Arrieta-Rose - Final Report

Running Head: SPECIAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTION FOR GENERAL EDUCATION
TEACHERS
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

MONTEREY BAY
Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers
CAPSTONE PROPOSAL
Submitted in partial satisfaction of requirements of the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE in
Instructional Science and Technology
Griselle Arrieta-Rose
May 15, 2015
Capstone Approvals: (At least one advisor and capstone instructor should approve)
___________________________ ___________________________ _____________
Advisor Name
Signature
Date
___________________________ ___________________________ _____________
Capstone Instructor Name
Signature
Date

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction and Background .................................................................................................. 5
Problem description ................................................................................................................................. 6
Learner Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Performance Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 7
Environmental scan ................................................................................................................................. 9
Solution Description ................................................................................................................. 10
Proposed solution to fulfill the gap ..................................................................................................... 10
Goals and objectives .............................................................................................................................. 11
Application of learning theory and instructional principles ......................................................... 12
Instructional strategies .......................................................................................................................... 15
Task Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 15
Media components ................................................................................................................................. 17
Challenges ................................................................................................................................................ 17
Methods & Procedure .............................................................................................................. 18
Narrative: design and development ................................................................................................... 18
Steps .......................................................................................................................................................... 19
Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 20
Needs ......................................................................................................................................................... 20
Technical skills ........................................................................................................................................ 21
Timeline & Progress Report .................................................................................................. 21
Major deliverables & dates .................................................................................................................. 21
Evaluation .................................................................................................................................... 21
Pre- & Post-Test ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Observation ............................................................................................................................................. 22
Questionnaire .......................................................................................................................................... 23
Tryout Conditions .................................................................................................................................. 24
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 24
Entry conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 25
a. Instruction ........................................................................................................................................ 25
b. Outcomes ......................................................................................................................................... 26
c. Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 30
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 31
References ..................................................................................................................................... 33
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................... 36
Appendix C .................................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix D .................................................................................................................................... 38
Appendix E .................................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix F ..................................................................................................................................... 42

Appendix G .................................................................................................................................... 43
Appendix H .................................................................................................................................... 44
Appendix I ..................................................................................................................................... 46
Appendix J ...................................................................................................................................... 51
Appendix H .................................................................................................................................... 56

Executive Summary
The goal of this project is to train general education teachers on the basic elements
of special education, including federal legislation affecting people with disabilities and the
Individualized Special Education Plan (IEP). The goal is also to train general education
teachers on learning disabilities, including basic characteristics and classroom modifications.
Research on confidence levels of general education (GE) teachers suggests that GE teachers
inclusion of students with special needs increases with training and knowledge (Jung, Cho,
Ambrosetti, 2011). Further research indicates that the degree of support and training, which
GE teachers receive in relation to special education practices, are important factors in their
ability to successfully instruct students with special needs and accommodate them in the
least restrictive environment (Chester, Beaudin, 1996). Therefore, the importance of this
project is rooted in its effort to provide much needed support and training to general
education teachers so they may possess the necessary skills and knowledge to successfully
instruct students with special needs and thereby fulfill the federal mandates of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004.
With the proper training, GE teachers will also be able to properly identify and refer
students with a potential learning disability while providing the appropriate modifications to
their education. The project will be completed in various phases throughout the fall 2014
and spring 2015 as demonstrated by the Gantt chart for this proposal (Appendix A). The
implications of this project include the following. General education teachers will
demonstrate higher levels of confidence in teaching students with learning disabilities.
After successfully completing the modules in this project, general education teachers will
have knowledge of both the federal requirements under IDEA and the individualized

education plan (IEP) process as well as training in multiple strategies to support the
instruction of students with a learning disability in the least restrictive environment.
Introduction and Background

The background for this project stems from the federal legislation entitled
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004, which mandates that students with
disabilities be provided with a free appropriate public education in a least restrictive
environment with the support of systematic identification procedures, an individualized
education plan (IEP) and access to the general education curriculum (Smith, 2007).
Currently, students with a specific learning disability constitute a total of 2.4 million
students and 41% of all students receiving special education services (California
Department of Education, 2014). Therefore, students with a learning disability comprise the
majority of students receiving special education services under IDEA.
General education teachers are therefore, mandated by law to instruct students with
special needs in the least restrictive environment. According to Jung, Cho, and Ambrosetti
(2011), the inclusion of special education topics in teacher preparation courses is
insufficient for providing teachers with the confidence needed to successfully educate
students with special needs. Furthermore, research conducted by Minke, Bear, Deemer, and
Griffin (1996) indicates that GE teachers make inadequate classroom accommodations for
students with special needs and generally feel unprepared to teach this population of
students. Therefore, this project seeks to provide training and support for GE teachers in
relation to students with learning disabilities to address this gap in learning.

Problem description
A study of pre-service special education teachers in the state of California revealed
that this group felt significantly more capable of adapting a learning environment and
developing materials to fit the needs of students with special needs in comparison to GE
teachers (Jung, Cho, Ambrosetti, 2011). In this study, a post-hoc comparison found that,
significantly more SPED [special education] pre-service teacher candidates (M =4.09, SD
=.79) reported confidence in their ability to teach students with disabilities than did either
the ELED [elementary] (M=2.82, SD = .78) or SecED [secondary] (M = 3.19, SD = .97)
groups (Jung, Cho, Ambrosetti, 2011). The study concluded that special education teachers
higher confidence levels might be a result of the specialized training they receive during
their coursework, whereas general education teacher coursework places an emphasis on
subject matter content. This project seeks to address this gap in confidence by providing GE
teachers with the appropriate training required to successfully meet the needs of students
with learning disabilities.
Learner Analysis
A learner analysis of the intended audience for this training is as follows. The entry
skills of the GE teachers intended for this training include general knowledge of teaching
practice and classroom modifications at the K-5 grade level. Learners may include preservice teachers, new probationary teachers and permanent teachers that may need a review
of learning disabilities. Therefore, while learners may have varying degrees of general
background knowledge, all learners will need additional training regarding special education
students and learning disabilities. Learner attitudes toward the content were determined
using a confidence scale completed by a sample of tryout learners (Appendix B). The

