Essay Instructions: 1. APA format
2. Please include running head: PRESIDENTIAL FITNESS TESTING
The paper is on Presidential Physical Fitness Testing and the improvement of scores.
The paper needs the following steps:
National Significance
Local Significance
Research Question
Hypothesis
Review of Literature
Methods
Population
Instruments
Procedure of data analysis
References
This is the sample paper provided by the instructor(obviously different topic):
Introduction
National Significance
As recently as a generation ago, there were few classrooms in the United States that included students with special needs. Before then, as many as one million students with special needs did not even attend school; and if they did, they were segregated from the general population and placed into a special class or a different school altogether.
But all of that changed in 1975 with the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its subsequent amendments in 1997 and 2004. Students with special needs were now moved from segregated classrooms into general education classrooms because of this legislation (Ward, Montague, and Linton, 2003). IDEA mandated that students with special needs be educated in the least restricted environment (LRE); in other words, the same environment as students without disabilities, and thus, inclusion was born.
For all students in the classroom to be successful, paying attention to the curriculum to meet state standards, strategies in instruction delivery, and the classroom environment must all be given careful attention by the teacher. This means differentiating instruction to meet individual learning needs of all students in a heterogeneous environment. No longer can there be a "one size fits all" attitude if inclusion is to be successful, so it is important to research if such a shift is beneficial or detrimental to any portion of the student population.
Local Significance
The purpose of this proposal is to compare achievement scores of students with special needs in a heterogeneous classroom environment to those who remain in a self-contained special education classroom. The sixth through eighth grade classrooms are part of a school district that uses a hybridized middle school concept in central Illinois. While there are no gifted programs, this school district tracks students by offering accelerated classes in math, literature, and language arts. There are also self-contained special education classes in grades six through eight with some students with Individualized Education Plans (IEP) being pushed into general education classrooms depending on their abilities as stipulated in the IEPs. The district has not made a formal school-based decision to place all self-contained students into general education classes. Currently, any such placements are a result of collaboration by the general education and special education teachers. This study will examine how using inclusion of students with special needs into a heterogeneous classroom will affect achievement scores on standardized tests as compared to students who remain in a self-contained environment.
Research Question
The purpose of this proposal is to explore whether students with special needs, when placed into general education reading and mathematics classrooms, can achieve higher scores on standardized tests than if they remain in a self-contained special education classroom. Results of these scores will be used as one variant to determine if all students from a self-contained learning environment should be placed into a general education classes during the next academic year. Does the placement of students with special needs into general education classes versus self-contained classes increase scores on achievement tests?
Hypothesis
Students with special needs who are placed into a general education reading and mathematics classrooms will achieve higher than similar students who are not placed into these classes.
Review of Literature
While conducting this descriptive research project, Patterson and Graham (2000) studied the interactive relationship between a teacher's thoughts while teaching in an inclusive classroom and his subsequent actions, both of which affect student learning. Five junior high teachers who taught in inclusive classrooms, three in a large city in Canada and two in rural towns in Australia, volunteered to participate in this study because they could articulate their in-flight thoughts experienced while teaching. Triangulated data were obtained from: (1) semi-structured interviews, (2) stimulated in-flight thoughts while viewing videotaped lessons, and (3) researcher field notes. The first step in conducting this study included the researchers visiting the teachers to discuss details of the study while also becoming familiar with the perspective into the participant's teaching style. During the second step, researchers conducted two semi-structured interviews with each participant to identify the principles that guided their teaching. In the third step, a complete lesson, presented to the target class, was videotaped by the researcher. Five minutes later, the teacher was shown the videotape and asked to recall his thoughts during a stimulated recall interview.
Results of this study indicated that experienced teachers, during their in-flight thinking, could predict students' actions and thoughts. Another finding in four of the five teachers was related to a teacher's awareness and ability to express feelings and emotions.
This study also concluded that inclusive classroom teachers treat students according to their individual characteristics, not because they have a predetermined categorization of those students. These findings suggest that teachers should focus more on the individuality of all students rather than focusing on whether or not a student has a disability.
