approach, which contains both open and scaled
items, to measure the numerous perspectives from participants (Appendix I). The Blended
Evaluation approach will ask questions regarding the relevance of the professional development
and participant’s confidence level (Level 1), how confident the participants feel with applying
inclusion strategies, the use the collaboration models of learnings on the job, and the value of
applying their new learning (Level 2), the level of support the participants are receiving as the
apply what they learned after the professional development and trainings (Level 3), and the
impact the participants perceive to have on the organization as a whole (Level 4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
Data analysis will be conducted formatively as the instructors use the collaboration
models of learning and inclusion strategies throughout the trainings. Instructors will conduct
pulse checks throughout the professional development and trainings by asking open-ended
questions in order to gain insight as to whether or not the participants are engaged in the learning
process and their attitude about performing the new skills on the job. Each week, the
administrator will track the participant’s responses to both the immediate and delayed survey
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 139

instruments. The administrator will begin by tallying the responses from the immediate and
delayed survey instruments and charting the survey results according to participant responses.
These charted responses will be duplicated for all staff members to view, as well as for the
administrative team to analyze and make decisions about what the target of focus will be based
on the data; identify weak areas, and discuss strategies and develop protocols as to how to align
interventions and future professional development and trainings to the learner’s needs.
During the implementation of inclusion strategies and the collaborative models of
learning, the administrator will regularly check on and report the progress to the participants both
formally and informally by way of regular, monthly scheduled teacher-administrator data chats.
Four months after the professional development and trainings are implemented, a performance
dashboard will be used in order to share data and provide a visual of progress towards the
organizational goal of the implementation of inclusion (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The
performance dashboard will display what areas the organization is actually meeting and what
areas are below the organizational goal’s expectation in order to plan modifications and drive the
organization’s goals and progress. The performance dashboard will be updated monthly. The
performance dashboard below is an example of the data monitoring and accountability tool used
to track and report the results. This dashboard will be updated on a monthly basis. The “Target”
column displays the monthly goal, the “Actual” column reports the most current data in
percentage, the “Previous Month” column is displayed as a comparison to the “Actual” column,
and the “Rating” column will display a subjective symbol of the progress for each Action/Result.
I am confident that implementing this training program will be effective within this
organization because this model follows the foundational principal, which is to begin with the
desired results first to determine what is needed to accomplish the organizational goal(s).
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 140

Implementing the New World Kirkpatrick Model would meet the desired needs of all
stakeholders within this organization, students, teachers, support staff, parents, and community.
This model allows the participants the opportunity to collaborate, share success strategies and
reflect, and create lesson plans that imbed inclusion strategies, which is one of the areas that the
participants involved in the interviews and focus groups feel are necessary to meet the
organizational goal. This training program also encourages providing administrative and peer
feedback.
Performance Dashboard: Inclusion Implementation Progress
Action/Result Target Actual Previous
Month
Rating
Teachers and support staff collaboration during
lesson planning
100% % %
Teachers provided a job aid with special education
student information
100% % %
Increase in administrative support 100% % %
Increase in learner satisfaction 100% % %
Inclusion of Students with Special Needs 65% % %
Confidence in applying inclusion strategies 100% % %
Applying inclusion strategies 100% % %

Summary
Using the New World Kirkpatrick Model will assist in planning, implementing, and
evaluating recommendations for teacher and support personnel’s implementation of inclusion
strategies for this organization to optimize achieving the stakeholder goal and organizational
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 141

goal. The New World Kirkpatrick Model provides the framework for this training evaluation
model.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model will first be utilized by identifying how to measure
the participant’s reactions to the training and professional development being provided by
observing participant’s body language during the training, providing verbal feedback when
asking participants questions throughout the training, and by using immediate and delayed
response surveys. Once information is gathered, identify what knowledge, skills, and attitudes to
evaluate, and make changes based on participant’s feedback. At the conclusion of the trainings
and professional developments, assess participants again to gauge what was learned. Teachers
and support staff will be given opportunities to create lesson plans that imbed inclusive strategies
and be provided with peer and administrative feedback on their progress towards the
implementation of inclusion strategies within an inclusive program.
My expectations for using the New World Kirkpatrick Model would be for teachers and
support staff to gain the foundation of the knowledge and skills related to applying effective
inclusion teaching strategies to support students with special needs in the general education
inclusive setting. According to Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1990), teachers who possess a well-
grounded understanding and knowledge of teaching strategies should be able to apply them
appropriately. Teachers should be given the opportunity to implement newly learned material,
translate what skills they have learned, and transfer what they have learned by putting into
practice the knowledge they now encompass.
The advantages of integrating the New World Kirkpatrick Model implementation and
evaluation and value of this training model, is that if students with special needs are going to be
successful in the general education classroom setting, systems and structures must be in place
and teachers and support personnel must be engaged in ongoing discussions and be provided the
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 142

