Special Education Research, Policy & Practice (2023 Edition)

SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE (2023 Edition)

2023 Edition Volume 7 Table of Contents

Page

Editorial Board of Reviewers

3

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: An Evaluation of University/College Teacher Preparation and Inclusion Courses Cordelia A Yates and Carolyn Glackin

5

Efforts to Recruit and Retain Special Education Teachers in One Southern State Kelly E. Standridge, Jocelyn E. Belden, Elizabeth W. Colquitt, Robert C. Hendrick, Jonté A. Myers, and David E. Houchins

30

Exploring Post-Secondary Transition Preparation for Students with Disabilities Emily N. Smith and Braelyn R. Ringwald

58

The Special Education Teacher Shortage: A Policy Brief Alyssa Sanabria Experiences of a Student with Deaf-Blindness in Community-Based Rehabilitation and Disabilities Studies Unit in the University of Education, Winneba Emmanuel K. Acheampong and Rabbi Abu- Sadat

77

Analysis of Syntactic Complexity and Its Relationship to Writing Quality in Argumentative Essays using an Automated Essay Scoring Webtool Thilagha Jagaiah, Natalie Olinghouse, Devin Kearns, and Gilbert Andrada

89

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

1

The Most Impactful Element of Preschool Early Intervention Services on Kindergarten Readiness: Instruction with Typically Developing Peers Shannan Smith and Deana J. Ford

111

Measuring the Implementation of Inclusive Strategies in Secondary Classrooms Using an Observation Rubric Randa G. Keeley, Rebecca Alvarado-Alcantar, Maria Peterson-Ahmad, and Paul Yeatts

122

The Shift to Online Engagement for a Post-Secondary Transition Group of Students with Intellectual Disabilities and Autism Emily R. Shamash and Alyson M. Martin

135

Author Guidelines

146

Publishing Process

147

Copyright and Reprint Rights

148

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

2

Editorial Board of Reviewers All members of the Hofstra University Special Education Department will sit on the Editorial Board for the SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE. Each of the faculty will reach out to professionals in the field whom he/she knows to start the process of building a list of peer reviewers for specific types of articles. Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we will base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and previous experience of a reviewer.

Editor George Giuliani, J.D., Psy.D., Hofstra University Hofstra University Special Education Full-Time Faculty Elfreda Blue, Ph.D. Stephen Hernandez, Ed.D. Gloria Lodato Wilson, Ph.D. Mary E. McDonald, Ph.D, BCBA-D, LBA Darra Pace, Ed.D. Diane Schwartz, Ed.D. Editorial Board Mohammed Alzyoudi, Ph.D., American University in the Emirates. Dubai. UAE Faith Andreasen, Ph.D. Vance L. Austin, Ph.D., Manhattanville College Amy Ballin, Ph.D., Walker Solutions Heather M. Baltodano-Van Ness, Ph.D., BCBA-D, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Dana Battaglia, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, Westbury UFSD Brooke Blanks, Ph.D., Radford University Kathleen Boothe, Ph.D., Southeastern Oklahoma State University Nicholas Catania, PhD, State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota Lindsey A. Chapman, Ph.D., University of Florida Morgan Chitiyo, Ph.D., University of North Carolina at Greensboro Jonathan Chitiyo, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh at Bradford Heidi Cornell, Ph.D., Wichita State University Lesley Craig-Unkefer, Ed.D., Middle Tennessee State University Amy Davies Lackey, Ph.D., BCBA-D Lauren Dean, Ed.D., Hofstra University Josh Del Viscovo, MS, BCSE, Northcentral University Darlene Desbrow, Ph.D. Janet R. DeSimone, Ed.D., Lehman College, The City University of New York Lisa Dille, Ed.D., BCBA, Georgian Court University William Dorfman, B.A. (MA in progress), Florida International University Brandi Eley, Ph.D. Tracey Falardeau M.A., M.S., Midland Educational Agency Danielle Feeney, Ph.D., Ohio University Neil O. Friesland, Ed.D., MidAmerica Nazarene University 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

3

Theresa Garfield, Ed.D., Texas A&M University-San Antonio Leigh Gates, Ed.D., University of North Carolina Wilmington Sean Green, Ph.D. Mohammed Hamzeh Al Zyoudi, Professor Deborah W. Hartman, M.S., Cedar Crest College Shawnna Helf, Ph.D., Winthrop University Nicole Irish, Ed.D., University of the Cumberlands Randa G. Keeley, PhD, Texas Woman's University Hyun Uk Kim, Ph.D., Springfield College Louisa Kramer-Vida, Ed.D., Long Island University Nai-Cheng Kuo, PhD., BCBA, Augusta University Renée E. Lastrapes, Ph.D., University of Houston-Clear Lake Debra Leach, Ed.D., BCBA, Winthrop University Marla J. Lohmann, Ph.D., Colorado Christian University Mary Lombardo-Graves, Ed.D., University of Evansville Pamela E. Lowry, Ed.D., Georgian Court University Denise Lucas, M.S. Matthew D. Lucas, Ed.D., Longwood University Jay R. Lucker, Ed.D., Professor Emeritus, Howard University Jennifer N. Mahdavi, Ph.D., BCBA-D, Sonoma State University Alyson Martin, Ed.D., Fairfield University Krystle E. Merry, M.S. Ed., NBCT., Ph.D. Candidate, University of Arkansas Marcia Montague, Ph.D., Texas A&M University Chelsea T. Morris, Ph.D., University of West Georgia Gena Nelson, Ph.D., University of Oregon Lawrence Nhemachena, MSc, Universidade Catolica de Mozambique Maria B. Peterson Ahmad, Ph.D., Western Oregon University Christine Powell. Ed.D., California Lutheran University Deborah Reed, Ph.D., University of Tennessee Ken Reimer, Ph.D., University of Winnipeg Dana Reinecke, PhD, BCBA-D, Capella University Denise Rich-Gross, Ph.D., University of Akron Benjamin Riden, ABD - Ph.D., Penn State Mary Runo, Ph.D., Kenyatta University Emily Smith, Ed.D., University of Alaska Carrie Semmelroth, Ed.D.., Boise State University Pamela Mary Schmidt, M.S., Freeport High School Special Education Department; Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Lead Educator Edward Schultz, Ph.D., Midwestern State University Mustafa Serdar Köksal, Ph.D., Hacettepe University, Turkey Emily R. Shamash, Ed.D., Fairfield University Christopher E. Smith, PhD, BCBA-D, Positive Behavior Support Consulting & Psychological Resources Emily Smith, Ed.D., Midwestern State University Gregory W. Smith. Ph.D., University of Southern Mississippi Emily Sobeck, Ph.D., Franciscan University Ernest Solar, Ph.D., Mount St. Mary’s University 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

4

Gretchen L. Stewart , Ph.D., University of South Florida Roben Taylor Daubler, Ed.D., Western Governors University Jessie Sue Thacker-King, Arkansas State Julia VanderMolen, Ph.D., Grand Valley State University Joseph Valentin, Ph.D. Nancy Welsh-Young, Ed.S., Ph.D. Candidate, University of Arkansas Cindy Widner, Ed.D., Carson Newman University Kathleen G. Winterman, Ed.D., Xavier University Sara B. Woolf, Ed.D., Queens College, City University of New York Mohamed Bin Zayed, University for Humanities Perry A. Zirkel, Ph.D., J.D., LL.M., Lehigh University

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

5

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: An Evaluation of University/College Teacher Preparation and Inclusion Courses Dr. Cordelia A Yates Dr. Carolyn Glackin Morningside University Abstract Within the diverse classrooms in the United States, there remains a gap in student performance, reflecting issues of inequity and inclusion. Within this context, the purpose of this mixed methods study was to evaluate the effectiveness of university/college teacher preparation inclusion courses from the perspectives of beginning K-12 special education and general education teachers prepared in traditional and alternative teacher education programs. With a total of 34 participants completing the study, the quantitative findings suggest that K-12 special education and general education teachers were generally satisfied with their teacher preparation in traditional and alternative teacher education programs. Within the analysis of the qualitative results, participants expressed that the skills provided within the preparation programs helped provide general knowledge to support students within a diverse classroom. However, participants simultaneously expressed that gaps remain in how to apply the skills learned within education programs to the complex real-world context of the classroom.

Keywords: Inclusion, diversity, equity, teacher preparation, teacher education Introduction and Purpose The United States is recognized across the globe as an epitome of a democratic society that champions the world on human rights issues which range from socio-economic, political, cultural, and educational issues. However, American society has not been able to completely rid itself of these related issues, especially in providing equitable and equal education for all its citizenry. For example, different scholars have identified the demographics of societal classrooms as heterogeneous, mimicking the multicultural diversity of the nation’s populace (Grant & Gibson, 2011); like school classrooms that are made up of students with disabilities, English Learners, African Americans, minority groups and immigrants from across the globe (Roose et al., 2019; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Corroborating this, current national education statistics from 2019 to 2020 stated that the number of children who received special education services was 7.3 million (National Center for Education Statistics), and the percentage of English learners in public schools across the nation was 5.0 million.

Given the diverse nature of our classrooms and the high percentage of students who require proper education to be at par with higher performing students (Hatton, 1995; Roose et al., 2019; Zeicherner, 1983), how have the nation’s institutions of higher learning prepared teachers to take up these challenges, specifically in addressing the issue of inclusion and equity? (Milner, 2010).

Additional issues include the following questions: Who gets educated and who does not? What are the educational gaps that have continued to persist because of inadequate preparation of 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

6

teachers in the nation’s universities and colleges (Darling-Hammond, 2002)? What should be the focus of teachers’ preparation programs, and how can teachers learn the cultural background and perspectives of students to build teaching practice that is relevant to all and not a few (Loewenberg & Forzani, 2009)?

These controversies have not only formed the foundation of inclusive movements in education but also brought to the forefront the inclusive courses created by universities and colleges. These courses are intended to develop teachers’ abilities to teach in diverse classrooms. Inclusive courses were developed to help teachers learn teaching strategies that would help them to educate all children no matter their disabilities, or social or cultural backgrounds (Jelas, 2010). In addition, education professionals and policymakers in the nation have acknowledged these needs by arguing for effective centralized development of teachers’ skills and standards that would empower the nation’s teachers in diverse classroom practice (Burns & Shadoian-Gersing, 2010; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Kumar et al., 2018; Linder et al., 2019; Prasetyo et al., 2021).

Teachers’ understanding of students’ cultural backgrounds is crucial in consideration of the fact that more than 90% of both special and general education teachers in society are white (Kumar et al., 2018; Smith, 2009). It becomes increasingly necessary to emphasize multicultural education in university and college teacher preparation programs (Bell, 2002; Goldenberg, 2014) to be able to achieve equitable and inclusive education for all students (Goldenberg, 2014; Prasetyo et al., 2021; Solomona et al., 2005). In addition, reinforcing multicultural study and ethnic understanding in teachers' university and college education will develop in teachers the awareness to examine their personal biases to challenge their linguistic dominance and color blindness (Haddix, 2008; Kumar et al., 2018).

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of university/college teacher preparation inclusion courses from the perspectives of beginning K-12 special education and general education teachers prepared in traditional and alternative teacher education programs.

The questions explored in this study were as follows: 1. How do teachers describe the courses they studied in the university that prepared them to teach in the inclusion classroom?

2. How do teachers describe the specific skills they acquired from the inclusion course they took in the university in terms of preparation to handle students with and without disabilities?

3. How do teachers describe the impact of the university/college inclusion course(s) they studied on their current classroom practice?

4. How do teachers assess the quality and effectiveness of their current practice based on the university/college inclusion coursework they took?

5. Do teachers feel their university education inclusion course adequately prepared them to assume the role of an inclusion teacher?

6. What changes do teachers believe are needed in university/college curriculum and instruction inclusion courses?

7. What do teachers believe should be included in teachers’ university education to prepare new teachers for the inclusion classroom?

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

7

Theoretical Framework From its inception, the United States of America has been home to diverse populations. This has manifested in an upward enrollment of culturally diverse students in the nation’s schools. The nation’s educational paradigm has continued to focus on the demographics of our classrooms as a priority in teachers’ education preparation programs, (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). A similar trend surrounds the proliferation of the issues of inequality and inequity among different groups in society. For example, students with disabilities who enrolled in the nation’s schools in the 20192020 school year represented 7.3 million of the student population (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.); a group who to a large extent, has continued to experience an education gap when compared to students without disabilities. In response, the federal government became actively involved by authorizing educational laws and policies intended to thwart the inequities in public schools. Consequently, higher education revamped curricula to reflect the needs of the education system at the time. In other words, preservice courses at higher learning institutions in the United States must include topics on inclusion, access, and diversity (Forlin, 2010).

In acknowledgment of this, Plash and Piotrowski (2006) investigated how university teaching programs were responding to developing preservice teachers for the inclusion classroom. The researchers noted that “Only 27% of the reviewed universities offered at least 3 credit hours explicitly related to the inclusion of students with disabilities. This is surprising given that differentiating instruction benefits all learners, not just students with disabilities” (p. 307).

Furthermore, a more recent study carried out by Taylor and Ringlaben (2012) revealed that teachers felt they were not adequately prepared to educate students with disabilities in the general education classroom setting irrespective of the federal Least Restrictive Environment mandate under the IDEA of 1975, (United States Department of Education). Responding to this, Logan and Wimer (2013) stated the following: future studies should allow teachers to create narratives on their experiences with inclusion including the positives and challenges with suggestions for improving teacher experience. It seems that college special education faculty and school administrators must take the time to have open forums to discuss how to improve inclusive classrooms in their schools and how to improve our college preparatory training programs. (p. 7).

Corroborating the importance of effective university programs to the effective implementation of inclusion in school classrooms, Allday et al. (2013) stated that the feelings of unpreparedness expressed by teachers could be traced to “the number and type of courses related to the inclusion of students with disabilities” (p.308); and expressed the importance of further research study to determine areas of study that teachers believe could help their practice as inclusion teachers.

Also, by keeping up with investigations into current practices of inclusion programs, educators are kept in awareness of the “social justice aims of inclusive education that have been previously subverted by the economic concerns tied to assessment practices.” (Gregory, 2018, p.129). In addition, educators must acknowledge that as the issues of diversity and equity continue to wax strong in the nation, and our classrooms in response continue to grow with diverse learners, “More and more researchers are looking at how Higher Education is responding to students with 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

8

different abilities, or as they are usually called, students with disabilities.” (Morina, CortesVegas & Molina, 2015, p.2).

In retrospect of the stated research findings and observations by different scholars above, it becomes necessary for these researchers to build on the stated past studies by evaluating further the impact of university education inclusion courses on the practices of new teachers of one to two years in public schools, from the perspectives of the special, alternate, and general education teachers. More so, if we understand that the crux of the matter in this discourse is attaining access and equity in classrooms by implementing the principles of inclusion, it brings us to the question: how is this accomplished effectively? Responding to this question, Lancaster and Bain (2019) stated, “Pre-service teacher education programs are the vehicles for providing teachers with the preparation they require to work in inclusive classrooms” (p. 51), thus preservice teacher preparation programs should include curricula that foster learning for all students.

Study Significance and Theoretical Contributions In today’s society, there are movements of social justice causes headed by different cultural, ethnic, language, and religious diversity, which poses the challenge of a democratic and inclusive practice that would meet the needs of everyone in society (Roose et al., 2019). This challenge extends to the education of students of diversity in schools and teacher education and their professional roles in diverse classrooms (Vranjesevic, 2014). This challenge is also recognized by different various teacher preparation programs, that in turn are challenged by different philosophical perspectives of teacher education in society and teachers’ personal beliefs and reluctance to understand issues of students from multicultural backgrounds and exceptionalities (Gay, 2015; Sparapani, 1995).

This notwithstanding, the issue of meeting the needs of diverse students in the classroom outpaced any personal idiosyncrasies of a person or any group of people in society. Not unlike many schools around the world, United States schools have continued to be populated with diverse, multicultural, ethnic, and religious groups, which means teachers’ education colleges and universities must make changes to their curriculums to produce teachers that are sensitive to cultural diversity and feel the personal sense of responsibilities to ensuring every student of every background experience a successful education and social outcomes (Liggett & Finley, 2009).

Scholars have alluded to the educational achievement gap between white and non-white students as well as students with disabilities to the rationale that most American school teachers are white and lack the frame of reference necessary to be successful with students of diversity (McFalls & Cobb-Roberts, 2001). Because of this, American educational systems have come under a lot of scrutiny by concerned citizens, different professional bodies, and families. As such, an assessment of educational progress in the United States since the 1980s indicated that the quality of the American Educational System has continued to dwindle and is marked by widened achievement gaps between the United States when compared to other developed nations of the world like Finland, the Netherlands, Singapore, Korea, China, New Zealand, and Australia, (Darling-Hammond, 2009). Some scholars have alluded this to the lack of effective multicultural education in teachers’ college/university education programs and challenged the system to permeate teachers’ education curriculum with multicultural social reconstruction principles 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

9

(Martin, 1994) so teachers can become more aware and reflective of their practices in consideration of the diverse nature of the United States School classrooms.

Education is fundamental to the development of a nation and how competent the nation can function in the current global market so that only the well-prepared nations’ populace can succeed in the global streams of events. For America to match other world powers or remain on top of the strata in the 21st-century global market, world space, and technological competitions, the nation needs to invest heavily in the education of its citizenry; and restructure preservice teachers’ university/college education programs to reflect a coherence that provides the right kinds of skills (Russell et al., 2001); a responsibility that has also, been squarely placed in the hands of school teachers to provide effective instruction to the diverse student population in American school classrooms. This means teachers must overcome the challenges of teaching all students irrespective of the language barriers and disability challenges in the classroom, an expectation that includes universities and colleges doing their part by preparing the teachers with viable instructional strategies (Valentiin, 2006).

Despite the stated observations and expressed concerns in many research studies, it appears universities/colleges continued to miss the priority of providing effective skills and robust training in their teachers’ preparation programs for teachers to address the diverse demographics in the 21st-century classrooms, which are defined as inclusive; and perpetuate inequitable practices that educate some but not all, (Roose et al., 2019). Taking the forefront and in acknowledgment of the significance of this issue that places the United States education system in a dire situation, the federal government, at different stages, created laws and education legislations to revamp teacher education; for example, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) that was later changed to Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015 (Federal Department of Education); the Carnegie Education and the Economy study on a ‘Nation Prepared” teachers for the 21st Century (Loewenberg & Forzani, 2009); and pressures from concerned citizens and professional societies that advocated for inclusive classrooms, (Imig et al., 2011).

Inclusive classrooms were advocated for in the context of diversity and believed that the practice would address the issues of equal and equitable access to education for all, acknowledgment and appropriate treatment of minority students and students with disabilities, plurilingualism, and integration of immigrant children (Arnesen & Allan, 2009). Many institutions of higher learning and public schools joined this clarion call and have embraced the inclusion concept. Thus, many public schools, in cognizance of the federal mandates and legislations, established inclusion classrooms that are made up of special education students, English learners, and general education students, which culminated in the need for teachers to acquire the right skills to integrate inclusive strategies in their teaching responsibilities (Peebles & Mendagalio, 2014).

