pdfdissertation

37use of peer-based support in the secondary setting; however these supports did notincrease the interaction of general education teachers with the students with disabilities.In situations in which adult support or intervention was required for behavior or academicneeds, the paraprofessional provided the support (Carter et al., 2007). Robertson,Chamberlain, and Kasari (2003) also found the teachers’ positive relationship withstudents on the autism spectrum was more likely to increase social interactions with peersand create a positive experience with inclusion. Although paraprofessional and peersupport can both be an important part of student success in inclusive classrooms, supportfrom and a relationship with the general education teacher is necessary for studentsuccess. The role of the general education teacher in successful inclusive classrooms isto plan instruction, provide materials and assessments to meet individual student needsand to hold the belief that every student can be successful (Horne & Timmons, 2009;Beard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2010). If the general education teacher does notdifferentiate instruction, materials, and assessment as part of the support provided in thegeneral education setting, then students with diverse learning needs may not be able tofully access the curriculum. To overcome the potential academic deficits with at-risk groups and meet themandates of NCLB (2002), many schools have changed how they provided services tostudents (Marzano et al., 2005; Polhemus, 2010). These changes included classroom-based strategies, such as co-teaching, direct instruction and differentiated instruction, orschool-wide strategies, such as tiered supports. School-wide reforms were designed tomeet a school’s specific needs, goals, and climate. In considering school-wide reform

38Marzano et al. (2005) recommended that schools design or adopt site-specificinterventions, “The logic behind this option is that every school is different in some way.Consequently, no predesigned comprehensive school reform program will address theunique characteristics of a given school” (p. 81). School reform is often based on teambuilding and collaboration with the aim of defining and attaining school-wide goals(Brundrett & de Cuevas, 2008; Frey, Lingo, & Nelson, 2008; Maccini & Gagnon, 2006;Polhemus, 2010). Marzano et al. (2005) indicated each school must evaluate the needs ofthe student body in relation to the school’s progress toward standards when planningschool-wide goals and support systems. Tiered interventions provide a means forattaining school-wide goals with diverse student populations.Tiered Systems of Supports School-wide support systems provide the most durable changes in servicedelivery for students with exceptionalities. Frey et al. (2008) reviewed theimplementation of PBS systems across K-12 settings in 39 states and concluded, “PBSencompasses a broad range of systemic and individualized strategies focused on creatinga positive school climate, represented by orderly, well-managed classroom and non-classroom environments” (p. 5). A key strength of this system was its flexibility. Schooldistricts which incorporated this school-wide system to support at-risk students were ableto use it in conjunction with other existing supports. This system fostered social justicefor students and families; there was a common, high expectation of appropriate behaviorfor all students. Students with difficulty meeting the expectations of the school,classroom, or personal level were able to receive the same supports regardless of where

39they were in the school community. Regular data were collected regarding the attemptedinterventions. The teams collaborated to solve problems as they arose to preventbehaviors from escalating. In the PBS system, individualized behavioral supports andinterventions can be provided for students on the autism spectrum. The NAC (2009) didnot include an evaluation of school-wide systems of supports, but did note that specificantecedent and behavioral interventions could be implemented in conjunction with otherstrategies. Just as with PBS, RTI is a systemic approach by the school community to meetthe needs of at-risk students. The emphasis of RTI is the implementation of academicsupports using research-based methods. Educators and administrators use data toevaluate the efficacy of interventions. Polhemus (2010) found several attributes whichwere vital to the successful adoption of RTI: these included collaboration, the belief thatall students could be successful, the availability of student-centered supports, and thetime and resources for training and collaboration. Administrative support and clearguidance were necessary for the changes to be lasting and effective. Both PBS and RTI were inclusive and collaborative education models. Harding(2009) found that “teachers must work collaboratively with one another for the inclusivemodel to be successful” (p. 94). The training for both general education and specialeducation teachers can be incomplete. General education teachers tend to receivetraining in the expertise in the curriculum, standards, and instructional methods andmaterials. Special education teachers receive coursework in specific student learningneeds; as well as how to adapt the learning environment. When general education and

40special education teachers collaborated together they were better able to address studentneeds. Both PBS and RTI offered three tiers of supports for students. Multiple supportsacross school settings were available for students experiencing behavioral or academicchallenges. All students received Tier 1 instruction and supports in the general educationsetting. All students were given access to standards-based instruction taught by a highlyqualified teacher. In order to increase the success of students with diverse needsresearch-based practices in instruction and behavior management were implemented inTier I. At Tiers II and III students were given supplemental behavioral support orinstruction, in addition to the Tier I support. Although research-based methods wereemployed at each tier, little research was available regarding the specific impact of tieredinstruction on including students with ASD. In a meta-analysis of literature published from 2000 to 2005 regarding school-wide systems offering tiered supports, Stewart et al. (2007) found that few studiesreported on the impact of tiered supports for students with disabilities in the generaleducation setting. Students with ASD were noted in one case study on tieredinterventions, but this study was not a part of the meta-analysis because it did not meetthe authors’ criteria for the number of study participants. Additionally, the majority ofthe studies reviewed by Stewart et al. (2007) included data from elementary levelschools. Four of the 17 studies included data on a tiered support system at the secondarylevel. Additional research is needed on tiered systems as a means to support studentswith HFA at the secondary level.

41 Likewise, Sansosti et al. (2010) found few studies that focused on tieredinterventions at the secondary level as compared to the elementary level. Obstacles to theimplementation of effective RTI models were found. These included a lack of time forplanning and collaboration between the general education and special education teachers,scheduling difficulties, Tier II and III level supports did not fully support thereintegration of students into Tier I instruction (Fuchs, Compton, Fuchs, Bryant, & Davis,2008; Kozik, Cooney, Vinciguerra, Gradel, and Black, 2009; Sansosti et al., 2010).Fuchs et al. (2008) indicated that the lack of time for collaboration can lead to lesseffective interventions in Tier I settings. Sansosti et al also found that inconsistentimplementation and evaluation of research-based interventions at all tiers of service. Sansosti et al. (2010) further found that block scheduling for Tier II and IIIinterventions was an issue at the secondary level, as well as inconsistent data-collectionto aid in evaluating the efficacy of interventions. Common problems included theeducators’ need for up to date training on research-based practices and access to a varietyof effective strategies that address specific learning needs (Fuchs et al., 2008; Reeves,Bishop, & Filce, 2010). In secondary education, Sansosti et al. (2010) also found therewere “unique challenges in RTI implementation … These challenges should not beperceived as insurmountable. Rather, a careful analysis of needs, resources, and systems--via research, creative thinking, and careful planning--can inform systems interventionsneeded to facilitate RTI” (p. 293). The same analysis of needs, resources, and research-based interventions can be used to support students on the autism spectrum in the generaleducation setting.

42 One primary means of following the general education and special educationlegislations as well as supporting at-risk students was Response to Intervention. TheResponse to Intervention model was one method employed by states to align state specialeducation policy with general education and special education policies. As of the 2010-2011 school year Illinois school districts have been required to deliver research-basedinstruction and interventions to students in order to meet individual and diverse learningneeds. School districts in Illinois are required to use a process that determines how a student responds to scientific, research-based interventions (RTI) when determining whether that student is or continues to be eligible for and entitled to special education services under the category of specific learning disability (SLD). (Illinois State Board of Education, 2010, p. 1)Illinois’ special education policy was to use RTI as the model to qualify students forspecial education services under the disability area of specific learning disabilities, butthis may be expanded to all categories in special education: While the 2010-2011 requirements for the use of RTI is specific to the identification of SLD, the purpose of this document is also to lay the foundation for the optional use of RTI as part of the evaluation procedures to determine special education eligibility for all students suspected of having a disability other than SLD. (Illinois State Board of Education, 2010, p. 1)Therefore, RTI may also be considered as a means to evaluate the education progress ofstudents on the autism spectrum.

