Models of Inclusion 1
Running head: MODELS OF INCLUSION
The Effect of Positive Models of Inclusion on Band Students’ Attitudinal
Statements Regarding the Integration of Students with Disabilities
Christopher M. Johnson
Alice-Ann Darrow
The University of Kansas
Word Count: 4,396
Abstract
The purpose of the present investigation was to examine the effect of five positive models of inclusion on band students’ attitudinal statements regarding the integration of students with disabilities in their music program. Elementary, junior high, and senior high school band students from fifteen public schools served as subjects for this study (N=757). A Solomon Four-Group design was chosen for this project. Bands (from elementary, junior high, and senior high schools) were randomly assigned to one of the following four conditions: (1) pretest-treatment-posttest, (2) pretest-posttest, (3) treatment-posttest, or (4) posttest only. The independent variable for this project was a 30-minute videotape containing five segments which documented students with cognitive, physical, behavioral, or sensory disabilities successfully participating in a band in either rehearsal or performance situations. The dependent variable was a questionnaire comprised of attitudinal statements related to the following subscales: (a) inclusion of students with disabilities in band; (b) degree of comfort with inclusion; (c) efficiency of the band with students who have a disability; and (d) procedural issues involving students with a disability in band. Results indicated that treatment group subjects' attitudinal statements were significantly more positive than attitudinal statements of control group subjects on three of the four subscales: inclusion, comfort, and efficiency. In addition, female students were significantly more positive than were male students on the same subscales. No clear trends were found among the different age groups. Implications are given for music professionals working in inclusive settings.
The Effect of Positive Models of Inclusion on Band Students’ Attitudinal
Statements Regarding the Integration of Students with Disabilities
The term “mainstreaming,” used to denote the integration of students with disabilities into the regular classroom, came into use in the early 1970s with the passage of the PL 94:142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975). In the last several years, "inclusion" has emerged as the terminology of choice to describe educating students with disabilities in the regular classroom (Hardman, Drew, Egan, & Wolf, 1994). Inclusion differs from mainstreaming in that students with disabilities are educated in their home schools, in age and grade level appropriate classes, and most often, on a full-time basis. Inclusive schools adopt a zero rejection model -- no student can be denied access to academic programs on the basis of disability. The inclusion of students with disabilities into school music programs requires that music educators be prepared to create a learning environment that varies with the needs and abilities of their students, as well as one that fosters positive relationships between students. Music educators must continue to explore methods through which they can promote the musical and personal growth of all students in an inclusive environment.
Few music educators reject the underlying philosophy of an inclusive education for students with a disability, however, debate continues over the advantages and disadvantages of its implementation. Proponents of inclusion believe that total integration reflects the moral and ethical values of our society and fosters understanding and appreciation for individual differences. Other advantages of inclusion are that it minimizes the deleterious effects of: labeling children, segregating them on the basis of their disability, and placing them in an environment that is inconsistent with the real world. Educators that argue against inclusion contend that regular classroom teachers are not trained to work with exceptional students (Gilbert, & Asmus, 1981) and often have negative attitudes about teaching students with disabilities which results in their isolation and stigmatization. Other disadvantages which have been cited are that students with special needs demand excessive amounts of teacher time, impede the progress of other students, and often fall further behind without the services provided in the special classroom.
Research on the efficacy of mainstreaming and inclusion has reported varied results. Wang, Anderson, and Bram (1985) performed a meta-analysis of 50 studies comparing regular and special education placements and found that, across all types of disabilities, results indicated not only that the academic and social performance of students with special needs in mainstreamed settings were superior to those students educated in special classes, but also that the students who were included in regular classes on a full-time basis performed more successfully than their peers who were mainstreamed on a part-time basis. Gfeller, Darrow, and Hedden (1990) found a positive correlation between perceived success in music mainstreaming and the extent of administrative and instructional support.
The attitudes of peers and music educators toward students with a disability have been given somewhat limited attention since the passage of PL 94:142 in 1974. The purpose of several early studies was to develop valid methods of measuring students' attitudes toward their disabled peers. Stuart and Gilbert (1977) designed a videotape scale to measure attitudes toward atypical students and their musical behavior. Jellison (1985) developed the Acceptance Within Music Scales (AMS), a questionnaire designed to measure children's attitudes toward disabled peers in a music setting. This questionnaire paralleled existing items on a general Acceptance Scale (AS) with demonstrated validity for the measurement of children's attitudes toward disabled peers.
