Vol 16 No 10 - October 2017

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:1694-2493
e-ISSN:1694-2116IJLTER.ORG
Vol.16 No.10

PUBLISHER
London Consulting Ltd
District of Flacq
Republic of Mauritius
www.ijlter.org
Chief Editor
Dr. Antonio Silva Sprock, Universidad Central de
Venezuela, Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Editorial Board
Prof. Cecilia Junio Sabio
Prof. Judith Serah K. Achoka
Prof. Mojeed Kolawole Akinsola
Dr Jonathan Glazzard
Dr Marius Costel Esi
Dr Katarzyna Peoples
Dr Christopher David Thompson
Dr Arif Sikander
Dr Jelena Zascerinska
Dr Gabor Kiss
Dr Trish Julie Rooney
Dr Esteban Vázquez-Cano
Dr Barry Chametzky
Dr Giorgio Poletti
Dr Chi Man Tsui
Dr Alexander Franco
Dr Habil Beata Stachowiak
Dr Afsaneh Sharif
Dr Ronel Callaghan
Dr Haim Shaked
Dr Edith Uzoma Umeh
Dr Amel Thafer Alshehry
Dr Gail Dianna Caruth
Dr Menelaos Emmanouel Sarris
Dr Anabelie Villa Valdez
Dr Özcan Özyurt
Assistant Professor Dr Selma Kara
Associate Professor Dr Habila Elisha Zuya
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and
Educational Research
The International Journal of Learning, Teaching
and Educational Research is an open-access
journal which has been established for the dis-
semination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
field of education, learning and teaching. IJLTER
welcomes research articles from academics, ed-
ucators, teachers, trainers and other practition-
ers on all aspects of education to publish high
quality peer-reviewed papers. Papers for publi-
cation in the International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational Research are selected
through precise peer-review to ensure quality,
originality, appropriateness, significance and
readability. Authors are solicited to contribute
to this journal by submitting articles that illus-
trate research results, projects, original surveys
and case studies that describe significant ad-
vances in the fields of education, training, e-
learning, etc. Authors are invited to submit pa-
pers to this journal through the ONLINE submis-
sion system. Submissions must be original and
should not have been published previously or
be under consideration for publication while
being evaluated by IJLTER.

VOLUME 16 NUMBER 10 October 2017
Table of Contents
Education of Students with Disabilities in the USA: Is Inclusion the Answer?.............................................................. 1
Myung-sook Koh and Sunwoo Shin
A Cloze-styled Textual Enhancement Targeting Prepositions ...................................................................................... 18
Michael Heinz
Understanding and Responding to the Unique Needs and Challenges Facing Adjunct Faculty: A Longitudinal
Study....................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Kimberly Buch, Heather McCullough and Laura Tamberelli
“Being together in the locker room is great, but showering together – just forget it!” The Janus Face of the
Wardrobe Practice in Physical Education.......................................................................................................................... 41
Bjørn Tore Johansen, PhD, Martine Mæhle, MSc, Øyvind Oland, MSc, and Tommy Haugen, PhD
How Pre-Service Teachers Learn: An Investigation of Motivation and Self-Regulation ............................................ 58
Ali A. Alenazi, PhD
What Makes up an Effective Emotional Intelligence Training Design for Teachers?.................................................. 72
Niva Dolev and Shosh Leshem
Advanced Academic Writing Course for International Students Belonging to “One Belt, One Road”.................... 90
Chang Chen*, Habiba Khalid, and Farrukh Raza Amin
A Correspondence Analysis of Nine Japanese Historical English-as-a-Foreign-Language Textbooks................... 100
Ryohei Honda, Kiyomi Watanabe and Toshiaki Ozasa
And Still They Persisted: A Discussion of Indigenous Students Perspectives on a Year in Pre-Nursing Transitions
............................................................................................................................................................................................... 114
Kathy Snow
The use of Social Networks by the Students of a Mexican Public University............................................................. 132
Juan Ignacio Barajas Villarruel, María Gregoria Benítez Lima, Ricardo Noyola Rivera and Juan Manuel Buenrostro Morán

© 2017 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
1
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 16, No. 10, pp. 1-17, October 2017
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.16.10.1
Education of Students with Disabilities in the
USA: Is Inclusion the Answer?
Myung-sook Koh
Eastern Michigan University
Michigan, USA
Sunwoo Shin
Oakland University
Michigan, USA
Abstract. American society has continued to question what the most
appropriate way is to educate students with disabilities. Whether
teaching students with and without disabilities in the same classroom is
a best practice has become the most controversial topic in education. The
present study attempted to examine the present state of inclusive
education through a comprehensive review of the literature from 30
years of practice and current teacher preparation programs. Results
showed that although quantitative physical inclusion in the United
States has doubled, new general education teachers were not prepared
enough to teach students with disabilities confidently and have held the
similar perceptions, concerns, and perceived barriers regarding the
success of inclusion to the ones since the beginning of the inclusion
movement. Accountability for the academic and social success in the
inclusive classroom did not result in a more effective system than the
dual educational systems of general education and special education.
Keywords: Inclusion; inclusive education; teacher preparation;
perceptions of inclusion; elementary teachers
Introduction
While holding common concerns in the rapid inclusion movement of students
with disabilities, inclusion practice has gained popularity while gathering
feasibility over the last 30 years. Various supporting models, inclusion designs,
and educational strategies involving the curriculum, staffing, instruction,
accommodation, and modification have been designed and implemented to
make classrooms more inclusive as well as more appropriate learning
environments for students with and without disabilities (Cronis & Ellis, 2001;
Shogren, Gross, & Forber-Pratt, 2015; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996).
For example, special education positions have changed to include a teacher

2
consultant position, with enriched and advanced educational and assistive
technology being developed and used for instruction, functional skills, and
communications. Even special education related documents and forms have
become available in electronic forms, in order to reduce time involved in writing
an Individualized Education Program (IEP).
The key question is, then, what is the results of these changes? How has
inclusive education in the United States progressed toward providing the best
education to both students with and without disabilities? Are the changes and
efforts to improve inclusive education over the past three decades effective? Is
the education of students with disabilities in a general education setting working
for all involved? Is the inclusion movement now supported by empirical
evidence?
Obtaining a Right for Public Education
Since 1975, American society has continued to question what the most
appropriate way is to educate students with disabilities. Consequently, the
educational system has undertaken multiple reforms over the last 30 to 40 years
(Ross-Hill, 2009). The civil rights movement and the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL 94-142) affected every school in the
country and have resulted in public schools opening their doors for students
with disabilities. Under this law, a federal list of educational disabilities was
identified and used to qualify the students to receive special education services.
In addition, the “least restrictive environment (LRE)” and “appropriate”
education pushed public schools to provide “a continuum of special education
services” to students with disabilities. Consequently, professionals and parents
could choose the most appropriate educational settings for their students‟ best
educational opportunities.
These revolutions required changing the roles of general and special educators,
school administrators, parents, and others involved in the educational process.
Training of special education teachers (versus general education teachers) began
as a requirement for those teachers who would become case managers of
educational programs of identified students with disabilities (Heward, 2012;
Shogren, Gross, & Forber-Pratt, 2015).
Questioning about the Receiving Specialized Education
The goals identified in PL 94-142, however, came up against another educational
perspective in 1982, as a result of the publication of A Nation At Risk (U.S.
Department of Education, 1982), which resulted in a widespread call for a
systematic reform of schools. The debates on Regular Education Initiative (REI),
the “full” inclusion movement, had its beginnings during this restructuring
period and resulted in an increasing number of students with disabilities
“moving back” into general education classrooms, ultimately calling for general
education teachers to be more responsible for the education of students with
disabilities (Ainscow, 1997; Cagran & Schmidt, 2011; Patton & Edgar, 2002).

3
Two Perspectives on “Appropriate” Education
Interpretations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
mandatory regulations and the 1980s‟s REI reform movement sparked ceaseless
debates on what the best educational services for students with disabilities are,
in order to guarantee their rights and privileges for an education (Heward,
2012). These debates included two perspectives for LRE. Full inclusion
proponents believed that educating students with disabilities in special
education settings or apart from their typically achieving peers limited their
rights to public education and was therefore a type of “segregation” (Eitle, 2002).
Full inclusion opponents believed that special education settings and supports,
like the continuum of special education services, could provide a free
“appropriate” public education for students with disabilities who need unique
supports and educational delivery (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994). The inclusion
proponents hold that LRE is a mandatory regulation requiring that students
with disabilities not be segregated from general society and general education
classrooms, in the interest of “human rights.” The opponents of the full inclusion
movement question how best to address the human rights of the students with
disabilities including their rights to a free and “appropriate” public education.
Placing students with disabilities in a general education setting with the same
teacher, curriculum, and standard regardless of the nature and severity of their
disability and difficulty is not sufficient support for their educational needs.
Teaching all students in heterogeneous classroom does not address the rationale
of offering a continuum of special education services: students with disabilities
were referred for special education due to their inability to learn in general
education classrooms (Farrell, 2000; Ferri & Connor, 2005; Ruijs & Peetsma,
2009).
How have these two perspectives (full inclusion vs. continuum of services) used
empirical evidence of the effects on students to defend their interpretations?
Inclusion proponents have insisted that students with disabilities would learn
better academically and socially in general education classroom. Socially,
students with and without disabilities would experience more balanced
friendships in the inclusive settings, and academically, students with disabilities
would acquire more academic knowledge through the effective general
education teacher instruction because general education teachers were the ones
certified to teach academics (Grider, 1995; Hartzell, Liaupsin, Gann, & Clem,
2015; Hunt, Farron-Davis, Beckstead, Curtis, & Goetz, 1994; Mather & Robers,
1994). In other words, inclusion proponents believed that general education
settings were the best educational setting to provide “appropriate education” to
students both with and without disabilities. The opponents, however, provided
evidence that almost 90% of the students with disabilities were identified as
needing special education in schools after earning learning deficiencies in the
general education classrooms. Returning these students to a general education
setting means they were going back to failed educational settings without
hands-on system or structure (Farrell, 2000; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; Grider, 1995;
Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). After 30 years, the debate continues, unresolved still
today in the field of education in the United States.

