Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
by
Karen E. Bahn
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
July 2009
UMI Number: 3368746
Copyright 2009 by
Bahn, Karen E.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
______________________________________________________________
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to study teacher attitudes toward inclusion. Five
elementary schools serving grades K-6 were surveyed in a single public school district in
(ORI) by Antonak and Larrivee (1995) was used to survey the regular classroom
teachers. Of the 82 surveys distributed, 41 were returned and scored to show a slightly
positive attitude in teacher attitudes toward inclusion with a mean score of 80.2 with a
There are many people who helped make the completion of this dissertation
possible for me. I am thankful to my children, Clarissa, Andrew, and Joel, for their
support and patience throughout this endeavor. I'm also thankful to my husband, Daryn,
for all his help with the computer and his support. A lot of time and effort was spent on
this project. I am thankful for their understanding and consideration during this entire
process.
I am also thankful to the faculty and staff of Capella University for helping me to
achieve my goal of receiving the doctoral degree. Their help and guidance was of great
importance to me, and I am grateful for their willingness to work with me when
I am also grateful to the staff and faculty of Immanuel Lutheran School for their
support and patience when I had to be absent from my principal's duties at the school to
work on residencies and papers. The parents and students of the school also showed great
Most of all, I give all thanks to God for giving me the strength and courage to see
ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ii
List of Tables vi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Research Questions 4
Definition of Terms 4
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework 7
Inclusion in Education 12
Summary of chapter 2 17
iii
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 18
Sample 18
Research Instrument 18
Data Collection 19
Data Analysis 19
Ethical Considerations 20
Summary of chapter 3 20
Collection of Data 21
Item Analysis 21
Research Questions 25
Summary of chapter 4 33
Summary 35
Conclusions 38
Recommendations 45
REFERENCES 47
iv
APPENDIX E. ORI SURVEY INSTRUMENT 54
v
List of Tables
vi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Throughout the history of special education in the United States, the movement
towards teaching special needs students in the least restrictive environment (LRE) has led
educational trends toward fully including special needs students in the regular classroom
has been defined as a set of practices and beliefs that all children should be educated,
regardless of disability and in age appropriate general education settings with appropriate
supports and services (Newman College, 2004, 1). On this basis, many special needs
students who have been deemed able to function in a regular classroom have been
The regular education classroom teachers have been placed into positions of
needing to be more flexible and adaptable in meeting the learning needs of included
students. The teacher also must be able to help the regular education students understand
and be accepting of their new classroom peers. The belief systems the classroom
teachers hold and their willingness to work with special needs learners can greatly impact
the educational outcomes of special needs students (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2001).
understand the practices and premises behind inclusive education. Their efforts will also
1
need to be supported by school administration, special education personnel, and parents
It is not known how and to what extent teacher attitudes about the inclusion of
special needs students affect their view of the classroom process. P.L. 94-142, the
education. This law also introduced what is known as the Least Restrictive Environment.
The premise behind the least restrictive environment was for a special needs learner to be
able to access the regular classroom as much as possible in a school day. Inclusion might
be for the whole day for those students who are able to learn fully integrated in the
classroom. For others, it might mean being in the classroom for certain subjects and at
certain times only. The law mandated, however, that the student be in the regular
classroom as much as his or her disability allowed (Anderson, Chitwood, & Hayden,
1982).
The classroom teacher’s abilities and willingness to work with special needs
learners may have an effect on the success of inclusive education in the regular education
classroom. Avramidis, Bayliss, and Burden (2000) found that teachers felt more stressed
about students with disabilities being in the classroom than regular education students.
They also found that teachers who had coursework in inclusive education tended to be
Of the 1,932 elementary students in the school district being sampled, 15.1% or
2
Instruction, 2006). Students in the elementary grades K-5 are included in the regular
Education legislation. Since the inception of public education in the United States,
special education slowly evolved over decades. Compulsory education laws originally
did not include special needs learners. After much parent and educator advocating for
special education, schools started developing programs that allowed for special needs
learners in the 1960s and 1970s. With the inception of P.L. 94-142 in the early 1980s,
the least restrictive environment was instituted for placement of special needs learners.
Classroom teachers were now required to teach special needs learners in their
classrooms. The attitudes these teachers had towards these special needs learners could
have impacted the services they received (Parents United Together, 2002).
inclusion of special needs learners. Teachers will be surveyed for their attitudes about
3
to teach special needs students, and attitudes toward separate special education versus
inclusive education.
Research Questions
3. What are teachers’ attitudes toward their perceptions of their ability to teach
4. What are teachers’ attitudes toward separate special education versus inclusive
education?
This study will add to the general body of knowledge in the area of classroom
teacher attitudes and inclusive education. Results from this study may allow classroom
teachers, special education teachers, parents, and school administrators to gain helpful
information from this research for use in educational planning, parenting programs, and
Definition of Terms
working with anger, projection, and depression; students as responsible citizens; the
4
teacher as a self-knowing model; classroom management skills; working with resistance,
Inclusion is the practice of educating all or most children in the same classroom,
including children with physical, mental, and developmental disabilities (McBrien &
Brandt, 1997).
with disabilities can receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) designed to meet
his or her education needs while being educated with peers without disabilities in the
learning for disabled or non-disabled students takes place (Duvanis & Husley, 2002).
Special needs have been defined as of or relating to people who have specific
Assumptions
1. It was assumed that the instrument was valid and reliable. The ORI was tested
for validity and reliability by its authors, Dr. Antonak and Dr. Laravee. The ORI
was put through the appropriate pilot studies and tests in order to deem it valid
and reliable (Antonak & Larrivee, 1995). The importance of this is that a test
lacking reliability and validity causes test scores to be ambiguous and hard to
5
determine. A test that is not reliable is not valid (U.W. Oshkosh Testing Services,
2005).
