Abstract
This paper explores the thinking of five junior high school teachers as they teach in inclusive classrooms. Rather than focusing only on observable teaching activities, insights into ways these teachers make sense of inclusive secondary school contexts were obtained through triangulating data from semi-structured interviews, stimulated recall of inflight thinking while viewing videotaped lessons, and researcher field notes. The generalisability of this qualitative approach is characterised by a strong affective element reported as a series of emotional highs and lows. This research has implications for the practice of teaching in inclusive settings as well as for teacher preparation. Specifically, it suggests that attention to student difference should be replaced by attention to individuality and to the affective needs of both students and teachers.
Introduction
School systems worldwide have, at least notionally, begun to accept the sentiments of inclusive education (Baker & Zigmond, 1995; Mittler, 1995; Sebba & Ainscow, 1996). Policies and provisions for special education are increasingly impacting on the professional lives of those in regular education as efforts are made to bring the two "systems" together (Idol, 1994; McKinnon, Gordon, Bentley-Williams, Prunty, & Finlay, 1997; McRae, 1996; Minke, Bear, Deemer, & Griffin, 1996; Zigmond, 1995). There is, however, a scarcity of information regarding the impact of these policies in practice. It is clear that the traditional roles of special educators are changing from that of teacher to that of consultant, collaborator, or resource person (Carrington, 1993; Davis & Kemp, 1995; Dyson, 1990; Glatthorn, 1990; McKinnon et al., 1997; Minke et al., 1996; Voltz, Elliott, & Cobb, 1994; Westwood & Palmer, 1993). However, much more attention has been paid to the role of special educators than to regular classroom teachers even though it is the regular classroom teachers who have been taking an increased responsibility for teaching students with diverse learning needs (Dyson, 1990; Idol, 1994).
In an inclusive education system, it is critical that regular classroom teachers be appropriately prepared for a context in which they will be teaching students with special needs. It is known that while most teachers support the right of students to be educated in regular classes, they typically lack confidence in their own ability to meet the needs of all students in those classes (Baker & Zigmond, 1995; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995). Particularly in times when financial resources to support inclusion are scarce, there is a need for a more deliberately focussed attempt to address the professional development of teachers. More focussed professional development, however, assumes that the key variables in the development of "inclusive teachers" are known. This is not yet the case. Because there have been so few studies of the work of teachers in inclusive classrooms, little is known about the variables that operate in those contexts and hence little is known about future directions for professional development.
There are still only limited examples of empirical studies which explore the current practice of inclusive education in elementary schools, and even fewer in secondary contexts. There are at least two reasons for this; one is that there are very few examples of fully inclusive school systems available for investigation. The other is that much of the discussion about inclusion has revolved around defining the distinctive features of inclusion and establishing its place in the social justice agenda. The studies that have been conducted, mainly in elementary settings (Baines, Baines, & Masterson, 1994; Baker & Zigmond, 1995; McDonnell, McDonnell, Hardman, & McCune, 1991) have identified the individuality of experiences; those of schools, teachers, and students. Another finding has been that inclusive practices have largely been additive in nature (Baker & Zigmond, 1995; Pugach, 1995), attempting to implement inclusive practices within an existing framework with consequent increases in the complexity of teaching and stress for teachers. Similar issues have arisen in literature examining reform of the middle years of schooling, inevitably the next educational environment for students currently in elementary schools (Felner et al., 1997; Hines & Johnston, 1996; Lipsitz, Jackson, & Austin, 1997; Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents, 1989). In these secondary contexts, reformers have cited a need for small, personalised communities for learning which re-engage the family and broader community, and ensure success for all (Felner et al., 1997). The individuality of schools, noted in the elementary inclusion studies, appears to be a feature of education which is being increasingly recognised and encouraged.