43 No current research was found regarding the use of tiered interventions as ameans to support high school students with autism spectrum disorders (Sansosti et al.,2010; Stewart et al., 2007). Research regarding tiered instruction was richer at theelementary level; research was also available on the impact of tiered supports on lowachieving, at-risk students in general. I found suggested interventions to support studentson the autism spectrum, but not all of the research had been related to success in the TierI setting. As with PBS, the NAC did not specifically note RTI as being a research-basedintervention or a school-based system designed to support students on the autismspectrum.Direct Instruction Because of the nature of ASD, students diagnosed with HFA often requireadditional instruction or support. Potential deficit areas include social skills, readingcomprehension, vocabulary acquisition, and written communication, and oralcommunication (Gately, 2008; Goodwin, Groden, Velicer, & Diller, 2007; Harbinson &Alexander, 2009; Kluth, 2003). Students with ASD tend to learn better with visualsupports such as visual schedules, graphic organizers, and visual and multimediainstructional materials; they also benefit from flexible means to express what they havelearned (Chandler-Olcott & Kluth, 2009; Falk-Ross et al., 2004; Gately, 2008; Roberts &Joiner, 2007). Direct instruction would fit in the NAC’s (2009) category of modeling togain new skills and behaviors, and would be considered an established treatment. Each student on the autism spectrum is different; therefore generalizations aboutresearch-based interventions are not always applicable. Case study research has

44frequently been used to study students with ASD. Results from case studies are difficultto generalize to other individuals with ASD; the purpose of case study research is toexplore factors which may have impacted the study’s participants (Creswell, 2003).Kluth (2003) and Tobias (2009) indicated educators should look at each student on theautism spectrum as unique individuals with unique learning strengths, needs, andbehaviors. For some students with ASD language based learning difficulties may becomorbid; academic supports will be necessary for successful inclusion in the generaleducation setting (Carnahan, Rusti-Mao, & Bailey, 2009; Kluth, 2003). For others on theautism spectrum social and behavioral supports may be needed to increase studentsuccess (Banda & Kubina, 2010; Mancil & Pearl, 2008). Interventions should beconsidered based on specific student needs and interests, rather than implementedbecause the student has an ASD. Reading comprehension can be a difficult task for students on the autismspectrum. Students with ASD frequently have difficulty with tasks related to figurativeand expressive language (Falk-Ross, Iverson, & Gilbert, 2004; Gately, 2008; Harbinson& Alexander, 2009). At the secondary level, students are expected to engage in readingrelated tasks which require inferential reading skills; this may include understanding acharacter’s motivation or emotions, and the author’s purpose in a reading passage.Connecting to the literature in this manner is referred to as the Theory of Mind (ToM);this is a difficult skill to master for students who have a disability based on understandingsocial cues. The NAC did specifically refer to ToM-based interventions, although thiswas referred to as having an emerging research base. Additional research is needed to

45add to the research-base on supporting students on the autism spectrum at the secondarylevel. Direct instruction is an established, research-based intervention to supportstudents with ASD. Direct instruction for reasoning and inferential comprehension is acommon approach used to move students from concrete to more abstract levels ofunderstanding (Gately, 2008; Flores & Ganz, 2007). Gately (2008) proposed severalstrategies which employed direct instruction to increase student interaction with thenarrative text. Teachers taught students how to analyze the structure of narrative text,modeled the cognitive processes used for inferential reading comprehension, and relatedsocial stories to events and conflicts found in literature. Gately (2008) further suggestedthe use of enriched reading material with emotional thermometers to provide visualrepresentation of a character’s emotions. These strategies supported the abstract socialand emotional content with more concrete representations, explicit instruction, andexplanations of abstract content such as character emotions or motivations. Social storieswere considered by the NAC (2009) as an established intervention, although it was notedthat it is not widely used as an intervention at the high school level. Providing students with structure and guidelines for organization and workcompletion has also been shown to be beneficial for students with ASD. In their study,Harbinson and Alexander (2009) found that any nonfiction reading and writing inlanguage arts classes was potentially difficult for students with ASD. “It is clear thatthose parts of the English curriculum which require the use of the imagination posesignificant problems for students with a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome” (p. 17).

46Interventions tried in this study included the use of a writing framework, or a formula fornonfiction writing, coupled with an alternative setting for direct instruction of how to usethe framework. The students in Harbinson and Alexander’s study received instruction inboth the general education and special education settings to learn and practice new skills.The authors indicated that students on the autism spectrum viewed creative writing andimagination in a manner much different from their peers and that their students’confidence and comfort with writing increased when they were able to express theirconcerns with others who had a similar view of nonfiction reading and writing. Studentsaccessed the instruction in the general education setting; they also received support fromthe special education teacher in order to practice new skills and build confidence. Direct instruction is beneficial for students at all grade levels; direct instruction isan established, research-based intervention. Webb et al. (2008) discussed the benefits ofdirect instruction for secondary level students with HFA. However, Webb et al. (2008)further indicated that secondary education teachers dismissed direct instruction in favorof presenting content area knowledge. They found that students tended to generalize theacademic skills of note-taking, organization, and time management when provided withexplicit instruction in these areas.Differentiated Instruction With the convergence of NCLB (2002) and IDEIA (2004) in the generaleducation classrooms, educators were challenged to meet the diverse learning needs oftheir students. A one-size fits all approach does not truly fit every student or meet everystudent’s learning needs. Differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 2001; Tomlinson &

47McTighe, 2006) is a learning theory with roots in cognitive constructivism; this is basedon the premise that learners understand things in different ways and come to theclassroom in different stages of readiness. Differentiated instruction is a student-centeredapproach to planning instruction. Bost and Riccomini (2006) indicated that secondarystudents with disabilities were less likely to drop out of school when provided withopportunities for successful outcomes. Strategies for differentiation, including the use ofscaffolds, active engagement, and activating prior knowledge were found to increasestudent success (Bost & Riccomini, 2006). Soukup et al. (2007) also indicated thatstudent access to the general education setting and curriculum could be increased throughaccommodated classroom materials and differentiated instructional groups. Withdifferentiated instruction, materials and instructional methods are adapted to meet thestudents’ needs, rather than students adjusting to fit one instructional mode (Rose &Meyer, 2002). With this learning theory, information is presented to students through avariety of learning modes and materials. Another framework for differentiation is universal design for learning (UDL)(Dymond et al. 2006; Meo, 2008; Rose & Meyer, 2002). The UDL framework guideseducators to consider differentiated instructional methods, materials, assessment, andmeans of engagement to support diverse learners. In the current research on supportingstudents with ASD examples of differentiation and applications of the UDL principlescan be found, even if the terms UDL or differentiated instruction are not specificallyused.

48 One component of the UDL framework is the presentation of information inmultiple formats. Students with ASD frequently required information presented to themin a different way in order for them to access, organize, and retrieve that information(Carnahan, Hume, Clarke, & Borders, 2009; Roberts & Joiner, 2007). Understandinghow ideas are organized was noted by Smith and Okolo (2010) as an important skillrelated to learning new information and expressing what has been learned. Cognitivemapping or concept mapping is a visual means of representing relationships between keyideas, details, and vocabulary. Roberts and Joiner (2007) studied the impact of cognitivemapping on the acquisition of new information for students with ASD. Roberts andJoiner further noted “the concept mapping worksheets unintentionally complied withsome of TEACCH’s (Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication-handicapped Children) principles for independent work tasks” (p. 134). The effect of thecognitive mapping intervention was that participating students with ASD were four timesmore likely to accurately recall relationships between key ideas and details than theirpeers who did not receive that intervention. Written expression is a primary means by which teachers evaluate their students’learning at the secondary level. Written expression is a key component to success in thegeneral education setting and an area in which students with ASD tend to struggle(Pennington, 2009). According to Myles et al. (2003), writing difficulties for studentswith ASD included deficits in legibility, organization, complexity, and length incomparison to peer writing samples. To address these writing difficulties, directinstruction, visual representations, and strategies-based instruction can be implemented.

