Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
An analysis of reflective practices utilized to support the inclusion of K-5 students with disabilities
(USC Thesis Other)
An analysis of reflective practices utilized to support the inclusion of K-5 students with disabilities
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running Head: AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 1
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES UTILIZED TO SUPPORT THE INCLUSION
OF K-5 STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
by
Amy Michele Hodge
______________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2017
Copyright 2017 Amy Michele Hodge
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 2
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my best friend and husband, Brad, who encouraged me to
pursue and accomplish this dream of completing a doctorate degree. His unending support saw
me through hours of reading, researching, and writing, and stretching my brain over the last three
years, all the while working and raising our family.
I also would like to dedicate this dissertation to my three wonderful boys, Nicholas,
Jeremy, and Jackson, who watched me spend hour after hour working towards this challenging
but rewarding end goal. May it inspire them to know that anything is possible with hard work,
and to follow their dreams and aspirations, despite that challenges that may come along the way.
Lastly, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my wonderful parents, who aside from
being examples of goodness and generosity, have always believed in me and taught me that hard
work and dedication pays off. The life lessons they have taught myself and my brother, along
with their continued support, have made it possible for me to be here today. For that, I am
eternally grateful.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 3
Acknowledgements
This dissertation is the result of the collaborative work of many people. First and
foremost, I am so very grateful that on the first night of class in the Educational Leadership
Program, I sat next to Tsuilei and Michelle. We formed an immediate bond that sustained us
throughout the three years. Consistently, they have been a constant source of support, guidance,
and accountability. We spent so many hours working together and alongside each other, and I
can’t imagine how I would have completed this dissertation without them.
I am also especially grateful for my committee chair, Dr. Paula Carbone, for her
guidance, feedback, and support. Additionally, I would like to thank my other committee
members, Dr. Jenifer Crawford and Dr. Raymond Gallagher, for their expertise and support
throughout this process.
Lastly, I would like to acknowledge my friends and family for their patience and
understanding over the last three years. Although I missed out on many special occasions,
celebrations, and races, the encouragement and understanding I felt propelled me to persevere
and finish this dissertation.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: An Analysis of Reflective Practices Utilized to Support the Inclusion of K-5
Students with Disabilities 8
Background of the Problem 11
History of Special Education 11
Statement of the Problem 14
Purpose of the Study 16
Limitations and Delimitations 17
Definitions of Terms 18
Organization of the Study 21
Chapter Two: Literature Review 22
History of Reflection in United States Public Schools 24
Current State Of Reflection in Teacher Education 31
Current State of Reflection in Special Education 35
Current State of Reflection towards Equity and Access in Special Education 39
Reflective Practice Framework 43
Summary 46
Chapter Three: Methodology 48
Methods 49
Sample and Site Selection 50
Data Collection 53
Data Analysis 57
Researcher Biases/Positionality 59
Chapter Four: Findings 61
Site and Participants 64
HOPE Charter School 64
Interview Participants 66
Observation Participants 68
Results for Research Question One 71
Reflective Terminology 72
Independent Reflective Practices 75
Collaborative Reflective Practices 79
Summary for Research Question One 90
Results for Research Question Two 90
Perceived Impact of Reflection 91
Systematic Approach to Collaboration 95
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 5
Summary Research Question Two 101
Chapter Five: Discussion 102
Overview of Current Study 103
Discussion of Findings 104
Implications for Practice 110
Recommendations for Future Research 112
Conclusion 113
References 115
Appendix A: Participant Handout 125
Appendix B: Consent Document 126
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 128
Appendix D: Teacher and Faculty Survey 131
Appendix E: Interview Participant Information Form 132
Appendix F: Observation Protocol 133
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Significant Events and Policies in Special Education 13
Table 2.1: Teacher Collaboration Framework 46
Table 3.1: Participant Information Table 56
Table 4.1: Model for Qualitative Data Analysis 58
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 7
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to obtain more information regarding the reflective practices K-5
general and special education teachers utilized to support students with disabilities in an
inclusive setting. Since the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESSA) was signed into effect in
2015, there has been an increase in classroom-specific and school wide reforms, including
different models of inclusion (United States Department of Education, 2015). Co-teaching is an
inclusive approach to special education service delivery that involves two teachers who are
responsible for planning, instructing, and reflecting on the learning of a shared group of students
(Sailor, 2014). Reflective practices have been found to be useful in supporting the diverse needs
of students with disabilities. This qualitative study included data sources from semi-structured
interviews, classroom observations, and planning and reflection documents of general and
special education teachers. Participants of this study included three general education and one
special education teacher in a public K-5 inclusive elementary school. Interview protocols were
guided by a conceptual framework consisting of four steps of reflection; presence of experience,
description of experience, analysis of experience and experimentation (Rodgers, 2002; Schön,
1992; Farrell, 2012). Five overall themes emerged from the data: how teachers use reflective
terminology and described components of reflection, how teachers engaged in independent
reflective practices, how teachers engaged in structured and unstructured collaborative reflection,
how teachers perceived the impact of reflective practices to support students with disabilities,
and the role of collaboration.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 8
Chapter One: An Analysis of Reflective Practices Utilized to Support the Inclusion of K-5
Students with Disabilities
This study addressed the problem of a lack of consistency in how students with
disabilities are supported in inclusive educational settings. The evidence highlighted that
participation in the general education setting maximizes the social and academic potential of
students in elementary school. The purpose of education is to ensure that every student gains
access to knowledge, skills, and information that will prepare them for America’s communities
and workplace. Public schools are required to provide access to the general education
curriculum by providing students with disabilities the opportunity to achieve the same standards
as all other students (Sharpe & Hawes, 2003).
There is an overall increase of students with disabilities in general education classrooms
in public schools within the United States. Special education continues to seek progress toward
increasing access to the general education curriculum and environment for all students with
disabilities (Artiles & Kozelski, 2007). Inclusive schooling practices embrace the notion that
schools, teaching, and learning should be organized in a way that supports the individual learning
needs of students with disabilities (National Institute for Urban School Improvement, 2000).
The current discussion regarding inclusive education is access to general education programs.
The basic premise of inclusive schools is a focus on belonging, nurturing, and educating all
students, regardless of their difference in ability (Artiles & Kozelski, 2007). Inclusive settings
also seek to support equity among all students, including students for whom classic instruction is
not effective (Sailor, 2014).
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 9
Students with disabilities must first be regarded as general education students. Parents of
students with disabilities want the same access to educational opportunities as parents of students
without disabilities (Artiles & Kozelski, 2007). The intent of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 is:
To ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a free and appropriate
public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet
their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent
living. (Part 300.1)
The IDEA (1997, 2004) encourages general and special education teachers to work
together to benefit each and every student. In the 2009-2010 academic year, the national average
of students with disabilities was 12.5%. California found that 10.5% of students nationwide
received special education services (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2015). Although
students with high incidence disabilities (i.e. learning disabilities, autism, mild developmental
delays, speech/language disorders, emotional/behavioral disorders) were more likely to be served
in general education setting, half of these students continue to be educated in specialized setting
for the majority of the school day (Artiles & Kozelski, 2007).
The evidence highlights that reflective practices have been recommended and utilized in
education to change the approach by which educators develop professional skills. Reflective
practice allows teachers to recognize a problem, reframe it using content specific knowledge and
design a plan for solving the problem (Schön, 1992). Teachers who reflect on their practice are
more likely to change their practice to better meet the needs of their students.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 10
This problem is important to address because approximately 10% of students in public
elementary schools receive special education services. However, there is a lack of consistency in
how students with disabilities are educated across the United States. One of the major trends in
educating students with disabilities is inclusion. The inclusion of special education students
allows for opportunities to develop academically and socially with typical peers in the least
restrictive environment (LRE). The least restrictive environment (LRE) means that a student
with a disability should have the opportunity to be educated with typically developing peers to
the greatest extent possible (IDEA, 2015). Inclusive education occurs when the general
education and special education teachers work together to meet the needs of students with
disabilities.
Inclusive schooling practices embrace the idea that everyone has individual needs and use
different approaches and strategies that are based on student’s learning abilities, needs, purposes
and preferences (niusi.org, 2010). There is not one clear definition of inclusion; rather inclusion
is an educational approach and philosophy that provides all students with greater opportunities
for academic and social achievement. Inclusion is ensuring that all students feel welcomed and
valued, and attending to their unique needs and learning styles (Sharpe & Hawes, 2003).
T eachers in inclusive settings are constantly changing instruction due to the need to modify
teaching techniques for students with disabilities.
Reflective practices have been recommended and utilized in education to change the
approach by which educators develop professional skill and support students with disabilities in
the general education classrooms (Lotter, Singer & Goodley, 2009). This study investigated how
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 11
elementary general and special education teachers used reflective practices to support their
teaching practices in inclusive settings.
Background of the Problem
History of Special Education
In 1970, one in five students enrolled in public schools within the United States were
identified with disabilities, and many states had laws excluding certain students from their
schools (United States Department of Education [USDOE], 2010). In the last 30 years, the
number of students served by federally supported special education programs increased by 5%
(NCES, 2015). For students with disabilities, there continues to be a dividing line between
special and general education students.
Several laws have contributed to increased access for students with disabilities in public
schools. Public Law 94-142 was passed in 1975 and guaranteed a free and appropriate public
education (FAPE) to each child with a disability. This law had a dramatic and positive impact on
children with disabilities across the nation, as programs were developed in public schools to
support the diverse needs of students. In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was
enacted and required schools to provide equal educational opportunities for children with
disabilities. Finally, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was enacted in 1997
and later amended in 2004. IDEA purports that students with disabilities are to be involved in
general education curricula, assessment practices, and classrooms.
In 2002, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was signed into law by congress as an
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 12
update to the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965. For students with disabilities, there was a
significant impact. The legislation evaluated student success through test scores and required all
students to be fully proficient by the 2013-2014 academic year (National Council on Disability
[NCD], 2008). Furthermore, special education students were required to participate in state
testing based on their grade level. Prior to NCLB, the IEP team determined a student’s eligibility
to participate in an alternative grade level assessment in lieu of state testing.
NCLB was built on four principles for education reform: accountability for results, doing
what works based on scientific research, expanding dividing options, and expanding local control
and flexibility (USDOE, 2015). Additionally, one of the goals of NCLB was to move the
majority of students with special needs out of segregated classrooms. Highly qualified teachers
would be able to utilize appropriate strategies, accommodations, and teaching styles to match the
unique learning styles of students with special needs. Unfortunately, one of the challenges of
NCLB was the lack of capacity to meet instructional and assessment demands placed on schools.
The prescriptive requirements of NCLB became increasingly unworkable for schools and
educators. In 2007, NLCB was scheduled for revision, and the Obama administration began the
process of re-writing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in 2010 (USDOE,
2016). In 2015, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was signed into effect. ESSA focused on
fully preparing all students for success in college and careers, whereas NCLB proposed a
one-size-fits-all accountability system for all students. Furthermore, ESSA proposed to uphold
critical protections for disadvantaged and high-need students (USDOE, 2016).
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 13
Table 1. Significant Events & Policies in Special Education
YEAR EVENT OUTCOME
1975 Public Law 94-142- Education for All Handicapped
Children Act
Free and Appropriate Public Education
1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Required schools to provide equal
educational opportunities
1997 Individuals with Disabilities Act Students with disabilities required to be
involved in general education
2002 No Child Left Behind Act Students with disabilities required to
participate in standardized testing
2015 Every Student Succeeds Act More control for state and local districts
In the past, students who were identified as having a moderate to severe disability were
typically placed in a more restrictive classroom to address their academic, social, and/or
emotional needs. Students placed in a more restrictive environment were less likely to obtain
access to grade level curriculum, which inevitably created an achievement gap (Skiba,
Poloni-Staudinger, Gallini, Simmons, & Feggins-Azziz, 2006). Conversely, students with
disabilities who were taught in a general education classroom were more likely to develop
improvements in social interactions, self-confidence, and language development (Skiba et al.,
2006).
It is the legal obligation of public schools to provide access to a free and appropriate
public education (FAPE) that promotes student achievement (IDEA, 2004). Access to the
general education curriculum is defined in multiple dimensions for students with disabilities,
includes exposure to content standards that are confirmed through evidence of student learning
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 14
(Etscheidt, 2012). At a fundamental level, inclusion is about equity. The meaning of equity is
addressing the unique needs of all students. In the past, schools could conceal accurate
achievement results by excluding students with special needs. However, exclusion of
achievement results is not permitted under NCLB. The progress of all students should be
measured to ensure academic accountability for all students (USDOE, 2015).
Special education assists in the identification students with unique needs, as well as the
design of instruction and the implementation of interventions to meet the needs of individual
students. Special education teachers also seek to understand their students’ emotional reactions
to their instruction in an effort to adjust task demands, which could reduce frustration and
therefore increase achievement (Trzcinka & Grskovic, 2011). Reflective practices play an
important role in the enhancement of teacher skills and knowledge. Therefore, fostering the
characteristics of highly effective teachers. Teachers who engage in reflection are more likely to
change their practice to meet the diverse needs of students with disabilities (Osipova et al.,
2011). Reflective teachers are more effective at recognizing problems in their practice, which
empowers them to reframe the problems in order to seek solutions (Larrivee, 2000).
Statement of the Problem
Under IDEA (1997, 2004) students with disabilities have a right to a free and appropriate
public education. Unfortunately, students with disabilities have continued to face barriers in
accessing high-quality inclusive education. Inclusive education should focus on access,
participation, and outcomes for students with disabilities (Sailor, 2015). Students who qualify
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 15
for special education are typically placed in a more restrictive classroom to address their
academic, social, and/or emotional needs. With that, they are less likely to obtain access to the
grade level curriculum, which inevitably creates an achievement gap. Students with disabilities
need opportunities to develop positive social-emotional skills in order to acquire and use
knowledge and skills to be fully integrated into and successful in school and life (Henninger &
Gupta, 2014).
This problem was important to address because the inclusion of special education
students allows opportunities for them to develop academically and socially with typical peers in
the least restrictive environment. Special education and general education teachers nationwide
have identified a need to develop new skills and strategies appropriate educate diverse learners
(Sharpe & Hawes, 2003). Special education teachers are constantly changing instruction because
of the need to modify teaching techniques for students with disabilities. When teachers make
pedagogical decisions about instructional methods, the following are also taken into
consideration: student attributes, lesson content, and student goals (Osipova et al., 2011).
Reflective practices play an important role in fostering the development of effective
teachers. Additionally, reflection aides in the enhancement of special educators’ skills
and knowledge. Reflective practice includes to the on-the-spot decision-making that allows
teachers to integrate professional experience with theory and research to formulate solutions to
problem situations (Schön, 1992).
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 16
Purpose of the Study
Positive outcomes have been shown for students with disabilities when they are included
in the general education classroom setting. The goal of this study was to identify the reflective
practices that both general and special education teachers utilize in a public school setting to gain
insight into how reflective practices support instruction. Schön’s (1992) theory of reflective
practice provided a framework to identify the reflective practices of teachers to support inclusion
of students with disabilities.
A qualitative inquiry approach was employed for this study. Methods included
observations, record reviews, and interviews of general and special education teachers from an
all-inclusive elementary school in Southern California. Currently, there is an inconsistency in
the implementation of inclusive practices. For the purpose of this study, the site was selected
due to a school-wide inclusive setting, in which all students with disabilities were educated
alongside general education students. Data included transcriptions from the interviews, field
notes from the observations, reflective memos, and collection of artifacts. The data collection
process was conducted to better understand the intended knowledge and utilization of reflective
practices amongst general and special education teachers. Interviews also provided in-depth
personal insight to reflective practices. The participants were observed during their collaboration
time in order to examine the potential use and implementation of reflective strategies, and how
they were received, practiced, and/or processed. These methods provided detailed information
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 17
necessary to understand the nature of knowledge of reflective practices amongst teachers and
support providers. This study sought to answer the following research questions:
1. How do K-5 general and special education teachers describe how they engage in
independent and collaborative reflective practice, if at all?
2. How do K-5 general and special education teachers perceive the impact of the reflective
practice when supporting students with disabilities?
Limitations and Delimitations
There were several limitations that affected the results of this study. Purposeful sampling
was used in selecting an elementary school that provided an inclusive setting. Also, convenience
sampling was selected based on availability of participants, time, and location (Merriam, 2009).
All of the participants were fully credentialed general and special education teachers at a public
elementary school in Southern California. Within this setting, all of general education teachers
had college coursework on developing and inclusive setting for students with disabilities.
Furthermore, there was a limitation in the years of teaching experience amongst the participants
depending on the diversity within the school.
Credibility and trustworthiness were important factors in conducting accurate data
analysis. Triangulation was one strategy used to ensure credibility. Using triangulation to
increase credibility involved using different research methods to compare findings with one
another (Merriam, 2009). Another strategy was member checking. To reduce misinterpretations
and ensure validity the data analysis and interpretations were affirmed by the participants
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 18
(Merriam, 2009). Within member checking, the truthfulness of participants was monitored to
ensure accurate and truthful responses (Merriam, 2009). Additionally, researcher position was
examined to engage the researcher in critical self-reflection with regards to the assumptions,
worldview, biases, theoretical orientation, and relationship to the study, which may have
influenced the results (Merriam, 2009). Furthermore, rich data was collected to contextualize the
study so that readers would be provided with a comprehensive understanding of the research
context (Merriam, 2009).
The delimitations of the study were in the areas of population, setting, methodology and
instrumentation. Due to a small number of potential participants in the study, the population
involved in this study focused on teachers who engaged in reflective practices. Additionally, due
to time constraints, the population of this study was limited geographically to a public
elementary school in the Los Angeles area in Southern California. The methodology and
instrumentation provided an in-depth understanding of the participant’s perception of reflective
practices, to observe their ability to engage in reflection, and to afford insight into the built-in
components of reflective practice in their collaboration to support students with disabilities.
Definitions of Terms
There are several terms that are fundamental to the research of this study. For the
purpose of this study, the terms are defined as:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) - A law passed in 1990 that prohibits discrimination
and ensures equal opportunity for persons with disabilities. It requires schools to provide equal
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 19
educational opportunities for children with disabilities (ADA, 2015).
Co-teaching- Co-teaching occurs when the general and special education teach together with a
joint delivery of instruction and a shared responsibility of planning, instruction and evaluation
(Friend et al., 2010).
Collaboration- Teachers engaging in a shared purpose, responsibility and expertise as members
work and learn together (USDOE, 2010)
Constructivism- An approach to learning by which the learner builds on prior knowledge and
personal interpretation of an experience (Kumari, 2014).
Inclusion - when students with disabilities receive their entire academic curriculum in the general
education setting (Idol, 2006).
Individual Education Plan (IEP) - A written statement for each child with a disability that is
developed, reviewed, and revised in a meeting. It includes goals and objectives, services (IDEA,
2015)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) - Outlines the rights and regulations for
students with disabilities in the United States who require special education services in the least
restrictive environment (IDEA, 2015)
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) - To the maximum extent appropriate, children with
disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are
educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other
removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when
the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 20
use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily (IDEA, 2015)
Paraprofessional- An employee of a Licensed Education Agency (LEA) who is generally
responsible for the specialized support of students with disabilities in a general education
classroom (IDEA, 2015).
Special Education - Specially designed instruction, to meet the unique needs of a child with a
disability (IDEA, 2015)
Specially Designed Education - Ways that special education professionals adapt the content,
methodology (approaches to teaching certain grade level content), or the delivery of instruction
to address the unique needs that result from the child’s disability. (Idol, 2006 )
Reflective Practice - The decision-making theory that defines a set of steps professionals might
use to resolve unique or complex problems as they arise ( Schön , 1992).
Related Services – A means transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other
supportive services as are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special
education, and includes speech-language pathology and audiology services, interpreting services,
psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic
recreation, early identification and assessment of disabilities in children, counseling services,
including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and mobility services, and medical services for
diagnostic or evaluation purposes. Related services also include school health services and
school nurse services, social work services in schools, and parent counseling and training.