opportunity to collaborate. According to Pugach, Shaker, Shanley, and Yinger (2002),
collaboration is a skill that all teachers would benefit from and is important in order to meet the
academic and social needs of students with special needs. During collaboration, teachers will be
allowed the opportunity to work together and share in the responsibility of creating lesson plans
using research-based instructional inclusion practices.
Conclusion
The purpose of conducting this study was to listen to the perceptions of teachers and
support staff on the inclusion practice and use those responses received through focus groups and
individual interviews to identify what knowledge and skills, motivational, and organizational
factors are impacting SVUSD from reaching their Performance Goal, as well as provide
recommendations for creating a successful inclusion model. Based on the summary of the
literature review from Chapter 2 and the experiences from teachers and support staff identified in
Chapter 4, similar ideas were noted. Themes that emerged from focus groups and interviews can
be addressed and utilized to improve SVUSD’s inclusion model.
Data analysis from this qualitative study revealed that teachers and support staff lacked
the opportunity to participate in professional development and trainings, collaboration, and
lacked the administrative support needed for inclusion to be successful. Within this chapter, the
proposed solution to supporting teachers and support staff with their identified need to
participate in professional development and collaborate would be the implementation of the New
World Kirkpatrick Model.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model suggests that trainers begin with a desired result,
decide on the type of behavior that is needed in order to accomplish the desired result, determine
the attitudes, skills, and knowledge that are needed in order to bring out the desired behavior, and
finally present the professional development or training in such a way that all participants will
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 143

not only learn vital information needed in order to reach the organizational goal, but they will
also find value in the training. Previous research studies have shown that positive perceptions of
the inclusion practice are dependent upon teacher and support training, knowledge, and
experiences (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden (2000); Van Reusen, Shoho, & Barker (2000).
The New World Kirkpatrick Model will also allow the participants the opportunity to
collaborate and reflect, share success strategies, and develop lesson plans that imbed inclusion
strategies. Teachers, support personnel, and school-site administrators will study a broad range
of instructional strategies that support inclusion and meet the needs of students with special
needs.
The implementation of the New World Kirkpatrick Model should produce the desired
outcome and meet the desired needs of all stakeholders within this organization, students,
teachers, support staff, parents, and community.
Recommendations for Implementation
The journey to become an Inclusive School can be a long and challenging journey, but
ultimately this journey can invigorate a school community and benefit all students, both general
education and special education. Inclusion schools and classrooms should not be built in
isolation. Conversations need to take place across departments and offices within a school
district for a successful inclusion program to surface. School site administrators, general
education teachers, special education teachers, and other stakeholders such as Speech and
Language Pathologists, School Psychologists, Occupational Therapists, Hearing Specialists,
Parents, etc. need to collaborate together to share any challenges they may face with the
inclusion process and information that will benefit the special needs student as they transition
into the inclusive classroom setting for the upcoming year. These conversations should take
place at the end of the previous school year in order to set up successful beginnings when the
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 144

school year starts. Conversations ensue and help determine strategies that might help the child
transition as successfully as possible. Collaboration among administrators, across district
departments and school personnel, and related service providers is a critical factor in
implementing change and an effective inclusive education program.
Change within the field of education is vital in order to take account of the increasing
diversity of today’s classrooms. Although the inclusion process will look differently depending
on the school and student, it may be helpful to observe a successful inclusion school or
classroom. In doing so, individuals will be able to understand that inclusion is built around the
idea that it is merely a form of diversity. Inclusive schools may take on many different forms,
however what is common is the existence of an organizational culture that views student
diversity positively. Providing opportunities for school site administrators, teachers and other
school support personnel to observe a model inclusion school or classroom stimulates
professional learning. Professional learning is the key to supporting a new vision for an
upcoming inclusion school and can assist in developing quality professional development that
focuses on implementing inclusion strategies and co-teaching collaboration models between
general education and special education teachers and other school site personnel (Soto, Mullen,
Hunt, & Goetz, 2001). Although changing the norms that exist within a school can be difficult to
achieve, observing successful and promising practices from model inclusion schools may assist
with eliminating the barriers that may surface.
School organization and classroom practice may need to be revised to foster an inclusive
setting. A variety of approaches for providing support for individual students with special
education needs are evident. The removal of structural barriers by dismantling of separate
programs would enable general education and special education students to learn together rather
than separately. Developing cooperative learning approaches within the mainstream setting,
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 145