49Harbinson and Alexander (2009) used graphic organizers with direct instruction butobtained inconsistent results in their study; some students with ASD improved in theirwriting fluency, others continued to struggle with written expression tasks and neededadditional support. Chandler-Olcott and Kluth (2009) also discussed the importance ofallowing for a variety of means of expression for students with ASD, including the use ofassistive technology and alternative communication devices for writing tasks. Chandler-Olcott and Kluth (2009) also found that writing support and instruction needed to beindividualized for students; one intervention did not adequately meet the needs ofstudents with ASD and written expression deficits. As with other interventions, fidelityof implementation and data-collection is important to finding effective interventions tosupport students with HFA. Flexible use of technology is another means of differentiation in the classroom.Instructional and assistive technologies were found to be beneficial for students withwritten expression deficits (Lawrence-Brown, 2004). Students on the autism spectrummay have difficulty with several aspects of writing. Differentiation for students with bothASD and writing difficulties occurred through a variety of assistive technologies. Suchresearch-based interventions included portable keyboards, smart pens, word banks,writing templates, and voice-to-text (Cullen, Richards, & Frank, 2008; Pennington,2009). Some students with ASD benefitted from the use of instructional and interactivetechnology as a means of gaining new academic skills (Mechling, Gast, & Krupa, 2007).Students were able to use technology to complete writing tasks when directly taught howto apply technology to their writing assignments.

50 Social skills instruction can also be differentiated in order to help students gainnew interpersonal skills. Suggested strategies for increasing social skills for studentswith ASD included social stories, classroom and school-wide support systems; videomodeling, and interactive virtual environments (Meadan & Monda-Amaya, 2008; Moore,Cheng, McGrath, & Powell, 2005). Students on the autism spectrum improved socialskills and emotion recognition through the use of technology-based interventions(Lacava, Golan, Baron-Cohen, & Myles, 2007; Mitchell, Parsons, & Leonard, 2007;Moore et al., 2005). Social stories and digital (video or internet-based) social storieswere also used to directly model for students how to act or react in different social oracademic scenarios (Mitchell et al., 2007; Moore et al., 2005; Parsons, Mitchell, &Leonard, 2006; Scattone, 2007). The flexibility in formats for digital stories allowsteachers to provide students with social supports through a variety of means and in amode most beneficial for the students. Inclusion in the general education setting can increase appropriate social skills forstudents with HFA, when appropriate skills are modeled by their peers. However,Meadan and Monda-Amaya (2008) indicated that inclusion in the general educationsetting does not guarantee student social and behavioral success. As with academicinterventions, not every social skills intervention worked with every student. Mitchell etal. (2007) and Moore et al. (2005) found varying levels of independent skill acquisitionand skill transfer to novel social situations. In both cases, communication impairmentswere diminished in real and virtual social situations. Parsons et al. (2006) also found thatanxiety was reduced when new social skills were introduced through virtual

51environments. Students need the opportunity to safely learn and practice new skills in avariety of settings in order to reduce social stress. Students on the autism spectrum tended to have more stress than their generaleducation counterparts, especially in relation to changes in the routine or interruptions todaily and personal rituals, and interpersonal communication (Goodwin et al., 2007).Lytle and Todd (2009) noted that the sensory stimuli in the school environments can beoverwhelming. The presence of fluorescent lights, visually cluttered classrooms, smellsfrom the cafeteria, and the sounds from hallways in classrooms can all create sensoryoverload which can trigger anxiety for students on the autism spectrum. Knowledge ofthe daily routine and changes to that were important for students on the autism spectrum.Educators needed awareness of which portions of school were the most stressful for eachstudent with an ASD in order to plan effective supports (Kluth, 2003). Differentiatedsupports, alternative activities or settings, and calming strategies can reduce that stress(Gibbons & Goins, 2008; Lytle & Todd, 2009). It should again be noted that students onthe autism spectrum should be viewed as individuals; as Lytle and Todd (2009) indicated,“relaxation is individualized” (p. 41); just as with other interventions, teachers may needto consider a variety of relaxation techniques in order to find the best fit for each student. The NAC indicated that academic treatments were in the unestablished categoryfor research. The research base for differentiated instruction and UDL is limited inrelation to students with ASD. Technology-based interventions were listed in theemerging research category. Further research is needed to determine if there are benefits

52to academic and technology-based interventions for high school students on the autismspectrum in inclusive classrooms.Student Motivation and Self-Regulation As with other strategies implemented to support students with ASD in the generaleducation setting, interventions and goals related to self-motivation and self-regulationshould be individualized (Wilczynski, Menousek, Hunter, & Mudgal, 2007). Kluth(2003) and Mesibov and Howley (2003) indicated that students on the autism spectrummay have difficulty communicating their preferences and needs; therefore families shouldbe considered important sources of information regarding student needs and motivators(Kluth, 2003; Mesibov & Howley, 2003). Humphrey and Lewis (2008) also found thatstudents’ motivation increased when paired with students with higher academic abilityand social skills. They found that when students were scheduled in classes with lowerfunctioning peers, who had more challenging behaviors, the students with ASD reportedgreater difficulty in being able to focus and concentrate on the work, and therefore theirteachers viewed the students as less motivated and on-task. Communication with families can increase teacher efficacy in teaching studentson the autism spectrum. Using conjoint behavioral consultation (CBC) between homeand school, Wilkinson found that coordinating social, behavioral and academic supportswith families increased appropriate student behaviors and decreased anxiety for studentson the autism spectrum. CBC was described as a collaborative model between home andschool, and was used as a framework for developing interventions and gathering dataacross both the home and school settings. According to Wilkinson the strengths of this

53model included the shared ownership of supporting students, a systemic view of how tobest support students, and a reduction in the sense of isolation for families and educatorswhen working through problem behaviors. The CBC framework included a regularreview of the efficacy of the research-based interventions. Wilkinson also found self-regulation an effective method for students to increase appropriate behavior and socialskills; “self-management strategies provide students with an opportunity to participate inthe development and implementation of their management programme” (p. 322).Wilkinson further noted that self-management increased the acquisition of adaptivebehaviors and allowed students to control their own behaviors; this was found to increasethe motivation for the study’s participants. Self-regulation can also reduce stress andfrustration for students who may view external behavior monitoring systems as arbitraryor unfair. Other study results also pointed toward self-regulation as a means to increasestudent motivation, independence, social competence, and self-confidence (Marks,Hudson, Schrader, Longaker, & Levine, 2006; Meadan & Monda-Amaya, 2008;Scattone, 2007; Tobias, 2009). Self-management of behavior reduced the students’outbursts which accompanied the consequence-based discipline techniques for studentson the autism spectrum (Marks et al., 2006). In traditional reinforcement systemsrewards are delivered for appropriate behaviors or work completion; this system requiresteachers to monitor and evaluate student progress (Marks et al., 2006). A student’sfailure to earn reinforcements may seem out of the student’s control; this can also beviewed as arbitrary and unfair by students on the autism spectrum and lead to anxiety

54(Wilkinson, 2005). Systems in which students monitored their behavior led to greaterself-control, fewer outbursts, and increased motivation (Marks et al., 2006; Scattone,2007; Tobias, 2009; Wilkinson, 2005). Self-regulation was important for students tolearn appropriate behavior and to generalize those behaviors across learning settings. The motivation of students with ASD in the general education setting alsoincreased when preferred activities were paired with activities students were reluctant tocomplete (Banda & Kuvina, 2010). Based on the behavioral theories of momentum firstdescribed by Nevin, Mandell, and Atak (1983), Banda and Kuvina found that whenstudents were allowed to select an activity they preferred they were then also more likelyto also complete an assigned task that was not as favored due to the forward momentumon other related school work. The student’s resistance to the disliked task was found tobe lower when paired with a student-selected preferred activity. Mechling, Gast, andCronin (2006) also concluded that when student interests were incorporated into requiredactivities or used as reinforcement at the conclusion of required assignments, thatstudents were more likely to complete required tasks as well as less desirable tasks. The NAC indicated that strategies which considered individual studentmotivators, preferences, rituals, and interests were established strategies. Consideringstudent interests and incorporating them into student instruction and assignments wasnoted as an antecedent treatment (NAC, 2009). The NAC also indicated that self-management was an established treatment for motivating and supporting students at thesecondary level.

