pdfdissertation

87three open-ended questions presented to the participants on this page. All participantswere sent an initial e-mail inviting them to participate in the study, followed by tworeminder e-mails for a total of three contacts over a 3-week period. At the completion of the data collection period, all data were exported from thequantitative survey into a MyStat spreadsheet, to eliminate errors in the datatranscription. STATIC survey items which were worded in a negative direction werereverse coded after the data had been transcribed to obtain an accurate total score for eachrespondent. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, and variance) werecalculated for the total test as well as the factors or areas of the STATIC to evaluateindividual participant responses. For first quantitative research question, an independent samples t test was used todetermine if there was a statistically significant difference in the mean general educationand special education teachers’ scores. The teachers’ responses across the four areaswere also compared using t tests on each area: advantages and disadvantages,professional issues, philosophical issues, and logistics of inclusion. Internal reliability ofteacher responses was analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient. For the second quantitative research question, the mean total score for teacherattitude as measured by the STATIC was compared to the amount of teacher training atboth the postsecondary level and through professional development using a Spearmanrank correlation coefficient for comparing the ordinal data from the Likert scale to thedata on amount of teacher training received.

88 Data collected from the qualitative research questions were analyzed using tworounds of open coding to identify themes in the interview data followed by axial andselective coding to categorize and sort the interview responses and to outline theirrelationships. Participant responses were coded by line and sorted according to eachtheme that emerged from the data. Open coding reliability was established by comparingtwo separate rounds of coding. Axial and selective coding were used to examine therelationships from categories created through the open coding rounds. Results from thesorted and coded data were then compared to data gathered regarding general educationand special education teacher responses to the STATIC. The results will also becompared to the findings in the literature on the research-based practices discussed inchapter 2. In order to ensure reliability and trustworthiness in the gathering, transcriptionand sorting interview data, interviews were tape recorded and transcribed using voice totext technology for the transcription. Additionally, participants were contacted twice viae-mail after the interview. The first e-mail contact was to verify that the interview hasbeen accurately transcribed. The second e-mail was sent to conduct a member check;interviewees were asked to confirm the initial interpretations of the interviews. Becauseof the additional time devoted by interviewees, all participants who volunteered to beinterviewed received a $5 gift card to a coffee shop in compensation for and appreciationof their time. Participant Privacy and Rights Minimal risks were associated with study participation. Prior to seekingparticipant consent, all participants were informed as to the purpose and length of time to

89complete the survey and the interview. Participation was voluntary, and those who choseto participate could withdraw from the study at any time. Through the quantitative datacollection the participants’ anonymity was preserved; no identifying information wasincluded in the survey. The online delivery of the survey allowed for greater anonymityand confidentiality of the participants. Agreement to participate was part of the onlinesurvey; in order to gain access to the complete survey, participants first needed to agreeto be a part of the study. Because an assumed consent was obtained, rather than the useof a signed consent form, there was additional protection of confidentiality. Participationin the follow-up interview was also voluntary. All data gathered were stored in anelectronic format only in a hidden file on a password-protected computer. Participantcontact information was not stored with the interview data. This information was storedseparately; contact information for interviewees was destroyed after verification of theaccuracy of the transcribed and sorted interview data. All survey and interview responseswere saved, and will be saved for the required period on a password protected computer,and in a hidden file. All survey and interview results are shared in aggregate, so there isno identifying information reported to stakeholders. The research results will be sharedwith regional special education directors, participating schools, and teachers. I will alsoapply to share the results at regional, state, and national conferences, as well as inpublications. No participants were under my supervision or instruction, so there was nopossibility of coercion to participate.

90 Summary This study is important in understanding teachers’ attitudes in relation to teachingstudents with HFA in the inclusive high school classrooms. Researchers have studiedteachers’ attitudes toward inclusion, but have not specifically studied the inclusion ofstudents with HFA at the high school level. The results of this study can be used toimpact teacher preparation programs and in-service teacher training regarding teachers’needs and concerns for successful inclusion. Positive attitudes were found to increase the teachers’ persistence in attemptinginterventions in teaching at-risk students (Pajares, 1992; Rose, 2001). The research-based interventions reviewed in chapter 2 were found to increase the success of studentsin both the general education setting and the transition to postsecondary settings (Bost &Riccomini, 2006). Teacher training was found to be an important factor in teachers’attitudes and sense of efficacy; teacher training has an impact on the methods teachersuse in the classroom, which ultimately impacts student success in the inclusiveclassrooms (Marzano, 2010; Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Chapters 4 and 5include a discussion of the research results for this study and implications for furtherresearch.

91 Chapter 4: Results Introduction 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 77 general education and special education high schoolteachers with experience working in the inclusive classroom settings with students withHFA. Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion were quantitatively measured using the Scaleof Teacher Attitudes Towards Inclusive Classrooms (STATIC, Cochran, 1997/2000).Interview data were gathered from five teachers regarding the teachers’ needs andconcerns related to including students on the autism spectrum. Data gathered from thesurvey and from interview responses are valuable in determining the types of resourcesand training most beneficial to the successful inclusion of students on the autismspectrum. Participants were general and special education high school teachers withexperience working in the inclusive classroom settings with students with HFA. The purpose of chapter 4 is to present the results of the analysis of quantitativeand qualitative data regarding teachers’ attitudes toward including high school studentson the autism spectrum. All quantitative analyses were conducted using MyStat fordescriptive and analytic statistics. Interview data were sorted and coded using Atlas.tiqualitative data analysis software as well as a notebook to organize the relationshipsbetween the codes.

92 Research Process A sequential explanatory approach was used to gather the data; quantitativesurvey data were gathered first followed by the qualitative interview data. Survey datawere gathered to consider teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and to examine the data fora correlation between the teachers’ training and attitudes toward inclusion. High schoolspecial education teachers were invited via e-mail to participate in the online study, andwere asked to forward the study on to high school general education teachers withexperience teaching students on the autism spectrum. One participant put the link for thestudy in an online teachers’ discussion board which snowballed the participant pool toinclude both local and national participants. The manner in which the electronic link hadbeen shared was an unexpected change in the study. When it became known that thestudy had snowballed beyond the local region and the originally planned studyparameters, I contacted my methodologist and we determined those data could beincluded in the study. Responses from the online survey were compiled on Survey Gizmo. The surveydata were exported in a spreadsheet format. Participant responses were coded fromwords to numbers using the replace feature in the spreadsheet to eliminate transcriptionerrors. For questions which were worded positively, responses were ranked from 1(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Items which were worded negatively werereverse-coded in order to find an accurate mean for each respondent. Qualitative interview data were gathered through telephone interviews with fivevolunteers to answer questions regarding including students with HFA. Interviews were

93recorded using a voice-activated recorder; notes were transcribed using voice to textsoftware to increase the accuracy of the transcription. Transcribed notes were verifiedwith interviewees via e-mail. Interview responses were coded using Atlas.ti qualitativesoftware and a notebook in two rounds of open coding followed by axial and selectivecoding. Conclusions were discussed and verified with the participants. Participants Participants included general education and special education high schoolteachers who had experience teaching students with HFA. Within the original targeted12-county region 22 of the 57 school districts served students on the autism spectrum. Itwas anticipated that at least 25 of the 257 high school LBS1 teachers in the region hadexperience with teaching high school students on the autism spectrum in the inclusiveclassroom setting. It was also anticipated that there would be at least 75 generaleducation teachers with experience in educating students on the autism spectrum in theinclusive general education setting. Through snowball sampling, a link to the study waspublished by a participant on a national teacher education website. Of the 77 participantswho completed the survey, 27 were from the original 12-county region, 21 more werefrom other states in the Midwest, and 29 were from the East or West Coasts. Permissionto include these participants was obtained from the dissertation committee andInstitutional Review Board. Table 1 shows the relationships of the participants’ locationsand teaching assignments.