confidence scale measures learner attitudes as well as teacher confidence levels in relation to
special education topics as well as confidence implementing appropriate classroom
modifications. Survey questions range from 1 (least interested) to 5 (highest interest). A
special education interest survey of K-5 general education teachers at Alisal Union School
District also provided pertinent information regarding preparation time availability and
quality of professional development in the district (Appendix C). Learner analysis was also
conducted through a pre-test and a post-test in order to compare learning before and after
completion of the module (Appendix D). The pre-test was utilized to determine areas of
learner interest and need in order to best design instruction to fit the needs of the learner
population. In order to account for learner interest, this training considers the ARCS model
(attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction). By surveying teachers in relation to their
motivation, professional development and interest levels, the training strives to provide
relevant instruction for that meets the interests and satisfaction of GE teachers.
Performance Analysis
According to current research on pre-service teacher confidence conducted in the
state of California, general education teachers demonstrate significantly lower levels of
confidence as compared to special education teachers. Therefore, current performance
levels of general education teachers are lower than their special education counterparts.
Special education teachers reported a statistically significantly higher confidence level in
their ability to both adapt and develop classroom materials to meet the needs of students
with special needs compared to general education pre-service teachers (F (2, 284) = 39.29, p
< .001) (Jung, Cho, Ambrosetti, 2011). Special education teachers also felt more
comfortable utilizing special education terms compared to general education teachers

(F (2, 284) = 28.37, p < .001) (Jung, Cho, Ambrosetti, 2011). Furthermore, special
education teachers felt significantly more capable in both using new technologies to support
students with special needs (F (2, 284) = 11.72, p < .001) and communicating effectively
with parents of students with disabilities (F (2, 284) = 5.37, p
< .01) (Jung, Cho, Ambrosetti, 2011). According to the study, causes for this disparity in
confidence levels may be due to lower levels of specialized training in teacher credentialing
programs for general education teachers (Jung, Cho, Ambrosetti, 2011). Furthermore, low
levels of specialized training in special education continue to be a problem at the district
level when new probationary teachers are hired. At district levels, special education
specialized trainings for general education teachers are rare or non-existent, as district tend
to depend on the inclusion of special education topics in teacher credentialing programs.
However, according to Jung, Cho, and Ambrosetti (2011), this inclusion of special
education topics is insufficient in fostering a significant level of teacher confidence in preservice general teachers.
The aforementioned statistically significant gap between special education and
general education teacher confidence justifies the need for an intervention in the form of an
e-learning module, which will provide general education teachers with the skills and
knowledge necessary to demonstrate comparable confidence levels as special education
teachers. This intervention seeks to bridge this gap in confidence between special education
teachers and general education teachers. Desired performance outcomes for general
education teachers include comparable levels of teacher confidence to their special
education counterparts. The desired outcome is for general education teachers to report
similar levels of self-confidence and self-efficacy when compared to special education
teachers. This e-learning module seeks to accomplish this desired outcome by presenting the

basic elements of special education and specialized information regarding learning
disabilities. This module specializes in learning disabilities since these constitute the
majority of special education students that general education teachers will encounter, that is,
41% of all students receiving special education services (California Department of
Education, 2014).
Environmental scan
An environmental scan of currently available special education teaching strategies
and trainings for general education teachers includes the following. The National
Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY) (http://nichcy.org/) is a
center that provides information regarding children and youth with disabilities, programs
and services available and information regarding IDEA. The NICHCYs online website
provides an array of sources for families, educators and administrators in relation to special
education, including PowerPoint presentations, handouts, and links to additional resources.
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the U.S. Department of Education
funded the NICHCY. However, funding for the center was terminated on September 30,
2013 and the website will also be terminated on September 1st, 2014. NICHCY resources
will be placed as part of the Center for Parent Information and Resources
(http://www.parentcenterhub.org/resources/).
Wrightslaw (http://www.wrightslaw.com/) is online website that provides families,
educators, advocates and administrators with relevant information regarding special
education law and advocacy for children and youth with disabilities. The website is run by
Pete and Pam Wright, two Adjunct Professors of Law at the William and Mary Law School
where they specialize in special education law and advocacy. The website provides basic

information regarding the IEP process, along with handouts and worksheets on multiple
special education law topics. The website offers special education law and advocacy
trainings in the form of one-day and two-day boot camps in private one-on-one settings and
in-house agency trainings. The website also offers an online store which sells textbooks and
printed resources in relation to special education law. Furthermore, the store offers a special
education law and advocacy training on CD-ROM available for the purchase. The training
includes a six-hour program along with printed material.
The California Department of Education (http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/sr/) also
offers multiple resources on their online website, including basic information about special
education requirements, testing accommodations and online publications on the topic. This
website provides a link to CalSTAT, Technical Assistance and Training
(http://www.calstat.org/webinar.html), which offers publications, podcasts and webinars on
a variety of special education subjects including special education collaborative efforts,
curriculum, discipline, and legal requirements amongst other topics. The aforementioned
resources provide a wealth of information regarding special education topics, including
printed materials, online links, PDF files, podcasts, webinars, etc. This e-learning training
module will seek to gather information from this environmental scan in a training focused
on the needs of general education teachers.
Solution Description
Proposed solution to fulfill the gap
The proposed solution includes an e-learning module available online that will
provide guidance, modeling, and practice regarding special education legislation, the IEP
process, the special education referral process, learning disability characteristics and

classroom accommodations. General education teachers will be able to access the module
online at their discretion and utilize the strategies to support students with learning
disabilities. By the end of the e-learning module, general teachers should be able to
incorporate a variety of scaffolds, learning activities and teaching strategies in their daily
lesson planning to differentiate instruction and provide the least restrictive environment for
students with special needs. The e-learning module will include direct instruction in the
form of lectures, videos and assessments. The e-learning module will also include quizzes
with immediate feedback and samples of teaching scaffolds, which general education
teachers may immediately apply to their instruction. The e-learning module will also
include accessibility in both HTML5 and Flash form in order to serve the needs of a variety
of users from multiple settings. Additionally, the e-learning module will be accessible
through both Mac and Windows operating systems including desktop computers and
laptop/mobile devices.
Goals and objectives

According to May and Kundert (1996), appropriate training and resources provide
general education teachers with the skills to manage the atypicality of students with special
needs by supporting their ability to self-regulate and self-motivate. Chester and Beaudins
(1996) research on self-efficacy in teachers states that appropriate training is critical in
shaping teachers beliefs and attitudes. By providing the appropriate training, this elearning module seeks to support general education teachers in their everyday instruction of
special education students and serve as a significant factor in improving their selfconfidence and self-efficacy as instructors of students with special needs.

