Monday, October 3, 2011

Including special needs students in Ag Ed.

Including special needs students in Ag Ed. SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES IN EDUCATIONACT (IDEA), the total population of students with special needs beingserved in schools has risen from 5 percent in 1976 to 8.6 percent in2006. This accounts for an additional 3 million students requiringspecial education services (United States Department of Education,2007). Within this population there is also a wide variety of differentneeds that fall under the spectrum of a disability [Table 1]. Accordingto IDEA, a disability is defined as "having (i) hearing impairments(including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments(including blindness), serious emotional disturbance (hereinafterreferred to as 'emotional disturbance'), orthopedicimpairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments,or specific learning disabilities; and (ii) who, by reason thereof,needs special education and related services." [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] One of the greatest ramifications of the passage of this educationlegislation is the push toward creating classrooms where all studentsare educated together with a general education teacher. This practice istermed inclusion and has been designed to provide the most educationalopportunities possible for students with disabilities (Salend andGarrick-Duhaney, 1999). While the move toward making all schoolsinclusive has been debated among education professionals, the greatestimpact has been seen within the individual classroom. This change hasprovided numerous challenges for education and has led to an increasedneed for teachers who are trained in working with students withdisabilities. In some instances, the general education teacher will bethe primary source of education for these students (Logan, 1994). Despite the fact that the number of students with disabilities inthe general education classroom is increasing, many teachers feel thatthey are unprepared to address these students' needs. Roberts andDyer (2003) identified the in-service needs of Florida agricultureeducation teachers; of the teachers surveyed, 43 percent identified aneed for in-service on modifying lessons for students with specialneeds. A similar study found that Pennsylvania educators desired moretraining in evaluating learners with special needs, individual educationprograms (IEPs), inclusion practices and teaching strategies (Elbert andBaggett, 2003). With the current trends in education, it is vitally important thatteacher education programs be able to provide teachers with the skillsthey need to become successful within the classroom (Baggett andChinoda, 2003 [as cited in Elbert and Baggett, 2003]). Many teachers arenot specially trained to work with students with disabilities. This lackof training can result in a decrease in job satisfaction and increasedstress for teachers who feel escalating pressure to balance testingrequirements, accountability, and the needs of all of their students(Lobosco and Newman, 1992). Educators are also challenged to address thenumerous goals associated with teaching students with disabilities.These students need to not only be provided with a general education,but generally require increased assistance with earning a high schooldiploma, learning job skills, learning life skills and preparing tobecome full members of society, (McLeskey and Weller, 2000). The greatemphasis to prepare these students for a career after high school hasled to an increase in students with disabilities taking career andtechnical education (CTE) coursework, which allows students to gain apractical, hands-on education that will help them to become moresuccessful upon entering the workforce (Harvey, 2001). The diversity ofCTE programs also allows students to match their course-work to theirinterests and career goals. Increased participation in these courses forstudents is thought to be a result of the enhanced learning that occurswith the numerous hands-on activities that these classrooms provide(Gaona, 2004). Methodology The population of this study consisted of secondary agricultureteachers in the United States. A stratified random sampling techniquewas used to ensure equal participation within the study. The NationalAssociation for Agricultural Education (NAAE) divides the country intosix different regions. From each of the six regions, a state wasrandomly selected. The states chosen to participate in the study wereWashington, Texas, Iowa, Kentucky, Tennessee and Delaware. This resultedin a total population size of 2,610 teachers. A total sample size of 333was selected based on sampling recommendations by Krejcie and Morgan(1970). Data was collected during