Table 1 94Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Cumulative PercentGeographic Teaching Frequency n 23 62Location Assignment 70 100Midwest General Education 18 100 Special Education 30Coast General Education 6 Special Education 23Total 77Participant Demographics As depicted in Table 1, n = 48, or 62% for participants were from Illinois,Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota, and Kentucky.Respondents who were categorized in the coastal regions (n = 29 or 38%) were fromNorth Carolina, Virginia, Maine, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington,California, and Oregon. High school general education teachers comprised 31% of theparticipants or n = 24; and n = 53 or 69% of the participants were high school specialeducation teachers. Respondents were primarily female, n = 67 or 87%. There were 10male participants; 8 of the 10 were general education teachers, two were specialeducation teachers. Therefore 33% of general education teachers were male, compared to4% of the special education teacher participants.

95Education, Training, and Experience of ParticipantsTable 2Education, Training, and Experience of Participants Special Education General Education Frequency n Frequency n 14Highest Degree Attained 9 35 Bachelor’s 14 4 Master’s 1 Doctorate 14 8 20Years of Teaching Experience 11 16 0-10 4 3 11-20 1 21-30 4 31+ 5 15 11 11Credit Hours 5 6Related to Inclusion* 0 4 1 0-10 0 11-20 4 8 21-30 8 7 31-40 1 6 41+ 2 6Professional Development/ 2 7Clock Hours related to Inclusion* 5 0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51+Note: *Not all participants provided data regarding training related to inclusion. Table 2 outlines the participants’ level of education, training, and experience bytype of teaching assignment. Overall, 30% of the participants obtained a bachelor’sdegree, 64% had earned a master’s degree and 6% had completed their doctorate.

96 Instrumentation The quantitative portion of this study was conducted using the Scale of Teachers’Attitudes Toward Inclusive Classrooms (STATIC, Cochran, 1997/2000, Appendix A)and questions regarding the participants’ demographics (Appendix B). The survey wasdistributed electronically to and self-administered by participants in order to facilitateeconomical and timely data collection. The STATIC was designed to evaluate four factors related to inclusion. The scaleincludes 20 items across the four areas which are: (a) advantages and disadvantages ofinclusion (Items 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20) (example: Students with special needs learnsocial skills that are modeled by general education students); (b) professional issuesrelated to inclusion (Items 1, 2, 3, 4 ,9) (example: I have been adequately trained to meetthe needs of children with disabilities); (c) philosophical issues regarding inclusiveeducation (Items 5, 6,10, 16) (example: I believe that academic progress in the generalclassroom is possible for children with special needs); and (d) the logistics of inclusiveeducation (Items 8, 17, 18, 19) (example: Adaptive materials and equipment are easilyacquired for meeting the needs of students with disabilities). Participants responded toeach of the 20 questions using a 6-point Likert scale, from 1 point for a response ofstrongly disagree to 6 points for a response of strongly agree on positively worded items.Participants with higher total scores tend to have a more positive attitude towardinclusion. Permission to use the STATIC was given by Cochran (Appendix C). Throughcorrespondence with Cochran, permission was granted to alter the directions of the

97STATIC to guide teachers to respond specifically with students on the autism spectrum inmind. Altering the wording of the questions to prompt teachers to specifically considerstudents with HFA was also discussed. Both Cochran and I considered that theSTATIC’s validity would best be maintained by altering the directions rather thanaltering the wording of each question. Therefore, participants were prompted in thedirections to respond to each question with students with HFA in mind. At the conclusion of the electronic survey teachers were invited to participate in afollow-up telephone interview to respond to three open-ended questions (Appendix B)regarding the teachers’ use of research-based interventions in the inclusive classroomsetting, the needed administrative and systemic supports for successful inclusion ofstudents with HFA; and their concerns related to inclusion of students with HFA. Theinterview questions were derived from themes in the literature review. Analysis ofresponses from the quantitative portion of the study indicated that the planned interviewquestions continued to be appropriate. Survey Findings The STATIC contains twenty questions across four areas which are: advantagesand disadvantages, professional issues, philosophical issues, and logistics of inclusion.The mean for the total STATIC and the means for the four test areas were used tocompare general education and special education teacher responses. Cronbach’s alphareliability coefficient was calculated to consider the test reliability; the reliabilityexamined the positive inter-correlations between the test and the items on the test (Kuder& Richardson, 1937). As outlined in Table 3, reliability coefficients were all in the good

98or acceptable range for the total test and area scores. Reliability coefficient scoresbetween .7 and .9 suggest consistency in responses by study participants, and is thepreferred range (Crane, Holm, Hobson, Cooper, Reed, & Stadelmeier, 2005).Using MyStat software, general education (GE) and special education (SE)teachers’ responses were calculated for means (M) and standard deviations (SD), and thenwere compared using a two-sample t test to see if there was a statistically significantdifference between GE and SE high school teachers’ attitudes toward including studentswith HFA. The teachers’ placements in the general or special education classroom werenominally categorized for the purpose of comparison. The STATIC responses weregathered on a 6-point Likert scale. Table 4 depicts general education and specialeducation mean scores and standard deviations for the total STATIC and its four areas, aswell as the calculations of statistical significance; these data address the first researchquestion: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?Table 3Internal Coefficient Alphas for Teacher Responses to the STATICMeasure Alpha Interpretation of ReliabilityAdvantages and Disadvantages .834 GoodProfessional Issues .754 AveragePhilosophical Issues .809 GoodLogistics .833 GoodTotal test .818 Good

99Table 4General Education (GE) and Special Education (SE) Teacher Mean (M) and StandardDeviation (SD) of Responses to the STATICMeasure GE M GE SD SE M SE SD pAdvantages and 4.584 0.669 4.448 0.772 0.457Disadvantages 5.087 0.681 0.001* 5.277 0.803 0.990Professional Issues 4.494 0.768 4.796 0.849 0.508Philosophical 5.274 0.651 4.852 0.544 0.537IssuesLogistics 4.927 0.686Total test 4.769 0.550*Statistically significant at p < .05 levelAdvantages and Disadvantages of Inclusion The advantages and disadvantages of inclusion area of the survey included thefollowing questions regarding achievement of students with HFA placed in the generaleducation setting: Question 7: I believe that children with special needs should be placed in specialeducation classes. Question 11: Students with special needs learn social skills that are modeled bygeneral education students. Question 12: Students with special needs have higher academic achievementswhen included in the general education classroom. Question 13: It is difficult for children with special needs to make strides inacademic education in the general education classroom. Question 14: Self-esteem of children with special needs is increased whenincluded in the general education classroom.

