pdfdissertation

Walden University COLLEGE OF EDUCATION This is to certify that the dissertation by Laura Kieranhas been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made. Review CommitteeDr. Peggy Locke, Committee Chairperson, Education FacultyDr. Christina Dawson, Committee Member, Education FacultyDr. Linda Crawford, University Reviewer, Education Faculty Chief Academic Officer Eric Riedel, Ph.D. Walden University 2012

Abstract High School Teachers’ Attitudes Toward the Inclusion of Students With High-Functioning Autism by Laura Perran Kieran MA, Lesley University, 2006BS, State University of New York, College at Oswego, 1988 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Education Walden University May 2012

AbstractFew researchers have examined teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion of students withautism spectrum disorders at the high school level. The purpose of this mixed methodssequential explanatory study was to examine teachers’ attitudes and perceived needs inteaching high school students with high-functioning autism (HFA). Cognitiveconstructivism was the theoretical base for this study. Seventy-seven general (GE) andspecial (SE) education high school teachers completed the Scale of Teachers’ AttitudesToward Inclusive Classrooms. Analysis using an independent samples t test found astatistically significant difference between the teacher groups on the professional issuesof inclusion subscale but not on advantages and disadvantages, philosophical issues, orlogistics. Spearman rank correlation showed a statistically significant relationshipbetween the amount of teacher training and scores related to the philosophical issues ofinclusion but not across the other 3 elements. Five teachers were interviewed aboutconcerns related to including students with HFA. A priori and open coding were used inmultiple rounds of interpretive analysis. Teachers expressed the need for flexibleinterventions, support in finding the least restrictive environment, further training, andopportunities for collaboration. Primary recommendations are: (a) to build opportunitiesfor collaboration between SE and GE into preparation programs and into professionaldevelopment for teachers and for administrators, and (b) to enhance collaboration withfamilies. Positive social change implications include increased self-efficacy for GE andSE teachers, more consistent implementation of interventions, and more successfulinclusion of students with HFA.



High School Teachers’ Attitudes Toward the Inclusion of Students With High-Functioning Autism by Laura Perran Kieran MA, Lesley University, 2006 BS, State University of New York, College at Oswego, 1988 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Education Walden University May 2012

UMI Number: 3499743 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI 3499743 Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

Dedication I dedicate this doctoral dissertation to my sons, Timothy and Garrett. Youencouraged me when I had doubt, and you “endured” take-out far more often than Iwould have preferred. Gentlemen, it is my hope that I inspire you as much as you havealways inspired me.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank my family, friends, and co-workers; without theirencouragement and faith in me, I might not have completed this journey. I would like tosincerely thank my committee chair and methodologist for their support and feedbackthrough this process. Peggy and Tina, your guidance has helped to shape both this studyand this scholar. Finally, to my husband Shawn, I would like to thank you for allowingme to lean on you when I needed focus and confidence. I fully expect to return the favoras you resume your education.

Table of ContentsList of Tables .......................................................................................................................vList of Figures .................................................................................................................... viChapter 1: Introduction to the Study....................................................................................1 Background ....................................................................................................................1 Problem Statement .........................................................................................................5 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................8 Research Questions........................................................................................................9 Quantitative Research Questions ............................................................................ 9 Qualitative Research Questions ............................................................................ 10 Nature of the Study ......................................................................................................12 Theoretical Frameworks ..............................................................................................14 Definition of Terms......................................................................................................17 Assumptions.................................................................................................................19 Limitations and Delimitations......................................................................................19 Significance and Social Impact of Study .....................................................................20 Summary ......................................................................................................................22Chapter 2: Literature Review.............................................................................................24 Introduction..................................................................................................................24 Legislation....................................................................................................................25 Autism Spectrum Disorder ..........................................................................................29 Inclusion and Inclusive Models of Education..............................................................32 i

Tiered Systems of Supports .................................................................................. 38 Direct Instruction .................................................................................................. 43 Differentiated Instruction...................................................................................... 46 Student Motivation and Self-Regulation .............................................................. 52 Teacher Attitudes and Self-Efficacy............................................................................55 Teacher Attitudes and Successful Inclusion ......................................................... 56 Preservice Teacher Preparation and Attitudes ...................................................... 62 Research Methods........................................................................................................64 Summary ......................................................................................................................70Chapter 3: Research Method..............................................................................................72 Research Design...........................................................................................................75 Role of Researcher .......................................................................................................77 Setting and Sample ......................................................................................................78 Instrumentation and Materials .....................................................................................82 Data Collection and Analysis.......................................................................................86 Participant Privacy and Rights.....................................................................................88 Summary ......................................................................................................................90Chapter 4: Results ..............................................................................................................91 Introduction..................................................................................................................91 Research Process..........................................................................................................92 Participants...................................................................................................................93 Participant Demographics..................................................................................... 94 ii

Education, Training, and Experience of Participants............................................ 95 Instrumentation ............................................................................................................96 Survey Findings ...........................................................................................................97 Advantages and Disadvantages of Inclusion ........................................................ 99 Professional Issues of Inclusion.......................................................................... 101 Philosophical Issues of Inclusion........................................................................ 102 Logistics of Inclusion.......................................................................................... 103 Total STATIC ..................................................................................................... 104 Clock Hours and Professional Development in Inclusion .................................. 105 Summary of Survey Findings ............................................................................. 106 Interview Findings .....................................................................................................110 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 111 Summary of Interview Findings ......................................................................... 119 Conclusion .................................................................................................................121Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations..........................................124 Overview....................................................................................................................124 Interpretation of Findings ..........................................................................................126 Recommendations for Action ....................................................................................135 Implications for Social Change..................................................................................138 Recommendations for Further Research....................................................................139 Research Experience ..................................................................................................140 Conclusion .................................................................................................................142 iii

References ........................................................................................................................144Appendix A: STATIC......................................................................................................169Appendix B: High School Teacher Practices, Needs, and Concerns Regarding Inclusion of Students with HFA ..........................................................................171Appendix C: Permission for Survey Instrument .............................................................172Appendix D: Consent Forms ...........................................................................................173Appendix E: M and SD STATIC Responses per Question.............................................176Appendix F: Box and Whisker Plots of Responses to STATIC Areas............................177Appendix G: Sample Interview Transcript .....................................................................179Curriculum Vitae .............................................................................................................180 iv

List of TablesTable 1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents .................................................... 94Table 2. Education, Training, and Experience of Participants ......................................... 95Table 3. Internal Coefficient Alphas for Teacher Responses to the STATIC .................. 98Table 4. General Education (GE) and Special Education (SE) Teacher Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) of Responses to the STATIC............................................ 99Table 5. Spearman Correlation Matrix, Relationship of Training and STATIC Scores. 106Table 6. Equality of Variances by Degree Type............................................................. 109Table 7. STATIC Means Without Responses From Participants With Doctorates ........ 110Table 8. Means and Standard Deviations for Each Question on the STATIC ............... 176 v