(IDEA, 2015)
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 21
Organization of the Study
This study examined the use of reflective practices by teacher to support the inclusion of
students with special needs. Chapter One provided an introduction to the study, explained the
purpose, and detailed the significance. Chapter Two presented a literature review of reflective
practices in special education. Chapter Three provided the research methodology, including the
research design, population and sampling procedures, and the instruments used in the study.
Chapter Four presented the findings of the research, highlighting the emerging themes and
connects it to the research. Chapter Five presented the conclusion of the study, the implications
for practice in the educational field, and the recommendations for future studies.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 22
Chapter Two: Literature Review
The purpose of special education is to provide instruction and interventions to meet the
individual needs of students with disabilities. In 2004, the Individuals with Disabilities Act
(IDEA) invested in a research to practice model that helped support improvements in special and
general education, as well as add a continuum of services within general education (IDEA,
2015). This led to an overall increase in the participation of students with disabilities in general
education classrooms, or inclusive classrooms. Inclusive classrooms provide opportunities to
engage children with disabilities, in addition to participating in activities to elicit and challenge
academic performance (Henninger & Gupta, 2014).
Nevertheless, there continues to be a lack of consistency in the support students with
disabilities receive in inclusive settings. Special education practices vary dramatically from
district to district and state to state. Classroom-specific and school-wide reforms include
different models of inclusion, such as collaborative teaching (co-teaching). Co-teaching occurs
when a special education teacher and general education teacher work together to support students
with disabilities in the general education setting (Sailor, 2014).
This chapter presents an overview of the history of reflective practices in education and a
review of literature that will focus on the use of reflective practices in special education and
inclusive settings. Reflection is a tool that is useful in supporting teacher efficacy (Chalikandy,
2014; Hoffman- Kipp, Artiles, & Torres, 2003; York-Barr & Sommers, 2005). The challenges
involved in teaching students with disabilities require teachers to be thoughtful about their role in
helping students succeed academically and socially. In a well-designed inclusive classroom,
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 23
teachers are collaborative, reflective and engage in on the spot decision making. Reflective
practice is a decision-making theory that defines a set of steps professionals might use to resolve
unique or complex problems as they arise ( Schön , 1992). Reflective practices are an essential
part of identifying changes that can be made to improve student outcomes.
The goal of this study was to analyze how teachers engage in reflective practices to
support students in the inclusive setting. For this study, reflective practice was defined as a
process of reflecting in the midst of action and analyzing experiences in order to make meaning
and improve practices (Grimmett, 1989; Schön, 1992). In order to gain insight into how teachers
approach reflective practices, this study sought to answer the following research questions:
1. How do K-5 general and special education teachers describe how they engage in
independent and collaborative reflective practice, if at all?
2. How do K-5 general and special education teachers perceive the impact of the reflective
practice when supporting students with disabilities?
This review is organized into five sections. First, the history of reflection in United
States Public Schools is discussed. Second, the current state of reflection in teacher education is
reviewed. Third, the current state of reflection in special education is examined. Fourth, the
current state of reflection toward equity and access is discussed. Last, using Rodgers’ (2002)
reflective cycle, a reflection framework will be presented as it relates to reflective practices used
to support students with disabilities.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 24
History of Reflection in United States Public Schools
Reflection in academic settings originally arose out of an interest in analyzing diverse
methods to inform and improve educational practices amongst educators. Literature on the topic
of reflection evolved from simply understanding that experience and education are not mutually
exclusive to multiple forms of reflective practice, which include interpretation, analysis, and
exploration of solutions to problems of varying complexity (Dewey, 1938; Schön, 1992). In his
book, Experience and Education, Dewey (1938) emphasized experience, experiment, and
purposeful learning as elements of progressive education. The beginnings of learning through
doing led to further expansion from Schön (1992) and later theorists, like Valli (1997), Rodgers
(2002), and Farrell (2012). Furthermore, Schön (1992) described thinking in action as using
what we already know to reflect on and improve practice. Reflective practice allows teachers the
ability to recognize instruction that should be developed based on a learner’s process and
therefore can never be scripted (Rodgers, 2002).
Dewey’s (1938) groundbreaking ideas have been influential in educational reform and
strongly informed the use of reflection in education. He posited that reflection came out of the
belief that experience and education cannot be directly equated to each other (Dewey, 1938).
Every experience in education affects the objectives and attitudes of future experiences. It is the
responsibility of the educator to shape students experiences to optimize learning. Dewey (1938)
asserted that the principle of interaction assigns equal rights to the objective and internal
conditions. Continuity means that every experience builds upon the next or draws from the later
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 25
experience. This is to say that experiences did not happen in isolation. Furthermore, Dewey
(1938) found that there is a gap in traditional education when students are taught about the final
product and not enough emphasis is put on the process.
Dewey’s (1938) progressive learning theory was focused on the idea that students
organize knowledge based on meta-cognition, or the building on prior knowledge, and the
educator’s role was to create an educative experience. Moreover, Dewey (1938) highlighted
three distinguishing stages in recognizing learning elements: observing surrounding conditions,
analysis of recalled and observed information, and use of prior knowledge. Rodgers (2002)
contributed to the stages by including intelligent action, defined as the meaning one makes based
on the experiences they have encountered. Through the process of reviewing past experiences,
an individual can also learn about the consequences of past action. This could further aid in the
development of tools to help deal with future problems.
It is important to note the importance of allowing general and special education teachers
opportunities to review and reflect on their own actions and learning experiences. Quiet
reflection occurs in brief intervals after a response to a situation and includes refraining from
further action and focusing on thought; this process aids in the development of reflective practice
(Dewey, 1938). Difficulties have previously occurred with teachers when quick and immediate
action was taken without first thinking about the situation, and creating a clear purpose.
Teachers in inclusive settings play a vital role in identifying the purpose and meaning of
specific actions and experiences. Dewey (1938) stressed that teachers should not be idle and
passive. Rather they should be active and ready to engage or assist all learners as needed.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 26
Furthermore, it is the teacher's role to create an environment of education that provides
continuity within this contextualized experience-based model of student learning. The difficulty
in this challenge lies in continually adapting subject matter to the growing realm of individual
experiences as students progress.
Schön’s reflective practice built upon the foundational work of Dewey (1938) on the
theory of inquiry. Schön’s (1992) version of reflection in action added to Dewey’s reflective
practice with the implementation of an interactive framework between teachers and students. By
reflecting on one’s teaching, teachers are able to reorganize their experiences and make valuable
connections to other concepts and experiences.
The highlight of Schön’s (1992) theory of reflection was the conviction that reflective
practices assisted in slowing down actions in order to explore potential preconceived notions
learners may have. Making sense of a situation the learner perceived to be unique would build
upon prior knowledge. Schön’s (1992) reflective practice was described in three complex
components. First, knowing-in-action is the knowing built in our everyday routines of action.
This is not a form of inquiry; rather it is action that occurs by instinct or intuition. Through
knowing-in-action, we can learn to observe, reflect in, and describe by writing out directions for
others to follow. Second, reflection-in-action involves our ability to stop and think back to what
we have done. Reflection-in-action typically takes place in the midst of action, as teachers make
on the spot sense of what has happened. It is a process of understanding how we make on the
spot decisions and transform the situation in a way that resolves uncertainty. Last, reflective
conversation with the situation refers to the conscious reflection of a situation that leads to
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 27
change (Schön, 1992).
Furthermore, collaboration can be seen as a reflective conversation between general and
special education teachers assessing their inclusive setting. Although this collaborative process
can occur in both verbal and nonverbal forms, the overall purpose is to improve student
achievement. Additionally, reflective practices, such as Schön’s (1992) reflection-in-action, can
be utilized when encountering a situation that is unexpected. Schön (1992) suggested that
teachers should evaluate situations from the student’s standpoint. Schön’s (1992) theory of
reflective practice is time intensive and unique to the specific collaborative relationship.
Models and assessment tools have been developed to identify the level of reflection in
which practitioners engage (Larrivee, 2008; Rodgers, 2002). In her empirical research article,
Larrivee (2008) described the development of a tool used to assess teachers’ level of reflection.
Larrivee (2008) found that when teachers use reflection in their own practice, they integrate and
modify skills to fit a specific context. The author found that reflective practice was generally
viewed as developing in stages.
Consistently, theorists view reflective practices as developing in stages. Larrivee (2008)
developed an instrument to provide a structure to guide developing teachers the ability to assess
the level of reflection. The instrument was implemented in six stages and included a specific
research design . This assessment tool afforded users to have a better understanding of their own
ways of thinking, as well as different approaches, perspectives, and viewpoints. Present day
teachers are required to use their knowledge to complete tasks and make everyday decisions.
Moreover, true reflection evolved from experience.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 28
Similar to Schön’s (1992) complex components of reflective practice, Larrivee (2008)
defined reflective practice in four stages; pre-reflection, surface reflection, pedagogical
reflection, and critical reflection. At the pre-reflection stage teachers react to students and
classroom situations automatically and without consideration of alternative responses. They do
not adapt their teaching based on students’ needs and responses. Teachers who engage in surface
reflection focus on strategies and methods used to reach predetermined goals. They are
concerned with what works rather than the value of the goals themselves. Pedagogical reflection
occurs when teachers apply current beliefs and educational knowledge base to current beliefs
about quality practices. Teachers engaging in pedagogical reflection reflect on educational
goals, the theories underlying approaches, and the connections between theoretical principles and
practice. Finally, critical reflection involves the consideration of both personal and professional
belief systems. Teachers who are critically reflective are concerned about issues of equity and
social justice that arise in and outside of the classroom.
Through a structured process of reflection, teachers can see and describe elements of
student learning (Rodgers, 2002). Rodgers (2002) provided a framework for helping teachers
integrate reflective inquiry into practice by developing the teacher’s ability to see and be present
during the learner’s process. The author described a four-phase reflective cycle used with
teachers. Like Larrivee, Rodgers (2002) asserted that the reflective cycle allowed teachers to
slow down their thinking so that they could attend to what was, rather than what they wish were
so, and shift the thinking to students’ learning.
The first phase of Rodgers’ (2002) reflective cycle, learning to see, is the presence of
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 29
experience. During this phase, teachers are able to see the learning as it is happening,
differentiate all of its parts, give meaning, and respond intelligently. This ability to be present
and fully aware of what is happening in the classroom likens to a state of mindfulness. The next
phase of the reflective cycle is description, which is learning to describe and differentiate.
According to Rodgers (2002), this phase is described as “the process of telling the story of an
experience” (p. 237). Allowing teachers time and space to examine the many elements present
in the learning or teaching environment is vital to the development of teaching ability. Once
teachers understand the distinction between description and interpretation, they are able to slow
down and notice when prior knowledge, experience, values, assumptions, fears and so forth
might interfere with their interpretations and actions in their own classrooms. Through
collaboration, teachers are able to describe and differentiate classroom experiences.
Rodgers (2002) identified the third phase as analysis of experience, which is learning to
think critically and create theory. During this phase, teachers generate a common language about
teaching and learning. They are able to generate a number of different explanations for what is
happening in the classroom. In clarifying what teachers say, assumptions are uncovered and
learned from. Rodgers (2002) gives an example of a teacher that may view students who do not
complete a reading assignment as “lazy or indifferent” (p. 247) while in fact, the students do not
possess the basic vocabulary to understand an assignment. The ability to see the students as ill-
equipped instead of assuming they are lazy and indifferent comes from the analysis of
experience. Rodgers (2002) asserts that the fourth phase of experimentation, learning to take
intelligent action, is the final as well as initial stage of the reflective cycle as it leads to the next
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 30
experience. The suggestions for action that happen in this phase occur after description and
analysis. By taking risks, teachers are able to further their reflective practice and discern the
many layers of teaching.
Although there are various models illustrating the utilization of reflective practices, there
is a clear delineation between theory and practice. The concept of teacher as a reflective
practitioner acknowledges the wealth of expertise that good teachers practice to understand and
improve one’s own teaching (Schön, 1992; Tannenbaum; 2013; Zeichner, 1994). Zeichner
(1994) asserted that all educators are reflective in some sense. However, Zeichner (1994)
challenged the assumption that one cannot tell very much about an approach to teaching from an
expressed commitment to the idea of the reflective teacher alone. Zeichner (1994) posits that
from the perspective of the teacher, reflection means that the process of understanding and
improving one’s teaching starts from reflection upon experience. Through reflective practices,
teachers are constantly learning about themselves as educators and how to improve their
methodologies. Zeichner (1994) made a valid argument by stating his belief that reflection does
not occur in steps or levels. An individual can utilize any form of reflection they feel is suitable
for their needs. Furthermore, there has clearly been attention given to the idea that reflection is a
social practice and involves a community of learners.
Although reflective strategies are identified throughout the United States, there continues
to be a gap in actual implementation of the devised strategies (Valli, 1997; Zeichner, 1994).
Valli (1997) suggested that the various approaches to reflection should be used in combination
with one another. Helping teachers become reflective is not enough. For reflection to be a
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 31
powerful tool for teachers, schools must be supportive communities of learning (Valli, 1997).
The pioneering development of reflection as a method of addressing inquiry in education
paved the way for more specific types of reflection (Dewey, 1938; Rodgers, 2002; Schön, 1992).
Although there have been varying conclusions regarding the impact of reflective practices across
time, the majority of the research indicates that there is a positive correlation between reflective
practices and teacher efficacy (Banoobhai, 2012; Carlson & Perry, 2005). Current research on
reflection and reflective practices build upon the foundational works of Dewey (1938) and Schön
(1992), and provide both critiques and modifications to meet the needs of today’s educators.
Current State Of Reflection in Teacher Education
In the past twenty years, reflection has progressively appeared in descriptions of
approaches to teacher education (Hatton & Smith, 1995). Reflective practices have been used in
teacher education to shape and support problem solving within the educational setting. One
reason why preparing teachers to be reflective has become popular in recent years is that the field
of psychology has developed an interest in explaining the ways in which thinking affects
behavior (Valli, 1997). Another idea that consistently emerges is that a new teacher should be a
reflective practitioner and able to monitor their own thinking, understanding, and knowledge
about teaching in order to be reflective (Hatton & Smith, 1995).
Although developing reflective practices in teacher education programs appear
promising, it is not certain that it will result in reflective behavior. Jaeger (2013) observed that
while there are opportunities for reflection to be a transferrable skill and therefore effectively
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 32
utilized in classrooms to improve student learning, such opportunities are not always used
effectively. Furthermore, many inexperienced teachers lack the skills they need to engage in
reflection (Jaeger, 2013).
Valli (1997) surmised the five different types of reflection that should be included within
a teacher education program: technical reflection, reflection-in-action, reflection-on-action,
deliberative reflection, personalistic reflection, and critical reflection. Valli (1997) proposed that
simultaneous use of reflective practices in teacher education result in the best outcome.
Engaging in these reflective practices allows for: examination of one’s own teaching
performance, recognition of the range of teaching concerns, personal growth and relationships
with students, and the political dimensions of one’s workplace.
According to Valli (1997), teacher educators must determine what they regard as
important content for reflection and good quality for reflection. Content refers to what
individuals think about and quality refers to how they think about their practice and the process
of thinking they go through. Valli (1997) notes that the two dimensions of reflection can be used
to “define and judge what good teaching is and to help teacher candidates determine whether
they are making good decisions” (p. 74).
However, Beauchamp (2015) notes that criticisms on reflection persist in current
literature. It has been pointed out that the problem of understanding reflection is due to the
multiple definitions that exist. Also, there is an ongoing concern that the meaning of reflection is
not fully understood in teacher education. Furthermore, criticisms include the lack of evidence
to support the efficacy of reflective practices to support improved teacher or student performance
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 33
(Beauchamp, 2015).
While reflective practices such as Schön’s (1992) reflection-in-action are encouraged in
teacher education programs, they are typically built into activities at the end of a teaching task
and not always utilized during practice. Although there is significant potential for reflective
practices to enhance and support professional growth, that potential is not often realized (Jaeger,
2013). Belvis et al. (2013) evaluated a teacher education program to determine the effectiveness
in teaching reflective practices. A mixed-methods study was conducted with 284 teachers who
participated in a training activity where they were asked to reflect on their own educational
practices in small groups. Results from surveys, reports and interviews were analyzed in the
areas of learning, transfer and impact. The study found that reflective practice was applied in an
individual fashion and was not incorporated in the school culture. Additionally, there was no
significant evidence of the effects of teacher reflection on student learning outcomes (Belvis et
al., 2013).
Building on Schön’s (1992) influence of reflection in teacher education, Edwards and
Thomas (2010) contended that reflective practices cannot be taught. Due to their current
professional duties teachers are usually, already by nature, reflective in their practices.
Nevertheless, an argument was made for the need for context-specific reflective processes aimed
at particular aspects of improving educational outcomes (Edwards & Thomas, 2010).
Becoming a culturally responsive educator is at the forefront of teacher education (Valli,
1997). Baglieri (2008) highlighted the significant role reflection plays in teacher education
toward inclusive practices. Through reflection, teacher education programs prepare teachers for
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 34
inclusion and disability-related teaching strategies. It was found that reflective processes were
useful in emphasizing the personal experiences, identities, and background knowledge that
teachers draw from as they make meaning of social and cultural models of disability (Baglieri,
2008). The insights teachers obtain about their own beliefs and values assist them in thinking
about the responsibility as a teacher and becoming more cognizant of the teacher’s role in
modeling and structuring a non-discriminatory environment (Baglieri, 2008). Unfortunately,
many U.S. schools do not promote teacher reflection (Baglieri, 2008; Valli, 1997).
The collective literature on reflective thinking reveal numerous common themes.
Dewey’s (1938) theory lacked specific practices necessary to support reflective practices.
Countless authors since Dewey (1938) have argued that the effectiveness of reflection subsists
with the presence of systematically rigorous practices. Mezirow (1981) purports that reflection
is a specific and systematic method of thinking and their exists opportunities for additional
assessment, rehearsal and perfection of skills. Farrell (2012) found that reflection is used as a
form of metacognition within the field of education, and through the examination of his own
experience as a teacher, identifies the use of reflection in advancing skills. Reflective thought,
when conducted systematically and combined with teacher experiences, promote professional
growth.
Current California standards for general education teacher preparation require all future
teachers to learn techniques proven to foster the success of students with disabilities, including
small group instruction, behavior management and using frequent informal assessments to
identify and address learning gaps (Adams, 2015). Additionally, Arthur-Kelly, Sutherland,
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 35
Lyons, Macfarlane, and Foreman (2013) assert that preservice teachers should explore, map, and
facilitate self-examination and reflection of their developing values, beliefs, attitudes,
knowledge, and concerns about engaging with and teaching students. The literature indicates
that ongoing reflection is valuable for cultivating insight, sensitivity and changes in attitude. The
question remains as to how teachers engage in reflective practices to support students with
disabilities in the general education classroom.
Current State of Reflection in Special Education
The integration of students with disabilities in the general education classroom is a
current topic in education. Historically, beliefs about how students with disabilities are best
educated have resulted in diverse perspectives on what constitutes an effective special educator
(Klingner et al., 2015). Additionally, special education and general education teacher candidates
participate in different certification programs across the United States, which complicates
discussions on the roles that the special education teacher plays in supporting students with
disabilities.
One of the major changes had been redefining the roles of both general education and
special education teachers as a result of legislative mandates such as IDEA (Streiker, Gillis &
Zong, 2013). Using the Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming (ORM) to guide their quantitative
study, Avramidis, Bayliss & Burden (2000) found that although teachers’ attitudes about
mainstreaming can be affected by several intersecting factors, one of the most important is the
level and nature of support they receive. Implications from this study include the importance of
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 36
time to collaborate and ongoing training and support for all involved. Scholars in teacher
education have recommended co-teaching as a viable solution because teachers collaborate with
others who possess content knowledge with those with expertise in special education.
Building from the theoretical perspective of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory (Zuckerman,
2003), teachers can learn from each other through the process of co-teaching. The predominant
approach to co-teaching occurs when the special education teacher are consigned to a support
role as instruction is traditional and whole class in nature (Klingner et al., 2015). Through the
diverse set of educational practices which are constructed within a social context, a new vision of
the zone of proximal development acts as a scaffold for the development of reflection.
