Impact on the Attitudes, Beliefs, and Practices of Teachers and on Student Learning

Impact on the Attitudes, Beliefs, and Practices of Teachers and on Student Learning
Every school is struggling with the idea of cross-categorical. Every school is addressing that issue in a different way. [TC1:143-145]
The practitioners in this study entered Madison's 1999-2000 classroom action research program with varying degrees of skepticism and ambivalence about the district's movement toward cross-categorical and inclusive programming. Concerns ranged from fears that students under certain categories (e.g. those with mild or average learning disabilities) would not get quality services if placed in a situation where they were competing with children with severe needs for resources; cynicism about the "buy in" from other key players such as regular educators; caution about the amount of time and energy needed to change current practices; and feelings of powerlessness and frustration over a perceived lack of genuine input into decisions affecting practice.
According to the interviews, these teachers did not appreciate feeling powerless over their teaching situations, and the oft-stated reason for participating in the research program was to gain some control over policies that affect them most closely.
I don't like people in authority telling me what to do. I revolt because someone is telling me [to do something I don't feel adequately prepared to do . . .]. This is what all of us need--to have input--so we can all be happy and all do the best job we can. I think the biggest impact [of my study] would be to present what I'm going to do to someone who has some power to do something about it. [TI1: 71-81, 51-66, and 1-81]
In order to keep teaching, I don't want to feel like I have no control over things that happens. This [research] is a way for me to take control of some things that happen and give [the data] to somebody else who can choose to act on them or not, but can't deny that there's information out there. I guess it's my way of having some control. [TD:207-211]
In addition to experiencing varying degrees of success at impacting district policy, which we will discuss later in this paper, these practitioners reported that the action research experience had a profound impact on their personal and professional attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
Impact on Practice
A number of specific examples of changes in teachers' practices that occurred as a result of their research were identified in our interviews. For example, one teacher's study guided more effective prioritization and management of her teaching time. Several high school teachers interviewed students and engaged them directly in discussions about service delivery models, proving to themselves the importance of soliciting student perspectives and leading them to think more democratically about practice. As a result of her study, another researcher put into place activities that helped her students broaden their definition of learning community and connect with other classrooms and students in the school. One researcher used her findings to design a new approach for creating achievable IEP goals. A cross-categorical team made up of one regular educator and one special educator changed the way they structured classroom systems to better meet individual needs as a result of their study examining ways to help students build solid habits of organization. A different special-regular educator team changed how they defined their roles and handled teaching tasks, resulting in both taking responsibility for the teaching of all the students across the entire school day regardless of their original certification or of student ability.
Apart from these specific cases where the research directly impacted teaching practice, a significant finding of our study is that the impact of action research on the individual practice of many of the special education teachers in this study (most of whom work collaboratively with other faculty at their schools) was less clear-cut than for regular classroom teachers who tend to work in self-contained settings and have more ability to change and control their practice. According to these data, the cross-categorical and inclusion models, with their emphasis on teaming, consultation, and collaboration, worked against individual implementation of research findings for many of the researchers. Regardless of what they would like to see happen, in a majority of these studies the ability to make research-based changes in teaching practice depended on the willing cooperation from on-site colleagues, school administrators, or in a few cases, district administrators.
Many of the researchers took responsibility to make sense not only of their place in the cross-categorization and inclusion models, but to help others understand how the cross-categorization model could be effectively implemented in their schools. In the end, only a few focussed their attention primarily on impacting what goes on in their individual classrooms. One regular educator, who was in a position to make independent restructuring and instructional decisions within her own classroom, was unconcerned with whether her research had an effect beyond her own classroom:
My expectations were to be able to create a project that I was interested in, then guide it the way I would like it to go. Also to be in control of what importance the results have. [I'm not as] interested in what other people would gain from this information. . .more interested in what I'm going to gain from the information. [TK1:25-25])
Other researchers, appreciative of this chance to take time to systematically study professional practice, hoped that their thoughtful documentations of practice and research-based theories would influence district policy.
