Bassett Capstone Final

AN EXAMINATION OF INCLUSIVE PRACTICES
OF A SECONDARY CHORAL EDUCATOR

_________________________________________
A Thesis
Submitted to
the Department of
Graduate Education, Leadership, and Counseling
School of Education
Rider University
_________________________________________
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Teaching
_________________________________________
by
Lisa M. Bassett
May 2016
___________________________
Donna Gallo, Thesis Advisor
INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR
ii
iii
Abstract
This qualitative single case study examined the inclusive practices of a secondary
choral educator, how these practices were influenced by the teachers knowledge of
special learners and media such as college courses, books, journals, and the internet, and
finally, to identify how these practices foster inclusiveness for learning different students
in the music classroom. This study was based on two observations of the inclusive choir
in rehearsal and one interview with the participating choral director. The areas examined
in this study were the influences of personal knowledge of special learners, continued
learning about special learners, impact of personal belief on classifications, intentional
and non-labeled adaptations, participation in the IEP team, and the use of continuing
education related to learning different students. The researcher found that personal
definitions of what entitled a student to the classification learning different can affect the
level and amount of modifications offered the student. Finally, while many seemingly
blanket adaptations may facilitate inclusion for many learning different students, better
pre-service education and the use of a range of continuing education mediums may be
required to fully include students who are multiply disabled.
To my mother, father,
sister, and grandmother.
iv
Table of Contents

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii

Dedication...........................................................................................................................iv

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vii

Chapter 1 - Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 2
Research Question .......................................................................................................... 2
Keywords and Definitions .............................................................................................. 3
Organization of the Study ............................................................................................... 5

Chapter 2 - Review of Literature ........................................................................................ 6

Rates of Inclusion in the Classroom ............................................................................... 6
Finding the Proper Placement ......................................................................................... 7
Individualized Education Program ................................................................................. 8
Recommended Adaptations .......................................................................................... 10
Impact of Labeling Students ......................................................................................... 13
Teacher Education ........................................................................................................ 14
Attitudinal Barriers and Promoters of Inclusive Practices ............................................ 15
Existing Framework for Successful Inclusion .............................................................. 17
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 18

Chapter 3 - Methodology .................................................................................................. 19
Rationale for Study Design ........................................................................................... 19
Role of the Researcher .................................................................................................. 19
Data Sources ................................................................................................................. 20
Population ..................................................................................................................... 21
Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 21
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 22
Findings ........................................................................................................................ 24
Trustworthiness ............................................................................................................. 26
Ethical Concerns ........................................................................................................... 27
Timeline ........................................................................................................................ 27
vi
Chapter 4 - Presentation and Analysis of the Data ........................................................... 28

Linton High School ....................................................................................................... 28
Mr. Vitali....................................................................................................................... 29
Interview and Observation ............................................................................................ 29
Defining Special Learner. ......................................................................................... 29
Culture of acceptance. ............................................................................................... 30
Intentional adaptations. ............................................................................................. 32
Non-specified adaptations. ........................................................................................ 35
Participation in the team. ....................................................................................... 36
Deficits in training. ................................................................................................... 38
Results of the Study ...................................................................................................... 39
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 41
Chapter 5 - Conclusions .................................................................................................... 42
Answering the Research Questions .............................................................................. 42
Enacted adaptations and modifications. .................................................................... 42
Influence of media and knowledge of student needs. ............................................... 43
Facilitation of inclusion. ........................................................................................... 43
Recommendations for Further Study ............................................................................ 44
References ......................................................................................................................... 47
Appendix A ....................................................................................................................... 50
Appendix B ....................................................................................................................... 52
Appendix C ....................................................................................................................... 53
vii
List of Tables

Table
1.Codes Organized by Type ............................................................................................ 25
2.Codes Organized by Theme ......................................................................................... 25
Chapter 1

Introduction
Statement of the Problem
The movement for inclusive schooling for learning different students grew from a
parent driven effort founded on learning different students right to participate in school
with their mainstream peers (Turnbull & Turnbull, 2001). This movement, also
supported by educators, focused on the separation of students by any characteristic (race
or ability) creating an intrinsically inferior education for those segregated from the
mainstream education (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987).
The first law relating to the education of learning different students, Education for
All Handicapped Children Act, passed in 1975. This law required that every school
receiving federal funding give every student with any sort of disability an equal
opportunity for education. The Americans with Disability Act (ADA), passed in 1990,
protects against discrimination based on a students needs. The Individuals with
Disabilities Act (IDEA) of 2004 was a reaffirmation of the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act. IDEA focuses on the right of students with special
educational needs to be educated in a manner as close to the education of general
mainstream students as possible, what is known as the least restrictive environment. In
most cases this means joining regular or mainstream classes.
Students with learning differences are included in music classrooms with
mainstream students for a variety of reasons. Students with learning needs participate in
music classes voluntarily. Learning different students will voluntarily join choir due to an
interest in music and a desire to become a member of the ensemble or class. According to
Rivera (2015), secondary students with learning differences are often placed into music
classes such as choral ensembles for socialization purposes and with the assumption that
the class will not pose any great academic pressure on the student.
Even though IDEA is well over a decade old there is only a limited amount of
research available on inclusion in school choirs. Most studies cover generally accepted
practices for all types of inclusive classrooms, and a select few cover some basic or
general music based adaptations. Several studies cite tentative or inconclusive findings. A
majority of studies are secondary based. This study will attempt to increase the literature
available, to discover more choral music specific adaptations, and help affirm past studies
discoveries.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative single case study is threefold: 1) to investigate the
inclusive practices of a secondary choral director; 2) to identify how his instructional
practices foster inclusiveness for learning differences in the choral classroom; and 3) to
examine the extent to which various media such as college course information, books,
journals, videos, and the internet inform the directors inclusive practices, and how these
practices are mediated by their knowledge of learning different students needs.
Research Question
This study will be guided by the following questions:
1. What planned adaptations does the lesson plan include and what unplanned
adaptations occur during the rehearsal?
2. How does the choral director adapt lessons and curriculum for students with
learning differences?
3. What is the choral directors attitude toward inclusion and how does this
mediate their interactions with learning different students in the choir?
4. In what ways do college courses or professional development focused on
learning differences (both in preservice and in-service learning experiences)
influence the instructional practices of the choral directors?
Keywords and Definitions
Learning Different. Learning different students, known also as special needs
students, are students who qualify for an Individualized Education Program (IEP). To
qualify for an IEP under IDEA a student must fall into one of the following categories:
Autism
Emotional disturbance
Intellectual disability (IQ below 70)
Orthopedic impairment
Other health impairments
Specific learning disabilities
Speech or language impairment
Traumatic brain injury
Visual impairment
Hearing impairment (NICHCY, 2012).
To receive an IEP a students physical, psychological, or mental impairments must affect

their academic achievement.
504 Plan. Students with disabilities or other medical needs who do not quality for
an IEP will often have a 504 plan. A 504 plan comes from the amended Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, Section 504. This act focuses on identification of students with disabilities
and to protect a students right to a free and appropriate education that best meets that
students needs. This includes proper educational placements (mainstream or special
education classroom) and additional aids and services for that individual student
(Department of Education, 2015).
Differentiated instruction. The educator teaches to every facet of students
learning needs and to all the various skill levels in the room (Pontiff, 2004, p.14).
Segregation, Integration, Mainstream, and Inclusion. The following terms
describe the various ways classrooms of learning different and mainstream students can
be combined, as defined by Dixon (2005).
Segregation. Learning different students are taught in classes separate from
regular or mainstream students (p. 35).
Integration. Learning different students spend part of the day in a special
education classroom and part of the day in a mainstream classroom (p. 38-39).
Inclusion. Learning different students are full members of the classroom
regardless of their abilities or disabilities (p. 25).
Mainstream. The act of mainstreaming is frequently used as a synonym for
integration. The mainstream classroom is the general academic classroom or the
average students classroom. (p. 34).
Study Limitations
The population of this study will be limited to one choral educator who has been
identified as outstanding model for inclusion and adapting or modifying instruction for
students with learning differences. They will be located in New Jersey. This research
will be conducted during the 2015-2016 academic year.
Organization of the Study
This thesis is comprised of five chapters. Chapter One introduces the study and
contains: the statement of problem, purpose of study, research questions, keywords and
definitions, study limitations, and organization of study. Chapter Two reviews available
literature. Chapter Three describes the studies methodologies and design. Chapter Four
presents and analyzes the collected data. Chapter Five contains conclusions and
implications.
Chapter 2

