University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Analysis of innovative teaching strategies for students with learning disabilities

(USC Thesis Other)

Analysis of innovative teaching strategies for students with learning disabilities

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 1
ANALYSIS OF INNOVATIVE TEACHING STRATEGIES FOR STUDENTS WITH
LEARNING DISABILITIES

by

Anet Hairapetian

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

May 2015

Copyright 2015 Anet Hairapetian

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 2
Dedication
I am dedicating this dissertation to my beloved father, Vahan Abovian, for providing me
with strong family love. Thank you for sacrificing your life in order to provide my siblings and
me better opportunities in life. You have given me the confidence to stay strong, encouraged me
in all of my pursuits, and inspired me to follow my dreams. Your strong work ethic has taught
me to become independent by pursuing higher education and standing on my own feet. Thank
you for implementing determination, integrity, commitment, and dedication in your life to teach
me the real meaning of these words. I miss and love you dearly.

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 3
Acknowledgements
This dissertation could not have been accomplished without the support and love of many
people in my life. I would like to express my appreciation.
I would like to thank, most especially, my husband Henrik and my two wonderful
children, Andrew and Anika for loving, encouraging, and supporting me during this journey.
Thank you for your patience and understanding the need for me to pursue my dream. Your
positive attitude and inspiration has helped me strive for the best. I love you all more than
anything in this world.
I would like to thank my mother, Lida, for being the sweet angel in my life and for
always praying for nothing less than the best for me. Thank you for your kind and sweet
personality and for sharing the love and excitement of your life. Thank you for encouraging me
to go above and beyond your expectations. Thank you for taking care of my children day and
night to make this dream possible for me.
I would like to thank my siblings, Polet, Rozet, and Romik for being a part of my
foundation. Thank you for always believing that I have the talent to reach my goals and being
there for me through happy and sad times. Thank you for supporting me with all my decisions
and standing by me. Thank you for your unconditional love.
I would like to thank my chair, Professor Shafiqa Ahmadi, for being an incredible
mentor, an amazing leader, and a kind human being. Thank you for your guidance throughout
my journey and your untiring support every step of the way. My sincere gratitude goes to my
committee members, Dr. Patricia Tobey and Dr. Linda Fischer for your time, mentorship, and
continuous support.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 4
I would like to thank my awesome thematic group, Michael, David, and Mary. Thank
you for listening, offering me advice, and supporting me through this entire process. You all
rock!!
I would like to thank my two lovely friends, Sona and Narineh for encouraging me to
pursue my dream and motivating me to make this life challenging decision. Thank you for your
continuous support and friendship.

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 5
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 10
Background of the Problem 11
Statement of the Problem 15
Purpose of the Study 16
Significance of the Study 18
Limitations and Delimitations 18
Definition of Terms 19
Organization of the Study 19
Chapter Two: Literature Review 21
History 22
Special Education, Laws and Mandates 22
Learning Disabilities 24
Attitudes and Perceptions 28
Administrators and Teachers 28
Parents of Students with Learning Disabilities 31
Administrative Support 33
Collaboration and Co-teaching 34
Teacher Training and Preparation 37
Students with Learning Disabilities in Inclusion 41
Strategies and Methods 41
Academic Achievement 44
Social Needs and Student Effort 46
Theoretical Framework 47
Conclusion 50
Chapter Three: Methodology 52
Sample and Population 53
Overview of the School 54
Participants 56
Instrumentation 56
Semi-Structured Interview 58
Chapter Four: Results 64
Location and Participants 64
Participants Characteristics 65
Situating the Results 69
Results from Research Questions One 69
Best Practices 70
Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion 78
IEP-Driven Instruction 83
Discussion Research Question One 86
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 6
Results of Research Question Two 88
Administrative Support 88
Discussion Research Question 2 94
Chapter Summary 95
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications of the Findings and Discussion 97
Discussion of Findings 100
Implications for Practice 105
Recommendations for Future Research 107
Conclusion 108
References 110
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 117
Appendix B: Classroom Observation Protocol 119
Appendix C: Letter of Introduction 122
Appendix D: Information/Facts Sheet for Exempt Non-Medical Research 123

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 7
List of Tables
Table1: Specific Types of Learning Disabilities – National Center for LD 25
Table 2: Student Enrollment by Grade Level (School Year 2013-14) 54
Table 3: Student Enrollment by Student Group (School Year 2012-13) 55
Table 4: Participants, Position, and Experience 56
Table 5: Interview Questions and Connection to Research Questions 57
Table 6: Structures and Systems Perceived to Exist at Lilly Valley High School 70
Table 7: Structures and Systems Implemented and Sustained at Lilly Valley High School 88

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 8
List of Figures
Figure 1: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological System 49
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework, Ed. D, Thematic Group 2013 58
Figure 3: Creswell’s (2003) Model for Qualitative Data Analysis 62

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 9
Abstract
The reauthorization of Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) in 2004
mandated that students with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE),
which is also known as inclusion of the student. The purpose of this qualitative study was to
investigate innovative strategies implemented in an inclusive classroom to improve the academic
success of students with learning disabilities. In addition to strategies, teacher perception
towards inclusion, teacher training, and administrative support were examined. This study was
conducted at one comprehensive high school campus in public, suburban school system in Los
Angeles County. The data was collected from eight interviews and three observations. This
study generated total of six findings in response to research questions one and two. First,
inclusion teachers aligned every lesson to state standards, incorporated multiple ways for higher
student engagement and regularly checked for understanding. Second, group/partner teaching
revealed many positive academic and social benefits for students with learning disabilities.
Third, inclusion and special education teachers faced many challenges; however, they had a
positive attitude toward the inclusion program. Fourth, the higher academic success of students
with learning disabilities is influenced by identifying proper accommodations and modifications
of the IEP. Fifth, the school must train the inclusion teachers on integrating the strategies into
their lesson plans. Sixth, the leadership team must align resources to provide teachers
collaboration time to implement strategies into lessons. Implications for practice revealed the
importance of integrating Universal Design of Learning (UDL) and monthly organization
workshops by counselors.

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 10
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Student achievement remains a centerpiece of educational reform policies at the federal
and state levels targeting the achievement gap between students with disabilities and their peers,
as learning disabilities are the most commonly diagnosed disability among students in public
education in the United States (National Center for Learning Disabilities [NCLD], 2014).
According to the NCLD, nearly 2.4 million (5%) of the school-aged population has a learning
disability. Further, nearly 42% of the children enrolled in special education classes in the United
States suffer from a learning disability. These numbers are concerning given that students with
learning disabilities are more likely than their non-disabled peers to be held back in school and to
become involved in disciplinary actions (NCLD, 2014).
Nonetheless, during the past decade, the number of students with learning disabilities
(LD) receiving a regular high school diploma rose to 68% from 57% (NCLD, 2014). Also, 41%
of students with LD complete college, compared to 52% of the general population (NCLD,
2014). Assisting in the growth of these numbers is the fact that the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act 2004 (IDEIA) states that students are expected to achieve academic
proficiency at their grade level regardless of ability level and mandates the state and schools be
held accountable for this achievement. IDEIA (2004) also sets guidelines to allow students with
special needs the opportunity to access the general education curriculum in an inclusive setting.
One of the educational trends at forefront of education is the concept and subsequent
implementation of inclusion to better support the academic needs of students with LD. Public
schools are moving away from educating students with disabilities in self-contained and resource
room settings and toward servicing them in inclusion with their non-disabled peers in the general
education classroom (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). One of the important features of
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 11
successful inclusion is the teacher’s ability to adapt to students with disabilities and adjusting
his/her teaching strategies and styles to accommodate the different learning styles. This study
examined the innovative instructional strategies implemented in the general education setting for
students with LD by observing the academic outcome of these students in the inclusion system.
This study explored general education teachers’ perceptions, supports from the administration,
and barriers when planning instruction for students with LD.
Background of the Problem
The inclusion of students with disabilities in the educational system increased each year
since the inception of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142) in 1975. The
major component of PL 94-142 states that students with disabilities should be educated in the
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). LRE is understood to mean that children with disabilities
are to be educated alongside their non-disabled peers, or mainstreamed, to the extent appropriate
in order to access the general education curriculum. To meet this mandate, students with LD
were mainstreamed for part of their education and were receive their special education services
in the smaller environment of the resource classroom (US Department of Education, 2009).
This study examined a well-implemented and established inclusion program that utilizes
innovative strategies to meet needs of students with LD. Essential as a foundation of inclusion
are the exploration of the fundamental barriers, leadership support, and benefits of inclusion.
The reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 by President Bush had a great impact on the
education of students with disabilities who were, in the past, shuffled through the system with
little expectation that they could make significant progress or succeed like their peers. IDEA set
the guidelines for Free Appropriate Public Education for All. Through IDEA, students are now
entitled to a free appropriate education, meaning parents do not have to pay for their child’s
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 12
education. Students were also assured a highly qualified teacher required ensure students
demonstrate competence in the subjects taught (Wright & Wright, 2007). Much research shows
that the education of children with disabilities can be more effective and meaningful through
high expectations and ensuring their access to the general education curriculum in the regular
classroom in order to meet developmental goals (IDEA, 2004). The attainment of success for
these children requires all stakeholders agree on their key placement and goals during an
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meeting.
The process of IEP provides the student access to a free appropriate public education.
The IEP creates an opportunity for teachers, parents, school administrators, related services
personnel, and the student (when appropriate) to work together to improve educational outcomes.
The IEP is a document that provides a solid foundation for a quality education for each child
with a disability (US Department of Education, 2014). To create an effective IEP the involved
stakeholders must, together, look closely at the student's unique needs. These IEP team should
be committed an educational program that will help the student be involved, and progress, in the
general curriculum, as the IEP guides the delivery of special education supports and services for
the student.
Various programs are implemented across districts to ensure an effective transition to an
inclusive classroom per IEP; however, there are different styles of inclusion. In order to know
what inclusion entails, one must understand the meaning of inclusion. The general definition for
inclusion is a commitment to offering special education services in LRE within the general
education classroom with proper supports, accommodations, and modifications based on the
student’s needs according to the IEP (Carpenter & Dyal, 2007). It rests on the assumption that
the general education class is that which the child would attend if s/he had no disability. The
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 13
concept of inclusion further assumes that the children will receive appropriate support, such as
differentiation of the instructional material and modification of the lesson regardless of his/her
ability level. It also means the child is educated in classrooms where the number of those with
and without disabilities is proportionate to that of the local population and that s/he receives
support and accommodations to ensure full participation in the educational experience while
pursuing individual suitable learning (Smith, 2007).
To support the general education teacher in an inclusive program, there are four different
types of collaboration models: consulting teacher service, cooperative teaching in the classroom,
supportive resource program, and instructional assistant (Idol, 2006). The consulting teacher
model is an indirect delivery of service to students with disabilities wherein the special education
teacher serves as a consultant to the general education teacher. In a cooperative teaching model,
the special education teacher works with the general education teacher in the same classroom by
co-teaching and providing instruction to all students. The resource program is a school setting
wherein the student receives one to two hours of service during the day in a separate room but
receives most instruction in a general education setting. In this model, the resource specialist
teacher and general education teacher align curriculum and delivery of instruction. In the last
model, the instructional assistant is also called the paraprofessional and provides a setting where
the assistant remains in the general education classroom to provide additional support to a group
of students with disabilities. Some of the tasks for instructional assistants include reading the
material, such as tests to the students, helping them with note taking skills, and providing support
in understanding of the curriculum. According to Idol (2006), districts utilize the different
delivery methods in order for staff to work collaboratively and provide the best services to
students in an inclusion setting.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 14
The fundamental barrier to full inclusion is a lack of understanding of the structure,
systems and demands of inclusion, which has the effect of poor implementation of policy and a
lack of general goals in terms of inclusion (Santoli, Sachs, & Romey, 2008). Short and Martin
(2005) suggest that the general education teacher’s attitude of toward inclusion is one of the most
important aspects of the success of students with disabilities. They further suggest that current
general education teachers believe their lack of training regarding teaching this population makes
them unqualified. Thus, as much as teachers feel challenged and hopeful, they also feel fear,
burden and frustrations about their abilities to teach these children, and other concerns include
lack of sufficient funding and personnel and lack of training and extra time for collaboration
among special education and general education teachers (Short & Martin, 2005). This lack of
preparation has a major attitudinal effect on teachers, as educators tend to believe that children
with disabilities cannot grasp the regular curriculum (Santoli, Sachs, & Romey, 2008).
There is enough evidence based on research that the placement or setting of students with
LD does not constitute a treatment, but it is the instructional strategies and accommodations that
are important (Rose-Hill, 2009). Nonetheless, ideological differences on the subject of inclusion
minimize the chances of a consensus and leaders within the education system remain ambivalent
on including children with disabilities (Ross-Hill, 2009). This aspect has a trickledown effect, as
educators generally lack adequate support, training and experience in teaching students with
disabilities, let alone teaching a combined class (Yell & Shriner, 2006). Research investigated
the inclusion of students with LD in the general education environment with different
collaboration models of inclusion, but results indicate conflicting evidence about inclusion’s
effectiveness of on student academic success (Fore et al., 2008; Landrum 2008). Due to
differences in ability levels in the classroom, general education teachers often fail to provide IEP
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 15
accommodations because of roadblocks in the processes of implementation and delivery of
instruction, and factors such as lack of special education training, class size, collaboration,
effective instructional strategies to meet all students’ needs, and a large spectrum of learning
levels with the classroom are possible barriers for satisfactory academic and social achievement
of students with LD (Maccini & Gagnon, 2006).
Inclusion is a positive development in the education system, as it provides social and
academic benefits for student with disabilities in the general education classroom. As students
with disabilities view themselves as academically and socially incompetent, these factors
increase their motivation to work harder in order to make academic gains (Meltzer, Katzir,
Miller, Reddy, & Roditi, 2004). Students with LD can be successful in the general education
setting if supported by the proper instructional and social strategies, and once in the general
education environment, they feel accepted, better liked by peers and teachers, and have more
positive perception than students in special education classes (Lackaye, 2006).
Statement of the Problem
The practice of inclusion continues to grow despite teachers’ lack of preparation, training,
and support for inclusion. While some progress has been made since the initiation of inclusion
in 1975, students with LD do not perform at the same level as that of the general population.
Thus, placement of students with LD in the general education classroom alone is not very
effective, but the instructional strategies used by the general education teacher make the
difference for these students in the inclusive classroom (Zigmond, 2003).
The effect of a good school environment on the performance, self-esteem and academic
efficacy of children with disabilities are also major factors to the success of inclusion, and a
decline in quality of the school environment hampers their educational development (Lackaye,
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 16
2006). Good school structures and systems are realized when the other students accommodate
the children with disabilities, when teachers have the professional skills required to teach them,
and when there is adequate support and developmental staff to help them cope with their
education (Lackaye, 2006).
Lackaye (2006) found that the current system for inclusion does not provide the adequate
teacher training in order to implement appropriate teaching strategies, support from
administration, collaboration among other teachers, and proper school environment to promote
success for students with LD, which causes these children to lag behind academically. Rose-Hill
(2009) asserts that the academic gap between children with disabilities and the general
population will not shrink without relevant resources and training on best practices in the
inclusive classroom to improve the self-perception and confidence of general education teachers,
as they must be knowledgeable regarding supporting these students’ academic outcomes and be
willing both to seek out such knowledge and apply it in their classrooms.
Purpose of the Study
There is a great need to evaluate the effectiveness of inclusion programs as inclusive
practices continue. There is evidence indicating that current inclusion teachers are not prepared
to teach students with disabilities and do not have proper training or professional development on
special education services (Kavale & Forness, 2000). Furthermore, evidence shows that general
education teachers continue to teach with the same routine and same strategies directed toward
the entire class with minimal modifications. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to
investigate and present results from a sample population regarding innovative strategies
implemented in an inclusive classroom to improve the academic success of students with LD.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 17
Examining current instructional practices in an inclusive setting at one comprehensive
high school may demonstrate the application of best practices and effective strategies. In
addition to innovative strategies, teacher perception towards inclusion, teacher training, and
administrative support were taken into consideration to understand how directly they relate to the
success of inclusion.
This study was guided by two research questions:
1. What are the perceived school-wide systems and structures that contribute to the
academic achievement of students with learning disabilities?
2. How are these systems and structures implemented and sustained to support
achievement of students with learning disabilities in inclusion?
Bronfenbrenner’s Theory of Ecological Systems (1977, 1979) provides a framework that
includes students, families, schools, and communities. Generally, a system is a community
situated within a larger environment, and, thus, ecological systems theory, also called
development in context or human ecology theory, helps study the relationships between
individuals’ contexts within communities and the wider society. Social ecology theory
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979) is an all-encompassing theory of human behavior that includes a
reciprocal interplay among the student, friends, family, school, community, and culture. The
theory is based on systems thinking, which is the process of understanding how things influence
one another within a whole. Therefore, Bronfenbrenner’s theory of ecological systems (1977,
1979) will be used as a lens to look closely at how structures and systems affect the development
of students with LD and how the student interacts with or influences those systems.

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 18
Significance of the Study
The study may be of value to educational stakeholders, including administrators,
teachers, and parents of students with LD. The results of this study may allow stakeholders to
expand inclusion programs to improve efforts to enhance the educational outcome of students
with disabilities by establishing a common goal for both general and special education teachers.
Administrators may understand current practices and work on providing the necessary tools,
such as training and collaboration time, to teachers. The findings of this study may also be used
by general education teachers in the inclusive classroom to develop and apply modified
curriculum and instructional strategies. The study may also be instrumental in the development
of innovative strategies to ensure the success of children with LD.
Limitations and Delimitations
The study was part of a thematic group with limitations of the group and the research
questions. The study was focused only on one comprehensive high school with a successful
inclusion program that practiced innovative strategies to improve the academic success of
students with disabilities. Thus, generalizing to groups outside of the study group may not be
appropriate. There was a limited sample size for this study, and the study took place over a brief
period of time in the fall of 2014.
The qualitative data for this study was collected through interviews with inclusive
classroom teachers, special education teachers, a parent, a counselor and an administrator. Also,
data was collected based on observation of the inclusive classroom. Efforts to validate the
responses from participants with observations were made, but errors within the responses may
still exist.

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 19
Definition of Terms
Inclusion Classroom. The practice of educating all or most children in the same classroom,
including children with physical, mental, and developmental disabilities (Giangreco, 2007).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). A federal law, first enacted in 1975, that
promotes the educational rights of infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities (IDEA,
2004).
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). A principle in the IDEA legislation that states children
should have the opportunity to be educated to the maximum extent possible with their non-
disabled peers (IDEA, 2004).
Learning Disabilities. A disability in which students have average to above average
intelligence, but experience significant problems in learning how to read, write, or compute math
problems (Friend, 2005).
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is divided into four further chapters following this introduction. Chapter
Two includes detailed review of literature with a focus on inclusion. Chapter Three uses the
findings of the review of the literature to devise an appropriate research methodology and
includes descriptions of the participants, the data collection process, and analyzes procedures.
The methodology presents a research design that includes qualitative data collection methods to
ensure a reliable and valid primary study.
Chapter Four presents the results from the study, outlining the major themes in relation to
the research questions posed. The presentation also includes a comprehensive discussion of the
context of the results in terms of the review of the literature, enabling the triangulation of data
that can improve reliability and validity of the findings. The final chapter provides the findings
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 20
based on themes discussed in Chapter Four and recommendations to be taken from the study to
enhance the knowledge of the subject while acknowledging the limitations of the current work.

