Annotated Bibliography

An annotated bibliography is a document containing selected sources accompanied by a respective annotation. Each annotation consists of a summary, analysis, and application for the purpose of conveying the relevance and value of the selected source. As such, annotations demonstrate a writer’s critical thinking about and authority on the topic represented in the sources.In preparation for your own future research, an annotated bibliography provides a background for understanding a portion of the existing literature on a particular topic. It is also a useful precursor for gathering sources in preparation for writing a subsequent literature review.Review the six articles attached on the research topic of special needs education. There are two quantitative research articles, two qualitative research articles, and two mixed methods research articles.Prepare an annotated bibliography that includes the following:A one-paragraph introduction that provides context for why you selected the research articles you did.A reference list entry in APA Style for each of the six articles that follows proper formatting. Follow each reference list entry with a three-paragraph annotation that includes:A summaryAn analysisAn application as illustrated in this exampleA one-paragraph conclusion that presents a synthesis of the six articles.Use subheadings to separate each major section; meaning list “Qualitative Annotated Reviews” and thenpresent the two articles. Then continue to do the same for the quantitative and mixed method. Bottom line, make sure it’s clear what type of article is being reviewed. Don’t skip around; meaning present the articles in order:qualitative articles, then aquanitative articles, and finally the mixed methods articles. Format your annotated bibliography in Times New Roman, 12-point font, double-spaced. A separate References list page is not needed for this assignment.
annotationguidelines.docx

qualitativespecialneedseducation.pdf

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Annotated Bibliography
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

qualitativespecialneedsimplementation.pdf

mixedmethodschronicconditionsspecialeducation.pdf

quantitativespecialedicationautism.pdf

qualitativespecialneedseducation.pdf

qualitativespecialneedsimplementation.pdf

mixedmethodschronicconditionsspecialeducation.pdf

quantitativespecialedicationautism.pdf

mixedmethodsspecialneedstransition.pdf

qualitativespecialneedseducation.pdf

qualitativespecialneedsimplementation.pdf

annotationguidelines.docx

Unformatted Attachment Preview

1-SUMMARY of the information you found in that specific source. The summary section gives your reader an overview of
the important information from that source. Remember that you are focusing on a source’s method and results, not
paraphrasing the article’s argument or evidence. The questions below can help you produce an appropriate, scholarly
summary:
? What is the topic of the source?
? What actions did the author perform within the study and why?
? What were the methods of the author?
? What was the theoretical basis for the study?
? What were the conclusions of the study?
Remember, a summary should be similar to an abstract of a source and written in past tense (e.g. “The authors found
that…” or “The studies showed…”), but it should not be the abstract, written in your own words.
2-CRITIQUE/ analysis of each source. In this section, you will want to focus on the strengths of the article or the study
(the things that would make your reader want to read this source), but do not be afraid to address any deficiencies or areas
that need improvement. The idea of a critique is that you act as a critic—addressing both the good and the bad.
In your critique/analysis, you will want to answer some or all of the following questions
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Was the research question well framed and significant?
How well did the authors relate the research question to the existing body of knowledge?
Did the article make an original contribution to the existing body of knowledge?
Was the theoretical framework for the study adequate and appropriate?
Has the researcher communicated clearly and fully?
Was the research method appropriate?
Is there a better way to find answers to the research question?
Was the sample size sufficient?
Were there adequate controls for researcher bias?
Is the research replicable?
What were the limitations in this study?
How generalizable are the findings?
Are the conclusions justified by the results?
Did the writer take into account differing social and cultural contexts?
3-APPLICATION-justify the source’s use and address how the source might fit into your own research. Consider a few
questions:
? How is this source different than others in the same field or on the same topic?
? How does this source inform your future research?
? Does this article fill a gap in the literature?
? How would you be able to apply this method to your area of focus or project?
? Is the article universal?
Remember, annotated bibliographies do not use personal pronouns, so be sure to avoid using I, you, me, my, our, we, and
us.
99
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 15, No. 11, pp. 99-110, October 2016

