Personnel Preparation 9781849505277, 9781597492744

Citation preview

PERSONNEL PREPARATION

ADVANCES IN LEARNING AND BEHAVIORAL DISABILITIES Series Editors: Thomas E. Scruggs and Margo A. Mastropieri Recent Volumes: Volume 12: Volume 13: Volume 14: Volume 15: Volume 16: Volume 17: Volume 18:

Volume 19:

Volume 20:

Edited by Thomas E. Scruggs and Margo A. Mastropieri Edited by Thomas E. Scruggs and Margo A. Mastropieri Educational Interventions – Edited by Thomas E. Scruggs and Margo A. Mastropieri Technological Applications – Edited by Thomas E. Scruggs and Margo A. Mastropieri Identification and Assessment – Edited by Thomas E. Scruggs and Margo A. Mastropieri Research in Secondary Schools – Edited by Thomas E. Scruggs and Margo A. Mastropieri Cognition and Learning in Diverse Settings – Edited by Thomas E. Scruggs and Margo A. Mastropieri Applications of Research Methodology – Edited by Thomas E. Scruggs and Margo A. Mastropieri International Perspectives – Edited by Thomas E. Scruggs and Margo A. Mastropieri

ADVANCES IN LEARNING AND BEHAVIORAL DISABILITIES VOLUME 21

PERSONNEL PREPARATION EDITED BY

THOMAS E. SCRUGGS George Mason University, Fairfax, USA

MARGO A. MASTROPIERI George Mason University, Fairfax, USA

United Kingdom – North America – Japan India – Malaysia – China

JAI Press is an imprint of Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2008 Copyright r 2008 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. No responsibility is accepted for the accuracy of information contained in the text, illustrations or advertisements. The opinions expressed in these chapters are not necessarily those of the Editor or the publisher. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-5974-9274-4 ISSN: 0735-004X (Series)

Awarded in recognition of Emerald’s production department’s adherence to quality systems and processes when preparing scholarly journals for print

CONTENTS vii

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING ISSUES AND DILEMMAS IN THE PREPARATION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS Vivian Fueyo, Mark A. Koorland and Katharine Rasch DEFINING AND PREPARING HIGH-QUALITY TEACHERS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION: WHAT DO WE KNOW FROM THE RESEARCH? Mary T. Brownell, Melinda M. Leko, Margaret Kamman and Laura King TEACHER AUTHORITY, TACIT KNOWLEDGE, AND THE TRAINING OF TEACHERS Julian G. Elliott and Steven E. Stemler THE IMPACT OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ON SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER SUPPLY AND THE PREPARATION OF THE WORKFORCE Paul T. Sindelar, Erica D. McCray, Mary Theresa Kiely and Margaret Kamman CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT INCLUSIVE CLASSROOMS THROUGH DVD-BASED LEARNING: BRIDGING THEORY AND PRACTICE Solveig-Alma Halaas Lyster and Siri Wormnæs THE USE OF COHORT PROGRAMS IN PERSONNEL PREPARATION: BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES Margo A. Mastropieri, Nancy Morrison, Thomas E. Scruggs, Bob Bowdey and Terry Werner v

1

35

75

89

125

151

vi

CONTENTS

DISPARITIES IN TEACHER QUALITY AMONG EARLY CAREER SPECIAL EDUCATORS IN HIGH- AND LOW-POVERTY DISTRICTS Anna-Ma´ria Fall and Bonnie S. Billingsley SENSE OF COMMUNITY IN ONLINE COURSES AND STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: DEVELOPMENT OF A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR UNIVERSITY STUDENTS Vittore Perrucci, Giulia Balboni and Stefano Cacciamani

181

209

PREDICTION OF READING COMPREHENSION, READING INTEREST AND READING EFFICACY FROM TEACHING STYLES AND CLASSROOM CLIMATE: A MULTILEVEL RANDOM COEFFICIENT MODELING ANALYSIS FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES Faye Antoniou and Georgios D. Sideridis

223

DIRECTIONS FOR CHANGE IN BLENDING SCIENCE INSTRUCTION AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Lisa A. Dieker, Craig Berg and Bobby Jeanpierre

253

MATH DISABILITIES: ITALIAN AND U.S. PERSPECTIVES Silvia Lanfranchi, Daniela Lucangeli, Olga Jerman and H. Lee Swanson TRAINING TEACHERS, PARENTS, AND PEERS TO IMPLEMENT EFFECTIVE TEACHING STRATEGIES FOR CONTENT AREA LEARNING Margo A. Mastropieri, Thomas E. Scruggs and Lisa Marshak SUBJECT INDEX

277

309

329

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Faye Antoniou

Department of Psychology, Goethe University of Frankfurt, Germany

Giulia Balboni

Faculty of Psychology, University of Valle d’Aosta, Italy

Craig Berg

MACSTEP, University of WisconsinMilwaukee, WI, USA

Bonnie S. Billingsley

Department of Teaching and Learning, Virginia Tech, VA, USA

Bob Bowdey

College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, VA, USA

Mary T. Brownell

Department of Special Education, University of Florida, FL, USA

Stefano Cacciamani

Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Valle d’Aosta, Italy

Lisa A. Dieker

Department of Child, Family and Community Sciences, University of Central Florida, FL, USA

Julian G. Elliott

School of Education, Durham University, United Kingdom

Anna-Ma´ria Fall

Department of Teaching and Learning, Virginia Tech, VA, USA

Vivian Fueyo

College of Education, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL, USA

vii

viii

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Bobby Jeanpierre

Department of Teaching and Learning Principles, University of Central Florida FL, USA

Olga Jerman

The Frostig Center, CA, USA

Margaret Kamman

Department of Special Education, University of Florida, FL, USA

Mary Theresa Kiely

Department of Special Education, University of Florida, FL, USA

Laura King

Department of Special Education, University of Florida, FL, USA

Mark A. Koorland

College of Education, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL, USA

Silvia Lanfranchi

Department of Developmental Psychology, University of Padua, Italy

Melinda M. Leko

Department of Special Education, University of Florida, FL, USA

Daniela Lucangeli

Department of Developmental Psychology, University of Padua, Italy

Solveig-Alma Halaas Lyster

Department of Special Needs Education, University of Oslo, Norway

Lisa Marshak

College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, VA, USA

Margo A. Mastropieri

College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, VA, USA

Erica D. McCray

Department of Special Education, University of Florida, FL, USA

Nancy Morrison

College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, VA, USA

Vittore Perrucci

Faculty of Psychology, University of Valle d’Aosta, Italy

List of Contributors

ix

Katharine Rasch

College of Education, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL, USA

Thomas E. Scruggs

College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, VA, USA

Georgios D. Sideridis

Department of Psychology, University of Crete, Greece

Paul T. Sindelar

Department of Special Education, University of Florida, FL, USA

Steven E. Stemler

Department of Psychology, Wesleyan University, CT, USA

H. Lee Swanson

Graduate School of Education, University of California, CA, USA

Terry Werner

College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, VA, USA

Siri Wormnæs

Department of Special Needs Education, University of Oslo, Norway

This page intentionally left blank

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING ISSUES AND DILEMMAS IN THE PREPARATION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS Vivian Fueyo, Mark A. Koorland and Katharine Rasch ABSTRACT In teacher education programs, the conceptual framework identifies what is important for candidates. Using the three themes of a conceptual framework – knowledge of learners and learning, knowledge of content and pedagogy, and knowledge of research and policy – the authors analyzed teacher preparation program components in general and special education. They conclude that the critical question for teacher educators is: How do teacher educators consistently and successfully implement proven practices to prepare effective teachers? The authors posit recommendations for needed reforms in university-based teacher education and advocate for parity for teacher education with other socially valued enterprises.

Personnel Preparation Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, Volume 21, 1–33 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0735-004X/doi:10.1016/S0735-004X(08)00001-3

1

2

VIVIAN FUEYO ET AL.

‘‘The role of the conceptual framework in teacher education is to orient [candidates] to what is important’’ (Howey, as cited in Pugach, 2005, p. 564). The knowledge bases, which comprise the most significant portion of any conceptual framework, provide the theory and research upon which the professional teacher preparation program’s commitments are based. They also comprise the wisdom of practice and the requisite education policies that support a program’s commitment to its candidates to acquire and use knowledge on behalf of P-12 students. The following chapter is organized by a conceptual framework that focuses upon three themes in educator preparation: Knowledgeable Professionalism, Reflective Teaching, and Collaborative Leadership. The authors close the chapter with a discussion of the implications for the preparation of teachers of students with learning and/or behavioral disabilities.

KNOWLEDGEABLE PROFESSIONALISM Strong professions are marked by a relatively large, complex, rapidly growing body of professional knowledge requiring years of sustained study for its mastery. Professional programs in strong professions respond to knowledge production and scholarly norms, keeping an eye on the validation of research in practice and the changing requirements for licensure. In contrast to programs determined by the conventions of practice, in professional programs the pools of practice and tests for licenses are fed by the streams of relevant inquiry. ‘‘This is the professional model’’ (Goodlad, Soder, & Sirotnik, 1990, p. 266). The profession of teaching also comprises both the process by which the occupation of teaching becomes a profession (professionalization) and the quality of practice (professionalism) – ‘‘how members [of the profession] integrate their obligations with their knowledge and skill in a context of collegiality and contractual and ethical relations with clients’’ (Sockett, 1990, p. 36). It is this accountability, Sockett asserts, that requires three conditions for success: ‘‘(1) the development of trust; (2) the establishment of a partnership between the public and professionalsy; and (3) the teacher’s role as a moral [i.e., ethical] agent’’ (p. 36). As professionals, educators’ decisions based on ‘‘systematic knowledgey foster inquiry and the discovery of new knowledge’’ (Hazlett as cited in Dill, 1996, p. 933). We know that a scholarly knowledge base of teaching exists (Christensen, 1996; Clandinin, Pushor, & Orr, 2007; Cruickshank, 1990;

A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Issues and Dilemmas

3

Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Sullivan, 2005). We know that in strong professions programs respond to knowledge production and scholarly norms, rather than intuition and expediency. We know that in strong professions the arbiter of standards is the validation of research in practice, not the vagaries of the licensing agency (Soder, 1990). In strong professions, scientific knowledge bases provide practicing professionals with the necessary expertise and confidence to be effective (Carnine, 1992). Current pressures from policy makers challenge this professional view of educator preparation and suggest that market-driven approaches and content knowledge are sufficient (Podgursky, 2006; Rotherman & Mead, 2004). Yet the study of the professions conducted by Sullivan (2005) and his colleagues at the Carnegie Foundation, as well as Cochran-Smith and Zeichner’s (2005) report of the AERA Research Panel provide strong evidence that there is a substantial body of knowledge necessary to become an effective educator. Indeed, this is confirmed in the study of teacher education sponsored by the National Academy of Education (DarlingHammond & Bransford, 2005). One promising vehicle for achieving this desired connection between knowledge production and professional teacher preparation program development is to provide teachers with professional skills consisting of education (knowledge of content) and training (pedagogical content knowledge) called for as a result of research on teaching (Cruickshank & Metcalf, 1990; Grant & Gillette, 2006). Shulman (2004) refers to this as the knowledge base of teaching that comprises both principles and strategies generated through research. Imig and Imig (2006) affirm that professional teacher preparation must happen in the context of the very complex and conflicting policy environment and conditions of schooling. For competent educational professionals, these knowledge bases comprise requisite knowledge in four domains: (1) knowledge of content; (2) knowledge of learners and learning; (3) pedagogical content knowledge and skills; and (4) general pedagogical knowledge, particularly pedagogy of the profession of teacher education (Borko & Putnam, 1996; Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Cruickshank & Metcalf, 1990; Shulman, 1987, 2004). Most recently, Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005, p. 11) offer the scheme shown in Fig. 1 to illustrate the interrelationships that define the profession of teaching. In addition to the knowledge bases that define competent professional educators, teachers as knowledgeable professionals must also understand the role that research and policy play in informing professional teacher preparation.

4

VIVIAN FUEYO ET AL.

Fig. 1.

A Framework for Understanding Teaching and Learning.

The Place of Research and Policy in the Lives of Teachers Those who fall in love with practice without science are like a sailor who enters a ship without a helm or a compass, and who never can be certain whither he is going. (attributed to Leonardo da Vinci)

As engaged professionals, educators are expected to respond to a plethora of policy statements, rules, regulations, and practices. These competent professionals have a responsibility to consider and evaluate the importance and consequences of the policies, practices, and research evidence for themselves, their students, their schools, and the communities where they work and live (Goodlad, Mantle-Bromley, & Goodlad, 2004; Imig & Imig, 2006; Kennedy, 2006; Oakes, Quartz, Ryan, & Lipton, 2000). Programs

A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Issues and Dilemmas

5

designed to help educators become thoughtful persons, active citizens, and reflective practitioners prepare candidates to examine critically various types of scholarship and the role of that scholarship in educational policymaking and practice. Critical analysis of the value-laden nature of educational policy statements is also an important part of candidates’ preparation programs (Cherryholmes, 1988; Giroux, 1988, 2001; Spring, 2004, 2005). There is a recognition that as professionals teachers must sort through rather than simply accept research and policy based on its face value. Teachers must make decisions regarding how to use research to defend or revise their practice. To prepare teachers well requires engaging teacher candidates in a culture of inquiry in which they will learn how to use research and policy to enliven their own thinking and to engage in productive dialogue about education with parents, fellow teachers, administrators, and policy makers. The teacher preparation curriculum is built on an activist role for the educator, using research and practical experience to transform practice (Cook & Cook, 2004; Fueyo & Koorland, 1997; Hussler, Cassidy, & Cuff, 1986; Kozol, 2007). As critical thinkers and reflective learners, teacher candidates are driven by the pursuit of knowledge with an emphasis on the teacher as an agent for change (Cochran-Smith, 2006; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Lieberman & Miller, 2004).

Knowledge of Learners and Learning Professional teachers’ knowledge of learners and learning includes their understanding of how individuals learn, develop, and are motivated (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999; Brophy, 1998; Bruner, 1990; Comer, Haynes, Joyner, & Ben-Avie, 1996; Kamii & Houseman, 2000; Piaget & Inhelder, 1969; Vygotsky, 1986). In fact, Borko and Putnam (1996) have noted that knowledge of students is ‘‘arguably the most important knowledge a teacher can have’’ (p. 675). An example of a professional’s knowledge of learners and learning would be that she or he understands that learners are more likely to remember information when they are actively involved in the learning process (National Research Council, 2000). In fact, in light of the scheme presented earlier (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005), teacher candidates need to be knowledgeable about all aspects of learning such as  What should be taught; why is it important and how should this knowledge be organized (knowledge-centeredness)?

6

VIVIAN FUEYO ET AL.

 Who learns, how and why (learner-centeredness)?  What kinds of classroom, school, and school–community environments enhance learning (community-centeredness)?  What kinds of evidence for learning can students, teachers, parents, and others use to see if effective learning is really occurring (assessmentcenteredness)? (Bransford, Derry, Berliner, Hammerness, & Beckett, 2005, p. 41) To prepare competent professionals that help all P-12 students develop the skills and dispositions that enable them to create and participate in a democratic society, teacher education candidates need to learn the importance of respecting each child and honoring that child’s family and community. Teacher candidates also learn the importance of shared inquiry and develop the ability to respond to P-12 students’ intellectual and emotional needs. Candidates learn to evaluate their teaching in the context of social, educational, and political structures (Delpit,1995; Goodlad et al., 2004; Jacobs & Duhon-Sells, 1994) and reflect on the role schools play in fostering a more democratic and just society. Knowledge of Content Knowledge of content refers to the knowledge that professionals have related to subject matter (McDiarmid, 1994; Shulman, 2004). This knowledge does not include how to teach the content material; rather, it focuses on the content itself. A professional’s knowledge can include subjects in areas such as reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. For instance, a professional teaching ecology would understand the carbon cycle and how it relates to similar concepts in ecology. Content knowledge is vital for a teacher to be effective in the classroom. Without solid and deep knowledge of content (both conceptual and procedural), teachers cannot be effective in their teaching (Ball, 1997; Holt-Reynolds, 1999; Kennedy, 1998; Ma, 1999). Shulman (2004) suggests that for teachers to be effective, both content knowledge and pedagogy are essential. A teacher is a member of a scholarly community. He or she must understand the structures of subject matter, the principles of conceptual organization, and the principles of inquiry that help answer two kinds of questions in each field: What are the important ideas and skills in this domain? And how are new ideas added and deficient ones dropped by those who produce knowledge in this area? (p. 94)

It is also clear that it cannot simply be assumed that both general education and a major will provide these types of knowledge (Bain & Mirel, 2006;

A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Issues and Dilemmas

7

Floden & Meniketti, 2005). While some pundits of education are calling for content knowledge as almost a sole, exclusive determiner of who can be licensed (Walsh, 2004), there is even more compelling evidence for requiring candidate performance to be more inclusive and tied to demonstrating content-specific pedagogy and exhibiting a broad repertoire of teaching strategies and skills (Pugach, 2005). Pedagogical Content Knowledge Pedagogical content knowledge is an understanding of how to make a specific subject comprehensible to others (Grant & Gillette, 2006; Shulman, 1986a, 1986b; Tate & Malancharuvil-Berkes, 2006). In other words, professionals have a variety of strategies for teaching their specific content. For example, a professional who is teaching reading would have strategies for teaching reading that may be similar to or different from strategies that she or he uses to teach writing, science, and mathematics. This knowledge combines content and pedagogy to provide skills specific to teaching that are part of a teacher’s ability to plan to make instruction meaningful. General Pedagogical Knowledge A professional’s general pedagogical knowledge includes teaching strategies that transcend particular subject matter domains (Borko & Putnam, 1996). General pedagogical knowledge (Kennedy, 2006) includes having strategies for creating effective learning environments, developing routines for interacting with students, understanding the teacher’s role as a mediator of student learning, and having strategies to address classroom management. In conjunction with the domains of knowledge previously discussed, a professional also has the beliefs, values, attitudes, self-knowledge, and ethics to reflect on and effectively integrate each of them. The development of pedagogical knowledge is closely associated with the teacher’s understanding of learning and development. Pacing, questioning, staging learning opportunities, recognizing the importance of learner response, and assessing the level of student understanding are all skills that must be acquired for whatever the teaching task demands. Teachers must learn how to construct developmentally appropriate practice including the willingness to accommodate to the cultural context of the classroom and the learners (Horowitz et al., 2005; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). Sarason (1996) asserts that one of the goals of professional teacher preparation is to instill a sense of uniqueness among those who possess similar knowledge and skills. In teaching, a teacher basing instructional decisions on an ever-expanding knowledge base, ‘‘reflecting’’ in order to

8

VIVIAN FUEYO ET AL.

know (LaBoskey, 1993), and bound by the moral imperative of teaching all children (Goodlad, 1990) exemplifies this professional uniqueness. The ultimate goal of professional teacher preparation is for teacher candidates to have an impact on the students they teach. Teacher Candidate Commitment to P-12 Student Achievement Teachers must be able to obtain, reflect upon, and, subsequently use student performance information to inform their teaching. Teachers who use student data systematically and continuously improve the quality of the educational experience of students (Elmore, 2002; Maheady, 1997). Further, by using student data, teachers subject themselves to the discipline of measuring their success by the metric of students’ performance. Growing evidence suggests that teachers learn more deeply about the strengths of diverse learners, engage in more focused observation and documentation of student learning, and also participate in more collaborative inquiry when they use student performance data systematically to make decisions about their teaching (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Education Resources Group, 2001; Falk, 2001; Grant & Gillette, 2006; McLaughlin and Zarrow, 2001; Wiggins, 1998). Attention to student learning involves preparing teachers to explore the rich context in which students can exhibit their understanding. It also is mindful of the importance of structuring learning opportunities for the students that reflect a culture of high expectations and consideration for the individual needs of learners, especially those who bring many challenges to the learning situation, such as SES, ethnicity, or special learning needs (Darling-Hammond, French, & Garcia-Lopez, 2002; Peske & Haycock, 2006; Sanders & Horn, 1998; Cochran-Smith, 2004).

REFLECTIVE TEACHING Reflective teachers are responsive to the unique educational and emotional needs of each individual student (LaBoskey, 1993; Pollard & Tam, 1987; Ross, Bondy, & Kyle, 1993). To do so, teachers must learn to reflect critically on student, school, and community issues and make ethical decisions using an integrated set of experiences (Good & Brophy, 2000; Goodlad, 1990; Howey, Post, & Zimpher, 2006). Dewey, following in the social science tradition of Hall and other contemporaries, approached teaching and learning as a science with an emphasis on grounded theory, quantification, and results of observation

A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Issues and Dilemmas

9

(Fueyo & Koorland, 1997). Using the scientific method as a scaffold for teaching and reflection, he defined ‘‘reflection’’ as a three-step process ‘‘including problem definition, means/end analysis, and generalization’’ (Dewey as cited in LaBoskey, 1993, p. 10). LaBoskey asserts that what distinguishes Dewey’s ‘‘reflection’’ from subsequent applications of the term is his theory of grounded belief. Reflection thus implies that something is believed in (or disbelieved in), not on its own direct account, but through something else which stands as witness, evidence, proof, voucher y that is ground of belief y one reflects in order to know whatever one wants to know and whenever and wherever a state of perplexity arises. (p. 10)

The teacher as researcher model, often synonymous with ‘‘action researcher,’’ is a strong proponent of teacher as active change agent (Garrison, 1998). The work of Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993), DarlingHammond (2006), Fueyo and Koorland (1997), Fullan (1991, 2001), Ladson-Billings (1994), Levine and Trachtman (1997), Lieberman and Miller (2004), Loughran (2007), Wells (1993), and Zeichner and Liston (1987), among others, has analyzed and documented this role for teachers as advocates for their own and their students’ learning as well as successful change agents in the contexts of the reform agenda. Reflection can be considered one of the cornerstones of professional practice and growth (Hostetler, Macintyre Latta, & Sarroub, 2007). Reflection is a self-process embedded in a continuous improvement loop that should be an underlying goal for all knowledgeable professionals in education. In short, reflection on pedagogy is needed to identify where and how to improve (McLaughlin, Watts, & Beard, 2000; Sims-Knight, Fowler, Pendergrass, & Upchurch, 2000; Zeichner, 2007). To promote reflection about pedagogy, teachers need to have a range of tools to both permit and prompt asking important questions of the curricular process. ‘‘If pre-service teachers do not learn to think while in school, it is fair to ask: ‘How are they to keep on learning?’’’ (LaBoskey, 1993, p. 11). Teacher candidates are encouraged to reflect critically upon teaching and upon themselves as candidates learning to teach in four areas: (1) teaching as a personal and social activity; (2) the teacher’s use of student performance data to inform teaching; (3) the implications for teaching of the candidate’s knowledge of educational research and policies; and (4) the candidate’s own skills and knowledge of pedagogy. Critically important to the candidates’ ability to anchor reflection in a research base (i.e., to ensure grounded reflection) is the teacher candidate’s understanding of the professional preparation program’s conceptual framework.

10

VIVIAN FUEYO ET AL.

COLLABORATIVE TEACHER LEADERSHIP Much of the current discussion of effective teacher preparation emphasizes the importance of collaboration and consideration of a community of learners (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006). In their longitudinal study of teacher leadership for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Lieberman and her colleagues (Lieberman & Miller, 2004) identify four domains of skill and expertise: (1) teacher as researcher; (2) teacher as professional; (3) teacher as curriculum and instructional leader; and (4) teacher as ethical decision-maker. Teacher leaders y are committed for the long term; they do not intend to give up on their students or one another. They plan to continue to assume responsibility for the deepening of their own practice and that of their colleagues. They are determined to become the architects of vibrant professional communities in which teachers take the lead in inventing new possibilities for their students and themselves. (p. 92)

As each educator considers his or her role as an educator, he or she must do so in a rapidly changing, complex school environment. Effective educators must embrace that change, build community through collaboration, and strive to create environments that support all as learners (DuFour et al., 2006; Duke, 2004; Evans, 2000; Fullan, 2001). Teachers as instructional leaders must also respond to the calls for increased academic achievement for all students. Federal legislation in No Child Left Behind and the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (United States Department of Education, 2004) has also increased the external demands on teachers and schools for student academic success. National trends in lack of school success historically have paralleled increased diversity (Palinscar, 1993; Banks et al., 2005). To work effectively with students from diverse backgrounds the instructional leader knows him or herself, is open minded, views diversity as a source of strength and enrichment to schools (Grant & Gillette, 2006; Manning, 2000), and uses every available opportunity to ensure diversity is reflected in the classroom and the curriculum. The instructional leader is knowledgeable about diversity, views it from a pluralistic perspective, develops and uses the necessary skills to effectively work with all students, and makes every effort to improve and positively change, as necessary, students’ attitudes toward differences. Effective instructional leaders actively reject notions of student failure and serve as advocates for each of their students (Gay, 1995; Good & Weinstein, 1986; Ladson-Billings, 1994).

A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Issues and Dilemmas

11

This dedication to the teaching and learning of all P-12 students is also evident in the teacher leader’s commitment to teaching diverse learners. Typically, diversity in education implies differences in age, ethnicity, exceptionalities, gender, language, race, religion, and social class (Gollnick & Chinn, 2000). According to the 2000 Census, the United States’ Hispanic population has risen to 14.8%. This group now surpasses Blacks whose population is 12.4% (73.9% of the United States population is white). With this change in demographics, among Hispanics and other groups, diversity in the classroom, for most teachers, is increasingly becoming a challenge. Teachers in the PK-12 arena are taking on increasingly larger and more meaningful leadership roles and responsibilities during the era of school reform and accountability (Lieberman & Miller, 2004; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Starrat, 2004). Marsh (2000) proposes that the idea of school leadership has become more inclusive and that teachers are major players in work teams that ‘‘work from the middle rather than the top of the organization’’ (p. 127). Classroom teachers participate in numerous leadership functions within their schools already. Bolman and Deal (2003) acknowledge that leadership, when it works well, enables people to collaborate in meeting the needs of the school by working through shared visions, values, and missions. When these variables are in concert with the leadership density of the schools, together, everyone has a better chance to create and sustain better schools. The centrality of P-12 student learning is irrefutable for the teacher as leader. According to Boyer’s (1995) work in Basic School, instructional leaders on both the teaching and administrative levels must work together in the development of instruction. As a result, both are seen as leaders through the collaborative effort of serving community and student needs. The teacher’s role is to be involved in the community surrounding the school, to have the ability and knowledge to collaborate with others in the development of curriculum as a team member, to be a mentor to students, and to seek continuous professional renewal through scholarship. Administrators, especially on the building level, must be committed to empowering teachers and providing the support needed to create a community within the school that is committed to the community surrounding the school. The importance to teachers of this administrative support cannot be overstated. Its absence is the most frequently cited reason teachers, who are dissatisfied with teaching, give for leaving the profession (Zumwalt & Craig, 2005).

12

VIVIAN FUEYO ET AL.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PREPARING TEACHERS OF CHILDREN WITH LEARNING AND BEHAVIORAL DISABILITIES The preceding discussion, based primarily on work focused upon preparing teachers to teach students in general education classrooms, presents a conceptual framework within which to integrate the requisite components of effective professional preparation for all educators. In this section, the authors used three strands from the conceptual framework to organize the results of their review of the literature in special education teacher preparation: (a) research and policy; (b) learners and learning and content and pedagogy; and (c) effectiveness with learners. The authors then added two additional organizational categories, teacher preparation program components and related issues. The literature cited is representative of the special education literature in these areas. For purposes of analysis and to identify patterns and trends, the authors then grouped the literature surveyed into the five sources of evidence they represented: analyses of policy and state and national standards, trends in teacher education reform, surveys of special educators, comparisons of teacher preparation in general and special education, and empirical studies. All the literature surveyed addressed, or attempted to answer, the question – What do we know about teacher education, particularly teacher education for teachers of students with disabilities, that increases the likelihood that future teachers will consistently demonstrate effectiveness with the P-12 students they teach? The literature surveyed is summarized in Table 1. The columns represent three strands of the conceptual framework plus the two additional columns, teacher preparation program components and related issues. The rows in the table represent the five sources of evidence from the literature review.

Research and Policy in Special Education The challenges for today’s teacher educators are to be as inclusive in their teacher preparation practices and curricular content as the schools and the diversity of learners demand (Zeichner, 2006). Today’s teachers of children with disabilities are teaching more subject matter content to their students. Today’s general education teachers are teaching more children with

Related Issues

Concern for teachers of E/BD; ‘‘highly qualified’’ fails to address needs of teachers of E/BD (Rosenberg et al., 2004); alternatively certified teachers are less skilled and effective with students (Nougaret et al., 2005; Rosenberg et al., 2004)

Teacher Preparation Program Components Collaborative preparation of all teachers (Rosenberg et al., 2004, p. 270)

Spending time in the communities in which students live; student teaching placements with veteran teachers who are knowledgeable, skilled, and committed to all children; professional development schools that build community; increased

Effectiveness with Learners

Meeting criteria to be fully certified; all teachers fully accountable for all learners (Rosenberg et al., 2004; USDOE, 2004); national accreditation standards/ state program approval standards require evidence of impact on student learning (NCATE, 2002; Florida Department of Education); fairness and the belief that all students can learn; the proficiencies of diversity and technology added to the revised standards (NCATE, 2008) Teachers completing approved licensure programs are more competent and apply effective teaching practices more consistently than those with temporary and/or non-traditional licensure (Nougaret et al., 2004)

Student behavior/social interaction skills; subject matter content; high verbal ability; social/ emotional and academic instruction, strategic accommodations, and positive behavioral supports collaborative preparation of teachers (Rosenberg et. al., 2004)

Content knowledge and pedagogy; cognitive, social, and cultural foundations; mentoring and instruction; and technology and teaming (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; NCTAF, 1996); cooperative learning/

Policy analyses and state and national standards

Trends in teacher education reform

Research and Policy

Literature Surveyed by Sources of Evidence and Strands of the Conceptual Framework.

Learners and Learning, Content and Pedagogy

Table 1.

A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Issues and Dilemmas 13

Research and Policy

group work with an emphasis on varying abilities; observe, assess, and monitor children, to gain access about students’ learning and development (Villegas & Lucas, 2002); disciplinebased pedagogy and multicultural education, field-based pedagogy (Valli & Rennert-Ariev, 2000)

Learners and Learning, Content and Pedagogy

Effectiveness with Learners

Table 1. (Continued )

diversity among teacher candidates, changes in recruitment, integrated experiences in teacher ed to work with diverse learners (Banks et al., 2005); instructional methods, teacher effectiveness, subject matter competence, curriculum and supervised teaching experiences (CEC and NCATE standards, Nougaret et al., 2004); designing programs that make attention to diversity, equity, and social justice centrally important so that all courses and field experiences are conducted with these strands in mind (Banks et al., 2005, p. 274); four types of field experiences – guided school and community visits, service learning opportunities in schools and communities, studies of students, schools, and communities, practice in diverse contexts with teachers

Teacher Preparation Program Components

Related Issues

14 VIVIAN FUEYO ET AL.

Surveys of special educators

IDEA (USDOE, 2004)

E/BD teachers surveyed ranked areas by importance: behavior management, consultation/ collaboration, screening/ assessment, programming, resources, parents, evaluation, research and technology; general knowledge; foundation information; theory and knowledge; field experience/practice (Bullock, Ellis, and Wilson, 1994); survey of special ed directors in all states re state certification: social skills development, management, curriculum and instruction, consultation/ collaboration, Little evidence links the work of teachers of E/BD to student outcomes (Billingsley et al., 2006) Student teaching practices (i.e., supervisor/cooperating T training with videotapes of instruction, reliability checks, and performance criteria) (Conderman et al., 2005); field-based observations (Katsiyannis et al., 1997)

who are engaged (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, p. 138); infusing cross-disciplinary collaboration, restructuring the organizational system, restructuring course work and/or requirements for certification (Lombardi & Hunka, 2001); clear programmatic vision (Valli & Rennert-Ariev, 2000) Teacher attrition, teachers unprepared to teach CLD students (Billingsley et al., 2006)

A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Issues and Dilemmas 15

Teacher behavior in planning and preparation, classroom atmosphere, and instruction in traditional certification programs is statistically different from that of teachers

Attitudes and beliefs about inclusive education and working with students with disabilities improved with specific knowledge and skills for working with students with disabilities and

Empirical studies

Effectiveness with Learners

Exemplary general ed programs documented impact on student learning by direct and indirect evidence of student performance (Brownell et al., 2005)

assessment, behavior management (Katsiyannis et al., 1997); survey of 859 teachers of E/BD workforce quality (Billingsley et al., 2006), certification status, certified or not Ts felt least prepared for students from CLD backgrounds and technology use (Billingsley et al., 2006)

Learners and Learning, Content and Pedagogy

Comparisons of general education and special education

Research and Policy

Table 1. (Continued )

Research-based strategies/ techniques 50% of special education programs studied used direct assessment of teacher performance (Brownell et al., 2005); (i.e., observation, behavior change plan development and

Field experiences, supervision tied to courses; knowledge of collaboration among faculty, schools, and cohorts; evaluating candidate quality and programs effects; inclusion, competency-based, CLD (Brownell et al., 2005)

Teacher Preparation Program Components

Mentoring programs to support first-year special education teachers and teachers with provisional licensure; teacher self-assessments are the same across

Related Issues

16 VIVIAN FUEYO ET AL.

Note: ed, education; re, regarding; Ts, teachers.

different racial and ethnic backgrounds – what do teachers of children with disabilities need to know and be able to do to provide successful learning environments for their students? relationship between diversity and disability (Pugach, 2005)

with provisional licensure (Nougaret et al., 2005); teacher candidates graphed students’ progress (Pugach, 2005)

implementation) (CooleyNichols, 2004); teacher planning and preparation, classroom atmosphere, and instruction from traditional licensure programs in special education outperformed teachers with provisional licensure; consistent with areas in NCATE accredited programs and CEC standards (Nougaret et al., 2005); program structures and pedagogies in teacher education; the effects of preservice programs, teaching cases methodology, case study pedagogy; faculty case study groups, problem-based learning in methods courses; three studies on collaborative teacher preparation (Pugach, 2005)

traditionally and provisionally licensed teachers (Nougaret et al., 2005)

A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Issues and Dilemmas 17

18

VIVIAN FUEYO ET AL.

disabilities in their general education classrooms. All teachers are teaching more culturally and linguistically diverse learners. In 45 states, students with special needs are placed in general education classes more than in any other service configuration (Lombardi & Hunka, 2001). ‘‘The combination of a broader [policy] definition of typical [student], along with the call for students with disabilities to be taught core content, makes a strong case for the collaborative preparation of all teachers’’ (Rosenberg, Sindelar, & Hardman, 2004, p. 270). Although it appears self-evident, ‘‘The key measure of success for teacher education programs today must be how well they produce teachers who can demonstrate they can produce learning gains in P-12 pupils’’ (AASCU, 2007, p. 10). In the National Academy of Education’s Report, Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Every Teacher Should Know and Be Able to Do (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005), the authors acknowledge that acquiring all of the requisite knowledge and skills to be a successful teacher ‘‘is a complex undertaking’’ (p. 263). With the changing Federal definitions of ‘‘highly qualified teacher’’ in the reauthorization of IDEA and the Higher Education Act now comprising both teachers in general and special education, all teachers are being held fully accountable for every learner in very specific disaggregated groups (Rosenberg et al., 2004; USDOE, 2004). The expectation that every teacher is fully accountable for all learners is consistent with the national accreditation standards of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, 2002) that require evidence of impact on student learning for candidates in all educator preparation programs. The 2008 revised standards, which will be implemented in the fall of 2008, have revised language about ‘‘fairness and the belief that all students can learn,’’ and the proficiencies of diversity and technology. These are also areas specified by the Council for Exceptional Children (2005) as important for teachers of students with disabilities. Rosenberg et. al. (2004) raise the important, yet troubling, issue that increased demands for more teachers who are ‘‘highly qualified’’ also opens the door to less effective teachers prepared through alternative and provisional licensure programs. Nougaret, Scruggs, and Mastropieri (2005) found significant differences in teacher effectiveness between traditionally licensed special education teachers and those with provisional licensure. Just as general educators need to know the content and requirements of state and national policies and standards that impact their practice, it may be even more important that special educators know this. These include: the legal and foundational aspects of special education

A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Issues and Dilemmas

19

(Nougaret, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2004); students’ rights to an education, child protection and welfare, the purposes of schooling, professional responsibilities to children and their families, policies on curriculum (Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, 2005); and state and national certification requirements (Katsiyannis, Landrum, & Bullock 1997; Nougaret et al., 2005; Rosenberg et. al., 2004). While the increased demand for more and better qualified special educators is opening the door to more, but not necessarily better qualified special educators, there is also increased demand for what special educators need to know about the policies and standards that define their practice.

Learners and Learning and Content and Pedagogy in Special Education Learners and Learning in Special Education Although the two components of this section, learners and learning and content and pedagogy, are closely related, for purposes of the discussion, trends are separated into one area or the other. In a survey of 859 teachers of children with emotional and behavioral disabilities about their certification status, whether or not the teachers were certified, teachers surveyed felt the least prepared to meet the needs of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Billingsley, Fall, & Williams, 2006). Pugach (2005) found that attitudes and beliefs of general educators about inclusive education and working with students with disabilities from diverse backgrounds improved with specific knowledge and skills for working with students with disabilities and different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Others suggest that effective teachers of culturally and linguistically diverse learners need to be able to observe, assess, and monitor children, to learn about their learning and development (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Among both general and special educators, there appears to be a consensus about the knowledge of learners and learning that is important for teachers of children with disabilities. Trends in the area of content and pedagogy appear more divergent. Content and Pedagogy in Special Education In their extensive review of teacher preparation in general education and in special education, Brownell, Ross, Colon and McCallum (2005) found important differences in the two bodies of evidence. The exemplary programs in general education (i.e., programs nominated as exemplary by teacher educators, school-based professionals, and program graduates)

20

VIVIAN FUEYO ET AL.

emphasized subject matter pedagogy. In contrast, the special education programs they reviewed emphasized more generic pedagogy, distinct from knowledge of subject matter content, such as knowledge of mathematics or of science. Instead, teacher preparation programs in special education emphasized instructional methods, assessment, and individualized education plans (Brownell et al., 2005). These findings are consistent with others’, (Nougaret et al., 2005 p. 314), ‘‘For most special education teachers, instilling basic skills, basic content knowledge, and appropriate social behavior in their students are the most important ‘content.’’’ While instructional methods and assessment are unquestionably important, it is equally important for teacher candidates to know about teacher behavior in relationship to content in planning and preparation, classroom atmosphere, and instruction, three areas related directly to effective teaching and the considerable body of evidence supporting it (Good & Brophy, 2000; Good & Weinstein, 1986; Nougaret et al., 2005). In fact, the knowledge and skills needed are complex and extensive. Teacher candidates of children with disabilities need to know the pedagogy of teaching diverse learners and the implications for instruction and treatment of students with mild and severe disabilities. They also need to know curriculum, planning, and preparation. They need to have a repertoire of assessments, know strategic accommodations, transitions, positive behavioral supports, and classroom management, including skill development in behavior management and crisis management. Teacher candidates in special education also need to know consultation and collaboration, eligibility and placement, working with other professionals, mentoring and teaming (Brownell et al., 2005; Cooley-Nichols, 2004; Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, 2005; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996; Rosenberg et. al., 2004). Villegas and Lucas (2002) suggest that to teach diverse learners, which comprises students with disabilities and students who are ethnically, racially, and culturally diverse, teachers need to know how to implement cooperative learning and group work with an emphasis on varying abilities. Major findings from national educational reform documents confirm these recommendations, suggesting the importance for all teachers of disciplinary preparation in content, multicultural education, and field-based pedagogy (Valli & Rennert-Ariev, 2000). Bullock, Ellis, and Wilson (1994) surveyed 102 teachers on 201 categories of knowledge and skills frequently used in teacher preparation programs for teachers of children with disabilities. The teacher respondents ranked the following 11 areas in order of importance to them: behavior management;

A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Issues and Dilemmas

21

consultation and collaboration; screening and assessment; programming; resources; working with parents; evaluation; research and technology; general knowledge; foundational information; theory and knowledge; field experience; cultural foundations; mentoring and instruction; technology; and teaming. Others recommend student behavior and social interaction skills; subject matter content; high verbal ability; social, emotional, and academic instruction, strategic accommodations, and positive behavioral supports (Katsiyannis & Yell, 2004; Maag & Katsiyannis, 1999; Rosenberg et. al., 2004). Regardless of the areas of skill and content recommended for the preparation of teachers of students with disabilities, it is the impact on the students’ learning that ultimately determines the quality of teaching.

Effectiveness with Diverse Learners All teachers in general and special education who learn to use evidence from their students’ learning to make instructional decisions, such as student work samples, also have a greater likelihood of having their students achieve (Banks et al., 2005; Irvine, 2003; Nieto, 2004). Brownell and her colleagues reported similar findings related to evidence use when comparing programs in general and special education. Among the exemplary programs in general education that they reviewed, only the eight exemplary programs in the International Reading Association study had close ties in their respective teacher education programs between university-based instruction on pedagogy, teacher candidate performance in the school classroom, and student performance. These were also the only exemplary programs whose graduates differed from others in important ways: (1) [They] view[ed] their preparation as more useful to their current teaching assignments and [were] more confident in their abilities. (2) They [were] perceived more favorably by their principals and supervisors. (3) They use[d] a greater quality, variety, and quantity of children’s narrative and expository texts in their classrooms. (4) They [were] capable of more actively engaging students in literacy instruction. (5) They achieve[d] better student gains on reading comprehension measures (National Commission on Excellence in Elementary Teacher Preparation for Reading Instruction, cited in Brownell et al., 2005, p. 244).

22

VIVIAN FUEYO ET AL.

Cook and Cook (2004) suggest that presenting consistent messages about research-based practices throughout teacher preparation programs in special education and throughout the candidates’ field experiences increases the likelihood that candidates will learn the research-based skills and knowledge positively correlated with student achievement. Cooley-Nichols (2004) reported similar findings in her study, underscoring the importance of research-based practices in the preparation of teachers for children with disabilities.

Teacher Preparation Program Components Frequent opportunities throughout the teacher preparation program to apply skills and knowledge with students has been found to be effective in increasing teacher candidates’ effectiveness with the children they teach (Maheady, 1997; Maheady, Harper, & Mallette, 2001). Pugach (2005) cites three empirical studies that successfully used peer coaching and tutoring in early field experience to improve the candidates’ methodological skills for working with children with disabilities. These findings are consistent with those of Conderman, Morin, and Stephens (2005). ‘‘For skills to be rooted in best-practice, entry level practitioners need extended field-experiences mentored by qualified special educators and supervised by university personnel’’ (p. 6). ‘‘Extensive, well-planned, and well-supervised field experiences’’ were evident in both exemplary general education programs and in the special education programs reviewed by Brownell et al. (2005, p. 247). They also found four features common to both the exemplary programs in general education and the special education programs they reviewed: (a) extensive collaboration, ranging from knowing about collaboration to collaboration among and between faculty and teacher candidates and/or a combination; (b) evaluation of program impact comprising either the evaluation of candidate performance and program effectiveness or both; (c) a focus on inclusion and cultural diversity, including program experiences that were likely to promote conceptual change about diverse learners; and (d) documenting impact on student learning. Banks et al. (2005) recommend the following essential components of effective teacher preparation programs to increase the likelihood of producing learning gains for new teachers: (a) creating supervised opportunities for teacher candidates to spend time in the communities where their students live; (b) providing opportunities for guided reflection

A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Issues and Dilemmas

23

including observations of and experience with students with emotional or behavior disorders; and (c) student teaching placements with veteran teachers who have a history of being successful with the students the teacher candidate has been assigned to teach. These recommendations for ‘‘fieldbased pedagogy’’ are consistent with those of others (Pugach, 2005; Valli & Rennert-Arieve, 2000; Villegas & Lucas, 2002).

RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS Recommendations In the concluding summary of the National Academy of Education’s report, A Good Teacher in Every Classroom: Preparing The Highly Qualified Teachers Our Children Deserve, the editors identified the ‘‘pedagogies of teacher education – student teaching, performance assessments and portfolios, analyses of teaching and learning, case methods, and practitioner inquiry’’ (Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, 2005, p. 50). In addition to including the pedagogies of teacher education, to be successful, teacher preparation programs need to comprise the following components:  The curriculum in teacher preparation programs should include content that is research-based, relevant to the teacher preparation program’s goals, and directly related to the teacher’s practice in meeting the needs of every learner.  Teacher preparation programs should offer strategies for candidates to deliver content, engage the learner, and create learning environments in which all learners will succeed.  Teacher preparation programs need to include supervised and supported opportunities for beginning teachers to engage in professional practice in the field with feedback and coaching.  Teacher preparation programs should include extensive collaboration, ranging from teaching teacher candidates about collaboration, to providing opportunities for collaboration among and between faculty and teacher candidates and/or a combination of these.  In teacher preparation programs, the evaluation of program impact needs to include evaluations of program effectiveness in delivering and implementing the ‘‘pedagogies of teacher preparation.’’  The curriculum in teacher preparation programs needs to focus on inclusion and cultural diversity, providing candidates with program

24

  



VIVIAN FUEYO ET AL.

experiences that are likely to promote conceptual change about diverse learners and their families. Teacher preparation programs need to emphasize the documentation of teacher candidates’ impact on student learning. Teacher candidates need to be knowledgeable about the requirements of IDEA, NCLB, and state teacher preparation and licensure standards. For teacher preparation programs to sustain their success, institutions of higher education, local school districts, and state legislatures need to make university-based teacher preparation a priority. The research agenda in teacher preparation needs to include collaborative investigations by teams of educators from special and general teacher education.

Beyond the preceding recommendations, we believe that ‘‘[e]xpert teaching of teachers takes time, effort, and support’’ (Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, 2005, p. 51). We also believe that the issue among teacher educators is no longer – Do we know what we need to be able to do? Rather, the issue is – How do we consistently and successfully do what we know that we need to be able to do? And who are our partners to help us be consistently successful in this monumentally important enterprise? Do we have the will and the partners to advocate for the capacity to accomplish these goals? The authors urge university-based teacher educators to take a lesson from the inclusive practices of the schools in which most of the teachers they are preparing are hired to teach and increase the collaboration and inclusiveness of their teacher education curricula among their professional faculties in general and special education. Well-designed, inclusive teacher preparation programs emphasize integrated content and pedagogy for general and special education throughout the program, rather than offering isolated, discrete courses in special education methods or behavior management. The closer the teacher preparation program mirrors the integration and flow of the behaviors required of the classroom teacher, the more successful the program.

Next Steps Next steps are always precarious because they require actions that may have to be bold or may have untoward political consequences. In either case, in order to move forward a reform agenda that seeks to change current

A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Issues and Dilemmas

25

practices and policies, changes must be allowed or encouraged. The receptivity to reform efforts, or lack of it, often presents considerable challenges. As described earlier, it is not that the field of teacher education does not know what to do. The challenge is in the doing. Many individuals have to be willing to confront change in order to prepare the best teachers for today’s schools and the diverse student bodies they comprise. We believe that to be successful in these reforms, change must occur at various levels and locations throughout the educational enterprise. We believe that an important first place for changes to occur is in the colleges or units within universities that prepare teachers. We also know that what teacher education faculty teach candidates about content knowledge and its pedagogy has a direct impact on what the candidates know about that content and how to teach about it to children. Precedents exist of reform efforts in university-based teacher preparation in the teaching of content and pedagogy. In the area of teaching reading, for example, Moats and Lyon (1993) called for teacher educators to teach research-based strategies related to reading and presented a compelling case for doing so; yet these reforms failed to be adopted universally. While theirs was not an unreasonable request, their point strikes a much larger issue: How does one change what is taught to those preparing to become teachers? Changes in Personnel Hiring Practices At first blush, changing what is taught in teacher preparation programs may not seem to be so difficult to accomplish. If one examines the processes for hiring, tenure, promotion, and retaining university faculty, however, the complexity becomes more apparent. It also becomes evident that for many faculty these events may be incompatible with the unit’s achieving the necessary objectives to prepare quality special or general educators. One way to change teacher preparation programs is to hire new faculty who are current in the research-based practices extolled by the reform literature and described above. Because higher education exists in the traditions of shared governance, however, it is likely that faculty with different views may seek to participate in the hiring process. If the faculty member has a point of view that has generally been acceptable to the field, but perhaps not as clearly supported by research as other positions, it is probable that this approach or point of view will be described in the faculty position description and deemed a worthwhile characteristic for a new faculty colleague. In cases like these, change may be difficult. The challenge remains to accomplish internal reforms through changes in personnel in the context of faculty-driven hiring processes.

26

VIVIAN FUEYO ET AL.

The same potential problem can exist at the time of tenure, the point at which the institution decides formally if a faculty member will be a longterm contributor to the teacher education unit. General university criteria for tenure may fail to address the characteristics of a quality teacher educator. As a result, a faculty member may be awarded tenure in a teacher preparation unit without being qualified to supervise candidates in the schools or without being knowledgeable in content pedagogy. When conflicting definitions exist in university tenure criteria between exemplary performance as a scholar, researcher, and colleague and the criteria for teacher education faculty excellence, reform remains a challenge. Differentiated Faculty Roles The purpose of universities is to advance knowledge, and they often hire faculty with distinctive capabilities and records of scholarly achievement. Faculty in colleges of education may be required to, or may seek to, take on many different roles. For example, teacher education faculty may be required to engage in clinical tasks, such as making placements for student teachers and supervising them. While the literature is full of examples of the research opportunities for faculty engaged in clinical practice (Boyer, 1990), university tenure and promotion committees are less quick to embrace these changing roles. Status and often compensation differences exist among the various roles in which faculty engage. Whether intentional or not, such differences set the stage for valuing a faculty member’s contribution to the greater mission of the college. It is not unusual for non-tenure track, or even part-time, faculty to be responsible for the teacher preparation programs’ clinical experiences, including field supervision, so important for the preparation of quality teachers. While current economic imperatives may make this differentiation administratively straightforward and understandable, the hidden perception remains that active faculty engagement in teacher preparation fieldwork may be less important and less valuable work than ‘‘real’’ scholarship and research. In the previous two examples, faculty hiring practices and differentiated staffing, system change is required to create university environments more favorable to teacher education reforms. To be successful in preparing quality teachers, university-based teacher preparation programs must hire and retain faculty members whose skills and knowledge align with what we know is needed to prepare new teachers with the skills they need to promote the growth of all learners. University-based teacher preparation programs also need to assign differentiated responsibilities for clinical experiences and supervision to the most-capable, best-trained, and well-respected faculty.