These notwithstanding, there remains a need to appraise this acceptance by evaluating the reality of its implementation-which means acknowledging that, for students with disabilities and other marginalized students to benefit from the purpose of inclusion, the special education and general education teachers who are at the forefront of implementing educative programs related to inclusive classrooms must have the relevant skills and training (Hoppey, 2016; McCray & McHatton, 2011).

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

10

Other problems related to the stated issues include the high rate of teacher attrition after five years of teaching and the importance of buy-in and acceptance of teachers to practice inclusion in their classroom, primarily if we reflect on the research findings by Gill et al. (2009), which revealed that preservice teachers become “progressively more negative towards the inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom setting.” (p. 3). The high attrition rate could also be alluded to as frustrations by teachers as lacking the proper skills that would help them provide effective instructions to align the curriculum and clinical practice in a diverse classroom population (Waddell & Vartuli, 2015).

Education programs must take the lead to ensure teachers are equipped with superior knowledge of inclusion to teach classrooms that are made up of diverse student populations (Allday et al., 2013). In addition, there is a need for the scrutinization of teacher education and “a rigorous research agenda…We need greater commitment on the part of the federal government and professional organizations to fund multi-institutional, longitudinal studies of teacher education.”

(Brownell et al., 2005, p. 242).

To find solutions to these problems, we must vigorously attempt to explore the feelings of teachers and how ready they felt prepared. In other words, “Classroom teachers have much to tell us if we would but listen…do teachers possess sufficient valor to implement strategies taught in general special education courses? Are teachers missing the connection between coursework and the world of practice? These are other areas vying for clarifications, solutions, and future studies.” (Logan & Wimer, 2013, p. 7). Furthermore, “An overview of practices in inclusive education can inform stakeholders of the status of inclusive education, describing the contextual factors which affect program implementation, and make recommendations of practical start-up or improvement steps for inclusive education program.” (Tahir et al., 2019, p. 17).

The debate about the preparedness of teachers to practice equity and be culturally responsive in inclusive classrooms has continued to dominate educational discourse around the globe, including in the United States of America, more than ever before. Agreed, schools are embracing the idea that universities or colleges are training teachers. However, “the role, value and relevance of university-based teacher education are being questioned at a time when the movement of people is changing the demographics of schooling and inequities are expanding.”

(Florian & Camedda, 2020, p. 4).

Furthermore, “Students with social identities positioned as different from the reference norm (e.g., disabled, non-white, non-binary, etc.) experience various inter-connected forms of systematic oppression that relegate them to the physical and social margins of schools.” (Siuty, 2019, p.38). The implications of these are that we cannot relent as a society and as educators until true inclusion is in total practice. We must continue to evaluate and reevaluate our programs through the process of inquiry and research by reviewing the practices in the field from the perspectives of teachers who are at the forefront of implementing the inclusion programs.

Method The purpose of this research study was to evaluate the effectiveness of inclusion courses in teacher education at four-year universities from the perspectives of first and second-year teachers 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

11

in general, alternative, and special education classrooms in k-12 public schools. The expected outcomes were as follows: 1. The expectation is to determine if there would be a need to increase the number of credits of the inclusion courses and the content taught in the universities or colleges 2. If there would be a need to review the course content to reflect multiple courses 3. If there would be a need to restructure current instructional strategies in teaching identified courses that emphasize skills infield practice.

4. If there would be a need to build a foundational understanding in teacher education of cultural and environmental differences that impact students’ learning.

The inclusion courses were created in universities or colleges in response to societal outcries of exclusionary practices to segregate students with learning disabilities in K-12 classrooms. The root cause of these practices was ascribed to teachers’ lack of skills to integrate students with disabilities and without disabilities in the same classroom environment. It is anticipated that by developing inclusion courses and educating teachers on the principles of inclusion, teachers would be able to take on the challenges of managing an inclusion classroom and establishing equitable practices that will help all students to belong and be successful in academic and social outcomes (Stites et al., 2018).

A mixed methods approach was used to add value to the predominantly qualitative research study (Creswell, 2014). The use of mixed method research offered a deeper understanding of the phenomenon, authentication, and credibility as the method allows the triangulation of information (Caruth, 2013; Doyle et al., 2009). By using the mixed method of research, the researchers in this study explored the different perspectives of their research participants and unveiled the relationships that exist between the many research questions (Shorten & Smith, 2017).

Participants The participants in this study were a random sampling of 34 public school teachers recruited from different public schools located in the mid-western state of Iowa in the United States. The researchers’ goal was to survey approximately 50 teachers with one to two years of experience in their teaching careers. However, even with the use of the snowball sampling technique to reach the intended sample size, only 34 participants responded by completing the questionnaire that was sent out via emails, using the snowballing technique of referrals to reach the sampled population.

The snowballing sampling technique has been used in qualitative and social science research to access hard-to-reach sample populations and is considered effective for gathering data in research (Hancock & Gile, 2011). The snowballing method has been validated as an effective technique that can yield important research data, which includes social knowledge and power relations (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981). Furthermore, snowballing has the advantage of lower cost in terms of transportation, which made it convenient for the researchers to select this method as it saved them a lot of travel costs and other financial responsibilities that would have been incurred to travel around different cities within the State of Iowa to reach their participants. In consideration of the highlighted benefits, the researchers using the snowballing method were 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

12

able to survey their research participants using contact information that was provided by other informants (Naderifar et al., 2017).

The first step the researchers took to access the sampled population was identifying key personnel within their department of education at Morningside University, with Dr. LuAnn Haase, who was retiring as a dean. Because she was retiring, she had a secondary position as the Initial Intern MAT Program Coordinator. The program Coordinator sent out several emails to her contacts across the school districts in Iowa introducing the researchers and explaining the purpose of their research in the emails and asking for assistance on their behalf to link up teachers that fell within their sample population.

The second step the researchers used to collect their data was to send out emails to Iowa’s nine Area Education Agencies (AEA). The email included a brief description of the study and a request for emails of teachers that fit the target population. Two out of the eleven responses resulted in a total of 180 emails which were utilized to send out the survey questionnaire online.

However, only 34 total participant respondents were received back by the researchers, resulting in a 5.3% participation rate.

Characteristics of Participants The inclusion characteristics of the participants were as follows: 1. Participants must be between the age of 21-60 years 2. Participants must have attended and graduated from a four-year college or university 3. Participants must have taken inclusion or co-teaching courses at the college or university 4. Participants must have taught for a minimum of one year and a maximum of two years 5. Participants must be working in a public school 6. Participants must be teaching in an inclusion classroom 7. Participants may have acquired their teacher certification through alternative or traditional education program 8. Participants must be teaching in a public school located in the geographic region of Iowa State.

Ethical Considerations This study was conducted with 34 consenting adults who were within the age range of 21-60 years and could make their own legal decisions. Furthermore, the researchers made full disclosure at the top of the questionnaire document sent out through participants’ email addresses. The researchers described the purpose of the study and asked for their voluntary consent. If they agree to participate in the study. Also, participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time without any liability. In addition, participants’ names and personal information were not required in the survey questionnaire, which provided the participants of the study privacy and protection against any form of coercion.

Data Sources and Instrumentation The choice of using a survey questionnaire as a data collection tool by the researchers was based on the advantage that it was a more straightforward method to use to collect data from many participants of a study (Harrell & Bradley, 2009). Furthermore, a survey questionnaire tool can 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

13

be used to administer a mix of open-ended and closed-ended questions, which were the format of asking questions that the researchers used to collect data from their respondents. (Harrell & Bradley, 2009). In addition, the use of a survey research questionnaire is a recommended technique in the social science field, mainly if the study includes statistical analysis (Suchman & Jordan, 1990). Based on the rationale that these researchers were using the quantitative research method as a supplemental approach to add value to the dominant qualitative methodology in the study, the use of a survey questionnaire as a standardized data collection procedure was considered appropriate.

Google forms facilitated the mass electronic distribution of invitations to participate, a description of the survey with a statement of purpose, risks, benefits, confidentiality, and a statement of implied consent. The site allowed the researchers to provide personal contact information, a link to the survey, and a source for data collection. All responses to the survey were anonymous. The survey responses were downloaded into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and imported into jamovi, a statistical spreadsheet.

The survey for this study was comprised of 18 items. Survey items 1-10 were selected-response questions, and 11-18 were open-ended response questions. Participants responded to questions 13 using a 7-point Likert-type scale. Survey question one asked participants to rate satisfaction with the effectiveness of inclusion courses on current practice. Survey question two asked the participants to rate satisfaction with the skills acquired from the inclusion courses. Survey question three asked the participants to rate satisfaction with the school leadership’s support for the implementation of co-teaching and inclusive practices. Participants responded to question four using a 3-point Likert-type scale. Survey question four asked the participants to rate their knowledge levels of the inclusion principles from student diversity and educational practices and or survey of exceptionalities courses.

Survey items 5-10 asked participants general information questions. Survey questions five, six, and seven asked participants’ highest level of education completed, years of service in a public k-12 classroom, and the type of teacher preparation program attended. Survey questions eight, nine, and ten asked participants to describe their current classroom assignment, and whether the participants were co-teachers, as well as grade levels taught.

Survey question 11 asked participants to describe the inclusion courses taken during the licensure program. Survey question 12 asked participants to describe and explain the effectiveness of the inclusion course in preparing the participant for the classroom. Survey question 13 asked the participants, “what are your current challenges as a teacher working with diverse student populations?” Survey question 14 asked participants what additions and or revisions based on their experiences from current practice do you believe should be made to the student diversity and education practices or survey of exceptionalities courses to make the preservice training relevant to teachers’ field practices.

Survey question 15 asked whether the participant participated in field experience during preservice teaching and, if so, how relevant the experience was to their current practice. Survey question 16 asked participants to describe administrative support in professional development to enhance knowledge of inclusive practices. Survey question 17 asked participants regarding their 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

14

suggestions for future teachers toward preparation to teach in a diverse classroom. In survey question 18, participants were asked to provide their overall comments.

Data Analysis Approach The data collected in this study involved the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data as a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data was collected in the form of responses to demographic questions and Likert-scale ranking to assess opinions, attitudes, or behaviors.

Additionally, qualitative data were collected through open-ended responses. The qualitative data was collected to identify emerging themes beyond the numeric trends identified in the quantitative data. The focus was on gaining insight into the perspectives of the teachers as they shared their work experiences in inclusion classrooms based on the impact of the inclusion courses they had studied at the university or college. The perspectives of teachers were anticipated to help highlight the effectiveness of university or college inclusion courses regarding the scope and level of preparedness amongst new teachers to further the cause of attaining true diversity and equitable practices in the nation’s school system.

To analyze the quantitative data in this study, descriptive statistics were utilized as the statistical relationship between variables was not examined. The qualitative data in this study were analyzed using thematic analysis of the open-ended responses. The presentation of results from the data will be organized and presented by research question after the presentation of the general information data. The respective data analysis approaches were selected to answer the following research questions: Quantitative Research Questions 1. How do teachers rate on a scale of 1 -5 the effectiveness of the included courses on their current field practice as inclusion classroom teachers?

2. How do teachers rate the skills they acquired from their inclusion courses on a scale of 15?

3. How do teachers rate the quality of their inclusion courses from the university or college on a scale of 1-5?

4. How do teachers rate school leadership support for co-teachers and the implementation of inclusive practices in their classroom on a scale of 1-5?

5. How do teachers rate their knowledge of the principles of inclusion on a scale of 1-5 based on the skills they acquired from the inclusion class in the university or college?

Qualitative Research Questions 1. How do teachers describe the courses they studied in the university that prepared them to teach in the inclusion classroom?

2. How do teachers describe the specific skills they acquired from the inclusion course they took at the University in terms of preparation to handle students with and without disabilities?

3. How do teachers describe the impact of the University/College inclusion course(s) they studied on their current classroom practice?

4. How do teachers assess the quality and effectiveness of their current practice based on the University/College inclusion coursework they took?

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

15

5. Do teachers feel their university education inclusion course adequately prepared them to assume the role of an inclusion teacher?

6. What changes do teachers believe are needed in University/College curriculum and instruction inclusion courses?

7. What do teachers believe should be included in teachers’ university education to prepare new teachers for the inclusion classroom?

Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages, were computed for selected response survey items 1-4 and general information items 5-10. Selected response survey items 1-4 involved the use of the Likert scale ranking in which participants were asked questions corresponding to quantitative research questions 1-5. Descriptive statistics were also used for the presentation of the quantitative question 15, which also involved the use of the Likert scale ranking.

To answer the qualitative research questions in this study, the data was collected through openended survey questions. A content analysis approach was utilized to identify themes from the qualitative data. Content analysis involves the identification of patterns within text data to identify themes and concepts from within the data (Krippendorff, 2018; Stemler, 2015). Given the limited sample size and open-ended content available within the data collected from openended survey questions, the use of content analysis was determined to be appropriate for the qualitative data.

Results One-hundred eighty surveys were distributed to first- and second-year K-12 Iowa public school teachers. A total of 34 of the teachers responded to and completed the survey (5.3%).

General Information Data The general information collected from the survey respondents included participants’ years of service in a public K-12 classroom, whether or not the participants were co-teachers, highest degree earned, and the type of teacher preparation program attended. Thirty-four teachers responded to these questions. The responses to the general information questions presented to participants are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Years Teaching, Co-Teacher, Degree Completed, Type of Teacher Preparation Program Characteristic Years teaching 1 year 2 years Co-teacher No Yes Highest Degree Earned Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree

Frequency (n)

Percentage (%)

17 17

50.0 50.0

29 5

85.3 14.7

27 4

79.4 11.8

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

16

Doctorate Type of Teacher Prep Program Alternative Master’s initial licensure Traditional undergraduate

3

8.8

13 2 19

38.2 5.9 55.9

Teachers (N = 34) were asked how many years they had been teaching full-time. Seventeen (50%) were in their first year of teaching, and 17 (50%) were teaching in their second year.

Twenty-nine (85.3%) respondents were not co-teachers, and five (14.7%) were co-teachers.

Thirteen (38.2%) of the teachers attended an alternative type of teacher preparation program, two (5.9%) attended a master’s initial licensure program, and 19 (55.9%) attended a traditional undergraduate teacher preparation program.

Further general information collected from the survey respondents included current classroom assignments and grade levels taught. Thirty-four teachers responded to these questions. This information is presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Current Classroom Assignments and Grade Levels Characteristic Classroom assignment General education General education inclusion Special education Grade levels Pre K-5th 6-8th 9-12th K-8th 6-12th

Frequency (n)

Percentage (%)

12 16 6

35.3 47.1 17.6

9 12 9 1 3

26.5 35.3 26.5 2.7 9.0

Twelve (35.3%) teachers were assigned to a general education classroom; 16 (47.1%) teachers were assigned to a general education inclusion classroom teaching students with and without disabilities, whereas six (17.6%) teachers were assigned to a special education classroom.

Teachers were asked to indicate the grade levels taught. Thirty-four respondents revealed fivegrade level ranges, as presented in Table 2. Twelve (35.3%) teachers taught 6-8 th grades.

Quantitative Results The responses to the quantitative were examined using descriptive statistics. The results of the data analysis and description by research question are included below.

How do teachers rate on a scale of 1 -5 the effectiveness of the inclusion courses on their current field practice as inclusion classroom teachers?

In survey question one, participants were asked to rate satisfaction with the effectiveness of inclusion courses on current practice. The participant responses are included in Table 3. As reflected within the table, the greatest frequency of participants expressed they were satisfied 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

17

(n=13, 38.2%) with the effectiveness of inclusion courses on their current field practice as inclusion classroom teachers. A total of six participants (17.6%) expressed they were completely dissatisfied, dissatisfied, or somewhat dissatisfied with the effectiveness of the inclusion courses on current practice compared to 23 (67.6%) participants that expressed they were somewhat satisfied, satisfied, or completely satisfied with the inclusion courses on their current field practice as inclusion classroom teachers.

Table 3 Satisfaction with the Effectiveness of Inclusion Courses on Current Practice Response Completely dissatisfied Dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied Somewhat satisfied Satisfied Completely satisfied Note. Total number of participants (n) = 34

Frequency (n) 1 1 4 5 5 13 5

Percentage (%) 2.9 2.9 11.8 14.7 14.7 38.2 14.7

How do teachers rate the skills they acquired from their inclusion courses on a scale of 1-5?

In survey question two, participants were asked to rate satisfaction with the skills acquired from the inclusion courses. The participant responses are included in Table 4. The greatest frequency of participants expressed they were satisfied (n=9, 26.5%) with the effectiveness of inclusion courses on their current field practice as inclusion classroom teachers. A total of five participants (14.7%) expressed they were completely dissatisfied, dissatisfied, or somewhat dissatisfied with the effectiveness of the inclusion courses on current practice compared to 22 (64.7%) participants that expressed they were somewhat satisfied, satisfied, or completely satisfied inclusion courses on their current field practice as inclusion classroom teachers.

Table 4 Satisfaction with the Skills Acquired from Inclusion Courses (n=34) Response Completely dissatisfied Dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied Somewhat satisfied Satisfied Completely satisfied

Frequency (n) 1 2 2 7 8 9 5

Percentage (%) 2.9 5.9 5.9 20.6 23.5 26.5 14.7

How do teachers rate the quality of their inclusion courses from the university or college on a scale of 1-5?

Survey question 15 asked whether or not the participant participated in field experience during preservice teaching and if so, how relevant the experience was to their current practice. Seven of the 34 participants expressed that they did not participate in an inclusion course from their 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 18

university or college and 27 participants expressed that they did participate in an inclusion course. Six of the 27 participants (22.2%) that answered that they participated in an inclusion course within their college or university ranked the program with a 2. The remaining 21 participants (77.8%) ranked the program with a 3. The open-ended responses corresponding to survey question 15 are presented in the presentation of the qualitative data (see Table 7).

How do teachers rate school leadership support for co-teachers and the implementation of inclusive practices in their classroom on a scale of 1-5?

Survey question three asked the participants to rate satisfaction with the school leadership’s support for the implementation of co-teaching and inclusive practices. The results of the responses to survey question three are presented in Table 5. The greatest frequency of participants expressed they were completely satisfied (n=8, 23.5%) with the school leadership’s support for the implementation of co-teaching and inclusive practices. A total of ten participants (29.4%) expressed they were completely dissatisfied, dissatisfied, or somewhat dissatisfied with the effectiveness of the inclusion courses on current practice compared to 20 (58.8%) participants that expressed they were somewhat satisfied, satisfied, or completely satisfied inclusion with the courses on their current field practice as inclusion classroom teachers.

Table 5 Satisfaction with School Leadership Support for the Implementation of Co-teaching and Inclusive Practices (n=34) Percentage (%) Response Frequency (n) Completely dissatisfied 3 8.8 Dissatisfied 3 8.8 Somewhat dissatisfied 4 11.8 Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 4 11.8 Somewhat satisfied 5 14.7 Satisfied 7 20.6 Completely satisfied 8 23.5 How do teachers rate their knowledge of the principles of inclusion on a scale of 1-5 based on the skills they acquired from the inclusion class in the university or college?