The overall goal of this e-learning module is to provide general education teachers
with the specialized skills necessary to effectively instruct students with learning disabilities
and thus, offer the least restrictive environment in the classroom. The aforementioned
research supports the goal that adequate teacher training will most likely increase teacher
self-confidence and self-efficacy. Hence, this e-learning module seeks to raise GE teachers
confidence to levels commensurate with those of special education teachers. Sample
instructional objectives for this e-learning module include the following:
Objective #1: Given an example of a fundamental principle of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the learner will be able to accurately identify its
significance with 100% accuracy.
Objective #2: Given the seven steps of the Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
process, the learner will be able to accurately match each step to its principle (Behavior)
with 100% accuracy.
Objective #3: Given the three categories of characteristics of a learning disability,
the learner will be able to categorize the appropriate teaching strategy in its corresponding
category with 100% accuracy.
Application of learning theory and instructional principles
This e-learning module will utilize Cognitive Information Processing learning theory
as a foundation for instruction. Cognitive Information Processing learning theory employs a
multistage model to explain the processing of information in the brain (Table 1). The theory
provides a model for explaining the processes of short term working memory and long-term
memory along with attention to, encoding and retrieval of information.
Table 1. Broadbent (1958)
The theory further stipulates that learning occurs within a learning framework that
includes internal and external factors. Internal factors are comprised of the learners
cognitive framework in relation to tacit, conceptual and metacognitive knowledge. External
factors are comprised of the nature and organization of the information presented to the
learner (Gredler, 2005). Therefore, according to the theorys multistage model, effective
instruction must take into consideration the basic cognitive processes of the brain. The
theorys explanation of the learning framework serves to individualize how the learner
processes the information since it corresponds to the learners prior knowledge and to the
specific nature of the information presented.
In this e-learning module, instruction is based on the theorys learning framework,
which consists of both internal and external factors. For example, in a presentation of
special education law and classroom practices, the module takes into consideration a general
education teachers prior tacit knowledge regarding lesson plan design and instructional
modifications. Specifically, the module considers the learners knowledge of scripts
regarding classroom differentiation by gearing the instructional objectives to match the level
of prior knowledge, which a general education teacher will most likely have. Moreover, the

project considers the level of content and conceptual knowledge, which a general education
has regarding special education topics. Since a course on special education topics is required
as part of every credentialing program in the state of California, all general education
teachers are assumed to have basic knowledge of learning disabilities and special education
law. The project presents information from this knowledge base in order to support the
learners attention, perception and encoding of new information.
To facilitate attention, the project provides the learner with clear instructional
objectives and focus questions that will connect the new learning to prior knowledge.
Information is organized sequentially through lectures, presentations and modeling of
special education practices in order to successfully interact with the learners tacit and
content knowledge, thereby supporting the processing of information from short-term
encoding into long term memory. The project also supports active retrieval of information
from long-term memory by reviewing pertinent information throughout the modules through
external and internal cues. External cues include focus questions that are tied to a prior topic,
images pertaining to the topic and mnemonic devices, which the learner may later utilize as
internal cues for retrieving previously learning information.
Furthermore, this e-learning module includes Gagnes Conditions of Learning
Theory as an instructional theory. Gagnes instructional theory provides the learners with a
sequence of instructional events they will most likely already be familiar with. Gagnes
nine instructional events are widely utilized as part of teacher training programs and allow
the e-learning module to reach a wide audience of GE teachers. Gagnes nine instructional
events also help to break down the information and material into sequential and manageable
steps for the learners to grasp. The nine instructional events are consistently applied
throughout the module lessons.

Furthermore, Gagnes five varieties of learning (information, motor skill, attitude,
cognitive strategy and intellectual skills) provide a comprehensive training for learners. For
example, since this e-learning module seeks to increase GE teachers self-confidence in their
ability to instruct students with learning disabilities, a consideration of Gagnes attitude
variety of learning is important. The module instruction seeks to include the three aspects of
this learning variety (cognitive, affective and behavioral) in order to support teachers
confidence in their application of special education strategies and skills in the classroom.
Instructional strategies
Gagnes nine instructional events structure the module into manageable chunks of
information that support each of the nine learning phases (attending, expectancy, retrieval,
selective perception, semantic encoding, responding, reinforcement, retrieval, and
generalization). The nine instructional events provide a blueprint for each lesson in the
module, which will allow learners to prepare for the learning, acquire and perform the
instructional objectives and finally transfer the learning. The use of the nine instructional
events throughout the lesson planning takes into the consideration the five varieties of
learning in order to correctly account for the type of performance that is expected of the
learner, whether it may be an information capability or attitude capability, etc.
Task Analysis
The task analysis for this e-learning module identifies the content required to meet the
instructional goal: Learners will demonstrate knowledge of the basic elements of special
education and learning disabilities by identifying the major components of IDEA legislation,
comprehending the IEP process, classifying the characteristics of learning disabilities, along

with assessment practices by using/analyzing classroom modifications that provide the least
restrictive environment for students with special needs.
1. Identify basic elements of IDEA 2004
a. Define/name/list/match free appropriate public education (FAPE)
b. Define/name/list/match least restrictive environment (LRE)
c. Define/name/list/match systematic identification procedures
2. Identify Individualized Education Plan (IEP) process
a. List/apply the seven steps in the IEP process
i. Pre-Referral: list concerns about students performance and identify
pre-referral interventions
ii. Referral: list possible resources for support and help, indicate steps of
the referral process
iii. Identification: apply appropriate testing and assessments for special
education identification
iv. Eligibility: identify and conclude appropriate eligibility requirements
for special education services
v. Development of IEP: construct appropriate IEP for student with
learning disability
vi. Implementation of IEP: identify/use appropriate teaching strategies
and modifications for least restrictive environment
vii. Evaluation and Review: identify steps to measure student progress
and success of interventions
3. Identify/Define/Classify Characteristics of Learning Disability
a. Define learning disability