A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Issues and Dilemmas

27

There are many requisite elements to accomplish these changes: strong leadership at the unit head level; imperatives from the highest levels of the institution, such as the president and provost; close and careful involvement in these processes from advisory board members, boards of trustees, community leaders, and school system personnel; and managing budgetary imperatives to reinforce the outcomes and instructional processes that we know produce capable teachers. The key is to choose carefully the stewards who advise, support, and influence the direction of the institution, and the unit responsible for preparing teachers. Ultimately, the most important managers of the change process are found at the highest levels of university leadership. John Goodlad (1994) ascribes to the top leadership in universities the major responsibility for advancing teacher education in the institutions’ long-range plans. Supporting quality teacher education programs in universities must be seen as contributing the same value to society as building and maintaining quality medical schools. With a clear focus on what is good for society, and an understanding that carefully designed processes are required to prepare teachers well, implementing what we know about high quality teacher education becomes the norm rather than the exception.

REFERENCES American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (2007). Developing evidence and gathering data about teacher education program quality. Washington, DC: Author. Bain, R., & Mirel, J. (2006). Setting up camp at the great instructional divide: Educating beginning history teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 212–219. Ball, D. L. (1997). Developing mathematics reform: What don’t we know about teacher learning – but would make good working hypotheses? In: S. N. Friel & G. W. Bright (Eds), Reflecting on our work: NSF teacher enhancement in k-6 mathematics (pp. 77–111). Latham, MD: University Press of America. Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practicebased theory of professional education. In: L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds), Teaching as the learning profession: A handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Banks, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., LePage, P., DarlingHammond, L., Duffy, G., & McDonald, M. (2005). Teaching diverse learners. In: L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 232–274). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Billingsley, B., Fall, M., & Williams, T. (2006). Who is teaching students with emotional and behavioral disorders? A profile and comparison to other special educators. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 252–264.

28

VIVIAN FUEYO ET AL.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In: D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Macmillan. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Boyer, E. (1995). The basic school: A community for learning. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Bransford, J., Derry, S., Berliner, D., Hammerness, K., & Beckett, K. L. (2005). Theories of learning and their roles in teaching. In: L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 40–87). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Brownell, M., Ross, D., Colon, E., & McCallum, C. (2005). Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison with general teacher education. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 242–252. Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bullock, L., Ellis, L., & Wilson, M. (1994). Knowledge and skills needed by teachers who work with students with severe emotional/behavioral disorders: A revisitation. Behavior Disorders, 19, 108–125. Carnine, D. (1992). Expanding the notion of teachers’ rights: Access to tools that work. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 13–19. Cherryholmes, C. (1988). Power and criticism: Poststructural investigations in education. New York: Teachers College Press. Christensen, D. (1996). The professional knowledge-research base for teacher education. In: J. Sikula, T. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 38–52). New York: Macmillan. Clandinin, D. J., Pushor, D., & Orr, A. M. (2007). Navigating sites for narrative inquiry. Journal of Teacher Education, 85, 21–35. Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press. Cochran-Smith, M. (2006). Policy, practice, and politics in teacher education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (Eds). (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Comer, J., Haynes, N. M., Joyner, E. T., & Ben-Avie, M. (Eds). (1996). Rallying the whole village: The Comer process for reforming education. New York: Teachers College Press. Conderman, G., Morin, J., & Stephens, T. (2005). Special education student teaching practices. Preventing School Failure, 49(3), 5–10. Cook, B., & Cook, L. (2004). Bringing science into the classroom by basing craft on research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 240–247. Cooley-Nichols, S. (2004). Generic special education teacher preparation. Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 9, 28–40.

A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Issues and Dilemmas

29

Council for Exceptional Children. (2005). What every special educator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines for special educators. Reston, VA: Author. Cruickshank, D. (1990). Research that informs teachers and teacher educators. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Cruickshank, D., & Metcalf, K. (1990). Training within teacher preparation. In: R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 469–497). New York: Macmillan. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (Eds). (2005). A good teacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L., French, J., & Garcia-Lopez, S. (2002). Learning to teach for social justice. New York: Teachers College Press. Delpit, L. D. (1995). Other peoples’ children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press. Dill, V. (1996). Alternative teacher certification. In: J. Sikula, T. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 932–960). New York: Macmillan. DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Duke, D. L. (2004). The challenges of educational change. Boston, MA: Pearson. Education Resources Group. (2001). Survey of national board certified teachers. Princeton, NJ: Author. Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute. Evans, R. (2000). The human side of educational change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Falk, B. (2001). Professional learning through assessment. In: A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds), Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters (pp. 118–140). New York: Teachers College Press. Floden, R. E., & Meniketti, M. (2005). Research on the effects of coursework in the arts and science and in the foundations of education. In: M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 261–308). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fueyo, V., & Koorland, M. A. (1997). Teacher as researcher: A synonym for professionalism. Journal of Teacher Education, 48, 336–344. Fullan, M. (2001). Leadership in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Garrison, J. W. (1998). Democracy, scientific knowledge, and teacher empowerment. Teachers College Record, 89, 487–504. Gay, G. (1995). Bridging multicultural theory and practice. Multicultural Education, 3(1), 4–9. Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Giroux, H. A. (2001). Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the opposition (2nd ed.). Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Gollnick, D., & Chinn, P. (2000). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

30

VIVIAN FUEYO ET AL.

Good, T., & Brophy, J. (2000). Looking in classrooms. New York: Longman. Good, T., & Weinstein, R. (1986). Teacher expectations: A framework for exploring classrooms. In: K. Zumwalt (Ed.), Improving teaching (pp. 63–85). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Goodlad, J. I., Mantle-Bromley, C., & Goodlad, S. J. (2004). Education for everyone: Agenda for education in a democracy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Goodlad, J., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. (1990). Places where teachers are taught. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Grant, C. A., & Gillette, M. (2006). A candid talk to teacher educators about effectively preparing teachers who can teach everyone’s children. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 292–299. Holt-Reynolds, D. (1999). Good readers, good teachers? Subject matter expertise as a challenge in learning to teach. Harvard Educational Review, 69, 29–50. Horowitz, F. D., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Comer, J., Rosebrock, K., Austin, K., & Rust, F. (2005). Educating teachers for developmentally appropriate practice. In: L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds), Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hostetler, K., Macintyre Latta, M. A., & Sarroub, L. K. (2007). Retrieving meaning in teacher education: The question of being. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 231–244. Howey, K. R., Post, L. M., & Zimpher, N. L. (Eds). (2006). Recruiting, preparing and retaining teachers for urban schools. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Hussler, D., Cassidy, A., & Cuff, E. C. (Eds). (1986). Action research in classrooms and schools. London: Allen & Unwin. Imig, D. G., & Imig, S. R. (2006). What do beginning teachers need to know? An essay. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 286–291. Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New York: Teachers College Press. Jacobs, R. L., & Duhon-Sells, R. (1994). A strategy for maintaining the idealistic perceptions of pre-service teachers. Education, 115(1), 87–92. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kamii, C., & Houseman, L. B. (2000). Young children reinvent arithmetic: Implications of Piaget’s theory (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Katsiyannis, A., Landrum, T., & Bullock, L. (1997). Certification requirements for teachers of students with emotional or behavioral disorders: A national survey. Behavioral Disorders, 22, 131–140. Katsiyannis, A., & Yell, M. (2004). Critical issues and trends in the education of students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 209–210. Kennedy, M. (1998). Learning to teach writing: Does teacher education make a difference? New York: Teachers College Press. Kennedy, M. M. (2006). Knowledge and vision in teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 205–211. Kozol, J. (2007). Letters to a young teacher. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 8–21.

A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Issues and Dilemmas

31

LaBoskey, V. (1993). Why reflection in teacher education? Teacher Education Quarterly, 20, 9–12. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Levine, M., & Trachtman, R. (Eds). (1997). Making professional development schools work: Politics, practice, and policy. New York: Teachers College Press. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2004). Teacher leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lombardi, T., & Hunka, N. (2001). Preparing general education teachers for inclusive classrooms: Assessing the process. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(3), 183–197. Loughran, J. (2007). Researching teacher education practices: Responding to the challenges, demands, and expectations of self-study. Journal of Teacher Education, 85(1), 12–20. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Maag, J. W., & Katsiyannis, A. (1999). Teacher preparation in E/BD: A national survey. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 189–196. Maheady, L. (1997). Preparing teachers for instructing multiple ability groups. Teacher Educational and Special Education, 20, 332–339. Maheady, L., Harper, G., & Mallette, B. (2001). Peer-mediated instruction and interventions with students with mild disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 4–14. Manning, M. L. (2000). Understanding diversity, accepting others: Realities and directions. Educational Horizon, 78, 77–79. Marsh, D. D. (2000). Educational leadership for the twenty-first century: Integrating three essential perspectives. In: Jossey-Bass (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 126–145). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. McDiarmid, G. W. (1994). The arts and sciences as preparation for teaching. In: R. Howey & N. L. Zimpher (Eds), Informing faculty development for teacher educators (pp. 99–137). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. McLaughlin, J., Watts, C., & Beard, M. (2000). Just because it’s happening doesn’t mean it’s working: Using action research to improve practice in middle schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 284–290. McLaughlin, M. W., & Zarrow, J. (2001). Teachers engaged in evidence-based reform. In: A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds), Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters (pp. 79–101). New York: Teachers College Press. Moats, L. C., & Lyon, G. R. (1993). Learning disabilities in the United States: Advocacy, science, and the future of the field. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 282–294. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF). (1996). What matters most: Teaching and America’s future. New York: Author. National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2002). Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education. Washington, DC: Author. National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education. Washington, DC: Author. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

32

VIVIAN FUEYO ET AL.

Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Nougaret, A., Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (2004). The effects of teacher licensure on teachers’ pedagogical competence: Implications for elementary and secondary teachers of students with learning and behavioral disabilities. In: T. Scruggs & M. Mastropieri (Eds), Research in secondary schools (pp. 301–318). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Nougaret, A., Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (2005). Does teacher education produce better special education teachers? Exceptional Children, 71, 217–229. Oakes, J., Quartz, K., Ryan, S., & Lipton, M. (2000). Becoming good American schools: The struggle for civic virtue in education reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Palinscar, A. (1993). Bringing a socio-cultural perspective to literacy research in special education. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16(4), 242–244. Peske, H. G., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teacher inequality: How poor and minority students are shortchanged on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Education Trust. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books. Podgursky, M. (2006). Is there a ‘‘qualified teacher’’ shortage? Education Next, 6(2), 27–32. Pollard, A., & Tam, S. (1987). Reflective teaching in the primary school: A handbook for the classroom. London: Cassell Education. Pugach, M. (2005). Research on preparing general education students to work with students with disabilities. In: M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 549–590). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Rosenberg, M., Sindelar, P., & Hardman, M. (2004). Preparing highly qualified teachers for students with emotional or behavioral disorders: The impact of NCLB and IDEA. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 266–278. Ross, D. D., Bondy, E., & Kyle, D. W. (1993). Reflective teaching for student empowerment: Elementary curriculum and methods. New York: Macmillan. Rotherman, A. J., & Mead, S. (2004). Back to the future: The history and politics of state teacher licensure and certification. In: F. M. Hess, A. J. Rotherman & K. Walsh (Eds), A qualified teacher in every classroom? Appraising old answers and new ideas (pp. 11–47). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Sanders, W., & Horn, S. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee Value Added Assessment System (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 247–256. Sarason, S. (1996). Revisiting ‘‘The culture of the school and the problem of change’’. New York: Teachers College Press. Shulman, L. S. (1986a). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Shulman, L. S. (1986b). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In: M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 3–36). New York: Macmillan. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reforms. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22. Shulman, L. S. (2004). Teaching as community property: Essays on higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sims-Knight, J. E., Fowler, E., Pendergrass, N., & Upchurch, R. E. (2000). Course-based assessment: Engaging faculty in reflective practice. Paper presented at the 30th ASEE/

A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Issues and Dilemmas

33

IEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved June 3, 2004, from http://fie.engrng. pitt.edu/fie2000/papers/1252.pdf Sockett, H. (1990). The school curriculum: A basis for partnership. British Journal of Educational Studies, 35, 30–43. Soder, R. (1990). The rhetoric of teacher professionalization. In: J. Goodlad, R. Soder & K. Sirotnik (Eds), The moral dimensions of teaching (pp. 35–86). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Spring, J. (2004). Conflict of interests: The politics of American education. White Plains, NY: Longman. Spring, J. (2005). American education. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Starrat, R. J. (2004). Ethical leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sullivan, W. M. (2005). Work and integrity: The crisis and promise of professionalism in America. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Tate, W. F., & Malancharuvil-Berkes, E. (2006). A contract for excellence in scientific education: May I have your signature please? Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 278–285. United States Department of Education. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data. Available: http://www.ideadata.org Valli, L., & Rennert-Ariev, P. (2000). Identifying consensus in teacher education reform documents: A proposed framework and action implications. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 5–17. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsible teachers: A coherent approach. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. da Vinci, L. (2006). The Da Vinci notebooks (originally written c. 1500). New York: Arcade. Vygotsky, L. (1986). In: A. Kozulin (Trans.), Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Original English translation published 1962). Walsh, K. (2004). Model 3. A candidate-centered model for teacher preparation and licensure. In: F. M. Hess, A. J. Rotherman & K. Walsh (Eds), A qualified teacher in every classroom? Appraising old answers and new ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Wells, G. (Ed.) (1993). Changing schools from within: Creating communities of inquiry. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Heinemann. Wiggins, G. P. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Zeichner, K. (2006). Reflections of a university-based teacher educator on the future of college and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 326–340. Zeichner, K. (2007). Accumlating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 85, 36–46. Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 23–48. Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2005). Teachers’ characteristics: Research on the demographic profile. In: M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 111–156). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

This page intentionally left blank

DEFINING AND PREPARING HIGH-QUALITY TEACHERS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION: WHAT DO WE KNOW FROM THE RESEARCH? Mary T. Brownell, Melinda M. Leko, Margaret Kamman and Laura King ABSTRACT Research over the last decade or so has made it clear that quality teachers matter to student achievement. What is less clear is the ways in which they matter and how we can prepare such high-quality teachers. Nowhere is this lack of clarity more evident than in special education, where we have few studies on teacher quality and even fewer studies on the type of preparation opportunities that would lead to high quality. Thus, it is difficult to make evidence-based decisions about how quality special education teachers should be defined and prepared. As a field, we have to turn to research in general education to provide a sense of some of the dimensions of teacher quality and effective teacher education. In this chapter, we provide a summary of the research on characteristics of highly qualified teachers and what we know from the research on teacher education and professional development that might foster these qualities, both in general and in special education. Part of our discussion centers on the concerns surrounding this Personnel Preparation Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, Volume 21, 35–74 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0735-004X/doi:10.1016/S0735-004X(08)00002-5

35

36

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

body of research and the challenges of applying the findings to the field of special education. Although these challenges pose considerable problems, we are optimistic that potential solutions exist and can be reached through an alignment of initial teacher education and induction.

Pressure to ensure that every student with a disability has a high-quality teacher is greater than any time in the history of public education. Findings from value-added research highlight the important difference general education teachers can make in student achievement, and consequently have made teacher quality a high-priority issue in educational policy and research. Numerous policy papers have been written describing the qualities of effective teachers and how one might become an effective teacher; however, the authors’ assertions are based on a database that could be characterized as small, scattered, and inconsistent (Darling-Hammond, 2002; Hess, 2001; Walsh, 2001). In part, the lack of a substantial research base is a reflection of the difficulties associated with studying the issues of teacher quality and teacher preparation on a large-scale basis, and the historic lack of financial resources at the federal level for doing so. Now more than ever, discussions and policy decisions about teacher quality should be focused on a research base that can inform deliberations about the characteristics of highly qualified special education teachers and the type of teacher education experiences that can foster their development. In summarizing the findings from the literature, we acknowledge one important caveat. The research in special education is thin, and the research in general education, though larger in amount and scope, still requires support from future studies. We believe, however, that in spite of these limitations, there is sufficient evidence to warrant drawing some conclusions about the characteristics of quality teachers in special education and features of teacher education that might foster their development. We discuss these findings in light of challenges for applying them to special education and provide some suggestions for overcoming them successfully.

HIGH-QUALITY TEACHERS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION Over time, teacher quality in special education has been defined from three different perspectives. Historically, qualified special education teachers

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

37

have been defined as those with full certification in special education. Earlier, categorical certification practices (e.g., certification in learning disability, mental retardation, or emotional and behavioral disorders) suggested that highly qualified special education teachers were those with unique knowledge of specific disability categories (Geiger, Crutchfield, & Mainzer, 2003). Such definitions of qualified special education teachers, however, were unsupported in studies examining the classroom practices of teachers working with students from different categorical areas (Jenkins, Pious, & Peterson, 1988; Marston, 1987). Instead, this research showed that teachers who employed direct, active instructional techniques that engaged students were more likely to secure student achievement gains than teachers who did not (Sindelar, Smith, Harriman, Hale, & Wilson, 1986; Leinhardt, Zigmond, & Cooley, 1981). Ultimately, the combination of (a) insufficient empirical support for classroom practices that could be differentiated by categorical areas, (b) an increasing research base demonstrating the power of direct instructional techniques and behavioral interventions for students with disabilities, and (c) chronic shortages of special education teachers led to a new perspective on teacher quality in special education. Qualified special education teachers were still defined by full licensure in special education; however, the focus of licensure was much broader, often cutting across grade levels and disability areas (Geiger et al., 2003). Moreover, quality special education teachers were and still are implicitly defined as those who could employ researchbased interventions, with knowledge of effective pedagogy for students with disabilities (Cook & Schirmer, 2003). Recent criticisms of teacher education and its value for producing quality teachers, combined with evidence that subject matter knowledge and high verbal ability characterize teachers who secure the greatest student achievement gains, have redefined high-quality special education teachers, at least in a legal sense (Goe, 2007; Rice, 2003; Wayne & Youngs, 2003). Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), high-quality special education teachers are defined as those with subject matter knowledge and knowledge of special education practice, but not necessarily the knowledge of pedagogy. Special education teachers can become certified by taking a subject area licensure exams in special education and the content area in which they are teaching, but do not have to participate in any preparatory training to acquire pedagogical practices identified as essential to the successful education of students with disabilities. Thus, subject matter knowledge becomes the primary determinant of teacher quality.

38

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

How does research on quality teachers, however, support these three views of teacher quality? Although the first view has been rendered obsolete through the research, the next two views are still considered valid in the educational community. But, do these two views have any validity in the research literature? In the following section, we present a summary of the research on quality teachers in both general and special education and describe how this research either supports definitions of teacher quality or refutes them.

Teacher Characteristics In attempting to understand what makes a high-quality teacher, some researchers have investigated the relationship between various teacher characteristics and student achievement. These characteristics have included aptitude, experience, coursework taken, degree earned, and certification status. The assumption behind this line of research is that certain teacher characteristics positively influence students’ achievement. For example, many people assume that smarter, more extensively prepared teachers, and those with more teaching experience will secure higher student gains than those without these attributes. Although these assertions make logical sense, relationships between teacher characteristics and student achievement are not always consistent, though some characteristics seem to matter more than others in fostering student achievement gains. To study teachers’ academic ability, researchers have used a variety of measures such as scholastic achievement test (SAT) and American College Testing (ACT) scores, grade point average (GPA), IQ scores, and college rankings. Of these measures, standardized measures of academic ability and prestige of the college demonstrate the most productive relationships with student achievement, particularly when those measures capture the skills needed to teach a subject. For example, studies examining the correlations between teachers’ performance on tests of verbal ability such as the ACT and student achievement gains in reading show significant positive relationships, which are more robust for teachers of low-income students. The same positive correlations hold for teacher performance on tests of mathematical ability and student achievement gains in this area (Rice, 2003; Wayne & Youngs, 2003). Additionally, teachers who attended more prestigious undergraduate institutions were more successful in increasing student achievement scores than those graduating from less prestigious institutions (Rice, 2003; Wayne & Youngs, 2003), and the magnitude of this

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

39

relationship was greater for student achievement in high-poverty school districts. It is important to note, however, that the relationship between teachers’ academic achievement and student test scores is generally small and not always consistent. For instance, in a recent large-scale study, Harris and Sass (2007) found that teachers’ verbal and quantitative scores on the SAT bore no relationship with their student achievement scores. Moreover, when relationships do exist, they provide little information about how teachers’ academic ability matters during instruction. Do teachers with greater academic ability present information more clearly? Are they able to learn more easily from the curriculum they are teaching and students’ responses to instruction? Moreover, what are the implications of such findings for recruiting and hiring teachers, particularly when scores on academic ability measures vary by gender and race? Both women and persons of color tend to perform more poorly on the ACT and SAT than white males (Zumwalt & Craig, 2006). Researchers have also studied the effects of the number of years of teaching experience on student achievement. Generally, there is some support that students’ achievement is higher when they receive instruction from teachers with more experience (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2006; Croninger, Rice, Rathbun, & Nishio, 2007; Hanushek, Kain, O’Brien, & Rivkin, 2005; Murnane & Phillips, 1981; Rowan, Correnti, & Miller, 2002). Yet, when examined more closely, this generality is debunked by a number of variables. For example, Croninger et al. (2007) found that teacher qualifications (such as experience) influenced students’ reading achievement but not math achievement. The researchers at the New Teacher Center also found the relationship between experience and student achievement varied by subject. Results from the studies conducted at the New Teacher Center indicated that there is a small and positive relationship between experience and reading achievement, but only within the first six years of teaching (Villar, Strong, & Fletcher, 2007). After about six years, the positive relationship begins to decline. The relationship between experience and mathematics achievement, however, showed a modest increase throughout a teacher’s career (Villar et al., 2007). Rowan et al. (1997) found a significant relationship between teachers’ experience and students’ reading achievement in the early elementary grades but not in later elementary grades. Murnane and Phillips (1981) point out that such inconsistencies in the teacher experience literature have existed since the early 1970s, and from their standpoint the inconclusive nature of this research is due, in part, to several confounding variables, two of which are vintage and selection effects. Vintage effects refer to the ‘‘average abilities of teachers hired by a school

40

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

district at different points in time’’ (Murnane & Phillips, 1981, p. 455). When districts experience large teacher shortages, usually there is a decrease in availability of quality potential hires. Selection effects refer to differences in teachers’ abilities in relation to whether they remain in or leave the classroom; for instance, high-ability teachers leaving the classroom to pursue administrative positions or advanced degrees. Thus, questions about the role of teacher experience might seem straightforward, but from a methodological standpoint, these questions are incredibly complex. Finally, researchers have examined teacher characteristics related to coursework and certification status. The research on certification status has been largely inconclusive and problematic by design (Zumwalt & Craig, 2006). Comparisons of certified and uncertified teachers are confounded by differences in the levels of preparation teachers have in each group. For instance, many uncertified teachers have taken education courses, sometimes quite a few, whereas some teachers become certified after completing only a few courses. Thus, it is of little wonder that these studies have yielded inconsistent findings, and consequently helped us to learn only a little about how teacher education influences teacher quality. Research on subject matter degrees has been more productive, but only in science and mathematics at the secondary level. Secondary mathematics students learn more from teachers who are certified in mathematics, hold degrees in mathematics, and who have taken coursework in the area of mathematics (Goe, 2007; Rowan, Chiang, & Miller, 1997; Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000; Wayne & Youngs, 2003). Similar findings have held for teachers with coursework in science; however, the relationship between coursework taken and student achievement is not as strong as it is in the case of mathematics. Studies of special educators lend some support for the above findings. Results from the Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE) conducted by Carlson, Lee, & Schroll (2004) indicated that five factors were reasonable components of a special education teacher quality measure. The factors related to teacher characteristics included experience, credentials, and professional activities such as membership in professional organizations and professional journal reading. These teacher characteristics in combination with self-reported practices in reading were linked to student achievement gains in a follow-up study. Specifically, Blackorby et al. found that a teacher-quality score comprised of these four factors accounted for a small-to-moderate portion of variance in word identification, passage comprehension, calculation, and problem-solving gains (reported in Brownell, Bishop, Gersten, Klingner, Dimino, & Haager, et al. (in press) and Brownell, Blackorby, Carlson, Haager, Hardman, & Menon (2006)).

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

41

Findings from studies of teacher characteristics lend some credence to the NCLB view of teacher quality. Specifically, high-quality teachers are those with subject matter expertise; however, this narrow definition of teacher quality applies only to secondary mathematics teaching, and provides little insight into more complicated dimensions of teacher quality such as classroom practice, knowledge for teaching, and beliefs about curriculum teaching and learning. An improved understanding of these variables may provide information that would enable us to develop richer definitions of teacher quality, and insights into how we might prepare high-quality teachers. In the following sections, we describe the instructional practices, knowledge, and beliefs that seem to characterize effective teachers in both general and special education. Additionally, we highlight some of the differences and similarities between special and general education teachers.

Instructional Practice Research on effective general and special education teachers demonstrates that what teachers do in the classroom matters in terms of what students learn. In the 1970s and 1980s, researchers interested in understanding how teachers affected student achievement gains developed process–product methodology to better understand what characterized effective teaching. The goal of this research was to investigate specific, discrete teaching behaviors, or processes, that maximized student outcomes, or products (Brophy & Good, 1986). From this body of work, researchers learned about the important relationships between student achievement and time spent in academic instruction and academic learning time (ALT), which included time designated for tasks, student engagement, and student success on tasks (Brophy & Good, 1986; Fisher et al., 1978). Additionally, researchers learned that several teaching behaviors correlated with student achievement, including (a) use of supportive feedback rather than negative criticism, (b) efficient use of class time, (c) limited use of independent seatwork, (d) increased use of large- and small-group instruction, and (e) consistent progress monitoring (Anderson, Evertson, & Brophy, 1979; Brophy & Evertson, 1976; Brophy & Good, 1986; Medley, 1978; Rosenshine, 1986; Stallings, 1974). Moreover, findings in general education seemed to hold some bearing for special education. In studies of self-contained special education classrooms, time spent in teacher-directed instruction and high student engagement in academic tasks predicted student achievement gains for students in those classrooms (Leinhardt et al., 1981; Sindelar et al., 1986).

42

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

Contemporary research on effective teacher practice has built on the process–product research foundation, though a major difference is that current research is often situated in the context of specific content areas such as reading. Much of this research confirms the earlier process–product research, while extending the findings to account for various intricacies of specific content areas and student populations. In the area of reading, effective instruction in both general and special education is active, engaging, provides multiple opportunities for students to practice, and engages students in higher-order thinking skills (Brady & Moats, 1997; Cirino, Pollard-Durodola, Foorman, Carlson, & Francis, 2007; Seo, Brownell, Bishop, & Dingle, in press; Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 2000a). Bogner, Raphael, and Pressley (2002) found that engaging firstgrade literacy teachers used a plethora of motivational strategies including positive reinforcement, scaffolding, cooperative learning arrangements, student choice, and individualized attention. These findings were also supported in a study of special education beginning teachers working with 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students with learning disabilities, though structured cooperative learning structures did not seem to characterize their instruction as much. Instead, quality special education teachers often worked with small groups of students and seemed to promote more positive peer relationships and helping behaviors (Seo et al., in press). Effective literacy teachers in general education also modeled reading strategies, asked questions about text (particularly more open-ended, higherorder questions), and provided students with specific feedback on their performance (Connor, Son, Hindman, & Morrison, 2005; Haager, Gersten, Baker, & Graves, 2003; Taylor et al., 2000a). Moreover, these teachers provided considerable instruction in decoding, phonemic awareness, and alphabetic skills. This instruction was explicit and teacher-directed with opportunities to practice skills acquired in connected texts (Connor, Morrison, & Katch, 2004; Foorman et al., 2006; Haager et al., 2003; National Reading Panel, 2000; Rankin-Erickson & Pressley, 2000; Taylor et al., 2000a). Special education teachers whose students outscored their peers on fluency and word identification measures were also observed engaging in explicit and teacher-directed opportunities to practice literacy skills, supporting students in their efforts to learn, providing feedback on performance, and asking more open-ended questions about text (Brownell et al., in press; Brownell, Haager, Bishop, Klingner, Penfield, Dingle, & Menon, 2007; Seo et al., in press). These findings suggest that general and special education teachers who are effective in teaching reading (a) engage students, (b) provide specific feedback, (c) differentiate instruction, (d) provide numerous opportunities for systematic work with sounds,

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

43

language, decoding, and authentic texts, and (e) ask students open-ended and more intellectually challenging questions while reading text. Although findings from the described studies indicate similarities between general and special education teachers, other research highlights some distinguishing features between them. Effective special educators must possess knowledge of the specific academic and behavioral needs of students with disabilities, and knowledge of how to engage them in explicit instruction gauged to their needs. Additionally, ability to manage classroom behavior and build a classroom community may distinguish special educators from their general education colleagues (Englert, Tarrant, & Mariage, 1992). A study conducted by Stough and Palmer (2003), where teachers were asked to reflect on video tapes of their classroom instruction through a stimulated recall procedure, showed that expert special education teachers had extensive knowledge of the academic and behavioral problems typically faced by students with disabilities, as well as the unique difficulties encountered by specific students. Additionally, these expert teachers had an arsenal of classroom management and instructional strategies for responding to observed problems. These findings were corroborated by Brownell et al. (in press) who found that beginning special education teachers were surprisingly sophisticated in their efforts to manage student behaviors in their classroom, far more so than what they expected from beginning teachers. Highly engaging special educators provided more deliberate skill instruction, provided more teacher-directed instruction compared to student-directed instruction, employed overt behavior management techniques, and incorporated a variety of curricular materials in addressing the needs of their students, more so than is typically described in effective literacy classrooms (Bishop et al., 2007; Brownell et al., in press; Rankin-Erickson & Pressley, 2000; Seo et al., in press; Taylor et al., 2000a). Such precise knowledge of difficulties that students with disabilities face during instruction allows effective special educators to engage in deliberate skill instruction and wellcrafted classroom management efforts that appear far more intensive than the descriptions of instruction in effective literacy classrooms (Taylor, Pressley, & Pearson, 2000b). Taken together, the above studies lend support for the precise nature of special educators’ knowledge and practice, especially regarding general instructional practices and pedagogy. Knowledge for Teaching Closely tied to teacher practice is teacher knowledge. Extensive studies of teacher knowledge began in the 1980s with the work of Shulman and his

44

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

colleagues. Shulman (1986) differentiated three types of knowledge: subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge. Content knowledge is often referred to as the subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge is the knowledge of instructional strategies, and pedagogical content knowledge is an understanding of how to represent content for students so they can understand it. Although some argue that teachers’ content knowledge alone is a sufficient indicator of teacher quality (Hess, 2001; Walsh, 2001), there is mounting evidence that teachers need more than just subject matter knowledge (Brownell et al., 2007; Cirino et al., 2007; Phelps & Schilling, 2004). Following Shulman’s work, researchers focused on inquiries into teachers’ knowledge of secondary education and elementary mathematics and science instruction (Ball, Lubienski, & Mewborn, 2001; Grossman, 1990; Kennedy, 1991c; Rowan et al., 1997; So, 1997; Wilson & Wineburg, 1988). Results of these studies show that effective teachers need more than subject matter knowledge; knowing mathematics and science concepts was not enough to teach the students successfully. Effective teachers needed a deeper understanding of how to break down complex concepts and relate them to students in meaningful ways. In the area of reading, the research on teacher knowledge is not as comprehensive as in mathematics and science, but interest in understanding teachers’ knowledge about reading and reading instruction is growing. In the past two decades, a variety of reports have been published delineating the specific knowledge good reading teachers must possess. The International Reading Association (2003) and the National Reading Panel (2000) published reports suggesting what teachers needed to know. According to these reports, teachers need to know about how reading and writing abilities develop, what are the various ways to teach reading and when to use each method, along with an understanding of the five components of reading (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension). Additionally, some researchers have investigated a more content-focused view of reading knowledge that looks squarely at teachers’ declarative knowledge of more structural aspects of language such as being able to identify phonemes and morphemes. These researchers have concluded that teachers need conceptual knowledge of the reading process as well as knowledge about the structure of language including phonetics, morphology, syntax, and text structure (Moats, 1994; Brady & Moats, 1997). Phelps and his colleagues, however, have a different view of the knowledge good teachers need to effectively teach reading. Instead of focusing on knowledge of language structures, they attempt to understand what knowledge teachers

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

45

employ while teaching reading, or teachers’ engaged knowledge (Carlisle, Phelps, Rowan, & Johnson, 2006). In one study, Phelps and Schilling (2004) assessed the knowledge of reading teachers and other professionals. They found that reading teachers’ knowledge was different from that of other adults who were good readers. Unlike the other professionals, reading teachers had specialized knowledge about reading pedagogy and strategies that could be employed to help students learn how to read. Phelps and Schilling (2004) surmised that just having the knowledge and skills necessary for good reading does not equate to having the knowledge needed to teach students how to read. In providing instruction to students with disabilities, research has shown that special education teachers draw on their specialized knowledge of instructional and classroom management interventions in special education, individual students, and their pedagogical content knowledge to serve students with disabilities. Stough and Palmer (2003) found that expert special educators had extensive knowledge of effective pedagogy, especially in the area of behavior management, and tailored their instruction to meet students’ individual needs. These special educators consistently engaged in instructional assessment where they closely monitored a student’s individual needs and then made instructional decisions accordingly. Research at the Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education (COPPSE) has shown that in affecting student gains, experienced teachers demonstrated more knowledge in decoding and comprehension, and their knowledge of decoding predicted strong classroom practices in this area (Brownell et al., 2007). Further, beginning special educators, as a group, demonstrated stronger classroom management practices and general education practices than reading practices, even though their knowledge for teaching reading was nearly equivalent to that of experienced elementary education teachers (Brownell et al., in press). The most accomplished beginning special educators, however, demonstrated deeper understanding of how to teach reading than their less accomplished peers (Seo et al., in press), suggesting that many novice teachers may know more about teaching than they are able to show through their practice.

Beliefs For decades, literature on teachers’ beliefs has demonstrated that beliefs are influential in teacher practice (DeFord, 1985; Harste & Burke, 1977; Richardson, 1996; Richardson, Anders, Tidwell, & Lloyd, 1991). Teachers’

46

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

beliefs shape their teaching styles, their use of strategies, and their instructional decisions. For example, Bauch (1984) assessed 164 teachers’ instructional beliefs about teacher control and student participation. After observing their classroom practices, Bauch found that teachers whose beliefs supported high teacher control (and therefore, low student participation) often taught using a lecture-style approach and rarely incorporated cooperative grouping strategies. Conversely, teachers whose beliefs were indicative of high student participation asked more open-ended questions, encouraged student discussions, and utilized cooperative learning strategies. Studies in reading have demonstrated that teachers’ theoretical beliefs about reading instruction, namely, phonics versus whole language, can predict their reading instructional practices and decisions. In 1985, DeFord created and validated the Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP). This instrument captured teachers’ theoretical orientations about reading, which in turn, predicted classroom reading practices. Similarly, Richardson et al. (1991) conducted teacher interviews with upper elementary teachers to determine their placement along a continuum of beliefs about teaching reading that ranged from a skills-/word-based approach to a literature-based approach. Teachers’ beliefs predicted their use of silent or oral reading, their vocabulary instruction, and their consideration of students’ background knowledge with 80–92% accuracy. In mathematics, teachers’ beliefs also influence their instructional planning, decision-making, and practices. Using case study research, Lubinski (1993) has shown that mathematics teachers alter their practices to be more flexible and accepting of multiple ways of solving mathematics problems when they adopt the belief that students can solve any mathematics problem. Further, in one instance, teacher’s beliefs were tied to student achievement gains in mathematics, albeit indirectly. Muijs and Reynolds (2002) examined the relationship between teachers’ behavior, beliefs, self-efficacy, and selfreported subject matter knowledge and student achievement. They found that teachers’ behavior influenced student achievement directly, whereas beliefs and self-reported subject matter knowledge acted as mediators, working through teachers’ behavior indirectly. In special education, much research has been conducted on general educators’ attitudes toward students with disabilities and their placement in regular education classrooms (see for review Pugach, 2005). Of particular importance have been those studies that tie the beliefs of general and special education teachers about working with students with disabilities to their practices. In their study of general education teachers’ attitudes

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

47

toward special education students, Jordan and Stanovich (2003) found that teachers held either pathognomonic or interventionist beliefs. Teachers with pathognomonic beliefs believed that they should not be the primary source of instruction for students with disabilities and these teachers provided the least amount of instructional time to these students. Teachers with interventionist beliefs thought they were the primary teachers for the special education students in their classroom. These teachers did not want these students removed and offered them most of the instructional time. Furthermore, in other studies, Jordan and Stanovich established that teachers who were more self-efficacious (i.e., they believed they could influence what students learn) were more likely to engage in active, direct instruction teaching practices that involved more cognitively demanding responses from students (Jordan & Stanovich, 2003; Stanovich & Jordan, 2004). Bishop et al. (2007), who studied beginning special education teachers, found that the most accomplished ones were relentless in their desire to help students achieve. The teachers in Bishop et al.’s study took a no excuses and no blame attitude, believing they were responsible for finding ways to help students regardless of how difficult it might be. Despite rather consistent evidence to support the assertion that teachers’ beliefs influence their practice, some researchers suggest that the relationship is not as strong as many scholars assert (see for review Fang (1996) and Richardson (1996)). Sometimes, teachers’ beliefs are inconsistent with their practice. For example, Kinzer (1988), in a study of both preservice and inservice teachers, found that although the two groups shared similar beliefs about reading, the inservice teachers’ instructional practices were more inconsistent with their beliefs. Specifically, Kinzer found that practices and beliefs were consistent for teachers who subscribed to a holistic reading orientation, whereas beliefs and practices were more inconsistent for teachers whose beliefs reflected a skills-based orientation. Readence, Konopak, and Wilson (1991) established that teachers’ beliefs and instructional practices were sometimes consistent and other times inconsistent. Fang and Richardson point out that discrepancies in the literature on teachers’ beliefs may be attributed to methodological differences between studies, as well as contextual constraints on teachers’ ability to fully translate their beliefs into practice (e.g., when teachers are expected to use particular curricular materials that may not align with their beliefs). In summary, how does research on quality teachers support various conceptualizations of teacher quality in special education? First, in general

48

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

education, there is reason to believe that research lends some credence to the NCLB definition of teacher quality, particularly for secondary mathematics teachers. Second, the evidence on teachers’ beliefs, instructional practice, subject area knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge support both the NCLB view of teacher quality and special education views that primarily emphasize knowledge of effective pedagogy. Quality special education teachers are likely to be experienced and academically able with: (a) subject matter knowledge, (b) knowledge of how to teach that subject matter (or pedagogical content knowledge), (c) knowledge of effective instructional and management practices that is somewhat specific to students with disabilities and other struggling learners, and (d) beliefs that enable them to persist in teaching students with disabilities. Although research on the attributes of effective teachers provides a strong starting point for defining the dimensions of high-quality special education teachers, it does not provide a complete picture. Special education teachers also collaborate with other professionals, and as a field, we have little knowledge of how the dimensions of teacher quality supported in our review affect the collaborative process. Additionally, we have little research-based understanding of the knowledge and skills that might define effective collaborative practice, as this is an area of study in special education that has received little attention. Further, we have little understanding of the level of knowledge that special educators need about content and how to enact it to adequately serve students with disabilities. For instance, what do special educators need to know about mathematical concepts to provide effective direct instruction to students with disabilities or to collaborate well with their general education peers? It seems obvious from the research that if they are primarily responsible for providing algebra instruction then they must be knowledgeable in that area, but what if they are collaborating with the general education teacher to provide algebra instruction? Despite the limitations of the research on teacher quality, what we do know about the characteristics, knowledge, beliefs, and practices of highquality teachers is a starting place for thinking about how to prepare high-quality special education teachers. We know that developing content knowledge and pedagogy in critical areas such as literacy will be important. We also realize that fostering certain beliefs about teaching students with disabilities will be important. Thus, we can begin to turn our attention to how we might develop these qualities, and ask what specific features of effective preparation might support their development.

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

49

PREPARING QUALITY SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS Various dimensions of teacher quality suggest that initial preparation programs must be designed to promote the knowledge, beliefs, and classroom practices that characterize effective teachers. At this point in time, however, we have insufficient information about how we might best prepare special education or general education teachers initially. Studies of teachers who enter teaching through a variety of paths and certification routes have yielded either contradictory findings or established that few differences exist between teachers and the entry routes they take (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2006; Harris & Sass, 2006; Sindelar, Daunic, & Rennells, 2004). Such inconsistent findings have led many teacher education scholars to conclude that researchers should focus their efforts on understanding program characteristics that influence different aspects of teacher quality (Zeichner & Conklin, 2005). Unfortunately, we do not have a cohesive, substantial research base in teacher education linking program characteristics, important dimensions of teacher quality, and student outcomes to support decisions about how to best develop quality teachers. Most literature focuses on the impact of single courses, pedagogy employed within a course, or field-work experiences, and studies of these short-term attempts to foster teacher learning yield mixed results (Clift & Brady, 2005). We do, however, have a little programmatic research that helps to identify features of effective teacher education (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Howey & Zimpher, 1989; International Reading Association, 2003; Kennedy, 1991b; Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). This literature includes case studies of programs that are known for their quality (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Howey & Zimpher, 1989), one review of literature and a series of case studies of teacher education programs connecting preparation features to changes in teachers’ conceptions of and knowledge for teaching (Kennedy, 1991a; Wideen et al., 1998), and one case linking programs identified as exemplary to changes in teachers’ beliefs and practice as well as their students’ achievement (Hoffman et al., 2005). Research on PD and the development of professional learning communities in schools, however, provides more substantial support for programmatic research on teacher education. The combination of findings from the teacher education and PD literature provides some important insights into the key features of effective learning opportunities and environments that our field should consider in improving efforts to educate quality special

50

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

education teachers. In the following section, we summarize the findings from these teacher preparation studies and 25 PD studies, 10 of which involve relationships between PD and student achievement gains. We begin by examining what we know about fostering change in teachers’ beliefs, developing teacher knowledge, and impacting instructional practice. Then, we look at the role of coherent and collaborative learning opportunities in supporting teacher growth. Finally, we discuss the importance of accountability and selectivity in promoting teacher quality and student achievement.

Mechanisms for Addressing Teachers’ Beliefs Teacher education efforts, whether they are targeted at prospective or practicing teachers, must have in place some mechanism for addressing teachers’ beliefs about teaching, schooling, and learning, particularly because we know the role they can play in facilitating or inhibiting the acquisition of effective instructional practices for working with students with disabilities. Since many prospective teachers have participated in educational systems that embrace more traditional approaches to teaching (e.g., standardized curriculum, lecture-based instruction, and a competitive grading system), they may have acquired beliefs and attitudes about instruction and students that can be counterproductive to creating effective classrooms for students with disabilities (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985; Harlin, 1999; Lortie, 1975; Pugach, 2005; Richardson, 1996). The literature contains multiple examples of prospective and practicing teachers who blame students and their parents for students’ poor performance in schools, rather than look toward possible failures of instruction or curriculum (Brownell et al., 2006b; Jordan & Stanovich, 2003). Such counterproductive views of the teaching and learning process for students with disabilities suggest a need for preparation and PD programs to attend carefully to teachers’ beliefs and find productive ways for shaping them so that teachers have the beliefs and attitudes for fostering success in their work with students with disabilities. Teacher education programs, particularly in general education, have undertaken serious efforts to change beliefs, although they have not always been successful (Richardson & Placier, 2001). Studies examining the ability of teacher education programs to foster lasting change in teachers’ beliefs have yielded mixed findings. Well-designed course and field experiences, as well as cohesive teacher education programs that deliberately address teachers’ beliefs, have been shown to help teachers reorient their thinking about populations of diverse

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

51

students. Wideen et al. (1998) reviewed 97 teacher education studies focused on preservice students learning to teach students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. The authors found that teacher education experiences that produce conceptual change about diverse student populations have certain features in common. These features include: (a) use of pedagogical practices that help preservice students examine their beliefs, (b) a programmatic approach to changing beliefs, (c) faculty–student collaboration within a small program, (d) cohesion within a strong programmatic vision, and (e) field experiences that include collaboration and planning by the university and the schools (1998). Additionally, in two separate studies of exemplary teacher education programs (DarlingHammond, 2000; International Reading Association, 2003), researchers identified characteristics common to 15 teacher education programs either known for their success in preparing teachers to work with diverse student populations or able to document their effectiveness in preparing teachers to work with such populations. These characteristics included: (a) a coherent program vision that fosters alignment of different program experiences; (b) a conscious blending of theory, disciplinary knowledge, and subjectspecific pedagogical knowledge and practice in coursework and field experiences; (c) carefully crafted field experiences; (d) standards for ensuring quality teaching for all students, and particularly diverse learners; (e) an active pedagogy that employs modeling and promotes reflection; (f) a strong focus on meeting the needs of a diverse student population; and (g) collaboration to build professional community. These program characteristics also seem to have the added benefit of fostering other important aspects of teacher quality, such as effective classroom practice. Studies of PD efforts also demonstrate that beliefs can change when PD efforts embrace certain characteristics that have been identified in teacher education as essential to changing beliefs. When teachers have opportunities to engage in collaborative, active learning opportunities that promote reflection on student learning, they tend to change their views of instruction. In a study of 12 schools involved in learning a science curriculum that focused on inquiry, teachers were more likely to change when involved in communities of practice where school administrators helped teachers focus not only on implementing the curriculum but also on how students were learning from the curriculum (Roehrig, Kruse, & Kern, 2006). Additionally, Guskey (2002) found that when teachers are able to see students profit from the knowledge and strategies they are acquiring, they change their beliefs. Further, Hamilton and Richardson (1995) established that when teachers collaboratively engaged in an active examination of their beliefs about

52

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

reading comprehension instruction and were presented with alternative ways of considering their practice, they could change their beliefs; however, the nature of the collaborative dialogue either facilitated or inhibited these changes. When teachers were willing to challenge each other, they were more likely to change their beliefs about practice; yet, when they were more concerned about maintaining friendships in the group rather than tackling problematic beliefs, they were not likely to change.

Content-Focused Activities of Sufficient Duration Studies of learning opportunities aimed at helping teachers understand how to enact content in the classroom, which occur over an extended time period, characterize exemplary teacher education programs and effective PD efforts. In these efforts, those responsible for teacher learning consciously create multiple opportunities to blend theory, disciplinary knowledge, subject-specific pedagogy, and knowledge of students as learners and to situate this integrated knowledge in classroom practice (Brownell, Ross, Colon, & McCallum, 2005). For instance, in the exemplary reading programs, researchers found that teacher educators situated their learning experiences in broad themes that guided the program (International Reading Association, 2003). These themes included: assessment-driven instruction, responsive and adaptive teaching, and explicit content delivery. Case studies of teacher learning in preservice, inservice, and induction programs conducted by the National Center for Teacher Learning (Kennedy, 1991a) revealed that only two programs were able to develop participating teachers’ ideas about mathematics and the teaching of mathematics to reflect national standards in this area. The inservice and preservice programs provided teachers with concrete and sustained opportunities to learn about mathematics content and pedagogy as well, themselves as learners of mathematics (Kennedy, 1991a). Multiple studies of PD demonstrate that content-focused efforts may be the most important component in efforts to improve teachers’ knowledge and practice as well as the achievement of their students (Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007). In a large quantitative study employing value-added assessments of teacher quality, Harris and Sass (2007) found that content-focused PD in the area of mathematics contributed significantly to gains in student achievement, and the effects were the strongest three years after the PD took place. Using qualitative methodology, several groups of researchers demonstrated that by developing teachers’

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

53

disciplinary knowledge through extended learning opportunities, they could foster the development of teacher learning. In a series of studies focused on acquiring scientific knowledge, Rosebery et al. (Rosebery & Ogonowski, 1996; Rosebery & Puttick, 1998; Rosebery & Warren, 1998) engaged teachers in a traditional summer workshop that lasted several days as well as seminars that extended over the course of the year (i.e., two-hour meetings every other week after school and two-week meetings). The traditional summer workshop focused on helping teachers learn the new science curriculum, whereas the year-long seminar involved the same teachers in the scientific process. The teachers pursued scientific questions they posed through investigations, and were encouraged to use scientific discourse as they described their investigations. As one might expect, the traditional summer workshop did little to change teachers’ approaches to teaching science despite their commitment to the new curriculum. The teachers experienced little change in some of the more traditional views they held of science, and as a consequence these beliefs translated into more traditional practice. The year-long seminar, however, focused on improving teachers’ knowledge of the scientific process; discourse analysis revealed that teachers’ discussions about science changed. They used words such as hypothesis and experience with an emphasis different from that used previously, reflecting a deeper understanding of the scientific process (Rosebery & Warren, 1998). In addition to improving teachers’ discipline-specific knowledge, researchers showed that developing teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in mathematics led to improvements in teaching and student achievement. Studies of PD efforts involving cognitively guided instruction have shown that when teachers learn about various mathematical problems and about how students think about these problems, they can engage in mathematics instruction that is driven by problem-solving around key mathematical concepts. Moreover, when they engage in such problembased instruction, they are capable of improving students’ mathematics achievement. PD efforts that provide opportunities for teachers to learn about pedagogical content practices can also improve classroom practice and student achievement. In a three-year longitudinal, large-scale study of the Eisenhower PD program in mathematics, Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman (2002) found that when teachers had opportunities to learn specific pedagogical practices in mathematics, they reported increases in reform-oriented practices in mathematics. Further, Saxe, Gearhart, & Nasir (2001) found that teachers could secure better achievement gains when they were involved in efforts to deepen discipline-specific knowledge

54

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

of mathematics as well as an understanding of how children solve mathematics problems and their achievement motivations. Similar results have been replicated in reading. McGill-Franzen, Allington, Yokoi, and Brooks (1999) found that 30 hours of PD extended over one year helped kindergarten teachers learn to work effectively with books and improved their students literacy and writing outcomes compared to teachers who received books but no extended training. Connor, Piasta, Fishman, & Morrison (2007) found that teachers who participated in an extended PD effort to improve their literacy practices increased their knowledge for phonology, orthography, morphology, and concepts of literacy acquisition and instruction compared to teachers who did not participate. Moreover, this knowledge was associated with gains in student achievement for treatment teachers, whereas the same relationships did not hold for the control group. Findings across these studies provide evidence that effective PD efforts aimed at helping teachers acquire pedagogical content knowledge over an extended period of time makes a difference in teachers’ instructional beliefs and practices, and in many cases, enables them to improve students’ achievement.