List of FiguresFigure 1. Box and whisker plot for the STATIC area Advantages and Disadvantages ofinclusion………………………………………………………………………………...177Figure 2. Box and whisker plot for the STATIC area Professional Issues of inclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….....177Figure 3. Box and whisker plot for the STATIC area Philosophical Issues of inclusion………………………………………………………………………………………….178Figure 4. Box and whisker plot for the STATIC area Logistics of inclusion……..……178 vi

1 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study The purpose of this sequential explanatory study was to examine teachers’attitudes and perceived needs in teaching high school students with autism spectrumdisorders. Teachers at the high school level are less represented in the literature oninclusion than are their elementary or middle school counterparts. I reviewed the impactof teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and found a positive correlation between teachers’attitudes toward inclusion and their sense of efficacy. I also found that overall specialeducation teachers were more likely to have a positive attitude toward including studentswith high functioning autism (HFA) and were more confident in their abilities to teachstudents with HFA. This chapter includes information on the background, purpose, and nature of thestudy. This chapter also contains an introduction to the research questions, relevantdefinitions and assumptions, as well as a discussion of the social significance of thisstudy. Background With the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, 2002) legislators mandatedthat all students should have access to standards-based instruction taught by highlyqualified teachers (NCLB, 2002). One purpose of this legislation was to reduce theachievement gap for at-risk students, including students with disabilities, students ofcolor, students in poverty, and students who were English language learners (Edyburn,2010). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004)included mandates designed to reduce the achievement gap and increase student access to

2the general education setting and curriculum. The legislative changes of NCLB (2002)and IDEIA (2004) resulted in an increase of students with disabilities in the generaleducation setting (Hardman & Dawson, 2008; Williamson, McClesky, Hoppey, & Rentz,2006). Educators needed to be prepared to work with students identified with specialeducation needs as those students moved from special education resource classes to thegeneral education classrooms. Training for special education teachers has historically focused on methods tosupport students with diverse needs, including the use of alternative assessments,strategies-based instruction, and individualized supports (Maccini & Gagnon, 2006;Smith, Robb, West, & Tyler, 2010). Conversely, preparation for general educationteachers has focused on content area knowledge and pedagogy (Heckaman, Thompson,Hull, & Ernest, 2009; Maccini & Gagnon, 2006; Nichols, Dowdy, & Nichols, 2010). Themandates of NCLB (2002) also required that educators receive training in how to instructat-risk students; the purpose of this was to increase student access to and success with thegeneral education curriculum (Bain, Lancaster, Zundans, & Parkes, 2009; Kratochwill,Volpiansky, Clements, & Ball, 2007; Smith et al., 2010). Typical training for generaleducation teachers has not prepared them to instruct students with diverse learning andbehavioral needs, which includes students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). According to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and StatisticalManual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR, 2000), students who have an ASD exhibit apattern of behavior in two of the three criteria areas. Criteria include impaired socialinteractions, communication differences, and a restricted repertoire of activities and

3interests. Social impairments could include difficulties forming peer relationships, aswell as an inability to reciprocate social interactions, especially in spontaneous,unstructured settings. Impairments in communication may include either a lack of speechor an inability to speak; unusual speech patterns, such as echolalia (repeating another’swords); or problems initiating and sustaining conversations. Restricted activities orinterests may include fascinations or obsessions regarding particular topics, repetitivemotor movements, or the need to rigidly follow routines and rituals (DSM-IV-TR, 2000).As noted by Kluth (2003), each student on the autism spectrum is unique with individuallearning, social, and behavioral needs. Teachers need to consider the unique attributes ofeach student and their learning environments when selecting research-basedinterventions. There has been an increase in the number of students diagnosed with ASD.Approximately one child per 110 children has been diagnosed with a disability on theautism spectrum (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007). Teachers should beprepared to support students with ASD in the general education and special educationsettings. Leach and Duffy (2009) indicated that inclusion for students on the autismspectrum led to increases in social interactions, communication skills, and academicengagement for those students. Kluth (2003) also found that students on the autismspectrum were more successful in the general education setting with targeted, student-centered interventions. Legislators have mandated student-based interventions, includingaccessible instruction and instructional materials (IDEIA, 2004). Legislators furthermandated that educators incorporate support for at-risk students through the use of

4research-based interventions. Students with HFA benefit from inclusion when providedwith appropriate interventions; educators need to know how to implement research-basedstrategies to support students with ASD in the general education setting. Teachers who support students in the general education setting without training inselecting and implementing research-based interventions may experience difficulty.According to Bain et al. (2009), both general education and special education teachersbenefit from more practice with applying and analyzing research-based interventions.Additional training also impacts teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion (Boe, Shin, & Cook,2007; Lancaster & Bain, 2007; Viel-Ruma, Houchins, Jolivette, & Benson, 2010).Training and experience increase teachers’ attitudes and their self-efficacy ratings relatedto inclusion (Bain et al., 2009), and can affect whether the experience was successful fortheir students (Bandura, 1977; Pajares, 1992; Rose, 2001). Positive attitudes of teachershave led to high expectations for all students in the inclusive classroom settings; highexpectations for students have been linked to successful inclusion (Park & Chitiyo, 2009;Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Bandura (1977) found that higher scores in self-efficacy led to an increase in expectations and performance “by enhancing persistenceand intensity of effort” (p. 212). This means teachers with a positive attitude were morelikely to try a variety of interventions when students struggled in the classroom. Some general education teachers lack the training to work with students on theautism spectrum. Educators with a positive attitude and high ratings of efficacy mayhave a more positive attitude toward inclusion and are therefore more likely to try avariety of strategies to support students with disabilities (Pajares, 1992; Rose, 2001).