4
Quantitative Practice of Inclusion Since 1986
Without any resolution of these controversial debates regarding the best service
delivery model for educating students with disabilities, the national prevalence
statistics from the NCES showed that over the course of a 22-year period (1988-
2014), the practice of inclusion for students with disabilities, age 6-21, who
received education in general education settings for at least 80% or more of
school day (not 100% full day, but 20% may be for related services) in the U.S.
has doubled (from 31.7% to 62.2%). Figure 1 shows the percentages and a line
graph denoting the progress of the number of students being included (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2017).
Figure 1. The Percentage of students aged 6 through 21 served under IDEA
educated in the general education classrooms more than 80% of school time.
Additional statistics from the NCES website showed this information on
prevalence trends disaggregated by primary educational disabilities. As seen in
Figure 2, there was an increase in the education of students with disabilities in
inclusive education across each disability category. For example, students with
speech/language impairment (SLI) were educated in inclusive settings more
than any other disability area, although over time, the total percentage
decreased by 1%. All disabilities increased their instructional time in general
education settings, especially students with autism (113% increase) and deaf-
blindness (98% increase), followed by emotional disability (73% increase), TBI
(63%), OHI (53%), and specific learning disability (SLD, 51%). On average,
national statistics showed that only one disability (SLI) area ranked at the 50%
level of their education being in inclusive settings for 80-100% of the school day
in 1988, increasing to six (almost seven) of 12 disability areas ranked at that level
by 2011. Surprisingly, students with learning disabilities, the disability with the
highest incidence and strongly related to academic learning deficits, were not
educated in inclusive settings as much as those students with speech/language
impairments. There was no data available specifically for students with mild
intellectual disability separate from those with moderate/severe/profound
intellectual disabilities, although students with mild intellectual disabilities
comprise more than 85% of the entire intellectual disability category, and
academic areas are typically their main school concerns resulting in IEP goals
and objectives.
31.7
33.1
44.8
45.7
46.1
46.8
46.0
45.9
46.5
48.2
48.2
49.9
51.5
54.2
54.8
56.8
58.5
59.4
60.5
61.1
61.2
61.8
62.2
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0 Prevalence Trends of Physical Inclusion

5
Figure 2. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under idea, part b, by
educational environment, year and disability category: Fall 1997 and fall 2014.
Common Concerns
As a result of the varying perspectives for best practice in teaching students with
disabilities, there have been vague roles for general education and special
education teachers, and insufficient planning and preparation to support the
needs of students with disabilities involved in the inclusion movement (Dorn &
Fuchs, 1996; Kauffman & Smucker, 1995; Will, 1986). With more inclusion of
students with disabilities, their education in general education settings
predominantly fell to general education teachers. In the mid 1980‟s when the REI
began in the United States, both proponents and opponents of inclusion
movements shared a common concern about the general educational system not
being prepared to meet the diverse educational needs of students with
disabilities and to remediate their learning deficiencies, especially general
education teachers. The major concern was whether or not general education
teachers were prepared for successful inclusive education, because successful
inclusion necessitates highly qualified teachers who were ready to meet the
needs of exceptional learners (Allday, Neilsen-Gatti, & Hudson, 2013; Harvey,
Yssel, Bauserman, & Merbler, 2010; Smith, Polloway, Patton, & Dowdy, 2012;
Thompkins & Deloney, 1995).
The purpose of this study is, therefore, to investigate how much inclusive
education has progressed toward the goal of providing the best education to
students with disabilities. Specifically, is inclusive education working overall for
the education of students with disabilities? This question will be addressed by
investigating these three important questions: 1) Are general education teachers
well trained to handle the additional responsibilities of teaching in classrooms
with increasing numbers of students with disabilities? 2) Are the perceptions of
general education teachers positive and supportive towards their students with
diverse needs, and have their concerns lessened or subsided? 3) Are there
measureable academic and social outcomes that demonstrate the success of
students being educated in inclusive classrooms?
Multiple
D
Intellect
ual D
Deaf-
Blind
Autism
Emotion
al D
TBI
Orthope
dic I
HI OHI VI SLD
Speech
Lan.
Year 1997 10 12.6 13.6 18.3 24.9 29.8 29.8 38.8 41.4 48.1 43.8 87.8
Year 2014 13 16.4 22.6 39.9 46.6 49.9 54.3 60 65.1 65.8 68.8 87
0
20
40
60
80
100Percentages
Increase Rate of Inclusion by Disability Categories

6
Method
Search Procedure of Literatures and Teacher Preparation Programs
The focus of the extensive literature review conducted for this study included
identifying research and statistics in three key areas. The results were aimed to
draw conclusions as to the success of the inclusive education over the past 30
years.
For question one, an online review of current teacher preparation programs in
all 50 of the United States was conducted. The data was collected and analyzed
in the following sequence. First, using the National Council for Accreditation of
Teacher Education (NCATE) website, the list of NCATE accredited
university/college names were selected and sorted by states. Second, these
university/college names, each were then searched to identify colleges of
education, undergraduate programs (graduate programs were looked at when
they were the only ones), majors, teacher education, and elementary education.
Third, from the teacher education and elementary education programs, program
requirements, required courses, plans of study, student handbooks, and
university catalogs; course requirements/descriptions were reviewed including
prefix and course numbers, the title of courses, credit hours, and field experience
requirements. Some programs did not have clear course prefixes, describing
whether or not it was a special education course, so an extended search for
confirmation was needed. Fourth, information from evaluated programs was
sorted using qualitative categories of perceived level of preparation, labeled as:
None, basic, and more complete (more than two courses including method
courses). The authors reviewed only elementary programs for initial
certifications because they were the main teacher preparation programs and
were more comprehensive than secondary level programs that needed to be
searched by specific subject areas and in addition, may have different special
education course requirements by subject area. Although the time involved in
this comprehensive website review was intensive (10 to 50 minutes per
university/college to find listed information), this information was essential for
a complete understanding of teacher preparation programs in the United States
and specifically of special education training within general education teaching.
For questions two and three, comprehensive literature reviews of peer-reviewed
journals were conducted using ERIC as the research tool with no-restricted
dates. For question two (teacher perceptions and concerns regarding inclusive
teaching), the database was searched using the key words of „inclusion‟ and
„perception,‟ and for question three (measurable success of academic and/or social
inclusion), the search was conducted using the keywords „inclusion‟ as a
document title and „academic‟ or „social‟ within the articles. The articles were
then filtered while focusing on in-service (not pre-service) teachers, grades PreK-
12th, and research sited in the United States only.
The results for question two were then sorted in a qualitative manner, based
upon the independent interpretation of each author, using the following labels:
positive, negative, or mixed perceptions about inclusion. The articles were
sorted as positive when the perspective of teachers within the article was
supportive of the inclusion effort, negative when they were not. The category of

7
“mixed” was used when the teachers supported the concept of inclusion but also
identified a list of concerns, barriers, or conditions. It was sometimes difficult to
determine whether the study results should be classified as having either
positive or negative results, because both perspectives were offered. An example
of these cases, teachers might have been responding positive for mild disabilities
but negative for severe disabilities.
For question three, the number of studies and results (gains, no
difference/decreased, or mixed) were sorted by decade (three groups: 1986-1995,
1996-2005, and 2006 to current) to look for changes over time and by
quantitative/measurable evidence. Only literature published after 1986 was
selected because prior to this, inclusive education was not actively practiced and
not officially on-debates for the efficacy of inclusive education yet. Also, studies
on this topic were not active before then. In addition, students of disability rates
consisting of the total enrollment were reviewed to see the prevalent trends of
students with disabilities as well as high incidence disabilities during the
inclusion movement periods.
Results
The present study examined the 30-year practice of inclusive education.
Approximately 225 elementary teacher preparation programs in 50 states were
reviewed and 158 peer-reviewed articles were identified and examined in order
to answer the three research questions.
Question 1: Teacher Preparation State
General education teacher training and preparation for teaching in an inclusive
classroom is undoubtedly a critical factor for successful inclusive education
(McCray & McHatton, 2011). There was no pre-data available to compare how
general education teacher preparation programs have trained teacher candidates
for inclusive education each decade. The current review of 225 elementary
teacher preparation programs encompassing all 50 states, found that
approximately 15% (34 programs) of the universities did not include any special
education course in their programs, approximately 62% (140 programs) of the
universities required one introduction to special education course and 3% (7) of
the programs offered only elementary and special education combined majors
without a separate elementary program. The table 1 shows the summary of the
national teacher preparation status.
Table 1
Comparison of Elementary Teacher Preparation Programs with Special Education
Courses (N=225)
SPED Courses None Intro. to SPED Two or more courses
15% 62% 19.5%
Course Credits 2 credits 3 credits 4 credits
7% 82% 4%
Field Experiences None Required Exact hours or credits
62% 30% 18%