55 NCLB (2002) and IDEIA (2004) contained requirements that highly qualifiededucators work with students with diverse learning needs in inclusive educationalsettings. The research-based practices described in this section of the review weredesigned to reduce the barriers to successful inclusion for students on the autismspectrum. Teacher training in the use of research-based strategies is important to thesuccess of students with exceptionalities in the general education setting. Teachertraining improved teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion, gave teachers more confidence,and increased the variety of interventions attempted by teachers. Teacher Attitudes and Self-Efficacy With inclusion, more students with special education needs receive theirinstruction in the general education setting. Stainback and Stainback (1988) indicatedthat educators also have a shared responsibility for educating every student. Given thatgeneral education teachers’ training does not emphasize strategies to support studentswith disabilities, the shift in responsibility has many general education teachersunprepared for the change (Cahill & Mitra, 2008; DeSimone & Parmar, 2006). Educators have reported the need for additional training in order to feel competentand effective in educating students with diverse learning needs (Boe et al., 2007; Cahill &Mitra, 2008; Dymond et al., 2006; Lancaster & Bain, 2007; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002;Viel-Ruma et al., 2010). Winter (2006) also found that educators specifically felt under-prepared and therefore less effective when teaching students on the autism spectrum.Winter found that implementation of supports such as direct instruction, differentiatedinstruction, and behavioral interventions did not occur automatically in the classroom.

56 As outlined in the first and second sections of this literature review, students onthe autism spectrum tend to have impairments in social interactions and language use;unique speech and communication patterns; and difficulty with changes in routines orexpectations which may result in challenging behaviors. These differences can lead todifficulties for general education teachers when planning and implementing instruction(Robertson, Chamberlain, & Kasari, 2003; Scheuermann, Webber, Boutot, & Goodwin,2003). Chandler-Olcott and Kluth (2009) found that educators who planned for a varietyof ways for students to interact with text reported more student involvement and a deeperunderstanding of class materials. They further stated that educators who focused on thebig ideas or important learner outcomes for each lesson and unit then had greaterflexibility in how information was presented to students, as well as in how studentsinteracted with the class materials. School districts needed to provide professionaldevelopment opportunities for educators designed to meet the education needs of thestudents they serve.Teacher Attitudes and Successful Inclusion Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion are important to successful inclusion(Bandura, 1977; Park & Chitiyo, 2009; Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Scruggsand Mastropieri (1996) conducted a literature review to examine trends in teachers’attitudes toward inclusion from 1958-1995. Scruggs and Mastropieri reviewed 28studies, which included rural, suburban, and urban schools in the United States andabroad; teachers across all grade levels were represented in those studies. Regardless ofthe grade level, the majority of educators were willing to work with students with

57disabilities in the general education setting (Santoli et al., 2008; Scruggs & Mastropieri,1996). Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) also found that in some studies the elementaryteachers reported inclusion was more beneficial than the secondary teacher participants.Reduced class sizes and time for collaboration were noted as important for successfulinclusion; these were attained more at the elementary level than the secondary level.Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) further indicated the resources needed “may be greaterfor secondary teachers than for elementary teachers” (p. 72); secondary level teachersexpressed more concerns and had a more negative attitude than elementary teachers.Further research is needed regarding the concerns that secondary teachers have related toinclusion of students with HFA. Positive attitudes of teachers increased their sense of self-efficacy and level ofexpectations for students in the inclusive classroom setting; these were described as keyelements for educators to possess for successful inclusive classrooms (Bandura, 1977;Bender, Vail, & Scott, 1995; Park & Chitiyo, 2009; Tschannen-Moran & McMaster,2009). Bandura (1977) found that higher scores in self-efficacy led to both an increase inexpectations and performance “by enhancing persistence and intensity of effort” (p. 212).Bender et al. (1995) also found that educators with a negative attitude toward inclusionwere less likely to use interventions that were effective in supporting students withdiverse learning needs. High teacher expectations were also noted in several studies asan important feature related to student achievement (Bandura, 1977; Horne & Timmons,2009; Marzano et al., 2005; Marzano, 2010; Park & Chitiyo, 2009; Tschannen-Moran &McMaster, 2009). Likewise, Beard et al. (2010) indicated that “academic optimism” (p.

581136) was also tied to student success; teachers who believed that students could besuccessful were more likely to seek a variety of methods to support students. Teachers need to have a belief that students and inclusion can be successful.Training in how to select and implement research-based interventions can improveteachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Avramidis and Norwich (2002) indicated thatteachers’ attitudes and beliefs regarding student potential and inclusion impacted theircommitment to successful inclusion. Marzano (2010) also found that teachers who had apositive attitude toward inclusion were more likely to have high expectations for thesuccess of all students. Hammond and Ingalls (2003) also stated that teachers’ attitudestoward inclusion were important indicators of a successful inclusion experience forstudents; educators who lacked the belief in inclusion tended to have more difficulty withteaching in inclusive classrooms. According to the current literature related to teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion,special education and general education teachers frequently used collaboration to planacademic and social supports for students with mild to moderate disabilities (Boutot,2007; Cahill & Mitra, 2008; Fuchs et al., 2008; Keefe, Moore, & Duff, 2004; Kozik et al.,2009; Sansosti et al., 2010). Collaboration benefits both teachers and students; teachersincrease in confidence through collaboration and students benefit from a variety ofresearch-based strategies. Boutot (2007) stated that “the special education teacher shouldplan to act as a resource for the teacher in everything from planning and implementinginstruction to grading … share resources, model appropriate instruction, assist withmodifications and accommodations” (p. 159). This is important because the emphasis of

59special education teachers’ training is on how to support students with exceptionalities;general education teachers may lack this training. Kozik et al. (2009) also noted theimportance of collaboration between general education and special education teachers increating successful inclusive classrooms for students with special education needs.Collaboration led to greater self-efficacy for teachers and higher expectations for thesuccess of students in the inclusive classroom setting. General education teachers’ attitudes and sense of optimism varied across severalstudies and situations. General education teachers at the high school level reported moreconcerns regarding including students with disabilities (McLeskey & Waldron, 2002).Secondary teachers expressed concerns with the students’ abilities to meet instructionalgoals, and a lack of time for planning and collaboration for specialized instruction, andlarge class sizes and workloads (Heflin & Bullock, 1999). The lack of basic academicskills and appropriate adaptive behaviors of some students were also noted as areas ofconcern, especially if these problems were to interfere with the learning of studentswithout diagnosed disabilities (Heflin & Bullock, 1999; Prom, 1999). Teachers at thesecondary level often face increased pressure for all students to make adequate yearlyprogress to meet NCLB regulations. Students who lack the prerequisite skills to learn theacademic content may have increased frustration and behaviors in the classroom. Thiswould also increase teachers’ frustration, and potentially reduce their attitudes towardinclusion. Additional training has been noted as important for successful inclusion; with theadditional training teachers have a more positive attitude toward inclusion. This training

60also needs to be related to teachers’ needs and concerns to be of greatest benefit. Horneand Timmons (2009) surveyed elementary teachers to determine teachers’ attitudes andconcerns toward inclusion. Their survey was designed to gather information regardingtheir attitudes, concerns, and further training needs for successful inclusion; educatorsexpressed a need for additional training and time for collaboration. DeSimone andParmar (2006) conducted a similar study of middle level of educators and also found thateducators needed additional training for successful inclusion. Educators indicated theydesired more information regarding the methods for effective co-teaching andinstructional strategies designed specifically for middle level at-risk students. Howes,Booth, Dyson and Frankham (2005) reported that “context specific professionaldevelopment” (p. 133) was viewed as more beneficial by teachers. Likewise, Kosko andWilkins (2009) found that educators preferred training directly related to making theircurriculum and standards more accessible to their at-risk students. This training wasconsidered the most relevant and valuable professional development by educators.McLeskey and Waldon (2002) also noted that in order for the training to be mostbeneficial it needed to be ongoing, rather than limited, hour long workshops. Ongoingsupports allow teachers to modify and adapt instructional strategies in order to meet theneeds of students in the varied learning environments as well as assist teachers withacquiring new skills. Determining teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion is important, but it is alsoimportant to address their concerns. Idol (2006) conducted a study across fourelementary and four secondary schools to determine educators’ needs and concerns

