<p> This research is about the attitudes and educational practices towards inclusion of students with disabilities in science classroom. Four research questions were raised: (1) What are the attitudes of science teachers about the inclusion of students with disabilities?, (2) What is the relationship between attitudes and teachers demographics characteristics?, (3) What are the factors that influence the attitudes of science teachers? and (4) What does the Science teachers do in their educational practices to teach students with disabilities? </p><p> A mixed design of two phases was performed to answer this question. In the first phase a questionnaire was submit to 79 Science teachers from the middle and high school level. This questionnaire with the title <i>Attitudes and educational practices towards inclusion of students with disabilities in Science teaching</i> was developed by the researcher. In the second phase a focus group was conducted with Science and Special Education teachers. Also, two structured interviews by telephone were conducted. </p><p> The findings indicate that the attitudes of science teachers who participated in the first phase of this research seems to be neutral. However, in their responses to the interview or focus group the attitudes were perceived negative. This attitudes are influences by a number of factors that hinder the process of inclusion. Using a nonparametric test with a chi-square test, it was determined that the number of students in a classroom is one of the factors that have a significant relationship with attitudes. The modifications that Science teachers do in their educational practices these will depend on the discapacities. But usually the modification will be in the evaluation of the students. Using assessments as a technique. Also, individualized instruction and peers are educational practices that highlight.</p>

No description available.

<p> The perceptions of general education teachers,' special education teachers,' and site administrators' regarding the benefits of <i>inclusion </i>, or <i>mainstreaming</i>, for students with mild to moderate disabilities at the secondary level were examined using the lenses of psychological benefit, academic benefit, behavioral benefit, and overall benefit. This quantitative study utilized a survey methodology using a random sampling from among seven school districts in Southern California.</p><p> The statistically significant results indicated that none of the groups perceived an overall benefit of inclusion, with specific differences by lens and group. The three groups did not perceive a benefit of inclusion in the areas of psychological, behavioral, or academic specifically, but had less significant perceptions of an overall benefit. Although none of the areas were perceived to be beneficial, comparatively the psychological benefit was perceived to be higher than behavioral benefit, and all groups perceived the academic to be the least significant.</p><p> There were significant differences among groups on benefits perceived, as well. Administrators perceived a significantly higher psychological benefit to inclusion than did general education teachers. There were no significant differences among groups in relation to a behavioral benefit to inclusion. General education teachers perceived a significantly higher academic benefit than did special education teachers. The only area that showed positive results was in a perceived overall benefit, with administrators scoring overall benefit the highest, followed by special education teachers. General education teachers perceived overall benefits of inclusion to be significantly lower than did either other group.</p>

Although the policies and practices of special education are openly constructed around a premise of mobility and opportunity, students from low income backgrounds (‘at risk’ youth) are twice as likely to be labeled “special.” Moreover, of all the special educational categories, learning disabilities (a diagnosis deeply contested) account for the largest group of special educational students who are ‘at risk’ learners. This project is hinged on addressing how those students who are apparent beneficiaries of special educational policies and programs (evidenced by post-secondary enrolment) make meaning of their prior and current educational experiences in relation to special educational policies, services and programs. The author begins by theorizing that such disabilities may medicalize social problems while still preserving a veneer of equality. However, since not all labels have universal meanings when applied to specific social agents, they may both hinder and help some in gaining access to post secondary education. With the support of a group of four enrolled post secondary students located in the Canadian urban west-coast, who identify as learning disabled and the recipients of related interventions, this thesis provides a complex reading of the everyday that draws upon how the students’ specific cultural and material locations inform their understanding of education, ability, disability, meritocracy and normalcy. Collecting data through semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted during the Spring and Fall of 2007, the students actively engage and challenge the author’s original theoretical and methodological assumptions. Anticipating critiques of special education, the author is surprised by the students’ support of such programs. Expecting responses to interview questions to be based on a reading of meritocracy as normalcy and disability as deficit, these students weave understandings of meritocracy and normalcy to articulate their abilities without rejecting their disability labels. In terms of policy where the emphasis is placed on disability as deficit, the findings imply that policy-makers neglect the energy and labour students invest in emphasizing their abilities. For educators, this reveals an important pedagogy of inclusion by inverting assumptions that special educational students are ‘at risk’ of educational failure without unfolding the complex ways in which they actively demonstrate their abilities.

Thesis (PH.D.) -- Syracuse University, 2007. / "Publication number AAT 3266306"

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Indiana University, Dept. of Counseling and Educational Psychology, 2007. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 68-07, Section: A, page: 2878. Adviser: Jack A. Cummings. Title from dissertation home page (viewed Apr. 15, 2008).

Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Rhode Island, 2007 / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 129-138).

Research paper (M.A.) -- Cardinal Stritch College -- Milwaukee, 1981. / A research paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Education (Special Education). Includes bibliographical references (p. 56-60).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2008. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 69-05, Section: A, page: 1693. Adviser: Stacy Dymond. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 218-239) Available on microfilm from Pro Quest Information and Learning.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2008. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 69-05, Section: A, page: 1738. Adviser: Lisa Monda-Amaya. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 87-94) Available on microfilm from Pro Quest Information and Learning.