Reflecting the complexity of observable school environments, the less observable thoughts of teachers in that environment are also characterised by their complexity. It was an assumption of the current investigation that teaching is a complex cognitive process which takes place in a relatively ill-structured, dynamic environment (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Shavelson & Stern, 1981). Study of instruction in individual classrooms is one way of gaining insights into the complexity of schooling. In one conceptualisation of classrooms (Biggs, 1991), factors which exist prior to instruction are of two kinds: those relating to students, and those relating to the teaching context. The methods that teachers use and the way that the lesson is structured are aspects of this teaching context. The observable practices of teachers have been extensively studied and there exists a considerable body of research concerning effective instruction (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986; Walberg & Wang, 1987). More recent research has focussed on teacher competencies in inclusive environments (Hamill, Jantzen, & Bargerhuff, 1999; Peterson & Beloin, 1998; Sindelar, 1995) Investigations into the less observable thoughts of teachers in those contexts, however, are less common. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that it is both teachers' thoughts and actions which facilitate student learning (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Joyce & Showers, 1988; Mitchell & Marland, 1989). And, there is no doubt that an interactive relationship exists between these thoughts and actions. In other words, teachers' actions are guided by their thoughts which, in turn, are influenced by their actions (Borko, Livingston, & Shavelson, 1990; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Costa & Garmston, 1995; Elbaz, 1990; Korthagen & Lagerwerf, 1996).
The implementation of inclusion will inevitably create new and increased demands on teachers, at least in its early stages. We know, for instance, that teachers most frequently relate to the class as a whole (Goodlad, 1984; Rosenholtz, 1989). In an inclusive classroom, however, the teacher could expect to have a more diverse range of students, who may not reasonably be considered as a single homogeneous group. At an individual level, despite recognizing the critical role of the teacher in this process, we do not know how these demands are prioritised, integrated with existing knowledge, and incorporated into instructional practice. It has been noted that the process of change may even be subverted, either deliberately or accidentally, if it appears to threaten the current practices of individuals (Ungerleider, 1993). We know that while most teachers support the right of students to be educated in regular classes, they lack confidence in their own ability to meet the needs of all students in those contexts (Baker & Zigmond, 1995; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995). In short, to ignore the role of teachers and their understandings of inclusive practice is to put at risk the continuation of inclusion in schools.
The current investigation, then, sought to explore the experience of teaching in inclusive junior high school classrooms from the perspective of teacher's thoughts. From this investigation, it was anticipated, insights could be derived which may inform the development of both preservice and inservice professional development.
Method
The five teachers who participated in this study all taught in junior high school classrooms defined by their school systems as being inclusive. The definition was largely related to the place of instruction; referring to an inclusive class as being one having as a permanent member at least one student who, by reason of their disability, qualified for additional support services from the local education authority. Three of the participants taught in a large city in western Canada, the remaining two in a small city in rural Australia. Teaching experience of the participants ranged from 27 to three and the subjects taught included language arts, religious education, social science, mathematics, and science.
Teachers were selected as participants in this descriptive research project who had experienced the phenomenon under investigation (thinking while teaching in inclusive classrooms), were able to clearly articulate that experience (Van Manen, 1990), and were willing to do so. Characteristics of individual participants were not a consideration in the sampling process. It is acknowledged that teachers who volunteered to participate in this study may have been characteristically and qualitatively different from those who chose not to participate in ways which are indeterminable. Possible limitations of the selection process, however were acknowledged as restrictions to generalisation of the study. These limitations, however, were outweighed by the heuristic value of the data obtained from a purposeful selection of teachers having particular characteristics (Merriam, 1988, p. 427).
Three data collection techniques were combined in this study; a) researcher fieldnotes, b) semistructured interviews and c) stimulated recall interviews. The use of three different data collection techniques resulting in three discrete but interrelated sets of data, served to increase the study's authenticity and to provide added depth to the investigation of teacher thinking. This form of triangulation, referred to by Denzin (1978) as "data triangulation," was a means by which weaknesses of one data collection technique could be compensated by the strengths of another technique (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Denzin, 1978; Patton, 1990).The first of the three techniques, researcher fieldnotes, involved the researcher recording observations of what happened in the research context and, in addition, recording subjective impressions, thoughts, hunches, and ideas. The second data collection technique, semistructured interviews, focussed on participants experiences of teaching in inclusive classrooms, the meaning they placed on those experiences, and to the principles which guided their practice (Seidman, 1991).
