The Special Education Teacher Shortage: A Policy Brief

Alyssa Sanabria, M. Ed. Florida Gulf Coast University

Note: In fulfillment for Dr. Sughrue: Education Policy Analysis College of Education, Florida Gulf Coast University

Abstract

The shortage of special education teachers has been a national epidemic affecting all regions of the United States for the last 50 years (Thornton et al., 2007). With approximately 300,000 special education positions to fill, more than 30,000 are filled by non-certified teachers, with an additional 6,000 left vacant to be serviced by guest teachers, all due to a lack of special educators (Thornton et al., 2007). Most of the related empirical literature focuses on special education teacher retention rather than unique ways to boost recruitment. Financial incentives, the promise of continuous training/professional development opportunities, mentoring programs, and supportive school culture have been suggested and implemented nationwide for years; however, the shortage of special education teachers still exists (Krasnoff, 2014; Nichols Cooley et al., 2008). Many school administrators solved this shortage of teaching personnel by hiring paraprofessionals to assist in the special education classroom (Griffin-Shirley & Matlock, 2004). Hence finding ways to support and cultivate teachers from within the schools is a unique solution and showcases how paraprofessional recruitment strategies are an untapped resource to address the current pervasive special education teacher shortage (Smith, 2003). To remedy the special education teacher shortage, a primary goal should be to increase paraprofessional interest in special education teacher certification programs. Another goal should be to increase paraprofessional knowledge regarding wages, benefits, and incentives available to special education teachers. The following alternatives were recommended: Establish a state-wide program requiring each district to have growth academies or establish a state-wide option for contract guarantees.

Keywords: paraprofessional, special education, teacher shortage

The Special Education Teacher Shortage

There is a critical shortage of special education teachers in the United States. For decades, this shortage has remained chronic and severe and exists in every geographic region of the nation (Nichols Cooley et al., 2008; McLeskey et al., 2004; Sutcher et al., 2019; Thornton et al., 2007). In 1983, the shortage of special educators was highlighted in A Nation at Risk. The special education teacher shortage is still plaguing the United States over 35 years later. There are no signs of the shortage disappearing; in fact, it is likely to worsen within the upcoming decades if no further action is taken (Nichols Cooley et al., 2008).

Currently, teacher preparation programs do not graduate enough special education teachers to fulfill the needs of the K-12 system (Thornton et al., 2007). Each year, U.S. colleges and universities graduate approximately 22,000 special education teachers, which is about half the number required to fill vacant positions (Thornton et al., 2007). Therefore, policymakers, districts, administrators, and community stakeholders must consider alternatives to address this current crisis within the field of special education.

Literature Review: Nature, Scope, Severity of Educational Issue

The shortage of special education teachers is a national epidemic that has affected all regions of the United States for the last 50 years (Sutcher et al., 2019; Thornton et al., 2007). With teacher retirement increasing, 98% of districts nationwide have reported shortages of special education teachers. With approximately 300,000 positions to fill, more than 30,000 are filled by noncertified teachers, with an additional 6,000 left vacant to be serviced by guest teachers due to the lack of qualified special education teachers (Thornton et al., 2007). For every available special education position, .86 special education teachers were prepared, while more than twice as many elementary education teachers were produced for each available position in elementary education (Nichols Cooley et al., 2008). Consequently, the shortage of special education teachers is greater than any other teacher shortage in any area, including mathematics and science (McLeskey et al., 2004).

The area with the greatest shortage of teachers nationally is emotional or behavioral disorders (Gilmour & Wehby, 2020; McLeskey et al., 2004). The students who would benefit the most from highly qualified, well-trained teachers are the same population currently most at risk of being instructed by a teacher who is not fully licensed or licensed at all. The sad reality is that many students with disabilities have never been instructed by a fully licensed special education teacher and are not receiving the proper strategies and interventions necessary for growth and success (Nichols Cooley et al., 2008).

While there is clear and substantial documentation indicating the severity of the special education teacher shortage, the legislative changes since the 1970s have not positively impacted this issue but rather have exacerbated the shortage of special educators (Nichols Cooley et al., 2008; Thornton et al., 2007). Much of the problem is related to federal accountability legislation and insufficient federal and state funding.

Funding for students with disabilities is appropriated annually and at insufficient levels (Schubel, 2017). Although the federal government committed in IDEA to provide 40% of the cost of education, it has never met half of this commitment (Schubel, 2017). For example, in 2015, federal IDEA funding only covered 16% of the cost of educating students with special needs, leaving the remaining costs to state and local governments (Schubel, 2017). Since 2009, this cost shift has averaged about $17 billion annually (Schubel, 2017). All of this cost shift is causing insufficient federal and state funds to allocate for appropriate student services and funding incentives to assist with the teacher shortage.

Congress enacted the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (E.H.A.) to support states and localities in protecting the rights and meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities (Nichols Cooley et al., 2008; Thornton et al., 2007; U.S. Department of Education, 2021). In 1990, the reauthorized of this landmark law resulted in a name change to the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). IDEA was reauthorized again in 2004; IDEA (2004) established a clear legal obligation to provide free and appropriate public education for all students with disabilities. 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 69

In addition, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, 2002) established an accountability requirement measured by the achievement and progress of defined groups of students, including those with special needs (Thornton et al., 2007). Special education students must meet stateidentified standards and demonstrate proficiency in core subject areas. To fulfill their legal obligations under IDEA and NCLB, educational leaders must ensure that highly qualified special education teachers who are also certified in a content area are available for all students who receive services. This demand for highly qualified special education teachers caused the shortage to increase; consequently, for the past two decades, districts have not been able to employ enough highly qualified special education teachers (Nichols Cooley et al., 2008; Thornton et al., 2007).

The combined IDEA (2004) and NCLB (2002) mandates have placed a strain on the nationwide problem with minimal proposed feasible solutions (Nichols Cooley et al., 2008; Thornton et al., 2007). If educational leaders and policymakers are going to meet the educational needs of special education students and comply with IDEA and NCLB, they must take proactive steps to increase the recruitment of highly qualified and certified special education teachers (McLeskey et al., 2004; Nichols Cooley et al., 2008; Thornton et al., 2007).

The majority of the literature focuses on special education teacher retention rather than unique ways to boost recruitment. Financial incentives accompanied by the promise of continuous training, professional development opportunities, mentoring programs, and supportive school culture have been suggested and implemented nationwide for years; however, the shortage of special education teachers remains unabated (Krasnoff, 2014; Nichols Cooley et al., 2008). Many school administrators solved this special education teaching personnel shortage by hiring paraprofessionals to assist in the special education classroom (Griffin-Shirley & Matlock, 2004).

Hiring paraprofessionals to work in schools first began in the 1950s as a response to a severe teacher shortage (Jones & Bender, 1993). The dramatic increase in paraprofessionals occurred during the late 1960s and 1970s when the War on Poverty and early special education programs were initiated. In 1965 approximately 10,000 paraprofessionals were placed in public schools nationally, whereas, in the 1990s, over 150,000 paraprofessionals were employed in special education classrooms alone (Jones & Bender, 1993).

The official definition and duties of a paraprofessional vary from state and district to district. Paraprofessionals are often referred to as the special education teacher's right hand, providing instructional support services under a teacher's or substitute's supervision (Griffin-Shirley & Matlock, 2004; Jones & Bender, 1993). While specific education and skill requirements for becoming a paraprofessional vary by state, new requirements were enacted by the NCLB (2002) for paraprofessionals working in schools that receive Title I assistance. The law requires that all paraprofessionals employed in Title I programs must have completed one of the following: two years of postsecondary education, an associate's degree, or a formal assessment that demonstrates their skills (McKenzie, 2011; Smith, 2003).

Griffin-Shirley & Matlock (2004) conducted a paraprofessional survey and found that approximately 53% of special education paraprofessionals had considered becoming special education teachers. With the new requirements, more paraprofessionals are entering the field with some college education or a desire for the continuance of education; hence, they should be

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 70 viewed as an untapped resource to address the special education teacher shortage (Mather, 2021; Smith, 2003). Smith (2003) stated that the Pathways to Teaching Career Program evaluation found evidence that of all paraprofessionals who became special education teachers, 90% were teaching in urban areas in hard-to-staff special education settings, which is evidence that paraprofessionals may be able to help with critical shortages within special education. Paraprofessionals who become special education teachers not only have higher retention rates and serve in hard-to-staff schools but also are rooted in the community and diversify the pool of teacher candidates (Smith, 2003). The N.E.A. survey found that three out of four paraprofessionals lived in the district where they worked for an average of 25 years or more, were members of racial and ethnic minorities, were well-rooted in the community, and were familiar with the language and students (Delgado et al., 2021; Smith, 2003). Finding ways to support and cultivate teachers from within the schools is a unique solution and showcases how paraprofessional recruitment is an untapped resource to address the current pervasive special education teacher shortage (Mather, 2021; Smith, 2003).

Problem Statement

The constant and pervasive special education teacher shortage is resulting in large numbers of students being taught by non-certified special education teachers and not receiving the quality services they are entitled to under IDEA (2004). The current special education teacher recruitment strategies that include financial incentives, the promise of mentorships, and continuous professional training have not been effective in attracting and retaining highly qualified special education teachers that are needed to reduce the current special education teacher shortage. A clear and consistent course of action is needed state-wide to make a sizable difference within the open vacancies.

Key Stakeholders

The key stakeholders within the special education teacher shortage are the school districts, administrators, college and university special education program faculty, and the community as a whole. The school districts are directly impacted and most affected by the shortage and are struggling with solutions to this pervasive problem. On a daily basis, administrators are under pressure to stay in compliance with IDEA (2004) as well as ensure class coverage. The college and university special education program faculty are looking for means to attract more candidates and have a direct interest in enrolling and graduating more students, hence reducing the shortage. Finally, the community as a whole has a vested interest in an appropriate, effective, and equitable education for all students.

The Florida Department of Education indicated that one of the 2020-2021 critical teacher shortage areas was Exceptional Student Education (E.S.E.). By addressing the special education teacher shortage, the policy alternative will also address a critical area of need in Florida education. Also, by creating a state-wide policy to address the special education teacher shortage, Florida can serve as a model for how other states can address and remedy this specific problem or shortage within additional content areas that have been riddling education for decades.

Importance of Policy Resolution

Special education students have a legal right to receive the services outlined in their individualized education plan (I.E.P.) from a certified special education teacher (IDEA, 2004; NCLB, 2002). Currently, students who need the most support to grow academically, socially,

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 71 and behaviorally and acquire independent functioning and skills are the same students with the highest probability of not being instructed by a fully licensed special education teacher (Nichols Cooley et al., 2008). Special education teachers are trained on strategies and instructional practices designed to impact students with varying exceptionalities. This same population is at risk of not receiving the proper strategies and interventions necessary for growth and success (Nichols Cooley et al., 2008).

Suppose educational leaders and policymakers are going to meet the educational needs of special education students and comply with IDEA and NCLB. In that case, they must stop ignoring the problem and walking this tightrope of compliance but rather take steps to increase the recruitment of highly qualified and certified special education teachers (McLeskey et al., 2004; Nichols Cooley et al., 2008; Sutcher et al., 2019; Thornton et al., 2007). They have a moral as well as legal obligation to resolve the teacher shortage in ways that meet the needs of the most vulnerable students.

Policy Formulation

Providing a general description of how the world should look after the resolution of an identified problem is a necessary step but insufficient for policy analysis (Alexander, 2013). Equally important is providing a working definition of what it means to reach that goal. This specification is often characterized as goals, objectives, or indicators. This specification must focus on a specific end state with concrete measures outlining how and when the goal has been achieved (Alexander, 2013).

Goals and Objectives

To increase special education teacher recruitment to address the special education teacher shortage, a primary goal should be to increase paraprofessional interest in special education teacher certification programs. Doing so could increase the pool of qualified teachers to serve students who need trained professionals to support them. Equity is a major unpinning for this goal; all students should have access to a highly qualified teacher.

Another goal would be to inform paraprofessionals about wages, benefits, and incentives available to special education teachers. For example, educating paraprofessionals on the financial benefits and possible new teacher sign-on bonuses could motivate paraprofessionals to transition to certified teachers. In addition, this may increase paraprofessionals' self-esteem, an important characteristic for effective teachers.

Goal 1: Increase Paraprofessional Interest in Teacher Certification Program

Many paraprofessionals place high stock in learning more about students with disabilities and display an eagerness for knowledge (Biggs et al., 2016). Approximately 53% of special education paraprofessionals have considered becoming special education teachers (GriffinShirley & Matlock, 2004). Cultivating interest in special education teacher certification programs would increase paraprofessionals' enrollment in special education teacher preparation programs at the local state colleges or universities, which helps these institutions increase enrollment. Graduating greater numbers of special education teachers creates a larger pool of qualified teachers to serve the most vulnerable students.

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 72

Objective 1A. To increase the enrollment of paraprofessionals in all colleges and universities that offer special education teacher certification programs by 10% each year for five years. Teacher preparation program enrollment data from all state colleges and universities and employment histories will be used to provide evidence of attaining this objective.

Objective 1B. To increase the number of paraprofessionals who express interest in a special education teacher certification program from 50 to 100 paraprofessionals each year for five years. Individual enrollment consultation registration data from district-led paraprofessional career advancement fairs from all districts in Florida will be used to provide evidence of attaining this objective.

Goal 2: Increase Paraprofessional Knowledge of Financial Benefits and Incentives for Special Education Teachers

Paraprofessionals work 34-40 hours weekly and, on average, earn salaries ranging from $20,000$30,000 annually, depending on geographical location (Griffin-Shirley & Matlock, 2004). Paraprofessionals are provided inadequate wages and have minimal or no opportunities for career advancement (Delgado et al., 2021; McKenzie, 2011). The majority of special teachers report that they have trust in their assigned paraprofessionals and do not see them as helping teachers but as equals who support students (Biggs et al., 2016). Paraprofessionals provide significant assistance in special education classes and often assist guest teachers with classroom structure, behavioral expectations, and instruction in the classroom teacher's absence.

By increasing the knowledge and awareness of the financial benefits available ($20,000 salary increase, better benefits/retirement options, new teacher sign-on bonuses, and special education teacher stipends), paraprofessionals can make educated decisions about possibly pursuing a career that mirrors their current daily job however for a much higher salary wage.

Objective 2A. To increase the percentage of paraprofessionals who display knowledge obtainment regarding the financial benefits and incentives available for special education teachers by 10% each month. Data on knowledge obtainment will be collected from the percentage of paraprofessionals attending monthly financial education and workshops and professional development training.

Objective 2B. To increase the percentage of paraprofessionals who display knowledge obtainment regarding the financial benefits and incentives available for special education teachers by 10% each month. Knowledge will be assessed from survey data collected from paraprofessionals.

Policy Alternatives

Two policy alternatives have the potential to reach the two goals previously, which address the special education teacher shortage. Paraprofessionals can be viewed as an untapped resource within the special education teacher shortage (Mather, 2021; Smith, 2003). For this reason, the two policy alternatives focus on encouraging paraprofessionals to earn certification as special education teachers, thereby increasing the pool of potential special education hires for school districts nationally.

Alternative 1: Growth Academies

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 73

Establish a state-wide regulation mandating school district officials to establish growth academies. Rather than focusing on recruitment from outside of the district, placing the focus on recruitment within the district is a unique alternative to addressing the special education teacher shortage by providing current special education paraprofessionals with the tools necessary to complete their teacher certification degree program. As a function of the growth academy, paraprofessionals would be paired with mentors who work in areas of special education they are interested in pursuing (e.g., life skills, intensive behavioral unit, intensive academic) and would have monthly whole group meetings, which would provide them access to a network of special education professionals. Paraprofessionals would also receive financial support through a tuition waiver for two classes per semester to assist with tuition costs for the program. The growth academy would allow building administrators to recommend high-quality paraprofessionals serious about obtaining their teaching license and becoming special education teachers.

Alternative 2: Contract Guarantee

One recruitment effort currently deployed by school districts is hosting new teacher orientations and offering education students graduating in Spring or Summer a contract for a job starting the following fall. Modifying this already successful method to target special education pre-service teachers is an innovative pathway to secure promising special education teachers as district employees before the normal recruiting cycle.

Providing paraprofessionals and non-certified special education teachers working in special education classrooms with the opportunity to sign a contract guaranteeing them a job in their preferred setting, contingent on achieving certification, will motivate them to persist in their studies and graduate. In addition, the contract guarantee will attract more paraprofessionals to teacher preparation programs, thereby increasing the pool of potential teacher candidates.

Trade-Offs

The criteria used to evaluate the two alternatives were cost-benefit, feasibility, and equity. Currently, district officials have allocated funding for teacher recruitment. When examining the cost-benefit for alternative one, growth academies, there is an increase in cost that can be offset by reassessing and restructuring the current funding allocation. This reallocation would be utilized for the growth academies assisting with tuition waivers and mentor bonuses.

The benefit of this method is high as it should recruit thousands of new special education teachers yearly since research findings have indicated that 90% of paraprofessionals remain in the field (Smith, 2003) and can effectively assist students with special needs who are entitled to receive support and services as well as a fair and equal education all by a highly qualified teacher. This method also benefits the community by providing opportunities to educate instead of hiring from outside of the profession.

The cost of alternative two, contract guarantees, is minimal because no additional funds are necessary. Yet rather, it is simply paying those who sign the contract the new hire contract amounts annually and the sign-on incentives currently in place. Nevertheless, there is a slight cost increase because high-qualified teacher contracts will cost more annually than the presently budgeted guest teacher or out-of-content area teacher contracts currently filling the job openings. The benefit of alternative two is this is a cost-efficient method to provide motivation to increase the conversion of paraprofessionals within special education.

2023:

Feasibility is defined as having enough money, time, or ability to implement. Both alternatives, one and two, growth academies and contract guarantee, are feasible by definition. Establishing a state-wide regulation for district officials to create growth academies makes it feasible to execute consistency throughout the state and district-wide. The time and cost to create growth academies are feasible for districts through reallocation. Contract guarantees are feasible as this strategy is already utilized in recruiting new teachers from local colleges and universities.

Equity is the quality of being fair and impartial. Alternative one, growth academies, provides the ability to increase paraprofessionals' wages, ensuring equity for the hard work. Also, as previously stated, 53% of paraprofessionals (Griffin-Shirley & Matlock, 2004) expressed interest in becoming special education teachers however were limited due to funding assistance and guidance of options (Delgado et al., 2021). Growth academies are not based on any specific criteria, therefore, increasing the chances for paraprofessionals to begin finishing their education. It promotes equity because there is no exclusion as well as it provides an opportunity to an under-acknowledged population who needs the support to the level of playing field for advancement. Alternative two: contract guarantees are low within equity as it provides preferential settings selections to those who sign a contract. This could be viewed as unfair due to others returning and not receiving their preferred teaching assignment due to it going to incentivize new hires.

Preferred Alternative

The growth academy is an effective way to promote professional growth within each district. The growth academy will encourage paraprofessionals to pursue a career that mirrors their current daily job by providing them with supportive mentors, financial assistance, and opportunities to extend their knowledge and skills in areas of special education that interest them. Likewise, they will learn that becoming a certified special education teacher means a much higher salary wage and other employment benefits.

With evidence supporting the interest of paraprofessionals in becoming special education teachers (Delgado et al., 2021; Griffin-Shirley & Matlock, 2004; Johnson & Lehner, 2021), the growth academy allows districts to support and cultivate teachers from within the schools in a unique solution that showcases how paraprofessional conversion is an untapped resource to address the current pervasive special education teacher shortage (See et al., 2020; Smith, 2003; Sutcher et al., 2019).

Currently, Florida has no congruent state-wide plan for teacher recruitment. The growth academy would be a state-wide program implemented within each district. Each growth academy will offer the same six credit hours tuition waiver incentive as well as personalized mentorship and network opportunities for the paraprofessionals on track to become special education teachers. The growth academy would allow paraprofessionals to feel valued within the school district and to grow academically and professionally.

The growth academy fared well in examining the criteria of cost-benefit, feasibility, and equity. While it is no debate that providing financial tuition assistance is a cost to the district, however through innovative thinking and examining the benefits; this alternative is feasible. Establishing a state-wide regulation for district officials to create growth academies makes it feasible to

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 75 execute consistency throughout the state and district-wide. The time and cost to create growth academies are feasible for districts through reallocation. Within districts across the state of Florida, new teacher sign-on bonuses are being utilized to recruit new teachers to accept positions. Currently, the districts have allocated funding for recruitment; reassessing and restructuring the recruitment funding is one way to offset the cost that will be accrued from the growth academies assisting with tuition waivers and mentor bonuses. Despite the cost, the benefit of this method is far greater as this method should recruit thousands of new special education teachers yearly who, statistically are shown that 90% remain in the field (See et al., 2020; Smith, 2003; Sutcher et al., 2019) and can effectively assist the students with special needs who are entitled to receive support and services as well as a fair and equal education all by a highly qualified teacher. Recruiting from within the districts will directly impact the quality of living for current employees, all while solving a problem that is in desperate need of an effective solution. This solution promotes equity because there is no exclusion for assistance as well as it provides an opportunity to an under-acknowledged population who needs the support to the level of playing field for advancement.