100 Question 15: Students with special needs in the regular education classroomhinder the academic progress of the general education student. Question 20: Students with special needs should be included in the generaleducation classroom. As depicted in Table 4, the general education teachers’ mean scores on theadvantages and disadvantages area was 4.584 (SD = 0.669); the special educationteachers’ mean scores were 4.448 (SD = 0.772; p = 0.457). The null hypothesis was notrejected for the first research question; there was no statistically significant difference inthe attitudes of general education and special education teachers’ toward includingstudents with HFA regarding the advantages and disadvantages of inclusion. An analysis of the teachers’ responses to the individual questions yieldedunexpected results. Typical results from the previous administrations of the STATICdemonstrated that the mean of the special education teachers’ responses were higher thanthe mean of general education teachers’ responses on each of the four area scores as wellas the total test (Barco, 2007; Hoffman, 2006; Mastin, 2010). However these resultsindicated that the general education teachers had a more positive attitude in theadvantages and disadvantages of inclusion. In comparing the means and standarddeviations of the general education and special education teachers’ responses for eachquestion, it was noted that on four of the seven items, general education teachers scoredhigher than special education teachers. Additionally, the standard deviations for thespecial education teachers were larger on six out of the seven items in this area. Althoughthe differences were not found to be statistically significant for any of the questions, the

101greatest difference was found in Question 7, regarding the best educational setting forstudents with special education needs. Means follow: general education teachers, M =4.458; special education teachers’ M = 3.887; (p = 0.060). Question 7 received thelowest mean among special education teachers’ responses (M = 3.887). Questions 12-14also yielded higher general education teacher responses in comparison to the specialeducation teachers’ responses. These questions were related to the achievement levels ofspecial education students, the amount of growth they may experience, and their level ofself-esteem in the general education setting. Appendix E includes the M, SD, and p-values for the general education and special education teachers’ responses to each of the20 questions on the STATIC.Professional Issues of Inclusion The area of professional issues of inclusion includes the following questions: Question 1: I am confident in my ability to teach children with special needs. Question 2: I have been adequately trained to meet the needs of children withdisabilities. Question 3: I become easily frustrated when teaching students with special needs. Question 4: I become anxious when I learn that a student with special needs willbe in my classroom. Question 9: I have problems teaching a student with cognitive deficits. As depicted in Table 4, the general education teachers’ mean scores were 4.494;(SD = 0.768); the special education teachers’ mean scores were 5.087 (SD = 0.681; p =0.001). The null hypothesis was rejected for the first research question. There was a

102statistically significant difference in the attitudes of general education and specialeducation teachers’ toward including students with HFA regarding professional issuesrelated to inclusion. The focus of this area is teacher preparedness for and confidence inteaching students on the autism spectrum in the classroom. Further examination of the teachers’ responses to each question indicated that thespecial education teachers scored higher on all five questions. Questions 1, 2, and 9,regarding teacher training in and confidence in their abilities to teach students on theautism spectrum, were statistically significant in their differences, (p = .045, .003, and.004, respectively). Question 2 received the lowest overall score by general educationteachers, regarding adequate training to work with individuals with autism spectrumdisorders. Appendix E contains the M and SD of the general education and specialeducation teacher responses for each of the STATIC items.Philosophical Issues of Inclusion The following questions comprise the philosophical issues of inclusion: Question 5: Although children differ intellectually, physically andpsychologically, I believe that all children can learn in most environments. Question 6: I believe that academic progress is possible in children with specialneeds. Question 10: I can adequately handle students with mild to moderate behavioralproblems. Question 16: Special in-service training in teaching special needs students shouldbe required for all general education teachers.

103 In Table 4, the general education teachers’ mean scores were 5.274 (SD = 0.651);the special education teachers’ mean scores were 5.277; (SD = 0.803; p = 0.990), whichshows that these results are similar statistically. The null hypothesis for the first researchquestion cannot be rejected. These results indicate that there is not a statisticallysignificant difference in the attitudes of general education and special education teachers’toward including students with HFA regarding the philosophical issues related toinclusion. Overall, both the general education and special education teachers had thehighest mean scores on the philosophical issue area; indicating that the teachers tended toagree or strongly agree with those items (n = 60 or higher for each question in this area).Logistics of Inclusion The logistics of inclusion includes the following questions: Question 8: I am comfortable teaching a child that is moderately physicallydisabled. Question 17: I don’t mind making special physical arrangements in my room, tomeet the needs of students with special needs. Question 18: Adaptive materials and equipment are easily acquired for meetingthe needs of students with special needs. Question 19: My principal is supportive in making needed accommodations forteaching children with special needs. In Table 4, the general education teachers’ mean scores were 4.927 (SD = 0.686);the special education teachers’ mean scores were 4.796 (SD = 0.849; p = 0.508). Thenull hypothesis for the first research question, there is not a statistically significant

104difference between high school general education and special education teachers’attitudes regarding including students with HFA in the general education setting, cannotbe rejected. These results indicate that there is not a statistically significant difference inthe attitudes of general education and special education teachers’ toward includingstudents with HFA regarding the logistics of inclusion. These results were also unexpected with the mean general education teachers’responses higher than the special education teachers’ responses. Question 8 regarding theteachers’ confidence in teaching students with physical disabilities yielded a statisticallysignificant difference in the mean general education and special education teachers’responses. This was the only question in the logistics area in which special educationteachers scored higher than the general education teacher participants. The generaleducation teachers indicated a more positive attitude toward the availability of adaptivematerials and principal support. Item 18 regarding the availability of adaptive materialswas an item in which both general education and special education teachers scored lowerthan the mean of the total test (GE M = 4.292, SE M = 3.981); and teacher responses werevaried (GE SD = 1.334, SE SD = 1.448).Total STATIC In Table 4, the general education teachers’ mean scores were 4.769 (SD = 0.550);the special education teachers’ mean scores were 4.852 (SD = 0.544; p = 0.537). The nullhypothesis for the first research question, there is not a statistically significant differencebetween high school general education and special education teachers’ attitudes regardingincluding students with HFA in the general education setting, cannot be rejected. These

105results indicate that there is not a statistically significant difference in general educationand special education teachers’ overall attitudes toward including students with HFA.Although there no statistically significant difference in the participants’ scores, thespecial education teachers’ mean scores were higher than the general education teachers’mean scores. These results were expected based on results from the previousadministrations of the STATIC.Clock Hours and Professional Development in Inclusion The second research question was, Is there a statistically significant relationshipbetween the amount of teacher training and high school teachers’ attitudes towardincluding students with HFA? Participants were prompted to indicate the number ofcollege credit hours and professional development clock hours of training they hadreceived related to inclusion. Of the 77 participants, 56 educators responded to thequestions regarding professional development clock hours of training and 60 respondedregarding the number of credit hours related to inclusion. Twenty-two of the 24 generaleducation teachers answered both questions; 34 of the 53 special education teachersreported data regarding credit hours related to inclusion, and 40 special educationteachers reported data regarding professional development related to inclusion. Table 5 contains a summary of the significance of teacher training on inclusionthrough college coursework (credit hours) and professional development (clock hours).Spearman’s rho was used to calculate the correlation or statistical dependence betweenteacher training on inclusion and their attitudes toward including students with HFA. Theprobability levels shown in Table 5 indicate that there is a statistically significant