The third data collection technique was the stimulated recall interview. Participants were asked to make retrospective reports of their thinking based on the provision of extensive retrieval cues (on videotape) of the preceding activity - - a "stimulated recall" interview (Shavelson, Webb, & Burstein, 1986). The rationale for this technique is that a participant "may be enabled to relive an original situation with vividness and accuracy if s/he is presented with a large number of cues or stimuli which occurred during the original situation" (Bloom, 1953 p. 161).
To obtain stimulus material for the stimulated recall interviews, two lessons with each participant were videotaped with the camera being arranged to capture the teacher's perspective as far as possible. Often the teacher did not appear in the field of view.
Within five minutes of the lesson's conclusion, the teacher was asked to watch the videotape of the lesson and think aloud regarding thoughts which occurred during that lesson. Participants were free to stop the tape at any time to make more detailed comments. All comments made by the teacher and the researcher during these interviews were recorded on audiotape which was then transcribed and the protocol used as a source of data for analysis.
The data collected in this investigation were analysed in two ways; first as single cases, followed then by consideration of cases as a collective group. In single case analysis, data for each participant were considered as an intact and unique set or case study. Data relating to the context of each participant, derived from fieldnotes and semistructured interviews, were summarised and edited to present a coherent summary of participants' current teaching context and life history. Semistructured interview data were used to identify participants' guiding principles and a draft of this section of the analysis was sent to each participant for comment and validation.
Transcripts of stimulated recall interviews were used as data from which to explore the nature of the participants' inflight thinking. Following identification of thoughts which had occurred during the lesson, coded units of thought data were developed and described. Again, this section of the analysis was sent to each participant for comment and validation.
The process of analysis, described above, was both sequential and recursive, information from one data source being compared with another throughout the process. The data analysis process was inductive in nature, such that there were no predetermined variables but, instead, only emerging themes. Finally, the analysis sought to examine data from multiple perspectives.
The overall study was conducted in four stages. In the first stage, following identification and selection of participants, visits were conducted in which details of the study were discussed and the researcher was able to begin to gain some familiarity with the context in which each participant was teaching. In the second stage, the context in which the participants were teaching and the principles which guided their teaching were explored and two semistructured interviews conducted with each participant. In the third stage, the researcher videotaped an entire lesson with the target class.
The fourth and final stage of the investigation took place within five minutes of each videotaped lesson's conclusion. The participant and researcher watched the videotape of the lesson and the stimulated recall interview took place. Between five and seven days later the process of videotaping and stimulated recall interview was repeated.
Results
The teachers who participated in this study reflected the diversity of junior high school teachers in Canada and Australia. In identifying those principles which guided their teaching, some participants noted the importance of creating a positive educational environment and others the importance of students developing a sense of individual responsibility for their own learning. These guiding principles, they asserted, related to all students irrespective of ability or disability. Recognition of the individuality of students was a theme, however, which was shared by most of the teachers.
In their guiding principles three teachers referred to the importance of seeing students as unique and individual rather than as generic members of a class. Implicit in this recognition of individuality was a recognition that each student was also different from each other student; that they were a heterogeneous group with differing needs. The guiding principles of these teachers, in particular, went beyond a general acknowledgment of individuality to refer specifically to an affective dimension. Notions of whole people, building up the inner person, and consideration of students' sense of identity suggested an awareness of student feelings and emotions that was not limited to awareness of students only as learners of academic content.
All teachers, however, recognised student individuality in their inflight thoughts. While all participants made reference to individual students by name, different aspects of individuality were revealed in those references. Most of the participants displayed an awareness of individuals from both an academic and a non-academic perspective. Laurie, a teacher from western Canada, for example, thought about student ability to perform different learning tasks "Nigel impresses me. Whoa, you can really peel the layers off the onion!" as well as displaying a sensitivity to student affect, personal experiences beyond the immediate lesson, and personality; "I've got to make sure Paul realises that we weren't laughing at him but with him.".