Survey question four asked the participants to rate their knowledge levels of the inclusion principles from student diversity and educational practices and or survey of exceptionalities courses. As reflected in Table 6, the majority of participants (n=26, 76.5%) responded that they were somewhat knowledgeable of the principles of inclusion based on the skills they acquired from the inclusion class in the university or college. One participant responded that they were not knowledgeable (2.9%), and seven participants responded that they had advanced knowledge of the principles of inclusion (20.6%).

Table 6 Knowledge Levels of Inclusion Principles from Educational Practices and or Courses (n=34) Response Frequency (n) Percentage (%) Not knowledgeable 1 2.9 Somewhat knowledgeable 26 76.5 Advanced knowledge 7 20.6 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

19

Qualitative Results The responses to the qualitative research questions are presented by the research question. The point at which data saturation was determined to be met for each theme identification was at 7 of the 34 participants (20.6%).

How do teachers describe the courses they studied in the university that prepared them to teach in the inclusion classroom?

In survey question 11, participants were asked to describe the inclusion courses taken during the licensure program. From the responses to survey question 11, as reflected in Table 7, three themes were identified: (a) the inclusion course was introductory and provided basic knowledge, (b) the inclusion course was a positive and beneficial experience, and (c) there was a need for additional resources beyond the inclusion course for practical application in the classroom.

Table 7 Data Themes: How do teachers describe the courses they studied in the university that prepared them to teach in the inclusion classroom?

Data themes The inclusion course was introductory and provided a basic knowledge The inclusion course was a positive and beneficial experience

Need for additional resources beyond the inclusion course for

Number of Illustrative quotes Participants 7 Introductory, becoming aware that students from various backgrounds will have different social expectations.

Covered the basics Adequate

15

It gave me a basic knowledge of student diversity and different types of students I could work with but nothing beyond that basic knowledge Very informative! I learned a lot […]

Great course that provided a variety of general knowledge which helped me have resources for all the different types of classes I teach and students I have.

Beneficial in helping me gain the knowledge that I needed to know how to best serve my students and to support them in the general education classroom so that they can be included and can participate.

9

I thought that it was great and a great way to start the program.

There was one course that covered special education and that was it.

Very general and situational. Nothing working towards helping us in the classroom.

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

20

practical application in the classroom

I recall reading about the many ways that students differ from each other. Exactly how to utilize that information I don’t recall learning. I have had to figure it out as I taught. The intellectual and emotional abilities of the students varied each semester. Just when I think I have it figured out, a new situation arises.

It taught a lot about how to not be racist which is perfectly valid and necessary to teach. However, I do not recall being taught any tools for growing students understanding of diversity and how to promote proper inclusion in a classroom.

How do teachers describe the specific skills they acquired from the inclusion course they took at the University in terms of preparation to handle students with and without disabilities?

Survey question 15 asked participants whether or not they participated in field experience during preservice teaching and if so, how relevant was the experience to their current practice. In the open-ended response, four of 34 participants did not respond. Of the 30 participants that did respond, 19 participants (63.3%) expanded their response to state that the program was relevant and helpful in providing practical experience. Additional details regarding how the program was relevant were limited. Eight participants (26.7%) expressed that the field experiences had limited relevance or that the effectiveness of the field experience could have been improved.

How do teachers describe the impact of the University/College inclusion course(s) they studied on their current classroom practice?

Survey question 14 asked participants, “what additions and or revisions based on your experiences from current practice do you believe should be made to the student diversity and education practices or survey of exceptionalities courses to make the pre-service training relevant to teachers’ field practices?”. Eight of 34 participants did not respond to survey question 14. Due to the reduced number of participant responses, data saturation for each theme was set at 6 participants (23.1%). From the 26 responses that were received, the following themes were identified, as reflected in Table 8: (a) no changes are needed, and (b) a need for more practical skills and practice that can be implemented in the classroom.

Table 8 Data Themes: How do teachers describe the impact of the University/College inclusion course(s) they studied on their current classroom practice?

Data themes No changes are needed

Number of Illustrative Quotes Participants 6 None! Just treat everybody by the content of their character and not their skin color.

I think it should stay the same.

I can’t think of any at the moment.

More practical 14 Talk and learn from other teachers’ experiences. skills and 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

21

practice can be implemented in the classroom

Focus on techniques instead of the facts I think we need to practice having conversations and talking about it as staff not just be passive listeners in training but active participants. Like role play More real-life scenarios to practice accommodating all students.

Give practical ways to adapt your lessons that are easy to implement for any type of lesson

How do teachers assess the quality and effectiveness of their current practice based on the University/College inclusion coursework they took?

Survey question 16 asked participants to describe administrative support in professional development to enhance their knowledge of inclusive practices. Eight of 34 participants responded N/A or did not respond to the question. Of the remaining 26 participants that responded to the question, 15 participants (57.7) expressed that the administrative supports were available, helpful, and receptive to new opportunities and involvement. Nine participants (34.6%) expressed a specific lack of support and/or a lack of attention to inclusion practices within with school in which they work.

Do teachers feel their university education inclusion course adequately prepared them to assume the role of an inclusion teacher?

Survey question 12 asked participants to describe and explain the effectiveness of the inclusion course in preparing them for the classroom. As reflected in Table 9, two themes were identified from the open-ended responses of study participants: (a) the inclusion course was very effective in preparing participants for the classroom, and (b) the inclusion course was somewhat ineffective as there was a need for additional education on how to address real situations in the classroom.

Table 9 Data Themes: Do teachers feel their university education inclusion course adequately prepared them to assume the role of an inclusion teacher?

Data themes The inclusion course was very effective

Number of Illustrative quotes Participants 12 Incredibly effective. I feel aware of student needs and prepared to differentiate in a variety of ways.

Very effective, I feel very well prepared at my job for anything that comes up, and if I did need help, I have and know resources to reach out to.

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

22

It was effective because it helped me gain a better understanding of all types of students and how to best support them.

It prepared me for things I never thought I would have to work with, and it prepared me on how to handle these situations.

I think it was great because it gave me the perspective of many unique students and how their classroom experiences help them get to where they are today.

The inclusion course was somewhat ineffective as there was a need for additional education on how to address real situations in the classroom

17

It was decent but I think it would be nice to see instructors who have implemented real changes in their classrooms and hear them reflect on that.

They give me good ideas to use in my classroom for exceptional learners, but you won’t know how to accommodate for a student until you have met them and worked with them.

Somewhat effective. I have the knowledge of why this is important, but I want more resources and practical experience Considering there were not many courses I would say the effectiveness was low.

Like so many areas covered in the Alternative program, it is one thing to read about it, another to live it.

What changes do teachers believe are needed in University/College curriculum and instruction inclusion courses?

Survey question 13 asked the participants about their current challenges as a teacher working with diverse student populations. Three of the 34 participants did not respond to survey question 13. As reflected in Table 10, from participants’ open-ended responses, two themes were identified: (a) addressing the simultaneous needs of a diverse student population and (b) teaching content at different levels to meet differing academic needs. Within the first theme that was identified, the issue of language barriers and problem behaviors were identified as two subthemes.

Table 10 Data Themes: What changes do teachers believe are needed in University/College curriculum and instruction inclusion courses?

Data themes Data subthemes Addressing the simultaneous needs of a

Number of Illustrative quotes Participants 19 Getting them to work with students from different backgrounds.

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

23

diverse student population

Finding a way to differentiate for all and finding the time to work with students who need extra help.

How to effectively accommodate for all needs in my room to meet each student where they are for the maximum learning.

The language barrier for sure

language barriers among ELL students

Being an ESL teacher, my biggest challenge is understanding my students and their experiences. […]

Severe behaviors and how to support them. Social skills as well.

how to support students with problem behaviors Teaching content at different levels to meet differing academic needs

7

Having the necessary time to develop relationships with all of the students due to huge class sizes and teachers having to deal with large amounts of behaviors related to technology and cell phones.

Meeting everyone’s needs without letting those who are average get forgotten about. Sometimes you feel like you are catering to certain students much more and not to others.

Teaching material on different levels Learning how to best serve the students in their specific areas and how to help them make the most growth in their academic areas.

Assessing ability; is this student exhibiting learned helplessness or are they working at their top level.

Finding ways to make things possible for all students at once without me having to spend a bunch of extra time prepping things. Especially at the kindergarten level where all students, no matter their differences, need help with the basics

What do teachers believe should be included in teachers’ university education to prepare new teachers for the inclusion classroom?

In survey question 17, participants were asked to provide suggestions for future teachers toward preparation to teach in a diverse classroom. One participant out of 34 did not respond to survey question 17. Two themes were identified in response to survey question 17 and are presented in Table 11.

Table 11 Data Themes: What do teachers believe should be included in teachers’ university education to prepare new teachers for the inclusion classroom?

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

24

Data themes Utilize the experiences of other teachers and support of administrative staff as resources

Number of Illustrative Quotes Participants 8 Again, have an opportunity to lessen other teachers’ successes and failures.

Try to get experience watching others and have an open mind Find people to use as resources and keep up to date Take great notes and observations during student teaching.

Reach out to your cooperating teachers, admin, or colleagues for support.

Perhaps a workshop to discuss with teachers what they encounter and how to handle it. Identify the focus and discuss concrete strategies.

Be prepared to be flexible and open to learning through practice

10

it takes time to figure out how your classroom will work best and how to develop a relationship with your students that allows both sides to succeed.

Be prepared to have students at every level. Be careful how you talk to and about students because it makes a big impact.

Go into it open-minded and remember to always ask questions to gain a better understanding of the students or population that is in the school and how to best serve them.

Learn from experience.

As awkward and uncomfortable as it might make you feel to go into a classroom for the first time in a long time, it’s very helpful and gets you important exposure to the profession.

Discussion

In evaluating the effectiveness of university/college teacher preparation inclusion courses from the perspectives of beginning K-12 special education and general education teachers prepared in traditional and alternative teacher education programs, the quantitative results yielded in this study demonstrate that among each measured factor, the majority of participants were satisfied with their preparation program. Similarly, within the qualitative results, participants expressed their satisfaction with the knowledge obtained within their preparation programs, noting that the program helped them to consider how to best support students within a diverse classroom.

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

25

Despite the articulation of general satisfaction with preparation programs for diversity, inclusion, and equity, challenges and gaps within the programs were expressed. Participants noted a gap between knowledge and practice. Namely, the challenge remains in how to apply the lessons learned within preparation programs to support a diverse and sometimes challenging student population within the context of the classroom. Recommendations for integrating additional realworld examples and hands-on practice as part of training programs were recommended to improve teachers’ success in ensuring equity and inclusion within a diverse classroom. These should include school districts adopting and using hermeneutic approach in the professional development of teachers in their first two years of teaching assignment; by consistently reevaluating teachers’ practical skill’s development in the classroom and using veteran teachers as coaches and mentors to monitor their career trajectory in developing inclusion skills. In addition, school districts should consider using veteran teachers with double credentials in special and general education who have vast experience working with students’ population of diverse background, to help new teachers nurture their practical skills and real life applications.

Limitations and Future Research The major issue anticipated is in consideration of the COVID situation in the nation today, this research study focused on administering interview questionnaires as a data collection method.

Normally in qualitative research that deals with a face-to-face contact interview with human beings, the researcher can make immediate clarifications while talking to the participants and through observing their body language and facial expressions, can make deeper meaning from their responses. Secondly, the sampled participants were limited to the specific geographic region of Iowa State and therefore, limits research generalization. The research findings should be limited and analyzed only within the context of the geographic region of Iowa where the study was conducted.

Conclusion The findings of this study are relevant for both research and practice. First, the study contributes to the existing literature on diversity, inclusion, and equity, as well as the challenges faced in advancing inclusive education. Additionally, the research presents specific areas to address in practice. Integrating additional real-world examples and hands-on practice as part of training programs was recommended to improve teachers’ success in ensuring equity and inclusion within a diverse classroom is a key recommendation from this study. For policymakers, the inclusion of real-world experience should be a priority in improving educators’ experience and capacity to address inclusion and equity in practice.

References Arnesen, A. L., & Allan, J. (2009). Policies and Practices for teaching socio-cultural diversity: Concepts, principles, and challenges in teacher education. Council of Europe Publishing, CHP One, 10-16. ISBN 978-92-871-6440-7.

Allday, R. A., Neilsen-Gatti, S. & Hudson, T. M. (2013). Preparation for inclusion in teacher education pre-service curricula. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(4), 298311.

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

26

Banks, J.A. (2004). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice.

In J.A. Banks, & C.A.M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (2nd ed., pp. 3-29). Jossey-Bass.

Banks, J.A. (2001). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching.

Allyn & Bacon.

Bell, L. A. (2002). Sincere Fictions: The pedagogical challenges of preparing white teachers for multicultural classrooms. Equity and Experience in Education, 35(3), 236-244 Burns, T., & Shadoian-Gersing, V. (2010). The importance of effective teacher Education for diversity. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264079731-43n Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colon, E. P., & McCallum, C. L. (2005). Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison with general teacher education. The Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 242-252.

Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball Sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods and Research, 10, 141-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/004912418101000205 Caruth, G. D. (2013). Demystifying mixed methods research design: A review of the literature.

Meylana International Journal of Education, 3(2).

Creswell, W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th Ed.). Sage Darling-Hammond, L., (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 35-47.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Archives, 8, 1-1.

Doyle, L. Brady, A. M., Byrne, G. (2009). An overview of mixed methods of Research. Journal of Mixed Methods of Research in Nursing, 14(2), 175-185 Florian, L. & Camedda, D. (2020). Enhancing teacher education for inclusion. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 4-8.

Forlin, C. (2010). Reframing teacher education for inclusion. Teacher Education for Inclusion.

Gay, G. (2015). The what, why, and how of culturally responsive teaching: International mandates, challenges, and opportunities. Multicultural education review, 7(3), 123-139.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.

Gill, P., Sherman, R., & Sherman, C. (2009). The impact of initial field experience on preservice teachers’ attitude toward inclusion. Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Faculty Publications and Presentations. Paper 19.

Goldenberg, B. M. (2014). White teachers in urban classrooms: Embracing non-white students’ cultural capital for better teaching and learning. Urban Education, 49(1), 111-144 Graham, L. J., & Harwood, V. (2011). Developing capabilities for social inclusion: Engaging diversity through inclusive school communities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(1), 135-152.

Grant, C. & Gibson, M. (2011). Diversity and teacher education. Studying Diversity in Teacher Education, 19-62. https://www.academia.edu/529047/Diversity_and_teacher_education_A_historical_persp ective_on_research_andpolicy_chapter1 Gregory, J. (2018). Not my responsibility: The impact of separate special education systems on educator’s attitudes towards inclusion. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 13(1), 127-148.

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

27

Haddix, M. (2008). Beyond sociolinguistics: Towards a critical approach to cultural and linguistic diversity in teacher education. Language and Education, 22(5), 254-270.

Hancock, B., Ockleford, E., & Windridge, K. (2007). An Introduction to Qualitative Research.

Beverly Hancock.

Handcock, M. S., & Gile, K. J. (2011). Comment: On the concept of snowball sampling. Sociological methodology, 41(1), 367-371.

Harrell, M. C. & Bradley. A. M. (2009). Data collection methods: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. National Defense Institute. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_report/TR718.html Hatton, N. & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49 Hoppey, D. (2016). Developing educators for inclusive classrooms through rural schooluniversity. Partnership Rural Special Education Quarterly, 35(1), 13-22.

Imig, D., Wiserman, D., & Imig, S. (2011). Teacher education in United States of America.

Journal of Education for Teaching. International Research and Pedagogy, 37(4), 399408.

Jelas, Z. M. (2010). Learner diversity and inclusive education: A new paradigm for teacher education in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 201-204.

Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications.

Kumar, R., Zusho, A., & Bondie, R. (2018). Weaving cultural relevance and achievement motivation into inclusive classroom cultures. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 78-96.

Lancaster, J., & Bain, A. (2019). Designing university courses to improve preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of evidence-based inclusive practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(2), 51-65.

Liggett, T., & Finley, S. (2009). Upsetting the apple cart: Issues of diversity in preservice teacher education. Multicultural Education, 16(4), 33-38.

Lindner, K. T., Alnahdi, G. H., Wahl, S., & Schwab, S. (2019, July). Perceived differentiation and personalization teaching approaches in inclusive classrooms: perspectives of students and teachers. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 4, p. 58). Frontiers Media SA. Loewenberg, B. D., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511 Logan, B. E., & Wimer, G. (2013). Tracing inclusion: Determining teacher attitudes. Research in Higher Educational Journal, 20, 1-10.

Martin, R. J. (1994). Multicultural social reconstructionist education: Design for diversity in teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 21(3), 77-89.

McCray, E. D., & McHatton, P. A. (2011). Less afraid to have them in my classroom: Understanding pre-service general educators’ perceptions about inclusion. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(4), 135-155 McFalls, E.L. & Cobb-Roberts, D. (2001). Reducing resistance to diversity through cognitive dissonance instruction: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2),164-172.

Milner IV, H.R. (2010). What does teacher education have to do with teaching? Implications for diversity studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 118-131.

Morina, A., Cortes-Vega, M. D. & Molina, V. M. (2015). Faculty training: An unavoidable requirement for approaching more inclusive university classrooms. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(8), 795-806.

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

28

Naderifar, M., Goli, H., & Ghaljaie, F. (2017). Snowball Sampling: A purposeful method of sampling in qualitative research. Strides in Development of Medical Education, 14(3), 1-6. https://doi.org/5812/sdme.67670 National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.) nces.ed.gov/program/coe/indicator/cgg Peebles, J., & Mendaglio, S. (2014). Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms: Introducing the individual direct experience approach. Learning Landscapes, 7(2), 245-257.

Peterson-Ahmad, M.B., Hovey, K.A. & Peak, P.K. (2018). Pre-service teacher Perceptions and knowledge regarding professional development: Implications for teacher preparation programs. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 7(2), p. 1-17.

Plash, S. H., & Piotrowski, C. (2006). Retention issues: A study of Alabama special education teachers (Doctoral dissertation, University of West Florida).

Prasetyo, T., Rachmadtullah, R., Samsudin, A., & Aliyyah, R. R. (2021). General Teachers' Experience of the Brain's Natural Learning Systems-Based Instructional Approach in Inclusive Classroom. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 95-116.

Roose, I., Vantieghem, W., Vanderlinde, R., & Van Avermaet, P. (2019). Beliefs as filters for comparing inclusive classroom situations. Connecting teachers’ beliefs about teaching diverse learners to their noticing of inclusive classroom characteristics in videoclips. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 56, 140-151.

Russell, T., McPherson, S., & Martin, A.K. (2001). Coherence and collaboration in teacher education reform. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de l’education, 3755.

Shorten, A. & Smith, J. (2017). Mixed methods research: Expanding the evidence base.

Evidence-based nursing, 20(3), 74-75 Siuty, M. B. (2019). Teacher preparation as interruption or disruption? Understanding identity (re) constitution for critical inclusion. Teaching Teacher Education, 81(1), 38-49.

Smith, E. B. (2009). Approaches to Multicultural education in preservice teacher education: Philosophical frameworks and models for teaching. Multicultural Education, 16(3), 4550.

Solomona, R. P., Portelli, J. P., Daniel, B. J., & Campbell, A. (2005). The discourse of denial: How can white teacher candidates construct race, racism and white privilege. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(2), 147-169.