106relationship between teacher training and teachers’ attitudes toward the philosophicalissues of inclusion. The null hypothesis was rejected for the second research question: Astatistically significant relationship was found between the amount of teacher training andhigh school teacher attitudes toward including students with HFA. Another area in whichthere is a statistically significant relationship is the number of clock hours of trainingrelated to inclusion compared to the teachers’ mean scores on the STATIC areaadvantages and disadvantages of inclusion. No statistically significant relationship wasfound between the number of credit hours of training and the mean scores for theadvantages and disadvantages of inclusion. When examining teacher mean scores on theSTATIC, and the areas professional issues, and logistics of inclusion there was not astatistically significant relationship, therefore the null hypothesis cannot be rejected forthose areas or the total STATIC.Table 5Spearman Correlation Matrix, Relationship of Training and STATIC Scores Total Advantages Professional Philosophical Logistics STATIC and Issues Issues DisadvantagesCredit Hours 0.195 0.151 0.103 0.007* 0.058Clock Hours 0.140 0.001* 0.193 0.026* 0.105*Statistically significant at p < .05 levelSummary of Survey FindingsAn independent samples t test was used to compare the mean total score and areascores for the GE and SE teachers; the results indicated that there was a statisticallysignificant difference in the GE and SE teachers’ scores in the area of professional issuesrelated to inclusion. Therefore, the null hypothesis could be rejected for that area. The

107professional issues of inclusion area included questions which examined teachers’attitudes in relation to training for and confidence in teaching students on the autismspectrum. For the total test and the areas of the advantages and disadvantages ofinclusion, philosophical issues of inclusion, and logistics, the null hypothesis could not berejected. There was no statistically significant difference in GE and SE teacher responsesregarding including students with HFA in these areas. It was also noted that unexpectedresults were obtained when comparing the mean area and total test scores for theparticipants. In the areas of the advantages and disadvantages of inclusion and logisticsthe general education teachers obtained higher mean scores. This was unexpectedbecause with the previous administrations of the STATIC (Barco, 2007; Cochran,1997/2000, Hoffman, 2006; Mastin, 2010) special education teachers were found to havehigher mean scores across the four areas and total STATIC. Spearman’s rho was used to calculate the significance of the relationship betweenteacher training and their attitudes toward inclusion. Teacher responses to amount ofcollege credits and clock hours of professional development related to inclusion werecompared to their responses on the STATIC. The correlation matrix of Table 5 depictsthe probabilities of these relationships occurring. The relationships between teacher credithours and professional development clock hour and teachers’ attitudes toward thephilosophical issues of inclusion were found to be statistically significant. Questions inthis area were related to teachers’ attitudes and beliefs regarding the success and progressof students on the autism spectrum in the general education setting. This was the onlyarea in which there was a statistically significant relationship between teacher training

108and their attitudes toward inclusion. The null hypothesis can be rejected for this area, butnot for the other areas or the total STATIC. Therefore the findings failed to support thehypothesis that there is a statistically significant relationship between teacher training andattitudes toward inclusion. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to determine the reliability of the teachers’responses in the areas in comparison to the total test, the reliability scores were providedin Table 3. The internal reliable was good, with .757 or higher for each area. Theinternal reliability for the total test (.819) was similar to the internal reliability found inCochran’s pilot of the STATIC (.89) (Cochran, 1997). For the second research question regarding the relationship between the teachers’training and their attitudes toward inclusion, teachers were not given a range of credithours or clock hours for responses, but rather they were prompted to provide thatinformation in an open-ended response. The sample of teachers responding to theSTATIC was N = 77; but the number of the participants sharing information regardingcredit hours and clock hours related to inclusion were n = 56 and n = 60, respectively.The open response format possibly led to fewer teacher responses to these two prompts. To summarize chapter 4 and prepare chapter 5, I created several box and whiskerplots (Appendix F) to graphically examine the spread of the data and to visually examinethe effects of outliers in responses. I reviewed the raw data to examine outlyingresponses and consider those participants’ demographics. I noted that the greatestvariance in the data was from participants who reported education at the doctoral level;an equality of variances by degree was calculated. The results of these calculations are

109shown in Table 6. I found a statistically significant difference in the variances for thetotal STATIC as well as the areas of philosophical issues and logistics of inclusion ofstudents on the autism spectrum.Table 6Equality of Variances by Degree Type STATIC Advantages Professional Philosophical Logistics and Disad. Issues IssuesMeanBachelor’s 4.793 4.406 4.957 5.188 4.913 4.911 5.381 4.871Master’s 4.875 4.555 4.560 4.650 4.150Doctorate 4.384 4.238VarianceBachelor’s 0.293 0.647 0.545 0.052 0.424 0.547 0.247 0.479Master’s 0.180 0.460 1.148 4.425 3.425Doctorate 1.520 1.083MedianBachelor’s 4.800 4.571 5.000 5.250 5.000 5.200 5.500 4.750Master’s 4.850 4.571 4.800 5.500 4.500Doctorate 4.700 4.571Levene’s TestF-Ratio 4.118 1.445 0.656 6.118 3.198 0.522 0.003* 0.047*p-value 0.020* 0.242*Statistically significant at p < .05 level In order to determine if the varied responses from participants at the doctoratelevel were impacting the results and conclusions, an independent samples t test was runagain to compare general education and special education teacher responses to theSTATIC without that data. GE (n = 23) and SE (n = 49) teachers’ responses werecompared, with similar results to the data that did contain doctoral level responses. Inboth instances the SE M was higher on the total STATIC and the areas of professionalissues and philosophical issues of inclusion. There continued to be a statisticallysignificant difference in the teachers’ responses to the professional issues of inclusion.

110The area of philosophical issues of inclusion continued to be the highest scoring area onthe test for both the general education and special education teachers. Specific results areprovided in Table 7.Table 7STATIC Means Without Responses From Participants With DoctoratesMeasure GE M GE SD SE M SE SD p-value 0.670Advantages and 4.561 0.733 4.483 0.726 0.001*Disadvantages 5.110 0.651 0.823 5.330 0.540Professional Issues 4.533 0.760 0.601 4.855 0.671 0.357Philosophical 5.297 0.656 4.884 0.416IssuesLogistics 4.946 0.695Total test 4.775 0.552*Statistically significant at p < .05 level Interview Findings Interview data were collected from five participants via telephone interviews.Three of the participants were from the 12-county region described in chapter 3; thisgroup included one special education teacher and two general education teachers. Theseteachers each had 12-30 years teaching experience. The other two interviewees were aspecial education teacher from the upper Midwest, and a special education teacher fromthe New England region. These teachers had 33 and 26 years of teaching experience inteaching students with disabilities, including students on the autism spectrum. Eachparticipant responded to the three open-ended questions: 1. In the inclusive classroom settings, what interventions do you consider most beneficial to support students with HFA?

111 2. What administrator supports do you feel are important for successful inclusion of students with HFA? 3. What concerns do you have regarding including students with HFA in the general education setting? The interview questions were asked of the participants; these questions wereinformed by gaps in the literature and were intended to provide an explanation forrelationships found in the quantitative survey and subsequent analysis. Interviews wererecorded and transcribed using voice to text software, an e-mail was sent to intervieweesto verify the accuracy of the transcription. Interview responses were sorted and codedusing two rounds of open coding followed by axial and selective coding. Member checkswere conducted with interviewees to verify the conclusions from the coding process.Data Analysis Using open coding, I conducted a line by line analysis of the qualitative data inorder to search for themes in the interview data. With axial coding, the researcher seeksto find relationships among the codes; higher and lower levels of concepts are identifiedin the interview responses. Higher levels of concepts contain overarching themes in theresponses, while the lower level concepts act to explain the themes which have emergedfrom the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Responses to each of the three questions wereanalyzed line by line, and summarized with a key word related to the line. In someinstances the key word used was part of the participant response; in other cases Isummarized the response with a related word that captured the “essence” of that line(Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 160). The first round of open coding was completed using