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 21
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Public schools are held accountable for educating all children regardless of gender,
socioeconomic status, and ability level, and this system of accountability results in the need for a
thorough examination of how programs, services, and policies affect student achievement,
including of ways to enhance academic success in inclusion (Kovacs, 2006). Inclusion of has
become an essential part of reform efforts to improve the delivery of academic services and the
achievement of students with LD (Praiser, 2003). As inclusion emerges in the educational
system, the need for educators prepared to teach students with LD becomes a critical issue, and
Praiser (2003) indicates that district administrators, school level administrators along special and
general education teachers are required to meet the needs of diverse ability students by
developing high academic standards, grade level curriculum, innovative strategies, and research-
based approaches. Furthermore, the main determining factor of inclusion’s success is the student
academic outcomes as measured through accountability requirements and his/her IEP goals.
This literature review presents current studies on inclusion. The information presented
ensures a better understanding of the success of inclusion and strategies currently utilized in
inclusion. This review is divided into four main parts, including a theoretical framework and
conclusion. First, the history of special education, including laws and mandates, is explored, and
a thorough definition on LD is provided. Next, an understanding of attitudes and perceptions
toward inclusion is provided, including those of administrators, teachers, parents, and students.
Third, administrative support focusing on collaboration and co-teaching, and teacher training and
preparation are examined. Fourth, a focus on students with LD in inclusion is provided,
including current strategies and methods utilized and the academic achievement of this group.
Last, the theoretical framework is presented and followed by a conclusion.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 22
History
The history of special education, especially the movement towards desegregation and
equal rights is pivotal in understanding the development of legislation addressing equal
opportunity and equal access to public education for students with LD. Brown v. Board of
Education, PARC v. Pennsylvania, and Mills v. Board of Education are the three most important
cases that opened the doors for foundational legislation toward inclusion of students with LD.
The review in this section explores laws and mandates essential to the implementation of
inclusion and presents a definition of LD.
Special Education, Laws and Mandates
The origin of students with disabilities in public schools is credited to Horace Mann,
known as the father of “common school movement,” in the late 1800’s. The focus of “common”
schools was that all children should learn together. Common schools taught common values that
included self-discipline and tolerance of others. The common schools would socialize children,
improve interpersonal relationships, and improve social conditions (Warder, n.d.). There were
some controversies pertaining to children with disabilities. The first special education programs
were delinquency prevention programs for “at risk” children who lived in urban slums and were
mainly aimed at African Americans. Students with disabilities were segregated in special
schools and special classes specially dedicated to deafness, blindness, and mental retardation.
Programs for children with specific LD, which were called “brain injury” and “minimal brain
dysfunction,” became more common in the 1940’s.
In 1954, the U. S. Supreme Court civil rights decision in Brown v. Board of Education of
Topeka KS was the beginning step in addressing equal educational rights for all students
(Gordon, 2006). This case forced the government to investigate inequality and social justice in
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 23
public schools. During this time, African Americans were refused the right to attend public
schools with the White population and were banned from public facilities, but that ruling ended
segregation. The federal government assured the public that all students would have equal
access to educational opportunities and facilities. According to Osgood (2002), Brown v. Board
of Education was also the foundation of new policies and encouragement of inclusion for
students with disabilities.
In addition, two other important cases that addressed equal rights were the Pennsylvania
Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth (1971) and Mills v. Board of
Education of the District of Columbia (1972). PARC dealt with the exclusion of children with
mental retardation from public schools. In this case, the court ruled that students with disabilities
would not be denied public education and that educational placement decisions must include a
process of parental participation and a means to resolve disputes (Mungai & Kogan, 2005).
Mills involved the practice of suspending, expelling and excluding children with disabilities
(Osgood, 2002). The overall success of these two cases opened public schools to children with
disabilities and was a major catalyst in special education law.
Chambers (2010) argues that, with proper education services, many students with
disabilities would be able to become productive citizens, contributing to society instead of being
forced to remain burdens. According to Chambers, a congressional investigation found that 1.75
million children with disabilities received no education, 200,000 were institutionalized, and 2.5
million received a low quality education (Chambers, 2010). Therefore, Congress made changes
to educational services for students with disabilities. Ultimately, the goal of states in providing
proper services was to increase the independence of students with disabilities and thereby reduce
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 24
their reliance on society, which led to implementation of the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act (PL 94-142).
The goal of PL 94-142 (1975) was to ensure that children with disabilities received free
appropriate public education (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). The federal government
provided the districts with adequate funding to support schools in complying with the mandate,
as students were excluded from the public school system, were isolated from peers, did not
receive appropriate services to meet educational goals, and undiagnosed disabilities prevented
them from being successful at school due to a lack of resources to educate them properly.
Nonetheless, this mandate was poorly enforced during the first 20 years. The problems with
appropriate implementation led to revisions in 1997, 2004, and 2011, which were enforced when
unsatisfied stakeholders voiced concerns, which led to input and eventually manifested as
revisions to set guidelines to hold educational leaders accountable for academic outcome of
students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2014).
The reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 mandates that all children have access to free
appropriate public education through the individualized education program, should have access
to general education curriculum, and should be educated at the least Restrictive Environment
(LRE). The goal of IDEA, 2004 is that all students have access to a high-quality education that
holds them to high expectations. Ninchy (2013) concludes that this will empower students with
disabilities to be self-sufficient and will positively affect their personal good as well as the good
of the community in which they reside.
Learning Disabilities
LD is an umbrella term for a wide variety of learning problems, but the distinct sign of
LD is the unexplained gap between expected achievement and performance. “Learning disorder
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 25
is a neurological disorder that affects the brain’s ability to receive, process, store, and respond to
information” (NCLD, 2009 p. 12). This makes it difficult for some students to acquire certain
academic skills such as reading, writing, mathematics, spelling, reasoning, and speaking.
Students with LD have average or above average intelligence, but they still have difficulty
attaining skills that have an impact on their academic performance (IDEIA, 2004). LD normally
ranges from mild to severe, and it is common for students to have the more than one type of LD.
Table 1 lists specific types of LD.
Table1
Specific Types of Learning Disabilities – National Center for LD
Disability Area of difficulty
Symptoms include
trouble with
Example
Dyslexia Processing language
• Reading
• Writing
• Spelling
Confusing letter names
and sounds, difficulties
blending sounds into
words, slow rate of
reading, trouble
remembering after
reading text
Dyscalculia Math skills
• Computation
• Remembering math
facts
• Concepts of time
and money
Difficulty learning to
count by 2s, 3s, 4s,
poor mental math
skills, problems with
spatial directions
Dysgraphia Written expression
• Handwriting
• Spelling
• Composition
Illegible handwriting,
difficulty organizing
ideas for writing
Dyspraxia Fine motor skills
• Coordination
• Manual dexterity
Trouble with scissors,
buttons, drawing

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 26
Table 1, continued
Information Processing Disorders
Auditory
Processing
Disorder
Interpreting auditory
information
• Language
development
• Reading
Difficulty anticipating
how a speaker will end
a sentence
Visual
Processing
Disorder
Interpreting visual
information
• Reading
• Writing
• Math
Difficulty
distinguishing letters
like “h” and “n”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) broadened the
category of LD for an increase diagnostic accuracy than the previous DSMs. “Specific learning
disorder is now a single, overall diagnosis, incorporating deficits that impact academic
achievement” (DSM-5, p. 1). The criteria of DSM-5 describe the limited general academic skills
and provide detailed specifiers in the areas of math, reading and writing. According to DSM-5,
LD is diagnosed based on a review of the student’s educational, developmental and health
history, including family history, test score, teacher observation, and response to academic
intervention.
Identification of LD varies, but the US Department of Education’s Office of Special
Education Programs adopted criteria for determining whether a child has a specific LD.
Furthermore, the state of California’s criteria state that determining whether a child has a
disability does not require the use of severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and
achievement (US Department of Education, 2014). The identification must permit the use of a
process based on the student’s response to scientific, research-based intervention (US
Department of Education, 2014) and, lastly, may allow the utilization of other alternative
researched-based procedures for identification of specific LD.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 27
School districts drafted a statement of eligibility based on the state’s criteria wherein a
specific learning disability (SLD) is defined as the following:
The student exhibits a significant discrepancy between ability and achievement in the
areas of (math calculation, math reasoning, reading comprehension, basic reading skills,
written expression, listening comprehension, or oral expression) due to a processing
disorder in (attention, visual processing, auditory processing, sensory motor skills,
conceptualization, and expression), and is not primarily the result of environmental,
cultural, economic disadvantage, or limit English proficiency. (Glendale Unified School
District, Office of Special Education 2014, p. 2)
This section concludes the history of evolution of special education laws and mandates
and defines LD. Historically, special education started with the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act in 1975, at the time of the civil rights movement, by providing free appropriate
public education to students with disabilities. Special education, then, developed as a separate
system from general education. The least restrictive mandate in 2004, through IDEA, brought
structural changes to placement of these students. In addition, IDEA set guidelines for these
students to have full access to general education curriculum in LRE. This let to equal access and
equity in education by placement in general education setting for students with LD. The
identification of students with LD based on criteria set by IDEA, DSM-5, and the US
Department of Education. District across California have adopted a criteria for identification on
LD based on the definition of the US Department of Education. This identification will allow
students with LD to receive support including best practices in LRE such as inclusion setting.

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 28
Attitudes and Perceptions
In order for inclusion to be successful, administrators, teachers, parents and students must
have positive attitudes toward the program. Teacher attitude can be a critical variable in
supporting students in the general education setting; therefore the negative attitudes of the
teachers toward inclusion can indirectly weaken the delivery of the instruction (Praiser, 2003).
As general education becomes the preferred placement for student with disabilities, the literature
examines the attitudes and perceptions of general education and special education teachers,
administrators, and parents.
Administrators and Teachers
All stakeholders must be involved in implementation of inclusion in order for the
program to be effective (Short & Martin, 2005). A qualitative study by Short and Martin (2005)
focusing on teachers’ perceptions in rural communities found that the positive attitude of the
general education teacher is the key ingredient of in inclusion’s success. Student participants
reported that the worked harder in class when they felt welcomed and like they belonged in the
classroom (Short & Martin, 2005). The implications for future practice suggest inclusion can
improve if the general education class size is reduced and more students are involved in decision
making. According to Short and Martin (2005), the teacher’s attitude will improve once s/he and
the students with disabilities communicate and understand each other.
The leadership of the school is another key component of a successful inclusion program.
The attitudes and beliefs of an administrator on whether to include students with disabilities in a
general education setting is essential to these students’ academic and emotional success (Praiser,
2003). Praiser (2003) investigated the attitudes of principals in three different areas: factors
related to placement, role of experience with students with disabilities and types of training
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 29
attained by the principals. The sample included 408 elementary school principals in the state of
Pennsylvania. Praiser (2003) concluded that the placement of students with disabilities is based
on the decision of the IEP team; however, if the principal felt positively about inclusion, then
s/he was more likely to recommend LRE placement as the appropriate one. The study found a
correlation between severe disabilities and more restrictive setting placements (Praiser, 2003).
The last main area in the findings (Praiser, 2003) indicated that past practice of success with
inclusion and students with disabilities helped principals have a positive attitude towards
inclusion. The limitation of this study was that the study focused only on one state and cannot be
applied to all leaders in the United States.
To a great degree, the success of inclusion may be dependent upon the beliefs of teachers
providing services. DeSimone and Parmar (2003) examined middle school mathematics
teachers’ perceptions of inclusion by looking at their beliefs and self-perceived knowledge on
educating students with LD in inclusive classrooms. The qualitative study found that many
teachers did not have knowledge of instructional strategies to teach math to students with LD and
lacked the training to properly teach students at all ability levels. A great concern was that
teachers were not able to distinguish between low-performing students and students with LD
(DeSimone & Parmar, 2003). They applied general modifications, such as slower pace and less
work and felt this was sufficient for students with LD instead of properly using accommodations
and meeting the goals of individual students, per IEP. The major component of success for
middle school math teachers was collaboration with other teachers, administrators, and
counselors regarding inclusive practices. Participants expressed that their administrators were
ineffective in providing guidance and support (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006), and they felt that the
administration did not have knowledge regarding the challenges of an inclusive program. The
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 30
limitation of this study was that teachers did not feel comfortable teaching students with LD
since they did not have proper training or knowledge.
Teacher training is a key component to improving self-efficacy in teaching students at
varied levels of performance implementing instructional innovations. Santoli, Sachs, and Romey
(2008) found that a higher sense of self-efficacy is correlated with a positive attitude of teachers
toward inclusion and willingness to adapt instructions for student with disabilities. Results of a
study at a middle school on teacher attitude towards inclusion revealed that a majority of
teachers were willing to make accommodations for students with disabilities in their classroom.
However two-thirds of them did not believe that students with disabilities are able to learn and be
successful in an inclusive environment. The results indicated that teachers found constraints of
time to be a major road block to collaborating with other teachers; lack of training and providing
adequate education to students with disabilities in general education classrooms also prevented
teachers from adapting to the needs of all students (Santoli, Sachs, & Romey (2008). Teachers
were willing to work with students with disabilities, but their strong beliefs that they were not
able to educate them affected their attitudes regarding producing successful outcomes (Santoli,
Sachs, & Romey, 2008).
School leaders are expected to design, lead, manage, and implement programs for all
students. A thorough program evaluation by Idol (2006) revealed essential information about the
attitudes of administrators and teachers at the secondary level. The administrators reported being
in favor of including students with disabilities in a general education setting, but they felt that
there were some cases, based on disability, where full inclusion was not appropriate (Idol, 2006).
The study also revealed that administrators realized planning time, collaboration and support of
the general education teacher were necessary in order to implement a successful inclusion
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 31
program. Idol (2006) further reported that teachers interviewed felt the entire school supported
students with disabilities and felt they were ready to teach in inclusive classrooms; however,
some were hesitant due to lack of skills in modifying the curriculum and adapting instruction to
best meet the needs of students with disabilities. The findings also indicated that lack of
principal support can be a main reason for the failure of inclusion program (Idol, 2006), as
instructional leadership is necessary to support teachers in making changes to curriculum and
instruction.
Overall, literature reveals the importance of providing all teachers opportunities to learn
of special education services and to model best practices to increase their beliefs and self-
efficacy in teaching within inclusive programs (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006; Idol, 2006; Praiser,
2003; Santoli, Sachs, & Romey, 2008; Short & Martin, 2005). It is essential for teachers to feel
confident in having the proper tools to provide students with LD the appropriate instructional
strategies to increase their academic achievement. Providing the teachers with adequate
resources to accomplish goals will motivate them, increase their positive perceptions, and
increase their valuing of their work (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006; Idol, 2006; Praiser, 2003;
Santoli, Sachs, & Romey, 2008; Short & Martin, 2005).
Parents of Students with Learning Disabilities
Parents play a major role in the implementation of IEPs. Special education reform acts
and regulations encourage parents to be active and involved in their child’s education. A study
conducted by Layser and Kirk (2004) in a midwestern state on 437 parents of children with mild,
moderate, or severe disability ate revealed mixed feelings about inclusion. The results indicated
that certain parents were concerned about the emotional well-being of their child in the inclusion
setting while others were concerned about social isolation in the resource classrooms (Layser &
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 32
Kirk, 2004). Other concerns were meeting the individualized needs of students in the inclusion
classroom. More than 40% of parents expressed their satisfaction with the academic progress
and skills development of their children in the special education classroom (Layser & Kirk,
2004). This study also discovered that one-fourth of participants felt the general education
teachers lacked the skills to teach and include students with disabilities and did not know how to
adapt instructions to meet their academic needs. To conclude, parents were not satisfied with the
quality of instruction and the possible loss of needed services in inclusion, but they were pleased
with the positive social and affective outcomes for their children.
Another study examined the relationship between para-educators, the support providers
in the inclusion setting, and parents. French and Chopra (2004) report that parents of students
with disabilities greatly value their relationship with the para-educators because para-educators
are the main resource for their children to fully participate in the general education curriculum.
Further research by Downing, Ryndak, and Clark (2000) and by French and Chopra (2004)
revealed that parents learn of their child’s daily academic and behavioral performance in
inclusion from the para-educators. French and Chopra (2004) examined the impact of the
relationship between parents and para-educators on students’ the academic progress. Purposeful
sampling was used in this study within a school district known for a successful inclusion model
in terms of para-educators’ training, inclusion policies and parents involvement. In the study, 16
respondents (teachers, parents, and para-educators) from Mount Evans Elementary, Riverside
Elementary and Fox Trail Elementary were interviewed. The results indicated five types of
relationships: close and personal relationship, routine limited interactions, routine extended
interactions, minimal relationships and tense relationships. They further indicated that close and
personal relationships and tense relationships were not always beneficial to academic
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 33
performance. It indicated that these relationships could be damaging and break down
communication. However, the study showed that close relationships, such as daily
communication between parents and para-educators with the supervision of the teacher, were
beneficial and provided insight regarding the child’s daily academic growth and weaknesses.
As evident with the above studies, the role of the para-educators changed in the past years
(French & Chopra, 2004). They are the direct support for students in inclusion, as they monitor
behavior and provide individual and small-group instruction. Daily communication between the
parent and para-educators allows the parent to have knowledge of the daily learning occurred in
the inclusion classroom (French & Chopra, 2004).
The reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 allowed parent involvement in decision making
regarding special education placement. It also improved the relationship of parents with the
school community in working together on the educational goals of students with disabilities
(Layser & Kirk, 2004). Nonetheless, the key component to successful inclusion program is the
attitude, knowledge and skill of the inclusion teachers, special education teachers and
administrators (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006; Idol, 2006; Praiser, 2003; Santoli, Sachs, & Romey,
2008; Short & Martin, 2005).
Administrative Support
An inclusive classroom is a setting in which students with LD are learn in the same
classroom as their non-disabled peers. Although this eliminates segregation among students, an
inclusive classroom comes with its own challenges. Teacher preparation and training,
collaboration and co-teaching to increase achievement may not only alleviate these difficulties,
but may also benefit students with LD.