References

Alexander, N. A. (2013). Policy analysis for educational leaders: A step-by-step approach . Pearson.

Biggs, E. E., Gilson, C. B., & Carter, E. W. (2016). Accomplishing more together: Influences to the quality of professional relationships between special educators and paraprofessionals. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities , 41(4), 256-272.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1540796916665604

Delgado, L., Baese, K., & Hauptman, A. (2021). A pathway to teaching for paraprofessionals of color. Phi Delta Kappan , 103(3), 17-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217211058508 https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000 https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1901370 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F074193259301400103 http://www.deltakappagamma.org/NH/DKGBulletinsummer2011.PDF#page=39

Gilmour, A. F., & Wehby, J. H. (2020). The association between teaching students with disabilities and teacher turnover. Journal of Educational Psychology , 112(5), 1042.

Griffin-Shirley, N., & Matlock, D. (2004). Paraprofessionals speak out: A survey. RE: view, 36(3), 127.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

Johnson, T., & Lehner, E. (2021). Preparing paraprofessionals to become teachers: A study examining the effect of catalytic interventions. International Journal of Educational Reform, 30(4), 300-323.

Jones, K. H., & Bender, W. N. (1993). Utilization of paraprofessionals in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education , 14(1), 7-14.

Krasnoff, B. (2014). Teacher recruitment, induction, and retention. Education Northwest , 1-13. Mather, A. (2021). Backtalk: Harnessing the power of career changers to address teacher shortages. Phi Delta Kappan , 103(4), 69-69.

McKenzie, B. (2011). Empowering paraprofessionals through professional development. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin , 77(4), 38-41.

McLeskey, J., Tyler, N. C., & Saunders Flippin, S. (2004). The supply of and demand for special education teachers: A review of research regarding the chronic shortage of special

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 76 education teachers. The Journal of Special Education , 38(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00224669040380010201 https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170808900813 https://www.nasponline.org/Documents/Research%20and%20Policy/CBPP%20Medicaid %20Report.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1775566 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED477170.pdf

Nichols Cooley, S. M., Bicard, S. C., Bicard, D. F., & Casey, L. B. (2008). A field at risk: The teacher shortage in special education. Phi Delta Kappan , 89(8), 597-600.

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, P.L. 107– 110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).

Schubel, J. (2017). Medicaid helps schools help children . Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

See, B. H., Morris, R., Gorard, S., & El Soufi, N. (2020). What works in attracting and retaining teachers in challenging schools and areas? Oxford Review of Education , 46 (6), 678-697.

Smith, C. L. (2003). Focus on an Untapped Classroom Resource: Helping Paraprofessionals Become Teachers. Southern Regional Education Board. Advance online publication.

Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2019). Understanding teacher shortages: An analysis of teacher supply and demand in the United States. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(35). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1213618.pdf

Thornton, B., Peltier, G., & Medina, R. (2007). Reducing the special education teacher shortage. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas , 80(5), 233-238. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.80.5.233-238 https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). A History of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

About the Author

Alyssa Sanabria, M. Ed. is the Program Coordinator for the Soaring Eagle Academy and an adjunct professor for the College of Education at Florida Gulf Coast University. She holds a BA and M. Ed in Special Education from Florida Gulf Coast University and is a current doctoral student. She has practical experience working with individuals with every type of disability, from pre-school to 8th grade. She has taught within the K-12 school system for seven years and served as the ESE department head for three years. Her research interests focus primarily on multiculturalism, diversity, inclusion, and post-secondary education as it relates to students with special needs. 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

Experiences of a Student with Deaf-Blindness in Community-Based Rehabilitation and Disabilities Studies Unit in the University of Education, Winneba

Emmanuel K. Acheampong, M.Phil (Ph.D. candidate) Rabbi Abu-Sadat, M.Phil

University of Education Winneba – Ghana

Abstract

A dual disability such as deaf-blindness can have a devastating experience on the life of the individual affected, primarily where many people cannot communicate effectively with such a person. This study focuses on finding out the experiences of a student with deaf-blindness attending a sighted university. Personal interviews and observations are used to investigate how a lonely adult Student with deaf-blindness navigates the life of the university and what coping mechanisms she adopts to overcome her academic and social problems at the university. An exploratory research design was used to unravel the perspectives of the student with deafblindness in the university. The study results revealed that as the student with deaf-blindness strives to receive the same academic opportunities as other sighted deaf peers, she will require different access and support to function academically at a sighted University. Further implications are given for the benefit of educators and rehabilitation practitioners or workers in special education and inclusive development.

Keywords: Deaf-blindness, experience, community-based rehabilitation, coping mechanism.

Experiences of a Student with Deaf-Blindness in Community-Based Rehabilitation and Disabilities Studies Unit in the University of Education, Winneba

Introduction

Individuals with deaf-blindness are a unique group with exceptional individual communication skills and preferences, with a multitude of challenges affecting their academic, social, and emotional development (Chen, 2004; Vervloed, van Dijk, Knoors, & van Dijk, 2006). Deafblind people need opportunities to develop academically, linguistically, socially, emotionally, physically and discover skills to grow academically. These would help them to learn about their environment and to communicate with sighted or non-sighted individuals. Most, if not all, Deafblind people rely on additional learning and communication strategies, such as contact, to obtain adequate access to specific visual and auditory information (Miles, 2003; Wolsey, 2017). Visual and tactile communication enables Deafblind individuals to access language, engage in lifelong learning, and build relationships with others. In all areas of human development, especially communication and language, the tactual use of hands plays a critical role (Miles, 2003; Wolsey, 2017). Language is the fundamental basis for deaf-blind people to interact, link, and establish relationships with others (Chen, 2004; Vervloed et al., 2006).

This small population of individuals with deaf-blindness has been subject to minimal study (Vervloed et al., 2006), and even less is known about Deafblind university students. Deafblind

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 78 people have now have more opportunities to attend college with their peers due to inclusive education or pedagogies, increased awareness, and new national legislation such as Ghana's Act 715 (Government of Ghana, 2006) and inclusive education policy. Entry to schooling and social resources for deaf-blind learners varies from deaf, hearing, or sighted. Although college life is rewarding and challenging for students who hear and see, for students who are Deafblind, it is understood that it brings dynamic challenges and barriers.

Being the only individual with such a disability in a public university where individuals live their personal lives independently can affect the lives of such individuals. The questions this brings include, "How is she engaged in university life?" and "What kinds of support structures are available to make sure she has meaningful learning and social experiences?”

A multitude of data provides tools and methods that apply to support programs for Deafblind children and adults. Details include background on deaf-blindness, various forms of communication systems, individualized and inclusive child education, services of educational support, fair community and workplace accommodation, change preparation, technical devices, and services of rehabilitation (Vervloed et al., 2006; Correa-Torres, 2008; Deasy et al., 2006; & Lyddy, 2006).

These resources include the importance of literacy, orientation and mobility, advocacy skills, and intervention or support services (SSP) (CorreaTorres, 2008; Deasy & Lyddy, 2006; Wolsey, 2017). However, limited peer-reviewed research is available on Deafblind college students, especially in Ghana and Africa as a whole, who describe their personal experience in concept development, communication, access to information, academics, social activities, the development of social skills, independence, and orientation and mobility. As a result, there is a need for more studies on Deafblind university students, using a qualitative research methodology-exploratory design to consider the deafblind student's experiences (Creswell, 2013). This study sought to explore the experiences the student with deaf-blindness have and the coping mechanisms she adopts in coping with her academic and social needs. Again, several components have been examined to understand this phenomenon the deafblind university student is confronted with. These are:

 The concept of Deaf-blindness

 Impact of being Deaf-blind.

 Importance of touch and hands;

 Overall coping mechanisms of students with deaf-blindness

The concept of Deaf -blindness

For individuals who are deafblind, various meanings depend on different degrees of deafness and blindness that can combine with other disabilities such as emotional and behaviour disorders. In their home, at school, and in the community, deaf-blind children and adults also need substantial and individual adaptations to communicate and use language.

Deaf-blindness is a combined dual sensory loss of hearing and vision that causes difficulties in all aspects of one's life (Deasy & Lyddy, 2006; Wolsey, 2017). The challenges include contact with others, the development of languages, access to knowledge, freedom, mobility, and travel in one’s immediate environment (Miles, 2008; Deasy & Lyddy, 2006).

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 79

Some people may believe that being deaf and blind corresponds to having no hearing or vision, but it's not always the case. Being fully deaf and blind is exceedingly rare (Deasy & Lyddy, 2006). Individuals who are deaf-blind are not necessarily the same. Some of them are born deaf and become blind later, and vice versa. Some may have the ability to detect or distinguish sounds (Miles, 2008; Deasy & Lyddy, 2006).

When they are in their thirties, most deafblind people may not note any clear vision limitations. Some do not perceive or know the magnitude of their lack of vision until then. Up to 80% of deafblind people with additional physical, medical, and/or cognitive disabilities (Usher Syndrome Coalition, 2015). Miles (2008) found that in 3 out of 100,000 births, deaf-blindness may happen. An annual census of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children and Youth reports that vision loss such as poor vision, legal blindness, or Usher syndrome has been reported in 5.7 percent of deaf and hard of hearing students (Gallaudet Research Institute (GRI), 2011). In the United States, the Texas Council on Developmental Disabilities (2013) found that 0.03 percent of all special education students were represented by students with deaf-blindness with additional disabilities during the 2003-2004 academic year. Such limited numbers indicate that it is not very popular to be deafblind with additional disabilities. Furthermore, Miles (2008) insists that the window to the life of a deafblind person is smaller, forcing them to have constant physical interaction with others to grasp the concepts of their community. These is because they are isolated, without recourse to consistent and continuing human interaction.

Impact of Being Deaf-blind

Individuals who are either born deafblind or acquire deaf-blindness after birth or later in life have complex difficulties in learning language and communication abilities due to loss of dual sensory feedback. Several projects have shown that about 80 percent of what people understand is through sensory input; however, the sense of hearing is mainly for communicating and vocabulary (Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities, 2013; Wolsey, 2017). Generally, sighted and hearing people have access to auditory and visual sensory information. Sighted or deaf people learn by visual modality. People who listen learn using an auditory signal. They miss out on accidental learning because sighted, deaf people cannot understand and practice the language like their sighted hearing counterparts. They "rely more on vision than their (sighted) peers in the hearing" (Hauser & Marschark, 2008, p. 449). Support needs to be provided for deafblind people who do not have access to these two main sensory stimuli to receive and communicate data through their sense of touch (Wolsey, 2017). Hauser et al. (2008) found that "information provided in visual and auditory modes together contributes to better perception, learning and memory than information in either mode alone" (p. 449). Therefore, the lack of dual sensory feedback has a profound influence on one’s speech, vocabulary development, motor, cognitive, emotional/social, and body image/self-concept growth (Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities, 2013).

Early intervention is a vital factor for deafblind people to get intensive individual one-on-one treatment and stimulate their curiosity and awareness of the world around them. Early instruction offers direct evidence and interactions that children who see and hear inevitably pick up by overhearing or supervising what others say or do. 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 80

Early access to contact and language for deaf-blind children will better satisfy their dual sensory needs if specialists and parents cooperate in a timely way and ensure early recognition (Chen, 2004; Deasy & Lyddy, 2006). Early access allows reliable and continuous linguistic feedback, while the brain is adaptable to language learning (Petitto, 2014). This vital connection helps learners with deaf-blindness build a solid communication base and create adequate support systems to address the learning needs of students with deaf-blindness, thus becoming potential adults in the community who are independent, involved, and self-sufficient (Wolsey, 2017). Without a tactile and visual contact device, deaf-blind students cannot freely navigate expression. These communication systems must be tailored to the needs of deafblind people. These should include tactile sign language (ASL, Signed English, finger spelling, recording, palm printing, hand over hand), visual sign language in the near vision (ASL, Signed English, finger spelling, custom signage), contact signals, movements, object symbols, image symbols, significant print writing/reading and braille writing/reading (Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities, 2013; Wolsey, 2017). When deafblind people master the different communication resources at their hands, they will gain access to the world of literacy, language and achieve their full capacity. To facilitate safe and productive growth in all environments, deafblind people need regular and reliable access and sensitivity to contact and expression (Miles, 2008). As adults, a significant portion of their comprehension and language skills are attributed to what they have earned since childhood.

Deafblind people have minimal resources and inadequate access channels for communication and language until they have direct contact with a human to understand and experience their environment (Miles, 2008). They get a distinct view of the environment as both their auditory and visual sensory signals are blocked. They need to use their other senses, such as touch, sense of smell, taste, and body knowledge (Deasy & Lyddy, 2006 citing Sense, 2015; Wolsey, 2017). When equipped with modality-appropriate stimuli for contact (Miles, 2003; Wolsey, 2017), early attachment and hand autonomy for some remaining vision and/or hearing can be obtained to make associations during their developmental milestones (Miles, 2003; Wolsey, 2017). Like sighted people, deafblind individuals need to discover, reach, understand, sense their surroundings, and facilitate conversational experiences with themes such as Eyes, Ears, and Voice. As described earlier, a person's hands play a significant role in the lives of deafblind individuals. Hands serve as eyes and ears for deafblind individuals to obtain information and their voice to communicate as a medium of communication comparable to those seen by deaf individuals (Miles, 2003; Wolsey, 2017). They cannot partake in productive relationships if deafblind people do not have access to a person's hands to communicate with family members, teachers, colleagues, or the environment. Hands provide the deafblind with equality and access to people and their environments (Wolsey, 2017). According to Miles (2003), touch is overlooked in today's society, and hands have also been dismissed as a form of communicating opinions, feelings, and ideas. Hands play a critical function that offers essential tactile, verbal links in a meaningful way to deafblind individuals; thus, Hands must be made readily accessible.

Petitto (2014) and Wolsey (2017) suggest that the human brain is versatile in interpreting information when one or more senses are used routinely and at an early age. For deafblind people who use their hands and fingertips regularly, there is evidence that the human brain can interpret visual input from the same area of processing as hearing and vision. The earlier deafblind people learn to use their hands and fingertips, the greater their sensitivity and exposure to things, people, and words, and the ability to communicate with others (Miles, 2003).

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 81

If deafblind people do not have adequate eyesight to read materials in writing, hands and fingers often play a vital role in using braille to reach printing and reading (Berrier, 2014; CNIB, 2015). Braille is not a language (American Foundation for the blind, 2015). It uses a coding scheme composed of tiny raised dots in which deafblind people use the fingertips (i.e., finger pad) of the index finger to sense the mixture of dots from left to right (American Foundation for the Blind, 2015; CNIB, 2015). Deafblind individuals who learn braille are just like sighted people who learn to read and write with a pencil or pen. Braille is the foundation of communication, literacy, and independence. It provides tools for unlimited information. Pro-Tactile is a system of tactile feedback and cues called "Backchanneling software" that provides communicators with information about each other. It was developed not only for deafblind individuals but also for sighted hearing and deaf individuals. Backchanneling is the number one practice that is used when facing one another or standing up. It allows for natural feedback between two people rather than leave them out of conversations as stated by (Nuccio & Granda, 2013a). This tactile feedback is similar to how sighted deaf individuals respond with their facial expressions. It is important to note that not all deafblind individuals use Pro-Tactile. When touch is used for communication and to receive feedback, it makes communication with others feel natural for Deaf-blindness.

Coping Strategies for Students with Deaf-blindness

Students with deaf-blindness regularly require various adaptations, accommodations, modifications, related and supplementary services in the delivery of their instructional services. Without them, the learner with deaf-blindness may be unable to access information from any instructional environment. Modifications for students with deaf-blindness are not usually covered in preservice programs which train teachers of the visually impaired or teachers of the deaf or hard of hearing. The need for particular modifications is basic to several factors which include etiology, age of onset of the disabilities, degree and type of vision and hearing impairments, the presence of other disabling conditions, and most importantly the combined effects of the vision and hearing loss (Ingraham, 2007; National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness, 2009; Parker, Bruce, Spiers, Ressa & Davidson, 2010). Nonetheless, most learners with deafblindness need one-on-one support for all or part of the day to benefit from instruction. This becomes inevitable because the child's vision or hearing limits his ability to independently access the learning environment and instruction. Some children with deaf-blindness only need one-onone support in group situations to be able to keep track of the discussion or demonstration, to participate in a hands-on experience, or to interact with their peers and instructors (Hart, 2006). This study explores experiences of a student with deaf-blindness for the first time in the University of Education, Winneba concerning her academic, social, and emotional needs and the coping strategies she adopts in her academic, independence and social university life.

Research Questions

The following research questions were developed to guide the study:

1. What experiences does the student with Deaf-blindness have in the University of Education, Winneba?

2. In what ways do student with Deaf-blindness experience help in their academic, social, and emotional needs?

3. What coping strategies does the student with Deaf-blindness adopt in her academic, independence, and social university life?

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 82

Method

This study took place at a public university in a municipal city in the central region of Ghana. In the year 2017, the University of Education, Winneba admitted students with deaf-blindness whose primary mode of communication and instruction on campus and in classrooms with students, faculty members, and staff is the Ghanaian sign language. This allowed these student to pursue a course in Community Based Rehabilitation and Disability Studies. An exploratory research design is the design of inquiry in which the researchers conducted a study in an area where there is a paucity of research already done – using personal interview and observation to explore how a new and lonely student with deaf-blindness navigates University life. This was an appropriate approach to use to ensure the richness of the data collected (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001; Creswell, & Plano Clark, 2011).

Results and Discussions

The study findings present results in themes of experiences (academic, social and emotional), access (interaction with students and staff) and the support (coping strategies) the student with deaf-blindness adopts to make learning meaningful.

The first theme, experiences sought for a general understanding of the participant of what she described her experience to be at the University of Education, Winneba The participant acknowledges that experiences on campus are both good and bad. She stated that it is good because whenever she is in class, she asks questions and they are welcomed and accepted by lecturers whether good or bad. Again, whenever she encounters a problem, she approaches lecturers and they help resolve the problem. Participant opined that her experience as a deafblind student has been both good and bad. She expressed that, everybody is always willing to help her in times of need. However, she gets frustrated when no one is around to offer her assistance in communication. The participant made remarks such as:

“Some experiences are good because whenever I ask questions during lectures, they are mostly attended to and answered by lecturers. However, the bad experiences are when there are no interpreters to interpret to me. I, therefore, have to rely on colleagues for assistance. Also, I face challenges communicating to some faculty staff members like the HOD and CBR Unit Coordinator without the presence of interpreters” (Verbatim Expression of Participant).

The participant further remarked that;

“Sometimes my interpreter gets late for lectures and I get irritated because some of my classmates who try to help me are not able to communicate effectively in signing”

Gendreau (2011) and (Greg, 2017), affirms that communication challenges can cause frustration for the communication partners (ie. the learner with deaf-blindness, the educators and assistant educators). It is therefore imperative that an effective method of communication is fostered to prevent misinterpretations between the two parties. Probably, this explains why the learner with deaf-blindness gets frustrated when no one is around to offer her assistance in communicating.

The participant further reports to have no problem with the University environment as a student with deaf-blindness concerning mobility. She commented that:

“I can go to wherever I want to go with the aid of my white cane, and sometimes some support from special assistants on campus” (Verbatim Expression of Participant).

She reports that she hasn't achieved anything yet but she is making preparations towards a long term goal of helping children with disabilities. Also, she wants to serve as a motivator to other students with deaf-blindness so that they can also achieve greater heights.

The second theme, access, looked at interactions with students and staff and how it meets the academic, social, and emotional needs of the deafblind student. The participant stated that her experiences have been met by way of the different support services that are available to support her learning, independence, social and emotional needs. The participant reported that academically she has no challenges or problems, she stated that she can learn like other students especially when there is an interpreter during lectures and lecture materials are provided in braille. The participant also mentioned how faculty members interacted and supported her academic needs in the lecture halls. She attributed to the sense of awareness, understanding, and accommodation on the majority of faculty members. She also acknowledges that the university takes responsibility for getting any instructional materials in an alternate format in advance for her. The participant reported needing access to a computer will help her complete her assignment and do research. This she remarked as follows:

“There are computers in the recourse room which I use when on campus but I will need a personal computer to assist me especially when I am doing my assignment at my hall of residence” (Verbatim Expression of Participant).

“The support I receive from the braillist and other resource support staff are excellent. There are also provisions of resources for me by the department, I love my department”

Also, she opines that her social life gets better especially with friends around her.