Active Pedagogy that Promotes Situated Learning Both prospective and practicing teachers acquire new practices and knowledge when they have opportunities to actively engage in learning those practices and situating them in classroom settings (Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, Chiang, & Loef, 1989; McCutchen et al., 2002). Teachers need concrete images of how instructional theories and innovations can be applied in classrooms to successfully use them; that is, they need an integrated combination of conceptual and practical tools (Grossman et al., 2000). Acquiring such integrated knowledge requires that teachers be involved in learning opportunities where active pedagogy is used. For prospective teachers, active pedagogy includes explicit instruction in research-based practices by expert teachers, frequent opportunities for practice with continuous formative feedback and coaching, and opportunities to situate knowledge acquired in coursework to the real problems of practice (International Reading Association, 2003). Strategies connected to real problems of practice, such as case studies, teacher research, performance assessments, and portfolio evaluations, can be employed to help prospective teachers situate their knowledge and reflect on their beliefs and understanding about issues related to classroom instruction and

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

55

appropriately serving students (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Further, prospective teachers must practice what they learn during coursework in authentic instructional settings. They benefit from structured opportunities in multiple classroom settings to practice particular strategies and understand how setting can influence strategy choice (Darling-Hammond, 2005). Effective clinical experiences must be well connected to the teacher education curriculum (Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001) and designed to support the developmental needs of teachers, becoming more sophisticated and challenging as students progress through their program (International Reading Association, 2003). When teachers have such opportunities, they are able to perform better during their first three years of teaching and demonstrate more sophisticated and appropriate beliefs. Specifically, teachers from the exemplary reading programs: (a) valued their preparation, (b) adopted a mindful and responsive instructional stance, (c) sought ongoing support for themselves and their students, (d) scored higher on the TEX-IN2 observation instrument, which assesses the classroom literacy environment, and (e) secured stronger achievement gains (Hoffman et al., 2005; Maloch et al., 2003). Active pedagogy is also a defining feature of effective PD. Four effective active learning practices are: (a) observing and being observed teaching, (b) planning classroom implementation, (c) presenting in and leading PD efforts, and (d) analyzing and reviewing student work (Desimone et al., 2002; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). Teachers’ opportunities to observe expert teachers and peers, and in turn be observed by designated experts and peers, enables growth in teacher thinking and knowledge (Achinstein & Villar, 2002; Bruneau, 1989; Hayes & Alvermann, 1986; Hosack-Curlin, 1988; McCutchen et al., 2002; Richardson & Anders, 1994). Being observed by peers and expert teachers affords teachers opportunities for feedback and to reflect on their teaching. The teachers also need opportunities to plan how they will implement new ideas in the context in which they work, enabling them to translate research into classroom practice (Baker & Smith, 1999; Garet et al., 2001; Saxe et al., 2001; Williamson & Russell, 1990). Additionally, teachers who have an opportunity to present or lead PD efforts (e.g., demonstrate a lesson, lead a whole group or small group discussion, give a presentation) are more likely to deepen their understanding of the innovation and how it can be used (Garet et al., 2001). Finally, when teachers have opportunities to analyze and review student work, they can improve their classroom practice, and these improvements are linked to gains in student achievement. In studies examining teachers’ use of effective literacy practices, teachers taught

56

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

to interpret and use various reading assessments as a mechanism for improving their instruction did engage in more research-based teaching strategies, and consequently increased the achievement scores of students experiencing reading difficulties (Abbott, Walton, Tapia, & Greenwood, 1999; Baker & Smith, 2001; Boudah, Logan, & Greenwood, 2001; McCutchen et al., 2002).

Coherent Learning Opportunities The cohesive nature of learning opportunities also makes a difference in how teachers conceptualize instruction and enact it. In four studies of exemplary teacher education programs, at preservice and inservice levels, researchers noted that selected programs were characterized by a strong degree of alignment between teacher education coursework and field experiences (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Howey & Zimpher, 1989; International Reading Association, 2003; Kennedy, 1991a). This alignment seemed to reflect a belief that learning about teaching best develops when prospective teachers extend opportunities to situate the content knowledge they are learning, whether it be in a classroom context or through other vehicles such as examining examples of student work, viewing and discussing videotapes of teaching and learning, and analyzing cases of teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2005). Moreover, in the studies of exemplary reading programs, a tight alignment between coursework and field experiences, as well as a sequence of coursework and field experiences that reflected the developmental nature of learning to teach, resulted in the improved classroom practice and beliefs of participating beginning teachers (Maloch et al., 2003; Hoffman et al., 2005). Specifically, beginning teachers were more capable of employing classroom practices that fostered student achievement than their colleagues who did not participate in such programs. Additionally, these teachers had beliefs about working with diverse learners and professional collaboration that belied their novice status. Coherent learning opportunities also characterize effective PD efforts. PD activities that are ‘‘perceived by teachers to be part of a coherent program of teacher learning’’ can lead to positive changes in both teacher knowledge and practice (Garet et al., 2001; Grant, Peterson, & Shojgreen-Downer, 1996). To be coherent, PD activities must not only be consistent with teachers’ goals for PD but also aligned with local, state, and federal standards for teaching and assessments. When PD efforts are not coherent, they create tensions for teachers and can impede the acquisition of

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

57

knowledge and practices taught in the PD effort. Findings from these studies, although small in number, seem to support those from case studies of exemplary teacher education programs. In order to further teachers’ learning, both teacher preparation and PD efforts have to attend to how well connected various opportunities to learn are; without these connections, teachers are likely to develop practices that are not consistent with the vision of the teacher education efforts.

Collaborative Learning Opportunities Professional collaboration is a defining feature of teacher education programs and PD efforts that work. Collaboration among schools and colleges of education are essential to crafting clinical experiences that are well-connected to the teacher education curriculum, enabling teachers to develop the types of knowledge, practice, and beliefs characteristic of quality teachers. Wideen et al. (1998) found that prospective teachers were likely to adopt positive beliefs about working with diverse learners when they participated in a sequence of carefully integrated courses and field experiences. These integrated experiences were characterized by extensive collaboration between university- and school-based faculty. Moreover, case studies of exemplary teacher education programs revealed that high degrees of collaboration among teacher education faculty, their students, and school-based personnel were essential to developing shared and clear understanding of good teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2000; International Reading Association, 2003). In the exemplary reading preparation programs, cohorts of students and reading education faculty were formed in order to build small communities of learning (International Reading Association, 2003). These communities were formed with the intention of providing support to students and as a mechanism for modeling professional inquiry, collaboration, and collegiality. Evidence from interviews with graduates suggests that these communities accomplished their goals. Specifically, graduates reported working to create or become part of a learning community in their respective schools, relying on these communities to further their PD (Maloch et al., 2003). Collaboration between general and special education has gained increasing prominence over the last decade or so in teacher education programs, and preparation for collaboration is a defining feature of many special education preservice programs (Brownell et al., 2005). Numerous illustrations of

58

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

attempts to establish collaborative preservice programs between general and special education exist in the teacher education literature (Pugach, 2005). These collaborative programs reflect increasing emphasis in the IDEA for all students with disabilities to have access to and make progress in the general education curriculum. The logic underlying these collaborative programs follows that if special and general education teachers are prepared together then they will develop necessary knowledge and skills for working together as well as serving the educational needs of students with disabilities. Little is known, however, about the extent to which collaborative programs are able to accomplish their aims. In Pugach’s (2005) review of research on such collaborative efforts, only four studies were located that examined changes in teachers who participated in such collaborative programs, including one program that focused on both diversity and disability. In PD efforts, collaboration affords teachers opportunities to work collectively to: (a) discuss the ideas they are learning and problems that arise from implementing those ideas, (b) share common curriculum materials, and (c) reflect on student assessments. Opportunities to work together can enable teachers to ‘‘integrate what they learn with other aspects of their curriculum environment’’ (Garet et al., 2001, p. 922), and help them critically analyze student data in order to determine if new practices are making a difference (Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson, 2003). Additionally, research indicates that when teachers participate in collaborative PD efforts, they make stronger student achievement gains in both reading and mathematics than their colleagues who do not participate in such efforts (Baker & Smith, 1999; Carpenter et al., 1989; Desimone et al., 2002; Saxe et al., 2001).

Accountability and Selectivity Having the features of effective teacher learning experiences in place, however, is not the only ingredient necessary for fostering changes in teacher practice, knowledge, and beliefs. Qualities that individual teachers bring to the table are also important. This is why exemplary teacher education programs and effective PD communities carefully attend to who is hired into the school or accepted into the teacher education program and insist on progress toward critical outcomes (Brownell, Yeager, Rennells, & Riley, 1997; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Goodlad, 1990; Howey & Zimpher, 1989). Studies have revealed that exemplary teacher education programs are characterized by rigorous entry standards. Entry standards are operationalized in different ways depending on the teacher

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

59

education population served. Some programs have rigorous academic requirements such as requiring high scores on the graduate record exam (GRE) and high overall grade point averages, whereas other programs have entry standards that focus more on the applicant’s potential to be a committed teacher. Still, other programs tailor entry standards to further the goal of recruiting culturally and linguistically diverse preservice teachers (Brownell et al., 2005). Variations in how rigor is applied to entry requirements reflect differences in the teacher populations that various programs serve. Schools that foster professional learning communities have administrators who attend carefully to hiring new staff. Teachers and other staff are hired because they embrace views of teaching, learning, and schooling that fit within the broader vision of the school. Liu and Kardos (2002) found that congruence between a teacher’s interests and values and those of the school created an environment that functioned more cohesively and effectively. They argued that this congruence helped address the issue of critical teacher shortage by reducing attrition and turnover rates, because teachers who share similar beliefs with their school are less likely to leave or transfer. In their review of research on teacher collaboration, Brownell et al. (1997) found that leaders in collaborative school environments hired staff whose vision aligned with the schools. By selecting staff with similar goals for collaboration, these leaders provided a platform for its success. In exemplary teacher education programs and effective PD efforts, prospective and practicing teachers are accountable for demonstrating professional behaviors and attitudes as well as for fostering student learning. Moreover, effective PD efforts in schools are characterized by a high degree of accountability for either implementing the curriculum with fidelity, adhering to standards for learning, or analyzing student data and responding to it. In a large-scale study of two comprehensive school reform efforts aimed at improving literacy instruction, Correnti and Rowan (2007) found that when reform efforts embrace well-specified and defined instructional improvement programs and these programs are supported by school facilitators and leaders who demand fidelity to the program, then large changes in instructional practice will occur. Accountability for student learning also serves to improve teacher practice. Descriptions of effective elementary schools involved in successful early literacy reforms revealed that teachers and administrators took pride in academic gains their students made (Foorman & Moats, 2004). Teachers in these schools could report results of student assessment and describe how results translated into

60

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

improved student achievement. Additionally, studies examining teachers’ use of effective literacy practices for students with disabilities and other struggling readers demonstrated that teachers taught to interpret and use various reading assessments as a mechanism for improving their instruction did engage in more research-based teaching strategies and, consequently, increased student achievement scores (Abbott et al., 1999; Baker & Smith, 2001; Boudah et al., 2001). Though the research base on effective PD and teacher education is limited in scope, the features highlighted in our summary lend further credence to those dimensions of teacher quality supported in the literature. Effective learning opportunities for teachers appear to be those that deepen teachers’ knowledge of content and how to teach it, as well as foster changes in beliefs about teaching and learning that enable teachers to engage in more appropriate practices for diverse students. Additionally, when changes in these dimensions of teacher quality occur, the result is often improved classroom practice and/or student achievement. Further, the program features that characterize effective learning opportunities for teachers are also supported in the research on student learning. A recent review of the cognitive science research on student learning reveals that students learn best when they are engaged in active instruction that explicitly helps them make connections between concrete and more complex information, when they have multiple opportunities to revisit the content they are learning, when they are asked deep and challenging questions to promote deeper learning about the content, when they provide and receive feedback, and when they reflect critically on their work (Pashler et al., 2007). Thus, we believe the program features we have identified are likely to represent the types of learning experiences that novice teachers must have to develop into high-quality special educators.

CHALLENGES TO DEVELOPING THE HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS WE NEED IN SPECIAL EDUCATION Developing high-quality special education teachers we need, however, is not without significant challenges. Difficulties articulating the dimensions of teacher quality in special education, insufficient conceptual frameworks linking teacher quality outcomes and preparation programs, and contextual issues in teacher education institutions and schools make it difficult

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

61

to study teacher quality, conceptualize teacher preparation, and establish research-based linkages between teacher quality and preparation. To date research in general education at preservice and inservice levels suggests that knowledge for teaching content and the ability to enact that knowledge are defining features of an effective teacher; however, what is the relevance of such pedagogical content knowledge to definitions of teacher quality in special education? The specialized skills and knowledge of special education teachers are often considered outside the realm of a particular content area, and support for this is evident in the certification and licensure standards embraced by most states as well as professional standards set by leading organizations such as Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). The vast majority of states include a generic special education certificate for grades kindergarten through 12 (National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 2007). Such broad-based certification systems embrace a more generic view of special education that cuts across levels of development and content areas. Additionally, the most prominent professional organization guiding special education practice, CEC (2001), has articulated professional standards that appear to cut across content areas. Specifically, CEC professional standards describe the knowledge special education teachers should have of learners, instructional strategies, effective learning environments, assessment, and instructional planning. Yet, can such knowledge be separated from specific content domains? For example, cognitive strategies are considered effective instructional strategies in special education; yet, these strategies are taught within the context of reading, writing, and mathematics. How could knowledge of such strategies be divorced from the teachers’ broader knowledge of instruction in those specific content areas? Generic views of teacher quality may also lead to a lack of program focus, perhaps even confusion, in teacher education programs. Broad views of teacher quality in special education open the door for considerable variation in teacher education programs. Without having more specific and bounded understandings of the defining knowledge and skills of quality special education teachers, it is difficult for teacher educators to develop initial preparation programs that are focused on a common conceptual framework. According to Goe (2007), the variation in special education preparation programs is substantial, ‘‘and what teachers know and believe when they graduate from a special education teacher preparation program may differ greatly depending on where they happened to have done their coursework’’ (p. 9). This lack of conceptual clarity could make it difficult for teacher educators to incorporate some of the features of effective teacher

62

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

education and PD programs into their programs. For instance, it would be difficult to create deep, coherent learning experiences focused on critical content knowledge and aligned with school-based practices. Contextual issues in teacher education programs and schools make it difficult to improve our understanding of special education teacher quality and the types of learning experiences that can foster it. Already, we have illustrated how broad certification patterns in special education (Geiger, 2002) stand in the way of developing focused definitions of special education teacher quality that can be validated through research. However, broad certification patterns combined with increasing pressures to streamline teacher education programs (Sindelar & Rosenberg, 2000) also challenge teacher educators to develop the deep, content-focused, active, and coherent learning opportunities that we described earlier. Teacher educators must prepare special educators for a myriad of placements. Special educators must be ready to instruct students of any grade and from any disability category. A placement might be in a resource room, self-contained classroom, or involve a collaborative co-teach situation. Preparation for numerous settings, academic subjects, and disabilities undoubtedly results in broad and superficial coverage of content. Various contextual factors at the school level also make improving research on highly qualified special education teachers and the development of effective teacher education programs difficult. Special education teachers play many roles in schools. They are often required to teach multiple subjects, in spite of the fact that they may or may not be qualified to do so. Special education teachers are not simply reading, writing, mathematics, social studies, or science teachers; they often are responsible for cutting across content areas. Moreover, they do not always teach content, but collaborate with general educators in order to bring their knowledge of special education intervention and assessment to the classroom. Given such role complexity, how do researchers create boundaries for assessing teacher quality and establishing relationships with teacher preparation? How much pedagogical content knowledge does a special education teacher need to have in a co-teaching role versus a direct instruction role? Developing parameters for special education teachers’ knowledge base is necessary for creating any valid and reliable assessments of teacher quality. Further, the variations in special education teachers’ roles can lead to invalid conclusions about their effectiveness or the quality of their preparation. For instance, if a special education teacher was prepared to have expertise in literacy and classroom management, and yet ended up teaching high-school algebra, how could they be held accountable for effectively teaching algebra?

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

63

Moreover, if they were ineffective in teaching algebra, would you conclude that their preparation was ineffective? Barriers to professional collaboration in colleges of education and schools make the development of effective teacher education difficult in both special and general education. Historically, both environments are characterized by professional isolation (Darling-Hammond, 1990; Ross, Lane, & McCallum, 2005), making collaboration necessary for fostering effective teacher learning opportunities difficult. Lack of collaboration within teacher education programs will not allow the development of coherent learning opportunities for prospective teachers. Additionally, weak collaboration between teacher education and school-based programs leads to inconsistent views of what effective special education teachers know and can do, creating a mismatch between coursework, field experiences, and initial induction experiences. Such mismatches have been documented as detrimental to the learning of novice teachers (for a review, see Wilson et al., 2001). Finally, the most pernicious barrier to improving teacher quality in special education is the chronic shortage of certified teachers (Boe & Cook, 2006; McLeskey, Tyler, & Flippin, 2004). Many school administrators’ consternation over teacher quality requirements in NCLB and the reauthorized IDEA demonstrate anxiety in the field over any licensure policies that might make securing high-quality special education teachers more difficult. Efforts to refine definitions of highly qualified special education teachers and ensure focused, rigorous preparation may be viewed as strategies that will intensify shortages of such teachers. As such, school administrators are likely to respond reluctantly to attempts to tighten standards for teacher preparation and quality in special education. Thus, a move to refine our definitions of teacher quality and preparation in special education may cause consternation on the part of persons responsible for staffing schools; however, not refining definitions leaves our field vulnerable in debates about how highly qualified teachers should be defined and prepared.

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS FOR ADDRESSING CHALLENGES Although challenges to fostering teacher quality in special education are great, workable solutions exist. Clearer definitions, better alignment between views of special education teacher quality in preparation programs and schools, and increased research in this area should improve our

64

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

understanding of the skills, knowledge, and beliefs that highly qualified special education teachers need and the preparation features that will foster those skills. Developing clear definitions of special education teacher quality, ones that can be validated through measurement, is an essential first step. Such definitions must clearly and precisely articulate the content knowledge and knowledge of pedagogy that special education teachers need for engaging in high-quality practice. Current research on quality teachers makes apparent that some aspect of content expertise must be included in any definition of highly qualified special education teachers, but what will that content expertise be? As many special education teachers work with students who have language and literacy disabilities, knowledge of language and literacy could be one potential area of expertise. Other areas of expertise might include behavior management and some level of expertise in mathematics and collaboration. Definitions of special education teacher quality must also be able to distinguish knowledge and skills essential to (a) working with students with mild versus more significant disabilities and (b) being an effective beginning teacher versus a more accomplished teacher. For instance, is it reasonable to think that beginning special education teachers will have acquired the skills of collaboration or just a mindset for doing so? Moreover, because successful special education ultimately depends on its interface with general education, collaborative discussions among special and general education professionals about these questions and others are essential to crafting definitions of teacher quality as well as valid and reliable assessments of its various dimensions. Our field also needs to undertake a serious and comprehensive effort to study teacher quality and preparation in special education. Teacher quality research must be elevated to the same status that intervention research enjoys if we are to develop a substantive research base. Research-validated definitions of teacher quality should become a high priority. These definitions are needed to shed light on the core dimensions of what it means to be an effective special education teacher and how those dimensions might vary according to the various roles that a special education teacher plays. Validated definitions are imperative for creating conceptual frameworks to guide teacher assessment and education efforts. Without frameworks that clarify connections between teacher education and teacher outcomes, researchers cannot identify the experiences in special education teacher education programs responsible for developing specific dimensions of teacher quality. In the absence of these linkages, researchers cannot uncover those program features that are most responsible for promoting teacher learning among special education teachers. By amassing a

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

65

substantial research based on teacher quality and preparation, we can inform policy in these areas and provide the conceptual and practical information that enables teacher educators and school-based personnel to forge common views of teacher quality and determine how to effectively prepare beginning special education teachers. Stronger efforts to ensure the ongoing preparation and support of beginning special education teachers is another strategy that should become a top priority for states, schools, and teacher education faculty. First, strong mentoring and induction programs are necessary to minimize turnover in special education (Berry, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 1997; DarlingHammond, 1996; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004), thereby helping to alleviate teacher shortages. Attempts to alleviate shortages will have the added benefit of enabling a stronger focus on teacher quality. Second, even in the absence of clear definitions of teacher quality, it is easy to see that being an effective special education teacher requires a complex, well-integrated array of knowledge, beliefs, and pedagogical skill. This complex set of abilities cannot be developed in an initial preparation program, but rather must be developed carefully over time. Accomplishing such seamless teacher education, however, will require alignment between efforts to prepare teachers initially and ongoing efforts to develop teachers in schools. Evaluations of carefully crafted induction efforts that are focused on well-defined teacher standards provide information that suggest that such efforts are just what we need to foster such alignment and develop the quality teachers we need (Brownell, Hirsch, & Seo, 2004). In conclusion, we assert that our field must develop consensus about the knowledge base for special education teaching and be able to support it with research linking teacher quality to teacher education. The themes we have articulated in our review of the characteristics of highly qualified teachers and features of effective teacher preparation and PD provide a strong starting point for developing such consensus. Building on this work in special education will allow us to develop the valid definitions of teacher quality and effective teacher education we need, enabling us to justify our existence as a legitimate profession (Connelly & Rosenberg, 2003). Further, to ensure that novice special education teachers can become highquality teachers, we must foster greater alignment between initial preparation and induction into the field. Teaching is one of the only professions that ‘‘does not provide for a shared culture based on the movement from knowledge to experience in the company of one’s peers’’ (Lieberman & Miller, 1990, p. 155). Without careful attention to the induction of new special education teachers, we are unlikely to create the types of coherent

66

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

learning experiences these teachers would need to deepen their knowledge, beliefs about teaching and learning, and classroom practice. Thus, the goals of NCLB and IDEA are unlikely to be realized, i.e., a highly qualified special education teacher for every child.

REFERENCES Abbott, M., Walton, C., Tapia, Y., & Greenwood, C. (1999). Research to practice: A ‘‘blueprint’’ for closing the gap in local schools. Exceptional Children, 65, 339–352. Achinstein, B., & Villar, A. (2002). Politics of the mentoring process for novices: Negotiating professional relationships and new teacher learning. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Anderson, L., Evertson, C., & Brophy, J. E. (1979). An experimental study of effective teaching in first-grade reading groups. Elementary School Journal, 79, 193–223. Baker, S., & Smith, S. (1999). Starting off on the right foot: The influence of four principles of professional development in improving literacy instruction in two kindergarten programs. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14, 239–253. Baker, S., & Smith, S. (2001). Linking school assessments to research-based practices in beginning reading: Improving programs and outcomes for students with and without disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 315–332. Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S. T., & Mewborn, D. S. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In: V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 433–456). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Bauch, P. (1984). The impact of teachers’ instructional beliefs on their teaching: Implications for research and practice. Paper presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Berry, B. (2001). No shortcuts to preparing good teachers. Educational Leadership, 58, 32–36. Bishop, A. G., Brownell, M. T., Klingner, J. K., Menon, S., Galman, S. A., & Leko, M. M. (2007). Understanding the influences of personal attributes, preparation, and school environment on beginning special education teachers’ classroom practices during reading instruction. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Department of Special Education. Boe, E., & Cook, L. H. (2006). The chronic and increasing shortage of fully certified teachers in special and general education. Exceptional Children, 72, 443–460. Bogner, K., Raphael, L., & Pressley, M. (2002). How grade 1 teachers motivate literacy activity by their students. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 135–165. Boudah, D. J., Logan, K. R., & Greenwood, C. R. (2001). The research to practice projects: Lessons learned about changing teacher practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 290–303. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). Complex by design: Investigating pathways into teaching in New York City schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 155–166. Brady, S., & Moats, L. (1997). Informed instruction for reading success: Foundations for teacher preparation. Position paper by the International Dyslexia Society, Baltimore, MD.

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

67

Brophy, J. E., & Evertson, C. (1976). Learning from teaching: A developmental perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In: M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328–375). New York, NY: MacMillan. Brownell, M. T., Bishop, A. G., Gersten, R., Klingner, J. K., Dimino, J., Haager, D., et al. (in press). Examining the dimensions of teacher quality for beginning special education teachers: The role of domain expertise. Exceptional Children. Brownell, M. T., Blackorby, J., Carlson, E., Haager, D., Hardman, M., & Menon, S. (2006). Does highly qualified equal competent? Panel presentation at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Salt Lake City, UT. Brownell, M. T., Haager, D., Bishop, A., Klingner, J., Penfield, R., Dingle, M., & Menon, S. (2007). Teacher quality in special education: The role of domain expertise. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL. Brownell, M. T., Hirsch, E., & Seo, S. (2004). Meeting the demands for highly qualified special education teachers during severe shortages: What should policymakers consider? Journal of Special Education, 38, 56–62. Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colon, E. P., & McCallum, C. L. (2005). Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison with exemplary practices in general teacher education. Journal of Special Education, 38, 242–252. Brownell, M. T., Yeager, E., Rennells, M. S., & Riley, T. (1997). Teachers working together: What teacher educators and researchers should know. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20, 340–359. Bruneau, B. J. (1989). A case study of the process of reflective coaching in collaboration with a kindergarten teacher developing an emergent literacy program. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX. Carlisle, J., Phelps, G., Rowan, B., & Johnson, D. (2006). Development of a test of teachers’ knowledge about early reading. Technical Report no. 1. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Carlson, E., Lee, H., & Schroll, K. (2004). Identifying attributes of high quality special education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 350–359. Carpenter, T. E., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 499–531. Cirino, P. T., Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Foorman, B. R., Carlson, C. D., & Francis, D. J. (2007). Teacher characteristics, classroom instruction, and student literacy and language outcomes in bilingual kindergartners. The Elementary School Journal, 107, 341–364. Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In: M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309–425). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2006). Teacher–student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness. NBER Working Paper no. 11936. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Connelly, V., Rosenberg, M. (2003). Developing teaching as a profession: Comparison with careers that have achieved full professional standing. COPSSE Document Number RS-9E. Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

68

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, L. E. (2004). Beyond the reading wars: Exploring the effects of child-instruction interactions on growth in early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 305–336. Connor, C. M., Piasta, S. B., Fishman, B., & Morrison, F. J. (2007). Individualizing student instruction, practice-based professional development, teachers’ knowledge about language and literacy concepts, and students’ reading skills. Paper presented at the Pacific Coast Research Conference, Coronado, CA. Connor, C. M., Son, S., Hindman, A. H., & Morrison, F. J. (2005). Teacher qualifications, classroom practices, family characteristics, and preschool experience: Complex effects on first graders’ vocabulary and early reading outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 343–375. Cook, B., & Schirmer, B. (2003). What is special about special education? Overview and analysis. Journal of Special Education, 37, 139. Correnti, R., & Rowan, B. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school program reforms. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 298–339. Council for Exceptional Children. (2001). Professional preparation standards. Retrieved online November 13, 2007 from http://www.cec.sped.org Croninger, R. G., Rice, J. K., Rathbun, A., & Nishio, M. (2007). Teacher qualifications and early learning: Effects of certification, degree, and experience on first-grade student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 26, 312–324. Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Teaching and knowledge: Policy issues posed by alternate certification for teachers. Peabody Journal of Education, 67(3), 123–154. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: A competent teacher for every child. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3), 193–201. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Studies of excellence in teacher education. New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Research and rhetoric on teacher certification: A response to ‘‘Teacher certification reconsidered’’. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(36), 1–62. Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Teaching as a profession: Lessons in teacher preparation and professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(3), 237–240. DeFord, D. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 351–367. Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112. Englert, C. S., Tarrant, K. L., & Mariage, T. V. (1992). Defining and redefining instructional practice in special education: Perspectives on good teaching. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15, 62–86. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38, 47–65. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1985). The first year of teacher preparation: Transition to pedagogical thinking? Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Fisher, C., Berliner, D. C., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., Dishaw, M., et al. (1978). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time and student achievement: Final report of Phase

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

69

III-B, Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study. Technical Report no. V-1. Far West Laboratory, San Francisco, CA. Foorman, B. R., & Moats, L. C. (2004). Conditions for sustaining research-based practices in early reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 51–60. Foorman, B. R., Schatschneider, C., Eakin, M. N., Fletcher, J. M., Moats, L. C., & Francis, D. J. (2006). The impact of instructional practices in grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 1–29. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945. Geiger, W. L. (2002). Requirements for conventional licensure of special education teachers. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Geiger, W. L., Crutchfield, M. D., & Mainzer, R. (2003) The status of licensure of special education teachers in the 21st century. COPSSE Document no. RS-7. Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: A research synthesis. A Report from the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (NCCTQ). Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 129–145. Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. CA: Jossey-Bass. Grant, S. G., Peterson, P. L., & Shojgreen-Downer, A. (1996). Learning to teach mathematics in the context of systemic reform. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 509–541. Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Grossman, P. L., Valencia, S. W., Evans, K., Thompson, C., Martin, S., & Place, N. (2000). Transitions into teaching: Learning to teach writing in teacher education and beyond. Journal of Literacy Research, 32, 631–662. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8, 381–391. Haager, D., Gersten, R., Baker, S., & Graves, A. (2003). The English-language learner classroom observation instrument: Observations of beginning reading instruction in urban schools. In: S. R. Vaughn & K. L. Briggs (Eds), Reading in the classroom: Systems for observing teaching and learning (pp. 111–144). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Hamilton, M. L., & Richardson, V. (1995). The effects of the culture in two schools on the process and outcomes of staff development. Elementary School Journal, 95, 367–385. Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., O’Brien, D. M., & Rivkin, S. G. (2005). The market for teacher quality. Working Paper no. 1154. The National Bureau for Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Harlin, R. P. (1999). Developing future professionals: Influences of literacy coursework and field experiences. Reading Research and Instruction, 38, 351–370. Harris, D., & Sass, T. (2006). The effects of teacher training on teacher value added. Working Papers no. wp_2006_03_01. Department of Economics, Florida State University. Harris D., & Sass, T. (2007). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Working Paper no. 3. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, Washington, DC. Retrieved online November 13, 2007 from http://www.caldercenter.org/ PDF/1001059_Teacher_Training.pdf

70

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

Harste, J., & Burke, C. (1977). A new hypothesis for reading teacher research: Both the teaching and the learning of reading are theoretically based. In: P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Reading: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 32–40). Twenty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Clemson, SC: The National Reading Conference. Hayes, D. A., & Alvermann, D. E. (1986). Video assisted coaching of textbook discussion skills: Its impact on critical reading behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Hess, F. M. (2001). Tear down the wall: The case for a radical overhaul of teacher certification. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute. Retrieved June 24, 2005 from http:// www.ppionline.org/ppi_sub.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=135 Hoffman, J., Roller, C., Maloch, B., Sailors, M., Duffy, G., & Beretvas, N. (2005). Teachers’ preparation to teach reading and their experiences and practices in the first three years of teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105, 267–287. Hosack-Curlin, K. (1988). Measuring the effects of a peer coaching project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Howey, K. R., & Zimpher, N. L. (1989). Profiles of preservice teacher education: Inquiry into the nature of programs. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. International Reading Association. (2003). Prepared to make a difference: An executive summary of the National Commission on Excellence in Elementary Teacher Preparation for Reading Instruction. Newark, DE: IRA. Jenkins, J., Pious, C., & Peterson, D. (1988). Categorical programs for remedial and handicapped students: Issues of validity. Exceptional Children, 55(2), 147–159. Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2003) Teachers’ personal epistemological beliefs about students with disabilities as indicators of effective teaching practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. [Online], 3, Available: http://www.nasen.org.uk Kennedy, M. (1991a). Findings from the teacher education and learning to teach study. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Kennedy, M. (1991b). An agenda for research on teacher learning. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning, Michigan State University. Kennedy, M. M. (1991c). Some surprising findings on how teachers learn to teach. Educational Leadership, 49(3), 14–17. Kinzer, C. (1988). Instructional frameworks and instructional choices: Comparisons between preservice and inservice teachers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20, 357–377. Leinhardt, G., Zigmond, N., & Cooley, W. W. (1981). Reading instruction and its effects. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 343–361. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1990). The social realities of teaching. In: A. Lieberman (Ed.), Schools as collaborative cultures (pp. 153–164). Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis. Liu, E., & Kardos, S. M. (2002). Hiring and professional culture in New Jersey schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education, Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

71

Lubinski, C. (1993). More effective teaching in mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 198–202. Maloch, B., Flint, A. S., Eldrigde, D., Harmon, J., Loven, R., Fine, J. C., et al. (2003). Understandings, beliefs, and reported decision making of first-year teachers from different reading teacher preparation programs. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 431–457. Marston, D. (1987). The effectiveness of special education: A time series analysis of reading performance in regular and special education settings. Journal of Special Education, 21, 13–26. McCutchen, D., Abbott, R. D., Green, L. B., Beretvas, S. N., Cox, S., Potter, N. S., et al. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 69–86. McGill-Franzen, A., Allington, R. L., Yokoi, L., & Brooks, G. (1999). Putting books in the classroom seems necessary but not sufficient. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 67–74. McLeskey, J., Tyler, N., & Flippin, S. (2004). The supply of and demand for special education teachers: A review of research regarding the nature of the chronic shortage of special education teachers. Journal of Special Education, 38, 5–21. Medley, D. M. (1978). Research in teacher effectiveness: Where it is and how it got here. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 13, 16–21. Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81–104. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2002). Teachers’ beliefs and behaviors: What really matters? Journal of Classroom Interaction, 37, 3–15. Murnane, R. J., & Phillips, B. R. (1981). Learning by doing, vintage, and selection: Three pieces of the puzzle relating teaching experience and teaching performance. Economics of Education Review, 1, 453–465. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. (2007). Special education teacher certification and licensure: Compare program features across several states. Retrieved online October 29, 2007 from http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Reporttq.aspx?id=1542&map=0 National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Pashler, H., Bain, P. M., Bottge, B., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., et al. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning: IES practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences. Phelps, G., & Schilling, S. (2004). Developing measures of content knowledge for teaching reading. Elementary School Journal, 105, 31–48. Pugach, M. (2005). Research on preparing teachers to work with students with disabilities. In: M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 549–590). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rankin-Erickson, J. L., & Pressley, M. (2000). A survey of instructional practices of special education teachers nominated as effective teacher of literacy. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 15, 206–225. Readence, J. E., Konopak, B. C., & Wilson, E. K. (1991). Examining content area reading beliefs, decisions, and including a case study of an English teacher. In: C. Kinzer &

72

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

D. Leu (Eds), Literacy research, theory, and practice: Values from many perspectives (pp. 475–482). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference. Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC: The Economic Policy Institute. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In: J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102–119). New York, NY: Macmillan. Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 559–586. Richardson, V., & Anders, P. L. (1994). The study of teacher change. In: V. Richardson (Ed.), Teacher change and the staff development process: A case in reading instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In: V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 905–947). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A., & Kern, A. (2006). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research and Science Teaching, 44, 883–907. Rosebery, A., & Puttick, G. M. (1998). Teacher professional development as situated sensemaking: A case study in science education. Science Education, 82, 649–677. Rosebery, A., & Warren, B. (Eds). (1998). Boats, balloons, and classroom video: Science teaching as inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Rosebery, A. S., & Ogonowski, M. S. (1996). Valerie: Exploring the relationship between doing science and teaching science [videotape and pamphlet]. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, TERC. Rosenshine, B. V. (1986). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational Leadership, 43, 60–69. Ross, D. D., Lane, H. B., & McCallum, C. (2005). Description of the unified elementary special education proteach program. In: D. D. Ross & E. Bondy (Eds), Preparing for inclusive teaching (pp. 51–68). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Rowan, B., Chiang, F., & Miller, R. (1997). Using research on employees’ performance to study the effects of teachers on students’ achievement. Sociology of Education, 70, 256–284. Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the prospects study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104, 1525–1567. Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., & Nasir, N. S. (2001). Enhancing students’ understanding of mathematics: A study of three contrasting approaches to professional support. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4, 55–79. Seo, S., Brownell, M. T., Bishop, A. G., & Dingle, M. (in press). An examination of beginning special education teachers’ classroom practices that engage elementary students with learning disabilities in reading instruction. Exceptional Children. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In: M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 3–36). New York, NY: Macmillan. Sindelar, P., Daunic, A., & Rennells, M. S. (2004). Comparisons of traditionally and alternatively trained teachers. Exceptionality, 12, 209–223.

Defining and Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers

73

Sindelar, P. T., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2000). Serving too many masters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 188–193. Sindelar, P. T., Smith, M. A., Harriman, N. E., Hale, R. L., & Wilson, R. J. (1986). Teacher effectiveness in special education programs. The Journal of Special Education, 20, 195–207. Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 681–714. So, W. W. (1997). A study of teacher cognition in planning elementary science lessons. Research in Science Education, 27, 71–86. Stallings, J. (1974). What teachers do does make a difference: A study of seven follow through educational models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Early Childhood Conference on Evaluation (DHEW), Washington, DC. Stanovich, P., & Jordan, A. (2004). Canadian teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching in heterogeneous classrooms [reprinted from Elementary School Journal, 98, 221–238]. In: D. Mitchell (Ed.), Special educational needs and inclusive education. London: Routledge Falmer. Stough, L., & Palmer, D. (2003). Special thinking in special settings: A qualitative study of expert special educators. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 206–222. Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000a). Effective schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in low-income schools. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 121–165. Taylor, B. M., Pressley, M., & Pearson, P. D. (2000b). Effective teachers and schools: Trends across recent studies. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. Villar, A., Strong, M., & Fletcher, S. (2007). The relation between years of teaching experience and student achievement: Evidence from five years of value added reading and mathematics data from one school district. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, The New Teacher Center. Walsh, K. (2001). Teacher certification reconsidered: Stumbling for quality. Baltimore, MD: The Abell Foundation. Retrieved June 24, 2005 from http://www.abell.org/publications/ detail.asp?ID=59 Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73, 89–122. Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach. Review of Educational Research, 68, 130–178. Williamson, L. S., & Russell, D. S. (1990). Peer coaching as a follow-up to training. Journal of Staff Development, 11(2), 2–4. Wilson, S., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Wilson, S. M., & Wineburg, S. S. (1988). Peering at history through different lenses: The role of disciplinary perspectives in teaching history. Teachers College Record, 89, 525–539. Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how professional development affects student achievement. Report no. 033. Institute for Education Sciences, National Center for Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Washington, DC.

74

MARY T. BROWNELL ET AL.

Zeichner, K. M., & Conklin, H. G. (2005). Teacher education programs. In: M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 645–736). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2006). Teachers’ characteristics: Research on the indicators of quality. In: M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 157–260). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

TEACHER AUTHORITY, TACIT KNOWLEDGE, AND THE TRAINING OF TEACHERS Julian G. Elliott and Steven E. Stemler ABSTRACT Given the decline in traditional modes of authority, teachers are increasingly reliant upon their professional authority for ensuring orderly and disciplined classrooms. Rather than being vested in teachers generally, by virtue of their specific role, in loco parentis, professional authority is largely acquired through the demonstration of the individual teacher’s expertise. Such expertise incorporates subject and pedagogical knowledge, together with skill in relation to classroom interpersonal dynamics. A key difficulty in relation to interpersonal management is that much of the knowledge involved is tacit and thus not easily made explicit. The chapter examines this issue and identifies some key teacher interpersonal behaviors that can be identified and practised by the novice.

‘‘Our youths love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority and disrespect for older people. Children nowadays are tyrants, they contradict their parents and tyrannize their teachers.’’

Personnel Preparation Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, Volume 21, 75–88 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0735-004X/doi:10.1016/S0735-004X(08)00003-7

75

76

JULIAN G. ELLIOTT AND STEVEN E. STEMLER

THE NATURE OF TEACHER AUTHORITY Socrates’ lament about young people in Ancient Greece reminds us that it has never been easy to be a teacher. While society entrusts teachers with the right to exert control and influence over students, the reality is that the teacher–student relationship is always subject to ongoing negotiations tempered by a broad range of social, cultural, and institutional factors (Metz, 1978; Pace & Hemmings, 2007). Despite the fact that social change, with its increasing emphasis upon autonomy and individual freedoms, appears to render the task of the contemporary teacher particularly problematic, we should not imagine (as many current trainees appear to suspect) that there was ever a golden age of compliance and discipline. As Pearson (1983) has shown, adult concerns about childhood misbehavior, and misgivings that perceived decline has been fuelled by excessive liberalism, have been constant themes throughout much of the past century. Of course, few teachers would wish to engineer the docility and conformity that were widely expected of the child in earlier times. Indeed, adolescent rebellion and challenge towards the adult world reflect important stages of development that subsume the task of identity formation and the need for autonomous functioning. While a grasp of the important underlying psychological bases of much adolescent behavior may help to reassure teachers that challenge to their authority has, to a certain extent, a functional basis, it remains the teacher’s task to ensure that students learn in an environment that is conducive to sustained engagement and reflection. In contrast, the apparent increase in problem behavior on the part of younger children appears to have no discernible utility and appears to reflect modern societal pressures and disintegrating familial networks. Authority exists only in so far that subordinates accept its legitimacy and consent to do what is required of them (Pace & Hemmings, 2007; Weber, 1947). However, it is clear that societal views about the nature and exercise of authority have changed significantly in recent times and ready acceptance of traditional modes of authority has declined in most advanced societies. In this vein, Elliott and Tudge (2007) draw upon Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model to demonstrate how powerful global forces interact with individual characteristics to effect change in the nature of social relationships. In their paper, they demonstrate how teachers in the post-Soviet Russian education system have struggled to cope with challenges to their authority. Global (i.e., Western) influences emphasizing the importance of individualism, personal autonomy, and detachment from traditional ties (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005)

Teacher Authority

77

have reduced the willingness of Russian students to accept unquestioningly their teachers’ authority. While teachers in Western societies have not experienced such a sudden transformation, threats to their authority still appear to be more severe. Rather than the sudden transformation that is being witnessed in much of Eastern Europe, the decline of the authority of teachers in the UK, has been more gradually eroded over the past four decades. Similarly, Pace (2003), in the US, notes that teachers’ traditional authority, underpinned by their in loco parentis, role, shifted during the 1970s towards authority that was legitimized by their professional expertise. Such authority, however, has proven difficult to acquire largely because of the teaching profession’s low status in the US and the tensions that inevitably emerge from the coercive mechanisms that sustain compulsory schooling.

TEACHER TRAINING IN BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT Given the need for teachers to demonstrate high levels of classroom expertise to achieve order in their classrooms, it is hardly surprising that classroom management is typically the primary concern for beginning teachers (Stroot et al., 1999; Pigge & Marso, 1997; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003) and that student teachers have voiced much criticism of the perceived failure of initial training programs to prepare then to cope in their first classrooms (Jones, 2006). However, it is not always appreciated by the novice how difficult it is to offer meaningful tuition. Furthermore, it is a task that has not been helped by the focus and direction of initial teacher training in many countries. The worldwide standards movement, underpinned by the imperatives that result from high stakes testing, has resulted in a concern that student teachers should acquire high levels of content and pedagogical knowledge. As a result, the emphasis upon developing novice teachers’ interpersonal skills for effecting positive classroom management has been comparatively de-emphasized (Stemler, Elliott, Grigorenko, & Sternberg, 2006; Stough, 2006). While such concerns appear to be ongoing in the US (Stough, 2006), in the UK, growing concern about student misbehavior resulted in belated recognition that insufficient attention was being given to this topic in teacher training programs. This has resulted in the articulation of specific competencies in classroom management for novice teachers and the provision of a dedicated website funded by the UK Government’s Teacher Development Agency (http://www.behaviour4learning.ac.uk).

78

JULIAN G. ELLIOTT AND STEVEN E. STEMLER

Unlike the US, much of the professional training in classroom management in UK has been delegated to school-based mentors rather than taught in detail by university-based specialists. Unfortunately, many skilled mentors encounter difficulty in making explicit the complexities of the social dynamics of classrooms. As a result, they are likely to focus upon those aspects of practice that are more easily described. Thus, teacher input to novices and the associated professional literature is often more concerned with the structural/systemic and pedagogical aspects of schooling than the interpersonal teacher skills conducive to good discipline. For example, as part of a recent UK Governmental Working Party Report on behavior and discipline (Steer, 2005), practical examples of good practice that would promote good behavior were identified. Such an exercise would surely be an invaluable aid for those seeking to promote the professional development of teachers, whether for initial training programs or post-qualification. The Report focused upon the following 10 aspects of school practice that ‘‘y when effective, contribute to the quality of pupil behaviour’’ (p. 3):  A consistent approach to behavior management, teaching, and learning. Here, the focus is upon ensuring that all members of staff follow an agreed set of practices in cases where discipline is problematic. High visibility of senior staff around the school is perceived as an important means of helping to achieve this end.  Effective school leadership that acts to support colleagues, serves as role models and demonstrates high expectations of behavior.  Good classroom management, learning, and teaching. Here, the Report focuses upon curriculum content, lesson planning and delivery, feedback to students on progress, and the use of appropriate classroom routines.  The deployment of systems to reward good work and behavior with sanctions available where appropriate.  Utilizing opportunities to teach students how to manage strong emotions, resolve conflict, work cooperatively, and to be respectful and considerate to others.  Provide sound provision of staff development and support.  Provide student pastoral support systems with access to specialist support (e.g., psychologists, mental health practitioners).  Positive and regular liaison with parents and other agencies.  Ensure smooth transition between different phases of schooling.  Provide an organized and attractive school environment that is conducive to personal and social well-being and which minimizes opportunities for disruption of anti-social behavior.

Teacher Authority

79

While these recommendations would be seen by most educationalists as both apposite and helpful, one wonders whether they really serve to address the key issues that confront teachers struggling to cope in challenging classrooms and schools. Like the man, late at night, searching for his car keys in the wrong place because, ‘‘ythe street light is shining here, not where I dropped them’’ the focus appears to be upon those aspects of teacher practice that are most amenable to description and regulation [involving what is sometimes called bureaucratic authority (Metz, 1978)]. Where there is reference to more profound understandings and knowledge of teacher expertise, specific guidance is either lacking or somewhat superficial. For example, an illustration in a very short section on teacher professional development in the Report provides the following observation: Our senior managers recognise that, as the term goes on and we get tired, we sometimes forget to follow through agreed practices. In briefings they gently remind us about simple things like smiling at children, saying good morning and getting to classrooms on time. You can’t do this once or twice a year; it has to be every two to three weeks. Then we take a shared whole staff focus for our own behaviour. We might identify a group of children whose behaviour presents problems and all make a point of saying something positive to them when we meet them in lessons, or around school. (p. 11)

Although seemingly trite, many might argue that such guidance represents some improvement upon previous years when the provision of explicit guidance on behavior management was rare. Questions to UK teachers of 10 or 20 years experience about the inputs they received in behavior management during their initial training typically result in derisive comments concerning its sparseness or, in some cases, total absence. Given that there exists an abundance of research on the topic of classroom management (cf. Evertson & Weinstein, 2006), it is, perhaps rather puzzling that this does not appear to have filtered through to documents such as that of the Steer Report.

