A Microanalysis of Teachers' Verbalizations in Inclusive Classrooms

Abstract

The present study examined the verbalizations of 16 teachers from inclusive preschool classrooms. Two hours of audiotaped verbalizations for each teacher were analyzed for one-onone interactions between teachers and children and also for interactions between teachers and small groups of children. Results showed that teachers did not modify their question-asking behavior depending on the ability level of the children or the composition of small groups of children. Teachers asked primarily low-level questions to all children. In their statements, teachers used more logical directives and directives, and fewer supportive responses to children with disabilities than they did to typically developing children. The focus of teachers' verbalizations differed depending on whether children had disabilities or were typically developing. These results suggest that teachers need to be provided with information that will help them challenge children by varying the demand level of questions and matching their verbalizations to the child's ability level. Future research should address the bi-directionality of interactions and the implications for teacher preparation programs.

How Teachers Respond to Children’s Inquiry

“…Observations from preschool classrooms find that teachers often do not modify their questions to the ability level of the individual and instead tend to ask mainly low-level questions to all children, questions that simply ask children to label or produce previously learned information rather than engage in higher-level cognitive processes (Hestenes, Cassidy, & Niemeyer, 2004). Few questions required students to synthesize information, speculate cause-and-effect relationships, search for similarities between subjects, evaluate consequences, or plan further action.…”

The questions verbal children with autism spectrum disorder encounter in the inclusive preschool classroom

“…Questions with lower cognitive complexity were 23 percent of all questions asked, and questions with higher cognitive complexity were 33 percent of all questions asked. Of note is evidence indicating that teachers in inclusive classrooms ask children with and without disabilities a preponderance of questions that are intended to manage behavior and have less cognitive complexity as opposed to questions of higher cognitive complexity (Hestenes et al, 2004).…”

“…Massey et al, 2008). This finding is unsurprising as management-style questions are often directive in nature, and this type of language is common in preschool classrooms serving children who are typically developing (Powell et al, 2008) as well as children with disabilities (Hestenes et al, 2004). Future research is necessary to determine how such management questions are related to the long-term cognitive and social outcomes of children with ASD.…”

“…Recently, there has been an increase in the number of children with ASD entering inclusive classrooms (Technical Assistance and Dissemination Network, 2012). Research suggests that teachers in inclusive settings, in particular, may have difficulty differentiating their language, which includes questions, to meet the developmental needs of children with versus without disabilities (Hestenes et al, 2004). Specific to children with ASD, there is evidence suggesting the amount of language these children are exposed to in preschool settings may be related to both child (e.g.…”

Exploring Teacher Talk During Mathematics Instruction in an Inclusion Classroom

“…Similarly, special education teachers tend to provide more directive (i.e., command, suggest, question) than responsive (i.e., elaborate, repeat, acknowledge) verbalizations (Kim & Hupp, 2005) and to use low-level and knownanswer questions (Hamm & Perry, 2002;Hestenes, Cassidy, & Niemeyer, 2004). Discussions involving problem solving and reasoning activities may represent a problematic participation structure for students with disabilities, who often have difficulties with discriminating key information in mathematics tasks and with using metacognitive strategies (Maccini & Gagnon, 2002).…”