8
Classroom/behavior management courses were not counted as a special
education course, because most universities offered it as a non-special education
course.
The number of credit hours for the special education courses and the field
experience requirements were checked as an indicator of how rigorous the
special education courses were. Among 218 special education courses offered by
191 programs (34 had no courses), the majority of programs offered three-credit
special education courses. Approximately 21% (48 programs) of the programs
offered unique major/minor programs, such as elementary and special
education double endorsements, special education concentration, or minor
programs. Among those 48 elementary and special education dual programs, 41
programs offered two options: only elementary major or the elementary and
special education combined major. In these 41 two-option programs, elementary
only programs did not require any special education courses. Some programs
offered special education as a supplemental component in their elementary
major such as a no-licensing-based add-on to the elementary majors with 12 to
20 extra special education credit-hour requirements. In these programs, special
education was one of the options the candidates could choose amongst three or
four other areas such as English Language Learners (ELL), extracurricular
subjects, etc. Some programs made supplemental add-on programs as
mandatory for the elementary majors and some offered it as an option. The five-
to six-year combined undergraduate and master program majoring elementary
and special education did not have separate elementary or special education
licensing programs, nor the undergraduate or graduate only degree programs.
Among 225 programs, approximately 30% (68 programs) required some form of
field experiences in special education settings and 62% (143 programs) did not
mention it in the course descriptions. Among 68 programs requiring field
experiences, only 61% (41 programs) clearly required exact field hours (40
minutes to 40 hours) or one credit lab/course hour, but 39% stated that „field
experience may be required.‟ Among the required field hours, 10, 15, and 20
hours were the most frequently required hours in the course descriptions.
Question 2: Perception Trends of Teachers Regarding Inclusion
Results of 86-literature review from 1970s to current were sorted by decades and
then by positive, negative, and mixed feelings. Mild disabilities and learning
disabilities were addressed most often in the studies as the target population. A
majority of these perception studies focused on the participants‟ feelings on “the
general concept or principle of inclusion.” While reviewing the literatures, the
following points were identified by the authors regarding how professionals
perceive the meaning of inclusion. First, some studies differentiated between the
teachers‟ perceptions on the general concept of inclusion and their willingness to
teach in an inclusive classroom; the participants‟ responses showed ambivalence
where they supported the concept of inclusion but were not willing to teach in
such settings because of the listed concerns and barriers. Second, some studies
demonstrated discrepancies between the teachers‟ support and self-confidence
in terms of their knowledge on how to teach diverse learners and their actual
teaching in inclusive classrooms. Third, the teachers‟ length of teaching
experiences or previous inclusive teaching experiences did not impact their

9
positive perception, but their special education backgrounds positively impacted
their willingness to teach in inclusive classrooms. More experienced teachers
supported inclusion less, but those who came from stronger special education
backgrounds were more supportive of inclusion.
Overall, 14% of the studies concluded their participants supported inclusion,
62% were against, and 24% had mixed feelings about it. Figure 3 demonstrates
the trends of teachers‟ perceptions regarding inclusion in each decade.
Figure 3. The percent of teachers’ perceptions on inclusion between 1970 and 2014.
In the 1970s, a majority (88%) of teachers voiced negative feelings about the
inclusion, but it has gradually changed to mixed feelings (60%) in recent years
while the negative feelings have dropped to 24%. Overall, after the 1990‟s, it
would appear that teacher perceptions of inclusion began to improve, which
continued into the recent years and the decreasing negative feelings may have
influenced the increase in teachers with more mixed feelings. Interestingly,
teacher perceptions that are positive about teaching in inclusive settings have
remained low, at less than 20% over the entire four-decade period.
Teacher-perceived barriers and concerns to effective inclusion. Although the
results of this literature review showed less negative and more mixed feelings
regarding inclusion in recent years, it also showed that the factors contributing
to the teachers‟ ability to teach students with and without disabilities in
inclusive settings have not changed over the last 30 years. Even the most recent
studies (Cameron & Cook, 2007; Kilanowski-press, Foote, & Rinaldo, 2010;
Logan & Wimer, 2013; Muccio, Kidd, White, & Burns, 2014) disclosed that
several impeding factors played a part in participants‟ mixed feelings about
inclusion. In other words, the same barriers and concerns to effective inclusive
education were listed throughout the 40-year inclusion practices.
Among 86 studies, 44 studies clearly included barriers and concerns, either as
the main focus of the study or as add-on results. The most frequently mentioned
barriers and concerns throughout time periods were inadequate and insufficient
training to help teach in inclusive classrooms and lack of resources available for
effective inclusive education from the early decades to current. Lack of planning
time and class size are other demands for teachers that affect their feelings about
inclusion. The adequate training needs were mostly focused on how to adapt
and modify curriculum, teaching materials, and programs, to collaborate with
special education teachers and multidisciplinary team members, to assess
11
18
11 16
88
76
69
24
0 6
29
60
1970's 1980's 1990's 2000-current
Percentages of Teacher Perceptions Regarding Inclusion
Positive Negative Mixed

10
academic progress and interpret evaluation results, to manage behavior
problems, to write behavioral objectives and IEP, to lead IEP conferences, etc.
General education teachers were found to prefer co-teaching with special
education teachers in their classrooms than collaborating with teacher
consultants.
Question 3: Accountability of Inclusive Education: Academic and Social
Outcomes
From 1986 to 2014, 72 studies were reviewed and sorted by publication decades,
40 focused on academic outcomes and 32 on social outcomes. A majority of
studies on both study topics (approximately 88% of 40 on academic outcomes
and 81% of 32 on social outcomes) were published in the first two decades (1986-
2005). Although this might still allow for good pre- and post- comparisons, an
imbalance of the quantity of studies in recent years (2006 to 2014) did not lend
itself to such comparisons.
Academic outcomes of inclusive education. Among 40 peer-reviewed studies
on academic outcomes, a little less than 50% utilized standardized measures
involving pre- and post-testing before and after inclusion practices.
Approximately 28% used self-reported data, such as interviews, surveys, etc.,
and another 28% used existing records such as state-wide test results, report
cards, graduation rates, referral rates, etc. Some studies utilized more than two
measures.
Given the limitations in comparing the results of these studies comparing the
academic outcomes of inclusive education for students with disabilities, the
reported outcomes find that approximately 20% of the studies (8 studies)
showed evidence of academic gains, approximately 48% (19 studies) found no
difference or a decrease in academic scores, and approximately 32% (13 studies)
showed mixed results.
The comparisons made in these 40 studies varied. Most of the studies (68%)
investigated the academic outcomes of inclusive classrooms (no particular
inclusion models or strategies were specified), which may be able to be
compared with non-inclusive general education classrooms and/or special
education settings (resource rooms or self-contained classrooms).
Approximately 40% of the studies focused mainly on the academic achievement
of students with mild disabilities and learning disabilities in inclusive
classrooms, and the results with overall 20% gains were not encouraging.
Approximately 33% of the studies compared academic outcomes of students
with disabilities and typically achieving students. These studies showed varied
results, such as comparing the outcomes of students with learning disabilities
with low achieving general education students. The results of that study found
students with learning disabilities gained academic skills, but not the low-
achieving students. Another inclusion study compared the academic outcomes
of students with learning disabilities, low, middle, and high achievers. The
example results were that students with learning disabilities and high achievers
demonstrated progress, but not low or average achievers. The typical studies
were measuring reading, math, spelling, and writing achievements of students
with mild or learning disabilities and typically achieving students in low,

11
middle, and high academic levels. Only 10% of the studies had typically
achieving students as subjects and measured whether including students with
moderate/severe disabilities negatively impacted typically achieving students‟
academic achievements or academic behaviors. The results of these studies
found that there was no negative impact on academic learning when students
with moderate/severe disabilities were included. Approximately 32% of the
studies on academic outcomes were focused on measuring the efficacies of
specific inclusion models, evaluating the inclusion process, or strategies, such as
Welsh Inclusion Models which measured the results of intensive year-long
professional development on how to implement inclusive education through
academic outcomes of students with disabilities and typically achieving
students.
Social outcomes of inclusive education. Among 32 studies on the social
outcomes of inclusive education, approximately 41% (13) of the studies found
inclusion was effective in promoting social skills and growth, while
approximately 25% (8) did not demonstrate growth, and approximately 34% (11)
showed mixed results for students‟ social skills changing as a result of inclusion.
Approximately 31% of studies focused on the social skill improvement of
students with mild and learning disabilities while only 15% had
severe/moderate disabilities as subjects. The remaining studies did not indicate
specific disability areas but rather, general disabilities. Approximately 31%
included typically achieving students. Approximately 72% of the studies utilized
self-reported data based on surveys or interviews, only 9% of the studies used
standardized measures using pre- and post-testing, and about 34% used data
from direct observations on the growth and gains of peer interactions and
contacts, friendships, social acceptances using commercial-based checklist or
researcher developed rating scales and sociometric measures like peer–
nominations. Only 19% of studies examined the efficacy of specific inclusion
models or evaluated how the inclusion process on social aspects was conducted,
which usually was through testimonial type of narrative.
In summary, the extensive research review designed to show whether the trend
towards more inclusive education over the last three decades has resulted in
improved learning and social skills finds inconclusive results. Figure 4 shows a
comparison of the academic and social outcomes of inclusive education from the
literature identified across the last 28 years.
Feature 4. Academic and social outcomes of inclusive education from 1986 to 2014
20
48
32
41
25
34
15
25
35
45
55
Gains No differences Mixed
%ofOutcomes
Academic and Social Outcomes of Inclusive Education
Academic
Social