61related to successful inclusion. Again, the study focused on including students with mildto moderate disabilities, rather than exclusively on including students on the autismspectrum. Additional time for collaboration, planning, curriculum adjustments, andpaperwork were noted as areas of concern across all education levels. Overall, theeducators indicated that administrative support was a key element for successfulinclusion; supports identified included resource allocations, time for collaboration, andopportunities for professional development. Several researchers have also focused specifically on the needs and concerns ofspecial education teachers in relation to inclusion. Billingsley (2010) found that specialeducation teachers expressed a need for additional instruction and training in the use ofresearch-based interventions to support a variety of learners. Billingsley also noted thatnew teachers desired additional training in models for co-teaching and collaboration inorder to reduce conflict with general education teachers. Confusion occurred whengeneral education and special education teachers were unsure of their roles; this led todiminished efficacy in collaboration. Rainforth and England (1997) found that teacherswith positive attitudes were open to trying new roles, sharing skills, and “taking riskswith new approaches, accepting failure but not defeat, making adjustments, and tryingagain” (p. 85). Teachers who had a more negative view of inclusion tended to view bothco-teaching and inclusion in a negative light. Keefe, Moore, and Duffy (2004) found thatteachers with a negative attitude toward inclusion were more likely to view co-teachingas having to accommodate both the special education students and the special educationteacher in the classroom. Isherwood and Barger-Anderson (2008) found that educators

62had a more positive outlook toward co-teaching and collaboration when they had a voicein their placement in a co-taught setting, as well as when clear co-teaching roles wereestablished. Opportunities for training, collaboration, and communication regarding co-taught placements were found to be important to increasing teachers’ attitudes toward co-teaching and inclusion. Teachers’ attitudes have also been tied to teachers’ evaluations of efficacy inresearch; a positive attitude leads to a positive sense of efficacy. Educators reported aneed for systemic supports, such as relevant training and time for collaboration in orderfor inclusion to be successful and to increase teacher feelings of self-efficacy in theclassroom (Cahill & Mitra, 2008; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002; Park & Chitiyo, 2009;Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Self-efficacy was defined by Tschannen-Moranand Woolfolk Hoy (2001) as an educator’s “judgment of his or her capability to bringabout the desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among thosestudents who may be difficult or unmotivated” (p. 783). Positive teachers’ attitudes andsense of efficacy have been found to have a positive impact on student performance andsuccessful inclusion. Resources such as time for planning and collaboration, as well astraining were also noted as important for successful inclusion.Preservice Teacher Preparation and Attitudes Several studies were examined for this review related to preservice teachers’attitudes toward working in inclusive classrooms to consider the impact of their trainingon their attitudes. Teacher candidates reported a lack of the skills to instruct diverselearners and adopt curriculum using research-based methods (Bain et al., 2009; Brown,

63Welsh, Hill, & Cipko, 2008; Winter, 2006). Brown et al. (2008) discussed the attempt toovercome these shortcomings through teacher preparation programs which embed specialeducation coursework in their degree programs. Combined teacher preparation programsincreased teacher candidates’ confidence in teaching students with disabilities;concurrently teacher resistance to teaching students with disabilities decreased whenspecial education coursework was embedded in their teacher preparation program. Astudy conducted by Leblanc, Richardson, and Burns (2009) specifically focused onteacher preparation for teaching students on the autism spectrum. LeBlanc et al. (2009)also found that instruction related to teaching students on the autism spectrum increasedthe confidence and the knowledge base of teacher candidates. Tschannen-Moran andWoolfolk Hoy (2007) also indicated that preservice teachers’ confidence was increasedwith access to teaching resources and ongoing support while developing mastery ofteaching. Preparing teacher candidates for co-teaching, collaboration, and inclusion willhelp to reduce the issues related to inclusion and increase teacher confidence. Colleges and universities with teacher preparation programs need to align theircurriculum to the educational mandates of NCLB (2002) and IDEIA (2004) in order toprepare educators for inclusive classroom settings. Harvey, Yssel, Bauserman, andMerbler (2010) explored the adequacy of preservice general education teacher programs.They found limited opportunities for collaboration for pre-service teachers in both theircoursework and their student teaching experiences. They also briefly noted that mostprograms did not specifically address research-based practices related to inclusion.

64 Much of the research included in this section of the review emphasized studiesrelated to educators of students with mild disabilities, but not specifically related toteacher preparation in teaching students on the autism spectrum. Research and data basedon preparing teachers for working with students on the autism spectrum were lacking(Scheuermann et al., 2003). Regardless of this research gap, common themes for generaleducation and special education teachers and preservice teachers emerged from thisresearch review. Educators were found to be more effective when given the time andtools to differentiate materials and collaborate with colleagues. Specific support in howto adapt instruction and materials was necessary for educators to feel confident andeffective in the inclusive classroom setting. Clearly defined roles for general educationand special education teachers facilitated clearer and more effective collaboration. Research Methods The research examined in this literature review contained studies of inclusiveclassroom practices, which were designed with the goal of reducing barriers to studentsuccess in the general education setting. Gaps were found throughout the researchregarding support of students on the autism spectrum in the inclusive classroom setting.For example, tiered systems of supports were more thoroughly researched at theelementary level than the secondary education level, and the effect on students with ASDwas not noted in this research (Sansosti et al., 2010; Stewart et al., 2010). Researchregarding the use of direct instruction and differentiated instruction as interventions forstudents on the autism spectrum also contained gaps. Often studies regarding inclusiveeducation practices were based on students with mild to moderate disabilities, and these

65studies included few participants on the autism spectrum (Flores & Ganz, 2007; Roberts& Joiner, 2007). Dymond et al. (2006) conducted research in an inclusive secondaryscience classroom. Their study focused on the implementation of universally designedscience curriculum for high school students with mild disabilities. This study included anexamination of the impact of differentiated instruction for students on the autismspectrum, however the impact on students with ASD was not specifically discussed in thestudy results; instead the impact on student progress was described in aggregate. It was also noted in the second section of this review that generalizing research-based practices for students on the autism spectrum is difficult. Characteristics of ASDmanifest differently for each student on the spectrum. In addition, the research methodsmost frequently used to review the efficacy of inclusive interventions were case studiesor single case experimental design studies. Single case experimental design studiesexamine the impact of a treatment or intervention through gathering data at baseline,treatment, and post-treatment intervals. Single case experimental design is a quantitativeexamination designed to measure the efficacy of the treatment (Johnson & Christensen,2008). Case studies are typically qualitative in nature, and offer an in-depth examinationof subjects of the study (Creswell, 2003). In both case study and single caseexperimental design research there are few participants; therefore, these participants maynot be representative of the entire population. It should not then be assumed that thefindings can be generalized to the entire population (Moores-Abdool, 2010; Scattone,2007). It is also difficult to generalize the effects of implementing research-basedmethods for instructing students on the autism spectrum without additional research.

66 Research regarding teachers’ attitudes toward teaching students with ASD in theinclusive classroom setting also contained gaps. As with academic interventions, surveysregarding teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion were geared toward teaching students withmild to moderate disabilities in general. Little specific information was gatheredregarding teachers’ attitudes or concerns in working with students on the autismspectrum. Additionally, the studies which specifically noted in-service teachers’ attitudestoward teaching students on the autism spectrum were conducted with elementary ormiddle level educators (Boutot, 2007; DeSimone & Parmar, 2006; Horne & Timmons,2009). Idol (2006) and Kosco and Wilkins (2009) included both elementary andsecondary level teachers in their studies but in those studies no specific information wasgathered regarding teachers’ attitudes toward including students on the autism spectrum.Another weakness to be noted in those studies is that quantitative survey research aloneshows if there are significant relationships between variables studied, but will not explainwhy those relationships exist. Information related to teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion has been gatheredthrough survey research in several studies (Beard et al., 2010; Horne & Timmons, 2009;Idol, 2006; Woolfson & Brady, 2009). Barco (2007), Benton-Borghi (2006), Mastin(2010), and Smith (2008) conducted survey research to determine teacher self-efficacy incomparison to other attributes with Cochran’s (1997/2000) Scale of Teacher AttitudesToward Inclusive Classrooms (STATIC). Smith (2008) did not alter the 2000 version ofSTATIC, Barco (2007) and Mastin (2010) adjusted the STATIC survey tool to gatherspecific data regarding teachers’ attitudes regarding students with learning disabilities

