FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION AND CLASSROOM ORGANIZATION IN FULL INCLUSION CLASSES AMONG

CHILDREN WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITIES

by Tancuan, John Rey P. Awitin, Edin Jane S. Buffe, Queenie Kaye

ABSTRACT Inclusion is one of the most controversial topics in the world of special education. Through inclusion an educational practice is performed where the child with disability can join and participate in a regular classroom set up. Sub categories from inclusion was carefully selected to be evaluated first (1) is Academic Instruction, second (2) physical elements of the classroom and Inclusion and lastly (3) Collaboration of Special education teacher and regular teachers. . To be able to gather the necessary data, the researchers utilized the descriptive method, using qualitative approach. Herein, the respondents were chosen through convenience sampling. The survey methods were the research instruments used for the data-gathering with in the location of National Capital Region (NCR). The information from the collected surveys. , It showed that the level of performance of the Sped teachers is different from the level of performance of the regular teacher this shows the effectiveness of both teachers on their students when it comes to inclusion class set up. For quality of instructional materials, the quality of the instructional materials used by Sped teachers is different from the quality of the instructional materials used by the regular teachers the graph shows that the instructional materials used by both Sped Teacher and Regular teacher has the same effect. For the quality of instructions given by the teachers, the quality of instructions given by the Sped teachers is much effective than the quality of instructions given by regular teachers and also there is no mean difference in the furniture arrangements; location of classroom; ventilation; and classroom design whether the student is in regular class or Sped class. No mean difference is found in the level of students performance, mastery of learning, and timing of intervention. Therefore, using analysis of variances, there is no significant relationship with one another when it comes to the academic instruction given by the teachers. Lastly there is no significant relationship between the collaboration of special and regular teachers on the performance of students in an inclusion setup. The quality of instruction, materials, physical elements and collaboration of the two teacher is not just the main factor in the success of inclusion. The child itself is the key in the success of inclusion. The childs ability is also one of the major factor to be considered.

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY

INTRODUCTION Inclusion is an educational practice where children with disabilities can join and participate in classrooms with children without disabilities. It is the act of making sure that no child sits on the side-lines. Under the inclusion model, students with special needs spend most or all of their time with non-disabled students. With this model, academic instruction and classroom organization plays a big role in the success of implementing it as well as the collaboration of regular and special education teacher. Academic instruction is one factor that greatly affects the implementation of inclusion. Through this, the regular and special education teacher determine what instruction is best used to meet the childs need without leaving anyone behind. Providing sup port to the inclusive classroom requires more than having specific disciplinary expertise and being physically present in the classroom. The physical classroom environment influences students learning, participation, and involvement in class activities. Spend some time deciding how to best organize the environment to accommodate the various classroom activities. The physical arrangement of the classroom can serve as a powerful setting event for providing students effective instruction and facilitate positive teaching/learning interactions. As with other aspects of instruction, the physical arrangement of the classroom should be reflective of the diverse cultural and linguistic characteristics of the students and be consistent with specific learner needs. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY The idea emerged when we decided to tackle the topic that is related to the effectiveness of Full Inclusion Classes among children with mild handicap, then after reading other researches we wanted to narrow down the topic to the very simple elements that can still be improved or observed and we finally end up with, the relationship of academic instruction and class organization in full inclusion classes among children with physical disability. We aimed to understand this specific category more and if possible develop the standard norms or practices that the current generation of teachers apply. Inclusion is the practice of educating all children in the same classroom, including children with physical, mental, and developmental disabilities. It is about all learners and about taking action to remove barriers to participation and learning. The first step is to know the relationship of academic instruction and class organization to inclusion classes, so that we can better understand what is the pros and cons of the current practices being conducted in inclusive type of schools at present time. Synthesis