12
Discussion
The number of students with disabilities being educated in general education
settings for at least 80% of the school day has almost doubled since 1988. Is this
effort to teach atypically achieving students with typically achieving students
working in the United States? The intent of the current study was to investigate
how much inclusive education has progressed toward the goal of providing the
best possible education to students with and without disabilities. To answer this
question, the study investigated three critical facts regarding the inclusive
education: The teacher preparation status for inclusive education, teacher
perceptions and any progress of their perceptions regarding inclusive teaching
during the 30-year inclusive practices, and academic and social outcomes of
students with disabilities.
When PL 94-142 was enacted in 1975 to address the education of students with
disabilities, there was a sudden need to train special education teachers,
requiring at least a Bachelor‟s degree with specific training for teaching students
with particular disabilities. However, in the mid 1980‟s, when the REI was
initiated, which required general education teachers to take more responsibility
for educating students with disabilities, there was no national effort to mandate
special coursework or certification to prepare general education teacher
candidates for their future teaching students with educational deficiencies and
behavioral issues. In fact, this study found that by 2014, there has been no
mandatory changes of general education teacher preparation programs to
address the increasing need for teaching academically and behaviorally diverse
students, although the number of these students has been doubled in general
education classrooms. The alarming findings are that the majority (77%) of
elementary teacher preparation programs in the United States require only one
introduction course or none. Preparing to be an effective teacher for inclusive
education requires a sound knowledge base along with direct classroom
experiences working with students with exceptionalities. Yet, the results of this
study showed that only 18% of the 220 NCATE accredited elementary teacher
preparation programs in the United States clearly required any special education
field hours/credits. Although inclusive education has doubled since the 1980‟s,
the preparation of general education teachers to effectively teach in inclusive
classrooms has not matched the needs that they will face in their classrooms.
There is no evidence that the teacher preparation programs in the United States
prepare general education teachers to take the responsibility of teaching ALL
students regardless of the nature and severity of disability and educational need.
This study also addressed teacher perceptions of teaching in inclusive
classrooms, to better understand if their teacher training and/or field experience
has helped them to feel confident to manage the wider range of student abilities
and needs. Results of the extensive literature review showed that even after 40
years of special education and 30 years with a focus that has increasingly served
students with disabilities in general education settings, general education
teachers still hold negative and mixed feelings (84%) about teaching in inclusive
classrooms. Teachers in the early decades expressed that they did not have
sufficient training and resources available to provide effective inclusive
education, and most modern studies disclosed that teachers universally face the

13
same barriers for successful inclusive education. Considering only 23% of
teacher preparation programs are requiring more than two special education
courses or are offering elementary and special education combined majors and
only 30% of these programs require some form of basic field experience, it is not
surprising to see 84% of the recent studies (2000s to the present) found that
teachers still had negative or mixed feelings about inclusive education. The
inadequate training for teaching students with disabilities has been the number
one concern of general education teachers. The alarming fact is that from the
1970‟s to 2014, teachers‟ positive perception on inclusive education has stayed
below 20%. Yet the feeling of empowerment to teach academic and functional
curriculums to students with any academic abilities and learning deficiencies is
the most critical factor for successful and efficient inclusive education. Thus, if
general education teachers feel too much frustration regarding their effective
teaching in inclusive classrooms, positive outcome of inclusive education cannot
be expected (Kilanowski-Press, Foote, & Rinaldo, 2010; Muccio, Kidd, White, &
Burns, 2014).
Educational effectiveness is the result of efficient teaching by highly competent
and qualified teachers. With the limitations found in teacher preparation and
weak teacher competence and supports regarding inclusion, the results of 82%
of the studies on academics and 57% of studies on social outcomes with “no or
mixed” gains are not surprising.
Considering all these intertwined results, is inclusion the answer? Perhaps the
answer is “not yet.” Given the findings on the limitations in teacher training
programs to provide a strong background in knowledge and skills for working
with students with disabilities, then, could an improvement (suggested by the
self-reported data) in training programs nationwide for general education
teachers better prepare them to teach the array of abilities of students within
their classroom?
Limitation of the Study
As in all studies, there are a number of limitations the authors must disclose.
First, this study was not able to review all teacher preparation programs offered
in the United States, specifically those not accredited by NCATE. There may be
different requirements in the programs accredited by the different authorities.
Second, the results of teacher preparation status may not equally represent all 50
states because nine states had less than four universities/colleges in the NCATE
list. Four states had only one university/college, another four states had two
universities/colleges, and one state had only three programs in the NCATE list.
Third, the information found regarding field experience requirements in the
teacher preparation programs was dependent only on course descriptions. Thus,
there may be more programs, which require special education field experiences
but that information could not be found from online descriptions. Fourth, there
was no pre-data available in the early stages of the inclusion movement to
compare teacher preparation status. Fifth, the literature used in this study may
be limited because only the ERIC database was used. There could be a larger
number of studies found by using other search engines as well as by using
different key words. Sixth, by limiting this study to information about inclusion
in the United States, the study was not able to review as many studies as are

14
available about the results of inclusive education especially for the academic and
social outcomes. Many studies have been published in European countries,
which the authors had to exclude from this study. Specifically, very rare studies
have been conducted using empirical, experimental, and scientific research
methods (standardized instruments), which can be critical for the efficacy testing
studies of any particular program or policy, but could not be included in this
study using professional literature about U.S. education. As Lindsay (2007)
claimed, using more empirical study methods is important to provide a clear
endorsement for the positive effects of the efficient inclusion. As a result, the
final limitation of this study is that there is a lack of evidence from appropriate
studies in the United States to conclude that there are positive social and
academic outcomes of inclusive education.
Conclusion
The United States has established the expectation that ALL students will learn
and have access to a free, appropriate public education. If the goal is to educate
ALL students to the highest-level possible, and in the least restrictive
environment, inclusion makes sense, but not as it exists presently, which
ironically, was already addressed by opponents of rapid inclusion movements
almost three decades ago when inclusion was initiated.
The research (Caspersen, Smeby, Olaf Aamodt, 2017; McHatton & McCray, 2007;
Schumm & Vaughn, 1995) shows that in fact, the success of the academic and
social skills for any student is dependent on their teachers‟ strong feelings of
empowerment for teaching the curriculum for students of any ability and
disability. According to Van Reusen, Shoho, and Barker (2000, p.13), teachers‟
limited learning and training opportunities produce lowered achievement for
students, thereby further reinforcing teachers‟ negative attitudes or beliefs about
inclusion. Pre-service cross training of general education and special education
teachers is vital if inclusion is to be the answer. Thus, it is time to blend the skills
of general education teachers who are adept at teaching content with the skills of
special educators, who have been trained with specific skillsets to address the
learning needs of students with disabilities. Many schools in the nation have
already identified this need and are trying to support general education teachers
with special education consultants. But even more importantly, it may well be
time to cross train general education teachers with special education knowledge
and experiences, just as special education teachers are required to have general
education teaching certificates.
In addition, once teachers are in the field, the practice of co-teaching could bring
more confidence and strategies into the successful teaching of all students in
inclusive classrooms (DaFonte & Barton-Arwood, 2017; Strongilos, Tragoulia,
Avramidis, Voulagka, & Papnikolaou, 2017). This practice is already occurring
in many schools in the United States, especially secondary schools, where
general and special educators work together in classrooms to address the
individual needs of the students. If co-teaching strategies were added to pre-
service education courses, the skills and feeling of synergy and empowerment
that could result from having two teachers plan and execute lessons might result
in even greater success for students, both typically-achieving and those with
disabilities. General and special education teachers need time to learn these new