Zuckerman (2003) suggest the later learning interaction leads to reflective abilities.
While making instructional decisions on teaching, it is imperative to consider the diverse
needs of students in the classroom. Trzcinka & Grskovic (2011) claim that many general
education teachers feel unprepared to teach students with disabilities. Whereas special education
teachers are constantly changing instruction based on the need to modify teaching techniques for
students with disabilities, many general education teachers feel unprepared to meet behavioral
and learning challenges in the inclusive classroom (Trzcinka & Grskovic, 2011). Chalikandy
(2014) found that reflection on teaching practices helps teachers understand their teaching in
depth and deepen the knowledge of the learning process since much of the teaching happens
through self reflection. Consequently, reflection can foster continuous professional development
as teachers take action to make positive changes in the classroom.
Additionally, special educators have realized the need for teachers to be sensitive to the
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 37
diversity in the inclusive classroom (Dray & Wisneski, 2011). Reflection has been useful in
helping teachers develop a deeper understanding of students behavior by reflecting on the
environment. By examining their beliefs that can affect how they treat students, teachers are
able to listen and change how they respond to students who may be different in some way (Dray
& Wisneski, 2011).
Reflective practices can also be useful in supporting special education teachers by giving
them the necessary tools to make on the spot changes and support the diverse learning and
behavioral needs of an students with disabilities. In their study conducted to examine special
education teaching practices, Arthur-Kelly et al. (2013) examined special education teaching
practices in New Zealand. The goal of the study was to gain insight as to ways to improve the
inclusion and teaching practices for the Maori population. The authors note the importance of
having teacher practitioners develop reflective capacities in order to be fully aware of who their
learners are and to be able to articulate teaching practices as well as other resources and sources
of support to address Maori learner needs. Similarly, reflective practices are used in the
inclusive setting as teacher and support providers collaborate regarding the individual needs of
students.
Teachers agree that reflective practice is an essential component to learning and
professional growth. However, there is disagreement as to how reflective practice should be
conducted. It is important to note that all students learn differently, so they need to be taught in a
distinctive manner. By modifying lessons to meet the needs of all students, teachers will
inevitably avoid teaching routine lessons. Edwards & Thomas (2010) note that context-specific
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 38
reflective processes are aimed at particular aspects of improving student outcomes.
Osipova, Prichard, Boardman, Kiely, and Carroll (2011) explored the use of video as a
self-reflection tool combined with collaborative professional development. Building on Schön’s
(1992) use of self reflection to enhance teachers’ instructional practice, Osipova et al. (2011)
asserted that reflective practices play an important role in the enhancement of special educators
skills, knowledge, and foster the characteristics of highly effective teachers. To guide their
self-reflections, teachers were provided a rating rubric that focused on principles of effective
instruction. More reflective special educators were able to recognize problems, reframe them
using content specific knowledge and design a plan for solving the problem. Through this
reflective process, teachers became more aware of the diverse needs of students with disabilities
(Osipova et al., 2011).
While Chalikandy (2014), Arthur-Kelly et al. (2013), and Edwards and Thomas (2010)
discussed the experiences and tribulations of teachers as a whole, special education teachers as a
subset of educators experience different teacher education preparation. The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates that students with disabilities are given access to
the general curriculum in the least restrictive environment. Although reflection encourages
flexibility of teaching skills, special education teachers are required to adapt their instruction
continuously due to the nature of idiosyncratic student needs within any single classroom.
Addressing the needs of special education students may require specialized academic instruction.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 39
Current State of Reflection towards Equity and Access in Special Education
Beginning in 1975 with the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act (EAHCA), special education has evolved into an infrastructure that provides equal access to
education for all students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). The EAHCA
determined that all students with disabilities would be provided a Free and Appropriate Public
Education (FAPE). Around the same time, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) introduced the practice of including students with disabilities in general education
classrooms.
This study focused on students with high-incidence disabilities (e.g. students with
learning disabilities, high functioning autism, emotional and behavioral disorders, and mild
intellectual disorders), as these students are most likely to receive instruction in inclusive settings
(Klingner, Brownwell, Mason, Sindelar, & Benedict, 2015). The inclusion of students with
disabilities is a complex and demanding reform. Since students with special education needs are
being placed in general education classrooms collaborations between the general education
teacher and special education specialists is the most common method for planning in order for
students with disabilities to be successful in the inclusive setting (Eccleston, 2010). Eccleston
(2010) found that effective collaborators in special education employ four essential traits:
thoughtfulness, knowledgeable, compassionate, and leaders. Moreover, the reflective special
educator can examine their own professional strengths and weaknesses to discern how personal
attributes affect these four areas of collaboration abilities.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 40
Beliefs about the teacher’s role in helping students with disabilities affect their ability to
learn from what they are doing. Although there is a natural tendency for the special education
teacher to play the role of the expert instead of the partner, effective collaborators are receptive
and exercise empathetic skills during collaboration with general education teachers (Eccleston,
2010). However, there continues to be a high turnover rate for educators teaching special
education. Teaching special education is demanding; those who are not prepared for the
challenge may not make it past the first years of teaching (Fall, 2010). Therefore, schools often
settle for teachers who are under certified and lack experience and the capacity to engage in a
collaborative experience effectively.
Despite the growing body of knowledge about special education practices, researchers
know little about the sustainability of inclusive practices (Sindelar, Shearer, Yendol- Hoppey, &
Liebert, 2006). Federal and State mandates are unclear in regards to inclusion. Therefore, it is
left to each district to determine how to implement the continuum of special education support
for students with disabilities. In their qualitative study, Sindelar et al. (2006) identified three
main factors related to sustainability: district and state policy, leadership, and teaching/classroom
factors. Districts that showed a strong commitment to inclusion ensured that site principals
followed through with designated reforms. A second factor affecting the sustainability of
schoolwide reforms was school leadership. Principals who devoted time for the teachers to
receive professional development trainings were more likely to have staff members commit to
reform. Conversely, districts that rotated leadership staff had more difficulty sustaining
classroom-specific strategies (i.e. co-teaching). The third factor was teachers’ acceptance of
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 41
inclusive practices. Sindelar et al. (2006) found that successful implementation of inclusive
practices were consistent with teachers’ beliefs or teaching styles when they received supportive
training and when the practice helped difficult to reach students.
In the implementation of inclusive education, special educators frequently collaborate
with general educators across various settings. The goal of collaborative teaching is to increase
access to instructional options for students with disabilities in general education classrooms
(Naraian, 2010). A qualitative study was conducted to explore how special and general
education teachers use of collaborative practice configured their professional identities. Using a
sociocultural perspective on learning as a theoretical framework to guide the study, Naraian
(2010) found that teachers in a co-teaching setting figured themselves in an identity based on
their role in the classroom. As teachers negotiated their roles and responsibilities during the
process of collaborating, they were able to accommodate for differences in learning and
behavioral needs.
Collaborative teaching remains an important objective in successful inclusive classrooms.
As such, co-teaching is defined as two professionals teaching together with a joint delivery of
instruction and shared responsibility for planning, instruction and evaluation (Tinker Sachs,
Fisher, & Cannon, 2011). Tinker Sachs et al. (2011) analyzed the experiences that teachers
co-constructed while collaborating together in a qualitative study. Successful collaboration was
built on several key factors, including accountability and professionalism, mutual respect, and
reciprocal growth and development. Accountability included being fully engaged and committed
and understanding that there is a shared responsibility and partnership. Mutual respect in the
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 42
collaborative process referred to the opportunity for collaborative teachers to position each other
in front of students as a knower who largely contributes to the learning of the class (Tinker Sachs
et al., 2011). Furthermore, reciprocal growth and development referred to the understanding that
all parties felt they had not only much to offer, but that they learned from the expertise and skills
of others (Tinker Sachs et al., 2011).
Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) synthesized qualitative research on
co-teaching, and their work provides an example of research on teacher roles during co-teaching,
relationships, and perceptions. They found that co-teachers generally believed their practices
were beneficial to students, but indicated that co-teaching should only be voluntary, not an
assignment forced on those who do not want to participate. Furthermore, they reported that
successful co-teaching teams shared expertise during teaching and found ways to motivate their
students. Conversely, they asserted that the struggling teaching teams demonstrated less
collaboration, with differences in teaching styles leading to conflict instead of compromise. If
teaching teams were not present, special educators often assumed the role of a classroom
assistant rather than a teaching partner.
Special education teachers are constantly changing instruction because of the need to
modify teaching techniques for students with learning and behavioral needs (Bishop, Klinger,
Leko, & Galman, 2010). Students with disabilities who are taught in a general education
classroom are more likely to develop improvements in social interactions, self-confidence, and
language development (Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Gallini, Simmons, & Feggins-Azziz, 2006).
Historically, students who qualify for special education are typically placed in a more restrictive
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 43
classroom to address their academic, social, and emotional needs. Students placed in a more
restrictive environment are therefore less likely to obtain access to the grade level curriculum,
which inevitably creates an achievement gap.
In order to address the unique and diverse needs of students with disabilities in special
education, teachers engage in reflective practices. Etscheidt (2012) found that access to the
general education curriculum was not defined as access to the physical location of general
education or access to the content standards, but rather by multiple dimensions, including student
progress. Access to general education setting and curriculum are confirmed only through
evidence of student learning.
Sindelar et al., (2006) found that as faculty who engaged in inclusion reform left their
positions, they were replaced by new teachers with less acceptance for inclusion. Consequently,
faculty commitment to inclusion deteriorated. With that, the faculty as a whole became less
aware and informed of students within inclusive settings and therefore less enthusiastic of
attempts to facilitate inclusion practices. Interwoven in the reviewed articles were various
methods in which reflective practices have been utilized. The preferences of individual
practitioners alter the reflective practices utilized.
Reflective Practice Framework
Various theorists developed models to identify the components constituting reflective
practices. Dewey’s (1938) theory focused on the situation, the transaction within the situation
the open-endedness of the situation, and the social interactions of inquiry. Schön (1992) posits
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 44
that by reflecting on one’s own work and the work of others, teachers are able to reorganize their
understandings of the situation at hand. Rodgers’ (2002) four phase cycle of reflection offered
teachers a way to learn to observe and be present in students’ learning.
Schön (1992) began by describing the different schools of higher learning, which were a
combination of “higher” and “lower” schools. One gains systematic knowledge within the
context of the higher school, which begins with learning relevant information. The lower school
addresses practical problems learners may encounter. Schön further built on Dewey’s theory of
inquiry by identifying three components of reflective practice. The first component is
knowing-in-action, which consists of everyday routines of action and follows a pattern that
draws on structures that are already put in place. Next is reflection-in-action, which implements
the “stop and think” model, teaching learners to pause and reflect about what has happened.
Schön notes that reflection can be done verbally or nonverbally. Last is conversation with the
situation, which leads to inquiring about uncertainty in specific contexts.
Rogers (2002) delineated a reflective cycle, which included: presence, description,
analysis and experimentation. There were five philosophical underpinnings that informed the
model. This framework helped teachers utilize reflective inquiry in practice by developing the
teacher’s ability to observe and be present to the learner’s process. Rodgers (2002) also
reviewed and synthesized Dewey’s previous work on reflection, and highlighted how reflection
is process of making meaning out of experiences through a rigorous and systematic process of
thinking. This process requires interactions with others, and continuity with the interactions. A
reaction is not the same as a response; the latter is a result of consideration, reflection, and
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 45
processing. Therefore, reflection can be a sole activity, although community reflection builds
collaboration. Rodgers (2002) emphasized the importance of a person’s emotional
characteristics or discipline in whether or not they will successfully and accurately go about the
reflective process. Whole-heartedness, open-mindedness, directness, and responsibility were all
thoroughly identified as being necessary components of a reflective mindset.
Farrell (2012) discussed the use of reflection as a form of metacognition within the field
of education. The author described the “stop, look, and discover” method, which suggested that
teachers should reflect on where they are in that moment and think about where they are
planning on going next. Farrell (2012) noted that Dewey’s method of reflection is initiated when
there is a feeling of doubt or conflict within teaching. There are five main phases of reflective
thought: suggestion, intellectualization, guiding idea, reasoning, and hypothesis testing. Farrell
(2012) posits that Schön rather focused on reflection-in-action, which built upon on our
knowing-in-action.
Clark, James, and Kelly (1996) asserted that there is a difference between reflective and
competence based practices. The authors expanded on the concept of reflection to identify two
specific subsets of reflection pertinent to the nursing profession: deliberative reflection and deep
reflection. Reflective practice played a vital role in the conscious evaluation of what educators
do, and the identification of changes that can be made to improve professional performance.
Table 2.1 displays the steps of reflection for the framework for this study, which builds
upon Rodgers’ (2002) reflective cycle. This framework was utilized in the development of
individual interview protocols, which will be further discussed in the methodology section and
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 46
included in the appendices. Furthermore, this framework guided the analysis of all interview and
observation data.
Table 2.1: Teacher Collaboration Framework
Summary
Reflective practices were developed over time to support the diverse needs of
practitioners. With that, there have been conflicting views on the implementation and processes
of reflection in education. While various researchers debated the effectiveness and process of
reflection, it was and continues to be a fundamental component in enhancing teachers’
perceptions, decision making, attitude, and instruction. Teachers who engage in reflective
practices are more likely to change their practice to better meet the diverse needs of students with
disabilities. Consequently, the lack of reflection in education affects teacher’s decision making
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 47
processes, hindering their ability to improve special education students’ general access to
education.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 48
Chapter Three: Methodology
This study addressed the problem of a lack of consistency in the support students with
disabilities receive in inclusive settings. Inclusive classrooms provide opportunities to engage
students with disabilities in activities to generate and challenge academic performance
(Henninger & Gupta, 2014). Reflective practices can be useful in supporting effective inclusive
settings as teachers engage in collaboration to support the different learning needs in the
classroom. Furthermore, teacher collaboration guides teachers to think reflectively about their
practice. Ongoing reflection is valuable for developing insight, sensitivity and changes in
attitude (Apple & Yorde, 2005).
There were two overarching goals of this study. The first goal was to identify reflective
practices that were used in supporting effective inclusion throughout an elementary school
campus. In doing so, this study explored how teachers described their engagement in reflective
practices during structured collaborative planning time. The second goal was to develop a better
understanding of how general and special education teachers perceived the impact of reflective
practices on student achievement.
In order to gain insight into how teachers approach reflective practices, this study
examined the following research questions:
1. How do K-5 general and special education teachers describe how they engage in
independent and collaborative reflective practice, if at all?
2. How do K-5 general and special education teachers perceive the impact of the reflective
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 49
practice when supporting students with disabilities?
This chapter outlines the research design of the study and provides an overview of the
participants and sample selection. Additionally, this chapter discusses the data collection
procedures and instrumentation for the study. Lastly, this chapter outlines the data collection
process along with the ethical considerations used to ensure the confidentiality of all of the
participants.
Methods
Qualitative research seeks to describe and make meaning of naturally occurring
phenomenon. It is an inductive approach whereby the researcher collects data to gain
understanding of the particular context in which the participants act (Maxwell, 2009). A
qualitative methods approach was used to guide this study, which examined how general and
special education teachers used reflective practices during collaboration to support inclusive
settings. Research questions framed the study and subsequently guided the data collection
procedure and process.
The primary instrument for data collection and analysis was the researcher, which is
another characteristic of qualitative research (Merriam, 2009). Merriam (2009) maintains that
qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret their experiences and
how people make sense of their world. Specifically, qualitative researchers are interested in
understanding how people perceive the world around them. Each interview and observation may
offer a different perspective based on the experience and knowledge of the respondent.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 50
The data for this study included three observations of teacher collaboration and classroom
instruction, a review of artifacts, and four individual interviews of general and special education
teachers from an all inclusive elementary school in Los Angeles. Creswell (2013) reports that a
qualitative approach allows for the researcher to explore innovations and use of
researcher-designed frameworks. In addition, qualitative methods were used to examine systems
and structures that support reflective practices in the inclusive setting. These methods provided
detailed information necessary to understand the nature of knowledge with regards to reflective
practices amongst both general and special education teachers. Thus, a qualitative methods
approach was used to develop a reflective framework used to dissect the personal narratives of
general and special education teachers. This framework helped determine how teachers
described their engagement in reflective practice, and their perceptions on the impact of
reflective practice when supporting students with disabilities.
Sample and Site Selection
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of reflective practices in a K-5
inclusive elementary school setting. Specific criteria were created to identify the reflective
practices used during teacher collaboration and instruction. This section summarized the
selection criteria, sampling procedures, participants, and an overview of the data collection site.
Site Selection. Convenience sampling was used for this study due to availability and
convenience of the school site location (Merriam, 2009). One K-5 public charter school site,
HOPE Charter School in Southern California, was selected for the data collection. The site was
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 51
selected based on availability of a school utilizing inclusion practices to support students with
disabilities. The school had an enrollment of approximately 400 students kindergarten thru fifth
grade. There were 24 general and special education teachers employed at the school. Teachers
attended weekly staff meetings, debrief sessions three times a week, as well as bi-weekly
collaboration meetings.
The gatekeepers for this study included the administration and the superintendent of the
school district. Initially, the administration of the elementary school was contacted via email to
inquire about and gain access to the study. Next, a face-to-face meeting was scheduled with the
principal and board of directors to discuss the purpose of the study, the research questions, and
the methods of data collection. After meeting with the principal and board of directors, a time
was determined for the researcher to attend a staff meeting. During the staff meeting, the
researcher presented and briefly discussed the purpose of the study and participants’ involvement
in the study. All teachers were subsequently asked to complete a brief survey based on questions
from the Opinions Relative to the Integration of Students with Disabilities (Antonak & Larrivee,
1995).
The teachers were asked for their willingness to participate in study in the final question
on the survey, and requested personal information from interested teachers. The personal
information from the surveys was used to contact teachers via email to further inquire about their
participation and set up a time for the initial interview. Eight kindergarten through second grade
teachers and three special education teachers were contacted via email based upon their initial
interest. The emails included a brief description of the research, why the site was selected, what
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 52
the findings will be used for, approximate observations and interview duration, and the
researcher’s contact information for questions and/or concerns (Bogdan & Bilken, 2007). Once
the interview participants’ consent was received, the time, date, and location of the initial
interview was set up and later confirmed via email.
Participant Selection. Purposeful sampling was used by the researcher to interview and
observe participants who collaborated regarding inclusive practices. Purposeful sampling is
conducted based on the assumption that the researcher seeks to discover, understand, and gain
insight and therefore, must select a sample from which the most can be learned (Merriam, 2009).
Initially, specific criteria for selecting the interview sample was to include teachers who have
been teaching at the school for more than two years. After two school years at an all inclusive
elementary school, teachers are considered tenured. It was assumed that tenured teachers would
have a sound understanding of the schoolwide systems and approaches to co-teaching, and would
offer rich details regarding their use of reflective practices during collaboration. However, the
participant selection process revealed that due to the high rate of attrition at HOPE, many
teachers had no more than two years experience. Additionally, the purpose of participant
selection was to choose teachers who collaborated with a special education teacher. During the
selection period, a special education teacher who taught second and third grade, left the school
and the position was left briefly without a teacher. Also, the fourth and fifth grade special
education teacher was in the process of working on her Ph.D. and unavailable to participate in
the study. Therefore, this researcher chose two kindergarten teachers, one first grade teacher,
and the special education teacher that collaborated and co-taught with the K-1 general education
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 53
teachers to participate in the study.
Data Collection
This study was conducted by collecting data using interviews, observations, and artifacts.
Interviews informed this researcher about a person’s interpretation of their experiences (Weiss,
1994). Additionally, observations were significant in qualitative research because they provided
essential knowledge and behaviors of the context that was used for interviews (Merriam, 2009).
Bogden and Biklen (2007) noted that another type of data collection was the use of documents
and artifacts. Protocols generated by the researcher were used to further guide and support the
interviews and observations conducted for data collection.
Data collection sequence. Data collection for this study began with artifact collection.
