Examining Attitudes of General Education Teachers Toward Inclusion of High

 

School Students with Cognitive Disabilities

 

 

 

 

 

Deb Engstrom

 

Action Research

ED 5105

December 2, 2003


 

Examining Attitudes of General Education Teachers Toward Inclusion of High

 

School Students with Cognitive Disabilities

 

Abstract:

 

            The purpose of this study was to examine the attitudes of general education teachers in one high school building (N=73) toward the inclusion of students with cognitive disabilities in their classes.  The study took place over one week in late November, 2003.  General education teachers were given a 14-question attitude survey as well as a semantic differential task.  Demographic information gathered was gender, age range, number of years teaching, whether or not they had experience with students with cognitive disabilities in their classes, and department.  Results of the completed surveys (n=45) indicated that teachers were primarily concerned with having adequate resources and time to implement inclusion effectively.  Information gained from this study will be used as a springboard to further examine the needs of general education teachers to make inclusion more effective for teachers and for students.

 

Introduction

 

            PL 94-142 (Education of All Handicapped Children Act) that was passed in 1975 provided the impetus to bring students from state hospitals and institutions to their home communities and into their home schools.  One of the basic premises of this law was that students with disabilities are entitled to a “free and appropriate public education” in the “least restrictive environment” possible.  The definition of least restrictive environment is based on “ the presumption that children with disabilities are most appropriately educated with their non-disabled peers….”

            From 1975 until now, much discussion has occurred in both general education and special education arenas about how to implement this federal law.  The law has evolved into the current statute that is IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) but the provisions and mandates are basically the same as the original law.  It is incumbent upon local school districts to provide a continuum of services ranging from self-contained special classrooms to full inclusion.  In my 23 years of teaching students with cognitive disabilities, I have wondered about whether students truly benefit from being included with their non-disabled peers in both academic and non-academic settings.  In most cases, inclusion of students with cognitive disabilities requires extensive curricular modifications, possible environmental modifications, and special supports within the general education classroom.

            All of these special considerations require collaboration between general education and special education staff.  It is important for special educators to be aware of teachers’ attitudes that possibly act as barriers to effective inclusion and optimal learning for all students.  Therefore, the purpose of my research study is to examine the attitudes of high school general education teachers (N=73) in one school building toward the placement of students with cognitive disabilities in their classes.  To that end, I have designed the following research questions for this investigation:

1)      What are the general education teachers’ attitudes toward having students with cognitive disabilities in their classes as measured by:

a)      a semantic differential task and teacher attitude survey

b)      level of participation in the curriculum planning process (number of contacts with special education teacher)

c)      level of involvement in the IEP process (attendance at IEP meetings)

2)      What are the greatest concerns of those teachers who are the least receptive to inclusion of students with cognitive disabilities as indicated by survey responses?

Review of Related Literature

            Law mandates inclusion of student with disabilities into schools, but few inclusion programs have succeeded in making inclusion part of the culture of the school.  The focus of the inclusion movement to include students with disabilities in general education has recently shifted from viewing inclusion as an innovation within special education toward viewing it within the broader context of school restructuring.  The shift is reflected in a growing body of research that explores inclusion from the perspective of general educators, a group that has been conspicuously omitted from earlier discussions of changes in policy and practice.  The importance of understanding the general educators’ attitudes and beliefs about inclusive education is underscored by findings that indicate that general educators’ willingness to include students with disabilities in their classes is critical to successful implementation (Soodak, Podell, & Lehman, 1998). Studies of teacher attitudes appear contradictory and inconclusive.  Some research has characterized general education teachers as being resistant to inclusion (Coates, 1989; Gersten, Walker, & Darch, 1988; Semmel, Abernathy, Butera, & Lesar, 1991) while others have shown them to be supportive (Villa, Thousand, Meyers, & Nevin, 1996; York, Vandercook, MacDonald, Heise-Neff, &Caughey, 1992).  Coates (1989) reported that general educators do not agree with the basic tenets of inclusive education, nor are they opposed to pullout programs.  Coates also thought that conflicting findings might best be understood by examining mediating factors influencing teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion.