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 34
Collaboration and Co-teaching
Effective teaching skills depend on a high level of student engagement, good classroom
management, and time for planning lessons that adapt to all ability levels. Major factors that
have an impact on successful collaboration are teachers’ philosophy and beliefs on inclusion,
understanding the challenges of students with LD, and time and skills for collaboration (Carter,
Prater, Jackson, & Marchant, 2009). A study on educators’ perception on collaborative training
by Carter et al. (2009) examined both general and special education teachers’ experience of
collaboration and their perceptions on Prater’s (2003) CRIME (curriculum, rules, instruction,
materials, environment) model. Participants reported they had different experience using the
CRIME model to appropriately collaborate, plan instruction, and create accommodations and
modifications for students with LD. Results showed that, for collaboration to be successful,
teachers need to acquire proper communication and problem-solving skills (Carter et al., 2009).
The study found that lack of collaboration time was another concern among special education
and general education teachers. One special education teacher stated the following:
Time is always a difficult thing. Since I’m working with so many teachers, my lunch is
usually a working lunch time because I’m checking about this and that and they ask me
questions, so there’s a lot of collaboration time there. One of the barriers is I do not have
an extended day contract where the regular education teachers do. So, their day starts
with a class at 8:00 a.m. and mine doesn’t start until 8:30 [a.m.]. (Carter et al., 2009, p.
67)
The issue of whether the instructional experience differs for students with disabilities in
co-taught versus solo-taught classes was addressed by Magiera and Zigmond (2005) in stating
that co-teaching merges general and special education instruction, answering the call to form a
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 35
unified service delivery system for meeting the needs of students of varying abilities. This facet
of co-teaching is particularly useful for students with LD, since it adjusts to the varying abilities
of each student to help him/her cope with his/her unique learning difficulties while also allowing
him/her to be part of the inclusive classroom and participate in activities in which their disability
is not a hindrance (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005).
There are several beneficial attributes of co-teaching, as Cook, Friend, Hurley-
Chamberlain and Shamberger (2006) highlight. One benefit is that co-teaching reduces the
student-to-teacher ratio, so each teacher provides more time to students who need extra attention.
The lower student-teacher ratio may allow a teacher to provide one-on-one tutoring to students
with special needs while the other teacher supervises the class as a whole. Another major benefit
that Cook et al., (2006) point out is that co-teaching allows students to receive instruction in
more varied modes, hence allowing them to follow instructions more easily and correctly. While
the class as a whole follows general guidelines for assignments, teachers can provide
individualized instructions for students who do not understand an assignment. In addition, co-
teaching can allow two teachers to explain the same assignment in two different ways, and a
student with LD may prefer one teacher’s explanation over the other, allowing the student to
learn more from the teacher that is suited to his or her learning skills (Cook et al., 2006).
Co-teaching not only helps customize education for students with LD in an inclusive
classroom, but also offers more accurate diagnoses for such students. Aaron, Joshi, Gooden, and
Bentum (2008) studied the basis of the discrepancy between intelligence tests and reading tests
to understand why some students who do not have below-average IQ scores still have below-
average reading scores. This discrepancy model of learning disability indicates many studies
have demonstrated that there is different ability levels in reading and reading difficulties varied
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 36
in origin (Aaron et al., 2008). Therefore, students might be misdiagnosed as having LD, when
they merely learn in ways different from those taught in class, as the problem may not always lie
in the student’s ability to learn, but, rather, in the teacher’s ability to teach the student in the
manner that is most suited to him or her. Therefore, the purpose of co-teaching becomes not
only to bolster the student’s ability to learn, but also to test the teacher’s ability to teach.
Currently, the problem with segregated classrooms could be that “bad” students are filtered into
separate classrooms with other “bad” students and labeled as having LD (Aaron et al., 2008). In
contrast, co-teaching may reverse this judgmental system so that all students stay in the same
inclusive classroom while the unexperienced teachers are filtered out.
The fact that co-teaching tests a teacher’s ability to teach might be looked upon
unfavorably by some teachers who lack confidence in their teaching skills, as reported in a study
by Nietfeld and Wilkins (2004). Among the several variables that influence a teacher’s
perception and attitude towards inclusion is that they “identified yet another variable, prior
training, to be an important factor in teacher willingness to work with special needs students”
(Nietfeld & Wilkins, 2004, p. 115). Such teachers had a tendency to blame the severity of the
disability instead of their own lack of training for the student’s lack of learning. In such cases,
co-teaching could be used as a tool for teachers to collaborate and improve their skills for
teaching students with LD, emphasizing on “co-teachers’ roles and relationships or program
logistics rather than demonstrating its impact on student achievement” (Cook, Friend, Hurley-
Chamberlain, & Shamberger, 2010, p. 13).
To conclude, the school leader should have one main focus: improve and enhance the
instruction for all students and provide all teachers with targeted professional development to
ensure all students receive quality instruction aligned to state standards (Carter et al., 2009). The
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 37
literature in this area indicates that successful inclusion requires that both general education and
special education teachers collaborate as team members (Cook et al., 2010). Also, capacity for
collaboration is enhanced when all members in the team receive preparation and training in order
to understand and support each other (Cook et al., 2010).
Teacher Training and Preparation
In most states, training and education related to students with disabilities consists of a
single one-semester class for general education teachers while teachers who specialize in
teaching students with disabilities undergo more education and training related to instructional
modifications. However, this training is not consistent from state to state (Jenkins, Leigh, &
Patton, 2007). In the 2009-2010 school year, in the state of California, 14% of special education
teachers lacked the proper credential to teach students with disabilities, 49% of first year teachers
did not hold the right credentials, and 22% of special education teachers in high poverty schools
were not properly credentialed. These percentages were only slightly improved from five years
prior (McKibbon & Wadsworth, 2007).
Research shows that student achievement is directly related to teacher motivation and
efficacy and teacher motivation and efficacy re directly related to preparedness, training and
education (Chard, 1998). New and pre-service teachers are the most malleable to adopting
programs and instructional practices, good or bad, but, once efficacy beliefs become established,
they are difficult to change according to Strike, Haller, & Soltis, (2005). In addition, many
teachers decline the opportunity to teach an inclusive classroom because they feel underprepared
(Rosas & Winterman, 2010). A study by Rosas and Winterman (2010) investigated the
perception of pre-service and newly hired teachers on their preparedness to instruct students with
disabilities. The findings showed that in-service teachers with 1 to 2 years of experience felt less
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 38
prepared than did pre-service teachers. Under such circumstances, a general education teacher
may feel that he/she lacks the skills and experience to also teach students with LD, making
him/her ill-suited for teaching inclusive classrooms (Rosas & Winterman, 2010). Hence, teacher
preparation not only becomes a way for students to benefit, but also a method of boosting the
confidence and willingness of teachers to be more open towards the concept of inclusive
classrooms (Rosas & Winterman, 2010).
In addition to education and training, a mentoring program can build new teacher
confidence by providing opportunities for actual experience and opportunities teaching and
managing special needs children with the support of a mentor to provide feedback and strategies
(Hoy, Tschannen-Moran, & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2008). According to Hoy, Tschannen-Moran, &
Woolfolk-Hoy (2008), mentors provide verbal persuasion and cognitive processing to the new
teachers to build their sense of efficacy. Verbal persuasion consists of encouragement, specific
performance feedback, and strategies to address difficult situations and tasks. Specific positive
and constructive feedback may be given by school administration, other teachers, and students
(Hoy, Tschannen-Moran, & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2008). New teacher collaboration with other
teachers can be managed to avoid influence from teachers with low self-efficacy and who might
reduce or slow down the new teacher’s development of efficacy, and mentors assist the teacher
implement teaching strategies and programs to assist students with LD improve their reading
comprehension and writing skills. These innovative programs were designed to teach reading
and writing skills in a manner that increases in complexity and rigor as the lessons progress
(Hoy, Tschannen-Moran, & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2008).
Although inclusion of students with disabilities has positive aspects, the instructional
strategies create challenges for general education teachers, and one of the main concerns focuses
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 39
on how teachers can provide these students’ academic and social/emotional support without any
training. Praiser (2003) correlated teachers’ acceptance of and readiness for inclusion to teacher
credential programs. It was evident that principals with extensive training on special education
laws and concepts were more open to the idea of inclusion. Administrative credential programs
lack the specific training of special education topics in the program and, as a result, school
leaders are not familiar with special education concepts (Praiser, 2003). Special preparations
need to be made for a teacher to teach in an inclusive classroom, and this preparation begins with
the teacher’s own self-perception on whether they have adequate experience and training to
educate students with special needs (Praiser, 2003).
On a positive note, once general education teachers acknowledge and decide to teach an
inclusive classroom, they come to acceptance by developing several positive beliefs and attitudes
towards teaching students with LD alongside non-disabled students (Jordan, Schwartz, McGhie-
Richmond, 2009). The first step is usually acknowledgement of their newfound role and
responsibilities, and “teachers who believe students with special needs are their responsibility
tend to be more effective overall with their students” (Jordan et al., 2009). Furthermore, teachers
can discover that students with LD benefit from being in an inclusive classroom by overcoming
boundaries and barriers, as exemplified in Case 1 and Case 2 of a study by Berry, (2006). In this
study, case 1 studied the beliefs of special needs teachers who “refused to predict how much
progress a particular student might make in the long term, because they wanted to avoid putting
‘boundaries’ on students” (Berry, 2006, p. 20). In case 2, special needs teachers elaborated on
removing limitations on student learning by explaining that these “barriers to learning”, in their
view, included failing to set the right tone, resulting in students’ being too embarrassed or
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 40
humiliated to take a risk and begin trying things (Berry, 2006). All four teachers felt that
inclusive classrooms would help them overcome these boundaries and barriers.
Furthermore, despite some teachers’ looking favorably upon inclusive classrooms,
several schools and other educational bodies retain inhibitions towards having disabled and non-
disabled students in the same classroom, and so teacher preparation entails not only the
relationship between student and teachers but also the larger context of institutional and cultural
perceptions (Jordan et al., 2009). This is because teachers are not isolated but, rather, integral
components of the education system and teacher beliefs are likely influenced by the school and
school system’s approach to inclusion (Jordan et al., 2009). Irrespective of the teacher’s
independent beliefs towards inclusive classrooms, he or she can only receive training and
experience in such an environment if provided by the school. However, where teachers may feel
limited by school rules, school leadership often claims to be limited by social and cultural
pressures. This is why, according to studies on teacher education conducted in Cypress, teacher
preparation should not be generic, but, rather, localized or even individualized (Phtiaka &
Symeoniduo, 2009). Phtiaka and Symeoniduo (2009) suggest that a training course for inclusion
could begin from local beliefs and assumptions and manage a constructive use of international
trends. Such a course would begin by examining the definition of disability within the local
culture and the analyzing the attitudes of that particular culture towards students with LD. While
teachers would be trained in how to help students with special needs and create or follow IEPs,
such an approach would also attempt to remove the stigma of disability as a social and cultural
construct (Phtiaka & Symeoniduo, 2009).
With such thoughts on administrative support as presented in the literature in this section,
it becomes clear that teacher preparation on inclusion is not just confined to training teachers, but
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 41
rather educating society at large, since the two are interdependent (Jordan et al., 2009; Phtiaka &
Symeoniduo, 2009). Adding in-service experience and training can enhance a teacher’s
confidence and willingness towards teaching inclusive classrooms (Chard, 1998; Strike, Haller,
& Soltis, 2005), but the bigger question becomes whether parents, schools, and district
administrators support teachers who teach students with LD within the same classroom as non-
disabled students. While some teachers can strive towards overcoming the learning barriers and
boundaries faced by students with LD, they should not be the sole agents of change (Phtiaka &
Symeoniduo, 2009). The studies above conclude that the primary barriers to serving students in
LRE, such an inclusive classroom, is the lack of teachers prepared to provide quality inclusive
services to students with LD (Chard, 1998; Strike, Haller, & Soltis, 2005).
Students with Learning Disabilities in Inclusion
Another concern in the implementation of a successful inclusion program is the delivery
of instruction through different teaching styles. According to the literature below, practicing
teachers in inclusion need to evaluate their current teaching models and need to differentiate
instruction to meet the needs of spectrum of learners. The literature review presented in this
section discusses the strategies and teaching methods currently utilized in inclusive settings.
Strategies and Methods
In order to enhance learning for students with LD in an inclusive classroom, specific and
targeted instructional strategies should be implemented and used on daily basis. Adapting the
curriculum, scaffolding, breaking tasks into smaller units, making use of visual aids,
emphasizing phonemic awareness, and the use of adaptive technology haves shown to be
effective in inclusion (Humphrey, 2008; Hutchinson, 2009). Other strategies such as sounding
out words, breaking tasks into steps, daily reading and practice of math skills, more time to learn
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 42
and to complete work, and teaching at an appropriate level (Hutchinson, 2009). The literature
review presented in this section provides understanding of current strategies used by general
education teachers in inclusion.
Current strategies in an inclusive classroom include peer tutoring, programmed learning
such as “solve it”, revising instruction materials, and using the classroom as a common
environment where learning becomes a social as well as academic activity (Dietz, Enders, &
Montague, 2011). Studies show some strategies are effective in helping students with LD cope
with learning alongside non-disabled students while also offering benefits such as making the
classroom more interactive, connected, and even entertaining activity (Dietz, Enders, &
Montague, 2011).
The “solve it” methodology is based on sociocultural levels that can be observed in an
inclusive classroom and allows students to learn on varying social levels, beginning with self-
learning, incorporates self-instruction, self-questioning, and self-monitoring (Dietz et al., 2011).
For example, students may be instructed or tested via scripted lessons, class charts, cue cards,
and practice problems. The benefit of this first level is that the student with LD can learn at his
or her own pace without worrying about keeping up with the rest of the class (Dietz et al., 2011).
It also provides a convenient way to monitor the student’s progress since complete and
incomplete tasks can readily indicate the progress or what areas the student is having difficulties
in. However, this method does not isolate the student from the teacher because teachers provide
explicit instructions that incorporate “validated teaching strategies such as cueing, modeling,
rehearsal, and feedback” (Dietz et al., 2011). The method of “solve it” can be particularly
valuable with respect to students with LD, as schools in America move towards full inclusion in
general education classes, by equipping them to get the extra help that they need without
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 43
disrupting the classroom environment. The methodology helps not only students with LD in an
but also other students and teachers who can view data on student performance and use reading
and mathematics programming without having to dedicate a large portion of their time attending
to the special needs of individual students (Dietz et al., 2011).
Peer teaching/tutoring is another current strategy frequently recommended to facilitate
inclusive education (Marshak, 2012). The strategy involves students to help each other on
assignments, thus allowing individual students to overcome their weaknesses by benefitting from
the strengths of other students. As such, it can be viewed as a merger between the one-on-one or
small-group teaching/tutoring typical for students with LD and the interaction of large groups of
students in a traditional classroom. However, the true effectiveness of peer teaching/tutoring
remains speculative based on the studies done so far. In study by Marshak (2012), it was
considered important “to include a parent training component with the class wide peer tutoring
intervention, and not to include this same training in the traditional condition, because parent
training was not typically a part of traditional instruction” (p. 17). Hence, while the results
favored peer tutoring as a non-traditional method, it is unclear whether students were, in fact,
benefitting from other non-traditional strategies instead such as parent training. This becomes of
particular concern in knowing that parents in both traditional as well as non-traditional study
groups were encouraged to helps students with homework, assignments, and test preparation,
making parental assistance an even stronger influence on student learning and assessment
(Marshak, 2012).
Another perspective towards LD is that some students may merely have difficulty in
understanding instruction materials, so instruction strategies can be used to help them learn
within an inclusive classroom. According to Berry, (2006), teachers should use engagement
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 44
strategies to support participation of students with LD. Further, he points out that in particular,
whole-class lessons, common in general education classrooms are at odds with the special
education paradigm of attention to individual students in small-group and one-to-one
instructional formats (Berry, 2006). One proposed solution to this problem is that teachers
engage in interactive dialogue with students with LD instead of having them rely on instructional
materials they may have difficulty comprehending; such interactive dialogues could include
recitation of study material as well as encouraging conversations among students (Berry, 2006).
Consequently, this “teacher talk” strategy makes the inclusive classroom not only a learning
environment but also a social environment, where “students have questions they want to talk
about, students talk in groups, teachers ask questions and act as recorders, discrepancies might
surface, and groups may question other groups” (Berry, 2006, p. 218). The instructional
approach in the classroom can provide a welcoming environment for students with disabilities.
The social interaction of students in the class discussion may promote engagement of students
with disabilities and will further promote positive learning experiences for these students.
The literature on strategies demonstrates few methods currently practiced in inclusion.
Unfortunately, strategies such as peer teaching/tutoring still do not prove effective in inclusive
classrooms despite being practiced since at least as far back as the 18
th
century (Marshak, 2012).
However, newer strategies such as “solve it” do show great potential in improving the success of
inclusive classrooms. In addition, strategies like “teacher talk” offer benefits far beyond just
learning (Marshak, 2012).
Academic Achievement
The academic achievement of students with disabilities in an inclusion environment
depends on several variables, including quality of participation in regular classroom activities,
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 45
acceptance by teachers and peers, and achievement in academic and social–emotional learning
(Humphrey, 2008). While, the classroom teacher sets the guidelines and the tone for acceptance
of the students with learning needs by including them in the learning environment, it is important
to note, that in certain areas, students with LD have shown a greater learning curve needed to
make up for the gap between their own achievements and those of their non-disabled students.
Therrien, Hughes, Kapelski, and Mokhtari (2009) examined the learning curve of disabled
students compared to that of a control group of non-disabled students. On the posttest,
intervention group students significantly outperformed control group students on essay measures
related to strategy use, content, and organization, even though there was no significant difference
between treatment group and students without LD on posttest measures of content (Therrien et
al., 2009). These results do come with limitations, such as the fact that the study relates to
generalization and that results may differ in an actual classroom where the stakes for assessment
tend to be higher. However, it can be summarized that, to some degree and under some
circumstances (such as low-stakes testing), students with LD show greater signs of improvement
when it comes to ratings relating to organization and ideas in essay writing, although ratings in
traits such as vocabulary, tone, eloquence, and sentence structure are not significantly different
from students without LD (Therrien et al., 2009).
In addition, there is more than academic achievement at play when it comes to assessing
the performance of students with LD alongside that of those without LD. Lackaye and Margalit
(2006) examined the social-emotional state of students with varying learning abilities in settings
such as an inclusive classroom. According to Lackaye and Margalit (2006), students with LD
showed lower levels of achievement, effort investment, academic self-efficacy, sense of
coherence, positive mood, and hope, and higher levels of loneliness and negative mood. In fact,
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 46
at times, what may be categorized as a LD may in fact be a behavioral problem (Gage & Goran,
2011). Given these circumstances, an inclusive classroom could help resolve behavioral issues
in otherwise intelligent students by alleviating feelings of loneliness and giving them the hope
that they can fit in and show levels of achievement equal to those students considered non-
disabled (Gage & Goran, 2011).
Social Needs and Student Effort
Ultimately, achievement depends not on whether a class is inclusive or non-inclusive, but
on whether special education and the social and emotional needs of students are met. A study by
Fore III, Hagan-Burke, Burke, Boon, and Smith (2008) revealed no statistically significant
evidence to indicate that students’ academic achievement varied based on inclusive versus non-
inclusive placement, but the only statistically significant differences observed regarded
participants enrolled in a general education literature class compared to participants placed in a
special education setting for literature. Nonetheless, inclusive classrooms begin to make more
sense when one realizes that academic achievement cannot be used to screen students, since
curriculum-based measurement and teacher ratings of academic achievement may not be a valid
way of predicting which students have LD (Albers & Kettler, 2013). An inclusive classroom is
the appropriate choice because academic achievement may not always be an accurate distributor
for establishing separate classrooms.
According to Meltzer, Katzir, Miller, Reddy, and Roditi (2004), instead of basing
decisions on academic achievement, perhaps education practitioners should measure effort.
Effort seems to be the key in adding success to an inclusive classroom where students with LD
have a higher chance to show improvement (Meltzer et al., 2004). The problem currently seems
to lie in the self-perception of students and teachers when it comes to addressing LD, since more
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 47
emphasis is placed on academic achievement instead of on effort and improvement. This
problem reciprocates in light of a study that indicates that “students who perceived themselves as
struggling in the academic domains; reported less effort and less consistent use of strategies with
their schoolwork” (Meltzer et al., 2004, p. 105). According to the study, teachers who are
supposed to help can also make matters worse because students who perceive themselves as
struggling academically were also viewed by their teachers as unwilling to apply major effort to
their schoolwork. Therefore, an inclusive classroom has to be a place where students with LD
feel welcomed and are given credit for their efforts and progress (Meltzer et al., 2004).
Achievement of students with LD depends on many contributing factors. The literature
review in this area summarized the student effort is a major component of academic success
(Hagan-Burke et al., 2008; Lackaye & Margalit, 2006; Meltzer et al., 2004). Many times
students may possess the ability to learn, however, they put the minimal effort in to their
studying. It is important to keep in mind that self-efficacy and self-esteem of the students with
disabilities play a significant role in their studying skills (Lackaye & Margalit, 2006).
Theoretical Framework
Bronfenbrenner’s (1977, 1979) model of ecological system is a social contextual
approach that serves as the theoretical framework for this study as agreed upon by the thematic
group. Ecological system analyzes the interaction of the community, culture, family, school, and
even the historical time period and regulations and the impact these have on the student. The
student is at the center of the system and all the other systems surrounding the student and
influence him/her socially/emotionally, academically, and behaviorally. Bronfenbrenner’s
(1977, 1979) ecological theory of human development can be utilized to both understand the
contextual influences on students with LD as well as to help develop effective strategies for
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 48
successful inclusion. This theory was used as a lens to look closely how systems affect student
development and how the student interacts or influences those systems, as there are reciprocal
interactions that occur between the student and his/her surrounding systems.
The focus of the ecological theory is how the environment affects the growth and
development of students with LD. According to Bronfenbrenner (1977, 1979), there are five
environmental domains that influence an individual’s growth and development: the microsystem,
the mesosystem, the exosystem, the macrosystem, and the chronosystem (Figure 1). The student
with LD is located in the center of the domain, and the microsystem is the first ring that
surrounds that individual. The microsystem is the institutions and groups that most immediately
and directly affect the student’s development. The microsystem consists of family members,
peers, religious communities, neighborhood, and school. The highest number of social
interactions the student encounters occur in this domain, which helps to create the experiences
he/she has. The mesosystem is the domain that describes the relationships and the interaction
between the various microsystems such as the relationship of the student to home, relationship of
the student to church, the relationship of the student to school. Within this domain, all direct
influence happens between the students and the institutions around them. The student is not
passive; rather, the student has an active role in creating relationship and interactions. The
exosystem is the domain where the student does not actively influence his/her experiences;
however, the experiences indirectly affect the system around him/her, and the systems affect
his/her experiences or existence. The next domain is the macrosystem, which involves the
student’s culture in terms of values, norms, and religious beliefs. The various components of the
student’s culture directly shape his/her growth. The last domain, the chronosystem, includes the
commutative experiences that comprise the student’s lifetime. Using this framework, each ring
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 49
must be called upon to identify and implement innovative strategies to enhance the academic
success of students with LD (Epstein & Kazmierczak, 2007). The ecological structure, as
applied to student with LD, helps school leaders understand that the implementation and
application of innovative strategies is not one level, but occurs within a system and affects the
entire system as well.