This researcher observed a weekly staff meeting and reviewed the meeting agenda to gain insight
and understanding of the format and structure of the meetings. Additionally, a copy of the
co-planning protocol was reviewed. During the staff meeting, teachers and support providers
participated in a survey of six items. Out of eight possible participants, four were selected from
the survey data to participate in this study. Next, two observations of co-teaching were
conducted to observe and provide knowledge to the context of the reflective practices used to
support students with disabilities in an inclusive setting. The co-teaching observations occurred
in the general education classroom and the special education teacher was present for co-teaching
opportunity. It is important to note that the researcher conducted the observations in the role of
the researcher took an overt position by being forthcoming with the research intentions with the
participants. The overt role provided the researcher with more access to participants in the
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 54
setting they were planning on observing (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Additionally, conducting
observations prior to interviews decreased the likelihood of response biases with participants,
whereby participants act according to their perceptions of what they think the researcher is
looking for. Through collecting data in the most neutral setting, credibility was strengthened.
Next, individual interviews were conducted with three general and one special education teacher
participants that volunteered to participate in the study. Lastly, the researcher observed the
special education and general education teacher participants during their co-planning meeting of
approximately 30 minutes.
Artifacts. Artifacts included a co-planning protocol, a staff meeting agenda, surveys,
HOPE charter school mission and philosophy statement, and collaboration notes. Artifacts were
collected as they are made available. Notes from co-planning sessions were reviewed to better
understand the intended knowledge for teachers and support providers. Creswell (2009) states
that surveys are useful in providing a numeric description of attitudes or opinions of a
population. A likert scale survey measuring beliefs relative to inclusion was administered to the
whole staff of 24 general and special education teachers during a staff meeting . The survey
consisted of 6 items taken from the Opinions Relative to Integration of Students with Disabilities
(ORI) scale (Avramidis, Bayliss & Burden, 2000) and was used to identify teachers who engaged
in collaborative and reflective practices.
Observations. There were two separate observations of co-teaching and one observation
of co-planning that occurred at HOPE. The co-teaching observations occurred in the general
education classroom during instructional time. The co-planning observation occurred before
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 55
school during the designated weekly co-planning time. In all observations, this researcher
maintained an overt position and took field notes using the created observation protocol.
Observations took place in the natural setting and represented a firsthand encounter of the
phenomenon in the real world. Observations were useful in providing knowledge of the context
to be used during interviews (Merriam, 2009). The most useful way to gather data about
reflective practices is to observe it in different contexts. The four selected participants were
observed during collaboration with other teachers in order to see how teachers received,
practiced, and/or processed reflective strategies. Each observation lasted approximately 40
minutes to one hour and took place on the school campus.
Interview. Interviews were utilized as a data collection method to ascertain general and
special education teachers’ use of reflective practices to support students with disabilities in the
inclusive setting. Interviews were conducted on campus before school, after school, and during
lunch time. Each individual interview was approximately one hour. Before beginning the
interview, this researcher discussed confidentiality, specifically noting the steps taken during the
data analysis period to protect participant identities. Furthermore, the researcher gained consent
from each participant to record the interview, as well as take notes, for more accurate data
collection.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted using the interview protocol (Appendix C).
Semi-structured interviews assumed that individual respondents define the world in unique ways
(Merriam, 2009). The interview questions for this study were intended to gather data to address
the research questions. The interview was guided by a list of questions and issues to be
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 56
explored. The use of qualitative research interviews achieved a fuller development of
information by probing and tailoring each interview to each respondent (Weiss, 1994). This
allowed participants the opportunity to provide information that was guided by the research
questions. The interview protocol was useful in gathering information about teacher’s
experiences and perceptions. Interviews were also conducted to gain in-depth personal insight to
reflective practices. This researcher conducted four interviews with teachers and support
providers. The length of each interview was approximately one hour. Interviews were audio
recorded and transcribed using an online transcription service ( www.rev.com ). Table 3.1
contains the pseudonyms of the all participants, as well as the data collection processes they
participated in.
Table 3.1: Participant Information Table
Participant Interview Observation Co-planning
Miss Clark 1 1, 3
Miss Allen 2
Mr. Brown 3
Mr. Dominic 4 1, 2, 3 3
Miss Frank 3
Miss Green 2
Memos. Written memos were created by the researcher immediately following each
observation and interview. Memos were no longer than two pages and detailed any factors that
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 57
influenced the researcher’s positionality (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Furthermore, memos
detailed distinct reactions from the observation or interview, potential patterns emerging, or
surprising findings in the data (Lichtman, 2014). Memos were used in the data analysis process
in conjunction with field notes that contained observer comments. Data memos were also used
during the data analysis process to facilitate deeper thinking and analysis of data (Maxwell,
2013).
Data Analysis
The data analysis portion of this study included reading observation notes after the
observations and making reflective notes in the form of researcher memos. Harding (2013),
defined a priori codes as codes that are created to reflect the categories that are already of
interest before the research has begun. Through the use of the literature review, the researcher is
able to see emerging themes and designated a priori codes. Next, the researcher reviewed
observation notes and interview transcripts to organize and prepare data for analysis. The
researcher began to identify and create empirical codes from the collected data. Categories were
created based on the a priori and empirical codes. A chart was created to list the codes and
identify the frequency of codes in interview and observational data. Using Creswell’s (2009)
model for data analysis in qualitative research (see Table 4.1), this researcher identified themes
and categories, as well as generated a description of the setting.
Miles, Huberman, and Saldana (2014) defined second cycle coding as pattern coding.
Next, the researcher conducted a second round of data coding. By identifying patterns in the
data, the researcher was able to use the patterns to reorganize the data into smaller categories,
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 58
which led to the identification of themes in the data. During the data analysis process, care was
taken to maintain confidentiality of all participants by using pseudonyms in place of identifiable
information. All raw data was kept on a password-locked computer and file names did not
contain identifiable information.
Data memos facilitated analytic thinking about data patterns, which helped enhance the
researcher’s awareness of the data analysis process (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher utilized
memos to reflect on research goals, track development of ideas, and document experiences with
participants. Data memos provided an arena for the researcher to track the data analysis process,
and promote critical and conceptual thinking (Harding, 2013).
Table 4.1. Adapted from Creswell’s (2009) Model for Qualitative Data Analysis
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 59
A priori codes. A priori codes were created based upon a review of the literature on the
topic of reflective practice. Several pieces of literature were instrumental in the creation of codes
and include Schön’s (1992) theory of reflection, Rodgers’ (2002) work on the types of reflection,
and Larrivee (2008) stages of reflection. The a priori codes included: reflection application,
collaborative reflection, constructivism, critical thinking, reflection in action, reflection on
action, and professional development.
Researcher Biases/Positionality
Trustworthiness and credibility were important factors while conducting data analysis.
Triangulation was used in this qualitative study to increase the internal validity of the data by use
of multiple measures (Merriam, 2009). For this study, triangulation occurred through the process
of using observations, interviews, and gathering artifacts (co-planning protocol, meeting agenda,
school mission statement). Miles et al. (2014) noted that findings were more dependable when
they are drawn from numerous sources.
Maxwell (2013), conveyed the importance of explaining your possible biases and how
you deal with them as a key detail of your research. The researcher engaged in critical
self-reflection on assumptions, biases, worldview, and relationship to how that may influence the
study (Merriam, 2009). This self reflection created an open and honest narrative. Additionally,
the use of memos throughout the data collection and analysis process further assisted in
increasing trustworthiness by improving researcher effects and data confirmability.
Peer review and examination of data analysis helped develop the credibility of the data
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 60
and the study. Creswell (2009) describes this process as discussions with peers regarding the
process of the study and review of the data. In order to test the credibility of explanations in the
study, “If/Then” statements were tested. Miles et al. (2014) detail “If/Then” statements as a
means to describe expected relationships. In order to create predictions, a large number of “ifs”
need to be linked to a major “then.” This strategy was helpful when identifying themes
throughout interviews and observations.
Merriam (2009) asserts that the single most important way of ruling out the possibility of
misinterpreting meaning from what respondents say or do is member checks. By soliciting
feedback on emerging findings, the researcher ensured internal validity. Furthermore, member
checking addressed subjectivity. During the process of member checking, participants were
monitored to ensure truthful and accurate responses.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 61
Chapter Four: Findings
The first three chapters of this dissertation provided an introduction to the stated problem
of a lack in consistency in how students with disabilities are educated in public general education
classrooms. Although there has been a substantial increase in the number of students with
disabilities in the general education classrooms, there continues to be a lack of consistency in
how students are supported in inclusive k-5 educational settings. Public schools are required to
provide students with disabilities the opportunity to achieve the same standards and educational
outcomes as typically developing students (Sharpe & Hawes, 2003). The term inclusion is
defined and applied in this dissertation as the process and practice of educating students with
disabilities in general education classrooms in public schools. I nclusive schooling practices
embrace the idea that all students, regardless of their difference in ability should have access to
general education programs (Artiles & Kozelski, 2007). Reflective practices play an important
role in the enhancement of general and special educators skills and knowledge, as well as
fostering the characteristics of highly effective teachers. Subsequently, reflective practices have
been utilized in education to develop professional skill and support students with disabilities
(Lotter, Singer & Goodley, 2009).
The purpose of this study was identify the reflective practices general and special
education teachers use, and examine how teachers use reflective practices to support students
with disabilities. Furthermore, this study intended to develop a better understanding of the role
that reflective practices play in supporting students with disabilities in an inclusive setting.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 62
Lastly, this study explored the existing knowledge general and special education teachers have
regarding reflective practices.
Chapter two offered a literature review of reflective practices and their influence in
education. Several authors were instrumental in developing reflective practices in the United
States. John Dewey (1938), pioneered the concepts of progressive education which formed the
base for the use of reflection within education. Subsequently, Farrell (2012), Schön (1992),
Zeichner (1994), Valli (1997), and others contributed to the further expansion of the reflection
concepts by adapting concepts to education and other fields, as well as creating specific tools for
reflection. Research in education has shown that the incorporation of reflective practices helps
ensure the transfer of knowledge into practice, and assist educators in (Belvis et al., 2013;
Edwards & Thomas, 2010). Additionally, research has noted that while reflective practices are
encouraged and utilized in teacher education programs, generative activities are necessary to
cultivate this ability (Jaeger, 2013). Expanding on previous research, Rodgers (2002) noted that
effective teaching happens if teachers are able to respond with the next best possible instructional
move. Rodgers’ (2002) four pronged reflective cycle is designed to help teachers put reflective
inquiry into practice by developing the teacher’s ability to see and be present to the learner’s
process.
Within special education, educators have realized the need to develop a deeper
understanding of the diversity in an inclusive classroom. Reflection is useful in helping teachers
expand their knowledge of the learning process, and thus foster professional development as
teachers make positive changes in the classroom (Chalikandy, 2014). Moreover, the use of
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 63
reflective practices support special education teachers by providing them the necessary tools to
make on the spot changes and address the diverse learning and behavioral needs of an students
with disabilities.
The third chapter explained the methodological design that was utilized in this study.
Chapter 3 presented how the data were collected and analyzed using a qualitative inquiry
approach. Data were collected from one site and included individual interviews with special and
general education teachers, observations of teacher planning and instruction, and collection of
artifacts. Pseudonyms for the school site and all participants were created to protect the identity
of the school site and its participants. The findings presented answer the following research
questions:
1. How do K-5 general and special education teachers describe how they engage in
independent and collaborative reflective practices, if at all?
2. How do K-5 general and special education teachers perceive the impact of reflective
practices when supporting students with disabilities?
The next section describes information regarding the site and participants and findings of
this study. As mentioned in chapter three, the site selection for this study was based on
purposeful and convenience sampling whereby the school was selected due to its implementation
of a full inclusion model. In order to get a clear picture of how general and special education
teachers collaborated and supported students with disabilities, participants were selected based
on their grade level and years of teaching at the school. Individual interviews were conducted
with four teacher participants. Additionally, an observation of planning between general and
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 64
special educators and observations of co-teaching in the classroom were conducted.
Site and Participants
HOPE Charter School
Data used in this study were collected from the HOPE Charter School site in Los
Angeles, California. HOPE Charter School opened in the Fall of 2010 as an inclusive free public
independent charter school with grades Kindergarten through grade 3. As of 2015, HOPE
Charter School was Kindergarten through grade 8 with a student body of approximately 400
students. According to data found on the 2013-14 School Accountability Report Card (SARC)
student demographics included 26% African American, 20% Latino, 43% Caucasian, and 8%
Asian. Student enrollment included 13% students with disabilities and 25 % of students
qualified for free or reduced lunch (cde.ca.gov, 2016). Based on the definition of inclusion for
this study, HOPE practiced the inclusive model by educating students with disabilities and
general education students in the same classroom setting.
The teaching staff included 21 general education teachers and three special education
teachers. Each special education teacher was assigned to two successive grade levels. For
example, interview participant Dominic was responsible for kindergarten and first grade.
Furthermore, all designated support services, such as speech therapy and occupational therapy
were provided as a push-in model, whereby support providers work with students in the
classroom. Additionally, art, music, and technology utilized the co-teaching model in which
general education teachers supported students alongside specialty teachers. One teacher, Anna,
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 65
related that teaching at HOPE was like teaching in a “fishbowl”. With constant tours,
observations, and the collaborative culture of the school, teachers have to be confident in what
they are doing.
The instructional philosophy at HOPE relied upon concepts of “hands on learning,
meaningful instructional activities, systematic instruction and a collaborative group of
professionals working together to make the learning environment exciting for students.” (Artifact
1, p. 1). The contracted teacher day at HOPE was from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM. Students began at
8:30 AM and ended at 3:00 PM. On Thursdays, all students were released at 1:45 PM. It was
expected that teachers and staff participate in grade level planning, collaboration, and
professional development from 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM daily. On Monday, Tuesday and
Wednesday after school, all teachers participated in a debrief session in which teachers came
together and gave examples of a success of the day, challenge of the day, and an action plan.
Additionally, all staff participated in staff development on Thursday on a range of topics
including curriculum, behavior, and using data to set measureable goals (Interview 3, p. 6).
The mission statement of HOPE indicated the use of constructivism to meet the diverse
needs of all learners. This pedagogical approach adopted by the school to support student
learning indicated “constructivism emphasizes an internal-oriented approach in which by
asserting one’s knowledge, as well as participating in the learning process itself, learning is
constructed by student’s interpretation of their own experiences.” (Artifact 1, p. 1). Furthermore,
the HOPE mission statement emphasizes reflection for students as stated:
Learners benefit from working collaboratively in groups so that they can hear different
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 66
perspectives and accomplish learning tasks with the help of peers and experts. Learning is
an active process that is facilitated when learners are given the chance to express
themselves and evaluate their own thinking.
The core tenets of the HOPE model include full inclusion, technology in the classroom,
small class size, positive behavior support, and collaboration (Artifact 2, p. 1). Collaboration
and co-teaching help provide a tailored instruction and demonstrate best practices for all learners.
The emphasis on academic achievement is evident as HOPE inspires and empowers learners to
reach their highest potential using a variety of modalities.
Interview Participants
Interview participants included two male and two female teachers. All of the participants
were unmarried and between 25 to 40 years old. All participants were Caucasian and spoke
English only. Additionally, all participants taught at the school for at least two years.
The first interview participant, Miss Clark, taught kindergarten at HOPE for four years.
Miss Clark majored in business marketing in college and worked in sales after graduating. After
a few years, she went back to school to get her teaching credential and Master’s degree. She
taught in Chicago for three years before moving back to Los Angeles and beginning her career at
HOPE. As the most senior kindergarten teacher, Miss Clark served as the lead teacher. She was
responsible for leading planning meetings and collaboration time. Although Miss Clark reported
that she didn’t know much about the inclusive model when interviewing for a job at HOPE, she
stated that she felt like HOPE was a really special, wonderful place to be. She further elaborated
by saying that she “loves the inclusive model, the positive behavior support, co-teaching and
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 67
collaboration, and the push-in model” (Interview 1, p. 2).
The second interview participant, Miss Allen, was the first grade lead teacher. This was
her fourth year teaching at HOPE. After graduation from a local state university credential
program, Miss Allen began her career at HOPE as a paraprofessional and substitute teacher. At
the end of her first year, she was asked to be a long term substitute for a first grade teacher. The
following year, she was hired as a first grade teacher. In addition to her teaching duties, Miss
Allen explained during the interview, she was one of the head coaches for the girls’ volleyball
team and provided after school tutoring for students. According to Miss Allen, she had
experienced frequent staff changes in her grade level in her four years teaching first grade.
However, she stated that this school year was her favorite team since the three general education
teachers worked well together.
The third interview participant, Mr. Brown, was in his second year teaching at HOPE.
During his credential program and prior to his student teaching, Mr. Brown did a few
observations and taught a lesson in a classroom at HOPE. He was familiar with HOPE when he
was placed in one of the first grade classrooms for student teaching. During his student teaching
placement, Brent was enrolled in a credential course at the university that addressed the needs of
students with disabilities. It was during this time that Mr. Brown grew interest in inclusion and
began looking at diversity in the classroom. Mr. Brown was hired as a kindergarten teacher in
the following school year. When asked about teaching kindergarten, Mr. Brown commented that
he “loved that a big part of being a kindergarten teacher is getting the kids excited about school
and learning” (Interview 3, p. 2).
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 68
The fourth interview participant, Mr. Dominic, was a special education resource teacher
who was assigned to the kindergarten and first grade classrooms. Mr. Dominic taught high
school History and Sociology in Chicago for seven years before moving out to Los Angeles.
After substitute teaching in a special education classroom, Mr. Dominic decided to pursue a
special education credential. Mr. Dominic was placed in an all inclusive charter middle school
for student teaching and was subsequently hired at HOPE as the kindergarten and first grade
special education teacher when it opened seven years ago. Mr. Dominic was well known around
school for his playful way of getting the kids involved in learning. He was known to dress up as
a character or use a silly voice to introduce a topic.
Observation Participants
There were a total of four participants for the three observations conducted. Each
observation included one special education teacher, interview participant Mr. Dominic, and one
general education teacher. All participants were Caucasian, spoke English only, and were under
40 years old.
The first observation included interview participants Miss Clark and Mr. Dominic. The
observation took place in the kindergarten classroom during math time. The classroom walls
were covered with brightly colored paper and student work. The classroom has a carpet area that
faces a whiteboard, and groups of tables that seat six students. At the start of the observations,
students were seated on the rug with one student seated in a wiggle seat at the edge of the carpet
with a paraprofessional seated within close proximity. The paraprofessional had an ipad and
would hold the ipad in from of the student at intervals, to give tokens towards a break. Mr.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 69
Dominic entered the classroom dressed as a tree and the students clapped and shouted with joy.
The topic of position words was introduced and the teacher called on some of the children to
model the position words “next to, under, beside” while reading from the book “The Giving
Tree”. At the other end of the carpet, a student leaned back on another student and the general
education teacher, Miss Clark, went to student to redirect the student to sit “criss cross
applesauce” (Observation 1, p. 1). Also, the paraprofessional stood up with the student seated on
the wiggle seat. This student and the paraprofessional went to the back of the classroom and the
student jumped up and down. Mr. Dominic said goodbye to the students and left the classroom.
At this time, the general education teacher came to the front of the carpet and gave verbal
directions and modeled the tabletop activity. Students are dismissed to the table to complete the
task. A few minutes later, Mr. Dominic reappeared and sat next to a student to offer help. He
then stood up and went to another student to offer support. Additionally, the occupational
therapist came in and sat next to a student. The observation ended as the students were
dismissed for recess.
The second observation took place in a first grade classroom during math instruction.
The teacher, Miss Frank, was caucasian, under 40, and had a clear and firm voice. Although the
classroom is smaller than the kindergarten classroom, it had bright walls full of student work.