such as co-teaching models between general and special education teachers are designed to make
classrooms more inclusive and appropriate learning environments for students with special
needs.
Cooperative learning approaches provide better service coordination in mainstream
settings and allow students with special needs to achieve greater success academically and
socially (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, Shamberger, 2010). Examples of cooperative
learning approaches are: one teaching-one drifting teaching, station teaching, parallel teaching,
alternative teaching, and team teaching (Friend et al., 2010). One teaching-one drifting teaching
model involves one teacher leading instruction while the other teacher circulates among the
students providing individual assistance. Station teaching involves the classroom being divided
into three groups. The teachers rotate from station to station while the students are being taught
by each teacher at of the two stations and at the third station, students are working independently.
The parallel teaching approach involves the classroom being divided into two sections and both
teachers presenting the same material with the purpose of individualizing instruction to their
section of the class. Alternative teaching is where one teacher works with the majority of the
students while the other teacher works with a small group providing intensive and remedial
instruction, pre-teaching lessons, and any other activities needed to support student achievement.
Finally, team teaching allows for both teachers to lead whole group instruction (Friend et al.,
2010). These six co-teaching approaches allow teachers to address the individual needs of
students with disabilities and meet the learning needs of the general education students within the
inclusive setting. Although co-teaching is not a panacea for effective instructional approach for
students with special needs, it does hold great promise.
The inclusion practice can have significant challenges, for example availability of support
resources, administrative support, and effective communication between teachers, parents,
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 146

community, and administration. Although challenges will occur, it is important to remember to
give change time. Do not expect individuals to adjust to change right away. Individuals must be
reminded that there is a learning curve involved with change, but support will be provided
throughout the process. According to Kotter (1996), the structure for change must be put in
place and checked continuously for barriers to the change. Providing assistance for those who
are resisting the change and for those implementing inclusion, and recognizing, and rewarding
those individuals who are making change happen is vital in helping the process of change to
move forward.
The recommendations for implementation discussed within this section are intended
solely to stimulate organizations and individuals’ thinking about ways that could enable further
progress to be made in moving the inclusion agenda forward.

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 147

References
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451-474. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Avramidis, E. M., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers’ attitudes
towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in ordinary school in one
local education authority. Educational Psychology, 20, 191-213.
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2010), Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A
review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129-147.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Banerji, M. & Dailey, R.A. (1995). A study of the effects of an inclusion model on students with
specific learning disabilities. Journal of Learning and Disabilities, 28, 511-522.
Bradshaw, L. & Mudia, L. (2006). Attitudes to and concern about inclusive education: Bruneian
inservice and preservice teachers. International Journal of Special Education, 21(1).
Retrieved April 10, 2016, from http://www.internationaljournalofspecialeducation.com
Brantlinger, E. (2006). Preface. In E. Brantlinger (Ed.), Who Benefits from Special Education?
Remediating (fixing) other people’s children (pp.vii-xii.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Broderick, A., Mehta-Parekh, H., & Reid, D. (2005). Differentiating instruction for disabled
students in inclusive classrooms. Theory in Practice, 44(3), 194-202.
Buell, M., Hallam, R., Gamel-Mccormick, M., & Scheer, S. (1999). A survey of general and
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 148

special education teachers’ perceptions and in-service needs concerning inclusion.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46(2), 143-156.
California Department of California. (n.d.). Reauthorization of the IDEA 2004. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov.
Campbell, & Fyfe, B. (1995, February). Reforming teacher education: The challenge of inclusive
education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Independent
Liberal Arts, Washington, DC.
Center Y. & Ward, J. (1987). Teachers’ attitudes towards the integration of disabled children into
regular schools. Exceptional Child, 34, 41-56.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clough, P. & Lindsay, G. (1991). Integration and the Support Service. Slough: NFER.
Cole, F. A., & Meyer, L. H. (1991). Social integration and severe disabilities: A longitudinal
analysis of child outcomes. Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 340-351.
Colling. K., Fishbaugh, M., & Hermanson, M. (2003). The montana training for inclusive
education (TIE) final evaluation. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED476201.pdf
Cook, B. (2001). A comparison of teachers’ attitudes toward their included students with mild
and severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 34(4), 203-213.
Cook, B., Semmel, M., & Gerber, M. (1999). Attitudes of principals and special education
teachers toward the inclusion of students with mild disabilities. Remedial and Special
Education. 20(4), 199-207.
Cooper, J., Kurtts, S., Baber, C., & Vallecorsa, A. (2008, Fall). A model for examining teacher
preparation curricula for inclusion. Teacher Education Quarterly.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 149

Coskun, Y.D., Tosun, U., & Macaroglu, E. (2009). Classroom teachers style of using and
development materials of inclusive education. Procedia Social and Behavior Science,
2758-2756.
Daane, Beirne-Smith, & Latham (2000). Administrators' and teachers' perceptions of the
collaborative efforts of inclusion in the elementary grades. Education, 121(2), 331- 338.
D’Alonzo, Giordano, G., & Vanteeuwen, D. (2010). Perceptions by teachers about the benefits
and liabilities of inclusion. Preventing School Failure Alternative Education for
Children and Youth, 42(1), 4-11.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational
Leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Dodge-Quick, G. (2011). Use of professional development to improve attitudes of general
educators towards inclusion. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.
(3440446).
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work best practices for
enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Edmunds, A. (1998). Classroom teachers are not prepared for the inclusive classroom.
Exceptional Education Canada, 8(2), 27-40.
Elliott, S. (2008). The effect of teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion on the practice and success
levels of children with and without disabilities in physical education. International
Journal of Special Education, 23(3), 48-55:
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 150