Sparapani, E. F. (1995). Pre-service teacher education major’s understanding to diversity and exceptionality. Paper presented at the association of teacher educator’s seventy-fifth annual meeting, Detroit, Michigan, February 1995 ED379 280, 1-31.

Stites, M. L., Rakes, C. R., Noggle, A.K., & Shaw, S. (2018). Preservice teacher perceptions of preparedness to teach in inclusive settings as an indicator of teacher preparation program effectiveness. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 9(2), 21-39 Stemler, S. E. (2015). Content analysis. In R. Scott and S. Kosslyn (Eds), Emerging Trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0053 Suchman, L., & Jordan, B. (1990). Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey interviews. Journal of the American statistical Association, 85(409), 232-241.

Tahir, K., Doelger, B., & Hynes, M. (2019). A case study on the ecology of inclusive education in the United States. Journal for Leadership and Instruction, 18(1), 17-24.Taylor, R. W., & Ringlaben, R. P. (2012). Impacting pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion.

Higher Education Studies, 2(3), 16-23.

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

29

Valentiin, S. (2006). Addressing diversity in teacher education programs. Education, 127(2), 196-202.

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of teacher education, 53(1), 20-32.

Vranjesevic, J. (2014). The main challenges in teacher education for diversity. Zbornik Institute za pedagoska istrazivanja, 46(2),473-485.

Waddell, J. & Vatuli, S. (2015). Moving from traditional teacher education to a field-based urban teacher education program: One programs story of reform. Professional Educator, 39(2).

Zeicherner, K. M. (1983). Alternative paradigms of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 3-9.

About the Authors Dr. Cordelia A. Yates has worked in the public school system for over 13 years, serving as an Elementary and Middle School Resource Specialist Teacher, and as a High School Special Education and Inclusion Teacher. Dr. Yates is dedicated to the professional development of teachers for exceptional and diverse classroom and has also, held different administrative positions including District Special Education Coordinator, Transition Program School Administrator, Special Education Administrator District Level and Learning Director. Dr. Yates currently teaches at Morningside University, Sioux City, Iowa as an Assistant Professor of Education. She is married with children.

Dr. Carolyn M. Glackin is an Assistant Professor of Education at Morningside University Sioux City, Iowa. Her career in public school teaching spanned 11 years in kindergarten, first and third grades. During that time, she was a lead instructor for the Picture Word Inductive Model (P.W.I.M.), which was part of the Iowa State Department of Education sponsored by Every Child Reads initiatives. She dedicated several years to providing professional development to Leadership teams in northwest Iowa as well as supervising student teachers. She currently currently teaches and advises education majors in the undergraduate program and is a course facilitator in the online graduate program at the Sharon Walker School of Education. She lives in northwest Iowa with her husband and children.

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

30

Efforts to Recruit and Retain Special Education Teachers in One Southern State Kelly E. Standridge, Ed.S. Jocelyn E. Belden, Ed.S. Elizabeth W. Colquitt, Ed.S. Robert C. Hendrick, Ph.D. Jonté A. Myers, Ph.D. David E. Houchins, Ph.D. Georgia State University Abstract Over the last four decades in the United States there has been a persistent shortage of special education teachers (SET). This study used a survey method to compare districts with a highshortage of SET to districts with a low-shortage of SET. Fifty-five Special Education Directors (n = 41) and Human Resources Directors (n = 14) from one southern state completed a 105-item online survey to rate, endorse, and describe strategies used to recruit and retain SET. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected. A two-tail t-test was used to compare ratings of 34 strategies across five domains: financial incentives, hiring, educator preparation, professional learning supports, and working conditions. Findings indicate similar ratings except for the domain of professional learning supports. A content analysis of qualitative data was conducted.

Thematic coding was used to identify effective strategies and on-going challenges. Implications for practices suggest a need for comprehensive approaches at the district level to address the SET shortages.

Efforts to Recruit and Retain Special Education Teachers in One Southern State There is a critical and persistent shortage of special education teachers (SET; Espinoza et al., 2018; McVey & Trinidad, 2019). Special education has the second highest level of staffing difficulties (National Center Education Statistics [NCES], 2021). Nationally, about 8% of SET positions are not filled by certified SET (Mason-Williams et al., 2020). The lack of uncertified SET in the southern United States is particularly problematic (McMurdock, 2022). For example, approximately 15% of all SET positions were filled by teachers with out-of-field certification, with waivers, or still in an educator preparation program in Georgia (Georgia Professional Standards Commission, 2019).

One potential contributing factor is the high-attrition rate of SET. The annual attrition rate of SET is around 13.5% (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Attrition rates include those leaving teaching altogether, moving from one school to another, or transferring from being a SET to a different position. Over one-third of SET leave the profession by the end of their third year (Conley & You, 2017). Common reasons why SET attrite include: (a) administrators not listening to their needs, (b) high workload, (c) too much emphasis on state testing, (d) legal challenges in special education, (e) paperwork, and (f) duties which take away from time with students (Nance & Calabrese, 2009). The attrition of SET may be even more alarming now as it appears that special education had more vacancies than any other teaching field because of COVID-19 (NCES, 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

31

2022). This is compounded by a decrease in enrollment in educator preparation programs (EPP) and by a lack prospective teacher candidates to fill the vacancies (McMurdock, 2022; NCES, 2022).

Teacher shortage areas are based on three criteria: (a) unfilled SET positions, (b) SET positions filled by teachers who are certified by irregular, provisional, temporary, or emergency certification, and (c) filled SET positions taught by teachers who are certified in a different area rather than special education (Cross, 2017). Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia report SET shortages (USDOE, 2022). Thus, special education is facing a shortage in quantity as well as quality when positions are filled by those not fully certified in special education (Boe & Cook, 2006; Houchins et al., 2004). Annually, approximately 22,000 SET leave the field (CarverThomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). Attrition can impact school system funding and student outcomes. The cost of turnover per SET is between $9,000 to $20,000. Costs include recruitment efforts, hiring, orientation, training, and other supports (Espinoza et al., 2018). SET attrition creates academic program inconsistency (McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008), disrupts studentteacher relationships, reduces the number of SET who are trained on the curriculum, and reduces staff who are familiar with the specific needs of students with disabilities (SWD; Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Espinoza et al., 2018; Thornton et al., 2007). SET shortages are likely to only worsen as the number of students identified as having a disability continues to increase while the number of available SET continue to decrease (NCES, 2021). To address this issue, school administrators need to understand factors associated with SET recruitment and retention. Hence, the current study aims to examine strategies used by school districts to recruit and retain SET. SET Recruitment Strategies Recruitment strategies for SET can be categorized in three domains (a) providing financial incentives, (b) using effective hiring practices, and (c) considering educator preparation (Collaboration for Effective Educators Development, Accountability, and Reform [CEEDAR] and Center on Great Teachers and Leaders [GTL], 2020; Learning Policy Institute [LPI], 2016; National Coalition on Personnel Shortages in Special Education and Related Services [NCPSSERS], 2021; Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP], 2020). Financial incentives include both salary and non-salary compensation initiatives. Although research is limited on specific compensation incentives, stipends of $2,500 and loan forgiveness of at least $10,000 can attract SET (Feng & Sass, 2018). Other compensation strategies include cost of education assistance, cost of living assistance, and cost of certification assistance (Espinoza et al., 2018; Mason-Williams et al., 2020). States with lower SET shortages have higher annual SET salaries (Peyton et al., 2020), suggesting that these initiatives are effective for address teacher shortages.

Financial incentives may attract newly certified teachers and veteran teachers.

States have also addressed SET shortages by implementing various effective hiring practices. For example, hiring and personnel management strategies can help with recruiting SET. This requires building administrators to communicate with district leaders in special education and human resources. It is recommended to have an earlier timeline for hiring and to review the process to determining the best fit for candidate to school (Dee & Goldhaber, 2017; Podolsky et al., 2019). Other hiring strategies include holding separate SET hiring events, having designated SET Human Resources staff, developing a marketing strategy, and honoring years of service from other districts and states (Dee & Goldhaber, 2017; LPI, 2016). Hiring efforts can focus on recruiting newly certified teachers and veteran teachers.

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

32

Educator preparation strategies may enhance the pipeline of applicants to enter special education.

Districts may establish “Grow Your Own” initiatives which include supporting teacher career pathways, identifying employees who may want to become certified SET, providing teacher residency programs, or assist candidates to prepare for certification tests (Ondrasek et al., 2020).

Districts may develop partnerships with local EPP and prioritize hiring locally (CEEDAR-GTL, 2020; Dee & Goldhaber, 2017). Additionally, student-teacher placement may influence where teachers choose to work (Goldhaber et al., 2021).

SET Retention Strategies Strategies that school districts use to enhance SET retention can be generally separated into two categories: (1) providing professional learning support and (2) improving working conditions (CEEDAR-GTL, 2020; LPI, 2016; NCPSSERS, 2021; OSEP, 2020). Research shows promising strategies for providing professional learning support for current SET to increase retention. SET can benefit from an induction and mentoring program, especially when the supports focus specifically on the unique role of the SET (Garcia & Weiss, 2019). Teacher support includes intentional professional learning opportunities on curriculum, variety of student needs, and cultural/linguistic diversity of students and their families (Ondrasek et al., 2020; Reitman & Karge, 2019). Other supports for SET include career advancement opportunities, coaching from trained staff, and collaboration with general education teachers to promote a positive school culture (Conley & You, 2017; Garcia & Weiss, 2019; Griffin, 2010).

Research on teacher perspectives of workplace conditions provides a glimpse into the array of factors which influence a teacher’s decision to stay in their current position or to leave (Billingsley, 2010; Conley & You, 2017). Local districts may collect data from SET annually to gain an understanding of what is working and what needs improvement (LPI, 2016; Stephens & Fish, 2010). The workplace conditions specific to SET which negatively impact their job satisfaction are caseload size, special education paperwork demands, and non-teaching responsibilities (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Ondrasek et al., 2020; Stephens & Fish, 2010).

Attrition research emphasizes the importance of an effective administrator who understands how to maintain working conditions that foster positive SET experiences characterized by inclusion, collaboration, and shared decision making (Billingsley, 2010; Sutcher et al., 2016). Strategies that support positive working conditions also include implementing fair evaluation systems, monitoring the well-being of SET, and increasing the diversity of the staff (CEEDAR-GTL, 2020; Rodl et al., 2018).

District-level Recruitment and Retention of SET Implementing research-based recruitment and retention practices requires a comprehensive local school system-level approach (CEEDAR-GTL, 2020; LPI, 2016; NCPSSERS, 2021; OSEP, 2020). Recruitment and retention practices of local school system-level special education directors and human resource directors play an important role in the staffing of SET (McVey & Trinidad, 2019; Peyton et al., 2020). Special education directors manage the special education aspects within the public-school system including programs, legal compliance, services, personnel, and budget. Human resource directors address certification requirements (Heneman & Milanowski, 2007). Both special education directors and human resource directors are front-line personnel who can inform the field regarding potentially effective and less effective strategies to 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

33

use. Yet, minimal data are available on the specific strategies local school districts use to recruit and retain SET (CEEDAR-GTL, 2020; LPI, 2016; NCPSSERS, 2021; OSEP, 2020).

Researchers have indicated there is need to examine the context of the shortages at a local level to identify effective strategies (Behrstock-Sherratt, 2016; McVey & Trinidad, 2019; Peyton et al., 2020). Strategies used by a low-shortage district (LSD) may inform the field with regards of what works in comparison to a high-shortage district (HSD). Additionally, data from special education directors and human resource directors regarding challenges they encounter (Behrstock-Sherratt, 2016; Boe et al., 2013) and the professional activities they use (NYSED, 2019) to promote the recruitment and retention of SET are needed to identify potential themes not currently represented by national level quantitative data.

Purpose Shortages in SET are a chronic issue in the United States (Espinoza et al., 2018; McVey & Trinidad, 2019; NCES, 2022). Research suggests that recruitment strategies such as providing financial incentives, using effective hiring practices, and considering teacher preparation (CEEDAR and GTL, 2020; NCPSSERS, 2022) may influence SET shortages. Similarly, SET retention strategies, such as providing professional learning support and improving working conditions (CEEDAR-GTL, 2020; LPI, 2016; NCPSSERS, 2021; OSEP, 2020) may contribute to reduced SET turnover. Yet, little is known about how special education directors and human resource directors from HSD compare to LSD when rating recruitment and retention strategies.

Special education directors and human resource directors from HSD and LSD may uniquely implement recruitment and retention strategies that influence SET shortages.

Comparing the practices of special education directors and human resource directors in HSD and LSD may yield findings that lead to viable solutions that reduce SET shortages (BehrstockSherratt, 2016; McVey & Trinidad, 2019; Peyton et al., 2020). This study was designed to gather data which may lead to a greater understanding of the effective recruitment and retention strategies across HSD and LSD. An understanding of these factors could impact current and future educational policy, program planning, and funding decisions at the local, state, and federal levels. Thus, the purpose of this research was to (a) explore the context of SET supply and demand at the local school district level, (b) compare strategies used by HSD and LSD, (c) identify challenges for recruiting and retaining SET at the district level, and (d) identify recommended practices and strategies from district leaders that may help alleviate the SET shortage.

We used the following five research questions to guide the current study: 1. How do high-shortage districts and low-shortage districts compare in the rating and implementation of recruitment and retention strategies of special education teachers?

2. What professional activities do Special Education Directors and Human Resource Directors engage in to promote the recruitment and retention of special education teachers?

3. What strategies do Special Education Directors and Human Resource Directors describe as most effective and helpful for the recruitment and retention of special education teachers?

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

34

4. What concerns do Special Education Directors and Human Resource Directors describe related to meeting the needs of special education workforce?

5. What are the challenges Special Education Directors and Human Resource Directions describe related to staffing special education teacher positions?

Method We used a non-experimental, multiple methods research design including quantitative and qualitative data collected through an online survey (Hunter & Brewer, 2015). Special education administrators and human resource directors were surveyed across one southern state in order to compare strategies to recruit and retain SET. Quantitative data are used to compare HSD to LSD. Qualitative data were used to explore what participants described to be barriers and facilitators in recruiting and retaining SET in their district.

Participants The participant pool included all Special Education Directors (n = 181) and Human Resources Directors (n =181) for each school district. Charter schools, specialized schools, and juvenile justice schools were excluded from the sample because of differences in staffing practices used in public schools and these institutions.

Instrumentation We administered a researcher-created, Qualtrics-administered survey comprised of 105 items, including 101 closed-ended items and 4 open-ended items to collect data for our analysis. The closed-ended items addressed school district demographics (n = 13), respondent demographics (n = 19), professional development activities (n = 1), and recruitment and retention strategies (n = 68). These items included Likert-type questions followed by binary questions (i.e., Yes/No) that reflected the 34 SET recruitment and retention strategies experts identify as effective for reducing SET shortage. (CEEDAR-GTL, 2020; LPI, 2016; NCPSSERS, 2021; OSEP, 2020).

These 34 strategies subsume five domains: (a) financial-incentives (n = 5); (b) hiring (n = 6); (c) educator-preparation (n = 7); (d) professional learning support (n = 8), and (e) working conditions (n = 8). For example, respondents used a 5-point Likert-scale to rate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that financial-incentive strategies could help recruit special education teachers to their district. The Likert-scale included the following options: (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neither disagree nor agree (4) agree, or (5) strongly agree. Then, respondents were asked if their district currently uses any of the financial-incentive strategies (e.g., Yes or No). This was repeated for each domain of strategies.

We included four open-ended response items to collect qualitative data to validate our quantitative findings. These questions addressed the challenges respondents faced in their school district in filling SET positions, and the strategies they felt were the most effective for retaining SETs in their respective school districts. Furthermore, respondents outlined their concerns about meeting the needs of the SET workforce in their school districts.

District level demographic data (e.g., number of SET positions unfilled, certification status) and participant demographic data (e.g., years teaching in special education, gender) were included.

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

35

Respondents also were provided with a list of recruitment and retention professional activities and asked to indicate whether their school district used any of them.

Data Collection University IRB approval was obtained prior to conducting research. The survey was created using six steps: (a) conducting a literature review, (b) gaining feedback from experts on survey construction, (c) synthesizing literature review and expert feedback, (d) developing items, (e) validating items based on expert feedback, and (f) refining items through cognitive interviewing (Artino et al., 2014; McVey & Trinidad, 2019). We obtained the names of the Special Education Director and Human Resource Director and contact information (i.e., email and telephone number) from school district websites. If a specific person for a particular position was not listed, we contacted the person with the closest job title. If the website did not provide contact information, the first author called the school district to obtain the information.

Participants identified from each school district were sent an introductory email about the study using the Qualtrics platform (https: //www.qualtrics.com). Three days later, participants received an email with the informed consent procedures and the survey link with a passcode with the option to stop participation at any time. One week later, participants received a follow-up email to thank them for participating or invite them to participate. To ensure all potential participants had been contacted, one month after emailing participants identified through school district websites, a representative from the State’s administrator-leadership organization distributed the survey to special education directors and human resource directors. Two months after the original distribution, a fourth distribution of the survey was emailed from the State Director or Special Education to a database of all local special education directors within the state. The same introductory email procedures were used.

Survey responses were maintained in Qualtrics and exported to Excel. A total of 351 surveys could be completed. The survey was closed after three months. Returned surveys were reviewed for completion. Surveys completed at 67% or more were retained. Surveys returned that did not adhere to the participant inclusion criteria and duplicates were excluded. We did not provide compensation for participating in the research.

Before quantitative data analysis could occur, HSD and LSD were identified. The number of full-time SET were recorded by district. The total number of positions reported on the items for teacher shortages (unfilled, filled by non-fully certified, or filled by uncertified in that subject) were recorded for each district. The sum of shortage was divided by full-time SET. A percentage was derived. Using the state’s average of a 15% SET shortage, districts under 15% were categorized as LSD, and districts at 15% or over were categorized as HSD. The first author trained to mastery two coders on thematic and content analysis with qualitative data (Neuendorf, 2019). Coders reviewed the steps of the process, as described by Neuendorf (2019), including: (a) read through data without any note taking, (b) read again and note ideas that are repeated, (c) compare ideas from each researcher, (d) develop a codebook, (e) review each line to extract word or phrase that match each code, (f) check agreement, (g) combine collated codes into themes, (h) re-read the data set to ensure saturation, (i) discuss themes to merge or disaggregate, and (j) tabulate for content analysis. Coders were provided practice data to analyze. To ensure inter-rater reliability (IRR), coders had to reach 80% agreement within the 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

36

codebook on the practice data with 10 sample statements. To be counted as an agreement, all researchers had to code the response under the same theme(s). The IRR was calculated as the number of agreements divided by the total number of agreements plus disagreements times 100.

After training and reaching 80% IRR, each coder was provided a copy of the survey responses for each of the four open-ended items.