Rows of student desks took up most of the classroom, although six student computers were on
tables against one wall and a student carpet at the front of the classroom. The students were
seated facing a whiteboard and singing along while the teacher projected a video called “doubles
song” on the board. Mr. Dominic entered the classroom at this time with a small basket of
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 70
materials. Students sang along until the song ended and the teacher directed them to a poster of
the acronym CHAMP. Miss Frank reviewed the acronym, stating that the letters stand for
“conversation, help, action, movement, participating, and success” (Observation 2, p. 1). The
teacher then gave students directions of the math activity, and students got up to work in
partners. Mr. Dominic walked up to group and gave one student a slant board and directed
another to use tools, offering cubes, to solve the math problems. He then went to a particular
student and pulled her to the computer tables. He worked one on one with the student for a while
and then pulled another student to his area. Miss Frank gave a two minute warning before
ending the group work and asking students to be seated.
Grade level planning included a grade level teacher and the special education teacher.
This planning meeting was conducted before school in the classroom. The planning meeting was
conducted in front of a computer as the general education teacher typed into a shareable
document that this reporter had access to. During the observation, teachers spoke four of the
designated team teaching time and how they would support the students. The teachers agreed to
start whole group and then break off into small groups. Conversation included what was needed
to prepare and who would teach which center. The planning meeting ended as students started
arriving at the door for the start of the school day.
In summary, many commonalities arose from the classroom and planning observations of
general and special education teachers use of reflective practices to support students with
disabilities in the inclusive setting. The collaborative relationship between special and general
education teachers was consistent across all classrooms. Moreover, the collaborative culture of
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 71
the classroom lent itself to smooth transitions when different teachers or support staff entered.
Lastly, all observed classrooms exhibited a culture whereby both general and special education
teachers were valued.
Results for Research Question One
The first research question explored how elementary general and special education
teachers described how they engage in reflective practices. For the purpose of this study, the
definition of reflective practices is based on Schön’s (1992) decision making theory which
defines a set of steps teachers use to resolve unique or complex problems as they arise. Through
the use of the reflective process, teachers shared that they became aware of the diverse needs of
students with disabilities and made instructional decisions to support student success. In order to
gain insight into how teachers described how they engage in reflective practices to support
students with disabilities, this study interviewed three general education teachers and one special
education teacher. Additionally, two observations of co-teaching and one observation of
co-planning were conducted.
Three themes surfaced related to the first research question of how teachers describe how
they engage in reflective practices. The first theme described how teachers define and describe
reflective practices used at HOPE. This theme considered the language that general and special
education teachers used to describe the their knowledge of reflective practices they used to
support students with disabilities. The second theme explored the independent reflective
practices teachers explained and were observed engaging in throughout the school day. The data
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 72
showed how teachers used a variety of independent reflective practices to support students with
disabilities in the inclusive setting. The third theme examined how teachers talked about and
were observed engaging in structured and unstructured collaborative reflective practices
throughout the school day. The schoolwide pedagogical approach of constructivism asserts that
people learn by doing and reflecting on those experiences. The data shared within each theme
showed how teacher participants perceived their engagement with different reflective practices,
and how they reported their awareness of their increased teacher efficacy.
Reflective Terminology
The first theme that emerged from the data was in the varied ways that special and
general education teachers identified and described what reflective practices meant to them.
Although the terms “reflective practices” and “reflection” were rarely used, components of the
reflective framework were present in both interviews and observations, indicating that teachers
described engagement in reflection aligned with Schön’s (1992) definition of reflection utilized
in this study.
The research interviews and observation data below depicted how general and special
education teachers used terminology to describe how they support students with disabilities in
the inclusive setting through reflective practice.
Alternative terminology. During interviews, participants gave a range of descriptions of
how reflective practices were utilized across HOPE. Although the phrase “reflective practice”
was rarely used, participants gave the multiple alternative terms and phrases used to describe the
reflective framework used to support students with disabilities in the inclusive setting. For the
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 73
purpose of this study, alternative terminology refers to the alternative terms teachers said they
described such as data chats, debriefing, professional development and co-planning.
Teachers identified multiple opportunities for reflective practices throughout the school
day. When asked to describe a situation when they used reflective practices, two of the general
education teachers, Miss Clark and Miss Allen named “debriefing”, Mr. Dominic, the special
education teacher, spoke of “data chats”, and Mr. Brown named “debriefs and weekly
professional development meetings”. In addition, Mr. Brown explained that he knew about
“being reflective” but did not know of “specific theories”. Furthermore, Miss Clark described
reflective practices as “thinking about how it went” (Interview 1, p. 5), and Mr. Dominic stated
that reflective practices included “thinking about what we’re doing in the classroom” (Interview
4, p. 6). Although she was unable to name specific terms, Miss Allen defined reflective practices
as “A way of looking at what you taught after and reflecting on what you did wrong and what
you could change” (Interview 2, p. 4). This is indicative of Schön’s (1992) definition of
reflection, which posits that teachers engage in reflection on action as they review and assess
whether their practice can be changed after an event.
Additionally, participants agreed that reflective practices were used consistently to
support students with disabilities in the inclusive setting. Miss Allen stated that reflection is
“something we do a lot of at HOPE”. Furthermore, when talking about how she used reflective
practices to support students with disabilities, she said the following:
You have to realize that each group [of students] is different. It’s a lot of reflecting.
Why wasn’t it [the lesson] good? Did you forget to model, did you not set clear
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 74
expectations? Did you give them something that was out of their grasp? ( Interview 2, p.
5).
Similar to Rodgers (2002) four phase reflective cycle, teachers at HOPE exhibit reflective
thinking, which requires attitudes that value personal and academic growth for all. Miss Clark
described how she reflected on student learning to improve her instructional approaches.
Additionally, Miss Clark shared:
It’s really thinking about what you’re doing and making sure your kids are getting the
most out of the lesson and reflecting on your day to day lesson, transition, positive
behavior support. (Interview 1, p. 5).
The described use of reflective practices indicated that her instruction was focused on
educational outcomes appropriate to students with disabilities.
Mr. Brown shared that at HOPE, reflective practices are “built into the system”
throughout the week. Although students were released from class at 3:00 PM, teachers were
contracted until 4:30 PM. Grade level teachers and the special education teacher met once a
week for co-planning on a day determined by the grade level. For example, Kindergarten met
every Wednesday morning. On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday teachers met for “debrief”
sessions after school. And on Thursday, teachers met after early dismissal for professional
development. When asked to describe debrief, Miss Allen said the following:
You have to sit and think what was something really good that happened, what was a
challenge, and your action plan can be tied to your challenge. Like if one kid had a hard
time maybe you have to modify their behavior chart or whatever. It’s helpful because
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 75
you might hear a problem with a student so if they’re in your class next year, you know
what issues this kid had. Or you know what strategies you are dealing with to help that
student (Interview 2, p. 5).
Although Zeichner (1994) asserts that all teachers are reflective to some degree, it is the
reflection upon an experience that leads to improvements in one’s teaching. As teachers at
HOPE were afforded the opportunity to engage in reflective practices centered around their
teaching, they learned about themselves as educators and how to improve their practices.
Independent Reflective Practices
For the purpose of this study, independent reflective practices refer to the process whereby
teachers think about and assess their own practice, to engage in continuous learning. The HOPE
mission statement adheres to constructivism, which emphasized:
Internal- oriented approach by which by asserting one’s knowledge, as well as
participating in the learning process itself, learning is constructed by learner’s
interpretation of their own experiences (Artifact 1, p. 2).
During interviews, both general and special education teachers described several different
perceptions of how they engaged in independent reflective practices to support students with
disabilities in the inclusive setting.
Independent integration of reflection. Teachers at HOPE independently integrated
components of critical reflection as reflective tools. Teachers utilized critical reflection to
interpret their experiences in supporting students with disabilities. Miss Clark described
reflection as “something you need to learn as an educator.” Miss Clark further explained, “if a
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 76
lesson is flopping, you got to have a plan B and you’re reflecting saying ‘Okay, this isn’t
working, what can I do that’s going to make it work?’” (Interview 1, p. 7). This was evident
during a classroom observation, a special education teacher and general education teacher were
observed co-teaching. Mr. Dominic, the special education teacher, walked around the classroom
to assist students in need of extra support. Without being given any direction, Mr. Dominic
made an “on the spot” decision to redirect students (Observation 1, p. 1). Mr. Dominic’s use of
Schön’s (1992) reflection-in-action was evidenced by the in the moment decision making.
Additionally, the subsequent response is similar to Valli (1997), who identifies reflection as the
responding to students and other classroom situations.
Independent application of reflective practices . As teachers at HOPE engaged in
reflective practices, they were able to develop their ability to see and be present to the learner’s
process. This process of self- observation occurred as teachers looked at what they did in the
classroom, thought about why they did it, and thought about if it worked. Teachers described
their use of reflective tools to make on the spot changes during instruction. Teachers were also
observed using reflection-in-action. Mr. Brown talked about “making adjustments” during
instruction. Teachers were also observed using reflection-in-action. During a classroom
observation, the general education teacher, Miss Allen, was observed to move from student to
student, stopping to give help to a student. The student needed help with cutting and the teacher
went to the counter and got a different set of scissors to give to the student. This “on the spot”
decision to change the type of scissors the student used was indicative of Schön’s (1992)
reflection in action and an example of how teachers used relfective practice to make changes
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 77
during an activity to support the different needs of students.
When asked to describe a time being reflective lead to changes in the classroom, Mr.
Brown, the special education teacher, shared:
We went to the library the last couple of weeks and I noticed they were getting rowdy
once they selected their books. So today, I set really clear expectations before any of the
book shopping happened and then they all did a really good job.” (Interview 3, p. 13).
Likewise, the general education teacher, Miss Clark gave the example of teaching procedures to
students. She shared that:
If students are not following a procedure, you cannot get upset with them, you need to
reflect on your practice and change the procedure and be way more explicit with them.
(Interview 1, p.8).
Trzcinka & Grskovic (2011) found that best practices for supporting students with disabilities
included being empathetic to student needs and being able to pay close attention to learning and
behavioral needs. Teachers at HOPE reported that they were able to adjust lesson plans and
behavior management plans based on students’ needs. Furthermore, according to Schön (1992),
a reflective teacher not only plans before action, but also is able to recognize the need for
alternative choices either during or after events. This specific professional knowledge that the
teachers brought to their practice helped them to be reflective in their teaching practice and make
changes necessary when supporting students with disabilities.
Deliberative reflection. When teachers engaged in reflective practices they were able
focus on the individual instead of the whole class. Valli (1997) defined deliberative reflection as
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 78
thinking about a whole range of teaching concerns, including the curriculum, instructional
practices and behavioral needs in the classroom. As teachers described their engagement in
deliberative reflection, they discussed and were observed making decisions based on personal
beliefs, experience, and the advice of other teachers (Valli, 1997). This was noticeable during a
first grade classroom observation. During a whole group activity on the carpet, students were
facing and attending to the teacher. The general education teacher, Miss Frank, was explaining
the directions for the math activity. One student at the back of the carpet was bouncing on his
knees and turned his body to face the opposite direction of the teacher. As Miss Frank talked,
she walked over to the student and placed her hand on his shoulder, and the student turned
around and sat criss-cross on the carpet (Observation 2, p. 2). The teacher’s ability to know
when and how to redirect the student’s attention without stopping instruction was comparable to
Larrivee’s (2000) definition of the reflective teacher which asserts that reflective teachers are
able to recognize the needs of students in order to seek solutions.
Likewise, when the special education teacher Mr. Brown spoke of supporting a student
with disabilities in the inclusive classroom, he shared that:
It might just be that someone needs to be at her [the student’s] side and I have a personal
white board and we’re [the teachers] going to model it a couple of times before she gets it
(Interview 3, p. 8).
Similar to Rodgers (2002) interpretation of reflection, independent reflective practices were used
as a process of making meaning out of experiences through a process of thinking about what has
happened. As teachers engaged independently in reflective practices, they were able to draw
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 79
from what is known about their students in order to effectively support all students using their
professional knowledge (Schön, 1992).
Collaborative Reflective Practices
Collaborative reflective practices occurred as teachers collaborated with other teachers
throughout the school day. As stated in the HOPE Mission Statement, “Collaboration and
co-teaching is one of the six tenets of the HOPE model. Highly qualified educators are partners
in planning, teaching and assessing each child” (Artifact 2, p. 1). Unlike independent reflective
practices, collaborative reflective practices occurred with one or more teacher. During
interviews, general education teachers reported learning from the special education teacher, both
during the co-planning time and during co-teaching in the classroom.
Expectation for reflection . During collaborative opportunities throughout the week,
teachers were expected to engage in reflective practices to support students with disabilities.
According to Miss Clark, “at HOPE you need to be collaborative to be successful” (Interview 1,
p. 2). In order to support students with disabilities in their classrooms, general education
teachers at HOPE were expected to collaborate through co-planning and co-teaching with the
special education teacher during scheduled weekly planning and co-teaching times. When
teachers met for co-planning, a live planning document was used so that both general and special
education teachers could add information based on student need. During the observation of
co-planning, the general education teacher took the lead in planning the instruction and the
special education teacher was observed to add specific modifications for students with
disabilities and other needs in the classroom. (Observation 3, p. 3).
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 80
This was also observed during a classroom observation of co-teaching as the special
education teacher, Mr. Dominic, came into the classroom with a basket of materials during a
math lesson. He pulled a student to the side and used materials from the basket to support the
mathematical understanding happening in the classroom. Other students and the general
education teacher, Miss Frank, continued with their activities as the student was pulled to the
side, with no disruptions to instruction. This seemingly smooth transition seemed to imply that
this was the norm in the classroom. (Observation 2, p.1). At HOPE, the use of collaborative
reflective practices supported students with disabilities as it assisted both general and special
education teachers in development of an action plan to improve learning outcomes for students
with disabilities. Furthermore, it helped ensure the transfer of knowledge into practice (Edwards
& Thomas, 2010).
Additionally, during classroom observations and interviews at HOPE, it was noted that
teachers left their doors open and different staff members, such as paraprofessionals and teacher
specialists, moved freely among the school and classrooms. There were other non-structured
opportunities for collaborative reflection that occur at HOPE. One teacher interview took place
in the classroom during lunch time of a school day. During the interview, another teacher came
by the classroom to ask a question. When I asked the teacher about this, the general education
teacher Miss Clark shared:
We’re talking all the time, what worked, what didn’t work, what about this idea, so on
and so forth. I feel like we need to be really trusting of each other and everyone here has
a great work ethic and if you don’t have that you won’t succeed here because you really
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 81
have to put yourself out there and do what’s best for the children and take time out of
your day to have those courageous conversations (Interview 1, p. 2).
Jaeger (2013) claims that although most teachers are reflective by nature, extensive
opportunities are necessary to cultivate this ability. At HOPE, teachers were given ample
opportunity to collaborate and given structured collaboration activities to encourage reflection.
Furthermore, similar to Bishop et al. (2010) identification of the importance of the school
environment, special and general education teachers at HOPE shared that working in a
collaborative environment enabled teachers to take risks, provided teachers new ideas for
instruction, and allowed teachers to gain appropriate feedback.
Role of collaboration in teacher efficacy. Collaboration and co-teaching were one of
the core tenets of the HOPE model to support students with disabilities. The collaborative
classroom in the inclusive setting promoted student success by increasing adult to student ratio,
providing tailored instruction, and demonstrate “best practices for all scholars” (Artifact 2, p. 1).
The weekly opportunities for co-planning led to positive co-teaching experiences for teachers.
During co-planning, teachers developed a plan and designated specific goals for the co-teaching
time. This was evident in an observation of co-planning, as the teachers used a collaborative
document to designate how the special education teacher would provide services to support the
students with disabilities in the classroom. The general education teacher determined that the
special education teacher would run the math center. As the teachers talked about the teaching
point (addition using objects), the special education asked the general education specific
questions about student expectations. Additionally, the special education gave examples of how
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 82
to modify the lesson to support the needs of different learners, stating “ I’ll have whiteboards and
cubes” (Observation 3, p. 6). As teachers co-planned, it helped them develop more certainty
about their teaching which in turn improved their self-efficacy (Scruggs et al., 2007).
During interviews, teachers were asked to define co-teaching at HOPE. All teachers
shared that co-teaching were “specific times” and “formal times” that looked different from “day
to day” and were determined during co-planning. Mr. Dominic and Miss Allen shared that
co-teaching looks different depending on the students and their needs. Furthermore, Miss Allen
noted:
Sometimes he’ll [the special education teacher Mr. Dominic] come in and teach a lesson
and I’ll support the kids. Sometimes he’ll support the kids while they work. Sometimes
we teach together. Sometimes if a student has a lot of needs he might primarily just work
with them when he comes in. (Interview 2, p. 6)
Rodgers (2002) highlighted the importance of seeking multiple perspectives while engaging in
collaborative reflection, suggesting that other teachers may offer alternative meanings or
additional understandings. During co-planning, teachers at HOPE engaged in collaborative
reflection to support all learners in the classroom.
Teachers shared that co-teaching was an integral component of the inclusive model. Mr.
Brown said that as a newer teacher (this was his second year), he may not be comfortable
initially, but during co-teaching, “I get to learn from other teachers” (Interview 3, p. 4).
Furthermore, when asked what were the benefits of co-teaching, Mr. Brown relayed:
Rather than having it happen in isolation, they’re (other teachers) coming into my
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 83
classroom and they can pull me to the side and say “All right, now watch this. Watch
what I try with this student” and then I get to see them use that strategy and then I can
take that. (Interview 3, p. 4).
Miss Clark was also asked about the benefits of co-teaching. She shared that she was
constantly “learning from the special education teacher during co-teaching and from her team
while co-collaborating” (Interview 1, p. 3). Additionally, she stated that it’s a “great time to
differentiate and help students who are lower in specific areas”. Mr. Dominic stated that:
When you’re always working with other people, again, you’re accountable, you’re
holding them accountable, you’re thinking about what you’re doing so you don’t look
bad, you know what I mean? It’s easier to skate by if you’re just sitting in a room by
yourself. Here it’s a fishbowl. A tour could walk in at any second. Parents are one of
our partnerships, they’re going to be here, except it (Interview 4, p. 12).
Similar to Tinker Sachs, Fisher, & Cannon’s (2011) assertion that a critical part of
collaboration included finding time to sit, think aloud and debrief, teachers at HOPE used the
informal collaborative time to utilize particular strengths, knowledge, and skills of each other to
support students with disabilities in the classroom.
Technical Reflection . The use of data chats and weekly co-planning meetings guided
teachers through the reflective process. Data chats were monthly one on one meetings between
administration and teachers that looked at data and set goals for next steps in instruction. The
special education teacher, Mr. Dominic, shared that the data chats were a good time to “think
about what we are doing in the classroom”. Some examples of data used included assessment
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 84
scores, work samples and/or observational data. During the data chat cycle, administration
comes into the classroom to observe and take data based on the pre-determined goal. A debrief
meeting occurs after the observation and uses the data to talk about the observation. All staff
participated in data chats and they were considered non-evaluative. Additionally, Mr. Dominic
reported that the administration would ask reflective questions during the chats, such as “ What
did you notice? Here’s what I noticed” and “What do you want to work on for next time?”
(Interview 4, p. 6). Mr. Brown shared that data chats were a “good time to reflect because so
much of it [reflection] happens informally” (Interview 3, p. 11). This collaborative process was
discussed by Larrivee (2000) in terms of the importance of making time for critical inquiry,
highlighting the use of learning communities to help teachers reflect more purposefully. Similar
to Larrivee’s (2000) framework, teachers were able to consider the impact of their own behavior
to keep teachers aware of the consequences of their actions on students. Teachers shared that
they had reflective conversations with administrators about what was observed in the classroom,
and administration encouraged teachers to set a goal for themselves based on the conversation.
Mr. Brown explained:
She [administration] might say “I noticed this” I might say, “yeah, that’s something I’ve
been having difficulty with. We might make a goal together. As much as possible, they
[administration] ask us to try and create our own goals through reflection and
conversations we have (Interview 3, p. 10).
Bishop et al. (2010) found that administration played a key role in establishing a supportive
academic environment. During reflective conversations with administration, teachers were
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 85
provided with feedback aimed at validating and improving teachers’ practice.