15
strategies and techniques and to keep abreast of new technology as they
continue efforts to link the general education teachers‟ knowledge of curriculum
with the special education teachers‟ knowledge of methods and materials for
diverse learners.
Without preparing teaching personnel and pushing full inclusion for all school
age students regardless of their ability, disability, personal uniqueness, and
individual learning needs, we may be trying to provide „equal‟ educational
opportunities, but will also provide „unfair‟ educational quality, resulting in
inappropriate education to both groups of students. National special education
data collection in the United States shows that teaching students in inclusive
classrooms continues to grow as the preferred service delivery model. More
research is needed to highlight the strengths and to build accountability into the
practice of using this delivery model. This study showed the need for more
research in the United States that scientifically measures the academic and social
outcomes of inclusive education for students both with and without disabilities
and to show what is and is not working in regards to the instruction to help all
students to learn. This same type of scientifically-measured research is needed to
compare the effectiveness of different inclusion models, the inclusive
classroom‟s instructional environment, and behavior management and teacher
effectiveness.
References
Ainscow, M. (1991). Effective schools for all. London: Fulton.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02674649266780351.
Allday, R. A., Neilsen-Gatti, S., Hudson, T. M. (2013). Preparation for inclusion in teacher
education pre-service curricula. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(4),
298-311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413497485.
Cagran, B., & Schmidt, M. (2011). Attitudes of Slovene teachers towards the inclusion of
pupils with different types of special needs in primary school. Educational
Studies, 37(2), 171-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2010.506319.
Cameron, D. L., & Cook, B. G. (2007). Attitudes of preservice teachers enrolled in an
infusion preparation program regarding planning and accommodations for
included students with mental retardation. Education and Training in
Developmental Disabilities, 42(3), 353-363.
Caspersen, J., Smeby, J., & Olaf Aamodt, P. (2017). Measuring learning outcomes.
European Journal of Education, 52(1), 20-30. DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12205
Cronis, T. G., & Ellis, D. N. (2001). Issues facing special educators in the new millennium.
Education, 120(4), 639-649.
Da Fonte, M. A., & Barton-Arwood, S. M. (2017). Collaboration of general and special
education teachers: perspectives and strategies. Intervention in School and Clinic,
53(2), 99-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451217693370.
Dorn, S., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1996). A historical perspective on special education
reform. Theory Into Practice, 35(1), 13-19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849609543696.
Eitle, T. M. (2002). Special education or racial segregation: understanding variation in the
representation of black students in educable mentally handicapped programs.
The Sociological Quarterly, 43(4), 575-605.
https://doi.org/10.1525/tsq.2002.43.4.575.

16
Farrell, P. (2000). The impact of research on developments in inclusive education.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4, 153–162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/136031100284867.
Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. (2005). Tools of exclusion: Race, disability, and
(re)segregated education. Teachers College Record, 107(3), 453-474.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00483.x.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of
special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299406000402.
Grider, J. R. (1995). Full inclusion: A practitioner‟s perspective. Focus on Autism and other
Developmental Disabilities, 10(4), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1177/108835769501000401.
Hartzell, R., Liaupsin, C., Gann, C., & Clem, S. (2015). Increasing social engagement in an
inclusive environment. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental
Disabilities, 50(3), 264-277.
Harvey, M. W., Yssel, N., Bauserman, A. D., & Merbler, J. B. (2010). An exploration of
higher education teacher-training institutions. Remedial and Special Education,
31(1), 24-33.
Heward, W. L. (2012). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Hunt, P., Farron-Davis, F., Beckstead, S., Curtis, D., & Goetz, L. (1994). Evaluating the
effects of placement of students with severe disabilities in general education
versus special classes. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps, 19, 200-2014. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079699401900308.
Kauffman, J. M., & Smucker, K. (1995). The legacies of placement: a brief history of
placement options and issues with commentary on their evolution. In J. M.
Kauffman, J. W. Lloyd, D. P. Hallahan, & T. A. Assuto (Eds.), Issues in the
educational placement of pupils with emotional or behavioral disorders (21-41).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kilanowski-Press, L., Foote, C. J., & Rinaldo, V. J. (2010). Inclusion classrooms and
teachers: a survey of current practices. International Journal of Special Education,
25(3), 43-56.
Logan, B. E., & Wimer, G. (2013). Tracing inclusion: determining teacher attitudes.
Research in Higher Education Journal, 20, 1-10.
Mather, N., & Robers, R. (1994). Learning disabilities: A field in danger of extinction?
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9(1), 49-58.
McCray, E., & McHatton, P. (2011). “Less afraid to have them in my classroom”:
Understanding pre-service general educator‟s perceptions about inclusion.
Teacher Education Quarterly. 38(4), 135-155.
McHatton, P. A., & McCray, E. D. (2007). Inclination toward Inclusion: Perceptions of
elementary and secondary education teacher candidates. Action in Teacher
Education. 29(3), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2007.10463457.
Muccio, L. S., Kidd, J. K., White, C. S., & Burns, M. S. (2013). Head start instructional
professionals‟ inclusion perceptions and practices. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 34(1), 40-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121413502398.
National Center for Education Statistics (2017). Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_050.asp.
Patton, J. M., & Edgar, E. (2002). Introduction to the special series: special education and
school reform. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 194.
https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325020230040101.
Ross-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude towards inclusion practices and special needs
students. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(3), 188-198.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2009.01135.x.

17
Ruijs, N. M., & Peetsma, T. T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and
without special educational needs reviewed. Educational Research Review, 4, 67-
79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.002.
Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Getting ready for inclusion: Is the stage set? Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 10, 169-179.
Shogren, K. A., Gross, J. M. S., & Forber-Pratt, A. J. (2015). The perspectives of students
with and without disabilities on inclusive schools. Research and Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(4), 243-260.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915583493.
Smith, T. E. C., Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., & Dowdy, C. A. (2012). Teaching students
with special needs in inclusive settings (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Strogilos, V., Tragoulia, E., Avramidis, E., Voulagka, A., & Papnikolaou, V. (2017).
Understanding the development of differentiated instruction for students with
and without disabilities in co-taught classrooms. Journal of Disability & Society,
32(8),1216-1238.
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.emich.edu/10.1080/09687599.2017.1352488.
Thompkins, R., & Deloney, P. (1995). Inclusion: The pros and cons. Issues … about
Change, 4(3). Advancing Research, Improving Education. Retrieved from
U.S. Department of Education (1982). A nation at risk. Retrieved
fromhttp://datacenter.spps.org/uploads/sotw_a_nation_at_risk_1983.pdf.
Van Reusen, A. K., Shoho, A. R., & Barker, K. S. (2000). High school teacher attitudes
toward inclusion. The High School Journal, 84(2), 7-20.
Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: the
key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17(4), 255-264.
https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259601700408.
Will, M. C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility.
Exceptional Children, 52 (5), 411-415.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298605200502.

18
© 2017 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Vol. 16, No. 10, pp. 18-26, October 2017
A Cloze-styled Textual Enhancement Targeting
Prepositions
Michael Heinz
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
Seoul, South Korea
Abstract. Even at the highest level of bilingual competency for Korean
learners of English, prepositions remain a significant challenge. Based on
the classroom observation that incidental learning was not significantly
improving proficiency with prepositions amongst a group of graduate
school interpretation majors, a classroom exercise was executed as form of
intervention. The participants in this study demonstrated very high
proficiency in both English and Korean although all consider Korean to be
their mother tongue. The exercise involved giving ten texts with Cloze-
styled textual enhancements to 33 students to determine if their proficiency
with prepositions could be improved. Students were given a pretest and a
post-test before and after the assignments respectively. The results were
promising showing an average increase of 5.7% from pretest to post-test.
Additional examination of the data showed that students of lower
proficiency on average saw a 9.6% increase in scores. Qualitative feedback
from students confirmed positive educational experiences and strongly
supported the idea that incidental learning is insufficient. Further study is
recommended based on the findings in this study.
Keywords: Cloze; Text Enhancement; Incidental Learning; EFL; SLA
Introduction
For Korean-speaking learners of English, preposition errors tend to persist
even at the highest levels of bilingual competency. This can be a great source of
frustration for those learners and can lead to a sense of hopelessness. At the highest
levels most of these learners have already learned all of the rules related to
prepositions and may even be able to execute them accurately on standardized tests.
However in speaking tasks preposition errors often appear. Since most of the
standard aspects of language learning have been exhausted already students look to
find new methods. This study examines a particular teaching method utilized to
improve preposition usage for English learners, but we must first look at what
prepositions are before we can delve into how teaching them has been approached
and how this study contributes.

19
Unlike other aspects of language that can be somewhat superfluous or based
purely on conventional usage, prepositions are grammatical words whose purpose
is to help execute the essential grammatical goal of a sentence (Thornbury 2002).
Moreover their prevalence is such that they appear in nearly all aspects of speaking
and writing (Morenberg, 1997). Form, function and meaning can be used to classify
prepositions. In terms of form they may be a simple one-word preposition, or they
be contain two or more words making them complex prepositions. Single word
prepositions are essentially fixed in the sense that new prepositions cannot be
created whereas new complex prepositions are created with some frequency
((Grubic, 2004, cited in De Felice & Pulman, 2008).
Prepositions in the English language are considered one of the most
challenging grammatical features for L2 learners to master (Kao, 1999). Some have
gone so far as to argue that the mastery of prepositions may be the greatest
challenge that English learners face (Takahashi, 1969). EFL teachers and learners
generally regard prepositions as taxing aspect of learning English due to the
inconsistent ways in which they collocate with verbs requiring a considerable
amount of memorization (Pittman, 1966). The rules for applying prepositions are
not great in number and many prepositions themselves may possess a variety of
functions (Swan, 1988).
It is against this backdrop that the current study was undertaken. Initially
conceived of as a classroom activity to improve L2 learners‟ mastery of prepositions;
the data collected from the students revealed some strong patterns which made it
worthy of development. The current study examines the effect of using text
enhancement in the form of a cloze test assignment utilizing authentic materials to
see if students‟ mastery of prepositions could be improved.
Literature Review
Much of the impetus for this study began with classroom observations over
several years that determined incidental learning to be insufficient in terms of
meaningfully impacting mastery of prepositions. The researcher observed that
preposition errors (and article errors) amongst students for whom Korean is their
mother tongue persisted long after high bilingual capacity had been achieved. This
is not surprising since incidental learning through extensive reading interventions
has shown improvements mostly in vocabulary ((Brown et al., 2008; Cho and
Krashen, 1994; Hayashi, 1999; Pigada and Schmitt, 2006; Rott, 1999; Sheu, 2003).
Though some studies have shown some improvement in grammar as well (Sheu,
2003; Tudor and Hafiz, 1989). Overall it has been concluded that while incidental
learning is not without merit, it is on the whole a process that is unpredictable and
not particularly fast (Hulstijn et al., 1996; Paribakht and Wesche, 1999).
As such it has been asserted that input most be attended to with conscious
deliberation with a particular need for the subjective experience of noticing to
acquire greater linguistic sophistication (Schmidt 1990; Schmidt 1993; Schmidt 1994;
Schmidt1995). Studies have established that there is link between learners‟ noticing
of forms and successful learning (Robinson 1995; Skehan 1998). That noticing can
take on many forms of textual enhancement that draws attention to particular