Epstein, A. (2007). The intentional teacher. Choosing the best strategies for young children’s
learning. Washington, D.C: NAEYC.
Erez, M. & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of the
individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 53(4), 583-598.
Evans, I. M., Salisbury, C .L., Palombaro, M. M., Berryman, J., & Hollowood, T. M. (1992).
Acceptance of elementary-aged children with severe disabilities in an inclusive school.
Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17, 205-212.
Familia-Garcia, M. (2001). Special and regular education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive
programs in an urban community school. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 461657)
Freytag, C. E. (2001, February). Teacher efficacy and inclusion: The impact of
preservice experiences on beliefs. Paper presented at the 24
th
Annual Meeting of the
Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C., (2010). Co-teaching: An
illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 9-27.
Giangreco, M. & Broer, S. (2005). Questionable utilization of paraprofessionals in inclusive
schools: Are we addressing symptoms or causes? Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 20(1), 10-26.
Guskey, T. (1994, April). Professional development in education: In search of the optimal mix.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Gut, .M., Oswald, K., & Leal, D.J. (2003). Building the foundations of inclusive education
through collaborative teacher preparation: A university-school partnership, College
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 151

Student Journal, 37(1).
Holmes, J. S. (1999, November). The least restrictive environment: Is inclusion best for all
special needs students? Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid-South Educational
Research Association, Point Clear, AL.
Horowitz, F. D., Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a
changing world. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Horne, P., & Timmons, V. (2009). Making it work: teachers’ perspectives on inclusion.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(3), 273-286.
Hwang, Y. & Evans, D. (2011). Attitudes towards inclusion: Gaps between belief and practice.
International Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 136-146.
Johnson, R. & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose
time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Kellems, R. & Morningstar, M. (2010). Tips for transition. Exceptional Children, 43(2), 60-68.
Kennedy, C.H., Shukla, S., & Fryxell, D. (1997). Comparing the effects of educational
placement on the social relationships of intermediate school students with severe
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 31-47.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/.
Kotter. J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212-218.
Kvale, Steinar. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing, Sage
Publications.
Lesar, S. and Others. (1996, April). Preparing elementary education teachers for inclusive
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 152

setting: A constructivist teacher education program. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Lipsky, D. K. & Gartner, A. (2008). Inclusion: A service not a place. Port Chester, NY: Dude
Publishing.
Luster, J.N., & Durrett, J. (2003, November). Does educational placement matter in the
performance of students with disabilities? Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid-
South Educational Research Association, Biloxi, MS.
Mastropieri, M. & Scruggs, T. (2004). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective
instruction. Columbus, OH: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McCray, E. & McHatton, P. (2011). “Less afraid to have them in my classroom: Understanding
pre-service general educators’ perceptions about inclusion. Teacher Education Quarterly,
Fall, 135-155.
McNamara, C. (1999). General guidelines for conducting interviews. Retrieved from
http://managementhelp.org/businessresearch/interviews.htm
Meador, D. (2016). How effective professional development improves teacher quality: What is
professional development? Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/professional-
development-improves-teacher-quality-3194385
Monsen, J., Ewing, D., & Kwoka, M. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, perceived
adequacy of support and classroom learning environment. Learning Environment
Research, 17, 113-126. doi: 10.1007/s10984-013-9144-8.
Morgan, D.L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. California: Sage Publications.
Nilholm, C. (2006). Special education, inclusion, and democracy. European Journal of Special
Needs Education, 21(4), 431-445.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 153

Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2005). Changing citizenship: Democracy and inclusion in education.
Maidenhead, England: Open University Press
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Peetsma, T., Vergeer, M., Karsten, S., & Roeleveld, J. (2001). Inclusion in education:
Comparing pupils’ development in special and regular education. Educational Review,
53(2), 125-135.
Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. (2007). What makes professional
development effective strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American
Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing.
Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219-225.
Robinson L., & Bully, M.R. (2007). Breaking the language barrier: Promoting collaboration
between general and special education educators. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(3).
Retrieved April 3, 2016, from Questia Database.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Salend, S. & Garrick Duhaney, L. (1999). The impact of inclusion of students with and without
disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20(2), 114-126.
Schein, E. H. (2004). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In E. H. Schein, (Ed.),
Organizational culture and leadership (3
rd
ed.). (pp. 3-24). San Francisco, CA: Joey
Bass.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 154

Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Schunk, D.H. (1995). Self-efficacy, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 7(2), 112-137.
Scruggs T. & Mastropieri, M. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-
1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59-74.
Scott, B. J., Vitale, M. R., & Masten, W. G. (1998). Implementing instructional adaptions for
students with disabilities n inclusive classrooms: A literature review. Remedial and
Special Education, 19(2), 106-119.
Semmel, M. I., Abernathy, T., Butera, G, & Lesar, S. (1991). Teacher perceptions of the regular
education initiative. Exceptional Children, 58, 9-25.
Shogren, K., Gross, J., Forber-Pratt, A., Francis, G., Satter, A., Blue-Banning, M., & Hill, C.
(2015). The perspectives of students with and without disabilities on inclusive schools.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 1-18. doi:
10.1177/1540796915583493.
Soto, G., Mullen, E., Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (2001). Critical issues in the inclusion of students
who use augmentative and alternative communication: An educational team perspective.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 17, 62-72.
Smith, M. (2000). Secondary teachers’ perceptions toward inclusion of students with severe
disabilities. National Association of Secondary School Principals. Retrieved
from bul.sagepub.com
Smith, M. & Smith, K. (2000). “I believe in inclusion, but…” Regular education early
childhood teachers’ perceptions of successful inclusion. Journal of Research in
Childhood Education, 142(2), 161-180.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 155

Stanovich, P. J. & Jordan, A. (2002). Preparing general educators to teach in inclusive
classrooms: Some food for though. Teacher Educator, 37(3), 173.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and
measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248. doi: 10.2307/1170754
Van Reusen, A. K., Shoho, A. R., & Barker, K. S. (2000). High school teacher attitudes toward
inclusion. The High School Journal, 84, 7-18.
Vaughn S. & Schumm, J. (1995). Responsible inclusion for students with learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(5), 264-270.
Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B., Boardman, A. (2001). The social functioning of students with learning
disabilities: Implications for inclusion. Exceptionality, 9(1 & 2), 47-65.
Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B. E., Schumm, J. S., & Hughes, M. T. (1998). Social outcomes for
students with and without learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 31(5), 428-436.
Waldron, N. L. & McLeskey, J. (1998). The effects of an inclusive school program on students
with mild to severe learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 395-405.
Ward, J., Center, Y., & Bohner, S. (2007). A question of attitudes: Integrating children with
disabilities into regular classrooms? British Journal of Special Education, 21(1), 34-39.
Weselby, C. (2014). What is differentialted instrucion? Examples of how to differentiate
instruction in the classroom. Retrieved from education.cu-portland.edu/blog/teaching-
strategies/examples-of-differentiated-instruction/
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 156

APPENDIX A
FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
1. How do you define Inclusion and how does the concept make you feel?
2. Is inclusion a desirable educational practice? Can you give me a specific rationale as to
why inclusion is a desirable educational practice? If not, why not?
3. Do you think that all students, regardless of the degree or type of disability should be
included into the general education setting? Can you give me a specific example of why
all students with disabilities should be included in the general education setting? If not,
why not?
4. Have you been provided with specialized training or professional development focused
on inclusion strategies within the classroom setting? If so, explain why or why not?
5. Are you confident with your ability to teach or support students with disabilities in the
general education classroom, If so, why or why not?
6. Have you received any support that is important for implementing inclusion practices into
your classroom effectively? If so, explain.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 157

APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS: GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHER
1. How long have you been teaching and how long have you taught in an inclusive setting?
2. Is inclusion an example of best practices? Can you give me a specific rationale as to why
inclusion is an example of best practices? If not, why not?
3. Do you think that all students, regardless of the degree or type of disability should be
included into the general education setting? Can you give me a specific example of why
all students with disabilities should be included in the general education setting? If not,
why not?
4. Do you think in relation to student educational outcomes (academic) that students with
mild disabilities (SLD, OHI, and SLI) are best served in an inclusive general education
setting? If so, why or why not?
5. Do you think in relation to student educational outcomes (social/behavioral) that students
with mild disabilities (SLD, OHI, and SLI) are best served in an inclusive general
education setting? If so, why or why not?
6. Do you think you have the support(s) needed to teach students with special needs in the
general education classroom setting? Can you give me a specific example of the types of
support(s) you have? If not, why not?
a. Can you give me a specific example of how support(s) assist you in the inclusion
process?
7. Do you think you have been provided with specialized training or professional
development in providing inclusive strategies? If so, explain why or why not?
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 158

8. Are you confident with your ability to teach students with disabilities in the general
education classroom, If so, why or why not?
9. Are you willing to teach students with specific learning disabilities (SLD), speech and
language impairment (SLI), and other health impairment (OHI)? Why or why not?
a. Provide a specific example as to why you would be willing to teach students with
specific learning disabilities (SLD), speech and language impairment (SLI), and
other health impairment (OHI)? If not, Why not?
10. Do you modify/adapt your students’ educational curriculum in order to meet the
individualized academic need(s) of students who participate in the inclusive setting? Can
you provide an example as to how the educational curriculum is modified / adapted?
11. What type of professional development or training did you receive prior to being in an
inclusive classroom? Can you provide a specific example of each professional
development/training?
12. Have you received any supports that are important for implementing the inclusion
practice in order for inclusion to be successful? If so, explain.
13. Does the student’s academic progress and likelihood for success in an inclusion program
influence placement in an inclusion program? If so, explain why or why not?
14. Does the student’s social progress and likelihood for success in an inclusion program
influence placement in an inclusion program? If so, explain why or why not?
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 159