Elliott and Sins (1981/82) investigated middle school students’ attitudes toward the presence of disabled peers in the music classroom. The questionnaire was administered to 27 music classes in four southern and midwestern states. Positive student attitudes were viewed as an indication of their acceptance of mainstreamed students. Handicapping conditions were not differentiated. Results indicated that a little over half of the students responded positively toward the integration of disabled students. Females tended to be more positive regarding both their own attitudes and when predicting the opinions of their classmates. Students in segregated classes were more positive than those students in integrated classes, indicating that hypothetical situations with disabled classmates were viewed more positively than real experiences with disabled peers. Older students tended to be more positive than younger students. Darrow and Johnson (1994) found similar results in their study of junior and senior high school music students' attitudes toward individuals with a disability. Junior high school students generally expressed a lower level of sensitivity toward people with disabilities than did the senior high school students. Females also demonstrated a greater acceptance of people with a disability than males in every disability subscale. Further results revealed a rank ordering of disabilities from the most to the least acceptable. The three most accepted disabilities for both gender groups and age groups were: visible scars, heart condition, and deafness. The three least acceptable conditions were paralysis, AIDS, and blindness.
In an experimental study designed to investigate the feasibility of increasing positive interactions between music students with and without a disability, Jellison, Brooks, and Huck (1984) examined the effect of three teaching conditions (large group, small cooperative groups, and small cooperative groups with a music contingency for cooperation) on the frequency of positive social interactions between disabled and nondisabled peers in grades 3-6. Results indicated that the percentages of positive interactions were the highest for all grades under the small-group music contingency condition and the lowest under the large-group condition. These data support the possibility of affecting positive changes in the learning environment of students in mainstreamed music classrooms.
Studies concerned with improving attitudes toward disabled students have also indicated the feasibility of facilitating acceptance through social interaction (Amsel & Fichen, 1988) and personal conversations (Evans, 1976). Past research, however, has identified several problematic issues related to the assessment of attitudes toward the integration of students with disabilities in music classrooms (Atturbury, 1986; Elliott & Sins, 1981/82; Gfeller, Darrow, & Hedden, 1990):
1.The use of general terms such "handicap" or "disability" to denote numerous kinds disabilities and their various degrees of severity;
2.The use of general terms such "music program" to denote a wide variety of possible music education settings (i.e., band, orchestra, choral, or general music) in which students with disabilities may be included; and
3.Little or no attention to the influences of experience and developmental issues related to personal attitudes.
Along with attitudinal assessment issues, a review of the literature also revealed little attention given to improving attitudes toward the inclusion of students with a disability in music programs. The present study attempts to address these problematic issues by: (a) providing subjects with a specific reference as to students’ disability and a specific reference regarding the music education setting in which the students participate, (b) surveying subjects from elementary, junior high, and high school, and (c) examining the effect of positive models of inclusion on subjects' attitudinal statements regarding inclusion. The purpose of the present study, therefore, was to examine the effect of five positive models of inclusion on elementary, junior high, and senior high school band students’ attitudinal statements regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities in their music program.
Method
Participants
Elementary, junior high and senior high school band students from fifteen schools participated in this project (N = 757). Instrumental music students were chosen for this study because past research has shown that this area of music education is perceived to be the most problematic setting for including students with disabilities (Atturbury, 1986; Gfeller, Darrow, & Hedden, 1990). Elementary school participants included students in grades 5 and 6 (n = 152), junior high school participants included students in grades 7 and 8 (n = 387), and senior high school participants included students in grades 9 through 12 (n = 218).
Design
A Solomon Four-Group design was chosen for this investigation. Bands from each age group (elementary, junior high, and senior high) were randomly assigned to one of the following four conditions: (1) pretest-treatment-posttest (n = 196), (2) pretest-posttest (n = 223), (3) treatment-posttest (n = 173), or (4) posttest only (n = 165).
Dependent Variable
Because no extant attitudinal questionnaire was appropriate for the purposes of this study, a questionnaire was developed by the researchers. Specific items for the questionnaire were developed by: (a) reviewing research literature on mainstreaming and inclusion in music education, (b) reviewing research regarding attitudes toward persons with a disability, (c) examining the suitability of selected items from extant attitudinal questionnaires, and (d) professional experiences of the authors and their colleagues in the public schools. Questions were developed in the following areas: (a) demographic information on subjects, (b) extent of the subjects’ experience in mainstreamed or inclusive music classrooms, and (c) attitudinal statements toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in instrumental music ensembles. The resulting twenty-eight attitudinal statements were grouped into the following subscales:
Inclusion - twelve statements regarding students' attitude toward the inclusion of disabled students in band (i.e., "Students who have disabilities should have a band class of their own").
Comfort - five statements regarding students' degree of comfort with the inclusion of students with a disability in band (i.e., "A student who has a disability would be accepted by members of our band").
Efficiency - six statements regarding students' attitude toward the efficiency of the band with students who have a disability (i.e., "Students who have disabilities would probably slow down the progress of the band").