Data Analysis Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. For research question one, data were tabulated based on an index for each point on the Likert scale in rating the helpfulness of each strategy. The mean score for each group was calculated for each of the 34 strategies, for each of the five domains, and for the strategies as a whole group. For each tabulation, the data were analyzed descriptively to summarize frequency, mean, and standard deviation. Independent sample t-tests (two-tailed, assuming unequal variance) were used to determine differences in means between HSD and LSD on ratings of helpfulness. The HolmBonferroni correction was applied for multiple t-tests to reduce the likelihood of Type 1 errors (Cabin & Mitchell, 2000). Descriptive statistics were used to compare frequency and percent of strategy implementation between HSD and LSD. For research question two, the quantitative data derived from one of the closed-ended questions were analyzed using descriptive methods. A frequency count was conducted to determine the percentage of respondents who endorsed engagement in each professional activity to help recruit and retain special education teachers. The data were tabulated for all respondents.

For research questions three, four and five, the qualitative data derived from the four openended, constructed response items were analyzed. The analysis was based on a blended approach of thematic and content analysis procedures (Neuendorf, 2019). The first author and the two coders analyzed the open-ended responses at the semantic level (Bengtsson, 2016). The three coders used an inductive process to read each response before taking any notes. Next, each coder reread the responses and independently listed definable categories (Neuendorf, 2019). The coders compared the lists of categories to determine if they were analyzing the data similarly.

The coders reached consensus on the categories to develop a codebook. They developed a definition for each category and identified what the category would include and exclude.

The three coders independently reread all remaining responses and conducted a line-by-line analysis to look for meaning units, or words or phrases that contain insights related to the research questions (Bengtsson, 2016). Each coder used a spreadsheet to code the meaning units into the categories as defined by the codebook. To ensure trustworthiness, coders’ inter-rater reliability (IRR) was achieved. (e.g., 80% agreement between coders across 95% of the codes; McAlister et al., 2017). The researcher tallied the responses for each of the four open-ended responses with an inter-rater agreement of 85%. For disagreements, the researcher highlighted cells that were not in agreement and the three coders discussed the appropriate choice for categorizing the data. Consensus was reached for all coded responses.

The responses were reviewed in another cycle (reiterative process) to refine the coding scheme to explore emergent ideas. In some cases, the three coders agreed to combine similar categories under one theme, and in other cases, they divided a category as a new theme emerged. To convert the qualitative data to a quantitative measure, the coders used a deductive process in the 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

37

content analysis procedure. The themes were ordered by most frequently cited to least frequently cited. The three coders independently reviewed each of the themes from the inductive process to determine if it matched one of the five a priori strategy domains as identified in the literature review. The initial inter-rater agreement was 92% (e.g., matches for 22 out of 24 themes). After discussion, consensus was reached. Using the line-by-line analysis and the coding spreadsheets, the frequencies of responses matching each of the five a priori strategy domains were recorded.

The counting of themes is a tool to convert qualitative data to quantifiable terms that can more effectively and reliably convey relative frequency of themes and elaborate on quantitative findings in exploratory analyses (Bazeley, 2006; Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006).

Results Of the 351 potential, usable surveys, one-hundred-nineteen (n = 119) surveys were returned to Qualtrics, resulting in a response rate of 33.9%. For data analysis, surveys which were completed at 67% or more were included. This resulted in 77 surveys. Twenty-two surveys were excluded because they were duplicates or were not completed by special education directors or human resource directors. The data analysis was based on 55 surveys from special education directors (n = 41) and human resource directors (n = 14).

Respondents represented 53 school districts across the state. Forty-six of the districts (86.79%) reported one or more positions that were (a) unfilled, (b) filled with someone with an emergency or provisional certificate, or (c) filled with someone with an out of field waiver. Seven districts (13.2%) reported no shortages for the three areas (see Table 1 for demographic details). When asked if they anticipated shortages for the next two years, 40 out of 48 (83.33%) respondents responded yes.

Research Question 1 asked “How do high-shortage districts and low-shortage districts compare in the rating and implementation of recruitment and retention strategies of special education teachers?” Forty-two surveys were included in the analysis for research question one. Out of the 55 surveys, nine respondents did not provide the number of teachers for each of the three shortage definitions. Four additional surveys did not include responses for all measured items.

Thirteen survey responses were not included for this question. Of the 42 valid responses, 13 emerged from HSD and 29 from LSD. Table 1 Demographics of Participants and Districts

Gender Female Male Prefer Not to Answer

All Respondents N = 55 n % 40 73 8 15 2 4

HighShortage n = 13 n % 9 69 2 15 2 15

LowShortage n = 29 n % 24 83 5 17

10

21

Role in District Director of Special Education

41

75

77

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

72

38

Director or Human Resources

14

25

3

23

8

28

AfricanAmerican/Black Asian Caucasian/White Indian/Native American Prefer Not to Answer

9

16

3

23

6

21

0 35 1

0 64 2

0 7 0

0 54 0

0 21 1

0 72 3

2

4

2

15

1

3

10000+ 5000 -9999 1000-4999 500-999 100-499 <100

1 2 3 5 16 29 10 18 24 44 1 2

0 1 1 3 7 0

0 8 8 23 54 0

0 1 9 3 14 1

0 3 31 10 48 3

Unfilled Emergency/provisional Out of Field

26 47 35 64 28 51

9 10 10

69 77 77

10 16 10

34 55 34

Race/Identity

Number of SWD

Teacher Shortage Area with at least one position:

Overall Summary We summarize our findings for the five domains in Table 2. Our results showed HSD mean helpfulness of strategies rating ranged from 4.32 to 4.80 while those from LSD ranged from 4.03 to 4.37. The mean rating for HSD was higher than LSD across all 5 domains. Notably, the domain addressing professional learning supports was the highest for both HSD and LSD, and the domain focused on hiring practices was the lowest for both. Overall, when comparing all the strategies implemented, a higher percentage of LSD implement 13 of the 34 strategies whereas a higher percentage of HSD implement 17 of the 34 strategies. Four strategies were implemented at the same percentage. HSD rated 28 of the 34 strategies higher than the LSD, with five being statistically significant in one domain.

Only one of the comparisons between HSD and LSD yielded significant differences. For professional learning supports, we found that HSD (M = 4.80, SD = 0.38) reported higher helpfulness ratings than LSD (M = 4.37, SD = 0.54; t (32) = 2.93, p < .03). The p values for the differences in the mean ratings of the remaining domains and the overall mean (i.e., all strategies) were larger than the adjusted p-value (i.e., .03), suggesting that there were no meaningful differences in the means for HSD and LSD. Table 2 Rating of Helpfulness of Strategies by High and Low-Shortage Districts Strategy Domain

HighShortage

LowShortage

t(32)

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

p 39

(n = 13) (n = 29) M SD M SD Financial Incentives 4.32 .66 4.13 .69 0.86 .40 Hiring Practices 4.27 .69 4.03 .59 1.09 .29 Educator Prep 4.56 .43 4.28 .58 1.74 .09 Professional Learning 4.80a .38 4.37b .54 2.93 .01* Working Conditions 4.47 .44 4.34 .49 0.90 .38 All Strategies 4.48 .21 4.23 .14 2.24 .06 Note. The range of df is from 20 to 32.

Means with a different subscript have a statistically significant difference at α = .05 according to the Holm-Bonferroni corrected adjusted α of .03.

Financial Incentives Strategies Table 3 summarizes the findings for financial incentives strategies. A higher percentage of LSD implement one of the five strategies (i.e., provide loan forgiveness) whereas, a higher percentage of HSD implement three of the five strategies (i.e. provide supplemental pay, ., pay for special ed certification tests, provide cost of education assistance). One strategy (i.e provide cost of living expenses) was not implemented by any district. Results showed no significant differences in the mean helpfulness ratings across the financial incentive strategies used by HSD and LSD. Table 3 Helpfulness and Implementation of Financial Strategies by High and Low-Shortage Districts Financial Incentive Helpfulness of Strategy Implemented in District Strategies HighLowt(24) p HighLowShortage Shortage Shortage Shortage (n = 13) (n = 29) (n = 13) (n = 29) M SD M SD n % n % 4.62. .51 4.45 .91 0.76. .45 5 38 7 24 Provide supplemental pay for SETs Pay for Special Ed certification tests Provide cost of education assistance (tuition, technology, textbooks, etc) Provide cost of living assistance (e.g child- care, housing, moving)

4.46 .88

4.41 .78

0.17

.87

10 77

21

72

4.17 .80

-0.28

.78

4

31

2

7

3.41 1.21

0.99

.33.

0

0

0

0

4.08 1.12

3.77 1.01

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

40

Provide loan forgiveness or service scholarship assistance Overall

4.69

.48

4.21 1.11

4.32 .66

4.13 .69

1.97

.06

0.86

.40

1

8

4

14

Hiring Practices Strategies Table 4 presents findings related to districts’ hiring practices. A higher percentage of LSD implement three of the six strategies (i.e., designate a staff person to focus on SET staffing, honor years of service from in and out of state) whereas, a higher percentage of HSD implement the other three (i.e., hold separate hiring events, have earlier timelines for hiring, and develop a marketing strategy for SET recruitment). There were no significant differences for helpfulness for hiring practice means implemented.

Table 4 Helpfulness and Implementation of Hiring Strategies by High and Low-Shortage Districts Hiring Helpfulness of Strategy Implemented in District Strategies HighLowt(20) p HighLowShortage Shortage Shortage Shortage (n = 13) (n = 29) (n = 13) (n = 29) M SD M SD n % n % * Hold separate 4.15 .90 3.38 1.12 2.39 .02 1 8 2 7 hiring events for special education positions Have a designated staff person who works in or with HR to focus on special education staffing concerns

4.23

.73

3.90 .98

1.23

.23

3 23

7 24

Have earlier timelines for recruiting for special education positions compared general education

4.31 .85

4.07 .80

0.85

.40

3

23

6

21

Develop a marketing strategy for recruiting SETs (social

4.54 .66

4.14 .79

1.71

.10

2 15

4

14

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

41

media, advertising) Honor years of service from out of system but from within Georgia

4.23

Honor years of service from out of state Overall

.83

4.34 .72

-0.43 .67

9 69

22

4.15 .90

4.34

-0.66 .51

7 54

18 62

4.27

4.03 .59

.69

.77

1.09

76

.29

Educator Preparation Program Strategies Table 5 summarizes findings related to educator preparation program strategies. Estimates showed a higher proportion of LSD implemented four of the seven educator preparation strategies (i.e., teacher residency program, teacher as a profession pathway in high school, student teacher experience from EPP in P20, and prioritize hiring SETS from P20) than HSD, while the latter group had higher proportions in three strategies (i.e., provide special ed certification support, para-professional to teacher certification, and alternative teacher preparation program). Results showed there are no significant differences in the mean helpfulness ratings of HSD and LSD across the seven strategies.

Table 5 Helpfulness and Implementation of Educator Preparation Strategies by High and Low-Shortage Districts Educator Prep Helpfulness of Strategy Implemented in District Strategies HighLowLowt(31) p HighShortage Shortage Shortage Shortage (n = 13) (n = 29) (n = 29) (n = 13) M SD n % M SD n % * 4.62a .51 Provide special 13 45 7 54 4.14a .79 2.52 .02 education certification support (tutoring, ed TPA) Para-professional to Teacher certification program

4.69 .48

4.51 .63

0.98

.33

5

38

8

28

Alternative Teacher Preparation

4.69 .48

4.38 .68

1.71

.10

13

100

21

72

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

42

program (e.g. career changers, Troops to Teachers) Teacher Residency Program

4.69b .48

4.21b .82

2.40

Offer Teacher as a Profession career pathway in high school

4.23 .83

4.24 .91

Provide student teaching experience from programs in your P20

4.54 .52

4.31

.71

.02*

3

23

8

28

-0.04 .97

5 38

13

45

1.17

6

18 62

.25

46

Prioritize hiring 4.46 .66 4.17 .85 1.20 .24 2 15 8 28 SETs from educator prep programs in your P20 Overall 4.56 .40 4.28 .58 1.74 .09 Note: Means with the same subscripts are not statistically significant with the Holm-Bonferroni corrected adjusted α of .07 and .12 respectively.

Professional Learning Supports Strategies Table 6 summarizes the findings related to professional learning support strategies. Results showed higher percentages of LSD implemented three of the eight strategies (i.e., induction, mentoring, and opportunity for career advancement) whereas, a higher percentage of HSD implemented four of the eight strategies (i.e., coaches, PD on collaboration, PD on curriculum, PD on diversity of SWD). Only one strategy (i.e., PD on diversity of student needs) was implemented at an equal rate. Estimates showed that there was a significant difference between the helpfulness ratings for HSD and LSD on five strategies of the eight strategies including, (a) providing induction to newly hired SET, (b) providing mentoring program for SET, (c) utilizing special education coaches, (d) providing professional learning on diversity of student needs, and (e) providing professional learning for collaboration between general education and SET. In all five comparisons, HSD recorded higher helpfulness ratings than the LSD, suggesting that HSD found these strategies more useful. The differences in ratings for the remaining strategies across the two sets of districts were not significant.

Table 6 Helpfulness and Implementation of Professional Learning Support Strategies by High and LowShortage Districts Professional Learning Supports

Helpfulness of Strategy

Implemented in District

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

43

HighShortage (n = 13) M SD 4.92a .28

LowShortage (n =29) M SD 4.45b .57

t(32)

p

.001*

HighShortage (n = 13) n % 7 54

LowShortage (n = 29) n % 20 69

3.62

Provide Mentoring Program for SETs

4.92c .28

4.59d .50

2.79

.01*

10 77

24 83

Utilize Special Ed “coaches”

4.92e .28

4.41f .68

3.44

.001*

7

54

14 48

Provide PL on diversity of student needs

4.92g .28

4.41h

.68

3.44

.001*

8 62

18 62

Provide PL for collaboration with general ed and SETs

4. 92i .28

4.48j

.63

3.13

.003*

13 100

24 83

Provide more training/resources on curriculum

4.69 .63

4.41

.78

1.23

.23

11 85

20 69

Provide PL on cultural/linguistic diversity of SWD

4.38 .87

3.93

.88

1.55

.13

6 46

11 38

Overall

4.80k .38

4.37l

.54

2.93

.01*

Provide Induction for new hired SETs

Means with a different subscript are statistically different at α = .05 according to the HolmBonferroni corrected adjusted α of .01, .03,.01,.01., .02, and .03, respectively.

Working Conditions Strategies Table 7 presents the findings related to working conditions. Estimates showed a higher percentage of LSD implemented four of the eight strategies (i.e., reduce non-teaching responsibilities, reduce caseload, develop an action plan, increase efforts for diversity of staff) whereas, a higher percentage of HSD implement the three of the eight strategies (i.e. train administrators on special ed topics, ensure fair teacher evaluation system, monitor teacher wellbeing). One strategy (i.e train administrators on collaboration, inclusion, and decision-making) was implemented at an equal rate. Results showed no significant differences in the helpfulness rating of any of the strategies that addressed working conditions.

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

44

Table 7 Helpfulness and Implementation of Working Conditions Strategies by High and LowShortage Districts Working Helpfulness of Strategy Implemented in District Condition Strategies HighLowt(25) p HighLowShortage Shortage Shortage Shortage (n = 13) (n = 29) (n = 13) (n = 29) M SD M SD n % n % Reduce non4.31 .95 4.31 .76 -0.01 .99 2 15 9 31 teaching responsibilities Train 4.77 .44 4.55 .69 1.24 .23 10 77 22 76 administrators on Special Ed topics Reduce caseload size/paperwork demands

4.62 .65

4.21 .90

1.66

.11

6 46

16

55

Develop an action plan from SET feedback about work conditions Ensure fair teacher evaluation system

4.23 .73

4.21 .73

0.10

.92

3 23

8

28

4.23 .73

4.28 .75

-0.18 .86

11 85

23

79

4.62 .65

4.45 .63

0.78

.45

9 69

19

66

Implement 4.31 .85 efforts to increase diversity of teaching staff

4.17 .93

0.46

.65

7 54

18

62

Train admin on inclusion, collaboration, decision-making Overall

4.71 .46

4.52 .51

120.

.24

9 69

20 69

4.47 .44

4.34

0.90

.38

Monitor teacher emotional wellness

.49

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

45

Research Question 2 asked what professional activities Special Education Directors and Human Resource Directors engaged in to promote the recruitment and retention of SET. All respondents endorsed three or more activities. The professional activities that the directors engage in are listed from highest to lowest percentage of endorsement: consult with peers (81%), read the professional literature (62%), work with the local school board (57%), request help from a qualified resource (51%), pursue grants (43%), review exit data (36%), work on a committee (28%), advocate for legislation (28%), work with the P20 Collaboratives (28%), interview SETs who transfer (25%), work with community members (23%), partner with a high school to promote teaching as a profession (19%), or specifically survey SETs (15%).

Research Question 3 asked what strategies Special Education Directors and Human Resource Directors indicated as most effective and helpful for the recruitment and retention of special education teachers. Responses from 55 surveys were included in the qualitative analysis. The responses for advice on recruiting SET were coded into six themes. In order of highest frequency of comments to lowest frequency, the following themes emerged: (a) offer financial incentives, (b) improve recruiting efforts through Human Resources, (c) use local and alternative educator preparation programs, (d) provide mentoring, (e) provide professional development, and (f) improve working conditions. The responses for effective strategies to retain special education teachers were coded into six themes. In order of highest frequency of comments to lowest frequency, the following themes emerge: (a) lessen SET job demands, (b) ensure supportive school leadership, (c) increase SET support and resources, (d) increase incentives, (e) provide SET training, and (f) provide mentoring. The frequency of responses per domain for effective and helpful strategies in order from most frequent to least frequent was as follows: (a) working conditions, (b) financial incentives, (c) professional learning support, (d) hiring strategies, and (e) educator preparation (see Table 8).

Research Question 4 asked what concerns do Special Education Directors and Human Resource Directors had related to meeting the needs of special education workforce. The responses for concerns on meeting the needs of the SET workforce were coded into six themes. From highest frequency to lowest frequency, the following themes emerged: (a) lack of adequate SET support, (b) lack of qualified SET, (c) too much paperwork, (d) lack of professional learning, (e) low pay, and (f) lack of collaboration with general education.

Research Question 5 asked what challenges Special Education Directors and Human Resource Directions had related to staffing SET positions. The responses for challenges related to recruiting and retaining SETs were coded into six themes. From highest frequency to lowest frequency, the following themes emerged: (a) lack of qualified SET, (b) lack of SET supports, (c) lack of certified teachers for low-incidence students, (d) lack of applicants, (e) low pay, and (f) rural location.

Research questions 4 and 5 focused on the frequency of responses per domain for challenges and concerning the recruitment and retention of SET. Findings from most frequent to least frequent were: (a) educator preparation, (b) working conditions, (c) hiring strategies, (d) financial incentives, and (e) professional learning support (see Table 8).