            Hammil, Jantzen, and Bargerhuff (1999) reported that the most important competency for both elementary and secondary educators was the ability to collaborate.  After an examination of several studies, Allan Sandler (1999) reported that research on inclusion of students with severe disabilities concludes that greater attention to the acquisition of functional skills may be necessary if inclusion is to realize its promise as an instructional model that benefits students across the range of skill areas necessary for independent adult life.  Stanovich and Jordan (2002) described a research project at the Ontario Institution for Studies in Education that targeted variables essential for successful inclusion.  Lessons learned in this study emphasized developing teacher commitment to inclusion, practicing the science of education and viewing inclusion as professional development.  Soodak, Podell, and Lehman (1998) reported that receptivity toward inclusion was associated with higher teacher efficacy, inclusion of students with physical rather than cognitive or behavioral disorders, differentiated teaching practices, and teacher collaboration.  Lee Hamill (1999) reported on a qualitative study that investigated efforts to develop a formal inclusion program at the secondary level in a small urban school district.  Analysis of observations and interviews with thirteen junior high and high school staff members uncovered four themes: (1) some educators are devoted to implementing inclusion while others are less engaged in the process; (2) inclusion occurs even when there is no formal program in place; (3) student behavior and the academic nature of the general education curriculum present some difficulties for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms; and (4) it takes a combination of administrative support, scheduling adjustments, and teacher collaboration to make inclusion work.

Methods and Procedures:

 

            I began my study by giving a 14-question survey (See Appendix A) and a semantic differential task with instructions for completion (See Appendix B) to all of the general education teachers in one high school building (N=73).   These packets were placed in teachers’ mailboxes with information about the study.  Teachers were encouraged to contact me if they had any questions or concerns about their participation.  Items for the survey and the semantic differential task were gathered from surveys developed by Kate Romano, a student at Ursinus College; Prentice Hall; and Soodak, Podell, and Lehman.  The items were then reworded to best fit the format needed for this study.   On the survey, teachers were asked to respond to “I feel ….” statements and rate themselves on a 4-point Likert scale, with 1 being strongly agree and 4 being strongly disagree.  The semantic differential task ask them to place themselves on a 4-point continuum between a positive word and a negative word based on their initial reaction to receiving notification that a student with a cognitive disability was to be placed in one of their classes.  Forty-five teachers returned the completed survey, which is a return rate of 61%.  Of those forty-five returned surveys, twenty-five reported having had students with cognitive disabilities in their classes, which was 56% of those returned.    Other information requested was gender, number of years teaching, age range and department.  See Tables 1 and 2 for demographic information from the completed surveys.

Table 1

Demographic Information of Survey Respondents

Years Teaching

Age Range

Gender

1-5 years = 12

3 male – 9 female

21-30 = 11

2 male – 9 female

Female = 31

69%

6-10 years = 9

4 male – 5 female

31-40 = 11

6 male – 5 female

Male = 14

31%

11-20 years = 15

4 male – 11 female

41-50 = 15

4 male – 11 female

 

21-30 years = 9

3 male – 6 female

51-60 = 8

2 male – 6 female

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2

Department

Number of Surveys Returned

Applied Arts

5

Business

2

English

9

Family & Consumer Science

1

Foreign Language

4

Mathematics

6

Music

3

Physical Education

3

Science

5

Social Studies

5

Technology

2

 

Once the surveys were completed and returned, I analyzed each item by number of years teaching, by age range, and by department.  Results from those teachers who indicated that they had experience with students with cognitive disabilities in their classes n=25) were analyzed separately as well. 

Some of the questions on the survey, specifically #3, #6, #7, #13, and #14, were worded so that the “strongly disagree” would be the response that would indicate the most positive attitude toward inclusion and “strongly agree” would indicate the most negative attitude.  Before analyzing the results, a conversion was done for these questions so that numerical totals would most accurately reflect attitudes.  A similar conversion was done to the following word pairs on the semantic differential task:  angry/not angry, unwilling/willing, nervous/calm, annoyed/indifferent, resistant/cooperative.  The analysis consisted of the following:

1)      Computing the mean score for each item using all responses.

2)      Computing the mean score for each individual who returned a survey.

3)      Computing the mean score for each subgroup based on gender, age, years of teaching and department.

Once this analysis was complete, I utilized the sign in sheets for the IEP meetings of the 31 students in the building who have cognitive disabilities to determine which general education teachers attended these meetings and how many.  I also looked at the teacher contact log to determine how many contacts each teacher had with the special education staff members regarding curricular modifications, behavioral concerns, or other questions concerning students’ performance in his/her class. 