I'm not sure that it's going to have impact on my personal practice other than possibly giving me a better insight into myself and why I do things. What I hope is that I [have found] information that is useful that I can share with people that have more control over some of the factors, and help identify some of the things that will support cross categorical programming. [TCD1:149-176]
These hopes were met to varying degrees. While researchers expressed personal satisfaction in cases where they saw evidence that their work affected policy, practice, or structural change on increasingly broader levels, a few reported that while their research gave them enough information to approach their schools or the district with specific policy or structural ideas, they were disappointed to see no indication that their ideas were implemented or even taken seriously.
I got a lot out of it--doing CAR--but it was sad that I couldn't share this with any of the downtown administrators. (TCJ3) ... What I'm going to be doing different this year is try to get this information to the top and see what we can change for next year. I would like to impact the change in the system for next year. That's pie in the sky, I realize that now. At least I'm going to really try. After I wrote the paper, I said, It's done, give it up. But then I said, No, no, no, I've got to do something. And if I do something and hit a brick wall, fine. That doesn't bother me. I just have to do something. [TCJ2:97-128]
Impact on Attitudes and Beliefs
Researchers repeatedly commented on how the ability afforded by the regular research group meetings to share the discomfort and frustration they face as special educators was, in the end, productive. Having a forum for sharing their concerns and uncertainty allowed them to move beyond complaining toward what they characterized as a more thoughtfully analytic and ultimately more productive response to the frustrations and concerns many of them had initially deemed insurmountable.
Researchers repeatedly commented on how the ability afforded by the regular research group meetings to share the discomfort and frustration they face as special educators was, in the end, productive. Having a forum for sharing their concerns and uncertainty allowed them to move beyond complaining toward what they characterized as a more thoughtfully analytic and ultimately more productive response to the frustrations and concerns many of them had initially deemed insurmountable.
It was a good experience. It freed up time for us to concentrate on the things we complain about anyway and to do something productive about it. It was positive. [TL2:275-281]
As teachers, we don't have a lot of opportunities to think about problems in a thoughtful, organized kind of way. A lot of times we're making judgements real quick. We only have a limited amount of time to plan and limited resources and we need to do the best we can with what we have, quickly. I think for me personally, I've gotten a lot of benefit just out of going through this process [. . .]I felt much better about teaching this year even with all the stuff that's going on than I have probably since I've been teaching, so it's really good. [TI2:71-71]
I think that [my research] makes me stronger and better able to formulate what my needs are so that I don't just sound like I'm complaining. I feel like I'm getting a clearer idea of how things could be better, and what I think we need to do. [TR1:156]
Through the research process, the teachers were able to articulate and systematically examine these concerns. In some cases, the researchers came to the conclusion that their initial fears about the switch to cross categorical programming were unfounded:
Initially, when I started the classroom action research question, my feeling was that in cross-categorical type of programming the students that were mildly disabled would not get the quality services, and the students at the high ends of the needs would probably use up most of the resources in the classroom. And the kids in the middle, the mildly handicapped kids, would be the ones that would be suffering as far as getting what they need, individualized education. I had three students in my mind that were returning from the previous year to this classroom in a full inclusion cross- categorical classroom that I was most concerned with. I was getting two students that were very, very high needs. My question initially was: Does cross-categorical full inclusion meet the needs of the mildly handicapped students. As I went through the research process, I was actually pleased to see that they were getting what they needed. [TB2:1-3]
While the impact of the research projects on individual teaching practice was often tied to the degree of cooperation received from school colleagues and administrators, the researchers had much to say about its impact on how they understand their own practice in particular, and on how they have come to new understandings about the theory and practice of special education in general.