“I have a good relation with other students with disabilities especially with the students with hearing and visual impairments. I also have positive relations with students without disabilities because they assist and feed me with relevant information on campus. For example, the demonstration and the recent suicide that happened on campus was communicated to me by a student without a disability. I have always enjoyed their company” (Verbatim Expression of Participant).

She also said that:

“Some of my lecturers usually stop lecturing and allow me to ask questions or respond to my question before continuing, and this allows me to participate well in the lectures.”

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 84

The participant was further asked how often she gets assistance from other students. She positively notes that the majority of students were aware and accepted her as a deafblind student and were adaptable to her communication needs in the classroom. However, a few students were not as open or sensitive due to a lack of knowledge. She reported that, while the university was a cool place to be where everyone or most of the students in her unit are exposed to the fundamentals of sign language, it was a good starting place to achieve her goals. She shared that almost all students in her unit (Community-Based Rehabilitation-CBR) welcomed her in their groups.

“I normally get assistance from other students. There are times other students would want to reach out to me just because they feel like helping me with whatever thing I am doing.”

(Verbatim Expression of Participant).

These findings are in line with Petitto’s (2014) assertion that access enables learners with deafblindness to develop a strong communication foundation and establish appropriate support services to meet the learning needs of students with deaf-blindness, hence become future independent, active, and self-sufficient adults in the community (Wolsey, 2017). The attention the participant got from the lecturers during lectures also conforms to the finding of Hart (2006) who emphasized that most learners with deaf-blindness need one-on-one support to be able to keep track of the discussion or demonstration, to participate in a hands-on experience, or to interact with their peers and instructors.

The third theme, support, looked at what coping strategies are available or she adapts to be successful in the sighted university. The participant remarked that she adapts peer support as a coping strategy in her academics. She relies on colleagues who understand the concepts for understanding the material presented. However, she further added that whenever she wants to go home or visit an unfamiliar environment and has nobody to assist her, she waves her hands around till she gets attention from other people. She also enjoys more in social gatherings whenever there are interpreters available to interpret to her whatever has transpired. But when there are no interpreters, she gets angry and leaves the premises in which they are hosting the function. Again, she gets angry whenever she prompts her interpreter and he or she denies her the opportunity to ask questions at the function . The findings from this theme confirm that the ability to foster a means of communication with a person with deaf-blindness is both the most important and the most challenging requirement (Miles, 2008). This is particularly true in school settings where educators or para-educators limit the deafblind from communicating their ideas (Charles, 2014). Access had a significant impact on deafblind university students’ academic experiences and how they navigated through the academic world that related to classes, group discussions, instructional materials, peers, and instructors. While they strived to receive the same academic opportunities as their sighted deaf peers, they required different levels of access and support to function academically at a sighted University (Wolsey, 2017).

Conclusion

The results of this study revealed that the experiences of a deaf-blind CBR student of the University of Education, Winneba is shaped by the dynamic interactions between personal factors (such as onset and type of impairments) and environmental influences (such as attitude, technology, and supports). A better understanding of these experiences may help educators and rehabilitation workers emphasize development of experiences to design services to enhance the independence of persons with deaf-blindness.

Implication for Educators and Rehabilitation Professionals or Workers. There is a need for rehabilitation workers or professionals to find innovative ways for helping students with deaf-blindness gain a healthy experience to cope well with their academic work. It is imperative to blend the experiences of students with deaf-blindness to their academic, social and emotional needs at the tertiary level of their education. Another crucial concern is to provide effective counselling and support to these students to cope with the above needs. Furthermore, it is incumbent on rehabilitation workers or professionals to maximize the coping strategies of students with deaf-blindness and build on these experiences to enhance their independence, academic and social experiences at the university. The department of special education has a daunting task in preparing pre-academic tasks in a form of the orientation of campus life and courses of study to give credence to students with deaf-blindness seeking studentship in the future. The unit for Community-Based Rehabilitation and Disability Studies (CBRDS) therefore needs to ensure that, all its students and staff are efficiently capacitated in sign language (tactile) to make communication easier with the student with deaf-blindness. That way, the experience will be made more meaningful for the lone student with deaf-blindness resulting in positive outcomes for the educator/ Rehabilitation Professionals or Workers and the deaf-blind learner.

References

American Foundation for the Blind (2015). Living with vision loss: What is braille. Retrieved from http://www.afb.org/info/living-with-vision-loss/braille/what-is-braille/123 Berrier, J. (2014). Communication technology for persons who are deafblind [Webinar]. In Perkins e-learning.

Charles, C.J. (2014). Teacher characteristics in supporting learners with deaf-blindness: A case of Kabarnet School for Deafblind children, Stellenbosch : Baringo County, Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(28), 184–19.

Chen, D. (2004). Young children who are deaf-blind: Implications for professionals in deaf and hard of hearing services. Volta Review, 104(4), 273-284.

CNIB. (2015). Living with vision loss: Braille. Retrieved from http://www.perkinselearning.org/webcast/communication-technology-persons-whoaredeafblind#transcript

Correa-Torres, S. M. (2008). Communication opportunities for students with deaf-blindness in specialized and inclusive settings: A pilot study. Review, 39(4), 197-205.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Deasy, K., & Lyddy, F. (2006) Exploring language and communication in an individual with congenital deaf-blindness: A case study. Technical Report to the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) Special Education Research Initiative (SERI), Trim, Co. Meath.

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 86

Edwards, T. (2014). From compensation to integration: Effects of the pro-tactile movement on the sublexical structure of Tactile American Sign Language. Journal of Pragmatics, 69 , 22-41. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.005 accessed on June 14, 2020.

Gallaudet Research Institute (2011). Regional and National Summary Report of Data from the 2009-10 Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children and Youth. W ashington, DC: GRI, Gallaudet University.

Gendreau, S. (2011). A study of caregiver experiences in raising a deaf child. Retrieved fromhttps://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/bitstream/handle/1993/4483/WHOLE%20THESIS %20-%20April%205 %20SANDI%20GENDREAU.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y accessed on June 14, 2020.

Government of Ghana, (2006).Persons with Disability Act, Ghana (Act 715) Accra, Assembly Press.

Greg, K. (2017). Communication disorders and challenging behaviours: Supporting children’s functional communication goals in the classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(4), 445–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s106 43- 016-0789-7 accessed on June 15, 2020.

Hart, P. (2006). Using imitation with congenitally deafblind adults: Establishing meaningful communication partnerships. Infant & Child Development, 15, 263-274.

Hauser, P. C., & Marschark, M. (2008). What we know and what we don't know about cognition and deaf learners. In M. Marschark & P. C. Hauser (Eds.), Deaf cognition: Foundations and outcomes (pp. 439-458). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://cnib.ca/en/living/braille/Pages/default.aspx

Ingraham, C.L. (Ed.) (2007). Transition planning for students who are deafblind. Knoxville, TN: PEPNet-South

Manga, T., & Masuku, K.P. (2020). Challenges of teaching the deaf-blind learner in an education setting in Johannesburg: Experiences of educators and assistant educators. South African Journal of Communication Disorders, 67(1), a649. https://doi org/10.4102/sajcd.v67i1.649 accessed on July 2, 2020.

McMillan, J.H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in Education . A conceptual introduction (5th edn.). New York, NY: Longman.

Miles, B. (2003). Talking the language of the hands to the hands. Retrieved from National Center of Deaf-blindness website https://nationaldb.org/library/page/1930 accessed on January 30, 2021.

Miles, B. (2008). Overview on deaf-blindness. Retrieved from National Center on Deafblindness website http://www.dblink.org/pdf/overview.pdf retrieved on January 30, 2021.

National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness (2009). The 2008 National Child Count of Children and Youth who are Deaf-Blind. National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness, Monmouth

Nuccio, J. & Granda, A. J. (2013a). Pro-Tactile vlog #1. Pro-Tactile: The deafblind way [Video file]. Retrieved from https://tactiletheworld.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/pro-tactile-thedeafblind-way/

Nuccio, J. & Granda, A. J. (2013b). Pro-Tactile vlog #2. Pro-Tactile: The deafblind way [Video file]. Retrieved from https://tactiletheworld.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/pro-tactile-thedeafblind-way/

Parker, A.T., Bruce, S., Spiers, E. Ressa, S. & Davidson, R. (2010). Deaf-blind young adults in action: a participatory action research study. AER Journal: Research and Practice in Visual Impairments and Blindness. 3 (4), 124-131.

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 87

Petitto, L. A. (2014). What the eyes reveal about the brain: Advances in human language acquisition -Insights from Visual Language and Visual Learning (VL2) and the Brain and Language Laboratory for Neuroimaging (BL2 ) [Webinar]. In Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center Webinars. Retrieved from http://www3.gallaudet.edu/clerccenter.html February, 26th 2021.

Pope, J., & Collins, S. D. (2014). Pro-Tactile: Understanding touch techniques to facilitate communication with Deaf-Blind people, part 1 [Video file]. Retrieved from http://issuu.com/dbtip/docs/pro-tactile_understanding_the_touch Qualitative Report, 22(8), 2066-2089. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol22/iss8/1

February, 26th 2021.

Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities (2013). Project IDEAL in Action: Deaf-blindness. Retrieved from http://www.projectidealonline.org/v/deaf-blindness/ Retrieved on February, 26th 2021.

Usher Syndrome Coalition (2015). Usher syndrome. Retrieved from www.ushersyndrome.org. Retrieved on February, 26th 2021.

Vervloed, M. P., van Dijk, R. J., Knoors, H., & van Dijk, J. P. (2006). Interaction between the teacher and the congenitally deafblind child. American Annals of the Deaf , 151(3), 336344. doi:10.1353/aad.200Retrieved on February, 26 th 2021.

Wolsey, J. A. (2017). Perspectives and experiences of deafblind college students. The Qualitative Report, 22 (8), 2066-2089. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol22/iss8/1

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Choosing a mixed methods design. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , 2, 53-106.

About the Authors

Emmanuel Kwasi Acheampong is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Special Education, University of Education Winneba. He did his Bachelor and MPhil Degree in Special Education from the University of Education Winneba. Mr Acheampong is a currently a PhD candidate at the University of Education, Winneba in Ghana. He is the program coordinator for the Unit of Community Based Rehabilitation and Disability Studies at the University of Education. His teaching area is in training professional rehabilitation personnel and teachers for special and inclusive schools for children with special educational needs especially students with hearing impairment. Mr Acheampong’s special interest is in deafness and early interventional studies, paediatric audiology, aural and Community Based rehabilitation, and school screening for children with hearing loss

Rabbi Abu –Sadat has a Master of Philosophy Degree (M.Phil) from the University of Education Winneba, she has both a Diploma and Bachelor’s Degree in Community-Based Rehabilitation and Disability Studies from the same University. Currently, she is a lecturer in the Department of Special Education. Rabbi teaches courses in Community-Based Rehabilitation and Disability Studies at the undergraduate level. Her research area and interest are in the rehabilitation of learners with disabilities and special educational needs, improving access and preparing rehabilitation personnel for facilitation and rehabilitation of learners with disabilities.

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 88

Analysis of Syntactic Complexity and Its Relationship to Writing Quality in Argumentative Essays using an Automated Essay Scoring Webtool

Thilagha Jagaiah, Ph.D. University of Hartford

Natalie Olinghouse, Ph.D. Devin Kearns, Ph.D. University of Connecticut

Gilbert Andrada, Ph.D. Curriculum Associates

Abstract

Syntactic complexity has been recognized as an important construct in writing by numerous studies. However, only few studies have examined the relationship between syntactic complexity and writing quality for first language writers, and the results have been inconsistent and inconclusive. The current study examined the relationship between syntactic complexity and writing quality of 1,029 eighth grade argumentative essays using syntactic complexity measures (SCMs) from Coh-Metrix, an automated text analysis webtool. To facilitate our analysis, the SCMs were hypothesized to be grouped into four latent variables using Confirmatory Factor Analysis. The four latent variables were then used as input predictors along with a Not-At-Risk indicator to examine the relationship with writing scores using a multiple linear regression model. The findings indicated a positive relationship between the four latent variables and writing quality (R2 = .31) that varied significantly between at-risk and not-risk students with a greater positive impact for at-risk students.

Keywords: syntactic complexity; automated scoring; Coh-Metrix; at-risk and not-at-risk; writing quality; latent variables.

Analysis of Syntactic Complexity and Its Relationship in First Language Writers’ Argumentative Essays

The use of sophisticated sentence structures, i.e., greater syntactic complexity , should be associated with better writing quality (e.g., Beers & Nagy, 2009; Berninger et al., 2011; McNamara, et al., 2010; Graham et al., 2017). Writers who can construct syntactically complex structures can articulate increasingly complex ideas with clarity and produce texts that are comprehensible (Graham et al., 2012), convey ideas that tie together, sum up a series of thoughts, qualify a previous point, and transition between ideas to convey meaning effectively. The ability to manipulate sentence structures using varied simple and sophisticated structures functions as a building block to engage in the higher-order composing skills such as drafting, revising, and editing. However, there is evidence to suggest that students in general do not use sophisticated syntax, particularly struggling writers (Graham et al., 2017; McKenna, et al., 2015; Saddler et al., 2018).

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 89

Studies have shown that over time or as students progress to higher-grade levels, their control of sophisticated syntax improves (Datchuk & Kubina, 2013; Hunt, 1965, 1970). However, the progress is slower with struggling writers because their syntactic maturity remains very simple and less effective (Graham & Hall, 2016; Graham et al., 2017). Frequent use of short and choppy sentences is monotonous and does not lead to a well-constructed text and this may reduce the quality of the text.

In the workplace, employers frequently report that college graduates struggle with basic writing skills, such as constructing syntactically varied sentences and writing in a professional manner (Kellogg & Whiteford, 2009; Lenz, 2013; Ortiz, 2012; Routon et al., 2021). It cannot be overstated that written communication is a high priority in the workplace especially in this digital age. Prospective employers select qualified candidates with proficient writing skills for both employment and promotions. Lack of writing proficiency not only affects employment opportunities but also involves a societal cost. The most recent publicly available survey by National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges reported that improving writing skills for hired employees requires the most remedial training, and industries spend an annual $3.1 billion to improve their employees’ skills in this area (Moore, 2016).

Constructing syntactically complex sentences is cognitively and linguistically challenging and demanding (Traga Philippakos, 2019), even for first language writers. Furthermore, the importance of constructing sophisticated sentences has also been recognized by the Common Core State Standards (CCSS; National Governors Association Centre for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). It is expected that students as early as elementary grade-levels should be able to construct complex sentences. This importance is also evident in most analytic rubrics that include components associated with syntax, e.g., ‘ sentence structure is well controlled and sentence variety is appropriate for the writer’s purpose and audience ’ (National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); NCES, 2012, 48). Additionally, in the simple view of writing, quality is influenced by not only the transcription skills, use of executive processes, and text generation at the word and discourse level but also at the sentence level. Although the curriculum, assessments, and text compositions point to the importance of constructing syntactically complex sentences, its association with writing quality for first language writers has not been sufficiently studied which is the focus of the current study.

Problem of Syntactic Complexity Measures

Syntactic complexity is measured using various sentence-level measures, and there is no single definition in the literature to determine what constitutes a syntactically complex sentence. Alternatively, researchers for the past five decades have developed several quantifiable syntactic complexity measures (SCMs) to evaluate complex sentence structures: mean number of words per T-unit, mean number of clauses per T-unit, mean number of words per clause, etc. A T-unit is a sentence structure that comprises a main clause and subordinated clauses (Hunt, 1965). It is documented in Jagaiah et al.’s (2022) systematic review that as many as 48 SCMs have been used to examine sentences written by first language writers. However, most studies used only one to three SCMs, and these SCMs varied from one study to another to examine syntactic complexity. Furthermore, the sample size used in each study was small, SCM definitions were inconsistent, and SCMs were calculated manually with no interrater reliability justification (Jagaiah et al., 2022). As a result, studies on which SCMs measure syntactic complexity were

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 90 generally inconclusive and inconsistent. Additionally, only a few studies examined the relationship between SCMs and writing quality for first language writers, and how it varied between at-risk (i.e., low achieving) and not-at-risk (average and above average) students.

Syntactic Complexity by Genre, Grade-level, and Students Writing Abilities

Syntactic complexity has been actively investigated as an important construct in language development research for more than five decades (Jagaiah et al., 2022). One common goal in previous studies on syntactic complexity was to measure language development across age groups, by different genres, and for writers with different abilities. A seminal study by Hunt (1970) was influential in establishing the idea that using sentence length as an indicator to determine if a sentence is syntactically complex. Hunt (1970) found that older students tend to write longer sentences compared to elementary age students, and subsequent studies suggest syntactic growth over time (e.g., Crowhurst , 1980a; Crowhurst, 1980b; Crowhurst & Piche, 1979; Morris & Crump, 1982; Rousseau et al., 1993; Rubin & Piche, 1979; Stewart & Grobe, 1979; Wagner et al., 2011). As students advance in grade levels, it is expected that they can construct more sophisticated sentences to tie ideas together, or sum up a series of thoughts, qualify a previous point, and convey meaning effectively between transition of ideas to produce quality texts.

For studies that examined syntactic complexity and genre, they found that students in the higher grades use longer sentences and clauses in the argumentative genre (e.g., Beers & Nagy, 2009; Blair & Crump, 1984; Crowhurst, 1980a, 1980b; Crowhurst & Piche, 1979; Prater & Mayo, 1984). It appears that writers’ genre knowledge affects their ability to construct appropriate syntactically complex sentences.

Although less-skilled writers are significantly challenged when constructing sentences, evidence in the literature points to inconclusive findings between students with different writing abilities. Hunt (1970) reported that more-skilled writers in the higher grades exhibited more use of longer clauses and sentences as well as increased number of clauses in each T-unit. Hunt also found that the less-skilled writers tend to combine short sentences using connectives such as and or but frequently. Combining several ideas in a single sentence using these connectives may not necessarily reflect skilled language production but lends itself to difficulty in processing the information which may impact the quality of the text. Other studies that examined T-unit length found no differences between students with different writing abilities (Morris & Crump, 1982; Prater & Mayo, 1984). In these studies, more skilled writers had a higher score for syntactic density and use of clauses in the sentences compared to less-skilled writers.

To summarize, prior research has highlighted the significance of exploring syntactic complexity and its effects on genre, grade level, and students’ writing proficiency. However, the relationship between syntactic complexity and writing quality is not apparent. For example, Beers and Nagy (2009) claim that syntactic complexity and writing quality are independent of each other, and that the relationship is dependent on the genre and the type of measures used to examine this relationship, but there is very little empirical evidence to support this notion. Stewart and Grobe (1979) found essays written by fifth-grade students that contained longer clauses had a positive relationship with writing quality, but this was not the case for the eighth-and eleventh-grade students. In contrast, Beers and Nagy (2009) found longer clauses written by seventh-and

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 91 eighth-grade students showed a positive relationship between syntactic complexity and writing quality. According to Crowhurst (1980a), argumentative essays that exhibited high levels of syntactic complexity were associated with higher writing scores among students in higher grade levels. However, there was no difference in writing scores for narrative texts with high syntactic complexity between lower and higher grade levels.

There are several reasons why only few studies on first language writers examined the relationship between syntactic complexity and writing quality with inconclusive results. Jagaiah et al.’s (2022) systematic review denote that earlier studies did not have the luxury of using computational tools to identify linguistic elements that examine syntactic complexity. Most researchers used a manual approach and examined only one to three SCMs that varied between different studies and used small data sets of 50 or fewer observations. Second, the same SCM (e.g., sentence length) produced inconsistent findings across studies. If composing syntactically complex or sophisticated sentences is viewed as an important skill for students to master as foundational skills of writing, it becomes imperative to develop a better understanding of syntactic complexity and its relationship to writing quality. Such a study should be done using a large data set with the ability to simultaneously analyze multiple SCMs.

Current Study

This study aimed to overcome the limitations of previous studies by utilizing Coh-Metrix, a wellestablished and validated automated text analysis tool, to investigate the relationship between syntactic complexity and writing quality (e.g., McNamara, et al., 2014). The automation process enabled us to eliminate the need for inter-rater reliability and ensure consistency and justification in the analysis of SCMs. There is reason to believe that grouping the SCMs into appropriate clusters or latent variables would facilitate in establishing a relationship between syntactic complexity and writing quality instead of examining the individual Coh-Metrix SCMs.

Research Questions

Research question 1 How can Confirmatory Factor Analysis be used to demonstrate the fit of the 28 SCMs into four hypothesized latent variables (sentence pattern, sentence length, sentence connectors, and sentence sophistication)? This research question aims to investigate the clustering of the SCMs into latent variables. To accomplish this, we used Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to determine if the four hypothesized latent variables - sentence pattern, sentence length, sentence connectors, and sentence sophistication – adequately captured the variability in syntactic complexity and demonstrated a good fit for the 28 SCMs selected from Coh-Metrix.