Results:

 

            The mean score of the survey combined with the semantic differential task for all respondents (n=45) was 2.73.  Tables 4, 5, and 6 contain mean scores for subgroups of years teaching, age, and department.  The item of greatest concern for the entire group was having the resources to implement inclusion successfully (#8) with a mean score of 3.89, followed closely by having the time to implement inclusion effectively (#4) with a mean score of 3.7 and finding it difficult to modify instruction and teaching style to meet the needs of students with cognitive disabilities (#6) with a mean score of 3.5.  The lowest mean score for the entire group (1.64) was for the statement relating to covering less of the curriculum because of inclusion (#3).  See Table 3 below.

Table 3

Question Number

Mean score

1

2.16

2

2.89

3

1.64

4

3.7

5

2.18

6

3.5

7

3.22

8

3.89

9

2.0

10

2.0

11

2.5

12

3.3

13

2.5

14

2.8

 

Table 4

 

Number of years teaching

Mean score

1-5 years (n=12)

2.52

6-10 years (n=9)

2.64

11-20 years (n=15)

2.98

21 – 30 years (n=9)

2.75

 

            Looking at the data in more detail revealed that teachers who had taught the least number of years (1-5) indicated that their greatest concern was having adequate resources to implement inclusion successfully (#8) with a mean score of 3.8.  They agreed most strongly with statements regarding inclusion leading to positive changes in the educational system (#1) and that they receive necessary support and assistance from supportive service personnel (#5), both with mean scores of 1.58. 

The greatest concern of teachers who had taught from 6-10 years was related to having the time to implement inclusion effectively (#4) with a mean score of 4.00. 

Teachers who had taught from 11 – 20 years also indicated their greatest concern to be having the time to implement inclusion effectively (#4) with a mean score of 3.67 These teachers also strongly disagree with the statement that general education teachers possess the skills and experience needed to work with students with cognitive disabilities in an inclusive setting (#12) with a mean score of 3.6.   Teachers in this group appear to be least concerned with the fact that they cover less of the curriculum because of inclusion (#3)

Teachers who have taught the longest (21-30 years) agree with their novice counterparts that having the resources to implement inclusion effectively is their greatest concern. 

All subgroups with the exception of the newest teachers believe that it is difficult to modify instruction and teaching style to meet the needs of students with disabilities (#6), but it was not the item of greatest concern for any group.

Table 5

 

Age

Mean score for all questions

21-30 (n=11)

2.41

31-40 (n=11)

2.35

41-50 (n=15)

2.89

51-60 (n=8)

2.75

 

            These data indicated that members of the youngest group of teachers are most concerned about adapting their instruction and teaching style to meet the needs of students with cognitive disabilities.  They are least concerned about having other adults in their classroom such as paraeducators or special education teachers (#10).  They also agree strongly with the statement that inclusive classrooms are appropriate learning environments for students with cognitive disabilities (#11). 

            Teachers who are age 31-40, most of whom have been teaching for 10 or more years, indicate the most concern about having time to implement inclusion effectively and are least concerned about covering less of the curriculum because of inclusion. 

            In the 41-50 age range, teachers are very much concerned about having time to effectively implement inclusion, with a mean score of 3.93.  They are least concerned about covering less of the curriculum because of inclusion with a mean score of 1.46.

            Members of the eldest group of teachers, most of whom have been teaching more than 20 years, are most concerned about time (mean score of 3.63).  Secondly, they feel it is difficult to modify instruction and teaching style to meet the needs of the students with cognitive disabilities (mean score of 3.5).  They, as are several other groups, least concerned about covering less of the curriculum because of inclusion (mean score of 1.63). 

Table 6

 

Department

Number who have had students with disabilities in their classes

Mean Score for all questions

Applied Arts (n=5)

5  (100%)

2.33

Business (n=2)

1 (50%)

3.29

English (n=9)

3 (33%)

2.85

Family and Consumer Science (n=1)

1 (100%)

3.43

Foreign Language (n=4)

1 (25%)

3.43

Mathematics (n=6)

2 (33%)

2.66

Music (n=3)

3 (100%)

2.82

Physical Education (n=3)

3 (100%)

1.99

Science (n=5)

1 (20%)

2.84

Social Studies (n=5)

3 (60%)

2.31

Technology (n=2)

2 (100%)

3.11

 

            When questions are analyzed by department, the physical education department has the lowest mean score for all questions and the foreign language department has the highest.  Individual questions were analyzed for those departments whose n>3.  Those departments were applied arts, English, foreign language, mathematics, science and social studies.  Table 7 provides the result of this analysis.