You always question yourself because there is so much information coming in and so many people that are jumping on the band wagon as to the right way to do [something], or worried that they have been doing it wrong all of these years. I think it's helped me in being able to make decisions and it's given me the strength to say, "I'm going to fight for this now because I know it's right. [TLN1:206-216]
The chance to discuss experiences during research group meetings served a useful purpose for the researchers, allowing them to move beyond sharing frustrations about not having a say in program decisions toward affirmation of successful practice, reasoned and purposeful decision-making, and how their findings were leading to change in local professional knowledge and student learning.
With special ed, there's a lot of talk about the cross-categorical situation, the inclusion situation--those issues are really big on everyone's mind. It really makes you conscious, just the sharing and the discussion have heightened my awareness of different issues. When you're more conscious of things, you teach better I think. You make better choices. You spend more time deciding the best ways to approach things. [TG1:59-61]
I came up with the pros and cons of things that I felt were advantages and disadvantages for a full inclusion team- teaching situation for teachers and the students. One of the pros that really stuck out for me was my ability to spend more time with children in an individual small group basis. In addition to that, I was able to become a more flexible, creative teacher because of the input of another adult in the room. [TA2:21-32]
In a few cases, participating in an action research group and carrying out the research project had an influential role on career path decisions. One teacher in particular claimed that conducting action research lessened her feelings of isolation, helped her better understand and accept the changes in special education programming, and effectively kept her in the teaching profession, albeit at a different level.
It [CAR] had a big impact. I didn't resign! I stayed in profession. It made me feel less isolated in my ideas because of the contacts I had with people through all the surveys I sent out, and because I saw that other teachers felt similar to me. Because of the information I got through my action research, I learned that I wanted to try teaching at the elementary level. I didn't want to go back to middle school, because I found that most middle school special education teachers are unhappy. So my CAR guided me, and now I am teaching 1st and 2nd graders. (TJ3)
Cultivating Reflective Practice
Researchers commented on how involvement in the action research process was personally and professionally motivating.
I wish that it were possible that every teacher was involved in action research. It would be great. I hope to do it every year because I'm finding a huge difference just in my own self, in my own self-confidence, my wanting to grow and develop and not stay the same. It's easy to get into a routine, to do things a certain way, to not change. This helps to move me along. (TF1: 157]
Teachers frequently reported that this increased motivation and strengthened professional identity was a result of having the time and space to be more reflective than is the case in other professional development opportunities, to be open to modifying firmly held views about practice, to be more thoughtful about existing classroom practice with an eye toward change, and to examine their assumptions in a reflexive manner.
[Doing AR has] really made me more reflective. I think when I first started teaching I was a lot more reflective. Then you get kind of in a rut of just dealing with your day-to-day stuff. To me it's been nice to get back to reflection and thoughtful decisions. That has affected my practice, pretty drastically I'd say [TI1: 101-101].
I would say that of all the trainings I've gone to, classes I've gone to, this has been by far the most useful in the sense that it's something that is so relevant to what we're doing on a daily basis. To just be able to think about what you're doing as a professional, to really examine what we have to do, and [how that] that makes sense in the bigger picture. . . to me, it's been the best thing that I've done since I've been out of school. [T1:143-145]
Researchers had a number of theories about how participation in the research program impacted their views and practices. Some attributed changes in personal perspective to the regular discussions with and evidence from other researchers about the impact of district and school policy on classroom practice; others claimed that systematically working through the research process played a large role in shaping newfound ideas about practice; others predict that their research and the information they received from other teachers in the group will better prepare them to respond productively to future programming changes at their own schools.
Some teachers reported that their involvement in the research groups and their consequent heightened awareness of the role regular-special education collaboration can play in the success of cross-categorical programming has led them to seek out additional professional experiences such as classes on inclusion, and further involvement in action research. For these practitioners, involvement in a close-knit research community feels like "just the beginning" [TI2:27]
Strengthening the Professional Community
We're in the same boat but not on the same page. That's life in the district. [TJ1:113-117]
A number of the teacher researchers commented specifically on how meeting regularly with peers around issues of importance to them lessened professional isolation and provided much-needed collegiality. Although none claimed that all members of their research groups were in uniform theoretical or practical agreement, a number of the researchers reported that having the time to share ideas in a respectful dialogic environment helped broaden their perspectives about how special education programming can and should play out across sites.