5Educators with a negative attitude and a lower sense of efficacy are also more likely toplace the locus of control on the student for the students’ learning difficulties and lesslikely to use a variety of interventions to support students (Tschannen-Moran, &Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). When reviewing the research I found that the interventions at the elementaryschool level are more thoroughly researched than at the secondary education level(National Autism Center, [NAC], 2009). In addition, much of the research reviewed inchapter 2 includes interventions for students with mild to moderate disabilities; fewresearchers have examined classroom-based interventions specifically designed forstudents with autism spectrum disorders (Sansosti, Noltemeyer, & Goss, 2010; Stewart,Benner, Martella, & Marchand-Martella, 2010). Researchers have emphasized includingstudents with disabilities in general as the research focus; students on the autismspectrum have not been the focus of studies related to inclusion. Chapter 2 includes afurther examination of inclusive practices, and teachers’ attitudes toward includingstudents with HFA. Problem Statement Students with special education needs are typically lower achieving academicallythan their non-disabled peers. With the educational mandates of NCLB (2002) andIDEIA (2004) more students with special education needs receive instruction in thegeneral education setting (Hardman & Dawson, 2008; Williamson et al., 2006). To meetNCLB (2002) mandates, many schools have changed how they provide services tostudents by increasing instruction in the general education setting (Marzano, Waters, &

6McNulty, 2005; Polhemus, 2010). General education teachers need to be prepared toteach students with more diverse learning needs. Special education and generaleducation teachers need to collaborate to reduce the barriers to student achievement in thegeneral education setting. Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion have an impact on their beliefs regardingstudent performance and potential to learn. Educators with a negative attitude towardinclusion have a lower sense of efficacy and are more likely to place the locus of controlfor student difficulties on the student (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001;Woolfson & Brady, 2009). Conversely, educators who have a positive attitude towardinclusion and a positive view of their efficacy are more likely to recognize that variedteaching strategies could increase students’ success (Bandura, 1977; Horne & Timmons,2009; Kosco & Wilkins, 2009; Marzano et al., 2005; Pajares, 1992; Rose, 2001).Training in accommodating instruction and curriculum has been noted as important byteachers; this training has been found to have a positive impact on teachers’ attitudestoward inclusion. Several studies were conducted to determine what supports general education andspecial education teachers need for successful inclusion. Additional training indifferentiating for exceptional students was cited as a need by teachers across severalstudies (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006; Horne & Timmons, 2009; Idol, 2006; Kosko &Wilkins, 2009). DeSimone and Parmar (2006), Horne and Timmons (2009), and Idol(2006) focused on teachers’ attitudes toward including students with mild to moderate

7disabilities in the general education setting. There is little empirical research regardingsecondary teachers and including students with HFA. A review of the research related to including students with HFA yielded thefewest studies at the high school level. The NAC (2009), Sansosti et al. (2010), andStewart et al. (2010) conducted meta-analyses of research related to including studentswith HFA; in those studies the fewest research-based interventions were identified at thehigh school level. It is important for students with HFA to practice skills such asorganization, time-management, and self-advocacy skills in the general education setting.These skills increase students’ success and independence in postsecondary settings(Webb, Patterson, Syverud, & Seabrooks-Blackmore, 2008). Students will be moresuccessful when research-based interventions are applied in the general education setting.This is made more difficult for secondary level teachers with a smaller research base forreference. This may have an impact on teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. More information is needed regarding high school teachers’ attitudes towardincluding students with HFA. There is a gap in the research regarding secondaryteachers’ attitudes toward teaching students with HFA in the general education setting(Sansosti et al., 2010), as well as supports designed specifically for secondary students onthe autism spectrum (Flores & Ganz, 2007; Roberts & Joiner, 2007). A positive attitudein teachers may lead to increased support for students and increased access to instructionand materials (Bandura, 1977; Rose, 2001). Therefore, more information is neededregarding teachers’ attitudes toward and practices with students on the autism spectrum inthe secondary general education setting.

8 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this sequential explanatory study was to examine teachers’attitudes and perceived needs in teaching high school students with autism spectrumdisorders. Participants were high school general education and special education teachersexperienced in teaching students with HFA in inclusive settings. The original intent wasto review the attitudes of teachers in a Midwest state; however, the study snowballedbeyond the originally defined region, as further discussed in chapter 3. Teachers’attitudes toward inclusion were measured using the Scale of Teacher Attitudes TowardsInclusive Classrooms ([STATIC], Cochran, 1997/2000). The STATIC was used toexamine participants’ attitudes through four scales related to inclusion: advantages anddisadvantages, professional issues, philosophical issues, and the logistics of inclusiveeducation. Additional information gathered includes the teachers’ status as a general orspecial education teacher, the length of teaching experience, and the amount ofprofessional development obtained in relation to inclusion. Follow-up interviewquestions were used to further examine teachers’ concerns regarding and their needs forsuccessful inclusion of students with HFA. I extend the current knowledge of the factors that influence teachers’ attitudes,practices, concerns, and needs in teaching high school students with HFA. This studymay be used to encourage social change by bringing to light factors which lead to a morepositive attitude in relation to teaching students with HFA in inclusive classrooms.

9 Research QuestionsQuantitative Research Questions The following quantitative questions guided the quantitative portion of theresearch study: 1. Is there a statistically significant difference between high school general education and special education teachers’ attitudes regarding including students with HFA in the general education setting? H10: There is not a statistically significant difference between general educationteachers’ and special education teachers’ attitudes regarding including students with HFAin the high school general education setting. H1A: There is a statistically significant difference between general educationteachers’ and special education teachers’ attitudes regarding including students with HFAin the high school general education setting. Variables for Research Question 1: The independent variable with this researchquestion was the participants’ teaching position (general education or special educationteacher), as noted by the teachers’ responses in the demographic data gathered. Highschool general education and special education teachers who have worked with studentswith ASD were surveyed. The dependent variable was the attitudes that generaleducation and special education high school teachers have regarding including studentswith HFA in the general education setting as measured by the STATIC.

10 2. Is there a statistically significant relationship between the amount of teacher training and high school teachers’ attitudes toward including students with HFA? H20: There is not a statistically significant relationship between the amount ofteacher training and high school teachers’ attitudes toward including students with HFA. H2A: There is a statistically significant relationship between the amount of teachertraining and high school teachers’ attitudes toward including students with HFA. Variables for Research Question 2: Demographic data were gathered regardingthe teachers’ credit hours and the amount of professional development related toinclusion. These data comprised the predictor variable. The results were compared todetermine if there was a correlation between the amount of training and the teachers’attitudes toward including students with HFA as reported on the STATIC.Qualitative Research Questions Data were gathered to address the current high school teachers’ perspectivesregarding their needs and concerns for the successful inclusion of students with HFA.Telephone interviews were conducted with volunteer participants. Survey participantswere invited to e-mail me with further contact information to indicate interest ininterview participation. The qualitative research questions were intended to provide anexplanation for relationships found in the quantitative survey and subsequent analysis: 1. What interventions do high school teachers consider most beneficial to support students with HFA in inclusive classroom settings?