20
language structures such as altering text by italicizing it, making it bold,
underlining it, color coding it and so on (Cross, 2002). In order for this to be
effective it may require a certain amount of frequency for the learner to actively
notice the language structures‟ unique features (Swain, 1998).
Ellis (1997) with his focus on forms asserts that it is perfectly natural to
attend to meaning before noticing form. Thus students of a new language are quick
to key into content words and to guess based on context at the meaning of an
utterance or sentence. Therefore things such as prepositions, articles or conjunction
are often unconsciously disregarded initially. However with the help of a qualified
L2 teacher, students can be brought to an awareness of these target language forms
and in time students will come to grow and enhance their linguistic abilities.
Ellis (1997) asserts that this noticing of a grammatical feature is essential to
acquire usage of it. Studies based on this assertions have looked at the role of textual
enhancement and noticing and found promising results for rule-based linguistic
forms (Fotos, 1991; Simard, 2009). Another study found a strong link between article
acquisition and textual analysis (Ha, 2017). Two more studies found textual
enhancement was helpful in the learning of phrasal verbs (Behzadhian, 2016;
Ahmadi & Panahandeh, 2016). Additionally, one study has even looked into the
role of textual enhancement and the acquisitions of prepositions with findings that
support the usage of such methods (Hassani, Azarnoosh, Naeini, 2015).
The current study wanted to see if noticing could be made more explicit and
more effective by using textual enhancement that changed large numbers of
authentic texts into Cloze tests. The research question being: if such texts were done
in repetition many times would student proficiency increase?
Test Subjects
33 students in an interpretation and translation graduate school were
identified as having persistent preposition errors despite possessing overall high
fluency. None of the students in the present study considered their English to be at
a native level. The students are considered to have high level bilingual capacity as
the entrance exams for the graduate school seek to single out those abilities
specifically. Standardized tests are not relied upon to assess students due to general
distrust of their results in East Asia. Instead, students are given four essays to write:
two in Korean and two in English. Numbers vary but typically the number of
applicants is above 500 students minimally and may go as high as 1,000. Roughly
120 students are singled out based on their essay responses to go through an oral
interview. During the interview students are expected to perform basic
interpretation skills for English and Korean in both directions without preparation
or note taking. The governing principle used to select the roughly 60 students that
are selected is bilingual competency.
The researcher noted after years of teaching at this graduate school that
despite the high bilingual competency possessed by the students, that their greatest
number of errors occurred in the area of prepositions and articles. Corrective

21
feedback whether immediate or delayed seemed not to make much of a difference
which led to the formation of more direct approaches to correct these issues.
Methodology
The study was undertaken in the form of homework but careful data
collection and promising results led to the development of this paper. As such
certain flaws in the experimental design are obvious and cloud interpretations of
the result but the results themselves do suggest the value of further study.
Students were given a pretest, homework and post-test all in the form of
Cloze tests drawn up by parsing authentic speeches for some of the most common
prepositions. Authentic texts were selected because they are thought to be more
effective as teaching tools and tend to be more engaging (Guariento and Morley,
2001; Mishan, 2004) Texts for the pretest, homework, and post-test were all draw
from speeches with subject matter that is common to the students such as
presidential addresses by then U.S. President Barrack Obama or talks about
economics.
The texts were parsed using the "replace all" function common to text
software. In this case the author wrote a bit of java script to hasten the process but
the “replace all” function in software such as Microsoft Word or Google docs would
work just as well. The prepositions: “From,” “On,” “With,” “To,” “In,” “By,” “At,”
and “For” were selected as being representative of the most commonly occurring
prepositions and as the items often misused by the students. Prepositions were
replaced in one of two ways. The first stage was to replace prepositions such as "of"
or "to" with an empty parenthesis block liking like this: ( ). The second stage
employed on the tests and the homework was to parse the texts so that the existence
or position of the aforementioned prepositions could not ascertained. Instead
student would have to make sense of the sentence and include prepositions
wherever they thought they were necessary.
The pretest and post-test were identical and consisted of 72 questions in
which the position of a missing preposition was indicated and a second text in
which 72 prepositions had been removed but their number, and position were not
known to the student. Placing a preposition where no preposition should was
valued as a loss of a point so it was possible to achieve a negative score on the
second half of the pretest or post-test. Two samples are given below to illustrate
what the pretest looked like:
Section 1 (Missing prepositions‟ positions are indicated)
It’s an honor ( ) be back ( ) the American Legion. ( ) the story ( ) your service
we see the spirit ( ) America. When your country needed you most, you stepped forward.
Section 2 (Missing prepositions‟ are not indicated)
And more broadly, the crisis Iraq underscores how we have meet today's evolving
terrorist threat. The answer is not send large-scale military deployments that overstretch
our military, and lead us occupying countries a long period time, and end up feeding
extremism.

22
After student pretest results were scored and collected, students were given
access to a database of speeches parsed in the manner of both sections of the
pretest/post-test. Students were given the originals as well and tasked with
repetitively taking the Cloze worksheets to the point of mastery. Students were
given 10 weeks to work on 10 worksheets at their leisure and were not observed
therefore the level of student engagement cannot be accurately measured. However,
the students were all graduate school students who tend to show high level study
habits and motivation.
Results
The average score on the pretest for the 33 participants was 103.5 out of a
possible score of 142 (Standard deviation=8.99), which means they displayed an
accuracy rate of 72.9% and showed some variance in test score average. The average
score on the post-test was 111.6 out of a possible score of 142 (Standard
deviation=6.56), which means they displayed an accuracy of 78.6% with a slight
reduction in score variance. So the reported increase in proficiency on average was
5.7%. A t-test revealed that the results were statistically significant.
Overall the method can be seen as successful with some qualifications. First
and foremost there was no control group so the results lack external validity.
Moreover, the homework of the students was not monitored and as such the effort
put into the process itself cannot be verified when considering all participants. The
final concern is that the pretest and the post-test were identical so some of the
improvement seen in the data could have resulted from familiarity with the test
document, however the students were not shown the correct answers after they
took the pretest.
When looking at the data a pattern was clear beyond the overall results.
Students who scored above 105 (73.9%) on the pretest showed generally no
improvement between pretest and post-test or in many cases actually had a reduced
score. Conversely students who scored below 105 saw greater improvements in the
scores overall. For this low scoring group the pretest average was 97.5 (68.7%) and
their average post-test score was 111.3 (78.3%), so overall an increase of 9.6% in
terms of proficiency.
After the data had been collected and analyzed qualitative feedback was
generated in terms of in-depth discussions with the students in which a number of
affirming comments were made about the process. Overall students reported
learning a lot about prepositions through the process and the general feedback was
positive about the learning outcomes. Many said that they broke long term patterns
that they had not been aware of previously. Generally students with lower levels of
bilingual competency were more positive about the homework. Some students
admitted to not taking the homework as seriously as they might have and lamented
not having the time to do so. All agreed that it was time consuming process which is
one of the definite downsides to this technique. Additionally all students agreed
that the text enhancement in which the placement of prepositions is unknown was a
much harder task than simply engaging the Cloze-styled text enhancement.

23
One of the more interesting and encouraging comments was about the text
selection. One student was certain that the researcher had selected texts that
mirrored the questions on the exams so that we would learn the proper collocations
for certain prepositions. Many students agreed with this comment feeling that the
texts were selected with some pattern as to preposition usage. It was this comment
that led the researcher to move towards publishing this data because absolutely no
consideration was given to which prepositions occurred in each homework text.
Instead texts were chosen purely on the basis of authenticity and relevance.
Discussion
Considering 5.7% increase in proficiency on average or the 9.6% increase
seen amongst the less proficient students, either way the results are modest but not
insignificant. What is encouraging about these results however comes from the
anecdotal experience researcher which is that generally students do not appear to
approve in this area of proficiency over time within the program. There may be an
extent to which this approach can improve students and it may be that more
arduous direct instruction may need to accompany this kind of activity.
The comment made by a student regarding the apparent patterns between
the homework and the tests that he thought was intentional, may provide some
insight into the learning that takes place in this process and seems not to be
occurring during incidental learning. The general agreement with that students‟
comment suggests that students did not realize that the placement of prepositions
and their natural collocations were passing before their eyes all the time. These texts
were in no way unusual for them to read or interpret/translate into Korean. These
students read as many five such texts every day and dissect them for meaning
vigorously. This may be a very strong indicator that incidental learning is wholly
insufficient for this particular issue. It is conversely a strong endorsement of textual
enhancement and for the notion that learners seek out meaning independent of
form.
There is a serious question posed by the data that either reveals a need for
greater controls in future studies or suggests a learning plateau of some importance.
The fact that in general the students who scored lower on the pretest scored
considerably higher relative scores on the post-test cannot be properly accounted
for. It is entirely possible that students with higher proficiency (though there were
no scores on the pretest or post-test above 85%) did not aggressively engage the
homework assignments because they did not feel they had much to learn. It could
also be that students with high proficiency are somewhat negatively affected by this
kind of exercise and it may cause them to overthink their responses in the quest for
perfection. An additional possibility is that there was a smaller gap to close for the
higher proficiency students so improvements they may have made may need to be
interpreted as smaller steps forward given that an overall improvement in scores
did occur.