2. It was assumed that the teachers surveyed have knowledge of inclusion. State
or inclusive education. The classroom teachers would have had to have taken one
3. It was assumed that education is valued by the teachers. Teachers who have
dedicated themselves to the field of education embrace the profession and its
responsibilities. They value respect, learning, parents, and students in the school
4. It was assumed that a person’s attitudes remain fairly constant. Russ Fazio and
Mark Snyder made a case for attitude consistency based on their findings in their
study of attitudes and behaviors. They found that attitudes are based on
knowledge and relevancy to a topic. These attitudes remain fairly consistent and
5. It was assumed that the survey was completed in an ethical and honest manner.
Immanuel Kant described the human condition which causes us to act morally and
just even though it is not what the individual wants to do as the categorical
and what factors affect it. For this study, the importance of honesty and ethical
6
Limitations
The results of this study might have been affected by three factors.
1. The study was limited to four elementary schools. A greater number of schools
2. Self-reported data might be biased. Those filling out the survey may interpret
apply to inclusion.
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
documented by various researchers. Studies have shown that the ability of the classroom
teacher to adapt and accept the special needs students he or she works with has an impact
able to collaborate with his or her colleagues and with special education personnel about
the best way to meet the needs of the special needs students in the classroom. The
teacher also needs to be able to take into account the needs of the regular education
inclusive classroom. A teacher that is well-trained and well-equipped will know more
about the special needs learners and will respond to having these students in class as a
7
professionally stimulating challenge. If the regular classroom teacher works
collaboratively with the special educators, the students have a greater academic
The attitudes of teachers may determine the efficacy of inclusion. Teachers must
believe in and understand the practices of inclusion. They also need to be supported by
colleagues, administrators, and parents to meet the special needs students’ educational
Literature Review section which covers the history of inclusion, teacher attitudes towards
of the methodology and design being used for data collection, sample information, the
instrument being used, data collection procedures, and data analysis; chapter 4 gives
information on the data collection procedures, analysis, and final results; and chapter 5
finalizes the study with a summary, conclusion section, and recommendations for further
study.
8
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
By 1918, all states had some type of compulsory education laws in place. In the
past, families had the right to determine when and how long a child would attend school.
school, poor children would receive the benefits of an education that normally would
Even with the inception of these compulsory education laws, students with
disabilities and handicaps were often not included. Many children with disabilities were
excluded from public schools. The options their parents had were to keep their disabled
children at home or place them in institutions. Even those disabled students who did
enroll were more likely to drop out well before graduating from high school (Pardini,
2002).
This was very much the norm for the next several decades until the Civil Rights
Movement of the 1960s. This movement was aimed at ending discrimination to all
challenge the government to create legislation which would insure the education of their
children. This drive to get this type of education began in the late 1950s into the 1960s
During the 1960s, people advocating for disabled children petitioned the federal
9
children with disabilities. In response to this issue, Congress established legislation to
insure that students had this free education available to them (U.S. Dept. of Education,
2001).
being created that specifically targeted special needs students. In the early to mid 1960s,
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and its amendments provided the first
legislation to grant federal funding for special education programs. At this time, these
programs kept special education students segregated from the regular education students
In the 1970s, it became evident that special education was in a poor state.
Because of this, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in
1975. As parents and advocates for disabled children put pressure on both federal and
state governments, the need for change was apparent to insure that disabled students were
Public Law 94-142 (1975) introduced mainstreaming and the idea of inclusion to
the educational field. This law also introduced the term of least restrictive environment.
At this time, this meant that a student with disabilities would utilize some type of
resource room and would remain the primary responsibility of special education teachers.
However, the students would attend general education classes when it was appropriate for
part of the day (Sevier County Board of Education, 2001). Students who had disabilities
were part of the school system, but not necessarily in the general classrooms. Much of
this depended on the severity of the disability and the teacher’s ability or willingness to
have a disabled student in the classroom. At the time, mainstreaming seemed the best
10
way to serve disabled students without having them be a regular part of the general public
school system.
As time progressed, the need to review P.L. 94-142 became apparent. The least
Schools began to do this by using classroom aides to allow special needs students the
opportunity to attend the regular education classroom. The resource room was still
available for those in need of it, but it was not the center of the educational environment.
The regular classroom became the focal point (Anderson et al., 1982).
The new legislation also showed a need for parent education. Parents needed the
opportunity to be involved more fully and be made more aware of how their child was
being educated and why the methods used were being employed. The Individualized
Education Plan (IEP) became the center of the disabled student’s curriculum. The IEP
was legally binding and this new law informed parents of their rights concerning making
sure the IEP was being met for their child (Anderson et al., 1982).
The early 1990s saw a resurgence of activism in continuing the least restrictive
environment clause existing in P.L. 94-142. The new law renamed P.L. 94-142 as the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The purpose of the IDEA law was
transition services, (c) definitions of assistive technology devices and services, and (d)
the addition of autism and traumatic brain injury to the list of eligible disabilities. The
IDEA law has made educational programs available for many disabled students that
otherwise would be mislabeled or would not receive the proper educational methods they
11
might need, including inclusion into the regular classroom. The IDEA law has been
amended over the past ten years (Parents United Together, 2002).
Inclusion in Education
variety of assessments are needed to be made in order to determine what needs the
student has and if these needs can be met without removing the child from the classroom.
These assessments involve the student, his or her environment, the tools that are available
in the classroom, and the tasks that are expected of each student in the classroom (Zabala,
1998).
teacher to adapt and accept the disabled student. If the student is working with a
classroom teacher who is more skilled and flexible, the teacher will help all the students
in the room understand and accept disabilities as part of the normal range of human
abilities. A skilled teacher also gives the student many opportunities to show his or her
strengths in classroom activities. Because of this, the student will have a better chance of
being socially competent and socially accepted by his or her peers (Schultz, 1998).
for the student to build social relationships with his or her non-disabled peers. It also
allows non-disabled students to learn acceptance for those who have special needs (Pavri
collaborate with his or her colleagues about the best environment that meets the needs of
12
the special learners. The teacher also needs to take into account the needs of the regular
learners in the classroom (Hammeken, 1997). It is important that all teachers work as a
One of the greatest concerns in full inclusion is that the classroom teacher is not
adequately trained to work with disabled students. Another is that the classroom itself
does not have the materials or staff necessary to allow the student to meet the objectives
specified in his or her IEP. Without proper training or materials, the student could be
placed in a classroom that is not an appropriate placement for him or her to reach their
The training and attitudes of teachers may determine the efficacy of inclusion.