11 Research-based interventions for students on the autism spectrum were morewidely researched at the elementary level than the secondary education level (NAC,2009). Interventions found to be effective for high school students with ASD includedantecedent management techniques designed to reduce potential problems or conflicts,modeling of new skills or behaviors, and self-management techniques (NAC, 2009). The qualitative questions had a basis in research and were related to gaps in theliterature; interview responses provide a more comprehensive examination of patternswhich emerged from the quantitative data. 2. What administrator supports do high school teachers feel are important for successful inclusion of students with HFA? Administrative support was found to be a key element necessary for successfulinclusion; this included the allocation of resources, time for collaboration, andopportunities for professional development (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006; Horne &Timmons, 2009; Idol, 2006; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002; Robertson, Chamberlain, &Kasari, 2003; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). Horrocks, White, and Roberts (2008)concluded that principals’ training in the behavioral needs of students led to a betterunderstanding of how to support students with ASD in inclusive classrooms. Additionalinformation was needed regarding teacher perceptions of administrative support andtraining at the secondary level. a. What concerns do high school teachers have regarding including students with HFA in the general education setting?

12 This question was related to research regarding teacher concerns and inclusion ofstudents with disabilities. Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) and Heflin and Bullock (1999)found that educators who had more concerns regarding including students withdisabilities were more likely to have a negative attitude toward inclusion. Avramidis andNorwich (2002) found that teachers’ attitudes and beliefs regarding student potential andinclusion impacted their commitment to successful inclusion. Scruggs and Mastropierialso found that educators at the secondary level had more concerns related to inclusionthan did elementary educators. Responses to this question provided additionalinformation and explanation for teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Nature of the Study This study had a mixed method sequential explanatory design. This approach wasselected in order to examine the patterns in high school teachers’ attitudes towardincluding students with HFA as well as the possible reasons for those patterns. Iconsidered gathering quantitative survey data only but decided teachers’ opinionsregarding the supports for and challenges to successful inclusion would be best gatheredthrough open-ended, qualitative interview questions. I also considered gathering thequalitative data first, but rejected this design to allow for refinement of the interviewquestions based on the teachers’ responses to the survey questions. I reviewed Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy’s survey instrument, the TeacherSense of Efficacy Scale (2001), to gather quantitative information regarding teachers’sense of efficacy. This survey instrument was rejected as it had not previously beenadapted to gather data regarding teachers’ attitudes toward including students from a

13specific disability area. Cochran’s STATIC (1997/2000) has been adapted to gatherinformation specifically about including students with specific learning disabilities,students with disabilities at the high school level, as well as students with Downsyndrome (Barco, 2007; Hoffman, 2006; Mastin, 2010), demonstrating flexibility in thetool’s use. The studies by Barco (2007), Mastin (2010), and Hoffman (2006) yieldedsimilar results to Cochran’s original study; these results indicated that the specialeducation teachers had a more positive attitude than the general education teachersregarding inclusion. All teachers had a more positive attitude toward inclusion givenmore experience and training. In each study, the internal consistency of participantresponses was established. Three follow-up interview questions were initially planned to gather qualitativedata and to further consider how to best support high school students on the autismspectrum as well as how to support and prepare the teachers working with those students.The qualitative research questions were formulated based on gaps in the literature.Successful inclusion of students with special education needs seems to be related toteacher training as well as administrator supports. More information was neededregarding secondary teachers’ practices to support students on the autism spectrum. Threeinterview questions emerged: 1. In inclusive classroom settings, what interventions do you consider most beneficial to support students with HFA? 2. What administrator supports do you feel are important for successful inclusion of students with HFA?

14 3. What concerns do you have regarding including students with high functioning autism in the general education setting? Theoretical Frameworks Cognitive constructivism is the theoretical base for the quantitative surveyquestions; cognitive constructivists view students as individuals in how they learn anddevelop. Successful inclusion of students on the autism spectrum requires that studentsbe viewed as individuals, with individual strengths and needs (Chandler-Olcott & Kluth,2009; Lytle & Todd, 2009; Mesibov & Howley, 2003; Simpson, McKee, Teeter, &Beytien, 2007; Tobias, 2009). Early theorists associated with constructivism includedPiaget (1979/2000) and Vygotsky (1935/1978). Both theorists proposed that asindividuals learn, they progress at different rates through the curriculum; learning anddevelopment occur through social interactions and experiences with their peers.Vygotsky (1935/1978) indicated that “although learning is directly related to the courseof child development the two are never accomplished in equal measure or in parallel” (p.91). Both Piaget and Vygotsky indicated that it was the educators’ role to providestudents with active and authentic learning experiences. Vygotsky (1935/1978) furtherstated that teachers need to create an environment in which students develop languagethrough collaborative problem solving. Cognitive constructivism is the basis for severalcurrent frameworks used to individualize curriculum and instruction to support allstudents. Current research-based instructional planning and delivery strategies includeTomlinson’s differentiated instruction (2001) and Rose’s universal design for learning

15(UDL, 2001). Both of these frameworks for differentiation are based on the cognitiveconstructivist theory (Meo, 2008; Rose, 2001). Models which used tiered systems toprovide academic and behavioral supports for students are also developed around thecognitive constructivist theory. Tiered systems allow educators to provide levels ofsupport which are centered on individual academic or behavioral needs (Polhemus,2010). In keeping with cognitive constructivism teachers adjust instruction and scaffoldsto reduce student barriers to success in the general education setting. The STATIC survey questions are used to evaluate teachers’ attitudes and beliefsrelated to establishing an inclusive learning environment. Areas include the perceivedadvantages and disadvantages of inclusion, the logistics of inclusion, philosophical issuesof inclusion, and professional issues related to inclusion (Cochran, 1997/2000). Educatorswith more positive responses to survey questions tend to have a positive outlook towardincluding students with special education needs. Educators with a positive attitude aremore likely to have the belief that all children have the ability to learn. This also leads tothe belief that students with special needs will learn skills in the general education settingthrough working with their nondisabled peers. Educators are more likely to be persistent in trying differentiated strategies tosupport student needs if they have a positive view of their efficacy (Bandura, 1977).According to Cochran (1997), “teachers’ attitudes are a significant variable related to thesuccess of students with disabilities” (p. 5). The STATIC instrument was created byCochran in order to add to the body of knowledge regarding teachers’ attitudes towardinclusion with the intent of examining areas in which educators had concerns or