Table 8 Frequency and Sample of Comments from Open-ended Response Items per Domain 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

46

Domain

Effective Challenge and and Helpful Concern n n

Code: Sample Comments

Financial Incentives

59

24

Pay: use supplemental pay (most frequent response) Pay special educators appropriately for the job they do consider that they have to navigate the legalities of special education on a daily basis and they regularly deal with some of the most difficult situations; It is hard to compete with larger districts that are able to offer signing bonuses to first year teachers

Hiring Strategies

33

40

HR efforts: Start early (most frequent response); have year-round recruiting; market specifically to SETs Location of district: Rural area schools that do not potentially draw younger new teachers to our area; Lack of applicants: (most frequent response): not enough applicants in special education; Having to hire teachers or coaches to fill SPED slots because it is all that is available at the time and there isn't an abundance of candidates; The applicant pool seems to be dwindling more and more each year

Educator Preparation

22

82

Alternative EPP: start from within-paraprofessionals (most frequent); Market internal programs that lead to special education certification: Partner with EPPs: Contact the local colleges and hire people who have a degree in special ed. These are the people who are interested in being special ed teachers Lack of qualified candidates (most frequent response): I am not so sure that the issue is how to recruit special education teachers. The problem seems to lie in the educator preparation programs for special education teachers that are not adequate for the on-the-job experiences and competencies needed. Finding a teacher with Special Education training not just taking the GACE Difficulty of or lack of special ed certification; Applicants not certified - struggling to pass content admission; Finding candidates that are willing and certified to teach specialized classes such as selfcontained classes for cognitive or behavioral disabilities Ensure positive student outcomes: Another concern is that the least effective staff members are sometimes scheduled to work with special ed students so they will have the least negative impact on the school. I feel the

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

47

students with disabilities deserve the best staff that you can find Professional Learning Supports

39

18

Provide mentors (most frequent response): Have a strong new sped teacher induction program pairing each new teacher with a mentor/veteran sped. teacher Provide on-going professional learning: We are having to teach intro to sped for teachers who “test in;” Collaboration with Gen Ed: understanding the content from the general ed. classroom; Many of our general education teachers do not know or have not been trained on how to co-teach

Working Conditions

111

76

Reduce the job demands (i.e., paperwork, caseload, non-teaching responsibilities; most frequent response): reduce non-teaching responsibility demands of SETs; provide additional time to complete sped paperwork; Maintain caseloads so paperwork is manageable Increase administrator support and knowledge of special education: principals and APs who do not understand special education often create environments and situations that push away good SETs Support the emotional well-being of SETs: Developing relationships where they feel supported and not judged; Teacher burnout from high caseloads and lack of comraderies and collaboration Discussion

Nationally, there is a persistent shortage of SET (Espinoza et al., 2018; Mason et al., 2020; McVey & Trinidad, 2019). The recent pandemic has exacerbated the attrition rate of SETs which can contribute to worse outcomes for SWD (Cole et al., 2017; NCES, 2022; Podolsky & Sutcher, 2016). School districts also expend millions of dollars for the continual recruitment, hiring, orientation, and training of newly hired SET (Espinoza et al., 2018). Researchers have suggested one approach to addressing this issue is to explore recruitment and retention strategies used by HSD and LSD (Behrstock-Sherratt, 2016; McVey & Trinidad, 2019; Peyton et al., 2020). As such, this study compared the SET recruitment and retention strategies of HSD and LSD as identified by special education directors and human resource directors (CEEDAR-GTL, 2020; LPI, 2016; NCPSSERS, 2021; OSEP, 2020), the challenges they encountered (BehrstockSherratt, 2016; Boe et al., 2013), and the professional activities they used (NYSED, 2019) to promote SET recruitment and retention. We examined five research questions that address the shortage of SET at the local level.

For research question one, we analyzed the reported shortages for each district to examine how the recruitment and retention strategy ratings and implementation of HSD and LSD compared to each other. Almost half of the respondents indicated at least one unfilled SET position, and over 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

48

half report SET positions were filled by teachers with emergency/provisional certificates or outof-field certificates. These finding are congruent with prior research showing that over half of all school districts struggle to recruit well-qualified SET (Ondrasek et al., 2020; Viadero, 2018).

Although both HSD and LSD rated the helpfulness of strategies in a generally similar fashion, our findings indicate that district leaders in HSD rate the domain of Professional Learning Supports significantly higher than LSD, including five strategies within that domain. Both groups rated Professional Learning Supports higher than the other four domains. The descriptive statistics show that a higher percentage of LSD implement three of the five strategies that were rated statistically significantly higher by HSD: induction, mentoring, and opportunities for career advancement. This supports findings from Ingersoll and Strong (2011) who report that beginning teachers who are provided with training, professional development, and mentoring by veteran teachers are more likely to be retained in the field. According to Podolsky (2019), “the research on these programs shows that well-designed induction programs for beginning teachers result in teachers staying in the profession at higher rates, accelerated professional growth among new teachers, and improved student learning” (p.16). A higher percentage of HSD used coaches, provided professional learning on collaboration with general education, and provided training on curriculum. The strategies utilized by the LSD in this domain focus on overall career development of the SET whereas the strategies of the HSD are focused on pedagogy and curriculum.

It is noteworthy that both groups rated hiring practices the lowest of all five domains. Other than honoring years of service, the four other hiring strategies included on this survey were implemented by fewer than one-fourth of all districts. Previous studies from general education teacher hiring practices suggest that earlier hiring can lead to less turnover and higher student achievement (Papay & Kraft, 2016; Podolsky & Sutcher, 2016). The U.S. Department of Education (2010) encourages hiring SET earlier. For example, one of Colorado’s low-cost strategies based on its research findings on teacher shortages is to hire early (Cole et al., 2017).

Personnel management for recruiting and retaining SET is a shared responsibility of district leaders, and it could benefit districts to examine the hiring practices to develop recruitment strategies that target local needs (Dee & Goldhaber, 2017).

In the domain of educator preparation strategies, LSD implemented four of the seven strategies at a higher rate: teacher residency programs, offering teaching as a career pathway in high school, provide student teacher experience from programs in the P20, and prioritize hiring SETs from educator preparation programs in the P20. A higher proportion of HSD endorsed using an alternate teacher preparation program, having a para-pro to teacher certification program, and providing special education certification support. Cole and colleagues (2017) suggested that teachers completing alternate programs have higher attrition rates compared to teachers completing residency programs. Recent studies show that teachers completing a residency program indicate feeling more prepared given the year-long apprenticeship type training with supports from a mentor teacher, and they are staying in the classroom longer than completers of other educator preparation programs (Cole et al., 2017; Podolsky et al., 2019). Almost two-thirds of our respondents indicate that they do utilize student teachers from an EPP in their P20 Collaborative, yet less than one-third prioritize hiring SETs from an EPP in their P20. Goldhaber and colleagues (2021) suggested that student-teaching assignments and proximity to where a teacher grew up are important indicators of where they choose to teach. Undoubtedly, it is 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

49

critical for district and state leaders to establish educator preparation pathways that strengthen the pipeline and produce SET with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes best suited to work with students with disabilities (Gilmour, 2020; Kimmel et al., 2020).

For research question two, we asked about what professional activities Special Education Directors and Human Resource Directors engage in to promote the recruitment and retention of special education teachers. The descriptive statistics indicated that each respondent reported engagement with three or more activities, suggesting that they are addressing the issue of recruiting and retaining SET from many angles. The most frequent response was the action of consulting with peers. For example, the New York State Education Department (NYSED, 2019) indicated that P-12 superintendents identified activities they engage in to recruit and retain educators of color, and consulting with peers ranked highest among the multiple activities there were endorsed. Behrstock-Sherratt (2016) specifically recommends “collaborative, constructive, data-informed policy dialogues to obtain consensus on the problem and the possible solutions” (p. 14). Therefore, districts leaders should consider engaging in various activities to solicit support from other agencies and organizations at local, state, regional, and national levels which can offer resources.

For research question three, the effective strategies most frequently noted for recruiting SET were related to providing supplemental pay, recruiting SET early, and recruiting locally (e.g., local colleges, within their own district). Our findings closely align with recommendations of others (Cole et al., 2017; OSEP, 2020; Podolsky et al., 2019). The top three retention strategies focused on reducing demands, increasing pay, and improving teacher support (e.g., professional learning supports). Providing mentors was one of the most cited responses for retaining teachers.

As with recruiting, providing adequate compensation was frequently cited as a top strategy for retention. The responses for retaining teachers also align with evidence-based practices cited in the research on retention strategies which call for positive working conditions (i.e., reduce paperwork/caseload demands), increased compensation, and effective induction and mentoring programs (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; CEEDAR-GTL, 2020; McVey & Trinidad, 2019; Ondrasek et al., 2020; Podolsky et al., 2019).

The responses from district leaders support the findings from the research by Peyton et al. (2020) who report that low-shortage states tended to invest more in working conditions and compensation than high shortage states. Similarly, See and colleagues’ (2020) international literature review concluded that financial compensations and improvements in working conditions should be addressed simultaneously for districts to have sustained results. These strategies address both recruitment and retention concerns as prior research shows that teachers report that pay and positive working conditions contribute to decisions on whether to teach and where to teach (Billingsley, 2010; Espinoza et al., 2018). However, less than one-third of the respondents indicate that their district provides supplemental pay to SET nor reduce the nonteaching responsibilities of SET. To recruit and retain SET based on the most frequent responses for helpful strategies, districts should work with lawmakers to develop economic incentive programs which target high-need subject areas (Garcia & Weiss, 2020; Goldhaber et al., 2015).

Furthermore, district leaders should explore ways to utilize grants from ESSA Title II, Part A as well as IDEA grants to fund personnel preparation, training, and school leadership development (Espinoza et al., 2018; OSEP, 2020; Shepperd et al., 2016).

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

50

For research question four, we asked what concerns Special Education Directors and Human Resource Directors had related to recruiting and retaining special education teachers. Our qualitative findings indicated that the most frequent responses for concerns relate to three domains: working conditions, educator preparation, and professional learning supports.

Overwhelmingly, respondents mentioned concerns for finding qualified applicants who have the knowledge and skills required of a SET. If they do hire someone as a SET who does not have adequate preparation, then it requires more training and support for that teacher (Ondrasek et al., 2020). If SET working conditions are not supportive, this may lead to attrition which leads to higher demands on the experienced SET who stay. It is a cyclical effect, as explained by one respondent, “If we begin to experience year after year of shortages, the shortages will increase due to the workload being distributed. The students learning will suffer as they will not have the high-quality instruction necessary. By decreasing achievement, we become less enticing to recruits.” The concerns shared by respondents provide real examples of how West and Shepherd (2016) describe the shortage of special education teachers as impacting the service delivery models, the quality of instruction, and the outcomes of students with disabilities.

For research question five, we asked what challenges the Special Education Directors and Human Resource Directors had related to recruiting and retaining SET. Our qualitative findings indicated that the most frequent responses for challenges relate to three domains: educator preparation, working conditions, and low pay. Respondents mentioned both a lack of candidates and a lack of qualified candidates as being a challenge. Findings show that districts face both a quantity and quality shortage as described in the literature on teacher shortages (Boe & Cook, 2006; McVey & Trinidad, 2019). Respondents also described lack of adequate compensation, particularly in smaller districts competing with larger districts. The participants in the town hall meetings in the Colorado study of teacher shortages share similar challenges, citing decreasing enrollment in education preparation programs, non-competitive compensation, and poor perception of working conditions (Cole et al., 2017). For example, superintendents in the Arkansas study of teacher shortages also reported finding credentialed (i.e., qualified) candidates and offering competitive salaries as the top two challenges they face in recruiting and retaining teachers (Bureau of Legislative Research, 2016). Responses in our study mirror concerns cited in previous research whereby administrators recognized that paperwork and caseload size are among the top three concerns for SETs (Ondrasek et al., 2020), and school and district leaders indicate they are limited in their ability to remedy it (Hagaman & Casey, 2018).

The findings from the quantitative and qualitative data provide evidence that districts are implementing strategies and professional practices which address their concerns and challenges, but it is not clear if there is a systematic plan for local leaders. The variety of strategies being implemented by districts is promising given that recommendations from experts on teacher shortages focus on systemic solutions rather than isolated or short-term strategies (BehrstockSherrat, 2016; Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; CEEDAR-GTL, 2020; Espinoza et al., 2018; Fowler et al., 2019; LPI, 2016; McVey & Trinidad, 2019; OSEP; 2020; Peyton et al., 2020). Perhaps the most important issue regarding the SET shortage is summed up in this statement from one special education director, “[My] Biggest concern is that students will suffer because we do not have a qualified sped teacher in their classroom.” Local and state leaders can access resources and toolkits (i.e. CEEDAR, and OSEP) to develop a comprehensive, data-driven approach to recruit and retain well-qualified SET to promote positive outcomes for students with disabilities.

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

51

Limitations This study is limited in several ways. First, given the small sample size, the analyses had low statistical power. Further, the sample is also limited to one geographical area, limiting the study’s generalizability. Secondly, the instrument is a researcher-made survey which has not been reviewed thoroughly for content and criterion validity. The definition of shortage or the interpretation of a strategy may be interpreted differently by respondents, and the items on the measure may need to be amended before using the instrument in another study. Finally, it should be noted that the data was collected during the pandemic in Spring and Summer of 2021.

Implications and Future Research There are several implications for future research. First, future studies should explore more of the practices being implemented by LSD to look for effectiveness of the strategy to recruit and retain SETs. For example, a higher percentage of LSD in this study indicate that they implement efforts to increase diversity of the teaching staff, reduce the non-teaching responsibilities and reduce the caseload size or paperwork demands. Longitudinal research should be conducted to examine how these strategies are implemented and explore the relationship to SET retention over time.

Also, a higher percentage of LSD implement induction and mentoring programs. Induction and mentoring are frequently cited in the research as being valued by SET, yet there are few studies with strong evidence of a relationship between mentoring and retention (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; See et al., 2020). Future research should examine the nature of the programs and explore variables which relate to retention rates for SET participants and relationships to student outcomes.

Second, the findings indicate that district leaders are concerned with the lack of qualified applicants for SET positions. The research from Peyton and colleagues (2020) suggests that states that prepare more SET have lower shortages; further studies should look at the relationship between local shortages and the strategies related to educator preparation pathways. Comparative studies could look at longitudinal data from a within-state analysis of local school districts to explore the similarities and differences in teachers who completed traditional EPP, alternative certification routes, or a teacher residency. The literature and many respondents suggest Grow Your Own programs; more research should examine the factors that would encourage paraprofessionals, local high school graduates, or general ed teachers to pursue special education degrees and work in the district.

Third, respondents ranked the importance of trained administrators as being a helpful strategy to retain special education teachers. Qualitative studies should also examine how special education teachers, administrators, and special education directors describe knowledge, skills, and attitudes of administrators that contribute to positive experiences within special education.

Conclusion The current literature on the SET shortage offers insights into the scope of the problem on a national scale, and it provides evidence-based recommendations on solutions to mitigate the problem. The findings of this study support the research that suggest the shortages vary at the local level. School districts must make wise investments of time, money, and personnel to recruit and retain SET based on their local needs. To address the shortage, it will require the input of multiple perspectives, the implementation of multiple strategies, and the interdependence of districts to share resources and knowledge. By examining strategies used at a local level, it can 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

52

help other districts determine what strategies may be applicable to their similar needs. The perspectives of district leaders contribute to the discussion and development of policies to recruit and retain quality SET who are well-prepared to meet the needs for all students with disabilities.

References Artino Jr, A. R., La Rochelle, J. S., Dezee, K. J., & Gehlbach, H. (2014). Developing questionnaires for educational research: AMEE Guide No. 87. Medical teacher, 36(6), 463-474. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.889814 Bazeley, P. (2006). The contribution of computer software to integrating qualitative and quantitative data and analyses. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 64-74.

Behrstock-Sherratt, E. (2016). Creating coherence in the teacher shortage debate: What policy leaders should know and do. Education Policy Center at American Institutes for Research. https://www.air.org/resource/brief/creating-coherence-teacher-shortage-debatewhat-policymakers-should-know-and-do Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001 Billingsley, B. (2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of the research literature. The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 39-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669040380010401 Billingsley, B. (2010). Work contexts matter: Practical considerations for improving new special educators' experiences in schools. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23(1), 41-49.

Billingsley, B., & Bettini, E. (2019). Special education teacher attrition and retention: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 697-744. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319862495 Boe, E. E., & Cook, L. H. (2006). The chronic and increasing shortage of fully certified teachers in special and general education. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 443-460. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607200404 Boe, E. E., deBettencourt, L. U., Dewey, J., Rosenberg, M., Sindelar, P., & Leko, C. (2013).

Variability in demand for special education teachers: Indicators, explanations, and impacts. Exceptionality, 21(2), 103-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2013.771563 Brownell, M. T., & Sindelar, P. T. (2016). Preparing and retaining effective special education teachers: Systemic solutions for addressing teacher shortages. Council for Exceptional Children Policy Insider. https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/reports/ Bureau of Legislative Research. (2016). Teacher recruitment and retention: Research report prepared for the House Interim Committee on Education and the Senate Interim Committee on Education. Project Number 16-001-42. https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Committees/Document?type=pdf&source=assembly%2f20 15%2fMeeting%20Attachments/410/I14363&filename=Teacher%20Recruitment%20and %20Retention Cabin, R. J., & Mitchell, R. J. (2000). To Bonferroni or not to Bonferroni: when and how are the questions. Bulletin of the ecological society of America, 81(3), 246-248. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20168454 Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what we can do about it. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/teacher-turnover-report 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

53

CEEDAR-GTL. (2020). Preparing and retaining effective special education teachers: Shortterm strategies for long-term solutions. https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/shortage-toolkit Cole, C., Mitchell, R., & Anthes, K. (2017). Teacher shortages across the nation and Colorado: Similar issues, varying magnitudes. Colorado Department of Higher Education. https://highered.colorado.gov/Publications/Reports/teachereducation/2017/TeacherShorta ges_Nation_Colorado_Dec2017.pdf Conley, S., & You, S. (2017). Key influences on special education teachers’ intentions to leave: The effects of administrative support and teacher team efficacy in a mediational model. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(3), 521-540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215608859 Cross, F. (2017). Teacher shortage areas nationwide listing 1990–1991 through 2017–2018 June 2017. Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED612088.pdf Dee, T. S., & Goldhaber, D. (2017). Understanding and addressing teacher shortages in the United States. The Hamilton Project, 5, 1-28. https://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/understanding_and_addressing_teacher_shortage s_in_the_united_states Espinoza, D., Saunders, R., Kini, T., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2018). Taking the long view: State efforts to solve teacher shortages by strengthening the profession. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/long-view-report Feng, L., & Sass, T. R. (2018). The impact of incentives to recruit and retain teachers in “hard‐ to‐staff” subjects. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 37(1), 112-135. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22037 Fowler, S. A., Coleman, M. R. B., & Bogdan, W. K. (2019). The state of the special education profession survey report. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(1), 8-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059919875703 Garcia, E., & Weiss, E. (2019). The teacher shortage is real, large and growing, and worse than we thought. The first report in "The perfect storm in the teacher labor market" series. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/the-teacher-shortage-isreal-large-and-growing-and-worse-than-we-thought-the-first-report-in-the-perfect-stormin-the-teacher-labor-market-series/ Georgia Professional Standards Commission. (2019). Meeting Georgia's need for teachers gapsc.com. https://www.gapsc.com/EducatorPreparation/Data.aspx Gilmour, A. F. (2020). Teacher certification area and the academic outcomes of students with learning disabilities or emotional/behavioral disorders. The Journal of Special Education, 54(1), 40-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466919849905 Goldhaber, D., Krieg, J., Naito, N., & Theobald, R. (2021). Student teaching and the geography of teacher shortages. Educational Researcher, 50(3), 165-175. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20962099 Goldhaber, D., Krieg, J., Theobald, R., & Brown, N. (2015). Refueling the STEM and special education teacher pipelines. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(4), 56-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721715619921 Griffin, C. C. (2010). A summary of research for educational leaders on the induction of beginning special educators. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23(1), 14-20.