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY Inclusion is the educational practice of educating children with disabilities in classrooms with children without disabilities. This can be describe as a service wherein students with disabilities are placed in general education classrooms with appropriate support services. Student may receive instruction from both a general education teacher and a special education teacher. For inclusion to work, educational practices must be child-centered. This means that teachers must discover where each of their students are academically, socially, and culturally to determine how best to facilitate learning. Indeed, child-centered teachers view their role more as being facilitators of learning rather than simply transmitters of knowledge. Therefore, skills in curriculum-based assessment, team teaching, mastery learning, assessing learning styles other individualized and adaptive learning approaches, cooperative learning strategies are important for teachers to develop and use in inclusive classrooms. According to Halvorsen (2001) inclusive education means that students with disabilities are supported in chronologically age-appropriate general education classes in their home schools and receive the specialized instruction delineated by their individualized education programs (IEP's) within the context of the core curriculum and general class activities. The related studies mentioned in this chapter shows that there are several factors that affect the achievement of inclusion which is similar to our study. In addition, the related studies mentioned above showed that the academic instruction and class organization play a big role in the success of inclusion. These two factors must be well organized to provide a high quality of education. Another similarity is that the collaboration of the regular teacher and special education teacher should be synchronized and well planned to achieve the main objective in inclusion, which is to develop students in various levels to be an integral part of the learning environment in the general education classroom. In contrast to our study, the related studies mentioned in this chapter focused on the perception, belief and attitude of regular teachers in inclusion. The attitude of the future regular teacher regarding inclusion is included in the related studies mentioned above. In addition, these related studies discussed the effect of training of regular teachers in teaching students with disabilities in an inclusive classroom.

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY

Summary of Findings
Please answer the following questions in relation to inclusion. PLEASE TICK ONE BOX WITH A CHECK MARK FOR EACH QUESTION. Part A: Academic Instruction How do the followings factors affect the academic instruction given to children with mild handicaps in terms of: Level of performance STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 1. Student can pass the test given by teacher Student answers the question very well whenever asked regarding the lesson

2.

3. Student performs very well during an activity presented by the teacher 4. Student can recall clearly the lessons discussed given by the teacher 5. Student answers correctly the assignments given to them Quality of Instructional Materials STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE

1.

Instructional materials should be accessible to students 2. Instructional materials should allow the students to master the mastery level skill of the students

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY

3. Teacher should select instructional materials that are appropriate to the needs of students with mild handicaps difficulties 4. The instructional materials to be used should be innovative to develop the level of performance 5. Instructional materials to be used must be updated and timely 6. Teachers can re-write, reorganize and cast information

Quality of instruction given by the Teacher STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE

1.

Instruction given by the teacher should be accurate to the students

2. Instruction is provided in multiple formats such as individual, pairs, small groups and whole class 3. Instruction to be given is based on the learning styles, abilities, interests, and curricular focus of the students 4. Teachers should incorporate variety of learning techniques (e.g. visual, tactile and kinaesthetic material and experiences) 5. Instruction given by the teacher should be appropriate to the students

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY

Part B: Physical elements of the Classroom What are the physical elements of the classroom that comprise a productive environment for children with mild handicaps in terms of: Furniture Arrangements STRONGLY AGREE 1. Furniture to be used should be conducive to learning The noise level should be considered in the arrangement of space AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE

2.

3. Arrangement of the educational materials should be appropriate and accessible 4. The classroom equipment should be comfortable for use 5. Students should be placed to a suitable classroom arrangement

Location of the Classroom STRONGLY AGREE 1. The location of the classroom is free from any harmful object The location of the classroom is convenient for students with mild handicaps AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE

2.

3. The location of the room is accessible for the students 4. The location of the classroom is near in the comfort rooms, canteens, clinic

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY

5. The location of the room is near in the safe exit in case of emergency

Ventilation STRONGLY AGREE 1. Lights to be used in a classroom must be appropriate to the childrens preference. 2. Electric fan, air cons and exhaust fan are provided in the classroom 3. The door of the classroom is wide enough for the students 4. Windows are placed far from drainage, pipes or garbage storage 5. The curtains to be used should be appropriate in the classroom AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE

Classroom Design STRONGLY AGREE 1. 2. The room design should be free from rooming around AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE

The classroom area should be conducive for discussion and can accommodate enough students to perform classroom discussion 3. Display classroom signage that are readable (e.g. hazardous tips, safety rules)

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY

4. Place signs and symbols around the room that point out exit and entry ways in case of an emergency 5. The classroom is not over decorated in a way that it not create distraction

Part C: Collaboration of Regular teacher and Special Education teacher Is there a relationship between the collaboration of the regular teacher and special education teacher in an inclusive setup in terms of: Level of Students Performance STRONGL Y AGREE 1. The special education teacher should communicate to the regular teacher to attain the mastery level of the students 2. The special education teacher should coordinate the activities to the regular teacher to attain the mastery level of the students AGREE DISAGREE STRONGL Y DISAGREE

3. Special education teacher must discussed the IEP of the child to the regular teacher 4. The activities for the students are well planned by the regular teachers and special education teachers

5. The auxiliary services are well planned by the regular teacher and special education teacher Mastery of Learning STRONGLY AGREE 1. The students with disabilities can compete and participate in the AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY

teachers instruction and discussion

2.