16reservations regarding the inclusion. The STATIC was originally used to gatherinformation regarding teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion in general. For this study, theintent was to use this tool to gather information regarding teachers’ attitudes towardincluding students with HFA. Participants were asked to respond to the STATICquestions with students diagnosed with HFA or Asperger syndrome (AS) in mind. It is important to address teachers’ needs and concerns regarding inclusion.Research on teachers’ attitudes and sense of efficacy provided the basis for the qualitativeinterview questions for this study. Through his social learning theory, Bandura (1977)indicated that individuals can be intrinsically motivated to perform better when they havea sense of accomplishment or experience success. Bandura’s work was expanded ineducation through research on teachers’ attitudes and sense of efficacy in the classroom.The qualitative questions for this study were designed to further consider the facets whichshape teachers’ attitudes and sense of efficacy. These questions were used to examinethe teachers’ perspectives on interventions, beneficial administrative supports, and theirconcerns regarding including students on the autism spectrum. Some researchers havefound that teachers need administrative supports such as additional training in order tofeel competent and effective in teaching students with diverse learning needs (Boe et al.,2007; Dymond et al., 2006; Lancaster & Bain, 2007; Viel-Ruma et al., 2010). Thesefindings were also supported by several studies specifically designed to examineteachers’ sense of efficacy (Pajares, 1992; Rose, 2001; Tschannen-Moran & McMaster,2009). Teachers’ attitudes regarding including students with HFA have not specifically

17been studied. Additional information is needed regarding teachers’ perspectives towardincluding students with HFA. Definition of Terms Asperger syndrome: A disability on the autism spectrum; individuals diagnosedwith AS do not have a cognitive disability or a delay in language acquisition (Gibbons &Goin, 2008). Attitude: A positive or negative disposition; for the purpose of this study, attituderefers specifically to teachers’ positive or negative disposition toward including students(Cochran, 1997) with HFA in the general education setting. Autism spectrum disorders (ASD): This term was used to refer to some or allsubtypes of the pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) diagnostic category in the DSM-IV-TR (2000). In IDEIA (2004) legislators define autism: Autism means a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age three, that adversely affects a child's educational performance. Other characteristics often associated with autism are engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences. ((§ 300.8[c][1]) General education setting: “The first placement option considered for each childwith a disability … in the school that the child would attend if he/she did not have adisability” (Illinois State Board of Education, 2009, p. 52).

18 General education teacher: Teachers licensed to teach core academic subjects tostudents with or without disabilities (Council for Exceptional Children, 2005). High-functioning autism: There is not a formal definition for high-functioningautism; students tend to have average IQs and have social impairments but not verbalimpairments (Black, Wallace, Sokoloff, & Kenworthy, 2009). For the purpose of thisstudy, “high-functioning autism” refers to students on the autism spectrum and in thegeneral education setting who were progressing through the standards-based curriculumwith their peers. Inclusion: The Council for Exceptional Children (2010) indicated: Inclusion is the ideology that each child, to the maximum extent appropriate, should be educated in the school and classroom he or she would otherwise attend. It involves bringing support services to the child (rather than moving the child to the services) and requires only that the child will benefit from being in the class (rather than having to keep up with the other students). (para. 1) Self-efficacy: A teacher’s “judgment of his or her capability to bring about thedesired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students whomay be difficult or unmotivated” (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001, p. 783). Special education setting: Alternative education setting in which a student withspecial education needs may receive instructional supports and services (Illinois StateBoard of Education, 2009).

19 Special education teacher: Educators licensed to teach students who receivespecial education services through an Individual Education Plan (Council for ExceptionalChildren, 2005). Assumptions It was assumed that the study participants were able to understand the surveyquestions and answer the questions truthfully. It was also assumed that the attitudes andconcerns expressed by participants were representative of educators teaching students onthe autism spectrum in the general education setting. Limitations and Delimitations The focus of the study was delimited to the teachers’ perceptions related toincluding high school students with HFA; I did not account for student perceptions ofinclusion. The study sample was originally delimited to high school general educationand special education teachers in a 12-county region in a Midwest state. The studysnowballed to include members of an education listserv for teachers of students on theautism spectrum when the study link was shared by a participant. The scope of this studyincluded teachers’ attitudes, concerns, and needs related to teaching students with HFA.Results are not applicable to students with other disabilities on the autism spectrum. I didnot include observational data to verify teacher perceptions of successful inclusiveclassroom practices. One limitation of this study was that not every high school in the selected regionhad students enrolled who were diagnosed with HFA, and some general educationteachers may not have been aware they were serving students with HFA. Another

20limitation was that there is not currently a licensure for special education teachersworking with students on the autism spectrum; therefore, some special education teacherswho did not have experience teaching students with HFA were contacted for possibleparticipation. General education teachers who had experience with teaching students onthe autism spectrum were referred by special education teachers through a snowballsampling technique. Therefore, there was a risk that special education teachers mightonly refer general education teachers who they perceived to be successful in teachingstudents on the autism spectrum. In an effort to reduce this limitation, special educationteachers were encouraged to refer any general education teacher who had experience withthis population. All experiences and points of view are valuable to better understandingteacher perspectives. Another limitation not anticipated before the study was that the samplingtechnique would snowball to participants outside the original region of the study. Dataregarding teachers’ attitudes were limited to a 6-point Likert scale rating. The follow-upinterviews were conducted with all of the general education and special educationteachers who volunteered for the interview. The participant selection in this manner mayhave resulted in the interviewees not representing the attitudes and beliefs of the generalpopulation of teachers. Significance and Social Impact of Study Previous researchers have focused generally on teachers’ attitudes towardincluding students with mild to moderate disabilities (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006; Horne& Timmons, 2009; Idol, 2006; Kosco & Wilkins, 2009). Researchers have not

21specifically examined teacher self-efficacy and attitudes toward inclusion of high schoolstudents with HFA. Researchers have studied information regarding teachers’ needs forinclusive classrooms, but teachers’ attitudes and concerns specifically regardingincluding students with HFA had not been examined (Flores & Ganz, 2007; Roberts &Joiner, 2007). The results of this study address that gap. This study is significant because it provides information regarding teachers’attitudes and concerns regarding including students with HFA and beneficial supports. Ateacher’s positive attitude and sense of efficacy is an important indicator of successfulinclusion in the general education setting (Bandura, 1977; Park & Chitiyo, 2009; Rose,2001; Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Information gathered from this study canbe used to guide professional development for in-service educators and teachercandidates. Researchers have included teachers’ reports of the need for additionaltraining in order to feel competent and effective in educating students with diverselearning needs (Boe et al., 2007; Dymond et al., 2006; Lancaster & Bain, 2007; Viel-Ruma et al., 2010). In this study I address the gap regarding educators teaching studentswith HFA. The information gathered from this study may lead to social change for studentswith HFA. Previous researchers have indicated that the teachers’ attitudes and sense ofefficacy are key components of successful inclusion (Bandura, 1977; Pajares, 1992; Park& Chitiyo, 2009). Educators who had a positive sense of self-efficacy tended to be morepersistent when finding solutions to student difficulties (Pajares, 1992; Rose, 2001).Students on the autism spectrum can have difficulties in the classroom with behavior,