Another example of how data was used is during weekly co-planning meetings. The use
of a shared google doc allowed for input from all team members. During co-planning, general
education teachers decide what the role of Mr. Dominic will be based on the curricular time he
comes in. Teachers reported that co-planning was a time to decide what to teach, who would
teach, and what needed to be prepped. Teachers shared that during co-planning, they would talk
about planned activities and make “tweaks” if necessary. Mr. Dominic would give input
regarding any modifications or accommodations necessary to meet the needs of students with
disabilities in the classroom. Also during co-planning, Mr. Dominic’s time to go into the
classrooms were determined and his role while in the classroom was determined. This was
observed during the co-planning observation as the general and special education teacher
planned for a Language Arts lesson. Miss Green, the general education teacher, told Mr.
Dominic, the special education teacher “Okay, Monday centers, you’re doing the letter ‘Y’ and
Friday center you are doing ‘addition’”. Mr. Dominic responded “Maybe I can find some yellow
yo-yo’s for the letter ‘Y’ ”. (Observation 3, p. 3). Similar to Zeichner’s (1994) definition of the
reflective teacher, while co-planning, teachers are open minded and able to look at the situation
from multiple perspectives.
Furthermore, teachers noted that the use of data, such as assessment scores and work
samples, was effective in making necessary changes to support all learners. Miss Allen
explained that during planning, teachers use data to guide next steps. She shared:
We’re constantly looking at data and seeing what did we not teach well enough, what did
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 86
they not get, what should we re-teach. I think too because you have to do a lot of
reflecting at HOPE I’ve learned to ask myself ‘what could I have done different?’
Granted, if a lesson doesn’t work out, sure it could be because the kids are off, but I feel
personally a lot of the times it’s something that I could have done differently (Interview
2, p. 4).
Osipova, et al. (2011) found that changing teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning can
bring about change in a teacher’s practice. As Miss Allen’s looked at the student needs in her
classroom, she didn’t blame the students, but was able to take responsibility for changing her
instruction to support all students in her classroom. Her beliefs about students with disabilities
were not deficit minded (Howard, 2003).
As the special education teacher, Mr. Dominic’s role in the co-planning was to give input
regarding students with disabilities. During his interview, he shared that general education
teacher’s role was to plan and support subject matter and his focus was in the accommodations
and modifications that students with disabilities may need. For example, he said “ the stuff is
already planned and then me and the teacher of that room think about the access for that kid
[with a disability]” (Interview 4, p. 7). Furthermore, he shared that not all general education
teachers were comfortable doing modifications on their own and looked to him for guidance.
Similar to Sharpe & Hawes (2003) definition of applied collaboration, teachers at HOPE
engaged in collaborative reflective practice to discuss the learning needs of the students with
disabilities, and determined the resources available.
Opportunities for Reflection. Guided Reflection occurred daily at HOPE between
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 87
general and special education teachers. The contracted one hour before and after school allowed
opportunity for teachers to meet as a grade level to plan and prep, meet with designated
instructional service providers such as speech and occupational therapists to review progress, or
meet with fellow teachers. The use of reflective practices helped to determine instructional
improvements. For example, the general education teacher Mr. Brown spoke of planning for
intensive workshop time (IWT’s), during which grade level teachers chose a common specific
skill (for instance writing, spelling or a math standard) and gave a pre-assessment to students to
create groups across the grade level. During the four to six-week cycle, four groups of students
are created and for 30 minutes four days a week, students participated in intensive instruction.
When asked about the benefits of the IWTs, Mr. Brown shared “ For kids at risk, it’s
intervention. For kids that are exceeding grade level, they have an opportunity for extension.”
(Interview 3, p. 4). Additionally, Mr. Brown shared that the principal and vice principal gave
suggestions for activities and tools to use in the intervention. As teachers engaged in reflective
practices to support all learners, they were able to create a more vigorous learning environment.
Additionally, the support of the administration at HOPE led to high expectations for students
(Bishop et al., 2010).
Another significant opportunity for guided reflection lay in the debrief sessions of
teachers. Every Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, teachers came together for a thirty-minute
debrief session after students were dismissed for the day. Teachers sat in a circle and gave a
success of the day, a challenge of the day, and an action plan. It was known as a sacred time,
and teachers were not allowed to interrupt or comment during debrief. Although planning to
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 88
debrief was identified as an independent reflective practice, after debriefing was over teachers
engaged in a collaborative reflective practice as teachers were dismissed from debrief. All
teacher participants identified this as a time that teachers were able to react and give feedback to
support all learners. During the interview, Miss Allen shared:
It’s good because after (debrief), if I have a student that’s having a hard time maybe that
kindergarten teacher who had him last year will say ‘Oh, I heard that ‘JL’ is having an
issue, this is what I did’. It’s really helpful. I think it helps you realize too that everyone
has a hard day. It’s not all peaches and cream. It checks you. This is a hard job. It’s
definitely very collaborative (Interview 2, p. 6).
Similar to Valli’s (1997) concept of technical reflection, teachers identification of successes, as
well as areas of improvement in practice were utilized by teachers to support students with
disabilities at HOPE.
Obstacles to Reflection. Teachers at HOPE reported that there was a high turnover rate
of teachers. Each grade level team was comprised of three or four general education teachers
and one special education teacher. The first grade teacher, Miss Allen, reported that every year
she had a new team member. The kindergarten teacher, Miss Clark, shared that with new
teachers there is a lot of “hand holding on how to do this or that and what the year looked like”
(Interview 1, p. 5). The special education teacher Mr. Dominic shared:
In my seven years, I think I’ve had something like 25 co-teachers. A lot of people come
to work at HOPE fresh out of school. Some teachers have been here around a year or
less” (Interview 4, p. 7).
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 89
Although he has been at HOPE for seven years, Mr. Dominic reported that he had seen a
lot of turnover. When asked what attributed to this, he claimed, “Husband got transferred, I’m
moving back home, this other district pays more, whatever. A couple of them didn’t work out,
we didn’t want them anymore”(Interview 4, p. 7). He went on to share that to find a team that
has been together more than two years was hard. Although Miss Allen agreed that teachers tend
to leave after one or two years, she felt that the challenges of working at HOPE were not
contributing factors. She stated:
It tends to be more life stuff then I’m not happy here. But every year, I have a new team
member. When you have new teachers, they are asking these detailed questions and you
have to explain a lot. (Interview 2, p. 7).
Effective collaboration was an integral component of success as a teacher at HOPE.
However, it was noted that differing opinions disrupted effective collaboration between special
and general education teachers. When asked about co-planning time, Miss Clark shared that it is
a collaborative time that all teachers participate. Teachers were expected to meet from 2:15 to
3:15 and teachers were required by administration to attend. Miss Clark shared that as the team
became cohesive, teachers started to reflect on their practice and bring new ideas to the table.
However, this is not always the case. Miss Clark talked of a time two years ago, when there was
a team member who was really difficult to work with. “Our planning meetings would be two
and a half hours” (Interview 1, p. 7). This teacher eventually left the school and a new teacher
was hired in her place. Whereas reflection is an integral component of teacher practice at HOPE,
Jaeger (2013) asserts that many inexperienced teachers lack the skills necessary to engage in
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 90
reflection. In order to be successful at HOPE, teachers must be able to contribute to the rigorous
schedule of collaboration and reflection. Furthermore, given the built in opportunities for
reflection, such as the debriefs and data chats, teachers may not have the terminology for their
structured reflections, as teachers reported during interviews that they had no formal training or
instruction on reflective practices.
Summary for Research Question One
At HOPE, teachers described reflection as practices used with the community of teachers
to influence one’s teaching of students with disabilities. Whereas Chalikandy (2014) defines
reflection as the process by which an experience is recalled, considered, and evaluated for a
specific purpose, it is evident at HOPE that experience is important to teacher professional
growth, and it will not help teachers grow unless they learn from it. During built in opportunities
for reflection, teachers engaged in both independent and collaborative reflective practices, and
teacher noted that their practice improved which in turn the felt, increased their efficacy.
Additionally, the built in opportunities for collaboration were unique to HOPE charter school and
used to support both the students with disabilities and all of the staff who supports the students.
Results for Research Question Two
The second two themes emerged from the research question of how elementary general
and special education teachers perceived that reflective practices increased their efficacy when
supporting students with disabilities. As stated in chapter two, reflective practices can be useful
in supporting teachers by helping them develop a deeper understanding of student’s behavior
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 91
while collaborating with other teachers. In a well-designed inclusive classroom, teachers are
collaborative, reflective and engage in on the spot decision making. Furthermore, York and Barr
(2005) acknowledge that to make changes in practice, teachers must slow down and have
reflective conversations. The next part of the chapter will focus on teachers’ perceptions of the
impact reflective practices.
Perceived Impact of Reflection
Teachers at HOPE held several different perceptions of the impact of reflection on not
only their own teaching practice, but also on the effects it has on student learning. Teachers
shared that reflective practices were useful in thinking about student needs, as well as identifying
and examining classroom changes necessary to support students with disabilities. Similar to
Schön’s (1992) description of reflection, by engaging in reflection, teachers believed that they
learn from their experience.
The Collaborative Culture of HOPE. Teachers reported that collaboration was
expected and useful to support the different needs of students. The general education teacher Mr.
Brown spoke of collaborating with the special education teacher.
“Depending on the students in our classroom, certain activities may need to look
different for certain students and that would be a time to talk to [the special education
teacher] and say “ Hey, how are we going to adapt this a little bit?” (Interview 3, p. 7).
When asked about the benefits of collaboration, the general education teacher Miss Clark shared:
Usually when you’re a teacher, you’re in a classroom by yourself and you don’t have
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 92
anyone else to be like ‘that worked because of this or that didn’t work because of this’. I
feel like this school really lends itself to reflective practice. (Interview 1, p. 10).
Collaboration between teachers to support students with disabilities is an extension of Schön’s
(1992) definition of conversation with the situation, one of the three components of reflective
practice. During conversation with the situation, teachers pause in action, consider the different
aspects of the situation and potential results, and then identify a way to resolve the situation. As
teachers shared their beliefs in the collaborative culture at HOPE, it was evident that reflective
practices were used to support all learners.
Reflective Practices and Student Outcomes. Reflective practices allowed teachers to
become more aware of the diverse needs of students. Teachers reported that reflection was an
essential component of their practice and instrumental in supporting students with disabilities.
During interviews, teachers shared that although they were comfortable with all students in the
classroom, when challenges arose, they sought out the support of other teachers or specialists.
Mr. Brown felt that because the team is doing the same activities, they are able to have reflective
conversations that happen “during lunch” or “after school”. When asked their perception of the
relationship between how they reflect and their ability to support students with disabilities,
Miss Allen, the general education teacher, stated:
I think if you’re reflective and you’re thinking about, okay, I’m having this issue, you
might notice things. I notice every time he [student with disability] acts up he tells me he
is hungry. Next time I’m going to be reflective and I’m going to ask him, I’m going to
prompt him ‘Have you eaten? Did you eat all your snack?’ (Interview 2, p. 7).
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 93
Mr. Brown, the general education teacher, stated that “I don’t think you can grow if you’re not
reflecting”. Furthermore, he said:
Because we are working so closely, we’re kind of just in a process of reflecting and
communicating and learning from one another. If you’re reflecting with others, it’s going
to be that much more insightful than if you’re reflecting on your own (Interview 3, p. 13).
Miss Allen shared that being reflective allows you to “pick up on things and catch patterns to
make a better informed decision”. Additionally, she shared that “if you are not able to reflect,
you’re not going to be as successful as you can be with your students because you might not
notice things” (Interview 2, p. 7). Similar to Rodgers (2002) presence in experience, teachers at
HOPE were present to student learning needs and able to respond with a best possible next step.
By focusing on what the student can do, and what they need, teachers described their positive
perceptions about the impact of student learning. Teachers reported that the model at HOPE
fostered reflection because they were not in isolation and that talking to each other led to changes
in how they supported all student needs. For example, the general education teacher Miss Allen
shared:
We have a close relationship and talk about what we do and how we can help each other.
I really feel like my team cares, they want to support me. (Interview 2, p. 8).
Eccleston (2010) shared that effective inclusion occurred when teachers were able to come
together with positive attitudes about the commitment to supporting students. Teachers at HOPE
believed in the collaborative process. For example, Miss Clark shared that the “most important
thing” you need to do is collaborate at HOPE. She went on to describe how “We can come
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 94
together and think about what you are doing and making sure the kids are getting the most out of
your lesson.” (Interview 1, p. 5). The teachers at HOPE shared that reflective practices were
useful during collaboration to support students with disabilities.
Another example of reflective practices teachers describes and were observed using to
support student outcomes were in the goal setting teachers and administrators engaged in.
Unlike the data chats described above, goal setting was a formal, individual teacher evaluation
that included a reflective cycle of setting a goal, a classroom observation by administration, and
follow up reflective conversation to review how the lesson went. This evaluation cycle occurred
every four to six weeks. The general education teacher Mr. Brown shared that during goal
setting meetings, the administrator might say “Did you notice this?” or “ What did you think of
that?” Through this reflective conversation, together they would come up with a goal to be met
for the next teacher evaluation cycle. (Interview 3, p. 10)
This practice is aligned with Valli’s (1997) critical thinking and its relationship to
reflective practice, which identifies successes, areas of improvement and next steps to be taken.
By engaging in reflective practices in instruction, planning, and evaluations, teachers believed
they were able to make changes to their practice and increase student outcomes.
The use of reflection on action. Teachers shared that reflection on action was utilized as
general and special education teachers reacted to classroom experiences. For example, Miss
Clark, the general education teacher, shared that coming together to “think” was the most
important thing they did at HOPE. During this collaborative process, she would reflect on a
lesson with peers. When the general education teacher Miss Allen was asked about her ability to
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 95
support students with disabilities, she stated :
These kids can’t change the things for themselves or else there would be nothing to teach
them. Or at least for me I try to teach my kids how to be vocal as much as they can, so
they can help me. (Interview 2, p. 7).
Similar to Rodgers (2002) definition of reflective thought, Miss Allen described how teachers
came together to “think” to support students with disabilities in the inclusive setting.
During co-planning, teachers reacted to instruction to make necessary changes. Miss
Allen spoke of reflecting after a lesson. She shared that when thinking about why a lesson did
not go right, she thinks about the reason why. Furthermore, Miss Allen explained:
If I do a lesson and it’s not the desired outcome, I’m like why? I want to think and tell
[the other first grade teacher] this is how I did this. I noticed this, so you should change it
this way. (Interview 2, p. 8). Miss Allen’s use of reflection-on-action (Schön, 1992) influenced
her perceptions of improving student outcomes.
Systematic Approach to Collaboration
The expectation for collaboration to occur at HOPE facilitated the examination of
different opportunities for reflection. Teachers shared that collaboration was useful in thinking
about different learners’ needs and supporting the growth of students and teacher efficacy.
Through the systematic approach to collaboration, and thus, the use of reflective practice,
teachers became more aware of the diverse needs of students.
Perceived benefits of inclusion. During interviews, teachers spoke about inclusion as a
shared practice to support students with disabilities in the general education classroom. The
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 96
special education teacher, Mr. Dominic, shared “Our kids make gains, not just in terms of
academics, but in terms of life skills” (Interview 4, p. 4). Similarly, the general education
teachers, Miss Allen and Miss Clark, agreed that all students benefit from the inclusive setting,
stating that students learned “empathy”, “acceptance” and “patience”. Additionally, when asked
what she believed the benefits of inclusion were, Miss Allen stated:
I want [students with disabilities] to have genuine real relationships and I think that at a
school like this, it’s not like oh that’s my buddy Tom, he’s special. It’s like no, that’s just
Tom, he’s my buddy. That’s it. It’s not he’s a special kid. (Interview 2, p. 9).
Andrews et al. (2000) noted that differing perspectives on the purpose of educating students with
disabilities led to alternative beliefs outcomes about expected outcomes. All teachers at HOPE
shared similar perspectives about the benefits of inclusive education.
General and special education teachers perceived that inclusion had positive
effects on not only students, but teachers as well. The special education teacher, Mr. Dominic,
stressed the uniqueness of HOPE and it’s built in collaboration. He stated:
I think it’s harder here to get stuck in the same old same old with a kid who really is
slower to grasp things. I can see where a practitioner would stop pushing themselves to
try things in an isolated environment. (Interview 4, p. 5).
Mr. Brown shared:
One of the most amazing things about the inclusive model is all of the collaboration that
goes with it. Ideally, you want as much communication and collaboration as possible
between the special and general education teacher. (Interview 3, p. 4).
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 97
Although Miss Clark claimed that she felt that HOPE was a “safe and happy community”
because of the full inclusion model, she spoke of the “level of support”, referring to support of
other staff members and stated that some students have more support than others. Furthermore,
Miss Clark stated that “It takes really special teachers and a very organized staff to implement it”
(Interview 1, p. 9). The special education teacher, Mr. Dominic, shared that one of the benefits
of the inclusive model at HOPE is “working together to support different types of learners and to
support the whole child in terms of his or her total development” (Interview 4, p. 5). Bishop et
al. (2010) noted that teachers with a propensity toward reflection influenced positive classroom
practices to support students with disabilities. As teachers engaged in collaborative reflective
practices, they shared that they were able to successfully support all learners.
Additionally, teachers perceived that inclusion had a positive impact on both students
with and without disabilities. One of the core tenets of the HOPE model stated, “All students
growing and thriving: Each class builds a strong inclusive community together!” (Artifact 2, p.
1). This was evident in one classroom observation as the students with disabilities were included
in the instruction. Students worked in pairs to complete a math “scavenger hunt”. It was
observed that one pair of students had a lead student who was in charge of the clipboard and
acted as a peer tutor to the other student. During the observation of a problem solving, it was
noted that after the peer tutor read the problem from a card on the table, he allowed ample wait
time for the student to respond. At this time, the classroom teacher, Miss Allen, walked over to
the pair to offer assistance (Observation 2, p. 1). The use of reflection on action was evident as
the teachers allowed for the peer tutor to support the needs of the student before stepping in to
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 98
offer extra support. Additionally, the peer tutor student appeared to have the necessary skills to
offer support to his peer. Through the use of co-planning meetings, teachers shared that they
were able to plan for specific student supports and outcomes by pairing a peer tutor, as
referenced above, with a student with disability.
Teachers reported that all students benefited from the inclusive setting. For example,
Miss Clark explained:
Day to day, students in my class, the biggest thing they learn is empathy. They’re
learning to play with people who are a little different, to be leaders in the classroom and
support him (student with disability). Knowing that everybody’s different it’s okay.
(Interview 1, p. 4)
Furthermore, when asked what are the benefits of inclusion for typically developing students,
Miss Allen shared:
I think for students, it helps them realize that everyone needs different things at different
times. It teaches them compassion because they help out a lot and they become
empathetic. They have a better understanding of the struggles of some of their
classmates. I think it just makes the see them (students with disabilities) really as equals.
That’s the most important part. (Interview 2, p. 4)
At HOPE, the school culture supported and embraced an inclusive culture. Likewise, as Artiles
& Kozleski (2007) assert that successful teaching in the inclusive setting occurs when teachers
engage in ongoing learning and reflection to support all learners, the collaborative culture at
HOPE afforded teachers the opportunity to engage in ongoing learning and reflection.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 99
The use of reflective practice to support students with disabilities . General education
teachers reported that in order to support students with disabilities in their classrooms, sufficient
levels of support were necessary from the special education teacher. At HOPE, teachers and
designated support services were expected to work side by side, which lent itself to the open
door culture of all classrooms. For example, during one forty minute observation in the
kindergarten classroom, numerous staff moved in and out of the classroom. First, there was the
special education teacher who came in for ten minutes, left the classroom and came back five
minutes later. Also an occupational therapist who came into the classroom and worked with a
student at the desk, and a paraprofessional who moved around the classroom (Observation 1,
p.1).
Additionally, when the special education teacher came into the classroom, he was able to
give support to make on the spot changes. Mr. Brown shared that when the special education
teacher comes in, he may make a small suggestion to help the flow of instruction. Additionally,
Miss Allen shared that Mr. Dominic, the special education teacher, comes in and may add to
what she is teaching. The teachers’ openness to having the special education teacher in the class
was supported by the collaborative nature at HOPE. Additionally, teachers were afforded formal
opportunities to engage in reflective practices, which allowed teachers opportunities to examine
and improve their practice.