Figure 1. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological System

Bronfenbrenner (1977) proposed understanding development by examining a child in a
different environment. He argues that development is based on a series of mutual
accommodations between the student and the environment, including settings that are far
removed from the actual students such as federal legislation on special education services
(Kampwirth & Powers, 2012). A student’s difficulty is conceptualized in terms of a mismatch
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 50
between his/her developing capabilities and the demands of the system in which the problem
occurs (e.g., the inclusive classroom). A source of support, such as innovative strategies for
addressing the above problem, may be found in a different context. Ecological systems theory
also emphasizes focusing on conditions that can be modified (extra time on homework and tests,
a set of extra books at home) rather on than a child’s social address (ethnicity, class,
neighborhood), which is generally immutable (Bronfenbrenner, 1989).
Conclusion
Since special Education debuted in 1975 with the passing of IDEA, educational leaders
have known that an accountability system that is set by the state will provide guidelines to better
serve students with disabilities. As a federal law, it was partially funded by the federal
government, and its revision in 2004 mandates that all students with disabilities are entitled to
free appropriate public education and should have access to general education curriculum in the
LRE. This mandate changed the delivery of instruction to students with disabilities from
resource classroom to a general education setting alongside their non-disabled peers.
From the literature review, factors found to affect the academic achievement of this
population are teachers’ and administrators’ positive perception to inclusion, administrative
support to provide training and collaboration, and student self-perception about achievement.
These factors contribute to a positive environment and to support and services provided to
students with LD in order for them to be academically successful in a general education
environment.
Although the research on teacher attitude towards inclusion varies, most teachers believe
that concrete and specific professional development will enhance instructional strategies in an
inclusive environment (Chard, 1998; Strike, Haller, & Soltis, 2005). One way to enhance the
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 51
self-efficacy of teachers is through co-teaching and collaborating approach, as results revealed
that time to collaborate and consult with other teachers especially special education teachers
have positive outcomes for general education teachers (Cook et al., 2010).
One factor that has been indicated over and over that affects teachers’ attitude about
inclusion is the positive support of administration. Specifically, the positive relationship of
administrative support to the inclusion was demonstrated in research (Chard, 1998; Strike,
Haller, & Soltis, 2005). The research also identified certain instructional strategies that have
success stories with students with disabilities. Methods such as “solve it”, peer tutoring, “teacher
talk”, and engaging students by participation promoted learning with students with disabilities
(Marshak, 2012). However, to ensure success of all students with LD, innovative strategies need
to be implemented and applied appropriately on a daily basis (Epstein & Kazmierczak, 2007).

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 52
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The intent of this study was to investigate innovative strategies used in an inclusion
classroom to improve the academic success of students with LD. The study examined one
comprehensive high school that demonstrates successful implementation of innovative strategies
in inclusion. The literature review revealed that the barriers to successful inclusion are teachers
and administrators’ perceptions on inclusion (Carter et al., 2009), lack of training and
collaboration (Cook et al., 2010), lack of time for planning lesson plans with best practices
(DeSimone & Parmar, 2006), and not being able to deliver successful lessons (Berry, 2006). The
goal of this study was to identify the strategies used with students with LD in inclusion to
promote learning and achievement.
This chapter provides the methodology and research design used in a thematic qualitative
study aimed at innovative strategies implemented to promote academic achievement of students
with LD in inclusion. The chapter also defines the sample population and participants, and
explains the data collection methods and ethical consideration of the study.
The thematic dissertation group at the University of Southern California consisted of five
colleagues who met regularly from January 2014 through May of 2015 with a central focus to
study innovative strategies used to promote the academic achievement of students with
disabilities. The two research questions were developed by the thematic dissertation group.
The purpose of this study was to answer the following research questions in order to
understand the strategies that have been successful in inclusion.
1. What are the perceived school-wide systems and structures that contribute to the
academic achievement of students with learning disabilities?
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 53
2. How are these systems and structures implemented and sustained to support achievement
of students with learning disabilities in inclusion?
To address the research questions, a qualitative case study design was used to gather and
analyze data. According to Merriam (2009), qualitative researchers are interested in
understanding how people interpret their experiences and what meaning they attribute to their
experiences. Furthermore, Merriam (2009) explains that the qualitative process is inductive, and
the final product is richly descriptive to illustrate what the researcher has learned about the
phenomena. Qualitative researchers typically study a relatively small number of individuals and
preserve the individuality of each participant during analysis (Maxwell, 2013).
The qualitative case study research was utilized in order to provide in-depth
understanding of all stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences on the implementation of
innovative strategies for inclusion. Qualitative case study research lends itself to this study to
investigate teachers’ perspectives and grasp a deeper understanding of the best practices used for
students with LD. According to Maxwell (2013), one of the intellectual goals for which
qualitative studies are especially suited is to understand the particular context within which
participants act and how they are influenced by the context.
Sample and Population
This study examined the implementation of innovative strategies to promote achievement
for students with LD in inclusion. Specific criteria were established to identify a successful
inclusion program at a comprehensive high school. This section summarizes the selection
criteria, sampling procedures, participants, and an overview of the district and school.
For this study, purposeful sampling was used to select the participants for the interview
and classrooms to observe. According to Merriam (2009), purposeful sampling allows the
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 54
researcher to learn the most about that investigation. Purposeful sampling is based on the
assumption that the researcher seeks to discover, understand, gain insight, therefore, must select
a sample in which the most can be learned (Merriam, 2009). Snowball sampling, the most
common form of purposeful sampling, was used in locating few key participants who meet the
criteria established for participation in this study (Merriam, 2009). This qualitative case study
involved the school site administrator, general education teachers, special education teachers,
and parents of students with LD. Participation in this study was voluntary, but only certain staff
members were selected. The criteria for selection were based on willingness to participate in the
interview and observation. Interviewees had varying years of experience in their subject area
and at the school site. Interviews were conducted with an assistant principal, a counselor, a
special education teacher specialist, three general education teachers (inclusion), a special
education teacher, and a parent.
Overview of the School
Lilly Valley High School (LVHS) was selected due to its successful implementation of
an inclusion program. LVHS is located in the state of California within Los Angeles County.
LVHS is one of the four comprehensive high schools in its district. During 2013-14 school year,
LVHS served approximately 1,758 students, evenly distributed by grade level.
Table 2
Student Enrollment by Grade Level (School Year 2013-14)
Grade Level Number of Students
Grade 9 451
Grade 10 438
Grade 11 430
Grade 12 439
Total Enrollment 1758

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 55
The student population is ethnically diverse with 58.5% of students identified as White.
It is important to mention that the “White” population includes students who are predominantly
of Armenian and/or Middle Eastern descent.
Table 3
Student Enrollment by Student Group (School Year 2013-14)
Group Percent of Total Enrollment
Black or African American 1.8
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.2
Asian 6.4
Filipino 7.3
Hispanic or Latino 24.9
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.0
White 58.8
Two or More Races 0.6
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 62.9
English Learners 20.9
Students with Disabilities 8.9

The LVHS faculty includes four administrators, one principal, one associate principal,
and two assistant principals; four counselors; a Title 1/ELL Specialist, one psychologist, 80
teachers, and 32 classified/support staff (including clerical, instructional assistants, custodian,
etc.). Ethnically, the staff is 70% White and 30% from other backgrounds. The majority of
teachers are fully credentialed (92.6%), have an average of 18.4 years of teaching experience,
and are teaching or working within the area of their credential focus. LVHS constructed an
Instructional Leadership Team consisting of teachers, counselors, administrators, and school site
support staff. Their responsibilities are to assess the school’s overall instructional program, set
goals for student achievement, and develop and assist with implementation of instructional
programs, strategies, and assessments, and address the training needed for teachers.

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 56
Participants
This study used purposeful sampling, which, according to Merriam (2008), is the most
common and allows the researcher to learn the most about a topic. Due to limited time, space
and availability, some convenience sampling was also used in the study. The candidates were
narrowed to a counselor, a special education teacher specialist, four general education teachers, a
special education teacher, and a parent. The rationale for choosing these participants was to
ensure consistency in collecting data from teachers and administrators who participated in the
implementation of the inclusion program. These participants have knowledge of the program
and currently teach or provide support for the inclusive classrooms. Also, the interviewees were
willing to answer questions to the best of their knowledge. According to Maxwell (2013), this is
purposeful sampling because the participants answer the questions truthfully and provide an
overall picture of an issue. The following is the description of the participants, their experiences
and positions at the school site.
Table 4
Participants, Position, and Experience
Participant Position Experience
Chris Assistant Principal 4 year as an AP
Selin Academic Counselor 22 years as a counselor
Alina Special Ed Teacher Specialist 8 years of teaching
Melanie Special Education Teacher 12 years of teaching
Sandra English Teacher 18 years of teaching
Steve Math Teacher 9 years of teaching
Jim Social Study Teacher 9 years of teaching
Ramona Parent 3 years engaged at LVHS

Instrumentation
In order to study promising practices to improve the academic achievement of students
with LD in inclusion by applying innovative strategies in the classroom, it is necessary to set the
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 57
research in theory. The interview questions were designed based on research questions and the
gap in the literature review. A detailed description of the interview questions and connection to
the research questions is illustrated in Table 5 below.
Table 5
Interview Questions and Connection to Research Questions
Teacher/Administrator/Parent Interviews
Question RQ1 RQ2
Education/Training/ Self-Efficacy
1 X
2 X
3 X
4 X
Policies and Laws
5 X
Inclusion Program
6 X
7 X
Student Academic
Achievement/Growth
8 X
9 X
10 X
Innovative Strategies/Best
Practices

11 X
Administrative
Support/Collaboration Time
12 X
Parent Involvement
13 X
14 X

Bronfenbrenner’s (1977, 1979) ecological theory of human development served as the
theoretical framework for this study. Maxwell (2013) defines a conceptual framework as “the
systems of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 58
your research” (p. 39). The literature review highlighted main concepts, terms, and theories that
shaped the framework for this study. This framework informed the development of the problem
of the study, the formulation of specific research questions, the selection of the appropriate
methodology for data collection and analysis, and provided insight into the interpretation of
findings (Merriam, 2013).
The conceptual framework (Figure 2), designed by the thematic group, was based on
emerging themes in the review of literature. Identified structures, such as stakeholders, funding,
policies, staffing, and professional development (training) are key components in implementing
and sustaining the inclusion program and to establish innovative strategies.

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework, Ed. D, Thematic Group 2013
Semi-Structured Interview
Semi-structured interviews were used as a measure to collect data. Semi-structured
interviews are designed to be flexible and to allow the interviewer to follow the lead of the
respondents while still being guided by a list of question to be explored (Merriam, 2009).
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 59
Skilled interviewers have to create a positive interaction and be respectful and non-judgmental
during the interview (Merriam, 2009).
The interview protocol was created with the research questions and data needed in mind.
An interview protocol was utilized to ask a number of questions interview participant (Appendix
A). According to Maxwell (2013), testing the questions before the interview is crucial, as
leading questions reveal a bias or an assumption that the researcher makes which may not be
held by the participant (Merriam, 2009). The protocol included open-ended questions in order to
obtain as much information as possible. The interview questions for administrators were
designed based on the literature on administrators. The same procedure was applied when
designing the protocol for teachers and parents.
Observations
In order to determine that innovative strategies are used in the inclusion classroom, as
well as to validate the information obtained from interviews, data was collected through
observation of three classrooms. The observations were based on instruction, peer relation, peer
tutoring, small-group instructions, collaboration and co-teaching among general education and
special education teachers.
Observations were conducted using an observation protocol (Appendix C). According to
Merriam (2009), it takes great concentration to observe intently and remember information to put
down on paper. Merriam (2009) provides guidelines on collecting accurate information through
observation. The researcher identified the following prior to the observations:
• Observe the physical setting of the classroom, participants, activities, interactions, and
own behavior.
• Not be disruptive at all.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 60
• Using the finding for the doctoral dissertation.
• Why and how the participants (school, administrators, and teachers) were selected for this
study.
The school served as a model for what systems and structures are useful and might be
transferrable to other schools using inclusion models to increase the achievement of students
with disabilities.
Data Collection
This study used two types of protocol for data collection; semi-structured interviews, and
observations. Merriam (2009) describes entry as the first step in observation; gaining the
confidence and permission of those who can approve an observation activity. Bogdan and Biklin
(2003) also identify one of the key steps in fieldwork as gaining access: getting permission to
perform your study. The thematic group met in June and July of 2014 and completed the
university’s Institutional Review Board forms; the application was submitted to the board in
early August of 2014. Once the study was approved, permission was obtained from the school
site administrator to perform the data collection. Participants were provided with an explanation
of the interview and observation process and assured confidentiality. Informed consent forms
were signed prior to each interview. Interviews contributed to the study as the primary source of
data, and observations were conducted to support the data collected from the interviews.
Merriam (2009) argues that triangulation through the use of multiple sources of data increases
the internal validity of the study. Maxwell (2013) contends that using multiple methods creates a
check of each method to discern whether methods with different strengths and limitations will
support a single conclusion. Further, using multiple methods allows one to gain a more secure
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 61
understanding of the issues that are investigated (Maxwell, 2013). Data was collected from
September 2014 to December 2014.
In order to capture data during the observations, the researcher used the observation
protocol as a guide, took notes during the observations, and waited until afterward to record in
detail what has been observed. The first observation took place in Sandra’s class, an inclusion
English class. The second observation was of Steve’s inclusion geometry class, and the third
observation was of Jim’s inclusion world history class. All three classes had about 37 students
of whom eight to ten had a disability. There was a special education teacher available for half an
hour in the geometry and world history classes. During the three observations, the researcher
paid attention to the entire room, watched the lessons, observed students’ engagement, and took
notes. The researcher also took notes regarding all students on the seating chart, specifically the
students with LD, students who arrived late to class, and students who were disruptive during the
lesson. The researcher kept a tally of gender, students who were just playing and just not doing
any work, the support from the special education teacher where available, and the
accommodations that occurred during the lessons. Finally, the researcher attempted to maintain
enough situational awareness to notice anything important that occurred in a section that was
directly observed, including important features of the inclusion, teaching strategies, the learning
pattern of the students, the support and accommodations that was provided during class for the
students with LD.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the process of making sense of the data collected, involves consolidating
and interpreting what people said, and, ultimately, answering the research questions (Merriam,
2009). Data collected through interviews and observations was analyzed and coded. The
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 62
preferred way to analyze data in a qualitative study is to do it simultaneously with data collected
(Merriam, 2009). Data analysis was completed according to Creswell’s (2003) Model for Data
Analysis (Figure 3). Data was first recorded at the interviews by digital recording, and all digital
recordings were transcribed. Data, then, was coded and analyzed for emerging themes and
meaning was extracted from the data.

Figure 3, Creswell’s (2003) Model for Qualitative Data Analysis
Ensuring validity and reliability in qualitative research involves conducting the
investigation in an ethical manner (Merriam, 2009). The validity and trustworthiness of this
study was addressed through triangulation in the form of multiple sources of data and through
comparing and cross-checking data collected through teacher interviews and classroom
observations. According to Merriam (2009), triangulation remains a principal strategy to ensure
validity and reliability. It is very important, especially in qualitative research, to make sure that
the research is reliable and can be considered a significant (Merriam, 2009).
Step 5: Decide how the description and themes will be represented in the study narrative. Step 6: Interpret or make meaning of the daata.
Stpe 3: Begin detail anlaysis with a coding process (organizing the material into chunks before bringi ng meaning to the data). Stpe 4: Use coding process to develop a description of the participant and or setting. Use coding to
develop themes or categories. Themes are analyzed for each interveiw and across interviews.
Step 1: Organize and prepare the data for analysis.
step 2: Read through all the data (first obtaining a general sense)
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 63
Ethical Considerations
Ethical practices were followed in setting up and conducting this study. According to
Merriam (2009), the trustworthiness of a qualitative study depends on the credibility of the
researcher. To ensure ethical means of data collection, the researcher obeyed to the rules and
regulations implemented by the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board,
which reviews the purpose of the study before the study actually takes place. With the board’s
approval, the group members conducted their studies in their selected sites in the Fall of 2014.
Participants volunteered to participate in this study and were provided assurance of the
confidentiality of their statements and the benefits that might result from the study. The school
and all participants were given pseudonyms to assure anonymity. All data collected was stored
in a safe location to avoid harm to the participants or to the outcome of the study. The
participants received a $25 gift card at the end of the interview their time. They did not have to
answer all of the questions in order to receive the card.