15. What knowledge and skills do you feel you need to be more effective in inclusive
teaching or work with special needs students? Can you provide an example of the
knowledge or skills needed?
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 160

APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS: SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER
1. How long have you been teaching and how long have you taught in an inclusive setting?
2. Is inclusion an example of best practices? Can you give me a specific rationale as to why
inclusion is an example of best practices? If not, why not?
3. Do you think that all students, regardless of the degree or type of disability should be
included into the general education setting? Can you give me a specific example of why
all students with disabilities should be included in the general education setting? If not,
why not?
4. Do you think in relation to student educational outcomes (academic) that students with
mild disabilities (SLD, OHI, and SLI) are best served in an inclusive general education
setting? If so, why or why not?
5. Do you think in relation to student educational outcomes (social/behavioral) that students
with mild disabilities (SLD, OHI, and SLI) are best served in an inclusive general
education setting? If so, why or why not?
6. Do you think you have the support(s) needed to teach students with special needs in the
general education classroom setting? Can you give me a specific example of the types of
support(s) you have? If not, why not?
a. Can you give me a specific example of how support(s) assist you in the inclusion
process?
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 161

7. Do you think you have been provided with specialized training or professional
development in providing inclusive strategies? If so, explain why or why not?
8. Are you confident with your ability to teach students with disabilities in the general
education classroom, If so, why or why not?
9. What type of professional development or training did you receive prior to being in an
inclusive classroom? Can you provide a specific example of each professional
development/training?
10. Do you modify/adapt your students’ educational curriculum in order to meet the
individualized academic need(s) of students who participate in the inclusive setting? Can
you provide an example as to how the educational curriculum is modified / adapted?
11. Have you received any supports that are important for implementing the inclusion
practice in order for inclusion to be successful? If so, explain.
12. Does the student’s academic progress and likelihood for success in an inclusion program
influence placement in an inclusion program? If so, explain why or why not?
13. Does the student’s social progress and likelihood for success in an inclusion program
influence placement in an inclusion program? If so, explain why or why not?
14. What knowledge and skills do you feel you need to be more effective in inclusive
teaching or work with special needs students? Can you provide an example of the
knowledge or skills needed?
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 162

APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS: SUPPORT PERSONNEL
1. How long worked as a teacher’s assistant or special education assistant and how long
have you worked in an inclusive setting?
2. Is inclusion an example of best practices? Can you give me a specific rationale as to why
inclusion is an example of best practices? If not, why not?
3. Do you think that all students, regardless of the degree or type of disability should be
included into the general education setting? Can you give me a specific example of why
all students with disabilities should be included in the general education setting? If not,
why not?
4. Do you think in relation to student educational outcomes (academic) that students with
mild disabilities (SLD, OHI, and SLI) are best served in an inclusive general education
setting? If so, why or why not?
5. Do you think in relation to student educational outcomes (social/behavioral) that students
with mild disabilities (SLD, OHI, and SLI) are best served in an inclusive general
education setting? If so, why or why not?
6. Do you think you have the support(s) needed to teach students with special needs in the
general education classroom setting? Can you give me a specific example of the types of
support(s) you have? If not, why not?
a. Can you give me a specific example of how support(s) assist you in the inclusion
process?
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 163

7. Do you think you have been provided with specialized training or professional
development in providing inclusive strategies? If so, explain why or why not?
8. Are you confident with your ability to teach students with disabilities in the general
education classroom, If so, why or why not?
9. Are you willing to support students with special needs in an inclusive classroom setting?
Why or why not?
a. Provide a specific example as to why you would be willing to support students
with special needs in an inclusive classroom setting? If not, Why not?
10. Do you modify/adapt your students’ educational curriculum in order to meet the
individualized academic need(s) of students who participate in the inclusive setting? Can
you provide an example as to how the educational curriculum is modified / adapted?
11. What type of professional development or training did you receive prior to being in an
inclusive classroom? Can you provide a specific example of each professional
development/training?
12. Have you received any supports that are important for implementing the inclusion
practice in order for inclusion to be successful? If so, explain.
13. Do you think the student’s academic progress and likelihood for success in an inclusion
program influence placement in an inclusion program? If so, explain why or why not?
14. Do you think the student’s social progress and likelihood for success in an inclusion
program influence placement in an inclusion program? If so, explain why or why not?
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 164

15. What knowledge and skills do you feel you need to be more effective in inclusive
teaching or work with special needs students? Can you provide an example of the
knowledge or skills needed?
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 165