Teachers must be well-trained in the different types of disabilities. They must believe in
and understand the concept and practices of inclusion. Teachers’ efforts need to be
sufficiently recognized and reinforced. If these conditions exist within the regular
Teachers who have been assigned special needs students in their classrooms need
to have plans on how to make the classroom work for both the special needs students and
the regular education students within it. Classroom teachers can utilize a number of ways
One management technique that some teachers use is peer mentoring or the buddy
system. This is where regular education students and special needs students are paired up
and hold each other responsible for their work and their behavior. A rewards system is
13
then in place for each pair of “buddies” as they meet their goals (National Education
Teachers also make use of their colleagues or specialists to make the classroom
more successful. Teacher aides are able to work one-on-one with special learners while
the regular classroom teacher is then able to teach the rest of the class. Specialists are
able to teach the regular education students how to better communicate with and accept
their disabled peers. Collaboration between regular education teachers and special
education teachers enables the development of innovative programs that are specifically
designed for the particular classroom group being taught. It also allows for regular
education teachers to receive some training in working with special needs learners (NEA,
2006).
how their child learns and how his or her disability manifests itself in behavior and in
learning. Teachers are able to use the support and information given by parents to better
teach the students that have been assigned to their classrooms (NEA, 2006).
Seminars, books, and research can provide a wealth of knowledge for teachers. Teachers
classroom. Teachers will need to self-evaluate their perceptions of special needs learners,
14
their own educational background concerning special education, and their willingness to
implement new teaching strategies. The Council for Exceptional Children has developed
1. Classroom teachers must realize that the education of every child in the class is
their responsibility. Teachers need to find out themselves how to work with each
child rather than assuming and waiting for someone else to tell them what to do.
2. Teachers need to have a variety of instructional strategies and know how to use
them effectively. This includes the ability to adapt materials and rewrite
3. Teachers need to work as a team with parents and special education teachers to
learn what skills a child needs and to provide the best teaching approach.
better teacher rather than a problem to be coped with or have someone else fix.
2006).
Teachers whom feel they possess these competencies or are able to develop them
P.L. 94-142 states that students should be taught in the least restrictive
environment possible. The ultimate goal of this law is to make the regular education
15
environment for some students may be in a self-contained special education classroom.
Teacher attitudes about these two types of learning environments can have a great impact
important component of the success of inclusion in his or her classroom. The more
positive and flexible the teacher acts toward the special needs students in the classroom,
the more adaptable and accepting the rest of the students in the room will be. The teacher
models appropriate behavior and responses for the regular education students (Schultz,
1998).
If classroom teachers believe that special needs students should only be served in
separate classrooms, inclusion for these particular teachers would be very difficult or
highly unsuccessful. While it is true that some students cannot reach their potential in the
regular education classroom, others may thrive and reach greater milestones than if they
chosen for inclusive education be those that have the competencies to be effective,
point Likert scale and contained 30 questions. The purpose of the scale was to measure
teacher attitudes toward the government mandated law of mainstreaming special needs
16
learners into the regular classroom. This scale was first used to study teachers in the New
In 1995, Antonak and Larrivee revised the ORM to make it more contemporary
and easier to use. The responses were reformatted to insure validity. The scale was
revised to a 6-point Likert scale and was renamed the Opinions Relevant to the
In 1996, the ORI was used nationally to study teacher attitudes toward inclusive
education. One hundred and eighty-two surveys of the five hundred originally sent to
classroom public school teachers were returned. The findings in this study were that
teacher attitudes were neutral in regards to inclusive education (Jobe, Rust, & Brissie,
The replicative study will show if the previous findings as scored by the ORI still
hold true for classroom teachers today. The findings of this study will be helpful to new
Summary of chapter 2
was instrumental in the movement towards inclusive education. The least restrictive
Inclusive education and how it impacts the attitudes of classroom teachers was
explored. Attitudes about teacher ability, resources, and belief systems associated with
17
inclusion were discussed which led to the usage of the ORI instrument. The use of this
18
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
inclusion of special needs learners. Teachers will be surveyed for their attitudes about
to teach special needs students, and attitudes toward separate special education versus
inclusive education.
Sample
Participants in the study will be K-5 classroom teachers from four elementary
voluntary basis.
Research Instrument
Students with Disabilities (ORI). The ORI was created by Antonak and Larrivee in 1994.
The ORI is a 6-point Likert scale containing 25 questions. The possible responses
vary from disagree very much, disagree pretty much, disagree a little, to agree a little,
agree pretty much, and agree very much. Teachers are to select which response best
19
This instrument answers four key research questions.
2. What are teacher perceptions about their ability to teach special needs
learners?
Data Collection
instrument will be sent to the K-5 classroom teachers in a public school district in central
Wisconsin. These teachers will be identified by both the superintendent’s office and the
school district’s website. The instrument will be mailed to the teachers with a self-
Data Analysis
After the completed instruments are returned to the researcher, the instruments
will be scored using the scoring key provided with the ORI. The scores will be
transferred to a computer and will be tabulated and analyzed. Tables of the findings will
20
Ethical Considerations
The researcher filled out and returned the IRB form to the IRB board for
consideration. A letter of waiver of informed consent (Appendix G) was sent along with
all the surveys to the random participants of this study. Since it is an optional survey, no
respondents were at risk of any physical or emotional harm by participating in the survey.