Review of Literature

This chapter will review the existing literature on rates of inclusion, finding the
proper placement, individualized education program, recommended adaptations, impact
of labeling students, teacher education, attitudinal barriers and promoters of inclusive
practices, and an existing framework for successful inclusion. There are limited studies
available on learning different students and music education. Appropriately it is
necessary to include research studies and theoretical literature in this literature review.
Rates of Inclusion in the Classroom
According to a report from the Department of Education as of 2012, 8.4% of
school-aged children were being served under IDEA. Of those children, 90% spent at
least a portion of their day in a mainstream classroom. 61.5% of learning different
students were placed into a mainstream classroom for at least 80 percent of the day. The
smallest percentage of students (5.2%) were educated in a purely segregated environment
(U.S. Department of Education, 2014).
When it comes to state or national statistics on the rates of inclusion in music
classrooms, there is limited information. A survey of 331 surveyed band and choral
educators in Ohio secondary schools, found that rates of participation for both
mainstream and learning different students was higher in choir than in band. Furthermore,
only 7% of the learning different students participated in choir. Aside from this one
study, there are no published studies examining the rate of inclusion in music classrooms
at other state or national levels (Linsenmeier, 2004).
Coopers (1999) study on the mainstreaming practices and opinions on placement

decisions of music educators did report non-quantitative findings on inclusion in New
Jersey. The studys findings were based on survey respondents from 233 active inclusion
educators from New Jersey who were members of Music Educators National Conference
(MENC). The surveys were comprised of open-ended questions and Likert or rating scale
questions. Cooper found that 15.9% of respondents participated in IEP development and
33.3% had no training in working with learning different students. Music teachers
perceived that perceptually impaired and neurologically impaired classified students were
the easiest to accommodate and behaviorally disturbed and emotionally disrupted
classified students were the hardest to accommodate. Benefits of mainstreaming learning
different students included socialization, self-esteem, and musical experience. In addition
to these findings, Cooper found that New Jersey music educators work primarily with
students classified with perceptual impairment, neurological impairment, behavioral
disturbance, or emotional disturbance.
Finding the Proper Placement
In 1994, the MENC now known as the National Association for Music Education
(NAfME), set forth the following criteria for placement of learning different students into
a music classroom: (a) placement determinations for learning different students should
follow the same criteria used for mainstream students, (b) music teachers should be fully
informed of students needs and participate in the placement process, (c) placement should
not increase class size beyond ten percent of the average school class size, and (d) the
number of learning different students should not exceed ten percent of the average for
other classes in the school.
Hammel (2004), in an article on inclusive strategies, stated that music educators

must be advocators for proper least restrictive environment placement for students.
Proper placement is a class where learning different students will be successful. If a
student is receiving all modifications and adaptations that a teacher can provide and is not
successful, another placement is likely their least restrictive environment. A placement
for one learning different student may not be appropriate for another student. These
placements should be influenced by a students IEP (p. 27-28).
Individualized Education Program
The most frequent suggestion for successful inclusion is adherence to and
understanding of a students IEP (McCord, & Watts, 2006; Hammel & Hourigan, 2011;
Salvador, 2013). McCord and Wattss (2006) article employed elements of case study
and literature review to discuss the benefits of collaboration between music educators and
special education staff. These benefits include the application of individual teaching
experiences as a common goal and access, participation, and success for all students in
music. Applying a students IEP is more complicated than simply reading the document.
Student IEPs cover important information including diagnostic statements, students
current level of functioning, students strengths, needs, goals, and accommodations and
support services required. This information is vital for successful inclusion of a learning
different student. Music educators should also consider what is omitted from the IEP
(Krebs, 2004). Krebss article focused on how teachers can plan for and adapt the music
classroom for inclusion. Is participation in music listed on the IEP? Does it list past
experiences in music, or information from past music teachers? Is music a part of the
students IEP curriculum or is it an avenue for achieving other goals listed on the IEP? (p.
33). If the students IEP states that the student is in music to practice sitting in a
classroom and behaving appropriately, the expectation is different than if the IEP states
that the student is in music to sing and participate as a full member of the choir.
Information on past participation in music can include previously implemented
adaptations or give a previous music teacher as a reference to discuss past music
participation and adaptations for that student.
Communication with special education teachers and the IEP team is the first
step to understanding a students needs. This team is comprised of professionals,
teachers, and the students parents (McCord and Watts, 2006). The team works
together to determine the most appropriate educational settings, accommodations, and
related services for that student (Hammel and Hourigan, 2011). McCord & Watts (2006),
Hammel & Hourigan (2011), and Salvador (2013) advocated for the music educator or
choir director to be a member of the students IEP team, to attend meetings, and to help
formulate the IEP. By assisting in the formation of a students IEP, music teachers are
afforded the opportunity to include musical goals and instructional adaptations into the
IEP document. Development of relationships between music educators and IEP teams
is important because music teachers will often times see different behaviors and abilities
in individual students (McCord & Watts 2006). Good communication between choral
directors and a students team can promote the students ability to reach his or her
potential as a singer and a member of the choral community (Salvador, 2013).
Participation in the IEP development also allows music educators to raise
concerns about class size, music curriculum issues, and instructional strategies (Cooper,
2004, p. 36). McCord (2004b) conducted a single case study on a fourteen-year-old girl
10
with multiple learning challenges and how she created music using technology.
According to McCord, the student has developed learned helplessness or the belief that
success is unattainable stemming from constant inability to meet goals or objectives and
resulting in a loss of desire to try. This study found that (a) teachers have to work to
identify and adapt for learning different students who express learned helplessness; (b)
environments with several co-occurring aural stimuli are difficult for students with aural
learning disabilities; (c) creation of individual learning approaches can be challenging for
teachers who have short class periods of large groups of students; (d) music educators
explore the different methods students can experience making music, including digital
formats; and (e) students with disabilities are most successful when making music
through movement. McCord encouraged music teachers to include successful adaptations
into the students IEP, so future music educators can be made aware of past successful
modifications and adaptations.
Recommended Adaptations
Pontiffs (2004) article provides suggestions from veteran music educators on
teaching learning different students in the music classroom including: preservice training,
strategies for adaptations, getting extra assistance in the classroom, and the rewards of
working with learning different students. Pontiff identified several strategies for inclusion
such as thorough planning, slower pacing, a structured environment, modeling, visual
aids, movement activities, homework, and the use of innovative thinking. Planning for
teaching special learners takes specific and careful thought and study; it cannot be a hitor[-]miss process. Looking at education in an innovative, or as Pontiff calls it, out of
the box way can assist the teacher in creation of new strategies. For example, a student
11
who is tactile defensive (aversion to certain tactile stimuli), may not be able to hold bells
in their hands. Instead, bells could be worn with a Velcro strap around the ankles. A
middle school teacher from Pontiffs article taught her students about staccato and legato.
She had them experience these concepts on the piano, and then has them create pizzas
using those ideas for homework. The students then presented their pizza and explained
how it demonstrates staccato and legato as well as how the two ideas are different.
Adaptations in the music classroom can also be made based upon students
classifications. Students with visual impairments can play rhythm instruments with no
problem and learn songs by rote and echoing patterns. Movement activities pose a
challenge for visually impaired students. The use of a movement partner can be helpful
to circumvent this problem. Students with behavioral issues favor structured and
consistent classroom routines. Beginning and ending class with a familiar song and
maintaining a consistent classroom routine can be calming to these students. Students
with hearing disabilities that are mild to moderate tend to learn best through tactile,
kinesthetic, and visual methods. Students who are hard of hearing learn best when the
teacher faces them while talking and singing songs in lower keys. Singing in a lower key
increases the ability of students who are hard-of-hearing to hear notes and words. Notes
over the C above middle C may be too high for students with hearing deficits to register.
Instrument and movement based activities are great methods to enable students who are
hard-of-hearing to find success (Debrot, 2004, p. 14-15). Teachers should identify and
consider the strengths and interests of students when developing lessons and adaptations.
Often students will have splinter skills. An example of a splinter skill would be a student
with excellent pitch but poor rhythmic abilities (Krebs, 2004, p. 33).
12
VanWeeldens (2001) article on tips for success in choral mainstreaming,