APPENDIX E
RECRUITMENT LETTER
Hello,
As a Doctor of Education in Organizational Change and Leadership candidate, I invite you of
take part in a research study involving the attitudes of general education teachers, special
education teachers, and support personnel towards including students with special needs and the
factors that may influence their attitudes. You were chosen for the study because you are a
teacher or support personnel. Your participation consists of attending a focus group and
participating in a one-on-one interview. Your experience and input will benefit the likelihood of
teacher improvement in implementing the inclusion practice, increasing teacher self-efficacy
during inclusion when working with students with special needs, and improving special
education students’ educational opportunities.
Your participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision not to participate in this study will
be respected. If you choose to participate in this study, you will be provided an information
sheet describing the study, and participate in a focus group and an interview. The focus groups
and interviews will take place on different days. The entire process should take no longer than 2
hours and 30 minutes for data gathering.
Thank you.
Crystal A. Campbell-Shirley
Organizational Change & Leadership Ed.D Candidate
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 166

APPENDIX F
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Happ, 3470
Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, California 90089

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

The Examination of the Perceptions of General Education Teachers’, Special Education
Teachers', and Support Personnel on the Inclusion of Students with Special Needs

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Crystal A. Campbell-Shirley at
the University of Southern California, because you are a teacher or support personnel who works
within the Sun Valley Unified School District. Your participation is voluntary. You should read
the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding
whether to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You may
also decide to discuss participation with your family or friends. If you decide to participate, you
will be asked to sign this form. You will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to examine the factors that may impact teachers’ and support
personnel’s perceptions towards the inclusion of students with special needs

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be provided with a written overview of the
study and a consent form indicating your willingness to participate. You will participate in a
focus group lasting approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes. The focus group will be audio
recorded. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to; if you do not want to be
taped, you may complete and submit handwritten notes during the focus group. You will also
participate in an interview lasting approximately 1 hour. The interview will also be audio
recorded. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to; if you do not want to be
taped, you may complete and submit handwritten notes during the interview.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks in participating in this study.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The expected benefits associated with your participation in this study are the information
received about the experiences in learning what factors that are needed in order to make the
inclusion practice successful.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive monetary compensation for your time. A monetary gift card will be given to
you once you complete the focus group. You do not have to answer all of the questions in order
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 167

to receive a monetary gift card. Upon completion of the study, which includes your participation
in the focus group and interview, you will be entered into a drawing for an electronic tablet.
Winner of the drawing will be notified via email. You will not have to answer all of the
questions in the focus group or interview in order to be entered into a drawing for an electronic
tablet.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPANTS
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your employer will not be affected
whether you participate or not in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
You will not be asked to identify yourself in the survey or the focus group. Also, I will not
include your name or anything else that could identify you in any reports of the study. Any
information you provide will be kept confidential. The researcher will not use your information
for any purposes outside of this research project. The focus group will be facilitated by myself.
Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The
audio tapes will be destroyed once they have been transcribed.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact the
following individuals:

Principal Investigator
Crystal A. Campbell-Shirley
P.O.Box 5182
Gardena, CA 90249
Email: crystaac@usc.edu

Co-Investigator
Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores
Rossier School of Education
1150 S. Olive Street, Suite 2100-2113
Tel: 213-821-2727
Email: moraflor@rossier.usc.edu

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 168

independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

AUDIO/VIDEO/PHOTOGRAPHS
You will not be asked to identify yourself in the focus group or the interview. Also, I will not
include your name or anything else that could identify you in any reports of the study. Any
information you provide will be kept confidential. The researcher will not use your information
for any purposes outside of this research project. The focus group will be facilitated by myself.
Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The
audio tapes will be destroyed once they have been transcribed.
Please indicate whether or not you wish to be audio recorded during his study.

□ I agree to be audio recorded

□ I do not want to be audio recorded

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 169

APPENDIX G
CODING AND THEMES
Professional Development and Training: The ongoing training that one receives in order to
gain new knowledge and insight in a specific topic, to enhance their knowledge and/or skills in a
particular topic, or to be refreshed in a specific area as needed (Meador, 2016).
Knowledge and Skills: The four different types of knowledge, factual, conceptual, procedural
and metacognitive assist in helping to understand and build the necessary skills to become
proficient in articulating and clarifying learning objectives.
Intentional Teaching: Teachers’ attitudes as to whether inclusion is an example of best
practices and their ability to design a rigorous, purposeful and organized lesson plan that imbeds
scaffolds and inclusive strategies to meet the diverse needs of students, particularly those with
special needs and teacher engagement in reflection practices regarding their teaching practices
(Epstein , 2007).
Motivation: What gets individuals moving towards the completion of a task(s) and gives
purpose and direction for accomplishing a particular task (Pintrich, 2003).
Utility Value: Stakeholders must see that there is an importance of working towards a particular
task or performance goal (Eccles, 2006).
Self-Efficacy: One’s belief or capability about organizing and accomplishing a desired task(s)
(Schunk, 1995).
Organizational Culture: Employer-to-employee relationships, values and norms within an
organization (Schein, 2004; Erez & Gati, 2004).
Peer Support: Collaboration between the general education teacher, special education teacher,
and support personnel assisting each other by providing knowledge, experience, and emotional,
social or practical help to each other in implementing the inclusion practice.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 170

Administrative Support: Assistance from the school principal, assistant principal, or
administrators within the district for the teachers and support personnel providing them with
knowledge, experience or practical support in implementing the inclusion practice.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 171

APPENDIX H
LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 EVALUATION

Employee Information
Name Employee ID
Job Title Date

Ratings

1 = Strongly
Disagree
2 3 4
5 = Strongly
Agree
The technology was easy to navigate

The instructor held my attention.