No names were written on the surveys, so all participants remained anonymous. The
Summary of chapter 3
Chapter 3 introduced the methodology and design that will be used for data
collection and analysis. The chapter discussed the population to be sampled. It also
described the research instrument that will be used, the Opinions Relevant to Integration
of Students with Disabilities (ORI). The chapter concluded with how the data will be
21
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
toward inclusion of special needs learners. Teachers were surveyed for their attitudes
ability to teach special needs students, and attitudes toward separate special education
versus inclusive education. The researcher used the Opinions Relative to Integration of
Collection of Data
The superintendent of the surveyed school district was called by the researcher in
the summer of 2007. The researcher requested a letter from the superintendent giving her
permission to survey the K-6 classroom teachers in the school district (see Appendix 1).
The teachers were given a copy of the ORI, a cover letter, and a self-addressed
stamped envelope. The school secretaries placed these in the mailboxes of the classroom
teachers. Teachers could participate in the survey if they chose to do so. Eighty-two
surveys were given out. Of the 84, 44 were returned. Of the 44 returned, 42 were
complete as defined by Antonak and Larrivee (1995), authors of the ORI. The authors
stated on the scoring sheet that surveys that had more than five questions unanswered
should be removed. This left 42 surveys used for data analysis resulting in a 50% return.
22
Item Analysis
The instrument that was used was the Opinions Relevant to Integration of
Students with Disabilities (ORI). The ORI was created by Antonak and Larrivee in 1994.
The ORI is a 6-point Likert scale containing 25 questions. The possible responses
vary from disagree very much (-3), disagree pretty much (-2), disagree a little (-1), to
agree a little (+1), agree pretty much (+2), and agree very much (+3). Teachers selected
which response best answered the question based on their own perceptions concerning
their attitudes towards the benefits of inclusion, their ability to teach special needs
learners, their stance on inclusive classrooms versus separate classrooms, and their
on table 1.
Scores were calculated by the researcher scoring each survey by hand and then
using SPSS software for verification. Antonak and Larrivee (1995) stated on the scoring
instrument that scores of 0-150 were possible. Scores above the mean score of 75
indicated a more favorable attitude towards inclusion while scores below the mean
23
Table 1. Summary of ORI Responses
24
ORI Statements N Disagree Agree M SD
f % f %
Table 1, continued. Summary of ORI Responses
The lowest score on the ORI obtained during this study was 26 and the highest
score was 125. The mean scores for this study calculated at 80.2 with 75 being the
median score for the ORI. This indicates that the participants in this study had a slightly
Research Questions
Research Question 1. What are the attitudes of classroom teachers toward the benefits of
inclusion?
The minimum score for this question was 93, and the maximum score was 147.
The mean score of this section was 136.6. The standard deviation of 44.9. This score is
25
well above the neutral score of 75 which indicates a very positive attitude toward the
The first question to be evaluated by the ORI was calculated from the scores of
statements 3, 7, 11, 14, 17, 20, 21, and 24 from the instrument. Statement 3 (M = 1.78,
understanding within the school community. 5% of the participants disagreed with this
classroom will stimulate academic growth in disabled students. Of those surveyed, 37%
Statement 11 (M = 1.29, SD = 1.84) stated that those with disabilities will not be
accepted within the regular classroom. Twenty-one percent of the respondents disagreed
Statement 14 (M = 0.85, SD = 1.81) stated that disabled students will not build
would have a negative effect on the emotional development of disabled students. Of the
26
Statement 21 (M = 1.59, SD = 1.55) stated that disabled students should be
allowed in the regular classroom as much as possible. Of those surveyed, 12% disagreed
ORI Statements 3, 7, 11, 14, 17, 20, 21, and 24 N Disagree Agree M SD
f % f %
3. Integration offers mixed group interaction that will 41 2 5 39 95 1.78 1.54
foster understanding and acceptance of differences
among students.
7. The challenge of being in a general classroom will 41 15 37 26 63 0.51 1.80
promote the academic growth of the student with the
disability.
11. The presence of students with disabilities will not 41 9 21 32 79 1.29 1.84
promote acceptance of differences on the part of the
students without disabilities.
14. Integration of the student with a disability will not 41 9 21 32 79 0.85 1.81
promote his or her social independence.
17. The integration of students with disabilities can be 41 4 2 37 98 1.51 1.34
beneficial for students without disabilities.
20. Integration will likely have a negative effect on the 41 7 17 34 83 1.15 1.39
emotional development of the student with a disability.
21. Students with disabilities should be given every 41 5 12 36 88 1.59 1.55
opportunity to function in the general classroom where
possible.
24. Isolation in a special classroom has a beneficial effect 41 10 24 31 86 0.93 1.72
on the social and emotional development of the student
with a disability.
27
Research Question 2. What are classroom teacher attitudes toward integrated classroom
management?
The minimum score for this research question was 32 and the maximum score
was 111. These scores were based on questions 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, 22, and 25 from
the ORI. The mean score for these questions was 64 with a standard deviation of 26.004.
This score is below the mean score for the ORI of 75 which indicates a slightly negative
Statement 1 (M = 0.88, SD = 1.57) stated that most disabled students would make
an adequate attempt to finish their homework. Of those surveyed, 22% disagreed with
exhibiting behavior problems. Fifty-six percent of those surveyed disagreed with this
students would need in the classroom would be detrimental to the regular education
students. Seventy-six percent of the respondents disagreed with this statement while 24%
agreed.
the freedom of a regular classroom. Fifty-one percent of the teachers disagreed with this
respondents disagreed with this statement while 73% felt this was a true problem.
28
Statement 15 (M = -0.44, SD = 1.91) stated that it is not more difficult to
maintain order with a disabled student in the regular classroom than if there was not one
in the classroom. Of the respondents, 59% disagreed with this statement and felt it was
harder to maintain order with disabled students in the classroom than the 41% of the
teachers who felt it was not and agreed with the statement.
monopolize the regular classroom teacher's time. Of those surveyed, 71% disagreed with
this statement and felt the teacher's time would be monopolized while 29% agreed with
the statement.
