COMPARING TYPES OF STUDENT PLACEMENT AND THE EFFECT ON ACHIEVEMENT FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES by Patricia Lynn Mason Liberty University

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 81
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report
Category:

Healthcare

Published:

Views: 0 | Pages: 81

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Description
COMPARING TYPES OF STUDENT PLACEMENT AND THE EFFECT ON ACHIEVEMENT FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES by Patricia Lynn Mason Liberty University A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements
Transcript
COMPARING TYPES OF STUDENT PLACEMENT AND THE EFFECT ON ACHIEVEMENT FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES by Patricia Lynn Mason Liberty University A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education Liberty University November, Comparing Types of Student Placement and the Effect on Achievement for Students with Disabilities by Patricia Lynn Mason A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA November, 2013 APPROVED BY: Beth Ackerman, Ed.D., Committee Chair Jonathan Burton, Ed.D., Committee Member Brad Ferko, Ed.D., Committee Member 2 ABSTRACT Since implementing No Child Left Behind, schools have improved student achievement while also preparing students for the 21 st century. Schools continue to strive for 100% proficiency in all subgroups by 2014, but achievement gap exists for students with disabilities. This study used a causal comparative research design to test the concept of co-teaching by comparing types of placement for students with disabilities and the effect on student achievement. For this study, placement was considered where the student received instruction in either a general education class or a co-taught class during 9 th through 11 th grade. Student achievement was based on the 11 th grade Pennsylvania System of School Assessment results for reading and math. This study examined the results from southwestern Pennsylvania high schools for the school year. The independent variable was student placement in co-taught classes or general education classes. The dependent variable was student achievement based upon the state test results. A causal-comparative design matched 67 math and 68 English co-taught participants with non-cotaught participants based upon gender, disability, and full scale IQ. Analysis of variance was used to determine if the different placements had differential effects on the students state math and reading scores. Math and English pairs were analyzed separately. The results of this study found that there was a significant difference in mean scores for class placement in both math and English classes. The students with disabilities placed into a general education class scored significantly higher on the respective 2012 PSSA tests. Descriptors: co-teaching, general education, high school, Pennsylvania System of School Assessment, PSSA, students with disabilities, student achievement 3 Acknowledgements Page I would first like to thank my husband, Larry Mason. You always support me in my quests for life long learning and my dedication to students. Thank you for encouraging me during times of exhaustion. Thank you for understanding the time I needed to complete my studies while also finding time to continue to touch the lives of the students in my school. Thank you to my friends and family that have been patient with me as I disappeared to work on my classes and research. I would like to thank the district office personnel and principals at each participating school. I will be forever grateful for your willingness to help with my study. I would like to acknowledge and thank my dissertation committee. First, I would like to thank Dr. Beth Ackerman, my dissertation chair. Her constructive criticism and quick responses to my plethora of questions were great motivations when I needed to keep moving forward. Next, I would like to thank Dr. Amanda Szapkiw, my research consultant. Thank you for insisting that I change my research methodology during the prospectus stage. The revisions helped me to conduct a solid study. I would also like to thank Dr. Jonathan Burton, committee member. His guidance on my writing and pushing me to increase my sample size at the very beginning of my study proved to be needed. Without that, I would not have a statistically significant study and who knows where I would be right now. Last but not least, I would like to thank Dr. Brad Ferko. Not only have you been a member on my committee, you have been a great mentor to me as I began my principalship in your district. Your energy and passion for educating all children are contagious. I thank you for pushing and supporting me along the way. Thank you to everyone that has helped me to make this happen. 4 Table of Contents Acknowledgements Page... 4 List of Tables... 8 List of Figures... 9 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Introduction Background Problem Statement Purpose Statement Significance of the Study Research Question(s) Hypothesis or Hypotheses Identification of Variables Definitions Research Summary CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE History of Special Education Theoretical Framework Educational Setting Options Co-teaching Class General Education Special Education Class Inconclusive Findings Effects on Students without Disabilities School Characteristics Discussion and Conclusion CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY Introduction Design Questions and Hypotheses Participants Setting Instrumentation Procedures Data Analysis CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS Descriptive Statistics Size Adequacy Assumption Testing Homogeneity of Variance Normality Testing Results of Hypothesis One Results of Hypothesis Two Results Summary CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION Summary of the Findings Research Question One Research Question Two Assumptions and Limitations Discussion Implications and Recommendations Conclusion REFERENCES APPENDIX A: REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE TEMPLATE APPENDIX B: LETTERS OF SUPPORT APPENDIX C: IRB APPROVAL APPENDIX D: PRINCIPAL CONSENT FORM TEMPLATE APPENDIX E: SIGNED PRINCIPAL CONSENT FORM APPENDIX F: GUIDING PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS List of Tables Table 3.1: English Participant Breakdown by Gender Table 3.2: English Participant Breakdown by Primary Disability Type Table 3.3: English Participant Breakdown by IQ Table 3.4: Math Participant Breakdown by Gender Table 3.5: Math Participant Breakdown by Primary Disability Type Table 3.6: Math Participant Breakdown by IQ Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics for 2012 Math PSSA Tests Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics for 2012 Reading PSSA Tests Table 4.3: Tests for Normality for Math PSSA Scores Table 4.4: Tests for Normality