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 64
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
This chapter presents the findings from a case study of innovative strategies implemented
in an inclusion classroom to increase the academic success of students with LD by identifying
the organizational systems and structures perceived to contribute to high levels of academic
achievement. Humphrey (2008) suggests that successful inclusion of students with disabilities in
a general education setting involves many factors such as quality of participation, acceptance of
teachers and peers, and achievement in academic and social-emotional learning. These factors
emphasize the importance of a supportive learning environment that concentrates on both the
academic and the social needs of students with LD. In order to learn more about what
organizational structures and systems are in place at inclusion classrooms, LVHS was selected to
serve as the subject of this case study. The results present the data collected from interviews as
well as classroom observations. The location and participants in the study are described,
followed by the discussion of the findings to the research questions. In order to keep
confidentiality for the location and participants, the researcher used pseudonyms for the school
and participants.
Location and Participants
The primary location for this study was Lilly Valley High School, a comprehensive high
school located in Los Angeles County. Comprehensive high schools are the most common form
of public high schools in the United States, serve the needs of all students under the supervision
of one principal, and are governed by state educational codes and district policies. Eight
interviewees agreed to participate in this study: an administrator, a counselor, a special education
teacher specialist, three general education teachers (inclusion), a special education teacher, and a
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 65
parent. Three of the interviews were conducted in inclusion classrooms. The next section
describes the location and a description of the participants.
LVHS was selected for this study due to its long history of inclusion. For over twelve
years, the collaboration model has been practiced for couple of subjects wherein special
education teacher and general education teacher co-taught in the same class. The co-teaching
method showed great improvement in the academics of students with disabilities at LVHS. The
assistant superintendent for special education at the district office requested a pilot consult
inclusion program at all schools. The consulting teacher model involves indirect delivery of
services to students with disabilities wherein the special education teacher serves as a consultant
to the inclusion teachers. This is the fourth year that the consult inclusion model is practiced at
LVHS. Inclusion, in this study, means the full inclusion of students with special needs in the
general education classroom. At LVHS special education students in 9th through 12th grades are
placed in variety of inclusion classes such as English, algebra, geometry, world and US history,
biology, earth/space science. However, with the consult inclusion model, the teachers are
collaborating and consult with each other. With the requirements of this inclusion model, the
inclusion teachers balance high expectations with unique teaching strategies for a specific group
of students.
Participants Characteristics
Alina was the first participant and currently serves as a teacher specialist for the special
education department at the district office. She works very closely with LVHS, attends IEP
meetings, and collaborates with and trains teachers. She started in 1996 as an educational
assistant and became a teacher upon completion of her teaching degree and credential. She holds
a teaching degree in social science studies and credential in special education. She received her
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 66
master's degree in special education and administration. She has served as the department chair
for special education for about seven years. She was appointed to the teacher specialist position
at the district office for 2014-15 school year.
Melanie was the second participant and serves as a resource specialist. She has been a
special education teacher for the past twelve years at LVHS. Melanie has a bachelor's degree
from her country, Iran. She taught English courses mostly in private institutes in Iran, but, when
she came to US, she went back to school. She received her teaching credential in special
education and a master’s in education. She continued her education and earned a second
master’s degree in counseling and pupil services. Melanie teaches resource lab classes for few
periods a day where she works with students with disabilities on all subject area and spends the
rest of her day as the consult teacher for the inclusion classes. She provides services indirectly to
more than ten inclusion teachers. Melanie currently serves as the department chair for special
education. She is also a member of the Instructional Leadership Team at this school site.
Chris, the third participant is the assistant principal. Chris serves as the administrator in
charge of inclusion at LVHS. He meets with the special education teachers regularly to provide
support and resolve issues or conflicts. Chris is also a member of the instructional leadership
team. As an administrator he also participates in many different committees and attends many
after school activities. Chris is a former English, drama, associated student body class (ASB),
and dance teacher. This is his fourth year as an assistant principal and his second year at LVHS.
Chris holds many credentials, such as a teaching credential and an administrative credential. He
earned his doctorate in educational leadership two years ago.
The fourth participant was Sandra, an inclusion English teacher. She has been a teacher
for eighteen years, sixteen of them at LVHS teaching ninth through twelfth grade English. At
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 67
her former district, during the first two years of her teaching career, she worked with students
with attention deficit disorders, dyslexia, dysgraphia, and language acquisition problems. She
started her career teaching the special education population at an alternative private school
specifically for children with language-based LD. When she completed her credentialing, she
moved to LVHS and started working in general education. She has taught ninth, tenth, and
eleventh grade English as well as English Language Development levels 3 and 4. She has also
taught college preparatory English as a second language, advanced placement art history and
stage arts like technical theater. Up until last year, her primary focus was working with the
English Language Development population. She is taking a break from that this year. Since she
is teaching ninth and tenth grade English this year, and not specifically English Language
Development, the special education department took advantage of that to give her two inclusion
classes this year.
Ramona is the parent of a student with LD. Her son is a junior at LVHS participating in
the inclusion program. She had her have been in this district for grades K-11. She was informed
about her son’s disability when he was in the Head Start Program. One of the teachers noticed
that her son uses more action than verbal talking. The teacher indicated that it was very rare that
he used words or asks for something. At that time, it was recommended he be seen by a speech
and language therapist for evaluation. Once assessed, he received speech therapy starting in
kindergarten. He continued with speech and language services until middle school. However,
currently he receives special education services for another health impairment.
Steve is an inclusion geometry teacher. This is his ninth year of teaching at LVHS, but
teaching is a second career for him. Steve spent 27 years in the financial services industry,
within the banking industry, in Southern California and in the Bay Area. At the end of 2004, he
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 68
retired from that career. He had no intention of not working, so he went back to school in the
early 90’s, earned his teaching credential in secondary math and did his student teaching at
LVHS in spring semester of 2005. The following fall, the school did not have a general
education opening, but had a special education opening and they could not find a special
education teacher who taught math, so, for his first year, Steve taught special education math.
This topic hits home for Steve because his horizons were expanded without a special education
credential while teaching students with disabilities. Therefore, the following year, Steve began a
general education math position. He teaches AP statistics, and he is the only one at LVHS who
teaches it, but he also teaches whatever math needs to be taught. This year, he is teaching
algebra 1 and geometry.
Jim, the seventh participant, is an inclusion social studies teacher. He is in his ninth year
of teaching and has a single subject teaching credential in social science. Jim taught four years at
a middle school and this is his fifth year at LVHS. He served as the ASB advisor for four years
at the middle school. Jim has a master’s degree in curriculum, a master’s in administration, and
a doctorate in education. He teaches two world history classes, one of which is an English
Language Development classroom and the other is a specialized collaboration classroom known
as inclusion. He also teaches two advanced placement US history classes.
The last interview conducted was with the school counselor, Selin. She has a bachelor’s
in psychology and a multiple subject credential. She also has a pupil personnel credential and
she earned a master's in counseling. She has a bilingual certificate of competence in Armenian,
so she can read, write and speak a second language. She has been at LVHS for about 23 years.
She has been in this district for 26 or 27 years. She was an elementary school teacher, became a
middle school counselor, and then a high school counselor at LVHS. Selin has vast knowledge
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 69
in all different programs since she has been at this school for many years and serves as part of
the administrative team.
Situating the Results
When a student receives special education services, he/she must have an IEP, which is an
important legal document that consists of the child’s learning needs, the services the school will
provide, and how progress will be measured. Furthermore, the themes developed from this
qualitative case study were conducted through interviews and observations. All of the data was
collected, coded and analyzed following Creswell’s (2003) steps for data analysis and
interpretation, and the data was triangulated to look for consistency and emerging themes. This
allowed for reliability and validity of the findings. The following section discusses the results in
accordance with the two research questions:
1. What are the perceived school-wide systems and structures that contribute to the
academic achievement of students with learning disabilities?
2. How are these systems and structures implemented and sustained to support
achievement of students with learning disabilities in inclusion?
Results from Research Questions One
The first research question asked, “What are the perceived school-wide systems and
structures that contribute to the academic achievement of students with learning disabilities?”
The aim was to understand the interplay between systems and structures in a comprehensive and
consistent manner and to fully understand the components of school processes that exist and are
sustained at LVHS. The organizational structures implemented to develop effective inclusion
program to support the needs of students with LD at LVHS include best practices, teachers’
attitude towards inclusion, and IEP-driven instruction (Table 6). The organizational systems that
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 70
contribute to academic achievement of students with LD include the implementation and
utilization of teaching strategies, group/partner teaching, organizational skills, collaborative
decision making, positive perspective of inclusion, and accommodations and modifications
(Table 6). In this section, structures are discussed initially and are followed by the systems that
operate within them. Table 7 depicts the thematic structures and systems that will be discussed in
this chapter.
Table 6
Structures and Systems Perceived to Exist at Lilly Valley High School
Perceived Structures Perceived Systems
1. Best Practices • Teaching strategies
-Graphic organizers
-Scaffolding
-Differentiating instruction
• Group/Partner teaching
• Organizational skills
2. Teachers’ Attitude Towards Inclusion • Collaborative decision making
• Positive perspective of inclusion
3. IEP-Driven Instruction • Accommodations and Modifications