The

3.

Students can pass all the test given by the teacher

4.

Student can understand clearly the lessons after discussion 5. Student answers correctly the mastery test to evaluate the learnings

Timing of Intervention STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE 1. The program for intervention is properly executed

2. The intervention program is monitored regularly 3. Collaboration of the special education teacher and regular teacher with guidance councillor, principal is done harmoniously

4. Follow up lessons must be given at home and coordinated to the special education teacher 5. The intervention is coordinated to the special education teacher before execution

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY

10

PERSONAL INFORMATION NAME: ____________________________________________________________ ADDRESS: _________________________________________________________ AGE: GENDER MALE: FEMALE: HIGHEST DEGREE ATTAINED BA _________________ MA _________________ MA+_________________ PHD _________________

Please encircle or fill in the answers that applies to you. 1. Your position within the school district A) General education teacher B) Special education teacher

2. In what type of community is your school located? A) A geographically isolated area C) On the outskirts of a town/city

B) A village or rural (farm) area

D) Near the center of a town/city

3. What type of educational institution is your current employer? A) Public school B) Private, nonprofit school C) For-profit school D) Other (specify)

4. Subject you teach (i.e. health, science, etc. or CD, LD, EBD)

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY

11

5. Years of teaching experience A) 0-4 B) 5-10 6. What seminars or trainings you attended? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. Which best describes the amount of pre-service course work you complete that focused on including students with special needs into the general education classroom. A) 0 courses B) 1-2 courses C) 3-4 courses D) 5 or more courses C) 11-15 D) 16+

8. Which best describes the amount of professional development workshops you completed that focused on including students with special needs into the general education classroom. A) 0 B) 1-2 C) 3-4 D) 5 or more

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY

12

Conclusion The findings indicates that the level of performance of regular teacher has much more output that the special education teacher. Second (2) both regular and sped teacher uses different instructional materials but the effectiveness of the materials has the same value. Third (3) the quality of instructions given by the Sped teachers are much more favorable than the Regular teacher. Physical elements of the classroom was also evaluated and given a statistical report. The data showed that there is no mean difference in the furniture arrangements; location of classroom; ventilation and classroom design whether the student is in regular class or sped class. Therefore, there is no significant relationship between the two responses. On the other hand, the collaboration of special and regular teachers have different outcomes. First (1) for the level of students performance, stated on the data that Sped teachers have more impact to students rather than regular teachers. Second (2) when it comes to mastery of learning the sped teacher is more knowledgeable and more dominant than the regular teacher. Third (3) the timing of intervention has the same value, meaning neither sped nor regular teacher has an advantage when it comes to intervention. For the fourth (4) part of our statement of the problem, based on the datas we gathered there is no significant relationship between academic instruction and class organization in any aspect given. Therefore, the researchers conclude that the quality of instruction, materials, physical elements and collaboration of the two teacher is not just the main factor in the success of inclusion. The child itself is the key in the success of inclusion. The childs ability is also one of the major factor to be considered. Recommendation Based on the findings of this study, to determine the relationship between academic instruction and classroom organization in the full inclusion among children with disabilities, it is clear that these two variables has no significant relationship in a full inclusion classes among children with physical disabilities. The success of the inclusion is based on the child and not on the collaboration of the regular teacher and special education teacher. According to the result of the survey, the quality of the instructional materials used by the sped teachers is different from the quality of the instructional materials used by the regular teachers but has the same effect for children with physical disabilities. This is based on the graph of the effectiveness level of the instructional materials given by both teachers in which the result is the same since they collaborate ideas when creating instructional materials. Therefore, the researchers recommend that the instructional materials to be given by the teachers should be effective with (1) students with physical disabilities, (2) students without physical disabilities or regular