Research question 2. How is writing quality related to the four latent variables and the student risk indicator variable? We employed a multiple linear regression (MLR) model with the four latent variables and a categorical risk indicator as independent variables and writing quality as the dependent variable. Additionally, the MLR model included two-way interactions between the latent variables and the risk indicator. By using the MLR model, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between syntactic complexity and writing quality and examined how this relationship differed between at-risk and not-at-risk students.

Method

Data Source

The formative assessment data of 1,029 eighth-grade argumentative essays were drawn from the 2012-2013 spring semester of a state-level Benchmark Writing Assessment System (BASWrite), a web-based skills assessment tool. The essays were written in response to 17 independent argumentative prompts developed by Measurement Incorporated (provider of customized educational assessments), teachers, school administrators, and district personnel. Each participant typed their response to one of the 17 on-screen writing prompts within a 60minute time constraint, and the essays were automatically scored. The students received individualized quantitative feedback and had an option to revise the essays as frequently as they liked after each submission. For the purpose of this study, only the first submission was evaluated to capture students’ abilities to construct syntactically complex sentences prior to any automated feedback.

Project Essay Grade

Each essay was scored using an Automated Essay Scoring (AES) engine called Project Essay Grade (PEG; Page, 1966, 1994). PEG models human holistic and analytic scores across six traits: overall development, organization, support, sentence structure, word choice, and mechanics. The essays were scored on a scale of 1 – 6 for the six traits, and the sum of this score is the total writing score (PEG Sum Score) which was used as the measure of writing quality (Chung & O’Neil, 1997; Shermis & Burstein, 2003), but the total score does not provide any input on syntactic complexity.

PEG demonstrates high reliability and validity for predicting human raters’ holistic scores (e.g., Keith, 2003; Shermis, 2014; Shermis, et al., 2001) and analytic trait scores (e.g., Page, et al., 1997; Shermis et al., 2002). Shermis et al., (2002) compared PEG and the holistic and analytic scores of six human raters, and they found that PEG has the highest agreement index with the three pairs of human raters at 0.89 except for one.

Demographic Data

The 1,029 argumentative essays consisted of 527 females, 66% White, 30% Hispanic/Latino, 15% African American, 3% Asian, and 1% Native American. Students were further classified into at-risk, or not-at-risk categories based on the Spring 2012 State Accountability Assessment (SAA) writing scores. The SAA is a test administered to students in grades three through eight, and it is graded on a scale from Bands 1 to 5. Students who had scores in Bands 1 and 2 (i.e., below basic and basic that reflects failing performance by the SAA) were classified as at-risk. Students who had scores in Bands 3, 4, and 5 (i.e., proficient, goal, or advanced levels) were classified as not-at-risk. Using the SAA writing score, 11.18% ( n = 115) students were identified as at-risk, and 88.82% (n = 914) were identified as not-at-risk. English Language Learners were excluded from this selection.

Coh-Metrix 3.0

An integral part of the methodology is the use of Coh-Metrix and its SCMs associated with syntactic complexity to analyze the data. Coh-Metrix 3.0 is a computational tool that analyzes

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 93 many different linguistic features and discourse representations of a text. The online version of Coh-Metrix is freely available for research purposes (http://cohmetrix.com/), and it provides 106 indices that are theoretically grounded, validated, and aligned with theories of discourse in relation to words, sentences, deeper meanings of words, structures related to genre, and connections between sentences (Graesser & McNamara, 2011; McNamara et.al., 2014). CohMetrix have been tested for construct validity using a variety of linguistic features including the scoring of the college students’ argumentative writing (MacArthur et al., 2019), and creative writing (Zedelius et al., 2019). One added advantage of using Coh-Metrix is that it can facilitate a large-scale, empirical evaluation of a wide range of indices used to measure syntactic complexity. More than 100 published studies have established Coh-Metrix as an extremely powerful text analysis tool that is capable of assessing and differentiating an enormous variety of text types from the genre level to the sentence level (McNamara et al., 2010; McNamara et al., 2014). Using Coh-Metrix, the authors of this study were able to analyze a large dataset of 1,029 argumentative essays with several SCMs simultaneously and not incur any interrater-reliability issues.

Selection of Syntactic Complexity Measures (SCMs)

The 28 SCMs analyzed in this study were selected from a pool of 106 Coh-Metrix indices. CohMetrix developers have identified 14 SCMs that capture syntactic complexity and demonstrate an informationally dense sentence as shown in Table 1.

We included another 14 SCMs from Coh-Metrix that capture various aspects of syntactic complexity including sentence length, connectors, phrases, sentence structures, and content words (e.g., nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs) and function words (e.g., prepositions, determiners, pronouns) because these SCMs have been used in previous studies (e.g., Jagaiah et al., 2022). Seven out of nine connectives from Coh-Metrix were selected as they are known to increase syntactic complexity by linking ideas and clauses (Cain & Nash, 2011). However, two connectives (CNCPos and CNCNeg) were excluded as they did not provide scores when run on Coh-Metrix.

In addition, four more SCMs from the word information category were selected because an increased number of incidences of word classes such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs can contribute to longer and more complex sentences. Lastly, three sentence length SCMs were also selected as longer sentences are indicative of syntactic complexity (Hunt, 1970).

Table 1

List of Selected Syntactic Complexity Measures from the Coh-Metrix Indices

Syntactic Complexity Connectives

Mean number of words before main verb (SYNLE)

Mean number of modifiers per noun phrase (SYNNP)

Word Information

All connectives Noun incidence incidence (CNCAll) (WRDNOUN)

Causal Connectives Verb incidence incidence (CNCCaus) (WRDVERB)

Sentence Length

Mean number of words (DESSL)

Standard deviation of mean number of words (DESSLd)

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 94

Minimal edit Logical connectives Adjective incidence distance, part of incidence (WRDADJ) speech (CNCLogic) (SYNMEDpos)

Minimal edit Adversative/contrasti Adverb incidence distance, all words ve connectives (WRDADV) (SYNMEDwrd) incidence (CNCADC)

Minimal edit Temporal distance, lemmas connectives incidence (SYNMEDlem) (CNCTemp)

Mean adjacent Expanded temporal sentence structure connectives incidence similarity (CNCTempx) (SYNSTRUTa)

Mean all sentence Additive connectives structure similarity incidence CNCAdd) (SYNSTRUTt)

Noun phrase incidence (DRNP)

Verb phrase incidence (DRVP)

Adverbial phrase incidence (DRAP)

Preposition phrase incidence (DRPP)

Agentless passive voice forms incidence (DRPVAL)

Negation expression incidence (DRNEG)

Gerund incidence (DRGERUND)

Infinitive incidence (DRINF)

Note. Coh-Metrix categories: Syntactic Complexity (15 SCMs), Connectives (7 SCMs), Word Information (4 SCMs), Sentence Length (2 SCMs) SCMs= 28 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 95

Unlike previous studies that examined individual SCMs, we took a novel approach by examining the SCMs in clusters or latent variables. The hypothesis was that a model using the selected 28 Coh-Metrix indices could be divided into separate latent variables based on Coh-Metrix clusters and phrase structure grammar rules. Using this approach, four distinct themes emerged within the selected 28 SCMs, which naturally led to the creation of the four hypothesized latent variables (Table 2). By grouping the SCMs into these latent variables, the study aimed to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying syntactic complexity present in the analyzed text.

The first latent variable, Sentence Length, is comprised of measures related to either sentence, clause, or phrase length. The second latent variable, Sentence Pattern, encompasses measures related to different types of phrases (nouns, verbs, and adverbs), word classes, and verb patterns (negative expressions, gerunds, and infinitives). The third latent variable, Sentence Connector, focuses on measures related to all types of connectors such as causal, logical, contrastive, temporal, and additive. Finally, the fourth latent variable, Sentence Sophistication, comprises measures that capture the presence of phrases, clauses, and adjacent sentences that had similar or different words, phrases, and structures to indicate variety and complexity.

Initial Hypothesized Model with Four Latent Variables and 28 Coh-Metrix SCMs

Latent Variables

Sentence Pattern Sentence Length

Sentence Sentence Connector Sophistication

Noun phrase Mean number of All connectives

Mean number of incidence (DRNP) words (DESSL) incidence modifiers per (CNCAll) noun phrase (SYNNP)

Verb phrase Standard Causal Minimal edit incidence (DRVP) deviation of mean Connectives distance, part of number of words incidence speech (DESSLd) (CNCCaus) (SYNMEDpos)

Adverbial phrase Mean number of Logical Minimal edit incidence (DRAP) words before main connectives distance, all words verb (SYNLE) incidence (SYNMEDwrd) (CNCLogic)

Preposition phrase

Adversative/contr Minimal edit incidence (DRPP) astive connectives distance, lemmas incidence (SYNMEDlem) (CNCADC)

Temporal Mean adjacent O voice forms connectives sentence structure 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 96

C Agentless passive

H incidence incidence similarity

- (DRPVAL) (CNCTemp) (SYNSTRUTa)

M

E Negation Expanded Mean all sentence

T expression temporal structure

R incidence connectives similarity

I (DRNEG) incidence (SYNSTRUTt)

X (CNCTempx)

S Gerund incidence Additive

C (DRGERUND) connectives

M incidence s (CNCAdd)

Infinitive incidence (DRINF)

Noun incidence (WRDNOUN)

Verb incidence (WRDVERB)

Adjective incidence (WRDADJ)

Adverb incidence (WRDADV)

Note. Four latent variables: Sentence Pattern (12 SCMs), Sentence Length (3 SCMs), Sentence Connector (7 SCMs), Sentence Sophistication (6 SCMs) SCMs= 28

Data Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To analyze the first research question, a CFA using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) 9.4 CALIS procedure was performed to validate if the hypothesized model of four latent variables was a good fit for the 28 Coh-Metrix SCMs. Four commonly reported CFA fit indices were tested: goodness-of-fit index (GFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit Index (CFI), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). GFI values of more than 0.95, RMSEA values of 0.06 or less, CFI more than 0.95, and SRMR of less than 0.08 were considered indicative of a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Revisions were made to the selected 28 SCMs when a good fit was not found. Some highly correlated SCMs between the four latent variables were removed while SCMs that had low factor loadings within a latent variable were combined to improve the fit.

Multiple Linear Regression (MLR)

Once a good fit was established using CFA, an MLR was performed to analyze the second research question. The MLR model was developed using scores of the four latent variables produced by the CFA as independent variables, student type (at-risk or not-at-risk) as a categorical independent variable and writing scores from the Spring 2012-2013 BAS-Write as the dependent variable. The MLR model was used to determine if there is a relationship between the four latent variables and writing quality for argumentative essays, and how the relationship differed between eighth-grade at-risk and not-at-risk students.

The MLR model is a reasonable approach to test the relationship between writing quality, the four latent variables and the student type categorical variable. First, with the large dataset of 1,029 observations and only five independent variables, the assumption of normality with the data was reasonable, and we anticipated that the MLR model should produce a good fit. Second, the MLR model would be easy to understand and interpret. Finally, the MLR model would effectively capture two-way interrelationships among the four latent variables and student type on writing quality.

The multiple regression model had the following functional form: y = β0 + β1SP + β2SL + β3SC + β4SS + β5ST + β6ST*SP + β7ST*SL + β8ST*SC + β9ST*SS + β10SP*SL + β11SP*SC + β12SP*ST β13SP*SS + β14SL*SC + β15SL*SS + β16SC*SS + e where y is writing quality score, SP is sentence pattern, SL is sentence length, SC is sentence connector, SS is sentence sophistication, and ST is student type which was coded as zero for atrisk students and one for not-at-risk students. The multiple regression model determined the strength of the relationship between the scores of the CFA latent variables with writing quality using standard regression metrics like R2 and p values of the beta coefficients. Revisions were made to the multiple regression model to only recognize interaction terms that were significant.

Results

RQ1: Results of CFA for the fit of the 28 SCMs into four hypothesized latent variables The initial hypothesized model consisting of four latent variables and 28 SCMs did not meet the criteria of a good fit with the CFA metrics. To improve the model fit, a re-specification was conducted which involved removing and combining SCMs. The re-specification process utilized phrase structure rules, as well as an examination of the SCM correlation matrix, and factor loadings. Figure 1 provides a summary of the steps taken to revise the initial hypothesized model.

Removed SCMs. A total of seven SCMs, one from Sentence Length, three from Sentence Connector, one from Sentence Sophistication, and two from Sentence Pattern were removed from the initial hypothesized model. For Sentence Length , the mean number of words (DESSL) was removed because it was highly correlated with two other SCMs in the Sentence Sophistication latent variable with correlation coefficients of r = -.56 and -.62 respectively. For Sentence Pattern, the negative expression incidence (DRNEG) was removed because it had a low negative factor loading of -0.16. This implied that it was not an important component of the sentence pattern latent variable. The other two SCMs, noun phrase and verb phrase incidences (DRNP and DRVP) were removed for two reasons. First, they had low factor loadings, and second, they may be captured by another two SCMs, noun and verb incidences (WRDNOUN, WRDVERB), within the same latent variable. This was based on phrase structure rules, where a

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 98 noun phrase must contain a noun, and a verb phrase must contain a verb. Therefore, counting the number of nouns and verbs will capture the noun and verb phrases as well.

For Sentence Connector, the adversative/contrastive connectives incidence (CNCADC), expanded temporal connectives incidence (CNCTempx), and additive connectives incidence (CNCADD) were removed because they had low factor loadings of -0.05, 0.02, and -0.05 respectively. Similarly, for Sentence Sophistication, the mean number of modifiers per noun phrase (SYNNP) was removed because it had a low factor loading of 0.01.

Combined SCMs. SCMs that captured similar measures of syntactic complexity were combined. Six SCMs from the Sentence Pattern latent variable captured similar measures. These SCMs were combined to create two new SCMs as shown in Figure 1. The adverbial phrase incidence (DRAP) and preposition phrase incidence (DRPP) are two related SCMs, and they were combined into a single SCM labelled PHRASE by averaging the scores. We combined these SCMs because, according to phrase structure rules, a prepositional phrase can function as an adverbial phrase. Another new SCM, WORD, was created by combining four SCMs, WRDNOUN, WRDVERB, WRDADJ, and WRDADV. By averaging these four SCMs, we captured the impact of all the four SCMs in the single combined WORD SCM instead of eliminating any individual SCMs or analyzing them separately.

Sentence Pattern

Sentence Length

Sentence Connector

Sentence Sophistication

DRNP

DRVP

DRAP

DRPP

DRPVAL

DRNEG

DRGERUND

DRINF

WRDNOUN

WRDVERB

WRDADJ

WRDADV

DESSL

DESSLd

SYNLE

CNCAll

CNCCaus

CNCLogic

CNCADC

CNCTemp

CNCTempx

CNCAdd

SYNNP

SYNMEDpos

SYNMEDwrd

SYNMEDlem

SYNSTRUTa

SYNSTRUTt

Highly correlated

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 100

Note. DRNP = Noun phrase incidence; DRVP = Verb phrase incidence; DRAP = Adverbial phrase incidence; DRPP = Preposition phrase incidence; DRPVAL = Agentless passive voice forms incidence; DRNEG = Negation expression incidence; DRGERUND = Gerund incidence; DRINF = Infinitive incidence; WRDNOUN = Noun incidence; WRDVERB = Verb incidence; WRDADJ = Adjective incidence; WRDADV= Adverb incidence; DESSL = Mean number of words; DESSLd = Standard deviation of mean number of words; SYNLE = Mean number of words before main verb; CNCall= All connectives incidence; CNCCaus = Causal Connectives incidence; CNCLogic = Logical connectives incidence; CNCADC = Adversative/contrastive connectives incidence; CNCTemp = Temporal connectives incidence; CNCTempx = Expanded temporal connectives incidence; CNCAdd = Additive connectives incidence; SYNNP = Mean number of modifiers per noun phrase; SYNMEDpos = Minimal edit distance, part of speech; SYNMEDwrd = Minimal edit distance, all words; SYNMEDlem = Minimal edit distance, lemmas; SYNSTRUTa = Mean adjacent sentence structure similarity; SYNSTRUTt = Mean all sentence structure similarity.

After the targeted SCMs were either removed or combined, CFA was used to estimate a model with 16 SCMs using the same four latent variables to create the final hypothesized model. Table 3 shows the final hypothesized CFA model with the 16 SCMs.

Table 3

Final Hypothesized Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model with 16 SCMs

Sentence Pattern Sentence Length Sentence Sentence Connector Sophistication

WORD Standard All connectives Minimal edit

WRDNOUN deviation of mean incidence distance, part of WRDVERB number of words (CNCAll) speech

WRDADJ (DESSLd) (SYNMEDpos)

WRDADV

Agentless passive Mean number of Causal Minimal edit voice forms words before main Connectives distance, all words incidence verb (SYNLE) incidence (SYNMEDwrd) (DRPVAL) (CNCCaus)

Gerund incidence Logical Minimal edit (DRGERUND) connectives distance, lemmas incidence (SYNMEDlem) (CNCLogic)

Infinitive incidence Temporal Mean adjacent (DRINF) connectives sentence structure incidence similarity (CNCTemp) (SYNSTRUTa)

PHRASE Mean all sentence

DRAP structure similarity

DRPP (SYNSTRUTt)

Note. A total of 16 SCMS. New SCMs: WORD = WRDNOUN + WRDVERB + WRDADJ + WRDADV; PHRASE = DRAP + DRPP.

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 101

Final Hypothesized Model

The factor loadings for the final hypothesized model are shown in Table 4. Most of the SCMs showed significant factor loadings ( p = .05) except for agentless passive voice forms incidence (DRPVAL), which had been retained because a passive voice sentence indicates a varied and more complex sentence structure (McNamara et al., 2014).

Table 4

Standardized Factor Loading Matrix for Final Hypothesized Model (N = 1,029)

Note. DRPVAL = Agentless passive voice forms incidence; DRGERUND = Gerund incidence; DRINF = Infinitive Incidence; WORD = WRDNOUN (Noun Incidence) + WRDVERB (Verb Incidence) + WRDADJ (Adjective Incidence) + WRDADV (Adverb Incidence); PHRASE = DRAP (Adverb Phrase) + DRPP (Prepositional Phrase); DESSLd = Standard deviation of mean number of words; SYNLE = Mean number of words before main verb; CNCAll = All connectives incidence; CNCCaus = Causal Connectives incidence; CNCLogic Logical connectives incidence; CNCTemp = Temporal connectives 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 102 incidence; SYNMEDpos = Minimal Edit Distance, Part of Speech; SYNMEDwrd = Minimal Edit Distance, All Words; SYNMEDlem = Minimal Edit Distance, Lemmas; SYNSTRUTa = Mean Adjacent Sentence Structure Similarity; SYNSTRUTt = Mean All Sentence Structure Similarity

While the grouping of the individual SCMs into latent variables is not unique, there are several CFA metrics that indicate the criteria for a good model fit. The CFA metrics, GFI (0.95), RMSEA (0.05), and SRMR (0.07) met the minimum criteria for a good model fit. The only index value that did not exceed the corresponding criterion was CFI with the value of 0.70, which was below the minimum criteria of 0.95. The lower than acceptable CFI score can be explained if most of the correlations between SCMs are close to zero (Fan, Thompson, & Wang, 1999). The distribution of the SCM correlations indicated that 85% of the SCMs had correlations between r = -.2 and .2. These low correlations may explain the lower than acceptable CFI value. Additionally, meeting three out of the four CFA metrics can be considered reasonable because the latent variable groupings were mainly driven by phrase structure rules and not by a purely statistical criterion. Taken together, these results suggest that the final model provided a reasonable fit for the data; therefore, the revised model was selected as the final CFA model.

RQ2: Relationship between four latent variables and a student risk indicator variable on writing quality

Multiple Linear Regression Analysis. After achieving a good fit with the CFA, the four latent variables representing syntactic complexity, along with a categorical variable, were used as input variables for the MLR model. The purpose of the MLR model was to examine the relationship between the four latent variables and writing quality, and to examine whether this relationship varied between at-risk and not-at-risk students. The initial MLR model included all the main variables and all possible two-way interactions, resulting in several regression coefficients that were not significant at α = .05.

The final MLR model included only three significant interactions (sentence length*sentence connector, sentence pattern* Not-At-Risk, sentence connector*Not-At-Risk). These interactions were included to examine the relationship between syntactic complexity and writing quality, and how the relationship varied by at-risk and not-at-risk students. Table 5 presents the regression coefficients for the final MLR model. All four latent variables had positive regression coefficients, and three of the four latent variables had p < .05 with Sentence Connector having p = .07. Since sentence Connector is an important latent variable for identifying complex sentences, it was included in the final MLR model together with the other three significant latent variables. Moreover, all three selected two-way interactions had p-values less than .001. The notat-risk student type indicator was particularly significant at p < .001, indicating that the impact of the latent variables on writing scores varied significantly between at-risk and not-at-risk students. Except for Sentence Connector, all predictor variables, and two-way interactions in the final MLR model were significant at α = .05 using the t test statistic and were considered acceptable variables to predict writing quality.

