A Survey of Mainstreaming Practices

Abstract

Elementary and secondary general education teachers identified as effective instructors of students with handicaps in the regular classroom were interviewed. They completed open-ended questions in a structured format and rated instructional modifications according to frequency of use. Elementary teachers reported fewer students with handicaps in their classes than did secondary teachers, who reported they frequently taught students with handicaps in "slower" track classes. Elementary teachers reported using individualized instruction and receiving support from special education teachers more often than did secondary teachers. Both groups frequently used instructional modifications such as shortened assignments, oral tests, study buddies, lower-level worksheets, and preferential seating.

Teachers’ Experience, Attitudes, Feelings and Behavioural Intentions towards Children with Special Educational Needs

“…Teachers' attitudes vary according to the type of disability and the extent of instructional adaptations to be made to accommodate the student (Center & Ward, 1987, in Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000. The research also shows that teacher attitudes are critical variables in the success of managing children with special needs (Bacon & Schultz, 1991) and the success of the integration of children with disabilities into regular classrooms (Stewart, 1990).…”

Student-Teachers’ Attitudes toward Students with Disabilities: Associations with Contact and Empathy

“…However, positive attitudes can facilitate the inclusion and acceptability of such individuals (Findler et al, 2007). Researchers have identified teachers" attitudes toward students with disabilities as a critical variable in the success of managing children with special needs (Bacon and Schultz, 1991) and in the successful integration of these students into the regular classroom (Stewart, 1990).…”

The Quest for Teachers: On Reviewing A Decade of Reform Efforts

“…Rosselli et al advised that continuous collaboration and communication between university faculty and educational practitioners created shared responsibility and vision. Many authors also accentuated the importance of emphasizing collaborative consultation through revising course content, requirements, and field experiences for future teachers (Bacon & Schulz, 1991;Dickens & Jones, 1990;Feden & Clabaugh, 1986;Fender & Fiedler, 1990;Hollingsworth & Minarik, 1991;Idol & West, 1991;Landers & Weaver, 1991;Murphy, 1990;Shaw, Biklin, Conlon, Dunn, Kramer, & DeRoma-Wagner, 1990;Simpson et al, 1993;Underhill, 1991;Voltz & Elliot, 1990; &dquo;What do we mean,&dquo; 1992).…”