recommended using assigned seating, a clearly displayed lesson plan, a limitation on
visual distractions, and clear, well communicated expectations. Students should be
allowed to examine all new materials, equipment, and instruments in a hands-on method
during instruction. The combination of kinesthetic, visual, and aural instruction helped
students learn according to their modality (Hammel, 2004, p. 28). Adaptations like these,
as Salvador (2013) pointed out, may add to a teachers work load but they are excellent
pedagogical practices and can benefit both mainstream and learning different students.
Adaptations or modifications have been provided specifically for choral contexts.
Visual adaptations such as highlighting can be used to help students follow their vocal
line with greater ease (VanWeelden, 2001). Similarly, color-coding or employing other
iconic music reading aids has been shown to assist students in choral contexts (Debrot,
2004; Lind, 2001). Lind (2001) suggested the use of movement to teach music reading
concepts, and stated that music can be taught in a variety of ways including rote learning,
demonstration, and improvisation.
Modifications can also take the form of people outside of the teacher to assist
learning different students (Darrow, 2003 & Hammel, 2002). Paraprofessionals are one
form of non-teacher based assistance that can be helpful for some learning different
students; preferably paraprofessionals who have some musical knowledge (Hammel). A
peer helper/leader, tutor, or mentor with learning different students is another option
(Darrow). To avoid unbalanced power dynamics between learning different and
mainstream students, learning different students should serve as peer leaders or helpers
when possible. All students need to know they are valuable to the group, both in small
13
settings and in the larger ensemble. Teachers should provide clear instructions and
feedback regarding behavior privately to prevent power struggles. Communicating
feedback in private avoids verbal struggles between teacher and student in front of the
class (Hammel, 2004, p. 29).
Rivera (2015) conducted a study on current inclusive practices of music educators
to create a framework for successful inclusion in choral music education. She observed a
convenience sample of five public high schools, and conducted two surveys. The first
survey had 54 responses from music educators across all grade levels, while the second
survey included 90 music educator responses. Educators reported that inclusion
happened in almost all music classrooms, and that teachers use a variety of adaptations,
particularly ones that already align with good pedagogical teaching strategies. Rivera
found that most music teachers employ the use of modeling, consistent rehearsals
routines, awareness of a students IEP, consultations with special education teachers,
assigned seats, aural teaching techniques, and differentiated instruction. The most
infrequent adaptations were altered scores and the employment of assistive technology.
Impact of Labeling Students
Cassidy and Sims (1991) conducted a study of 119 sixth and seventh grade
students and 90 adult participants who evaluated an eight-and-a-half-minute performance
of a youth choir comprised of children with various mental and physical disabilities. Half
of the evaluators at each age level were informed of the students disabilities. Both
informed and uninformed participants rated the choir using an evaluation form and two
open-ended questions about their reactions. Learning different children in choirs were
graded more favorably when assessors knew about students disabilities as compared to
14
those assessors who were unaware. Cassidy and Sims postulated two reasons for this
phenomenon: first, the informed adjudicators gave more points because they were aware
of the efforts made by the learning different students. Secondly, the informed assessors
set lower standards based on the students label. The students were then able to exceed
this lower expectation, leading to a higher grade.
Jellison and Duke (1994) examined the effect of the mental retardation label on
students entering the music classroom for prospective music educators, prospective
elementary educators, and current elementary music educators. The study was comprised
of 92 university music education majors, 95 elementary education majors, and 139 public
school elementary music teachers. Participants were given two hypothetical students; one
labeled as retarded and the other non-labeled. They were given the opportunity to admit
students into their music class based on students musical and social skills. Subjects
received a list of 25 musical and 25 social behaviors that they rated based on importance
as a prerequisite to admission into their class. The study found that teachers believed that
musical and social behaviors were more important in deciding choir admittance for
students without a learning different label than students who were labeled.
Teacher Education
Salvador (2001) examined how music teacher preparation programs address
differentiation for exceptional populations at the undergraduate level. The study
consisted of a survey emailed to representatives of 212 institutions, 209 people
responded. While some collegiate music education departments offered a course on
teaching learning different students (38.9% of participating schools), under 30% of
15
institutions required the course. This number could be inaccurately high because some of
the classes reported were not music specific.
Hammel (2001) conducted an ethnographic study over a six-month period to
identify essential teacher competencies when enacting inclusion in the elementary music
classroom. This study included: two surveys of elementary music educators (survey A
and survey B), college professors of undergraduate elementary music education methods
courses, interviews with practicing elementary music educators, observations of learning
different students in elementary music classrooms, and the collection of college and
university syllabi for undergraduate courses with a focus on inclusion of learning
different students in music. Survey A included 202 of the 653 members of the Virginia
Elementary Music Educators Association. Seventy-seven college and university music
education professors participated in survey B. Observations were conducted on three
music teachers selected by recommendation for their excellence by their music
supervisors. From this study Hammel derived a list of fourteen competencies for
inclusive practices. Her framework included understanding of IDEA, handicapped
conditions, ability for a teacher to monitor and assess students learning needs, to modify
instruction and materials as needed, the cultivation of proper social interactions between
students, and the ability for the teacher to communicate effectively with support
personnel. These competencies were created to help shape undergraduate music
students unit of study on special education.
Attitudinal Barriers and Promoters of Inclusive Practices
A large volume of the literature on inclusion in the music classroom is focused on
attitude. Several researchers (Pivik, McComas, & LaFlamme 2002; Linsenmeier, 2004;
16
Haywood 2006; Salvador 2013) cited negative teacher attitude as a barrier to inclusion.
Lack of inclusion may result from an ensemble directors preconceived ideas about a
learning different students behavioral disruptions and lack of musicianship
(Linsenmeier). Pivik, McComas, & LaFlamme examined the level of inclusiveness in
school through a series of focus group meetings. The focus group was comprised of 15
students (age 9 through 15 years) with mobility limitations and 12 parents. They
identified four categories of barriers in schools: (a) environmental (e.g. narrow doorways,
lack of ramps); (b) intentional attitudinal barriers (e.g. bullying); (c) inadvertent
attitudinal barriers (e.g. lack of understanding or awareness of student needs); and (d)
physical limitations (e.g. problems with manual dexterity). Parents reported that
educators had condescending or negative attitudes, and did not have the information or
interest in adapting the teaching environment to include my child. Students from the
study reported that of all their school experiences attitudinal barriers were the most
harmful.
Hammel stated that to create a successfully inclusive environment teachers must
have an open mind, be willing to try new things and be positive, flexible, and willing to
put in effort and energy. Students mimic their attitude towards inclusion based on their
teachers attitude. A teacher who is inviting and warm to learning different students has
students who are helpful and kind. The teachers attitude sets the tone for the level of
acceptance on learning different students and determines the success of inclusion (Rivera
2015). Sideridis and Chandler (1995) examined music teachers attitudes towards
mainstreaming disabled students through a survey of general music education teachers.
They found that general music teachers tended to have positive attitudes on the
17
integration of students with learning and physical disabilities, but they possessed negative
attitudes when it came to inclusion of students with multiple disabilities, mental
retardation, emotional issues, or behavioral issues.
Existing Framework for Successful Inclusion
A tentative framework for inclusive choral music education was developed by
Rivera (2015). The following statements were met with a 90% approval rate from
respondents and comprised her framework for inclusive choral music education:
Each school should have an entry-level ensemble that welcomes students

of all ability levels, musical and otherwise.
Choral directors should understand and comply with the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This includes full knowledge of the
Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) and/or 504 plans of all of their
students with disabilities.
The teacher should have awareness of common adaptations that are made
for students with disabilities in music classes.
Inclusive music education can only take place in a safe space; bullying
must not be tolerated and supportive class community should be
encouraged.
The choral director must be supported by the school administration and

special education teachers, and must communicate regularly with them
(p.34).
18
Conclusion
There are very few statistics on the rates of inclusion in the music classroom, but
it is likely that every music teacher will encounter students with learning differences at
some point in their career. There are many recommendations in the literature for inclusive
practices, but a vast majority are general recommendations for any classroom, and some
are arguably just good pedagogy. In this study, I will continue to look at choral inclusive
practices and help affirm existing recommendations as well as look for new methods.
These methodologies will be further examined for assisting in the cultivation of an
inclusive environment for learning different students and how teachers knowledge, both
from past education and other mediums, influences these practices.
19
Chapter 3