The ability to empathize and understand student’s perspectives was important to teacher
efficacy. Similarly, Eccleston (2010) found that successful collaborators are receptive.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 100
Moreover, successful inclusion is directly related to collaboration between teachers to create
positive outcomes for students with disabilities. As such, teachers at HOPE engaged in
collaborative practices to support students with disabilities.
Reflective practice and professional growth. Ongoing professional growth for both
special and general education teacher supported their ability for implementation of inclusive
practices. Teachers at HOPE reported participating in ongoing professional growth to support
students with disabilities. As such, one of the core tenets of HOPE stated:
Each summer teachers attend professional development institutes on gifted and talented
education, technology, and differentiated instruction. Important academic, social and
ethical skills and attitudes are developed when students with various strengths, needs, and
backgrounds learn together. (Artifact 2, p. 1).
The general education teacher, Mr. Brown, explained that professional development topics
included differentiating the curriculum, positive behavior support, and the use of data to support
student growth. He went on to explain that lots of “tweaks” came from weekly professional
development. He added that when teachers come together and “talk about the things we are
doing, we might tweak things based on those conversations” (Interview #3, p. 10). Friend &
Cook (2007) advise special educators to understand how their knowledge and skill facilitate
co-teaching. As such, when asked how professional development supports his growth as an
educator, Mr. Dominic shared:
You have to stop and think. There’s people counting on you about giving good answers.
If they turn to you as a mentor you have to think ‘What have I done? How did I do
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 101
that?’(Interview 4, p. 11).
Rodgers (2002) posits that having a community of respect among teachers is critical to creating
an environment for successful reflection. Through the use of reflective practices throughout the
week, teachers shared that they were able to rely on each other for support. Additionally, the
most productive starting place for teachers professional development is in their own classroom
experience (Rodgers, 2002). As teachers at HOPE relied on the special education teacher to
support their professional growth, teachers shared that they were able to understand the
importance of the role the special education teacher plays in the success of the inclusive setting.
Summary Research Question Two
Special and general education teachers held several different perceptions of the effects of
reflective practice in their ability to not only support students with disabilities, but also on their
ability to strengthen their practice. Teachers shared that reflective practices were useful in
identifying and examining perceived student outcomes, benefits of inclusion, and professional
growth. Some types of reflective practices occurred more frequently than others as teachers
collaborated to support students with disabilities in the inclusive setting. Through effective
collaboration, special and general education teachers believed that they were able to negotiate
roles and responsibilities to provide the necessary instructional supports for students with
disabilities in the general education classroom (Scruggs et al., 2007).
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 102
Chapter Five: Discussion
Beginning in 1975 with the Federally mandated Education for All Handicapped Children
Act (EAHC) and the 1990 and 2004 Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), students with
disabilities have been ensured a right to a free and appropriate public school education (IDEA,
2004). Initially, the law focused on ensuring that students with disabilities had access to an
education and due process. Currently, the goal of IDEA is to govern how states and public
agencies provide special education and related services (ed.gov). However, there continues to be
a lack in consistency in how students with disabilities are educated across the nation.
Recent trends and legislation has promoted inclusive education or the least restrictive
environment (LRE) as best practices (Scruggs et al., 2007). High quality inclusive education
should focus on participation and outcomes for students with disabilities (Sailor, 2015).
Inclusion encourages general and special education teachers to work together for the benefit of
all students. Although collaboration between special and general education teachers has been a
hallmark since the beginning of inclusive practices, co-teaching is fairly new.
Co-teaching occurs when a general and special education teacher work side by side with
a joint delivery of instruction and a shared responsibility of planning, instruction and evaluation
(Friend et al., 2010). Co-teaching has recently evolved as a strategy for supporting students with
disabilities in the general education classroom and as a vehicle to meet legislative expectations.
However, there are concerns with the inconsistencies in the understanding of the definition,
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 103
delivery model and implementation of inclusive education (Friend et al., 2010). With that, this
study aimed to address the inconsistencies in how students with disabilities are educated in the
K-5 classroom.
Overview of Current Study
The focus of this study was to analyze the reflective practices utilized by general and
special education teachers to support K-5 students with disabilities in an inclusive setting. While
some challenges teachers face may be addressed with the acquisition of factual knowledge, most
challenges require understanding of the specific people, contexts, resources, and events of
individuals (Appl & Yorde, 2005). Reflective practices have been identified as a model for both
special and general education teachers to utilize in order to participate in collaboration and
co-teaching to support students with disabilities. Effective teachers reflect regularly and deeply
on their practice. Furthermore, this study aimed to develop a better understanding of the
reflective practices special and general education teachers use and how they utilized them in the
supportive and collaborative school culture. Findings showed that as general and special
education teachers engaged in reflective practices to support students with disabilities in the
inclusive setting, it helped teachers develop more certainty about their teaching and improved
their self-efficacy.
This qualitative study analyzed data collected via teacher interviews, observations of
co-teaching and co-planning, and collection of artifacts (Merriam, 2009). The study involved
four individual teacher interviews, two observations of co-teaching, one observation of
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 104
co-planning, and a collection of three artifacts. The individual teacher interviews were
conducted with three general education teachers and one special education teacher. The two
co-teaching observations were conducted with the same special education teacher in two
different general education classrooms. The co-planning observation took place between the
special education teacher and one general education teacher. The observations were
approximately forty five minutes long and the co-planning meeting was thirty minutes. The final
mode of data collection included the gathering of three artifacts collected from the staff at
HOPE. The artifacts included the school mission statement, the school core tenets and
instructional practices, and a grade level planning protocol. These methods were used to provide
detailed information necessary to understand the nature of the knowledge of reflective practices
among general and special education teachers in the inclusive setting (Merriam, 2009; Maxwell,
2013). The findings of this study aimed to answer the following research questions:
1. How do K-5 general and special education teachers describe how they engage in
independent and collaborative reflective practice, if at all?
2. How do K-5 general and special education teachers perceive the impact of the reflective
practice when supporting students with disabilities?
Discussion of Findings
The framework for this study was the teacher collaboration framework (Table 2.1). It
utilized components from Rodgers’ (2002) theory of reflection. The work of Rodgers (2002)
was influenced by the work of Dewey (1938) on reflection and how reflection is process of
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 105
making meaning out of experiences through a rigorous and systematic process of thinking. The
literature that was reviewed focused primarily on educational settings. Components of these
theories were applied to the field of education, specifically special education. Furthermore, this
framework was employed in the analysis of the data collected from interviews, observations, and
collection of artifacts.
Five major themes surfaced in this study related to the use of reflective practices by
general and special education teachers in the inclusive setting. The first theme identified how
teachers defined and described the reflective practices used at HOPE. The second theme
explored the independent reflective practices teachers described and were observed engaging in
throughout the school day. The third theme examined how teachers described and were
observed engaging in structured and unstructured collaborative reflective practices throughout
the school day. The fourth theme investigated how teachers perceived the impact of reflection.
The final theme explored the role of collaboration throughout HOPE. Throughout the school
day, general and special education teachers had opportunities to participate in both structured and
unstructured collaboration. This study found that collaboration was significant in guiding
teachers through reflective practices to support students with disabilities. Data from theses
themes revealed the impact of reflective practices on general and special education teachers
when supporting students with disabilities in the inclusive setting.
The first three themes were aligned with how general and special education teachers
described how they engaged in reflective practices. The first theme described how teachers
identified and gave a range of descriptions of how reflective practices were used at HOPE.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 106
Although the phrase “reflective practice” was not used, the terms teachers gave described
components of reflective practice. For example, teachers shared multiple terms and phrases such
as “debriefing”, “data chats”, and “professional development”. Although the term reflective
practice was popularized by Schön (1992) as a dialogue of thinking and doing to become more
skillful, Osterman (1990) established the term “self-awareness” to describe the reflective
process. Self awareness occurred as teachers integrated experience with reflection which led to
action. Additionally, Osterman(1990) posited that reflective practices could be used to facilitate
stability and change. When asked to define reflective practices, teachers shared that although
they did not have a formal definition, they had ideas about reflection. These included “thinking
about how it went” and “thinking about what we are doing in the classroom”. The language of
teachers in their identification and review of teaching practices aligned with Rodgers (2002)
presence in experience by which teachers are able to respond with the best possible instructional
move.
Additionally, teacher participants identified multiple opportunities for reflective practices
throughout the school day. The interpretations of reflection as described by general and special
education teachers included components of reflective practice in the literature. Moreover, their
explanations of the terminology exemplify the concept of reflection as a tool to enhance teacher
skill and professional development. Although they did not use the term “reflective practice”
directly, general and special education teachers had an understanding of the components of
reflection and the influence it had on their teaching and their ability to support students with
disabilities. These components included debriefs, co-planning, collaboration, goal setting and
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 107
data chats. All of these components were similar to Rodgers (2002) reflective cycle which
included presence in experience; the ability to respond and make the best possible next
instructional move, description of experience; as teachers learned to describe and differentiate,
analysis of experience: as teachers were able to look at a situation from multiple perspectives,
and experimentation; as teachers took risks and tried new things to support students with
disabilities. However, Beauchamp (2015) advised the importance of having a clear definition of
reflection for those who utilize to have guidelines for implementation. The lack of a uniform
definition of “reflective practice” amongst teachers could create misunderstanding of the scope
of reflection and the depth of reflective practice as distinct from ordinary thought. Furthermore,
Giovannelli (2003) found that teachers with a disposition towards reflective teaching, were more
effective in domains that are of concern when supporting students with disabilities, such as
behavior management, classroom organization, and teacher expectation. Moreover, evidence
provided by teachers at HOPE supported their perceptions that reflection was useful in making
improvements in their practice.
The second theme that emerged was the independent reflective practices teachers
described and were observed engaging in throughout the school day. Although teachers were not
formally trained on reflection, teachers integrated reflection as reflection tools. Teachers were
required to participate in debriefs three days after school. Before debriefs, teachers completed a
written form with three things; a success of the day, a challenge of the day, and an action plan.
Farrell (2012) identified reflection as a process of metacognition, whereby teachers reflect on
where they are in that moment and think about where they are planning on going next. The
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 108
principle of metacognition, or thinking about thinking, was aligned with the constructivist
approach at HOPE, which surmised that teachers construct their own knowledge both
individually and collectively (Kumari, 2014). As teachers completed the form, it acted as a
guided reflection tool as teachers interpreted the successes and challenges that arose during the
day. Additionally, teachers shared examples of how they used reflection to make changes in the
classroom. One general education teacher, Miss Clark, spoke of teaching the students
procedures and described how she was able to reflect on her practice to see that she needed to be
more explicit. This use of the Furthermore, during observations of co-teaching, teachers were
observed to integrate components of Schön’s (1992) reflection-in-action as teachers made
changes during instruction to support the different needs of students within the inclusive
classroom. Although teachers were not provided with clear definitions of the reflective practices
that were being employed at HOPE, teachers were independently integrating Rodgers (2002)
components of reflection within the literature.
The third theme emerged as teachers talked about and were observed in both structured
and unstructured collaborative reflective practices. At HOPE, the expectation for reflection was
influenced by the school culture. Teachers were observed to keep their doors open and
communicate with each other during lunch and after school. Additionally, teachers were
required to co-plan once a week and document their planning for accountability. During the
observation of co-planning, their was equity in voice as the special education teacher equally
participated and was valued as an equal member of the team. Rodgers (2002) noted that
community reflection builds collaboration, as evidenced by the debrief sessions that teachers
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 109
participate in three days a week. During debriefs, teachers sit in a circle and share what they
have written on the debrief form. Afterward, it was reported that teachers would talk to each
other about challenges. Furthermore, the constructivist pedagogy, which is noted as one of the
core tenets of HOPE, emphasized collaboration to provide contexts and processes for developing
skills and supporting all learners in the classroom. However, Schön (1992) suggests that
reflective teaching is a continuous process and one that involves applying knowledge to practice.
The lack of direct training in reflective practices may have impacted teachers awareness of its
potential effects on teaching.
The next two themes informed the research question of how elementary general and
special education teachers perceived the impact of reflective practices when supporting students
with disabilities. The fourth theme emerged from the perceptions teachers held of the impact
reflection had on their teaching practice and the effects on student learning. Teacher participants
reported that reflection was instrumental in supporting students with disabilities. General
education teachers shared that although they they were comfortable with all of the students in the
classroom, when challenges arose, they sought out the support of other teachers or specialists.
Additionally, because grade levels planned together and were doing the same thing, they were
able to have reflective conversations about instruction, which directly applied to their comfort
and confidence in instruction for students with disabilities. However, Hatton & Smith (1995)
noted that teachers struggle with reflection, especially at the level of professional critique. This
may have contributed to the high attrition rate of teachers at HOPE as some teachers may have
personal limitations toward reflective activities.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 110
The final theme emerged as teachers described their perceptions on the role of
collaboration between special and general education teachers. Bishop et al. (2010) noted that a
supportive school environment marked by a collaborative faculty enabled both general and
special educators to develop their skills. Similarly, teachers at HOPE reported that through
collaboration, they were able to engage in ongoing reflection and learning. The ability of
teachers to reflect on their instruction, and their beliefs in their role in helping students with
disabilities affected the teachers’ ability to learn from what they were doing. As the purpose of
this study was to determine how general and special education teachers utilized reflective
practices to support students with disabilities in the inclusive setting, the data revealed that
teachers perceived that reflective practices were an important and necessary component of
instruction at HOPE.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study lead to three implications in regards to the use of reflective
practices to support students with disabilities in an inclusive setting. Ongoing reflection is
valuable for cultivating insight, sensitivity, and changes in attitude. The first implication of this
study points to the need to erase deficit based thinking in the inclusive setting. As evidenced in
this study, teachers at HOPE used reflection to acknowledge and support the learning differences
of students with disabilities. Although teachers did not explicitly report on the erasure of deficit
based thinking in the inclusive setting, it was observed as teachers were able to support all
students in their classrooms, regardless of diverse needs. Howard (2003) defines critical
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 111
reflection as an attempt to view reflection within moral, political, and ethical contexts. This is
crucial to issues pertaining to equity and access. Through the use of culturally relevant teaching,
deficit based thinking can be erased (Howard, 2003). The goal of culturally relevant pedagogy is
to increase academic achievement and reject deficit-based thinking of culturally diverse students
(Howard, 2003). Additionally, Howard (2003) outlines three major components of culturally
relevant teaching. First, teachers must acknowledge how deficit-based ideas of students continue
to permeate traditional school thinking, practices, and placement. Second, that there is a
connection between culture and learning and that a student’s cultural capital is an asset, not a
detriment. And lastly, culturally relevant teaching is mindful of how traditional teaching
practices reflect middle-class, European-American values, and “thus seeks to incorporate a wider
range of dynamic and fluid teaching practices” (Howard, 2003). Therefore, it is suggested that
this systematic approach to culturally relevant teaching should be employed to support the
rejection of deficit-based thinking while supporting students with disabilities.
The second implication relates to the lack of clear definition for reflective practices.
Although it was evident in this study that teachers used components of reflection and structured
reflective practices were present at HOPE, all participants of this study were unclear as to the
definition of reflective practice. Jaeger (2013) asserted activities that generate reflection, such as
journal writing, self-studies, and analysis of video-recorded lessons, were valuable in cultivating
teacher reflection. However, Rodgers (2002) notes that without a clear picture of what reflection
looks like, it is difficult to talk about it. Without a clear understanding, teachers may not have
knowledge of the effects of reflective practices on their teaching practice. As evidenced by data
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 112
from interviews, none of the teachers interviewed at HOPE had prior experience, knowledge or
participated in reflective practices. However, reflective practice was important and useful in
negotiating the context of co-teaching, as it allowed teachers opportunity to effectively
collaborate. This was important in the context of all teachers working to serve the diverse
population of HOPE which included students with disabilities and English Language Learners.
Therefore, teachers should at HOPE should be provided with professional development to
address the explicit description of reflective practices, and provided opportunities to explore
additional reflective activities.
The third implication points to the need for administration to address the high attrition
rate of teachers. Addressing the long hours of the teacher work day and the daily structured
reflection activities may be a contributing factor. Teachers at HOPE are required to work an
hour before school and an hour and a half after the students leave daily. During this time,
teachers are required to participate in structured reflection activities, such as debriefs.
co-planning, and professional development. Zeichner (1994) asserted that reflection on one’s
own experiences is crucial to the development of one’s practice. However, the implication lay in
the notion that there may be less attrition if reflection is embedded in the school day. Therefore,
assuring that teachers do not lose motivation and leave the school, administration should explore
other opportunities for reflection within the school day.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings in this study can be extended through future research in the topic of
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 113
reflection in education. A longitudinal study could be administered that would include a larger
pool of teachers in different grade levels. Initially, teachers would be given a pre assessment to
evaluate their knowledge of reflective practices used to support teaching. The study could focus
on analyzing how their instructional practices may or may not have changed to support student
learning. Additionally, a post test would be administered to compare the data. Furthermore, a
follow up study could be administered with these participants, focusing on analyzing teacher
discourse patterns during debrief sessions. The future research in this area would add a larger
sample of interview and observation data to triangulate findings, and would broaden the scope of
this study by including how teachers perceived their practice changed with the use of reflective
practices.
Conclusion
This study focused on how general and special education teachers utilized reflective
practices to support students with disabilities in the K-5 inclusive setting. The results from this
study indicated that although specific training on reflection was not provided, neither in teacher
education programs or at HOPE, teachers innately utilized reflective practices to support students
with disabilities in the K-5 inclusive setting. This study suggests that even without training,
reflection played a significant role in how students with disabilities were supported in the
inclusive setting. Additionally, the supportive and collaborative culture that HOPE provided
included built in opportunities for reflection.
While this research focused on students with disabilities, all students and teachers may
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 114
benefit from the use of reflective practices. Several factors contributed to the effectiveness of
HOPE. First of all, collaboration between colleagues helped teachers learn to think reflectively.
Additionally, the provision of structured reflective practices helped teachers think reflectively.
In conclusion, there is much to learn with regard to the role reflective practices play in
supporting students with disabilities in the inclusive setting. With the increase of inclusion of
students with disabilities within mainstream settings, there is a need for teachers with the
knowledge and ability to serve diverse populations. By focusing on what is working in the
inclusive setting, rather than what is causing them to fail, brings the field closer to improving
how students with disabilities are educated.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 115
References
Andrews, J., Carnine, D., Coutinho, M., Edgar,E., Forness, Fuchs, S., Jordan, L.,
Kauffman, D., Patton, J., Paul, J., Rosell, J., Rueda, R., Schiller, E., Skrtic, T.,
& Wong, J. (2000). Bridging the special education divide. Remedial and Special
Education, 28 (5), 258-267.
Appl, D. & Yorde, S. (2005). Stories about teaching: Using qualitative data to promote
reflective practices. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 25 , 309-320.
Akbari, R. (2007). Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practices in L2
teacher education. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and
Applied Linguistics, 35 (2), 192-207.
Arthur-Kelly, M., Sutherland, D., Lyons, G, & MacFarlane., & Foreman, P. (2013). Reflections
on enhancing pre-service teacher education programmes to support inclusion:
Perspectives from New Zealand and Australia, European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 28 , 217-233.
Artiles, A. J., & Kozleski, E. (2007). Beyond convictions: Interrogating culture, history, and
power in inclusive education. Language Arts, 84 , 357-364.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers’ attitudes
towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school in
one local education authority. Educational Psychology, 20 (2), 191-211.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 116
Baglieri, S. (2008). ‘I connected’: reflection and biography in teacher learning toward inclusion.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12 (5), 585-604.
Banoobhai, M. (2012). Critical reflection: Tools for curriculum implementation and
innovation. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47 , 175-179.
Bartelheim, F. & Evans, S. (1993). The presence of reflective-practice indicators in special
education resource teachers’ instructional decision making. Journal of Special
Education, 27 (3), 338-347.