Statement 18 (M = 0.56, SD = 1.67) dealt with the attitude that confusion would
the respondents disagreed with this statement but 66% agreed and felt confusion would
Statement 22 (M = -0.88, SD = 1.91) discussed the attitude that a teacher does not
need more patience to deal with a disabled student than a regular education student.
Sixty-three percent of the respondents disagreed with this statement and felt that more
socially isolated in the regular education classroom. Of those surveyed, 49% disagreed
with this statement while 51% felt disabled students would not be socially isolated.
Findings concerning questions 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, 22, and 25 are illustrated
in Table 3.
29
Table 3. ORI Statements 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, 22, and 25
ORI Statements 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, 22, and 25 N Disagree Agree M SD
f % f %
1. Most students with disabilities will make an adequate 41 9 22 32 78 0.88 1.57
attempt to complete their assignments.
4. It is likely that the student with a disability will exhibit 41 23 56 18 44 0.37 1.59
behavior problems in a general classroom.
6. The extra attention students with disabilities require 41 31 76 10 24 1.10 1.66
will be to the detriment of the other students.
9. Increased freedom in the general classroom creates 41 21 51 20 49 0.07 1.75
too much confusion for the student with a disability.
12. The behavior of the students with disabilities will set 41 11 27 30 73 0.93 1.59
a bad example for students without disabilities.
15. It is not more difficult to maintain order in a general 41 24 59 17 41 0.44 1.91
classroom that contains a student with a disability than in
one that does not contain a student with a disability.
16. Students with disabilities will not monopolize the 41 29 71 12 29 0.85 1.90
general-classroom teacher's time.
18. Students with disabilities are likely to create 41 14 34 27 66 0.56 1.67
confusion in the general classroom.
22. The classroom behavior of the student with a 41 26 63 15 37 0.88 1.91
disability generally does not require more patience from
the teacher than does the classroom behavior of the
student without the disability.
25. The student with a disability will not be socially 41 20 49 21 51 0.07 1.63
isolated in the general classroom.
Research Question 3.What are classroom teacher attitudes concerning their perceived
The minimum score for this question was 53 and the maximum score was 93.
The mean score for this question was 68. It had a standard deviation of 21.8. This is
slightly below the neutral score of 75 which indicates a somewhat negative attitude
toward teachers' perceptions of their ability to teach disabled students. Statements 2, 10,
and 19 on the ORI were used to calculate the scores to this question.
30
Statement 2 (M = -0.59, SD = 1.77) stated that teachers would need extensive
have the ability to teach disabled students. Thirty-two percent of the respondents
disagreed with this statement and felt they were unable to teach disabled students while
sufficient training for teaching disabled students. Fifty-six percent of the respondents
disagreed with this statement and felt they did not have sufficient training while 44%
Findings concerning statements 2, 10, and 19 for research question three are
illustrated in Table 4.
31
Research Question 4. What are teacher attitudes concerning special education classes
The minimum score on this question was 45 and the maximum score was 84. The
mean score for this question was 74.2 indicating a neutral attitude towards special
Statement 5 (M = -0.24, SD=1.95) stated that disabled students are best served in
regular education classrooms. Forty-four percent of those surveyed disagreed with this
statement while 56% felt that students could be better served in the regular classroom.
Statement 8 (M = -0.73, SD=1.69) stated that integrated disabled students into the
Of the respondents, 68% disagreed with this statement while 32% felt it would require
significant change.
surveyed, 56% disagreed with this statement and felt they would learn more rapidly in a
special education classroom than 44% of those who felt they would do better in the
done by special education teachers than regular education teachers. Fifty-nine percent of
those surveyed disagreed and felt they could teach as well as special education teachers
32
Findings for statements 5, 8, 13, and 23 for research question 4 are illustrated in
Table 5.
Summary of Chapter 4
collect the data for the study. Of the 82 questionnaires given out, 43 were returned to the
The chapter also included an item analysis and explanation of the instrument. The
(1975). The statements on the instrument measured teachers' attitudes about benefits of
33
inclusion, integrated classroom management, their perceptions of their teaching ability of
disabled students, and their attitudes concerning special education classrooms versus
regular education classrooms for disabled students. The results for each question were
given with each statement illustrated in tables. Chapter 5 will present a summary of the
34
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
toward inclusion of special needs learners. The study was a descriptive study of teacher
of their ability to teach special needs students, and attitudes toward separate special
education versus inclusive education. The study was conducted in a single public school
district in central Wisconsin. Five elementary schools serving grades K-6 were surveyed.
The instrument, the Opinions Relative to Integration of Disabled Students (ORI), was
distributed to the schools and administered to the regular education teachers there. This
chapter begins with a summary and concludes with conclusions and recommendations for
further study.
Summary
one that has been debated for quite some time. How classroom teachers perceive the
abilities of disabled students and their own ability to teach them has significance in the
Education of special needs students did not seem to be of importance until the mid 1960s
and beyond. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s was the catalyst for change in this
35
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, legislation for special education developed.
One of the most important of these was P.L. 94-142 or the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975. This act was the cornerstone for ongoing legislation
for special needs children and inclusion (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2001).