24
Future Studies
This study serves in many ways as a preliminary study for a much more
thorough examination of this Cloze-styled text enhancement. A future study is
being planned that can examine this technique with a proper control group and an
additional group distinction that compares the Cloze-styled text enhancement with
and without direct instruction about prepositions. For such a study a number of
variables remain to be determined.
One of the most significant drawbacks of the current study was the lack of
control over student work. By having the students do the work as homework there
was no way to determine if they were legitimately repeating exercises to the point
of relative mastery. It is entirely likely that some or many students did not engage
the texts given to them more than once or twice before moving on. Any future study
should find a way to keep the students under observation as they complete
assignments.
One variable of additional concern is text selection. The current study opted
for an authentic text but this comes with a number of drawbacks. First, there was no
way to control for the types of prepositions that were in each of texts. Thus it was
possible that many of the homework texts did not prepare the students to take the
post-test. On other hand student feedback seems to suggest otherwise fairly
strongly. Yet with some measure of control or even some editing of an authentic text
there such enhancement may better streamline the learning process.
Another variable that was left unaccounted for was the differences between
learning impact of the two forms of text enhancement used in the study. Students
noticed a difference in terms of difficulty but not enough serious discussion
occurred about the perceived differences in learning that came from the different
textual enhancements. A future study would need to decide if both should be
included, or only one, or conversely a third one might be added such as color-
coding prepositions read in a similar text before engaging the other forms of textual
enhancement.
Conclusion
Overall this pilot study contains a number of imperfections that occurred
due to its not having been launched as a study but merely as a classroom activity.
The findings are still suggestive of strong possibilities given the ease with which the
process can be replicated using any modern form of document software. Much of
this classroom activity grew out of the realization that Cloze tests could be created
in massive quantities with just a little software-based manipulation of texts. Still a
larger and better designed study is needed to determine the significance of many of
this studies‟ findings.

25
References
Ahmadi, Badri F & Panahandeh, E. (2016). The Role of Input-based and Output-based
Language Teaching in Learning English Phrasal Verbs by Upper-intermediate
Iranian EFL Learners. Journal of Education and Learning. Vol. 10 (1) pp. 22-33. doi:
https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v10i1.2860
Behzadian, Khatareh (2016) The Effect of Input Enhancement and Concordance-based
Activities on Iranian EFL Learners' Acquisition and Retention of Phrasal Verbs.
Michigan Academician: 2016, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 29-50. doi:
https://doi.org/10.7245/0026-2005-44.1.29
Brown R, Waring R, Donkaewbua S (2008) Incidental vocabulary acquisition from reading,
reading-while-listening, and listening to stories. Reading in a Foreign Language
20(2): 136–63.
Cho KS, Krashen SD (1994) Acquisition of vocabulary from the Sweet Valley Kids series:
adult ESL acquisition. Journal of Reading 37(8): 662–67.
Cross, J. (2002). Noticing in SLA: Is it a valid concept? TESL-EJ, 6 (3). from:
http://www.writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej23/a2.html
De Felice, R., & Pulman, S. (2008). Automatic error detection in non-native English. Journal
of CALICO, 26(3), 512-528.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100014479
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL
Quarterly, 25, 605-628. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3587079
Guariento, W. and J. Morley. 2001. „Text and task authenticity in the EFL classroom‟. ELT
Journal 55/4: 347–53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.4.347
Ha, Jong-Bum (2017) Integration of Formal Instruction and Textual Enhancement in the
Learning of English Articles. The Joongwon Linguistic Society of Korea, 44, 355-
377. doi: https://doi.org/10.17002/sil..44.201707.355
Hassani M, Azarnoosh M & Naeini J (2015). The Role of Noticing and Input Enhancement on
the Acquisition of English Prepositions. International Journal of Language and
Applied Linguistics, 1 (4), 47-52.
Hayashi K (1999) Reading strategies and extensive reading in EFL classes. RELC Journal
30(2): 114-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829903000207
Hulstijn JH, Hollander M, Greidanus T (1996) Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced
foreignnlanguage students: the influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and
reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal 80(3): 327–39. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01614.x
Kao, C. C. (1999). An Investigation into lexical, grammatical, and semantic errors in English
compositions of college students in Taiwan. Fu Hsing Kang Journal, 67, 1-32.
Mishan, F. 2004. „Authenticating corpora for language learning: a problem and its
resolution‟. ELT Journal 58/3: 219–27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.3.219
Morenberg, M. (1997). Doing grammar (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Paribakht TS, Wesche M (1996) Enhancing vocabulary acquisition through reading: a
hierarchy of text-related exercise types. Canadian Modern Language Review
52(2): 155–78.
Pigada M, Schmitt N (2006) Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: a case study.
Reading in a Foreign Language 18(1): 1–28.
Pittman, G. A. (1966). Activating the use of prepositions. London: Longman.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning,
45, 283-331. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00441.x

26
Rott S (1999) The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners‟ incidental
vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 21(04): 589–619. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263199004039
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11, 12958. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied
linguistics. In J. Hulstiyn and R, Schmidt (eds): Consciousness in Second Language
Learning. AILA Review, 11, 11-26.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of
attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in
foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Hawai‟i: Second Language Teaching &
Curriculum Center.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sheu SPH (2003) Extensive reading with EFL learners at beginning level. TESL Reporter
36: 8–26.
Simard, D. (2009). Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake, System, 37,
124-135. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.06.005
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams
(Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 6481). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Takahaski, G. (1969). Perception of space and the function of certain English prepositions.
Language Learning. 19, 217-234. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100281059
Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. Essex: Longman.
Tudor I, Hafiz F (1989) Extensive reading as a means of input to L2 learning. Journal of
Research in Reading 12(2): 164–78. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9817.1989.tb00164.x

27
Vol. 16, No. 10, pp. 27-40, October 2017
Understanding and Responding to the Unique
Needs and Challenges Facing Adjunct Faculty:
A Longitudinal Study
Kimberly Buch, Heather McCullough and Laura Tamberelli
University of North Carolina Charlotte
Abstract. This study reports the results of a longitudinal study of
adjunct faculty at a large research-intensive institution. A needs
assessment found that adjunct faculty felt isolated and disconnected
from their departments and colleagues, and reported a lack of formal
and informal supports needed for success in their instructional roles.
These findings guided the development and campus-wide
implementation of adjunct-specific programming and resources. A
program evaluation found improvements in adjunct faculty perceptions
of support as well as directions for future programming and
development opportunities.
Keywords: non-tenure-track faculty; adjunct professors; professional
development; part-time instructors.
Introduction
Non-tenure-track faculty are the largest and fastest growing segment of the
American professoriate. Recent data (Kezar & Maxey, 2014) indicate that over
70% of all faculty across 2- and 4-year institutions work off the tenure track, a
trend that has been on the rise for the past two decades. Non-tenure-track
faculty also tend to carry heavier teaching loads and teach larger course sections
than tenure-track faculty (AAUP, 2013). Clearly, this “new faculty majority”
(Kezar & Sam, 2010) is impacting a growing percentage of American college
students. This reality raises many important questions in need of exploration:
Who are non-tenure-track faculty? What are their unique needs and challenges?
What types of targeted resources and professional development opportunities
are most responsive to these needs and challenges? How do adjunct faculty
respond to institutional efforts to deliver targeted resources and programming?
We attempted to address these questions with a three-year study of adjunct
faculty at a large, research-intensive public university.