Methodology

Rationale for Study Design
A qualitative study, as defined by Glesne (2011) is a study that examines qualities
(i.e. words or observations) which are challenging to quantify and can be thoroughly
explored through examination or interpretation (p. 283). The study of inclusive practices
of choral directors is inherently subjective, requiring observation and interviews that need
to be analyzed for understanding and meaning. A case study is [a]n intensive study of
an individual, institution, organization, or some bounded group, place, or process
(Glesne, 2011, p. 279). This study examines the bounded group of inclusive secondary
school choral directors who enact adaptations or modifications for learning different
students in their ensemble.
This study is a single case study. A single case study can be done for a variety of
reasons. One rational is for the examination of an extreme or unique case (Yin, 2009, p.
47). This study examines one secondary music educator who was cited as an exemplary
practitioner of inclusive methodologies in their choral classroom. The data collected for
this study will be examined independently and comparatively to derive findings.
Role of the Researcher
I have had a highly professional experience as a pre-service educator and
musician at Westminster Choir College of Rider University. I participated in many
choirs through out my life at my public primary and secondary schools, and at
Westminster Choir College. I completed primary and secondary practicums as well as a
thirteen-week student teaching program at a pre-kindergarten through fifth grade school
20
with multiple choirs. I have also conducted observations of multiple choral programs. I
completed a course in special education in music, and several courses in psychology
including: developmental psychology, abnormal psychology, and developmental
psychopathology.
Data Sources
Observations. For this study, two observations were conducted of the
participants choral rehearsals. In a qualitative study the suggested method of observation
is nonintervention so that the observer does not affect the research environment (Bresler
& Stake, 2006). To accomplish this I did not participate in any facet of the choral
rehearsal, and sat in a non-intrusive corner of the room to observe. Detailed field notes
were taken throughout every observation. The notes included descriptions of people,
places, observations, reflections, and notes about emerging patterns (Glesne, 2011, p. 71).
Interviews. An interview of the choral director served as a main source of data in
this study. The participant interview occurred between the first and the second
observation. The interview provided me with personal accounts of participants
practices, planning processes, and knowledge. The interview was semi-structured
(Appendix A), so I came with prepared open ended questions which lead to follow-up
questions to examine elements of participants responses in depth (Glesne, 2011, p. 134).
Documents. Throughout the research study I collected and analyzed documents
as they were received. Documents collected included choral curricula and written
adapted lesson plans for observed rehearsals. In addition, a survey of background
information was collected from the participant (Appendix B).
21
Population
This study used extreme or intensity sampling. Glesne (2011) states that extreme
case sampling is when the researcher selects cases from the extremes, cases that are
unusual or special in some way (p. 45). The population for this study included a choral
director who was recommended based on their excellence in inclusive practices. This
director was selected through the recommendation of the Westminster Choir College
music education department faculty, and was also considered for their proximity to
Princeton, NJ and their willingness to participate.
Procedures
Initial contact. I e-mailed potential participants a request to participate in the
study. This e-mail correspondence included an explanation of the nature of the study,
what participation in the study required, and a copy of the informed consent form. The email also requested the appropriate contacts in the schools administration to obtain
permission to conduct the study. After receiving confirmation for the study, I continued
to correspond with the participant to determine dates, times, and locations for the two
observations and the interview.
Observation protocol. On the agreed upon day and time of the first observation,
I arrived at the location and introduced myself to the participant. While the students and
participants were cognizant of my presence, I used noninterventionist observation
practices while observing and taking my field notes. The second observation occurred on
a separate day after the interview and followed the same methodologies.
Interview protocol. Before each interview I informed the participant that the
interview would be recorded, and that they had the right to discontinue the interview at
22
any time. For the interview, I followed the semi-structured interview format using predetermined questions and follow up questions. After each interview, I transcribed the
interview and sent it back to the interviewee for review.
Document review protocol. Through the process I reviewed documents as I
received them. Each document was examined multiple times over the course of the study
to ensure proper understanding and accurate representation of the explicit ideas of the
documents, and also the implicit intentions.
Data Analysis
Data analysis for this study was a continual process that occurred as each data
source was collected. Following each interview, the recorded dialogue was transcribed
verbatim into a Word document. The interview document was then sent to the
interviewee for review and after approval, was analyzed. Field notes were also typed into
a Word document allowing for clarity and ease of investigation. Each gathered data
element after transcription was analyzed using the coding process.
Coding. Codes are words or phrases used to label portions of data that assigns
meaning to that section of information (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaa, 2014, p. 71-72).
This process, which can label data in a multitude of ways (i.e. by characteristic, process,
or dimension), links one section of data to another. These compiled sections of similarly
coded data are then analyzed to understand the theme or idea being represented by the
studys data (Glesne, 2011, p. 279). In the analysis of this studys data, multiple types of
coding were employed.
This study implemented four different methods of coding: exploratory, affective,
elemental, and grammatical. The following description on the methods and types of
23
coding employed in this study are all taken from Qualitative Data Analysis by Miles,
Huberman, and Saldaa (2014). The exploratory method is an initial coding process and
can be done in three separate ways: holistic, provisional, and hypothesis. This study
employed holistic coding, which is the process of assigning a single code to portions of
the data and not coding each individual line of data (p. 77). The affective method is a
system of coding that relies on the subjective elements researchers encounter in the
participants and data and makes them into codes (i.e. emotional coding or value coding).
Value coding identifies portions of the data that reflects the participants values, feelings,
and beliefs (p. 75). This was an important element of coding because this study focused
on teacher values for different aspects of inclusive practices, and student inclusion.
As the elemental method of coding is the foundation of coding, all three coding
subtypes were used for this study. These three coding types are in vivo, descriptive, and
process coding. In vivo coding is one of the most familiar coding methods for qualitative
researchers. This method extracts short phrases or words from the research participants
own words and uses them as labels or codes for the data. Frequently used words or
phrases by participants serve as good codes because they can illuminate regularities or
patterns. Descriptive coding is most frequently a noun and summarizes the basic idea of a
portion of data. Unlike descriptive coding, process coding uses gerunds and labels areas
of the data that are either observable or conceptual actions (Miles, Huberman, and
Saldaa, 2014, p. 74 - 75). Finally, simultaneous coding from the grammatical method
was employed. The grammatical method is a mechanical tool for coding, and
simultaneous coding allows for the same portion of data to be labeled using two different
codes (p. 79 81).
24
Each document was individually coded and then reviewed and coded a second
time to both condense coding and to look for missed elements. After this, each collected
data element was comparatively coded to previously coded documents. This method,
known as constant comparative coding, requires the researcher to take one piece of
collected data and compare it to all other pieces of data to find similarities or differences
between artifacts. This process allows the researcher to examine data critically and draw
new meaning from data collected (Glasser, 1965).
After coding was completed, codes were analyzed and organized into ideas or
themes as part of the thematic approach. The thematic approach is the most commonly
used method of organization of topics in a qualitative research study. Analyzing the data
with this methodology allows the researcher to generate a typology of labeled concepts
present in the data. These concepts, also called themes, are presented in the studys
findings in a descriptive manner using supportive evidence from the data (Gelsne, 2011,
p. 229).
Findings
Analysis of the data led to the creation of multiple codes (Table 1). From these
codes, six categories or themes developed (Table 2): (a) defining special learner, (b)
culture of acceptance, (c) intentional adaptations, (d) non-specified adaptations, (e)
participation in the team, and (f) deficits in training. The first and final theme forms a
foundation for understanding the remaining themes. These themes will be explained in
the narrative of Chapter Four.
25
Table 1. Codes Organized by Type

Codes by Type
Coding Methods
Value
Who is Learning
Different
In vivo
Good
Teaching
Descriptive
Ensemble
Education
Process
Interacting with
Special
Education Staff
Feelings about
Classification
School
Community
Differentiation
Determining
Student Needs
Peer Helper
Continuing
Education
ESP
Influencing
Student
Placement
Desired
Knowledge
Routine
IEP
Curriculum
Expectations
Table 2. Codes Organized by Theme

Codes by
Theme
Emergent Themes
Defining
Special
Learner
Who is
Learning
Different
Culture of
Acceptance
Intentional
Adaptations
Non-Specified
Adaptations
Ensemble
Education
Interacting with
Special
Education Staff
Routine
Feelings
about
Classificat
ion
School
Community
Good
Teaching
Expectations
Curriculum
Peer Helper
Differentiation
ESP
Participation
in the
Team
Influencing
Student
Placement
IEP
Determining
Student
Needs
Deficits in
Training
Continuing
Education
Desired
Knowledge
26
A persons beliefs on special learners and understanding of those students needs

directly influence and determine the ability to create inclusive environments. As a result,
preservice training and continued training becomes critical in the formation of an
inclusive environment. This training, or lack of training, can be seen in the selected
adaptations as well as in the level of inclusion versus integration of a learning different
student into the classroom.
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness is the processes or methods that a researcher uses to ensure the
validity or credibility of their study. In this study multiple techniques were used to ensure
trustworthiness. The first process was triangulation. Triangulation is defined by Glesne
(2011) as the use of multiple data-collection methods, multiple sources, multiple
investigators, and /or multiple theoretical perspectives (p. 49). I collected data through
multiple observations, a semi-structured interview of each participant, and through
document collection. The second process used was member checking, which Glesne
defines as the sharing of elements of either the gathered data (i.e. interview transcripts) or
drafts of the final report with study participants to ensure accurate representation of their
ideas (p. 49). Member checking was done by having participants receive and review a
transcript of their personal interview. The third method is rich, thick description which
is writing that allows the reader to enter the research context (Glesne, p. 49). In Chapter
Four of this document I have included a description of the participants choir, the
learning needs of the choir, and the participants educational background. The final
method is external audit. An external audit is the use of a person outside of the researcher
27
to review the research process, gathered data, and coding schemes (Glesne, p. 49). For
this study, the research process and the coding schemes were examined by my advising
professor, Dr. Donna Gallo.
Ethical Concerns
This study posed no ethical concerns. All names of participants and schools have
been given pseudonyms in this report. Additionally, the participating choral educator
signed an Informed Consent Form (Appendix C), approved by the Rider University
Institutional Review Board.
Timeline
Data collection for this study took place in February of 2016. Analysis of the
collected data and the completion of the final document occurred before the end of May
2016.
28
Chapter 4
Presentation and Analysis of the Data
The purpose of this qualitative case study was threefold: 1) to investigate the
inclusive practices of a secondary choral director; 2) to identify how his instructional
practices fosters inclusiveness for learning differences in the choral classroom; and 3) to
examine the extent to which various media such as college course information, books,
journals, videos, and the internet inform the directors inclusive practices, and how these
practices are mediated by their knowledge of learning different students needs.
Data were collected in the form of classroom observations and interviews.
Although it was anticipated that document collection would add to this data, the observed
choral director admitted that he did not write any such formal documents. The data were
then coded and organized into themes. There were six emergent themes for this data: (a)
defining special learner, (b) culture of acceptance, (c) intentional adaptations, (d) nonspecified adaptations, (e) participation in the team, and (f) deficits in training. These
themes are detailed in the following narrative. All names, including that of the school,
have been changed by the researcher to maintain anonymity. These pseudonyms remain
consistent throughout the entire document.
Linton High School
Linton High School is located in an affluent area of north western New Jersey. It
is a ninth through twelfth grade building serving approximately 1,000 students. The
building is two stories of sand colored brick. The main entrance opens to a wide open
space with places for students to sit and a bank of lockers. Immediately to the right of the
door two to three adults sit or stand around a security desk. To the left is a hallway that
29
leads straight to the choral classroom. The choral classroom is located in the interior of
the building and so has no windows to the outside. The classroom is large with a terraced
seating area with a row of black plastic chairs on each level. The front of the room has a
black grand piano in the center in front of a wall of white boards. The daily agenda is
written on the white board. To either side of the piano are two long tables where students
can put their bags when they arrive to class. The wall opposite the entrance has two
doors; one leading back into the building and another leading to the music office. The
wall shared with the music office boasts a set of shelves that hold choir folders. The
observed choir was the non-auditioned concert choir that consists of approximately 50
members from grades ten through twelve.
Mr. Vitali
Mr. Vitali is in his early thirties and holds a Bachelors in Music Education and a
Masters in Arts and Teaching. He has been teaching at Linton High School for the past
seven years and worked with the concert choir for that entire time. In addition, he has
taught one year of music at the middle school level. Along with the concert choir, he
works with the freshman choir, and two auditioned choirs.
Interview and Observation
The two observations and interview took place in the Linton High School choral
classroom. The interview with Mr. Vitali took place immediately following observation
one.
Defining Special Learner. Mr. Vitali defines a special learner as someone who
has a cognitive or developmental delay of some kind. While legally anyone who
possesses an IEP can be considered learning different, he believes that IEPs are over used
30
and are, at times, big labels used for students who do not understand how they learn
yet. To Mr. Vitali a legitimate learning needs student is someone who has something he
has to overcome, in order to do what other people need to do normally. To this extent,
the most extensive adaptations made in the choral class are for students that Linton High
School calls multiply disabled students.
In the concert choir there are three multiply disabled students. Student A has low
functioning Down syndrome. Student B has Tourette syndrome and an additional
disability which Mr. Vitali could not recall. Finally, Student C is severely multiply
disabled to the point that he is non-verbal. He is aware and understands when someone
speaks to him, but struggles to respond. Mr. Vitali did not discuss in depth the other, nonmultiply disabled students, unless I specifically asked about them in the interview. No
specific adaptations are made for these students outside of what he implements for all
students.
Culture of acceptance. As a school, Linton has several practices in place to make
multiply disabled and learning different students a cohesive element of the whole school,
and not a segregated entity. Mr. Vitali takes this a step farther in his choral classroom by
ensuring that he has educated the ensemble on the needs of the learning different students
in the class.
School practices. Linton High School includes learning different students into the
broader school community as frequently as possible. Conversely, the mainstream
community is welcome in the special education classroom. Mr. Vitali praised this
practice in our interview.
31
I think that is something our school does well actually, in that, our multiply
disabled students are out in the broader school community as much as is possible,
and the broader school community is as welcome down there. There is this big
exchange, every kid in the building knows how to interact with these students.
Thats not that way in every school, sadly. I think it is something we do really
well here.
The result of these practices is that every student in the school learns to work and interact
with learning different students. Linton High School also has a job coaching program
where mainstream students and learning different students are paired up to work together.
Multiply disabled students may also have various mainstream peer helpers that walk them
between classes.
Mr. Vitalis Practices. To successfully facilitate inclusion, particularly with
multiply disabled students, Mr. Vitali believes that mainstream students need to be
educated on how to interact with learning different populations. To ensure this, he has
special education teachers come and speak to his students, to prepare them for new
learning different students entering the class. In one instance, the choir spent an entire
period learning modified American Sign Language (ASL) in order to communicate with a
particular multiply disabled student. In addition, Mr. Vitali does some of the educating on
his own. For example, he will occasionally have to explain that while what a multiply
disabled students one-on-one aide is doing may seem mean, it is what that student needs
to self-correct. This combination of inclusive school environment and Mr. Vitalis
ensemble education sets the stage for successful inclusion.
32
Intentional adaptations. The most significant adaptations Mr. Vitali makes is

differentiated instruction, which he does for all students, not just the learning different
students. He considers differentiation part of good teaching. The two main adaptations
he identifies are curricular adaptations and peer helpers or one-on-one aides.
Good teaching. Differentiated instruction, according to Mr. Vitali, is:
what we do as music teacher naturally. I mean everything I just did in [that
rehearsal] was differentiated, right, so, differentiated instruction means that you
are coming at something nineteen different ways so you can make sure every
freaking kid gets it.
Because differentiation occurs, does not mean that every student will understand,
particularly when it comes to learning different students. If a learning different student is
having a challenging day, it does not matter how much differentiation occurs, the student
is not going to learn anything. During the rehearsal of Faures Requiem Mr. Vitali
differentiated vowel formation with the tenors, because they were having trouble singing
an open vowel. Mr. Vitalis first strategy was to model the proper vowel, and have the
tenors imitate. He then had them place two fingers on the outside of their cheek inbetween their upper and lower molars to make them physically feel the space the vowel
required. Finally, he used a touch of humor and told them to sing less like they were
vomiting on the note. His work with the tenors, and the variety of methods he used to
address the problem, is just one of the ways he differentiated during my observations.
Curricular adaptations. Each learning different student possesses their own IEP,
and that document states what adaptations the student is legally required in the classroom.
Primarily, Mr. Vitali puts these curricular changes into two categories: general
33
adaptations or ESP and peer helpers. During the interview we talked very little about the
general adaptations as Mr. Vitali regards them as generic, and not particularly helpful. He
finds general adaptations practices he would do for almost any student. Mr. Vitali
expressed that the most frequently used generic adaptation is extended testing time. I
dont care about the grade at the end of the test, just let the kid take the test, however long
they need. So I would do that with any kid, whether they are classified or not. Unlike the
rest of the learning different students in the classroom, the multiply disabled learning
different students tend to have IEP dictated curricular goals for choir. These goals are
very different from the curriculum Mr. Vitali creates and they have little to do with choir.
Student C has an IEP dictated curriculum, to sit and behave for the entire rehearsal
period. He also stands with the choir for one to two pieces during concerts.
Peer helpers and ESPs. All multiply disabled students in the concert choir have
either peer helpers or an Educational Support Person (ESP). ESPs or are adult Linton
High School employees that work one-on-one with Multiply Disabled learning different
students. Student B and Student C both have school assigned ESPs. Student A has two
assigned peer helpers. A student is assigned a peer helper or an ESP based on their IEP.
The ESP or peer helper facilitates the curricular changes that the IEP requires.
Educational Support Personnel. Pertaining to excellent ESPs, Mr. Vitali cited a
set of characteristics that make an ideal ESP for the choral classroom. Primarily, he looks
for an ESP who enjoy music and singing and are willing to participate in class. Through
their participation, ESPs are serving as models, not just for their one-on-one student, but
also the other students. ESPs also need to be strict; meaning that they will not tolerate
misbehavior from their student. They must understand what their students abilities are,
34
so they can facilitate as much participation in choral activities as possible. Not all ESPs
have these skills and when Mr. Vitali is faced with an ESP who does nothing, and does
not assist their student in participation in activities, there are two options. First Mr. Vitali
will ask for a different ESP for that student. When not possible, the second option is that
the student will need to be removed from the choral classroom.
When I observed I got to see Student B with two different ESPs. He had a longterm substitute ESP for my first observation. This ESP made sure the student was ready
to go when choir began, kept the student engaged in music (through pointing at music as
it went along), and kept his disturbances to a minimum. For the next observation his
original ESP had returned from leave. Throughout this rehearsal the ESP sat back and
relaxed, did not help him follow along in the music, and was slow in helping him get out
the proper music. When Mr. Vitali had the class label measure numbers in the piece, he
had to guide the ESP in getting Student B started labeling measure numbers. He
expressed frustration to me after class that she did not have the student complete the task
without prompting, since it is a task he is entirely capable of doing with some help.
Peer helper. Peer helpers are selected from the concert choir and paired with a
learning different student. Selection of peer helpers begins on a volunteer basis. From
those volunteers, Mr. Vitali speaks to the special education teachers to see which students
have been participating in job coaching. If any students over lap or are recommended by
the special education staff, those students get precedence in the selection process. In
some cases, there are multiple peer helpers assigned to a single learning different student,
as I observed with Student A, or peer groups with multiple learning different students and
multiple mainstream students.
35
Once the student or students are selected, Mr. Vitali tells them that there are
certain tasks they have to ensure are accomplished (i.e. the student having their choir
folder at the start of class). Predominantly, he allows the peer helper(s) to experiment and
discover the best method for themselves. Aside from the fact that peer helpers are
students, another aspect that sets them apart from ESPs is that their own personal work
comes first. So, instead of helping their learning disabled partner label music, they focus
on labeling their own. In my observation, this conflict of interest led to Student A
frequently not knowing where in the music they were and only singing occasionally (such
as the final note in phrases). As a result, she often looked bored or simply confused.
Student A had two different peer helpers, but neither monitored when they moved to new
sections of the music she was keeping up in the score. Of the two peer helpers, I only saw
one interact with her about choir related tasks. This peer helper assisted her in getting out
the correct octavo, encouraged her to stretch during warm-ups, and cheered her on the
few times I saw her sing in the rehearsal. The other peer helper held conversations with
Student A and another peer but did not help to facilitate her participation in the choral
rehearsal. Mr. Vitali does keep an eye on the peer helpers because he has had problems in
the past that caused additional issues for a multiply disabled student.
Non-specified adaptations. My observations and interview pointed to two more
covert adaptations; routine and modified expectations. They are adaptations Mr. Vitali
makes in his classroom, but does not label as such in our discussion.
Routine. Mr. Vitali has a routine set up for his whole choir. Students come in,
they set their bags down on the tables in the front of the room, get out their folders, and
sit down. This routine is slightly modified for two of the learning different students,
36
because they also grab stands to put their music folders on so they do not have to hold
their music. Student C does not grab a folder, instead his ESP has a folder that she sings
from for the rehearsal. The rehearsal started with Mr. Vitali doing a rhythmic pattern on
Ch, which the students echoed back. Announcements and reminders were then given,
and brief warm-ups began. Once the warm-ups were over the rehearsal moved straight
into working on individual pieces. This pattern was followed for both of my observations.
Modified Expectations. Behaviorally, Mr. Vitali sets a standard for the members
of his choir. This expectation is adapted for learning different students.
[I]f [Student C], for example, has a little bit of an outbreak in the class, am I going
to loose it on him, no. Now if the kid sitting next to him, who has absolutely
nothing wrong with him, starts doing that, I am going to throw him out.
While this was not spoken about within the scope of adaptations that Mr. Vitali makes, he
did feel it was necessary to mention before we concluded the interview. I speculate that
this may have been because often adaptations are seen as changes that teachers make to
lessons or curriculum and not how students are disciplined.
In his concert choir, Mr. Vitali makes a variety of adaptations. These adaptations
are not only curricular and pedagogical but also behavioral. Most are blanket adaptations
he applies to many students or to the entire choir.
Participation in the team. Every year Mr. Vitali reads the IEP for every
learning different student in his classroom, even those students that he has had in the past.
In general, he finds these documents to be useless. One reason for this belief is that they
are full of information that he was never taught to understand and that ultimately does not
relate to the music classroom. Further these documents rarely have any music specific
37
information from past music teachers. This is primarily due to the fact that until high
school, in this district, choir is an elective or a club which would not need to be included
in the document.
In high school, for the multiply disabled students, a general education teacher is
required to be part of their IEP team. For most students this is Mr. Vitali, because choir
counts as a general education course. This means that he sits in on the meetings where the
IEPs are created and then must sign off on the IEP. Mr. Vitali admits that in most
meetings he sits back and listens; but, he will chime in if he feels that there are services
or options that have been offered to students in the past that are not being offered to the
currently discussed student. However, the biggest influence Mr. Vitali feels he has on the
IEP is when he submits written feedback, consisting of a little statement, for each
learning different student.
In terms of placement, Mr. Vitali has little say over who is placed into his concert
choir but, multiply disabled students are not placed into the auditioned choirs. Other
learning different students can audition and be granted access into the additional choirs.
The decision to place a multiply disabled student into choir is based primarily on interest,
either parental or student. Most who are placed in choir will remain unless they express a
desire to try a different elective. Sometimes, the IEP team does not think to try placing
the student in music until their senior year. As mentioned previously, the only other
reason a multiply disabled student is removed from choir would be if their ESP was
deemed unacceptable by Mr. Vitali and he had to ask for the student and ESP to be
removed.
38
While Mr. Vitali participates in the IEP process for some of his multiply disabled
students, there are still large portions of the document he does not understand.
I find them to be worthless documents personally. There is just so much
information in there that I was not taught how to interpret. Like, I dont know
what half the testing is in there, and I dont have the time to look it up. So, I dont
know what most of those scores represent, I mean I could ask somebody, but
ultimately, it doesnt affect us.
Additionally, these documents lack information about previous music experiences and
adaptations. This means that Mr. Vitali must create all adaptations and modifications for
his learning different students without recommendations from previous music educators.
Deficits in training. In his collegiate education Mr. Vitali had a single class on
learning different students in the music classroom. He considers this class to have been
worthless and he laughingly stated that he, really learned nothing about special
education. Mr. Vitali combats this by reaching out to a friend from high school choir
that is getting a Ph.D. in special education. Her experience in choir and knowledge of the
various classifications is critical, as Mr. Vitali stated, it doesnt really help me to talk to
someone, at least Ive found, who doesnt understand how a music classroom is
structured. Were structured so differently than the rest of the building, just innately. Her
knowledge of special learners and understanding of choral practices allows her to explain
not only how a disability might manifest and what sort of adaptations he might be able to
use, but also how those adaptations would look in a choral classroom. He also seeks
advice from the special education teachers and the students ESP. They can give
suggestions based on how behaviors are dealt with in classes. Mr. Vitali does not consult
39
or use the aid of any other education source or media such as books, the internet, or other
music educators.
There are two main things that he wishes he had learned about in his pre-service
education. First, is the law regarding learning different students. There is a volume of
laws pertaining to this subject, but he cannot confidently say, even today, that he
understands even a fraction of these laws. Secondly, is how to look at an IEP, understand
its contents, and be able to extract the pertinent information from the lengthy document.
Results of the Study
This study set out to identify three aspects of inclusion: 1) the inclusive practices
used, 2) the influence of knowledge of learning different students needs and media such
as college courses, books, journals, and the internet on inclusive instructional practices,
and 3) how inclusive practices foster inclusiveness for learning different students in the
choral classroom. An explanation of these elements are detailed in the subsequent
sections.
Inclusive practices. Mr. Vitali uses several adaptations in his classroom:
differentiated instruction, curricular adaptations, use of peer helpers and ESPs, a
consistent routine, and modified expectations. Curricular adaptations and the use of a
peer helper or ESP is determined not by Mr. Vitali but by a students IEP. Many of these
align with the recommendation from the literature such as, use of a peer helper or ESP
(Hammel, 2002 & Darrow, 2003) and consistent routine (Debrot, 2004 & Rivera, 2015).
Because of the blanket nature of these adaptations, they work better for some students
than they do for others.
40
Influence of media and knowledge. When it comes to previous knowledge and

continued learning, Mr. Vitali does not possess much. His collegiate training was selfassessed as a useless course that did not prepare him for special learners in the classroom.
This is not completely surprising; while there was a developed framework of essential
teacher competencies to shape an undergraduate unit of study in special education
(Hammel 2001), of the small fraction of collegiate music education departments that
report a special education class under 30% require it to be taken (Salvador, 2001). Mr.
Vitali does attempt to combat this deficiency but only through one modality, consultation
of a non-music teacher specialist. While his consultants (his friend working towards a
PhD in special education and the special education staff of Linton High School) are likely
excellent resources, and in the case of the latter, recommended (McCord & Watts, 2006),
I postulate that an increase in continuing learning media would greatly influence the
number and value of the adaptations Mr. Vitali makes, especially for his multiply
disabled students.
Facilitation of inclusion in the classroom. Inclusion, as defined in Chapter One,
is when a learning different student is a full member of the classroom, regardless of their
abilities or disabilities (Pontiff, 2004, p.14). Taking this one step further, I would argue
that inclusion in a music classroom requires the student to participate, at some level, in
music making. To this end, the adaptations Mr. Vitali employs appear to include most
learning different students into the classroom in a seamless manner. To the extent that
they are not outwardly identifiable, and they do not appear to be struggling. Most
learning different students are able to function as full members of the choir and
participate fully in the rehearsing and singing done in rehearsals.
41
The exception to this is the multiply disabled students in Mr. Vitalis concert
choir. These students do little, if any, music making in the period. The only student I saw
physically interact musically during my two observations was Student A. Even then it
was infrequent, and most of the time she looked lost or bored. Students B & C made no
musical interactions, and appeared to be primarily there to listen and behave. While this
may be what is dictated in their IEP, and the expectation that is set by the special
education staff, these students may be seen as members of the choir, but they are not
examples of inclusion in the choir.
Conclusion
While Mr. Vitali feels that his pre-service training was insufficient to prepare him
for learning different students in the classroom, he has found a variety of people to assist
him in understanding and adapting for the various learning needs that occur in his choir.
In his classroom, he makes very few large scale adaptations and believes many of the
minor changes to be good teaching practices, not learning different specific
adaptations. Part of his success with inclusion of students is based on the school
community as a whole and also how he treats the students in his classroom. With the
exception of the slight modification in behavioral standard, Mr. Vitali treats every
member of the choir exactly the same regardless of their classification. This leads to a
seamless choral rehearsal where, with the exception of clear outward disabilities, all
students mainstream or learning different appear to be equal.
42
Chapter 5
Conclusions
This study explored three aspects of a secondary choral educators inclusive
practices: the enacted adaptations and modifications, how knowledge of students needs
and media informed these practices, and how these practices foster inclusiveness in the
classroom.
Answering the Research Questions
Enacted adaptations and modifications. In Chapter Four I detailed the observed
adaptations Mr. Vitali makes both consciously and unconsciously. Primarily, his
practices fell in line with what was recommended in the literature, as presented in
Chapter Two. Many of his large spectrum adaptations such as, consistent routine and
differentiated instruction are aspects that can be viewed as excellent pedagogical
practices. Salvador (2013) stated that adaptations are often excellent pedagogical
practices that can benefit learning different students and mainstreams students. The
adaptations Mr. Vitali employs for his multiply disabled learning different students also
aligned with the literature. In the concert choir he uses both ESPs, and Peer helpers.
These adaptations were discussed by Hammel (2002) and Darrow (2003) respectively.
Hammel and Mr. Vitali agree that a paraprofessional with musical knowledge is
preferable. The literature also discusses the impact of labeling students, finding that the
expectations for identified learning different students was different from what was
expected of their mainstream peers (Cassidy & Sims 1991). Mr. Vitali presents a similar
modification of expectation for his learning different students. The significant difference
between Mr. Vitalis adaptations and the recommendations from the literature, are his use
43
of blanket adaptations for all students. He does not tailor his adaptations to individual
students and their learning needs.
Influence of media and knowledge of student needs. There are two reasons I
speculate that Mr. Vitali does not make more student specific adaptations. First, is his
collegiate education. The single class he took on learning differences in the music
classroom was not particularly informative, and left him unprepared when he began
teaching. While he continues to educate himself about the learning different students, he
only does this through one method; direct conversation with experts on special education.
He does not seek further information from other music educators or any other form of
media. It is possible that a more rounded education would lead to more tailored inclusive
practices. Secondly, Mr. Vitalis beliefs on IEPs being over used, and his specific but
interpretative definition of who is a learning different student, may cause him to disregard
some students who would otherwise receive adaptations. Despite being a participant for
his multiply disabled students IEPs, as the literature (McCord & Watts 2006; Hammel &
Hourigan, 2011; and Salvador, 2013) recommends, he openly admits that he is not an
active participant unless he has specific concerns about services not being offered to a
student. He reads all IEPs but, they never contain previously used adaptations from
former music teachers, so he must design adaptations for each student.
Facilitation of inclusion. From my observation, with the exception of the
students who had multiple disabilities, learning different students were seamlessly
included into the choir. This successful inclusion is due not just to Mr. Vitalis
pedagogical practices, but also his treatment of these students as full members of the
choir. Because he works hard to reach all types of learners, classified and non-classified,
44
he meets the learning needs of students. Mr. Vitali does not separate or segregate (nonmultiply disabled) learning different students in any way in his classroom; they all
function as full members of the choir from rehearsal to performance. As it pertains to
multiply disabled students in the choir, they are more experiential members, and less
functioning members. I observed very little, if any, music making from these students,
and Mr. Vitali does not find any ways to allow these students to become musically active.
Perhaps this is due to the nature of their individual disabilities, but it may also be an area
for improvement Mr. Vitalis system. In the case of Student A, this may be as simple as
replacing the peer helpers, whose focus on their own work appeared to hinder their ability
to successfully assist another student. The effectiveness of peer tutors is an area that I
believe could benefit from greater study, particularly in relation to the level of
functioning of their learning different peer.
Recommendations for Further Study
This study generated several other questions for further research as well as
considerations for additional case studies. For instance, is one type of information source
sufficient to understand and adapt for various learning different students in the classroom
and how do most educators come to and develop their modified practices? What are the
best methods to teach or learn to understand student IEPs? What methods can non-verbal
students use to be active members of a choral ensemble? How effective are peer tutors in
relation to a learning different students level of functioning? Finally, more case studies
like this could be done, comparing both similar levels and cross level educators with
learning different students in the classroom.
45
Conclusion
Mr. Vitali was recommended and selected for this study based upon his perceived
excellence in inclusive practices for learning different students in his choir. From my
observations, I found that while he does not utilize media or information gained from
college courses to inform his practices, his communication with special education staff
and a friend who specializes in special education allows him to meet the needs of almost
all students in his classroom through practical and quality pedagogical practices. For his
multiply disabled students, they may not be examples of inclusion but, he does ensure
that their IEP requirements are met, mostly through the use of adults and peers, not an
adjustment of his own practices.
This study leads me to two recommendations for better facilitation of learning
different students, particularly those classified as multiply disabled. My first suggestion is
better pre-service preparation for music teachers. The lack of courses required, or even
offered, leaves little wonder that music teachers start their careers underprepared. Going
in underprepared and unable to decipher legally binding documents does not set teachers
up for success and by extension their students. The second proposal is that teachers
should not simply learn from one medium. Discussion with non-musically trained peers
may be helpful, but should be done in conjunction with those who are specialists, such as
music therapists. Music teacher should also communicate with each other, suggesting not
only adaptations they have used in the past but websites, articles, books, journals, and
other sources that they have found helpful in teaching students with learning differences.
Schools can also dedicate professional development days to continued learning about
inclusion of various learning needs into the classroom. Just as educators cannot expect
students to perform perfectly something they have never been taught, neither can we
expect educators to facilitate learning for students they do not understand.
46
47
References
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328 (1990).
Bresler, L., & Stake, R. (2006). Qualitative research methodology in music education. In
r. Colwell (Ed.), MENC handbook of research methodologies (pp. 270 -311). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cassidy J. W., & Sims, W. L. (1991). Effects of special education labels on peers and
adults evaluations of a handicapped youth choir. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 39(1), 23-34.
Cooper, N. A. (1999). A survey of current music inclusion practices and issues in New
Jersey. Contributions to Music Education, 26(2), 9-37.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Darrow, A. (2003). Dealing with diversity: The inclusion of students with special needs
in music. Research Studies in Education, 20(1), 45-57.
Debrot, R. A. (2004). Differentiating instruction in the music classroom. In E. Pontiff
(Ed.), Spotlight on making music with special learners: Selected articles from
state MEA journals (pp. 14-16). Reston, VA: MENC: The National Association
for Music Education.
Dixon, S. (2005). Inclusion Not segregation or integration is where a student with
special needs belongs. Journal of Educational Thought: 39(1), 33-53.
Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D.K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system
for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367-395.
Glasser, B. (1965). The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis. Social
Problems, 12(4), 436-445.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 20. Pub. L. 94-142. (1965).
Hammel, A. (2001). Special learners in elementary music classrooms: A study of
essential teacher competencies. Update: Applications of Research in Music
Education, 20 (1), 9-13.
48
Hammel, A.M. (2002). Special learners in elementary music classrooms: A study of

essential teacher competencies. Update Applications of Research in Music
Education, 20(1), 9-13.
Hammel, A. M. (2004). Inclusion strategies that work. In E. Pontiff (Ed.), Spotlight on
making music with special learners: Selected articles from state MEA journals
(pp. 27-30). Reston, VA: MENC: The National Association for Music Education.
Hammel, A. M., & Hourigan, R. M. (2011). Teaching music to student with special
needs: A label free approach. New York, NY: Oxford University press.
Haywood, J. (2006). You cant be in my choir if you cant stand up: one journey toward
inclusion. Music Education Research, 8(3), 407-416.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400 (2004).
Jellison, J. A., & Duke, R. (1994). The mental retardation label: Music teachers and
prospective teachers: Expectations for childrens social and music behaviors.
Journal of Music Therapy, 31, 166- 185.
Krebs, B. Inclusion, not intrusion. In E. Pontiff (Ed.), Spotlight on making music with
special learners: Selected articles from state MEA journals (pp. 33-34). Reston,
VA: MENC: The National Association for Music Education.
Lind, V. (2001). Adapting choral rehearsals for students with learning disabilities. Choral
Journal, 41(7), 27-30.
Linsenmeier, C. V. (2001). Adapting choral rehearsals for student with learning
disabilities. Choral Journal, 41(7), 27-30.
McCord, K. (2004a). Advocating for assistive technology for students with disabilities in
your school. In E. Pontiff (Ed.), Spotlight on making music with special learners:
Selected articles from state MEA journals (pp. 38-41). Reston, VA: Music
Educators National Conference.
McCord, K. (2004b). Moving beyond thats all I can do: Encouraging musical
creativity in children with learning disabilities. Bulletin of the Council for
Research in Music Edcucation,159, 23-32
McCord, K., & Watts, E. H. (2006). Collaboration and access for our children: Music
educators and special educators together. Music Educators Journal, 92(4), 26-33.
Music Educators National Conference. Opportunity-to-learn standards for music
instruction: Grades PreK-12. Reston, A: Music Educators National Conference.
49
National Association of Schools of Music. 2003. National Association of Schools of