While both research groups were composed primarily of special educators, two regular educators also participated. One finding with implications for regular-special education collaboration is that both categories of teachers gained new perspectives on the concerns and realities of their counterparts, and consequently viewed themselves as in a better position to work together constructively and serve as more informed advocates for each other. As one regular education teacher commented:
I've learned a lot about special education and [the special education teachers'] feelings for it. It will actually help my practice when I'm thinking about and when I'm dealing with a special ed teacher. I [understand] some of their views and may be more accepting or more aware at least of the differences and the problems that they encounter. It [will] help me professionally with the interactions with some of my colleagues. [TK1:69-69]
Teachers with different areas of special education certification developed empathy for each other, particularly in terms of the struggles each faced in adjusting to the expectation for working across disability areas.
I wouldn't say [my research] impacted my teaching. I think it impacted my ability to contribute to team discussions about how we provide services to students. [. . .] I had some arrogant ideas about why people didn't like cross-categorical based on some experiences I had earlier. This [research] forced me to kind of step back and say, okay, not everybody who dislikes cross-categorical is just prejudiced against CD students or doesn't want to work with them, that kind of thing. So I think it has made me a better listener. It's also helped me pay a lot more attention when I'm having discussions about service delivery, and to define my terms because I've come to understand that we can all be talking about cross-categorical and not mean anything that's the same. That's the major way that I think it has changed my thinking. [TD2:23-36]
Impact on Student Learning
I think that the wonderful thing about classroom action research is that no matter what you do to evaluate your own teaching or make changes, it's going to impact the students and make life better for them. We special education teachers feel so overwhelmed, and don't often have the chance to think about what's important to us and what our priorities are. Classroom action research has helped me do that, has helped me reaffirm and affirm where I stand [TM 3]
The impact of the action research went beyond the individual teacher to affect student learning. Several teachers felt that the satisfaction they gained from conducting their research indirectly impacted their students in positive, if undocumented ways:
I think that the wonderful thing about classroom action research is that no matter what you do to evaluate your own teaching or make changes, its going to impact the students and make life better for them. (TM3)
Others reported on the applications of their research to classroom practice. Because her research lead to changes in her delivery model, including increasing special education instructional time in the regular classroom, the following teacher characterized her subsequent instruction as less fragmented and "more complete," with direct impact on student learning:
[As a result of changes in practice brought about by my research] I don't feel like I have to let as much go as I used to due to time constraints or not enough access to the students. What really makes it nice is that during some activities like doing research papers with the kids and that type of thing, we used to have to pull the kids because we never saw them outside the regular ed classroom. This way, now that we do have that regular time to see them on their own, they can stay in the class during projects like that, and we haven't had to pull them at all because we can always use the time we have available outside the classroom to do more intense instruction and cover the things they need help with. So actually, they end up being in class more with the regular ed students than they used to. (TNp3)
In one full inclusion team-teaching situation, the co-researchers claimed that working and researching together resulted in understanding each other's objectives and practices well enough to equalize their classroom roles to the benefit of the children.
I have learned a lot about regular ed curriculum, working with [my regular education teaching partner. . .] A lot of times in a pull out [configuration], you have the students for about an hour and then they go back to the classroom. You don't really know what they do in the classroom except for what the teacher is reporting. [Now I] really know their learning styles and needs, how they function throughout the day. That's really been helpful. We had a couple of students that just lose it in the afternoon. They're extremely tired and fall asleep. We've adjusted our curriculum so that things that are really important like core curriculum don't happen in the afternoon. [. . .] If they were learning disabled in reading and they were at grade level in math, that information might not have been available for me in a pull out situation. [TB2:25-27]
When you don't have to pull [a student] out into a different environment, you are able to be much more flexible with your teaching scheduling. With that comes the ability, for me as a regular educator, to get to know the special ed students better because I work with them all day long. There isn't this division of 'my kids vs. her kids,' or 'I'm responsible for this with the kids and she's responsible for that.' We're both responsible for everything for all the kids. I've learned a lot more about dealing with children with special needs, working in [this full inclusion] environment than I did in any class that I took at the university. [TA2:21-32]
A high school special education teacher joined the research group out of a commitment to study a student-related phenomenon--low participation rates of special education students in school-based extra curricular opportunities--that would have an immediate impact on their lives. A year later, she reported that the changes she made as a result of her findings have increased the extra curricular participation of the students on her caseload.