67and students with Down syndrome respectively. In these cases the adjusted surveyobtained results with internal reliability. One survey instrument that was developed to measure teachers’ attitudes wasCochran’s STATIC (1997/2000). The STATIC was designed to evaluate four factorsrelated to inclusion. The scale includes 20 items across the four areas which are: (a)advantages and disadvantages of inclusion (Items 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20) (example:Students with special needs learn social skills that are modeled by general educationstudents); (b) professional issues related to inclusion (Items 1, 2, 3, 4 ,9) (example: I havebeen adequately trained to meet the needs of children with disabilities); (c) philosophicalissues regarding inclusive education (Items 5, 6,10, 16) (example: I believe that academicprogress in the general classroom is possible for children with special needs); and (d) thelogistics of inclusive education (Items 8, 17, 18, 19) (example: Adaptive materials andequipment are easily acquired for meeting the needs of students with disabilities).Participants responded to each question using a 6-point Likert scale, from 1 point for aresponse of strongly disagree to 6 points for a response of strongly agree. Participantswith higher total scores tended to have a more positive attitude toward inclusion. Cochran’s pilot study of the STATIC (1997) included teachers from 32 schools;he surveyed teachers from 18 elementary, six middle, five high schools, and two specialeducation schools in a southeastern state (Cochran, 1997). One thousand four hundredforty teachers were invited to participate in the study; 517 survey responses wereincluded in the study (Cochran, 1997). Fifty-one percent of the participants wereelementary education teachers, 45% of the participants were secondary education

68teachers; 60% taught in the general education setting and 39% of the participants taughtin the special education setting. Internal reliability was consistently established withCronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of .89 for the entire group, for both generaleducation and special education participants, and for the elementary and secondaryrespondents. When comparing item-to-total correlations the range was consistently .26 to.70; the mean was .51, the standard deviation was .11 and the standard error of measurewas ±.04 (Cochran, 1997). The Tukey HSD post hoc multiple comparison test was usedto compare results between the different participant groups. Significant differences inattitudes toward inclusion were found between general education and special educationteachers at both the elementary and secondary levels, as well as between first yearteachers and teachers with four or more years of experience (Cochran, 1997). Another survey tool was considered to be used in conjunction with the STATIC;Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy also examined teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacywith the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) (2001). The subscales on the TSESwere measures of self-efficacy in relation to instructional strategies, classroommanagement, and student engagement. After several pilot studies Tschannen-Moran andWoolfolk Hoy devised the survey instrument with 24 questions, each using a 9-pointLikert scale ranging from 1 (nothing) to 9 (a great deal) (Tschannen-Moran & WoolfolkHoy, 2001). As with the STATIC, higher scores indicated a more positive sense of self-efficacy. The authors also found that teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion were anindicator of teacher self-efficacy. Educators who were successful were also found to bepersistent in seeking solutions to problems in the classroom; successes in the classroom

69continued to lead to increases in self-efficacy. Conversely, a lower sense of self-efficacydiminished teacher motivation and persistence, and therefore limited the sense of self-efficacy (Tschannen-Moran, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). In an attempt to keep the survey brief, the STATIC was selected as the primarytool to gather information regarding high school teachers’ attitudes toward includingstudents with HFA. In comparing teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion in relation to theirself-efficacy, Smith (2008) found a relationship between teacher self-efficacy asmeasured by the TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and their attitudetoward inclusion as measured by the STATIC (Cochran, 1997/2000). The results fromstudies using either the STATIC or the TSES supported the conclusion that teachers withmore experience and training had a more positive attitude toward inclusion. TheSTATIC has been adjusted to examine teachers’ attitudes toward including students fromspecific disability areas; therefore this was selected as the best tool for this study. The demographic data gathered from respondents regarding current teachingassignment in the general or special education setting, and the amount of trainingreceived related to inclusion. Current teaching assignments were used as the dependentvariable for quantitative Research Question 1; the amount of training received was usedto address research question two. Qualitative, open-ended interview questions centeredon what supports teachers considered most beneficial for their students and themselves inestablishing successful inclusive classroom settings. These questions were includedbecause the use of a variety of strategies designed to support diverse students is one

70indicator of positive sense of efficacy and positive attitude toward inclusion (Bender,Vale, & Scott, 1995; Chandler-Olcott & Kluth, 2009). Summary It is important for teachers of students with HFA to feel effective in working withthis population of students in the inclusive classroom setting. Educators who expressedlower self-efficacy also expressed more concerns about inclusion. Concerns expressedby the participants included a lack of time for planning and a lack of adequate training inorder to be effective. Educators’ attitudes toward inclusion greatly impacted whether theexperience was successful for included students (Bandura, 1977; Pajares, 1992; Rose,2001). Pajares (1992) further found “strong relationships between teachers’ educationalbeliefs and their planning, instructional decisions and classroom practices” (p. 326).Likewise, Kluth (2003) indicated “it is the school’s responsibility to prepare teacherseffectively, put the necessary services and supports in place, and provide staffdevelopment opportunities for members of the school community” (p. 39). Teachersbenefit from training and support in order to effectively provide a free and appropriateeducation for all students. Several research-based inclusive strategies were discussedregarding supporting students with ASD in the general education setting. Educators whorate themselves as having positive attitudes regarding teaching students on the autismspectrum and positive self-efficacy in working in inclusive classrooms would also be ableto offer insight into the inclusive practices they are using in the classroom. Both closed-ended survey questions and open-ended interview questions wereutilized for this study. A mixed methods approach was selected to provide a more in-

71depth and comprehensive examination of the research problem than closed-endedquestions alone (Creswell, 2003). Information gathered includes teachers’ attitudes, theirview of effective classroom practices in working with students with ASD, and teacher-stated needs for successful inclusion. The information gained from this study extendedthe knowledge regarding inclusive practices and teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion forstudents with HFA. The study results could potentially help administrators and collegecurriculum planners provide training which will lead to increased teacher andadministrator efficacy in working in inclusive classrooms. The significance of this studyrests in the fact that current studies on teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy in workingwith students with disabilities is based on educating students with mild to moderatedisabilities and are primarily studies in the elementary setting. Teachers’ attitudes inrelation to working with high school students with ASD had not previously beenexamined in isolation. Chapter 3 includes a detailed discussion of the research methodsused and the questions examined as a part of this study.

72 Chapter 3: Research Method 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 discuss the research design and data collection methods. Iinclude descriptions of the procedures for accessing participants, data collection andanalysis, and measures taken to protect participant rights. Researchers have found that a positive sense of efficacy and positive attitude ledto more persistence in working with students in the inclusive classroom settings(Bandura, 1977; Pajares, 1992; Park & Chitiyo, 2009; Rose, 20001; Tschannen-Moran &McMaster, 2009; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). There has been limitedresearch related to teachers’ attitudes toward including students with HFA specifically.Previous studies were also primarily quantitative, survey-based studies which showed thepatterns in teacher efficacy and attitudes. Information related to the teachers’ attitudestoward inclusion has been gathered through survey research in several studies (Beard etal., 2010; Horne & Timmons, 2009; Idol, 2006; Woolfson & Brady, 2009). Barco(2007), Benton-Borghi (2006), Mastin (2010), and Smith (2008) conducted surveyresearch to determine teacher self-efficacy in comparison to other attributes, although onecommon weakness possessed by those studies was that the results failed to demonstratewhy teachers responded as they had. Barco (2007) and Mastin (2010) adjusted theSTATIC survey to gather specific data regarding teachers’ attitudes toward students withlearning disabilities and students with Down syndrome respectively. In these cases the