With the inception of P.L. 94-142 (1975), inclusion has become an important part
of the educational process. The least restrictive environment (LRE) was introduced by
this law as the best way to serve disabled students. To what extent a student may be
included in regular educational programs was dependent on the severity of the student's
disability. Teacher attitudes towards these students can also have a great impact on these
Parents also felt the need to be educated in what their rights and the rights of their
children were in reference to their education in the public school system. Parents have
their child’s IEP (individualized education plan) as a means of making sure their student
gets what he or she is entitled to in the educational setting. The IEP is developed by a
multidisciplinary team to determine the best educational plan for each student according
to his or her special needs. The IEP is legally binding and school districts are required to
The study was an exploratory Level I research design. The study performed was a
descriptive study on the attitudes of teachers toward inclusion of disabled students in the
regular classroom. The purpose of this study was to determine the attitudes of the grades
K-6 classroom teachers toward the ideology of inclusion, the attitudes of the grades K-6
classroom teachers on integrated classroom management, and the attitudes of the grades
K-6 classroom teachers on their own perceptions of their ability to teach students with
36
disabilities. This study was conducted in a single public school district in central
Wisconsin. Five elementary schools serving grades K-6 were given the ORI instrument
for implementation.
The ORI was a 6-point Likert scale containing 25 questions. Eighty-two surveys
were given out amongst the five schools. Of the 82 surveys, 43 were returned with two
appendix) created by Antonak and Larrivee, was the instrument used for this study. It is
a reformation of the original Likert scale created by Larrivee and Cook (1979). Teachers
were given the instrument in their school mailboxes along with a self-addressed stamped
envelope to the researcher. Teachers were asked to fill out the instrument and return it to
the research via the given envelope. After the questionnaires were returned to the
researcher, they were scored using the scoring key provided by Antonak and Larrivee.
These scores were then transferred to the computer for verification and analysis of data.
means, and standard deviations as shown on the tables in chapter 4. The data was then
the researcher. This left 41 valid questionnaires for scoring, and it resulted in a 50%
return. The results for each research question were discussed and illustrated earlier in
chapter 4. The remainder of chapter 5 will discuss conclusions and recommendations for
further study.
37
Conclusions
Research question 1 dealt with classroom teacher attitudes toward the benefits of
inclusion. Overall, the teachers had a very positive attitude toward the benefits of
inclusion. Teachers scored in this section with a mean score of 136.6. A score of 150
was the maximum possible score. Classroom teachers feel that disabled students could
benefit from being in the regular education classroom. Teachers are able to implement
the use of classroom aides, resource rooms, and modified individualized education plans
ability to adapt and be flexible with the inclusion of a special needs child in the
classroom. A classroom teacher who is able to include the special needs student as a
regular member of the classroom not only serves that student, but also educates the
regular education students on acceptance and the benefits of having all types of students
in the classroom (Schultz, 1998). In this research setting, it was considered a positive
environment to have special needs students in the classroom setting. The classroom
teachers reported that the special needs students had a positive effect on the classroom
learning environment.
Research has also shown that the classroom environment is a positive place for
special needs students to learn appropriate social cues from the regular education
students. The classroom teacher has been able to act as a facilitator for these social
lessons. The regular education students also gain a greater knowledge and respect for
38
Teacher collaboration has been an important facet of successful classroom
inclusion. Teachers have the ability to brainstorm and discuss possible ideas and options
with special needs educators as well as classroom teachers who have experience with
inclusion. Working as a team allows the classroom teacher access to materials and
methods that might have been unavailable in different venues (Hammekin, 1997). The
Adequate teacher training also had an effect on the teachers’ positive attitude
toward inclusion. Teachers who feel that have adequate training and materials develop a
more positive attitude toward having special needs students in the classroom (Schultz,
1998). The researcher had seen the list of the professional development opportunities
offered by the school district for classroom teachers and special needs teachers in
inclusive education. The school district pays for teachers to attend these training
opportunities.
The data provided by the instrument for question one verifies the existing body of
the classroom.
management. This was one area that the teachers surveyed showed a slightly negative
attitude. The mean score for this question was 64 with a score of 75 being neutral.
Teachers in this study felt that disabled students could negatively affect the management
of their regular education classrooms. Teachers have the need to understand management
techniques and make use of a variety of them since disabled students may not be able to
39
function under the same management as the regular education students. Parents also are
between regular classroom educators and special needs educators could be a venue for
teachers in this study had a more negative attitude toward classroom management, it
would be beneficial to them to work with teachers who regularly work with special needs
students on how they maintain their classroom environment (NEA, 2006). Within this
take place.
Parents are also a vital resource for problems with specific special needs students.
Parents have their own ways of managing their home environments when it comes to
their special needs child. It might be possible to integrate the management techniques of
the home into the classroom setting and vice versa. This might provide continuity and
structure that the special needs child needs to be successful (NEA, 2006).
One area of classroom management that many teachers leave untapped is the use
of peer mentoring. The opportunity for growth within regular education students as they
mentor and model appropriate behavior for special needs learners is of utmost
importance. Special needs learners may also develop friendships with their non-disabled
peers where they might not have the opportunity to do so in a separate environment.
40
It is unknown to what extend parents, student peers, and teacher colleagues are
utilized in the area of classroom management from this study. The literature would show
that these areas are vital to classroom management. It would be beneficial to make use of
be wise to encourage their teachers to make use of these types of strategies and
methodologies. Teachers who feel negatively about having special needs learners in their
classrooms due to the perception that they will create classroom management issues
would most likely have a difficult time teaching special needs learners to the best of their
Research question three dealt with teachers' perceptions of their ability to teach
disabled students. The mean score for this question was 68. A score of 75 was neutral.
This indicates a slightly negative attitude towards teacher perceptions of their own ability
Classroom teachers who doubt their ability to adequately teach special needs
learners may impact the quality of education the students in the classroom receive, both
regular education students and special needs students. Teachers need to be in a state of
self-evaluation when it comes to their perceived teaching ability and then seek to
implement strategies to improve their teaching skills (Council for Exceptional Children,
2006).