22social skills, organization, learning new content, and expressing what they have learned(Carnahan, Hume, Clarke, & Borders, 2009; Falk-Ross, Iverson, & Gilbert, 2004; Gately,2008; Harbinson & Alexander, 2009; Roberts & Joiner, 2007). A more successfulinclusion experience for students with HFA means greater access to standards-basedinstruction, taught by highly qualified teachers. Leach and Duffy (2009) found thatstudents on the autism spectrum had greater increases in social interactions,communication skills, and academic engagement. Access to the standards-basedcurriculum in the general education setting will better prepare students with HFA forpostsecondary education. Webb, Patterson, Syverud, and Seabrooks-Blackmore (2008)found that students with HFA performed better academically in postsecondary educationsettings, as it gave them the opportunity to practice the skills of organization, timemanagement, self-advocacy, and communication. Inclusion in the general educationsetting allows students to practice, apply, and generalize these skills necessary for success(Bost & Riccomini, 2006). Teachers need training in how to best support students withHFA to create an accessible inclusive learning environment. Summary Chapter 1 included an introduction to the importance of inclusion of students withHFA in the general education setting, as well as the role of teachers’ attitudes and senseof efficacy in creating a successful inclusive environment. Chapter 1 also included adiscussion of the nature of the study; I used a mixed method approach to examineteachers’ attitudes toward and concerns with including students on the autism spectrum.Quantitative questions were addressed by comparing the teachers’ responses on the

23STATIC to their current teaching assignment and the amount of training they hadreceived in preparation for inclusion. The qualitative questions for the study wereaddressed through interviews with the participants. The quantitative questions were usedto examine patterns in teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion; the qualitative questions wereused to consider teachers’ needs and concerns related to inclusion. Cognitiveconstructivism was the theoretical framework related to the study. Constructivism is tiedto inclusion; constructivists consider that students learn through interactions andexperiences with their peers. The goal of this study was to address gaps in researchrelated to high school teachers’ attitudes toward including students with HFA. Chapter 2 contains a more in-depth examination of current literature related toinclusion, the academic needs of students with HFA in the general education setting, andteachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Chapter 3 contains a description of the methodologyfor the study. This includes a description of the study design, participants, the surveyinstruments to be used, data collection and data analysis procedures. Chapter 4 includes adiscussion and analysis of the research results. Chapter 5 contains an examination of thestudy’s implications, recommendations for how the results could be used, andsuggestions for further research.

24 Chapter 2: Literature Review Introduction The purpose of this sequential explanatory study was to examine teachers’attitudes and perceived needs in teaching high school students with autism spectrumdisorders. In this chapter, I present the review of literature on including students on theautism spectrum in the general education setting. The literature review contains fourpresentations: 1. A clinical definition and brief historical overview of the diagnosis of ASD, as well as an overview of the characteristics of students with HFA and AS. 2. Current general education and special education laws, NCLB (2002) and IDEIA (2004), as well as current research-based interventions that support including students on the autism spectrum. 3. Research on the teacher preparation for, and attitudes toward, including students on the autism spectrum. The influence of training on attitudes toward inclusion, as well as teachers’ sense of efficacy, was also explored. 4. Relevant research methods as well as the research questions that emerged from this review. The strategy used to complete this literature review was multifaceted. I beganwith a review of the books and journal articles read for my graduate-level studies. Ifound a potential gap in the research on teaching students with HFA at the secondaryeducation level. I conducted a search of peer-reviewed journals to examine the currentresearch on including students with HFA in high school classes. The following databases

25were used: Education: A SAGE Full-Text Collection, Education Research Complete,Academic Research Complete, Education Resource Information Center (ERIC),PsycARTICLES, and the Teacher Reference Center. The following keywords were usedin varying combinations in the course of the search: autism, Asperger, syndrome,inclusion, ‘No Child Left Behind’, research-based, interventions, special, preparation,attitudes, efficacy, ‘Response to Intervention,’ tiers, supports, co-teaching, collaboration,differentiation, ‘universal design for learning,’ and ‘high school.’ The following subjectswere used for the search: inclusive education, special education, secondary education,and autism. I also reviewed current federal and state education legislation on inclusiveeducation. Legislation With the passage of NCLB (2002), legislators mandated that all students haveaccess to standards-based instruction taught by highly qualified teachers using research-based strategies. Populations targeted by this legislation were students who weretraditionally low performing compared to their peers. Historically, this included studentswith special education needs, English language learners, students of color, and studentsgrowing up in poverty (Edyburn, 2010). As a result of the NCLB (2002) legislationgeneral education teachers began to serve more students with special education needs(Hardman & Dawson, 2008; Williamson et al., 2006). Access to the instruction in thegeneral education setting was cited as an important intervention for students across alldisability areas (Harrower & Dunlap, 2001; Jackson, Ryndak, & Wehmeyer, 2008/2009).

26Instruction in the general education setting provided students with the opportunity todevelop and practice academic, social, and executive functioning skills. Appropriate research-based interventions can help students who are strugglinglearners access the general education curriculum. Educators and teacher candidates arerequired to receive training regarding research-based practices designed to support low-performing students (Bain et al., 2009; Kratochwill et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2010). Theemphasis of teachers’ training has been on preparing teachers to work with students withhigh frequency disabilities; these disability areas are emotional behavioral disorders(EBD), specific learning disabilities (SLD), speech language disorders, and mildcognitive delays (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010). Since the passage of NCLB (2002),training for preservice educators has shifted from disability-specific training to training inevidence-based interventions to support at-risk students. These interventions aredesigned to develop skills in reading, math, and behavior management in order toincrease the students’ success in the inclusive classroom setting (Brownell, Sindelar,Kiely, & Danielson, 2010). At the secondary level, educators may assume studentsalready possess the skills needed in reading, math, and behavior management. Generaleducation teachers may lack the experience and training to implement these interventions,which can reduce students’ success in the general education setting. Scientifically based research was defined in the NCLB legislation (2002) inSections 20 U.S.C. § 1411(e)(2)(C)(xi) as the use of rigorous, systematic, and objectivemethods of science to examine and validate instructional procedures. Legislators haveargued that research should be based on direct observation and objective measurement to

27provide valid data. In addition, NCLB requires that researchers must know how tocontrol the variables, and how to use rigorous data analysis to support valid. There islimited research on interventions designed for students with ASD at the high school level;this increases the challenge of implementing supports. Under NCLB (2002) all students need access to standards-based instruction taughtby highly qualified teachers; this has led to an increase in the number of students withdisabilities in the general education classroom (Hardman & Dawson, 2008; Williamson etal., 2006). This was a shift in the service delivery, from instruction in the specialeducation setting to instruction in the general education setting. The aim was to increasestudents’ access to standards-based instruction, including for students with ASD.Although ASD has not been considered among the high frequency disabilities, studentswith ASD are more frequently identified currently than previously. Therefore, teachersshould also be prepared to support students with ASD in the general and specialeducation settings. The regulations of IDEIA (2004) must also be followed when teaching studentswho have qualified for special education services. In those regulations (§ 300.172[b][2]),legislators required that educators provide accessible instructional materials to studentsacross all disability areas in their classrooms. Scientific research-based interventionswere also required to support students with disabilities in the classroom setting (§300.307[a][2]). Teacher preparation programs and ongoing teacher in-serviceopportunities have had to keep pace with the changes in federal and state mandatesregarding research-based instruction, materials, and assessment. According to Bain et al.