The significant p value for the F statistic of 47.50 indicated that using the predictor variables in the final MLR model provided a better prediction of the essay-writing quality of eighth-grade students compared to the mean of the writing scores. The overall R2 for the final model indicated that 31% of the variability in writing scores could be explained by the four latent variables, notat-risk categorical variable and the selected interactions.

Given the highly significant not-at-risk predictor in the MLR model, an analysis was performed on the impact of changes in the latent variables on writing quality between students who are atrisk and not-at-risk. While all students benefitted from including syntactically complex sentences in argumentative essays, at-risk students benefitted more compared to not-at-risk students. In particular, when all four latent variables were simultaneously increased by one standard deviation, writing scores increased by 8% for at-risk students but only 4% for not-at-risk students.

Discussion

The present study makes a significant contribution to the field of education by introducing a novel methodology for investigating syntactic complexity. Specifically, this study aims to analyze multiple SCMs concurrently by categorizing them into latent variables using CFA. The results of the study indicate that the SCMs could be appropriately grouped into four hypothesized latent variables based on Coh-Metrix clusters and phrase structure grammar rules. Although alternative grouping methods may be possible, the use of CFA helps to validate the appropriateness of the chosen latent variables. Overall, the identified latent variables were found to be a good representation of syntactic complexity.

This finding represents a promising starting point for analyzing syntactic complexity through the use of latent variables rather than individual SCMs. In previous research, an excessive number of individual SCMs were used to examine syntactic complexity, and the findings were often inconclusive (Jagaiah et al., 2022). This made it challenging to determine the relationship between syntactic complexity and writing quality.

The grouping of individual SCMs into four representative latent variables enabled us to explicitly study the relationship between syntactic complexity and writing quality in our second 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 104 research question. The resulting MLR model quantified a relationship between the four latent variables and writing quality and examined how this relationship varied between at-risk and notat-risk students. The regression coefficients for all individual latent variables and risk indicator were positive, indicating that an increased use of each latent variable improved writing quality for both at-risk and not-at-risk students. The MLR model suggests that at-risk students benefit more from increased use of syntactic complexity compared to not-at-risk students.

The interpretation for the negative regression coefficient of 0.41 (Table 5) for the two-way interaction of sentence length*sentence connector appears interesting. Although both sentence length and sentence connector individually contributed to increasing writing quality, the combination of long sentences with several connectors has a negative impact. This finding aligns with Hunt’s (1970) study which observed that less-skilled writers frequently combine short sentences using connectives such as and or but. Repeated use of these connectives to combine several ideas in a single sentence is not an effective way to present ideas, and this may have impacted the writing score for the eighth graders in this study. Similarly, the negative coefficient of 1.08 in the interaction variable Sentence Connector*Not-At-Risk students is a further reinforcement of Hunt’s (1970) findings.

The positive coefficient of 1.22 for the interaction variable between Sentence Pattern and NotAt-Risk students, indicates that increased use of sentence patterns by not-at-risk students has a positive impact on writing quality compared to students who are at-risk. The study suggests that sentences with Sentence Pattern SCMs (e.g., passive voice forms, nouns, gerunds, verbs, adjectives) are syntactically complex, and the essays containing these types of sentences are associated with higher writing scores.

The R2 for the final model implies that all predictor variables explained 31% of the variability in the writing scores. The R2 value is reasonable because syntactic complexity is just one of many factors impacting writing quality including overall content, organizational structure, vocabulary, mechanics, and length. In contrast, previous studies have demonstrated weak or inconsistent relationships between SCMs and writing quality, unlike the findings from this study.

Implications for Practice

Skillfully constructing sentences using varied sentence structures including syntactically complex sentences, is a requirement in the Common Core State Standards. Therefore, it is essential to understand whether constructing syntactically complex sentences can improve writing quality, not just for skilled writers, but also for less-skilled writers. This study suggests that constructing syntactically complex sentence has a positive impact on writing quality. This finding is crucial because sentence construction instruction is not typically implemented, possibly because educators associate it with traditional grammar instruction (Connors, 2000).

As this study only focused on the relationship between syntactic complexity and writing quality for eight-grade argumentative essays, transferability of results and inferences cannot be extended to other grade levels and genres. However, the data provide pertinent information that suggests educators may want to reconsider the possibility that sentence construction instruction could help students meet writing standards and have a broader impact on writing performance. This is especially noteworthy because studies on sentence combining that increase the complexity of the sentence structure have shown positive effects on writing achievement (e.g., Saddler & Graham, 2005; Saddler, Asaro, et al., 2008; Saddler, Behforooz, et al., 2008).

Furthermore, findings from the MLR model suggests that greater use of the four latent variables to increase sentence complexity could have a differential and positive effect on the performance of at-risk students. This implies that educators should prioritize sentence construction instruction to improve the writing skills of students who are at-risk.

Limitations

The primary limitation of this study is its focus solely on the relationship between syntactic complexity and writing quality and did not consider other potential factors that could impact writing quality such as overall content, organizational structure, vocabulary, mechanics, and length. However, the R2 of 31% suggests that syntactic complexity accounts for a third of the writing quality variability. Future studies should investigate the role of syntactic complexity in conjunction with other writing components to gain a more comprehensive understanding. Moreover, the study only examined one genre (argumentative) and one grade level (Grade 8), and the

Conclusion

Overall, the findings of this study suggest that grouping SCMs into latent variables provides a more effective approach to examining the relationship between syntactic complexity and writing quality. By using this approach, the relationship between syntactic complexity and writing quality can be more explicitly determined in an MLR model and further shown to vary between students who are at-risk and not-at-risk. These results have significant implications on classroom instruction in writing and for identifying and evaluating the characteristics of quality writing. Future studies could use this methodology to examine the relationship between syntactic complexity and writing quality for other genres and grade levels.

References

Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2009). ‘Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre?’, Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22(2), 185-200.

Berninger, V., Nagy, W., & Beers, S. (2011). ‘Child writers’ construction and reconstruction of single sentences and construction of multi-sentence texts: Contributions of syntax and transcription to translation’, Reading and Writing, 24, 151-182.

Blair, T. K., & Crump, W. (1984). ‘Effects of discourse mode on syntactic complexity of learning disabled students’ written expression’, Learning Disability Quarterly, 7(1), 19-29. doi:10. 2307/1510257

Cain, K., & Nash, H. M. (2011). ‘The influence of connectives on young readers' processing and comprehension of text’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 429–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022824

Chung, K. W. K., & O’Neil, H. F. (1997). ‘Methodological approaches to online scoring of essays’, (ERIC reproduction service no ED 418 101). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED418101.pdf

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 106

Connors, R. J. (2000). ‘The erasure of the sentence’, College Composition and Communication , 52, 96–128.

Crowhurst, M. (1980a). ‘Syntactic complexity and teachers’ quality ratings of narrations and arguments’, Research in the Teaching of English , 14, 223–231.

Crowhurst, M. (1980b). ‘Syntactic complexity in narration and argument at three grade levels’, Canadian Journal of Education , 5(1), pp.6-13.

Crowhurst, M., & Piche, G. L. (1979). ‘Audience and mode of discourse effects on syntactic complexity in writing at two grade levels’, Research in the Teaching of English , 13, 101–109.

Datchuk, S. M., & Kubina, R. M. (2013). ‘A review of teaching sentence level writing skills to students with writing difficulties and learning disabilities’, Remedial and Special Education, 34, 180–192.

Fan, X., B. Thompson, & Wang, L. (1999). ‘Effects of sample size, estimation method, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes’, Structural Equation Modeling , 6, 56-83.

Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D.S. (2011). ‘Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension’, Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 371-398.

Graham, S., Collins, A. A., & Rigby-Wills, H. (2017). ‘Writing characteristics of students with learning disabilities and typically achieving peers: A meta-analysis’, Exceptional Children, 83, 199-218.

Graham, S., & Hall, T. E. (2016). ‘Writing and writing difficulties from primary grades to college’, Learning Disability Quarterly , 39, 3-4.

Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). ‘A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, (4), 879-896. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029185 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10057-x

Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). ‘Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives’, Structural Equation Modeling , 6, 1-55.

Hunt, K.W. (1965). ‘Grammatical structures written and three grade levels (Research Report No. 3)’, Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Hunt, K.W. (1970). ‘Syntactic maturity in school children and adults’, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 35(1), 1-61.

Jagaiah, T., Olinghouse, N.G. & Kearns, D.M. (2020). Syntactic complexity measures: Variation by genre, grade-level, students’ writing abilities, and writing quality. Read and Writing Journal 33, 2577–2638.

Keith, T. Z. (2003). ‘Validity and automated essay scoring systems’, In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 147-168). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Kellogg, R. T., & Whiteford, A. P. (2009). ‘Training advanced writing skills: The case for deliberate practice’, Educational Psychologist , 44(4), 250-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/00 461520903213600

Lenz, P. (2013). ‘MBA students’ workplace writing: Implications for business writing pedagogy and workplace practice’, Business Communication Quarterly , 76, 474-490.

MacArthur, C. A., Jennings, A., & Philippakos, Z. A. (2019). ‘Which linguistic features predict quality of argumentative writing for college basic writers, and how do those features change with instruction?’ Reading and Writing, 32(6) 1553–1574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9853-6

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 107 https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309351547

McKenna, J., W., Flower, A., Kim, M. K., Ciullo, C., & Haring, C. (2015). ‘A systematic review of function-based interventions for students with learning disabilities’, Journal of Learning Disabilities , 30, 15-28.

McNamara, D., Crossley, S.A. & McCarthy, P.M. (2010). ‘Linguistic features of writing quality’, Written Communication, 27(1), 57-86.

McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). ‘ Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix’, Cambridge University Press.

Moore, K. (2016). ‘Study: Poor Writing Skills Are Costing Businesses Billions. Inc.’, Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/kaleigh-moore/study-poor-writing-skills-are-costingbusinesses-billions.html

Morris, N.T., & Crump, W. (1982). ‘Syntactic and vocabulary development in the written language of learning disabled and non-learning disabled students at four age levels’, Learning Disability Quarterly , 5(2), 163-172. doi:10.2307/1510577

National Center for Education Statistics (2012). ‘The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012 – 470)’, Institute of Education Science, U.S. Department of Education, Washington D.C. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2011/2012470.aspx

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). ‘Common Core State Standards Mathematics’ , Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/articles/8-national -governorsassociation-and-state-education-chiefs-launch-common -state-academic-standards https:// doi.org/10.1177/1080569912466438

Ortiz, L. A. (2012). ‘A heuristic tool for teaching business writing: Self-assessment, knowledge transfer, and writing exercises’, Business Communication Quarterly , 76(2), 226-238.

Page, E. B. (1966). ‘The imminence of grading essays by computer’, Phi Delta Kappan, 48, 238243.

Page, E. B. (1994). ‘Computer grading of student prose, using modern concepts and software’, The Journal of Experimental Education, 62(2), 127-142.

Page, E. B., Poggio, J. P., & Keith, T. Z. (1997, March). ‘Computer analysis of student essays: Finding trait differences in student profile’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Prater, D. L., & Mayo, N. B. (1984). ‘Cognitive developmental level and syntactic maturity’, Journal of Research and Development in Education , 17(3), 1-7.

Rousseau, M. K., Bottge, B. A., & Dy, E. B. (1993). ‘Syntactic complexity in the writing of students with and without mental retardation’, American Journal on Mental Retardation , 98(1), 113-120.

Routon P.W., Marinan J., & Bontrager, M. (2021). ‘The Self-Rated Writing Skills of Business Majors: Graduating Perceptions and Collegiate Improvement’, Business and Professional Communication Quarterly . 84(4), 339-360. doi: 10.1177/23294906211039528

Rubin, D. L. & Piche, G.L. (1979). ‘Development in syntactic and strategic aspects of audience adaptation skills in written persuasive communication’, Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 293 – 316.

Saddler, B., Asaro, K., & Behforooz, B. (2008). ‘The effects of peer-assisted sentence-combining on four young writers with learning disabilities’, Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 6, 17–31.

Saddler, B., Behforooz, B., & Asaro, K. (2008). ‘The effects of sentence-combining instruction

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 108 on the writing of fourth-grade students with writing difficulties. Journal of Special Education, 42, 79–90. doi:10.1177/0022466907310371

Saddler, B., Ellis-Robinson, T., & Asaro-Saddler, K. (2018). ‘Using Sentence Combining Instruction to Enhance the Writing Skills of Children with Learning Disabilities’, Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 16, 191-202.

Saddler, B., & Graham, S. (2005). ‘The effects of peer-assisted sentence-combining instruction on the writing performance of more and less skilled young writers’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 43–54.

Shermis, M. D. (2014). State-of-the-art automated essay scoring: Competition, results, and future directions from a United States demonstration. Assessing Writing, 20, 53–76.

Shermis, M. D. & Burstein, J. (2003). ‘ Automated Essay Scoring: A cross disciplinary perspective’, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Shermis, M. D., Koch, C. M., Page, E. B., Keith, T. Z., & Harrington, S. (2002). ‘Trait ratings for automated essay grading’. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 62, 5–18

Shermis, M. D., Mzumara, H. R., Olson, J., & Harrington, S. (2001). ‘On-line grading of student essays: PEG goes on the World Wide Web’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 247-259.

Stewart, M. F., & Grobe, C. H. (1979). ‘Syntactic maturity, mechanics of writing, and teachers’ quality ratings’, Research in the Teaching of English , 13(3), 207-15.

Traga Philippakos, Z. A. (2019). ‘Sentence Construction: Supporting Elementary Students’ Editing Skills’, The Language and Literacy Spectrum , 29(1), Article 3.

Wagner, R. K., Puranik, C.S., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Tschinkel, E., & Kantor, P.T. (2011). ‘Modeling the development of written language’, Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 24, 203–220.

Zedelius, C. M., Mills, C., & Schooler, J. W. (2019). ‘Beyond subjective judgments: Predicting evaluations of creative writing from computational linguistic features’. Behavior Research Methods , 51(2) 879 – 894. http://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1137-1

About the Authors

Thilagha Jagaiah, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Special Education at the University of Hartford. Her research interests include sentence-construction skills, writing instruction and intervention, and optimizing trunk support to improve academic engagement for children with physical disabilities.

Natalie G. Olinghouse, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Educational Psychology Department at the University of Connecticut. Her research focuses on exploring the relationship between states’ standards/assessments and student writing achievement, writing instruction and assessment, reading, and writing connections, individual differences in writing, and the role of vocabulary in written composition.

Devin M. Kearns, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Special Education, Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Connecticut, and a research scientist for the Center for Behavioral Education & Research and Haskins Laboratories. He is an affiliated faculty member for the UConn Institute for Brain and Cognitive Sciences (IBACS) and the UConn Institute for Collaboration on Health, Intervention, and Policy. His work focuses on cognitive mechanisms that predict individual differences in reading, the effects of reading instruction on

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 109 neurobiological processing during reading and designing tests to understand and screen for dyslexia.

Dr. Gilbert N. Andrada is a Director of Assessment Programs at Curriculum Associates. He is the State Education Consultant at the Connecticut State Department of Education, a member of the Psychometric Analysis and Support Unit, a psychometrician, data analyst, program evaluator, applied research, and policy analyst, and a state Consultant for Gifted and Talented Education.

The Most Impactful Element of Preschool Early Intervention Services on Kindergarten Readiness: Instruction with Typically Developing Peers

Shannan Smith, Ed.S. Richmond County School System

Deana J. Ford, Ph.D. Mercer University

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to determine what components of a district’s current preschool early intervention services could be changed, according to district level special education leaders, to better prepare preschoolers with developmental delays for participation in general education kindergarten classrooms. The participants were 12 district level special education leaders. These leaders were special education program specialists who serve kindergarten programs in elementary schools in a large district in Georgia. Data is collected through the completion of online surveys through SurveyMonkey. The data is analyzed using descriptive statistics and the frequency and central tendencies were reported. A statistical analysis of the data was completed to test the reliability of the study. The results revealed that district level special education leaders perceive instruction provided with typically developing peers as having the greatest impact on the success of preschoolers with developmental delays in the general education kindergarten setting. Future research could explore the perspectives of other stakeholders to include general education kindergarten teachers, preschool special education teachers, kindergarten special education teachers, parents of preschoolers and kindergarten students with developmental delays and school administrators that support general education kindergarten settings.

Keywords: preschool early intervention services, play-based instruction, instruction with typically developing peers, special education leaders

The Most Impactful Element of Preschool Early Intervention Services on Kindergarten Readiness: Instruction with Typically Developing Peers

Introduction

Prekindergarten access for all children is a growing trend across the country. Legislative sessions are reviewing and discussing the research that indicates participation in preschool programs prior to enrolling in kindergarten has a positive impact on being prepared for school (Ansari et al., 2021), specifically as it relates to preacademic skills (Fuller et al., 2017). Recent research indicates preschool participation also has a positive impact on future school performance (Pentimonti et al., 2016). However, the definition of school readiness and the specific skills required to be successful varies across stakeholders ( Jarrett & Coba-Rodriguez, 2019). Most often kindergarten teachers feel students who participate in prekindergarten programs demonstrate more appropriate school readiness skills, especially in the areas of early literacy, early math skills, and social emotional development, even though older grade teachers and standardized test scores do not always reflect the same (Lipsey et al., 2018). Parents tend to feel their children are ready for school, even without participating in prekindergarten programs (Gandhour et al., 2019).

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 111

Since the trend to provide more availability of preschool programs has begun, a significant amount of research has focused on programs for students from low socio-economic backgrounds, such a Head Start. The research indicates significant benefits related to the acquisition of early literacy and math skills for students in low income families who participate in Head Start programs (Jenkins et al., 2016). Head Start programs also serve preschool children who have been identified as having developmental delays or may be at risk for being identified. However, limited research has been completed on the impact preschool participation and early intervention services have on the school readiness skills of young children with developmental delays.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine what current district program components could be changed, according to district level special education leaders, to better prepare preschoolers with developmental delays for participation in general education kindergarten classrooms. Therefore, the following research question was investigated: What element(s) of preschool early intervention services do district level special education leaders feel has the most impact on participation in a general education kindergarten setting?

Preschool programs

Participation in preschool programs prior to kindergarten has a positive impact on school readiness skills according to several recent studies (Ansari et al., 2021; Fuller et al., 2017; Jenkins et al., 2018; Lipsey et al., 2018; Lonigan et al., 2015; Sabol et al., 2018;). However, perceptions about the specific components of the programs that have the greatest impact on school readiness vary across stakeholders and focus groups (Abrya et al., 2015; Jarrett et al., 2019). The inconsistent beliefs between preschool and kindergarten teachers concerning what skills are most important for school readiness has a negative impact on student participation and success in pre-kindergarten programs (Abrya et al., 2015). According to Jarett and colleagues (2019), general education kindergarten teachers are the least likely to indicate academic skills as the greatest indicator of school readiness. Differences in the beliefs of the most impactful part of preschool programs among ethnic groups were discovered in Jarrett’s study, as well. African American teachers and parents were more likely to place high value on academic skills, while European American teachers and parents placed value on social emotional development (Jarrett et al., 2019). The majority of parents of preschoolers report their children being ready for kindergarten regardless of preschool program participation (Ghandour et al., 2019). Even though the research indicates stakeholders hold varying opinions on the specific value of preschool programs, the overall perception is participation in preschool positively impacts school readiness.

School Readiness

A significant amount of research has been conducted to evaluate the impact of pre-kindergarten program participation on the school readiness skills of children from low income backgrounds (Jenkins et al., 2016; Lipsey et al., 2018; Lonigan et al., 2015; Ricciardi et al., 2021; Sabol et al., 2018), as well as students from diverse cultural backgrounds whose home language is not English (Ansari et al., 2021). Sabol and colleagues (2018) evaluated the impact student engagement had on school readiness skills of students from low-income families and found a positive relationship between teacher and student engagement in pre-kindergarten programs and higher literacy skills. A positive relationship was also discovered between strong self-regulatory 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) and language skills and positive interactions with peers among pre-kindergarten students from low-income settings (Sabol et al., 2018). The social emotional skill level of students from high poverty areas when entering kindergarten was found to have a direct relation to the Grade Point Average of the students throughout elementary school (Ricciardi et al., 2021), indicating school readiness skills in the area of social emotional development are important to future school success. Students who received English as a second language instruction demonstrated increased academic skills following participation in public pre-kindergarten programs (Ansari et al., 2021).