for Reading PSSA Scores List of Figures Figure 1. Histogram for 2012 Math PSSA scores by math class placement Figure 2. Histogram for 2012 Reading PSSA scores by English class placement Figure 3. Normality plot for 2012 Math PSSA scores by math class placement Figure 4. Normality plot for 2012 Reading PSSA scores by English class placement CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was reauthorized as Public Law , also known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). NCLB was proposed by the Bush administration and signed into law in NCLB was created to ensure that all students are successful and to close the achievement gap in various subgroups. The subgroups of concern are minority groups, economically disadvantaged students, and students with disabilities. Each state defines the minimum number of students needed for a subgroup to qualify for accountability purposes. When subgroups have numbers below the threshold, the academic needs of the students in that subgroup are not well served (Thornton, Hill, & Usinger, 2006). The goal of public schools must be to close the achievement gap in all applicable subgroups, including the students with disabilities subgroup. Edmonds and Spradlin (2010) stated that a variety of factors must exist in order for students to reach their fullest potential of academic achievement, and research needs to focus specifically on student achievement for students with disabilities. The goal of the accountability movement was the basic right to learn, and positive test results were used as proof of learning (Crockett & Yell, 2008). As there continues to be an increase in the numbers of students with disabilities, there is a concern about not being able to meet their needs with traditional approaches so alternative options need to be developed (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1991). This research study was built on the theoretical ideas of ecological theory and sociocultural theory. The concept of inclusion evolved where students would be served in the regular classroom with services and supports in order to be successful in the general education environment (Murawski & Swanson, 2001). Cooperative teaching was the response to the 10 dilemma and need for inclusion (Murawski & Swanson, 2001). Cooperative teaching is also called co-teaching. This model is used when a content area teacher and a special education teacher are both assigned to a class. This model uses the skills of both teachers to provide instruction in a general classroom setting. This classroom setting has allowed for heterogeneous grouping. The teachers divide the responsibilities of curriculum and instruction, and both are accountable for student learning in the class. Co-teaching continued to evolve as more research was conducted; however, most recent research involves special education pullout classes or one-on-one settings, instead of research conducted in whole-class, general education classrooms (Van Garderen et al., 2009). Research conducted on co-teaching normally focuses on co-teachers roles, co-teachers relationships, and program logistics, rather than analyzing co-teaching s impact on student achievement (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, & Shamberger, 2010). Therefore, there are numerous qualitative studies on co-teaching, but only a limited amount of quantitative studies. With all of the qualitative research in recent years on how to improve co-teaching, additional quantitative data is needed to determine if co-teaching has made a difference in student achievement. There is a shortage of research that supports the academic achievement benefits of co-teaching (Volonino & Zigmond, 2007). Unfortunately, schools are not required to report when co-teaching occurs and the lack of reporting makes quantitative studies difficult to be conducted. Schools must only report the percentage of time that a student with a disability has participated in general education classes. States are then required to report this information to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). The information reported to OSEP shows the extent to which students with disabilities were educated in general education classes, but it does not show which specific general 11 education classes the students were included. For example, the report does not show if students were in general education math versus general education social studies. In order to assess whether co-teaching classes have helped to improve achievement in math and English classes, data needs to be retrieved and analyzed for those specific math and English classes. Schools are held accountable for achievement scores on state assessments for students with disabilities, and while inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classes has occurred for decades, the new accountability measures have made reviewing achievement scores related to student placement necessary (Crawford & Tindal, 2006). According to Thompson, Morse, Sharpe, and Hall (2005), students with disabilities can achieve on state assessment if instruction has been provided by qualified teachers, IEPs have ensured specialized instruction, appropriate accommodations were implemented, and collaboration has occurred between the general education teacher and special education teacher. Placement of students with disabilities into math and English classes compared to their achievement was addressed in this quantitative research study. For this study, placement in a general education class or a co-taught class for each year in grades nine through 11 were considered for math and English classes. Math and English placements were computed separately. Student achievement was based on the 11 th grade Pennsylvania System of School Assessment results for reading and math from the school year. In Chapter One, a background for inclusion, student placement, and student achievement were presented. The problem statement and purpose statement were explained. The significance of the study was described. The research questions, hypotheses, identification of variables, definitions, and statistical methods were defined. The assumptions and limitations were also noted. 