Procedural - five statements regarding students' attitude toward procedural issues (i.e., "Students who have a disability should have to audition like other students who want to be in band," or "Students who have a disability should be graded in the same way as other band students").
Half of the attitudinal statements were worded positively (i.e., "Students who have severe behavioral disorders should be included in the regular band") and half negatively (i.e., "Students who have severe behavioral disorders should not be included in the regular band"). Four statements were worded both positively and negatively and randomly placed in the questionnaire in order to determine reliability of responses. Each statement was followed by a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” to which participants circled a single response.
The questionnaire was submitted to a panel of three judges from the fields of music therapy, music education, and special education. The judges were asked to critique the questionnaire for clarity, format, and relevance to the purpose of the study. Final revisions of the questionnaire were made based upon their recommendations.
Independent Variable
The independent variable for this project was a 30-minute videotape produced in cooperation with Yamaha Music Corporation specifically for this research project. The videotape contained five segments which documented students with cognitive, physical, behavioral, or sensory disabilities participating in a band in either rehearsal or performance situations. One of these students was in elementary school, one was in junior high school, and three were high school students. Each video segment included: (a) clips of the student participating in the band (approximately 10% of the total segment), (b) an interview with the band director (approximately 50%), and (c) comments by either the student with the disability or fellow classmates (approximately 40%). Segments were taped and edited by a professional videographer. The five segments were positive models of inclusion which illustrated the following characteristics of a successful inclusion situation: (a) a supportive and knowledgeable teacher, (b) supportive classmates, (c) use of adaptive instructional strategies, (d) the student with a disability participating as an active and contributing member of the ensemble, and (e) musical goals being met.
Procedure
Subjects participated in this project during their regularly scheduled music class. Questionnaires were administered to treatment and control groups as intact classes. Directors of each band were given written instructions for questionnaire administration and videotape viewing. The researchers reviewed the instructions with the directors and provided an opportunity for them to ask questions. Survey procedures were identical for all conditions. Directors were asked to establish a serious atmosphere to encourage students to respond thoughtfully. Participants were told that their responses would be anonymous and that there were no right or wrong answers so that any response to any question was indeed correct. They were then instructed to circle one and only one response for each statement. The director was asked to read each item to the participants in order to control for subject reading errors. Administration of the survey instrument took approximately twelve minutes of class time.
Participants in the pretest-treatment-posttest condition began the instructional period by completing the pretest. The subjects then viewed the videotape of models of inclusion without discussion. After viewing the videotape models, they were given the posttest with the same instructions as they were given prior to the pretest. Participants in the pretest-posttest condition were administered the pretest. Subjects then rehearsed in their usual manner. Following rehearsal, the posttest was administered using the same procedures as were used during the pretest. Participants in the treatment-posttest condition began the instructional period by viewing the videotape. Following the viewing of the videotape, the posttest questionnaire was administered. Participants in the posttest only condition began the instructional period by completing the questionnaire, again with the same survey procedures. Questionnaires were collected immediately following the survey activities in all groups.
Results
Each of the four subscales (inclusion, comfort, efficiency, and procedure) were examined with regard to their respective reliability utilizing Crombach Alpha procedures. Results for each subscale, as well as the complete questionnaire, are reported in Table 1. Reliability tests were also completed on the paired questions in the survey. A Pearson product-moment bivariate correlation was computed for these responses. A resulting correlation coefficient of .76 was obtained.
In order to determine pretest effects, a 2x2 ANOVA was completed for the main effects treatment and pretest for the total scores from questionnaires. Results are reported in Table 2 and indicated a significant difference for overall treatment scores, F (1, 753) = 133.49, p < .000, but no difference for pretest scores, F (1, 753) = .69, p = .946. There was also a significant two-way interaction between the two main effects (F (1, 753) = 11.91, p = .001). Figure 1 clearly indicates that the groups receiving the treatment condition answered differently than those who had not, but that those receiving the pretest did not answer differently than those who did not receive the pretest. Because this test and this graphic indicate that there were no significant effects that could be attributed to the pretest, data from the groups in the two control conditions and data from the two treatment conditions were pooled respectively for all further analyses.
A Simple Factorial 2x2x3 ANOVA was completed for the main effects treatment condition, gender, and school type, for each of the four subscales. Main effects for treatment condition, gender, and school type are illustrated for each of the subscales in Figures 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The graphing of means was completed in order to give a clearer representation of subject responses. In Figure 2 it can be noted that the treatment group demonstrated a more positive outlook toward inclusion issues than did the participants in the control group. These differences were significant for the subscales of inclusion (F (1, 745) = 111.91, p < .000), comfort (F (1, 745) = 32.54, p < .000), and efficiency (F (1, 745) = 86.16, p < .000).