112Atlas.ti software. The second round of open coding was done a week later by hand usingprinted copies of the interview responses and a research notebook. One hundred forty-five lines were coded; through both rounds of coding, the same higher level conceptsemerged from the interview data. There was little discrepancy between the first andsecond rounds of coding in the lower level concepts; 11% (16/145) of the lines haddifferent codes from the first to the second round of coding. In 81% of those instances(13/16 codes) different terms had been used, but they captured the same essence of theline. In the remaining three lines (2% of the total lines coded), I needed to reconcile theinterpretations of the interview data. A sample interview transcript is included asAppendix G. While coding and interacting with the data, I also asked questions and recordedthose questions with the research notes. These questions reveal my thought process whileinteracting with the data as well as my potential bias (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Throughthe process of coding qualitative data there is a possibility that my preconceived notionsinfluenced the coding and therefore the conclusions gathered. As a university instructorof teacher candidates, I have taught general education and special education candidates atthe undergraduate level, as well as graduate students who were educators in their ownclassrooms. These experiences have influence over the kinds of questions asked whileinteracting with the interview data. These questions included the following:  At what point do teachers feel experienced in teaching students on the autism spectrum?

113  How can teams of teachers, families, and administrators become a more cohesive planning unit in order to reach an agreement regarding the least restrictive environment given the learner’s and environment’s characteristics?  What is the range of supports that general education teachers need or want from special education teachers?  When the inclusive classroom doesn’t work for the students, what are the factors involved? Several higher level concepts emerged from the two rounds of open coding:training, flexibility, least restrictive environment, and collaboration. The need foradditional training was a theme that emerged in the process of coding and in theinterview data. In order to be certain I did not influence this as an emerging higher levelconcept, I reviewed the frequency of which the interviewees stated specifically andexplicitly that there was a need for additional training. All of the interviewees expressedthe need for additional training in methods to support students with HFA, as well as theneed for training related to the nature of HFA. One teacher specifically indicated thatmisunderstanding the nature of HFA could lead to difficulties in the classroom. Teachersmay perceive behavioral or academic difficulties as purposeful challenges to theclassroom order. Instead, the interviewee suggested that teachers need to be made awareof the cognitive and communication barriers which may interfere with the studentfunctioning in the classroom. Another interviewee stated that she valued training fromindividuals outside her school district because of the broad scope of experiences of those

114trainers. She indicated that this led to varied interventions and team-based approaches tosupporting students on the autism spectrum. The essence of flexibility was also apparent throughout interviewee responses.When discussing interventions for students, all of the interviewees indicated that thestudents they had served were unique in their needs and required differentiated, flexiblesupports. Two teachers stated that flexibility was also important in teacher supports.These teachers stated that interventions which were flexible and based on the needs anddemands of each learning environment were most beneficial. Teachers need to knowwhat kinds of interventions were beneficial for students on the autism spectrum indifferent situations. One interviewee indicated that without the availability of a variety ofsupports, the general education setting was not always the best educational setting forstudents on the autism spectrum. The idea of finding an appropriate least restrictiveenvironment (LRE) had been discussed by three-fifths of the interviewees in relation toconcerns for inclusion of students with ASD. Collaboration, like training, was discussedby all teachers and across more than one interview question; this included collaborationbetween teachers as well as collaboration with families. Collaboration with families wasdiscussed in light of working to find the most appropriate learning setting for students onthe autism spectrum. I used axial coding to consider the relationships among the coded interview data.The framework for axial coding is centered on a core category or the phenomenon beingstudied; in this study the core category is including students with HFA. Educationlegislations of NCLB (2002) and IDEIA (2004) are a part of the background of inclusion

115and therefore can be considered causal conditions. The context of inclusion includes theLRE; this should be the more immediate reason for students being placed in the generaleducation setting for instruction. The LRE was listed as a concern by several teachers;two teachers discussed the complexity of selecting the best LRE for the student. Theseteachers indicated that when teams consider inclusion, the student’s academic and socialabilities must also be considered in light of the learning environment. Both of theseteachers discussed situations in which families of students on the autism spectrum maynot have a realistic view of what their student is able to do. The other danger noted isthat at the high school level, especially, students tend to have gaps in their prior learning,which may mean they will not be able to keep up with the academic rigor. One teacherhad discussed an experience in which the parent threatened a lawsuit of the school districtif the team did not decide that the LRE was the inclusive classroom setting. There are nodata from other interviewees to indicate that this is a pattern; additional research wouldbe needed in order to determine the prevalence of lawsuits regarding LRE. One special education teacher indicated that a student’s ability to handle theacademics in the general education setting does not guarantee that the student can handlethe social scenarios of a classroom: Coping socially, having the social smarts, is so different than having the academic smarts. They don’t know how to handle everyday classroom events like girls flirting and boys teasing and all of the things that can happen in unstructured settings. Students can fall apart when they don’t know what to do.

116 For the inclusive classroom setting to be successful students need to have thesocial and academic skills in order to be successful in that environment. This may alsorequire that students have supports in place in order to be successful. “As teachers wesometimes let the quirky ones go because we aren’t sure of what to do with them.”Another teacher stated that although she relied on the special education teacher forinterventions, some of her general education teacher counterparts did not; she furtherstated that the result was teachers did not get “the best out of the student.” Thereforeintervening conditions to finding the LRE for the student include the other higher ordercategories of training, collaboration, and flexibility as all three are necessary in order tofind and maintain the LRE for students in the inclusive classroom. The intervening conditions listed could support or restrict the success of thestudent in the LRE. Other intervening conditions noted included teacher expectationsand paraprofessional support; there is also a range of responses which could assist orhinder the student’s progress in the LRE. One teacher found that paraprofessionalsupport can interfere with student success when the student becomes dependent on thatsupport or when the paraprofessional limits what the student should be doingindependently. One of the general education teachers felt that the paraprofessional“needed to be needed,” and was therefore resistant to the student doing thingsindependently. The higher order categories related to inclusion were training, collaboration, LRE,and flexibility. Interviewees noted that training was important to increase teacherunderstanding of the strategies and supports that work well for individual students. It

117was also noted that training in relation to understanding the nature of the disability wasimportant for general education teachers. One special education teacher stated, “We usea lot of training materials for teachers to try to help them understand that a student isn’tjust choosing to misbehave. That the student often just cognitively doesn’t understandwhat is happening.” One of the general education teachers indicated specific concerns related totraining; she believed that training from outside the school district was based on moreexperience and therefore provided more “out of the box” solutions to meet students’needs. The interviewee further indicated that training for general education teachersneeded to be well in advance of the student’s placement in the inclusive classroom, that“last minute workshops” just before the start of a school year did not offer enoughsupport and preparation for general education teachers. Other intervening factors relatedto training are the time and monetary resources necessary for training. One teacher statedthat general education and special education teachers are typically not sent to workshopstogether in order to save district resources. Another potential barrier related to training isthe class sizes and the amount of class diversity in the general education classes. Both ofthe general education teachers interviewed indicated that it was not always possible toimplement strategies learned in training or through collaboration with their specialeducation counterparts. Collaboration was noted as important across all three categories of questions.Actions and interactions that occur through collaboration are related to planning forstudents with special education needs, including instructional strategies and behavioral

