|
Article Excerpt
Abstract
The proliferation of both special education and inclusion in schools has prompted teacher preparation programs throughout the country to provide both courses and field experience relevant to inclusive education. While many of the student teachers enrolled in these programs have had limited or no experience working with students with disabilities, of greater significance is the fact that many cooperating teachers and field supervisors are similarly inexperienced. In responding to the needs of this latter group relative to the education of students with disabilities, members of the special education faculty at one university designed a professional development program to foster a greater awareness of the exceptional needs of diverse learners. This report presents the results of the pilot study of that program. Participants in the study were field supervisors from the university who completed a pre- and post-test survey. Subsequently, several were interviewed in depth. The "treatment" phase consisted of three two-hour seminars designed to provide an overview of the field of special education. Results of the survey and interviews indicated that a majority of participants believed the program was helpful and informative, and a comparison of pre- and post-test data showed a significant increase in the mean score, suggesting greater acceptance of persons with disabilities.
**********
Background
Over the last decade there has been a shift from a segregated model of teacher preparation to one in which there is shared accountability between general and special educators. This trend has created the need for new models of teacher preparation in which theory, methodology, and field experience reflect the need for educators who are adequately prepared to teach collaboratively in inclusive classrooms.
As Snyder (1999) noted, inclusion has primarily been a special education movement. However, the success of inclusion requires that general education faculty be prepared to work with students with disabilities (Smith, Polloway, Patton, & Dowdy, 1995). As more and more districts implement inclusion, general education student teachers find themselves working with diverse populations of children with different learning styles and disabilities. Many of these student teachers have limited or no preparation in special education; as such, they feel inadequate with respect to working with special populations. The situation is compounded by the fact that many cooperating teachers and university supervisors also come from a general education background with little special education experience or knowledge. Teacher preparation programs employ many part-time and adjunct faculty as field supervisors of student teachers. Many of these field supervisors are semi-retired persons who were formerly teachers, principals, and superintendents within various school districts.
Because models of inclusion were implemented only recently implemented (Austin, 2001), a large percentage of these supervisors are not familiar with the concept of inclusion or with models of collaborative teaching. However, due to the popularity of various inclusion models, growing numbers of student teachers are, of necessity, placed in inclusive classrooms. It is essential that field supervisors--if they are to provide effective oversight of their student teachers--become knowledgeable about the philosophy, legislation and methodology that serve as the foundations for educating students with and without disabilities in general education classrooms. The field supervisors at this university acknowledged such a need and requested that the special education faculty arrange a series of professional development seminars to provide them with information about inclusion. This request for professional development and support corresponds to current best practice. A number of studies recommend in-service programs as effective preparations for administrators and teachers of students with diverse learning needs (Austin, 2001; Hebert, 1998; Pace, 2001; Wiggle & Wilcox, 1996).
In response, members of the special education faculty developed a series of seminars that avoided presenting inclusion as a concept comprised solely of technical knowledge. While the technical information was valuable and would be included, it was recognized that limiting the seminars to discussions of strategies and techniques did not address the contextual nature of teaching (Holland, Clift, Veal, Johnson, & McCarthy, 1992). An understanding of inclusion requires that teachers realize that education is moving beyond integrating children with learning differences and disabilities into the existing classroom. As Avramidis, Bayliss, and Burden (2000) affirmed, "By contrast, inclusion implies such a restructuring of mainstream schooling that every school can accommodate every child irrespective of disability (accommodation rather than assimilation) and ensures that all learners belong to a community" (p. 191). In addition, these authors point out that "Such an argument locates the discussion in a social-ethical discourse which is strongly focused on values. The concept of inclusion thereby becomes part of a broad human rights agenda that argues that all forms of segregation are morally wrong" (p. 191).
When approaching the seminar training from this perspective, the attitude of the supervisors toward students with learning differences and disabilities becomes paramount. Consequently, the goal of the seminar series became not only to provide supervisors with the information that they sought, but also to expand their understanding of the philosophy of inclusive education. It was the intention of the authors that the seminars increase the positive attitudes of the supervisors towards individuals with disabilities, and toward inclusion in general. According to Pace (2001)
[I]f a supervisor does not accept or is uncomfortable with a concept, such as inclusion, in all likelihood this will be communicated to the student teacher. Supervisors, either implicitly, by not reinforcing strategies that promote inclusion, or explicitly, in conversations about teaching and learning, will make their feelings known. Obviously, this can become a major barrier to educational change (p. 113).
The purpose of the pilot study was to examine the attitudes of field supervisors before and after participation in the workshops in order to assess the effectiveness of the professional development modules in increasing their awareness of and, thereby, appreciation for students with disabilities. The results of this pilot study were subsequently used to improve the quality of the all the planned workshops,...
|