28(2009), both general and special education teacher candidates benefit from experiencewith the application and analysis of research-based interventions. There is a lack of research specifically focused on teaching students on the autismspectrum. Kratochwill et al. (2007) discussed additional limitations related to theapplication of research-based interventions; the combination of limited research, variedsettings, and the diverse learning needs of students make it difficult to find and applyappropriate research-based interventions. Additionally, Shinn (2007) discussed deficitsin ongoing teacher training in the areas of the fidelity of intervention implementation andthe evaluation of the efficacy of the interventions. Teachers need not only initial trainingbut on-going support in order to implement and sustain research-based interventions. General education teachers may not have received training for teaching studentswith diverse learning needs; the emphasis of their teacher preparation is typically oncurriculum and pedagogy rather than on interventions. Santoli, Sachs, Romey, andMcClurg (2008) found that over 98% of teachers surveyed indicated that they werewilling to use interventions to support students with disabilities in the classroom, but only24% of the participants believed that students with special education needs lacked theskills to be successful in the general education setting. Horne and Timmons (2009) andMarzano (2010) indicated that high expectations for the success of all students were animportant component of successful inclusion. Teacher training and administratorsupports were noted as important for increasing teachers’ positive attitude towardinclusion (Horne & Timmons, 2009; Horrocks, White, & Roberts, 2008). Horrocks et al.(2008) found that principals’ training in the behavioral needs of students led to a better

29understanding how to support students in inclusive classrooms on the autism spectrum.Avramidis and Norwich (2002) also stated that teachers’ attitudes and beliefs regardingstudent potential and inclusion impacted their commitment to successful inclusion. The question of inclusion of students on the autism spectrum is complicated bythe definition of effective interventions. The NAC (2009) reviewed research specificallyrelated to the education and treatment of students on the autism spectrum; research-basedstrategies were reviewed for treatment efficacy and scientific quality. According to theNAC, not every intervention works for every student on the autism spectrum: “Universalimprovements cannot be expected to occur for all individuals on the autism spectrum” (p.11). Research-based practices that worked for one student may not work for another.Practices found to be beneficial for some individuals with ASD may not yet have a basisin research and therefore may not be transferable to other students with ASD (Simpson,McKee, Teeter, & Beytien, 2007). Kluth (2003) underscored the uniqueness of eachstudent on the autism spectrum: “If you know one person with autism, then you know oneperson with autism” (p. 2). Students on the autism spectrum need to be considered asindividuals with unique interests, motivations, and needs. Autism Spectrum Disorder The DSM-IV-TR (2000) included a description of ASD; students on the autismspectrum exhibit patterns of behavior in two of the three criteria areas. Criteria includedimpaired social interactions, communication differences, and a restricted repertoire ofactivities and interests. Social impairments may include difficulties forming peerrelationships, an inability to reciprocate social interactions, especially in spontaneous,

30unstructured settings. Impairments in communication may include either a lack of speechor an inability to speak; unusual speech patterns, such as echolalia (repeating another’swords); or problems initiating and sustaining conversations. Restricted activities orinterests may include fascinations or obsessions regarding particular topics, repetitivemotor movements, or the need to rigidly follow routines and rituals (DSM-IV-TR, 2000). The term autism was first applied to this set of characteristics by Austrianpsychologists Kanner (1943) and Asperger (1944/1991). Asperger borrowed the termfrom Bleuler, a Swiss psychologist who had worked with students with schizophrenia(Asperger, 1944/1991). During the early years of the recognition and diagnosis ofautism, the disorder was frequently compared to childhood schizophrenia. During the1950s and 1960s research shifted from studying characteristics of the children on theautism spectrum to the causes of autism. In that time period the primary cause of autismwas considered by psychoanalysts to be emotionally distant parenting. Bettelheim (1967)blamed absent, overworked fathers and emotionally distant mothers for the emergence ofautistic characteristics in children. Since the 1960s, the view of ASD has slowly evolved from the psychoanalyticapproach in which parents were blamed to the understanding that ASD are aneurodevelopment disorder. The descriptions of Kanner and Asperger persist, however,in the DSM-IV-TR criteria. Still, the causes of the disorder continue to be disputed byscientists and the medical community. Because the exact cause of the neurologicaldisorder is unknown, families often prefer to focus on treatment rather than focus on thecause. This takes the pressure and spotlight off families from professionals who still seek

31to fix the family in order to fix the child (Hodge & Runswick-Cole, 2008). Likewise, theresearch emphasis has turned toward medical treatments and education models to supportindividuals with ASD. Individuals with HFA or AS tend to have mild autistic symptoms. They typicallyhave average to above average intelligence, but even mild characteristics of autism caninterfere with a student’s ability to learn. Students tend to have difficulty interacting withand relating to their peers, and language differences which can also impact how theylearn. Students with HFA and AS do not have the severe communication deficits asoutlined in the DSM-IV-TR (2000) criteria for individuals with autism spectrumdisorders; they do often manifest language-based differences. One example of howlanguage differences can impact students on the autism spectrum is that they tend to bemore literal in how they communicate with others, which can lead to misunderstandingfigurative and social language (Humphrey & Lewis, 2008). Another language differencecan be noted with reading comprehension skills. Despite advanced skills at an early agein word recognition students on the autism spectrum can experience deficits in higherorder reading comprehension. This phenomenon known as hyperlexia has been found tobe common among students with AS and HFA (Flores & Ganz, 2007; Friedlander, 2008;Gately, 2008; Newman et al., 2007). Chandler-Olcott and Kluth (2009), Gately, (2008)and Newman et al. (2007) also indicated that students with ASD also tend to be visualand concrete learners across all curricular area. Moreover, students with ASDacademically struggle with the figurative and the inferential language in academicsettings, as well as with listening comprehension, and organization of information.