Impact of Program Participation for Students with Developmental Delays

Research evaluating the impact of preschool and pre-kindergarten program participation on students with developmental delays was found to be limited (Larcombe et al., 2019; Pentimonti et al., 2016). Focus on social and language development has been determined to be more beneficial for students with autism entering kindergarten than instruction focusing on academic and motor development, according to parents, service providers and teachers of students with autism (Larcombe et al., 2019). A study conducted by Pentimonti and colleagues (2016) found that early childhood special education teachers believed alphabet knowledge of students with language delays that participate in early childhood special education programs was determined to be a strong predictor of later reading skills. The impact participation in preschool programs has on the school readiness skills of young children with developmental delays has not been thoroughly reported in recent years.

Special Education Administration

Research investigating the perceptions of special education administration towards the most impactful component of preschool early intervention programs was found to be even more limited. Special education administrators provide guidance and support to teachers who serve young students with developmental delays. Teachers often look to the administration for guidance on where instructional priority should be placed. In order to provide services that are effective in preparing preschoolers for a smooth transition into general education kindergarten settings, the specific program components that have the most impact on school readiness skills should be identified.

Methods

Design

This action research project used a quantitative approach to explore the perspectives of district level special education leaders towards what components of preschool early intervention services have the greatest impact on participation of students with developmental delays in general education kindergarten settings. The purpose of this study was to determine what components of the current program could be changed, according to district level special education leaders, to better prepare preschoolers with developmental delays for participation in general education kindergarten classrooms. Therefore, the following research question was investigated: What element(s) of preschool early intervention services do district level special education leaders feel has the most impact on participation in a general education kindergarten setting? It was hypothesized by the team of researchers that the most impactful element identified by special education leaders would be instruction to further social emotional development.

Participants

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 113

The participants in the research consisted of 12 district level special education leaders who were housed at the district’s board office in the special education department. The group of leaders included special education program specialists that serve schools with kindergarten programs. Special education program specialists who do not serve kindergarten programs were not included in the data. Instructional and behavioral coaches were also not included in the research. All of the participants varied in educational degrees achieved and years of experience in the field. The purpose of the study was explained during informal conversations with the special education leaders and participants indicated the desire to participate by sharing their personal email addresses with the lead researcher. The link to complete the online SurveyMonkey survey, designed by an individual at Mercer University, was sent to leaders who agreed to participate through their personal email accounts. Informed consent to participate in the research was documented on the initial page of the survey. To protect the anonymity of participants, all names, and any other identifying information including email addresses, were removed from documents used in this study. All collected data were stored electronically in a password-protected computer. To maintain confidentiality of the participants and school systems, pseudonyms or generic references were used in publications.

Measures

A Likert scale was used to determine the attitudes of the participants towards how much impact each element of preschool early intervention had on student success in a general education kindergarten setting. Ordinal variables represented the levels of impact. The levels represented were no impact, average impact, and high impact No impact indicated the element of intervention and student success in the general education kindergarten setting were unrelated. Average impact indicated the element of preschool early intervention and student success in a general education kindergarten setting were related though a significant difference in student success in a general education setting was not observed. High impact indicated the element of preschool early intervention and student success in a general education setting are related in such a way that a significant difference was observed in the outcome measure, student success in the general education kindergarten setting.

Data Collection

Data were collected through the completion of online surveys. The link to the surveys was distributed to participants through the private email of the participants. The lead researcher had a separate link in order to access the survey results. The participants were given three weeks to complete the survey.

Instruments

The district level special education leaders completed online surveys through SurveyMonkey. The survey included 15 statements related to the varying elements of preschool early intervention services. Using a three-point Likert scale, the leaders indicated the level of agreement towards the presented statements. A final question asked the participants to identify which of the 15 listed elements had the most impact on student success in the general education kindergarten setting, by selecting the number associated with the chosen element (see Figure 1).

Data Analyses

Descriptive analysis was used to analyze the data collected. Frequency and central tendencies were reported. Pie charts and bar graphs were used to organize the relative frequency of each response. The research team identified the median after analyzing the data that was collected using the Likert scales. The mode was reported from the answers collected from the final statement on the survey, indicating what element the participants felt had the most impact on student success.

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 115

Results

The purpose of this study was to determine what components of the current preschool early intervention program could be changed, according to district level special education leaders, to better prepare preschoolers with developmental delays for participation in general education kindergarten classrooms. The following research question was investigated: What element(s) of preschool early intervention services do district level special education leaders feel has the most impact on participation in a general education kindergarten setting? The researchers collected data to test the hypothesis that the most impactful element district level special education leaders feel has the most impact on participation in a general education kindergarten setting would be instruction related to social emotional development. The data were collected through a 16-item online questionnaire, completed by district level special education leaders.

On the first 15 items of the questionnaire, the participants indicated the level of impact (high impact, average impact or no impact) each program element had on a student’s success in kindergarten. According to the collected data represented in Figure 2, 100% of respondents indicated element 2, instruction to develop receptive communication skills, had high impact on a preschooler with developmental delays’ success in a general education kindergarten setting, while 90% of participants reported element 14, instruction provided by highly qualified teachers, and element 15, instruction following a research-based curriculum, had high impact on success. Interestingly, only element 9, instruction to develop independent self-care skills, was the only element to receive any no impact responses. Overall, district level special education leaders indicated that all 15 elements had either average or high impact on preschoolers with developmental delays’ success in a general education kindergarten setting.

There was one question allowed participants to indicate which of the 15 program elements had the greatest impact on student success in a general education kindergarten setting. Descriptive analysis of the collected data indicated the mode to be element 12, indicating 33% of respondents felt instruction provided with typically developing peers had the greatest impact on preschooler’s success in a general education Kindergarten setting (see Figure 3). Play based instruction had the next greatest impact on success (25%), followed by social emotional skills (17%) and highly qualified teachers (17%), and self-care skills (8%).

Figure 3. Most Impactful Element

Discussion

The results of this study found that district level special education leaders perceived instruction provided to preschoolers with developmental delays with their typically developing peers has the greatest impact on student success in a general education kindergarten setting. The second most impactful element identified was play-based instruction, followed by instruction to develop social development skills related to interactions with peers.

It was hypothesized that district level special education leaders would perceive instruction to develop social emotional skills to have the greatest impact on the success of preschoolers with developmental delays in general education kindergarten setting. Quantitative analyses of the data collected showed that participants felt the setting of the instruction had greater impact than the focus of instruction. District level special education leaders indicated instruction provided with typically developing peers to be the element of preschool special education services that has the greatest impact on the success of preschoolers in general education settings. Even though the hypothesis was not proven to be true, the results, in part, support the findings from Dessemontet and colleagues’ (2012) research that discovered young children with intellectual disabilities who participated in inclusive settings made slightly higher gains in literacy skills than their peers who received instruction in settings with only other children with disabilities.

The importance of educating young children with disabilities with their typically developing peers is reinforced through these findings. Children learn from the modeling of others, especially in the area of language and social development. According to the perspectives of district level special education leaders, providing opportunities for preschoolers with developmental delays to learn alongside their same age peers does positively impact their success in general education settings.

District level special education leaders should consider the results of this study when determining appropriate program placement for children with developmental delays who are found eligible to receive special education services through the school system. Programs within the school system, as well as those housed in community settings including Head Start programs and privately funded preschools, should be considered and utilized when recommending services. District level special education leaders should educate parents of children with developmental delays on the impact instruction with typically developing peers has on kindergarten readiness, and encourage parent to provide opportunities for such interaction.

Furthermore, providing play-based instruction for preschoolers with developmental delays could have a positive impact on the success of students in general education kindergarten settings. Pyle and colleagues describe play-based instruction as “a teaching approach that incorporates all these types of play, with the teacher guiding and scaffolding the learning objectives in an integrated fashion” (p. 56, 2020). Two types of play in play-based learning are further described to include free play that enhances development learning and teacher guided play that encourages academic learning (Pyle et al., 2020). Play-based instruction provides opportunities for students to problem solve, furthering their higher-level thinking. These thinking skills better prepare young children for kindergarten and beyond.

Limitations

A large limitation to this study includes participants belong to only one group of stakeholders. Although district level special education leaders are the first to be contacted when students demonstrate difficulty transitioning from preschool early intervention services into kindergarten settings, these leaders are not involved in the day to day instruction of the students. According to Part 300-Assistance to states for the education of children with disabilities, of the U. S. Department of Education’s Code of Federal Regulation, district level special education leaders collect information from multiple sources when making decisions regarding students and may include a classroom observation (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). The leaders depend on the data collection of others, including general education teachers, special education teachers, parents and school administrators, to guide their decision making.

Another potential limitation to this study could be the COVID-19 pandemic. Research conducted by Roberts and colleagues (Roberts et al., 2022) revealed 85% of early intervention service providers in the state of Illinois reported a disruption of services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research indicated services were provided through Telehealth opportunities, even though 28% of the service providers felt confident in this service model. The most recent class of students who transitioned from preschool early intervention services into kindergarten settings had not received a full school year of face-to-face instruction, as compared to students in the past, due to school closings and virtual instruction provided during the pandemic. The limited experiences with face-to-face instruction may have influenced the success of the students in

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 118 kindergarten settings, causing district leaders to view the most impactful elements of the preschool services differently based on experiences with the last transition at the beginning of the current school year. The perspectives of other stakeholders, such as teachers, parents and administrators should be assessed before generalizing the results of this study to the current programs in school districts.

Future Research

Additional research is needed to fully understand what elements of preschool early intervention services have the most impact on student success in general education kindergarten setting. This study focused on the perspectives of district level special education leaders. The sample of 12 participants did not allow for investigation of the perspectives of other stakeholders, including teachers and parents, involved in the day-to-day activities of kindergarten settings. Researchers have found differences in perspectives across stakeholders related to the impact of participation in preschool programs on school readiness. According to a study conducted by Jarrett and colleagues (2019), general education kindergarten teachers are the least likely to indicate academic skills as the greatest indicator of school readiness. However, a study conducted by Pentimonti and colleagues (2016) found that early childhood special education teachers believed alphabet knowledge of students with language delays who participate in early childhood special education programs was determined to be a strong predictor of later reading skills. Additional research investigating the perspectives of other stakeholders could reveal differences in terms of elements of preschool early intervention services have the greatest impact on success in general education kindergarten settings. General education kindergarten teachers would be able to provide input related to the kindergarten standards, while special education teachers would use their experiences from supporting past students in kindergarten settings. Surveying parents of preschoolers, as well as parents of kindergarten students who receive special education services, would provide insight from the home and community settings.

Conclusion

The primary goal of this study was to determine what parts of the district’s current preschool early intervention services could be changed to better prepare preschoolers with developmental delays for success in general education kindergarten settings. The study’s participants were district level special education leaders. The perspectives of the participants were examined to determine what element of preschool special education services has the greatest impact on student success in kindergarten.

The most impactful elements of preschool early intervention services identified in this study reflect a top down perspective. District level special education leaders are often times removed from the day-to-day operations of the kindergarten classrooms. Future research should continue investigating the perspectives of other stakeholders, to include general education and special education preschool and kindergarten teachers, as well as parents and school administrators.

References

Abrya, T., Lathamb, S., Bassok, D., & LoCasale-Crouch, J. (2015). Preschool and kindergarten teachers’ beliefs about early school competencies: Misalignment matters for kindergarten adjustment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 78-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.01.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.07.011

Ansari, A., Pianta, R. C., Whittaker, J. E., Vitiello, V., & Ruzek, E. (2021). Enrollment in publicprekindergarten and school readiness skills at kindergarten entry: Differential associations by home language, income, and program characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 54 , 60-71.

Dessemontet, R. S., Bless, G., & Morin, D. (2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic achievement and adaptive behaviour of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research , 56(6), 579–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652788.2011.01497.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.05.001

Fuller, B., Bein, E., Bridges, M., Kim, Y., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2017). Do academic preschools yield stronger benefits? Cognitive emphasis, dosage, and early learning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 52 , 1-11.

Ghandour, R. M., Moore, K. A., Murphy, K., Bethell, C., Jones, J.R., Harwood, R., Buerlein, J., Kogan, M., & Lu, M. (2019). School readiness among U.S. children: Development of a pilot measure. Child Indicator Research, 12 , 1389–1411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187018-9586-8 https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.88.1.0017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.05.001 https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0162373715587965 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04022-z

Jarrett, R. L., & Coba-Rodriguez, S. (2019). “We gonna get on the same page:” School readiness perspectives from preschool teachers, kindergarten teachers, and low-income, African American mothers of preschoolers. Journal of Negro Education, 88 (1), 17-31.

Jenkins, J. M., Duncan, G. J., Auger, A., Bitler, M., Domina, T., & Burchinal, M. (2018). Boosting school readiness: Should preschool teachers target skills or the whole child? Economics of Education Review, 65 , 107-125.

Jenkins, J. M., Farkas, G., Duncan, G. J., Burchinal, I. M., & Vandell, D. L. (2016). Head start at ages 3 and 4 versus head start followed by state pre-k: Which is more effective?

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38 (1) 88-112.

Larcombe, T. J., Joosten, A. V., Cordier, R., & Vaz, S. (2019). Preparing children with autism for transition to mainstream school and perspectives on supporting positive school experiences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49 , 3073–3088.

Lipsey, M. W., Farran, D. C., & Durkin, K. (2018). Effects of the Tennessee Prekindergarten Program on children’s achievement and behavior through third grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 45 , 155-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.03.005 https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12460

Lonigan, C. J., Phillips, B. M., Clancy, J. L., Klein, A., Starkey, P., Eisenburg, N., Barnes, M., Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., Assel, M, Taylor, H. B., Domitrovich, C. E., Villiers, J., & Villiers, P. (2015). Impacts of a comprehensive school readiness curriculum for preschool children at risk for educational difficulties. Child Development, 86 (6). 1773-1793.

Pentimonti, J. M., Murphy, K. A., Justice, L. M., Logan, J. A., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2016). School readiness of children with language impairment: predicting literacy skills from pre-literacy and social-behavioural dimensions. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 51( 2). 148-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12193

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 120

Pyle, A., Pyle, M. A., Prioletta, J. & Alaca, B. (2020). Portrayals of play-based learning: misalignments among public discourse, classroom realities, and research . (EJ1304727). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1304727.pdf

Ricciardi, C., Manfra, L., Hartman, S., Bleiker, C., Dineheart, L. & Winsler, A. (2021). School readiness skills at age four predict academic achievement through 5th grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 57 , 110-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.05.006 https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJSLP-21-00112

Roberts, M. Y., Thornhill, L., Lee, J., Zellner, M. A., Sudec, L., Grauzer, J., & Stern, Y. S. (2022). The Impact of COVID-19 on Illinois Early Intervention Services. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology , 31(2), 974–981.

Sabol, T. J., Bohlmann, N. L., & Downer, J. T. (2018). Low-income ethnically diverse children’s engagement as a predictor of school readiness above preschool classroom quality. Child Development, 89(2), 556-576. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12832

U.S. Department of Education (2018). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b

About the Authors

Shannan Smith, Ed.S., is the Preschool Program Specialist in the Richmond County School System. She has over 20 years’ experience teaching in preschool settings and working with preschoolers with developmental delays, in public schools and private settings. She currently oversees the preschool special education program, assisting with identification of preschoolers with developmental delays and the implementation of appropriate special education services to these students.

Deana J. Ford, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Educational Research at Mercer University. She teaches quantitative research methodology and action research. Her research interests involve self-regulation theory with a focus on metacognitive awareness of special education preservice teachers using mixed reality virtual simulation.

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 121

Measuring the Implementation of Inclusive Strategies in Secondary Classrooms Using an Observation Rubric

Randa G. Keeley, PhD Texas Woman’s University

Rebecca Alvarado-Alcantar, PhD New Mexico State University

Maria Peterson-Ahmad, PhD Paul Yeatts, PhD Texas Woman’s University

Abstract

The inclusion classroom is a form of mainstreaming in which students with disabilities (SWD) are integrated into the general education classroom and other school activities. The U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics (2019-2020) reported that approximately 64% of SWDs are placed in the general education, inclusion classroom for 80100% of the school day. This article outlines the process researchers used to collect data using the Assessment of the Inclusion of Students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (AISSEND) rubric when observing inclusion classrooms. The observation rubric was designed to monitor for instructional strategies provided to students in an inclusive classroom setting. The researchers collected reliability data during the project and found that the rubric is reliable and feasible to use in a classroom setting. Additionally, researchers found that inclusion classrooms, regardless of the number of teachers present, typically used the same amount of strategies.

Measuring the Implementation of Inclusive Strategies in Secondary Classrooms Using an Observation Rubric

The inclusion classroom is a form of mainstreaming in which students with disabilities (SWD) are integrated into the general education classroom and other school activities. Because of the broad definition, there are many different classroom settings that can be classified as inclusion (e.g., collaborative consultation, mainstreaming, co-taught). For example, a classroom can be defined as inclusion if it is led by a general educator and special educator, general educator and paraprofessional, general educator alone, and even a general educator receiving consultation services from a special educator. The two common themes among all inclusion classrooms are that (1) the classroom student population includes SWDs along with students in general education and (2) all students in the classroom have access to the general education curriculum (Hallahan, Kauffman, & Pullen, 2019). Related literature has noted social benefits for SWDs placed in inclusion classrooms (Fenty & McDuffie-Landrum, 2011) and there has also been research indicating academic benefits (Nichols, Dowdy, & Nichols, 2010; Keefe & Moore, 2004; Walther-Thomas, 1997).

Inclusive practices gained momentum after legislation such as the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act (IDEIA) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) mandated that all students

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 122 with disabilities have access to general education curriculum in the LRE. Currently, the U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics (2019-2020) reported that approximately 64% of SWDs are placed in the general education, inclusion classroom for 80100% of the school day. Further, an inclusion classroom is a popular placement option for a SWD because the student will have access to the general education curriculum as well as receive instruction in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) (IDEA, 2004). Due to the large number of students with special educational needs and disabilities in the inclusion classroom, it is important to establish an understanding of the instructional practices that educators are using in this specific classroom type prior to attempting to make recommendations related to effectiveness or suggestions for improvement.

The inclusive classroom is an impactful continuum of services option for SWDs due to the multitude of benefits (i.e., high quality individualization, increased time engaged in the general education classroom, and improved academic, communication, and social outcomes) (Fisher & Meyer, 2002; Hunt, Goetz, & Anderson, 1986; Kurth & Mastergeorge, 2010; Snell & Brown, 2011; and Wehmeyer, Lattin, Lapp-Rinker, & Agran, 2003). For the purposes of this paper, an inclusive education is one that, “all students within a school regardless of their strengths or weaknesses, or disabilities in any area become part of the school community” (Obiakor, Harris, Rotatori, & Algozzine, 2010, p.142). However, it can be difficult for educators to consistently engage in instructional practices that are inclusive, because of the varying classroom types, however, this research serves as an effort to investigate the types of strategies that teachers are implementing in the inclusion classroom related to instructional practices. As a result of the popularity of the inclusion classroom as a placement option for SWDs, it is important to determine a baseline for the instructional practices that current inclusion teachers are incorporating to meet the needs of the diverse population of students as an effort to establish recommendations for best practices in an inclusion classroom.

Research-based Inclusive Practices

Research-based strategies included in the Assessment of the Inclusion of Students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (AISSEND) rubric were identified through a review of the literature related to inclusive practices (Keeley, Keeley, Alvarado-Alcantar, 2020). The AISSEND rubric is a validated observation tool established to monitor specific strategies across five domains in an inclusive classroom to include: 1) teacher activities, 2) student engagement strategies, 3) instructional strategies, 4) culturally responsive strategies, and 5) classroom management strategies (Keeley, Keeley, Alvarado-Alcantar, 2020). Below are brief descriptions of each domain and samplings of strategies that the AISSEND rubric was designed to capture.

Teacher Activities

Inclusion classrooms should have a carefully crafted plan to design, implement, and evaluate student outcomes before, during and after instruction (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010). As a result, teacher activities in the classroom should be focused on progress monitoring and ensuring that students have the opportunity to access and process information. Teachers should consider using a checklist, survey, or anecdotal record to continually assess student progress. Additionally, teachers should build in methods for attending to the academic, social, and/or physical needs of students. This domain assesses the extent to which teachers use activities that

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 123 collect data to inform future instructional decisions and as a means for continually checking in with students to gauge understanding of the material being taught.

Student Engagement Strategies

In order for active student engagement to occur, teachers must build positive student-teacher relationships that foster engagement and motivate learners that may be reluctant to participate and/or respond. Creating an environment that elicits active student engagement includes activities that connect to the lives of students by understanding their academic and cultural backgrounds, use a variety of individualized teaching and learning strategies, and provides students with detailed feedback for both academics and behavior (McLeskey, et al., 2017). Brownell et al. (2005) posited that teachers should be proficient in behavior management and providing instruction that is both explicit and engaging, therefore, the domain of student engagement assesses considerations for questioning including individual, small, or large groups strategies.