Table 7

Department

Question(s) with highest mean score

Question(s) with lowest mean score

Applied Arts

#6 (3.8)

#5 and #11 (1.4)

English

#6 and #8 (4.00)

#3 (1.67)

Foreign Language

#2, #3, #5, #6, #7, #8, #11, #12 (4.00)

#3 (1.00)

Mathematics

#8 (4.00)

#10 (1.61)

Science

#6, #7, #8 (4.00)

#1, #3 (1.6)

Social Studies

#4 (4.00)

#5 (1.2)

           

The final analysis that was done based on demographic subgroups was an analysis of the responses of teachers who had students with cognitive disabilities in their classes.  These teachers have a mean score of 2.7 on all responses.  This group seems to have the most concern about having adequate resources to implement inclusion (3.84), having adequate time (3.64) and they do not believe that general education teachers possess skills and experience needed to work with students with cognitive disabilities in an inclusive setting.  The lowest mean score for this group question #5 which relates to having the necessary support and assistance from supportive service personnel to implement inclusion successfully (1.72) followed by question #3 which indicates that they do not cover less of the curriculum because of inclusion (1.76).     

The teacher with the lowest mean score for all questions (1.61) is a male teacher in the physical education department.  He is in the 51-60 age range and has been teaching for more than 20 years.  The teacher with the highest mean score for all questions is a female teacher in the foreign language department.  She is in the 41-50-age range and has been teaching between 11 and 20 years. 

            Of the 25 teachers who had students with cognitive disabilities in their classrooms, all had attended the meeting or provided written input for each of the students assigned to them.  Rather than regular meetings with special education staff, all reported that the special education staff is available and whenever there is a concern. 

            The semantic differential task indicated that the words that teachers felt most negatively about were confident/insecure (2.46) and enthusiastic/unenthusiastic (2.35).  The all reported to feel not angry, calm, and cooperative (1.00).

Discussion:

            The placement of students with cognitive disabilities in appropriate general education classes requires working very closely with general education teachers in order to make the placement successful.  The attitude of the general education teacher toward inclusion of students with cognitive disabilities is the most important variable in the process.  It is important for the special education teacher to have a feel for what are the greatest concerns of these teachers in order to focus collaborative activities or to request administrative assistance. 

            In this study, vast amounts of data were collected and there were many ways to analyze the data to reach a variety of conclusions.  Since time and resources are things that teachers covet highly, it is logical that the greatest concerns over all were having time and resources to implement inclusion effectively.  Teachers who had taught from 11-20 years, most of whom are in the 41-50 year old age range, have the greatest concerns about inclusion.  The teachers who had taught the least amount of time, most of whom are in the 21-30 age range had the most positive mean scores. 

            When the scores were analyzed by department, all of the “academic” departments (English, Foreign Language, Social Studies, and Science) had unanimous concerns with the Foreign Language department having the most.  The Foreign Language department has had very few students with cognitive disabilities placed in its classes.  Since it is a sequential curriculum, teachers have concerns about covering the entire prescribed curriculum. 

            It was validating to me as a special education teacher that many teachers did feel that inclusive classrooms are appropriate learning environments for students with cognitive disabilities and that they receive the necessary support and assistance from other supportive service personnel to implement inclusion effectively.  I also found that the teachers made every effort to meet their responsibilities to the students placed in their classroom.  All teachers provided input into the IEP meetings either by attendance or through written feedback and all teachers had regular meetings with special education staff to address questions and concerns.  It is difficult to document those impromptu “meetings” that take place in the cafeteria, in the hallways and even in the grocery store and those were not included in the teacher contact log. 

Since not all teachers returned the survey, it is difficult to determine whether those who did not respond simply did not find the time to complete it or were reluctant to have their attitudes known to me.  Even though the responses were anonymous, in some cases it was possible to determine who the respondent was by the demographic information. 

I intend to use the information gained from this to improve collaborative relationships with the general education teachers with whom I work.  Also, I intend to share the results with the principal of the building so that staff development opportunities and other resources might be made available to improve the process of inclusion in our building.

 


Works Cited

 

Coates, R. D. “The Regular Education Initiative and Opinions of Regular Classroom

 

     Teachers.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 22 (1989): 532-536.