Beauchamp, C. (2015). Reflection in teacher education: Issues emerging from a review of
current literature. Reflective Practice, 16 (1), 123-141.
Belvis, E., Pineda, P., Armengol, C., & Moreno, V. (2013). Evaluation of reflective practice in
teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3) , 279-292.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5 th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Chalikandy, M. A. (2014). Reflection: A tool for professional development. Researchers World,
5(3), 117-124.
Cimer, A., Cimer, S.O., & Vekli, G.S. (2013). How does Reflection Help Teachers to
Become Effective Teachers? International J. Educational Research , 1(4), 133-149.
Clarke, B., James, C., & Kelly, J. (1996). Reflective practice: reviewing the issues and
refocusing the debate. International Journal of Nursing Studies,32 (2), 171-180.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 117
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dray, B., & Wisneski, B. (2011). Mindful reflection as a process for developing
culturally responsive practices. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44 (1), 28-36.
Eccleston, S. (2010). Successful collaboration: Four essential traits of effective special
education specialists. The Journal of International Association of Special
Education, 11 (1), 40-49.
Edwards, G. & Thomas, G. (2010). Can reflective practice taught? Educational Studies, 36 (4),
403-414.
Etscheidt, S (2012). Complacency with access and the aggregate? Affirming an
individual determination of educational benefit under the individuals with
disabilities education act. Journal of Disabilities Policy Studies, 22 (4), 195-207.
Fall, A. (2010). Recruiting and retaining highly qualified special education teachers for
high-poverty districts and schools: Recommendations for educational leaders,
Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23 (2), 76-83.
Farrell, T.S.C., & Ives, J. (2015). Exploring teacher beliefs and classroom practices through
reflective practice: A case study. Language Teaching Research, 19 (5),
594-610.
Farrell, T.S.C. (2012). Reflecting on reflective practice: (re)visiting Dewey and Schön.
TESOL, 3 (1), 7-16.
Ferry, N. (1998). An inquiry into Schon’s epistemology of practice: exploring links
between experience and reflective practice. Adult Education Quarterly, 48 (2),
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 118
98-112.
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 (1), 9-27.
Giovannelli, M. (2003). Relationship between reflective disposition toward teaching and
effective teaching, Journal of Educational Research, 96 (5), 293-309.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4 th ed.) (pp.162-183). Boston: Pearson.
Grimmett, P. (1989). A commentary on Schön’s view of reflection. Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 5 (1), 19-28.
Gupta, S. S., Henninger IV, W. R., & Vinh, M. E. (2014). How Do Children Benefit from
Inclusion?. First Steps to Preschool Inclusion: How to Jumpstart Your Program wide
Plan , 33-57.
Hammer, M., & Stanton, S. A. (1997). The power of reflection. Fortune, 136 (10), 291-294.
Hatton, N. & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and
implementation, Teaching and Teacher Education, 11 (1), 33-49.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Howard, T. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection.
Theory into Practice, 42(3) , 195-202.
Hyslop- Margison, E., & Strobel, J. (2008). Constructivism and education:
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 119
Misunderstandings and pedagogical implications. The teacher Educator, 43 (1), 72-86.
Idol, L (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A
program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education,
27 (2), 77-94.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-446, 20
U.S.C. 1400 et seq ., 118 Stat. 2647 (December 3, 2004).
Jaeger, E.L. (2013). Teacher reflection: Supports, barriers, and results. Issues in Teacher
Education, 22 (1), 89-104.
Klinger, J., Brownell, M., Mason, L., Sindelar, P., & Benedict, A. (In press). Teaching students
with special needs in the new millennium.
Kumari, V. (2014). Constructivist approach to teacher education: An integrative model for
reflective teaching. Journal on Educational Psychology, 7 (4), 31- 39.
Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice.
Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 9 (3), 341-360.
Larrivee, B. (2000). Transforming teaching practice: Becoming the critically reflective teacher.
Reflective Practice, 1 (3), 293-307.
Lotter, C., Singer, J., & Goodley, J. (2009). The influence of repeated teaching and reflection on
preservice teachers' views of inquiry and nature of science. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 20(6), pp. 553-582.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design. An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publishing.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 120
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research. A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. D. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning in education. Adult Education
Quarterly, 32 (1), 3-24.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Chapter 11: Drawing and verifying
conclusions. Qualitative Data Analysis: A methods sourcebook (3 rd ed.) Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Naraian, S. (2010). General, special and… inclusive: Refiguring professional identities in a
collaboratively taught classroom, Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1677-1686.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Fast facts: Students with Disabilities.
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts
National Council on Disability. (2008). The no child left behind act and the individuals with
disabilities education act: A progress report. Retrieved from
http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2008/01282008
National Institute for School Improvement (2010).
Osipova, A., Prichard, B., Boardman, A., Kiely, M., Carroll, P. (2011). Refocusing the
lens: Enhancing elementary special education reading instruction through video
self-reflection, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26 (3), 158-171.
Osterman, K.F. (1990). Reflective practice: A new agenda for education. Education
and Urban Society, 22 (2), 132-152.
Pack, M. (2011). More than you know: Critically reflecting on learning experiences by
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 121
attuning to the ‘community of learners.’ Reflective Practice, 12 (1), 115-125.
Pather, S., & Nxumalo, C.P. (2013). Challenging understandings of inclusive education policy
development in Southern Africa through comparative reflection. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 17 (4), 420-434.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: teacher change and the role of reflection.
Harvard Educational Review, 72 (2), 230-253.
Russell, T. (2013). Has reflective practice done more harm than good in teacher education?
Revue Phronesis, 2 (1), 80-88.
Sachs, G., Fisher, T., & Cannon, J. (2011). Collaboration, mentoring, and co-teaching in teacher
education, Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 13 (2), 70-86.
Sailor, W. (2014). Advances in schoolwide inclusive school reform, Remedial and
Special Education, 1-6.
Saldana, J. & Omasta, M. (2017). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Schön, D. A. (1992). The theory of inquiry: Dewey’s legacy to education. Curriculum
Inquiry, 22 (2), 119-139.
Scruggs, T. , Mastropieri, M., & McDuffie, K. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A
metasynthesis of qualitative research, Council for Exceptional Children, 73 (4), 392-416.
Sharpe, M., and Hawes, M. (2003). Collaboration between general and special
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 122
education: making it work, National Center on Secondary Education and
Transition, 2 (1), 1-6.
Silverman, K., Hong, S., & Trepanier-Street, M. (2010). Collaboration of teacher
education and child disability health care: transdisciplinary approach to inclusive
practice for early childhood pre-service teachers. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 37, 461-468.
Sindelar, P., Shearer, D., Yendol- Hoppey, D., & Liebert, T. (2006). The sustainability of
inclusive school reform. Exceptional Children, 72 (3), 317-331.
Skiba, R., Poloni- Staudinger, L., Gallini, S., Simmons, A., & Feggins- Aziz, R. (2006).
Disparate access: The disproportionality of african american students with disabilities
across educational environments, Exceptional Children, 72 (4), 411-424.
Strieker, T., Gillis, B., & Zong, G. (2013). Improving pre-service middle school teachers’
confidence, competence, and commitment to co-teaching in inclusive classrooms.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 40 (4), 159-180.
Tannenbaum, R. P., Hall, A. H., & Deaton, C. M. (2013). The development of reflective practice
in American education. American Educational History Journal, 40 (2), 241-259.
Thorsen, C., & Devore, S. (2013). Analyzing reflection on/for action: A new approach.
Reflective Practice, 14 (1), 88-103.
Tinker Sachs, G., Fisher, T., & Cannon, J. (2011). Collaboration, mentoring, and co-teaching in
teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 13 (2), 70-86.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 123
Trzcinka, S. M. & Grskovic, J. A., (2011). Mining reflections for the disposition to teach
in special education. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice ,
11(1), 56-67.
United States Department of Education. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
Retrieved from http:// www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn
United States Department of Education. (2010). Thirty five years of progress in
educating children with disabilities through IDEA. Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services . Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/idea35/history/index_pg10.html
United States Department of Education. (2010). 29th Annual report to Congress on the
implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2007 . Washington,
D.C.: Office of Special Education Programs.
United States Government Accountability Office. (2013). Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act: Standards Needed to Improve Identification of Racial and Ethnic
Overrepresentation in Special Education. Washington, DC.
Valli, L. (1997). Listening to other voices: A description of teacher reflection in the United
States. Peabody Journal of Education, 72 (1), 67-88.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interviewing.
New York, NY: Free Press.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 124
Williams, R. & Grudnoff, L. (2011). Making sense of reflection: a comparison of beginning
and experienced teachers’ perceptions of reflection for practice. Reflective Practice,
12(3), 281-291.
York-Barr, J., Sommers, W., Ghere, G., & Montie, J. (2006). Reflective practice to improve
schools: An action guide for educators, second edition. pp. 1-29. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press
Zeichner, K. (1994). Research on teacher thinking and different views of reflective practice in
teaching and teacher education. In I. Carlgren, G. Handal, & S. Vaage, (Eds.), Teachers
minds and actions (pp. 9-27). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Zuckerman, G. (2003). The learning activity in the first years of schooling: The developmental
path towards reflection, In A. Kouzlin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller, (Eds.),
Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 177-199). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 125
Appendix A: Participant Handout
Dear teachers,
Thank you for your interest in participating in a research study conducted by the USC Rossier
School of Education. You have been selected based on your participation in the Opinions
Relative to Inclusion (ORI) Survey. Your participation is completely voluntary. Review of the
following data will not be evaluative in any way.
The purpose of the study is to identify the reflective practices of K-5 general and special
education teachers use in an inclusive setting. I will also interview you to seek information
about the existing knowledge you have regarding reflective practices. This information will help
me acquire information of how reflective practices may or may not influence your teaching of
students with disabilities.
Data collection for the study will include the following:
1. Observations of group collaboration - for the entire duration of collaboration meeting
2. One individual interview per participant - Approximately 1 hour in duration
3. Group collaboration agendas for the 2016-17 academic year
4. Observations of co-teaching in the classroom
While you will not benefit directly from participation in the research study, you will be
contributing to the body of literature related to reflective practices of K-5 general and special
education teachers in an inclusive setting. I would be pleased to share my results, which will be
reported without names or any identifying information: all information that is obtained in
connection with this study will remain confidential. All data will be stored in a password
protected electronic file.
Your participation will be considered your consent for inclusion in the study.
For further information or questions please feel free to contact:
Amy Hodge , MS
Ed.D. Candidate 2017
Rossier School of Education
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 126
Appendix B: Consent Document
3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
An analysis of reflective practices of teachers in an elementary inclusive setting
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Amy Hodge under the
supervision of Dr. Paula Carbone at the University of Southern California as partial
fulfillment for a doctoral degree. Research studies include only people who voluntarily
choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. Do not
hesitate to ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to obtain more information regarding the reflective practices
general and special education teachers use to support students with disabilities in a k-5
inclusive elementary school.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in one audio-taped
interview and two observations. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t
want to; if you don’t want to be taped, handwritten notes will be taken. Observations will
take place in the classroom, and during collaborative planning time. Interviews will take
place in the school at a time that is convenient to you.
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 127
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain
confidential. Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and
maintained separately. Audio-tapes will be sent to a private transcription service to be
transcribed into written form. The audio-tapes will be destroyed once they have been
transcribed. It is your right to review/edit the audio recordings and/or transcripts. No
information will be released to any other party for any reason.
The anonymous data will be stored on a password protected computer. Upon
completion of the data collection and data entry, all hard copies (consent documents,
survey instruments, etc.) will be destroyed. The remaining de-identified data will be
maintained indefinitely; however, the data will not be used in future research studies.
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.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Amy Hodge at amyhodge@usc.edu or by phone at 310-415-7919. You may also
contact Dr. Paula Carbone at paula.carbone@rossier.usc.edu .
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 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 .
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 128
Appendix C: Interview Protocol
I. Introduction – General and special education teachers
Hello and thank you for taking the time to participate in my study. The interview should take
about an hour, does that work for you?
Before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview of my study and answer any
questions you might have about participating. This interview and the observations I have
conducted are for my doctoral dissertation. I am currently a candidate in the Doctor of
Education program at USC. The primary purpose of this study is to inquire and learn more about
general and special education teachers and how they engage in reflective practices. I am
particularly interested in understanding the ways in which general and special education teachers
engage in reflective practices during collaboration to support students with disabilities.
I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher today. What this means is
that the nature of my questions and observations are not evaluative. I will not be making any
judgments on how you are performing as a teacher.. None of the data I collect will be shared
with other teachers or administration. Please note that participating in this interview is
voluntary, and you can stop at any time you want to.
I have brought a recorder with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me.
May I also have your permission to record our conversation? Do you have any questions before
we get started? Do I have your permission to begin the interview?
II. Setting the Stage – General and Special Education Teachers
1. I was wondering if we could start with you telling me about you as an educator. How
long have you been teaching in this setting, and if you taught elsewhere can you tell me
about that as well? What is your current role and job duties?
2. What type of training and support regarding inclusive education have you participated in?
3. In your opinion, what is the purpose and benefits of inclusive education?
4. Can you tell me what you know about reflective practice before I ask more specific
questions?
III. Heart of the Interview
1. How do you engage in collaboration in this setting? How often, do you have a protocol
you follow, how do you keep notes? Is there one teacher that takes the lead during
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 129
collaboration?
2. What does co-teaching look like in the classroom? Can you give a specific example of
how collaboration supports co-teaching of students with disabilities in your classroom?
3. In your experience so far, what are some trainings you received regarding reflective
practices, if any?
4. I was wondering if you could tell me your experiences with reflective practice.
a. If Yes:
b. Please describe a situation when you have utilized reflective practices during
collaborative planning or co-teaching.
c. Can you also please identify what you did as a reflective practice? And how was
it helpful?
5. What is your perception of the relationship between reflective practice and your ability to
support students with disabilities in the classroom?
a. Probing: In what ways might it help you to cope with challenging students to
better meet their needs?
6. What do you think is the relationship between reflective practice and professional
growth?
7. What do you perceive is the nature of the relationship between reflective practice and
student outcomes?
a. Probing: How might reflective practice allow you to change your practice? Can
you give some examples?
8. What would you say are some factors that can act as a barrier to using reflective practice
in a school setting, if any?
9. What would you say are some benefits to using reflective practice during collaboration, if
any?
10. I was wondering if you could tell me some of the ways in which you have seen other staff
members utilize reflective practice in your school setting.
IV. Closing Question
Is anything that you would add to our conversation today that I might not have covered?
V. Closing
Thank you so much for you sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your time
and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my study. If I
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 130
find myself with a follow-up question, I am wondering if I might be able to contact you, and if
so, is email is ok? (verify email address) Again, thank you for participating in my study.
Research and Interview Question Table
Research Questions Interview Question
#1: How do k-5 general and special
education teachers describe how they
engage in independent and collaborative
reflective practices, if at all?
IQ 1: How do you engage in collaboration?
IQ 2: What does co-teaching look like in your
classroom?
IQ 3: What are some trainings you received
regarding reflective practices, if any?
IQ 4: Describe a situation when you have
utilized reflective practices during collaborative
planning or co-teaching.
IQ 7: What do you perceive is the nature of the
relationship between reflective practice and
student outcomes?
#2: How do k-5 general and special
education teachers perceive the impact of
reflective practice when supporting students
with disabilities?
IQ 5: What do you think is the relationship
between reflective practice and your ability to
support students with disabilities in your
classroom?
IQ 6: What do you perceive is the nature of the
relationship between reflective practice and
professional growth?
IQ 8: What would you say are some factors that
can act as a barrier to using reflective practice,
if any ?
IQ 9: What would you say are some benefits to
using reflective practice during co-teaching, if
any?
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 131
Appendix D: Teacher and Faculty Survey
Based on questions from the Opinions Relative to the Integration of Students with Disabilities
By Antonak, R. F. & Larrivee, B. (1995)
MARK THE BEST
ANSWER
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE STRONGLY
DISAGREE
1
Most students with
disabilities will make an
adequate attempt to
complete their
assignments.
2
The classroom behavior
of the student with
disability generally does
not require more
patience from the
teacher than does the
classroom behavior of
the student without a
disability.
3
Students with disabilities
should be given
opportunity to function
in the general education
classroom where
possible.
4
Integration offers mixed
group interactions that
will foster understanding
and acceptance of
differences among
students.
5
Integration of students
with disabilities
necessitates ongoing
training of general
education teachers.
6
I am interested in
participating in a study
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 132
Appendix E: Interview Participant Information Form
Name:____________________________________________
Phone:____________________________________________
Email:____________________________________________
Please mark an “X” in the grid to indicate when you are available to participant in the interview.
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
8:00-9:00
9:00-10:00
10:00-11:00
11:00-12:00
12:00-1:00
1:00-2:00
2:00-3:00
3:00-4:00
4:00-5:00
With your permission, the interview will be recorded for more accurate data collection. Please
mark either “Yes” or “No” to indicate whether or not you grant the researcher permission to
record.
____ Yes ____ No
Thank you,
Amy Hodge
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 133
Appendix F: Observation Protocol
Observation Protocol
Observer Observation Date Start Time End Time
Observation Location Observation activity Teachers in
attendance
Agenda Provided
▢ Provided
▢ Attached
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 134
Research Question #1:
How do k-5 general and special education
teachers describe how they engage in
independent and collaborative reflective
practice, if at all?
Research Question #2:
How do k-5 general and special education
teachers perceive the impact, if any, of the
the reflective practices on their ability to
support students with disabilities?
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 135
Observation Environment Diagram
Identify: Location, title of Participants (special or general education teacher), Materials (laptops, classroom
materials, etc.)
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 136
Time Activity Observation R. P. Observer Comment:
AN ANALYSIS OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 137
Observer Role
- What am I
doing?
- What is my
role throughout
the
observation?
- What are some
of the
interactions I
have with other
participants
throughout the
observation?
- How did my
interaction or
presence
during the
observation
influence the
participants?
- Other Notes
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy
PDF
An exploration of reflective practice amongst marriage and family therapy candidates
PDF
Reflective practice and pre-service language teacher preparation
PDF
Administrator reflective practice to support Latino youth in Orange County public schools
PDF
The influence of educational policies on high school students with disabilities
PDF
Reflective journeys: African American community college STEM students' perceptions on equity and access
PDF
Exploring the reflective practices of secondary, in-service teachers of students from diverse backgrounds
PDF
The examination of the perceptions of general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel on the inclusion of students with special needs
PDF
If it takes two to tango then teach both to dance: examining the influence of interpersonal and contextual features on a co-teaching partnership
PDF
Reflective practice and the Master of Public Administration degree
PDF
Reflective practice: the administrator behind the process
PDF
Meaningful access to the Common Core for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities
PDF
Analysis of innovative teaching strategies for students with learning disabilities
PDF
The arc of students with disabilities in California Community College through the lens of the disabled student programs and services coordinators
PDF
Teachers’ perceptions of students with disabilities in an inclusion classroom
PDF
Examining the use of mnemonic devices in instructional practices to improve the reading skills of third grade public school students with learning disabilities
PDF
Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study
PDF
Exploring how individual transition plans in a school district support special education student employment
PDF
Undocumented students' personal reflections on the role institutional agents play in providing social capital towards post-secondary education
PDF
Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge
Asset Metadata
Creator
Hodge, Amy Michele
(author)
Core Title
An analysis of reflective practices utilized to support the inclusion of K-5 students with disabilities
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/31/2017
Defense Date
07/29/2017
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
inclusion,OAI-PMH Harvest,reflective practices,students with disabilities
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Carbone, Paula (
committee chair
), Crawford, Jenifer (
committee member
), Gallagher, Raymond (
committee member
)
Creator Email
amyhodge@usc.edu,hopcakes3@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-419888
Unique identifier
UC11264350
Identifier
etd-HodgeAmyMi-5659.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-419888 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-HodgeAmyMi-5659.pdf
Dmrecord
419888
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Hodge, Amy Michele
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
Tags
inclusion
reflective practices
students with disabilities