Instructional Strategies

The domain for instructional strategies is targeted at specific research and evidence-based practices that the teacher implements. In order for instruction to be most effective, there are multiple considerations such as intentional grouping of students, targeted instructional design, the method in which instruction is delivered, and progress monitoring (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009; Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Gersten et al., 2009a, b; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986; Swanson, 2001, 2008; Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998; Torgesen, 2000, 2002). In an inclusion classroom, it may be necessary to provide instruction to smaller groups of students and increase instructional time to accommodate alternate learning paces (Gersten et al., 2009b). Teachers should consider an instructional design that includes methods for content instruction that include previewing, questioning students, and comprehension measures (McLeskey et al., 2017). Additionally, in alignment with explicit instruction, teachers should include modeling and guided practice as part of common instructional practices (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Gersten et al., 2009b).

Culturally Responsive Strategies

Culturally responsive pedagogy provides a framework by which teachers can support students in “maintaining their cultural integrity while succeeding academically” by “helping students to recognize, understand, and critique current social inequities” (Ladson-Billings, 1995, p. 476). This can be accomplished by activating students’ prior knowledge, making learning contextual by providing real-world examples and encouraging students to leverage their cultural capital; all of which should be intertwined into the classroom, by teachers “connecting to students, their families, their communities, and their daily lives” (Ladson-Billings, 2014, p. 74). Moreover, “culturally responsive teaching as a daily practice improves the performance of underachieveing ethnically and racially diverse students” (Gay, 2013, p. 67). This domain assesses the extent to which culturally responsive strategies are utilized and include items that encompass how the teacher provides instruction that attends to highlighting culture through planning, instruction, and assignments.

Classroom Management Strategies

Evidence-based features of effective classroom management include: (a) physical and instructional predictability, (b) clear expectations that are posted, explicitly taught, reviewed, and enforced, (c) active observable engagement, (d) a continuum of strategies for responding to

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 124 appropriate behaviors, and (e) a continuum of strategies for responding to inappropriate behaviors (Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, and Sugai, 2008). These attributes can be established in a classroom by creating routines, posting and enforcing classroom rules, having clear transitions between activities, and using precision requests and planned ignoring. While many students benefit from teachers who implement classwide, evidence-based classroom management strategies, some will require additional support in order to fully engage them in the learning process. Teachers can continuously support and sustain such classroom management practices by explicitly teaching and practicing age-appropriate and culturally responsive routines and expectations, which can reduce student behavior and increase student engagement (McLeskey, et al., 2019). Building in such supports as part of the daily classroom schedule as a precursor to instruction, allows teachers to work with students to achieve “desired life experiences, goals, and activities” (Schalock et al., 2012, p. 30). As suggested in previous domains, many of these instructional, engagement, and cultural considerations culminate to create a classroom instructional culture that is interdependent on the successful implementation of each domain to elicit student responses, creating opportunities for movement, and providing support for students to access content. By integrating the multiple domains, teachers have a proactive approach to behavior management in the inclusion classroom.

Previous Research with AISSEND and Purpose of the Study

Previous work with AISSEND included the development and statistical validation of the tool designed to measure the type, frequency, and duration of inclusive practices implemented within an inclusion classroom. The major goal of the research team was to develop a valid and reliable tool for measuring the inclusivity of a classroom that would be practical and that could be implemented across a school district on a large scale. Based on multiple methods of statistical analysis, the AISSEND was determined to have face validity for measuring the inclusivity of a classroom (Keeley, Keeley, Alvarado-Alcantar, 2020).

The study was designed to obtain exploratory data about the type and number of strategies that were being implemented in the secondary inclusion classroom. In addition, researchers evaluated the validity, reliability, and feasibility of use for the observation tool AISSEND when used as a measure of the implementation of research-based, inclusive practices across multiple secondary, inclusion classroom settings. The AISSEND was previously determined to have face validity, but inter-observer reliability of the tool had yet to be measured (Keeley, Keeley, & AlvaradoAlcantar, 2020). Therefore, this study was designed to evaluate the inter-observer reliability with observers to establish further validity of the tool. Additionally, the research team expected to demonstrate, through use of the AISSEND, that it would be feasibly implemented across a school district as a method for evaluating inclusive classrooms. It was hypothesized that the AISSEND would provide observers with valid and reliable data and be a feasible option for evaluating the inclusivity of a secondary level inclusion classroom. Using the AISSEND as an observational assessment, researchers aimed to answer the following questions:

Research Question 1: Is the AISSEND a valid and reliable tool when overall and exact count inter-observer reliability data are calculated?

Research Question 2: Which research-based strategies are educators using in an inclusive classroom?

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 125

Research Question 3: Are there any differences in type, duration, or frequency of strategies that are used in inclusion classrooms among schools.

Research Question 4: Are there any differences in the type, duration, or frequency of inclusive strategies used based on the type of inclusion classroom (i.e., co-taught, general educator alone, general educator with paraprofessional, etc.)?

Method

Participants and Setting

Participants in this study included n=55 educators at the secondary level at varying grade levels and across multiple content areas assigned to 31 different inclusion classrooms across three schools in the southwest United States. All participants were licensed educators in the content area for the class in which he/she was assigned or in special education.

The participating school district had a student enrollment of approximately 25,000 across all schools. Prior to the beginning of the study eight middle schools and four high schools were contacted to potentially participate in the study. Of those contacted, the participating schools included a middle school and two high schools with Latino populations of (i.e., 69.6% to 76.3%) and all three schools implemented inclusive practices within the building in some form (i.e., coteaching, collaboration, general educator alone, or paraprofessional support). Demographics for the school district as well as the participating schools can be found in Table 1.

Table 1

by School and Overall

Measures

The AISSEND observation tool was used in this study with the participants. The AISSEND was created through a rigorous process that included 1) an expansive review of literature, 2) expert review for descriptors written in observable terms, 3) expert review and multiple revisions for factor loading, and 4) multiple means of statistical analysis to measure for inter-rater reliability and face validity (i.e., Cohen's Kappa, Multiple Correspondence Analysis, Cronbach’s Alpha, Eigenvalue, and Percent Variance) (Keeley, Keeley, Alvarado-Alcantar, 2020). The AISSEND provides a full-scale score of the possible number of strategies a teacher could engage in during the 30-minute observation period and how many the teacher actually employs.

The AISSEND was used with participants during a 30-minute classroom observation. The researchers collected data across each of the five AISSEND domains in five-minute intervals and recorded a mark for each descriptor that was observed during each five-minute interval. The AISSEND rubric generates an approximate time estimate that a teacher engages in specific strategies across the 30-minute observation (with the assumption that the teacher engages in the strategy for the full five-minute interval). Therefore, the AISSEND can provide information to observers about the type, duration, and frequency of inclusive strategies implemented in the classroom.

Procedure

After receiving approval from the School District and University Institutional Review Board, the researchers began recruiting secondary schools that would be willing to allow the research team to conduct observations using the AISSEND observation tool. After each school indicated their interest in participating, the research team reached out via email to all inclusion classrooms within the school building to describe the aims and procedure for the study as well as provide consent forms. It is important to note that each school interpreted inclusion classrooms differently. To clarify, the types of classrooms classified as inclusion across the three schools included co-taught classrooms, general educator alone classrooms, and general educator and paraprofessional classrooms.

Prior to using the AISSEND in the classrooms the researchers met to review the tool and clarify any confusing or ambiguous language to ensure reliable measures. Additionally, the research team practiced observing an inclusion classroom together using the tool and comparing assessment results, discussing individual interpretations of descriptors, and further clarifying any confusing or ambiguous language in the tool. Following the independent observations, researchers compared AISSEND rubrics and if each of the researchers AISSEND rubrics were not at 100% agreement, the researchers would discuss individual ratings for clarification and observe additional classrooms until both researchers were able to reach 100% agreement.

In order to avoid overlap of data collection across schools and to accommodate the individual requests of the schools for desired blocks of time for the observations, the study was conducted over an eight-month period. The team aimed to conduct ten observations, in ten separate classrooms per school before moving onto another school. Once the observations began at each school, participating classrooms were advised that an observer may visit their classroom at any time, but specific days and class periods for observation were not scheduled. It was the intent of the research team to capture a lesson that had not been pre-planned in anticipation of being observed. This approach resulted in multiple visits by research team members to classrooms due to unforeseen conflicts (i.e., teacher absence due to illness, school assemblies, meetings, fire drills, etc.). If a classroom could not be observed on the day and time that the research team member visited, a team member would continue to visit the classroom until the observation was completed.

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 127

During the observations, a research team member began data collection using the AISSEND observation tool, five minutes after the start of the class in order to allow the teacher(s) time to settle the class and begin instruction as well as maintain control and consistency over the use of the tool for research purposes. Each participating classroom was observed one time for 30 minutes. As a result of the five domains that required 5-minute interval data, the research team was able to collect 198 data points overall for each observation. Notes were kept on a separate form related to the class objectives for the day as well as any other additional, pertinent information that might provide context for the observation data.

Analyses and Results

Descriptive statistical analysis for the collected data were analyzed using IBM SPSS 25 and inter-observer reliability percentages were calculated using Microsoft Excel.

Inter-observer agreement (IOA) data were collected to establish reliability and validity of the instrument (Girard & Cohn, 2016). The reliability of the AISSEND was assessed by two members of the research team scoring a random sampling of six observations using total count IOA (i.e., 20% of observations) from ten observations that were conducted simultaneously. Total count IOA is the overall count of behaviors recorded by both observers divided by the total amount that could be observed. Inter-observer reliability data ranged from 83% agreement to 97% agreement across six observations. The overall average across the total count agreement rating indicated an 87% agreement which would be an acceptable level of agreement to establish reliability (Alberto & Troutman, 2013; Bailey & Burch, 2002).

Researchers also analyzed exact domain count per interval IOA data for the randomly selected, six observations. Exact count per interval IOA data is the percent of intervals in which both observers record the same occurrence or non-occurrence of a descriptor (Alberto & Troutman, 2013). Exact count data were calculated for all 46 descriptors across all seven domains of the AISSEND. As a result, exact count results are presented separately.

The domains included 13 total descriptors and exact count data was analyzed across six observations meaning inter-observer reliability was checked 78 times. The exact count agreement was well above 80% for both Instructional Materials/Resources (89%) and Physical Environment (86%).

The last five domains (i.e., Teacher Activities, Student Engagement Strategies, Instructional Strategies, Culturally Responsive Strategies, and Classroom Management Strategies) were also assessed for exact count reliability. Inter-observer reliability analysis included a calculated exact count percentage by domain; these percentages were all above 80% and ranged from a high 97% agreement (Teacher Activities) to a low 81% (Student Engagement Strategies). In addition to inter-rater reliability measures additional comparisons were made with these data to include a comparison of activities between middle and high school as well as a comparison between single teacher and co-taught classrooms.

The implementation of strategies by teachers across five domains were compared between middle school and high school classrooms. As shown in Figure 1, teacher activity strategies were

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 128 present 87% of the time among middle school teachers, and 84% of the time among high school teachers over the 30-minute observation period. As evident in Figure 1, many of the domains were almost even in comparison between middle and high school classrooms. Nevertheless, independent sample t-tests were conducted to analyze these data for statistical differences between high school and middle school teachers for the use of strategies across five domains. Results indicated that middle school teachers used significantly more classroom management strategies in comparison to high school teachers, t (29) = 2.06, p = .04, d = .79. However, middle school and high school teachers did not significantly differ on their use of other strategies across the other four domains (i.e., teacher activities, engagement strategies, instructional strategies, and culturally responsive teaching strategies), although it should be noted that the small sample size limited the power of each test.

The research team compared the use of the five domains between classrooms that were led by a general educator alone (n=7) and those led by a general educator and special educator (i.e., cotaught) (n=24). The percentage of activity used for each of the 5 domains is displayed in Figure 2. Statistical analysis was not conducted for these data due to the small n and increased possibility for a Type 1 error. However, a visual inspection of Figure 2 reveals that the implementation of inclusive strategies across all five domains was relatively even when comparing co-taught classrooms to classrooms that were led by a general educator alone. Notably, general educators alone implemented more strategies that co-taught classrooms in three different domains to include: Engagement Strategies (48% versus 43%), Culturally Responsive Teaching Strategies (37% versus 29%), and Classroom Management (31% versus 30%).

Finally, Pearson correlation analysis was used to examine the bivariate relationships between the five inclusion strategy domains and student engagement. As indicated in figure, there was a significant, positive relationship between student engagement and teacher activities, instructional strategies, and instructional materials/resources. Thus, student engagement increased when teachers used more activities, utilized instructional strategies, and provided more instructional materials/resources.

Limitations

Limitations were present in this research project although researchers made every effort to reduce any threats to the overall validity of the findings. For example, it is possible that teachers unintentionally increased inclusive practices while observers were present as a subconscious response to being observed and that teacher maturation could have threatened validity due to 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 130 improvement in practices over the duration of the study. Additionally, while the research team attempted to recruit as many classrooms for observation as possible, the overall number of classrooms that participated in the study was relatively small leading to less ability for generalization. Finally, in an effort to provide more context to the overall findings, the research team should have collected additional demographic information about the teachers as well as the students. Unfortunately, the research team was prevented by the school district from collecting additional information.

Discussion and Implications

These data provide researchers with a direct connection between assessment and instruction in that the AISSEND is an innovative assessment tool that can provide educators with an evaluation for the inclusion classroom. This study was designed to make recommendations for increasing inclusive practices and obtain baseline data for the type, duration, and frequency of inclusive practices occurring in an inclusion classroom. In addition, the research team was able to establish the AISSEND as a valid and reliable observation tool for measuring the occurrence of researchbased inclusive practices incorporated into the inclusion classroom.

In an effort to establish validity of the AISSEND through reliability measures an overall interrater reliability measure was calculated. Additionally, exact count data were analyzed by descriptor and by domain. According to overall inter-rater reliability data, the AISSEND was determined to be reliable with an 87% agreement. Additionally, exact count data by domain were assessed and inter-observer reliability data ranged from a low of 81% to a high of 97% indicating an acceptable level of reliability for the AISSEND by domain (Alberto & Troutman, 2013). Finally, when the research team analyzed exact count data by domain, potential issues with descriptors were revealed with agreement ratings ranging from a low of 50% to a high of 97% agreement. After inspecting the descriptors receiving the lowest ratings, it became apparent to the research team that additional description in the form of examples should accompany these descriptors to clarify the expectation. It was noted by the research team that minor edits or additions to these descriptors would likely serve to strengthen the overall reliability of the AISSEND. While these preliminary data suggest that the AISSEND is a valid and reliable observation tool for measuring inclusivity, the research team will revise AISSEND descriptors based on the exact count by descriptor data to improve individual descriptor inter-observer reliability data and strengthen the overall validity and reliability of the tool.

AISSEND can be used as a tool for reflection for educators or evaluation for administrators. For example, the research team found that inclusive practices are implemented at approximately the same frequency in both the middle school and high school level. The results indicated that both middle and high school teachers were incorporating teacher activities for more than 80% of the observation period; however, the implementation of the other four domains were less than 50% of the time. Based on these findings, specific professional development targeting student engagement strategies, instructional strategies, culturally responsive strategies, and classroom management strategies may need to be implemented in an effort to increase the occurrence of strategies of those domains.

Perhaps the most interesting finding in this study was the comparison of the percentage of strategies implemented by a co-taught classroom versus those implemented by a general educator 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) alone. At this stage, the AISSEND cannot make any predictions related to student academic performance and the presence of inclusive strategies implemented in the classroom. However, the research team had anticipated that the presence of inclusive strategies would be much higher across all domains in the co-taught classroom due to the presence of two educators. Yet the general educators were able to incorporate approximately the same amount of inclusive strategies, and sometimes more, as compared to co-taught classrooms. These findings have major implications in that the co-taught classroom is becoming increasingly popular; but in these observations a student could expect to be exposed to the same amount, sometimes more, inclusive strategies than when placed in a co-taught classroom. This would indicate a further need to push for professional development for co-teachers targeting the implementation of inclusive strategies.

Future research should focus on the presence of inclusive practices along with collecting an academic measure for students in the classroom. These data would allow for researchers to assess for any correlation between the presence of strategies and student academic performance. Additionally, the AISSEND could be especially helpful for teacher trainers, general educators, or special educators because it can pinpoint the specific domain and strategy that a teacher can increase in an effort to increase inclusive practices. Additional research should target means for making general recommendations for the implementation of specific instructional practices in the inclusion classroom that can be applied across all settings. More than anything this research gives us a baseline for the type, duration, and frequency of inclusive practices incorporated by teachers. Educators now have a measure for the level of “inclusivity” achieved in an inclusion classroom which can impact recommendations for instruction within the inclusion classroom.

References

Alberto, P.A. & Troutman, A.C. (2013). Applied Behavior Analysis for Teachers (9th Ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

Bailey, J.S. & Burch, M.R. (2002). Research Methods in Applied Behavior Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brownell, M., Ross, D., Colon, E., & McCallum, C. (2005). Critical features of special education teacher preparation. Journal of Special Education, 38 , 242–252.

Fenty, N., & McDuffie-Landrum, K. (2011). Collaboration through co-teaching. Kentucky English Bulletin. 60(2), 21-26.

Fisher, M., & Meyer, L. H. (2002). Development and social competence after two years for students enrolled in inclusive and self-contained educational programs. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 27 ,165-174. doi:10.2511/rpsd.27.3.165

Fletcher, J., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3 (1), 30–37.

Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.00020

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301-323.

Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48-70.

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 132

Gersten, R., Compton, D., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, D. (2009a). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention in primary grades. Institute for Education Sciences.

Girard, J.M. & Cohn, J.F. (2016) A primer on observational measurement. Assessment, 23(4), 404-413.

Hallahan, D.P, Kauffman, J.M., & Pullen, P.C. (2019). Exceptional Learners: An Introduction to Special Education. New York, NY: Pearson.

Hunt, P., Goetz, L., & Anderson, J. (1986). The quality of IEP objectives associated with placement on integrated versus segregated school sites. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 11 (2), 125-130.

Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004, § 1414 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. § 300.320 et seq.

Keefe, E.B., & Moore, V. (2004). The challenge of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms at the high school level: What the teachers told us. American Secondary Education. 32 (3), 7788.

Keeley, R.G., Keeley, D.W., & Alvarado-Alcantar, R. (2020). The development of AISSEND: An observation tool to assess inclusive practices. JAASEP.

Kurth, J. A., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2010). Academic and cognitive profiles of students with autism: Implications for classroom practice and placement. International Journal of Special Education, 25(2), 8-14.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (3), 465-491.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84 (1), 74-84.

McLeskey, J., Maheady, L. Billingsley, B., Brownell, M. & Lewis, T.J. (2019). High Leverage Practices for Inclusive Classrooms . Routledge.

McLeskey, J., Barringer, M-D., Billingsley, N., Brownell, M., Jackson, D., Kennedy, M., Lewis, T., Maheady, L., Rodriguez, J., Scheeler, M.C., Winn, J., & Ziegler, D. (2017, January). High-leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center.

National Center for Education Statistics. (May, 2021). Students with disabilities. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg

Nichols, J., Dowdy, A., & Nichols, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An educational promise for children with disabilities or a quick fix to meet the mandates of No Child Left Behind? Education. 130(4), 647-651.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PL 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425, 20 U.S.C. 11 6301 et seq.

Obiakor, F. E., Harris, M. K., Rotatori, A. F., & Algozzine, B. (2010). Chapter 10 Beyond traditional placement: Making inclusion work in the general education classroom. In Current issues and trends in special education: Identification, assessment and instruction (pp. 141-153). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Salend, S.J. (2008). Creating Inclusive Classrooms: Effective and Reflective Practices (6th ed.). Pearson.

Schalock, R. L., Luckasson, R., Bradley, V., Buntinx, W., Lachapelle, Y., Shogren, K. A., . . . Wehmeyer, M. L. (2012). User’s guide for the 11th edition of intellectual disability: Diagnosis, classification and systems of support. American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 133

Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education & Treatment of Children, 31 (3), 351–380 https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0007

Snell, M. E., & Brown, F. (2011). Selecting teaching strategies and arranging educational environments. In M. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of Students with Severe Disabilities (pp. 122-185). Pearson.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of Educational Statistics, Children and Youth with Disabilities. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_204.60.asp

Walther-Thomas, C.S. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems that teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30 (4), 395-407.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D., Lapp-Rinker, G., & Agran, M. (2003). Access to the general curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 262-272. doi:10. 1177/07419325030240050201

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 134

The Shift to Online Engagement for a Post-Secondary Transition Group of Students with Intellectual Disabilities and Autism

Emily R. Shamash, Ed.D. Alyson M. Martin, Ed.D.