73adjusted survey continued to have results with internal reliability, demonstratingflexibility in use. These questions were used to guide the quantitative inquiry: 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? A weakness of the previous studies is that the authors often did not look in depthat why those patterns existed or find possible solutions to the causes of negative teachers’attitudes toward inclusion. Use of a mixed methods sequential explanatory approachallowed me to consider patterns in teachers’ attitudes toward including students withHFA, as well as examine why these patterns exist (Cameron, 2009; Ivankova, Creswell,& Stick, 2006). A quantitative survey was used to gather information regarding thegeneral education and special education teachers’ attitudes toward students with HFA.Three follow-up interview questions guided the qualitative examination of teachers’needs and concerns for the successful inclusion of students with HFA. This researchapproach provided a more comprehensive examination of teachers’ attitudes as well assupports needed for the successful inclusion of students with HFA. Qualitative data were gathered using open-ended interview questions regardingteachers’ attitudes, needs, and concerns with including students with HFA. Scruggs and

74Mastropieri (1996) and Heflin and Bullock (1999) found that educators with moreconcerns regarding the inclusion were more likely to have a negative attitude towardinclusion. Avramidis and Norwich (2002) stated that the teachers’ attitudes and beliefsregarding student potential and inclusion were correlated to their commitment tosuccessful inclusion. Scruggs and Mastropieri indicated that educators at the secondarylevel had more concerns with inclusion than did elementary educators. Administrative support was found to be a key element necessary for successfulinclusion, especially for resource allocations, including time for collaboration andprofessional development (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006; Horne & Timmons, 2009; Idol,2006; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002; Robertson, Chamberlain, & Kasari, 2003; Scruggs &Mastropieri, 1996). Horrocks, White, and Roberts (2008) indicated that principals’training in the behavioral needs of students led to a better understanding how to supportstudents on the autism spectrum. Additional information was needed regarding teacherperceptions of administrative support and training at the secondary level. Research-based interventions for students on the autism spectrum have also beenmore widely 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). Based on this research, the qualitative research questions were: 1. What interventions do high school teachers consider most beneficial to support students with HFA in inclusive classroom settings?

75 2. What administrative 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? The qualitative questions have a basis in research; they were related to gaps in theliterature regarding teaching students with HFA at the high school level in the inclusiveclassroom setting. The interview data provided a more comprehensive view of whypatterns exist in quantitative data. The interview questions were: 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? 3. What concerns do you have regarding including students with HFA in the general education setting? Research Design A mixed methods sequential explanatory strategy was used to collect and analyzethe quantitative data, and subsequently to collect the qualitative data. The results fromthe closed-ended survey were used to determine if the planned, open-ended questionsrequired refinement (Cameron, 2009; Ivankova et al., 2006). The quantitative data weregathered and analyzed using descriptive and analytic statistics. Interviews were recorded,transcribed, and verified for accuracy. The qualitative data were then sorted andcategorized; member checks were conducted. Results from quantitative and qualitative

76questions were compared as a means to verify interpretations. According to Creswell(2003), this traditional mixed methods model is beneficial because the results of thesecond round of data collection can be used to explain the results from the first round. Amixed methods sequential explanatory approach was selected in order to provideadditional information regarding the educators’ concerns related to including studentswith HFA. Quantitative data were gathered to provide specific information regardingteachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Qualitative data were gathered to further defineareas of need or concern in relation to high school students with HFA. The teachers’interview responses were used to triangulate or compare responses to the quantitativesurvey results. This mixed method approach provided a richer explanation as to how tobest prepare and support teachers who are working in the inclusive classroom setting withstudents on the autism spectrum. Although the emphasis of this study is on thequantitative data gathered, quantitative data alone would not provide the informationneeded to ascertain teachers’ needs and concerns in relation to including students withHFA. I also considered gathering qualitative data alone through teacher interviews andjournals. Use of a qualitative research model alone was rejected because that would notreadily provide information regarding patterns in high school general education andspecial education teachers’ attitudes. Therefore, it was decided that a mixed-methodapproach was the most appropriate to answer the research questions for this study.

77 Role of Researcher My primary role in the study was to contact potential participants, gather data,and conduct the statistical analyses of the data. I also have the role of universityinstructor for undergraduate teacher candidates. This role was not in conflict with therole of researcher, because only in-service, certified teachers met the participant criteriafor this study. I reviewed the survey format and questions with a panel of experts toverify question clarity and ease of navigation. Once IRB approval was attained (approval#08-31-11-0076989) I sent e-mail invitations to the high school special educationteachers in the designated region. The e-mail outlined the purpose of the study andprovided a link to the anonymous electronic survey. The e-mail also asked specialeducation teachers to snowball or share the survey link with their general educationcounterparts experienced in teaching students with HFA in the inclusive classroomsetting. Those responding to the survey completed the quantitative survey questions. Atthe conclusion of the online survey, respondents were invited to participate in a follow-uptelephone interview to discuss the needs and concerns related to including students withHFA. I exported survey responses from the electronic survey engine to MyStat in orderto calculate the descriptive and analytic statistics for the quantitative research questions.I also conducted the telephone interviews and recorded the interview responses. Phoneinterviews were recorded, transcribed, sorted, and coded in two separate rounds. Thefirst round of coding was completed using Atlas.ti software; one week later the secondround of analysis and coding was conducted using transcribed notes, a notebook, andseveral highlighters. The notes were compared and verified for accuracy against each

78other. In both rounds of analysis, I searched for themes in the interview data based onteachers’ attitudes, needs, and concerns. I verified the accuracy of the interviewtranscription and conducted a member check with the interviewees after interview datawere analyzed. Quantitative data were gathered to consider teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion,and to examine the data for a correlation between the teachers’ training and attitudestoward inclusion. According to the research conducted as part of the literature review,teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion were found to be an important part of successfulinclusion (Bandura, 1977; Bender, Vail, & Scott, 1995; Pajares, 1992; Park & Chitiyo,2009; Rose, 2001; Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Teachers’ attitudes werefound to be positively impacted by additional training related to teaching students withdisabilities (Cahill & Mitra, 2008; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002; Park & Chitiyo, 2009;Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Further, research-based interventions have beenconsidered an important part of the successful inclusion of students with disabilities andfor students on the autism spectrum (NCLB, 2002; NAC, 2009). Setting and Sample Data from the Midwest state’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officerindicated that there are 61,020 teachers working in the state as licensed LearningBehavioral Specialists (LBS1). In this Midwest state, there is no specific license issuedto teachers of students on the autism spectrum, and as reported by the FOIA officer, therewas no way to determine how many of these teachers were working with students on the

79autism spectrum. In order to narrow the focus of the study, I targeted a 12-county regionin the Midwest state. In this region, two counties had school districts and special educationcooperatives that had participated in a state initiative for voluntary teacher training onincluding students with autism in the general education setting. Fifty-seven high schoolsand 257 LBS1 certified teachers were employed by those school districts. Three of thosehigh schools and four of the LBS1 certified teachers were omitted from the study becauseof school district closures and consolidations for the coming 2011-2012 school year. Oneschool district was omitted as it did not employ LBS1 teachers at the high school level.Using public information from school district websites, I gathered e-mail and telephonecontact information for the remaining 253 high school special education teachers in the12-county region through public information found on the state certification website andthe school district websites. Of the 53 high schools to be contacted for the study, eight ofthese, or 15% had participants in a state-provided training on including students on theautism spectrum in the general education setting. Based on preliminary informationprovided by special education regional directors, it was estimated that approximately 22high schools and 25-30 LBS1 certified special education teachers in this region wereexperienced in teaching students with HFA in inclusive classroom settings. Local specialeducation directors have indicated that smaller school districts in the region tend to sendstudents from low incidence disability areas to larger school districts in the region orcooperative for special education service. Additional public information regardingdistrict child count data were gathered to determine exactly how many high schools in

