The first research question addressed through interview responses from participants was:

How do special education teachers working with students with significant and profound

cognitive and physical disabilities describe the integrative interactions they use for these students

in a general education setting? The following theme was developed based on participant

responses: Teachers have reported using collaboration and grouping strategies to enhance

interactions between classmates in the general education setting. Collaboration and grouping

strategies were deemed successful by educators because they were perceived to both coordinate

instruction and create environments conducive to peer socialization. Educators mentioned

grouping strategies and collaboration with other educational professionals on multiple occasions.

Some teachers adopted an approach of pairing high-level learners with lower-level learners to

engage both learners in a cycle of teaching and learning that benefitted both students.

Other teachers preferred an approach of grouping lower-level learners together so that

students could benefit from learning in small, focused groups with peers. Almost all of the

teachers emphasized the role of paraprofessionals, who would aid students with various learning

tasks if necessary, allowing for more individualized attention. P1 stated the importance of social

groupings, while P9 stated groupings related to instructional levels:

Initially, I'm looking at personalities. Who's going to click because I want to try to foster

relationships. You know, we're talking early in the year. So, I mean, that's how I'm going to

promote more of the social groupings, but when it comes to academic or instructional activities. I

will have to differentiate the instruction. (P1)

So, I group a lot based on their levels, so like I utilized news to you a lot, which is a

program based on different levels. So, I'll have like a level one, two and three based on that. And

so, they'll have to do similar tasks, but it will be very different as to how they do it. Like some of
your vocabulary will just simply match a picture to a definition, whereas others will have like a

fill in the blank and others literally have to write me the definition. (P9)

P15 reported on a specific partner activity and P 5 stated how student groupings led to

students feeling successful during class time: “They work with a partner on how to build the race

car and then a para provides assistance.” (P15)

And they would try to group our students or my students with again, with peers who were

patient and capable of including that particular student, and most of the time I have to say it

would go well. There were other times where I feel like some of our general education students

would want to do it for our students because of presumed incompetence, and sometimes I would

step in and go, no, they can do that, let them and God love them. (P5)

While special educators reported collaborating/grouping strategies supporting students

with significant educational needs in the general education setting, grouping was also

documented in the IEPs. Of the 30 artifacts collected, 60% of them documented small group

instruction.

Research Question 2 Findings

The second research question addressed through interview responses from participants

was: How do special education teachers working with studens with significant and profound

cognitive and physical disabilities describe the integrative practices they use for these students in

a general education setting? The following theme was developed based on participant responses:

As reported by teachers, technology is an integrative practice for students with complex needs to
provide communication applications and lesson materials. Technology was mentioned frequently

by educators and present in the majority of the IEPs. Most often, augmentative communication

and technology were discussed together. Technology plays a vital role in inclusion, as it allows

students with diverse disabilities to communicate effectively with peers and educators.

Furthermore, technology permits students to become engaged more quickly. Thus,

educators judged the use of technology as “vital” to success. Technology was purported to serve

as a critical element in adapting materials for students, allowing them to make more informed

choices and engage more readily with typical students in the general classroom environment.

According to the educators, technology allowed for enhanced and more effective communication

even for non-verbal students. P1 more specifically spoke on behalf of using a specific application

for a student:

And I have a student this year that is actually using something called the Motivator app. I

had not heard of it prior to this year, but pace has been an issue with her. She kind of loses her

gumption during the day. And one of the directors of special ed for X had mentioned it during a

meeting. You can record sayings

and set it at different intervals, as frequent as two seconds or a couple of minutes. (P1)

P3 also spoke about a specific technology application and how the students can be

supported while typing and more productive in the educational setting:

My kids are really high functioning this year except for two. So, like they can run their

computers, a lot of them can run them better than I can. They can, you know they can do all the

stuff they need to do, but for my lower guys we do the typing for them I would remake
worksheets on Seesaw and put voice to those kind of activities that I would do for them just to

make them more efficient in the classroom. (P3)

Not only are students using technology to complete educational tasks, but they are using

technology to communicate with adults and peers throughout the educational setting. P4 and P15

have shared technology uses for those students who are non-verbal: “I have, a student that uses a

device to do a lot of communication, doesn't always like to, but I know a couple of times a

couple of regular educated teachers and peers, they have trouble understanding him.” (P4)

For non-verbal students. The two that use the My Tobi to make it is like an iPad, and has

a lot of, visuals. And he wants to throw ideas or pictures express what I was thinking or just one

activity, we have big pictures colorful images and backgrounds, that kind of stand out for the

student. (P15)

While special educators reported on technology supporting students with significant and

profound cognitive and physical disabilities in the educational setting, technology supports were

also noted in the IEPs. Of the 30 artifacts collected, 47% of

them stated communication and required class expectations. Technology is a way for

students to enhance communication skills and use supplemental applications that may be used. In

the specially designed instruction section of the IEPs, there was a reference to visual supports,

voice output capabilities, and graphics, which all can be presented through means of technology.

Research Question 3 Findings

 The third research question addressed through interview responses from participants was:

How do special education teachers working with students with significant and profound

cognitive and physical disabilities describe the integrative supports they use for these students in

a general education setting? The following theme was developed based on participant responses:

Teachers stated that paraprofessionals are used to provide individualized support and modified

materials to students in the general education environment. Paraprofessional staff was the most

mentioned staff member by educators and artifact data. Although educators played the most vital

role, educators perceived paraprofessionals as the most beneficial staff members to successful

student inclusion. P4 mentioned that pretty much all of her students get an assistant in the

general education setting. I decided to eliminate regular education assistants from the codes and

underlying subthemes because they were only mentioned on one occasion. However, all teachers

interviewed mentioned some form of paraprofessional assistance.

Paraprofessionals integrate within the general education classroom environment to aid

students in adapting to purposed learning modifications. In addition, the paraprofessional often

implements strategies that are developed and requested by the regular education teacher or

special education teacher. In many of the interviews,

educators emphasized that paraprofessionals report the successes and challenges of

special education with various approaches and learning adaptations. P6 mentioned that,

“paraprofessionals are the key and biggest support provided for students.” P2 reported on the

implementation of supports by the paraprofesionals in the general education setting, while P7

spoke about the carry over of material adaptations from the specialized classroom to the general

education setting:

So, they're both very aware of the SDIs for the students that they oversee in the shop

environment. And we discuss here in the classroom limitations to the implementation of those, as

well as unique ways to support students in that unique environment. It's not a typical classroom,

the shop environment. So, we problem solve pretty regularly on how to implement those things.

What they do is they provide verbal support, they do modeling, they do reinforcement lessons.

They let me see sometimes, do hand over hand. They will sometimes advocate with the teacher

for the students, sometimes with teacher approval they will modify certain task requirements so

that it meets the identifiers in the IEP. (P2)

“ So I took a whiteboard with her and the assistant would write for her off the board, onto

the whiteboard.” (P3) “I feel like the kids could could with some adapting of the curriculum,

which if I sent a staff with them, they would know how to adapt because we do it all the time in

our in our classrooms.” (P7)

Paraprofessional support is also provided within the job site environment according to

P5, “So staff are with the students throughout the building to perform the job skills, to model the

job skills to either physically prompt or verbally prompt students for the for the execution and

completion of the job skills and tasks.”

Paraprofessional support was documented in the artifacts collected. Of the 30 IEP

sections collected, 2 of them stated paraprofessional (PCA) support in the specially designed

instruction section. According to the extent of participation in the general education setting

section of the IEP, paraprofessionals attend classes with students that include art, music, gym,

library, STEM, family and comsumer science, shop, and community based instruction.
 Teachers have reported using collaboration and grouping strategies to enhance

interactions between classmates in the general education setting. Collaboration and grouping

strategies were deemed successful by educators because they were perceived to both coordinate

instruction and create environments conducive to peer socialization. In addition, the

collaboration between special education teachers and teachers in the general education

environment is viewed as one of the most beneficial best practices for helping teachers and other

education professionals serve students with disabilities successfully (Brownell et al., 2006; Cross

et al., 2004). P2 stated that collaboration is completed through, “consultation with the shop

teachers.” P13 also mentioned, “we’ve done a lot of collaboration to see how we need to adapt.”

Collaboration is firmly tied to students’ long-term success with any disability and has been

shown to effectively facilitate successful inclusion in the general education environment (Bruder,

1998).

Surprisingly, the participants mentioned various ways grouping takes place in the general

education environment such as, paired by personality characteristics, grouped by like goals or

levels of instruction, and mixed in among the whole group. P3 mentioned that when students go

to home economics they are grouped by “low kids in one kitchen, all the medium kids in another

kitchen, and all the high kids in another kitchen.” The participants expressed how important peer

socialization is, along with the students overall

 engagement in the general education setting, especially for those students who are non-

verbal.

The social constructivist paradigm suggests that collaboration is key to successful

inclusion in the general education environment for students with special needs. Vygotsky (1978)

emphasizes the importance of the role of collaboration in students’ development, “actual

development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential

development as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or collaboration….”

(p. 86). Many participants remarked that collaboration is done through IEP meetings and the

consultation from team members such as the instructional advisor and psychologist. P2

mentioned that, “even input from the psychologist at times supports the inclusion of students

with significant barriers.” Collaboration creates an environment conducive to holistically

addressing a students’ complex needs, which results in unique strategies that could increase

students’ cognitive abilities (Sivan, 1986).

Research Question 2

RQ 2: How do special education teachers working with students with significant and

profound cognitive and physical disabilities describe the integrative practices they use for these

students in a general education setting?

As reported by teachers, technology is an integrative practice for students with complex

needs to provide communication applications and lesson materials. This theme surfaced from the

second research question. Technology was mentioned frequently by educators and present in the

majority of the IEPs. Most often, augmentative communication and technology were discussed
together. P9 mentioned the use of “big mac swtiches, voca switches, and IPads based on student

capabilities.” Wehmeyer et al.