Fairfield University

Abstract

In order to provide valuable learning opportunities aligned with post-secondary goals for students with Intellectual Disabilities and/or Autism, it is critical to partner with outside stakeholders such as agencies, universities and school districts to create meaningful programs. At the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, such programs were forced to temporarily close and reinvent themselves as in-person restrictions persisted over time. One partnership program, the Transition Opportunities for Postsecondary Success (TOPS), located on a University campus, was abruptly shut down in Spring 2020, as were most national programs that supported teens and young adults with Intellectual Disabilities and Autism. Since that time, transition and postsecondary programs have been tasked with maintaining flexible teaching and learning. This manuscript provides an overview of the TOPS program shift to virtual learning, the ways in which the program transformed their teaching, and the skills that were emphasized throughout each session meeting. Future implications for flexible hybrid learning for post-secondary transition programs are suggested and discussed.

Key words: autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, community-university partnership, transition program, online learning)

The Shift to Online Engagement for a Post-Secondary Transition Group of Students with Intellectual Disabilities and Autism

Providing opportunities for students with Intellectual Disabilities (ID) and Autism (ASD) to practice meaningful skills in transition programs from secondary to post-secondary environments during the extended high school years, is one that needs continuous and consistent focus and planning (Cavendish & Connor, 2018). In 2008, the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) set the stage for increased attention to transition planning and positive outcomes for students with disabilities by allowing for transition and post-secondary programs for students with Intellectual Disabilities in academic, social, independent living and employment domains (https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .) Yet, post-secondary education (PSE) opportunities for individuals with ID and ASD are at a premium across the country and are limited when compared to conventional schooling in grades K-12, particularly those that partner with agencies and community stakeholders. Furthermore, researchers have found greater opportunities for PSE for students with high incidence disabilities (eg Learning Disabilities, ADHD) than low incidence disabilities (eg ID, ASD) (Grigal, et al, 2019). Students with Intellectual Disabilities are less likely to engage in post secondary education and competitive employment goals and outcomes and have a greater need for support when it comes to postsecondary preparation (Shogren and Plotner, 2012).

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 135

Despite these years of mandated transition planning and a continued desire to prepare students with ID and ASD for post secondary settings, many students continue to experience high dropout rates, high unemployment, low wages, few job choices, limited relationships and restricted living options (Anderson et al, 2018; Roux et al, 2015). Approximately 50% of individuals with ASD are not engaged in post-secondary education or employment two years post high school completion (Shattuck et al, 2012). Given limited preparedness among individuals living with Intellectual Disabilities and Autism to lead a productive and self-sufficient life, professionals involved in educating such students must systematically and seriously pursue effective transition planning as routine and imbedded practice in K-12 schools (Dente & Coles, 2012, Krell & Perusee, 2012, Pena & Kocur, 2013, VanBergeijk, Klin, & Volkmar, 2008).

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the steps taken and the impact of shifting one post-secondary preparation program for young adults with ID and ASD to an online and flexible hybrid environment. An outline of topics, activities and preservice teacher learning opportunities are provided and can be replicated and expanded upon by similar partnerships.

Transition Opportunities for Post-Secondary Success (TOPS)

Researchers have found that partnerships between high schools and higher education institutions can provide meaningful experiences for students aging out of high school under IDEA (Grigal, et al, 2013). As a response to the limited opportunities on college campuses, the Transition Opportunities for Post-Secondary Success (TOPS) program was launched in 2017 and continues today. A team comprised of faculty members from a University Special Education teacher preparation program and senior staff from a nearby non-profit agency focused on supporting individuals with ID and ASD, partner and co-lead the development, implementation and assessment of this community-based group. The partnership offers special education pre-service teachers from the University the opportunity to gain field experience on the University campus. The program began with a pilot year in 2017-2018 and is currently in place as a continuing program. The program’s ongoing mission is to address a multitude of social challenges and independent living skills for young adults with ID and ASD in order to provide opportunities to practice self-empowerment, independence, problem solving, self-care and job related skills in an inclusive University setting. Building positive social interactions among peers in the TOPS group and undergraduate and graduate students on campus is central to the program (Martin and Shamash, 2020). The group meets once a week for one hour or one and a half hour sessions (4:00 -5:00 or 4:00-5:30) on the University campus or virtually via zoom.

The Covid-19 Pandemic Impact

In March of 2020, the TOPS program, along with the majority of programs offered for students with and without disabilities, came to a screeching halt due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (Scott and Aquino, 2020). The pandemic brought great difficulty to implementation of the already scarce access to programs that provide opportunities to practice vocational, social, interpersonal and job-readiness skills to students with disabilities in inclusive settings. Existing programs needed to quickly shift to determine how to provide access to skill acquisition, practice and maintenance at a time when communities were closed and access to post-secondary environments were shut down. As some stakeholders planned for more temporary changes in 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 136 service delivery, it is now common knowledge that changes were longer-term than anticipated at the start of the pandemic.

The ongoing pandemic has brought both challenges and opportunities to special education environments and in many districts, further limited the transition opportunities available to students with ID and ASD ages 18-22. The most obvious shift has been the adjustment to teaching and learning in virtual environments. The persistent need to provide meaningful learning and social opportunities for students with disabilities has been one that school districts and agencies who support individuals with ID and ASD throughout the life-span, had to navigate with little experience or preparation. Since that time, post-secondary programs have been required to maintain flexible teaching and learning in virtual and/or face to face environments while wearing masks and maintaining social distance. In response to the loss of learning, social interactions and exposure to a University setting for the participants, the TOPS facilitators quickly provided an online environment for these students to connect with their peers with ID and ASD as well as their peers from the undergraduate and graduate special education program to share their experiences at the start of the pandemic. The following Fall of 2020, when University campuses across the country were either closed or open with tight restrictions for oncampus visitors, a fully virtual experience was designed and implemented due to continued closures of programs and face-to-face learning opportunities. While one of the most vital components of the program was the physical ability to meet on the University campus, the program made the decision to continue to provide a University experience despite the limitation of not being able to be held on campus due to pandemic safety protocols. The University and community agency partner designed two 5-week sessions that were cost-free and completely virtual while maintaining opportunities for undergraduate and graduate special education students to participate in order to gain valuable field experience.

Impact on Teacher Preparation Due to Limited In-Person Access

The COVID -19 pandemic significantly reduced field experience opportunities for pre-service teachers, including pre-service special educators. Districts were closed to observers other than traditional student teachers at the culmination of their teacher preparation program and were unable to allow observers in their buildings due to public health state and district mandates. Typically, teacher preparation programs require at least 40 hours of observations/fieldwork experiences among the core courses prior to student teaching/practica program requirements and state mandates. This was nearly impossible to accomplish over the course of more than a year since the onset of the pandemic, thus significantly limiting necessary field experiences and training. Assisting in the TOPS program provided pre-service special educators accessible and safe experiences under the guidance and facilitation of special education teacher preparation professors and agency staff, while providing inclusive opportunities for interactions among the TOPS participants and same-age peers without disabilities. Preservice special educators were able to interact directly with students with disabilities online and later in a flexible hybrid model at a time when face to face experiences were limited.

Themes Embedded in Each Session

Due to the uncertainty and fluid situation brought on by the ongoing global pandemic, two themes were embedded and carried through each session meeting: Mindfulness and Self Care. As mentioned, each session began with a brief guided meditation via video. After learning about Self Care at the start of the semester, participants were asked to engage in self care each week and to 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 137 come to each session prepared to report on their self-care choices and how they felt. Additionally, since this group had not previously met virtually, it was important to review online behavior etiquette such as: unmuting to speak, using the hand raise function, renaming your zoom account as needed, navigating to break out rooms, and camera functions. Screen sharing was modeled and discussed. Online based games such as Kahoot and Bamboozle, as well as virtual campus tours and google slides and forms were utilized for engagement and content. Participants worked on shifting attention from one device or window to another when necessary. Zoom etiquette was discussed and modeled throughout the initial online sessions. For example, “should you eat your dinner during a zoom session?”, mute when you are not talking, raise your hand when you would like to participate.

Example of a Virtual Session

The TOPS group met for 60 minutes each week via Zoom. Each TOPS session began with a mindfulness exercise. For example, a short video with mindfulness practices such as guided meditation, boxed breathing, or body scans. The participants then engaged in a “popcorn” method of sharing verbally with the group. This method fostered group engagement and social reciprocity in an online format. For example, the facilitators would pose a question such as What was something you did this week for self-care? In order to foster both verbal participation and social reciprocity, each participant shared their example and then “popcorned” by calling on another participant to share their example. After the initial sharing, the session shifted to the main activity or topic of the session. Examples can be found in Tables 1 and 2. Each activity has corresponding skills that were practiced and facilitated by both session leaders (agency staff and University faculty) and pre-service special education teacher candidates noted in Table 3.

Fall

Whole group

Table 2

Spring Semester Virtual Session Topics

● Kahoot

Date Topic Activities

3/4

Whole group

3/11

Break out rooms

● Accountability

● Etiquette kahoot

● Campus job tour

● Where can students

Whole group work on campus?

● Brief mindfulness activity

● Virtual Etiquette

● Kahoot

● Mindfulness

● Survey

● Campus tour to identify places for jobs on campus

● What did you learn?: google doc

● Best session from last semester : google doc

3/18

Whole group

● Resume presentation

● Mindfulness

● BAMBOOZLE

● Resume drafts

● What did you learn?: google doc

3/25

Whole group

Break out rooms

● Interview skills

● Resume

● Mindfulness

● BAMBOOZLE

● Interview skills: identification of appropriate behaviors

● Share screen and show resume

4/1

Whole group

Table 3

● Recall Culmination

● Kahoot (facilitated by undergrad)

● Review of all sessions

Activities and Skills in TOPS Sessions

Activity Skill

Zoom Etiquette

Kahoot (www.kahoot.com)

● Mute/unmute

● Virtual hand raise

● Virtual reactions (heart, thumbs up, etc)

● Video on/off

● Shift attention from two devices or windows

● Content recall

Baamboozle

Google docs

Breakout rooms

Virtual Tour

Job availability University website

Meditation

Participants

● Teamwork in the context of an online game

● Content recall

● Shift to two windows

● Typing/spelling/documenting discussion

● Working as team to complete a google doc

● Navigate to and from virtual room

● Communicate with small group

● Identify places on familiar University campus

● Select jobs of interest

● Note skills needed for jobs of interest

● Follow visual and emotional regulation

Method

The participants in the TOPS program consisted of 10 individuals with Autism and/or Intellectual Disabilities ranging in age from 19-23 years old. The participants were recruited for the program by the community non-profit agency that partnered with faculty from the Special Education Program to create the TOPS program. Some of the participants (ages 19-22) are enrolled in school based transition programs funded by their districts. While other participants (22-23) are enrolled in community based job assistance programs funded by their parents. All participants attend the TOPS program for free.

Participant Survey and Data

A program facilitator survey was designed to gather data on the TOPS’ participant experience at the end of the spring semester session. All 10 TOPS participants were surveyed. The questions on the survey included Yes/No answers and open ended questions. A synthesis of responses can be found in Tables 4 and 5. As seen in Table 4, participants practiced and mastered how to mute and unmute themselves at appropriate times, turn their video on and off, use the raise hand function, and navigate to and from break-out rooms. Some participants still needed reminders for when to attend their TOPS session but all were familiar with how to monitor their email for reminders and log in information. The qualitative section (open ended responses) of the survey revealed participant perceptions of the positives and negatives of meeting online, interest in continued social connections online and in-person, as well as desires for in-person meeting and pandemic related concerns.

Table 4

Participant Survey Questions

1. I feel comfortable participating in TOPS on zoom

2. I know the appropriate behaviors I should follow while on zoom

3. I know how to raise my hand if I want to participate

4. I feel like I am with my friends even though we are not meeting in-person

5. I feel connected to Fairfield University even though I am not going to the campus this semester

6. I wish I could meet on campus rather than meeting online

7. I know how to log on to zoom on my own

8. I know how to mute myself when needed

9. I know how to turn my camera on and off

10. I need a reminder when it is time to go to TOPS

11. I know how to check my email for information about TOPS sessions

Table 5

Participant Open Ended Questions

10

Each question/sentence prompt is documented below with a summary of participant responses.

Statement

1. This session I hope to:

Participant Response

● “Camera on and myself mute and listen on the rules and (name) is talking about self care”

● “Do my best to learn”

● “Have a wonderful time”

● “Learn more and talk to friends”

● “Listen very carefully”

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 141

2. I like meeting online because:

● “Take a tour of the campus virtually, and have fun with my friends”

● “See my friends in person again”

● “We are talking about self care with (name)”

● “Until COVID restrictions are lifted”

● “I like to connect with my friends”

● “(name) is talking about self care and good fellow to speaking others”

● “I like talking with my friends at zoom”

● “I get to see my friends there”

● “I can connect with my friends”

● “Me and all the people can talk”

● “I see my friends”

● “I like to socialize in person with others”

3. I miss meeting on campus because:

● “I miss seeing my friends in person”

● “I miss my friends”

● “I really miss (name) and (name) a lot. I also miss being on campus a whole lot.”

● “We have so many adventures together”

● “I cannot get on”

● “I want to be with my friends”

4. Something that has been hard for me since the start of the pandemic is:

● “Being with my friends and going out more”

● “Socializing with my friends in person”

● “Coronavirus is hard for me because I not see people and friends is hard”

● “Corona is hard for me and I can’t see people”

● “Learning virtually”

● “Seeing my friends in person again”

● “The vaccine”

● “Not being with my friends”

5. Something that has been good for me since the start of the pandemic is:

● “Exercising”

● “To wash my hands more and staying safe at home”

● “Connecting with my friends on zoom”

● “Coronavirus”

● “Corona”

● “Meeting with my friends at TOPS, and hanging with my friends outside of school”

● “Connecting on zoom”

● “Really terrible”

● “I learned how to use chromebook”

● “I cannot wait to be in person with everyone” 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

6. I would like the TOPS leaders

● “They are the best leaders and friends I ever to know that: had”

● “I want to go back to the University some day”

● “They are the best friends I have ever had”

● “I am good and paying attention”

● “I am ready to cheer”

Discussion

The TOPS program, located on a University campus, was abruptly shut down in the Spring of 2020, as were most national programs that supported teens and young adults with ID and ASD. The Covid-19 pandemic continues to be a time when education for students with and without disabilities across the globe has been forced to shift to virtual learning environments and then reinvent how to engage learners safely and effectively while providing flexible and hybrid options. Researchers and educators now recognize that this shift is likely to remain as educational systems and students benefit from hybrid learning and teaching (Adedoyin and Soykan, 2020). The TOPS program was able to provide a post-secondary transition program connected to a University campus without interruption. Additionally, the program was free of charge at a time when many families were experiencing job and financial insecurity. Although there was significant change, especially initially, from the face-to-face campus focused program, the agency and University partners were able to quickly shift to online and flexible hybrid learning in order to avoid a lapse in programming. Inclusive experiences also allowed for participants with ID and ASD to continue to engage with their typical peers and served a dual beneficial purpose of providing continued field work for pre-service educators at a time when they were widely unavailable.

Future Application

While the Covid-19 pandemic turned educational programs upside down, there continue to be a number of learning opportunities for the TOPS participants, partners and pre-service special educators that can carry over to post-pandemic education, specifically learning transition skills that transfer to post-secondary life. First, participants were able to maintain their participation in this particular post-secondary learning program connected to a University campus at a time when their job training and center based learning needed to close. Second, the TOPS program continued to provide inclusive programming with same-aged peers who were studying to be special educators. Third, these pre-service educators experienced a lapse in their ability to visit schools and gain observation hours but were able to gain valuable experience with the TOPS program participants online and in flexible-hybrid sessions. While it is the goal of the program to resume face to face programming in a post-pandemic world, a virtual option can be utilized in cases where there may be transportation or weather related challenges to in-person experiences. It is no longer the case that these kinds of barriers would cause a cancellation in sessions or would create a barrier for participants to access. It also provides real-life and natural environment learning to increase flexibility and maintain social-emotional regulation when there are temporary or long term unexpected disruptions in routines. Program facilitators, students with and without disabilities and families now have first-hand experiences shifting to online learning when necessary. Facilitators now have practice designing, implementing and leading online learning in order to avoid missing valuable learning time, especially in the area of post2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) secondary learning where there are limited opportunities. Online learning experiences can provide access to teacher training field experience and open pathways to interact with students with disabilities, their families and skilled practitioners. Online programming is now in the repertoire of program facilitators, teachers, and administrators and the benefits and advantages of having it as an option to engage, teach, learn and interact is far reaching. In future years, we recommend holding online learning sessions, even if instructed in-person in a computer lab, in order to adequately prepare participants for the skills needed to engage in online sessions if and when needed. By practicing skills to access and participate in virtual environments, students can be armed with the ability to shift to online learning when necessary. University and agency/school based partnerships across the country and globally, can use the topics and skill based lessons we describe here as a starting point and continue to expand on them based on the needs of their participants. We aim to continue modeling and teaching online learning skills postpandemic and urge similar partner-based programs to do so as well. We advocate for the involvement of pre-service teachers to serve the dual function of program facilitators (under the guidance of experienced faculty and professionals) while also serving as peer models. While the desired meeting method remains face-to-face, online learning can be a way to practice and maintain skills in a virtual environment in order to preserve programming and foster relationships and skills for students with ID and ASD who are preparing for post-secondary activities.

References

Adedoyin, O.B. & Soykan, E. (2020): Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments , DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-4300I https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948716684680 https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728811399091

Anderson, K., Sosnowy, C., Kuo, A. & Shattuck, P. (2018) Transition of individuals with autism to adulthood: A review of qualitative studies. Pediatrics, 141(4).

Cavendish, W. & Connor, D. (2018). Toward authentic IEPs and transition plans: Student, parent and teacher perspectives. Learning Disability Quarterly , 41(1), 32–43.

Dente, C. L. & Coles, K. P. (2012). Ecological approaches to transition planning for students with autism and asperger’s syndrome. Children & Schools, 34 (1), 27-36.

Grigal, M., Hart, D., kigliore, A. (2011). Comparing the transition planning, postsecondary education, and employment outcomes of students with intellectual and other disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34(1), 4-14.

Grigal, M., Hart, D. & Weir, C. (2013). Postsecondary education for people with intellectual disability: Current issues and critical challenges. Inclusion, 1, 50–63.

Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 , Public Law 110-315. (2008).

Krell, M. & Perusse, R. (2012). Providing college readiness counseling for students with Autism spectrum disorders: A Delphi study to guide school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 16(1), 29-39.

Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A.-M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., Wei, X., with Cameto, R., Contreras, E., Ferguson, K., Greene, S., & Schwarting, M. (2011). The 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 144 post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER \ 2011-3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from: www.nlts2.org/reports https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16

Roux AM, Shattuck PT, Rast JE, Rava JA, Anderson KA. National Autism Indicators Report: Transition into Young Adulthood. Philadelphia, PA: Life Course Outcomes Research Program, A.J. Drexel Autism Institute, Drexel University; 2015.

Scott, S., & Aquino, K. (2020). COVID-19 Transitions: Higher Education Professionals’ Perspectives on Access Barriers, Services, and Solutions for Students with Disabilities. Association on Higher Education and Disability.

Shattuck PT, Narendorf SC, Cooper B, Sterzing PR, Wagner M, Taylor JL. Postsecondary education and employment among youth with an autism spectrum disorder. Pediatrics 2012;129(6):1042–1049.

Shogren, K. A. & Plotner, A. J. (2012). Transition planning for students with intellectual disability, autism, or other disabilities: Data from the national longitudinal transition study-2. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 50(1), 16–30.

VanBergeijk, E., Klin, A., & Volkmar, F. (2008). Supporting more able students on the autism spectrum: College and beyond. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 38, 1359-1370. 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

Author Guidelines

Author Guidelines

SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE welcome manuscript submissions at any time. Authors are completely responsible for the factual accuracy of their contributions. Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to quote lengthy excerpts from previously-published articles.

Authors will be notified of the receipt of their manuscripts within seven (7) business days of their receipt by the Chief Editor and can expect to receive the recommendation of the review process within 90 days.

All submissions must have a cover letter indicating that the manuscript has not been published, or is not being considered for publication anywhere else, in whole or in substantial part. On the cover letter it will be noted to the authors to be sure to include their name, address, email address, and phone number.

Typescript should conform to the following:

 Method of Manuscript Submission : Send Manuscripts should be submitted electronically with the words " Submission to SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE" in the subject line

 Language: English

 Document: Microsoft Word

 Font: Times New Roman or Arial

 Size of Font: 12 Point

 Page Limit: None

 Margins: 1” on all sides

 Title of paper: Top of page Capitals, bold, and centered

 Author(s) Name: Centered under title of paper

 Format: Manuscripts should follow the guidelines of the most recent edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association

 Figures and Tables: All should be integrated in the typescript

 Abstract: An abstract of no more than 150 words should accompany each submission

 References: Insert all references cited in the paper submitted on a Reference Page

2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 146