12 Background In the early 1900 s, students with disabilities were educated in separate schools. As time progressed, laws were created and continued to change, such as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. With these laws, students with disabilities were integrated into public schools. Eventually, students began to be included in general education courses and sometimes a co-teacher was also included in the general education course. These actions stemmed from two different theories. First, Bronfenbrenner s (1979) ecological theory posited that behavior needed to be observed in numerous settings and a child s development was based upon the relationships in each of the settings. Ecological theory connected individuals with their environments. Even if an individual was not an active participant of a particular environment, events that occurred in that setting may have affected that individual. Considering development is influenced by the characteristics of the environment, students should be placed with their peers. Placing students in inclusion classes will help provide age appropriate models for students with disabilities. If students are educated in self-contained special education classes, the students may not receive the same education. Bronfenbrenner s (1979) theory was also supported by Butera (2005), who stated that ecological theory could be a lens to understand the context of collaboration and special education while finding influences for a child s development. While Bronfenbrenner s (1979) theory helped to place students with disabilities into general education classrooms, another theory helped to build the conceptual framework of this study. The theory used for this study was Vygotsky s (1997) socio-cultural theory, which posited that the intellectual development of individuals not only derives from social interactions, but also from interactions with others. Socio-cultural theory indicates that the additional teacher support in the co-taught classroom may have an effect on academic achievement. This implies 13 that when students are placed in a co-taught class to learn, the interactions afforded to them from two teachers would influence their academic performance. As applied to this study, the sociocultural theory holds that the researcher expected the independent variable of student placement to influence the dependent variable of student achievement because the special education teacher could develop lessons to present the material in a variety of ways and the content teacher could build upon content knowledge to present materials. Having two teachers in one classroom also reduces the teacher-student ratio. The framework of Bronfenbrenner s ecological theory and Vygotsky s socio-cultural theory were used to develop the literature review and research findings for this study. As more students with disabilities were integrated into general education classes, it was necessary to conducted research to determine the effects of this placement. Carlberg and Kavale (1980) conducted a meta-analysis of special education placement versus general education classroom placement. Until their research, there was little evidence of the effectiveness of special education versus general education classes. Carlberg and Kavale found that the special education class placement was inferior to general education class placement when evaluating student achievement. The study also found that the placement of some children in general education classes may not be appropriate (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980). If schools were going to continue to educate students in the general education classes, changes needed to be made in the classes in order for more students with disabilities to be successful. There are many debates in the area of special education as to whether or not to include students with disabilities into general education classes (Fore, Hagan-Burke, Burke, Boon, & Smith, 2008). General education teachers and special education teachers developed the coteaching model in order to provide students with disabilities the services and supports they 14 needed while continuing to educate them in the general education classrooms (Murawski & Swanson, 2001). Full inclusion with co-teaching is the favored service delivery model for educating students with disabilities (Zigmond, Kloo, & Volonino, 2009). But schools are having a difficult time helping students with disabilities function in general education classroom (Jimenez, Graf, & Rose, 2007). Murawski and Swanson (2001) conducted a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of co-teaching based upon studies from the 1990s and found student achievement improved in co-taught classes, although the data that suggested this was limited. They also stated that there is little experimental data to support the claims that co-teaching is an effective teaching model to use for students with disabilities in order to place them into general education classes (Murawski & Swanson, 2001). No other recent meta-analysis studies have been conducted on quantitative research pertaining to student achievement and co-teaching for students with disabilities. According to Friend et al. (2010), the future of co-teaching may depend on increasing the quantity and quality of research and including co-teaching in school improvement plans. Friend noted that new research needs to be evidence based as opposed to perception based. Friend stated that one way help establish an evidence base is to research outcome data on student achievement on high-stakes tests. This research study added a quantitative perspective to the co-teaching literature by conducting a causal-comparative study on types of student placement compared to student achievement for students with disabilities. Co-teaching has been studied for over two decades and collaboration has been studied for almost half a century (Cook & Friend, 2010). Even though co-teaching is popular in education settings, the instructional validity and outcomes for students with disabilities have not been justified in research (Volonino & Zigmond, 2007). Current research has centered around philosophies, perceptions, and methods of co-teaching, rather than on effects on student 15 achievement. Since the accountability focus has now been placed on academic outcomes and student access to the general education curriculum, research on these areas is needed (Lingo, Barton-Arwood, & Jolivette, 2011). After reviewing state test results, the question remains if the Education for All Handicapped Children Act is providing the appropriate education for students with disabilities (Zigmond et al., 2009). More research is needed that carefully studies coteaching, rather than describing co-teaching and offering advice (Friend et al., 2010). The primary research focus has been on co-teaching that occurs in any class, not specifically math and English classes. Murawski and Hughes (2009) stated that not all classes need to be co-taught. Van Garderen, Scheuermann, Jackson, and Hampton (2009) found that very few studies are conducted in whole-class, general education classrooms, but rather in special education classes or one-on-one settings. Since more students with disabilities are being included in general education classes, research must be conducted on those classes. Hang and Rabren (2009) did not find significant changes in academic achievement after one year of coteaching, and they stated that additional research was needed using individual assessments in content areas in order to evaluate the efficacy of co-teaching. Under NCLB, math and readi
Recommended
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x