32Therefore, students with ASD often do best with concrete examples, direct instruction,guided practice, and visuals such as graphic organizers (Gibbons & Goins, 2008; Graetz& Spampinato, 2008; Simpson, Spencer, Button, & Rendon, 2007). It is important to reiterate that each student on the autism spectrum is unique, withindividual learner characteristics and needs. Research has shown that there is a pattern ofcharacteristics of students with AS and HFA, but not every student will display all of thesame characteristics or have the same instructional needs. Although students with ASand HFA often have the capacity to learn in the general education setting, educators needto get to know their students as individuals to help the students be more successful in theinclusive classroom setting (Kluth, 2003). Inclusion and Inclusive Models of Education With the passage of IDEIA, (2004) legislators established that students withdisabilities need to be included in the general education setting with their peers to thegreatest extent possible. Legislators also stated that students with disabilities shouldreceive student-centered instruction and interventions. In order to reduce the conflictingrequirements of the general education and special education laws, IDEIA (2004) wasreauthorized in 2004 and it was aligned with the general education legislation. NCLB(2002) was designed to reduce the achievement gap for students of color, students inpoverty, English language learners, and students with special needs (Edyburn, 2010).The purpose of NCLB (2002) and IDEIA (2004) legislations was to bring students closerto grade level performance by giving all students equal access to instructional methodsand materials. In addition students were to receive standards-based instruction taught by

33highly qualified teachers, using research-based methods to support a diverse studentbody. Special education teachers were typically prepared to work with students withexceptionalities or special education needs. Therefore, special education teacherpreparation focused on evaluating student performance, providing direct instructionalservices, and scaffolding supports (Maccini & Gagnon, 2006; Smith et al., 2010). Specialeducation teacher candidates often lacked the depth of training related to content-areamaterials and teaching methods. Conversely general education teacher candidatestraditionally have very limited teacher preparation related to teaching students withexceptionalities (Heckaman et al., 2009; Maccini & Gagnon, 2006; Nichols et al., 2010;Smith et al., 2010). In an attempt to meet the learning needs of exceptional students andthe dual challenges of NCLB (2002) and IDEIA (2004) mandates, school districts areimplementing a variety of research-based practices. Co-teaching, differentiatedinstruction, and other strategies designed to support students with exceptionalities arebeing used to support growing numbers of students with exceptional learning needs. Thisincludes students on the autism spectrum. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2010), 34.6%of the students diagnosed with ASD were out of the general education classroom lessthan 21% of the day, and 18.2% were out of the classroom between 21-60% of the day.Therefore, it can be estimated that just over half of the students recognized as havingASD are in the general education setting for all or part of their school day. The NCESstatistics provide an indication that the percent of students on the autism spectrum in the

34general education setting has increased over the last 3 years. There has also been anincrease in the number of students diagnosed with ASD (Digest of Education Statistics,2010). Teachers need access to and training in the use of research-based interventions tosupport students with diverse learning needs, including students on the autism spectrum. School administrators need to consider strategies which are specific to theirbuilding, teacher, and student needs when planning school-wide supports; principals alsoneed to provide time for training and collaboration for teachers (Boe et al., 2007;Lancaster & Bain, 2007). Humphrey and Lewis (2008) found that administrative supportfor inclusion increased the likelihood that teachers would implement strategies designedto increase student access to the curriculum. Isherwood and Barger-Anderson (2008)also indicated that clear communication and planning between administration andteachers was necessary for the establishment of effective co-teaching and inclusion.Scenarios in which the teachers were not given a voice during the planning stages oftenresulted in dysfunctional and mismatched teacher assignments, with teachers who wereunfamiliar with the curriculum, assignment expectations, or their co-teaching partner(Isherwood & Barger-Anderson, 2008). When teachers lacked the opportunity for inputregarding collaboration, co-teaching, and training, their attitudes toward inclusion werelower; this lead to an increase in the teachers’ frustration and less effective inclusion. The National Autism Council (NAC, 2009) examined empirical research relatedto the education and treatment of students on the autism spectrum. Research-basedstrategies were sorted into four categories of established or effective interventions forhigh school aged students with ASD. These categories were antecedent, behavior,

35modeling, and self-management (NAC, 2009). Interventions classified as establishedantecedents by the NAC included proactive interventions; these were designed to reducethe likelihood that problem behaviors will occur. The strategies described as antecedenttreatments included a change in seating, adult support, use of choice, priming or pre-teaching content; and incorporating special interests or rituals into tasks and activities.Effective antecedent interventions are preventative and based on avoiding the student’striggers; antecedent interventions are implemented to prevent the problem behaviors fromoccurring by controlling the environment. Behavioral treatments most appropriate for the secondary level included use ofchoice and differentiated reinforcements. Modeling was described as an adult or peerdemonstrating target behaviors through the use of live or video presentation. Self-management treatments involved students monitoring their progress on specific skillswith checklists or visual prompts. The NAC (2009) also reported on strategies that wereemerging and not established in the literature. The strategies described through theremainder of this section will be discussed in light of the NAC criteria. Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms was not reviewed as part of the NAC (2009)report. Scruggs, Mastropieri and McDuffie (2007) found that when the special educationteachers’ role was limited in the general education setting, the impact and benefit of co-teaching was reduced. Scruggs et al. also found that special education teachers mostoften were placed in a subservient role in the classroom, acting more as a teacher aide ora behavior manager in the classroom. In co-taught classrooms, the special educationteachers’ expertise in antecedent management and instructional strategies should be

36utilized to support all students with diverse learning needs. The role of special educationteachers should be considered and clearly defined when implementing levels of supportthrough the school. Interventions described in this section may be implemented in three differentlevels of support: school-wide, classroom-based, or individually implemented. School-wide supports included tiered models of interventions such as Positive Behavior Systems(PBS) and Response to Intervention (RTI). Classroom-based interventions includeddirect instruction and differentiated instruction. Supports which could be individualizedincluded both differentiated instruction, and self-monitoring techniques. In anexamination of the variables related to elementary student access to the general educationcurriculum, Soukup, Wehmeyer, Bashinski and Bovaird (2007) found thatparaprofessional support has been the most frequently used accommodation. Otherresearch-based accommodations such as differentiated assessments, instruction, ormaterials were implemented less than half of the class time. Access to assistive orinstructional technology was also available less than half of the time (Soukup et al.,2007). At the secondary level, where teachers have more students and larger class sizes,research-based interventions tend to be implemented less frequently than at theelementary level. Appropriate interventions can be an important part of the success of students withHFA in the general education setting. Carter, Sisco, Melakoglu, and Kurkowski (2007)studied the impact of peer-based classroom supports on the access to and engagementwith the curriculum. Access to both the curriculum and peers was increased through the