Best Practices
Although inclusion of students with disabilities has positive aspects, instructional
strategies create challenges for inclusion teachers (Praiser, 2003). While overall achievement of
students with disabilities in inclusion continues to improve at LVHS, there was a need to
examine the academic needs of the lower achieving students with disabilities and finding specific
and targeted instructional strategies to enhance the learning for those students not achieving
while, at the same time, improving the quality of instruction for all students with disabilities.
The findings on best practices utilized in inclusion at LVHS include teaching strategies,
group/partner teaching and organizational skills which will be described in the following
sections.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 71
First, teaching strategies applied to instruction to support students with LD are presented.
The first teaching strategy that seems to work in the inclusion classes is graphic organizers. In
instructional practices, Sandra utilizes many of the strategies that are applicable for English
learners and are appropriate for students with LD. Sandra stated, “I use direct instruction and
incorporate learning strategy instruction by strategies such as sentence starters, graphic
organizers, diagrams and more intense modeling of instructional practices in the classroom”
(personal communication, November 13, 2014). A graphic organizer is a visual display that
demonstrates relationships among facts, concepts or ideas. A graphic organizer guides the
learner's thinking as s/he fills in and builds upon a visual map or diagram. Sandra added that,
with graphic organizers, students with disabilities do not have to process as much semantic
information in order to understand the concepts and information. Jim feels that students have
different learning modalities, and visual learners learn best by having many visuals in the
classrooms, such as graphic organizers, concept maps, power points, Elmo, and credible
websites. Jim said, “My direct instruction includes strategies such as graphic organizers, story
maps and diagrams. Showing how information is structured by using graphic organizers can be a
powerful way of facilitating understating of the material for students with LD” (personal
communication, December 2, 2014) Graphic organizers are mainly used in Jim’s class for social
studies reports.
The second teaching strategy practiced by teachers is scaffolding. A unique strategy in
resource lab is to provide assistance in proofreading written work. Melanie indicated,
“Scaffolding is necessary with big projects or essays. I really work one-on-one on scaffolding,
which is breaking down the writing assignments into smaller steps” (personal communication,
October 24, 2014). Students will proofread their work one paragraph at a time. Melanie asks
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 72
students to highlight mistakes in the paragraph. Melanie checks the mistakes and helps students
re-write the sentences. Then, students are allowed to write the final draft. Sandra also uses
scaffolding of the material in her English class, and it seems to really work for students with LD.
Sandra defines scaffolding in various ways. She said, “As I assign projects or gives prompts for
writing, I always walk the students through each step of the process by modeling, then I presents
the finish product” (personal communication, November 13, 2014). Another scaffolding strategy
she utilized is tapping into prior knowledge by asking students to share a prior idea or concept.
Jim also utilizes scaffolding in his world history classes. He uses the strategy of pre-
teaching vocabulary. Jim indicated, “I introduce the new vocabulary word, I show them a
picture of it, then I use analogies or metaphor to explain the word in detail, then I give enough
time for the students to discuss the meaning of the word” (personal communication, December 2,
2104). Steve also uses the modeling method of scaffolding in his classes. Steve said, “I model
many math problems step by step on the board as part of my instruction. I walk students through
every step of the math problem” (personal communication, November 13, 2014). He then asks
students to solve the same problem by reviewing the answer on the board. Homework is
assigned every night. The next morning, Steve corrects the homework problems on the board.
He uses mini-steps to correct each problem by modeling. He calls on students and asks them to
walk him through the problem step by step. Steve implies that students who complete their
homework assignments demonstrate proficiency on the math tests.
Both Sandra and Jim use another scaffolding strategy: demonstrating a finished product
or a model before assigning a project or presentations. In class, the researcher observed a project
consisting of writing an original poem on a white t-shirt. The teacher, Sandra, described the
assignment’s features and why the specific elements represent high-quality work. Sandra said,
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 73
“The model provides students with a concrete example of the product they are expected to
produce” (personal communication, November 13, 2014). Jim also demonstrates the steps for a
project and shows the students the final product. Jim indicated, “This is a great strategy so that
students can see how it is done before they are asked to do it themselves” (personal
communication, December 2, 2014).
Ramona, the mother of a student with LD, also agrees that scaffolding needed with her
son. She notices that, at home, she has to give mini-directions in order to give a multi-step
direction. Even with mini-directions, every step has to be repeated for her son at home. Ramona
said,
When you ask questions verbally, I think you have to do it in a small word rather than
you give them everything a big bunch of, because he will either get confused or he will
not respond right away because he has to think those so many. You go until you improve
a little, and then you add more. I guess maybe that tension, or the focus, or the focus, or
the concentration, it’s not there. You have to repeat all the time, so he can catch a word -
what you are trying to say, or what you are trying to do (personal communication,
November 13, 2014).
In other words, directions are given in small steps. A multiple-step direction will overload the
student with too much information. Due to limited concentration and focus, directions have to
be repeated in order to be followed.
The third teaching strategy found to be effective with students with LD is differentiation
of instruction. Jim tries to differentiate as much instruction as he can for students with LD. At
times, he gives students with processing disorder a different piece of text to read. Usually, when
he assigns the same reading from the text book, he shortens the text. He also modifies certain
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 74
writing assignments. He believes in quality work and not quantity. Jim provides alternative
ways for students with LD to complete a task. For example, on a history test, he allows the
students to orally answer the essay questions rather than by writing the answer. On some
projects, he allows students to present their final work as a written assignment, orally, or as a
presentation in the class. Sandra also focuses on the learning process by making sure that the
students are engaged and actually getting work done. Students with LD are allowed to do the
work done in the ways they need, and, sometimes, that means their assignments need to be a
litter shorter, or they need a little more time, or she needs to help them get organized and finish
the assignment. For her, teaching students with LD is not challenging; it’s recognizing their
needs and being flexible to alter the assignments. Sandra explained,
In terms of teaching students with disabilities, it’s never particularly challenging for me.
Because I start you at point A, and I take you to point B. Something I learned really early
is, if I’m starting in Los Angeles and I’m going to San Francisco, I can take the 5 or the
99, or the 1 or the 110, or a combination of any of them, and all that really matters is that
I land in San Francisco. So, especially with my special education students, if they need
to take alternative routes to get where they need to go, then that’s fine. (personal
communication, November 13, 2014).
Sandra is stating that she allows students to use alternative ways to complete a task or a project.
This is a form of differentiating instruction for students with LD. She allows students to use any
method of completing the task that works and turn in the final product. She looks for proficiency
of the information.
The next strategy involves how teachers conduct groupings in their classrooms to meet
the needs of students with LD. Jim, Steve and Sandra all agreed that student engagement is an
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 75
important component of their academic success. Utilizing best practices in the classroom, some
of their instruction planning incorporates group teaching or partner teaching. Steve indicated
that, “Grouping can help students with disabilities to develop skills that are necessary in the
professional world” (personal communication, November 13, 2014). Jim said, “Positive group
experiences will allow students with disabilities to feel engaged, contribute to the success of their
learning, and will increase academic success and retention” (personal communication, December
2, 2014).
Although all teachers believed it is important to allow students to work in small groups in
order to gain confidence and complete work, there were similarities and differences in the
teachers grouping styles. Sandra creates random groups in her English classes. She groups
students by numbers in order to have mixed abilities in the groups. She assigns many projects
based on groups and does not want friends always grouped together. Sandra also assigns specific
tasks to each group member with projects so that everyone is accountable to complete his/her
part. All of the assessments and learning in Sandra’s room up to this point have been project-
based by forming groups. Sandra mentioned, “So we have done speeches, and T-shirts, and
presentations, and posters, and a little bit of writing” (personal communication, November 13,
2014).
On the other hand, Steve likes grouping students based on their seating chart. He has
formed groups based on ability level and has given each student assigned seating. Per
observation, Steve’s classroom is small in size, with four rows of students: all students in the
front of each row is in the same group and the same occurs with the second row, and so on.
Steve indicated, “This format of grouping allows students to help each other solve math
problems” (personal communication, November 13, 2014). Jim is very flexible with grouping
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 76
his students. He utilizes flexible grouping and permits students to have choices in the classroom.
These are all indicators that demonstrate student motivation in the classroom. He tries to keep
instructions brief and as uncomplicated as possible in order to keep students’ focus. Then,
students are allowed either to work in a group or a partner to finish the class assignment.
Sandra feels monitoring students in groups is essential. Sandra stated, “I monitor
students in the groups to provide additional support especially students with LD. I verbally ask
questions about the concepts to make sure that students with disabilities understand the
assignment” (personal communication, November 13, 2014). Also, she makes sure they
understood the concepts that she was teaching. Steve and the special education consult teacher,
Linda, also monitor students work in the group. Linda comes in the second half of the period
after the direct instruction. Linda works with the group that has the most students with
disabilities, so Steve can help the rest of the class. According to Steve, “This allows students
with disabilities to work in small environment with an adult to practice the concepts” (personal
communication, November 13, 2014). Steve added, “Math is the most challenging discipline for
all students, many kids have had little or no success from late elementary school to middle
school” (personal communication, November 13, 2014).
Steve and Jim share the positive performance of students with disabilities with Linda, the
special education teacher, since she is in the class to support and check on students’ progress. In
Steve’s exact words, “The instructional strategies are all in place, the main challenge, again, is
just the math skills are just not there. Linda is able to work on checking for understanding of the
concepts with students” (personal communication, November 13, 2014). Jim indicated that
Linda is an advocate for students in his class. Linda helps students with work completion and
reads material out loud to them when needed. Jim said, “Linda being the case carrier and special
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 77
education teacher contacts parents on my behalf to discusses any pertinent issues with parents
and arranges parent conferences as needed” (personal communication, December 2, 2014).
The last strategy used in inclusion classroom is the utilization of organizational and time
management skills, which are known to have a great impact in student learning according to
Steve, Sandra, and Melanie. Melanie realized that students with LD lack organizational skills
and time management skills, so she works on these skills with them. She provides all students
with a planner so that they write down assignments and mark test dates. Melanie indicated, “It is
important for these students to stay on track and not fall behind with their work” (personal
communication, October 24, 2014). Sandra knows that students are willing to learn; however,
they struggle to keep their notebook in the right order, turn the work in after they have completed
it or finish the work all the way through the end. She said, “It’s like they get started in a flurry of
activity, and then they taper off and they don’t finish” (personal communication, November 13,
2014). Sandra feels her role is to work on organizational skills with these students. She stays in
class during snack and lunch time to help her students with disabilities get organized. She walks
them through their notebook and asks to place the paperwork in order. She looks through their
backpack to make sure all completed assignments are turned in.
Steve also models organizational skills in his classroom. Students receive a notebook and
a colored folder for storing homework assignments. He has students use the notebook only for
geometry notes. Steve said that, “Taking notes is important for math skills. Students need to go
back and review the steps in math problems” (personal communication, November 13, 2014).
Many times, students with disabilities tend to lose their homework page. Steve interacts with
students and monitors their work completion by walking around at the start of every class to
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 78
check their homework and stamp their log. Steve provides students with disabilities free one-on-
one tutoring and support with organization skills after school.
Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion
This section discusses results on teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and the
implementation and teacher selection for inclusion classrooms at LVHS. When teachers were
given their assignment of teaching inclusion classes at the beginning of the school year, they felt
they were not prepared to take this task on; however, they felt confident that the leadership team
would provide support and resources. Collaborative decision making and positive perspective on
the inclusion program are discussed in the paragraphs below.
First, collaborative decision making is a key component of effective leadership stated by
Alina. She played an essential role in the creation of the inclusion model at this site. This model
was given to the school by the district. There was no choice but to implement it, since the
district will not give the school any more special education teachers to continue the co-teaching
model. Sometimes, special education teachers have to be in two classrooms during the same
period because there are not enough teachers. Selin was also one of the members involved in the
creation of the inclusion classes on the master schedule. The school did not implement the
model on its own; it was due to a state mandate. Due to her expertise in counseling and
scheduling, she was asked to create sections for specific inclusion teachers. Selin indicated,
We were just told this is the way the state is going, or the feds are going, and we just need
to follow it. In the beginning, when it was only one or two classes, I think the principal
approached teachers who were nurturing, being able to work with a variety of different
types of kids, had been experienced teachers, so they knew the curriculum and would be
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 79
able to work collaboratively with the special education teachers. I think those teachers
were selected. (personal communication, December 2, 2104).
Selin indicates that the inclusion model was a top-down decision from the district and the school
had to follow. The principal selected teachers who were experienced, had vast knowledge in the
curriculum and were nurturing and caring to welcome students with disabilities into their classes.
However, since the program is growing, the same teachers may lose interest and passion in
teaching the inclusion classes year after year with the high demand of modifying the curriculum
to meet the needs of all students.
The decision making of this program included the leadership team, few counselors, few
teachers, and the Parent Teacher Association, according to Alina. A group of parents who were
interested in the program were involved in the forming of the program about four years ago.
These parents of students with disabilities now have seniors in the inclusion program. Since
their children have been very successful in this program, they are not as involved with the
school. For instance, Alina created some of the sections of the inclusion model by placing the
students with the right teachers. Melanie’s background in special education prepared her to have
an open mind about the inclusion program. She believed that the inclusion teachers should have
been involved in the process of implementations. Melanie said, “We over work some of our
experienced and phenomenal teachers. It is sad that same teachers who work really hard at
school and are involved in many organizations and teams are the ones being assigned as
inclusion teachers” (personal communication, October 24, 2014). The leadership team is aware
that these teachers will do their best to create lesson plans to promote learning for all students.
However, the general education teachers at LVHS were resistant. There are those who do not
know why the special education teacher is there, meaning they have not been formally trained.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 80
Selin has some frustration about the inclusion program piloted with in the district. She feels that
too much pressure is placed on the inclusion teachers. Due to budget and roadblocks, they are
not able to keep the class size to a low number, such as 32, as planned. Each inclusion is full
with 36 to 38 students, with eight to them of them having disabilities. Selin said,
The inclusion program is expanding. Now, there is not team-teaching, but that there is a
special education teacher who is in the classroom to help provide that kind of support to
the students that are in there. And, now, we have so many more students in those classes,
where when we started it was maybe - I don't know - a handful of students in that English
class or that math class. Now, we have to have three classes of English per grade level,
because there’s maybe 30 students that are in this collaboration model at that grade level,
and so more than one teacher is involved - more than one special education teachers
involved - so it's gotten a little bit complicated (personal communication, December 2,
2014).
Selin expressed her frustration regarding the number of students placed in the inclusion classes.
The focus of the program was to keep inclusion class sizes to a lower number, but the increase of
student with special needs pushed into inclusion increased the overall size of the class. Selin
empathizes with the inclusion teachers and feels that providing support is a more complicated
now.
Jim was not involved in the decision-making of this inclusion model at LVHS. He was
caught by surprise in being selected as an inclusion teacher because he remembers that, the first
year he taught, it was the co-teaching model. He wondered why he did not have a special
education teacher in his class the entire period. He questioned himself about creating all the
lesson plans. Then, he was told by his colleagues that the inclusion model is not the co-teaching
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 81
model: it is the consult model now. Even though Jim found out by surprise that he was teaching
two inclusion classes, he indicated that he is a team player and will do whatever needs to happen.
It took Jim some time to learn about the consult model, but he is now able to utilize the resource
room appropriately. Steve was not involved in the implementation of the consult model either.
Steve said, “I learned about it from my special education colleagues, with whom I have created a
relationship when I was part of their department. But I was not involved in its development or
implementation” (personal communication, November 13, 2014).
Second, positive perspectives of inclusion provided information on the willingness of
inclusion teachers to accept and teach students with LD. As far as learning from a parent and her
perspective, Ramona likes the idea of having her son participate in all general education classes.
She said, “My son was in regular classes in elementary school and was only pulled out one hour
a day to work with the resource teacher. He has never experienced being in a resource class or a
self-contained class” (personal communication, November 13, 2014). Ramona thinks inclusion
is a great way of socializing with all students and learning from each other. She stated, “My son
has great peer role model in inclusion to improve his academic, social and behavior skills”
(personal communication, November 13, 2014). Alina has a positive perception that all .students
are capable of learning when provided the proper tools and strategies. Alina said, “Inclusion
creates opportunities for students with disabilities to interact with other students and are exposed
to higher expectations by teachers” (personal communication, October 24, 2014). Alina also
stated that inclusion helps students with disabilities feel equal, welcomed and embraced as
members who belong to that class.
Jim shared that he is confident with his teaching styles, and he is able to reach out to
students with disabilities in his classes. Jim said, “I do not really see them as different from
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 82
other students. They are like my other students and they all want to learn” (personal
communication, December 2, 2014). The students with LD show interest and are eager to learn
world history. Jim further stated, “I do not look at them in a different way, I just know that they
have a learning disability, and I try to accommodate and modify my lessons for them
specifically” (personal communication, December 2, 2104). Communication is sometimes the
biggest challenge for Jim because students who need support do not always communicate that
they need extra time on their test. Students with disabilities have accommodations they are
familiar with; however, they do not communicate when they need to use their accommodations.
Students with LD in the world history class come to the teacher after they have taken a test and
ask if they can get extra time, but the teacher informs them that they are supposed to ask for extra
time at the start of the test. Jim said, “Communication is one of the biggest challenges, but,
except for that, it's not hard to differentiate to help them out” (personal communication,
December 2, 2014). Steve’s prior experience in special education allowed him to have positive
perspective on the inclusion program. He stated he welcomes all students in his classroom.
Steve implied his success with instructional strategies starts with building students’ confidence,
and he works to convincing students that they can do math. Steve stated, “I feel having positive
relationship is also very important to student success. Once a relationship is established with
students with disabilities, they feel they are being held accountable, and tend to work harder”
(personal communication, November 13, 2014). Chris felt very positively about the inclusion
program. He stated he believes that improvement is necessary in order to have a successful
program; however, the inclusion teachers and consult teachers are doing a great job providing
variety of services to students with disabilities. Chris said, “I think that the importance of making
the inclusion model successful is really having incredible teachers, especially the resource
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 83
specialist teachers because they are asked to do something that is completely different” (personal
communication, October 24, 2014). Additionally, Chris feels the general education teachers
have to also be comfortable enough to allow someone else in their classroom, which sometimes
can be a problem.
IEP-Driven Instruction
This section presents results on the use of data and the importance of IEP documents and
meetings. At LVHS, using the data and interventions that were already implemented¸ the
leadership team collaborates within their departments and develops a school-wide instructional
focus and instructional best practices. The best practices are for the entire staff to use on a daily
basis as a guide/focus for all lessons and teaching practices.
Accommodations and modification in inclusion provide students with LD access to
general education curriculum and meet their academic needs. Chris, Alina, Sandra, Steve, Jim
and Selin contributed some of the success of these students due to the accommodations and
modifications written in their IEPs. Sandra mentioned that, “communicating the
accommodations to the students with disabilities and allowing them to utilize them on during
class work and tests makes students responsible for their learning” (personal communication,
November 13, 2014). Jim plans his lessons based on the extra time needed for processing for his
students with auditory processing disorders. Jim stated, “I create a short lesson, with minimal
questions, then allow students the remainder of the period to finish the classwork. It is essential
for students with disabilities feel they are capable of accomplishment” (personal communication,
December 2, 2014). Chris’ clarified that accommodations written in the IEP are extremely
important to student success. Chris stated, “Making sure that teachers are following all the
accommodations and using all the accommodations which, quite frankly, is the biggest problem”
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 84
(personal communication, October 24, 2014). There are times that teachers do not follow the
accommodations. They receive the information on accommodations, but tend to forget to allow
students to benefit from them. Chris continued, “The students don't use the accommodations,
and so, therefore, once they start using the accommodations, oftentimes the students get back on
track” (personal communication, October 24, 2014). Chris looks at progress report grades and
consults with the counselors to meet with low-performing students. He said, “If they're not
doing great, we try lots of different interventions that we can do, such as extra tutoring”
(personal communication, October 24, 2014). However, in some cases when placement in
inclusion or the accommodations are not appropriate, the case carrier calls an IEP meeting and
discusses a change of placement and services with the whole team.
Melanie shared her experience with IEP meetings and the importance of the
implementation of proper accommodations and goals according to student needs. Productive and
successful IEPs require planning and preparation in advance. She e-mails all teachers and
service providers in advance for their feedback regarding the academic and social-emotional
needs of students with disabilities. She indicates in her e-mail,
We need your professional feedback in order to develop appropriate goals and to
recommend appropriate educational placement. Could you please comment on the
following?
What is the student’s current grade?
Do you have any concerns about his/her behavior?
Does the student turn in work regularly? If not, what strategies are used to support this
student with work completion?
What are his/her strengths?
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 85
What are his/her greatest areas of need? (personal communication, October 24, 2014)
Once this information is gathered by the case carrier, she completes an effective IEP. The case
carrier also uses the information to facilitate the IEP meeting. The feedback provided by
teachers is important since not all teachers can attend the IEP meeting, but their feedback is
shared during the meeting.
The goals written in the IEPs are very specific to each student, and having the entire team
present at the IEP helps to communicate his/her strengths and weaknesses. Inclusion teachers
must attend the IEP meeting to provide feedback and recommendations for accommodations and
modifications of the general education curriculum. Alina reiterated, “This is a team decision and
it takes all members to produce a productive IEP with adequate services” (personal
communication, October 24, 2014). Melanie also agreed that it is important for the entire team,
including the parent and student, to attend the IEP in order to have a team decision on placement
and services. She feels that the inclusion teachers should provide clear feedback to the team and
make recommendations. Melanie indicated, “The inclusion teacher works with the student on
daily basis and is familiar with the student’s area of need” (personal communication, October 24,
2014). Alina stated that progress is measured through multiple data, such as a student progress
report every five weeks, report cards, teachers’ feedback reports, meeting with parents, discipline
and attendance records. If the student is not successful due to his/her LD, then the special
education case carrier and the inclusion teacher work together to review the IEP documents and
verify proper services and placement.
Jim utilizes different measurements, both summative and formative, to check on student
progress, and his department created common formative assessments. He assigns many writing
assignments. Jim indicated, “My students are able to complete a thesis, so I have created
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 86
benchmarks - a beginning and an end - and I am monitoring their work throughout the process
based on a rubric” (personal communication, December 2, 2014). Jim makes accommodations
for students with LD per IEP. He also plans to attend all IEP meetings to provide feedback in
person. He created a folder of all IEP goals and accommodations for his students. He follows
the goals and assesses students based on IEP goals as well. During testing pull-out time, Melanie
reads all the test questions aloud and allows extra time for students to mark their answers. For
unit or chapter tests, Steve and Jim send their students with disabilities to the resource lab room
so that they can be tested with Melanie without distractions and to access their accommodations
as needed. Jim includes, “if a student needs extra time, I have no problem providing extra time”
(personal communication, December 2, 2014). Steve communicates with the resource teacher
prior to sending students to the resources room for chapter tests. Steve said, “I like to provide
students with extra time so that they don’t feel rushed through the geometry test” (personal
communication, November 13, 2014).
Discussion Research Question One
Major themes were observed at LVHS regarding the organizational structures and
systems that contribute to academic achievement of students with LD. The major themes were
the utilization of best practices, teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion, and IEP-driven instruction.
Inclusion teachers practice variety of innovative strategies in the classrooms to promote higher
academic success of students with LD with the support of the consult teachers. There were four
findings in this area.
The first and most significant finding was that inclusion teachers were aware of the needs
of student with LD in their classes. They ensured lessons were standard-aligned, incorporated
multiple methods to increase student engagement and checked for understanding to ensure
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 87
students were learning and mastering the content. The multiple ways for higher student
engagement include the utilization of graphic organizers and the scaffolding and differentiation
of instruction. Student engagement in the learning process and positive relationships between
the students and teachers were observed.
The second finding was the benefits of group teaching and group projects and how these
helped students with LD develop skills specific to collaborative effort and social skills. Group
teaching allowed students to solve more complex problems than they could have on their own.
They became active participants in their own learning and shared knowledge and skills. Students
with disabilities also received social support and were held accountable for their work. Teachers
indicated group projects and partner teaching motivates students with LD develop new
approaches to learning; they tend to complete more work and demonstrate higher success by
producing quality work and improving their grades.
The third was that teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion program were important to its
outcome. Inclusion teachers interviewed and observed had previous experience with the co-
teaching style. They believe students with LD are capable of learning once provided with tools
and creative strategies. The teachers also felt confident and qualified to teach all students by
providing them safe and loving learning environment and applying new strategies that work for
all groups; however, the teachers faced a variety of challenges. These challenges consisted of
large class sizes, one consult teacher per 8 to 10 inclusion teachers, top-down decisions on
teacher selection, having the same teachers assigned to inclusion assignments, and a lack of
communication among teachers and students.
The area of accommodations and modifications revealed the fourth finding:
accommodations written in the IEP contributed to greater academic success. The attendance and
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 88
input of the IEP members is essential to creating appropriate accommodations. Advocating and
accessing accommodations is the major component of a successful IEP. Extra time on tests
seemed to be the main accommodation that worked for most of the students. Also, resource lab
teacher plays an important role in providing access to accommodations.
Results of Research Question Two
The second research question asked, “How are these systems and structures implemented
and sustained to support achievement of students with LD in inclusion?” The organizational
systems and structures which sustain and contribute to support the academic success of students
with disabilities at LVHS include administrative support. The perceived systems contribute to
the success of the inclusion program through professional collaboration and
development/training. Table 7 depicts the thematic structures and systems discussed in this
chapter.
Table 7
Structures and Systems Implemented and Sustained at Lilly Valley High School
Perceived Structures Perceived Systems
Administrative support • Professional development/ Training
• Collaboration
Administrative Support
Teachers experienced strong leadership, leadership expectations, and leadership goals
over the last several years to maintain an inclusion program with positive outcomes.
Administrative support, including professional development/training and collaboration, are
described in the following section.
Melanie shared that administrators are supportive and have an open door policy. They
communicate with the teachers to answer questions and address concerns. However, with
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 89
limited resources and some roadblocks, they are not always able to provide professional
development. Melanie said,
I have talked to the administration about bringing Universal Design for Learning to the
whole staff. Even though some of our inclusion teachers are practicing some of the UDL
strategies, UDL training will benefit all of our teachers. My principal – she’s wonderful.
She was like, you know how supportive I am, and I want this program to work.
However, this is the agenda on the next faculty meeting. Look at how full it is. I don’t
think staff is going to want to be bombarded with one more thing on the agenda. I
respect her opinion and agree with her. Yes, they are supportive, but it’s something
we’re still refining. We still have to work at it. (personal communication, October 24,
2014)
Melanie’s example indicates the administrative team is supportive and is welcoming. However,
they are not able to accommodate presentations and training for the staff during the faculty
meeting due to high number of items on the agenda every time. Melanie would like to introduce
the Universal Design for Learning to the entire staff so that everyone can utilize this method with
all students.
Chris shared that general education teachers have not had enough training to understand
the consult model very well. The focus of the school has been on best practices; however, this is
very new to them. Chris stated, “I believe that some more supports are needed for the inclusion
teachers to understand their role in the scenario. However, since they had the co-teaching model,
some of the teachers felt competent to teach students with learning disabilities” (personal
communication, October 24, 2014). As a leader, he thinks training is necessary at the beginning
of the year prior to being fully established.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 90
Sandra reported the focus of the district in the implementation of common core over the
past few years. Steve felt the same way about the training/professional development for
inclusion teachers. Steve said, “I know how to work with special education students due to my
experience as a special education teacher during my first year of teaching experience” (personal
communication, November 13, 2014). However, Steve still believes the district should plan on a
district-wide training for special education and inclusion teachers. Steve added, “Some of our
general education teachers don’t even apply accommodations in the classroom for special
education students” (personal communication, November 13, 2014). Sandra indicated,
I participated in several trainings on the collaborative model when Melanie and I were
working together. We did a couple of different all-day seminars. And then there were a
couple of things that they actually brought professional development into the school site
from myself and other teachers that were working in the collaborative model at that time.
However, we have not received any training on the consult model. I believe the district is
so focused on the implementation of common core for now that has not been able to
arrange for whole district training. (personal communication, November 13, 2014)
Sandra asserts she attended several trainings with the former inclusion model, and that there was
professional development for the entire school on the co-teaching model. However, due to
budget or other restraints, the district or the school site has not provided any current training on
the consult model. Selin shared her perspective on the teachers training by stating she believes
the school district should provide training for inclusion teachers. Selin asserted, “This is a new
concept that the district has implemented, however, there has not been any clear guidance to
support the inclusion teachers by providing full time consult teachers” (personal communication,
December 2, 2014). In addition, Selin continued, “There is so much going on already with the
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 91
common core trainings and professional developments, that there is not enough time or funding
to provide extra training for the inclusion teachers” (personal communication, December 2,
2014). At times, inclusion teachers do schedule time to meet with the special education consult
teachers to plan the following week by creating a lesson plan. Selin mentioned, “Some of our
special education teachers are working with six to eight inclusion teachers, they even have too
many teachers that they are trying to support and collaborate on top of writing IEPs and schedule
the meetings” (personal communication, December 2, 2014). Selin was confident that this is
work in progress and will improve every year as leaders fix the flaws and work on the master
schedule to provide common prep time for consult and inclusion teachers.
The district provided training only for four teachers from each school in the form of visits
to another school that implemented a successful inclusion program, according to Alina. Twelve
staff members, including an administrators, inclusion teachers and general education teachers,
were provided a full-day training at a school in Irvine. The purpose of this training was to
observe another school and learn about strategies that work with students with disabilities. Alina
said, “We were able to bring back essential information on strategies to share with our special
education and inclusion staff” (personal communication, October 24, 2014).
For collaboration to be successful, teachers need to acquire proper communication and
problem-solving skills (Carter et al., 2009). Chris stated that, “An effective organizational
culture has to include several elements such as clear vision and goals, alignment of structures and
processes with goals, constant communication, commitment from top management, providing
knowledge, skill, and motivational support, and use caution when selecting change processes”
(personal communication, October 24, 2014). It is important for the leaders to communicate
urgency statement and targets for increasing achievement for special education students through
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 92
individual as well as group meetings with teachers, students, and parents. Alina believes that
“through individual conferences and Instructional Leadership Team meetings, inclusion teachers
must be trained on how to target students in the basic quintile and encourage teachers to share
and demonstrate “best practices during team and faculty meetings” (personal communication,
October 24, 2014).
Chris stated the administrative team works to build the master schedule to provide
inclusion teachers and the consult teachers’ common free periods. He asserted, “This would be
the ideal if both of these teachers can work together one or two day a week to create lesson plans
for students with disabilities” (personal communication, October 24, 2014). Also, the
administrative team tries to build a master schedule that assigning fewer students to the inclusion
teachers. The average number of students in a class is about 37; the inclusion teacher should
have about 32—34 students. However, due to budget, they have not been very successful in
reducing the number of student-to-teacher ratio in the inclusion classes.
Specifically, Sandra, Steve, Alina, and Jim all felt that collaboration at LVHS centered on
planning lessons, creating assessments and on teachers’ coming back to team meetings with data
to help drive instruction, plan student learning and increase academic performance for all
students. Through interviews and observations, teachers also indicated they try to find time to
collaborate or prepare effective lesson plans despite of other professional duties and
responsibilities.
Melanie, who works closely with all inclusion teachers, reported that collaboration and
planning is essential to the success of an inclusion program. Melanie serves as the consult
teacher for all inclusion classrooms. Her role is to ensure students’ accommodations and
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 93
modifications per their IEP are implemented. She plans in advance with teachers to pull out
students to be tested in the resource room with accommodations.
Melanie and Alina collaborated to create the following guidelines for the special
education teachers and special education assistants in resource room and in inclusion classes:
• Monitoring all students and their work
• Helping students with disabilities to meet their needs
• Pull students if needed for testing or a quiet place to work, or have test read aloud
• If students miss class, help them get caught up
• Implement accommodations per IEPs
• Special education teachers working with inclusion teachers will schedule time to meet
with general education teachers once a week
• Consult teachers (special education teachers) will maintain open communication at all
times with the consult teachers (personal communication, October 24, 2014).
These guidelines allow the consult teachers and assistance to run an effective resource lab by
monitoring and staying on top of all students’ needs in special educations. It creates an open
communication between all members involve and directly impact the performance of students
with LD.
Sandra knows collaboration among special education and general education teachers is
important in order to plan daily lessons and modify curriculum for inclusion teachers. Sandra
said, “There is not enough time for the inclusion teachers to properly meet and plan together on
common assessments and goal. However, each teacher utilizes his/her own teaching strategies
and modifications to meet the needs of students with learning disabilities” (personal
communication, November 13, 2014). Alina felt the same way as Sandra: collaboration among
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 94
teachers is important to building a solid partnership between the consult and inclusion teachers.
She stated it is important that these teachers have positive perspective of the program and have
the capacity to work well together. If the personalities of the teachers working together do not
match, the collaboration together will have a negative outcome. Alina added,
I think the most important thing for this inclusion is collaboration. All of involved
individuals in the process should be collaborating together, with the student's interest in
mind in the center. When I say all, that includes administrators, counselors, resource
teachers, general education teachers and all support providers. Collaboration is the most
important key for successful inclusion. (personal communication, October 24, 2014)
Alina’s example on collaboration emphasizes the importance of all members’ working together
to provide the best outcome for students. She feels collaboration time is essential to the success
of the inclusion program.
Chris, shared that teachers have collaboration time through their Friday banking days.
Chris stated, “We take time out to have a 45-minute period on every Friday for the teachers to be
able to do some sort of collaboration or perhaps a faculty meeting, and there's days where it's
either collaboration or teacher discretion” (personal communication, October 24, 2014).
Discussion Research Question 2
Two findings are discussed in this section. Identified structures, funding, policies,
staffing, and professional development/training are key components to have in place to sustain
the current inclusion program at LVHS. Leadership at LVHS acknowledges that special training
needs to be outlined and modifications defined to inclusion teachers. However, due to time
limitations and roadblocks, training for the new inclusion model was not offered as planned. The
first finding indicates that in order to maintain stability of the program, leadership must train
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 95
inclusion teachers on the integration of strategies for students with LD into their lesson plans and
must model and provide them with ample opportunities to practice and build capacity, thus
increasing motivation.
A culture of collaboration is evident at LVHS. There is a unique sense of familial
support that the consult teachers provide to inclusion teachers. The school leadership sets aside
forty-five minutes each week so that the staff has the opportunity to collaborate on lesson
planning and instruction. However, forty-five minutes of collaboration a week is not adequate
for a successful program. In order to have a successful inclusion program, ongoing
communication and collaboration is needed among all teachers involved. The second finding
indicates that resources, such as common prep period for resource and inclusion teachers,
department release time during each semester, and a monthly collaboration period on banking
days, must be realigned so that teachers have time to collaborate with one another.
Chapter Summary
Six findings emerged from the data. There were four in response to research question
one. First, inclusion teachers aligned every lesson to state standards, incorporated multiple ways
to increase student engagement (including graphic organizers, scaffolding and differentiation of
instruction) and regularly checked for understanding to ensure students are learning and
mastering the content. Second, benefits of group and partner teaching were identified: group
teaching allowed students to solve more complex problems than they could have done on their
own, students with LD became active participants in their own learning and shared knowledge
and skills, and, finally, they receive social support and reciprocated by being held accountable.
Third, general education and special education teachers had a positive attitudes toward the
inclusion program and felt confident they are capable of educating all students by providing a
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 96
safe learning environment and applying variety of strategies that work for all groups. However,
the teachers faced challenges such as large class sizes, time constraints, testing pressure, one
consult teacher per 8 to 10 inclusion teachers, top-down decisions on teacher selection, having
same teachers assigned to inclusion every year, and a lack of communication among teachers and
students. Fourth, higher academic success of students with LD is due, in part, to identifying
proper accommodations and modifications at IEP meetings.
There were two findings in response to Research Question Two. First, school leaders
must train inclusion teachers on the integration strategies for students with LD into their lesson
plans, and must model and provide them with ample opportunities to practice and build capacity.
Second, the leadership team must align resources to provide teachers collaboration time. The
summary, conclusions, and implications of this study are presented in Chapter Five.