Luster and Durrett (2003) conducted an exploratory study to analyze whether placement of students with disabilities in a general education classroom compared to separate special education classrooms would increase student achievement on state assessments and also increase graduation rates. Student achievement in grades four and eight in all 66 school districts in a Southern state were analyzed. Comparison of the eight most and eight least inclusive districts which represented approximately 25 percent of the 66 school districts was made using a visual examination of the data. Data, using a one-tallied correlation analysis, included: (1) graduation rates for students with disabilities, (2) language arts and math scores for grades four and eight, (3) on-level test participation by students with disabilities, (4) group performance scores for the subgroup of students with disabilities, and (5) district performance scores. Results were positive for all correlation coefficients with the exception of on-level test participation for fourth grade test performance. This study is important because it shows positive relationships between greater inclusion and student results. However, it should be noted that effective instructional practices may have had a larger impact on these positive results than inclusion alone.
According to Martin, Ireland, and Claxton (2003), success in the inclusionary classroom for students with disabilities requires that all stakeholders agree and focus on key factors. Educators appear to be the most resistant because of the extra time required to modify the curriculum to make accommodations for this group of students (Brown, 1997). Short and Martin (2005) conducted a case study to address the attitudes and perceptions of inclusion held by: (1) students, (2) general education teachers, and (3) special education teachers. A rural high school in a Midwest state was the setting and the population included: (1) high school students, (2) general education teachers, and (3) special education teachers. To be eligible for the study, students with disabilities had to have classes in both an inclusionary setting as well as self-contained. General education students had to be in classes where both inclusion existed and did not. Special education teachers had to co-teach with a general teacher in an inclusive class as well as teach self-contained classes. General education teachers had classes that were both inclusive and only general education. The sample size for this study included: (1) 29 students with disabilities, (2) 43 students without disabilities, (3) seven special education teachers and (4) 13 general education teachers. Student population included 32 males and 40 females; while teacher population included 5 males and 15 females. This mixed design study included: (1) conducting observations, (2) Likert-type surveys, and (3) interviews with the sample population.
Results showed that special education teachers, students with disabilities, and general education students felt that socialization was the greatest benefit to inclusion while general education teachers ranked it as one of the lowest benefits. All four groups ranked feeling comfortable in the inclusionary classroom as one of the lowest benefits. General education did not see a benefit to inclusion. Special education teachers had a more positive toward inclusion than did the other three groups. Differences in attitudes toward learning more in the inclusionary classroom and class size with the addition of students with disabilities also were found to be significant. This study is important because it shows general education teachers attitudes and perceptions about inclusion. While overall positive, there is still great concern for (1) time allocation, (2) the addition of support services, and (3) additional training to be better prepared to teach students with disabilities.
Cole, Waldron, and Majd (2002) reported on a study that compared the effects of inclusive programs on the achievement success of students without disabilities and those with mild disabilities. In each of six school corporations/special education cooperatives in the state of Indiana, two inclusive elementary schools and two elementary schools that used the resource-pullout model were chosen. There was a sample size of 428 students with mild disabilities with 234 of those being taught in special education resource classes and 194 students being taught in inclusive classrooms. Thirty-six classrooms from the same schools were randomly chosen with the same proportion of general education students. Each school identified the classrooms as either inclusive or non-inclusive. The instrument used was the Basic Academic Skills Samples (BASS) that assesses in the areas of math and reading. The BASS was given to participants in fall, 1998, and spring, 1999. Results showed that 60.7% of students without disabilities in inclusive schools made progress in math compared to 37.5% in general education classes. Results in reading for the same sample showed progress at 53.6% and 45.9%, respectively. Results in math for students with disabilities in an inclusive setting showed that 43.3% made comparable or greater progress than students without disabilities. In the resource setting 35.9% made comparable or greater progress than students without disabilities. This same sample made 45.9% and 41.9%, respectively, in reading. The biggest gain in achievement came with students identified with mild mental handicaps. In math, these students placed in an inclusive setting made progress at 50.0% compared to 37.7% in a resource setting. In reading, their scores were 40.0% and 29.5%, respectively. This study indicates that an inclusive setting makes a strong argument for inclusion.