TACIT KNOWLEDGE The difficulty for professional development in behavior management is that much expert knowledge is tacit and thus not easily articulated as a set of guiding rules for action (Sternberg & Horvath, 1995; Schon, 1983). For Sternberg, tacit knowledge is conceptualized according to three main features. Firstly, it is acquired without a high degree of direct input from others. Rather, learning takes place not primarily from instruction from others but results from the individual’s experience of operating within a given context. In these situations, such knowledge may not be easily

80

JULIAN G. ELLIOTT AND STEVEN E. STEMLER

understood or communicated. Secondly, tacit knowledge is essentially procedural in nature; it concerns how best to undertake specific tasks in particular situations. As is the case with procedural knowledge, this often serves to guide action without being easily articulated (Anderson, 1982). Tacit knowledge is more than a set of abstract procedural rules; however, it is context-specific and concerns appropriate action in given situations. Thirdly, tacit knowledge is intricately bound up with one’s own goals. Thus, we may be instructed on procedures to adopt in a given situation (e.g., how to react when a student is abusive to the teacher) but our own experiences and goals may lead us to adopt a different approach that we deem to be more effective. While tacit knowledge has been shown to be related to teachers’ professional effectiveness (Grigorenko, Sternberg, & Strauss, 2006), given the complexities involved, it is hardly surprising that expert practitioners can often find it difficult to offer guidance to novices. Thus, student teachers often find their questions to their mentors about interpersonal aspects of behavior management met with responses such as: ‘‘I don’t know really; it’s just experience, I guess.’’ Teachers encountering behavioral difficulties in the classroom may find their managers and mentors seeking to focus attention upon practical aspects of teaching and learning such as lesson planning, pace and task rather than focusing upon more subtle interpersonal forms of communication. This is hardly surprising as many senior teachers will have a strong knowledge base about pedagogy that is more easily rendered explicit and thus offered as expert knowledge. The foregoing discussion suggests something of an impasse. While we can articulate a number of practices, strategies, and structures that are widely perceived to characterize schools that demonstrate a sense of order, discipline, and sound relationships, it appears very difficult to articulate those more subtle teacher interpersonal practices that appear to characterize the most skilled practitioner. Is the tacit nature of such knowledge so context-bound and wrapped in the personal experience, values, and goals of each individual that meaningful guidance is impossible to offer? One possible avenue is to try to make teachers’ tacit knowledge more explicit. A means of achieving this is through the use of tacit knowledge inventories utilizing a situational-judgment format. These are widely employed in studies of highly domain-specific tacit knowledge (McDaniel & Nguyen, 2001; Cianciolo, Matthew, Sternberg, & Wagner, 2006). In tapping expertise, informants are presented with a number of short vignettes, each of which presents a practical problem that needs to be solved. The respondent is presented with a list of possible responses and is asked to rate the

Teacher Authority

81

appropriateness of each using a Likert scale. From the responses of those comprising an expert group, insights and understandings can be derived that may be articulated and passed to others. On the basis of interviews with expert teachers, Stemler et al. (2006) developed a situational judgment measure of teacher interpersonal skills in relation to significant others: students, colleagues, and parents. Teachers were presented with a number of scenarios in which a difficulty or challenge was presented. From these, they were asked to rate each of a number of responses that were provided that incorporated one of seven strategies: avoid, comply, confer, consult, delegate, legislate, and retaliate. The aim was to highlight those responses that were identified as being particularly appropriate or inappropriate. This information could then form a basis for teacher development programs. In a follow-up study, Elliott, Stemler, Grigorenko, and Sternberg (2007) employed the measure with 257 trainee and 168 experienced teachers. The goal of this investigation was to examine whether the responses of the novices, garnered in the first week of their professional training, would become more like those of their experienced peers when retested at the end of their training year. Surprisingly, there appeared to be little change over this period, despite the fact that a high proportion of their time was spent working alongside experienced colleagues in schools. In endeavoring to explain this rather puzzling finding Elliott et al. (2007) offered a number of possible reasons. Firstly, it is possible that such knowledge is only acquired over a prolonged period of time, and a period of 9 months between the test sessions was insufficient for this to be registered. However, a counter argument is that successful student teachers are typically considered to have made significant professional strides in their behavior management as they engage in school-based professional practice. It is surprising, therefore, that such gains were not reflected by the quality of their situational judgment responses. Another explanation may center upon a gap between teachers’ knowledge of the most appropriate response in any given situation and their actual behavior. Some teachers are apt to state, for example, that while it is not wise to shout at recalcitrant or noncompliant children they sometimes find themselves doing this all the same. The reasons why teachers may pursue such an approach – catharsis, frustration, annoyance – while understandable, run counter to their more profound professional understandings. Here, then, is an issue primarily of teacher self-regulation. A further possibility is that teacher experience and expertise may be more related to the execution of the preferred strategy than to the original

82

JULIAN G. ELLIOTT AND STEVEN E. STEMLER

selection itself. Thus, it is possible that what marks out the more skilled teacher is not primarily the selection of the strategy itself (e.g., to avoid the child who is seeking attention by being disruptive, to confront the colleague who seeks to undermine at every opportunity) but his or her ability to undertake the necessary behaviors effectively. Thus, the novice teacher may try to confront a child and find subsequently him or herself embroiled in a massive confrontation whereas a more skilled colleague may adopt the same strategy and succeed as intended. Finally, it may be that teacher expertise lies not in their reactions to problematic situations but elsewhere. The seminal work of Kounin (1970) indicated that teachers adjudged to be highly skilled in relation to classroom management differed from their less effective colleagues not in their response to major acts of indiscipline but, rather, in their ability to prevent difficulties from occurring in the first place. Similarly, Stough, Palmer, and Leyva (1998) found that whereas novice teachers tended to be reactive, experienced teachers were more likely to be able to articulate the preventive and anticipatory measures that they had taken to limit behavior problems. The notion that skilled teachers prevent problems rather than merely react to them highlights the importance of sensitivity to classroom contexts. Doyle (2006) points out that key to teacher success is the ability to understand how events in their classrooms are likely to play out and, in the light of this, to monitor and guide activities accordingly. He argues, therefore, that skilled management cannot be simply reduced to a series of rules for behavior as cognitive aspects such as comprehension and interpretation also play an important role. Student teachers lack the body of experience that enables them to read classroom dynamics in this way and thus providing guidance for action will often prove insufficient. So where does this leave the teacher educator? Is it only possible to frame guidance for classroom management in relation to pedagogic practices and the operation of appropriate classroom routines? Such aspects, of course, can be relatively easily taught as explicit procedures (Berliner, 1988). While the tacit and contextualized nature of classroom practices renders it difficult to articulate a set of practices and techniques that can be embraced by novice teachers, it would be incorrect to state that such learning must be wholly acquired on the basis of the individual’s reflection on extensive practice. There are a number of behaviors that, we would contend, are characteristic of skilled teachers and which can be made explicit in a relatively accessible fashion. The following section explores some of those that we have found have proven most helpful to our students.

Teacher Authority

83

KEY TEACHER INTERPERSONAL SKILLS For many teacher trainers, the work of Kounin and his colleagues has proven seminal. In helping teachers to signal high levels of expertise, and thus develop a high level of professional authority Kounin (1970) and Kounin and Doyle (1975) highlighted the importance for good discipline of a number of crucial teacher behaviors. While knowledge of these is often tacit, we would argue that they can be explicitly identified, modelled and taught. Elements identified in Koumin’s work that are, perhaps, most closely allied to professional authority are withitness and overlapping.

Withitness Withitness involves not only a high awareness on the part of the teacher about everything that is taking place in the classroom but also a concomitant ability to signal that awareness to the students. A failure to demonstrate such awareness can often lead to a rapidly deteriorating classroom environment. Observing a novice practitioner in the classroom, it is striking that they often appear to fail to pick up on subtle cues and messages that the more experienced teacher is alert to. In one study of Dutch classrooms (van Tartwijk, 1993), they were almost twice as common for experienced as for student teachers. There are many reasons that might explain a failure to demonstrate withitness. Firstly, teachers may not have been introduced to the importance of this in their professional training. This becomes increasingly likely as teacher training shifts to school-based models and inputs from universitybased specialists in behavior management with a knowledge of the literature decline. Secondly, scanning the classroom environment places significant demands upon the teacher’s cognitive load (Feldon, 2007). Overload occurs when the individual is swamped by excessive demands involving their internal cognitions and the processing of external stimuli (Sweller, 1989). As teachers become more experienced, they typically need to expend less mental effort as many of their procedures become increasingly automatized. The novice, however, is overloaded by having to devote much of his or her energy towards consideration of pedagogical and procedural aspects. The need to focus one’s mind on these may necessitate a degree of visual withdrawal. To illustrate this point, consider someone giving a public lecture. As they reach a very complex or challenging part of their talk that requires particular concentration they will often instinctively disengage

84

JULIAN G. ELLIOTT AND STEVEN E. STEMLER

from their audience by looking away. It is as if they need to maximize their processing power by freeing themselves from their immediate social environment with all its myriad distractions. Experienced teachers have a significant advantage over the novice in that many aspects of their teaching, for example, framing appropriate questions, explaining difficult concepts, are likely to place fewer cognitive demands upon them. In addition, they appear more skilled in adjudging which are important and unimportant stimuli (Sabers, Cushing, & Berliner, 1991). Thus, they will typically be freer to scan the classroom environment, will make better use of environmental cues (Feldon, 2007) and be more able to send subtle signals to the students. Thirdly, demonstrating a high level of withitness is demanding and even the most skilled teachers are unlikely to be unable to maintain sufficient energy levels all of the time. Novice teachers tend to find teaching very physically demanding and thus are particularly likely to struggle to maintain high levels of vigilance. As a result, they may engage with a subset of the class and appear oblivious to other events taking place simultaneously. Finally, a failure to demonstrate withitness is often a feature of those teachers who lack confidence in their ability to manage their students’ behavior. In such circumstances, it is tempting to avoid scrutiny of the classroom in its entirety (i.e., the large group) and, instead, focus upon isolated individuals, or small groups, particularly those who are proving responsive to one’s efforts. This form of professional myopia, while highly counterproductive, can be very seductive as, to the teacher concerned, it may serve to reduce the likelihood of confrontation and thus reduce their underlying level of anxiety.

Overlapping A second key skill identified by Kounin is overlapping. Here, we use the term to describe the teacher’s ability to undertake, or manage, two or more events taking place simultaneously. Such events may involve students (e.g., several children all trying to gain the teacher’s attention at the same time) or other sources requiring action (e.g., a wasp entering the classroom at the same time that a technological aid is failing to work). As with withitness, managing this situation (or at least, appearing to the students to be managing the situation) not only helps the current lesson to progress more smoothly, but also conveys more subtle messages about teacher expertise. Of course, such behaviors are also rendered more difficult for novice teachers because of cognitive overload.

Teacher Authority

85

It is important to stress the more profound message about teacher expertise that is signaled by withitness and overlapping. Their primary value is not merely that such behaviors enable the teacher to spot and manage potential problems in an efficient manner but, more importantly because their skilled use demonstrates a high level of teacher skill. Students perceive this as indicative of the teacher’s professional expertise and, as a result, their propensity for future misbehavior is reduced.

Non-Verbal Behavior Another crucial aspect of classroom management that can be relatively easily identified and made explicit is teacher non-verbal behavior (Robertson, 1990). This can be seen as being signaled by means of five channels (Harper, Wiens, & Matarazzo, 1978), space, body, face, visual behavior, and voice. The teacher’s use of space, and visual behavior, in the classroom sends out powerful messages about their confidence and sense of professional authority (Reynolds, 1992). The more the teacher facilitates visual links with the students while projecting a powerful voice, the more his or her behavior is likely to be perceived as dominant (van Tartwijk, 1993). As was the case for the related behaviors of withitness and overlapping, however, searching out visual contact with students is often less evident on the part of novice teachers (van Tartwijk, 1993). The skilled teacher typically shows high levels of awareness and use of body language (Neill, 1991). Relaxed body positions are associated with high status and assurance whereas teachers who lack confidence are more likely to adopt tense, rigid postures. Their arms may be crossed in front of their bodies or, alternatively, they may wave their hands vigorously in front of them. Hand movements to the face, or grooming behaviors, are often perceived by observers as indicative of anxiety or uncertainty, while putting hands on hips and drawing up and stiffening the body can appear aggressive and hostile. Skilled teachers are more likely to respond to perceived misbehavior by sending out unobtrusive messages (e.g., eye contact, facial expression, slowly moving towards the source of the problem, or making small gestures). By doing so, they avoid disrupting the lesson by diverting other students’ attention (Erickson & Mohatt, 1982) or by inviting an unhelpful response from the student(s) in question who may otherwise feel a perceived need to save face by responding to the teacher’s more public signal in a challenging fashion.

86

JULIAN G. ELLIOTT AND STEVEN E. STEMLER

For the skilled teacher, the voice is a powerful tool that is used to maximize student engagement and response. For the novice, it is often a window that can betray their emotions and uncertainties. At the most fundamental level, the teacher’s voice is a powerful means of sustaining student alertness, interest and engagement. Shouting, vocal hesitations and stammers, monotone delivery, rising pitch, particularly when there are overt signs of challenge, are all aspects that may serve to increase the likelihood of student disengagement and confrontation. What some, even experienced teachers, fail to grasp is that, in challenging situations, a lowered voice, but one signaling a strength of intent and purpose, carries a far greater air of authority.

CONCLUSIONS It is important to stress that the articulation of teacher interpersonal skills, such as those identified above, must be seen as much more than the provision of a list of tips for teachers. While their exercise is likely to help resolve problems in the ‘here and now,’ of far greater importance is the overall message about the teacher’s expertise that is signaled by their regular use. Students gradually build up a picture of a teacher that is informed by a myriad of subtle, often seemingly unimportant, teacher behaviors. Teachers who are perceived as demonstrating high-level skills are less likely to be confronted by discipline and challenge and thus are less likely to need to react subsequently to inappropriate behavior. In this chapter, we have endeavored to argue that novice teachers (indeed, all teachers) need to understand that their authority rests not in traditional or bureaucratic, but in professional modes. Professional authority is conveyed to students by an overall demonstration of expertise that consists of subject knowledge, pedagogical ability, and skill in managing complex interpersonal dynamics. While much interpersonal expertise is tacit and contextualized, and thus difficult to communicate it is argued that there exist a number of elements that can be articulated by trainers and profitably drawn upon by both novice and experienced teachers alike.

REFERENCES Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406. Berliner, D. C. (1988). The development of expertise in pedagogy. Charles W. Hunt Memorial Lecture, New Orleans, LA: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education.

Teacher Authority

87

Cianciolo, A. T., Matthew, C., Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (2006). Tacit knowledge, practical intelligence and expertise. In: K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 613–632). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Doyle, W. (2006). Ecological approaches to classroom management. In: C. M. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice and contemporary issues (pp. 97–125). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Elliott, J. G., Stemler, S. E., Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). The socially skilled teacher and the development of tacit knowledge. Durham, UK: School of Education, Durham University. Elliott, J. G., & Tudge, J. (2007). The impact of the west on post-Soviet Russian education: Change and resistance to change. Comparative Education, 43, 93–112. Erickson, F., & Mohatt, G. (1982). Cultural organization of participation structures in two classrooms of Indian students. In: G. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. (Eds). (2006). Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice and contemporary issues. London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Feldon, D. E. (2007). Cognitive load and classroom teaching: The double-edged sword of automaticity. Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 123–137. Grigorenko, E. L., Sternberg, R. J., & Strauss, S. (2006). Practical intelligence and elementaryschool teacher effectiveness in the United States and Israel: Measuring the predictive power of tacit knowledge. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1, 14–33. Harper, R. G., Wiens, A. N., & Matarazzo, J. D. (1978). Nonverbal communication: The state of the art. New York: Wiley. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a sense of success: New teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 581–617. Jones, V. (2006). How do teachers learn to be effective classroom managers?. In: C. M. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice and contemporary issues (pp. 885–907). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Kounin, J. S., & Doyle, P. H. (1975). Degree of continuity of a lesson’s signal system and the task involvement of children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 554–562. McDaniel, M. A., & Nguyen, N. T. (2001). Situational judgement tests: A review of practice and constructs assessed. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1–2), 103–113. Metz, M. H. (1978). Classrooms and corridors: The crisis of authority in desegregated secondary schools. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Neill, S. (1991). Classroom nonverbal interaction. London: Routledge. Pace, J. (2003). Managing the dilemmas of professional and bureaucratic authority in a high school English class. Socilogy of Education, 76, 37–52. Pace, J. L., & Hemmings, A. (2007). Understanding authority in classrooms: A review of theory, ideology and research. Review of Educational Research, 77, 4–27. Pearson, G. (1983). Hooligan: A history of respectable fears. London: Macmillan.

88

JULIAN G. ELLIOTT AND STEVEN E. STEMLER

Pigge, F., & Marso, R. (1997). A seven year longitudinal multi-factor assessment of teaching concerns development through preparation and early years of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 225–235. Reynolds, A. (1992). What is competent beginning teaching? A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 62, 1–35. Robertson, J. (1990). Effective classroom control. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Sabers, D., Cushing, K. S., & Berliner, D. C. (1991). Differences among teachers in a task characterized by simultaneity, multidimensionality and immediacy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 63–88. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Steer, A. (2005). Learning behaviour: The report of the practitioners’ group on school behaviour and discipline. London, UK: Department for Education and Skills. Stemler, S. E., Elliott, J. G., Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). There’s more to teaching than instruction: Seven strategies for dealing with the practical side of teaching. Educational Studies, 32, 101–118. Sternberg, R. J., & Horvath, J. (1995). A prototype view of expert teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(6), 9–17. Stough, L. M. (2006). The place of classroom management. In: C. M. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice and contemporary issues (pp. 909–923). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stough, L. M., Palmer, D. P., & Leyva, C. (1998, February). Listening to voices of experience in special education. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Stroot, S., Fowlker, J., Langholz, S., Stedman, P., Steffer, L., & Valtman, A. (1999). Impact of a collaborative peer assistance and review model on entry-year teachers in a large urban school setting. Journal of Teacher Education, 50, 27–41. Sweller, J. (1989). Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 81, 457–466. van Tartwijk, J. (1993). Sketches of teacher behavior: The interpersonal meaning of nonverbal behavior in the classroom. Utrecht, The Netherlands: W.C.C. [in Dutch]. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (translated from 1925 original). New York: Free Press.

THE IMPACT OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ON SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER SUPPLY AND THE PREPARATION OF THE WORKFORCE Paul T. Sindelar, Erica D. McCray, Mary Theresa Kiely and Margaret Kamman ABSTRACT For decades, special education has been plagued by shortages of fully qualified teachers. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was designed to address the problem of teacher shortage by easing entry and promoting alternative routes (ARs). However, the law was not specific to special education, and the logic on which it is based fits the special education context poorly. Nonetheless, ARs have proliferated in special education. In this chapter, we consider the impact of NCLB generally and AR preparation specifically on special education teacher (SET) shortages. We describe the population of SETs, review research on special education ARs, and consider the problem of diversifying the workforce. We also review research on teacher attrition and policies designed to reduce it.

Personnel Preparation Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, Volume 21, 89–123 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0735-004X/doi:10.1016/S0735-004X(08)00004-9

89

90

PAUL T. SINDELAR ET AL.

Shortages of fully qualified special education teachers (SETs) have plagued the field as long as the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has been reporting shortage data and probably before that. Moreover, the measure of shortage has remained remarkably stable at or near 10%. In 2005, for example, the most recent year for which such data are available, 9.6% of the nation’s 426,493 SETs (working with students aged 6–21) were less than fully certified (ideadata.org, n.d.a, Table 3-2.). Although the problem has seemed intractable, there is considerable variation among states. In 2005, for instance, the District of Columbia reported that 28% of its SETs were not fully certified, and shortages in four other states also exceeded 1 teacher in 5. By contrast, all Iowa and Connecticut SETs were fully certified, and shortages in seven other states fell at or below 1 teacher in 50 (ideadata.org). Although the reasons for such differences are not obvious, some states clearly have coped with the problem of staffing special education classrooms more effectively than others. To deal with teacher shortages, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) encourages states to develop alternative preparation routes, and the federal government has invested heavily in this policy approach to teacher shortage. In 2003, for example, the U.S. Congress appropriated over $70 million to the Troops to Teachers and Transition to Teaching programs (Cohen-Vogel, 2005); in the same year, the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE), which offers prospective teachers (in participating states) a test-only entre´e to the classroom, received $35 million in support (ABCTE, 2003). Central to the logic underlying NCLB’s emphasis on streamlining preparation is the assertion that student learning outcomes are more closely related to teachers’ knowledge about the content they teach than to either their teaching skills or the nature and extent of their pedagogical preparation. From this perspective, the solution to the problem of teacher shortages lies in recruiting into teaching individuals with content expertise – scientists and mathematicians, for example. Although not explicit in NCLB language itself, the rhetoric (and regulations) surrounding the act links the success of recruitment to the provision of easy entre´e that bypasses traditional requirements. In the rhetoric of NCLB proponents, ‘‘requirements’’ means ‘‘barriers’’ (Cohen-Vogel & Hunt, 2007). Moreover, streamlining entry into teaching often allows potential teachers to earn a salary while becoming credentialed, thereby minimizing lost opportunity costs (e.g., salary loss) (Dai, Sindelar, Denslow, Dewey, & Rosenberg, 2007). NCLB logic presumes that bright and talented people who might not otherwise teach would be attracted to the profession if they are able to meet the certification requirements quickly and while earning a salary.

NCLB and Special Education Teacher Supply

91

The proposition that content knowledge is more closely related to student achievement than pedagogical knowledge – and the deregulation perspective from which it derives – was first articulated by the Abell Foundation (Walsh, 2001). This point of view was challenged by Darling-Hammond (2002) and others representing a professionalism perspective, and the matter has been seriously debated ever since. Furthermore, by demonstrating that subject matter expertise alone does not guarantee that teachers represent content meaningfully to students, research in content areas has begun to call the NCLB argument into question (e.g., Nathan & Petrosino, 2003). In special education, the content knowledge argument fits poorly for a different reason: the importance of using effective instructional practices with students who do not learn readily. Poor fit notwithstanding, NCLB paints special education with the same policy brushstroke as general education, and teacher educators in our field may, with the blessing of the federal government, develop streamlined alternatives to traditional teacher preparation. In short, NCLB encourages states to deal with shortages – including SET shortages – by expediting entry to the field. The few extant studies of alternative route (AR) programs in special education fail to address the question of contribution to supply (Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2005), but with regard to teaching competence, they do suggest that AR programs can prepare capable teachers. However, most ARs in our field require lengthy training (Rosenberg, Boyer, Sindelar, & Misra, 2007) and otherwise look much like traditional degree programs. (This fact has not gone unnoticed by deregulationists, who recently denounced AR preparation as having been co-opted by schools of education; see Walsh & Jacobs (2007)). Rosenberg and Sindelar also argued that, along with meaningful collaboration among providers, supervision, and mentoring, adequate length was a common element of the AR programs studied in the literature. Boe et al. (Boe, Cook, & Sunderland, 2006; Boe, Shin, & Cook, 2007c) have corroborated this assertion in their analyses of Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) data. They reported a significant relationship between extensiveness of preparation, attrition, and sense of preparedness, such that SETs with extensive preparation, in comparison with SETs with little or no preparation, reported being better prepared for their work and were half as likely to leave the field early. Thus, the special education research base, limited though it may be, lends no support to the NCLB emphasis on streamlining preparation. Feistritzer (2007) reported that 42 states now offer ARs in special education, and Boe et al. (2006) reported that the number of AR graduates

92

PAUL T. SINDELAR ET AL.

seems to have increased in recent years. In their analyses of the 2003–2004 SASS data, AR graduates represented 3% of teachers with more than 11 years experience, 9% of teachers with 4–10 years experience, and 22% of teachers with 1–3 years experience. As the representation of alternatively prepared teachers increased, the representation of traditional graduates decreased – from 74% among teachers with more than 11 years experience, to 72% among teachers with 4–10 years, and to 62% of teachers with 1–3 years experience. These findings warrant two observations vis-a`-vis concern about the possibility of alternative programs tapping students from traditional programs: For one thing, because colleges and universities are the major providers of alternative programming (Rosenberg et al., 2007), increasing numbers of AR participants do not necessarily translate to declining enrollments at colleges and universities. Furthermore, in the analysis of Boe et al., the proportion of SETs who have completed no program at all also declined, from 23% (of teachers with more than 11 years experience) to 16% (of teachers with 1–3 years experience). We believe that is a step forward. Although the data of Boe, Cook, and Sunderland (2007) suggest that AR preparation has begun to contribute substantially to the supply of trained SETs entering the field, OSEP shortage data are less clear, as we shall see. Furthermore, it would seem premature to argue that the phenomenon that Boe et al. describe represents the fruit of NCLB policy. For one thing, this analysis was conducted using the 2004–05 SASS administration, gathered before the NCLB policy was likely to have had an impact on the shortage. Moreover, Rosenberg et al. (2007) demonstrated that the development of alternative programs was closely associated with the size of the SET shortage, so that states with large shortages were likely to have more ARs. Thus, it seems that the existence and severity of shortages more so than adherence to NCLB policy levers were responsible for the rapid growth in special education ARs. In this paper, we attempt to discern the impact that NCLB has had on teacher shortages in special education. We also review the special education literature pertinent to two related questions: To what extent have AR programs streamlined the process of teacher preparation? Are teachers from ARs as capable as teachers who complete traditional teacher preparation? We also consider the extent to which the emergence of ARs has contributed to diversifying the SET workforce and weigh the impact of attrition on the severity and persistence of SET shortages and consider the potential of policies designed to stem attrition.

NCLB and Special Education Teacher Supply

93

THE IMPACT OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ON SET SHORTAGES In this section, we first describe what is known about the special education teaching workforce and the extent to which teacher demographics have changed, perhaps as a function of NCLB and the growth of ARs. We consider longitudinal trends in the numbers of teachers employed and their qualifications. We review the limited literature in both general and special education regarding participants in AR programs and take measure of the extent to which AR programs contribute uniquely to the supply of new teachers. We consider who offers AR training, the models they use, and the nature of program content. Finally, we review empirical studies of the effectiveness of AR preparation as observed in sense of preparedness, classroom practice, and student achievement. The Special Education Teacher Workforce Special education teaching and SET preparation are enterprises of scale. In the fall of 2005, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, 426, 493 teachers were employed to provide special education to school-aged students with disabilities (aged 6–21), and an additional 46,885 SETs were employed to work with young children with disabilities (aged 3–5) (ideadata.org, n.d.a, Table 3-1; n.d.b, Table 3-2). Furthermore, the number of teachers employed in both segments of the special education workforce has been growing for nearly 20 years (Boe & Cook, 2006). For teachers of school-aged children, growth has been steady; for teachers of young children, growth has been steeper, particularly after the passage of P. L. 99-457 in 1986. (P. L. 99-457, the first reauthorization of IDEA, extended special education entitlements to children aged 3–5.) In the past 20 years, the 6–21 year-old workforce has grown by nearly 47%; at the same time, the 3–5 year-old workforce grew by more than 250%. In both segments of the workforce, growth has been fueled largely by increasing enrollments (Boe & Cook, 2006). As we have seen, not all of these SETs are fully qualified for the work they perform. In 2005–2006, 9.6% of SETs working with school-aged children and 11.0% of SETs working with 3–5 year-olds were, in the language of OSEP, not fully certified (ideadata.org, n.d.a, Table 3-1; n.d.b, Table 3-2). As we have mentioned, the proportion of not fully certified SETs (for students aged 6–21) has held steady at roughly 10%. By contrast, the

94

PAUL T. SINDELAR ET AL.

proportion of not fully certified SETs working with younger children dropped significantly in the 12 years following the passage of P.L. 99-457, from 25% to current levels. With regard to the impact of NCLB on SET shortages, it should be noted that over the past 3 years, for both groups of teachers, percentages of not fully certified SETs have dropped slightly but consistently.

Who Participates in Alternative Route Preparation? The salient reason for which states authorize ARs is to draw potential teachers from populations untapped by traditional programs, and, indeed, to be cost effective, ARs must supplement the supply of new teachers. In general education research on ARs, findings about participants are mixed (Cohen-Vogel & Smith, 2007; Feistritzer, 2005; Humphrey, Wechsler, & Hough, 2006). Humphrey et al. (2006) reported that more than 60% of the participants from seven programs had previous classroom experience and that relatively few were ‘‘career changers.’’ In fact, only 6% switched from careers in finance or accounting, 5% from math and science, and 2% from law. In contrast, Feistritzer reported that in a large random sample of participants (from five programs), 40% had been working in professional occupations outside of education, while only 22% had been working in education. With data from the 1999–2000 SASS survey, Cohen-Vogel and Smith (2007) found that among alternatively certified first-year teachers (hired between 1995–1996 and 1999–2000), only 17.7% had worked outside of education before training. As inconsistent as they seem to be, the data reported in these three studies could reasonably be interpreted as supporting the assertion that less than half of the people entering teaching through ARs in the NCLB era were working in a noneducation job before undertaking training. Findings from studies of participants in special education AR programs are also unclear. For example, Rosenberg et al. reported that 46% of SET candidates entering the field through ARs were mid-career changers. In a recent survey of graduates of ARs, Corbett, Sindelar, and Rosenberg (2007) reported that 33% had worked outside the field, most commonly in business and other human services, whereas about 44% of their sample had worked in education. Furthermore, there is little evidence that ARs have attracted the group of professionals envisioned by NCLB. Corbett et al. (2007) reported that few respondents entered teaching from more prestigious and lucrative professions. In fact, 63% of the respondents in their survey

NCLB and Special Education Teacher Supply

95

reported making more money as teachers than they had in their previous careers (with an additional 13% making about the same). Likewise, Humphrey and Wechsler (2007) examined the financial impact of entering teaching profession on mid-career changers, and found that a majority of participants in seven alternate route programs experienced a salary increase when they became teachers. As we argued previously, state-subsidized ARs are cost effective to the extent that they supplement teacher supply by providing access to individuals who otherwise would not or could not enter teaching. In existing research on ARs, it is difficult to ascertain the unique contribution AR programs make to teacher supply. Furthermore, even when the issue is addressed, identifying people for whom the AR was truly a unique option has been problematic. For example, in the Corbett et al. (2007) survey, about 36% of the respondents indicated that there were no other teacher preparation options available to them when they undertook training. However, Corbett et al. (2007) drew no distinction between respondents for whom only one program was available, those who qualified for admission to only one program, and those for whom only one program was sufficiently attractive. The latter circumstance reflects the propensity of prospective teachers to meet the requirements in the most efficient way possible, and it is likely that the 36% includes some respondents who had (at least geographic) access to other programs. On the other hand, in her survey, Feistritzer (2005) asked AR completers whether they would ‘‘have become a teacher if an AR wasn’t available?’’, to which 47% answered, ‘‘No.’’ Although it is difficult to determine to what extent participants are able to make valid judgments of what they might have done under hypothetical circumstances, we do know that none of these AR participants had chosen to enter teaching through a more traditional route. Overall, in our judgment based on limited evidence, ARs do seem to be making a unique contribution to the supply of SETs. Nonetheless, the available research makes clear that most participants in AR programs do have options available to them.

Alternative Route Programs AR programs for special educators come in a range of models and vary greatly in terms of the degree to which they streamline the teacher preparation process. In their study of 31 AR programs, Sindelar and Rosenberg (2006) differentiated between internship programs in which participants, while teaching, undertake training offered face-to-face or via distance or

96

PAUL T. SINDELAR ET AL.

online technology; step-up programs for paraprofessionals; and districtsponsored programs. In their sample, only the latter did not involve university courses. These researchers also found that the district-sponsored programs in their sample required one-fifth the number of hours of instruction as step-up programs and one-third the number of hours as internship programs. However, although not all AR providers are streamlining preparation, many are moving trainees into classrooms on a fast track basis. According to Rosenberg et al. (2007), about half the AR programs in their sample reported that participants received 3 months or less of training before entering the classroom, and about two-thirds of participants received 6 months or less. Programs also varied greatly in overall length. About 30% required 10–18 months to completion; another 30% required 19–24 months, and roughly 40% required 2 years or more (Rosenberg et al., 2007). Almost all of the programs (94%) surveyed by Rosenberg et al. (2007) included supervised fieldwork and university- or college-based coursework (89%), and a high percentage of programs (68%) reported using at least some distance learning or online technology. Sindelar and Rosenberg (2006) reported that 10 of their 31 programs were primarily distance or online programs (as distinct from an additional 14 internship programs offered on a face-to-face basis). Although content coverage varied somewhat by model, courses commonly concentrated on special education methods (45%) more so than foundations, general education methods, or fieldwork. However, in the district-sponsored programs, which did not differentiate clearly between special education and general education preparation, participants spent more training time in general methods than special education methods. It is evident that AR programs to prepare special educators are quite varied in terms of requirements, time demanded of participants, and delivery methods. Less clear is the extent to which all ARs prepare the highly qualified teachers demanded by NCLB.

Outcome Studies of Alternative Route Preparation Teacher quality has proven difficult to quantify, and researchers disagree about the significance of findings related to whether teacher preparation makes a difference in student outcomes (Darling-Hammond, Berry, & Thoreson, 2001; Harris & Sass, 2007; Hess, 2001; Laczko-Kerr & Berliner, 2002; Walsh, 2001). Several studies of SETs, however, suggest that the nature and extent of their preservice preparation do make a difference.

NCLB and Special Education Teacher Supply

97

For example, in Nougaret, Scruggs, and Mastropieri’s (2005) study of firstyear SETs, these researchers compared observational ratings of 20 traditionally prepared teachers to the ratings of 20 teachers with emergency provisional licenses in three large school districts. The emergency licensed teachers had had little or no formal preparation. On scales measuring planning and preparation, classroom environment, and instruction, traditionally prepared teachers were rated significantly and substantially higher than their emergency certified counterparts. Furthermore, according to a self-assessment survey administered to all participants, the less highly rated teachers were unaware of their own deficiencies. The conclusions of Nougaret et al. (2005) support Sindelar, Daunic, and Rennells’ (2004a) findings in a study of beginning teachers who had completed either traditional or AR training. The AR programs took one of the two forms: university–district partnerships and district-only add-on certification programs. Teachers were observed using the Praxis III, an instrument that emphasizes teachers’ actions and judgment and is designed to measure teachers’ application of subject matter and pedagogical knowledge (Dwyer, 1994). Praxis III assesses teachers’ performance in four domains: organizing content knowledge for student learning, creating an environment for student learning, teaching for student learning, and professionalism. Sindelar et al. reported that traditionally prepared teachers were rated significantly higher than alternatively trained teachers on the subscale measuring participants’ ability to teach for student learning (and three individual criteria on that scale). Furthermore, on several items, the ratings of graduates of partnership programs exceeded those of add-on certification graduates. As in Nougaret et al.’s study, there were no differences among the groups in self-ratings of either efficacy or preparedness to teach. Sindelar et al. concluded that the length and rigor of the preparation program have an impact on beginning teacher performance in the classroom. Another way of looking at program outcomes is to examine the extent to which graduates are able to meet the requirements for highly qualified teachers delineated in NCLB. In their analysis of 1999–2000 SASS data, Boe et al. (2007c) reported that beginning teachers in both special education and general education who had extensive preparation to teach were far more likely to have earned full certification status than beginning teachers with some or no preparation. Unlike the self-reports in the previous two studies, in this study, differences were detected in the self-reports of teachers’ preparedness to teach assigned subject matter, such that teachers with extensive preparation reported feeling better prepared.

98

PAUL T. SINDELAR ET AL.

Taken together, the studies show that some training for teachers is better than no training, and that some forms of training may be more effective than others in producing able, efficacious teachers. It may be that differences among preparation routes in type of training provided and hours of coursework have more impact on teacher outcomes than differences in where or when training is provided. The best quality ARs are quite rigorous and similar in length and structure to traditional programs – a finding that has been trumpeted by some (Sindelar et al., 2004a) and lamented by others (Walsh & Jacobs, 2007). For SETs, preparation seems to make a difference in their ability to deliver instruction effectively. Given the diverse nature of the settings, students, and circumstances that special educators encounter and the NCLB emphasis on appropriate use of scientifically based practices – in addition to the widely acknowledged complexities of teaching in general, it seems only logical that formal preparation would confer some advantage on participants.

Summary AR preparation is a growth industry. Most programs allow teachers to work toward certification while teaching. Internship programs of this sort are offered in face-to-face, distance, or online formats, most commonly by traditional teacher preparation programs. Internship programs are lengthy and otherwise similar to on-campus degree or licensure programs, and on these measures, contrast most dramatically with programs offered by schools districts, which stand alone among all providers in truly streamlining preparation. Many AR participants come to special education from other education careers, and few fit the ‘‘career changer’’ mold anticipated by NCLB. ARs have also been touted for attracting proportionately more candidates from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds than traditional programs (Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2005; Zeichner & Schulte, 2001). Because diversifying the teaching workforce is an important goal, particularly for special education (McLeskey, Tyler, & Flippin, 2004), doing so would provide a compelling rationale for states to provide ARs. However, in more recent research in both general and special education (Humphrey & Wechsler, 2007; Rosenberg et al., 2007) program location more so than anything else about AR programs per se was shown to be related to the representation of CLD participants. In a word, programs offered in diverse communities attract a diverse participant pool. In the section that follows, we consider the problem of the underrepresentation of

NCLB and Special Education Teacher Supply

99

CLD teachers in the special education workforce, why this problem is important to solve, and how it may be affected by trends initiated by NCLB.

DIVERSIFYING THE TEACHER WORKFORCE The ethnic/racial diversity in the United States is rapidly increasing and is projected to continue to do so for the foreseeable future, with projected spikes due to immigration to be greatest in Florida, California, and Texas (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). In a recent report (described in Table 1), the U.S. Census Bureau (2006) estimated that nearly 97 million Americans are culturally diverse. The same rate of diversification is expected for the school-aged population, sustaining an increasing trend now 35 years old. In 1972, the K-12 student enrollment was 78% White; whereas in 2005, Whites represented 58% of the children in our schools (U.S. Department of Education (U.S. DOE), National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2007). At the same time, the nation’s teaching force has remained predominantly White, female, and middle-class (84.6%, U.S. DOE, NCES, 2007). Because the shortage of educators of color is pronounced (Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2001), our discussion of teacher supply and demand would be incomplete without mention of the underrepresentation of teachers from diverse backgrounds.

Benefits of Diversifying the Teaching Force In a recent research synthesis, Tyler, Yzquierdo, Lopez-Reyna, and Flippin (2004) identified three benefits of diversifying the teaching force: Table 1.

Total Percentage Enrollments in Teacher Education Programs by Race/Ethnicity and Disciplines, 1995.

Discipline

Early childhood Elementary Secondary Special ed. Bilingual ed. Vocational ed.

African American

Latino

Asian/Pacific Island

Native American/ Alaskan Native

12.0 8.4 8.4 8.9 2.4 13.6

2.0 4.3 4.8 3.8 45.9 4.8

1.2 1.4 1.4 1.3 2.2 1.3

0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 2.0 1.5

100

PAUL T. SINDELAR ET AL.

(a) its potential salubrious impact on student achievement, (b) its potential to mitigate the overrepresentation of CLD learners in special education, and (c) issues of equity. Student Achievement Although there is little conclusive research in this area, Dee (2004) reported that participants in Tennessee’s Project STAR class-size experiment – both African American and White alike – made greater achievement gains in reading and mathematics when paired with teachers from the same ethnic/ racial background – and that gains increased the longer the teachers and students were matched. However, the ‘‘own-race’’ effect fell far short of eliminating the substantial difference between the average test scores of White and African American students. Clearly, own-race teachers is no panacea; for one thing, it can be construed as support for resegregation, at least by classroom within schools; for another, the shortage of CLD teachers limits the feasibility of own-race assignments. Thus, students from ethnically and culturally diverse backgrounds are less likely to benefit from the effect because they are less likely than White students to have teachers with matching race and ethnicity. The ethical and logistical barriers to capitalizing on own-race effects highlight the need for cultural competence among all teachers, regardless of their own racial/ethnic heritage and that of their students (Darling-Hammond & Berry, 1999; Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 2001). Dee (2001) also found evidence of what he called ‘‘passive teacher effects,’’ by which he meant the comfort children feel at school in the presence of a teacher from the same background – and the positive impact comfort can have on academic and social behaviors. CLD teachers have contextual understandings that translate into culturally responsive instructional and assessment practices in their classrooms (Darling-Hammond, Dilworth, & Bulmaster, 1996; Irvine, 1992; King, 1993). Other scholars (Gay, Dingus, & Jackson, 2003; Quiocho & Rios, 2000) have reported improvement on certain academic indicators – higher attendance rates, lower rates of early separation from school, and increased overall satisfaction and connectedness to school – when students have access to teachers of color. These indicators typically improved for all students, but improvements were more substantial for children of color. Overrepresentation Special education has been blemished by the persistence of overrepresentation of some ethnic groups in programs for students with

NCLB and Special Education Teacher Supply

101

emotional/behavioral disorders (E/BD) and mild mental retardation (MR) (Artiles, Harry, Reschly, & Chinn, 2002; Dunn, 1968; Johnson, 1969). However, overrepresentation is not exclusively a problem of special education’s making; because general educators initiate referrals for special education services, it implicates them as well as professionals in our field. Thus, diversifying the workforce has the potential to mitigate this trend in two ways. Because teachers from underrepresented groups have greater understanding of the cognitive and communicative styles of CLD students (Campbell-Whatley, 2003) in the general education setting, increased cultural knowledge may result in lower referral rates. In special education, it may allow teachers to serve as cultural translators who provide students with the tools they need to return successfully to less restrictive settings. Equity The United States has a diverse culture. If students of color are to realize the opportunity afforded to them through public education, they must be educated in a manner that provides equal footing with their classmates. Further, students from the majority culture should experience successful learning opportunities with their CLD peers. To achieve these complementary goals, the teaching force should reflect the demographics of the communities they serve. Regardless of where they work, teachers of color could serve as advocates for students from diverse backgrounds, speaking on their behalf when discipline is in question, for example. Further, CLD teachers could foster collaborative relationships with the communities their schools serve, an action that King (1991) refers to as ‘‘emancipatory pedagogy.’’ Foster (1995) and Nieto (2000) also found that African American and Latino teachers, in structuring their classrooms, typically draw from community norms. Much of the speculation about the inadequate supply of teachers of color has focused on the lure of more lucrative opportunities in other fields (Sileo, 2000; Snyder, 1998) – and, indeed, business is the first choice as an area of study for all ethnic groups (Snyder, 2003; Snyder, Dillow, & Hoffman, 2007). However, for Blacks, Hispanics, and American/Alaskan Natives, education is second. Thus, individuals from underrepresented groups are seeking to become educators in substantial numbers. However, the challenges they encounter in the process – particularly a sense of alienation in institutions of higher education and difficulty passing state certification assessments – are thought to limit participation (Wald, 1996). As we have seen, AR programs have been touted as an effective means for diversifying the teaching workforce. Indeed, such programs may reduce the

102

PAUL T. SINDELAR ET AL.

sense of alienation experienced by CLD candidates by offering jobembedded entry routes at a lower cost, but the issue of testing may be a more pernicious problem. In fact, some individuals interested in teaching careers may be deterred by assessment requirements and may not consider teaching at all. In the following sections, we discuss the issues surrounding the supply of and demand for teachers from diverse backgrounds, specifically their presence in the teacher education pipeline and in the teaching force.

Teacher Education In this section, we consider the institutional homes of teacher preparation programs; which institutions attract more teachers of color and why; the content of teacher education and how it may be enriched; recruitment and retention strategies; and testing requirements and their impact on CLD students. Institutions It is important to consider which institutions of higher education are attracting CLD students. Research has shown that, for many potential preservice teachers, attending a community college tends to be a first step toward attaining a degree. Indeed, 42% of African Americans and 55% of Hispanics in college initially enrolled in community colleges (Education Commission of the States [ECS], 2001; Woods & Williams, 1987). Community colleges offer the advantages of proximity to home, lower cost, and close-knit feel. Also, many CLD students attend colleges with homogenous racial/ethnic makeups, such as historically black colleges/ universities (HBCUs) in the southeast (Gay et al., 2003). Because teachers will train close to home and teach within close proximity of where they attended college and high school (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2003; Howey & Zimpher, 1986), programs at HBCUs, for example, are likely to contribute to the diversification of local teacher labor markets. However, they may have limited impact on districts that are geographically removed. Boyd et al. (2003) also described how the ‘‘draw-of-home’’ phenomenon operated to disadvantage urban schools. Although it applied equally well to graduates from urban, suburban, and rural areas (of New York), the proportion of young people attending college was smaller in urban areas than elsewhere, and as a result, proportionately fewer graduates returned home to teach. In this way, urban schools were pitted against their suburban

NCLB and Special Education Teacher Supply

103

neighbors in a competition for teachers in which, to succeed, they must overcome not only the amenities of suburban schools but also beginning teachers’ tendency to teach in schools like the schools they attended. These findings speak clearly of the importance of partnerships between teacher preparation programs and districts with hard-to-staff schools, so that recruitment occurs early and, when possible, preparation is undertaken locally. Furthermore, the representation of CLD teacher candidates is not equally distributed across education majors, and special education does not fare well in this sorting process. The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) compiled data on enrollment in over 1,000 teacher education programs across the country. These data were intended to inform teacher educators about preservice teachers’ race/ethnicity and gender, to determine disciplines with the greatest need, and to measure program productivity (AACTE, 1999). Subsequently, Gay et al. (2003) extracted data relevant to enrollment by race/ethnicity and discipline. We present their findings in Table 1, which shows that bilingual education attracted the most diverse participant pool – and, regrettably, special education the least. Enriching Program Content Although many university-based programs offer AR programs of their own, the recruitment and retention of CLD candidates should remain a priority for on-campus, preservice programs (Sileo, 2000). For one thing, with a homogenous population of students, discussions regarding issues of diversity – however skillfully conducted – may be abstract, superficial, disconnected, and void of context. Furthermore, many preservice teachers enter preparation with limited personal experience with individuals from cultures different from their own (Hollins & Guzman, 2005). Interacting with faculty and peers from diverse backgrounds may promote change in trainees’ beliefs and attitudes. Tyler et al. (2004) suggested that a reasonable proportion of diverse special educators is needed to share the cultural and linguistic experiences of their students and to serve as a resource for other teachers. Sileo (2000) suggested that developing and sustaining a flow of CLD preservice students may also require fundamental change in teacher education curriculum and pedagogy. He believed that professional development would be required to infuse multicultural content, create inclusive learning environments, and promote the use of culturally appropriate instruction and assessment. A sense of alienation has often been cited as a reason for CLD

104

PAUL T. SINDELAR ET AL.

students leaving teacher preparation programs prior to graduation (Wald, 1996). Reforming teacher preparation curriculum and pedagogy may allay such alienation and diminish the attrition it causes. Recruitment and Retention Although research is scarce, professional consensus is emerging about strategies for recruiting students from diverse backgrounds into special education programs. These strategies include word of mouth (Tyler et al., 2004); personal contact with faculty and students of color (CampbellWhatley, 2003); financial support in the form of scholarships and fellowships (Tyler et al., 2004); academic, social, and cultural support programs (Patton, Williams, Floyd, & Cobb, 2003); summer residential programs for high-school students (Fenwick, 2001); and early access to university resources (Fenwick, 2001). Once students begin the admission process, it is imperative that they receive support with the entrance and basic skills examinations often required for entry into schools of education (Strosnider & Blanchett, 2003). Although there also is little research on strategies for retaining students during preparation, reports from programs that successfully recruit and retain CLD students offer some guidance. For example, Patton et al. (2003) outlined the components of several model programs. Many were OSEPfunded, and most provided financial support. In addition, programs provided tutoring, advising, peer and faculty mentors, field experiences, and use of cohorts. Testing Requirements High-stakes testing for potential teachers has been widely debated because of issues of equity and fairness for individuals from CLD backgrounds. Nonetheless, tests of content and pedagogy are fundamental elements of NCLB’s approach to promoting teacher quality. At the postsecondary level, required tests have served as roadblocks to many preservice teachers of color (Latham, Gitomer, & Ziomek, 2002). Such assessments may stand between students and their degrees, and between prospective teachers and the licenses they need to practice. If test performance predicted accomplishment as a teacher, a decision to deny a teacher a license on the basis of an inadequate test score would seem defensible. However, neither content nor pedagogical tests predict accurately enough for us to feel confident about their use in high-stakes decision-making. We do not mean to suggest that accomplishment and propensity for success should not be assessed, but

NCLB and Special Education Teacher Supply

105

rather that multiple measures should also be considered in decisions about who is qualified to teach.

Teachers from CLD Backgrounds In this section, we consider the important question of who teaches where, strategies for retaining teachers in the field, and testing requirements and their impact on practicing teachers. Who Teaches Where? It is found that African American and Latino teachers are more likely to take positions in hard-to-staff schools, those with higher percentages of children from ethnically/racially diverse backgrounds, with limited english proficiency, and from high-poverty backgrounds (Henke, Chen, & Geis, 2000; Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2001). Data from studies in New York (Boyd et al., 2003) and in Texas (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2001) show that, generally speaking, teachers move from highly diverse, low-achieving, highpoverty schools to schools with less diversity, less poverty, and higher achievement (other studies, e.g., Bacalod (2007), have shown that the same variables affect teachers’ initial decisions about where to teach.) However, Boyd et al. (2003) reported that African American males tend to move to more diverse schools, and Hanushek et al. found the same to be true of African Americans and Latinos of both genders. Staffing highly diverse, poor, and low achieving schools ranks among the most challenging problems facing public education in the U.S. today. Given the tendency of most teachers to move away from such schools and the tendency of CLD teachers to move to them, diversifying the workforce offers real promise of stabilizing the faculties at hard-to-staff schools. As shown in Table 2, during the 2003–2004 school year, 16.8% of teachers were from nonmajority backgrounds, and 7.8% were African American (U.S. DOE, NCES, 2007). Among SETs, 86% were White, 11% were African American, and 3.8% were Hispanic (WESTAT, 2002). By contrast, over 42% of all special education students in public schools were from nonmajority backgrounds (U.S. DOE, NCES, 2007). Recruitment and Retention ARs into teaching have been more successful than traditional teacher education programs in attracting teachers from CLD backgrounds (Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2001), particularly when such programs are located

106

PAUL T. SINDELAR ET AL.

Table 2. Ethnicity

White Hispanic Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/ Alaska Native

Ethnicity of U.S. Students and Teachers. Population (%) 74 15 12 4 0.7

All Teachers (%) 83 6 8 2 0.5

All Students (%) 58 15 16 4 0.7

SETs (%)

SE Students (%)

86 3.8 11

59 17 21

1 1

2 2

Note: Data from the U.S. Census excludes ‘‘other race’’ and ‘‘two or more races.’’ Source: U.S. Census Bureau (for Population data); the National Center for Educational Statistics (for All Teachers and All Students data); http://www.copsse.org (for SPeNSE data on SETs); and www.ideadata.org (for SE Students data).

in diverse communities. With persistent critical shortages of special educators in urban and rural areas, establishing ARs and recruiting locally may be the most viable option for such districts (Dai et. al, 2007; Prater, 2005) – both to increase and diversify the supply of teachers. Unfortunately, few other policy options exist. The Education Commission of the States (2003) surveyed each of the 50 states to determine what strategies were being employed to recruit CLD teachers. Twenty-one states reported having no programs specific to minority recruitment. Some states did offer technical support/professional development centers and loan forgiveness programs, but otherwise strategies for teacher recruitment were mundane and unproven. Generally speaking, we know that feeling supported and being part of a professional community can alleviate feelings of isolation among beginning teachers. Because beginning teacher attrition is problematic in special education, ushering newcomers into the field is critical to their success, development, and commitment to the field (Boe, Cook, Bobbitt, & Terhanian, 1998). The retention of novice teachers from CLD backgrounds requires additional consideration. It is imperative for teachers from diverse backgrounds to have mentors who are culturally competent, and prepared and willing to mentor (Dieker et al., 2003). With regard to attrition, Whitener and Gruber (1997) reported that African American and Hispanic teachers had higher rates than their White counterparts, By contrast, Zumwalt and Craig (2005) reported that attrition rates (7.5%) were similar across all groups (except for Asians, for whom attrition was lower (2.1%)). A study by the Texas Education Agency (1995)

NCLB and Special Education Teacher Supply

107

offered a third perspective by finding that Black teachers were less likely to leave than White teachers when school characteristics were taken into account. Adams and Dial (1993) also found that novice Black and Hispanic teachers were less likely to leave than their White peers. These discrepancies suggest that more research is needed to establish a coherent picture of teacher retention and the retention of teachers from diverse backgrounds, in particular. Testing Requirements Certification testing has created the same barrier for teachers as it has for preservice teachers. Many potential teachers shy away or are driven away from teaching because of limited success on certification and basic skills tests (Gay et al., 2003). Hill (1996) analyzed pass rates of individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds on the California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST) and found that passing rates of European Americans (80%) exceeded those of Asian Americans (59%), Latinos (51%), and African Americans (35%). Garcia and Truber (1999) reported similar findings from an analysis of New York State’s Liberal Arts and Sciences Exam. Pass rates for provisionally certified White, Black, and Latino teachers were 92%, 50%, and 47%. On the basis of these findings, Garcia and Truber (1999) argued that the basic skills test was the greatest barrier for individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds. In response to such findings, Strosnider and Blanchett (2003) recommended alternative assessments for individuals who demonstrate other qualifications and superior skills in the classroom. NCLB has posed new challenges specific to special education. Secondary and middle school special educators are now required to demonstrate competency in the content they teach as well as in special education knowledge and pedagogy. This requirement may cut both ways. On the one hand, some SETs may find this requirement denigrating, formidable, or both; on the other hand, satisfying this requirement may lure special educators to the general education assignments for which they are highly qualified. Although their special education expertise may serve them well in general education classrooms, students needing more intensive services may be left with less-effective teachers.

Summary Research has established that teachers are less diverse as a group than either the general population or the children they teach. The scholarly work on the

108

PAUL T. SINDELAR ET AL.

topic suggests reasons for underrepresentation – among them the proliferation of high-stakes assessments prompted by NCLB policy – and describes promising practices for successful recruitment and retention. These promising practices are described in reports based on experience; too few are evidence-based in the sense that gets policy makers’ attention. Furthermore, increasing supply is only one approach to coping with SET shortages; stemming the loss of teachers through attrition and turnover is another. Indeed, Ingersoll (2001) has posited that teacher turnover is the ‘‘dominant factor driving demand for new teachers and, in turn, creating school staffing problems’’ (p. 524). McLeskey et al. (2004) have made a similar case for special education as well. The idea of improving organizational conditions to reduce attrition stands in stark contrast to the NCLB supply-side approach of increasing supply by easing access to the profession. In the following section, we consider policy approaches for reducing attrition and weigh their potential for ameliorating the problem of SET shortages.

COMBATING ATTRITION Ingersoll’s (2001) analysis derives from a perspective in which teachers are thought to leave the field (attrition) or leave a school (turnover) as a result of organizational characteristics and conditions. Although the overall teacher supply is adequate, he reasons, the supply of teachers willing to work under the conditions of professional life in schools is not. In this analysis, improving poor working conditions or increasing salaries might ameliorate shortages by reducing job dissatisfaction and promoting reentry to and retention in the field. Thus, from this point of view, policies designed to reduce attrition and turnover are thought to have greater potential than investments in policies designed to increase the size of the teaching workforce. Indeed, in an analysis of three cycles of SASS and TFS data, Ingersoll found differences in public school teacher turnover – which he defined as both leaving the field and moving from school to school – as a function of poverty level and school location, such that high-poverty schools experienced nearly half again as much turnover as low-poverty schools (15.2–10.5%), and urban schools experienced more turnover than rural schools (14–11.2%). Turnover was substantially greater in private schools than in public schools (18.9–12.4%) and substantially greater in small private schools than in large private schools (22.8–9.8%). Generally speaking, turnover was lower in schools with more administrative support,

NCLB and Special Education Teacher Supply

109

fewer discipline problems, more faculty participation in decision-making, and greater faculty autonomy. Thus, in these many ways, the organizational character and condition of schools exerts a pronounced impact on teacher turnover. In the case of special education, it seems unlikely that improving the conditions of schools alone would solve the problem of teacher shortages, and Boe, Cook, and Sunderland (2005) have articulated this perspective persuasively. With 2003–2005 SASS/TFS data, Boe et al. found that only one-fourth of all teachers who left the field did so for reasons amenable to policy intervention (e.g., dissatisfaction with teaching or better salary). Furthermore, Boe et al. asserted that rates of exit attrition (as opposed to the broader concept of turnover) are moderate relative to other fields and that 3-year retention in K-12 teaching exceeds retention in all other occupational fields except health. Furthermore, they noted that the exit of SETs to general education assignments is largely offset by the transfer of general education teachers into special education. On the basis of these findings, Boe et al. concluded that policies designed to improve the retention of teachers intending to leave the field offer little potential for sustaining or enhancing supply. In a recent paper, Boe et al. (2006) offered additional insight into factors related to the probability of teacher attrition. With 2003–2005 SASS/TFS data, they described a relationship between the extent of preparation and the probability of attrition, such that teachers with extensive preparation were half as likely to leave teaching during their first 3 years in the classroom (8.6%) as were teachers with little or no preparation (17.8%). Preparation was defined in terms of responses to SASS items on specific course content and activities, and the length of student teaching. Essentially, extensive preparation implied 10 or more weeks of practice teaching; courses on the selection and adaptation of instructional materials, and learning theory; classroom observations; and feedback on teaching. This finding has important implications for implementation of NCLB policy, which, as we noted earlier, urges teacher educators to streamline training and move teachers into classrooms on a fast-track basis. Boe et al.’s (2006) findings also shed light on the argument about the relationship between initial preparation and attrition. On one side of this debate, Darling-Hammond (2002) has asserted that attrition is greater among graduates of AR programs than among graduates of traditional programs. In her analysis of attrition (3 years after program completion) among graduates of traditional 4- and 5-year programs and participants in Teach for America (TFA), she found that attrition was substantially greater

110

PAUL T. SINDELAR ET AL.

among teachers from TFA. Although this paper is widely cited as evidence of high attrition among AR teachers, Darling-Hammond’s argument seems somewhat disingenuous. For one thing, only one model of AR preparation – TFA – was included, and it is far less extensive than most other ARs (Humphrey & Wechsler, 2007; Rosenberg et al., 2007). For another, because TFA requires only a 2-year commitment, it is not surprising that two-thirds of participants left the field in 3 years. In our judgment, the fact that onethird of TFA teachers remained in the field for 3 years is more surprising than the fact that two-thirds did not. In all likelihood, without TFA, these individuals would not have entered teaching. In this sense, it can be argued that TFA has contributed uniquely to the supply of teachers. Darling-Hammond’s (2002) analysis also stands in marked contrast to personal testimonials of AR providers (Sindelar, Fink, & Carlton, 2004b) who have trumpeted the persistence of their graduates, and to findings from a recent analysis (Boe et al., 2007) of 2003–2005 SASS and TFS data. Boe et al. found that although attrition was substantially higher for AR completers than traditional program graduates (12–7) in the first 3 years of teaching, it was substantially lower (3–9) in the next 3 years. In sum, the evidence bearing upon the impact of initial preparation route on attrition rates seems incomplete and contradictory. Boe et al. (2006), on the other hand, have moved our thinking ahead by reframing the argument in terms of extensiveness of training, where the findings are, if not complete, at least clearer and credible. In light of the ambiguity of the evidence surrounding the importance of attrition, it seems specious to argue that, as a solution to SET shortage, stemming attrition offers any more – or any less– promise than increasing supply. Because this problem has proven persistent and intractable, it clearly warrants a multifaceted policy approach in which both supply and turnover are addressed. To this end, in this section, we consider two policy approaches designed to reduce attrition and turnover: salary premiums, and induction and mentoring.

Salary Premiums as a Solution Poor salaries have been widely touted as an explanation for teacher attrition (Boe, Bobbitt, Cook, Whitener, & Weber, 1997; Ingersoll, 2003; Miller, Brownell, & Smith, 1999), and, as a result, salary premiums are often suggested as a strategy for promoting teacher retention. However, attrition is only one element of turnover, and the question remains as to whether

NCLB and Special Education Teacher Supply

111

teachers who transfer from district to district do so for money. Little research has been conducted examining the role salary plays in turnover, in part because of the difficulties researchers face in separating the effects of salary from their working conditions and preferences. For example, a school in a district that pays well may well offer other amenities, such as high-performing students and supportive parents. However, two studies (Hanushek et al., 2001; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002) have tackled these obstacles by analyzing large data bases, and controlling statistically for such school context factors. Lankford et al. (2002) analyzed 15 years of salary data from New York, a state, they reasoned, that faces the same trends in teacher demand as the rest of the country. These researchers found that variation in salaries did not contribute substantially to the sorting of teachers across schools within districts or across districts within labor markets. They concluded that current salary structure may be insufficient for alleviating the inequitable distribution of teachers and, in fact, may make it worse. Research conducted by Hanushek et al. (2001) also supports the assertion that salary cannot explain why teachers move (or where). Hanushek et al. used Texas data from 1993–1996 that included information about teacher, student, and school characteristics. Annually, on average, 82% of Texas teachers remained in the schools where they taught the previous year. (Beginning teachers were less likely to remain in a school (78%) than were their more experienced colleagues.) Of the 18% who moved, 6% changed schools within a district, 5% moved from one district to another, and 7% left the Texas school system altogether. Hanushek et al. examined the impact of salary and working conditions on teachers’ decisions to leave. They found that teachers who changed schools did not substantially increase their salary. (In fact, the average annual salary increase was $100.) The results of this analysis suggest that teachers move more as a reaction to student characteristics than better salaries, and that salary is not a deciding factor for teachers when moving schools. More specifically, Hanushek et al. found that White teachers were likely to move from highly diverse and lowachieving schools to schools with higher achievement and more homogeneous enrollments. However, as we have seen, higher percentages of African American and Latino students reduced the probability that African American and Latino teachers moved. That money is not the main reason teachers move does not necessarily imply that financial incentives are ineffectual. In a separate analysis of the same data, Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin (2004) estimated the effects of salary differences on the probability that teachers would leave a school

112

PAUL T. SINDELAR ET AL.

district in a given year, holding constant a variety of other factors. The authors concluded that to retain teachers in hard-to-staff schools, large salary increases would be needed. However, the size of an effective increase varied for males and females and for teachers with relatively less (1–3 years) and relatively more (3–5 years) experience. Higher salaries significantly reduced the probability that male teachers will leave a district, with the effect being greater earlier in their careers. Females in their first 5 years of teaching were less responsive to salary differences. Hanushek et al. estimated that retaining female teachers in hard-to-staff schools would require salary premiums of 25 and 40% for relatively less and relatively more experienced teachers respectively. Taxpayers seem unlikely to support salary increases this large, and few politicians seem likely to champion such a cause. As a result, salary premiums may hold little promise in impacting the attrition rates and retaining teachers (Dai et al., 2007).

Induction and Mentoring as a Solution Induction programs provide another way for states to combat attrition. With 42% of all beginning teachers leaving the field within their first 5 years (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004), many states are implementing induction programs, and some have shown real promise. For example, the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996) has reported that induction programs have significantly reduced teacher attrition rates in Rochester (New York) and Cincinnati, Columbus, and Toledo (Ohio). By providing expert mentors with release time to coach beginners in their first year on the job, these programs have reduced attrition rates of by more than two-thirds. California also has reported significant improvements in retention based on the implementation of induction programs. Strong and St. John (2001) reported that among the participants in the Santa Cruz New Teacher Project, 88% were still in the classroom after 6 years (compared to 76% of California beginners who did not participate). This 2-year program includes a careful mentor selection process, full or substantial release time for mentors, mentor training, formative assessment, instruction- and content-focused mentoring, a beginning teacher network, and a strong partnership and communication with administrators. Another successful program is the Framework for Inducting, Retaining, and Supporting New Teachers (FIRST) in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana (Wong, 2004). First implemented in 1996 to tackle high-attrition rates (51%), this 3-year program includes ongoing training and support by

NCLB and Special Education Teacher Supply

113

providing a carefully matched mentor, professional development, administrative support, stipends for both the mentor and mentee, and district instructional facilitators. The FIRST program initially reduced attrition rates to 11%, but during the 2001–2002 school year, only 1 out of 46 participating teachers was lost (2.2%). The program has been so successful that Louisiana adopted it statewide (Wong, 2004). Together, these induction programs show that teacher retention rates can be improved, sometimes significantly, with the right configuration of supports and services. Providing the right combination of services does seem critical. For example, in their analysis of 1999–2000 SASS and 2001 TFS data, Smith and Ingersoll (2004) defined four levels of induction, and found that, as the complexity of induction increased, teacher turnover decreased. Among teachers who reported having no induction support, turnover rate was 40%. Mentoring alone did little to reduce turnover; in fact, among respondents who reported having only mentoring support, turnover was 39%. Turnover was substantially reduced (to 17%) when collaboration was added to the support package and further reduced (to 8%) when teacher networking was also included. These findings suggest that, in the absence of collaboration and networking, providing a mentor is not likely to reduce attrition rates. However, as the model programs exemplify, mentoring is a key component of effective induction, particularly when mentors are carefully chosen and paired to the needs of beginner. (It is important to note that SASS questions on mentoring, collaboration, and networking require only yes–no answers, precluding judgments of the extensiveness or quality of any of these experiences.) Moreover, Smith and Ingersoll (2004) reported that the largest reductions in turnover were associated with activities that tied new teachers into a collaborative network of their more experienced peers. Because analysis of the SASS database revealed large variations among types of induction activities offered to beginners, states and districts need to pay careful attention to the components included in their programs in order to maximize retention rates. Simply retaining beginners is not enough. Induction programs can contribute to teacher quality by providing clear standards for teaching and support for beginners in meeting them (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Wang & Odell, 2002). Humphrey, Wechsler, and Bosetti (2007) described Toledo’s induction plan, which defined and promoted standards of practice. The matched mentor spends at least 20 h observing the beginner and is ultimately responsible for recommending whether the beginner’s contract be renewed. Having teachers hold other teachers accountable for achieving standards (and removing teachers who

114

PAUL T. SINDELAR ET AL.

do not) improves teachers’ instructional practices and elevates teacher professionalism. Connecticut provides an instructive example of a state that has set high standards. Beginning special educators in Connecticut’s induction program are evaluated on the basis of a rigorous portfolio assessment. Beginning SETs (13%) who fail to meet performance standards in the standard allotment of 2 years are given an additional year of support (Moirs & Fisk-Natale, 2004). Connecticut demands high-quality teachers but is willing to provide extended induction support to ensure this end. Induction also has been linked to increases in student achievement. Fletcher, Villar, and Strong (2008) reviewed achievement data from three districts in California. California’s Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA) includes professional development, mentors, and individualized support for beginning teachers to ensure a high-quality workforce and high rates of teacher retention. They found more intensive mentor-based induction programs, those with more time for mentor/mentee collaboration, during the first or second year of teaching showed a positive effect on student achievement. As a complement to retention research, this study provides support for carefully choosing components of induction not only to reduce attrition and secure a high-quality workforce but also to improve student achievement. There is currently no consensus regarding the essential components of effective induction. States may develop model programs, such as Louisiana’s FIRST program, and apply it statewide. SETs are most often treated the same as other beginners with no differentiation or additional support (Whitaker, 2000). However, researchers have described some programs that have been successful at increasing retention for SETs. One such program is described by Kennedy and Burstein (2004). These researchers studied an induction program in California adapted to address specific classroom and instructional needs of special educators. After following teachers for several years, these researchers found that mentors who responded effectively to the needs of beginners had experience in both urban schools and in the same disability area as their mentees. They also reported that adapting the induction materials for special educators made the process more valuable for fostering beginning teacher development and refection. For participating special educators, the program reports a 3-year retention rate of 95%. Implementing effective induction programs for beginning special educators, such as the one described by Kennedy and Burstein (2004), presents a unique set of challenges. First, simply matching beginners with mentor teachers in same content and grade is not possible in many schools, particularly in rural areas where schools often employ only one SET.

NCLB and Special Education Teacher Supply

115

This situation makes high-quality mentoring difficult to implement (Griffin, Winn, Otis-Wilborn, & Kilgore, 2003). Outlining clear standards for teacher practice is equally challenging. SETs serve in many different roles and are required to have a wide range of expertise. They often serve students in multiple grades with varying disabilities. As a result, special educators must have knowledge of interventions and provide direct instruction to students. They might find themselves collaborating or co-teaching with general education teachers (Brownell, Hirsch, & Seo, 2004). Such role ambiguity clearly complicates the development of a coherent and versatile induction program. The challenge of creating high-quality induction program for beginning special educators requires special attention. To deal with the problem of matching mentors with beginning teachers, the use of technology holds some promise. Through online contact, beginning special educators who are isolated can also create a relationship with a mentor working in a comparable context (albeit not in the same school). Participants in one qualitative study used online discussion rooms and virtual conferences to form collaborative relationships (Seabrooks, Kenney, & LaMontagne, 2000). Participants reported virtual mentoring as a positive experience that supported intervention, teaming skills, communication, and instructional skills. Although this research shows promise for addressing the need to carefully match mentors, the results should be viewed cautiously. This study was conducted with a small sample of 27 participants, 14 mentors, and 17 mentees, in which all the mentors were enrolled in a graduate level course that afforded them both support and access to technology. Moreover, the mentees were preservice teachers and, as such, were not dealing with many of the issues that first-year teachers tackle. No other research exists to date looking specifically at the role technology can play in beginning SETs’ induction. Clearly, high-quality induction and mentoring has potential for improving beginners’ retention rates. The proliferation of induction programs provides opportunity for researchers to identify the specific elements that are most successful at combating attrition and retaining a high-quality workforce. It is apparent that more research is needed dealing with the unique challenges of implementing programs for beginning special educators.

CONCLUSIONS Although research is limited and sometimes ambiguous, in our discussion of staffing special education classrooms, certain facts stand out as irrefutable. Shortages of SETs are severe, chronic, and seemingly intractable. They are

116

PAUL T. SINDELAR ET AL.

widespread but differentially affect schools that serve poor, low-achieving, and highly diverse students. Increasing the supply of new teachers represents one potential solution to this problem, and NCLB offers a policy option for doing so – providing alternative entrees to teaching. This option seems reasonable provided that ARs attract individuals who otherwise would not or could not enter the field. On the other hand, the NCLB dictate to streamline training seems ill-suited to the special education context, where effective pedagogy clearly plays an essential role. Among the effective ARs described in the SET education literature, few fit the streamlined template. As a group, teachers are not as diverse as the students they serve, and ARs have proven to be an effective means for recruiting CLD participants – provided they are located in and draw participants from highly diverse communities. In this regard, special education AR programs are no different than general education AR programs. Diversifying the population of teacher candidates remains an important goal for traditional, on-campus teacher preparation programs as well, although what we know about recruitment and retention is limited and somewhat speculative. CLD students seem to prefer community colleges and institutions serving minority populations to traditional college campuses, and programs located at such institutions have the potential of diversifying the local workforce. On the other hand, CLD teachers and teacher candidates may be discouraged by our reliance on standardized content mastery and licensure testing, now being ratcheted up in response to NCLB policy on promoting teacher quality. Although a more multifaceted assessment seems reasonable for a skill set as complex as special education teaching, in the current policy context, few other measures of teacher quality are acceptable proxies for content knowledge and student achievement. Another approach to the problem of teacher shortage is generally stemming the loss of teachers from attrition and transfer. Policy approaches to attrition tend to focus on improving the conditions of working in schools and so stand in contrast to NCLB’s approach of facilitating entry to the field. Salary has a limited effect on teacher turnover, and estimates of the size of salary differentials that may make a difference go beyond what taxpayers are likely to bear. More promising are induction and mentoring programs, although neither is inexpensive, either. Furthermore, some evidence suggests that mentoring alone is unlikely to have a substantial impact on beginning teacher turnover. Although we have attempted to avoid saying so (over and over), it seems obvious that more research will be required to answer important questions related to the preparation of the SETs and strategies for dealing with

NCLB and Special Education Teacher Supply

117

chronic shortages. To date, the most persuasive work has involved analyses of large-scale databases (e.g., SASS and TFS), which are too small to allow the fine-grained analyses most pertinent to special educators. And although such analyses illuminate problems, they seldom offer insights into how those problems may be solved.

REFERENCES Adams, G. J., & Dial, M. (1993). Teacher survival: A Cox regression model. Education and Urban Society, 26, 90–99. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (1999). Teacher education pipeline IV: Schools, colleges, and departments of education enrollments by race, ethnicity, and gender (ERIC Reproduction Service no. ED 432571). Washington, DC: Author. American Board for Certification of Teaching Excellence. (2003, September 25). American Board receives $35 million in federal funding. Retrieved September 26, 2007 from http:// www.abcte.org/press/news_release/2003/09/79 Artiles, A. J., Harry, B., Reschly, D. J., & Chinn, P. C. (2002). Over-identification of students of color in special education: A critical overview. Multicultural Perspectives, 4(1), 3–10. Bacalod, M. (2007). Who teaches and where they choose to teach: College graduates of the 1990s. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 115–168. Boe, E. E. (2006). Long term trends in the national demand, supply, and shortage of special education teachers. Research Report no. 2005-TSD4. University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, Center for Research and Evaluation in Social Policy, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved October 8, 2007 from http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cresp/ Boe, E. E., Bobbitt, S. A., Cook, L. H., Whitener, S. D., & Weber, A. L. (1997). Why didst thou go? Predictors of retention, transfer, and attrition of special and general education teachers from a national perspective. Journal of Special Education, 30, 390–411. Boe, E. E., & Cook, L. H. (2006). The chronic and increasing shortage of fully certified teachers in special and general education. Exceptional Children, 72, 443–460. Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., Bobbitt, S. H., & Terhanian, G. (1998). The shortage of fully certified teachers in special and general education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21, 1–12. Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., & Sunderland, R. J. (2005). Turnover of special education teachers: New research on the extent and impact of exit attrition, transfer to general education, and school transfer. Paper presented at the annual OSEP Project Directors’ Conference, Washington, DC. Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., & Sunderland, R. J. (2007) The supply, qualifications, and attrition of teachers from traditional and alternative routes of preparation. Paper presented at the annual OSEP Project Directors Conference, Washington, DC. Boe, E. E., Shin, S., & Cook, L. H. (2007). Does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers in either special or general education? Journal of Special Education, 41, 158–170. Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2003). The draw of home: How teachers’ preferences for proximity disadvantage urban schools. Working Paper no. 9953. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

118

PAUL T. SINDELAR ET AL.

Brownell, M. T., Hirsch, E., & Seo, S. (2004). Meeting the demand for highly qualified special education teachers at a time of severe shortages: What should policymakers consider? Journal of Special Education, 38, 56–61. Campbell-Whatley, G. D. (2003). Recruiting and retaining of culturally and linguistically diverse groups in special education: Defining the problem. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 255–263. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in community. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305. Cohen-Vogel, L. (2005). Federal role in teacher quality: ‘‘Redefinition’’ or policy alignment? Educational Policy, 19, 18–43. Cohen-Vogel, L., & Hunt, H. (2007). Governing quality in teacher education: Deconstructing federal text and talk. American Journal of Education, 114, 137–163. Cohen-Vogel, L., & Smith, T. M. (2007). Qualifications and assignments of alternatively certified teachers: Testing core assumptions. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 732–753. Corbett, N. L., Sindelar, P. T., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2007). Four models of alternative route preparation: Program descriptions and cost comparisons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, Milwaukee, WI. Dai, C., Sindelar, P. T., Denslow, D., Dewey, J., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2007). Economic analysis and the design of alternative route teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 422–439. Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Research and rhetoric on teacher certification: A response to ‘‘Teacher Certification Reconsidered.’’ Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(36). Retrieved June 5, 2003 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n36.html Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (1999). Recruiting teachers for the 21st century: The foundation for educational equity. Journal of Negro Education, 68, 254–279. Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., & Thoreson, A. (2001). Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 57–77. Darling-Hammond, L., Dilworth, M. E., & Bulmaster, M. (1996). Teachers of color. Background paper for the invitational conference, ‘‘Recruiting, Preparing, and Retaining Persons of Color in the Teaching Profession,’’ January 22–24. Dee, T. S. (2001). Teachers, race, and student achievement in a randomized experiment. Working Paper no. 8432. Retrieved September 12, 2007 from http://www.nber.org/papers/w8432 Dee, T. S. (2004). Teachers, race, and student achievement in a randomized experiment. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 195–210. Dieker, L. A., McTigue, A., Campbell, G., Rodriguez, J., Savage, M., & Jackson-Thomas, A. (2003). Voices from the field: Teachers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds entering the profession through alternative certification. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 328–340. Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mentally retarded – Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 35, 5–22. Dwyer, C. A. (1994). Development of the knowledge base for the Praxis III: Classroom performance assessments criteria. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Education Commission of the States. (2001). Community colleges’ role in teacher preparation. Policy issue. Denver, CO: The Education Commission of the States Center for Community College Policy. ERIC Reproduction Service no. ED 471152.

NCLB and Special Education Teacher Supply

119

Education Commission of the States. (2003). Recruiting teachers of color: A program overview. Denver, CO: The Education Commission of the States (ECS) Teaching Quality Policy Center. Retrieved September 19, 2007 from http://www.ecs.org/teachingquality Feiman-Nemser (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013–1055. Feistritzer, C. E. (2005). Profile of alternate route teachers. Retrieved October 23, 2007 from the National Center for Education Information Web site: http://www.ncei.com/part.html Feistritzer, C. E. (2007). Alternative teacher certification: A state-by-state analysis 2007. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information. Fenwick, L. T. (2001). Where do we go from here: Diversity in teaching and school leadership. In: N. Jackson, W. S. Bolden & L. T. Fenwick (Eds), Patterns of excellence: Promoting quality in teaching through diversity (pp. 189–198). Atlanta, GA: Southern Education Fund. (ERIC Reproduction Service no. ED 463252). Fletcher, S., Strong, M., & Villar, A. (2008). An investigation of the effects of variations in mentor-based induction on the performance of students in California. Teachers College Record, 110(8). Foster, M. (1995). African American teachers and culturally relevant pedagogy. In: J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 570–581). New York, NY: Macmillan. Garcia, O., & Truber, J. (1999). Where have all the urban minority educators gone and when will they ever learn?. Educators for Urban Minorities, 1, 1–8. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gay, G., Dingus, J. E., & Jackson, C. W. (2003). The presence and performance of teachers of color in the profession. National Education Association. Retrieved September 17, 2007 from http://www.nea.org/teacherquality/images/diversityreport.pdf Griffin, C., Winn, J., Otis-Wilborn, A., & Kilgore, K. (2003). New teacher induction in special education: Review of the literature. Paper prepared for Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, University of Florida. Available at: http://www.copsse.org Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J.F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2001). Why public schools lose teachers. Working Paper no. 8599. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). The revolving door: Factors affecting teacher turnover. In: W. J. Jr., Fowler (Ed.), Developments in school finance: 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center on Educational Statistics. Harris, D., & Sass, T. R. (2007). The effects of teacher training on teacher value-added. Manuscript submitted for publication. Henke, R. R., Chen, X., & Geis, S. (2000). Progress through the teacher pipeline: 1992–1993 college graduates and elementary/secondary school teaching as of 1997 (NCES 2000-152). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Hess, F. M. (2001). Tear down the wall: The case for a radical overhaul of teacher certification. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute. Retrieved June 24, 2005 from http:// www.ppionline.org/ppi_sub.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=135 Hill, D. (1996). Taking on the test. Retrieved October 22, 2007 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ articles/1996/05/08/33cbest Hollins, E. R., & Guzman, M. T. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations. In: M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds), Studying teacher education:

120

PAUL T. SINDELAR ET AL.

The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 477–548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Howey, K. R., & Zimpher, N. L. (1986). The current debate on teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5), 41–49. Humphrey, D. C., & Wechsler, M. E. (2007, March). Insights into alternative certification: Initial findings from a national study. Teachers College Record, 109(3). Available at: http://www.tcrecord.org (ID no. 12145). Humphrey D. C., Wechsler M. E., & Bosetti, K. R. (2007). Teacher induction in Illinois and Ohio: A preliminary analysis. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved February 22, 2008 from http://policyweb.sri.com/cep/publications/publications.jsp Humphrey, D. C., Wechsler, M. E., & Hough, H. J. (2006). Characteristics of effective alternative teacher certification programs. Retrieved October 23, 2007 from the Service Research International Web site: http://www.sri.com/cep/ ideadata.org. (n.d.a). Table 3-2. Teachers employed (FTE) to provide special education and related services to students ages 6 through 21 under IDEA, Part B, by certification status and state: Fall 2005. Retrieved October 2, 2007 from http://www.ideadata.org ideadata.org. (n.d.b). Table 3-1. Teachers employed (FTE) to provide special education and related services to students ages 3 through 5 under IDEA, Part B, by certification status and state: Fall 2005. Retrieved October 11, 2007 from http:// www.ideadata.org Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499–534. Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? (Document R-03-04). Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Irvine, J. J. (1992). Making teacher education culturally responsive. In: M. Dilworth (Ed.), Diversity in Teacher Education: New Expectations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Johnson, J. L. (1969). Special education and the inner city: A challenge for the future or another means for cooling the mark out? Journal of Special Education, 3, 241–251. Kennedy, V., & Burstein, N. (2004). An induction program for special education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 444–447. King, J. E. (1991). Unfinished business: Black student alienation and Black teachers’ emancipatory pedagogy. In: M. Foster (Ed.), Readings on equal education: Vol. 11. Qualitative investigations into schools and schooling (pp. 245–271). New York, NY: AMS Press. King, S. H. (1993). The limited presence of African-American teachers. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 115–149. Laczko-Kerr, I., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). The effectiveness of ‘‘Teach for America’’ and other under-certified teachers on student academic achievement: A case of harmful public policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(37). Retrieved October 24, 2007 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n37/ Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in diverse classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 38–62. Latham, A. S., Gitomer, D., & Ziomek, R. (2002). Teaching and learning: What the tests tell us about new teachers. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

NCLB and Special Education Teacher Supply

121

McLeskey, J., Tyler, N. C., & Flippin, S. S. (2004). The supply of and demand for special education teachers: A review of research regarding the chronic shortage of special education teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 5–21. Miller, M. D., Brownell, M., & Smith, S. W. (1999). Factors that predict teachers staying in, leaving, or transferring from the special education classroom. Exceptional Children, 65, 201–218. Moirs, K., & Fisk-Natale, C. (2004). Beginning educator support and training (BEST) program portfolio performance results. Hartford, CN: Connecticut Department of Education. Nathan, M. J., & Petrosino, A. (2003). Expert blind spot among preservice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 905–928. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York, NY: Author. Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (3rd ed.). New York: Longman. NCLB, No Child Left Behind Act (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 Section 6301 et seq. Nougaret, A. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2005). Does teacher education produce better special education teachers?. Exceptional Children, 71, 217–229. Patton, J. M., Williams, B. T., Floyd, L. O., & Cobb, T. R. (2003). Recruiting and retaining culturally and linguistically diverse teachers in special education: Models for successful personnel preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 288–303. Prater, M. A. (2005). Ethnically diverse rural special educators who are highly qualified: Does NCLB make this impossible?. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24, 23–26. Quiocho, A., & Rios, F. (2000). The power of their presence: Minority group teachers and schooling. Review of Educational Research, 70, 485–528. Rosenberg, M. S., Boyer, K. L., Sindelar, P. T., & Misra, S. (2007). Alternative route programs to certification in special education: What we know about program design, instructional delivery, and participant characteristics. Exceptional Children, 73, 224–241. Rosenberg, M. S., & Sindelar, P. T. (2001). The proliferation of alternative routes to certification in special education: A critical review of the literature. Retrieved June 24, 2005 from http://www.copsse.org Rosenberg, M. S., & Sindelar, P. T. (2005). The proliferation of alternative routes to certification in special education: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 39, 117–127. Seabrooks, J. J., Kenney, S., & LaMontagne, M. (2000). Collaboration and virtual mentoring: Building relationships between preservice and inservice special education teachers. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9, 219–235. Sileo, T. W. (2000). Reform and restructuring in special education teacher preparation: Multicultural considerations and pedagogical strategies. Paper presented at the Monarch Center, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL. Retrieved September 13, 2007 from http:// www.monarchcenter.org Sindelar, P., Daunic, A., & Rennells, M. S. (2004). Comparisons of traditionally and alternatively trained teachers. Exceptionality, 12, 209–223. Sindelar, P., Fink, W., & Carlton, E. (2004b). Meeting the highly qualified teacher requirement: Alternate routes for special education teachers. Paper presented at the American Youth Policy Forum, Washington, DC.

122

PAUL T. SINDELAR ET AL.

Sindelar, P., & Rosenberg, M. (2006). Cost effectiveness of teacher preparation routes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, San Diego, CA. Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41, 681–714. Snyder, T. D. (1998). Digest of educational statistics. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Snyder, T. D. (2003). Digest of educational statistics 2002 (2003-060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Snyder, T. D., Dillow, S. A., & Hoffman, C. M. (2007). Digest of education statistics 2006 (NCES 2007-017). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Strong, M., & St. John, L. (2001). A study of teacher retention: The effects of mentoring for beginning teachers. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California. Strosnider, R., & Blanchett, W. J. (2003). A closer look at assessment and entrance requirements: Implications for recruitment and retention of African American special educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 304–314. TEA. (1995). Texas teacher retention, mobility, and attrition: Teacher supply, demand, and quality policy research project, Report no. 6. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency. Tyler, N. C., Yzquierdo, Z., Lopez-Reyna, N., & Flippin, S. S. (2004). Cultural and linguistic diversity and the special education workforce: A critical overview. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 22–38. U.S. Census Bureau. (2003, September). Florida leads growth of school-age population; Census Bureau estimates also show increase in diversity. Retrieved September 28, 2007 from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/2003_09.html U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). 2006 American Community Survey data. Retrieved September 21, 2007 from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFPeople?_submenuId=people_ 10&_sse=on U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The condition of education 2007 (NCES-2007-064). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Wald, J. L. (1996). Culturally and linguistically diverse professionals in special education: A demographic analysis. Reston, VA: National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education, Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Reproduction Service no. ED 397579). Walsh, K. (2001). Teacher certification reconsidered: Stumbling for quality. Baltimore, MD: The Abell Foundation. Retrieved June 24, 2005 from http://www.abell.org/publications/ detail.asp?ID=59 Walsh, K., & Jacobs, S. (2007, September). Alternative certification isn’t alternative. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved September 27, 2007 from http://edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/publication.cfm?id=375 Wang, J., & Odell, S. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standards-based reform: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72, 481–546. WESTAT. (2002). Table 1.4. Percent of service providers from different racial groups, by type of service provider. Retrieved July 24, 2005 from http://www.spense.org

NCLB and Special Education Teacher Supply

123

Whitaker, S. D. (2000). What do first year special education teachers need? Implications for induction programs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33, 28–36. Whitener, S. D., & Gruber, K. (1997). Characteristics of stayers, movers, and leavers: Results from the teacher follow-up survey: 1994–95. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Wong, H. (2004). Induction programs that keep new teachers teaching and improving. NASSP Bulletin, 88(638), 41–58. Woods, J. E., & Williams, R. A. (1987). Articulation with two-year colleges to create a multiethnic teaching force. Paper commissioned for the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education’s Wingspread Policy Forum. Zeichner, K., & Schulte, A. (2001). What we know and don’t know from peer-reviewed research about alternative teacher certification programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 266–282. Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2005). Teacher’s characteristics: Research on the demographic profile. In: M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 111–156). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

This page intentionally left blank

CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT INCLUSIVE CLASSROOMS THROUGH DVD-BASED LEARNING: BRIDGING THEORY AND PRACTICE Solveig-Alma Halaas Lyster and Siri Wormnæs ABSTRACT One of the challenges in educating teachers about inclusion, be it preservice or in-service, is influencing the student’s preconceptions and perspectives so that their newly acquired knowledge will guide their actions in the classroom. A DVD entitled Teachers for All, consisting of 40–50 video sequences recorded in Uganda and Kenya, each followed by discussion questions, has been produced to help meet this challenge. Lecturers at the Department of Special Needs Education at The University of Oslo, in collaboration with our partners in Uganda and Kenya, have been involved in the development of the content of the video recordings. The material has been tested at teacher education institutions in Uganda, Kenya and Norway. The topic of the material is the inclusive classroom, focusing on learners with special needs and on the teaching of reading. Video recordings of a total of 59 students’ reflections and discussions and also information from their reflective notes, were Personnel Preparation Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, Volume 21, 125–149 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0735-004X/doi:10.1016/S0735-004X(08)00005-0

125

126

SOLVEIG-ALMA HALAAS LYSTER AND SIRI WORMNÆS

transcribed and analysed. The project results show that the DVD material is promising; it is user-friendly providing students with new outlooks about teaching and learning. Results of the study indicate that video sequences have the potential to be used in training students to observe significant details for implementing inclusive education.

Quality teaching is the key to improving student learning. Most countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), as well as other countries throughout the world, work seriously to ensure quality in teacher education on all levels. The OECD (2005) report Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, however, shows that almost all countries involved in the study report concerns about qualitative shortfalls. One question that arises in many countries is whether teachers have the knowledge and skills to meet the needs of modern schooling. The report gives a series of recommendations. An important one in this case is that governments should develop teacher knowledge and skills by making teacher education more flexible and responsive to school needs, and by strengthening teachers’ professional development throughout their career. Research shows that there is a significant and positive correlation between teacher quality and pupil achievement. Teacher quality is also the most important academic factor explaining student achievement (Hanusek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2001). Even if school organization, administration and financial conditions explain some variation, teacher quality is more important in determining a child’s academic outcome. It is necessary to have both high-quality initial teacher education and a coherent process of professional continual education to keep teachers up to date with the skills necessary to meet the challenges in the heterogeneous classroom of today’s schools. Improving teacher education is currently an important priority in countries all over the world. Developing countries have, for several reasons, huge challenges in developing sustainable school systems for all children. Even if countries in the Western World provide extensive support for the school systems in these countries, many of these challenges still have to be met. In Sub-Saharan Africa, school enrolment is particularly low (Hestad & Licht, 2002). This fact has worried governments particularly in North America and Western Europe, and much financial support has been given to support children’s education. The quality of the education in these African countries, however, is not satisfactory. Since children with special needs to a

Constructing Knowledge about Inclusive Classrooms

127

much greater extent than earlier also enter the school system in developing countries, the teachers also need to develop professional knowledge about inclusive education and special needs education. The high dropout rate is one variable that indicates that school is not meeting the needs of the children and that children’s special needs are not met. The percentage of children reaching a desirable level in reading ability is very low and pupils from rural areas and disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds are particularly vulnerable [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2002]. UNESCO also states in the foreword of their 2006 Education for all Global Monitoring Report that, ‘‘the fact that some 770 million adults – about one-fifth of the world’s adult population – do not have basic literacy skills is not only morally indefensible but is also an appalling loss of human potential and economic capacity’’. The report also strongly focuses on inclusion and on the necessity of meeting the needs of all children. In many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, the school system faces challenges that in many ways threaten the future of both the country’s economic development and their people. The way out of poverty is education, but if the quality of teaching practices is poor, children coming from poverty areas will never have the chance to wave farewell to poverty. There are many multifaceted challenges facing the teacher force in the SubSaharan countries. Still, even in the Western World, and even if governments have put efforts into developing a high-quality school system with inclusion as one of the main focus, there are challenges that are yet to be fully met. Teacher education in Norway was evaluated in 2006 by the National Agency for Quality in Education. In the report, there were several issues mentioned particularly concerning the quality of the education. The report underlines that theory and practice are not satisfactory integrated in teacher education in Norway. The report clearly stresses the necessity of bridging the gap between the theories learned by students in teachers college and the classroom practice they experience during their student teaching. The report goes on to stress the need to secure a better collaboration between college educators and the schools and teachers that work with the student teachers during their student teaching periods. A study at the Department of Special Needs Education, University of Oslo, shows that persons with reading problems to a great extent feel that teachers know too little about how to support students like themselves, students with dyslexia and other kinds of learning disabilities (Lyster, 2005). The challenges met by the Norwegian school system uncovered by earlier Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) studies

128

SOLVEIG-ALMA HALAAS LYSTER AND SIRI WORMNÆS

(OECD, 2004) still exist according to the 2006 PISA study (OECD, 2006; Kjærnsli, Lie, Olsen, & Roe, 2007; Lyster, 2007). While Finnish students have among the highest scores together with Korea, for reading, and a surprisingly low variability, Norwegian students have a mean score below the OECD mean and variability far from satisfactory. This goes for reading as well as for mathematics and science. The ‘‘teacher factor’’, lack of sustained professional development and the quality of teacher education are now in the very focus of the Norwegian school debate. Several studies have focused on the impact of teacher professionality, like the one by Taylor and Pearson (2004) who reviewed research in the area of teacher professionalism. Sustained professional development was found to be one very important factor for, in this case, students’ reading achievement. Learning to teach takes more than learning about theories, subjects and methods (Opdal, Wormnæs, & Habayeb, 2001). It takes more than being guided through classroom practice. A person who has learned something has discovered a new connection, discovered how a problem or a challenge can be solved. To learn something we need experiences or to discover what is happening in certain situations or to enter into an internal dialogue. We can be supported through the zones of proximal development with support of others or use egocentric or inner speech, to use Vygotsky’s (1962) terms, to discover how ‘‘things fit together’’. Thus, by developing reflections with support from others or by our own activity, we can discover the world around us and learn from our reflections. Dewey (1933) argued that teachers’ work is complex and requires foundational reflective practice. His work has had a great impact on teacher educators. Following Dewey’s early focus on reflection, the one man who has made a remarkable contribution to our understanding of how theory can be converted into practice through processes and development of reflection is Donald Scho¨n (1983, 1987). Given the challenges met by the Norwegian as well as international teacher educators concerning bridging theory and practice in teacher education (see NOKUT, 2006), the focus of this chapter will be on strategies to deal with these challenges, such as the use of reflections. The collaboration between the Department of Special Needs Education at the University of Oslo and teacher education institutions in Uganda and Kenya has made it possible to develop material that takes into account the special challenges met by teachers in classrooms in countries South of the Sahara, but it also deals with many of the challenges met by Norwegian teachers. Many DVD materials and videos have been developed to help teachers develop their knowledge in various academic subjects. They also deal with how to handle different kinds of classroom situations. As described below,

Constructing Knowledge about Inclusive Classrooms

129

however, the development of the material, including the way it has been used, has added an approach that may give student teachers the possibility to prepare for classroom practice in an effective manner and in that way, help them bridge the gap between theory and practice.

THE NEED TO CHALLENGE STUDENTS’ PRECONCEPTIONS AND PERSPECTIVES It is not sufficient that student teachers through their teacher education acquire factual knowledge (also called propositional or formal knowledge) and practical knowledge (also called skills) (Go¨ranzon & Josefson, 1988). Student teachers may graduate with two sets of knowledge, one that they have attained from experience in their society, as pupils and citizens, without reflection and one that they have attained from their teacher education (Lortie, 1975). Although students may succeed academically, may do well when asked to reproduce what they have read in books or heard from their lecturers, their newly acquired knowledge does not necessarily influence their actions in a classroom. One explanation may be that student teachers come to pre-service training with beliefs about teaching, learning and the curriculum, as a result of their childhood experiences in school. Their ideas and beliefs may predispose them to consider classroom practice in particular ways (Calderhead & Robson, 1991). Their so-called apprenticeship of observation, which took place when they observed their earlier teachers during their own schooling, has a powerful effect on how they think about teaching (Schwille & Dembe´le´, 2007). Their views and thinking about teaching may not change during the course of the programme, in spite of the fact that they have acquired more factual and practical knowledge. As student teachers, they may, for example, be able to talk convincingly about the right to education for people with disabilities, explain the ideas and benefits of inclusive education and argue in favour of promoting phonological awareness among learners who have not mastered the skill of reading. However, when they are confronted with the complexity of the classroom, they may have difficulties in letting what they learned during their teacher education guide their actions (Roskos & Walker, 1993; Schwartz, 1996; Richardson, 1996; Tillema, 2000; Moon, 2007). Many African classrooms, for example, are especially challenging. These overcrowded classrooms may be especially challenging when children with special needs are included. Some of these challenges may place an enormous burden on

130

SOLVEIG-ALMA HALAAS LYSTER AND SIRI WORMNÆS

new teachers (Carter & Scruggs, 2001). The teachers may, for example, be hesitant to welcome pupils with learning difficulties into their school, arguing that these pupils are uneducable or in need of a special class. Studies show that teachers’ willingness to include students with particular disabilities varies (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). Student teachers, as well as teachers, may have difficulties adapting the theory they have been presented in teacher education to their classroom practice. A student teacher may have understood and appreciated for example that comprehension is an important element in learning to read, but nevertheless, may tend to reproduce their own teachers’ repeat-after-me methods in reading lessons. Instead of being able to create learning environments according to principles they seem to have acquired, they may reproduce what they have observed their own teachers doing. ‘‘Ignored or neglected, ideas instilled through the apprenticeship of observation can completely sabotage later efforts at formal teacher preparation’’ (Schwille & Dembe´le´, 2007, p. 30). This phenomenon has been described as an example of how human beings can have ‘incompatible clusters of beliefs’ that are used interchangeably, depending on context (Richardson, 1996, based on Green, 1971). The academic setting in teacher education is one context and the classroom in the primary school another. What they learned in the academic setting will be used in discussion, course work and at exams at the primary teachers’ college, in distance learning or continuing education settings. What they do in the classroom setting, however, may be guided by what they have experienced as pupils. Education reforms in many countries, based on the Dakar Framework of Action, give all children the right to education, preferably in the ordinary school system. However, persistence of ‘unexamined beliefs and assumptions about disability’, is an aspect of the implementation of inclusion that needs to be addressed (Ware, 2001) among teachers, as well as among student teachers and teacher educators. Through a comprehensive review of studies, van den Berg (2002) has shown that ‘‘teachers develop or cling to certain beliefs, attitudes, and emotions in response to policy development’’ (p. 612). These are called the individual meanings of teachers. In summary, teachers’ opinions and reactions to policies pertaining to their professional practice depend, in part, on their own personal meanings. y it is typically assumed that the professionality of teachers is largely shaped by the continual interaction between their beliefs, attitudes and emotions – on the one hand – and the social, cultural, and institutional environment in which they function – on the other hand. As a result of their interactions with the environment, teachers also construct specific meanings with regard to themselves and their profession. (p. 582)

Constructing Knowledge about Inclusive Classrooms

131

There is a need to challenge public perceptions and assumptions, to replace special education’s original core concerns that have been characterized as cure, care and remediation with concerns about empowerment, emancipation and enrichment. Examples of beliefs and perspectives of importance for inclusive education include how one thinks about disability, assumptions about how children learn to read, how one thinks about teaching, expectations about how a teacher should act in the classroom and what a school should look like.

Reflection Reflection among student teachers is a phenomenon that has been discussed as an approach in attempting to connect preconceived ideas and perspectives with theoretical coursework (Hatton & Smith, 1995). Through reflection (Scho¨n, 1983; Scho¨n, 1987) student teachers may develop language for talking and thinking about practice, ‘thus questioning the sometimes contradictory beliefs which underpin their practice’ (Wood & Bennett, 2000) or their tacit theories of the phenomena of practice. They may become aware of and reflect upon their own and others’ beliefs and perspectives. Then the academic knowledge may influence the preconceived knowledge, with new integrated knowledge as an outcome. Students who actively participate together in a situation will perhaps understand the situation differently and from these different experiences reflect and discuss and learn from each other how a situation, in the classroom for example, can be understood on a theoretical basis, from experience or other sources of explanation. Reflection-in-action involves thinking about what if one took a certain step, bringing forward accumulated earlier practice. This occurs in association with action, when the action yields unexpected consequences. Scho¨n (1987) has called it ‘‘a kind of experimenting’’ (p. 66). Reflection-on-action describes the process of thinking back on one’s own or others’ actions. A challenge is to bridge the gap between applied science and reflection-in-action, to make formal theories engage the tacit theories of practitioners and vice versa.

Multimedia Exposures Pictures have been used with success to stimulate reflection about experience with inclusive schools (Miles & Kaplan, 2005). Video-recorded sequences may assist teacher educators in presenting examples and discussion issues. Lecturers at the Department of Special Needs Education at University of

132

SOLVEIG-ALMA HALAAS LYSTER AND SIRI WORMNÆS

Oslo have long-standing experience with the use of videos for trigging discussion. The DVD material Teachers for All is based on the assumption that reflection by student teachers can be promoted by exposing them to critical questions, dilemmas, examples and events, by letting them be challenged in confrontation with others’ ideas and by helping them learn to observe the outcome of teachers’ actions in classrooms. When student teachers use the DVD material, they reflect on someone else’s actions, namely the teacher they watch in the video sequence. They also reflect on the actions of the learners they observe in the classroom, as well as on what is said by teachers and other resource persons. In the present study, reflectionon-action by student teachers was defined as their thinking about actions they observed and statements they listened to in the DVD material. Working with the DVD material was intended to be an example of scaffolded and collaborative reflection. The research question was whether this strategy was seen to be effective in producing reflection. Another critical factor towards competence in using theoretical knowledge that students may have acquired about inclusive education is the increase of awareness about the complexity of a classroom situation through paying attention to details (Eilam & Poyas, 2005; Bennett, 2002) and to understand the learners instead of having a main focus on curriculum delivery (Edwards & Protheroe, 2003). A question that has guided the present study is whether the use of the DVD material will facilitate awareness about details in the complexity in the classroom and about the importance of focusing on learners. Stoper (2007) claims that critical reflection on teaching and learning should be part of teacher education at all stages, but should mainly be promoted at the final stage in a student teacher’s development. Our project is based on the assumption that reflection in and on action should be strongly promoted throughout training, right from the very first day. Reflection and discussion issues do not require formal knowledge, but discussions and reflections may be of a higher quality when subject matter from the more theoretical parts of teacher education are included. It has been of interest to study whether the student teachers find the material to be engaging at different stages in their professional development.

Student Mobility For a long period, the Department of Special Needs Education at the University of Oslo, has educated special needs teacher from developing

Constructing Knowledge about Inclusive Classrooms

133

countries at the master’s level. These students come from a variety of countries in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, but the largest group of students throughout the years has come from countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. They get access to the department’s 2-year Masters programme if they have a bachelor degree or a similar background in pedagogy, special needs or related areas and have been teaching or in other ways been working with children/people with special needs. The courses are given in English. Their studies are financed by various Norwegian governmental sources. Students from Norway’s main collaborating countries in the South are given priority. Norwegian students who are interested in getting a more global perspective on inclusive education also join the programme. There has been an increase in the numbers of self-financing students who want to carry out parts of their studies in a foreign country. The course work for the Masters programme is carried out in Norway, while the students’ field studies are carried out in their home countries. The focus for the master thesis is on educational issues central to the student’s own preschool and school systems and on various challenges within special needs education and the inclusion of children with a variety of disabilities into the mainstream classrooms in their home country. A special challenge at the International Masters programme at Department of Special Needs Education at University of Oslo in Norway, has been to present examples that have sufficient familiarity to students from countries in the South. Supervision is given to the students by a local adviser and by a Norwegian adviser, who usually also stay with the students in their home country for a short period. This practice has led to the development of different research projects and developmental projects related to various issues within special needs education and to the challenges presented by the inclusion of children with special needs into the mainstream classroom. It has also brought about development of Teachers for All and the evaluation of its impact on student teachers’ competence. The experiences gained from the material’s pilot study have shown that research about student teachers’ professional development is of equal importance, interest and significance for the partners both in the South and in the North.

THE DVD MATERIAL TEACHERS FOR ALL The DVD material Teachers for All was developed at the Department of Special Needs Education and InterMedia at the University of Oslo, Norway, in collaboration with the Faculty of Special Needs and

134

SOLVEIG-ALMA HALAAS LYSTER AND SIRI WORMNÆS

Rehabilitation at Kyambogo University, Uganda, Nkokonjeru Primary Teachers’ College, Uganda, Bukedea Primary Teachers’ College, Uganda and the Kenya Institute of Special Needs Education, Kenya. The issues that are focused in the material are based on perspectives on learning and inclusion of disabled learners in primary school, on perspectives on what makes a good story and on what was practically possible and ethically acceptable to record on video. Key actors in Uganda (ministry officials, teacher educators, counsellors, student teachers, parents, headmasters and organizations for the disabled) were involved in the planning process. They provided input concerning issues of importance and were door openers for video recording sites. The material was intended to lead to reflection about equality and differences, about the role of school in society, about the ideological principles behind inclusive education and about links between policy and practice for inclusion. The following list gives examples of preconceptions that are addressed in the material which are relevant to inclusive education and focus on disabled learners:     

What learning is (transfer or construction) What reading is and how it is learned (language of instruction) How children learn to do maths Whether a disabled child can learn Whether disabled children should be grouped according to diagnosis and academic level  What an inclusive classroom should look like  What the role of a teacher is The success of learning material depends partly on whether the student experiences it to be user-friendly, interesting and useful and on whether it challenges the student’s preconceptions and facilitates reflection. When designing Teachers for All the intentions have been that (1) the content is as authentic as possible, (2) the material leads to reflection by students who use it, (3) the technology and material are user-friendly and (4) that Teachers for All will continue to be used after the project is completed. There are 40–50 video sequences in the material. In the majority of the sequences, learners with special needs or disabilities are included, although they are not always given primary focus. Each sequence is followed by reflection and discussion issues that are presented in text on the screen and by suggestions for reading material and by written assignments. The video sequences show classroom situations, statements by pupils and teachers and other key personnel. Discussion issues have been guided by the fact that although class sizes in Uganda and Kenya vary from school to

Constructing Knowledge about Inclusive Classrooms

135

school, many schools have large classes, sometimes more than 100 pupils gathered in a crowded classroom. In addition, access to teaching and learning material is often limited. Schools have a strong tradition of the transfer-of-learning teaching methodology rather than facilitation for construction of learning. A medical understanding of disability is still prevalent among many professionals. The majority of student teachers have probably never seen children with disabilities in regular schools. Segregated programmes and special schools for the few have influenced the experiences of many student teachers, lecturers and tutors in teacher training colleges. The intention is that Teachers for All will be used by student to discuss and reflect on their own beliefs and perspectives and on how these beliefs and perspectives relate to theories and principles that have been presented to them in their course work. The material presents student teachers with the challenges and dilemmas of creating a school for all, not examples of excellence or prescriptions concerning how to teach.

A PILOT STUDY OF THE MATERIAL IN USE The DVD material’s potential for scaffolding collaborative reflection among student teachers, and the material’s user-friendliness, were both explored in a pilot study. The study was carried out using students in Norway, Uganda and Kenya. There are further plans for a large-scale study using the DVD material. Therefore, this first approach is looked upon as a pilot study. Since the pilot study has resulted in some changes in the design and content of the DVD material, this is another reason to consider this to be a pilot study. However, the procedure, data collection and analysis appear to have given us a valid insight into how the DVD material can be used to facilitate discussion and, in doing so, reflection among student teachers.

Participants The participants were comprised of 13 groups of students, studying at 5 different sites. In Norway, there were five groups of international Master’s students, consisting of students from various countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, in South-East Asia and in Eastern Europe. In Uganda, there were four groups, with two groups each at two different primary teachers’ colleges in the country. Finally, there were two groups of students in a

136

SOLVEIG-ALMA HALAAS LYSTER AND SIRI WORMNÆS

Bachelor’s programme in Uganda and two groups of students in a distanceeducation programme in Kenya. There were four to six students in each group. Altogether, there were 59 participants.

Procedures In the pilot study, a small sample of sequences from the DVD material was used. The students used a small, portable, battery-operated DVD player,1 after receiving 5–10 min of instructions about its use. The material was stored on a DVD disc. The issues in focus were aspects of inclusive education, as well as teaching methods. Some sequences showed reading classes, which included a girl with Down syndrome. Some sequences showed math lessons and some sequences showed inclusion of blind students in regular schools. Each group worked with the DVD material for two sessions, each session lasting about 45 min. In 5 of the 13 groups, one at each site, a lecturer or tutor facilitated the session. The facilitators encouraged discussions, reflection and problem solving and tried to provoke participants to reflect on a variety of points of view. The facilitators did not present additional information or give their own opinions. In the remaining groups, one of the students was instructed to read aloud the reflection and discussion issues, to try to make sure that every student contributed and to ask the group to come up with alternative views. Methods of Data Collection The group discussions were video recorded. The recorded material makes up the main part of data. After each session the students wrote brief notes about what they felt they had learned from the session, what they had liked, found confusing or unclear, had not liked, disagreed about and would have liked to learn more about in the session. The collected data includes reflective notes from the 59 students who worked with the reading sequences.

Analysis The video recordings of the group discussion were transcribed verbatim in computer programme Transana, and the text documents were then imported into QSR NUDIST 6 (N6) (Richards, 2002). The criteria for

Constructing Knowledge about Inclusive Classrooms

137

reflection during the discussions were (1) a participant’s recognition of the fact that multiple viewpoints existed among the participants in the group, and (2) recognition of one’s own viewpoints and whether they diverted from those presented in the DVD material or from those of fellow students. Main categories and subcategories were developed throughout the coding of all the documents. A discourse analysis of the student discussions, based on their work with sequences about inclusion of blind learners, was done by a Master’s student (Randem, 2007). The results are included in the following presentation and discussion. The handwritten reflective notes from the 59 students were typed using MS Word. These Word documents were imported into QSR NUDIST 6 (N6) software for qualitative data analysis. A content analysis of the students’ notes identified what caught their attention and raised their concern.

RESULTS The material engaged the students and contributed to discussions. The following findings describe an analysis of their reflective notes and of their group discussions. The headings used represent the main findings regarding student activities during the sessions.

Discussed and Challenged Each Other An example from a session where six students worked on a sequence from a classroom with a learner with an intellectual disability illustrates how the material elicited reflection and discussion. One of the learners in the video sequence is a girl who is taller than the others. She has Down syndrome. She sits in the middle of the classroom. When the teachers asks her a question, she hides her face in her hands. The discussion issue concerned whether all pupils with disabilities can be included. Mark: Can any child be placed in a regular classroom? Peter: Maybe not. Linda: Me too I don’t believe, any.

138

SOLVEIG-ALMA HALAAS LYSTER AND SIRI WORMNÆS

Mark: Why? Linda: Because I, they have children who are may be severely damaged. It is not easy for them, let’s talk about somebody who is bed ridden. Who cannot even talk, who cannot even walk. Can that person be taken to a regular school? Mark: But if I can’t walk, but I can come to class in a wheelchair, what’s wrong with that? Peter: When it is extreme mental retardation for instance, they’re like a person who is like a child. So he can’t walk. You have to help him in every way. How can you put him in a regular classroom? Jack: That is another question of varying activities, and methodologies come in. You can place them, although not in all classroom activities. Like you heard the teacher explaining that for some lessons you bring these children, and then you pull them out to give them special techniques. So I think the answer is yes, to some extent. Simon: To some extent yes, but I would be very much reluctant to even put it that way because; yes, mostly children can benefit from the regular class instructions. But sometimes it must also depend on what is our objective for the classroom instruction. So I would say yes, depending on the objectives and the nature of the disabilities of the child. Peter: I think it is the severity of the disability. Simon: Yeah. Peter: If it is moderate and if they can attend the classroom with some help that’s ok. But if they are severely disabled then I don’t think it will have a meaning. Linda: Yeah. Simon: Well, mine is a bit different. It depends on the objectives as well. The objectives that we have said for instance remember last time (the name of a lecturer) told us that in Norway every child will have their own teaching plans. With such a variety of teaching plans, yes we can put some in and we can have special objectives for these children themselves. But if we have a general objective for the whole class, then maybe a bit reluctant.

Later in the discussion in the same session, Mark returned to Linda’s point of view. He addressed himself directly to Linda. Mark: Do you now agree that a child who cannot move can be in a regular school? Linda: Yes. I still maintain that, yes, they can be put, but to a certain extenty.

It seems as if Linda is in the process of reconsidering her former position, in other words there is a certain development in her outlook, an indication that she is opening up her mind. The discussion was not merely linked

Constructing Knowledge about Inclusive Classrooms

139

directly to what they had seen, but was about more general aspects of the phenomenon inclusion. Another example is from a group that explored dilemmas linked to a sequence about the seating arrangement in a classroom. They refrained from exclusively expressing their own points of view. They allowed themselves to try out contrasting points of view. Carol: She [the girl with an intellectual disability, who is taller than the other pupils in the class] should have been in front. But in the front she would prevent the others from seeing.

Thus, the students show involvement and activity that led to reflectiveness about not only the teaching and the learners, but also about other elements important to consider in an inclusive classroom.

Exposed Their Own and Accepted Others’ Views The material engaged the students and contributed to uncovering their preconceptions, as can be seen in their reflective notes about what they did not like, what they disagreed about and what they found confusing while working with the material. These comments indicate that the students who used the material were not indifferent to issues focused upon in the material. Examples of what some did not like included ‘‘the way the teacher gave feedback to a learner who had given a wrong answer’’, that ‘‘the lesson assumed that all the children could learn at the same level’’, that there was ‘‘too much appraisal [sic] accorded the girl with special needs in the video which I felt was cosmetic – not realistic’’, and that the teacher asked questions ‘‘without mentioning names for alertness’’. Examples of what some disagreed about included: ‘‘The girl with a disability was not given the chance to socialize with her classmates’’, and ‘‘a teacher cannot meet the interest of each child in an inclusive class within a lesson’’. Examples of what some had found confusing about differentiation and inclusion included: whether ‘the learner with special needs actually has learnt something important in this lesson’ and confusion concerning ‘‘when to pull out children for remedial classes, without missing out on regular class learning’’. There were examples of discussions that closed with an acceptance that the group had not reached consensus. Some of the non-agreements about inclusive education included whether they considered inclusive education to be an ideal, whether they viewed inclusive education as realistic or unrealistic in practice and what it means to compete favourably.

140

SOLVEIG-ALMA HALAAS LYSTER AND SIRI WORMNÆS

Expanded on Issues While the students started by discussing issues that were presented in the material, there were also examples of issues that emerged in the course of their discussions. This is illustrated by the following example: After finishing discussions based on questions presented on the screen, a group continued to discuss different interpretations of the concepts of integration and inclusion. Edward: In my country, there are only special schools with blind people. George: Because today they want, actually they, they said, that, the law y I mean, it’s not just the law. It isn’t a law as such. But it’s like they want it to be called inclusion. And yet, actually if, I mean, if I know the school, I know that the children operate from the special class. And sometimes they get integrated. Now they do not want it to be called integration, they call it inclusion, but actually it is integration.

The fact that they sometimes continued the discussion after having exhausted the issues they were asked to discuss, shows that the material was engaging and encouraged reflection. Examples of what they said include: ‘‘yI think we have more we would like to say about what we have seen’’ and ‘‘we have something to share’’. One of the student teachers expressed a hope about change in his own country, where he had never experienced a blind learner being enrolled in a regular school and participating in an ordinary classroom. This may indicate that this student teacher’s perspectives have expanded while, at the same time, his consciousness about limitations in practice in his own country has been raised. In this example, the student first expressed how impressed he was to see that every blind child had a seeing child who assisted in mobility and in classroom work. Then he continued y and I think it also helps the children with the disabilities, and it also helps those ordinary child, they can feel something different and then to love people and some thing. It’s really good. I hope in my country, we will have this kind of try. One day.

Took Different Actors’ Perspectives Sometimes the students tried to take the teacher’s perspective, but also of the parents and pupils. The following example is taken from a discussion after they had watched a video sequence where the girl with intellectual

Constructing Knowledge about Inclusive Classrooms

141

disability did not answer when the teacher addressed her. Instead she hid her face. The discussion question was why she did this. Paul: I think Anna is shy. She is not sure of the correct answer. And she is not sure of the other learners’ reaction and the teacher’s reaction. Mary: (y) y that she is not confident of whatever response she might give. If it is not the correct answer she y But if it is the correct answer the teacher made the class clap for her. She anticipated that it was wrong [points at herself]. I think that is why she was shy.

In their reflective notes several of the students referred to what they had observed the learners doing. Children’s interaction, such as how peers supported each other, the children’s liking each other and the children’s participation in classroom activities were mentioned. There were also comments about teacher activities. Some students mentioned that they liked seeing how teachers started a lesson. Other comments referred to the teachers’ interaction with their pupils. They liked seeing how teachers gave feedback and reinforcement, how they adapted their teaching to differences among pupils and how they created an inclusive classroom. These comments referred to interaction rather than curriculum delivery. Reflected upon Consequences of the Principle of Inclusion Some discussions concerned ideology as well as practice. The students referred to documents, for example to the Salamanca Framework of Action. This is illustrated by the following example from a group discussion: y also inclusion, inclusion is the main target for the Salamanca Framework, you see. The blind, the visually-impaired students, and the regular students, or sighted students should be participating. Any handicapped should not be segregated, it should be included in the class settings and the curriculum, everything should be included. These visually-impaired, any handicapped students. That is the main area of this Salamanca Framework.

These student teachers had in their home country been lecturers or tutors, and had given lessons about inclusion – mainly based on ideology and theory. They wrote in their reflective notes that it was useful to capture in video stories that show in practice what inclusion may mean in a classroom. Some discussions concerned details that had been observed in the video sequences, such as where equipment for blind learners can be placed in a regular classroom with many learners and limited space, as they had seen in the video sequence.

142

SOLVEIG-ALMA HALAAS LYSTER AND SIRI WORMNÆS

Some wondered about how much attention should be given to one learner with an intellectual disability in a class. ‘‘Teacher give over attention to Anna and that alone is clearly meaning that Anna is not like anybody else, so it cannot be genuine inclusion’’. They raised the issue about what is adequate and what is too much praise, plus how much attention should be given to the learner. Some typical examples from their reflective notes about this issue are: There was ‘‘too much appraisal [sic] accorded the girl with special needs in the video, which I felt was cosmetic – not realistic’’. Another student teacher called this ‘‘y overemphasis laid on a particular learner’’. One student wrote: ‘‘Applause can be a good method to a child with special needs but if not carefully, use can be disastrous to learning’’. One student did not like that the teacher was ‘‘drawing strong attention of other learners to the pupil and the teacher’s comment ‘now Anna can read’’’. The student had observed that the learner with Down syndrome did not master reading. Another student also expressed that he did not like ‘‘The teacher’s over-emphasis on Anna all the time. Other children too need opportunities to respond to class questions’’. One student linked this to the principle of inclusion. They had observed that inclusion is about the whole class, not mainly about one learner with a disability. They had seen practical examples of implementing inclusion and challenges that teachers meet in relation to inclusion. Examples included: ‘‘What I have learned is that as a teacher you always need to cater for individual differences, not to ignore other pupils like those who need special attention’’; and that teachers should place ‘‘emphasis on ability to enforce learning in an inclusive setting’’. There were notes about how to cater for individual differences or ‘‘those who are not so clever’’, as one phrased it, such as not to ‘‘show the rest of the learners that there is weakness in the pupils who seem to be disabled’’. Other comments were that ‘‘even children with special needs can study if encouraged and given the motivation they deserve’’, ‘‘children with learning difficulties can learn together with other children in the inclusive setting’’, and ‘‘some children can be integrated in the ordinary schools’’.

Used Everyday Language In their reflective notes, the students used the terms ‘‘to cater for’’, ‘‘to handle’’ and ‘‘to care for’’ pupils. These terms are part of everyday talk. This indicates that the students’ reflections were based on their everyday understanding. They did not attempt to reproduce academic terms. Because

Constructing Knowledge about Inclusive Classrooms

143

the terms they used were distributed across the colleges, they did not reflect words typical of a specific learning environment or site. The terms they used about learners were also to a great extent ordinary terms. Three students used the terms ‘‘disabled children’’ or ‘‘pupils with various disabilities’’. One distinguished between ‘‘normal ones and those with disabilities’’. One used the phrase ‘‘to have a problem in reading’’, and one ‘‘those that have problems’’. One student mentioned that she liked how the teacher was trying to cater for ‘‘all the children’’. In their discussions the students often gave examples from their own experience. They seldom used academic terminology and hardly made reference to lectures and textbooks.

Experienced the DVD Material as User-Friendly All the groups managed to use the equipment after a few minutes of instruction. Nevertheless, the design of material required a work format that was unfamiliar to many of the students. They expected that information would be presented first, through the video, either as text or lectures. Then, they expected to be asked to discuss an issue or answer a question based on the information that had been presented. In Teachers for All questions were sometimes presented first, and then followed by an issue that was illustrated by a video sequence in the material. Although some students reported that this sequence of events could be confusing, it appeared to contribute to activity in the student groups, and make them expose their preconceptions. The design was chosen deliberately as a method to elicit the students’ everyday concepts, beliefs and understandings, and then challenge them through examples that might be surprising or through text that might create new perspectives. Likewise, one student commented that it was unsatisfactory that sometimes a sequence stopped in the middle of a school lesson without allowing the students to watch the complete lesson or get an explanation about what happened later. This open-ended approach was designed to lead to reflection. The student with educational backgrounds in the South were more used to being presented for model examples or instructions. Although the DVD material had an unfamiliar format, this did not seem to inhibit, but rather to facilitate reflection and discussion. The students were more active in exploring an issue when they worked without the presence of a tutor or facilitator. In their reflective notes, they also expressed that they liked to work independently in groups, because then

144

SOLVEIG-ALMA HALAAS LYSTER AND SIRI WORMNÆS

they could decide the pace. There were no examples of high-status students dominating and overriding other students’ opinions in order to reach consensus.

Engagement and Involvement Observations were made concerning engagement and involvement. The students’ reflective notes were used to confirm observation. Examples from their notes include: ‘It keeps the learners’ interest on track and makes lessons more practical’ and ‘It portrays real-life situations’. One student commented on the advantage that a video sequence can be repeated and observed again. The interest of one student teacher about a certain issue often spread to others, and contributed to increased activity in the groups. The students appreciated that the DVD material gave them a chance to observe other teachers’ work. Some had never before seen teachers in their home countries include learners with disabilities in schools and classrooms. The video material ‘‘y portrays real-life situations’’, wrote one student. They liked to share views with fellow students from different backgrounds. Some appreciated being confronted with open discussions and broad questions without an answer key, while others would have preferred more closed questions about more specifically defined issues. Some students commented about group work more than about the material itself. Examples of this type of comment included that it contributed to ‘‘freedom of speech’’. It ‘‘enhances participation’’ and leads to ‘‘equal participation’’ in the group. There were comments that they ‘‘learned from each other’’ and group work ‘‘trains leadership’’. The reactions of the students in Uganda and Kenya were most probably also influenced by the novelty of the material and the DVD devices and by the attention they received from researchers and from foreigners. For this reason, the engagement demonstrated by the students may not necessarily continue if the material is used on a daily basis. However, the experience with the material is, so far, promising.

DISCUSSION Reflection may serve several purposes. In the evaluation reported in the previous section the focus has been on whether DVD material with video sequences and discussion issues appears to have a potential for facilitating

Constructing Knowledge about Inclusive Classrooms

145

teachers’ development of their own theories of educational practice and understanding. Did the material appear to contribute to an openness to novel ways of perceiving teaching and schooling, an ability that is important, according to Beyer (2001), if teacher education is to assist in improving the quality of teaching? Did it appear to challenge the student teachers’ preconceptions and facilitate their reflection? We did see a potential for reflection-on-action. Critical reflection on moral, political, social and economic dimensions of education was hardly evident. However, there was one example of critical reflection. One student reflected upon the situation of blind learners in his own country. By letting student teachers work with other sequences in the material, an evaluation of the potential for critical reflection could be a possible objective. Magajna (2007) studied student teachers’ reflection on teaching experience and found that their ability to reflect on teaching practice did not improve during their study. So, their teaching practice had not allowed for effective learning by experience. Other researchers have claimed that reflection appears to be a developmental process (Calderhead & Gates, 1993). Giving student teachers the opportunity to practice is meant to help prospective teachers make sense of what they have learned from lectures and studying and to influence their personal theories about schooling and learning. However, teaching practice experience does not necessarily lead to reflection in or about action. Opening up for reflection may be inhibited by such factors as a wish to please the mentor or classroom teacher, by trying to follow a predefined lesson plan or by an overwhelming feeling of struggling to cope with the complexity in a classroom, not to mention by the fact that one’s performance in the classroom may be subject to assessment. As an activity, working with Teachers for All can be categorized as something between academic study and authentic teaching practice. A shortcoming in teacher education has been that students have learned to deliver the curriculum. They have not learned to observe or interpret the classroom, reflect upon contesting interpretations of it and act on this and their repertoire of techniques and approaches (Edwards & Protheroe, 2003). As reported previously, most of the comments by the student teachers were about the learners, not about teachers, lessons plans or curriculum. The material inspired the students to try to assume other actors’ perspectives. Angelides, Stylianou, and Gibbs (2006) have found that when teachers have problems in making inclusion a reality in school, it is often because they have not managed to identify and pay attention to details. They claim

146

SOLVEIG-ALMA HALAAS LYSTER AND SIRI WORMNÆS

that teacher education should contribute to developing skills in this area. Video sequences appear to have a potential to contribute to train the students to observe significant details. One advantage is the possibility of watching sequences several times. There were examples of how the student teachers observed several detailed conditions and activities regarding classrooms and learner participation. The results of the pilot study indicate that video sequences have a potential to assist in training students to observe details of significance for implementing inclusive education. One of the advantages in the DVD material appears to be that the ideal can be related to concrete examples using relatively authentic classroom situations. Other studies have shown that teachers may express their support for inclusion as an ideal while at the same time expressing relatively limited beliefs in the possibility of implementing that ideal (Croll & Moses, 2000). In the study reported, some students reflected upon the consequences of the principles of inclusion. The discussions were not merely linked directly to what the student teachers had seen on the screen, but were often about more general aspects of a phenomenon, such as inclusion. With reference to a classification by Valli (1993), the evaluation study that has been described can be partly characterized as having a sociological perspective, that is what students were concerned about and what type of school or classroom problems mattered to them. It also has aspects of a psychological perspective, such as concerning the nature, complexity and sophistication of their reflections. As previously reported, the students did not frequently use academic terminology or make reference to lectures and texts. This finding has had consequences for a revision of some of the written assignments in the material. Assignments should aim at stimulating the students more often to relate what they see on the screen to concepts, models and documented experience that are presented in lectures, textbooks or articles. The success of learning material depends partly on user-friendliness, interest and usefulness to the students. The interest accorded by the students to Teachers for All is promising, but the fact that this was part of a project and was a change from usual routines may have been a contributing factor. The human resources needed for implementing the use of the DVD material by the students are not substantial, since the students liked to work independently and were more active in exploring an issue when they worked without the presence of a tutor or lecturer. There were no examples of highstatus students dominating and overriding other students’ opinions in order to reach consensus, as opposed to what Ochoa and Robinson (2005) found in their study.

Constructing Knowledge about Inclusive Classrooms

147

NOTE 1. An Internet-based version of the material, with links to more resources, is under development. There is also work going on to give Teachers for All a universal design, including subtitles, a sign-language version and an audio version.

REFERENCES Angelides, P., Stylianou, T., & Gibbs, P. (2006). Preparing teachers for inclusive education in Cyprus. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 513–522. Bennett, S. J. (2002). Learning about design in context: An investigation of learners’ interpretations and use of real-life cases within a constructivist learning environment created to support authentic design activities. Doctoral dissertation, University of Wollongong, Australia. Beyer, L. E. (2001). The value of critical perspectives in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 151–163. Calderhead, J., & Gates, P. (1993). Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development. London: Falmer Press. Calderhead, J., & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching; Student teachers’ early conceptions of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 1–8. Carter, K. B., & Scruggs, T. E. (2001). Thirty-one students: Reflections of a first year teacher of students with mental retardation. Journal of Special Education, 35, 1000–1004. Croll, P., & Moses, D. (2000). Ideologies and utopias: Education professionals’ views on inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1, 1–12. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath. Edwards, A., & Protheroe, L. (2003). Learning to see in classrooms: What are student teachers learning about teaching and learning while learning to teach in schools? British Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 227–242. Eilam, B., & Poyas, Y. (2005). Promoting awareness of the characteristics of classrooms’ complexity: A course curriculum in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 337–351. Go¨ranzon, B., & Josefson, I. (Eds). (1988). Knowledge, skill and artificial intelligence. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Hanusek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2001). Why public schools lose teachers. Working paper 8599. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 33–49. Hestad, I., & Licht, M. F. (2002). Lessons. Basic education in rural Africa. Oslo: Save the Children. Kjærnsli, M., Lie, S., Olsen, R. V., & Roe, A. (2007). Tid for tunge løfte [Time for heavy lifting]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget [University Press]. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lyster, S. A. H. (2005). Language, reading, and self-esteem. In: B. Johnsen (Ed.), Socioemotional growth and development of learning strategies. Oslo: Unipub Publishers.

148

SOLVEIG-ALMA HALAAS LYSTER AND SIRI WORMNÆS

Lyster, S. A. H. (2007). Reading development and reading disabilities: Focus on Norway. In: T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Vol. 20, International perspectives (pp. 21–55). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Magajna, Z. (2007). Prospective mathematics teachers reflecting teaching practice. In: N. Popov, C. Wolhuter, B. Leutwyler, M. Kysilka & M. C`ernetic´ (Eds), Comparative education, teacher training and new education agenda (pp. 95–100). Sophia, Bulgaria: Bureau for Educational Services & Bulgarian Comparative Education Society. Miles, S., & Kaplan, I. (2005). Using images to promote reflection: An action research study in Zambia and Tanzania. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 2, 77–83. Moon, B. (2007). Research analysis: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers: A global overview of current policies and practices. Paris: UNESCO. Nasjonalt organ for kvalitet I utdanningen (NOKUT) [National Agency for Quality in Education]. (2006). Evaluering av allmennlærerutdanningen I Norge 2006 [Evaluation of teacher education in Norway 2006]. Oslo: NOKUT. Ochoa, T. A., & Robinson, J. M. (2005). Revisiting group consensus: Collaborative learning dynamics during a problem-based learning activity in education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 1, 10–20. OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world – first measures of cross curricular competencies from PISA 2003. Paris: Author. OECD. (2005). Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers – final report: Teachers matter. Paris: Author. OECD. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: Author. Opdal, L. R., Wormnæs, S., & Habayeb, A. (2001). Teachers’ opinions about inclusion: A pilot study in a Palestinian context. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 48, 143–162. Randem, G. S. (2007). ‘I liked the idea of including’. Master’s thesis, University of Oslo, Department of Special Needs Education. Richards, L. (2002). Using N6 in qualitative research. Melbourne: QRS International Pty. Ltd. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In: J. P. Sikula, T. J. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds), Handbook of research on teacher education: A project of the Association of Teacher Educators (2nd ed., pp. 102–119). New York: Macmillan. Roskos, K., & Walker, B. (1993). An analysis of preservice teachers’ pedagogical concepts in the teaching of problem readers. Forty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 418–428). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference. Schwartz, H. (1996). The changing nature of teacher education. In: J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds), Handbook of research on teacher education: A project of the Association of Teacher Educators (2nd ed., pp. 3–13). New York: Macmillan. Scho¨n, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Scho¨n, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schwille, J., & Dembe´le´, M. (2007). Global perspectives on teacher learning: Improving policy and practice. Paris: UNESCO. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59–74.

Constructing Knowledge about Inclusive Classrooms

149

Stoper, M. L. (2007). Student–teacher teaching practice: Theoretical model and elements of its implementation. In: N. Popov, C. Wolhuter, B. Leutwyler, M. Kysilka & M. C`ernetic´ (Eds), Comparative education, teacher training and new education agenda (pp. 87–94). Sophia, Bulgaria: Bureau for Educational Services & Bulgarian Comparative Education Society. Taylor, B. M., & Pearson, P. D. (2004). Research on learning to read – at school, at home, and in the community. Elementary School Journal, 105(2), 167–181. Tillema, H. H. (2000). Belief changes towards self-directed learning in student teachers: Immersion in practice or reflection on action. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 575–591. UNESCO. (2002). Education for all. Is the world on track? Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Valli, L. R. (1993). Reflective teacher education programs: An analysis of case studies. In: J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher education (pp. 11–22). London: Falmer. van den Berg, R. (2002). Teachers’ meanings regarding educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 72, 577–625. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ware, L. (2001). Writing, identity, and the other. Dare we do disability studies? Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 107–123. Wood, E., & Bennett, N. (2000). Changing theories, changing practice: Exploring early childhood teachers’ professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 635–647.

This page intentionally left blank

THE USE OF COHORT PROGRAMS IN PERSONNEL PREPARATION: BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES Margo A. Mastropieri, Nancy Morrison, Thomas E. Scruggs, Bob Bowdey and Terry Werner ABSTRACT This chapter reviews findings from the literature on the use of cohort programs in personnel preparation programs. Twenty-four investigations examining cohorts in higher education were identified: fourteen studies examined elementary, middle, or secondary education programs; seven studies described special education programs; and three described educational leadership cohort programs. Findings support the use of cohorts across special education, general education, and educational leadership personnel preparation programs. Reported positive benefits included social-emotional support, improved collaboration, communication, academic support, and reduced attrition. However, several studies also revealed unintended negative consequences. Such unintended consequences included negative interpersonal conflicts, development of cliques, and conflicts between students and faculty. Findings are discussed for future research and practice.

Personnel Preparation Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, Volume 21, 151–179 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0735-004X/doi:10.1016/S0735-004X(08)00006-2

151

152

MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

In teacher education programs in many school public school systems across the United States, special education has been designated as a ‘‘critical needs’’ area because it is often difficult for school systems to find enough qualified teachers (Edgar & Pair, 2005; USDOE, 2006). Additionally, special education teacher attrition has been a concern for more than 15 years (Edgar & Pair, 2005). Compounding this problem are the combined mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (USDOE, 2004) and the No Child Left Behind Act (USDOE, 2002). Both of these pieces of legislation require that all students, including students with disabilities, are taught by highly qualified teachers. Even as the availability of special education teachers is an issue for school systems, the role of the special education teacher continues to change and expand as more students with disabilities are taught in general education settings (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Fisher, Frey, & Thousand, 2003). The required expertise for new special education teachers is found in standards developed by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) and the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Special Education Subcommittee (CEC, 2003; INTASC, 2001), which reflect the demands for skills in collaboration, communication, and knowledge of student diversity. Therefore, at a time when insufficient numbers of qualified special education teachers exist to fill vacancies around the United States, the demands on special educators are increasing. It is important that teacher education programs keep pace with the changing roles of special education teachers (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Fisher et al., 2003; Howey & Zimpher, 1999) while increasing the number of qualified personnel to teach the nation’s special education students. In response to the problem, universities and school systems are developing innovative ways to increase the supply of highly qualified special education teachers. In the May 17, 2007 hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor on ‘‘Preparing Teachers for the Classroom,’’ Feistritzer (2007) testified that alternative approaches to preparing teachers are being used in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and many states report that they are using these alternative approaches (also known as alternate routes) to meet the highly qualified teacher requirements found in NCLB. The alternative routes for teacher preparation are created to fill demands for teachers in specific geographic settings or specific subject areas, such as special education, and are designed to recruit individuals who otherwise might not have become teachers. In a research preview from the Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, Connelly, Sindelar, and Rosenberg (2005) reported that approximately

Cohort Programs

153

25,000 special education teachers are prepared annually by alternative programs and the number is increasing. An important question, then, is whether an alternate route to teacher preparation can be effective in increasing the supply of special education teachers who are well prepared to meet the demands of their jobs and who will also remain in the profession. One alternate route that could meet these challenges is the use of cohorts for teacher preparation. The third Holmes Group Report, Tomorrow’s Schools of Education (The Holmes Group, 1995) recommended that teacher education programs ‘‘organize its students into what we call ‘cohorts,’ the members of each cohort journeying together along a common path of professional learning and socialization that leads to lifelong personal and professional growth and development’’ (p. 50). The Holmes Group’s concept of cohorts was to provide a learning community and mutually supporting network to reduce students’ isolation during their teacher education programs. However, considerable variation exists in the conceptualization and design of cohorts across and within different program areas.

Cohort Programs The cohort model has students who take classes together and participate in formal and informal activities as a group. Cohort programs are organized in a number of ways, but have several common characteristics. Students in cohorts enroll in classes as a group. The number of classes counting as cohort classes varies, but has been reported to range from a few classes (e.g., three core classes), to one year of classes, to entire licensure or degree programs (Mastropieri et al., 2007). Cohorts models can range from closed, in which noncohort students are never admitted into cohort classes, semiclosed, in which exceptions are sometimes made for student enrollment into cohort classes, to more open enrollment, in which students can move more freely within cohorts or to noncohort classes within programs (Maher, 2005). Size of cohorts can also vary from a small number of students to a large number, with reports ranging from 10 to 25, although some research reports cohorts that have included as many as 60 students (Dinsmore & Wenger, 2006; Beck & Kosnik, 2001). Although large cohorts exist, some researchers recommend maintaining a small group cohort size or caution loss of program goals (Clarke, Erickson, Collins, & Phelan, 2005).

154

MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

The assignment of faculty to cohorts is different among cohort programs. In some cohorts, the number of faculty is restricted such that cohort faculty have the sole instructional responsibility for students enrolled in specific cohorts. In other words, students in a cohort enroll in classes taught only by a small number of clearly identified cohort faculty. In other cohort programs, however, faculty assignments are more interchangeable between cohort and noncohort programs. For example, some faculty may teach a single class in a cohort while teaching classes in noncohort programs simultaneously. In this type of cohort program, students may be exposed to a larger number of faculty during their cohort programs, while in the former approach, students may have exposure to a smaller number of faculty throughout the cohort. Finally, program content and emphasis area of cohort programs have varied considerably. For example, cohorts have been designed and implemented across many different personnel preparation programs, including elementary (Connor & Killmer, 2001), secondary (Bullough, 2001), and special education (Esposito & Lal, 2005) programs, and educational leadership programs (Barnett et al., 2000). Given such program differences exist and that cohort programs have become an established part of many personnel preparation programs, it is important to synthesize the research associated with cohort programs. This chapter reviews research literature on cohort programs used in personnel preparation programs and identifies both benefits and challenges that have been described in the literature.

Literature Search Procedures Studies related to teacher preparation cohort programs were located by a detailed search of computerized databases including ERIC, PsychINFO, InfoTrac, and Education Full Text from 1980 to 2007, using the following descriptors: teacher education, preservice teachers, preservice teacher education, teacher education programs, special education teachers, teacher cohorts, learning communities, cooperative learning, support groups, alternative teacher certification, and preservice cohorts. In addition, a search was conducted with the same descriptors in all online issues of the following teacher education journals: Journal of Teacher Education, Teacher Education and Special Education, Teaching and Teacher Education, Action in Teacher Education, Studying Teacher Education, and Teacher Education Quarterly. The following journals related to special

Cohort Programs

155

education were also searched through online databases: Exceptional Children, Remedial and Special Education, and Journal of Special Education. General education journals including Peabody Journal of Education, Harvard Education Review, and American Educational Research Journal were also searched through online databases. Ancestry searches of references in relevant articles were also conducted. Criteria for Study Inclusion Only quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods research designs were included. For example, articles were excluded when no clear research design existed (Barnett & Caffarella, 1992), even though cohort programs were described. All studies included in this review examined personnel preparation programs in which the participants were organized into cohorts for part or all of their program and included data sources or dependent measures examining the cohort or cohort effects. Finally, undergraduate or graduate level programs were included that represented various types of preparation programs including educational leadership, general education at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels, and special education.

OVERALL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DATA SET The final sample consisted of 24 studies of which 15 were qualitative research, and 9 were quantitative research including four mixed methods research designs. Mixed methods studies were typically survey research with follow-up qualitative interviews or focus groups. Quantitative studies consisted primarily of survey research designs. Three studies compared perceived performance and competence of students enrolled in cohort programs with students enrolled in more traditional programs (Connor & Killmer, 2001). Data sources included interviews, focus group interviews, surveys, observational data, and artifacts such as reflections and meeting notes. Overall, the total sample included 1,664 participants across all studies. The total sample size for the qualitative studies was 830, with a range from 3 to 239 (M ¼ 59) per study. The total sample size for the quantitative studies was 834, with a range from 23 to 383 (M ¼ 93) per study. The majority of the studies (n ¼ 14) examined elementary, middle, or secondary programs. Seven studies described special education or combined special and general education cohort programs and three studies reported on educational leadership cohort programs. Tables 1–3 list the major study characteristics

Qualitative

Qualitative

Qualitative

Brownell et al. (2004)

Bullough (2001)

Methods

3 beginning elementary teachers in teacher learning cohort 20 secondary teacher education cohort students

4 elementary education cohorts over 4 years; no. of respondents varied from 21 to 51

Numbers of Participants

Results: Benefits and Challenges

Benefits: Personal and academic growth, importance of small cohort, development of sense of community, increased student participation, increased risk taking, inclusiveness, positive group identity Formal and informal Benefits: Provided observations, psychological and interviews, meeting data instructional support Observations, surveys, Benefits: Students reported sociogram, group positive academic and interview, individual social emotional benefits, interviews, cohort reported being well lifeline prepared for student teaching Challenges: Increased efforts on exploring tensions between teacher beliefs and institutional demands

Questionnaires, interviews, letters, and observations

Outcome Measures

Elementary, Middle, and Secondary Personnel Preparation Studies.

Beck and Kosnik (2001)

Authors

Table 1.

156 MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

Qualitative

Quantitative

Qualitative

Clarke et al. (2005)

Connor and Killmer (2001)

Dinsmore and Wenger (2006)

12 elementary cohort students

30 elementary and secondary cohort students compared with students in traditional programs

Elementary teacher education cohorts over 8 years (exact sample size unclear)

Video interviews, group and individual; weekly email responses; 4 surveys; reflection statements; notes; observations

Surveys

Discussions among the staff

Benefits: Improved student engagement, learning, and collaboration Challenges: Size of group important, cannot be too large Benefits: Increased confidence as educators due to higher quality cohort program; higher perceived effectiveness by university supervisors and cooperation Benefits: Improved experiences from extensive field experiences, strong collaborative relationships with cooperative teachers, strong community and peer support for academics and social needs, strong faculty relationships with some faculty Challenges: Lack of community support by some cohort members, lack of communication with some faculty

Cohort Programs 157

Qualitative

Qualitative

Maher (2005)

Methods

Graber (1996)

Authors

13 students in 10-month cohort teacher preparation

6 students in physical education cohort program, 12 faculty members

Numbers of Participants

Outcome Measures

Results: Benefits and Challenges

Formal and informal Benefits: Strong socialinterviews; class emotional support and observations; document relationships, thematic analysis approach and cohort groups, faculty collaboration enhances program, constant program reinforcement across classes Challenges: Locating optimal field experience placements, student interest in coaching over teaching (secondary physical education majors), faculty consensus, reactiveness to state licensure requirements Three semistructured 1-h Benefits: Strong peer interviews with each relationships perceived as cohort participant over either family or task 10 months beneficial, shared experiences, community of learners developed over time Challenges: Tensions among peer relationships, dealing with faculty as a cohort rather than as individuals

Table 1. (Continued ) 158 MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

Qualitative

Qualitative

Mandzuk, Hasinoff, and Seifert (2005)

Mather and Hanley (1999)

49 elementary education students: 24 cohort, 14 noncohort control, 6 postdegree natural cohort, 5 noncohort outsiders

239 teacher preparation students

2–15-min interviews

The final question on a survey; focus groups

Benefits: Social capital that allows students to deal better with stress, the workload, students were more accountable to each other, gained a sense of community, opportunities for socializing Challenges: Some students did not want to socialize, weaker students were exposed publicly, some students said they felt like they were back in high school, some students do not like working in groups, competition between cohorts was not always healthy, students felt pressure to conform, strong students tended to dominate the cohort Benefits: Small class size and teaching approach in cohort groups, cited positive effects of emotional and academic support, friendshipmaking, work ethic, relationships that included a sense of comfort, support from peers and instructors, friendship, collective beliefs

Cohort Programs 159

Qualitative

Seifert and Mandzuk (2006)

2 focus groups of 12 elementary and early childhood students from 4 cohorts: N ¼ 2 focus groups of 9 faculty; data from total of 14 faculty and 12 students 16 students in preservice education

Qualitative

Radencich et al. (1998)

Numbers of Participants

Mixed methods 24 elementary, middle, and secondary cohort students

Methods

Potthoff et al. (2001)

Authors

Outcome Measures

Interviews

Focus group interviews; other: email; conversations; student surveys and reflections

Electronic portfolios, presentations, survey

Table 1. (Continued )

Challenges: Group dynamics, sharing and competition, dealing with faculty issues Benefits: Cohort members felt bonded, supported and encouraged group and individual learning Challenges: Faculty needs preparation to teach in cohorts Benefits: Family-like socialemotional support, academic support Challenges: Issues with cliques, group pressure and cooperative assignments, preferential treatment for some students Benefits: Social emotional supports, cooperation, inclusion of all members of cohort; assignment clarification and support

Results: Benefits and Challenges

160 MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

Smith et al. (2003)

Mixed methods 29 collaborative elementary, middle, and secondary education cohort vs. 44 campusbased programs

Surveys, focus groups

Challenges: Some cliques forms, range in maturity levels of students limited some interactions, some negative feelings toward cohort members whose work was below par, no reported intellectual stimulation Benefits of collaboration modeled in collaborative cohort condition increased student perceptions regarding abilities to include students with disabilities in classes, even though collaboration actually decreased

Cohort Programs 161

Qualitative

Quantitative

Qualitative

Mixed methods

Esposito and Lal (2005)

Jorissen (2002)

Mastropieri et al. (2007)

Methods

164 graduates students enrolled in a

7 elementary, secondary, or special education alternative licensure cohort students

58 special education students in universityurban district cohorts

140 special education certification graduates

Numbers of Participants

Survey and followup interviews

Questionnaire administered during teaching

Exit surveys on preparedness

Telephone questionnaires

Outcome Measures

Special Education Personnel Preparation Studies.

Edgar and Pair (2005)

Authors

Table 2.

94% of their graduates are pursuing work in areas for which they were trained Benefits: Students reported being prepared from courses and fieldwork to meet needs in diverse urban settings Challenges: Intensity of accelerated program, time commitments, and motivation Benefits: Increased emotional support, collegial perspective, professional community, internship mentoring important to later teaching success Challenges: Reported resistance from teachers and parents during subsequent teaching positions, lack of sustained professional support during teaching following internships, unless principal provided strong support Benefits: Positive student attitudes, support for

Results: Benefits and Challenges

162 MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

Mixed methods

Qualitative

Quantitative

Ross et al. (2006)

Sapon-Shevin and Chandler-Olcott (2001)

Scruggs and Mastropieri (1993)

54 special education undergraduates in field-based cohort (n ¼ 13) vs. traditional program (n ¼ 41)

4 cohorts (of 30–40 students) in inclusive elementary and special education program

25 cohort special education students

university–district partnership special education teacher preparation program

Surveys from students, university supervisors, and cooperating teachers

Written artifacts from students’ anecdotal data from teaching journals and notes from research conversations

Survey, interviews

academics, social-emotional functioning, classroom teaching, financial and logistics Challenges: Holding a full time teaching position with a conditional license while enrolling a licensure and master’s degree program Benefits: Academic support, psychological safety and support, community support Challenges: Tensions developed, not all friends, some wanted the cohort to be split up after a certain period of time Benefits: Support can include encouragement and better academic achievement Challenges: Feelings of hostility, factions, disappointments, creation of dysfunctional environment based on make-up of cohort (e.g., students, faculty, lack of cooperation) Benefits: Higher ratings of teaching during student teaching from university supervisors and cooperating teachers; improved confidence in teaching abilities

Cohort Programs 163

Quantitative

Qualitative

Quantitative

Teitel (1997)

Yerkes et al. (1995)

Methods

23 university administration preparation programs

Doctoral, master’s, and certificate level cohort programs in educational leadership (N ¼ unclear maybe 12 doctoral and 40 master’s certificate)

383 university leadership preparation programs

Numbers of Participants

Surveys

Survey-interview

Open-ended survey items

Outcome Measures Benefits: Positive impact on students during their program; efficiency of program delivery; positive effects for faculty and program; and positive effects on students after program completion Challenges: Structural and organizational problems; cohort’s rigid delivery structure; time demands placed on students and faculty, and financial burdens Benefits: Gains in supports and interconnections among students, sense of common and sustained purpose Challenges: Interpersonal relationships within cohort members, changes in power relationships between faculty and students and changes in programming and decision-making Benefits: Sense of belonging, collaboration, networking, improved reflective thinking, improved academics, stronger faculty–student relationships Challenges: Excessive time commitment from faculty for joint planning, collaboration and teaching, potential elitism among students

Results: Benefits and Challenges

Educational Leadership Personnel Preparation Studies.

Barnett, Basom, Yerkes, and Norris (2000)

Authors

Table 3.

164 MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

Cohort Programs

165

for each major area: elementary, middle, and secondary; special education; and educational leadership, respectively. Major findings across all cohort program studies were highly similar in that cohorts programs resulted in important benefits, including socialemotional and peer support, academic growth and support, and support for the transition to professional positions. Some studies identified more program-specific benefits such as assistance with course scheduling and tuition and reduced attrition. Other studies, however, also identified challenges associated with cohort programs, including negative group dynamics and negative faculty–student relationships. Specific findings for these areas are presented next.

Social-Emotional and Peer Support One of the most frequently cited benefits of cohort programs include those which affected the participants on a social-emotional level, both individually and collectively. Most studies indicated that participants reported increased feelings of social-emotional support, typically from faculty and peers. For example, in a qualitative self-assessment of an educational leadership program, students and faculty completed surveys and participated in followup discussions on the cohort model (Teitel, 1997). Findings revealed that the development of the sense of community within the cohort was often described as a ‘‘family’’ atmosphere that promoted mutual trust. Illustrating this support, one participant wrote: Strong networks formed–more comfortable in sharing ideas and concerns with those who became more like friends and family. Family atmosphere–comfort/risk-free/have phone numbers of all members. Friendships formed with some (which will continue after [program] is over). (Teitel, 1997, p. 69)

Similar social-emotional support described as building a sense of community and collaboration among peers were reported across all program content areas including elementary education programs (Dinsmore & Wenger, 2006), secondary education programs (Potthoff, Batenhorst, Fredrickson, & Tracy, 2001), and special education programs (Ross, Stafford, Church-Pupke, & Bondy, 2006). Other studies found that the cohort structure also provided a sense of security, trust, and reliance among cohort members. Maher (2005) conducted a qualitative study with 13 practicing Pre-K-12 teachers in a master’s degree in education program to explore these teachers’ experiences

166

MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

after the completion of 10 credit hours in their core education classes. The teachers described a comfort zone in the cohort that allowed them to speak freely without fear of criticism and to engage more deeply in discussions (Maher, 2005). In addition to the security provided by the collective group, cohort members also described the importance of peer relationships. Bullough (2001) examined a single cohort of 20 students in a secondary teacher education program in order to gain a deeper understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of cohorts. Students in those cohorts reported the kind and quality of relationships that were developed became the greatest value of the cohort program (Bullough, 2001). Graber (1996) in a qualitative study of an undergraduate teacher education program interviewed 6 students and 12 faculty members to investigate a cohort program that had been documented in previous studies as having a strong influence on teacher beliefs. Among the findings reported in the study, positive benefits included reliance on peers within the cohorts which created strong friendships that many participants felt would last beyond graduation (Graber, 1996). Comments about peer relationships also emerged in a study from Seifert and Mandzuk (2006), who interviewed 16 students from three cohorts in a preservice bachelor of education program. Among the findings from the interviews, participants focused on the social and emotional support from the cohort, and described their peers as stress relievers who offered empathy and support when group members were having difficulties with practice teaching or in their personal lives (Seifert & Mandzuk, 2006). The security that was created within the community of the cohort also encouraged the students to take risks. Beck and Kosnik (2001) described social and emotional risk-taking that occurred because their elementary education students were willing to be open to one another, express their points of view, criticize each other’s opinions, and work through conflicts. Students also took risks with different approaches to teaching and learning, and they were willing to discuss difficulties with their teaching practices. For example, students reported: ‘‘You can be who you are and people will accept you for who you are. y I feel we are really being encouraged to experiment as teachers, explore methods, explore possibilities and just develop into individual teachers’’ (Beck & Kosnik, 2001, p. 939). Smith, Frey, and Tollefson (2003) provided additional evidence supporting the use of cohorts to promote more positive attitudes toward collaboration in teaching. Students from either collaborative cohort programs or more traditional campus-based programs designed to prepare elementary, middle, and secondary personnel completed surveys on their attitudes, knowledge,

Cohort Programs

167

and behavior. Findings revealed that cohort students had more positive attitudes toward collaboration. Follow-up focus group interviews indicated that although the university cohort program provided and modeled excellent examples of collaboration, real school examples of collaborative teaching were more difficult to find in their student teaching experiences. Barnett et al. (2000), in a qualitative study of leadership cohort programs, also described how feelings of trust and camaraderie in cohort relationships created a safe environment for productively dealing with problems. The authors of this study of educational administration master’s and doctoral level programs used observations of cohorts and interviews with faculty members to explore how the needs of adult learners and issues of diversity can be addressed by the key instructional components used with cohorts. Cohort participants also experienced personal growth because of the safe environment that allowed them to experiment with new ways of relating to others and with leadership roles. Many gained greater self-confidence and self-acceptance (Beck & Kosnik, 2001). In a case study of three beginning general education teachers, Brownell, Yeager, Sindelar, vanHover, and Riley (2004) investigated the effects of a teacher learning cohort developed as a staff development program to help general education teachers work collaboratively on inclusion issues. They concluded that the cohort structure provided both psychological and instructional support. Social-emotional support findings were confirmed by Mastropieri et al. (2007). In this study, 164 individuals who were or had been teaching with conditional licenses in special education and were enrolled in one of the 15 cohort programs designed to meet special education state licensure and university master’s degree requirements participated in an online survey. A smaller subgroup (n=29) participated in face-to-face follow-up interviews. Survey items were both open ended and forced choice. Respondents were asked to define what being part of a cohort meant to them, what types of supports were most valuable, what additional supports would have been helpful, and to identify the most important knowledge or information gained from participating in a cohort program. Responses were overwhelmingly positive toward the cohort experience. Respondents reported feeling socially emotionally supported by peers and faculty in academic and personal lives, feeling the benefits of being part of a community of learners, and learning how to collaborate effectively with peers. The social-emotional supports were highlighted as being critical for sustaining enrollment in the university cohort program while holding down a full-time special education teaching position with a conditional license. Since respondents were more mature students with an average age of 41 years, many of whom reported

168

MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

having been out of school for a number of years, the social-emotional support was reported as necessary for program completion. For example, one respondent wrote: As someone who’d completed my bachelor’s degree 18 years previously and had not been back to school since; the cohort provided a supportive environment in which to delve back into coursework. Over the course of completing the coursework, the cohort provided me with life long friends and colleagues with whom I continue to share work and personal ties. I truly appreciated being able to complete the program with the same core group of people. I would not have been as successful taking courses on my own with random people. We all hit various hard spots between both work and personal lives and I relied on many of the members of my group to see me through. (Mastropieri et al., 2007, pp. 12–13)

Academic Growth and Support In addition to the benefits of social-emotional support, many studies reported that cohort participants also described academic growth and support. Strong connections developed between students and faculty (Maher, 2005; Beck & Kosnik, 2001), and these deep personal connections led to deeper discussions (Teitel, 1997) that were often initiated and sustained by the students (Maher, 2005). The cohort created an environment where students were able to learn from and with their peers who were working toward the same goals (Dinsmore & Wenger, 2006). The faculty in some cohorts played an important role in fostering academic growth by encouraging students to become active participants in their own learning and take ownership for their own professional development (Barnett et al., 2000). Mather and Hanley (1999) found that when the faculty modeled decisionmaking in group settings, it helped students deal with difficult issues that arose in the cohort. Their conclusions were based on their qualitative study of elementary education teacher candidates in which they interviewed four groups of students: 24 in an experimental cohort, 14 in a noncohort control, 6 in a postdegree ‘‘natural’’ cohort (students who only took a few core courses and tended to stay together because they were older), and 5 noncohort ‘‘outsiders’’ who had minimal contact with the other students. Cohort participants benefited from the unified teaching approach that was a blend of content and pedagogy, and participants described how the faculty created excitement about learning to teach (Mather & Hanley, 1999). Additional support for academic growth comes from Radencich et al. (1998) who conducted a study of preservice elementary and early childhood education cohorts at a large urban university to examine the elements of

Cohort Programs

169

team cultures in cohort groups. The authors compiled data from two focus groups of nine faculty members (not all of whom were in both sessions), and two focus groups of students from four different cohort groups (10 in the first group and 4 in the second), along with additional data from multiple sources. Qualitative analyses revealed that many students felt their cohorts supported their academic achievement through study groups, interactions with team members, and healthy competition among team members (Radencich et al., 1998). Another study that supported academic growth was conducted by Ross et al. (2006) with a quantitative survey of 25 students in one combined elementary and special education cohort program and follow-up interviews with six cohort members to gain insight on how to develop collaboration skills and positive cultures in cohorts. In this study, the students identified the benefits of academic orientation from the cohort group because of their focus on the content of the program, their own learning, and their grades (Ross et al., 2006). One illustrative respondent indicated: ‘‘I think it [being a member of the cohort group] motivates us to do our best and stay on the ball y We keep each other on the ball. Working as a whole I think we really do well’’ (p. 35). Respondents in the Mastropieri et al. (2007) study also reported on academic benefits accrued from participating in one of the 15 cohorts designed to prepare special education teachers. These respondents highlighted obtaining academic support in the form of assistance with assignments and completion of course requirements from peers and faculty. Several participants indicated that they had more access to cohort faculty, which made it easier to obtain academic assistance. Finally, several identified that cohort courses provided the foundational knowledge they could apply in their teaching. One reported, for example, using content and projects from a special education research methods class that assisted her teaching: ‘‘I used lessons from my teacher research classy I did a project on helping a struggling 6th grade student learn math’’ (p. 17).

Transition to Culture of Teaching Another benefit of cohort programs that is critical for new teachers is the successful socialization into the culture of teaching. Howey and Zimpher (1999) believe that one mission of the initial teacher preparation is ‘‘an intensive socialization process that disposes teachers to learn with and from others as school-based professionals’’ (p. 294). The cohort provides opportunities for students to not only gain awareness of the complexities of

170

MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

living in a real community, but also to see how enjoyable collaborative learning can be. Cohorts emphasize the teaching profession as a collegial endeavor, and many students felt they gained an understanding of the importance of building a community for learning within the cohort and felt the need to create a community in their own classrooms (Beck & Kosnik, 2001; Dinsmore & Wenger, 2006). Seifert and Mandzuk (2006) noted that the cohort organization fostered connections and cooperation among peers, two important qualities of future educators. Cohort members learned to become thoughtful practitioners and gained valuable preparation for working in diverse classrooms and schools (Beck & Kosnik, 2001). Several studies reported on the relationship of cohorts with teaching success. For example, in a qualitative study of three beginning elementary teachers, Brownell et al. (2004) reported that one teacher used the cohort to refine her teaching skills while requesting assistance from peers. One teacher reported: [The cohort] ‘‘gave me ideas about how I could have them [students] work in partners. Helped me get over the fear that if there was noise in my classroom it did not have to be a bad thing’’ (Brownell et al., 2004, p. 183). This same teacher identified her greatest accomplishment for the year as having her students work in small groups and attributed that success to the support from the cohort experience. Improved teaching skills have also been reported, but evaluated less systematically. Connor and Killmer (2001) compared the ratings by university supervisors and cooperating teachers on elementary and secondary students who were either enrolled in a cohort programs or in traditional programs. Their findings revealed that elementary and secondary students who participated in cohorts were perceived as better prepared to teach all levels, including preparation, instructional skills, classroom management, and student interactions by their university supervisors and cooperating teachers than students who participated in a more traditional personnel preparation program. Their findings also revealed that students who were members of the cohorts reported higher confidence levels on most preprofessional areas. Similar findings were reported by Scruggs and Mastropieri (1993) who compared university supervisor and cooperative teacher ratings for undergraduate special education students enrolled in a year-long intensive field-based cohort compared with students enrolled in traditional on-campus programs. Evaluators were asked to rate student teachers’ performance along a four-point scale of highly competent to not at all effective on the following areas: knowledge of characteristics of special needs, diagnostic and evaluation skills, implementing instruction, behavior management, and communication with children, peers, and parents.

Cohort Programs

171

Findings revealed that students who participated in the field-based program were perceived as more competent during student teaching by both university supervisors and cooperating teachers. Moreover, students enrolled in the field-based program also rated themselves as more competent at teaching than students in the traditional program. Mastropieri et al. (2007) also described the benefits associated with improved teaching reported by cohort members who also held teaching positions. One individual reported: ‘‘I enjoyed working with teachers from the county and taking all of the classes together. We formed a support network that helped me get through my first years of teaching’’ (p. 18). Several teachers discussed that the community of cohort learners provided valuable input into their teaching and assisted with their learning about the culture of the schools. For example, one reported on important input of ‘‘other students who were able to show me the ins and outs of areas that I had no experience in teaching’’ (p. 18). A final respondent stated she gained ‘‘real-world knowledge from interacting with teachers who were in the field. This was the most structured and professional ‘professional learning community’ provided to me’’ (p. 18). Individuals from this study appreciated and learned from others in their cohorts who were teaching in similar positions, as reported by a respondent: Being part of a cohort means many things to me. It meant setting up a solid network of teachers/colleagues that I could consult with questions regarding the cohort program as well as teaching scenarios. It meant tremendous assistance from [school district] and [university] to ensure my success in the program. (p. 18)

The value of program effectiveness and its relationship to perceived teaching effectiveness is important to students. For example, Esposito and Lal (2005) described the positive effects of an alternative cohort program designed to address special education teacher shortages in urban settings. Students were enrolled in cohorts and were teaching in Professional Development School models within their own classrooms. Following participation in the accelerated cohort program students reported that both fieldwork and curriculum from classes prepared them to teach in diverse urban settings. Moreover, significant differences favored the cohort group when responses were compared with students enrolled in the traditional on-campus program. Reduced Attrition Few studies on cohort programs included data on retention of the teachers who completed the programs. However, Jorissen (2002) provided follow-up

172

MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

interviews of seven graduates who participated in cohort programs. Followup interviews revealed that during the university program, the cohort experience and mentoring support were most critical, but that during the first years of teaching both mentors and the building administrator support became important sources of support for retention. For example, one former student and current high-school history teacher reported that the building principal ‘‘made you feel like you were a part of somethingy’’ (p. 52). Another revealed that a department chair’s support was crucial when she encountered resistance from other staff and some students. Teitel (1997) reported positive indications about retention of educational leaders in a cohort program, and Maher (2005) reported that positive student outcomes, including reduced attrition, have been linked to strong emotional ties between cohort members. Edgar and Pair (2005) conducted a qualitative study of seven cohorts with 161 special education teachers who graduated between 1995 and 2001. Through telephone interviews with 140 of the graduates, they found that 87% had taught at least for one year, 78% of these were still teaching, and an additional 7% were in education-related positions. In a related report, Feistritzer (2005) surveyed 2,647 teachers who earned their teaching certification through alternative routes which may or may not have been cohorts and reported that 62% of the survey respondents expect to be teaching in a K-12 setting in the next five years. The states with the highest percentage of teachers who completed alternative route to certification report that 87% are still teaching after five years. In these alternative route programs, 83% of the respondents participated in cohort programs. These preliminary data suggest that teacher education cohorts may be effective in retaining new teachers. However, any definitive conclusions await future research.

Unintended Consequences of Cohorts Despite the many positive aspects of cohort models for teacher preparation indicated above, a number of these same studies found unintended negative effects (Dinsmore & Wenger, 2006; Graber, 1996; Maher, 2005; Mather & Hanley, 1999; Radencich et al. 1998; Sapon-Shevin & Chandler-Olcott, 2001; Teitel, 1997). The most frequently mentioned unintended findings came from the interactions within the group and from the relationships between cohort members and their professors.

Cohort Programs

173

Negative Group Dynamics The family-like atmosphere that was described as positive in some cohorts turned into negative relationships in others. Some students felt stuck in certain roles and ways of interacting because of the long-term relationships (Teitel, 1997). Radencich et al. (1998) reported that the strength of some friendships within cohorts created cliques, resulting in divisions within classrooms and with social gatherings. Cliques created negativity, which then spread to other aspects of the cohort program. Others reported that strong personalities and critical incidents could work to destroy group trust and undermine the activities designed to foster collaboration. Over a two-year qualitative study of students enrolled in teacher preparation programs, Sapon-Shevin and Chandler-Olcott (2001) identified some alarming factors that negatively impacted their cohorts. One incident revolved around building tension among some students that culminated in yelling, personal attacks, and insulting comments among peers. Once this event happened, students reported feeling unsafe, insulted, and even ridiculed by peers, which is opposite to the intention of community building, collaboration, and trust. For example, a student reported: ‘‘One person hears one thing, completely disagrees, and attacks that person. It turns into I’m right, you’re wrong issue’’ (p. 357). Another student discussed trust and said: If I don’t trust the rest of my peers or I am not comfortable talking to them about personal issuesy Say I want to share a story about a lesson plan that didn’t work well in my classroom. I think it would be useful for me to get their input. But if the trust is not there, then I either won’t want to share things or I will be afraid to tell my classmates in fear of being laughed at or that it will leave the classroom in terms of me looking like a failure. (p. 358)

Members of the cohorts were also concerned about collaborating with students of different personalities (Maher, 2005), group pressure to conform (Radencich et al. 1998), and some students not ‘‘pulling their own weight’’ or doing their part in contributing to group assignments (Mather & Hanley, 1999; Radencich et al., 1998). Negative individuals can also be disruptive and create a negative climate within a group (Radencich et al., 1998). In fact, Dinsmore and Wenger (2006) concluded that the negative behavior of group members hindered learning. Relationships with Faculty The power of a cohort group can result in challenges for faculty. While members developed positively as individuals and as group members, there

174

MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

could also be ‘‘mob mentality’’ where the members felt powerful because they were united as a group (Mather & Hanley, 1999). This negative group pressure has the potential to disrupt the learning and harm any community within cohorts. For example, Sapon-Shevin and Chandler-Olcott (2001) identified critical incidents as potentially harmful to cohorts. One such critical incident described occurred in a class outside of their cohort, but cohort students joined forces and demanded as a group that action be taken by cohort faculty against noncohort faculty where the incident had occurred. The demands became so overwhelming that the faculty–student relationships within the cohort suffered. The cohort members had the power to affect the academic rigor of the classes (Radencich et al., 1998) and tended to be more vocal about the quality of teaching and relevance of course material (Mather & Hanley, 1999). In some cohorts, this led to a united front against a professor (Mather & Hanley, 1999) and even led to scapegoating, where the instructor was blamed for problems within the group (Radencich et al., 1998). Cohort groups were intimidating to new professors who had not been with the group from the beginning (Teitel, 1997). Professors needed to be skillful in responding to cohort requests in order to resolve conflicts that could lead to an ‘‘us’’ versus ‘‘them’’ dynamic (Teitel, 1997).

SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS Research examining aspects of cohort programs in personnel preparation reveal some interesting findings, but also reveal shortcomings in the research literature. Findings indicated some real positive benefits described from participants including social-emotional support, academic support, and transition to teaching skills, as well as potential unintended consequences that may impact negatively both students and faculty. Shortcomings reveal limited research, which consists primarily of qualitative descriptions of programs, small amounts of survey research, and little to no empirical evidence supporting the use of cohorts. Finally, suggestions are provided for creating successful cohorts. Consistent positive benefits were reported across this sample of 24 studies examining cohorts in personnel preparation programs. The overwhelming majority of qualitative and quantitative studies identified the benefits of social-emotional support of peers and faculty, including improved collaboration and sense of community, academic growth and support, and important acculturation to teaching benefits from cohorts programs across educational

Cohort Programs

175

leadership, elementary, middle, and secondary, and special education personnel preparation programs. The fact that these findings go across all program areas provides additional strength to the results. Although all university classes in personnel preparation programs are designed to maximize content and pedagogical learning, the type of collaboration and sharing of classroom experiences within cohorts appears to extend beyond what might be expected from traditional personnel preparation programs. Collectively, these benefits appear to enhance the quality of personnel preparation programs above and beyond what might be anticipated. Unfortunately, several studies identified clear unintended negative consequences, which negatively impacted both peer and faculty–student relationships. Such negative effects identified are very troubling for several reasons. First, negative group dynamics are the complete opposite of the intended outcomes of cohort programs, which include development of a community of learners who provide social-emotional and academic support for one another. Second, if negative interpersonal dynamics happen within a single class, it becomes problematic for a professor. However, this effect is magnified when an entire cohort has negative dynamics because the detrimental effects occur throughout an entire program. Moreover, it is always unfortunate when faculty and student relationships become strained. But again, when this transcends to an entire cohort, entire programs can be ruined.

Limitations of the Research It is positive that 24 investigations were identified that had employed a variety of cohort configurations across a diverse range of program emphasis areas, including educational leadership, elementary, middle, and secondary, and special education programs. However, none of the studies provided conclusive evidence on the efficacy of cohorts compared with more traditional programs. Since the majority of the studies were qualitative in nature, or mixed methods designs employing broader surveys with follow-up interviews, data that were provided consisted of participants’ beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions of cohort programs. This information is important and adds to our knowledge of how cohort programs are received by students and faculty. However, it would also be beneficial for the field to have studies comparing critical features within cohorts and the effects of cohorts compared with traditional programs. A number of studies emphasized that successful cohorts do not happen merely but putting students in groups for their teacher education program. The responsibility for creating effective cohorts lies with universities and

176

MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

colleges of teacher education, individual faculty members, and students in the cohorts (Radencich et al., 1998; Graber, 1996; Ross et al., 2006). Moreover, given the unintended negative consequences that have been revealed by some research (Sapon-Shevin & Chandler-Olcott, 2001), some guidelines are provided to assist in the development of more effective cohorts.

Suggestions for Creating Effective Cohorts Importance of Program Structure The obligation for planning and developing effective cohort groups lies first with the universities and colleges who use the cohort model in their teacher preparation programs. Studies describe the importance of creating a program that establishes professional behavior and responsibility, and that integrates material across course boundaries (Graber, 1996; Mather & Hanley, 1999). Cohorts must be developed to emphasize reflection as practitioners (Barnett & Caffarella, 1992), to provide purposeful team building (Maher, 2005), and to provide opportunities to regularly review the structure of the program (Teitel, 1997). Graber concluded that a strong connection to the university and a strong support system can help students maintain beliefs about teaching that were begun in their preservice programs. A number of studies describe the importance of team building (Dinsmore & Wenger, 2006; Maher, 2005; Teitel, 1997), but some also emphasize the use of the cohort model to help students develop individually. Yerkes, Basom, Norris, and Barnett (1995) investigated the current use of cohort programs for preparing education administrators with surveys collected from 23 of the 37 institutions in the United States who use cohort models. Among their findings include the observation that individual growth cannot be sacrificed to promote group growth and harmony. Role of Faculty Initially, there should be a faculty commitment to a set of shared beliefs, consensus among faculty about the program, and communication among faculty (Graber, 1996; Teitel, 1997). Many studies describe the behaviors that are important for faculty members. Yerkes et al. (1995) concluded that faculty members should be considered as facilitators who encourage students to assume responsibility for their own learning, encourage students to tap into their own life experiences, and cultivate trust among the cohort members. Faculty should solicit deeper responses to sensitive issues,

Cohort Programs

177

continue team-building activities throughout the length of the program, and develop a contingency plan for responding to issues such as cliques (Teitel, 1997). Faculty should recognize the influence of the cohort and encourage close peer relationships (Graber, 1996), and they should honor all voices within the cohort (Radencich et al., 1998). Student Responsibilities Positive and negative results of cohort programs also depend on the students within the cohort. The study of a successful cohort by Ross et al. (2006) provides the clearest picture of the responsibilities of students. According to the results of this study, the cohort was successful because of the following five strategies used by the students: (a) keeping an academic focus, (b) pulling their own weight, (c) taking care of the community, (d) being willing to move outside their comfort zone, and (e) including everyone (Ross et al., 2006). This cohort was not perfect and it did experience tension and had some cliques, but the main reason for its success was the ability of the students to resolve these issues themselves.

CONCLUSION The research suggests that there are more benefits than unintended negative outcomes from cohort programs used in personnel preparation programs. Moreover, many of the negative effects can be overcome with careful program planning and faculty awareness. The positive outcomes of socialemotional support, academic support, and transition to the culture of teaching are especially desirable in teacher education programs for today’s special education teachers. However, the benefits of cohorts could be instrumental in helping to prepare beginning special education teachers for the demands of the jobs they would face in today’s schools. Many of the possible negative outcomes can be controlled by the universities and colleges of education as they plan cohort programs and by training faculty to respond to difficulties if they arise within cohort groups. The security, support, and socialization that can be provided by cohort programs make the cohort model particularly compatible with preparation programs for special education teachers. With demands for highly qualified special educators and the rigorous demands of their jobs, the cohort model would be an appropriate structure in which to prepare these teachers.

178

MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

REFERENCES Barnett, B., Basom, M., Yerkes, D., & Norris, C. (2000). Cohorts in educational leadership programs: Benefits, difficulties, and potential for developing school leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 255–282. Barnett, B. G., & Caffarella, R. S. (1992). The use of cohorts: A powerful way for addressing issues of diversity in preparation programs. Paper presented at the annual convention of the University Council for Educational Administration, Minneapolis, MN. Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2001). From cohort to community in a preservice teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 925–948. Brownell, M. T., Yeager, E. A., Sindelar, P. T., vanHover, S., & Riley, T. (2004). Teacher learning cohorts: A vehicle for supporting beginning teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 174–189. Bullough, R. V. (2001). Students cohorts, school rhythms, and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28, 97–110. Clarke, A., Erickson, G., Collins, S., & Phelan, A. (2005). Complexity science and cohorts in teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 1, 159–177. Connelly, V. J., Sindelar, P. T., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2005). Special education teachers who are prepared through alternative certification routes: What do we know about them? Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education Research Preview. Gainsville, FL: COPSSE. Connor, K., & Killmer, N. (2001). Cohorts, collaboration, and community: Does contextual teacher education really work? Action in Teacher Education, 23, 46–53. Council for Exceptional Children. (2003). What every special educator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines for special educators (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: CEC. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Educating teachers for the next century: Rethinking practice and policy. In: G. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers: 98th NSSE Yearbook, Part I (pp. 221–256). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dinsmore, J., & Wenger, K. (2006). Relationships in preservice teacher preparation: From cohorts to communities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33, 57–74. Edgar, E., & Pair, A. (2005). Special education teacher attrition: It all depends on where you are standing. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 163–170. Esposito, M. C., & Lal, S. (2005). Responding to special education teacher shortages in diverse urban settings: An accelerated alternative credential program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 100–103. Feistritzer, C. E. (2005). Profile of alternate route teachers. Washington, DC: NCEI. Feistritzer, C. E. (2007, May). Preparing teachers for the classroom: The role of the Higher Education Act and No Child Left Behind. Testimony for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor. Retrieved 8 July, 2007 from http://edlabor.house.gov Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Thousand, J. (2003). What do special educators need to know and be prepared to do for inclusive schooling to work? Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 42–50. Graber, K. C. (1996). Influencing student beliefs: The design of a ‘‘high impact’’ teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 451–466. Howey, K. R., & Zimpher, N. L. (1999). Pervasive problems and issues in teacher education. In: G. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers: 98th NSSE Yearbook, Part I (pp. 279–305). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Cohort Programs

179

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Special Education SubCommittee. (2001). Model standards for licensing general and special education teachers of students with disabilities: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: CCSSO. Jorissen, K. (2002). Retaining alternate route teachers: The power of professional integration in teacher preparation. The High School Journal, 85, 45–56. Maher, M. A. (2005). The evolving meaning and influence of cohort membership. Innovative Higher Education, 30, 195–211. Mandzuk, D., Hasinoff, S., & Seifert, K. (2005). Inside a student cohort: Teacher education from a social capital perspective. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(1/2), 168–184. Mastropieri, M. A., Conners, N., Kealy, M., Morrison, N, Werner, T., & Scruggs, T. E. (2007). Special education cohorts as partnerships between universities and public schools. Unpublished manuscript. George Mason University. Mather, D., & Hanley, B. (1999). Cohort grouping and preservice teacher education: Effects on pedagogical development. Canadian Journal of Education, 24, 235–250. Potthoff, D., Batenhorst, E., Fredrickson, S., & Tracy, G. (2001). Learning about cohorts: A masters degree program for teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 23, 36–42. Radencich, M. C., Thompson, T., Anderson, N. A., Oropallo, K., Fleege, P., Harrison, M., et al. (1998). The culture of cohorts: Preservice teacher education teams at a southeastern university in the United States. Journal of Education for Teaching, 24, 109–127. Ross, D. D., Stafford, L., Church-Pupke, P., & Bondy, E. (2006). Practicing collaboration: What we learn from a cohort that functions well. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 32–43. Sapon-Shevin, M., & Chandler-Olcott, K. (2001). Student cohorts: Communities of critique or dysfunctional families? Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 350–364. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1993). The effects of prior field experience on student teacher competence ratings. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 303–308. Seifert, K., & Mandzuk, D. (2006). Student cohorts in teacher education: Support groups or intellectual communities? Teachers College Record, 108, 1296–1320. Smith, S. J., Frey, B. B., & Tollefson, N. (2003). A collaborative approach to teacher education: Modeling inclusive practices. Action in Teacher Education, 25, 55–62. Teitel, L. (1997). Understanding and harnessing the power of the cohort model in preparing educational leaders. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 66–85. The Holmes Group. (1995). Tomorrow’s schools of education. In: R. V. Bullough (2001). Students cohorts, school rhythms, and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28, 97–110. USDOE. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 28, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf USDOE. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Reauthorization. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved March 4, 2008 from http://idea.ed.gov USDOE. (2006). 2004 Schools and staffing survey. Washington, DC: Author. Yerkes, D. M., Basom, M. R., Norris, C., & Barnett, B. (1995). Using cohorts in the development of educational leaders. Paper presented at the annual international conference of the Association of Management, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

This page intentionally left blank

DISPARITIES IN TEACHER QUALITY AMONG EARLY CAREER SPECIAL EDUCATORS IN HIGH- AND LOW-POVERTY DISTRICTS Anna-Ma´ria Fall and Bonnie S. Billingsley ABSTRACT We used teacher data from the Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE) to compare the credentials, preservice preparation, self-efficacy, and induction of early career special educators in high- and low-poverty schools using a framework adapted from Carlson, Lee, and Schroll (2004). We found significant differences in the credentials and preparation of teachers working in high poverty versus more affluent districts, with those in high-poverty schools having fewer credentials and less preparation. In contrast, the two teacher groups reported similar induction opportunities and gave themselves comparable ratings on both self-efficacy and in skillfulness in various work tasks. Our findings dramatize the critical need to recruit and prepare qualified teachers for high-poverty schools.

Personnel Preparation Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, Volume 21, 181–208 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0735-004X/doi:10.1016/S0735-004X(08)00007-4

181

182

ANNA-MA´RIA FALL AND BONNIE S. BILLINGSLEY

In the United States people of color, women, and those from lower socioeconomic groups have historically been less powerful, less privileged, and culturally and institutionally oppressed (Bettie, 2003; Collins, 1998; Moll & Ruiz, 2002; Oakes & Lipton, 2004; Ogbu, 1998). The history of the 20th century was marked by a struggle for equity and as we enter the 21st century, issues of equity persist, including opportunities for those who have disabilities. A specific issue acknowledged in general education is the disproportionate representation of underqualified teachers in schools serving students from poor or minority backgrounds (Betts, Rueben, & Danenberg, 2000; Ingersoll, 2002; Jerald & Ingersoll, 2002; Kozol, 1991; Lankford, Loeb & Wyckoff, 2002; Wayne, 2002). In a recent cross national analysis, Akiba, LeTendre, and Scribner (2007) found that the overall level of teacher quality in the United States was similar to the international average. However, there was a major difference between high and low socioeconomic status students’ opportunities to be taught by qualified teachers. In fact this opportunity gap was the fourth highest among the 47 countries studied. As DarlingHammond and Baratz-Snowden (2007) stated, ‘‘as a society, we do not invest seriously in the lives of children, most especially poor children and children of color, who receive the least-prepared teachers’’ (p. 111). Although the shortage of qualified teachers in special education is well-documented (A High-Quality Teacher for Every Classroom, 2002; American Association for Employment in Education [AAEE], 2006; Boe & Cook, 2006; McLeskey, Tyler, & Flippin, 2004; U.S. Department of Education, 2005), we know relatively little about the disparities in special education teacher quality across districts with varying levels of poverty. Most of the data on the shortage in special education include overall proportions of teachers lacking certification, which masks the potentially different impact of the shortage in various types of districts. To address this gap in the literature, we compared the characteristics and qualifications of early career teachers in high- and low-poverty districts. Given the disparity in general educators’ qualifications in high and more affluent districts, we expect that students with disabilities in high-poverty districts would also be less likely to have access to qualified special educators. Some evidence illustrates the difficulties that high-poverty districts face in hiring qualified teachers. Fall and Billingsley (2007) found that administrators in high-poverty districts reported disproportionate teacher turnover rates, more vacant positions, and fewer tenured teachers than those working in more affluent districts. They also found that administrators in highpoverty districts reported the use of undesirable methods to deal with the

Disparities in Teacher Quality in Special Education

183

shortage of qualified teachers, which included practices such as the hiring of substitutes and expanding class sizes. Attempts such as these to deal with the shortage serve to exacerbate inequalities among low-income and minority students (Darling-Hammond & Post, 2000). Mandlawitz (2003) provided some insight into the personnel struggles faced by three large urban school districts with higher proportions of poor and minority students. For example, one district hired more than 100 longterm substitutes to cover vacancies and estimated that 40–50% of new hires left by their third year. In another district about 300 unfilled vacancies were reported, which included about 8% of the special education teacher population. As Mandlawitz stated, ‘‘Urban districts have an especially hard time attracting and hiring special education personnel because they must compete against school districts with better working conditions, salaries, and supports for new special education teachers’’ (p. 6). Although these two studies provide insight into the problems of finding and keeping qualified special education teachers, they provide little information about the specific characteristics of teachers in high-poverty schools.

INDICATORS OF TEACHER QUALITY AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT The relationship between teacher quality and student achievement has been of interest to educational researchers for many years. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA, 2001) requiring that all students have access to ‘‘highly qualified’’ teachers has pushed discussions of teacher quality into the spotlight. The underlying assumption is that qualified teachers will positively influence student learning and thereby consequently enhance U.S. competitiveness in a global economy (Akiba et al., 2007). A growing body of research suggests that teachers are critical to student achievement in general education (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2006; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Ferguson, 1991; Hanushek, 1997; Sanders & Rivers, 1996). In recent literature reviews, Rice (2003) and Wayne and Youngs (2003) examined the relationship between specific teacher characteristics and student achievement. Rice (2003) used five ‘‘policy-relevant characteristics’’ (p. 11) as indicators of teacher quality, including teacher experience, preparation and degrees, certification, coursework, and teachers’ test scores. Students with more experienced teachers tended to achieve more, although the effect plateaus after several years for elementary teachers. Rice also reported a positive relationship between graduation from selective

184

ANNA-MA´RIA FALL AND BONNIE S. BILLINGSLEY

colleges and student achievement at the high school level, with more modest effects at the elementary level. Advanced degrees had a positive relationship to student achievement in high school math and science, and mathematics certification had a positive effect on mathematics achievement. Extended teacher preparation programs also had a positive effect on teachers’ entry into the profession and their retention rates, but Rice found no significant relationship to student achievement. Rice also reported that coursework in both pedagogy and content areas was associated with higher levels of student achievement and higher teacher verbal ability was associated with higher student performance. In the second review, Wayne and Youngs (2003) considered the impact of four teacher characteristics on student achievement, which included college selectivity ratings, teachers’ test scores, degrees and coursework, and certification status. They reported that students learn more from teachers who graduated from better-rated undergraduate institutions and from teachers with higher verbal skills and higher scores on licensure exams. Further In the case of degrees, coursework, and certification, findings have been inconclusive except in mathematics, where high school students clearly learned more from teachers with certification in mathematics, degrees related to mathematics, and coursework related to mathematics. (p. 107)

More recently, Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, and Helig (2005) investigated the role of teacher certification on student achievement in a large Texas district. They reported that after controlling for students’ achievement and background, students of certified teachers outperformed those who were not certified in both reading and mathematics. They go on to suggest that by being uncertified, a teacher could reduce achievement growth for a student by up to three months per year; and a student with three uncertified teachers over the course of their elementary years could lose a full year of achievement.

TEACHER QUALITY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION We did not find any special education studies that linked teacher characteristics such as credentials and preparation to student achievement. However, two recent studies suggested the benefits of more extensive teacher preparation. Boe, Shin, and Cook (2007) used data from the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and found that extensive teacher preparation in

Disparities in Teacher Quality in Special Education

185

pedagogy and practice teaching was more effective than some or no preparation in producing new teachers who were certified, secured-in-field assignments, and reported being well prepared to teach. In another study, Nougaret, Scruggs, and Mastropieri (2005) showed that teachers who completed traditional teacher preparation programs in special education had more effective teaching skills than those from nontraditional programs. Using observational ratings, traditionally prepared teachers used more effective planning and preparation and were able to better manage the classroom environment. Traditionally licensed teachers also used more effective teaching instructions, including effective questioning and discussion techniques that enhance student participation. Two studies demonstrated the importance of specific teacher behaviors to student achievement gains (Leinhardt, Zigmond, & Cooley, 1981; Sindelar, Smith, Harriman, Hale, & Wilson, 1986). Examples included student engagement, silent reading time, time spent in teacher directed reading instruction, and teacher questioning during reading. More recently, Brownell et al. (2005) investigated how teachers’ pedagogical and content knowledge, observed classroom practices, and self-efficacy beliefs were related to student achievement. They focused on the reading instruction of beginning teachers of students with high incidence disabilities in grades three to five. Brownell et al. found that the overall quality of classroom practices was related to student achievement gains. The students of teachers who scored higher on their observation instrument achieved more than students who received instruction that was not as strong. This was particularly true in reading fluency.

A MODEL OF TEACHER QUALITY IN SPECIAL EDUCATION Large-scale investigations of teacher quality use indicators, rather than direct measures of quality, given the expense of gathering observational data. In general education, a range of variables have been used as indirect measures of teacher quality, which include teacher preparation, certification status, teaching experience, and teachers’ test scores. While these proxies for teacher quality are limited, they nonetheless provide researchers and policymakers with important information about the teaching workforce. We adapted the framework of teacher quality developed by Carlson, Lee, and Schroll (2004) to examine indicators of teacher quality. They tested a model of teacher quality in special education using a two-level confirmatory

186

ANNA-MA´RIA FALL AND BONNIE S. BILLINGSLEY

factor analysis of teacher data from the Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE). Relying on measures identified previously in the literature as approximations of teacher quality and Kennedy’s (1992) theoretical framework, the authors grouped variables related to teacher quality into five first-order factors. These first-order factors were experience, certification status, self-efficacy, selected classroom practices (teaching reading, managing behavior, and promoting inclusion), and involvement in professional activities. The analyses revealed that experience has a high factor loading. From the variables in the credential factor, level of certification has the highest factor loading. However, the number of fields certified to teach and highest degree earned variables added little to the model. The factor loadings for all three measures of self-efficacy were high. These included teachers’ perceptions of their skills in completing various work-related tasks, teachers’ assessment of their own job performance, and teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. The three variables in the professional activities factor have moderate factor loadings and their variances were largely unexplained by the professional activities factor. These variables included the number of professional journals teachers read, the number of professional associations to which they belonged, and the number of times per month that colleagues asked them for professional advice. The last factor in the teacher quality model included selected classroom practices. Best practices in reading and inclusion have reasonable factor loadings while managing behavior has a significant but moderate factor loading. In the second-order factor analysis, Carlson et al. (2004) combined these first-order factors to derive an aggregate teacher quality measure. They reported that the professional activities factor was the most important, followed by self-efficacy. The other three had similar and moderate loadings. They suggested that each of the five quality factors is an important component of ‘‘an aggregate teacher-quality measure and should be considered in future research on teacher quality in special education’’ (p. 356). The model of teacher quality by Carlson et al. provides an initial first step in considering what might be important indicators of teacher quality. Unfortunately, evidence suggests that many special education teachers lack basic credentials (Billingsley, Fall, & Williams, 2006; Boe & Cook, 2006), yet we know little about the extent to which special educators with varying levels of credentials are distributed across high- and low-poverty districts. We used the SPeNSE database to compare the characteristics of early career special educators in low- and high-poverty districts. We selected early career teachers because the majority of teachers hold full certification after five years (Billingsley, 2002), while new entrants often lack basic credentials.

Disparities in Teacher Quality in Special Education

187

For example, Boe and Cook (2006) found that 44.4% of entering special educators were not fully certified for their main assignment using data from the SASSs. Billingsley (2002) found that 37% of first year teachers did not hold full certification using data from the SPeNSE. Therefore, using a subsample of early career teachers allows a more focused study of the extent to which districts rely on less qualified personnel. More specifically, we compared early career teachers in low- and high-poverty districts on a number of teacher quality indicators: credentials, preservice preparation, self-efficacy, and induction.

METHOD These analyses were based on national data developed by SPeNSE, a project funded through the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). SPeNSE included computer-assisted telephone interviews with a nationally representative sample of local administrators, special and general education teachers, speech-language pathologists, and paraprofessionals. The interviews were conducted from May through November 2000. SPeNSE is the largest national special education teacher database conducted with over 5,427 special education teachers. This study included data from a subset of special education teachers (K-12), those with five or less years of experience (speech-language pathologists were not included). The findings reported are national estimates derived from the SPeNSE sample. For detailed information about this study, please see www.spense.org.

Sampling SPeNSE used a two-phase sample design. The sampling units in Phase 1 included three groups: local education agencies (LEAs), intermediate education units (IEUs), and state schools for students with sensory impairments. The LEA sample was stratified by geographical region and district size, based on student enrollment. The IEU samples were stratified by geographic region and included only those who provided direct services to students with disabilities. All of the state schools (n=76) were included in this first sampling phase. In the second phase, a stratified simple random sample of service providers (i.e., preschool teachers, teachers of students with sensory impairments, teachers of students with emotional disturbance, and other special education teachers, speech-language pathologists, special

188

ANNA-MA´RIA FALL AND BONNIE S. BILLINGSLEY

education paraprofessionals, and general education teachers) were selected from the personnel rosters in LEAs, IEUs, and state schools. Because only 46% (n=370) of sampled LEAs, IEUs, and state schools and 69% (n=1,061) of the sampled service providers actually participated in the study, weight adjustments were made to address nonresponse bias. Further, post hoc comparisons of SPeNSE data with other data containing identical or similar items did not suggest any systematic nonresponse bias. However, care must be taken in interpreting results.

Survey Development and Procedures The survey instruments developed for SPeNSE included a range of items related to workforce quality, including items related to demographic characteristics, teacher preparation, work conditions, and career plans. Some of the items were taken directly from other surveys, such as the SASS. The items we selected from the database are outlined in Table 1. The data were weighted to generate national estimates as described in a previous article (Billingsley, Carlson, & Klein, 2004, pp. 336–337).

Measures Defining High- and Low-Poverty Districts We compared indicators of teacher quality across high- and low-poverty districts. SPeNSE measured poverty using the Orshansky Poverty Index (Fisher, 1992) generated by the Census Bureau. The index reflects the percentage of students in a district living in poverty based on household income, household composition, and size. High poverty refers to districts where 39% or more students come from families below the federal poverty line, while low poverty refers to 20% or less falling below this line. The cutoff point of 39% is close to that used by other researchers. As Swanstrom, Ryan, and Stigers (2006) argue, ‘‘Scholars in the United States have almost universally defined concentrated poverty as census tracts in which a high percentage of the population (usually 40% plus) falls below the official federal poverty line’’ (p. 1). Measures of Teacher Quality Adapting Carlson et al.’s (2004) model of teacher quality; we investigated teachers’ credentials, preservice preparation, self-efficacy, and induction.

Disparities in Teacher Quality in Special Education

Table 1.

189

Description of the Measures used as Indicators of Teacher Quality.

Indicators of Teacher Quality Experience Years teaching special education Credentials Level of certification

Highest degree earned

Self-efficacy Self-efficacy score General self-assessment of performance as a teacher CEC skills score

Variable Description

How many years have you worked specifically in special education? A 4 category variable, where 1= none, 2=emergency, 3=certified out of field, and 4= fully certified for position 4 category variable, where 1=Bachelor’s degree or less, 2=working on a Master’s degree, 3=have a Masters and working on additional degree Self-ratings on seven self-efficacy items (specific items in Table 4) How would you characterize your overall performance as a teacher? Self-assessment of skills in 17 areas (specific items in Fig. 3)

Additional Indicators of Teacher Quality Included Preservice preparation Selectivity of university where teacher 3 category variable, where 1=least/less selective, received initial preparation 2=selective, 3=more or most selective Weeks of student teaching completed 4 category variable, where 1=no student teaching, 2=1–4weeks, 3=5–9 weeks, 4=10 or more weeks student teaching completed Interaction with students from To what extent did you interact with students who culturally and linguistically different were CLD from you in your student teaching or background during student teaching field-based aspects of your teacher preparation program? where 1=not at all/to a small extent and 2=a moderate/great extent Credentials Take test Have you taken one or more tests required for state certification or licensure, such as the NTE or PRAXIS? Test performance We understand that many people take these exams several times in order to pass all of the necessary components. Did you take any exam more than once? Induction Availability of support systems Rating of availability of support systems in first three years teaching (specific items in Table 5) Helpfulness of support systems Ratings of helpfulness of support system

Source: Adapted from Carlson, Lee, and Schroll’s (2004) framework of teacher quality.

190

ANNA-MA´RIA FALL AND BONNIE S. BILLINGSLEY

Table 1 describes the indicators of teacher quality identified by Carlson et al. and also additional variables. For example we added selectivity of institution, weeks student teaching, and performance on tests required for certification (e.g., Praxis, NTE) based on research from the general education literature. Carlson et al. also considered including test performance in their model of teacher quality, but left it out because of the insufficient number of teachers who took these tests in the overall sample. However, we included this variable since our sample includes only early career teachers, with the majority of these teachers (73%) taking a test for certification. We also used induction support as our overall professional development variable, given early career teachers participate not only in inservice, but in other types of development designed to lead to professional growth (e.g., mentoring, new teacher meetings).

Data Analyses From this overall sample of 935 early career special education teachers, 400 teachers worked with students with disabilities in low-poverty districts, 292 teachers worked in districts where 21–39% of students live in poverty, and 243 teachers served students with disabilities in high-poverty districts. Data analyses were conducted using WesVar 4.2 (Westat Inc., 2002), a statistical package designed to calculate estimates for data collected through complex sample designs. These analyses included descriptive statistics, t tests and w2. Alpha level of 0.05 was used for all analysis. The results presented in this report were weighted to produce national estimates.

RESULTS District and Teacher Characteristics SPeNSE collected information about district characteristics, including metropolitan status (urban, suburban, rural) and the percent of students from different racial groups. Findings indicated that districts with highpoverty rates tend to be located in urban areas, serving significantly more students of color, w2 (2.76, N=643)=24.25, po0.05 (see Table 2). Table 2 provides a comparison of early career special educators’ characteristics in high- and low-poverty districts. As Table 2 suggests, early career special educators were primarily white and female (81%). There was a

Disparities in Teacher Quality in Special Education

Table 2.

District and Teacher Characteristics. Overall Sample (%)

Gender Female Race Caucasian African American Hispanic Asian Native American Teaching assignment Visual/hearing Students with EBD ‘‘Other’’ disability Metropolitan status Urban Suburban Rural Type of school Regular school Special school Alternative school Students of color enrollment o10% 11–20% 21–40% W41%

191

Percent of Students Living in Poverty o20%

W39%

81.4

86.1

75.8

85.3 12.1 4.4 2.5 0.7

94.4 4.0 2.2 1.2 0.1

67.3 13.5 30.1 2.9 1.1

2.7 16.0 81.2

3.32 13.12 83.56

1.1 20.7 78.2

27.5 51.6 20.9

5.9 75.8 18.2

55.9 10 34.1

93.9 3.1 2.7

93.4 3.7 2.7

97.5 1.3 1.2

21.7 18.8 15.2 44.3

34.7 26.2 16.5 22.5

3.7 7.5 13.2 75.5

higher proportion of male teachers in high- (24.2%) versus low-poverty districts (13.9%). High-poverty districts also had statistically higher percentages of African American and Hispanic teachers than those from low-poverty districts. More specifically, African American teachers comprised 30.1% of the sample in high-poverty districts compared to 4.1% in affluent districts, w2 (1, N=643)=16.8, po0.05. About 10.5% of the teachers in high-poverty districts were Hispanic compared to 2.2% of teachers in low-poverty districts, w2 (1, N=643)=5.25, po0.05. (Percentages add to more than 100% due to some indicating more than one racial group and the effects of data weighting). Although experience is considered a quality factor, it was not considered in this study since we sampled only early career teachers. The mean special education teaching experience was 2.7 years (high poverty, M=2.6; low poverty, M=2.8).

ANNA-MA´RIA FALL AND BONNIE S. BILLINGSLEY

192

Table 3.

Teacher Quality Indicators by District Type. Overall Sample (%)

Fully certified Emergency certificate Bachelors or less MA or higher Least/less selective institution More/most selective institution Take test more than once to pass No student teaching experience 10 or more weeks student teaching

79.5 14.0 32.9 31.3 27.9 21.9 22.0 9.8 78.7

Percent of Students Living in Poverty o20%

W39%

86.1 7.6 32.5 36.6 21.9 21.2 16.4 4.4 84.5

70.3 23.9 34.7 19.8 36.1 19.9 30.1 16.9 69.2

Teacher Quality Indicators by District Type Table 3 presents overall quality indicators for early career teachers in highand low-poverty districts, including credentials, preservice preparation, selfefficacy, and professional induction. Credentials To assess the credentials of early career special educators we analyzed teachers’ responses to three variables, including certification status, highest degree earned, and performance on tests required for licensure (Fig. 1). Certification Status. The SPeNSE study included several questions about certification. A derived variable grouped teachers’ responses into four categories, including not certified, emergency certified, certified out of field, or certified for main assignment. Overall, 20.5% of early career special educators were working in districts without full certification for their main teaching assignment. Of this group, 14% of teachers were working on emergency permits, 4.1% held out of field certificates, and 2.5% were working without any teaching certificate at all. However there were significant differences between high- and low-poverty districts in the distribution of certified teachers, w2 (2, N=643) =6.85, po0.05. As Fig. 1 demonstrates teachers from high-poverty districts were less likely to report full certification (29.7%) than those from low-poverty districts (14%). Teachers from high-poverty districts were also more likely to hold

Disparities in Teacher Quality in Special Education 100 90

< 20% live in poverty > 39% live in poverty

86.06

80

193

70.3

70 60 50 32.5 34.7

40 30

23.93

30.1 19.8

20 10

36.6 16.4

2.24

0 % Fully certified

Fig. 1.

% Emergency Certified

% Bachelors or less

% MA or higher % take test more than once

Credentials of Early Career Special Educators by District Type.

emergency certificates (23.9%) than those in low-poverty districts (2.2%). About 10% of teachers from both groups earned certification through alternative programs (9.5% low poverty; 10% high poverty). Highest Degree Earned. Respondents were asked several questions regarding levels of education, including Bachelor’s degree or less, working on a Master’s degree, have a Master’s degree, and have a Master’s degree and working on additional degree. The majority of early career special educators both in high- and low-poverty districts had a Bachelor’s degree or less. However in high-poverty districts fewer teachers (19.8%) held Master’s degree than those in more affluent districts (36.6%), w2 (1.97, N=643)=9.93, po0.05. State Test Requirements. Of the early career special education teachers, most took a test like the Praxis or the NTE for state licensure (73% low poverty, and 76% high poverty). Although we do not have data regarding teachers’ overall performance, 30.1% of teachers in high-poverty districts took the test more than once to pass, compared to 16.4% in low-poverty districts, w2 (1, N=643)=4.32, po0.05. Preservice Preparation Preservice preparation variables included the selectiveness of colleges teachers attended, weeks of student teaching, and interactions with students from culturally and linguistically different (CLD) backgrounds (Fig. 2).

ANNA-MA´RIA FALL AND BONNIE S. BILLINGSLEY

194 90 80

< 20% live in poverty > 39% live in poverty

84.5 69.2

70 60

49.2 50.4

50 36.1

40 30

21.9

20

21.2 19.9

10

16.9 4.4

0 % least/less selective institution

Fig. 2.

% more/most selective institution

% no student % 10 or more weeks % no/minimal teaching student teaching interaction CLD students

Preservice Preparation of Early Career Special Educators by District Type.