Two middle school teacher researchers were interested in uncovering "the most effective service delivery model" for learning disabled students in science and social studies at the middle school level [TLN1:112-128], particularly the skills these students needed in order to be successful in the regular education room. They hoped that their research would give them evidence and therefore the leverage to make productive service model changes in their school. Their findings supported implementation of a flexible model where students could go back and forth between a pull out group and a regular education class, and with support from building colleagues, they were able to put this flexible model into place. Another result of their work was the creation of a transition information form to be filled out by 5th grade teachers at two incoming elementary schools. The heightened understanding of flexible delivery systems and the use of the transition form the following year resulted in more purposeful and appropriate classroom placements, fewer scheduling and curriculum interruptions than used to happen as teachers scrambled to find the best environment for each child, and changes in the delivery model to allow for increased individual instruction time.
Another study lead to more purposeful use of an academic support room where students receive individualized support, enabling students to remain in their regular classrooms for longer periods.
We have been successful. We are serving a lot of kids and with the special education assistants' help, we are providing a lot of support in classrooms with not much pull out. I see kids staying in the classroom more than they did last year. We're trying to use in-class support relying heavily on special education assistants in classrooms, and trying to identify academic areas where kids need help and having SEAs there. If they are still having trouble they can come to the Studio or academic room to get support. We are finding kids don't need to leave the classroom for such long periods of time this year. Last year some kids had to spend much of the day with us. Now they do not have to spend such long periods away from their classrooms. [TC3:4-18]
A high school case manager reported that his research, in which he surveyed the perceptions and needs of students, impacted the way he made scheduling decisions for students. He also reported being more supportive of inclusion models than before as a result of being in the research group.
The thing I'm going to do differently [in the future] is that I plan to interview my students again, especially the 9th graders, on the topic of inclusion. That was worthwhile. As a case manager, I think I need to have students' perspectives on where they like to learn best. We often schedule kids in specific classes based on topics or academic levels and not on where they like to learn. [TH2:77-79]
A regular education teacher, whose project was to build community within her classroom and across the school, found a positive impact on the students who had "making friends" listed as a social goal in their IEPs. At the start of her project, data indicated that a high proportion of the special education students on her caseload operated and played in isolation. The changes in program structure and instructional strategies that were made in response to these preliminary findings lead to increased collaboration and inclusion between these children and their peers [TK2:19].
Frustrations and Roadblocks
In spite of these examples, a number of the teachers expressed frustration that they weren't able to impact student learning as much as they had originally hoped, a result they attributed in part to disinterest or resistance others outside the research group. While these teachers claimed that their research helped them devise workable plans for changing program structure and classroom practice, they viewed these plans as ineffective unless embraced by key players such as other school staff (e.g. regular educators, building principals) or district administrators.
As I was doing this (classroom action research) last year, I started to feel personally that there was a lot of inequity in the way kids are serviced. Our school was pretty much a pull out program last year, and unfortunately, it's even more so this year. I'm angry and upset that after I tried to talk to all these people through my action research about why the pull-out model wasn't working, nothing has changed. [. . .] My classroom action research started me asking questions, which has probably added to my frustration this year, because now I know how things could be, and I can see so clearly that they are not the way they should be. I remember thinking at the end of last year--NO WAY would I do this again [so much pull out programming], but now it's worse than ever. [As a result,] nothing has changed for the kids. [TE3]