The information in today’s session is
applicable to my work.

I have the knowledge and skills
necessary to work in an inclusive setting.

I believe that it will be worthwhile for
me to apply what I learned.

I feel confident about applying what I
learned back on the job.

Comments

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 172

APPENDIX I

BLENDED EVALUATION

Employee Information
Name Employee ID
Job Title Date

Ratings

1 = Strongly
Disagree
2 3 4
5 = Strongly
Agree
The information provided in this course
is applicable to my job

course

I am using the knowledge and skills
learned during this training

I have successfully applied what I learned
in this training on the job

I am already seeing positive results from
implementing inclusion strategies and in
using the collaboration models of
learning

I believe that it will be worthwhile for
me to apply what I learned.

I feel confident about applying what I
learned back on the job.

What information from this training has been the MOST RELEVANT to your job? What is
NOT RELEVANT to your job?

How are you currently using what you learned during the collaborative models for learning
professional development and trainings?

THE EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION 173

Describe any challenges you are experiencing in applying what you learned to our work, and
possible solutions to overcome them?

What else do need to successfully perform the skills you learned in this training while on the
job?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The Standards-Based Education Reform (SBE) in the United States and the Common Core Curriculum has increased the importance of providing every student with a high-quality and challenging curriculum. New accountability systems focus on program improvement and student performance for all student populations, including students with special needs. Students with disabilities must also have meaningful access to educational activities and be provided with a quality instructional program because every child deserves an equal opportunity to engage and learn in an environment alongside their non-disabled peers. For inclusion to be successful teachers must be prepared for the challenges that the inclusive practice may present and teacher perception of the inclusion process is imperative in order for inclusion to be successful and effective. The educational program addressed in this study are the factors that impact the general education teachers’, special education teachers’, and support personnel’s perceptions towards the inclusion of students with special needs. This project used the Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis method to assist in clarifying Sun Valley Unified School District’s goal regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities. This analysis focused on the causes for this problem due to gaps in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational issues. Findings within this study suggests that teacher and support personnel’s perception towards the inclusion of students with special needs are a result of a number of complex variables, for example lack of professional development and training on inclusive education and the lack of administrative support which led to low teacher self-efficacy, and opportunities for collaboration between general education, special education teachers, and support personnel, as well as the academic and social impact for students with disabilities included into the general education setting.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teachers' perspectives on the inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorders in the general education classroom: a gap analysis

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

Investigating how general education middle school teachers support the social inclusion of students with special needs

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

Factors that promote or inhibit a teacher’s ability to identify and refer students with anxiety or depression for evaluation

PDF

Evaluating the implementation of 21st century skills and learning

PDF

Social emotional learning curriculum implementation: an evaluation study of fidelity

PDF

Practices supporting newcomer students

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

The knowledge, skills, motivation and organizational factors that teachers need to support African American boys in public preschool: an evaluation study

PDF

A social skills curriculum intended to increase the employment success of secondary transition aged students with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities

PDF

School connectedness and teacher reflective practices

PDF

Strategies to create a culture of inclusion for students with special needs

PDF

Creating conditions for Teacher Flow: supporting student-centered learning through design of optimal P-12 professional development

PDF

Veteran student success

PDF

Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction

PDF

Key leverage points for improving educational outcomes of black male students: Response to intervention as an effective strategy to support students in general education: An evaluation study

PDF

Fulfilling the promise to the silent majority: internal systems of accountability and effective site-level evaluations of Latino persistently emergent bilingual learners for reclassification as f...

PDF

An analysis of reflective practices utilized to support the inclusion of K-5 students with disabilities

PDF

Developing a student athlete mentoring program to improve college readiness at a rural Hawaii public high school

Asset Metadata

Creator Campbell-Shirley, Crystal Ann (author)

Core Title The examination of the perceptions of general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel on the inclusion of students with special needs

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 07/18/2017

Defense Date 06/22/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,special education inclusion

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee chair), Gallagher, Raymond (committee member), Pensavalle, Margo (committee member)

Creator Email ccampb3@gmail.com,crystaac@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-402223

Unique identifier UC11264105

Identifier etd-CampbellSh-5531.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-402223 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CampbellSh-5531.pdf

Dmrecord 402223

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Campbell-Shirley, Crystal Ann

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA