Primera Categoría: Estrategias Cognitivas y de Memoria

Returning to My Research Questions

My study began with the overarching research question: What are the prevailing narratives that inform and direct IEP development for children with intellectual

developmental disabilities in Ontario and what are the embedded components of these narratives? In order to fully answer this question, I asked five guiding sub-questions: (1) How do elementary classroom teachers conceptualize and understand intellectual

developmental disability and special educational needs?, (2) How do models of disability and classification systems of exceptionality inform teachers’ work in the development of IEPs?, (3) What factors influence teachers’ work in IEP development

for students with IDD?, (4) What principal beliefs do teachers mobilize and narrate to explain IEP curricula content for children with IDD?, and (5) In what ways do

educational documents related to the IEP influence teachers’ work in the IEP

development process?

Looking at the Narratives of Classroom Teachers

An examination of the questions posed for this study reveals that my intent was to uncover the everyday narratives that teachers use to explain IEP development for their students with IDD and the beliefs and perspectives embedded within these

narratives that underpin their work in this process. Importantly, findings presented from the analysis of educational documents help to contextualize the principal research findings from interview data and assist in explaining how institutional discourses permeate those of classroom teachers so as to affect their beliefs, perceptions, and practices when developing IEPs.

Bruner (1987) suggests that “people organize their experiences in, knowledge about and transactions with the social world” by the organizing principle of narrative (p.

25). Following this claim, I considered the IEP process to be a crucial site for looking at the narratives of teachers through which they organize their knowledge and

understandings about disability/IDD and special educational needs to construct the education of students with developmental disability. As Connelly and Clandinin (1990) add, “education is the construction and reconstruction of personal and social stories” (p. 2). For this study then, teachers’ narratives illuminate how they make sense of the

education of children with IDD and how stories of students are (re)constructed and situated within the institutional realm of the IEP process.

During interviews, participants were given the space to reflect on their own perceptions, opinions, tensions, and experiences as they told their stories. Teachers were able to formulate their narratives openly and honestly, drawing on information that they perceived as factual as well as on information that was dependent on their memory reconstruction of events, experiences and reflections (Pepper & Wildy, 2009). Working from the Individual Participant Summary Form developed for each participant as an individual case record (Appendix K), a cross-case analysis of data was completed. Nine

salient themes were uncovered as they emerged from the whole (Creswell, 2007, 2009) that capture the patterns of beliefs, perceptions, practices and experiences of teacher participants. These key themes are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Key analytical themes and subthemes in interview data

Analytical Themes and Sub-themes

1. Personal Factors of Teacher

 Teaching/professional experience

 Sense of preparedness /self-efficacy

 Professional knowledge/skill

 Personal belief/attitude

2. Conceptualizations and Representations

 Exceptionality/Disability/IDD

 Special educational needs

 Individualized education

3. Sources of Student Knowledge

 Classroom assessment  Formal assessment/testing  OSR documentation  Previous IEP(s)  Report card(s)  Previous teacher(s)  Parent/family  Other professional(s)

 Support staff (school/school board)

4. Classroom Context

 Regular classroom

 Special education classroom

 Grade level /division (Pr., Jr., Int.)

5. IEP Development Practice

 Information gathering

 Planning/decision making

 Other strategy/action

6. Concentration of IEP Content

 Regular curriculum (Ontario)

 Alternative curricula

 Combination regular & alternative curricula

7. Collaboration and Involvement of Others  School team  School administration  Other colleagues/teachers  Resource Teacher(s)  EA(s)  Student  Parent/family

 School Board staff

 Community Practitioner(s)

8. School Board/School Culture

 Leadership  Professional Development  Collegiality of staff  Priorities of School  Ideology/Attitudes  School Practice  Availability of resources/support 9. Teacher Satisfaction  Challenges/barriers  Benefits/Usefulness

Key Findings

Given the commonality of the research phenomenon that all study participants shared (Stough & Palmer, 2003) and the thematic categories found to apply across all participant transcripts, findings are addressed collectively according to the sub-questions for the study. However, representative excerpts from individual transcripts are used to support my findings in order to remain sensitive to the personal stories and contextual particularities of each participant (Patton, 2002). Importantly, the picture that emerged for me was that participants were actively drawing on their professional knowledge and teaching experiences to respond to my interview questions. Each sub-question is taken up by noting how the major themes that came out in the analysis of interview data make sense to answering the question. A crucial point to be made here is that a number of themes were found to overlap and interrelate to answer the questions.

Table 4 illustrates how these key themes were found to apply to each research sub- question.

1. How do elementary classroom teachers conceptualize and understand intellectual developmental disability (IDD) and special educational needs?