Music, 2003-2004 handbook. Reston, VA: NASM, (2003), 94-98.
NICHCY. (2012). Categories of disability under IDEA. Retrieved from
parentcenterhub.org/wp-content/uploads/repo_items/gr3.pdf
Pivik, J., McComas, J., LaFlamme, M. (2002). Barriers and Facilitators to Inclusive
Education. Council for Exceptional Children, 69(1), 97-107.
Pontiff, E. (2004). Teaching special learners: Ideas from veteran teachers in the music
classroom. Teaching Music, 12(3), 52-56.
Rivera, E. (2015). A place in the choir: Inclusive practices in choral music education.
(Undergraduate thesis). Retrieved from http://udspace.udel.edu/
handle/19716/17130
Salvador, K. (2013). Inclusion of People with Special Needs in Choral Settings: A
Review of Applicable Research and Professional Literature. Update: Application
of Research in Music Education, 31(2), 37-44.
Sharrock, B. R. (2007). A comparison of the attitudes of South Carolina special
education and chorus teachers toward mainstreaming students with mild and
moderate mental disabilities. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South
Carolina). Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0549420320
Sideridis G. D., & Chandler, J. P. (1995). Attitudes and characteristics of general music
teachers towards integrating children with developmental disabilities. Update:
Applications of research in Music Education, 14, 11-15.
Turnbull, A.P., & Turnbull, H.R. (2001). Families, professional, and exceptionality:
Collaborating for empowerment (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ;
Merril/Prentice Hall.
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). 36th Annual Report to Congress on the
Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2014.
VanWeelden, K. (2001). Choral mainstreaming: Tips for success. Music Educators
Journal, 88(3), 55-60.
Van Weelden, K & Whipple J. (2007). Preservice music teachers predictions,
perceptions, and assessment of students with special needs: The need for training
in student assessment. Journal of Music Therapy, 44(1), 74-84.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Inc.
50
Appendix A
Semi-structured Interview Protocols
Time of interview:
Date:
Place:
Interviewer:
Interviewee/Participant:
[Turn on the audio recorder]
Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed for this project. I want to ask you questions
about the lessons I observed, your teaching practices and beliefs, and the implementation
of your singing and sight-singing curriculum and assessments. Remember that you can
stop the interview at any time if you feel uncomfortable for any reason. Is it OK with you
if I audio record your interview? Are you ready? I am now going to turn on the audio
recorder.
(Interviewer may ask more specific questions depending on participants responses
and the content of the observed lesson)
I. Questions about teacher beliefs on differentiation and classification
1. How would you describe differentiated instruction?
2. Do you consider differentiated instruction different than modified or adapted
instruction?
3. Who do you consider special learners?
II. Questions about specific needs and adaptations of the choir
1. Can you tell me about the needs of the special education students in your classroom?
2. Explain to me some of the general adaptations you use for all special education
students?
3. Do you make specific adaptations or modifications for individual students?
a. If so, how did you come to make those specific modifications?
4. Are there any new modifications or adaptations for your special education students
that you are currently experimenting with?
III. Questions on past and on-going learning
51
1. What if any resources do you use to help you with differentiating instruction?
2. What is your educational background for special education and inclusion?
3. Does your school have any requirements about modifications for which you are held
accountable?
IV. Relationship and help from Special Education Staff

1. How would you describe your relationship with the special education teachers and
support faculty(staff)?
2. Explain to me how you interact with student IEPs.
3. What information on an IEP do you find most valuable?
V. Questions about Choral Rehearsal/Lesson
1. Can you tell me about the rehearsal I will be observing today?
2. What overt learning differences will I see today? Are there students I will see today
who I will know right away who have special needs?
4. Have you planned on instruction to differentiate for those students? If so how?
4. Are there other students who do not have IEPs or non-visual disabilities that you have
to differentiate for?
52
Appendix B

Pre-Interview Survey
Teacher Background Information
Please complete these questions prior to the initial interview.
1. How many years have you been teaching music?
2. How many years have you been teaching these current grade-levels?
3. What other levels have you taught?
4. How many years have you been teaching the observed choir?
5. Did you have any courses on special education in your undergraduate or graduate
degrees?
6. Are you involved in development of any students IEP?
7. Do you discuss strategies or receive help from your schools special education staff?
8. Describe any inclusive strategies that you use in every rehearsal.
53
Appendix C
CONSENT FORM
AN EXAMINATION OF INCLUSIVE PRACTICES
OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR
Dear ________________:
I am a graduate student under the direction of Dr. Donna Gallo in the Department of
Music Education at Rider University. This form has important information about the
purpose of this study, what you will do, and the way I plan to use the information
collected about you if you agree to participate in this study.
The purpose of this study is to identify inclusive practices of choral educators at the
elementary and secondary level and how these practices foster inclusiveness for learning
different students in the choral classroom. Further, I will examine the extent to which
various media informs the educators inclusive practices, and how these practices are
mediated by their knowledge of their learning different students needs.
Your participation in this study will entail two observations of your choral rehearsal and
one audio recorded semi-structured interviews, and one pre-interview written survey. I
will also collect and analyze your choral curriculum and adapted lesson plans. During
these observations I will take detailed field notes of your inclusive practices. You may
ask the researcher to leave the room during an observation if there is something that you
do not want the researcher to see or hear. These classes will be chosen by you and the
researcher.
The interview will last 60-90 minutes. The interviews will be on your inclusive practices
and on the ways your education and other forms of media have influenced your
educational practices. The audio recorded interview will take place at your school, and
will be set up based on a time that works best for you. The audio recording from your
interview will not be played for any audience other than the researcher. A written
transcript of the interview will be made available to you for your review.
During the interviews, you have the right not not answer any particular questions. You
may ask the audio recorder to be turned off at any point during the interview if there is
something that you do not want to have recorded.
At any time in the study, you may remove yourself from the study. If you withdraw no
more information will be collected from you.
Your participation in this study does not involve any physical or emotional risk, and you
may withdraw at any time. There are no likely direct benefits to you from having
participated in this research study, however, other educators may benefit from reading
about your practices and the media you use to inform your practices.
54
Any names used in the written research report will be changed to protect your identity
and maintain confidentiality.
Participation in this study will involve no cost to you, and you will not be paid for
participation in this study.
As a research participant you have the right to be treated with respect, including respect
for your decision whether or not you wish to continue or stop being in the study. You are
free to stop being in the study at any time. Choosing not to be in this study, or to stop
being in this study will not result in any penalty to your or loss of benefits to which you
are otherwise entitled.
The recording of this interview will only be kept on the recording device and the primary
investigators personal computer. Recordings will be kept through June 2016, and after
that be removed from both the computer and the recording device and destroyed.
If you have any questions concerning the research study, please contact the researcher at:
610-316-4492 or BassettL@Rider.edu. If you have any questions about your rights as a
participant in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact a
representative of the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board at (609) 921- 7100
x8240.
This form explains the nature, demands, benefits and any risk of the project. By signing
this form, you agree knowingly to assume any risks involved. Remember, your
participation is voluntary. You may choose not to participate or to withdraw your
consent and discontinue participation at any. A copy of this consent form will be given
(offered) to you.
Your signature below indicates that you consent to participate in the above study.
_________________________
Participants Signature
___________________
Printed Name
____________
Date
INVESTIGATORS STATEMENT
"I certify that I have explained to the above individual the nature and purpose, the
potential benefits and possible risks associated with participation in this research study,
have answered any questions that have been raised, and have witnessed the above
signature. These elements of Informed Consent conform to the Assurance given by Rider
University to the Office for Human Research Protections to protect the rights of human
subjects. I have provided (offered) the subject/participant a copy of this signed consent
document."
Signature of Investigator_______________________________
Date_____________

Bassett Capstone Final

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bassett Capstone Final

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

AN EXAMINATION OF INCLUSIVE PRACTICES

OF A SECONDARY CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

Chapter 4 - Presentation and Analysis of the Data ........................................................... 28

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

Intellectual disability (IQ below 70)

Other health impairments

Specific learning disabilities

Speech or language impairment

Traumatic brain injury

Hearing impairment (NICHCY, 2012).

To receive an IEP a students physical, psychological, or mental impairments must affect

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

Coopers (1999) study on the mainstreaming practices and opinions on placement

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

Hammel (2004), in an article on inclusive strategies, stated that music educators

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

VanWeeldens (2001) article on tips for success in choral mainstreaming,

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

Each school should have an entry-level ensemble that welcomes students

The choral director must be supported by the school administration and

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

Table 1. Codes Organized by Type

Table 2. Codes Organized by Theme

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

A persons beliefs on special learners and understanding of those students needs

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

Intentional adaptations. The most significant adaptations Mr. Vitali makes is

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR

INCLUSIVE PRACTIES OF A CHORAL EDUCATOR