Running Head: social validation of services for youth with ebd
Yüklə 1,83 Mb.
|
AcknowledgementWe are grateful to Korean special education teachers, Hae-Jin Hwang, Ryoung-Hee Park, and Sun-young Lee who distributed the questionnaire to the participants and interviewed them individually. ReferencesAlahbabi, A. (2009). K-12 special and general education teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with special needs in general education classes in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). International Journal of Special Education, 24 (2), 42-54. Armstrong, A., Armstrong, D., & Spandagou, I. (2010). Inclusive education: International policy and practice. London: Sage. Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school one local education authority. Educational Psychology, 20(2), 191-211. Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129-147. Backman, J. (1984). Acquisition and Use of Spelling-Sound Correspondences in Reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38,(1). Bowman, I. (1986). Teacher training and the integration of handicapped pupils: Some findings from a fourteen nation UNESCO study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1, 29-38. Chun, S. (2000). The study on ordinary school teachers' awareness toward inclusion education.Unpublished manuscript, Taegu University, Korea. Cornoldi, C., Terreni, A., Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1998). Teacher attitudes in Italy after twenty years of inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 350-356. D'Alonzo, B., Gordano, G., & Vanleeuwen, D. (1997). Perceptions by teachers about the benefits and liabilities of inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 42, 4-10. Daane, C., Beirne-Smith, M., & Latham, D. (2000). Administrations' and teachers' perceptions of the collaborative efforts of inclusion in the elementary grades. Education, 121, 331-338. Dettmer, P., Thurston, L., & Dyck, N. (2005). Consultation, collaboration and teamwork for students with special needs (7th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Eberold, S. (2003). Inclusion and mainstream education: An equal cooperation system. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18, 89-107. Foreman. (Ed.) (2008). Inclusion in action (2nd ed.). Sydney: Cengage. Gaad, E., & Khan, L. (2009). Primary mainstream teachers' attitudes towards inclusion of students with special educational needs in the private sector: A perspective from Dubai. International Journal of Special Education, 22 (1), 96-109. Hammond, H., & Ingalls, L. (2003). Teachers' attitudes towards inclusion: Survey results from elementary school teachers in three south-western rural school districts. Rural and Special Education Quarterly, 22, 24-30. Heward, W. (2003). Ten faulty notions about teaching and learning that hinder the effectiveness of special education. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 186-205. Im, A. (1986). The history of occupations of the blind in Korea. Unpublished PhD, Dankook University, Seoul. Kim, H. (2009). The role and issues of special classes and inclusive classes in regular school of Korea. Journal of International Special Education in the Asia-Pacific, 5, 12-18. Kim, J. (1994). Historical implications of one hundred years in Korean special education. Journal of Special Education, 15, 111-128. Kim, S. (1999). Special education (2nd ed.). Seoul: Yangseowon. Kristensen, K., Omagos-Loican, M., & Onen, N. (2003). The inclusion of learners with barriers to learning and development into ordinary school settings: A challenge for Uganda. British Journal of Special Education, 30(4), 194-201. Lifshitz, H., Glaubman, R., & Issawi, R. (2004). Attitudes towards inclusion: The case of Israeli and Palestinian regular and special education teachers. 19, 2(171-190). Molto, M. (2003). Mainstream teachers' acceptance of instructional adaptations in Spain. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18, 311-332. Monahan, R., Marion, S., & Miller, R. (1996). Teacher attitudes towards inclusion: Implications for teacher education in schools 2000. Education, 117, 316-320. Morberg, S., & Savolainen, H. (2003). Struggling for inclusive education in the North and the South: Educator's perceptions on inclusive education in Finland and Zambia. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 26(1), 21-31. Mousouli, M., Kokaridas, D., Angelopoulou-Sakadami, N., & Aristotelous, M. (2009). Knowledge and attitudes towards children with special needs by physical education students. International Journal of Special Education, 24 (3), 85-89. Muhanna, M. (2010). Investigation of differences in attitudes, beliefs and knowledge of inclusion of students with Autism between special and general primary teachers in Jordan. Unpublished Master of Education (Research) thesis, Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney. Park, J. (2002). Special education in South Korea. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34, 28-33. Pugach, M., & Johnson, L. (1995). Unlocking expertise among classroom teachers through structured dialogue: Extending research on peer collaboration. Exceptional Children, 62(2), 101-110. Reusen, A., Shoho, A., & Barker, K. (2001). High school teacher attitudes towards inclusion. The High School Journal, 84, 7-17. Salend, S. (1999). So what's with our inclusion program? Evaluating educators' experiences and perceptions. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32, 46-54. Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74. Seo, G., Oakland, T., Han, H., & Hu, S. (1993). Special education in South Korea. Exceptional Children, 58, 213-218. Shade, R., & Stewart, R. (2001). General education and special education preservice teachers' attitudes towards inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 46, 37-41. Smith, M., & Smith, K. (2000). "I believe in inclusion, but ...": Regular education early childhood teachers' perceptions of successful inclusion. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14, 161-180. Snyder, R. (1999). Inclusion: A qualitative study of inservice general education teachers' attitudes and concerns. Education, 120, 173-181. Stoler, R. (1992). Perceptions of regular education teachers towards inclusion of all handicapped students in their classrooms. The Clearing House, 66, 60-62. Vidovich, D., & Lombard, T. (1998). Parents', teachers' and administrators' perceptions of the process of inclusion. Education Research Quarterly, 21, 41-52. Villa, R., Thousand, J., Meyers, H., & Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher and administrator perceptions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children, 63, 29-45. Westwood, P., & Graham, L. (2003). Inclusion of students with special needs: Benefits and obstacles perceived by teachers in New South Wales and South Australia. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 3-15. Wood, M. (1998). Whose job is it anyway? Educational roles in inclusion. Exceptional Children, 64, 181-195.
TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF SELF-DETERMINATION FOR STUDENTS WITH EMOTIONAL/BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS: THE LIMITATIONS OF AN INDIVIDUALISTIC PERSPECTIVE Rhonda S. Black and
David Leake University of Hawaii at Manoa Focus group interviews were conducted with special education teachers from Oahu, Hawaii and Washington, DC regarding self-determination for youth with emotional/behavioral disorders. Some of the teachers defined their own self-determination in individualistic terms, while highlighting the importance of collectivistic values for many of their students. Other teachers who held more collectivist–based definitions and perceptions still discussed how their own experiences differed from those of their students. Profiles of self-determination views are presented and compared to definitions and current practices in the field of special education with respect to self-determination and transition. The concepts of individualism and collectivism and of social capital are used to enhance understanding of differences in the views of the participating teachers and of the obstacles to self-determination they identify for their students. It is well known that students with disabilities, as a group, achieve poorer employment, postsecondary education, and community living outcomes as they transition to adulthood compared to their peers without disabilities (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Roylance, 1998; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2005). Students with disabilities also tend to have fewer opportunities for self-determination than their nondisabled peers – and when they do have opportunities, they often lack the attitudes, skills, and knowledge to be able to respond appropriately (Ward & Kohler, 1996). To address these outcomes, promoting student self-determination has been at the forefront of special education practices for over two decades (Ward, 2006). In 1988, the US Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services launched a self-determination initiative. This initiative promoted the participation of persons with disabilities in service provisiondecision-making and funded more than two dozen research and model demonstration projects aimed at enhancing the capacity for self-determination of students with disabilities (Ward, 2006). The self-determination movement also led to the incorporation of self-determination as a guiding value in major disability-related legislation, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act (P.L. 101-336) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (P.L. 105-17) (Field, Martin, Miller, Ward, & Wehmeyer, 1998). In addition, a number of disability-related agencies and organizations, such as The Council for Exceptional Children’s Division on Career Development and Transition, developed policies and position statements prioritizing the promotion of self-determination (Field et al., 1998). Countless self-determination curricula and programs have been developed, and some have been shown by research to be effective in enhancing specific self-determination skills (Karvonen, Test, Wood, Browder, & Algozzine, 2004; Kohler, 1998). Research also suggests that students with disabilities who improve their skills for self-determination tend to enjoy improved educational, employment, and community living outcomes (Chambers et al., 2007; Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003). It has therefore been assumed that students’ levels of self-determination can serve as a marker of the success of special education services (Grigal, Neubert, Moon, & Graham, 2003). The association between transition outcomes and self-determination is evident for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). Students with EBD experience worse postsecondary outcomes than students in other disability categories (Wagner 1995; Wagner, Cameto, & Newman, 2003; Wagner et al., 2005) and have lower ratings of self-determination than students with other disabilities (Carter, Lane, Pierson & Glaeser, 2006; SRI International, 2005). By definition, students with EBD have difficulty with self-regulation and self-control, and are likely to lack essential skills for self-determination such as goal-setting, delay of gratification, and accurate self-appraisal (Kauffman, 2005). When these students do establish self-determined goals, they may be hampered in achieving them by difficulties in social relationships related to externalizing or internalizing behaviors (Kauffman, 2005). In addition to personal capacity, the development of self-determination also requires opportunities to make choices and process the consequences, but such opportunities are often limited for students with EBD by their parents or when they are placed in structured environments (Mithaug, 1996; Ward & Kohler, 1996). Although self-determination appears to be a particularly important, yet problematic, issue for students with EBD, very little research involving this population has been conducted (Carter et al., 2006). This article is intended to contribute to the research base by describing teacher perspectives on what self-determination means for secondary students with EBD and how it can be enhanced. Teacher views were collected and analyzed through a qualitative research project focused on exploring how cultural factors influence self-determination. Focusing on cultural factors was considered important because the proportion of students who are of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) heritage