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 97
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The American education system is based on fundamental beliefs that all children,
regardless of race, religion, socioeconomic status, and ability level can learn in the most positive
educational environment. Furthermore, federal legislation requires that students with disabilities
be educated in the same classrooms as students without disabilities, and public schools are
moving away from educating students with disabilities in self-contained and resource room
settings and toward servicing them in inclusion with their non-disabled peers in general
education classroom (US Department of Education, 2009). The process of the Individualized
Education Plan (IEP) provides a student access to free appropriate public education and creates
an opportunity for teachers, parents, school administrators, related services personnel, and
students (when appropriate) to work together to improve educational outcomes.
Students with LD are placed in inclusion classrooms taught by general education teachers
who may be unprepared to manage the academic needs of students with disabilities that may
affect and interfere with their learning (Baloglu, 2009). The high demand of teaching grade-
level, standard-based curriculum with common core emphasis may reduce teachers’ time for
planning appropriate activities and apply innovative strategies to encourage participation from all
students. However, instructional strategies to motivate and encourage participation of students
with disabilities are essential to engaging them in the learning process and prepare them for tests
and graduation (Bost & Riccomini, 2006; Murray & Pianta, 2007).
Rose-Hill (2009) asserts that the academic gap between children with disabilities and the
general population will not become smaller without relevant resources and training on using best
practices in the inclusive classroom to improve the self-perception and confidence of general
education teachers. Some studies on inclusion indicate that inclusion can be successful when
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 98
administrators, teachers, parents and students have positive attitudes toward the success of the
program. Teacher attitude can be a critical variable in supporting students in the general
education setting; therefore, the negative attitudes of teachers toward inclusion can indirectly
weaken the delivery of instruction to students with disabilities (DeSimone & Parmar, 2003; Idol
2006; Praiser, 2003; Short & Martin, 2005).
The purpose of this study was to investigate innovative strategies implemented in
inclusion classrooms to promote the academic success of students with LD at LVHS. In addition
to innovative strategies, teachers’ attitudes, collaboration, and training along with administrative
support were also investigated to examine how they relate to the success of inclusion program.
The two research questions that guided the study were focused on innovative strategies that
indicated positive outcomes:
1. What are the perceived school-wide systems and structures that contribute to the
academic achievement of students with learning disabilities?
2. How are these systems and structures implemented and sustained to support
achievement of students with learning disabilities in inclusion?
Bronfenbrenner’s (1977, 1979) model of ecological system served as the theoretical
framework for this study. This theory analyzes the interaction among the community, culture,
family, school, even the historical time period and regulations and how these affect the student.
The student is at the center of the system and the other systems influence him/her
socially/emotionally, academically, and behaviorally. Bronfenbrenner’s (1977, 1979) ecological
theory of human development can be utilized to both understand the contextual influences on the
students with LD and help develop effective strategies for successful inclusion. This theory was
used as a lens to analyze how systems affect student development and how the student interacts
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 99
or influences those systems. The systems and structures, including instructional strategies
implemented by teachers, the leadership of the school, and the IEP meetings consisted of all
team members and the training of teachers affected the academic development of students with
LD. It was evident that, when the environment has a positive impact on the student, success is
higher.
The conceptual framework (Figure 2), designed by the thematic group 2013 and adopted
by thematic group 2014, was based on emerging themes in the review of literature. Identified
structures, such as stakeholders, funding, policies, staffing, and professional development
(training) were the key components to have in place to promote higher academic success for
students with LD. The school seems to have a solid systems and structures that empowered staff
to collaborate at least once a week to implement innovative strategies in classrooms to meet the
needs of students with LD. This study confirmed that, once all systems are in place, there are
positive outcomes.
The findings of this study were delivered through interviews and observations and all
data was triangulated. Eight interviews and three observations were conducted. The
interviewees were an assistant principal, a counselor, a special education teacher specialist, a
special education teacher, three general education teachers and a parent. The observations took
place in three inclusion classes: English, world history and geometry. Results show that LVHS
utilized variety of innovative strategies specifically for students with LD to promote higher
learning. The site leadership, along with the teachers, built a working relationship with one
another to maximize student performance. All stakeholders provided adequate services to
students with LD in order to improve academic success and graduation rates. The school
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 100
demonstrated systems and structures that included family, culture, community, and student to
foster learning environment that ensures student success.
Discussion of Findings
Chapter Four presented the study’s results and outlined the strategies and support
provided to students with disabilities at LVHS. This study generated total of six findings from
the data in response to research questions. While many structures within a school organization
exist, this research focused on four key structures perceived in support of school-wide innovative
strategies to promote higher academic success of students with LD: best practices, teachers’
attitude towards inclusion, IEP-driven instruction and administrative support. The systems of
support emerged in the form of teaching strategies, group partner teaching, organizational skills,
collaborative decision making, positive perspective of inclusion, accommodation and
modification, professional development, collaboration and training. This collective
responsibility to develop and use strategies in all classes to assist all students, with increased
attention towards the special education students, is still a work in progress. Professional
development/training needs to be provided as a step towards improving teaching and learning for
all students.
The first finding indicated that the inclusion teachers ensured every lesson was standard-
aligned, incorporated multiple ways for higher student engagement, and regularly checked for
understanding. The multiple ways to guarantee student engagement were the utilization of
graphic organizers, scaffolding and differentiation of instruction. The multiple ways of
confirming higher student engagement are important since some of the strategies provide support
to lower-level learners. The benefits of differentiation of instruction give the student a range of
ways to access curriculum, instruction and assessments. Students tend to do better when the
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 101
curriculum is at their ability level. It is important for student with disabilities in inclusion to be
exposed to multiple ways of engagement and have access to multiple teaching strategies in order
to produce high-quality work.
The first finding in this study is similar to that of Humphrey (2008) and of Hutchinson
(2009) on the multiple ways of teaching students with LD. Humphrey (2008) presents specific
learning strategies and Hutchinson (2009) determined targeted strategies such as sounding out
words, breaking tasks into steps, and teaching at an appropriate level. Regarding a study on
teachers’ beliefs on writing instrument beyond teaching strategies, Berry (2006) asserts that
teachers should use engagement strategies to support participation of students with LD.
The ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979) focuses on how the environment
affects the growth and development of students with disabilities. The microsystem refers to the
institutions and groups that most immediately and directly affect the student’s development,
whether academic or social-emotional. In this first finding, inclusion and special education
teachers directly affect the students’ learning by providing multiple ways to increase student
engagement, by checking for understanding and by monitoring progress.
The second finding illustrated the benefits of group and peer teaching and group
projects. Group teaching and group projects permitted students with disabilities develop skills
specific to the areas of collaborative effort and social skills. Peer teaching is important since it is
another method of reinforcing students’ understanding of the material while providing a
struggling student with peer or group instructor. In addition, peer or group teaching offers
developmental opportunities for friendships that cannot be undervalued. Students with
disabilities become engaged and active participants of their own learning, participate in class
activities and share knowledge and skills.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 102
Relevant to peer teaching, Dietz, Enders, and Montague, (2011) suggest strategies to help
students with learning abilities cope with learning alongside non-disabled students, while also
offering benefits such as making the classroom more interactive, connected, and even
entertaining. Marshak (2012) implied that peer teaching is appropriate for the inclusion setting
since it involves students helping each other on assignments, thus allowing individuals to
overcome their weaknesses by benefitting from the strengths of other students.
Many forms of relationships are important to development per ecological theory
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979). The mesosystem is the domain that describes the interaction
among the various microsystems, such as student and school, student and peers, and students and
teachers or other staff members. Within this domain, the direct influence happens between the
student and the institutions around him/her. This means the student is actively engaged and
socialized with others, including peers, teachers, special education assistants and administrators
in the mesosystem. When students with disabilities develop positive relationship with their peers
during group work or peer tutoring, they will feel they established a relationship, will feel they
belong, and will be held accountable for performing and completing work.
The third finding was that teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion program were
essential to its outcomes. All teachers were accountable for student learning and believed that
students with LD are capable of learning once provided with tools and creative strategies.
Teachers had high expectations for them and provided them a safe learning environment. At the
same time, teachers faced challenges. Teacher perceptions towards inclusion are important
because inclusion teachers must accept inclusion and be prepared for challenges. Teachers’
attitudes and knowledge about inclusive education and willingness to teach the students with
disabilities is the hallmark of the success of inclusive education.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 103
According to this study and a study conducted by Short and Martin (2005), results
illustrate that a higher sense of self-efficacy and knowledge regarding inclusion correlates with
teachers’ positive attitudes toward inclusion and willingness to adapt instructions for students
with disabilities. DeSimone and Parmar (2006) signified to a great degree that the success of
inclusion may be dependent upon the beliefs of the inclusion teachers themselves.
Bronfenbrenner (1977, 1979) explains the impact of the environment on the growth and
development of the students with disabilities. The attitude and perception of the teachers,
administrators, and counselors have an effect on how the student grows academically and
socially; the more encouraging and nurturing these relationships and places are, the better the
student will grow. This refers to the microsystem, since the student experiences direct
interaction with teachers and other staff.
The fourth finding was that accommodations written in the IEP contribute to greater
academic success and that input from IEP members is essential to creating appropriate
accommodations. The full process of the IEP plan is discussed in the literature review by
Carpenter and Dyal (2007). They define inclusion as a commitment to offering special education
services in LRE in the general education classroom with proper supports, accommodations, and
modifications based on the student’s needs according to the IEP. Students’ accessing the
accommodations is a major component of a successful IEP because the accommodation can help
overcome or minimize barriers presented by their disability. Using accommodations allows
students to fully access curriculum and assessment.
Bronfenbrenner's (1977, 1979) microsystem and mesosystem are relevant in this finding
since the IEP members have an immediate relationship with the student and his/her environment.
The different parts of a student’s microsystem work together for his/her sake. His/her parent’s
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 104
active role at the school in attending parent-teacher conferences and IEP meetings will help
ensure the student’s overall academic and emotional growth.
The fifth finding indicated that teacher training is very important to the success of the
inclusion program. To maintain its stability, school leadership must train inclusion teachers on
integrating of strategies into their lesson plans, must model and must provide them with ample
opportunities to practice and build capacity. The strategies teachers learn in professional
development training and through their credentialing programs will promote higher academic
success.
Praiser (2003) correlated teachers’ acceptance of and readiness for inclusion to their
credential programs. Praiser (2003) suggested that teachers will be better prepared to teach
inclusion by becoming familiar with special education programs. Rosas and Winterman (2010)
found similarities in that many teachers turn down the opportunity to teach an inclusive
classroom because they feel underprepared. Additionally, McKibbon and Wadsworth (2007)
revealed that, when lack of proper training is combined with a teacher’s lack of motivation,
result the consequence is a diminished quality of education for students with special needs.
Looking through the lens of Bronfenbrenner’s (1977, 1979) social ecology theory, the
microsystem, which includes the teacher, can have a direct impact on a student’s educational
outcomes. The exosystem, which includes the local policies, dictates the program be
implemented at the district and school level. The microsystem and exosystem influence each
other to enact policies and establish programs for students with disabilities. If the inclusion
teacher receives training and feels prepared to teach students with disabilities, there should be a
positive impact on students’ academic success. School and the administrators are other
institutions in the microsystem and also directly influence the student’s development and growth.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 105
The leadership of the school is yet another key component of a successful inclusion program.
The administrators are indirectly influencing the educational outcome of students with
disabilities by providing training to inclusion and consult teachers.
The sixth finding revealed that resources must be realigned so that teachers have time to
collaborate to develop common content formative assessments as well as common end-of-unit
assessments as a means for them to collect data and immediately know what the students
mastered and what areas needed to be re-taught. Regarding collaboration and co-teaching style
of inclusion by Cook et al. (2010) indicate that collaboration and co-teaching may not only
improve the quality of education in an inclusive classroom but also encourage teachers to have
more positive attitudes towards inclusion programs. Carter et al. (2009) revealed that, to be
successful, teachers need to acquire proper communication and problem-solving skills. This
study found that lack of collaboration time was another concern among special education and
general education teachers.
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1977, 1979) describes the systems and
layers that affect a student’s growth and development. The exosystem includes the local policies
like the federal one mandating inclusion. Microsystem and exosystem work together to affect
the student’s development and growth. The school district and the school implement policies
and procedures at the school site which directly influence the student. Therefore, if an inclusion
program is not successful, then it has a negative influence on the student.
Implications for Practice
This study focused on the implementation of innovative strategies and an application of
these strategies for students with LD in inclusive settings to promote higher academic success. A
research-based qualitative study was conducted through interviews and observations at LVHS.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 106
The results of this study may be useful for future practices and policies in supporting students
with LD. The following section discusses two recommendations for improving current
programs.
The first recommendation is the integration of Universal Design for Learning (UDL).
The traditional one size fits all approach is not adequate to diverse learning styles, backgrounds,
and ability levels in 21
st
century classrooms. Even though some teachers indirectly practice a
few components of UDL at LVHS, it is highly recommended that all UDL strategies be
implemented (Rose, 2000). The UDL is an instructional model proposed as a way for teachers to
design curriculum in four parts: instructional goals, methods, curriculum and assessment (Coyne
et al., 2007). The 2004reauthorization of IDEA promotes the concept of UDL for students with
disabilities (US Department of Education, 2003). The UDL curriculum is intended to increase
access to learning by reducing physical, cognitive, intellectual, and organizational barriers to
learning and consisted of the following three principles (Meyer & Rose, 2000).
• Multiple means of representation, to give learners various ways of acquiring information
and knowledge
• Multiple means of action and expression, to provide learners alternatives for
demonstrating what they know
• Multiple means of action and engagement, to tap into learners' interests, offer appropriate
challenges, and increase motivation (CAST)
The second recommendation is for counselors to conduct organizational skill workshops.
Student with LD tend to lack organizational skills that directly affect their educational outcome.
Even though some teachers try their best to provide assistance in the organizational area, it is not
always enough. A student’s lacking of organizational skills will result in lower grades,
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 107
completion of fewer assignments, and lower self-esteem, and these behaviors will contribute to
attendance issues, behavior problems, and to dropping out. Bryan and Sullivan-Burstein (2004)
disclosed that students having problems with organizational skills such as late work, unprepared,
messy backpacks were not successful academically and lacked skills to demonstrate their ability.
Furthermore, school counselors are in a prime position to provide the necessary support and
intervention to students in need of organization skill training. School counselors at LVHS can
facilitate monthly workshops for student with disabilities. The workshops can focus on
preparing students by teaching organization skills for success in high school.
Recommendations for Future Research
The following three recommendations for future research are based on understanding the
needs of students with LD and on implementing and applying innovative strategies to promote
higher academic success. Future research will continue to educate policy makers and district
officials in implementing specific programs.
First, a qualitative research study should be conducted to replicate this study at other
comprehensive high schools with comparable demographics to determine whether similar results
are attained. Also, the same study should be conducted at magnet and charter schools to
determine whether similar or different results are attained.
Second, a qualitative research study should be conducted on student perceptions on
inclusion. Students’ perception were not included in this study and may present a different
perspective on the systems and structures in place at a comprehensive high school that could
contribute to the high academic achievement of students with LD.
Last, a quantitative research study should be conducted to investigate various types of
professional development in order to ascertain which are most effective at improving teacher
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 108
attitudes toward inclusion. Quantitative research should also be conducted to examine various
structures of support in order to determine which ones are most effective in improving teacher
attitudes toward inclusion.
Conclusion
General education teachers have been given the daunting task of educating all students
regardless of gender, sex, socioeconomic level and ability level, and many inclusion teachers
may not be prepared to face the additional challenges of students with needs. The inclusion
model places these students within the general education classroom with the expectation that
general education teachers will meet all of their needs, including academic, social and emotional.
A qualitative study was conducted at LVHS to investigate innovative strategies utilized
for students with LD to promote their academic success in inclusion. The study included eight
interviews and three observations. The study aimed to answer two research questions to learn
about the implementation and sustainability of structures and systems at LVHS.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1977, 1979) model of ecological systems served as the theoretical framework
for this study to observe the impact of the environment on students’ development and
achievement. The conceptual framework for this study was the influence of identified structures
such as stakeholders, funding, policies, staffing, and professional development on the inclusion
program.
The study identified six key findings based on the systems and structures. The findings in
this study replicated some of the findings of former researchers presented in the literature review.
Implications for practice are such that improvement in two areas may lead to better practices of
inclusion: incorporation of UDL instruction and implementation of organizational workshops.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 109
Future recommendations are presented to better comprehend the needs of students with LD in
inclusive environments.