b. Define/name/list/match examples of reading/learning disability
c. Define/name/list/match examples of mathematics/learning disability
d. Define/name/list/match/classify/explain three characteristics of students with
learning disability
i. Being nonstrategic
ii. Unable to generalize or transfer learning
iii. Processing information inefficiently or incorrectly
4. Identify/Define/Classify Assessment Practices
a. Response to Intervention
b. Curriculum based measurement (CBM)
Media components
The e-learning module was developed through the use of Adobe Captivate 7. All
media, including videos, audio, pictures, student work samples, graphic organizers, etc., are
cited as Creative Commons. The module also includes examples for each of the instructional
accommodations presented including graphic organizers, and real case scenarios. The elearning module includes a variety of media in order to present the information utilizing the
Coherence Principle of instructional design. The module also incorporates elements of the
Personalization Principle including character-based scenarios regarding instructional
accommodations.
Challenges
Challenges included components of instructional technology such as effective use of
Adobe Captivate 7 and video production to create the e-learning module. Creation of this elearning module required significant proficiency and knowledge of Adobe Captivate. The

content of the e-learning module also required a significant amount of research, continued
literature review and application of effective learning theory to mold successful product.
Solutions utilized to offset these challenges included increased practice in the use of
Captivate 7 along with consistent reflections on the utilization of this technology to teach
the instructional objectives. An additional solution included increased reflection and critical
analysis on the existing literature regarding special education strategies and skills and as
well as reflection on how best to support general education teachers given the research
conducted.
Methods & Procedure

Narrative: design and development
Major deliverables for this e-learning module include:
1. Lesson plans using Gagnes Conditions of Learning Theory for each of the six
components described in the Task Analysis
2. Collection of literature and references for each of the six components described in the
Task Analysis
3. Storyboards for each of the six components described in the Task Analysis, detailing
main menu, navigation buttons, assessments with correct/incorrect answer feedback, use
of multiple responses (matching, drag and drop, true or false, listing, short answer, etc.)
4. Completion of module on Adobe Captivate 7
5. Usability test for sample users
6. Pre-test and post-test for sample users

Steps
Step One: Analyze: Research of available literature, resources and research on IDEA
legislation, IEP process and learning disabilities. Additional continuation of research on
Gagnes Conditions of Learning Theory, including the five varieties of learning, and its
application in instructional design and adult learning.
Step Two: Design: Storyboard, timeline and outlines that include necessary
equipment for production design (videos, audio, podcasts, classroom resources, PowerPoint
presentations, real case scenarios). Design pre-test, post-test, try-out conditions and tools.
Step Three: Development Create module using Adobe Captivate 7 with application
of learning theory and research. Development also included relevant pre-test, post-test,
general interest survey and observation script/checklist, which were utilized during
evaluation step of design.
Step Four: Implementation: Provide pre-test to sample users and usability test of the
module with a group of general education teachers at staff professional development
meeting during teacher preparation time on campus.
Step Five: Evaluation: Provide post-test to sample users and solicit feedback through
online and paper surveys as well as one-to-one interviews regarding the modules
effectiveness in supporting classroom instruction for students with learning disabilities.
Evaluation also included a statistical analysis of the pre-test and post-test as repeated
measures and dependent samples in order to provide in a paired two-sample t-test to
measure for significance.

Resources
Needs
Time: The project was completed in its entirety by the completion of the spring
semester 2015. The e-learning module required approximately 100 to 150 hours of lab time
and preparation.
Money: Adobe Captivate, with an educational discount, included a total cost of $289.
Rental fees of production design equipment including microphones, cameras, laptop
computer, hard drives, lights, and Final Cut Pro X software from the Monterey Peninsula
School District (MPUSD). E-Learning Art icons and characters purchased with a year
license for $70. Costs also included a Weebly monthly subscription of $8 for an upgraded
Pro-account which featured multimedia features and password protection.
Software: Adobe Captivate 7, Final Cut Pro X for editing of video production,
Weebly Internet website.
Hardware: MacBook Pro, Panasonic HMC/40P camera, Manfrotto tripod, lapel
microphone, Shure condenser microphone, and M-Audio C600 Audio Interface.
Space: Hard-drive space includes approximately 3 or 4 terabytes of storage for
videos, audio and media components. Required physical space also includes a classroom
setting for video production and storage of video equipment.
External expertise: Information gathered from instructional coaches and school
psychologist from both academic departments including general education and special
education.

Training: The required Adobe Captivate 7 skills necessary to complete the elearning module gained through online tutorials and IST course labs and practice. The
necessary Final Cut Pro X skills also gained through online tutorials and practice.
Budget: The budget for this project includes available the necessary monetary funds
for a monthly Weebly account as well as any other necessary components for the projects
completion.
Technical skills
Technical skills include knowledge of Adobe Captivate 7, Final Cut Pro X and
Internet upload capabilities. Technical skills also include successful operation of necessary
cameras, lights, audio interface and microphones. Technical skills also included successful
video editing skills on Final Cut Pro X to create engaging videos with relevant titles, frames,
music and audio.
Timeline & Progress Report

Major deliverables & dates
Please see attached Appendix A for a Gantt chart with a timeline of major deliverables and
tasks.
Evaluation
The tryout process involved a three-step procedure, including both a pre-test of prior
knowledge and a confidence survey regarding special education topics, a one-on-one
observation along with an observation checklist, a post-test measuring both knowledge and

confidence regarding special education topics, and finally a Google survey questionnaire to
measure user satisfaction after the tryout process.
Pre- & Post-Test
Each user was given a Special Need Confidence Scale (Appendix B) to complete in
order to determine learner confidence in teaching students with learning disabilities both
before and after completion of the module. Each user was also given a ten question pre-test
(Appendix D) in order to assess their entry skills and background knowledge on the subject.
Similarly, the same ten-question test was given to each user after completing the module in
order to determine learning achievement at the end of the instruction. In order to accurately
measure the learning gains achieved by each user at the end of the module and to measure
the effectiveness of the module as an instructional tool, the same confidence scale and the
same ten question quiz were used as a pre-test and as a post-test. Each user completed each
pre-test on paper before beginning the module, and the developer collected the assessments
for further analysis after the tryout. At the end of the module, each user once again
completed the confidence scale and the ten-question quiz on paper. The developer collected
each quiz for a comparison analysis of learning achievement and increased self-confidence
in teaching students with special needs.
Observation
During the tryout, the developer conducted a one-on-one observation of the user as
he/she completed the confidence scale and the pre- and the post-test along with the module.
The observations took place during a two-week period during the months of April and May
2015 at Frank Paul Elementary School, Salinas, California. Each observation ranged
approximately 30 minutes. At the beginning of each observation, the user was given a brief

overview of the contents of the module, including general information about the importance
of special education and high prevalence of learning disabilities in the classroom. At this
time, the developer also provided general instructions regarding the completion of the pretests, post-tests, the module and Google Forms survey.
In order to clarify the tryout expectations and guidelines, the developer utilized a
pre-prepared script (Appendix E). This script allowed the developer to structure the given
directions to each user and provide only the necessary information for completing the tryout.
In regards to user questions during the tryout process, the developer responded by providing
only the necessary information to troubleshoot the issue and with open-ended questions that
allowed the user to troubleshoot the issue on their own (Appendix F). During the
observation, the developer utilized an observation checklist to critically evaluate user
response and behavior during the tryout process (Appendix G).
Questionnaire
At the end of the observation, each user was instructed to complete an online Google
Form survey questionnaire regarding their overall satisfaction with the module (Appendix
H). The survey included questions regarding user satisfaction in relation to overall clarity,
module navigation, and efficiency/satisfaction. The survey questions were specifically
designed to gain feedback in relation to the most commonly adhered to general principles in
instructional design (Lockwood, 2014), including user interface consistency, navigation
design, language accuracy, use of color and contrast, and intuitable/logical design. Also, the
survey included questions regarding the effectiveness of the course instruction.

Tryout Conditions
In order to create a structured and organized environment for all users, the tryout
process including all observations, were completed in a classroom at Frank Paul Elementary
School in Salinas, California. Users completed paper copies of the confidence scale and the
pre-test. Users were notified that they could either bring in their own laptop computer or use
the school equipment. Available school computer equipment included desktop Macintosh
computers with 17-inch monitors and Bose companion speakers for the audio narration of
the module. Users that brought in their own computer equipment brought in either
Macintosh laptops or PC laptops with internal speakers. The classroom setting allowed for
the tryout to be conducted in a professional and private environment where the user could
effectively focus on the demands of the tasks.
Results
The results for this analysis included an examination of the confidence scale results and
the pre- and post-test results in order to determine increased self-confidence and learning
achievement after completing the module. Since pre- and post-test results were compared,
this analysis fit the description of a repeated measure, which would utilize a dependent
sample t-test. A t-test for dependent samples would help determine the possible existence of
a statistically significant difference between the two test results, pre- and post-test. In
addition, results were calibrated from the Google Forms survey in order to determine the
effectiveness of the module in relation to the most commonly implemented general
principles of instructional design.

Entry conditions
The module was designed and intended for K-5 elementary school teachers. All tryout
learners were credentialed instructors in the state of California with experience ranging from
one year up to 5 years. The intended entry conditions aligned with the observed conditions.
According to results measured from the learners pre-test scores, 60% of learners were
relatively familiar with special education topics and specific learning disabilities. In addition,
all the users had basic knowledge of IDEA 2004 and its importance. Finally, users had little
or some knowledge of the IEP process and its various components. Since the intended and
observed entry conditions were generally congruent, users did not demonstrate any
unexpected entry conditions.
a. Instruction
The intended and observed instructions were also generally congruent. The intended
instruction was for the users to identify information regarding special education legislation,
the IEP process, IDEA 2004, learning disability characteristics and accommodations for
learning. Additionally, the intended instruction was for users to gain sufficient knowledge
and skills which would increase their self-confidence in providing effective classroom
instruction for students with learning disabilities, including increased confidence in lesson
planning to differentiate instruction and providing the least restrictive environment.
Since the module distinctly separated the lesson phases into three steps, and the
observed instruction was clear throughout the training. Step 1: Provided a direct-instruction
demonstration on basic elements of learning disabilities, IDEA 2004, the IEP process, and
learner characteristics. Based on the observation checklist utilized throughout the tryout

process, the users were able to independently follow along with this phase of direct
instruction.
Step 2: Provided a guided practice phase of instruction on the basic elements of
IDEA 2004, the IEP process, learner characteristics and instructional accommodations.
Based on the observation checklist, users were again able to independently maneuver the
various tasks.
Step 3: Provided an independent practice of the previously practiced tasks. According to
the observation checklist, the users were able to independently click the appropriate
locations on the screen in order to complete the tasks without any assistance. Therefore, the
intended and observed instructions were generally congruent as users were able to
demonstrate knowledge of the tasks required by the module.
b. Outcomes
Table 2 provides an examination of the assessment outcomes for the users selfconfidence survey results. A statistical analysis of the results indicated a statistically
significant difference between pre- and post-test results. The confidence scale had a total of
ten items with users marking 1 as strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 undecided, 4 agree and 5
strongly agree with the statement. Users scores were compiled and compared using a paired
two-sample t-test to test for significance. Since the pre- and post-test results were repeated
measures of a users performance, a dependent paired two-sample t-test was appropriate to
analyze the outcome results (Appendix J).
Table 2 below summarizes the results for each user. An analysis of the t-test revealed the
statistically significant results for each of the five users. For example, for user #1, the
following result (|t|=3.85 > 1.83) yields a statistically significant result since the t-stat is

greater than the t-critical value. Thereby, the null hypothesis of 0 was rejected. An analysis
of the p-value results also indicates a statistically significant result for all of the users. For
example, in relation to the p-value, the t-test demonstrated the following: (0.004 < 0.05) for
user #1. Since the p-value is less than the designated 0.05, then once again the null
hypothesis was rejected, thereby demonstrating a statistically significant increase in selfconfidence after completing the module.
Table 2: t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
User Number
T-Stat Value vs. T-Critical
P-Value vs. 0.05
Value
1
(|t|=3.85 > 1.83)
(0.004 < 0.05)
(|t|=3.87 > 1.83)
(0.004 < 0.05)
(|t|=2.75 > 1.83)
(0.02 < 0.05)
(|t|=3.67 > 1.83)
(0.005 < 0.05)
(|t|=5.03 > 1.83)
(0.0007< 0.05)
Furthermore, an examination of the pre-test and post-test on special education topics

also demonstrated statistically significant results. The test had a total of ten items with each
item accounting for ten points, for an overall total of 100 points. Both pre and post-test
results were also calculated and analyzed through a paired two-sample t-test to test for
significance. Once again, since the use of the same test was utilized before and after
completion of the module, the results proved to be repeated measures of each users
knowledge on special education topics. Therefore, a dependent paired two-sample t-test
was again appropriate to analyze the outcome results (Appendix H). An analysis of the t-test

revealed the following: (|t|=5.88 > 2.015). Since the t-stat is greater than the t-critical value,
the null hypothesis can be rejected, thereby yielding statistically significant results.
An analysis of the p-value results also indicates a statistically significant result. In
relation to the p-value, the t-test demonstrated the following: (0.002 < 0.05). Since the pvalue is less than the designated 0.05, then once again the null hypothesis may be rejected,
thereby demonstrating a statistically significant increase in user learning on special
education topics. Test reliability was accurate with both the confidence scale and the test on
special education topics since the same items were used for both the pre- and the post-test.
Utilizing the same test items provided an accurate reading of the users prior knowledge
regarding the subject matter and knowledge gained after completing the module.
The Google Forms survey (Appendix I), which users completed after the module,
utilized a 5-point scale with the following:
a.
Strongly Agree= 5 points
b.
Agree= 4 points
c.
Undecided= 3 points
d.
Disagree= 2 points
e.
Strongly Disagree=1 point

In terms of clarity regarding the course objective, users reported high scores with 100%
of users stating they either agreed or strongly agreed that the course objectives was clear.
The lesson objectives were presented before each module along with audio narration.
Therefore, the main screen and audio narration provided users with a clear purpose for that
particular lesson. In relation to overall navigation, most users agreed that the design was
consistent, yet 40% of the users were either undecided or disagreed. According to the short
answer responses gathered from this survey, users stated the module could benefit from

increased streamlining of titles on each slide. All title bars and texts have since been revised
and streamlined to enhance usability. Users reported that the overall navigation of the table
of contents was fairly clear, yet they lacked user control since they found it difficult to
rewind to an earlier lesson or pause to take notes. Buttons allowing the user to go on the
next slide or return to the previous slide have since been added to every slide. This data also
coincides with question four regarding the users ability to independently troubleshoot
issues during the module. 40% of users stated they were not able to independently
troubleshoot any issues such as go back to the module when an external link was clicked.
All links have since been changed to open in separate windows to enhance usability.
However, a significant amount of users (80%-100%) found the overall design of the
module to be consistent. This also matches user comments regarding the consistency in
relation to the four parts of the instruction (direct, guided, independent, assessment). Users
reported in the commentary sections of question #9 that these four phases were clear and
consistent. Moreover, in terms of consistency, 80% of users reported high satisfaction with
the module color design, including the use of blue and white colors and contrast between
text and background (100% strongly agree). Commentary from users verified the
effectiveness of the step-by-step organization of the module as well as the neutral and userfriendly colors utilized. Overall, most users found the module effective and successful as
demonstrated by the statistical analysis explained above and by the survey results. Overall,
users reported an increase in their self-confidence when approaching special education
topics and in their ability to accommodate for students with learning disabilities. For
example, 80% of users either agreed or strongly agreed that the course improved their
knowledge of special education topics and specific learning disabilities.

c. Recommendations
Based on the above findings, the following recommendations can be concluded:
Increased number of accommodation strategies: Though teachers reported increased
self-confidence and knowledge regarding special education topics, the survey feedback does
suggest that additional information regarding teaching strategies for students with specific
learning disabilities would both better support teachers in the classroom and further increase
the instructional value of the module. Users suggested that the module increase the number
of teaching strategies and accommodations, which could better support students with
disabilities access to the general education curriculum.
Navigation Options: It was suggested that there be an upgraded option to fastforward and rewind the narration. The navigations options would give users the opportunity
to control learning environment based on their individual wants and needs. The opportunity
to navigate at their own pace would also allot users to pause to take notes if and when
necessary. Currently the navigation menu only allows users to jump forward to the next
screen, as well as go back to the previous screen.
Include More Practice Assessment Options: In an effort to gain and maintain user
attention, it has been recommended that the assessment of the modules incorporate more
interactive opportunities to keep users engaged. Including more interactive options would
make the content more lively and interesting to the learner. Furthermore, with varied
assessment items would increase users retention of subject matter and consequently
continue to increase users self-confidence and knowledge in special education topics and
accommodations for students with specific learning disabilities.

Conclusion
The goal of this project was to provide general education teachers with increased
knowledge and self-confidence in relation to special education topics and teaching students
with specific learning disabilities. This project sought to address a documented gap in
special education knowledge (Jung, Cho, Ambrosetti, 2011) through the creation and
implementation of an e-learning module on the subject matter. The project utilized existing
research to analyze the problem and the proposed solution regarding general education
teachers and special education topics. The goal of this project was to provide general
education teachers with increased knowledge and self-confidence so they may fulfill the
requirements mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and
thereby provide students with learning disabilities the least restrictive environment available
and proper classroom modifications.
The module was designed utilizing the principles of Cognitive Information
Processing learning theory as a foundation for instruction. The theory provided the project
with an important foundation regarding the workings of learners short-term working
memory, long-term memory, attention, encoding and retrieval. The module slides therefore
adhered to these principles by providing learners with chunks of information at a time in
order to gain the learners attention and support short-term memory use. The module
assessments were designed to help encode and retrieve the information presented. The
design and development of the project utilized the aforementioned learning theory and
existing special education research to create a learning module that would correlate the
needs found in the learner analysis.
The implementation and evaluation steps of the project included a usability test with
five learners, which provided important information necessary to analyze the effectiveness

of the learning module. The data compiled from the pre-test and post-test referring to both
teacher confidence and special education knowledge allowed for a statistical analysis,
thereby demonstrating a statistically significant increase in self-confidence and special
education knowledge after completing the module. Further examination of data relating to
user satisfaction with the learning module allowed for an analysis regarding
recommendations for improvement in terms of design, content and usability.

References
Broadbent, D.E. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon.
California Department of Education. (2014). Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/sr/
California Department of Education. (2014). Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/sr/
CalSTAT, Technical Assistance and Training. (2014). Retrieved from
(http://www.calstat.org/webinar.html)
Chester, M. D., & Beudin, B. Q. (1996). Efficacy beliefs of newly hired teachers in urban
schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 233-257.
Gredler, M. (2005). Learning and Instruction: Theory and Practice. Columbus, Ohio:
Pearson.
Jung, W., Cho, G., & Ambrosetti, D., (2011). Preservice teachers confidence levels in
working with students with special needs: Improving preservice teacher
training programs. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 2 (7).
http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1129&context=eji
e
Lockwood, Nancy (2014). User interface. [Microsoft Word document]. Retrieved from
Lecture Notes Week 6 iLearn Web site:
https://ilearn.csumb.edu/mod/resource/view.php?id=170195
May, D. C., & Kundert, D. K. (1996). Are special educators prepared to meet the sex
education needs of their students? A progress report. The Journal of SPED, 29, 433441.
Minke, K. M., Bear, G. G., Deemer, S. A., & Griffin, S. M. (1996). Teachers

experiences with inclusion classrooms: Implications for SPED reform. The
Journal of Special Education, 30, 152-186.
National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. (2014). Retrieved from
http://nichcy.org/
Smith, D.D. (2007). Introduction to special education: Making a difference. Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Wrightslaw. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/

Appendix A
Gantt Chart for major deliverables

Appendix B
Special Needs Confidence Scale, (Jung, W., Cho, G., & Ambrosetti, D., 2011)

Appendix C
Special Education Interest Survey for General Education Teachers
Question #1:
How many years of teaching experience do you have? (Note: after completing a teachercredentialing program)
a) 0-2
b) 3-5
c) 5-10
d) 11 or more
Question #2:
On average, how many hours of paid teacher planning preparation time does your school
district provide per workweek?
a) 0-1 hours
b) 2-3 hours
c) 4-5 hours
d) 6-7 hours
e) 8 or more hours
Question #3:
Special education training is important for my professional development.
a) very important
b) important
c) undecided
d) not important
Question #4
Rate the quality of special education instruction provided by your teacher-credentialing
program.
a) very good
b) good
c) average
d) poor
e) very poor
Question #5:
Rate the quality of special education professional development provided by your school site.
a) very good
b) good
c) average
d) poor
e) very poor

Appendix D
Pre-Test and Post-Test on Special Education Topics
1. What is a learning disability?
a. a disorder in a basic physical process
b. a disorder in a basic psychological process
2. What is a perceptual disability?
a. a disorder that affects the way an individual perceives their environment through
their senses
b. a disorder that affects an individuals hearing or visual capabilities
3. ISTE stands for:
a. Internet Society Technology Engineering
b. International Society for Technical Engineering
c. International Society for Technology in Education
d. Internet Safety in Technology Education
4. What is an IEP?
a. Curriculum and services that must meet state standards and which are determined
appropriate by the IEP team
b. A set of agreements meant to guide instruction and the delivery of services in
order to provide an appropriate education to students with special needs
5. Match the following:
___ Free Appropriate Education
a. Special education services must be offered

with as much access to general education
curriculum as possible

___ Least Restrictive Environment
b. Services must be provided at no cost and as

determined appropriate by the IEP team
___ State & Curriculum Requirements
c. Curriculum and services must meet state

standards and determined appropriate by IEP
team
6. How often does IDEA require evaluation and review of the IEP?
a. IEP is discussed at parent conference
b. annual meetings review student progress
c. a new IEP is written every six months
7. Number the following steps of the IEP process in sequential order
____ Implementation of the IEP
____ Identification
____ Pre-referral
____ Development of the IEP
____ Eligibility
____ Evaluation and Review
____ Referral
8. If services are too expensive, then it is acceptable for school districts to only provide
students with the disabilities the services they can afford.
a. True
b. False
9. What is one support that teachers can provide to students with disabilities to help them
classify information?
Short Answer: _____________________________

10. Match the following:
___ Classifying Information
a. Breaking down information supports

cognitive process
___ Sequencing Information
b. Teaches students to organize information in

order to understand it
___ Chunking Information
c. Allows students to perceive relationships

between concepts in order

Appendix E
Observation Script
Welcome to this usability test for an online e-learning module entitled Special Education
Instruction for General Education teachers. During this tryout session, you will first
complete a ten-question pre-test regarding basic knowledge of special education topics
including students with learning disabilities, IDEA and IEP requirements. You will also
complete a general interest survey and a special needs confidence scale regarding your
confidence in teaching students with special needs. Then, you will complete an online
training module on special education and learning disabilities.
The module is intended to increase your knowledge and confidence in teaching students
with special needs by providing you with background information and teaching
strategies. Please proceed through the module as directed by the audio narration. During
the final portion of the module, you will complete a ten-question post-test that assesses your
knowledge after completing the various lessons in the module. Finally, you will complete
an online Google Survey in which you will provide feedback on the module. This feedback
will allow the developer of the module to make any necessary changes and improvements
that will better support user learning. Thank you for your cooperation.

Appendix F
Sample responses to user questions during tryout process
1. User: The button/link is not working to go to the next page?
Developer: Is there anything else you could try to troubleshoot the problem?
2. User: I cant back to the main page. What should I do?
Developer: Is there anywhere on the screen where you can go for help with this issue?