is growing and expected to reach half the student population in the United States by 2040 (Archer, 2000), and CLD students (especially African-American) tend to be overrepresented in the EBD category (Donovan & Cross, 2002). However, nearly all self-determination curricula and programs are rooted in Western values that prioritize the autonomous actions of individuals. The individualistic orientation is clearly reflected in Field et al.’s (1998) synthesis of common themes found across numerous definitions: Self-determination is a combination of skills, knowledge, and beliefs that enable a person to engage in goal directed, self-regulated, autonomous behavior. An understanding of one’s strengths and limitations together with a belief in oneself as capable and effective are essential to self-determination. When acting on the basis of these skills and attitudes, individuals have greater ability to take control of their lives and assume the role of successful adults. (p. 2) In several previous articles we questioned whether such a perspective can effectively embrace collectivistic values that prioritize family and relationships over individual action and achievement (Black, Mrasek, & Ballinger, 2003; Leake, Black & Roberts, 2004; Leake & Boone, 2007). Moreover, is it realistic to expect students with EBD who have so many agencies and professionals in their lives (teachers, counselors, behavioral health specialists, corrections officers, and others) to make their own decisions? The need to address the individualism-collectivism contrast is reflected in findings that CLD families with children with disabilities often report feeling that professionals are insensitive to or disregard their values and culture (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1997, 1999; Rueda, Monzo, Shapiro, Gomez & Blacher, 2005). For example, Geenen, Powers, Vasquez and Bersani (2003) found that independent living is viewed in a negative light for many CLD families as it is associated with separation from the family. They also found that many families are wary of institutional supports, and feel that accepting help from outsiders would bring shame to the family. Therefore, more appropriate transition planning and goals may involve developing family and community supports (rather than just agency services), promoting self-sufficiency within the family (rather than focusing on independent living), and identifying ways to contribute to the larger group (rather than focusing on individual achievement). School personnel should understand the individualism-collectivism contrast because, according to Trumbull, Rothstein-Fisch, Greenfield, and Quiroz, 2001), these
Groups of teachers from various ethnic backgrounds were interviewed regarding their perceptions and experiences of self-determination for students with EBD. We believed it was important to determine how teachers defined self-determination since they are the front-line contacts with students and their families, and their perceptions of self-determination would ultimately influence the type of instruction and opportunities provided these students. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to discuss findings from these focus group interviews with respect to how these teachers (a) viewed/defined self-determination, and (b) described what is necessary in a young person’s life in order to experience self-determination. We focused each of these questions particularly on young people with EBD. Method A qualitative focus group approach was used to gather the views of teachers of secondary students with EBD and identify common themes about self-determination (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Thorne, 2000). Focus group interviews are especially appropriate when attitudes and feelings about an issue are sought, and when information comes to light from the interactions between people (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). The group format enables ideas to come forth that individuals may not have considered on their own. In this particular study, group discussions also encouraged networking among teachers from different schools who worked with similar students. Participants A combination stratified purposeful/snowball sampling technique (Patton, 1990) was used to select our participants. Requirements for participation included that the teachers (a) had at least two years full-time experience working with secondary students identified as having EBD, and (b) most of the students they taught were of CLD heritage (i.e., primarily from non-Caucasian backgrounds). The snowball sampling technique involved identifying a few teachers who met the requirements for participation. Once identified, he/she would provide names of others who may also be interested in participating. From this pool of potential participants we selected teachers who met the requirements for participation and came from various cultural backgrounds such as Asian, Pacific Islander, Caucasian, and African-American. Homogeneous groups based on location and the teachers’ cultural/ethnic backgrounds were then formed (Vaughn, Schumm, & Sinagub, 1996) to enhance common threads within groups, and to determine if differences existed between groups. Four focus groups were formed, three on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii and one in Washington, DC. Each group met three times, for a total of 12 separate interview sessions (see Table 1).
Yüklə 1,83 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|
