Understanding the development of differentiated instruction for students with disabilities in Inclusive Co-taught Classrooms

Author(s):

Vasilis Strogilos(presenting / submitting)Eleni Tragoulia Elias Avramidis Anastasia Voulagka Vasiliki Papanikolaou

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

04. Inclusive Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

04 SES 08 C, Differentiated Inclusive Classrooms and Schools

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-10

09:00-10:30

Room:

429.Oktatóterem [C]

Chair:

Hermina Gunnthorsdottir

Contribution

The legislative and policy trends of the past thirty years have revealed a shift towards less segregated practices in the education of student with disabilities. The development of inclusive schools where learning and participation is provided for all students seems to be an important goal around the world. As a result, students with disabilities are increasingly being educated in mainstream classes. However, this movement requires teachers to create inclusive learning environments, which could encourage the use of practices that would benefit all students. Among those practices is the growth of co-teaching in which, as Cook and Friend (1995) indicate, a mainstream education teacher (MET) and a special education teacher (SET) deliver substantive instruction to a diverse, or blended, group of students in the same physical space.

Even though co-teaching is considered a promising practice with positive implications for all students (Murawski 2010; Thousand, Nevin, & Villa 2007), several challenges are associated with its implementation (Cook et al. 2011; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie 2007). These challenges are closely related to the instructional actions developed by co-teachers which can promote the access of all students to the general education curriculum. Among these actions is the differentiation of the curriculum for all students with specific modifications/adaptations for students with disabilities.

Differentiated instruction involves responding effectively to the differences that exist among learners in the classroom. According to Tomlinson (2000) teachers differentiate when they reach out to an individual or small group to vary their teaching in order to create the best learning experience possible. The adaptations made to the curriculum are considered an essential inclusive strategy for the education of students with disabilities in the mainstream classroom. According to Janney and Snell (2004), adaptations may be curricular, instructional or alternative. Curricular adaptations refer to what is being taught, instructional concern alterations of the way instruction takes place, and alternative adaptations involve altered goals, instruction and activities. Cardona (2003) contends that the success of inclusion is largely dependent on the willingness of schools and teachers to carry out the necessary adaptations. In addition, Lee, Wehmeyer, Soukup and Palmer (2010) found that when curriculum modifications are used students with disabilities increase their engagement in academic-related responses and decrease their competing behaviours.

Despite the perceived importance of curriculum modifications, research has indicated the absence or inconsistent use of these strategies (Cardona, 2003; McDonnell, 2011; Kurth and Keegan, 2013). Indeed, many research studies in this area report lack of curriculum modifications in co-taught classrooms for students with disabilities (Antia, 1999; Buckley, 2005; Strogilos & Stefanidis, 2015; Strogilos, Tragoulia, & Kaila, 2015). As Scruggs, et al. (2007) indicate, the education of students with disabilities in the co-taught class lacks appropriate teaching materials, differentiation in activities and opportunities for individualising the curriculum. McDonnell (2011) argues that progress cannot be made due to the fact that the definitions of ‘accommodation’ and ‘modifications’ are somewhat muddled in the literature. It could, therefore, be suggested that there is currently no agreement with regard to the understanding of the term ‘differentiated instruction’. In addition, even though research has shown that differentiation is not consistently used in the co-taught classrooms there is currently no research to examine the factors that promote or hinder its development.

Thus, the aim of this study is twofold. First, to explore how co-teachers in Greek mainstream schools understand the term ‘differentiated instruction’ and, second, to describe the factors that influence its implementation in the co-taught class.

The research questions posed are as follows.

a) How do co-teachers understand the term ‘differentiated instruction’?

b) Which are the factors that influence the development of differentiated instruction in the co-taught classroom?

Method

A multiple case study design was deemed the most appropriate form of inquiry to explore teachers’ understanding of ‘differentiated instruction’ and the factors that influence its implementation. Thomas’s framework (2011) in which case study research comprises of a subject and an object was used to define what constitutes research by case studies. Each case consisted of a MET and a SET in a co-taught class (subjects) with the aim to describe how they understand ‘differentiated instruction’ and the factors which influence its implementation (object). Thus, we used the multiple case study design to systematically examine and interpret human social activities in context (Parlett, 1990). The teachers’ experiences, opinions and representations became the empirical basis of our interpretations (Patton, 1997). Thirty five co-taught teams in 34 mainstream schools from six local educational authorities (LEA) participated in this study. Co-taught teams were selected from a list of students with disabilities attending co-taught classrooms given by the LEA’s. We carefully selected co-taught teams with fully qualified METs and SETs from Reception to Year 3. All cases were selected after personal contact with schools and parents’ consent. In implementing this project, four researchers collected data. Two researchers took over ten cases, and the rest seven each. Semi-structured interviews and descriptive observations were used for data collection. Co-teachers were asked to describe their understanding with regard to ‘differentiated instruction’ and to share the factors which influence its implementation. In particular, ΜΕTs and SETs were asked to provide information on the following areas: understanding of differentiation, factors which influence the implementation of differentiated instruction, roles and collaboration between co-teachers, instructional practices and proposed improvements. All interviews were semi-structured, lasted from 30 to 45 min and recorded on audio-tape. Two descriptive observations took place in each co-taught classroom in two different days. Each observation lasted from 45 to 90 minutes. A narrative observation protocol was developed and later analysed. We recorded all the actions of the co-teachers with regard to the process of differentiated instruction for all students and in particular for students with disabilities. The focus of the observations was to look at how the perceptions of the co-teachers (as elicited through the interviews) are reflected in their praxis. Using the systematic coding principles of content analysis, interviews and observations were compared for similarities and differences. This examination led to the emergence of categories and subcategories revealing common or unique themes (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Expected Outcomes

