This qualitative multiple case study was part of a larger investigation to examine the processes that underlie involvement and progress in the general curriculum for students with extensive support needs. We found that general and special educators’ self-efficacy influenced students’ involvement and progress in the general curriculum. Special educators’ self-efficacy was influenced by their teacher preparation, flexibility, and content knowledge; and the district history and political context. General educators’ self-efficacy was influenced by feelings of autonomy, role clarity, and knowledge about inclusive education. Our findings revealed the central importance of teachers’ self-efficacy in supporting the involvement and progress in the general curriculum among students with extensive support needs. Results are discussed in relation to relevant theories of literacy access and inclusion for students with extensive support needs.
BaconJ. E.RoodC. E.FerriB. A. (2016). Promoting access through segregation: The emergence of the “prioritized curriculum” class. Teachers College Record, 118, 1–22.
2.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
3.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
4.
BillingsleyF.GallucciC.PeckC. A.SchwartzI. S.StaubD. (1996). But those kids can’t even do math: An alternative conceptualization of outcomes for inclusive education. Special Education Leadership Review, 3, 43–55.
5.
BockA. K.EricksonK. A. (2015). The influence of teacher epistemology and practice on student engagement in literacy learning. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40, 138–153.
6.
BogdanR.TaylorS. J. (1989). Relationships with severely disabled people: The social construction of humanness. Social Problems, 36, 135–148. doi:10.2307/800804
7.
BrantlingerE.JimenezR.KlingnerJ.PugachM.RichardsonV. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207.
8.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
9.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
10.
CourtadeG.SpoonerF.BrowderD. (2012). Seven reasons to promote standards-based instruction for students with severe disabilities: A reply to Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers (2011). Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 3–13.
11.
DymondS. K.RenzagliaA.GilsonC. L. (2007). Defining access to the general curriculum for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32, 1–15. doi:10.2511/rpsd.32.1.1
12.
EmersonR. M.FretzR. I.ShawL. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
13.
EricksonK. A.KoppenhaverD. A.YoderD. E.NanceJ. (1997). Integrated communication and literacy instruction for a child with multiple disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 12, 142–150.
14.
FarmerT. W.LinesM. M.HammJ. V. (2011). Revealing the invisible hand: The role of teachers in children’s peer experiences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 247–256.
15.
GeeJ. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 714–725.
16.
GiangrecoM. F.BroerS. M.SuterJ. C. (2010). Guidelines for selecting alternatives to overreliance on paraprofessionals: Field-testing in inclusion-oriented schools. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 22–38. doi:10.1177/0741932509355951
17.
HudsonM. E.BrowderD. M.WoodL. A. (2013). Review of experimental research on academic learning by students with moderate and severe intellectual disability in general education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38, 17–29.
18.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
19.
JacksonL. B.RyndakD. L.WehmeyerM. L. (2008). The dynamic relationship between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(4), 175–195.
20.
KurthJ. A.MorningstarM. E.KozleskiE. B. (2015). The persistence of highly restrictive special education placements for students with low-incidence disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39, 227–239.
21.
LekoM. M.BrownellM. T.SindelarP. T.KielyM. T. (2015). Envisioning the future of special education personnel preparation in a standards-based era. Exceptional Children, 82, 25–43. doi:10.1177/0014402915598782
22.
LewisC. (2001). Literacy practices as social acts: Power, status, and cultural norms in the classroom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
McCarthyM. R.WienerR.SoodakL. C. (2012). Vestiges of segregation in the implementation of inclusion policies in public high schools. Educational Policy, 26, 309–338.
24.
RootJ. R.KnightV. F.MimsP. J. (2017). A guide to addressing multiple priorities in core content instruction for students with severe disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40, 56–61.
25.
RupparA. L. (2017). “Without being able to read, what’s literacy mean to them?”: Situated beliefs about literacy for students with significant disabilities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 114–124.
26.
RupparA. L.GaffneyJ. S.DymondS. K. (2015). Influences on teachers’ decisions about literacy for secondary students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 81, 209–226.
27.
RupparA. L.KnightV.McQuestonJ. (2016, November). Stop and think: Comprehension self-monitoring in inclusive high school English-language arts classes. Presentation at the annual meeting of TASH, St. Louis, MO.
28.
RyndakD. L.MorrisonA. P.SommersteinL. (1999). Literacy before and after inclusion in general education settings: A case study. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 24, 5–22. doi:10.2511/rpsd.24.1.5
29.
RyndakD.JacksonL. B.WhiteJ. M. (2013). Involvement and progress in the general curriculum for students with extensive support needs: K-12 Inclusive education research and implications for the future. Inclusion, 1, 28–49.
30.
SaldañaJ. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). New York, NY: SAGE.
31.
SchensulS. L.SchensulJ. J.LeCompteM. D. (1999). Essential ethnographic methods: Observations, interviews, and questionnaires. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.
32.
SpoonerF.KnightV. F.BrowderD. M.SmithB. R. (2012). Evidence-based practice for teaching academics to students with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 374–387.
33.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
34.
ZeeM.KoomenH. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86, 981–1015.