A Qualitative Study of the Perceptions of Special
Education Personnel about Inclusive Practices of
Students with Disabilities
Jeanine Birdwell, EdD, Lori Kupczynski, EdD (corresponding author), MarieAnne Mundy, EdD and Steve Bain, DMin
Texas A & M University-Kingsville
Center for Student Success
700 University Blvd.
Kingsville, TX 78363
Abstract. Students with disabilities in the State of Texas are now
required to participate in state wide academic assessments with passing
rates tied to federal funding. This qualitative research studied the
perceptions of district personnel regarding instructional practices for
students with disabilities utilizing open-ended, semi-structured
interviews of a principal, special education director, diagnostician, and
special education teacher from each of two districts. District 1
exclusively used the inclusion model while District 2 used a
combination of inclusive and pull-out programs to provide special
education services. The interviews were analyzed utilizing coding which
generated the following themes: the importance of positive relationships
between general and special education educators and between students
and teachers, individualization of the needs of each student, and the
importance of the availability of resources such as appropriate staff and
dedicated time on the successful implementation of inclusion.
Keywords: Texas education; student disabilities; inclusion; educational
resources
Introduction
Ensuring that every student has access to general education curriculum
rather than equitable curriculum through placement in general education
classrooms is considered an issue of social justice (Turnball, 2012). Increased
focus on state wide assessments and accountability for every individual student
has caused districts to reconsider best practices for instruction and placement of
students with disabilities. In addition, there is no clear guideline to demonstrate
successful implementation of such services. Districts with special education
populations demonstrating low performance levels benefit from implementation
of alternate service models and inclusion style services in the general education
classroom. Students with disabilities who receive academic support and services
© 2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
100
to ensure their academic success are impacted by this problem. Contributing to
this problem are many possible issues including support services dedicated to
inclusion implementation and educational placement. This study contributes to
the research knowledge base necessary to address this issue by gathering
qualitative data to reveal successful and unsuccessful inclusive practices in high
schools in South Texas districts 4A and larger as expressed by school principals
and lead special education personnel. The University Interscholastic League
(2016) assigns school districts in Texas a classification ranging from 1A-6A based
on student enrollment.
Review of Literature
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) state level accountability standards and
systems for mathematics and reading were developed and implemented with
the intention that every student would have and maintain proficiency in both
math and reading by the 2013-14 school year. Administrators are also required
to examine the annual progress of student subgroups, including those with
disabilities. NCLB was an active force in convincing administrators to assess the
importance and necessity of access to general education curriculum in the
general education setting for all students. Students with disabilities, if they are to
be expected to meet statewide assessment standards, need access to regular
education curriculum (Ross-Hill, 2009). The Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) and NCLB push the need for inclusive instruction. The
triumph of both laws hinges on the expertise and mindset teachers portray in the
classroom (Ross-Hill, 2009). Few educators would disagree with federal law, but
instructional practices may not reflect that ideology. While general education
teachers may be supportive of inclusion in theory, most of them do not feel that,
in practice, they can integrate students with disabilities successfully into their
classrooms (Santoli, Sachs, Romey & McClurg, 2008).
Least Restrictive Environment
The principle of least restrictive environment (LRE) is a critical
component of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. LRE necessitates
that children with disabilities be educated alongside students who do not have
disabilities as much as possible. Aron and Loprest (2012), found that 95% of
students with disabilities are in public schools, but they are outside the general
education classroom. As a student reaches high school, he or she is more likely
to be removed from the general education (Aron & Lomprest, 2012). Inclusion
becomes increasingly difficult at the high school level due to course content and
curriculum complexity, instruction models, achievement gaps, high stakes
testing, and accountability to outside agencies like colleges (Rice, 2006; Keefe &
Moore, 2004; Dieker, 2001; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2001).
Inclusion
The principle of inclusion requires that all students have the opportunity
to participate in society, or in the case of education, the general education
setting. Critics of this notion argue that the strengths and weaknesses of the
child must be considered along with the environment. Each student has a
different level of capacity (Lindsay, 2003). Inclusive education refers to the
dedication to educate students with disabilities, to the appropriate maximum
extent, in the general education classroom he or she would traditionally attend.
Inclusion involves providing needed instructional and/or related services to the