Hagaman, J. L., & Casey, K. J. (2018). Teacher attrition in special education: Perspectives from the field. Teacher Education and Special Education, 41(4), 277-291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417725797 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

54

Heneman III, H. G., & Milanowski, A. T. (2007). Assessing human resource alignment: The foundation for building total teacher quality improvement. Madison, WI: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Houchins, D. E., Shippen, M. E., & Cattret, J. (2004). The retention and attrition of juvenile justice teachers. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(4), 374-393. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42899813 Hunter, A., & Brewer, J. (2015). Conundrums of multimethod research. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry. (pp. 616–623). Oxford University Press.

Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of educational research, 81(2), 201-233. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311403323 Kimmel, L., Sindelar, P., Rosenberg, M., & Mason-Williams, L. (2020). Selecting career changers with real potential for teaching and designing a program to meet their needs. Center on Great Teachers and Leaders. https://gtlcenter.org/productsresources/selecting-career-changers-real-potential-teaching-and-designing-program-meet Learning Policy Institute. (2021). Tools for solving the teacher shortage. Teacher shortage solution toolkit. https://teachershortage.solutiontoolkit.org/#a Mason-Williams, L., Bettini, E., Peyton, D., Harvey, A., Rosenberg, M., & Sindelar, P. T. (2020). Rethinking shortages in special education: Making good on the promise of an equal opportunity for students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(1), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419880352 McAlister, A. M., Lee, D. M., Ehlert, K. M., Kajfez, R. L., Faber, C. J., & Kennedy, M. S. (2017, June). Qualitative coding: An approach to assess inter-rater reliability. In 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Call, Columbus, Ohio. 10.18260/1-2--28777 McLeskey, J., & Billingsley, B. S. (2008). How does the quality and stability of the teaching force influence the research-to-practice gap? A perspective on the teacher shortage in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 29(5), 293-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932507312010 McMurdock, M. (2022, October 13). A ‘national teacher shortage’? New research reveals vastly different realities between states and regions. EdPrepMatters, AACTE. https://edprepmatters.net/2022/10/a-national-teacher-shortage-new-research-revealsvastly-different-realities-between-states-andregions/#:~:text=But%20it%E2%80%99s%20not%20going%20to%20solve%20this%20l ong,are%20open%2C%20triple%20the%20picture%20in%20midwestern%20states McVey, K. P., & Trinidad, J. (2019). Nuance in the noise: The complex reality of teacher shortages. Bellwether Education Partners. https://bellwethereducation.org/publication/nuance-noise-complex-reality-teachershortages Nance, E., & Calabrese, R. L. (2009). Special education teacher retention and attrition: The impact of increased legal requirements. International Journal of Educational Management, 23(5), 431-440. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540910970520 National Center for Education Statistics, U.S Department of Education (2021). http://nces.ed.gov/ National Center for Education Statistics, U.S Department of Education (2022, March 3). U.S. schools report increased teacher vacancies due to COVID-19 pandemic, new NCES data show [Press Release]. https://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/press_releases/3_3_2022.asp 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

55

National Coalition on Personnel Shortages in Special Education and Related Services (NCPSSERS). (2021, March 2). Policy recommendations. https://specialedshortages.org/take-action/policy-recommendations/ Neuendorf, K. A. (2019). Content analysis and thematic analysis. In P. Brough (Ed.), Research methods for applied psychologists: Design, analysis, and reporting (pp. 211-223). New York: Routledge.

New York State Education Department. (2019). Educator Diversity Report. Retrieved from: http://www.nysed.gov/common/nysed/files/programs/educator-quality/educator-diversityreport-december-2019.pdf Office of Special Education Programs (2020). Attract, prepare, retain: Effective personnel for all. OSEP Ideas that work. https://osepideasthatwork.org/attract-prepare-retain-effectivepersonnel-all#brief Ondrasek, N., Carver-Thomas, D., Scott, C., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2020). California's special education teacher shortage (policy brief). Palo Alto, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/pace-californiaspecial-education-teacher-shortage-brief Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.

Papay, J. P., & Kraft, M. A. (2016). The productivity costs of inefficient hiring practices: Evidence from late teacher hiring. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(4), 791-817. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21930 Peyton, D.J., Acosta, K., Harvey, A., Pua, D. J., Sindelar, P. T., Mason-Williams, L., ... & Crews, E. (2020). Special education teacher shortage: Differences between high and low shortage states. Teacher Education and Special Education, 44(1), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406420906618 Podolsky, A., Kini, T., Darling-Hammond, L., & Bishop, J. (2019). Strategies for attracting and retaining educators: What does the evidence say? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(38). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3722 Podolsky, A., & Sutcher, L. (2016). California teacher shortages: A persistent problem. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/ca-teacher-shortage-persistentproblem-brief Reitman, G. C., & Karge, B. D. (2019). Investing in teacher support leads to teacher retention: Six supports administrators should consider for new teachers. Multicultural Education, 27(1), 7-18.

Rodl, J. E., Bonifay, W., Cruz, R. A., & Manchanda, S. (2018). A survey of school administrators’ training and support related to evaluating special education teachers. Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 3(1), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.32674/jsard.v3i1.1929 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1775566 Shepherd, K. G., Fowler, S., McCormick, J., Wilson, C. L., & Morgan, D. (2016). The search for role clarity: Challenges and implications for special education teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(2), 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406416637904 Stephens, T. L., & Fish, W. W. (2010). Motivational factors toward pursuing a career in special education. Education, 130(4), 581-594.

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

56

Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching?

Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the US. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/247.242 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 United States Department of Education. (2022). Teacher Shortage Areas. https://tsa.ed.gov/#/reports West, J. E., & Shepherd, K. G. (2016). Closing reflections: Public policy, advocacy, and special educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(2), 150-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406416638719 About the Authors Kelly E. Standridge, Ed.S., is a doctoral student in the Learning Sciences Department at Georgia State University. She has taught in special education for 24 years, primarily in grades K8. Her research interest focuses on strategies to address the teacher shortage in the field of special education. She currently serves as the co-coordinator of the Children and Youth Action Network for the Georgia Council for Exceptional Children.

Jocelyn E. Belden, Ed.S., is a fourth-year graduate Ph.D. student in the Learning Sciences Department at Georgia State University. She has taught in education for 14 years, and at Georgia State, she supervises students in their student teaching practicum. Her research interest involves equitable teaching, teacher qualifications, and professional development practices to teach culturally and linguistically diverse learners in special education.

Elizabeth W. Colquitt, Ed.S., is faculty at Georgia College and State University in the John H. Lounsbury College of Education. Elizabeth's research interests include special education teacher preparation and international inclusive education. Her teaching experience includes elementary regular education, inclusion, self-contained autism, and deaf/hard of hearing P-12. Elizabeth has served as student representative, secretary, and currently serves as president-elect for the Division of International Special Education Services. Elizabeth received her masters and specialist degree from Georgia College and State University and is currently a doctoral student at Georgia State University.

Dr. Robert Hendrick came to the Educational Research Bureau and subsequently to the Center for Evaluation and Research Services after having served as Assistant Superintendent for Carrollton City Schools in Carrollton, GA. In 1998, Dr. Hendrick joined an innovative educational technology company, NETSCHOOLS Inc., and was principal writer and director of operations for the $12,000,000 Georgia Wireless Schools grant. Dr. Hendrick was instrumental in the evaluation of multiple grants at the state and national levels. While at GSU, Dr. Hendrick has worked as the quantitative evaluation expert for the CEHD, providing assistance to faculty and students by helping them write their grant proposals and by advising them on appropriate methods when they analyze their quantitative data. He has conducted the evaluation of USDOE, NSF, IES, and USDOL grants, among others, providing quantitative data analysis and reporting for these federal grants.

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

57

Dr. Jonté A. Myers is an Assistant Professor of special education in the Department of Learning sciences in the College of Education at Georgia State University (GSU). His research focuses on mathematics instruction and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties (MD), including those with math learning disabilities. He also researches teacher quality and effectiveness for students with MD. Dr. David Houchins is a Professor in the Department of Learning Sciences in the College of Education and Human Development. He has worked in the field of special education for over 35 years. Dr. Houchins’ research focuses on secondary youth with high-incidence disabilities in alternative school settings, particularly with youth in juvenile justice schools. Areas of interest include literacy, academic strategies and transition services.

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

58

Exploring Post-Secondary Transition Preparation for Students with Disabilities Emily N. Smith, Ed.D. Braelyn R. Ringwald Midwestern State University Abstract Many individuals with disabilities struggle to transition from high school to post-secondary education, so transition fairs are used to create a college environment to introduce students to college life, provide information to parents and students, and answer questions about the transition process. This qualitative study examines resources students with disabilities had before transitioning to post-secondary education. Findings from the study are then linked to recommended actions intended to assist in the development of a transition fair that is specific to students' experiences and perceived needs for a successful transition to post-secondary education.

Keywords: transition, disabilities, college preparation, special education, post-secondary Exploring Post-Secondary Transition Preparation for Students with Disabilities Students with special needs are an increasing population in post-secondary institutions.

Approximately 14% of all public school students are classified under one or more categories of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). Studies show that more than 30% of students with disabilities drop out of high school, and only 37% of students receive post-secondary education (Connor, 2012, p.17). School programs have been developed to provide education to students to help prepare them for post-secondary education and employment. However, there continues to be a lack of consistency in programs. Eighty-seven percent of students with disabilities K-12 used some support, but when these students moved onto college, only 19 percent continued to use support. (Connor, 2012, Introduction section).

Students with disabilities enter post-secondary institutions with varying levels of preparedness, thus ending in varying levels of success for each student.

Student experiences vary tremendously as they transition from high school to post-secondary education. Of the 37% of students who receive post-secondary education, "80% of students with Learning Disabilities (LD) enrolled in post-secondary education had not graduated five years after completing high school” (Skinner, 2004, p. 91). In this same article, students distinguished common themes between students with disabilities and how well they succeeded. Some common themes were the importance of self-advocacy, knowledge of their disability and accommodations, knowledge of the disability law, importance of goal setting, and perseverance.

Preparation for these students should include curricula facilitating preparation in all of these noted areas (Skinner, 2004, Themes Section). Bagatell et al. (2017) studied many student perspectives that students with disabilities struggled navigating various systems and services.

Ultimately, students did not know what questions to ask, and they did not know whom to contact to ask these unknown questions. All of these services require paperwork; however, each agency required slightly different documentation, which created many issues for the students. Students transitioning into post-secondary education do not just outgrow their stereotypes. Students still 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

59

encounter bullying, inferior or unequal feelings, and lack community knowledge of their disabilities (Bagatell, Chan, Karat, et al., 2017, for more).

In 2010, Cawthon and Cole stated, "approximately 86% of SLD may encounter some type of learning barrier in their post-secondary education" (Cawthon and Cole, 2010, p. 115). A barrier is anything that a student feels sets them behind other students, and there are so many for students with disabilities. Some potential barriers listed are faculty/SLD interactions, lack of sense of belonging, difficulty accessing academic information, and practical and adequate accommodations. Students interviewed listed that while some students were given accommodations, the accommodations given did not effectively work for them. They indicated, “Generally students are receiving similar or more accommodations in college than they were receiving in high school” (Cawthon and Cole, 2010, p. 122). This increase in accommodation distribution could be because students are offered a “menu” of options depending on their disability. These options are less individualized, therefore making the accommodations less effective.

Stigma is a significant factor when considering the statistics of students with disabilities and how consistently accommodations are being used. “Students with invisible disabilities, such as learning disabilities or Attention Deficit Disorders, consider their disabilities a minor part of who they are" (Ressa, 2016, p. 30). Disclosure leads to better campus participation and academic grades, but students with invisible disabilities prefer not to disclose to escape the disability stigma. They experience academic failures, and when they fail to meet their matriculation, they drop out of school. Individuals with visible disabilities have a slightly similar experience.

Students with invisible disabilities perceive their disabilities as a tiny part of their lives and therefore find it incredibly stigmatizing compared to individuals with physical or visible disabilities. While these individuals can feel secluded and like they do not fit in because of their disability, "students with physical disabilities tend to accept the disability identity" (Ressa, 2016, pg. 30). Acceptance of disability identity is crucial in college-bound students, as students with disabilities accepting of their disability are more prone to academic excellence and seeking accommodations. Studies show that students who accept their disability develop identity, selfadvocacy skills, and the self-control necessary to lead their lives.

Post-secondary Transition Although there are laws that ensure the education of students, no law provides a framework, progression, or curriculum for students, specifically students with moderate to severe disabilities.

One of the most significant transitions for students with disabilities is from high school to postsecondary education. Although multiple laws have been designed to guarantee equal access to post-secondary education by providing accommodations to students with disabilities, students with disabilities are graduating at levels far below their non-disabled peers (Showers & Kinsman, 2017). Students with disabilities may enroll in post-secondary institutions at higher rates, but they are not necessarily accessing the disability services available at their institutions. One study

by Lightner, Kipps-Vaughan, Schulte, and Trice (2012) indicated that students with disabilities who did not enroll with disability services as soon as they began post-secondary institutions felt there was insufficient time to go through the process of accessing services. Students with disabilities may not access services because they are unaware of the services available (Kent et al., 2018; Toutain, 2019). Many researchers have found that the fear of the stigma associated with disclosing a disability (Cage et al., 2020; Kent et al., 2018); lack of self-esteem (de Cesarei, 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

60

2015); lack of comfort when it comes to sharing information; lack of self-advocacy experiences(Lightner et al., 2012); belief that the disability does not meet the requirements for support (Couzens et al., 2015); fear of not having the required documentation (Toutain, 2019); and the question of benefit of disclosure (Cage et al., 2020; Couzens et al., 2015; de Cesare, 2015) may all play a factor when students with disabilities determine if they want to disclose their disability to others and reach out for support.

Students with disabilities are responsible for their advocacy in post-secondary education.

Therefore, they must understand the difference between the IDEA services they were given in high school and the ADA or Section 504 laws they will be required to advocate for in their postsecondary careers. Students with disabilities who do not understand the differences between accommodations at the secondary and post-secondary levels may struggle and have belowaverage academic performance. One of the main differences students struggle to overcome when transitioning to post-secondary institutions is that they must disclose their disability and request accommodations independently. Burdge (2012) indicated that this is primarily because transition services in secondary education focus on the educational needs of students rather than focusing on the skills necessary to be successful. Skills such as knowledge of their disability, selfadvocacy, and the ability to let disability services staff the accommodations needed to ensure they can be successful are skills necessary for success.

Transition Planning According to the reauthorization of IDEIA in 2004, a student's IEP is required to have a transition plan starting at 16 years of age. These transition plans focus attention on the students' post-secondary path by developing measurable goals in post-secondary education, employment, and daily living. The transition plan aims to focus these goals and services to help develop realistic outcomes for students with disabilities. Transition planning provides for the school, student, and parent to prepare for the changes and realities of post-secondary life. Due to the student's many differing abilities, it is imperative to have all key stakeholders in the student's life and educational decision-making as contributing parts of transition planning. IDEIA mandates students participate in their transition planning, and their preferences and interests are considered when creating the transition plan. Student-focused planning is an essential aspect of every transition plan and includes the student in developing goals and progress monitoring. It bases the implementation of transition plans and services on the student's desires, interests, goals, and needs. The amendments of both the1990 and 1997 IDEIA maintain schools focus the transition planning on post-school outcomes and include activities to develop and inform educational planning (Kohler & Field, 2003). A good transition plan provides access, exposure, experience, and knowledge of critical post-secondary goals and consists of academic and nonacademic activities. Many factors need to work together to produce a successful transition for youths with disabilities into adulthood. In order to create a successful transition, secondary schools need to develop student skills through education, experiences, and training to strengthen and nurture their abilities. When implemented with fidelity, transition plans help ease this process and provide the best support, experience, and services to minimize secondary and post-secondary life disturbance. Research suggests exceptional education staff should use the high school years to help create and maintain self-determination and independent living skills (Shaw et al., 2008).

Although a transition plan is required for all high school students beginning at the age of 16, these plans do not require the high school IEP team to communicate or coordinate directly with a university or other post-secondary education or career location. This lack of communication 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

61

creates additional barriers for students with disabilities, reiterating the need for students with disabilities to learn how to advocate for themselves prior to entering post-secondary education.

One of the first steps toward assisting students with disabilities in having a successful transition to post-secondary education is to provide them with training/educational opportunities activities that assist them in developing the skills necessary for a seamless transition. Providing these experiences can support students with disabilities, and their families develop skills that may not have been developed in their earlier educational experiences. Additionally, by immersing students with disabilities in the functions of their university and the new post-secondary expectations set for them prior to attendance, students with disabilities may feel better prepared and more confident when making the transition. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the transition process from high school to college for students with disabilities to design an effective transition fair process so that students with disabilities can have a smooth transition into postsecondary education. The following research questions guided the study: What are students' transition experiences from high school to post-secondary education; based on prior experiences, what do students with disabilities transitioning from high school to college feel is necessary for post-secondary readiness?

Methodology Participants and Setting Snowball sampling was used to select the participants for this study. Snowball sampling requires the researchers to identify potential participants that they may know; these individuals may then refer the study to other possible participants for the study (Creswell, 2016). Students were also contacted through email from the Disability Support Services (DSS) office on campus. The participants in the study were college students with disabilities within the age group of 19 years to 50 years. The participant group consisted of both males and females with different demographics, most of them being Caucasian females. Prior to the data collection, participants were provided consent forms explaining the purpose of the study. There was no penalty applied to students who did not wish to participate. Only students who completed the consent form, in compliance with Institutional Review Board requirements, were allowed to participate in the study. Participants of this study thus consisted of 20 undergraduate students currently enrolled at a four-year university in North Texas.

Table 1 Participant Demographic Data Gender Age

Classification

Male

22

Senior

Reported Diagnosed Disability OCD, Anxiety and Depression

Male

41

Sophomore

*None Reported

Female

21

Senior

Anxiety

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

62

Female

22

Senior

Trigeminal neuralgia, chronic migraine, hypersomnia, hemiplegic migraines, occipital neuralgia, lupus

Male

24

Senior

Dyslexia

Male

24

Senior

Colorblindness

Female

32

Junior

ADD, Depression, Anxiety, Panic Attacks

Female

21

Sophomore

Dyscalculia

Female

24

Junior

ADHD, anxiety, depression

Female

21

Junior

Severe anxiety, severe depression, borderline personality traits

Female

22

Senior

Crohn’s Disease

Male

19

Sophomore

Dyslexia and ADD/ADHD

Female

19

Freshman

Anxiety, ADHD, Dyslexia

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

63

Female

20

Sophomore

Depression and Anxiety

Male

50

Junior

Multiple Sclerosis

Male

26

Senior

Generalized Anxiety Disorder

Male

22

Senior

Chronic Migraine, Trigeminal Neuralgia

Female

20

Junior

Chronic Migraine, Trigeminal Neuralgia

Female

19

Freshman

Dyslexia

Female

20

Sophomore

ADD, Dyslexia, General Learning Disability, Auditory Learning Disability

*This student did not report his specific disability but is registered with Disability Support Services, indicating that he does have a diagnosed disability, so his survey responses were included in the study results.