 

Dore, Robert, Eric Dion, Serve Wagner, and Jean-Pierre Brunet. “High School Inclusion

           

     of  Adolescents with Mental Retardation:  A Multiple Cast Study.”  Education and

     Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities 37.3 (2002) : 173-185.

Gersten, R., H. Walker, and C. Darch.  “Relationship between teachers’ effectiveness and

     their tolerance for handicapped children.” Exceptional Children 54 (1988) : 433-438.

Gourley, Junean.  Curriculum Reform for Inclusion:  Infusing Issues of Social Justice and

     Caring . Annual National Conference Proceedings of the American Council on Rural

     Special Education, 2002.

Hamill, Lee B. Anne K. Jantzen, and Mary E. Gargerhuff. “Analysis of Effective

     Educator Competencies in Inclusive Environments.” Action in Teacher Education

     21.3 (1999) : 21-37.

Prentice Hall, “Educator Inclusion Survey.”  Online posting. Prentice Hall. 4 Nov 2003

     <ftp://ftp.prenhall.com/pub/ect/special_education.q-

     084/salend/inclusion/Educator.pdf>.

Romano, Kate.  “Inclusion Survey.” Online posting. 5 Oct. 1999.  Teacher’s Desk.

     4 Nov 2003 <http://teachersdesk.com/admiistrate/_disc10/00000002.htm>.

Semmel, M.I., T. V. Abernathy, G. Butera, and S. Lesar. “Teacher Perceptions of  the

     Regular Education Initiative.” Exceptional Children 58 (1991) : 9-23.


Soodak, LeslieC., David M. Podell, and Laurie R. Lehman. “Teacher, Student, and

     School Attributes as Predictors of Teachers’ Responses to Inclusion.” The Journal of

     Special Education 31 (1998) : 480-497.

Stanovich, Paula, and Anne Jordan. “Preparing General Educators to Teach in Inclusive

     Classrooms:  Some Food for Thought.” Teacher Educator 37.3 (2002) : 173-185.

Villa, R. A., J. S. Thousand, H. Meyers, and A. Nevin.  “Teacher and Administrator

     Perceptions of Heterogeneous Education.” Exceptional Children 63 (1996) : 29-45

Wolpert, Gloria. “What General Educators Have to Say about Successfully Including

     Students with Down Syndrome in Their Classes.” Journal of Research in Childhood

     Education 16 (2001) : 28-38. 

York, J., T. Vandercook, C. MacDonald, C. Heise-Neff, and E. Caughey. “ Feedback

     About Integrating Middle-School Students with Severe Disabilities in General

     Education Classes.” Exceptional Children 58 (1992) : 244-258.

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A

Teacher Survey

 


 

Inclusion Survey

 

Please provide the following demographic information:

 

      1.     Gender            M                         F

 

  1.   Department:  ____________________________

 

      3.     Age:            22 – 30               31-40               41-50               51-60               61-70

 

  1.  Years of teaching experience:  1-5              6-10            11-20             21-30    

 

  1. Have you had students with cognitive disabilities in your classes before: 

 

                                          Yes                                   No

 

Please respond to the following statements according to the scale below:

 

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree Somewhat

3 = Disagree Somewhat

4 = Strongly Disagree

 

________ 1.  I feel that inclusion will lead to positive changes in the educational system.

 

________ 2.  I feel that I have the training to implement inclusion successfully.

 

________ 3.  I feel that I cover less of the curriculum because of inclusion.

 

________ 4.  I feel that I have the time to implement inclusion effectively.

 

________ 5.  I feel that I receive the necessary support and assistance from supportive service personnel to implement inclusion successfully.

 

________ 6.  I feel that it is difficult to modify instruction and my teaching style to meet the needs of students with cognitive disabilities.

 

 

________ 7.  I feel that the demands of the curriculum make it difficult to implement inclusion.

 

________ 8.  I feel that I have the resources to implement inclusion successfully.

 

________ 9.  I feel that I receive the necessary support and assistance from other teachers to implement inclusion successfully.

 

________ 10. I feel that having other adults in my classroom is a problem.

 

________ 11. I feel that inclusive classrooms are appropriate learning environments for students with cognitive disabilities.

 

________ 12 I feel that general education teachers possess skills and experience needed to work with students with cognitive disabilities in an inclusive setting.