© 2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
101
child and involves only that the child advances from being in the class (Yell,
2006). In accordance with the principle of least restrictive environment, inclusion
suggests that students with disabilities are placed in the general education
classroom with needed supplementary aids and services. Students are only
removed from that setting if necessary services cannot be provided in the
general education setting. There are many benefits to inclusion for all students,
but without proper implementation and support it can be a frustrating process
for all stakeholders (Hammel & Hourigan, n.d.).
In the general education
setting, special education students are often held to higher educational
standards and develop better social skills (Ripley, 1997).
Special Education Service Models
Models for special education services are best described as being a
continuum of services and placements. A commonly misunderstood principle is
that the least restrictive environment for all students is the general education
classroom. While the regular education classroom may be the least restrictive
environment within the special education continuum, it may not be the best
environment for every student with a disability. In many individual cases, in
order to meet a student’s needs a variety of potential placements and services
may be required (Farris, 2011; Lindsay, 2003). Variations on placements and
services include: a student with a disability may be placed in the general
education classroom with the general education teacher meeting all needs; or a
special education teacher may serve a consultant style role within the general
education classroom or may be more extensively involved in the delivery of
services. This model is known as co-teaching or the collaborative teaching
model. In this particular model, services are delivered in the general education
setting with seldom removal of the student from that environment for service
participation. In the resource model, a dedicated special education class is
attended as needed while a significant portion of the day is spent in the general
education setting. The self-contained model requires students to spend minimal
time within the general education setting with the majority of services being
delivered in a dedicated special education setting or classroom. This model is
typically reserved for students for which inclusion has proved unsuccessful and
leverages the advantages of small group instruction and increased attention
from educators.
Research from 2000-present
The attitude of the general education teacher towards inclusive practices
is a key factor in implementation of inclusion (Daane, Beirne-Smith & Latham,
2000; Henning & Mitchell, 2002). Henning and Mitchell (2002) noted that,
“teacher perceptions about exceptional students may be the factor with the
greatest effect on student success” (p.19). In 2000, Daane, Beirne-Smith, and
Latham looked at the perceptions of both administration and teachers regarding
the collaboration process of inclusion in elementary grade levels. All parties
participating in the study agree that students with disabilities have the right to
education in the general education setting. Conversely, all parties also agreed
that instruction for students with disabilities in the general education setting
was not effective due to concerns with preparedness of the general education
teacher, discipline concerns, and workload for the general education teacher.
© 2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
102
Research conducted by Ramirez (2006) and Smith (2011) also supports
the findings that the majority of administrators believe that special education
students have the right to be educated in the general education environment at
the cost of academic benefits. A series of qualitative interviews conducted by
Daane, Bierne-Smith and Latham (2000) and Mulholland & O’Connor (2016)
revealed that teachers believe more collaboration is necessary between general
education and special education teachers regarding student individualized
education plans (IEPs) and instructional planning for the inclusion process to be
more effective. Collaboration is critical for successful implementation of
inclusion and should include all stakeholders: administration, general education
teacher, special education teacher, counselor, social worker, related service
providers, paraprofessionals, and family (Salend, 2005). Collaboration is an
ongoing process and all parties must be open minded participants for the
development of a comprehensive plan (Daane et al, 2000).
General educators need more guidance on curriculum differentiation,
and the implementation of accommodations and modifications. However,
scheduling conflicts, lack of knowledge, and lack of time often impede
collaboration time (Daane et al, 2000) (Worrell, 2008). Muholland and O,Connor
(2016) found that their teachers endorsed time restraints as a limitation to
collaboration. According to Rice (2006), teachers are also concerned with the
legal, ethical, pedagogical, and procedural aspects of IEP implementation.
Legally, general education teachers become responsible for ensuring the service
times specified in the IEP are being met. A solid foundation in special education
laws, issues and terms, is critical for the general education teacher to
successfully implement an IEP (Liston, 2004; Worrell, 2008). Principals need
understanding of legal regulations, legislation, and practices regarding students
with disabilities, as well (Lasky & Karge, 2006).
Lack of training on effective implementation of accommodations and
modifications is a frequently reported issue (Galano, 2012; Rice, 2006). Galano