118interventions. One special education teacher indicated that general education teachersbenefitted most from ideas on how to set up the class environment as well as a range ofsupports needed by the students. “If we don’t share that information with them [thegeneral education teachers], we can’t get mad when we don’t do what the students need.”With collaboration positive outcomes were noted in team building, data collection, andfinding flexible options for teaching students in the inclusive classroom settings.Opportunities for collaboration were noted as important administrative supports by bothgeneral education and special education teacher interviewees. Time was one inhibitingfactor for successful collaboration, noted by both general education and special educationteachers. Flexibility was also found to be part of the context of inclusion; flexibility wasalso related to the LRE. In order for students to be successful in the inclusive classroomsometimes students need differentiated interventions and flexible class environments.Flexibility was most often referred to in the context of instructional delivery and support.Every teacher candidate indicated that students on the autism spectrum tended to beunique in comparison to each other, this is part of the background or need for flexibilityin the inclusive classroom. The intervening conditions related to the context of flexibilityincluded the students’ needs for a variety of instructional methods and materials.Interviewees indicated that structure was important for their students on the autismspectrum. One of the interviewees also stated that it was important for teachers to knowthe options or parameters to set for students; one example provided by the intervieweewas the need for options when students were stressed. Four of the teachers indicated that

119boundaries and order were important for students with ASD. Supports in this categoryincluded environmental supports such as reduced visual clutter and a routine schedule.Another teacher stated that clear rules as well as the exceptions to the rules wereimportant to provide directly teach to the students on the autism spectrum; “where moststudents are able to figure out those kind of boundaries… students with ASD need tohave it explained to them.” Interviewees identified additional ways in which flexibilitymanifests itself in the classroom, students may require visual supports, pre-teaching ofnew content; and explicit, concrete to abstract instruction.Summary of Interview Findings In order to increase the trustworthiness of the interpretation of the qualitative data,I completed two rounds of line-by-line open coding with one week between coding. Thecodes were compared for each line; differences between the codes were reconciled beforecontinuing with the rest of the data interpretation. Axial and selective coding has yieldedfour contexts in the interview responses related to inclusion. The essences discovered inthe coding process were training, collaboration, flexibility, and least restrictiveenvironment. These areas are interrelated and provide intervening conditions for eachother; there are actions and consequences for each of the regions as outlined in theprevious section. In response to the interview questions, teachers indicated that flexibility ininterventions were most appropriate for students on the autism spectrum. Interventionsmost commonly noted included increased structure in the class environment, use of visualsupports, and concrete to abstract instruction. Each interviewee noted that students were

120individuals with unique learning, behavioral, and social needs. Strategies found to bebeneficial by teachers included direct instruction of academic and behavioral skills, andcognitive interventions to support logic and problem solving for behavior and socialskills. Educators noted that the supports of opportunities for training and collaborationas two of the important supports administrators could provide. Educators also indicatedthat considering the LRE of the student was important to the success of inclusion. Twointerviewees specifically noted that administrative supports in working with families toselect the LRE as a team was important. If the main consideration in establishing theLRE is to prevent conflict with families, then the team may not have considered the totalstudent when selecting the LRE. Educators had concerns regarding LRE, time for collaboration, and theopportunity for training. Two of the interviewees noted that there was overlap in theirresponses between Questions 1 and 3, and Questions 2 and 3. Some of the interveningconditions provided as examples between training, collaboration, LRE, and flexibilityoverlapped. Intervening conditions which contributed to the overlap included the needfor training on the nature of the student’s disability and how it manifests in the classroom.Another commonality was the need to accurately establish the LRE for the student.Among these considerations were the flexibility of the supports available for students inthe general education setting; and the opportunities for collaboration between all teachersworking with the student and collaboration with families.

121 At the conclusion of the data interpretation a member check was conducted withthe interviewees in order to ensure my interpretations were accurate and to reduce theimpact of researcher bias. I also included a list of questions which came to light as I wasinterpreting the data during open coding. A transcript from a selected interview isincluded as Appendix G. I compared or triangulated the information gathered throughthe STATIC and the teacher interviews to determine if there were common issues orthemes in the data. These interpretations can be found in the conclusion of chapter 4 aswell as in chapter 5. Conclusion The STATIC survey findings indicated a statistically significant difference whencomparing the scores for the mean general education and special education teachers’attitudes toward the professional issues of inclusion. Another statistically significantdifference was found when comparing the amount of teacher training to the STATICscores related to the philosophical issues of inclusion. The areas of professional andphilosophical issues examine teachers’ attitudes towards training and the selection of thestudent’s instructional environment. These issues were found to be important themes inboth the survey and the interview data. One surprise from the STATIC was that in the areas of the advantages anddisadvantages of inclusion and the logistics of inclusion, the general education teacherparticipants scored higher than the special education participants. This was unexpectedbecause in Cochran’s pilot of the STATIC and subsequent administrations of theSTATIC, the special education teachers’ area and total means scores were consistently

122higher than the general education teachers’ scores. In order to determine a possible causeof this I considered the outlying data and determined that responses from doctoral levelparticipants contained the most outliers. These responses were eliminated and t scoreswere recalculated. The patterns in the data remained consistent with the results describedfor N = 77. In conducting the member check with interviewees, I asked if the interpretationsof the interview data were correct, and if they would also indicate that these are importantissues related to the successful inclusion of students on the autism spectrum. All fiveteachers indicated that the conclusions drawn were accurate to the interview informationthey had provided. One educator asked if there were others who expressed difficultyfinding the appropriate LRE with families. Another had asked if other intervieweesexperienced difficulty with paraprofessionals appropriately supporting students. In bothcases those teachers were surprised that these issues weren’t found to be more significantfor other interviewees. To gain rapport at the start of the interview process, I talked briefly with eachinterviewee before beginning the questions and recording. One surprise which camefrom the interviews was that as the teachers described their experiences with students onthe autism spectrum, they questioned if they really had enough experience to be helpfulto the study. Two of the special education teachers had over 10 years of experience eachin teaching students and training teachers of students with autism spectrum disorders, andthey still questioned if they had information which would be useful for this study. In

123chapter 5 I will discuss interpretations of these findings and the recommendations whichcan be made from this study.

124 Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations Overview The purpose of this sequential explanatory study was to examine teachers’attitudes and perceived needs in teaching high school students with autism spectrumdisorders. This includes an interpretation of the findings, recommendations for actionand further research, and implications for social change. A sequential explanatory mixed methods approach was selected to examinepatterns in teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion as well as to consider possible reasons forthose patterns. Participants responded to 20 survey questions on the STATIC; threefollow-up interview questions were designed to explore the patterns which emerged fromthe STATIC data. The study was undertaken because of the paucity of researchregarding including students on the autism spectrum at the high school level, particularlyhigh school teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion in comparison to elementary and middlelevel educators. The purpose of this research was to address those gaps. Quantitative research questions were: 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? 2. Is there a statistically significant relationship between the amount of teacher training and high school teachers’ attitudes toward including students with HFA?