80this region were serving students with ASD; these numbers were similar to estimatesprovided by local special education directors. It was my intent that participants would include general education and specialeducation high school teachers in this 12-county region who had experience teachingstudents with HFA. Special education teachers were contacted to determine if they metthe participant criteria of experience in teaching students with HFA at the high schoollevel. Using a snowball sampling technique, special education teachers were asked toforward the survey information to general education teachers experienced in teachingstudents on the autism spectrum. This sampling method was purposive rather thanexperimental, which limits the generalizability of the results. Experimental design orrandom participant selection was not appropriate for this study; experimental or randomselection of participants might not have yielded participants with the desired criteria.Another potential limitation of this study was that general education teachers werereferred by special education teachers. It was suggested to special education teachers thatthey consider teachers with a variety of experiences (positive or negative) in order togather a range of viewpoints and responses. Special education teachers were contactedvia e-mail and were asked to respond to and forward the survey with a one-week period. Electronic distribution of the survey offered several advantages including cost andtime effective distribution, and data directly exported to MyStat for greater accuracy indata transmission. An unexpected side effect of the electronic distribution andsnowballing technique was the loss of control of the study’s distribution and participantinvitation. In the course of the research, another limitation of the study became apparent

81when one of the special education teacher participants forwarded the electronic link forthe study on to a national education forum for teachers of students on the autismspectrum. The result was 38% of the participants were from outside the Midwest and62% were from outside the targeted 12-county region. Although there was not astatistically significant difference variance between teacher responses in the region andout of the region, the addition of data from outside the region limits the generalizabilityof the study’s results for the 12-county region. Forty-eight participants were from theMidwest, with 27 of those from the original 12-county region. The electronic survey included the 20 questions from the STATIC, and questionsregarding teacher demographics. The electronic survey was available for participants fora period of 10 weeks, which was extended beyond the planned 3-week period. At theconclusion of the electronic survey, respondents were prompted to e-mail me if theychose to voluntarily participate in a follow-up telephone interview. Six teachersresponded with the intent to be interviewed; five teachers were able to complete theinterview. The interviewees were three special education teachers and two generaleducation teachers. Three of those teachers were from the 12-county region, one specialeducation teacher was from the Upper Midwest, and one special education teacher wasfrom the New England area. The target number of participants for the quantitative survey was 75-100 totalgeneral education and special education teachers, given that preliminary data indicatedthere are 22 school districts in the 12-county region serving students on the autismspectrum. I gathered qualitative interview data from high school general education and

82special education teachers to address the qualitative research questions. Additionalinterview questions did not arise after statistically analyzing the quantitative researchdata; three questions were created based on the literature review and quantitativeresponses gathered. These questions were related to the efficacy of interventions used tosupport students with HFA, the administrative supports educators found to be mostbeneficial for successful inclusion of students with HFA, and the concerns they hadregarding including students with HFA. The interviews were conducted over a 3-weekperiod based on interviewee availability. Instrumentation and Materials The quantitative portion of this study was conducted with a two-section surveyinstrument. The sections are the STATIC (Cochran, 1997/2000, Appendix A) andquestions regarding demographic data (Appendix B). The demographic data requiredwere the participants’ number of years teaching, the teachers’ general or specialeducation job placement, the highest level of education completed, and the amount ofprofessional development related to inclusion. The survey was distributed electronicallyto and self-administered by participants in order to facilitate economical and timely datacollection. The STATIC was designed to evaluate four factors related to inclusion. The scaleincludes 20 items across the four areas: (a) advantages and disadvantages of inclusion(Items 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20) (example: Students with special needs learn social skillsthat are modeled by general education students); (b) professional issues related toinclusion (Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 9) (example: I have been adequately trained to meet the needs

83of children with disabilities); (c) philosophical issues regarding inclusive education(Items 5, 6,10, 16) (example: I believe that academic progress in the general classroom ispossible for children with special needs); and (d) the logistics of inclusive education(Items 8, 17, 18, 19) (example: Adaptive materials and equipment are easily acquired formeeting the needs of students with disabilities). Participants responded to each questionusing a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 point for a response of strongly disagree to 6points for a response of strongly agree. Participants with higher total scores tended tohave a more positive attitude toward inclusion. Cochran’s pilot study of the STATIC (1997) included teachers from 32 schools;Cochran surveyed teachers from 18 elementary, six middle, five high schools, and twospecial education schools in a southeastern state (Cochran, 1997). One thousand fourhundred forty teachers were invited to participate in the study; 517 survey responses wereincluded in the study (Cochran, 1997). Fifty-one percent of the participants wereelementary education teachers; 45% of the participants were secondary educationteachers; 60% taught in the general education setting and 39% of the participants taughtin the special education setting. Internal reliability for the pilot of the STATIC was established with a Cronbach’salpha reliability coefficient of .89 for the entire group: for both general education andspecial education participants, and for the elementary and secondary respondents. Whencomparing item-to-total correlations, the range was consistently .26 to .70; the mean was.51, the standard deviation was .11, and the standard error of measure was ±.04 (Cochran,1997). The Tukey HSD Post hoc multiple comparison test was used to compare results

84between the different participant groups. Significant differences in attitudes towardinclusion were found between general education and special education teachers at boththe elementary and secondary levels, as well as between first year teachers and teacherswith 4 or more years of experience (Cochran, 1997). Permission to use the STATIC was given by Cochran (Appendix C). Incorrespondence with Cochran, permission was granted to alter the directions of theSTATIC in order to guide teachers to respond specifically with students on the autismspectrum in mind. I considered altering the wording of each question to specificallyguide participants to consider students with HFA; however, it was decided that theSTATIC’s validity would best be maintained with alternative directions rather thanalternative wording for each question. The STATIC was selected as the survey tool because it was revised in the last 10years. The STATIC has been used to reliably gather data regarding teachers’ attitudestoward including students from specific disability areas, as well as students with mild tomoderate disabilities in general. When responding to the STATIC teachers were directedto respond specifically with the inclusion of students with HFA in mind. The STATICsurvey instrument is a flexible tool; it has been previously adapted to gather dataregarding teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of other specific disability areas (Barco,2007; Mastin, 2010), and has demonstrated consistent internal reliability throughprevious applications. At the conclusion of the electronic survey, teachers were invited to participate in afollow-up telephone interview to respond to the additional interview questions (Appendix

85B) regarding the teacher’s use of research-based interventions to support students withHFA, the needed administrative and systemic supports for successful inclusion ofstudents with HFA, and concerns related to inclusion of students with HFA. Theinterview questions were derived from themes in the literature review. Teachers whoviewed themselves effective teaching diverse students often reported several factors wereimportant for successful inclusion. Among these were administrative support throughallotment of time for planning and collaboration, and relevant training to support studentswith diverse learning and behavioral needs (Heflin & Bullock, 1999; McLeskey &Waldron, 2002; Park & Chitiyo, 2009; Prom, 1999; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996;Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Much of the research regarding successful inclusion of students with disabilitieswas based on students with mild to moderate disabilities in general; researchers did notspecifically focus on students on the autism spectrum. In order to answer the qualitativeresearch questions, the following questions were reviewed and revised with feedbackfrom a panel of 10 educators. The panel included general education and specialeducation teachers as well as educators from the secondary and postsecondary settings.Based on the feedback received, the second question was revised from administrativesupports to administrator supports to clarify the question was specifically relatedsupports from building principals. 1. In the inclusive classroom settings, what interventions do you consider most beneficial to support students with HFA?

86 2. What administrator supports do you feel are important for successfulinclusion of students with HFA? 3. What concerns do you have regarding including students with HFA in thegeneral education setting? Data Collection and Analysis Public information was used to determine which school districts are servingstudents with ASD as well as the identity and contact information for the LBS1 teachersin those districts. E-mail contact information was available through each school district’swebsite. The special education teachers were e-mailed to determine which of the LBS1teachers in the 12-county region had experience serving students with HFA. Using asnowball sampling technique, special education teachers were then asked to refer highschool general education teachers also experienced in teaching students with HFA in theinclusive classroom. All participants were sent an e-mail of introduction (Appendix D)describing the purpose of the study, as well as a link for the online electronic quantitativesurvey. Through the use of an online survey, the respondents’ anonymity was preserved;no identifying information was gathered as a part of the survey. Participant consent wasattained with the first survey page; teachers who selected that they did offer consent wereforwarded to the first survey questions. Participants who continued with the survey wereoffering anonymity and implied consent. The survey included the 20 STATIC surveyquestions related to teachers’ attitudes toward including students with HFA and thedemographic questions in Appendix B. The final page of the survey included aninvitation for respondents to participate in the follow-up telephone interview, with the