(2008) purport that the use of technology in classrooms with students with disabilities

contributes to a better quality of life and positively impacts those students’ educational

experience. Technology plays a vital role in inclusion, as it allows students with diverse

disabilities to communicate effectively with peers and educators. Furthermore, technology

permits students to become engaged more quickly and more successfully. P2 stated that “Flip

Grid is a great way to increase engagement.” Other special educators reported Plickers, SeeSaw,

and The Motivator App as ways to incorporate technology throughout the school day.

Technological tools can help students overcome their academic weaknesses and make significant

performance improvements (Mull & Sitlington, 2003).

Previous research suggests that special education teachers require additional education on

inclusive practices, disabilities, and subject areas to more effectively address the diverse needs of

their students (Clarke et al., 2015). Additionally, established research elucidates the need for

special educators to modify teaching practices, instructional strategies, and the overall operation

of inclusive settings (Hansen et al., 2020; Casserly et al., 2019). Technology could effectively

expand the breadth and scope of educators’ knowledge base while also modifying traditional

methods of instruction to achieve more success when creating inclusive settings for students.

One special educator mentioned the use of a MyTobi, which is a touch screen or eye

callobrated communication device used for non-verbal students to express their wants and needs

through pictures. This device is an effective way to modify daily activities such as cooking class
(following recipes) and morning meeting (sharing the day of the week). The use of technology is

further supported by theory. For example, one of the key

elements of social constructivism is facilitated learning (Sivan, 1986). The term

facilitated learning refers to scaffolding techniques in which students gradually learn a new skill.

If that skill is acquired more easily or more quickly through technology, then students’ likelihood

of experiencing the benefits of facilitated learning increases dramatically.

Research Question 3

RQ 3: How do special education teachers working with students with significant and

profound cognitive and physical disabilities describe the integrative supports they use for these

students in a general education setting?

Teachers stated that paraprofessionals are used to provide individualized support and

modified materials to students in the general education environment. This theme surfaced from

the third research question.Paraprofessional staff was the most frequently mentioned staff

member by educators and artifact data. Educators’ perceptions were that paraprofessionals

played the most vital role in successful inclusion. Hernandez (2013) purports that schools should

rely on support services beyond special education teachers and allow professionals, such as

paraprofessionals, to provide much-needed support for students with disabilities. Suter and

Giangreco (2009) highlight the nation’s most successful school system, Vermont, as having

successfully placed 80% of students with disabilities in general education environments. The

researchers assert that the foundational component of their successful strategy resides in their
extensive use of paraprofessionals, “One of the primary mechanisms Vermont schools have used

to achieve higher rates of placement of students with disabilities in the general education classes

has been the extensive and increasing use of paraprofessionals.” (p. 81).

Furthermore, Suter & Giangreco (2009) purport that students benefited immensely from

paraprofessionals that served a supplemental role within the inclusion process.

Social constructivist theory suggests that facilitated learning is achieved through the

adept use of scaffolding techniques. If supported by the IEP and special education instructors,

these techniques can be employed as supplemental supports utilized by paraprofessional staff. P5

stated that, “we provide gestural support, scaffolding such as verbal prompting, physical hand

over hand prompting.” Paraprofessional staff, according to educators, spend the most one on one

time with students. P6 did mention that all students start out with an assistant in “hopes to fade

the support.” Therefore, well-trained paraprofessional staff can enact effective interventions that

increase the likelihood of successful integration into the general classroom environment.

The research presented here has both implications for practitioners and academics.

Results indicate that educators perceive technology, collaboration, paraprofessionals, materials

supports, and non-material supports vital to successful inclusion in the general education

environment. These findings could be developed into a practical training program for pre-service

teachers, new teachers, and other educators who would benefit from training specific best

practices in special education (Sledge & Pazey, 2009). An example of an in-service training may

include, how to effectively incorporate communication applications to increase student

engagement and connections with classmates. Additionally, the results of this study have policy

implications for legislators that develop laws to enforce the use of best practices in special

education. These law makers would benefit from contemporary scholarship that examines the

current methods educators perceive as successful and the role of the IEPs in the inclusion process

(Ashbaker, 2011). It would be beneficial for law makers to understand the importance of material

and non-materials supports documented in the IEP such as the ones mentioned by special

educators that included visuals, pictures, highlighting, checklists, extra time on tests, modeling,

and checks for understanding.

Finally, the results of this research have scholarly implications that further develop the

depth and extend the scope of the special education literature stream. Many scholars have

explicated the need to perform additional empirical research on special education practices and

the role or the IEP in the inclusion process (Justice et al., 2014; LeDoux et al., 2012; Rotter,

2014). Future research could include metanalytic studies that aggregate integrative interactions,

practices, and supports across special education literature stream to gain a comprehensive and

profound understanding of the state of the special education literature, including gaps that should

be addressed to enhance scholars’ understanding of the phenomenon. In this case, a study may

include how paraprofessional support is facilitated through leveled grouping, which includes

material and non-material supports to complete group projects in unified arts classes. Finally,

this research contributes evidence of the efficacy of qualitative descriptive research to

comprehensively and effectively depicts a phenomenon, catalyzing additional qualitative

research.