Appendix G
Observation Checklist
Checklist
Does the user click the correct box in each screen?
Does the user go through each screen without the need to
troubleshoot?
Does the user follow the lessons at a consistent pace?
Is the user able to independently troubleshoot any issues with the
module?
Is the user able to skip required portions of the module?
Is the user able to use the table of contents to troubleshoot problems
with the navigation?
Is the user able to use the search engine in the table contents to
independently troubleshoot any problems?
Is the user able to demonstrate comprehension of stated language,
including acronyms and abbreviations?
Is the user able to successfully follow the steps in the assessment
portion of the module?
Yes No Comments

Appendix H
Google Forms Post-Observation Survey

Appendix I
Google Forms Post-Observation Survey Results
Question #1: I clearly understood the course

objective.
User 5
Strongly Agree: 20%
User 3
Agree: 80%
User 1
Undecided: 0
0
Disagree: 0
Strongly Disagree: 0
Question #2: The navigation design of the

module was consistent.
User 5
User 4
User 3
User 2
User 1
Strongly Agree: 0
Agree: 60%
Undecided: 20%
0
Disagree: 20%
1
Question #3: The course content was logically

organized.
User 5
Strongly Agree: 0
User 4
Agree: 60%
User 3
Undecided: 40%
User 2
Disagree: 0%
User 1
0
Question #4: I was able to independently

troubleshoot any issues during the module.
User 5
Strongly Agree: 0
User 4
Agree: 40%
User 3
Undecided: 20%
User 2
Disagree: 0%
User 1
Strongly Disagree: 40%

0
Question #5: The use of color was appropriate

throughout the module.
User 5
Strongly Agree: 80%
User 4
Agree: 20%
User 3
Undecided: 0%
User 2
Disagree: 0%
User 1
0
Question #6: The contrast between text and

background was appropriate throughout the
module.
Strongly Agree: 100%
User 5
Agree: 0
User 3
Undecided: 0
User 1
Disagree: 0
0
Question #7: My knowledge and/or skills

have signiUicantly increased as a result of this
course.
Strongly Agree: 20%
User 5
Agree: 60%
User 3
Undecided: 20%
User 1
0
Disagree: 0
Question 8: Please write one comment about the effectiveness of the instruction in this
module.
User #1
IEP process was well explained.
User #2
Step-by-step instruction were clear
User #3:
The narration supported my learning.
User #4
Videos were interactive.
User #5
Instructions guided me.
User #6
Instructions guided me.
User #7
Scenario helped to explain disability.
User #8
Videos supported comprehension.
User #9
Characters were engaging
User #10
IEP process was broken down into steps.

Question #9:
Please write one comment about the effectiveness of the overall design of this module.
User #1
Progress bar was clear.
User #2
Colors were warm white with blue.
User #3:
Table of contents was available in progress bar.
User #4
Use of characters was effective.
User #5
IEP process was explained in sequential steps.
User #6
Pictures and visuals matched the narration.
User #7
Narration supported learning.
User #8
Screens had go back and go on buttons.
User #9
Quizzes provided feedback.
User #10
Titles appeared on screen one at a time.
Question #10:
Please write one recommended improvement for this module.
User #1
Double-checking all titles so they all match.
User #2
Some of titles overlapped with pictures.
User #3:
Streamline narration so volume is the same for all.
User #4
Titles overlapped.
User #5
I had to go back to take the quiz twice because there was a glitch the first time.
User #6
Links in the module should open in a separate page.
User #7
Narration supported learning.
User #8
Two screens did not have go on or go back buttons.

User #9
Check all titles for accuracy.
User #10
When I opened link, I lost all my work and had to start again.

Appendix J
User #1:
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Pre-Test
2.8
0.844444444
10
0.609088209
0
9
-3.857142857
0.001931949
1.833112923
0.003863898
2.262157158
Post-Test
3.7
0.455555556
10
Survey Questions
User #1: Teacher ConUidence Survey

Results
9
7
5
Post-Test
Pre-Test
1
0
Scale Numbers: 1= Strongly Disagree - 5=Strongly Agree

User #2

Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Pre-Test
2.6
0.488888889
10
0.123091491
0
9
-3.872983346
0.001885779
1.833112923
0.003771558
2.262157158
Post-Test
3.6
0.266666667
10
Survey Questions

Results
9
7
5
Post-Test
Pre-Test
1
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Scale Numbers: 1=Strongly Disagree - 5=Strongly Agree

User #3:

Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Pre-Test
2.1
0.544444444
10
0.026527905
0
9
-2.752988806
0.011183595
1.833112923
0.022367189
2.262157158
Post-Test
2.9
0.322222222
10
Survey Questions

Results
9
7
5
Post-Test
Pre-Test
1
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5

User #4:

Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Pre-Test
2
0.222222222
10
0.456435465
0
9
-3.674234614
0.002560536
1.833112923
0.005121073
2.262157158
Post-Test
2.6
0.266666667
10
Survey Questions

Results
9
7
5
Post-Test
Pre-Test
1
0
0.5
1.5
2.5

User #5

Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Pre-Test
2
0.222222222
10
0
0
9
-5.013774131
0.000362608
1.833112923
0.000725215
2.262157158
Post-Test
2.9
0.1
10
Survey Questions

Results
9
7
5
Post-Test
Pre-Test
1
0
0.5
1.5
2.5

Appendix H
Pre- and Post-Test Results

Pre-Test
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Post-Test
68
120
5
0.645497224
0
4
-5.879747322
0.002090536
2.131846782
0.004181072
2.776445105
Pre-Test & Post-Test Results

5
Users
4
3
Post-Test
Pre-Test
1
0
20
40
60
Test Percentages
80
100
90
50
5

Arrieta-Rose - Final Report

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Arrieta-Rose - Final Report

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Running Head: SPECIAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTION FOR GENERAL EDUCATION

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Introduction and Background

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Goals and objectives

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Table 1. Broadbent (1958)

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Methods & Procedure

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Timeline & Progress Report

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

T-Stat Value vs. T-Critical

P-Value vs. 0.05

(|t|=3.85 > 1.83)

(0.004 < 0.05)

(|t|=3.87 > 1.83)

(0.004 < 0.05)

(|t|=2.75 > 1.83)

(0.02 < 0.05)

(|t|=3.67 > 1.83)

(0.005 < 0.05)

(|t|=5.03 > 1.83)

Furthermore, an examination of the pre-test and post-test on special education topics

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Strongly Agree= 5 points

Strongly Disagree=1 point

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

a. Special education services must be offered

Special Education Instruction for General Education Teachers

b. Services must be provided at no cost and as

___ State & Curriculum Requirements