Methods
Population
Currently the targeted middle school does not have any self-contained students with disabilities in general education mathematics and reading classes. There are approximately 55 students in self-contained (homogeneous) classes in grades six through eight who are taught those subjects by highly qualified special education teachers. The independent variable would be the placement of these students into an inclusionary classroom. The control group would be the students in the self-contained classroom. All students, no matter what their placement, would be taught using a cooperative learning model that focuses on differentiated instruction. In the inclusionary classroom, all students, regardless of ability, would work together on assignments. A special education teacher will co-teach with the general education teacher and both would provide accommodations such as modified assignments, preprinted notes, graphic organizers, etc., to those students with IEPs. In the self-contained classroom, the special education teacher would teach the same curriculum to the students who remain in the homogeneous class.
Instruments
All students whose IEPs have designated them as having deficits in reading and math and who would traditionally remain in a self-contained classroom for those subjects will be given the ISAT Grade Level Sample Achievement Tests (Illinois State Board of Education). An experimental design using a randomized pretest-posttest control group design would be followed. During the first full day of school, the pretest would be administered by the special education teacher. Once these practice tests are scored, students would be divided into two groups: those who met or exceeded the standards and those whose scores were below standard benchmarks or who would be considered on academic warning. Since reading and mathematics are both designated deficits on these students' IEPs, there may not be many students who meet or exceed the standards. For this reason, the mean of all the scores in each subject would be determined. At this point, students would be assigned to either an inclusive (intervention) classroom or remain in a homogeneous (control) classroom using stratified random sampling based on an equal number of students above and below the mean of the scores. Since the sample is not very large, stratified random sampling is used because it "increases the likelihood of representativeness," according to Frankel and Norman (2003, p.100). The control group and the intervention group would each have approximately 10 students at each grade level. The posttest would be administered in late spring and their scores would be compared to the pretest scores in reading and mathematics.
Procedure of data analysis
Currently, all students are tested every spring in the subjects of reading and mathematics using the instrument known as the Illinois Standardized Achievement Test (ISAT). The scores on these tests are used to measure a school's Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in those subjects (Illinois State Board of Education). It is expected that student achievement should improve every year with additional instruction. Federal legislation known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) created strategies and accountability standards that school districts must follow to help improve student achievement (Ward, et al., 2003, p. 1).
The ISAT Sample Test scores are the dependent variable in this study and the results of the posttest will be compared to those of the pretest in both the heterogeneous classroom and the homogeneous classroom. If the increase in the average scores in reading and mathematics in the intervention group is greater than those of the control group of students, then the intervention of the inclusive classroom would be considered successful and the hypothesis could be supported. A recommendation of inclusion for all students would be considered for the following school year based on the data.
Limitations to this study would include the mean scores of this pretest-posttest design being too low for the intervention group. Even if posttest scores of the intervention group were higher than the scores of the control group, they still may not be close enough to meeting the standards on ISATs. Students would have to be evaluated on an individual basis to determine how successful they would be in future inclusive environments. Other considerations would include behavioral issues, especially an increase in inappropriate behavior.
References
Brown, D.L. (1997). Full inclusion: Issues and challenges. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 24, 24-28. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from PsychINFO database.
Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education, (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Illinois State Board of Education (n.d.). Assessments. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from
http://www.isbe.net/assessment/default.htm
Luster, J. N. & Durrett, J. (2003). Does educational placement matter in the performance
of students with disabilities? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Mid-
South Educational Research Association, Biloxi, MS. ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED482518.
Paterson, D. & Graham, L. (2000). Inclusive teaching from the inside: What teachers
think. Paper presented at the International Special Education Congress 2000, Manchester, England. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from http://www.isec2000.org.uk/abstracts/papers_p/paterson_1.htm
Martin, B.N., Ireland, H. & Claxton, K. (2003). Perceptions of teachers on inclusion in
four rural midwest school districts. The Rural Educator. 24(3), 3-9.
Short, C. and Martin, B. N. (2005). Case study: Attitudes of rural high school students
and teachers regarding inclusion. The Rural Educator. 27(1), 1-10.
Ward, M.M., Montague, N, & Linton, T.H. (2003). Including students with disabilities
and achieving accountability: Educators' emerging challenge. Corpus Christi: Texas A & M University. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED481111.