 

________ 13. I feel that special education teachers can best meet the needs of students who require significant modifications to the curriculum in a resource room environment.

 

________ 14. I believe that the behaviors of some students with cognitive disabilities distract the rest of a class and take away from time spent teaching.

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B

 

Semantic Differential Task

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Colleagues:

 

 You have gone to the office to check you mailbox and you find one of my notes in your box that says:

 

August 13, 2003

To:

From:  Deb Engstrom

__________________________ has enrolled in your __________________class ___hr. for the _____ semester of the ___________ school year.  Please contact me at your convenience regarding his/her participation in your class. 

 

Even though you may not know the specific student, you know that the students that I might be placing in your class require significant modifications to the general education curriculum.  Looking at the following word pairs, please rate yourself in terms of the initial feeling that you have when you find my note.

 

                        1                                  2                                  3                                  4

               Enthusiastic                                                                                        Unenthusiastic

 

                        1                                  2                                  3                                  4

             Comfortable                                                                                     Uncomfortable

 

1                                  2                                  3                                  4

                   Angry                                                                                                 Not angry

 

1                                  2                                  3                                  4

                Unwilling                                                                                                Willing

 

1                                  2                                  3                                  4

                 Confident                                                                                              Insecure

 

1                                  2                                  3                                  4

                 Nervous                                                                                                   Calm

 

1                                  2                                  3                                  4

                  Annoyed                                                                                              Indifferent

 

1                                  2                                  3                                  4

                Accepting                                                                                             Opposing

 

1                                  2                                  3                                  4

                  Prepared                                                                                           Unprepared

 

1                                  2                                  3                                  4

               Resistant                                                                                               Cooperative

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C

Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject #

Department

Gender

Age

Yrs Tchng

Sped

Mean

 

 #3

Applied Arts

F

21-30

a

a

2.14

 

 #1

Applied Arts

F

31-40

a

a

2.14

 

 #4

Applied Arts

F

31-40

b

a

1.78

 

 #2

Applied Arts

F

31-40

c

b

2.79

 

 #5

Applied Arts

F

41-50

b

a

1.78

 

 #7

Business

f

41-50

d

b

3

 

 #9

Business

f

51-60

d

b

3.14

 

 #14

English

f

21-30

b

a

2.57

 

 #15

English

f

21-30

b

a

2.71

 

 #11

English

m

31-40

b

a

2.64

 

 #18

English

m

31-40

b

a

2.93

 

 #20

English

f

31-40

c

b

3.14

 

 #17

English

f

41-50

c

b

2.21

 

#10

English

f

51-60

d

b

2.29

 

 #13

English

f

51-60

d

b

2.29

 

#19

English

m

51-60

d

b

2.93

 

 #24

FACS

f

41-50

c

b

3.21

 

 #27

Foreign Language

f

21-30

a

a

3

 

 #25

Foreign Language

f

41-50

c

b

3.36

 

#28

Foreign Language

f

41-50

c

b

3.29

 

 #30

Foreign Language

f

51-60

c

b

3.21

 

 #44

Math

f

21-30

a

a

2.23

 

 #46

Math

f

21-30

a

a

2.38

 

 #38

Math

f

41-50

c

b

2.38

 

 #41

Math

f

41-50

d

b

3.15

 

 #37

Math

m

41-50

d

b

2.64

 

 #43

Math

f

51-60

d

b

2.46

 

 #50

Music

m

31-40

b

b

2.77

 

 #48

Music

f

41-50

c

b

2.77

 

#47

Music

m

41-50

c

b

2.69

 

#33

PE

f

41-50

c

b

2.14

 

 #35

PE

f

41-50

c

b

2.35

 

 #31

PE

m

51-60

d

b

1.69

 

 #57

Science

f

21-30

a

a

2.8

 

 #51

Science

m

21-30

a

a

2.08

 

 #54

Science

m

21-30

a

a

2.46

 

 #53

Science

m

41-50

c

b

2.92

 

 #58

Science

f

51-60

b

a

3

 

 #59

Social Studies

f

21-30

a

a

2.38

 

 #62

Social Studies

f

21-30

a

a -  c

2.46

 

#61

Social Studies

m

31-40

a

a -  c

2.23

 

 #65

Social Studies

f

31-40

a

a-c

2.54

 

 #60

Social Studies

m

31-40

b

a

2

 