I begin by emphasizing that this question sought to uncover the conceptions and understandings that teachers brought to IEP development that were central to how they looked at the individualization of educational programs for their students with IDD. Findings specifically focus on teachers’ perceptions of IDD and the meaning of special

educational needs. Three overlapping themes emerged as primary explanatory constructs for answering this question. First, I attend to the theme of conceptualizations and

representations that capture the particular perceptions and understandings of teachers. Next, I address the findings that represent the theme of sources of student knowledge. Moving from this thematic category, I present findings related to the theme of personal factors of teachers. Together these themes offer a way to juxtapose the multiple

perspectives and factors that contribute to an understanding of how this research question is best answered.

Table 4. Key themes as they pertain to research sub-questions

Research sub-question Key Themes Across Case Data

How do elementary classroom teachers conceptualize and understand intellectual developmental disability (IDD) and special educational needs?

 Conceptualizations and Representations

 Sources of Student Knowledge

 Personal Factors of Teacher How do models of disability and

classification systems of exceptionality inform teachers’ work in the development of IEPs?

 Conceptualizations and Representations

What factors influence teachers’ work in IEP development for students with IDD?

 Personal Factors of Teacher

 School and School Board Culture

 Teacher Satisfaction

 Sources of Student Knowledge

 Collaboration and Involvement of Others

 Classroom Context

 Conceptualizations and Representations What beliefs and assumptions do teachers

mobilize and narrate to explain IEP curricular content for children with IDD?

 Conceptualizations and Representations

 School and School Board Culture

 IEP Development Practice

 Classroom Context

 Concentration of IEP Content In what ways do educational documents

related to the IEP influence teachers’ work in the IEP development process?

 Conceptualizations and Representations

 School and School Board Culture

Conceptualizations and representations

The theme of conceptualizations and representations exposed the centrality of notions about the individual limitations of students with IDD, the constraints and deficits associated with this disability, and the resultant special educational needs that became the basis for individualized educational programs. In defining this theme, I took into account what seemed to be the primary ideas used by participants to describe their understandings about disability and IDD and about special educational needs. When asked how they conceptualized IDD, participants’ remarks were primarily associated

with areas of difficulty that they ascribed to people with IDD and in comparison to beliefs about the normal development of children. Perceptions generally were linked to ideas, images and beliefs about within-the-child conditions caused by intellectual disability. All teachers used similar descriptors to talk about students with IDD and special educational needs. Appendix M provides an illustrative example of these

descriptions. As illustrated, teachers’ narratives are connected not only in content but by

the choice of words and expressions.

During my interview with Rachel, a Grade 4 teacher, she reiterates the view of several participants as she describes children with IDD as having significant differences in how they learn in comparison to their same age peers due to cognitive disability. Rachel, says this about her student: “I knew that his brain worked differently. That’s kind of how I thought about it”, adding that children with IDD require significant

support and “have unique needs” that are different from the other students (R1: 60, 151). Rachel’s account reflects a common perception found among participants in that she

takes a normalized view of student development and explains that her student with IDD functions “significantly below age level” compared to other students. As a result, she concludes that students with IDD have “unique and significant needs” that necessitate a

great deal of support (R1: 160).

When asked about how she conceptualizes the meaning of IDD, Mandy, a Grade 5/6 teacher stated that when she hears the term, her understanding varies, commenting that “no two are the same, right? So you never really know and even with S., no two

days are the same. So it has to be - go with the flow. You never knowwhat you’re going to get. And so when you develop the IEP, you have to keep that in the back of your head” (M1: 29-31). Like almost all of the participants, Cathy, an intermediate special education class teacher puts the focus on students’ differences and delays. Her story

demonstrates a typical account evidenced in the narratives of other participants: IDD, for me - it usually means that they are just learning differently, that they are probably several grades below – where their same aged peers would be. It doesn’t mean that they can’t do similar tasks, it’s just that they need it in a very

different way or simplified or with much more practice – and I often think too that IDD means we need to sort of scale it back and get to the basics or the bare bones. So you know I think it’s a different learning style - IDD is such a broad range and the students I have in here, they’re very bright and just different ways

of approaching things. You know I see a developmental disability and I think they just got a mark on a test, that first percentile – it’s such a broad brush you know. (C1: 75-92)

Interestingly, while Cathy described her students as bright and recognized that they learned in different ways, she placed her focus on the acquisition of life skills and functional skills in literacy and numeracy that were outside of the Ontario curriculum.

For the most part, teachers’ accounts seemed to dovetail with the diagnostic

characteristics associated with IDD that included traits related to cognitive, language, social, adaptive behaviour, and independent functioning. In other words, participants framed their understanding of IDD in terms of students’ significant deficiencies that they associated with cognitive and academic functioning, social and behavioural skills, difficulties in adaptive functioning and independence, and the need for significant

support at school and in the community. While participants attempted to ensure that they described the student as equally important as any other pupil, at the same time, they tended to use naming practices such as ‘my developmental student’ or my ‘special ed student’ to distinguish the child as a separate type of learner that explained the need for

an IEP. It became evident that much of the collective narrative used to explain IDD was constructed around polarities and binaries such as disability and ability, normal and abnormal, and specific delays that impaired children’s ability to learn and perform in comparison to nondisabled students. These perceptions are suggested by Daisy’s

comments as she describes the students in her junior/intermediate special education classroom in terms of delays and gaps in areas of functioning measured by some standard. She states, “We have students with developmental delays. We’re comparing our students to some standard. It doesn’t hurt to see. There are gaps in different areas but