(2012) noted that teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion are significantly
correlated to the level of training. Shoulders and Krei (2016) found that the more
hours general education teachers spent in professional development and coteaching the higher the efficacy in student engagement. Similarly, limited
training in special education also resulted in principals having negative views of
inclusion (Galano, 2012). Santoli et al. (2008) found a group of Southeastern
middle school teachers who felt confident in their teaching strategies and
collaborative strategies in working with special education students, increasing
the likelihood of successful implementation of inclusive practices.
Without a positive attitude towards academic outcomes, teachers are just
going through the motions. There is a significant relationship between teacher
expectations and student success (Henning & Mitchell, 2002; Santoli et al., 2008).
Monsen and Frederickson (2004) also identified that special education students’
performance on standardized test scores is directly correlated to the attitude of
their general education teachers and their teachers’ view on inclusion.
The effectiveness of educational inclusion services can be influenced by
the campus administrator (Praisner, 2003). In her research with elementary
school principals, Praisner found that implementation of inclusive practices
occurred more frequently when the principal had positive views of inclusion.
© 2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
103
Galano (2012), Ramirez (2006), and Smith (2011) also found a correlation
between the promotion of inclusive placements and principal’s attitude.
Role of the Campus Administrator in Inclusion Implementation
With the growing implementation of inclusion services, the role of the
principal is widened to include more paperwork, an increase in the number of
personnel needed, and therefore more duties (Praisner, 2003). Administrators
can lead in a way that maintains status quo, or lead in a way that promotes
social change. Strong leaders build relationships in the community and build
capacity of a campus team. These relationships allow for the implementation of
practices that foster a culture that supports diverse learners (Riehl, 2000).
Principals promote inclusion in their actions, words, interests, activities, and
organization of staff and resources. Villa, Thousand, Nevin & Liston (2005)
described that the degree of administrative support for inclusive practices was
the strongest predictor of the attitude of the general education teacher towards
inclusion. Support can be provided in the form of school climate (Cook, Semmel,
& Gerber, 1999), opportunity for collaboration (Barnett & Monda-Amaya, 1998),
or professional development (Shade & Stweart, 2001).
Dieker (2001) described successful inclusion implementation has hinging
on six co-teaching practices. First was a positive climate between students and
teachers supporting an attitude of acceptance through cooperative learning.
Secondly, inclusion is only accepted primarily through the staff’s positive
perception. Additionally, active student centered learning is necessary to help
create an environment with engaged students while allowing for peer tutoring
opportunities. Further, accommodation integration can be achieved through
activity based instruction. High academic and behavioral expectations for every
student are necessary as well. Mutual planning time between co-teachers must
also be used effectively to plan lessons. Finally, multiple evaluation methods
such as written assessments, presentations and projects in addition to
performance tasks should be used to gauge student learning.
DiPaola and Walther-Thomas (2003) identified skill areas critical for
principals in ensuring growth of student with special needs. Principals must
have knowledge of each disability along with the learning, behavioral or medical
challenges of each. In addition, they must possess thorough knowledge of laws
and educational rights of special needs students so that they may communicate
with families. Equally important, principals lead the implementation of research
based teaching practices on campus. Lastly, principals need a clear
understanding of the supports necessary to make inclusion successful (DiPaola
& Walther-Thomas, 2003). They are responsible for securing support services,
supplies and necessary resources (Frederico, Herrold, & Venn, 1999).
Methodology
Two high school principals from a 4A or larger district in the South Texas
region and six lead special education personnel from each of those districts were
interviewed. The qualitative data was coded for themes to determine successful
instructional practices in regards to students with specific learning disabilities.
Population and Sample
The researcher began interviews by selecting two high school principals
from 4A or larger high schools in the South Texas region. Next, interviews were
© 2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
104
conducted with six lead special education personnel recommended by the
principal from the district. Principals and lead special education personnel were
selected through purposive sampling. The purposive sampling in this study is
informational in nature in order to capitalize on the strengths and weaknesses of
inclusion programs in Texas high schools 4A and larger in the South Texas
Region. Principals and lead special education personnel were selected based on
their involvement with special education students on the high school campus.
The purpose of interviewing the principals and lead special education personnel
from each district was to identify their perce …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Order a unique copy of this paper
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code DISCOUNT15