Our results revealed that co-teachers understand differentiated instruction in two interrelated ways. The first includes the understanding of differentiated instruction as an emphasis on individual teaching for students with disabilities. The co-teachers described differentiated instruction as their effort to provide these students with individual instruction to ‘fulfill the requirements of the class’. Emphasis is given on the individual difficulties of the student with disabilities in relation to the National Curriculum (NC). This means that teachers understand differentiated instruction as ‘a child oriented activity’ within a medical approach to disability. Very few teachers appeared to understand differentiation as ‘a context oriented approach’ in which the focus is on curriculum differentiation for all students. The second way that co-teachers understand differentiated instruction is according to the type of modifications/adaptations (i.e. curricular, instructional, alternative) provided for students with disabilities. As co-teachers described it, their effort was to help the child with disabilities by mainly providing instructional adaptations. In addition, we observed more frequent use of instructional than curricular or alternative adaptations (e.g. more time, simpler language, individual help from SET). This means that teachers differentiated their instruction using different methods rather than altering the objectives or the content of the activities. This finding supports co-teachers understanding of differentiation as ‘a child oriented activity’ in which the objectives and the content of teaching remains the same for all students in the class. In addition, co-teachers described several factors that influence the use of differentiated instruction. These included lack of training, problems in collaboration between co-teachers and among co-teacher and parents, the large number of students per class, and their commitment to deliver the undifferentiated NC. We argue that teachers’ misunderstandings of differentiated instruction are hindered by the above described factors. These factors influence the development of differentiated instruction as an important inclusive activity.

References

Antia, S. D. (1999). The roles of special educators and classroom teachers in an inclusive school. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4, 203-214. Buckley, C. (2005). Establishing and maintaining collaborative relationships between regular and special education teachers in middle school social studies inclusive classrooms. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (eds.) Cognition and learning in diverse settings: Vol. 18. Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 153-198). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Cardona, M. C. (2003). Mainstream teachers' acceptance of instructional adaptations in Spain. European journal of special needs education, 18(3), 311-332. Cook, L, & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices, Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Janney, R. E., & Snell, M. E. (2006). Modifying schoolwork in inclusive classrooms. Theory into practice, 45(3), 215-223. Kurth, J. A., & Keegan, L. (2012). Development and Use of Curricular Adaptations for Students Receiving Special Education Services. The Journal of Special Education. doi: 10.1177/0022466912464782 Lee, S., Wehmeyer, M. L., Soukup, J. H., & Palmer. S. B. (2010). Impact of curriculum modifications on access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76(2), 213-233. McDonnell, J. (2011). ‘Instructional context’,in J.M. Kauffman and D.P. Hallahan (eds) Handbook of Special Education, pp. 532-544. London: Routledge. Murawski, W.W. (2010). Collaborative teaching in elementary schools. Making the co-teaching marriage work! California: Corwin. Parlett, M.R. (1990). Illuminative evaluation. In J.H. Walberg. and G.D. Haertel. (eds.) The International Encyclopaedia of Educational Evaluation. Oxford: Pergamon. Patton, M. Q. (1997). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd edn.) Thousand Oaks, C A: Sage Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A, & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research, Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392-416. Strogilos, V., & Stefanidis, A. (2015). Contextual Antecedents of Co-teaching Efficacy: Their Influence on Students with Disabilities’ Learning Progress, Social Participation and Behaviour Improvement. Teaching and Teacher Education, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.008 Strogilos, V., Tragoulia, E., & Kaila, M. (2015). Curriculum issues and benefits in supportive co-taught classes for students with intellectual disabilities, International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 61(1), 32-40. Thomas, G. (2011). How to do your case study. A guide for students & researchers. London: Sage.

Author Information

Vasilis Strogilos (presenting / submitting)

University of Thessaly

Early Childhood Education

Volos

Eleni Tragoulia

University of Nicosia, Cyprus

Elias Avramidis

University of Thessaly

Department of Special Education

Volos

Anastasia Voulagka

University of Thessaly, Greece

Vasiliki Papanikolaou