Research Design and Analysis Structured individual interviews were conducted online to determine what resources they were provided with prior to attending college. The interview used open-ended questioning to identify resources and allow students to make recommendations for resources and training for future students based on their experiences.

Questions analyzing participants’ experiences transitioning from high school to college included the college services represented, transition resources, the primary focus of the fair, documentation needs, self-advocacy preparation, and logistics of the actual event. Interview questions were purposefully chosen based on the researchers' experiences working with students with disabilities in college and coaching and preparation of special educators who work with 2023: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP) 64

students transitioning to college. Before data collection, the researchers reviewed the interview questions and refined each question for clarification.

Discussion The online survey given to the participants outlined many helpful things for the future of this research project. There were many different questions to the survey, which focused on students with disabilities' personal experiences transitioning from high school to college. The participants ranged from 18-30 years of age, and 14 were female while six were males. All of the participants had a wide range of diagnosed disabilities. The participants were organized based on their classification in school: 10% were first-year students, 30% were sophomores, 25% were juniors, and 35% were seniors. The survey consisted of multiple choice and short answer questions. This preliminary data showed that only 15% of the surveyed participants had transition training prior to their transition. The institution’s orientation for typical students was also included in the “prior transition training” category. While around 66% of participants had no self-advocacy preparation in high school, of the students who received transition preparation, 76% of these training were focused on education only. The other 24% focused on work and education. The participants listed some future recommendations for transitions fair based on what their experience did not have. These recommendations included more self-advocacy preparation, making the fair "feel like home" and creating a sense of belonging within the students, creating easy connections for incoming students, and reaching out to students prior to the event to allow students to feel comfortable to attend the event.

Limitations and Future Work The current study extends our knowledge of what college students with disabilities receive for transition training and what they perceive as necessary for others to receive before transitioning from high school to post-secondary education institutions. Several acknowledged limitations in this study affect the generalization of the results. One such limitation is the small sample size due to the desire of the researchers to focus only on one specific college campus. However, results from the sample could be used as a foundation for a more in-depth study of the resources provided to students with disabilities before they transition to college. Another limitation is the focus on only students currently enrolled in college. A more diverse study, including individuals with disabilities who may not be currently enrolled or enrolled in a vocational or similar campus, may offer additional insight and possibly different results.

Based on the results from this study, the researchers see several directions for future research.

Additionally, this study could easily be replicated with students with disabilities at other institutions of similar size. Finally, this study could be expanded by offering the identified training/educational opportunities to students with disabilities before enrolling at post-secondary institutions to identify the effectiveness of such training.

References Aquino, K. C., & Bittinger, J. D. (2019). The Self-(un) Identification of Disability in Higher Education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 32(1), 5-19.

Bagatell, N., Chan, D., Rauch, K. K., & Thorpe, D. (2017). “Thrust into adulthood”: Transition experiences of young adults with cerebral palsy. Disability and health journal, 10(1), 8086.

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

65

Burdge, M. C. (2012). The transition from secondary to post-secondary education for students with mild disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).

Cage, E., Stock, M., Sharpington, A., Pitman, E., & Batchelor, R. (2020). Barriers to accessing support for mental health issues at university. Studies in Higher Education, 45(8), 16371649.

Cawthon, S. W., & Cole, E. V. (2010). Post-secondary students with a learning disability: Student perspectives on accommodations access and obstacles. Journal of Postsecondary Education and disability, 23(2), 112-128.

Connor, D. J. (2012). Helping students with disabilities transition to college: 21 tips for students with LD and ADD/ADHD. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(5), 16-25.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.

Couzens, D., Poed, S., Kataoka, M., Brandon, A., Hartley, J., & Keen, D. (2015). Support for students with hidden disabilities in universities: A case study. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 62(1), 24-41.

De Cesarei, A. (2015). Psychological factors that foster or deter the disclosure of disability by university students. Psychological Reports, 116(3), 665-673.

Kent, M., Ellis, K., & Giles, M. (2018). Students with disabilities and eLearning in Australia: Experiences of accessibility and disclosure at Curtin University. TechTrends, 62(6), 654663.

Kohler, P. D., & Field, S. (2003). Transition-focused education: Foundation for the future. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 174-183.

Lightner, K. L., Kipps-Vaughan, D., Schulte, T., & Trice, A. D. (2012). Reasons university students with a learning disability wait to seek disability services. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(2), 145-159.

Ressa, T. W. (2016). The path to college: Transition experiences of students with disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University).

Shaw, S. R., & McCabe, P. C. (2008). Hospital‐to‐school transition for children with chronic illness: Meeting the new challenges of an evolving health care system. Psychology in the Schools, 45(1), 74-87.

Showers, A. H., & Kinsman, J. W. (2017). Factors that contribute to college success for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(2), 81-90.

Skinner, N. T. (2004). A case study of freshmen swimmers' college transition experiences (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University).

Toutain, C. (2019). Barriers to Accommodations for Students with Disabilities in Higher Education: A Literature Review. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 32(3), 297-310.

About the Authors Emily Smith, Ed.D. is an assistant professor in the West College of Education at Midwestern State University. Dr. Smith serves as the Special Education Program Coordinator as well as the Graduate Coordinator for her college. She has spent over fifteen years working in public schools as a teacher, educational diagnostician, special education administrator, and as a university professor. Dr. Smith presents at regional, state, and national conferences on transition to postsecondary education, learning disabilities, assessment, high-leverage practices, and other related topics.

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

66

Braelyn Ringwald is an undergraduate student at the West College of Education at Midwestern State University majoring in Special Education with minors in Early Childhood Studies. She has spent her time at MSU leading the Redwine Honors Program, Council for Exceptional Children, Special Olympics, and several other student organizations. Braelyn has presented at local, regional, and international conferences specifically on postsecondary transition for students with disabilities.

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

67

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

68

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: Special Education Research, Policy and Practice (SERPP)

74

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 Gilmour, A. F., & Wehby, J. H. (2020). The association between teaching students with disabilities and teacher turnover. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(5), 1042. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1901370 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. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F074193259301400103 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. http://www.deltakappagamma.org/NH/DKGBulletinsummer2011.PDF#page=39 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 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170808900813 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. https://www.nasponline.org/Documents/Research%20and%20Policy/CBPP%20Medicaid %20Report.pdf 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1775566 Smith, C. L. (2003). Focus on an Untapped Classroom Resource: Helping Paraprofessionals Become Teachers. Southern Regional Education Board. Advance online publication. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED477170.pdf 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 U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). A History of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History 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)

77

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.

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

83

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

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

85

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. Washington, 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, 26th 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.

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

92

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 Mean number of words before main verb (SYNLE)

Connectives All connectives incidence (CNCAll)

Word Information Noun incidence (WRDNOUN)

Sentence Length Mean number of words (DESSL)

Mean number of modifiers per noun phrase (SYNNP)

Causal Connectives incidence (CNCCaus)

Verb incidence (WRDVERB)

Standard deviation of mean number of words (DESSLd)

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

94

Minimal edit distance, part of speech (SYNMEDpos)

Logical connectives incidence (CNCLogic)

Adjective incidence (WRDADJ)

Minimal edit distance, all words (SYNMEDwrd)

Adversative/contrasti ve connectives incidence (CNCADC) Temporal connectives incidence (CNCTemp)

Adverb incidence (WRDADV)

Minimal edit distance, lemmas (SYNMEDlem) Mean adjacent sentence structure similarity (SYNSTRUTa)

Expanded temporal connectives incidence (CNCTempx)

Mean all sentence structure similarity (SYNSTRUTt)

Additive connectives incidence CNCAdd)

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.

Table 2 Initial Hypothesized Model with Four Latent Variables and 28 Coh-Metrix SCMs Sentence Pattern Noun phrase incidence (DRNP)

C O

Latent Variables Sentence Length Sentence Connector Mean number of All connectives words (DESSL) incidence (CNCAll)

Verb phrase incidence (DRVP)

Standard deviation of mean number of words (DESSLd)

Causal Connectives incidence (CNCCaus)

Adverbial phrase incidence (DRAP)

Mean number of Logical words before main connectives verb (SYNLE) incidence (CNCLogic)

Sentence Sophistication Mean number of modifiers per noun phrase (SYNNP) Minimal edit distance, part of speech (SYNMEDpos) Minimal edit distance, all words (SYNMEDwrd)

Preposition phrase incidence (DRPP)

Adversative/contr astive connectives incidence (CNCADC)

Minimal edit distance, lemmas (SYNMEDlem)

Agentless passive voice forms

Temporal connectives

Mean adjacent sentence structure

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

96

H M E T R I X S C M s

incidence (DRPVAL)

incidence (CNCTemp)

similarity (SYNSTRUTa)

Negation expression incidence (DRNEG)

Expanded temporal connectives incidence (CNCTempx)

Mean all sentence structure similarity (SYNSTRUTt)

Gerund incidence (DRGERUND)

Additive connectives incidence (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.

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

97

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.

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

99

Figure 1: A Diagrammatic Representation of Revising the Hypothesized Model into 16 SCMs DRNP DRVP DRAP DRPP

PHRASE

DRPVAL Sentence Pattern

DRNEG DRGERUND DRINF WRDNOUN WRDVERB

WORD

WRDADJ WRDADV DESSL Sentence Length

DESSLd SYNLE CNCAll CNCCaus CNCLogic

Sentence Connector

CNCADC CNCTemp

Highly correlated

CNCTempx CNCAdd SYNNP SYNMEDpos SYNMEDwrd Sentence Sophistication

SYNMEDlem SYNSTRUTa SYNSTRUTt

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

WORD WRDNOUN WRDVERB WRDADJ WRDADV

Standard deviation of mean number of words (DESSLd)

Agentless passive voice forms incidence (DRPVAL)

Mean number of Causal words before main Connectives verb (SYNLE) incidence (CNCCaus)

Minimal edit distance, all words (SYNMEDwrd)

Gerund incidence (DRGERUND)

Logical connectives incidence (CNCLogic)

Minimal edit distance, lemmas (SYNMEDlem)

Infinitive incidence (DRINF)

Temporal connectives incidence (CNCTemp)

Mean adjacent sentence structure similarity (SYNSTRUTa)

PHRASE DRAP DRPP

Sentence Connector All connectives incidence (CNCAll)

Sentence Sophistication Minimal edit distance, part of speech (SYNMEDpos)

Mean all sentence structure similarity (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) Estimate

SE

T

p

DRPVAL

-0.04

0.05

-0.86

.39

DRGERUND

0.20

0.05

4.33

<.001

DRINF

-0.46

0.05

-9.50

<.001

WORD

0.52

0.05

10.38

<.001

PHRASE

0.43

0.05

9.25

<.001

DESSLd

0.61

0.05

12.81

<.001

SYNLE

0.54

0.05

11.96

<.001

CNCAll

1.03

0.02

43.74

<.001

CNCCaus

0.38

0.03

13.02

<.001

CNCLogic

0.70

0.02

29.95

<.001

CNCTemp

0.36

0.03

12.27

<.001

SYNMEDpos

-0.09

0.04

-1.98

.048

SYNMEDwrd

-0.27

0.04

-6.29

<.001

SYNMEDlem

0.40

0.04

9.63

<.001

SYNSTRUTa

0.64

0.05

12.94

<.001

SYNSTRUTt

-0.48

0.04

-10.74

<.001

Sentence Pattern

Sentence Length

Sentence Connector

Sentence Sophistication

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.

Table 5 Regression Coefficients for the Final Multiple Regression Model (N = 1,029) Parameter

Estimate

Standard Error

t

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

p

103

Intercept

17.03

0.33

51.40

<0.001

Not-At-Risk

5.31

0.34

15.44

<0.001

Sentence Length

0.43

0.20

2.14

0.030

Sentence Connector

0.44

0.25

1.79

0.070

Sentence Pattern

0.73

0.33

2.19

0.030

Sentence Sophistication

0.35

0.14

2.46

0.010

Sentence Length*Sentence Connector

-0.41

0.11

-3.71

<0.001

Sentence Pattern* Not-At-Risk

1.22

0.36

3.42

<0.001

Sentence Connector* Not-At-Risk

-1.08

0.26

-4.10

<0.001

2

Note. R = 0.31

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

105

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 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10057-x 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

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309351547 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 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. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1080569912466438 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.

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

110

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)

112

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).

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

114

Figure 1. Participant Survey 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.

Percentage of responses

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.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

high impact average impact no impact

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Preschool Early Intervention Element

Figure 2. Percentage of Responses

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

116

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%).

Instruction to develop indepedent self-care skills 8%

Instruction provided with typically developing peers 33%

Instruction provided by highly qualified teachers 17% Social emotional skills related to peer interaction 17%

Play based instruction 25%

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.

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

117

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

119

adjustment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 78-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.01.001 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.07.011 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 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.05.001 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 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. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.88.1.0017 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.05.001 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. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0162373715587965 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04022-z 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 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12460 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 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. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJSLP-21-00112 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 Demographics by School and Overall School Total #+% #+% #Students Latino Caucasian School A (Middle School)

894

652 (73%)

196 (22%)

#+% African American 35 (4%)

#+% Asian 8 (1%)

#+% American Indian/Alaskan Native/Other 0 (0%)

School B (High School)

1,456

1,014 (69.6%)

351 (24.1%)

47 (3.2%)

19 (1.3%)

25 (1.7%)

School C (High School)

1,661

1,267 (76.3%)

295 (17.8%)

43 (2.6%)

37 (2.2%)

19 (1.2%)

Entire School

24,863

19,630 (75.9%)

4,798 (19.3%)

621 (2.5%)

248 (1%)

348 (1.4%)

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

126

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.

Figure 1. Teacher Strategy Implementation High School versus Middle School 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%).

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

129

Figure 2. Teacher Strategy Implementation by Teaching Approach 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.

Table 2 Relationship Between the Inclusion Domains and Student Engagement Student Engagement Pearson r p Teacher activities .62** <.001 Instructional strategies .47** 0.008 Culturally responsive strategies .29 0.12 Classroom management strategies .3 0.1 Instructional materials/resources .47** 0.008 Note. * p<.05, **p<.01 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)

131

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.

Table 1 Fall Semester Virtual Session Topics Topic

Date

Activities

10/1 Whole group

● Accountability ● Recall

● Email ● Google docs/slides

10/8 Whole group

● 3 min meditation ● Virtual tour of campus ● Questions about FU

● 15 min intro ● Tour/questions ● 5 min closure

10/15 Whole group

● Yoga

● ● ● ●

10/22 Whole group

● Self-care/Mindfulness

● 15 min intro ● Self-care/mindfulness ● 5 min closure

10/29 Break out rooms

● Recall of past topics (Fall)

● 15 min intro ● Undergrad facilitated discussion

15 min intro Hygiene Yoga session 5 min closure

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

138

Whole group

● Kahoot

Table 2 Spring Semester Virtual Session Topics Date

Topic

Activities

3/4 Whole group

● Accountability ● Etiquette kahoot

● Brief mindfulness activity ● Virtual Etiquette ● Kahoot

3/11 Break out rooms Whole group

● Campus job tour ● Where can students work on campus?

● 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

● ● ● ●

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

● Recall Culmination

● Kahoot (facilitated by undergrad) ● Review of all sessions

Mindfulness BAMBOOZLE Resume drafts What did you learn?: google doc

Table 3 Activities and Skills in TOPS Sessions Activity

Skill

Zoom Etiquette

● ● ● ●

Mute/unmute Virtual hand raise Virtual reactions (heart, thumbs up, etc) Video on/off

Kahoot (www.kahoot.com)

● Shift attention from two devices or windows ● Content recall

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

139

Baamboozle

● Teamwork in the context of an online game ● Content recall

Google docs

● Shift to two windows ● Typing/spelling/documenting discussion ● Working as team to complete a google doc

Breakout rooms

● Navigate to and from virtual room ● Communicate with small group

Virtual Tour

● Identify places on familiar University campus

Job availability University website

● Select jobs of interest ● Note skills needed for jobs of interest

Meditation

● Follow visual and emotional regulation

Method Participants 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 Statement (self-assessment)

YES/NO Response

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

140

1. I feel comfortable participating in TOPS on zoom

YES N = 10 NO N = 0

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

YES N = 10 NO N = 0

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

YES N = 10 NO N = 0

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

YES N = 8 NO N = 2

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

YES N = 8 NO N = 2

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

YES N = 5 NO N = 5

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

YES N = 10 NO N = 0

8. I know how to mute myself when needed

YES N = 9 NO N = 1

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

YES N = 10 NO N = 0

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

YES N = 6 NO N = 4

11. I know how to check my email for information about YES N = 10 TOPS sessions NO N = 0 Table 5 Participant Open Ended Questions Each question/sentence prompt is documented below with a summary of participant responses.

Statement

Participant Response

1. This session I hope to:

● “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

● “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)” 2. I like meeting online because:

3. I miss meeting on campus because:

● “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” “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)

142

6. I would like the TOPS leaders to know that:

● “They are the best leaders and friends I ever 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)

143

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 Anderson, K., Sosnowy, C., Kuo, A. & Shattuck, P. (2018) Transition of individuals with autism to adulthood: A review of qualitative studies. Pediatrics, 141(4). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-4300I Cavendish, W. & Connor, D. (2018). Toward authentic IEPs and transition plans: Student, parent and teacher perspectives. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948716684680 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728811399091

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 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. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16 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)

145

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

Publishing Process PUBLISHING PROCESS The following are the steps through which a submitted article moves from initial submission to actual publication in SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE. 1. The article is submitted in Word format by the author(s) to the Editor, Dr. George Giuliani, at George.A.Giuliani@hofstra.edu 2. The Editor then sends an email to the author stating that the article has been received and a final answer will be given within 90 days of receipt.

3. The article is then placed in an online folder that holds all articles up for review.

4. The article is then removed of all author names, affiliations, etc. so that when it is sent out for review, it is a blind review and no peer reviewers have any indication who wrote the article or from what university it was submitted.

5. An email is then sent by the Editor to all members of the Editorial Board with a request to review an article. Only the title of the article is given.

6. Peer reviewers then email the Editor as to their interest in reviewing the specific article. A minimum of three (3) blind reviewers is selected. An email to each blind reviewer is then sent reviewing the peer review process.

7. The peer reviewers have 60 days from receipt to return a recommendation to the Editor.

8. Once all of the reviews have been obtained, the Editor determines whether to:    

Accept, with or without editorial revisions Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems

9. An email with the decision (and rationale for it) is then sent to the author(s).

10. Before publication, the article is then passed through three functions: copy editing (grammar, references), proofing (typographical errors, spelling errors), and layout (creating a Microsoft Word and PDF version of the article).

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

147

Copyright and Reprint Rights SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE is published by Hofstra University.

SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE retains copyright of all original materials, however, the author(s) retains the right to use, after publication in the journal, all or part of the contribution in a modified form as part of any subsequent publication.

If the author(s) use the materials in a subsequent publication, whether in whole or part, SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE must be acknowledged as the original publisher of the article.

All other requests for use or re-publication in whole or part, should be addressed to the Editor of SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE.

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

148