28
Who are Non-Tenure-Track Faculty? This diverse group of faculty presents
definitional challenges as researchers have counted over 50 terms used to
describe them (Kezar & Sam, 2010). The American Association of University
professors (AAUP) uses the term “contingent faculty” because it signals the
tenuous, contractual relationship between these faculty and their academic
institutions, while the American Society for Higher Education (ASHE) prefers
the term non-tenure track (Kezar & Maxey, 2014). Both terms (contingent and
non-tenure track) are widely accepted umbrella terms that include part- and full-
time faculty who are appointed off the tenure track, ranging from adjuncts
(typically part-time and compensated on a per-course basis) to lecturers
(typically full-time and paid a salary). Both the AAUP and ASHE argue that it is
important for researchers and practitioners to be aware of and acknowledge the
heterogeneity within this group of faculty (Kezar & Maxey, 2014).
Of the dimensions on which non-tenure-track faculty differ, perhaps that with
the greatest bearing on their professional development needs is the part-time vs.
full-time dimension. First, part-time (here referred to as adjunct) faculty are the
fastest growing segment of the professoriate, and constitute an estimated 51.2%
of instructional faculty in American higher education (Kezar & Maxey, 2014).
Sheer numbers will require institutions to leverage the strengths and manage the
challenges of this large and rapidly growing group of faculty. Thus, this study
focused exclusively on part-time adjunct faculty and intentionally excluded full-
time lecturers, even though the latter are non-tenure-track faculty whose jobs
also differ significantly from traditional tenure-track faculty.
What are the Unique Challenges and Professional Needs of Adjunct Faculty?
Although there is a relative paucity of research examining adjunct faculty, there
is much anecdotal evidence that adjunct faculty face challenges unique to their
part-time status. One challenge is a general lack of understanding about adjunct
faculty—e.g., it is widely assumed that adjunct faculty work part-time
completely by choice and that they often have other employment (and benefits!)
outside of the university. However, many adjunct faculty are working part-time
because they cannot obtain a full-time teaching position (Kezar & Maxey, 2014),
and the majority of part-time adjunct faculty do not have professional careers
outside of academe (AAUP, 2013). This exacerbates the problems inherent in
their place at the bottom of the “multi-tier academic labor structure” (AAUP,
2013). This multi-tiered system that is increasingly bottom-heavy, is clearly
inequitable in terms of salary, benefits, and job security. The median pay per
course for adjunct faculty is $2,700 (Kingkade, 2013), and part-time faculty are
estimated to make 65% less than full-time faculty for the same work (Levin &
Hernandez, 2014). They face working conditions that often differ dramatically
from those of full-time faculty, including fewer instructional resources, less
institutional support, limited interaction with colleagues, and little input into
faculty governance (Buch & McCullough, 2016; Kezar, 2012; Levin & Hernandez,
2014).
Based on the above, it is not surprising that adjunct faculty are much more likely
than full-time faculty to experience feelings of isolation, lack of connectedness to

29
the academic community, and perceptions of marginalization (e.g., Buch &
McCullough, 2016; Fagan-Wilen, Springer, Ambrosino, & White, 2007; Forbes,
Hickey, White, 2010; Levin & Hernandez, 2014; Webb, Wong, & Hubball, 2013).
Other researchers have noted the relationship between these experiences of
isolation and the job satisfaction and turnover rates among part-time faculty
(e.g., Hoyt, 2012; Meixner & Kruck, 2010). It seems clear that these realities have
important implications, including concerns about workplace fairness and equity
and threats to the instructional mission of post-secondary institutions—after all
“faculty working conditions are student learning conditions” (New Faculty
Majority, 2015). Given the changing state of the professoriate, and its
tremendous implications for higher education, increased attention to adjunct
faculty is urgently needed (Kezar & Sam, 2010; Levin & Hernandez, 2014).
Methods
Phase 1: Needs Assessment. This study took place at a large, public research-
intensive institution and was initiated by faculty and staff in The Center for
Teaching and Learning (CTL). The study emerged from an effort to better
understand the needs of the adjunct faculty so that institutional supports and
professional development opportunities could be developed in direct response
to these needs. As described above, the faculty population of interest was the
group most typically referred to in the literature as “adjunct faculty,” which we
define as non-tenure-track faculty working part-time and compensated on a per-
course basis. Although adjunct faculty at this institution can and do participate
in all instructional and professional development opportunities provided by the
CTL, we wanted to ensure programming and support that was aligned with the
unique needs of adjunct faculty.
Data obtained from the Office of Institutional Research at the beginning of the
study indicated there were 398 adjunct faculty (approximately one-third of all
faculty), who together taught 26,992 students in 730 courses, for a total of 2,094
course-hours. A brief electronic survey was developed by the researchers and
sent via university email to 390 adjunct faculty. The survey contained five open-
ended questions asking about major challenges facing adjunct faculty; types of
professional support provided them in their adjunct role; awareness of
professional development support available from the CTL; types of additional
support/resources/ programming they would find beneficial; and factors that
would encourage them to participate in professional development opportunities.
Responses were received from 98 faculty, a 25% response rate. A qualitative
analysis of responses identified a gap between current levels of support received
and desired levels of support, as well as suggestions for closing this gap based
on the reported realities and challenges of adjunct faculty.
Specifically, results indicated that fewer than 10% of respondents were satisfied
with the level of support they received from the institution. Approximately 25%
indicated they received no support from their academic departments, or support
only when they seek it out or ask for assistance. Of the 75% reporting they
receive professional support, the type of support varied. The major form of
support reported was administrative (secretarial, office space and supplies,

30
email access, etc.); for many, this was the only type of support received. Fewer
than a quarter of respondents reported some type of pedagogical/ instructional
support from their units (e.g., shared syllabi, teaching plans and ideas, advice
and teaching suggestions, drop-in consultations, feedback on teaching materials,
etc.). The majority of reported support was informal (ad hoc, on request), with
fewer than 25% participating in formal support from administrators, peers, or
mentors. Sources of support varied, with about 10% provided by department
chairs; another 10% reported support from colleagues, and a smaller percentage
reported support from a mentor or “lead instructor.”
Another line of questioning asked about the instructional and professional
development opportunities offered by the CTL. Over one third of respondents
had not participated in any resources or programming by the CTL. Over one
third of respondents had participated in one or more technology workshops
(e.g., Moodle, Mahara, Clickers) conducted by the CTL; almost that many
reported use of the online CTL teaching tutorials and guides. These findings are
consistent with the literature in several ways. Studies consistently reveal a gap
between the desire of non-tenure-track faculty to participate in professional
development activities and the institutional provision of opportunities to do so
(Fagan-Wilen, Springer, Ambrosino, & White, 2006; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Hoyt,
2012; Kezar & Sam, 2010).
The next open-ended question asked respondents to identify specific types of
supports not received which they would find most beneficial. Again, the
responses varied greatly but two major themes emerged from content analysis:
pedagogical/instructional support and basic orientation support. Almost 40% of
comments were related to teaching and pedagogy, ranging from use of the LMS
(learning management system) to attendance policies, to pedagogical strategies,
to online teaching, to classroom management. The other theme pertained to
more basic, “onboarding” types of supports, such as accessing campus
resources, policies and procedures, human resources, parking, textbook
adoptions, etc. Both of these themes would be instrumental in the design of our
adjunct initiatives, as described in stage 2 below.
The needs assessment also asked faculty to report (via write-in format) the major
challenges they face as adjunct faculty. While a wide range of challenges were
reported, the overwhelming theme to emerge from content analysis was a sense
of isolation and disconnectedness from their departments and colleagues.
Comments related to this theme were reported by almost a third of respondents
(32%). The following quotes are illustrative of this theme:
 “I have little contact with my department.”
 “It requires a lot of extra effort to stay connected with
colleagues.”
 “It is entirely an independent enterprise.”
 “Lack of interaction between adjunct and full-time faculty.”
 “Being an island. Being unaware of the larger picture.”
 “Isolation.”
 “No real support.”

31
 “Feeling marginalized and excluded.”
 “You constantly feel on the run and out of the loop.”
The next most frequently reported challenge loaded on the theme of “lack of
training or orientation,” which was mentioned by 24% of respondents, followed
by juggling multiple job demands (9%); poor pay and benefits (5%); lack of
contracts (4%); lack of space (4%); and cost of parking (3%). Only 11% of
respondents either left the item blank or wrote in that they currently faced no
challenges. (See Table 4 below for a comparison of challenges reported in the
needs assessment and how they changed in the post-survey.)
Another line of questioning in the needs assessment asked respondents what
would encourage them to participate in the support and development
opportunities that currently are or will be offered in the future. This was
important because the literature suggests that participation rates in development
opportunities and institutional supports among part-time faculty are modest,
ranging from 48% to 56% to 63% (Hoyt, 2012). As shown in Table 1, the
following themes emerged from responses to this question: 1) timing of
offerings; 2) incentives to participate; 3) awareness of offerings; 4) format of
offerings; and 5) usefulness of offerings. Clearly, the first of these is a simple
matter of better communication among units, the CTL, and adjuncts. The others
are more important as considerations in program design, and contributed
greatly to our programming and design decisions, as described below.
Table 1. Needs Assessment: Thematic Results and Direct Quotes of Respondents
What Would Encourage you to Participate in Professional Development
Opportunities?
Timing of Offerings
“Evenings; Afternoons; Early mornings; Multiple repeat offerings to
accommodate diverse schedules;”
Incentives to Participate
“Payment/stipend; Recognition by department; Certificates of
Achievement; Make it worth my time; Not having to pay for parking to
attend; Some kind of monetary incentive; Current pay level not sufficient
to invest more time”
Awareness of Offerings
“Access to a training schedule at the start of the semester; Better
advertising of opportunities and recurring each semester; A monthly
calendar; Knowing about opportunities in advance; Overview of
opportunities and timely notice; Reminders”
Usefulness of Offerings
“Anything that would benefit my students; Knowing they will positively
affect my students’ learning; Relevant topics; The promise of practical
training and classroom-ready methods; Meaningful and directly aligned
to what I teach; A course specifically designed for adjuncts”
Format of Offerings
“Digital; Online; Remote Access; Face-to-face if opportunity to meet
other
adjuncts”

Vol 16 No 10 - October 2017

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Vol 16 No 10 - October 2017

Semelhante a Vol 16 No 10 - October 2017 (20)

Mais de ijlterorg

Mais de ijlterorg (20)

Último

Último (20)

Vol 16 No 10 - October 2017