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY students. The effectiveness of the instructional materials should be leveled with the whole class, it must give impact or affect both regular and special case students. The physical elements of the classroom such as furniture arrangements, location of classroom, ventilation and classroom design has no effect on the inclusion setup but it can still be improved to a particular set up that can affect the performance of the child. The researchers recommend that (1) the school should prioritize the accessibility and comfort inside the classroom since it is much easier to study when at comfort. (2) The school should also conduct annual facility maintenance to check if the facilities are still at its best. Basing on the statistical report, the categories in collaboration of special and regular teachers has no significant relationship and cant be evaluated as a whole but they have value for each category for example (1) the level of performance states that the regular teacher has more impact when it comes to the level of performance of the students. (2) Mastery of learning shows that special education teachers has more contribution when it comes to implying mastery of learning to students. (3) Timing of intervention for both regular and sped teachers has the same value since the way they intervene is collaborated. Therefore, the researchers recommend that (1) the special education teacher should participate more with their students so that they can evaluate what they are lacking in terms of affecting the level of performance of their students. (2) The regular teacher should attend more seminars and training programs regarding how to handle students with special cases. With it, they will be more knowledgeable and can relate to the discussion of plans with special education teachers. This will greatly increase the effectiveness of their collaboration. The last part is the significant relationship between academic instruction and classroom organization. What came from our statistical report is that there is no significant relationship between the two aspects. The classroom organization also known as the physical elements of the classroom has no impact to the academic instruction given by the teacher because the classroom organization has no impact to the inclusion set up. The researchers recommend that there should be a program that collaborates this two factors, given that without the collaboration of this aspects they are already effective what more if it has collaboration. We recommend that the program would consist of carefully evaluated (1) classroom design, (2) instructional materials that can also be manipulated by using the classroom design and (3) a standard inclusion setup curriculum that can set a maximized thriving force for students.

13

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY

14

Bibliography Bosworth, K. & Hamilton S. J. (Eds.). (1994). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 59. Collaborative learning: underlying processes and effective techniques. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1994). Collective perspectives on issues affecting learning disabilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Tannen, D. (1991, June 19). Teachers classroom strategies should recognize that men and women use language differently. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B1 3. Nelson, G. (1991). Effective teaching behaviors for international TAs. In Nyquist, J., Abbott, R., Wulff, D. & Sprague, J. (Eds.), Preparing the professoriate of tomorrow to teach. (pp. 425433). Dubuque, IO: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. Learning Disabilities Services. (1996). Open the Door to Opportunity. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Timmons, V. (2007). Towards inclusive education in Canada. In L. Barton, and F. Armstrong (Eds.), (Dir.) : Policy, Experience and Change : Cross Cultural Reflections on Inclusive Education (pp. 133-145). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Publishing. Joshi, M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Dahlgren, M., Ocker-Dean, E. and Smith, D. (2009). Why elementary teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading. Journal of Learning disabilities. Special Issue : Perceptions and Reality : What We Know About, 42(5), 392-402.

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY Suter, J. and Giangreco, M. (2009). Numbers that count : Exploring special education and paraprofessional service delivery in inclusion-oriented schools. The Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 81-93. Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M. and McDuffie K. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms : A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392-416. Wah, L. L. (2010). Different strategies for embracing inclusive education: A snap shot of individual cases from three countries. International Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 98-109. Burns, B. J., Schoenwald, S. K., Burchard, J. D., Faw, L. and Santos, A. B. (2000). Comprehensive community-based interventions for youth with severe emotional disorders: multi-systemic therapy and the wraparound process. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9(3), 283-314. Larive, S., Kalubi, J.-C. and Terrisse, B. (2006). Participation des familles and inclusion sociale. La collaboration cole- famille en contexte dinclusion : entre obstacles, risques et facteurs de russite. Revue des sciences de lducation, 32(3), 525-543 Broderick, A., Mehta-Parekh, H. and Reid, D. K. (2005). Differentiating instruction for disabled students in inclusive classrooms. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 194-202. Florian, L. and Linklater, H. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Using inclusive pedagogy to enhance teaching and learning for all. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(4), 369-86. Janney, R. and Snell, M. (2010). Modifying schoolwork in inclusive classrooms. Theory into Practice, 45(3), 215-23. Lashley, C. (2007). Principal leadership for special education: An ethical framework. Exceptionality, 15(3), 177-187. Wah, L. L. (2010). Different strategies for embracing inclusive education: A snap shot of individual cases from three countries. International Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 98-109 Dettmer, P., Thurston, L.P. and Dyck, J.D. (2005). Consultation, Collaboration and Teamwork for Students with Special Needs. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Burns, B. J., Schoenwald, S. K., Burchard, J. D., Faw, L. and Santos, A. B. (2000). Comprehensive community-based interventions for youth with severe emotional

15

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY disorders: multi-systemic therapy and the wraparound process. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9(3), 283-314.

16