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 110
References
Aaron, P., Joshi, R., Gooden, R., & Bentum, K. (2008). Diagnosis and Treatment of Reading
Disabilities Based on the Component Model of Reading. Journal of Learning
Disabilities. 41, 67-82.
Albers, C. A., & Kettler, R. J. (2013). Predictive validity of curriculum-based measurement and
teacher ratings of academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 499-515.
Andrews, R. L., & Soder, R. (1987). Principal leadership and student achievement, Educational
Leadership, 44, 9-11.
Berry. R. (2006). Beyond Strategies: Teacher Beliefs and Writing Instruction in Two Primary
Inclusion Classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11-24.
Berry. R. (2006). Teacher talk during whole-class lessons: Engagement strategies to support the
verbal participation of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research
& Practice, 21(4), 211-232.
Baloglu. N. (2009). Negative behavior of teachers with regard to high school students in
classroom settings. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(1), 209-227.
Bost. L., Riccomini. P. (2006). Effective Instruction: An inconspicuous strategy for dropout
prevention. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 301-311.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American
Psychologist, 32(7), 513-530.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals of Child Development, 6, 187-
249.
Bryan, T., & Sullivan-Burstein, K. (2004). Improving homework completion and academic
performance: Lessons from special education. Theory into Practice, 43(3) 213-220.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 111
Carpenter, L. B., & Dyal, A. (2007). Secondary inclusion strategies for implementing the
consultative teacher model. Education, 127, 344-350.
Cook, L., Friend, M., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-Teaching: An
illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Education
and Psychological Consultation. 20, 9-27.
Chopra, R. B., French, N. K. (2004). Para-educator relationships with parents of students with
significant disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 240-251.
Coyne, M. D., Kameenui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (2007). Effective teaching strategies that
accommodate diverse learners (Third ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
DeSimone, J., Parmar, R. (2006). Middle school mathematics teachers’ beliefs about
inclusion of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 21(2), 98–110
Dietz, S., Enders, C., & Montague, M. (2011). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on math
problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability
Quarterly. 34(4), 262-272.
Downing, J. E., Ryndak, D. L., Clark, D. (2000). Paraeducators in inclusive classrooms.
Remedial and Special Education, 21, 171-181.
Epstein, A., & Kazmierczak, J. (2006). Cyber bullying: what teachers, social workers, and
administrators should know. Illinois Child Welfare, 2007(3), 41-51.

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 112
Fore III. C., Hagan-Burke. S., Burke. M., Boon, R., & Smith, S. (2008). Academic achievement
and class placement in high school: Do students with learning disabilities achieve more in
one class placement than another? Education and Treatment of Children, 31(1), 55-72.
French, N. K., Chopra, R. V. (2004). Parent perspective on roles of para-professionals. The
Journal of the Association for the persons with Severe Handicaps, 24(4), 259-280.
Gage, N. A., & Goran, L. G. (2011). A Comparative Analysis of Language, Suspension, and
Academic Performance of Students with Emotional Disturbance and Students with
Learning Disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children. 34(4), 469-488.
Giangreco, M.F. (2007). Extending inclusive opportunities. Educational Leadership, 64, 34-37.
Hoy, W. K., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2008). Teacher Efficacy: It’s Meaning
and Measure. Review of Educational Research, 68 (2), 202 – 248.
Humphrey, N. (2008). Including pupils with autistic spectrum disorder in mainstream schools.
Support for Learning. 23(1), 41–47.
Idol, L. (2006). Towards inclusion of special education students in general education. Remedial
and Special Education, 27(2), 77-94.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-446, 118
Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., Mc Ghie - Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing teachers for inclusive
classrooms. Elsevier, 25(4), 535-542.
Jenkins, A. A., Leigh, J., & Patton, J. (2007). State Certification Standards for Teachers or
Students with Learning Disabilities: An Update. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(4)
266-279.
Kampwirth, T., & Powers, K. (2012). Collaborative consultation in the schools (4th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 113
Kavale, K., Forness, S. (2000). History, rhetoric, and reality: Analysis of inclusion debate.
Remedial and Special Education, 21, 279-296.
Kovacs, D. (2006). The inclusion experience of students with moderate and severe disabilities in
general education classrooms. Oxford, OH: Miami University.
Lackaye, T. D., & Margalit, M. (2006). Comparisons of achievement, effort, and self-perceptions
among students with learning disabilities and their peers from different achievement
groups. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 432.
Layer. Y., Kirk. R. (2004). Evaluating inclusion: an examination of parent views and factors
influencing their perspective. International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education, 51(3), 271-285.
Maccini, P., Gagnon, J. (2006). Mathematics Instructional Practices and Assessment
Accommodations by Secondary Special and General Educators. Exceptional Children,
72(2), 217-234.
Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2005). Co-Teaching in middle school classrooms under routine
conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with disabilities in co-
taught and solo-taught classes? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(2), 79-85.
Marshak, L. (2012). Peer-Mediated Instruction in Inclusive Secondary Social Studies Learning:
Direct and Indirect Learning Effects. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(1),
12-20.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd Ed.) Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
McKibbon, M., & Wadsworth, J. J. (2007). Report on the Study of Special Education
Certification. Sacramento, CA: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 114
Meltzer L., Katzir, T., Miller, L., Reddy, R., & Roditi, B. (2004). Academic self-perceptions,
effort, and strategy use in students with learning disabilities: Changes over time.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, Learning Disabilities Research and Practice
Journal, 19(2), 99–108.
Merriman, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murray. C., & Pianta. R. (2007). The importance of teacher-student relationships for adolescents
with high incidence disabilities. Theory into Practice, 46, 105-112.
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2009). The state of learning disabilities. Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ncld.org/types-learning-disabilities/what-is-
ld/state-of-learning-disabilities
Nietfeld, J. L., & Wilkins, T. (2004). The effect of a school-wide inclusion training programme
upon teachers’ attitudes about inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Educational
Needs, 4(3), 115-121.
Phtiaka, H., & Symeoniduo, S. (2009). Using teachers’ prior knowledge, attitudes and beliefs to
develop in-service teacher education courses for inclusion. Elsevier, 25l(4), 543-550.
Rosas, C. E., & Winterman, K. G. (2010). Teachers’ Perceptions on Special Education
Preparation: A Descriptive Study. Journal of the American Academy of Special
Education Professionals, 3(1), 119-149.
Rose, D. H. (2000). Universal Design for Learning. Journal of Special Education Technology,
15(4), 47-51.
Rose-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude towards inclusion practices and special needs students
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(3), 188–198.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 115
Santoli, S., Sachs, J., Romey, E. (2008). A successful formula for middle school inclusion:
Collaboration, time, and administrative support. Research in Middle Level Education,
329(2), 1-13.
Short, C., Martin, B. (2005). Case study: Attitudes of rural high school students and teachers
regarding inclusion. The Rural Educator, 27(1), 1-10.
Smith, P. (2007), Have we made any progress? Including students with intellectual disabilities in
regular education classrooms. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 45(5), 297-
309.
Therrien, W., Hughes, C., Kapelski, C., Mokhtari, K. (2009). Effectiveness of a test-taking
strategy on achievement in essay tests for students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 42(1), 14-23.
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). 10 Basic Steps in Special Education. Center for parent
information and resources.
United States Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs. (2003).
Differentiated instruction and implication for UDL implementation: Effective classroom
practices. Washington, DC: Author.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to
instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 18(3), 137-146.
Wright, P. W. D., & Wright, P. D. (2007). Special education law. Hartfield, VA: Harbor House
Law Press, Inc.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 116
Yell, M., Shriner, G. (2006). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004
and IDEA Regulations of 2006: Implications for educators, administrators, and teacher
trainers. Focus on Exceptional Children. 39l(1), 1-24.
Zigmond, N. (2003). Where Should Students with Disabilities Receive Special Education
Services? Is One Place Better Than Another? The Journal of Special Education, 37(3).
193-199.

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 117
Appendix A
Interview Protocol
School Name: _______________________________________ Date: ____________
Name of Person Interviewed: _______________________________________________
Position: ________________________________________________________________
Researcher: ______________________________________________________________
Time Started: ____________ Time Ended: ___________ Total Time: ____________

Hi, how are you doing today? Thank you in advance for your time and your valuable input with
this study. Please tell me about your background in the field of education? Also, tell me about
your degrees and credentials.

Education/Training/Self-Efficacy
1. What are your experiences with student with learning disabilities at the school? Do you
have prior training in special education and specific learning disabilities? How does your
administrator facilitate opportunities for professional development and training?
2. How do you address concerns about teacher efficacy? Capacity? Please give me an
example.
3. What challenges do the general education teachers encounter teaching students with
learning disabilities in inclusion? How are the challenges addressed? Would you please
elaborate on this topic.

Policies and Laws

4. How do the teachers implement accommodations per IEP guidelines for all students with
disabilities in the inclusion class? Do you attend IEP meetings and provide detail
feedback?

Inclusion Program

5. What type of inclusion model is practiced at this school site? (co-teaching, consult,
support, or instructional aid)
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 118
6. How was the inclusion program implemented and who is involved in the implementation
of the inclusion model? (general education teachers, special education teachers, parents,
administrators, counselors, school psych.)

Student Academic Achievement/Growth

7. How do you monitor student progress? (summative, formative, benchmarks)
8. Describe how expectations for meeting academic achievement goals for students with
disabilities are made clear for teachers / students / parents?
9. Are the teachers able to adapt instruction in your class to meet the needs of all ability
levels in the inclusive classroom to improve academic success?

Innovative Strategies/Best Practices

10. What strategies are used that you have found to be particularly effective to engage all
students in the inclusion class including students with learning disabilities? How do you
describe effective teaching in an inclusion classroom? Why?

Administrative Support/ Collaboration Time

11. Are the teachers provided with collaboration opportunities with the special education
teachers? Do they have common planning time? How does the special education staff
support the general education teachers with everyday instruction?

Parent Involvement
12. Were the parents of students in inclusion involved in the process and placement of their
child in the inclusion program? Are they invited to be part of the decision making of any
changes to the inclusion program?
13. What are some parental concerns about inclusion on this campus? Are there any other
special education concerns from parents?

Please feel free to share any additional information that I have not asked that you may feel would
benefit this study. May I have a contact number in case I need to reach you in the future for
clarification or additional information. I thank you for your time once again and greatly
appreciate your input.

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 119
Appendix B
Classroom Observation Protocol

Name of Teacher ____________________________
Announced Observation_________________________________________
(yes, no or explain)

Location of class________________________________________________
(district, school, room)

Years of Teaching _________ Teaching Certification __________________
(9-12)

Subject Observed _____________________ Grade Level _______________
Observer _______________________ Date of Observation ______________
Time Started: __________ Time Ended: __________ Total Time: ___________
General Information

Number of Students Present: ____ Number of Students Enrolled: ____
Number of teachers: ____
Number of aides: ____
Number of volunteers: ____
Number of other adults [student teacher, coach, etc.): ____ (specify type): ____
Number of adults providing one-on-one instruction: _____
Number of adults providing small group instruction: _____
Number of adults providing whole class instruction: ____
Lesson duration: ____

Classroom environment (Y or N)

1. Current student work on display:
a. Worksheets: ____
b. Projects: ____
c. Achievement/progress charts: ____
d. Other: ____
2. The standards for this grade level are on display: ____
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 120
3. Behavioral expectations posted: ____
4. Academic expectations posted (rubrics/processes, etc.): ____
5. The schedule for the day/period is visible in the classroom: ____
6. The classroom looks like a library—full of books (K-6). ____
7. Technology is present ____
a. # of Computer(s) ____
b. # turned on ____
8. The pattern of the desks is (Check all that apply and describe)
a. Rows – Desks in straight-line rows. ____
b. Small Groups – Desk placed in small groups of 3-4. ____
c. Semi-Circle – Chairs or desks are placed in a semi-circle with students facing
each other. ____
d. Table Seating – Tables rather than desks ____
e. Other: ____

Observation of Innovative Strategies Utilized in the Classroom
I. Engages students with disabilities in the learning process:

__ Makes learning goals and instructional procedures clear to students with disabilities
__ Guides and coaches students with disabilities in the learning process
__ Uses students’ prior knowledge to focus and engage learners
__ Other _____________________________
II. Creates and maintains an effective environment for student learning:

__ Organizes the physical environment to support teaching and learning
__ Plans and implements classroom procedures and routines for students with disabilities
__ Establishes a climate that promotes fairness, respect, and access to learning
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 121
__ Establishes a safe environment for students with disabilities
__ Other ____________________________________
III. Understands and organizes content knowledge for student learning:

__ Uses appropriate instructional strategies, materials, resources, and technology to make
subject matter accessible to students with disabilities
__ Demonstrates understanding of IEP accommodations
__ Uses appropriate accommodation to meet the needs of students with disabilities
__ Other _________________________________
IV. Plans instruction and designs effective learning experiences for students with
disabilities

__ Establishes and articulates challenging learning goals for students with disabilities
__ Demonstrates understanding of students’ developmental learning needs
__ Draw upon student diversity in planning instruction
__ Other _________________________________

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 122
Appendix C
Letter of Introduction
Date:
Name:
Address:

My name is Anet Hairapetian and I am a co-investigator of the thematic group titled,
“Innovative Strategies for Students with Disabilities” in the doctoral program at the University of
Southern California. We are conducting a study as part of our thematic group, specifically, I will
be examining systems and structures to identify innovative strategies utilized in inclusive
classroom to support and improve the academic success of students with learning disabilities.

During this interview and observation, I am hoping to learn more about your experiences
as an educator with students with learning disabilities. I am also hoping to gain knowledge about
your school’s system on the implementation of the inclusion program. My goal with this study is
to provide tools such as innovative strategies for all stakeholders in the learning community, who
work with students with learning disabilities.

The interview is anticipated to take up to 45 minutes to complete. In addition to
interviewing yourself, I would like to interview one more administrator, two special education
teachers, two general education teachers, and two parents at your school site. Participation in
this study is completely voluntary and all information will remain confidential. We would ask
for your permission to audio tape the interviews. Interviews will be schedules based on your
preference time, before or after school, or during your prep time.

I will also be conducting two classroom observations. Each observation will take up to
30 minutes. I would like to observe the innovative strategies that take place for students with
learning disabilities. Notes will be taken during the observation. Observations will be scheduled
based on your preference time, during any specific period of the day.

Each participant will receive a $25 gift card to Target, Starbucks, or Staples as a token of
our appreciation. In addition, participants will receive a toolkit for educators and school teams
containing information on promising and innovative strategies for supporting student with
disabilities in inclusion.

If you have any questions or would agree to participate, please contact me at
ahairape@usc.edu or (818)303-4494.

Sincerely,

Anet Hairapetian
Co-Investigator
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 123
Appendix D
Information/Facts Sheet for Exempt Non-Medical Research
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by our thematic group studying
innovative strategies for students with disabilities in the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California (USC). You have been selected to participate in this study
because of your experience and knowledge in working with students with learning disabilities.
The data from this study may contribute to research projects related to the outcomes of this
study. Research studies include only people who voluntarily choose to take part. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to further investigate and present results from a sample population
regarding innovative strategies implemented and utilized in an inclusive classroom to improve
the academic success of students with learning disabilities. The study will seek to find
innovative strategies for teaching children with disabilities in an inclusive classroom.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
You have been selected to participate in this study because of your experience and knowledge in
working with students with learning disabilities. If you agree to take part in this study, you will
be asked to participate in a 45 minute audio-taped interview. I will also be conducting two
classroom observations which will take about 30 minutes to complete. I would like to assure you
that your responses will be strictly confidential.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive $25 gift for your time. You do not have to answer all of the questions during
the interview in order to receive the card. The card will be given to you at the end of the
interview.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may experience some discomfort in
completing the interview or you may be inconvenienced from taking time out of your day to
participate in the interview process. Interviews will take place before or after school operating
hours.

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 124
CONFIDENTIALITY
Participants will be provided assurance of the confidentiality of their statements and the benefits
that could result from the study. The school and all participants will be given pseudonyms to
enhance anonymity. All data collected through this stay will be stored in a safe location to avoid
any harm to the participants or the outcome of the study. The audio-tapes will be destroyed once
they have been transcribed. The members of the research team and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP
reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research participants.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

RESEARCH STUDY TIMELINE

September 2014 *Obtain potential school candidates
*E-mail principals requesting their schools participation

October 2014 *Select school
*Identify administrators and other school staff participants
*Provide all participants the study information
*Secure consent forms
*Begin interviews and observations

November 2014 *Complete interviews and observations

December 2014- *Analysis of data
January 2015

February 2015 *Share preliminary findings with participants and thematic group

March 2015 *Provide a report of findings

April 2015- *Research study completion
May 2015

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:

Shafiqa Ahmadi, JD, Assistant Professor
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall, 1003B, 213-821-2259
sahmadi@usc.edu

INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 125
Anet Hairapetian, Co-Investigator
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education, USC
ahairape@usc.edu or 818-303-4494

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

I agree to participate in the above referenced study and understand that interviews will be audio-
recorded.

_____________________ ___________________________ _____________________
Print Name Signature Date

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The reauthorization of Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) in 2004 mandated that students with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE), which is also known as inclusion of the student. The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate innovative strategies implemented in an inclusive classroom to improve the academic success of students with learning disabilities. In addition to strategies, teacher perception towards inclusion, teacher training, and administrative support were examined. This study was conducted at one comprehensive high school campus in public, suburban school system in Los Angeles County. The data was collected from eight interviews and three observations. This study generated total of six findings in response to research questions one and two. First, inclusion teachers aligned every lesson to state standards, incorporated multiple ways for higher student engagement and regularly checked for understanding. Second, group/partner teaching revealed many positive academic and social benefits for students with learning disabilities. Third, inclusion and special education teachers faced many challenges

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Innovative strategies to accommodate postsecondary students with learning disabilities

PDF

Early identification of a learning disability and its impact on success in postsecondary education

PDF

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

PDF

Academic coaching practices for students with learning disabilities and differences

PDF

A study of the pedagogical strategies used in support of students with learning disabilities and attitudes held by engineering faculty

PDF

Innovative strategies for students with special needs

PDF

Effective strategies used by general education teachers to address the learning needs of students with selective mutism

PDF

Navigating and accessing higher education: the experiences of community college students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

PDF

Universal design for learning in teacher preparation: preparing for a classroom of diverse learners

PDF

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

PDF

Effects of guided reading (teacher supported) on reading comprehension scores for primary students who are learning disabled English language learners

PDF

Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study

PDF

Perceptions of college students with ADHD and their learning strategies

PDF

Nothing without us: understanding the belongingness of students with disabilities

PDF

Postsecondary faculty attitudes, beliefs, practices, and knowledge regarding students with ADHD: a comparative analysis of two-year and four-year institutions

PDF

Teachers' experiences implementing social and emotional learning in the elementary classroom

PDF

Students with disabilities experience in higher education online courses: an exploratory study of self-efficacy, use of assistive technologies and mobile media

PDF

Teachers’ experiences and preparedness to teach in an inclusive environment

PDF

Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement

PDF

Teacher efficacy and classroom management in the primary setting

Asset Metadata

Creator Hairapetian, Anet (author)

Core Title Analysis of innovative teaching strategies for students with learning disabilities

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 04/17/2015

Defense Date 03/07/2015

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

Tag administrative support,inclusion,learning disabilities,OAI-PMH Harvest,Special Education,strategies,teacher perception,teacher training for inclusion

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ahmadi, Shafiqa (committee chair), Fischer, Linda A. (committee member), Tobey, Patricia Elaine (committee member)

Creator Email ahairape@usc.edu,anethairapetian@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-552276

Unique identifier UC11298765

Identifier etd-Hairapetia-3325.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-552276 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Hairapetia-3325.pdf

Dmrecord 552276

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Hairapetian, Anet

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