Findings on the conceptualization of IDD are important for a number of reasons. They suggest that teachers adopt a deficit-based lens when looking at their students for the purpose of IEP development and therefore frame their understandings about the individualization of educational programs from this perspective. Although participants were quick to describe their perspectives about students with IDD and the characteristics they associated with this disability, all teachers did not convey the same sense of

confidence about explaining how they conceptualized special educational needs. Despite the apparent rhetoric and sense of familiarity in using the term ‘special educational need’, participants tended to grapple with articulating how they would explain this

concept. John, a special class teacher of intermediate students expressed his underlying frustration with being asked to put into words what a special educational need meant to him. He attempts to offer an explanation by first laughing. He remarks, “I don’t know, that’s a tough question…Gosh, what do other people say for this? I’m sitting here, I’m thinking hard…whether or not you think of it as a deficit or, I don’t know” (J1: 155,

159, 163). John was relieved to hear that he was not alone in struggling to explicate his thinking about a special educational need. None of the participants offered a definitive explanation about the term and instead took a broad perspective, suggesting that all students have individual learning needs. For the most part, as teacher participants tended to talk about special educational needs in reference to the weaknesses and deficits

exhibited by the student in learning and performing. This seemed to suggest that they associated special educational needs with some form of educational disadvantage. Importantly, although participants needed time to think about the meaning that special

educational needs had for them, collectively their narratives suggested that the ways in which teachers understood special needs was a major determinant on their decision making about IEP targets and educational outcomes.

For Lily, the other children in her regular Grade 3/4 class were used as a frame of reference for conceptualizing the student’s special educational needs. I explored this

further with Lily who described the student in reference to her same age peers. Lily begins to talk about how she conceptualizes the student and her needs by first putting the focus on herself as the teacher in relationship to the challenges she faced in teaching the student because of the pupil’s disability:

The first thing that came to my mind was that it’s going to be busy. The needs are greater, and this is the first year where the student hasn’t had a full-time EA.

So, I knew it was going to be a challenge, it’s just challenging for everybody. I knew the student before the school year started. So I kind of had a sense of who she was and what she needed. But it’s kind of like any other student I would say.

Like a lot can change. (L1: 28-30)

Drew, one of the special education class teachers, spoke of his students’ delays and gaps in learning across different skill areas. He reasons that “Special needs are those ones obviously lacking” (DR1: 48-50; 162). Similarly, Kate, a primary/junior special

education class teacher tells her story of how she understands the special educational needs of her students. She tends to conceptualize special needs in relationship to students’ differences in learning and skills in adaptive functioning. Kate says:

I guess the needs are maybe different from - like life skills and stuff aren’t something that traditionally should be taught at school, or working longer on things, or working on some behaviour things that kids might just naturally develop even before they come to school. You know, basic communication and dressing and toileting. So I guess I think of those things. They might need something special because they can only learn in a structured way that’s a very

unique need. So I guess another word would be very individualized, very individualized needs or unique. My goal is for them to be able to function as independently as they can. (K1: 39-43)

Nancy, a Grade 1/2 teacher made it clear that she found it very difficult to articulate how she perceived the meaning of special educational needs, adding that “all of us have areas of need” and that “normal is a setting on the dryer” (N1: 22, 69). Nonetheless, Nancy moves to describing special needs as “the flip side of strengths” (N1: 66). She talks about her student’s special needs in terms of his personal struggles in specific areas of

functioning such as academically and in motor skill development. Nancy qualifies her remarks by adding that she also perceives the student’s special needs as meaning his need to have “special goals set for him” in the IEP. She states that he needs each subject

area to be individualized by setting goals that take into consideration his areas of struggle (N1: 71-79). Rather than describing a special need as something that is

objectified only as a deficit or deficiency located within the individual, Nancy tends to frame her understanding of a special educational need as also meaning the student’s

In explaining how she understands the meaning of special educational needs, Mandy, the Grade 5/6 teacher comments, “For someone like S, that’s easier than some because it’s language skills. That’s the big thing. Fine motor, gross motor, right? All of

those things are very obvious with S”. Mandy tends to stress specific skill areas to explain special needs. She goes on to state, “The Resource Teacher does the actual input

of the IEP information about the special needs. I know from doing it at another school that there are things that you can pick from but then you also adapt them to the person” (M1: 79-81). Mandy’s narrative suggests that the Resource Teacher is instrumental in identifying the student’s needs for developing the IEP. As observed with a few other

participants, she also describes her understanding of special needs according to a specific list of needs made available to teachers by her school board.

Teachers in junior and intermediate grade levels (Gr. 4-8) frequently spoke of special educational needs in relationship to a student’s need to function independently. For instance, independence seemed to be used as a qualifier for conceptualizing a