125 The quantitative data were gathered using the Scale of Teachers’ AttitudesTowards Inclusive Classrooms (STATIC, Cochran, 1997/2000). General education andspecial education teachers’ mean t scores were compared for the total STATIC and thefour areas which comprise the STATIC: advantages and disadvantages of inclusion,professional issues, philosophical issues, and logistics. There was a statisticallysignificant difference in general education and special education teachers’ attitudestoward inclusion in the area of professional issues of inclusion (p = .001). No otherstatistically significant differences were found when comparing STATIC scores byteaching assignment. As a part of the survey participants were asked to provide information regardingthe amount of college credit hours and professional development they had received inrelation to inclusion. These responses were compared to the mean scores on the STATICand the four area scores using Spearman’s rho to determine if there was a statisticallysignificant correlation between training and attitudes toward inclusion. Responses to thephilosophical issues of inclusion yielded a statistically significant correlation for both thenumber of credit hours and clock hours (p = 007 and .026, respectively). The number ofclock hours was also found to be statistically significant in the area of advantages anddisadvantages of inclusion (p = .001). No other statistically significant correlations werefound between training and attitudes toward inclusion. Qualitative research questions were: 1. What interventions do high school teachers consider most beneficial to support students with HFA in the inclusive classroom settings?

126 2. What administrator supports do high school teachers feel are important for successful inclusion of students with HFA? 3. What concerns do high school teachers have regarding including students with HFA in the general education setting? Qualitative data were gathered through telephone interviews based on gaps in theresearch as outlined in chapter 2 and on participant responses to the survey. Interviewdata were coded in two rounds of line-by-line open coding. A priori categories wereinterventions for students, supports for teachers, and concerns related to successfulinclusion. Responses were compared for similarities in coding; through both rounds ofcoding, the same higher level concepts emerged from the interview data. The four higherlevel concepts which emerged after both rounds of open coding were least restrictiveenvironment, flexibility, training, and collaboration. There was little discrepancybetween the first and second rounds of coding in the lower level concepts; 11% (16/145)of the lines had different codes from the first to the second round of coding. In 81% ofthose instances (13/16 codes) different terms had been used, but they captured the sameessence of the line. In the remaining three lines (2% of the total lines coded), I needed toreconcile the interpretations of the interview data. A sample interview transcript isincluded as Appendix G. Interpretation of Findings STATIC survey responses were collected from 77 general education and specialeducation teachers regarding including students with HFA at the high school level.Demographic data were gathered regarding the teachers’ current teaching assignment, as

127well as the amount of training related to inclusion. College credit hours and professionaldevelopment clock hours were used to measure teachers’ training on inclusion. An independent samples t test was calculated to analyze the mean differences ingeneral education and special education teachers’ scores on the STATIC and its four areascores. On the total STATIC special education teachers obtained higher mean scoresthan the general education teachers. This indicated that overall the special educationteachers had a more positive attitude toward including students with HFA. These resultsare typical of the results obtained through the previous administrations of the STATIC.According to the research reviewed for chapter 2, experience and training impactsteachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. The teachers surveyed had similar amounts ofexperience, but special education teachers had nearly twice the college credit hoursrelated to including students with special education needs. Given that special educationteachers typically have more training related to teaching exceptional students, the trend inboth training and teachers’ attitudes was expected. Therefore, it was also expected thatthe special education teachers would score higher on the STATIC. Not all of the area scores for the STATIC followed the same pattern of results.Two of the STATIC areas (advantages and disadvantages and logistics of inclusion)yielded higher mean scores for the general education teachers. In these two areas generaleducation teachers had a more positive attitude toward inclusion. In the area ofadvantages and disadvantages of inclusion special education teachers scored lowest onItem 7 (M = 3.887); this item is related to the selection of the best educational setting forstudents on the autism spectrum. Selecting the best instructional environment was noted

128as a concern by both general education and special education teacher interviewees. Twoteachers indicated that parental requests for the students’ placement in the generaleducation was not always based on the students’ abilities to be successful in that setting.Participant responses to Item 7 regarding selecting the best learning environment may bea reflection of the difficulties that teams have with collaboration to find the mostappropriate LRE for students on the autism spectrum. One teacher had also indicatedthat, in her experience, principals deferred to families’ requests regarding the educationalsetting in order to avoid potential lawsuits. Additional information would be needed toexamine teams’ collaboration and decision making processes. A further review shouldalso examine the continuum of services considered by teams when determining the LREfor students on the autism spectrum. It is possible that as district personnel restructure toprovide students with more support and access to the general education setting, there arefewer options provided within the continuum of special education services. In the area of logistics, the special education teachers had more concerns incomparison to the general education teacher participants. The special education teachersscored lower on questions which were related to the systemic supports of inclusion.These questions were related to systemic supports from principals including access toresources such as assistive technology. Soukup et al. (2007) noted that interventions forstudents were available less than half the time in the general education setting. Specialeducation teachers may have expressed more concern with the logistics of inclusion ifinterventions were implemented inconsistently. Interviewees also indicated thatinterventions were not regularly implemented in the general education classroom. Large

129class sizes, a lack of time for individualized attention, and a limited understanding of thenature of the students’ disability were described as barriers to the consistent applicationof interventions and supports. Selected interventions should be based on the needs of thestudent and the demands of the environment. There was also a statistically significant difference in the teachers’ attitudes in thearea of professional issues. Special education teachers scored statistically significantlyhigher in this area (p = .001). Questions in this area were related to teachers’ preparationfor and confidence in teaching students on the autism spectrum in the inclusive classroomsettings. Special education teachers scored higher on all five questions in this area. Thisresult is typical of the results found by Cochran (1997/2000). As indicated in chapter 2,the training for special education teachers includes more emphasis on educating studentswith exceptionalities. These results also support the conclusion that training improvesteachers’ attitudes and sense of efficacy regarding inclusion. In the area of philosophical issues the mean scores for general education andspecial education teachers were very similar (M = 5.274, M = 5.277, respectively). Bothgeneral education and special education teachers scored highest in this area. Out of allitems on the test, Numbers 6 and 16 from this area received the highest mean scores forboth general education and special education teachers. Question 6 examined teachers’attitudes regarding the progress of students on the autism spectrum in the generaleducation setting; Question 16 measured teachers’ attitudes toward the need foradditional training for general education teachers. Higher scores in this area may indicatethat the current education policies regarding inclusion have increased teachers’ awareness

130of how to support students with exceptional learning needs. Responses to Question 6indicate that teachers have a positive attitude toward the potential for student growth. Torelate these responses to the research in chapter 2, a positive attitude increased teachers’sense of self-efficacy and the level of expectations for students in the inclusive classroomsetting. These were described as key elements for educators to possess for successfulinclusive classrooms (Bandura, 1977; Bender, Vail, & Scott, 1995; Park & Chitiyo, 2009;Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Additionally, Bandura found that higher scoresin self-efficacy led to both an increase in the teachers’ expectations and the students’performance by increasing the variety of interventions attempted as well as consistency inimplementation. It was surprising to find that general education teachers had scored higher on thetwo of the areas of the STATIC. On the previous administrations of the STATIC (Barco,2007; Cochran, 1997/2000, Hoffman, 2006; Mastin, 2010) special education teachersscored higher on the STATIC and area scores. The amount of variance per question inspecial education teachers’ responses was also unexpected. After reviewing the data I ranan analysis of variance by degree type and found that among the doctoral levelparticipants was statistically significant for the total STATIC and for the areas of logisticsand philosophical issues. In order to determine if these results were not due to outlyingdata, I eliminated the responses from doctoral level participants and recalculated the tscores. The patterns regarding general education and special education teachers’responses remained consistent. The variance in doctoral responses could be attributed tofurther education or new responsibilities of individuals with their doctorate. It is possible