 #72

Technology

m

31-40

c

b

2.93

 

 #70

Technology

m

41-50

c

b

3

 

 

 

 

Semantic Differential Task

 

 

 

Enthusiastic

Comfortable

Not angry

Willing

Confident

Calm

Indifferent

Accepting

Prepared

Cooperative

 

 

#1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

2

4

1

16

1.6

#3

2

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

3

1

16

1.6

#4

2

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

1

15

1.5

#5

2

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

1

15

1.5

#7

3

1

1

3

4

1

4

4

2

1

24

2.4

#10

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

16

1.6

#13

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

16

1.6

#17

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

12

1.2

#24

3

1

1

3

3

1

4

4

4

1

25

2.5

#31

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

11

1.1

#33

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

16

1.6

#35

3

1

1

3

2

1

3

3

2

1

20

2

#38

3

1

1

2

4

1

2

2

3

1

20

2

#43

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

13

1.3

#47

3

2

1

2

3

1

3

3

2

1

21

2.1

#50

3

2

1

2

3

1

3

3

2

1

21

2.1

#54

2

1

1

2

4

1

2

2

3

1

19

1.9

#61

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

10

1

#62

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

13

1.3

#65

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

13

1.3

#70

4

3

1

3

3

1

3

3

3

1

25

2.5

#72

4

3

1

2

4

1

2

2

3

1

23

2.3

 

51

28

22

41

55

22

45

46

48

22

380

 

 

2.35

1.23

1

1.92

2.46

1

2.08

2.08

2.19

1

1.73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have experience with students with cognitive disabilities

 

Subject #

#1

#2

#4

#3

#5

#6

#7

#8

#10

#11

#12

#13

#14

Total

Mean

 

 #3  **

1

2

4

2

1

4

4

3

1

2

3

2

2

31

2.42

 

 #1 **

2

2

4

2

1

3

3

3

4

1

3

1

2

31

2.21

 

 #4  **

1

3

4

2

1

4

2

3

1

1

2

2

1

27

2

 

 #2  **

3

3

4

2

3

4

2

4

3

2

4

3

3

40

3

 

 #5 **

2

2

4

2

1

4

2

3

1

1

2

1

1

26

2

 

 #7  **

3

4

4

2

2

4

4

4

3

3

4

3

4

44

3.21

 

 #17  **

1

2

4

2

1

4

3

4

3

2

3

1

2

32

2.43

 

#10 **

1

2

4

2

2

4

3

4

3

2

2

2

2

33

2.5

 

 #13 **

2

2

4

2

2

4

3

4

2

1

3

2

2

33

2.5

 

#24 **

3

3

4

2

2

4

4

4

3

4

4

4

3

44

3.43

 

 #28 **

3

4

4

1

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

4

4

47

3.5

 

#38 **

2

3

3

2

2

4

3

4

1

2

3

2

3

34

2.61

 

 #43 **

1

2

3

3

1

2

3

4

1

2

4

3

2

31

2.21

 

#50 **

3

4

4

1

2

3

3

4

1

3

4

3

2

37

2.85

 

 #48 **

3

4

4

1

2

3

3

4

1

3

4

3

2

37

2.85

 

 #47 **

3

4

4

1

2

3

3

4

1

4

3

2

2

36

2.77

 

 #33 **

2

3

2

1

2

2

2

4

2

2

2

2

2

28

2.07

 

 #35 **

3

3

2

1

3

2

2

4

1

3

3

1

3

31

2.29

 

#31 **

2

2

2

1

1

2

1

4

2

1

 

1

1

20

1.61

 

 #54 **

1

2

3

2

2

4

4

4

3

2

3

3

2

35

2.69

 

 #62 **

2

2

4

2

1

3

3

4

2

2

3

2

3

33

2.54

 

 #65 **

1

2

4

2

1

2

3

4

3

2

3

2

3

32

2.46

 

 #61 **

1

1

4

2

1

1

2

4

1

1

3

4

1

26

2

 

 #72 **

2

3

4

3

1

3

4

4

2

3

4

1

4

38

3

 

#70 **

3

4

4

1

2

4

4

4

2

4

4

1

4

41

3.21

 

 

51

68

91

44

43

81

74

96

50

57

77

55

60

 

64.36

2.57

 

2.2

2.7

3.64

1.76

1.7

3.24

3

3.84

2

2.3

3.1

2.2

2.4