the fall and spring semesters of the2008-2009 school year. A total of 207 surveys were collected for a totalresponse rate of 62 percent.Table 1:Disability Prevalence Distribution for Students Ages Six Through 21Receiving Services Under IDEA During the Fall 2003.Disability Percentage of students receiving servicesSpecific 47.4%LearningDisabilitiesSpeech or 18.7%LanguageImpairmentsMental 9.6%RetardationEmotional 8%DisturbanceOther Health 7.5%ImpairmentsOther 8.8%DisabilitiesCombinedAutism 2.3%Multiple 2.2%DisabilitiesHearing 1.2%ImpairmentsDevelopmental 1.1%DelaysOrthopedic 1.1%ImpairmentsVisual 0.4%ImpairmentsTraumatic Brain 0.4%InjuryDeaf-blindness 0.03%From "Twenty-Seventh Annual Report to Congress on the Implementationof the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Parts 8 end C." The instrument was divided into three parts. The first part of theinstrument was based on earlier Delphi study research conducted byRichardson and Washburn (2006) that identified strategies employed byNorth Carolina agriculture teachers in serving students with mild tomoderate learning disabilities. A total of 26 strategies wereincorporated into section I of the instrument. The teachers were askedto identify how often they used each strategy as well as how effectivethey found those strategies to be when used in their classrooms. SectionII of the survey instrument was a 12-question likert-type scale todetermine teachers' levels of confidence related to specific areasof agriculture education. Teachers were asked to rate their responses tothe statements on a scale of strongly disagree, disagree, agree, orstrongly agree. The third part of the instrument was designed to collectbasic demographic data and information about specific educationalexperiences. Of the teachers who responded, the majority of respondents (63.3percent) were male. Teachers' ages ranged from 22 to 63 with a meanof 39.12 and a standard deviation of 11.91. Years of teaching experienceranged from one year to 36 years. The mean number of years teaching was14.21 with a standard deviation of 10.72. Teachers were asked theircurrent level of education, and 52.8 percent responded that theircurrent level of education was a bachelor's degree. Additionally,45.7 percent currently have their master's degree and 1 percent hadreceived a specialist or sixth-year certificate. One teacher had earneda doctorate (0.5 percent). The majority of teachers were traditionallycertified (91.6 percent) while only 8.4 percent were licensed through analternate certification or lateral entry program. The remaining demographic information related to teachers'educational or personal experience when working with students in specialeducation. A total of 58.8 percent of teachers reported that they hadtaken at least one class that contained a unit of instruction dedicatedto teaching students with special needs, and 41.2 percent had taken awhole course related to special education. Of the respondents, 73.9percent had completed in-service through their school, school system,professional organization or teacher conference related specifically toworking with students with special needs, with a mean of 19.95 contacthours. A total of 58.3 percent of respondents had a close friend orfamily member identified as a person with a disability.Table 2: Use and Effectiveness of Recommended Strategies byAgricultural Teachers Use EffectivenessRecommended Practice M SD M SDEmphasize 4.42 0.79 9.40 1.68hands-on skillsor activitiesRead a students' 4.29 0.89 8.38 2.28IEP and providethosemodificationsModify testing 4.10 0.94 8.56 2.04(open notebooktests forstudents withlearningdisabilities,separatelocation, moretime, etc.)Spend more time 4.09 0.84 8.94 1.62with them orwatching themmore closelyduring hands-onactivitiesNot penalizing 4.08 1.23 8.52 2.30spelling errorsStrategically 4.06 0.86 8.61 1.93assign partnersor groups forwork/projectsGive study 3.93 1.08 8.04 2.22guides fortestsGive students 3.88 0.87 8.26 1.83handouts thatcoordinate withlessonsUse of 3.87 1.13 8.11 2.36PowerPoint inclass for notesor visualsUse stories to 3.86 1.08 8.28 2.35illustrate apoint in alessonAssign them 3.85 0.83 8.55 1.84tasks that focuson activelearning ratherthan passivelearningShow videos and 3.84 0.87 8.30 1.91other visualmedia thatrelates totopicsSlow down to 3.72 0.87 8.19 1.90give moreindividualizedinstructionAllow students 3.72 1.11 8.20 2.34with specialneeds to use awork bank fordifficultvocabulary ontests (Plantidentificationtests, toolidentificationtests, etc.)Keep special 3.66 1.07 7.54 2.47educationteachersinformed aboutwhat studentsshould belearning in yourclassAllow tests or 3.62 1.16 8.03 2.47assignments tobe read aloud tothe studentProvide shorter 3.44 0.93 7.74 2.20assignmentsAsk special 