As indicated by the data of this study, the classroom teachers have a neutral view
of their perceived teaching ability. This shows that teachers could either feel their ability
to teach special needs students in their classrooms could use improvement or are
adequate enough. The Council for Exceptional Children (2006) has competencies for
41
what they believe make for a successful inclusive teacher including accepting
responsibility for the education of all students in the classroom, not just the regular
education students, and also implementing a variety of instructional strategies to reach all
It is unknown to what extent classroom teachers in this study have the listed
competencies as outlined by the Council for Exceptional Children. The data would
suggest that the classroom teachers in this study feel they have enough of the
their perceived ability to teach special needs learners. The districts may find that some
teachers are more appropriate than others to have special needs learners in their
classrooms. The districts may also find the need to have professional development
opportunities created to help classroom teachers develop more positive attitudes about
their ability to teach special learners. Collaboration between special education teachers
and classroom teachers could help classroom teachers see that they have the potential
special needs students in the regular classroom. It also investigated teacher attitudes
toward having special needs students in special education classrooms. The results of the
study indicate a neutral attitude toward having students in the regular classroom or
P.L. 94-142 mandates that students be taught in the least restrictive environment.
Classroom teachers need to be prepared to have special needs students in their classrooms
42
due to this mandate. The attitude the classroom teacher has may have an effect on the
Schools have implemented teacher aides to make it easier for special needs
time. Resource rooms are also an alternative to allowing students to be in the regular
classroom part of the time and then be with special education teachers who could work
one-on-one with the student. Some teachers welcome the classroom aide while others
prefer that special needs students be able to achieve on their own in the classroom or not
and flexible in attitude. Flexibility in teaching strategies and methodologies could prove
valuable to both the special needs students and the regular education students. The
teacher would also need to have an attitude that embraces the least restrictive
environment as being important to the success of the special needs learner (Schults,
1998).
Classroom teachers who do not have a vested interest in the least restrictive
environment and espouse the belief that special needs students should be separated from
the regular education population would have a difficult time in being receptive to special
needs learners in their classrooms. The teaching of special needs learners in their
regular education classroom, but this should not limit all special needs learners who
might reach a higher potential by being in a regular classroom. School districts need to
43
be aware of the teachers who would be better choices for inclusive classrooms and
In this study, the classroom teachers have a neutral view of which environment is
better for special needs students. Due to P.L. 94-142, it would be to the benefit of all if
classroom teachers evaluate their own belief systems on inclusion and make the
necessary changes to make their classroom a positive learning environment for all
students.
For inclusion to be successful, the classroom teacher must have the ability to
adapt to the needs of the disabled student. If the classroom teacher perceives himself as
someone who is skilled and flexible, he will help all the students in the room understand
and accept disabilities. Because of this, the student will have a better chance of
succeeding and feel accepted by his or her classmates in the regular education classroom.
Teachers will also have the feeling of success themselves in their own ability to teach
Overall, the regular education teachers see a great benefit to inclusion, but do not
always feel adequate in providing it (Council for Exceptional Children, 2006). This
study showed that, in general, the teachers have a slightly positive attitude towards
Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, three recommendations have been developed.
varying sizes. Implementing this study in other school districts of different sizes
44
would be able to provide additional data to the body of knowledge concerning
districts. This study could include factors such as availability of services, poverty
assessment materials may also vary with the size and location of schools.
Inclusive classroom testing data may vary between schools of different size. This
data could provide useful in determining if class size has any affect on classroom
teacher attitudes (Zabala, 1998). Data generated by these studies would prove
useful in school districts as they develop their plans for professional development
and funding for these programs. Additional funding may also be generated for
teacher training in inclusive education. School districts from other areas of the
country may also garner data with very different results from this study due to
cultural and societal belief systems of teachers in different regions. This study
could be useful within their districts in determining if their inclusive programs are
on inclusive practices via in-services or other class work. Teachers who have
new strategies with the help of parents, exercising patience and flexibility, and
45
acknowledging that every child in the classroom is his responsibility to teach and
2006). Research has shown that students who are taught in a classroom with
teachers who have had more training and flexibility in dealing with special needs
students have a higher rate of success (Schultz, 1998). It is difficult for many
school districts to fund this type of training for their teachers, but the need is one
that must be addressed. By researching this area of inclusion, data may provide
disabilities be administered and collected for data. As the researcher of this study
collected data from the participants, several surveys had comments listed on them
containing statements such as, "This is too vague," "What disability are you
talking about," and so forth. This would indicate that there may be differences in
area may produce data useful to school districts, students, and classroom teachers.
This type of study would facilitate the development of a new instrument or use of
responses as stated above, that classroom teachers might have more positive
attitudes toward one type of disability over another. The instrument used in this
46
References
Anderson, W., Chitwood, S., & Hayden, D. (1982). Negotiating the special education
maze. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall.
Antonak, R. F., & Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric analysis and revision of the
Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming Scale. Exceptional Children, 62, 132-149.
Cook, L., & Larrivee, B. (1979). Mainstreaming: A study of variables affecting teacher
attitude. The Journal of Special Education, 13(3), 315-324.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2006). Teacher Competencies. Retrieved June 12,
2006, from www.uni.edu?coe/inclusion/standards/competences.html
Duvanis, G., & Husley, D. (2002). The least restrictive environment: how has it been
defined by the courts? The Eric Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted
Education, EC Digest #E629
Hammeken, P. (1997). Inclusion: 450 strategies for success. Minnetonka, MN: Peytral..
Jobe, D., Rust, J. O., & Brissie, J. (1996). Teacher attitudes toward inclusion of students
with disabilities into regular classrooms. Education, 117(1), 148-154.
Least Restrictive Environment Coalition. (2001). What is LRB? Retrieved June 12, 2006,
from http://www.lrecoalition.org/01_whatIsLRE;#1
47
Marshfield Area Chamber of Commerce and Industry. (2005, January 2005). Education.
Retrieved March 26, 2006, from
http://www.marshfieldchamber.com/education.aspx
Martin, E., Martin, R., & Terman, D. (1996). The future of children. Washington D.C.:
U.S. Dept. of Education.