One way that participants revealed knowledge of individual students was through predictions of their actions or thoughts. It has been noted that making a prediction about a future event implies an awareness of different features of the class; familiar scripts, scenes, and propositional structures (Shavelson et al., 1986). Clearly, knowledge of student characteristics could be described as one aspect of a teacher's propositional structures. In the current investigation, predictions about student actions and thought were a significant feature of the inflight thinking of all but the least experienced of the participating teachers. This appeared to confirm Calderhead's (1983) findings that more experienced teachers have more detailed propositional structures about students than do novices.
A second finding of this study related to affect; teachers' awareness and expression of feelings and emotions. This was a theme evident in some form in both inflight thoughts and guiding principles of four of the five participants. This evidence was sometimes quite explicit, as when Laurie thought about her own affective state: "I'm frustrated here!" Inflight thoughts characterised as affective often related to the emotional highs and lows of the teachers themselves, ranging from one end of a continuum to the other during the course of a lesson. At other times, the inflight thoughts of these teachers demonstrated a sensitivity to the emotional state of the students in the class.
Discussion and implications
The concept of a dilemma as a tool for exploring characteristics of classroom teaching has been employed by several researchers (Christensen & Rizvi, 1997; Hutchinson & Martin, 1999; Lampert, 1985; Richardson & Anders, 1998). The finding of this study that teachers in inclusive classes attend to individual students has particular relevance to one of the most enduring dilemmas of teaching. This dilemma occurs when the attention to individual needs in a classroom conflicts with attention to the needs of the group. It becomes particularly acute in an inclusive class when there is a greater degree of heterogeneity within the class, when the needs of individuals are less likely to be met by attention to a single group. In this study, teachers did attend to the class as a single large group and, to a lesser extent, as a number of smaller groups. Attention to individual students, however, was a theme observed in both guiding principles and inflight thoughts of all participants in this study.
Attention to individuality would appear to be one factor emerging from the current investigation with particular significance for the inclusion of students with special needs. Teachers did make reference in their inflight thoughts to those students who had been identified as having special needs. There was, however, no evidence that attention to those students was a function of predetermined categorisation. Rather, teachers' inflight thoughts revealed attention to these students, and to other students, on the basis of individual characteristics.
If inclusive education is defined as appropriate education for all students in the context of the same heterogeneous class, and if it is assumed that appropriate education for students in any class is a fundamental goal of education, then the heterogeneity of the inclusive class is its distinguishing characteristic. Awareness of the increased range of learning needs in inclusive classes, it could be anticipated, would be evident in the inflight thoughts of teachers in those contexts. The classes, in which these teachers worked, were characterised by their heterogeneity, by a broad range of learning needs. All classes had, as permanent members, students with recognised disabilities. Despite this, no teacher reported inflight thoughts in which specific reference was made to the diversity or range of student ability in the class. Instead, teachers appeared to think about the ability of individual students only in relation to their current affective state or their performance of the immediate task.
A frequent observation of researchers in inclusive classrooms has been the regular classroom teacher's apparent attention to the whole class rather than to individual students (Baker & Zigmond, 1995; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bishop, 1992; Schumm et al., 1995). The current investigation, however, suggests a different interpretation. While attention to whole class has been interpreted with some dismay by some commentators (Gerber, 1995; Martin, 1995), the situation may be more complex than it seems on first analysis. Observation of teachers' actions in the five cases described by Baker and Zigmond revealed an overwhelming attention to the class as a whole rather than to individual students (Baker & Zigmond, 1995). Observable teacher actions, however, were not the subject of this investigation and it is quite possible that if they had been, Baker and Zigmond's comments could also apply to those teachers. Examination of their inflight thoughts, however, revealed that at an unobservable, cognitive level, all participants were thinking about individual students, recognising their experiences, personalities, skills, and preferences.