131that those participants are no longer in the classroom; they may have differentperspectives toward inclusion if they have moved into administrative level positions.Additional data would be needed to determine how education at the doctoral level was afactor in how teachers responded. Spearman’s rho was calculated to compare the relationship between teachertraining and teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. There was a statistically significantrelationship between training and teachers’ attitudes regarding the philosophical issues ofinclusion. The research for chapter 2 revealed that training positively impacted teachers’attitudes and sense of efficacy toward inclusion (Bandura, 1977; Park & Chitiyo, 2009;Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). These results indicated that philosophicallyteachers agree with inclusion and the belief that all students can learn in mostenvironments. This was an area in which 78% or more of the teachers either agreed orstrongly agreed with the items in this area. These results would also indicate thatteachers accept inclusion and recognize the need for adequate training for successfulinclusion. Another area in which there was a statistically significant relationship was thenumber of clock hours of training related to inclusion compared to the teachers’ meanscores on the STATIC area advantages and disadvantages of inclusion. No statisticallysignificant relationship was found between the number of credit hours of training and themean scores for the advantages and disadvantages of inclusion. There was no statisticallysignificant relationship between teacher mean scores on the STATIC and on the areasprofessional issues and logistics of inclusion. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not

132rejected for those areas or the total STATIC. These calculations were not affected by theresponses from doctoral level participants, as only two of those participants providedinformation regarding training in inclusion. These results confirm a conclusion regardingthe first research question and Bandura’s (1977) belief that a more positive outlooktoward including students with special education needs will lead to a positive inclusionexperience. Educators with a positive attitude toward the philosophical issues ofinclusion are more likely to have the belief that all children can learn. Interview data were gathered from five participants. The interview questionsasked were based on trends in the literature discussed in chapter 2. Analysis of the datafrom the STATIC indicated that no additional questions were needed beyond the threequestions discussed in chapters 1 and 3. The qualitative research questions follow: 1. What interventions do high school teachers consider most beneficial to support students with HFA in the inclusive classroom settings? 2. What administrator supports do high school teachers feel are important for successful inclusion of students with HFA? 3. What concerns do high school teachers have regarding including students with HFA in the general education setting? Several higher level concepts emerged from the two rounds of open coding:training, flexibility, least restrictive environment, and collaboration. The need forflexibility was also apparent throughout interviewee responses. When discussinginterventions for students, all five interviewees indicated that the students they had servedwere unique in their needs and that students benefitted from differentiated, flexible

133supports. The need for flexibility in the areas of instruction and support was most closelyrelated to the first research question: What interventions do high school teachers considermost beneficial to support students with HFA in the inclusive classroom settings? These results are consistent with the research conducted for chapter 2. Kluth(2003) indicated that individuals on the autism spectrum are unique in how the disabilitymanifests. During the interview, teachers noted several types of academic and socialinterventions in place, including various types of direct instruction and proactiveantecedent management strategies. These are consistent with research-based strategiesnoted to be beneficial by the NAC (2009). Interviewees indicated that interventions arenot implemented consistently for students on the autism spectrum. The special educationteachers interviewed indicated that general education teachers do not always understandthe nature of the autism spectrum disorders. None of the teachers interviewed discussedthe tier-based supports described in chapter 2 as a means to support students. Co-teaching was also not mentioned in the interviews as a means of supporting includingstudents on the autism spectrum. Self-regulation strategies were only noted by one of theinterviewees as a support; this was mentioned in the context of increasing the students’cognitive understanding of behavioral choices and social situations. Administrative supports which were considered important by intervieweesincluded time for collaboration and planning. Educators also indicated that determiningthe appropriate LRE of the student was important to the success of inclusion. Twointerviewees specifically noted that administrative supports in working with families toselect the LRE as a team was important. One of the interviewees had discussed LRE in

134the context of the need for additional supports for general education teachers. Thisinformation addresses research question 2: What administrator supports do high schoolteachers feel are important for successful inclusion of students with HFA. Researchconducted for the literature review indicated that time for collaboration and planningbetween general education and special education teachers was one important way inwhich administrators could support inclusion (Boutot, 2007; Cahill & Mitra, 2008; Fuchset al., 2008; Keefe, Moore, & Duff, 2004; Kozik et al., 2009; Sansosti, Noltemeyer, &Goss, 2010). Selecting the LRE was not an issue which emerged in the course ofresearch for the literature review. Palley (2006) reviewed court cases related to LRE andfound that the special education law regarding LRE does not guarantee placement in theinclusive classroom setting. If students received more benefit from the special educationsetting, and no academic or social benefit from inclusion, the special education settingwas a more appropriate learning environment. The idea of selecting the appropriate least restrictive environment (LRE) wasdiscussed by three of the five teachers in relation to their concerns for including studentswith ASD. Collaboration, like training, was mentioned by all of the teachers interviewed;and was discussed across more than one interview question. This included collaborationbetween teachers as well as collaboration with families. The need for additional trainingon strategies to support students with ASD as well as the nature of the disability was aconcern expressed by all interviewees. These responses address the third researchquestion on teachers’ concerns regarding including students with HFA in the generaleducation setting. Collaboration and training in general had been considered as a part of

135the research reviewed; however, there was no research related to teachers’ training on thenature of ASD and how this may manifest in the classroom. Recommendations for Action In my professional practice, I work with preservice teachers to increase theirknowledge of strategies for inclusion and collaboration. Interview responses from bothgeneral education and special education teachers indicated the importance ofcollaboration for the success of inclusion. Therefore, it is important to provideopportunities for general education and special education teacher candidates tocollaborate in their college courses in order to prepare for their field experiences. Onebarrier to this occurring is the different courses taken by the general education and specialeducation teacher candidates; opportunities for collaboration need to be built into existingcourses and field experiences. Fullerton, Ruben, McBride, and Bert (2011) studied amerger of secondary education and special education teacher preparation programs over aperiod of 5 years. Fullerton et al. (2011) found that teacher candidates expressed greaterconfidence in implementing a variety of intervention strategies as well as had higherexpectations for their students’ success. Cooperating school districts and teachers alsoneed to have training regarding best practices in collaboration and co-teaching in order toensure these opportunities are available to student teachers in their field experiences. Professional development opportunities for teachers and families are needed toincrease effective collaboration. As a university instructor I have the opportunity to sharethis study’s results with local administrators and offer support to help districts with their

136needs and goals related to inclusion, co-teaching, collaboration, and team-building asrelated to the selection and maintenance of the LRE for students on the autism spectrum. Local groups for families of students on the autism spectrum could alsopotentially benefit from increased knowledge in how to work with school districtplanning teams. Families and teachers need to collaborate in order to find the mostappropriate educational environment for students, as well as strategies to support studentswith academic and social challenges in the general education setting. Families have anunderstanding of how their student’s disability manifests and the triggers that can lead toanxiety and frustration for the student. Families may benefit from support in how to bestcommunicate this information with school district teams. Murray, Ackerman-Spain,Williams, and Ryley (2011) found that families and teachers both lack the trainingneeded for collaboration, as a result hierarchal relationships rather than partnerships areformed. Murray et al. (2011) studied the efficacy of common training programs forfamilies and teachers of students with ASD. They found that common training forteachers and families regarding ASD and collaboration increased the teams’ confidenceand efficacy. Teams which received collaborative training were more likely to makeadjustments to the supports provided in order to maintain the least restrictiveenvironment. The interviewees did not mention the use of school-wide intervention systemssuch as RTI or PBS in their interview responses. Strain, Wilson, and Dunlap (2011)found that preventative and individualized positive behavior supports were effective inreducing the behaviors which interfere with access to the general education setting.