3.41 1.30 7.19 3.10educationteachers toprovide anoverview ofstudentsRequire students 3.40 1.43 7.01 3.16to keep anotebook that isgraded andchecked foraccuracyGive students a 3.33 1.35 6.82 3.07rubric for thegrading ofperformanceitemsGive students 3.29 1.02 7.04 2.41copies of notesfrom the teacherof otherstudentsUse oral exams 3.26 1.06 7.46 2.55orpresentationsGive students 3.21 1.07 7.08 2.46"fill in theblank" noteguides or noteoutlinesFocus on 3.04 1.10 6.82 2.77vocabulary thatmay be difficultfor them tounderstand(creating a wordwall, worksheet,etc)Use a different 2.91 1.37 6.38 3.27rubric/scoringguide forstudents withspecial needs onthe sameassignment otherstudentscompleteTutor students 2.54 1.00 6.53 3.27after schoolNote. Use data is based on a five-point likert-type scale (1= Never,2= Rarely, 3=Occasionally, 4= Often, 5= Regularly). Effectivenessdata was ranked on a scale of one to 10 (1 = not effective and 10 = veryeffective). What Strategies Are We Using? Of the 26 strategies, most of the practices recommended byRichardson and Washburn were identified as being used by teachers whenworking with students with disabilities in their programs. Of the 26practices, eight were identified as being used "often" to"regularly" (4.0 - 5.0), 18 were identified as being used"occasionally" to "often" (3.0 - 4.0) and only twowere identified as being used "rarely" to"occasionally" (2.0 - 3.0). No strategies were identified byteachers as strategies that they "never" to "rarely"use (1.0 - 2.0) [Table 2]. In regards to effectiveness, respondents ranked each strategy on ascale of 1-10 with one being not effective and 10 being very effective.Teachers ranked "emphasizing hands-on skills" as being themost effective strategy when working with students with disabilities(M=9.40). They also identified spending more time with them or watchingthem more closely during hands-on activities (M=8.94), strategicallyassigning partners or groups for work/projects (M =8.61), modifyingtesting (M= 8.56), assigning tasks that focus on active learning ratherthan passive learning (M = 8.55), and not penalizing spelling errors(M=8.52) as the most effective practices. The least effective strategies identified were using differentrubric/scoring guides for students with special needs on the sameassignment other students complete (M=6.38), tutoring after school(M=6.53), giving students a rubric for the grading of performance items(M=6.82), and focusing on vocabulary that may be difficult for studentsto understand (M=6.82). The results from part one of the instrument suggest that teachersare: providing hands-on opportunities for students, readingstudents' IEPs, modifying testing, spending more time with studentsand watching them more closely during hands-on activities, notpenalizing spelling errors and strategically assigning partners orgroups. Because of the nature of agriculture courses it is expected thatteachers are using a large amount of hands-on learning activities intheir classes. This makes agriculture education and other CTE courses anideal environment for the success of students with special needs(Phillips and Domody, 1993). While teachers are using these recommended strategies, they areless likely to use specific differentiated instruction strategies suchas separate rubrics, provide opportunities for guided notes or outline,and focus on essential vocabulary. The lack of regular emphasis onvocabulary may be especially detrimental to students because agriculturecontains unique vocabulary that is essential to content area knowledge.Students with learning disabilities may have additional problems withvocabulary acquisition and may need additional educational support(Bryant, Goodwin, Bryant and Higgins, 2003). These findings may suggest that teachers are using qualityeducational practices, though they may not be aware of the benefits ofusing specific educational practices within their classroom that arehighly recommended for students with special needs. On average, all ofthe strategies were being used as part of a teacher's instructionalpractices, though some may only be used a few times each semester. Kristin S. Stair, Ed.D, is a lecturer in the department ofAgricultural and Extension Education at North Carolina State University.She can be contacted at ksstair@ncsu.edu. Gary E. Moore, Ph.D, is a professor and director of graduateprograms in the department of Agricultural and Extension Education atNorth Carolina State University. He can be contacted atgary_moore@ncsu.edu. This is a two-part article that looks at what agriculturaleducation is doing to include students with special needs. The secondpart of the article, which will include the references, will be in theMay issue of Techniques magazine.

No comments:

Post a Comment