The emergence of affect as an issue in the inflight thinking of these teachers did not appear to be directly related to the inclusive nature of the teaching context. References to the feelings and emotions of students were not demonstrably connected with the students with disabilities in these classes any more than with any other student. From this it may be deduced that this affective dimension is a feature of teachers' thoughts independent of the composition of the class.
In conclusion, we suggest that future professional support provided to teachers in inclusive contexts, rather than focussing on categorical notions of difference between students with and without disabilities, focuses on the individuality of all students. This, since it appears to be more consistent with teachers' current practice would be more likely to be incorporated into their teaching in inclusive classrooms (Fullan, 1991; McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978; Ungerleider, 1993). Similarly, current trends away from categorical approaches to special education in preservice teacher education (Lesar, Benner, Habel, & Coleman, 1997; Peterson & Beloin, 1998) should be encouraged and enhanced by attention to all students as individuals with individual needs. Further, this same attention to individuality should be directed to teachers themselves, both present and future.
References
Baines, L., Baines, C., & Masterson, C. (1994). Mainstreaming: One school's reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(1), 39-40.
Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for students with learning disabilities: themes and implications from the five cases. The Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 163 - 180.
Biggs, J. B. (1991). Student learning in the context of school. In J. B. Biggs (Ed.), Teaching for learning: The view from cognitive psychology . Hawthorn: ACER.
Bloom, B. S. (1953). Thought processes in lectures and discussions. Journal of General Education, 7, 160-169.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods. (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Borko, H., Livingston, C., & Shavelson, R. J. (1990). Teachers' thinking about instruction. Remedial & Special Education, 11(8), 40-49,53.
Calderhead, J. (1983). Research into teachers' and student teachers' cognitions: exploring the nature of classroom practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 229 366).
Carrington, S. B. (1993). The new role of the special educator. Special Education Perspectives, 2(2), 83-86.
Christensen, C., & Rizvi, F. (Eds.). (1997). Disability and the dilemmas of education and justice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. . NY: Macmillan.
Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (1995). Cognitive coaching: a design for renaissance schools. Norwood: Christopher Gordon Publishing.
Davis, L., & Kemp, C. (1995). A collaborative consultation service delivery model for support teachers. Special Education Perspectives, 4(1), 17-28.
Denzin, N. (1978). The research act. (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dyson, A. (1990). Effective learning consultancy: a future role for special needs co-ordinators? Support for Learning, 5(3), 116-127.
Elbaz, F. (1990). Knowledge and discourse: the evolution of research on teacher thinking. In C. Day, M. Pope, & P. Denicolo (Eds.), Insights into teachers' thinking and practice. . London: The Falmer Press.
Felner, R. D., Jackson, A. W., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand, S., & Flowers, N. (1997). The impact of school reform for the middle years. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(7), 528-532, 541-550.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Teacher planning for students with learning disabilities; Differences between general and special educators. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7(3), 120-128.
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. (2nd ed.). NY: Teachers College Press.
Gerber, M. M. (1995). Inclusion at the high-water mark? Some thoughts on Zigmond and Baker's case studies of inclusive educational programs. The Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 181-191.
Glatthorn, A. A. (1990). Cooperative professional development: Facilitating the growth of the special education teacher and the classroom teacher. Remedial and Special Education, 11(3), 29-34.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hamill, L. B., Jantzen, A. K., & Bargerhuff, M. E. (1999). Analysis of effective educator competencies in inclusive environments. Action in Teacher Education, 21(3), 21-37.
Hines, R. A., & Johnston, J. H. (1996). Inclusive classrooms: the principal's role in promoting achievement. Schools in the Middle, 5(3), 6-11.
Hutchinson, N. L., & Martin, A. K. (1999). Fostering inclusive beliefs and practices during preservice teacher education through communities of practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(4), 234-250.
Idol, L. (1994). Don't forget the teachers. Journal of Emotional and Behavorial Problems, 3(3), 28-33.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. NY: Longman.
Korthagen, F., & Lagerwerf, B. (1996). Reframing the relationship between teacher thinking and teacher behaviour: Levels in learning about teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 2(2), 161-190.
Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to think? Harvard Educational Review, 55(2), 177-198.
Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75-95.
Lesar, S., Benner, S. M., Habel, J., & Coleman, L. (1997). Preparing general educatioin teachers for inclusive settings: A constructivist teacher education program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20(3), 204-220.
Lipsitz, J., Jackson, A. W., & Austin, L. M. (1997). What works in middle-grades school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(7), 517-519.
Martin, E. W. (1995). Case studies on inclusion: worst fears realized. The Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 192-199.
McDonnell, A., McDonnell, J., Hardman, M., & McCune, G. (1991). Educating students with severe disabilities in their neighbourhood school: The Utah Elementary Integration Model. Remedial and Special Education, 12(6), 34-45.
McKinnon, D. H., Gordon, C., Bentley-Williams, R., Prunty, A., & Finlay, A. (1997, 25-28 September, 1997). An investigation of teachers' support needs for the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular classrooms. Paper presented at the Paper presented at 'Embracing Diversity': 21st National Conference of the Australian Association of Special Education Inc, Brisbane, Australia.
McLaughlin, M., & Marsh, D. (1978). Staff development and school change. Teachers College Record, 80(1), 69-94.
McRae, D. (1996). The integration/inclusion feasibility study . Sydney: NSW Department of School Education.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.
Minke, K. M., Bear, G. G., Deemer, S. A., & Griffin, S. M. (1996). Teachers' experiences with inclusive classrooms: implications for special education reform. The Journal of Special Education, 30(2), 152-186.
Mitchell, J., & Marland, P. (1989). Research on teacher thinking: the next phase. Teaching & Teacher Education, 5(2), 115-128.
Mittler, P. (1995). Education for all or for some? International principles and practice. The Australasian Journal of Special Education, 19(2), 5-15.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications.
Peterson, M., & Beloin, K. S. (1998). Teaching the inclusive teacher: Restructuring the mainstreaming course in teacher education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(4), 306-318.
Pugach, M. C. (1995). On the failure of imagination in inclusive schooling. The Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 212-223.
Richardson, V., & Anders, P. L. (1998). A view from across the Grand Canyon. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21(1), 85-97.
Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers' workplace: The social organisation of schools. New York: Longman.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (3rd ed., ). New York: Macmillan.
Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Getting ready for inclusion: is the stage set? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10(3), 169-179.
Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Haager, D., McDowell, J., Rothlein, E., & Saumell, L. (1995). General education teacher planning: What can students with learning disabilities expect? Exceptional Children, 61(4), 335-352.
Sebba, J., & Ainscow, M. (1996). International developments in inclusive schooling: mapping the issues. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(1), 5-18.
Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. NY: Teachers College Press.
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judgements, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455-498.
Shavelson, R. J., Webb, N. M., & Burstein, L. (1986). Measurement of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. . NY: Macmillan.
Sindelar, P. T. (1995). Full inclusion of students with learning disabilities and its implications for teacher education. The Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 234-244.
Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century . Washington, DC.: Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development.
Ungerleider, C. S. (1993). Why change [hardly ever] happens. In E. Riecken & D. Court (Eds.), Dilemmas in educational change. . Calgary: Detselig Enterprises Ltd.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. London, Ont.: The Althouse Press.
Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1995). Responsible inclusion for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(5), 264-270.
Voltz, D. L., Elliott, R. N., & Cobb, H. B. (1994). Collaborative teacher roles: Special and general educators. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(8), 527-535.
Walberg, H., & Wang, M. (1987). Effective educational practices and provisions for individual differences. In M. Wang, M. Reynolds, & H. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research & practice, Vol 1, Learner characteristics and adaptive education (pp. 113-128). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Westwood, P., & Palmer, C. (1993). Knowledge and skills for special educators in the 1990's: Perceptions from the field. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 17(1), 31-41.
Zigmond, N. (1995). An exploration of the meaning and practice of special education in the context of full inclusion of students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 109-115.
 |
 |