McBrien, J. L., & Brandt, R. S. (1997). The Language of Learning: A Guide to Education
Terms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
National Education Association (2006). Works for Me. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from
http://www.nea.org/tips/manage/inclusion.html
Newman College (2004, June 21). Inclusion. Retrieved March 19, 2006, from
http:/www.newman.ac.uk/students_websites/
Parents United Together, (2002). Legislative history of special education. Parents United
Together, 1, .
Pavri, S., & Luftig, R. (2000). The social face of inclusive education: Are students with
disabilities really included in the classroom?. Preventing Social Failure, (Fall
Edition, 2),
Sevier County Board of Education, (2001). Board of education report. Sevier County
Board of Education, 1, .
U.S. Dept. of Education, (2001). History of special education. U.S. Dept. of Education
OSEP Report, , 1-2.
48
U.W. Oshkosh Testing Services (2005, August 30). Importance of reliability and validity.
Retrieved September 3, 2006, from
http://www.uwosh.edu/testing/facultyinfo/importanceofreliabvalid.php
Wentz, T. (2001, February 5). I Kant believe it's not socially constructed. Retrieved
September 4, 2006, from
http://jrscience.wcp.muchio.edu/humannature01/IdeaArticles/WeekasPhilosophy-
Draft11k.html
Zabala, J. (1998). Get SETT for successful inclusion and transition. Retrieved April 18,
2006, from http://www.ldonline.org/article.php?max=2-&id=504&1oc=51
49
APPENDIX A. LETTER TO MR. BRUCE KING
Karen E. Bahn
300 N. Adams Ave.
Marshfield, WI 54449
715-384-7968
I am requesting permission from you to administer the attached survey to the elementary
teachers of your district. I will send the survey to the teachers and they have the option
of filling it out or not.
If this is agreeable to you, please give me your written permission on school district
letterhead and mail it to me at the above address. I will be happy to share the results of
my research with you and your teachers.
Sincerely,
Karen Bahn
Capella University Doctoral Learner
50
APPENDIX B. EMAIL TO DR. RICHARD ANTONAK
-----Original Message-----
From: Daryn and Karen Bahn [mailto:kbahn@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 6:47 AM
To: Richard F. Antonak
Subject: Request for ORI instrument
Dr. Antonak:
With your permission, I would like to use this instrument and any scoring
and background information that goes with it. I would greatly appreciate a
copy of both the instrument and the scoring materials.
Sincerely,
Karen Bahn
kbahn@charter.net
51
APPENDIX C. EMAIL FROM DR. RICHARD ANTONAK
Ms. Bahn,
I am attaching to this message a copy of the ORI and the scoring key, together with a
letter granting permission to use the instrument in your study. Best wishes for success.
Richard F. Antonak
Vice Provost for Research
University of Massachusetts Boston
Richard.Antonak@umb.edu
Voice: 617-287-5600
FAX: 617-287-5616
52
APPENDIX D. LETTER FROM DR. RICHARD ANTONAK
Dear Inquirer:
Thank you for your inquiry about the scale entitled Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming
Special-Needs Children. This scale was completely revised recently. It is now entitled
Opinions Relative to the Integration of Students with Disabilities. I have enclosed with
this letter a copy of the most recent version of the ORI scale and a scoring key for your
use.
You may reproduce the ORI scale in any form that suits your research needs. The only
requirement that we have for the use of the instrument is that you ascribe authorship to
Dr. Larrivee and me somewhere on the instrument and acknowledge us as the authors of
the instrument, using the citation below, in any publication that may arise from your use
of it.
Good luck with your research. Please call or write if I can assist you further.
Appropriate citation:
Antonak, R. F., & Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric analysis and revision of the
Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming Scale. Exceptional Children, 62, 139-149.
53
APPENDIX E. ORI SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Opinions Relative To The Integration Of
Students With Disabilities
General Directions: Educators have long realized that one of the most important influences on a
child's educational progress is the classroom teacher. The purpose of this questionnaire is to
obtain information that will aid school systems in increasing the classroom teacher's effectiveness
with students with disabilities placed in his or her classroom. Please circle the number to the left
of each item that best describes your agreement or disagreement with the statement. There are no
correct answers: the best answers are those that honestly reflect your feelings. There is no time
limit, but you should work as quickly as you can.
54
Please respond to every statement.
KEY
-3: I disagree very much +1: I agree a little
-2: I disagree pretty much +2: I agree pretty much
-1: I disagree a little +3: I agree very much
55
Please respond to every statement.
KEY
-3: I disagree very much +1: I agree a little
-2: I disagree pretty much +2: I agree pretty much
-1: I disagree a little +3: I agree very much
56
APPENDIX F. ORI SCORING KEY
57
factors can be shown to be homogeneous, reliable, and specific, and until they
consistently predict valid indicators of favorable attitudes of education professionals.
Reference citation:
Antonak, R. F., & Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric analysis and revision of the
Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming Scale. Exceptional Children, 62, 139-149.
58
APPENDIX G. WAIVER OF SIGNED CONSENT
Karen E. Bahn
Capella University Doctoral Student
300 N. Adams Ave.
Marshfield, WI 54449
(715)384-7968
Dear Participant:
You were selected for this survey because you are an elementary classroom teacher in the
Marshfield School District. Your name was selected from a list posted on the Marshfield
School District website.
You are asked to simply fill out the enclosed survey and return it in the self-addressed
stamped envelope provided. Filling out this survey should take about ten minutes.
Please do not sign your name to the survey or the return envelope to guarantee your
anonymity. The data collected is confidential and surveys will be destroyed after they are
calculated. Your participation in this project is totally voluntary.
This results of this research could prove beneficial to you in that it pertains to classroom
teachers.
If you have any questions about this project, feel free to call or email me at the above
address or you can direct your questions to Dr. Bruce Francis
(bruce.francis@capella.edu) from Capella University.
Sincerely,
Karen Bahn
Capella University Doctoral Learner
59
APPENDIX H. PERMISSION FROM SCHOOL DISTRICT
60