Selectiveness of the Institution. Teachers were asked to indicate the name of the college or university that they attended. This data were matched to information from the U.S. News and World Report College Directory. SPeNSE assigned selectivity ratings to the colleges and universities, ranking them as less/least selective, selective, or more/most selective. Table 3 shows that a greater proportion of teachers in high-poverty districts graduated from less/least selective institutions (36.1%) than teachers in low-poverty districts (21.9%). However, the percentage of teachers who graduated from more/ most selective institutions did not vary across district type; about 20% of teachers from both groups graduated from more/most selective institutions. Student Teaching Experiences. Teachers were asked, ‘‘In your initial teacher preparation program, how many weeks of student teaching did you complete?’’ Overall, early career special educators spent a mean of 14.9 weeks in student teaching. Teachers working in high-poverty districts spent significantly less time in student teaching (M=13 weeks) than those in lowpoverty districts (M=16 weeks), t (221)=3.67, po0.05. More specifically, teachers in high-poverty districts were more likely to have no student teaching experience at all (16.9%) than those in low-poverty districts (4.4%), w2 (2, N=643)=6.61, po0.05. Interaction with Students from Culturally and Linguistically Different (CLD) Backgrounds. The nation’s changing school demographics require that

Disparities in Teacher Quality in Special Education

195

teachers have skills in working with diverse student populations. When asked to indicate the extent to which they interacted with students from CLD backgrounds during student teaching or field experiences on a scale from 1 to 4 (1=‘‘not at all’’ and 4=‘‘great extent’’), almost half of the special educators from both groups indicated they had no or minimal interaction with students from CLD backgrounds. There was little difference between teachers working in high- and low-poverty districts, 50.4 and 49.2%, respectively. Self-Efficacy Carlson et al. (2004) included three variables in the self-efficacy factor, including teachers’ self-ratings of skillfulness in areas that the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC, 1998) defined as standards for entry into practice, teachers’ assessment of their own job performance, and teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. Teachers’ Skillfulness in CEC Standards. Teachers were asked to rate the extent to which they felt skillful in various work-related tasks. Teachers rated their skills using a scale from 1 to 4, where 1 indicated ‘‘not at all’’ skillful and 4 indicated feeling skillful to a ‘‘great extent.’’ Fig. 3 provides the percentage of early career special educators who reported being skillful to a moderate or great extent in seventeen different areas. Teachers both in low- and highpoverty districts gave themselves the highest skill ratings on using appropriate instructional techniques, planning effective lesson plans, and working with parents. The lowest self-ratings were in the areas of accommodating the needs of students from CLD backgrounds, interpreting the results of standardized tests, and using technology in instruction. Teachers’ Overall Job Performance. Teachers were asked to rate their overall job performance by answering the question, ‘‘How would you characterize your overall performance as a teacher?’’ Findings indicate similar self-ratings across teacher groups. Only 4.3% of teachers in highpoverty districts indicated their overall performance as poor or fair, compared to 0.7% of teachers in low-poverty districts. About 70.6% of early career teachers in high-poverty districts rated their overall performance as very good or exceptional, compared to 74.4% of those in low-poverty districts, w2 (1.89, N=643)=4, pW0.05). Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs. We found no statistically significant differences on self-efficacy beliefs between teachers in low- and high-poverty

196

ANNA-MA´RIA FALL AND BONNIE S. BILLINGSLEY < 20% districts students live in poverty >39 districts students live in poverty 96.9 98.8

Working with parents

96.7 97.5

Using appropriate instructional techniques

95.3 96.2

Planning effective lesson plans

95 97.4

Managing behavior

95 91.1

Improving performance as a teacher

94.4 94.4

Managing instructional time

92.1

Assessing behavior Developing behavior management plans

97.4

88

82

88 90.3

Collaborating with related service providers

86.6 88.5

Administering case management activities

83.1 87.3

Collaborating with non special educators

82.2 83

Teaching reading

78.6 79

Supervising instructional aids

72.7 71.4

Using professional literature

72 68.2

Using technology in instruction

67.7 72.9

Interpreting the results of standardized tests Accommodating CLD needs

58 0

20

40

60

66.5 80

100

120

Fig. 3. Early Career Special Educators’ Self-Ratings of Skillfulness by District Type. Note: Percentage of teachers who reported being skillful to a moderate or great extent.

districts. Teachers in both groups offered the most efficacious response to the statement ‘‘You feel that you are making a significant difference in the lives of your students’’ (98% low poverty, 95.5% high poverty, respectively). In contrast, teachers from both groups felt the least self-efficacious in judging how are they doing in their teaching, with 50.1% of teachers in low-poverty districts and 58.1% of teachers in high-poverty districts agreeing to a moderate or great extent with the statement ‘‘It’s hard to know how you are doing in your teaching (Table 4).’’ Induction Teachers’ opportunities for professional development were assessed by considering the induction support they received. Induction support was assessed by asking teachers to indicate whether or not they received seven

Disparities in Teacher Quality in Special Education

197

Table 4. Comparison of Teachers’ Self-Beliefs by District Type. Items

Extent to which Agree with the Statements Percent of students living in poverty o20%

W39%

Not at all/small extent (%) If you try hard, you can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students If one of your students mastered a new concept or skill quickly, it probably would be because you knew the necessary steps in teaching that concept or skill You have enough preparation and relevant experience to deal with most of your students’ learning problems It’s hard to know how you are doing in your teaching Many of the students you teach are not capable of learning the material you are supposed to teach them You can deal successfully with your students’ behavior problems You feel that you are making a significant difference in the lives of your students

o20%

W39%

To a moderate/great extent (%)

13.3

13.9

86.7

86.1

12.5

12.8

87.6

87.2

10.8

13.0

89.3

87.1

49.0

41.9

50.1

58.1

23.6

27.9

76.4

72.1

2.6

6.2

97.4

93.8

2.1

4.5

98.0

95.5

specific types of supports, including formal mentoring, regular meetings with new teachers, informal help from building teachers, assistance from building administrators, assistance from consultants or supervisors, informal help from colleagues, and district in-service or staff development. As Table 5 illustrates, although a variety of supports were available to them, teachers’ reports did not differ by poverty level. Overall, the most frequently provided form of support was informal help from other colleagues. About 92.3% of teachers in low-poverty districts and 96.4% of teachers in highpoverty districts indicated that informal help from other colleagues was available to them. In contrast, the least frequently provided form of support

198

ANNA-MA´RIA FALL AND BONNIE S. BILLINGSLEY

Table 5. Comparison of the Assistance Provided and Extent to which was Helpful by District Type. Percent of District’s Students Living in Poverty o20%

W39%

Support available

Informal help from colleagues In-service or staff development Assistance from administrators Assistance from consultants Regular meeting with teachers Informal help from building teachers Formal mentoring program

o20%

W39%

o20%

W39%

Extent to which support was helpful

Yes (%)

Yes (%)

Not at all/small extent (%)

To a moderate/great extent (%)

96.4

92.3

11.8

12.8

88.2

87.8

88.6

88.4

31.1

29.1

69.0

70.9

86.9

78.3

28.9

27.3

71.1.

72.7

77.5

67.8

29.5

26.9

70.5

73.1

45.9

48.0

40.1

36.2

59.0

63.9

89.2

81.9

11.8

12.8

88.2

87.2

57.7

62.8

37.2

26.2

62.8

73.8

was formal mentoring with about half of the respondents indicating such support. Teachers were also asked to indicate the extent to which each of the seven types of support was helpful on a scale from 1 to 4 (1=not at all to 4=great extent). Teachers reported that informal help from colleagues was the most helpful form of support, followed by informal help from building teachers. About 70% of teachers from both groups found in-service and staff development helpful. Although more teachers found formal mentoring helpful in the high-poverty districts (73.8%) than in low-poverty districts (62.8%), the difference was not significant, w2 (1, N=643)=2.92, p W 0.05 (see Table 5).

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION We compared early career special educators’ characteristics and qualifications in high- and low-poverty districts using a national sample of special

Disparities in Teacher Quality in Special Education

199

educators. As Table 2 illustrated, teachers in high-poverty schools worked primarily in urban (55.9%) and rural schools (34.1%), while teachers in lowpoverty schools worked in primarily suburban districts (75.5%). In summary, a higher proportion of teachers in high-poverty districts were male and of color than those in more affluent communities. Special educators in high-poverty districts also lacked full certification and held emergency certificates more often than teachers in more affluent districts. Further, teachers from high-poverty districts held Master’s degrees less often than those in low-poverty districts. We also found that teachers in high-poverty districts graduated from less selective institutions, completed fewer weeks of student teaching, and took required certification tests more than once. Moreover, about half of the teachers from both high- and lowpoverty districts indicated that they had minimal opportunities to interact with students from CLD backgrounds during their preservice preparation. In addition to the teacher credential and preparation variables, we explored teachers’ ratings of preparedness in different instructional areas, as well as their overall job performance. Teachers gave themselves relatively high ratings in using appropriate instructional techniques, planning effective lessons, and working with parents. The lowest self-ratings were in using technology in instruction, interpreting the results of standardized tests, and in accommodating the needs of students from CLD backgrounds. We did not find any significant differences between teachers in high- and lowpoverty districts on these self-assessments, even though teachers working in more affluent communities appear to have more extensive preparation. Finally, early career teachers in both high- and low-poverty districts reported receiving similar induction opportunities, including formal mentoring, informal supports, and in-service opportunities.

Teacher Quality Disparities Even though the shortage of qualified special educators is well-documented (AAEE, 2006; Boe & Cook, 2006; McLeskey et al., 2004; U.S. Department of Education, 2005), little attention has been given to the differences in the qualifications of teachers across districts with varying levels of poverty. This study adds to the special education literature by providing evidence that early career teachers in high-poverty districts were less prepared on a range of teacher quality indicators. The extent of these disparities is of great concern. While 30% of special educators in high-poverty districts lacked full certification, 14% of their

200

ANNA-MA´RIA FALL AND BONNIE S. BILLINGSLEY

counterparts in more affluent districts lacked this credential. Similarly, 24% of early career teachers in high-poverty districts held an emergency certificate, compared to only 2% in more affluent districts. The teacher quality gap that we found in this study is consistent with many studies in general education. Lankford et al. (2002) reported that teachers in schools serving greater numbers of low-income and minority students were less qualified overall and Darling-Hammond (2007) suggests that the disparities are growing. The teacher quality gap between high- and low-poverty schools is troubling given what is known about the relationship between teacher quality indicators and student achievement in general education. Specifically, teachers who are fully certified for their main assignment, have preparation in pedagogical and subject matter (Akiba et al., 2007; Betts et al., 2000; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Wilson, Floden & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001), and attended more selective institutions (Rice, 2003; Wayne & Youngs, 2003) are more likely to positively influence student achievement. Moreover, research by Sanders and Rivers (1996) demonstrated that elementary students with comparable abilities and initial achievement levels achieve at vastly different rates depending on the sequence of teachers they were assigned. They found that students who were assigned to the most effective teachers three years in a row scored up to 52–54 percentile points higher on achievement measures compared to those assigned to the least effective teachers over the same time period. A number of researchers have also reported that teacher quality contributes more to student achievement than many other factors including class size, student background, and school resources (Betts et al., 2000; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Ferguson, 1991; Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997). Although McLeskey and Billingsley (in press) found no large-scale studies linking teacher quality in special education to student achievement, they argue that it is reasonable to expect teacher quality to also be critical to the achievement of students with disabilities. They emphasized the importance of knowledgeable and skilled special education teachers to the achievement of students with disabilities. Indeed, this is especially important because these students were referred for evaluation because did not make sufficient progress in general education. We illustrate some of the challenges faced by high-poverty schools that employ inexperienced, uncertified, and substitute teachers using the ethnographic work of Harry and Klingner (2006): ‘‘Certainly, in those schools that served predominantly poor, Black populations, the most vulnerable children were placed at increased risk by virtue of inequitable

Disparities in Teacher Quality in Special Education

201

hiring practices, assignment of weak teachers to weak students’’ (p. 38) and retention of weak teachers. They describe their observations of poor quality instruction that limited poor children’s opportunities to learn: What do we mean by ‘‘extremely’’ weak teaching? We mean classrooms in which teachers were often distraught or angry; where rough reprimands, idle threats, and personal insults were common; and where teachers’ attempts to curb out-of-seat and offtask behavior were either sporadic and ineffective or unduly harsh. In these classrooms, instruction was frequently offered with no context, no attempt to connect to children’s previous learning or personal experiences. Here, rote instruction took the place of meaningful explanation and dialogue. Often, poorly planned lessons were at the heart of the problem. (p. 56)

The lack of qualified special educators in high-poverty districts is likely not only to limit students’ opportunities to learn, but it also contributes to turnover and workplace instability. Teachers who lack certification in general (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005) and special education (Boe, Bobbitt, Cook, Whitener, & Weber, 1997; Miller, Brownell, & Smith, 1999) are more likely to leave their positions than those who are fully certified. As Darling-Hammond and Sykes (2003) stated, uncertified teachers who leave soon after entering expose teachers to a parade of less qualified teachers, particularly since these teachers often leave before they develop effective teaching practices. Further, teachers who leave highpoverty schools often move to more affluent districts (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004; Lankford et al., 2002).

Addressing the Teacher Quality Gap The findings from this study suggest a severe and persistent shortage of qualified teachers to educate students with disabilities in high-poverty districts. Addressing the teacher quality gap requires sustained and coordinated investments in teacher recruitment, preparation, induction, and support across federal and state policy-makers, university faculty, and district leaders. Researchers in general as well as special education have suggested policy changes to remedy the disparities in students’ access to qualified teachers. Blanchett, Mumford, and Beachum (2005) suggested the elimination of funding formulas based on property taxes which lead ‘‘to a qualitatively different level of education for students based on their race, socioeconomic status, and community backgrounds’’ (p. 79). DarlingHammond and Sykes (2003) proposed a national teacher supply policy to monitor and address identified needs through federal and state supports,

202

ANNA-MA´RIA FALL AND BONNIE S. BILLINGSLEY

including increasing the capacity of universities to prepare teachers in high demand locations, consolidating scholarship and loan forgiveness programs, developing grow your own programs, and supporting high quality alternative routes in critical shortage areas. Another promising way to ensure that all students have access to equitable learning opportunities is to increase the support that new teachers receive, including ‘‘hiring procedures, protected initial assignments, steady provision of mentor and other support, and improved evaluation to help novices’’ (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003, p. 36). Although we did not find any significant differences between induction support in low- and high-poverty districts, it is likely that teachers in high-poverty districts need more extensive supports given that a fourth of these teachers hold emergency credentials. It is of note that about half of the special educators across districts did not receive formal mentoring. Induction support is important to new special educators as they continue to develop their knowledge and skills (Griffin, Winn, Otis-Wilborn, & Kilgore, 2003; Whitaker, 2000; White & Mason, 2006). In particular, teachers without credentials need ‘‘intensive and specific professional development activities’’ (Mastropieri, 2001, p. 72) with ongoing supports throughout the initial teaching years (Billingsley, 2005).

Challenges for Teacher Education As the above discussion suggests, significant resources need to be directed toward preparing teachers for work in high-poverty schools. Our study suggests that intensive efforts are also needed to recruit teachers of color, given that the vast majority of special educators continue to be overwhelmingly White and female. Olson (2000) provided evidence that the proportion of teachers from diverse backgrounds is small and declining and predicts that by 2009, 40% of students will be members of minority groups, compared with only about 12% of the current teaching force. However, it is important to note that there are greater proportions of special education teachers of color in high-poverty districts and these districts also have higher proportions of students of color. As Tyler, Yzquierdo, Lopez-Reyna, and Flippin (2004) suggested, there is an assumption that students from diverse backgrounds will be more likely to succeed academically when paired with teachers from similar backgrounds. However, there is little empirical evidence to support this idea. Finally, despite the growing rhetoric about the importance of addressing the diverse needs of students, many special educators reported being

Disparities in Teacher Quality in Special Education

203

unprepared to work with students from CLD backgrounds and report having minimal or no interactions with students from CLD backgrounds during their preparation programs. This is problematic especially given that on average, almost one-fourth of special educators’ students are from a cultural or linguistic group different from their own (United States Department of Education, 2001) and teachers report that their work is more difficult when they and their students do not share characteristics such as social expectations, race, ethnicity, and language (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). University faculty need to evaluate the extent to which their current teacher education curricula provide opportunities for students to develop knowledge and to have experience in accommodating students from CLD backgrounds. Brownell, Ross, Colo´n, and McCallum (2003) in their review of special education teacher education programs, suggested that while there were widespread attempts to address cultural diversity, programs often did not elaborate on how this topic was addressed in courses or field experiences. Harry and Klingner (2006) also emphasized that teacher certification requirements should be reviewed to assure that ‘‘they include standards specific to teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students and that they require evidence from teacher-preparation programs indicating that they are addressing diversity in significant ways’’ (p. 177).

Limitations of the Study and Needs for Research Although we provided evidence about the unequal distribution of teachers on quality indicators in high- and low-poverty districts, we acknowledge that this study does not begin to capture important dimensions of teacher quality, and the complex interactions of individual, preparation, and institutional factors that combine to influence teachers’ effectiveness. However, large-scale investigations by necessity use indicators rather than direct measures of quality. Moreover, the field of special education has little agreement about what constitutes teacher quality. As Brownell et al. (2005) pointed out; researchers in special education have focused on developing effective interventions for students with disabilities and have overlooked teachers’ roles in student achievement. An agenda focused on special education teacher quality should be a priority for the field. We also have no way of assessing potential differences in teacher quality among schools within districts. Bridges (1996) suggested that inadequate teachers are often transferred to schools with higher concentrations of poor and minority students. Future research might consider the extent to which

204

ANNA-MA´RIA FALL AND BONNIE S. BILLINGSLEY

special educators with different qualifications are placed across schools in districts with varying levels of poverty. Few conclusions can be drawn from the data on teachers’ self-assessments. Even though teachers in high-poverty districts have less extensive preparation than those in low-poverty districts, self-ratings between the two groups were not significantly different. Carlson et al. (2004) argued that care should be taken in interpreting the results, ‘‘particularly with regard to use of specific classroom practices, where self-report may be particularly suspect’’ (p. 357). Nougaret et al. (2005) also found that although traditionally prepared teachers were more effective than nontraditionally licensed teachers, both groups evaluated themselves as similarly competent. From these findings, the authors draw the conclusion that nontraditionally licensed teachers were unaware of their own strengths and relative weaknesses. Finally, the data from this study is limited to only one school year. Ongoing data collection efforts over time are needed to investigate trends and to allow for more responsive policies to address personnel needs. In conclusion, given the importance of teacher quality to student achievement, students with disabilities in high-poverty districts should be considered at risk because of the likelihood that they will have teachers at some point that lack basic preparation for their work. Addressing the teacher quality gap will take sustained commitments to realize an American ideal. As Oakes and Lipton (2004) stated: Americans want a society where everyone is able to reap the benefits of their ability, hard work and persistence. Inherited wealth, family connections, or being of the ‘‘right’’ social group or race should not constrain or advantage anyone in pursuit of prosperity and fulfillment. (p. 184)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT We acknowledge the work of Elaine Carlson of Westat, for her role in creating the database used in this study and for her helpful comments on this manuscript.

REFERENCES A high-quality teacher for every classroom (SPeNSE Factsheet). (2002). Retrieved November 30, 2007, from http://ferdig.coe.ufl.edu/spense/SummaryReportserviceproviders.pdf

Disparities in Teacher Quality in Special Education

205

Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 369–387. American Association for Employment in Education. (2006). Educator supply and demand in the United States (Executive Summary). Columbus, OH. Bettie, J. (2003). Women without class: Girls, race, and identity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Betts, J. R., Rueben, K. S., & Danenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes? The distribution of school resources and student achievement in California. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. Billingsley, B. S. (2002). Beginning special educators: Characteristics, qualifications, and experiences. SPeNSE summary sheet. Retrieved November 30, 2007, from http:// www.SPeNSE.org Billingsley, B. S. (2005). Cultivating and keeping committed special education teachers: What principals and district administrators can do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Billingsley, B. S., Carlson, E., & Klein, S. (2004). The working conditions and induction support of early career special educators. Exceptional Children, 70(3), 333–347. Billingsley, B. S., Fall, A. M., & Williams, T. O., Jr. (2006). Who is teaching students with emotional disorders? A profile and comparison to other special educators. Behavioral Disorders, 31(3), 252–264. Blanchett, W. J., Mumford, V., & Beachum, F. (2005). Urban school failure and disproportionality in a post-Brown era; benign neglect of the constitutional rights of students of color. Remedial and Special Education, 26(2), 70–81. Boe, E. E., Bobbitt, A. S., Cook, L. H., Whitener, S. D., & Weber, A. L. (1997). Why didst thou go? Predictors of retention, transfer, and attrition of special and general education teachers from a national perspective. Journal of Special Education, 30(4), 390–411. Boe, E. E., & Cook, L. H. (2006). The chronic and increasing shortage of fully-certified teachers in special and general education. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 443–460. Boe, E. E., Shin, S., & Cook, L. H. (2007). Does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers in either special or general education?. Journal of Special Education, 41(3), 158–170. Bridges, E. M. (1996). Evaluation for tenure and dismissal. In: J. Millman & L. DarlingHammond (Eds), The new handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 147–157). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Brownell, M. T., Bishop, A. M., Klingner, J. K., Gersten, R., Dimino, J., Haager, D., et al. (2005). Defining and assessing the quality of beginning special education teachers: first steps, conclusions drawn, and challenges encountered. Paper presented at the ISEC 2005 conference, Glasgow, Scotland. Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. R., Colo´n, E. P., & McCallum, C. L. (2003). Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison with exemplary practices in general teacher education. COPSSE Document Number RS-4. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education. Carlson, E., Lee, H., & Schroll, K. (2004). Identifying attributes of high quality special education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(4), 350–359. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2006). Teacher–student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources, 41(4), 778–820. Collins, P. H. (1998). Fighting words: Black women and the search for justice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

206

ANNA-MA´RIA FALL AND BONNIE S. BILLINGSLEY

Council for Exceptional Children. (1998). What every special educator must know: The international standards for the preparation and licensure of special educators (3rd ed.). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/ Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318–334. Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (2007). A good teacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. Educational Horizons, 85(2), 111–132. Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D., Gatlin, S .J., & Helig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(42). Retrieved November 7, 2007, from http://www.srnleads.org/data/pdfs/certification.pdf Darling-Hammond, L., & Post, L. (2000). Inequality in teaching and schooling: Supporting high-quality teaching and leadership in low-income schools. In: R. D. Kahlenberg (Ed.), A nation at risk: Preserving public education as an engine for social mobility (pp. 127–167). New York: The Century Foundation Press. Darling-Hammond, L. & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the ‘‘Highly Qualified Teacher’’ challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). Retrieved September 7, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/ epaa/v11n33/ Fall, A. M., & Billingsley, B. S. (2007). Structural inequalities in special education: A Comparison of special educators’ qualifications, working conditions and local policies. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL. Ferguson, R. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 465–498. Fisher, G. M. (1992). The development and history of the poverty thresholds. Social Security Bulletin, 55(4), 3–14. Griffin, C. C., Winn, J. A., Otis-Wilborn, A., & Kilgore, K. L. (2003). New teacher induction in special education. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education. Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 301–308. Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. The Journal of Human Resources, 39(2), 326–354. Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Ingersoll, R. M. (2002). Out-of-field teaching, educational inequality, and the organization of schools: An exploratory analysis. Seattle, WA: Center for the study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Jerald, C. D., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2002). All talk, no action: Putting an end to out-of-field teaching (pp. 1–14). Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Johnson, M. S., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a ‘‘sense of success’’: New teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 581–617.

Disparities in Teacher Quality in Special Education

207

Kennedy, M. M. (1992). The problems of improving teacher quality while balancing supply and demand. In: E. E. Boe & D. M. Gilford (Eds), Teacher supply, demand, and quality: Policy issues, models, and data bases: Proceedings of a conference (pp. 65–108). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Crown. Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 37–62. Leinhardt, G., Zigmond, N., & Cooley, W. (1981). Reading instruction and its effects. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 343–361. Mandlawitz, M. (2003). Urban perspectives on special education. Washington, DC: Center of Educational Policy. Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). Is the glass half full or half empty? Challenges encountered by firstyear special education teachers. Journal of Special Education, 35, 66–74. McLeskey, J., & Billingsley, B. S. (in press). How does the quality and stability of the special education teaching force influence the research-to-practice gap? Remedial and Special Education. McLeskey, J., Tyler, N., & Flippin, S. S. (2004). The supply of and demand for special education teachers: A review of research regarding the nature of the chronic shortage of special education teachers. Journal of Special Education, 38, 5–21. Miller, M. D., Brownell, M., & Smith, S. W. (1999). Factors that predict teachers staying in, leaving, or transferring from the special education classroom. Exceptional Children, 65, 201–218. Moll, L. C., & Ruiz, R. (2002). The educational sovereignty of Latino students in U.S. In: P. Pedraza & M. Rivera (Eds), Latino education: An agenda for community action research (pp. 295–321). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2001). Public Law 107–110. Nougaret, A. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2005). Does teacher education produce better special education teachers? Exceptional Children, 71, 217–229. Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (2004). ‘‘yAnd equal education for all’’. In: C. Glickman (Ed.), Letters to the next president: What we can do about the real crisis in public education (pp. 184–193). New York: Teachers College Press. Ogbu, J. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29, 155–188. Olson, L. (2000). Finding and keeping competent teachers. Education Week, 19(18), 12–17. Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC: The Economic Policy Institute. Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center. Sindelar, P. T., Smith, M. A., Harriman, N. E., Hale, R. L., & Wilson, R. J. (1986). Teacher effectiveness in special education programs. Journal of Special Education, 20, 195–207. Swanstrom, T., Ryan, R., & Stigers, K. M. (2006). Measuring concentrated poverty: Did it really decline in the 1990s? Berkley, CA: University of California, Institute of Urban and Regional Development. Tyler, N., Yzquierdo, Z., Lopez-Reyna, N., & Flippin, S. S. (2004). Cultural and linguistic diversity in special education workforce: A critical overview. Journal of Special Education, 38, 22–38.

208

ANNA-MA´RIA FALL AND BONNIE S. BILLINGSLEY

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). IDEA Part B annual report tables. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://www.ideadata.org/tables24th%5Car_af8.htm U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Twenty-seventh Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. Wayne, A. J. (2002). Teacher inequality: New evidence on disparities in teachers’ academic skills. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(30). Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n30/ Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73, 89–122. Westat Inc. (2002). WesVar 4.2 user’s guide. Rockville, MD: Westat. Whitaker, S. D. (2000). What do first-year special education teachers need? Implications for induction programs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(6), 28–36. White, M., & Mason, C. Y. (2006). Components of a successful mentoring program for beginning special education teachers: Perspectives from new teachers and mentors. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 191–201. Wilson, S., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: An insider’s view from outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 190–204. Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57–67.

SENSE OF COMMUNITY IN ONLINE COURSES AND STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: DEVELOPMENT OF A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR UNIVERSITY STUDENTS Vittore Perrucci, Giulia Balboni and Stefano Cacciamani ABSTRACT The sense of community in online courses may contribute to the success and the satisfaction of all the students and the integration of the students with disabilities. Therefore, a valid scale to assess sense of community must be used. For this purpose, a questionnaire for the evaluation of all the dimensions of the MacMillan and Chavis (1986) sense of community model, the main theoretical reference in the field, is being developed for use with students of university online courses. The usefulness of such a questionnaire for the planning of interventions to promote the feeling of being a member of a group in online courses is discussed.

Personnel Preparation Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, Volume 21, 209–222 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0735-004X/doi:10.1016/S0735-004X(08)00008-6

209

210

VITTORE PERRUCCI ET AL.

Sense of community (Sarason, 1986) refers to the perception of similarity and strong interdependence with others, and the feeling of being a member of a stable group. Sense of community carries the willingness to maintain the interdependence with the other group members by giving to or doing for others what is expected of them (Davidson & Cotter, 1991; Prezza, Costantini, Chiarolanza, & Di Marco, 1999). One of the more interesting and valid theoretical models of sense of community was proposed by McMillan and Chavis (1986; Table 1). These authors developed a multidimensional model made up of four distinct interrelated dimensions. The first dimension, membership, concerns the persons’ feeling of belonging or of sharing a sense of personal relatedness. Membership is made up of five subdimensions: (a) boundaries, (b) emotional safety, (c) sense of belonging, (d) personal investment, and (e) common symbol system. Everyone has boundaries that protect their personal space and allow them to feel safe (boundaries). Being part of a community, belonging and identifying with it, helps the person to feel accepted and therefore safe (emotional safety), and motivates to sacrifice himself/herself for the community (personal investment).

Table 1. Theoretical Model of Sense of Community Proposed by McMillan and Chavis (1986): Dimensions and Subdimensions. Dimension 1. Membership

2. Influence

3. Personal fulfilment and integration of needs 4. Shared emotional connection

Subdimension 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 2.1. 2.2.

4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6.

Boundaries Emotional safety Sense of belonging Personal investment Common symbol system Power of member to influence the community Community’s power to influence members (community norms)

Contact Quality of Interaction Closure to events Shared valent event Emotional investment Effect of honor and humiliation on community members 4.7. Spiritual bond

Sense of Community in Online Courses

211

On the other hand, working for own community supports the feeling of being a member of it (sense of belonging). Finally, the use of a shared symbolic system among members of the community helps to create and maintain the boundaries and therefore reinforces the sense of belonging (common symbol system). The second dimension concerns the mutual influence from the individuals to the community and from the community to individuals. Influence also concerns the feeling of power perceived by the person within the community and outside it, when he/she is a member of an influential community. The third dimension relates to the sense of personal fulfillment and integration of needs within the community. According to McMillan and Chavis, the satisfaction of personal needs from the community motivates the individual to want and work toward the betterment of it, being a member of the community himself. Strong communities offer to their members many opportunities for satisfaction that, in turn, consequently reinforce the individuals’ sense of belonging and motivation to sacrifice for the community. The fourth dimension of the model is the shared emotional connection, that is the set of beliefs, history, places, and experiences shared by members of a particular community. Shared emotional connection is made up of seven subdimensions: (a) contact, (b) quality of interaction, (c) closure to events, (d) shared valent event, (e) emotional investment, (f) effect of honor and humiliation on community members, and (g) spiritual bond. This dimension determines the strength and cohesion of the group, and is related to the quantity and quality of interaction among its members. The more the people interact (contact), the more likely they are to form closer relationships (closure to events). As these interactions become more positive (quality of interaction), the bond becomes stronger. Rewards or humiliation in the presence of community has a significant impact on attractiveness (or adverseness) of the community to the person (effect of honor and humiliation on community members). Investment in the community determines the importance of the individuals in the community’s success and current status. Persons who give time and effort to community organizations and events will be more concerned about seeing the positive effect of these events than those who have not been involved (emotional investment). The more important the shared event is to those involved, the greater is the community bond (shared valent event). Finally, sharing of common values within the community determines the bond among people (spiritual bond). Generally, sense of community is often evaluated in relation to the context in which an individual lives (Davidson & Cotter, 1986; Wandersman & Giamartino, 1980). Nevertheless, the construct can be studied in relation

212

VITTORE PERRUCCI ET AL.

to contexts other than the ones that define geographical communities (Martini & Sequi, 1988). Gusfield (1975) distinguished between territorial communities based on physical space, and communities of interest based on shared interests among individuals. Communities of interest are made up by people who share ideas, values, cultural patterns, interests, but not necessarily a territory or a geographic area of common reference (Martini & Sequi, 1988). Examples of communities of interest are scholastic and working communities, political and recreational associations, and religious congregations (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Davidson & Cotter, 1989; Wandersman & Giamartino, 1980).

SENSE OF COMMUNITY AT SCHOOL Generally, sense of community of students facilitate their academic results and their relationships with peer and adults (Bateman, 2002; Battisch, Solomon, Watson, & Shaps, 1997). Several investigations revealed that high level of sense of community is associated with academic success, school motivation, participation in academic activities (Battisch et al., 1997), social skills, and problem-solving abilities (Bateman, 2002). Low level of sense of community is frequently associated to students’ antisocial behaviors, social isolation, and drop out (Bateman, 2002; Royal & Rossi, 1996).

Sense of Community and Online Courses Regarding university students, sense of community is very relevant for facilitating their persistence in online courses (Rovai, 2002). Over the last few years, the implementation of online courses has had substantial growth especially in North America (American Federation of Teachers, 2001), but also in Europe (Cantoni & Esposito, 2004). This growth is mainly due to the fact that Internet provides rapid access to a vast pool of resources and allows saving of time and money in the management of teaching (Nachmias & Segev, 2003). However, online course students are physically separated from school, its staff, and other students. Therefore, online students seem to be more exposed to the experiences of isolation and alienation (Morgan & Tam, 1999; Rovai, 2002), disinterest (Tinto, 1997), and also a significant increased risk of a loss of quality of learning and of a premature withdrawal of courses (Ashar & Skenes, 1993; Besser & Donahue, 1996; Rovai & Wighting, 2005). In this context, online training based on the

Sense of Community in Online Courses

213

computer may be advantageous compared to other types of distance learning: This happens because online training facilitates the sense of community development and therefore the persistence on the course (Baym, 1995; Rovai, 2002). The use of computer allows the students to interact with each other. In this way, conditions for collaborative learning are created, and the development of a strong bond among students is made possible (Baym, 1995; Reid, 1995; Rheingold, 1993). The members of an online environment form a community that is independent of the physical place (Gusfield, 1975; Martini & Sequi, 1988), and in which one of the most important dimensions is ‘‘to do together’’ (Wellman, 1999). According to Rovai (2002), members of online communities perform behaviors that may be associated with the traditional concept of sense of community: pursuing shared goals (Baym, 1995; Donath, 1999), recognizing the boundaries that define who belongs or does not belong to the community (Rovai, 2002), establishing hierarchies and specific ways of interaction (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991), and sharing a common history and a common virtual meeting (Donath, 1999).

Sense of Community of Online Courses and Integration of Students with Disabilities Sense of community of online courses may be particularly relevant to facilitate school integration of students with disabilities. In typical school settings, when compared to their typically developing classmates, students with disabilities are less well liked and more likely to be rejected. More important, they are keenly aware of their lower social and scholastic status (Swanson & Malone, 1992). Furthermore, students with disabilities have been found to experience greater loneliness, feel more anonymous, less likely to participate in school activities, and are more often victimized by their classmates (Sabornie, 1994). According to Hamlin (2004), they are physically living in the community but largely disconnected from it. To facilitate their integration in a typical school setting, cooperative learning, tutoring strategies, and differential instruction with peer mediation (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2006, 2007; Mastropieri et al., 2006) may be very relevant. These teaching methods allow all the students to work together with the same material and therefore may help students with disabilities to feel ‘‘like all the others.’’ Also, the improvement of students’ sense of community may help them to feel less isolated and face their premature abandonment. For this reason, in the last years, models of dropout

214

VITTORE PERRUCCI ET AL.

prevention based on student participation have been proposed. For example, Finn (1989) suggested including active involvement both within and outside the classroom, such as assignments to extracurricular activities. In a similar perspective, Wehlage, Rutter, Smith, Lesko, and Fernandez (1989) stated that school membership is central to preventing at-risk students from dropping out. They explained that when school membership combines with engagement, the at-risk student is able to attain increased academic achievement and enhanced personal development, circumventing a wide range of learning and personal obstacles. Similarly, also in online school setting, facilitating a sense of community may be particularly useful for the integration of students with disabilities. Moreover, improving sense of group belonging may be particularly relevant because online training is increasingly being accepted around the world (American Federation of Teachers, 2001). Finally, online training based on the computer may offer opportunities of integration that are different from those offered by the regular school setting. For example, in online courses, students with severe motor disabilities may in a virtual room need alternative input mechanisms and easy navigation; those with vision impairments may use screen magnifiers or screen readers; those with hearing impairment may need captioning or text commentary for video and other multimedia; those with learning disabilities such as dyslexia might use speech recognition software for data input; and those with other disabilities including aphasia or color blindness need clear access to structure, careful use of color, and consistent organization of learning materials. All of these requirements have an impact on the way the student interacts with other participants in an online learning environment (Pearson, 2003). For all these reasons, valid scales of sense of community of online courses are very relevant for the planning of interventions to promote the feeling of being a member of the class.

Scales for the Measurement of Sense of Community of Online Courses Just one scale, the Classroom Community Scale (Rovai, 2002), is available for the assessment of the sense of community in online courses. The Classroom Community Scale may be used with university students of online courses and consists of two subscales, each composed of 10 items. The first subscale, Connectedness, measures the feeling of community members regarding their connectedness, cohesion, spirit, trust, and interdependence. The second subscale, Learning, evaluates the feeling of community members

Sense of Community in Online Courses

215

regarding interaction with each other as they pursue the construction of understanding; it measures the degree to which members share values and beliefs concerning the extent to which their educational goals and expectations are being satisfied. The Classroom Community Scale has been used in several studies, in different contexts, and for different purposes (Rovai & Jordan, 2004; Rovai & Wighting, 2005). However, two limitations must be noted. First, the Classroom Community Scale does not allow for the evaluation of all the dimensions of McMillan and Chavis model, despite the fact that it remains the main theoretical reference (Tartaglia, 2006). In this way, there is a risk of losing important information for the planning of interventions to facilitate the growth of the sense of community. Second, the Classroom Community Scale was developed and validated on a sample of students of online courses of 28 American private universities. The Scale was used in different contexts, both in terms of course features (face-to-face, fully online, blended) and in terms of geographical locations (USA, Australia). Several studies provide evidence that the sense of community can be created in any environment regardless of the geographical boundaries of participants (Baym, 1995; Reid, 1995; Rheingold, 1993; Wellman, 1999). In the meantime, it must be considered that sense of community may be influenced by the context (Hill, 1996; Rheingold, 1991). Therefore, in order to obtain a valid measurement, a sense of community scale developed for a specific context must be available.

DEVELOPMENT OF A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS OF UNIVERSITY ONLINE COURSES Given the needs of a sense of community scale for university students of online courses, a questionnaire is being developed. Our purpose is to measure all the dimensions of MacMillan and Chavis model. In this way, a detailed evaluation will be available for the monitoring of students’ sense of community during the development of courses. Moreover, valid information will be available for the planning of interventions to improve sense of community of all the students, and in particular for those with disabilities. Six steps are being followed: (1) review of literature, identification of the theoretical model reference, and the major sense of community scales; (2) arrangement of a preliminary set of items according to the theoretical

216

VITTORE PERRUCCI ET AL.

model; (3) field test of items; (4) pilot administration of the questionnaire first version and arrangement of a second version; (5) administration of the questionnaire second version to a representative sample and investigation of its reliability and validity; and (6) standardization of the obtained scale. So far, the first three steps have already been completed.

First Step: Review of Literature, Identification of the Theoretical Model Reference, and the Major Sense of Community Scales In order to identify the relevant publications, three research strategies were adopted: (1) computer-assisted searches in psychological and educational scientific literature databases (e.g., Winspears) with English and Italian keywords (e.g., sense of community, online courses, e-learning); (2) searches in all the recent issues (2000–2007) of relevant journals that include publications on sense of community, online learning, and questionnaires for students (e.g., Journal of Community Psychology, The Internet and Higher Education, Educational and Psychological Measurement); (3) identification of potentially useful manuscripts and texts in the references of the studies analyzed. In this way, 25 manuscripts were collected. A database of Knowledge Forum1 (Scardamalia, 2002) of the University of Valle d’Aosta was opened. In this way, a place for all the documents that was always accessible by all the research group members was available. The studies were classified according to the following topics: (1) theoretical models of sense of community and (2) scales of sense of community. For each manuscript, the kind of community reference was indicated: geographic communities vs. communities of interest. Based on topic-one manuscripts, we decided to use the MacMillan and Chavis (1986) model (1986) as a theoretical reference for the construction of the questionnaire. This model is the primary theoretical reference in the majority of the studies (Tartaglia, 2006). Next, we started to analyze topic-two manuscripts. Fifteen articles presented questionnaires on the sense of community. Of these, seven were related to geographic communities while the other eight regarded communities of interest. We were able to have seven of these fifteen questionnaires: The Classroom Community Scale (Rovai, 2002); the Italian Scale of Sense of Community (Prezza et al., 1999); the Sense of Community Scale (Davidson & Cotter, 1986); the Sense of Community Index (Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wandersman, & Chavis, 1990); and three questionnaires developed by

Sense of Community in Online Courses

217

Obst for the assessment of sense of community in urban communities and in associations (Obst, Smith, & Zinkiewicz, 2002; Obst, Zinkiewicz, & Smith, 2002a, 2002b). Among the last three questionnaires, only one was specifically related to community of interest; therefore, we decided to use just this one (Obst et al., 2002a) and not the other two. All the items of the five scales selected had been classified according to the dimensions and subdimensions of the McMillan and Chavis model.

Second Step: Arrangement of a Preliminary Set of Items According to the Theoretical Model Each item was classified by two independent judges according to the dimensions and subdimensions of the McMillan and Chavis model. Interrater agreement was computed via Cohen’s K. As it was quite low, equal to 0.39, only the items for which there was agreement were selected. Moreover, when necessary, items were adapted to the context of the online learning community. New items were written in order to have at least five items for each dimensions or subdimensions of the McMillan and Chavis model. Then, all the items were evaluated and modified in agreement by the three authors in order to be written with a consistent, understandable, and unequivocal language. A four-point Likert scale was prepared to be used as a rating system for each item: 4 ¼ Strongly agree; 3 ¼ Agree; 2 ¼ Disagree; 1 ¼ Strongly disagree. Similar to other questionnaires (Rovai, 2002), a neutral answer was not included in order to obtain the students’ real degree of agreement and to avoid potential sources with the confounding ‘‘any answer.’’ Then, two independent judges verified the applicability of the arranged Likert scale for each item and, when necessary, modified items.

Third Step: Field Test of Items Field test of items arranged was verified challenging two groups of experts. The first group (n ¼ 10) had experts of online courses and/or social psychology. These experts were asked to verify items’ content validity, classifying each of them according to the dimensions and subdimensions provided by McMillan and Chavis. The second group (n ¼ 11) had experts in development of questionnaires. They were asked to evaluate, through

218

VITTORE PERRUCCI ET AL.

open questions, clarity of scale instructions and of each item and usefulness of Likert scale. The responses of the first group of experts have been analyzed. Items for which there was almost 60% agreement among judges in the classification based on McMillan and Chavis model and with the minimum of answer variance were selected. Of these, items which had higher agreement were used in order to have four items for each dimension and subdimension of the model. For eight subdimensions, four items with such properties were not available; therefore we wrote new items. Then, we retyped all the items in order to have two in positive and two in negative form. Finally, taking into account the judgments of the second group of experts, scale instructions and a few items were retyped. In order to have the first version of the questionnaire, the items were sorted according to the following criteria (Manganelli Rattazzi, 1990): (1) moving from general to detail content (e.g., effect of training on professional career vs. language used in the course); (2) moving from concrete to abstract content (e.g., make questions vs. motivation to learn); (3) moving from events located in the past to events located in the future (e.g., opportunities to attend an online course vs. effects of online courses on own professional training); and (4) equal distribution of positive and negative items.

Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Steps (in Progress) The questionnaire first-version will be administered to a small group of undergraduate students of online courses (n ¼ 30; pilot administration; fourth step). The students will be asked to evaluate: (1) clarity of items and of administration instructions; (2) appropriateness of Likert-scale rating system; (3) degree of pleasantness and interest toward the questionnaire; and (4) total time of compilation. Based on this pilot administration, a second version of the instrument will be constructed. The scale obtained will be administrated to a representative group of undergraduate and graduated students of online courses (fifth step). Courses will be different taking into consideration several relevant variables, e.g., kind of courses (fully online vs. blended), topic of the courses (e.g., psychology, education, economy, and language), style of tutoring (e.g., instructor vs. facilitator), or length (e.g., two, four, or six months). Questionnaire psychometric properties will be verified according to both classical and item response theories (Barbaranelli & Natali, 2005; Embretson & Reise, 2000). Finally, standardization of the final version of the questionnaires will be

Sense of Community in Online Courses

219

developed and normative scores will be calculated (sixth step). Both pen and pencil and online version of the questionnaire will be published.

CONCLUSIONS Research about school integration of students with disabilities pursuing online courses seems to be focused mainly on the use of the Web for the planning of personal activities. The Web is employed mostly as a system of scaffolds to support the work of students. However, online learning models based on the idea of a collaborative community (i.e., Communities of Practices, Wenger, 1998; Knowledge Building Communities, Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006; and Community of Inquiry, Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007), pay a greater attention to the socio-affective factors for an effective integration of all the students. The development of a strong sense of community seems to support the persistence of the students in the school activities and the inclusion of students with disabilities. The questionnaire we are developing for the measurement of sense of community may be helpful for planning interventions. In particular, it will be possible to identify the organizational conditions that can effectively support the development of the sense of community. Examples are: the modality of interaction (asynchronous vs. asynchronous and synchronous communication); the features of the context (courses completely online vs. blended); the representation of the identity of participants in the online environment (only textual vs. with multimedia); the organization of the work (with vs. without roles to face the tasks; high vs. low interdependence among participants); and style of tutoring (instructor vs. facilitator). Our questionnaire may be used to investigate if all dimensions of the sense of community are really being developed, especially in students with disabilities. In this way, there will be more opportunities to design online courses that are truly accessible to all students.

NOTE 1. Knowledge Forum (KF) is an online environment for collaborative work. KF is based on a common database where the users can write notes (written texts) with either graphs or images. The notes can be organized in views, i.e., spaces devoted to a specific topic. Every authorized user can connect to the database, read somebody else’s notes, and insert some new ones that can be connected to the others through some links.

220

VITTORE PERRUCCI ET AL.

REFERENCES American Federation of Teachers. (2001). A virtual revolution: Trends in the expansion of distance education, May, 2001. Retrieved April 12, 2007 from http://www.aft.org/ pubs-reports/higher_ed/VirtualRevolution.pdf Ashar, H., & Skenes, R. (1993). Can Tinto’s student departure model be applied to nontraditional students. Adult Education Quarterly, 43, 90–100. Barbaranelli, C., & Natali, E. (2005). I test psicologici: Teorie e modelli psicometrici [Psychological test: Psychometric theories and models]. Roma: Carrocci. Bateman, H. V. (2002). Sense of community in the school: Listening to student voices. In: A. Fisher, C. Sonn & B. Bishop (Eds), Psychological sense of community: Research, applications and implications (pp. 161–179). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Battisch, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Shaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities. Educational Psychologist, 32, 137–151. Baym, N. K. (1995). The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication. In: S. G. Jones (Ed.), CyberSociety: Computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 138–163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Besser, H., & Donahue, S. (1996). Introduction and overview: Perspectives on distance independent education. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47, 801–804. Cantoni, L., & Esposito, A. (2004). La qualita` nella gestione dei prodotto di E-learning nelle universita` Italiane [Quality of management of E-learning training in the Italian universities] (Research report). Milan: University of Milan, CTU. Chavis, D. M. M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for participation and community development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 55–81. Davidson, W., & Cotter, P. R. (1991). The relationship between sense of community and subjective well-being: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 246–253. Davidson, W. B., & Cotter, P. R. (1986). Measurement of sense of community within the sphere of city. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 608–619. Davidson, W. B., & Cotter, P. R. (1989). Sense of community and politically participation. Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 119–125. Donath, J. S. (1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In: M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 29–59). New York, NY: Routledge. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 157–172. Gusfield, J. R. (1975). The community: A critical response. New York, NY: Wiley. Hamlin, A. (2004). Reminding people about community. A paper written by Quest for Valuing People Support Team Web site, February, 2004. Retrieved November 15, 2007 from http://www.valuingpeople.gov.uk/echo/filedownload.jsp?action=dFile&key=389 Hill, J. L. (1996). Psychological sense of community suggestions for future research. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 431–438. Manganelli Rattazzi, A. M. (1990). Il questionario. Aspetti teorici e pratici [The questionnaire. Theories and methodological issues]. Padova: Cleup.

Sense of Community in Online Courses

221

Martini, E. R., & Sequi, R. (1988). Il lavoro nella comunita` [Working in the community]. Roma: NIS. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2006). Classwide peer tutoring in middle school history classes. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, College of Education and Human Development. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2007). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall/Merrill. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Norland, J., Berkeley, S., McDuffie, K., Tornquist, E. H., & Conners, N. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science: Effects on classroom and high-stakes tests. Journal of Special Education, 40, 130–137. McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6–23. Morgan, C. K., & Tam, M. (1999). Unraveling the complexities of distance education student attrition. Distance Education, 20, 96–108. Nachmias, R., & Segev, L. (2003). Students’ use of content in Web-supported academic courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 6, 145–157. Obst, P., Smith, S. G., & Zinkiewicz, L. (2002). An exploration of sense of community, Part 3: Dimensions and predictors of psychological sense of community in geographical communities. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 119–133. Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. G. (2002a). Sense of community in science fiction fandom, Part 1: Understanding sense of community in an international community of interest. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 87–103. Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. G. (2002b). Sense of community in science fiction fandom, Part 2: Comparing neighborhood and interest group sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 105–117. Pearson, E. (2003). Designing a staff development course in inclusive design for online learning. International Journal of E-Learning, 2(4), 52–59. Perkins, D., Florin, P., Rich, R., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. M. M. (1990). Participation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and community context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 83–115. Prezza, M., Costantini, S., Chiarolanza, V., & Di Marco, S. (1999). La scala italiana del senso di comunita` [The Italian sense of community scale]. Psicologia della Salute, 3/4, 135–159. Reid, E. (1995). Virtual worlds: Culture and imagination. In: S. G. Jones (Ed.), CyberSociety: Computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 164–183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rheingold, H. (1991). The virtual community. New York, NY: Summit. Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. The Internet and Higher Education, 5, 197–211. Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning [Online], 5(2). Retrieved December 1, 2007 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/274 Rovai, A. P., & Wighting, M. J. (2005). Feeling of alienation and community among higher education students in a virtual classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(2), 97–110.

222

VITTORE PERRUCCI ET AL.

Royal, M. A., & Rossi, R. J. (1996). Individual-level correlates of sense of community: Findings from workplace and school. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 395–416. Sabornie, E. J. (1994). Social–affective characteristics in early adolescents identified as learning disabled and non disabled. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 268–279. Sarason, S. B. (1986). Commentary: The emergence of a conceptual center. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 405–407. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In: B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago, IL: Open Court. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In: K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). Cambridge: University Press. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Swanson, H. L., & Malone, S. (1992). Social skills and learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of the literature. School Psychology Review, 21, 427–443. Tartaglia, S. (2006). A preliminary study for a new model of sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 25–36. Tinto, V. (1997). Classroom and communities. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 599–623. Wandersman, A., & Giamartino, G. (1980). Community and individual difference characteristics as influences on initial participation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 217–228. Wehlage, G. G., Rutter, R. A., Smith, G. A., Lesko, N., & Fernandez, R. R. (1989). Reducing the risk: Schools as communities of support. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press. Wellman, B. (1999). The network community: An introduction to networks in the global village. In: B. Wellman (Ed.), Networks in the global village (pp. 1–48). Boulder, CO: Westbew Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PREDICTION OF READING COMPREHENSION, READING INTEREST AND READING EFFICACY FROM TEACHING STYLES AND CLASSROOM CLIMATE: A MULTILEVEL RANDOM COEFFICIENT MODELING ANALYSIS FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES Faye Antoniou and Georgios D. Sideridis ABSTRACT The purpose of the present study was to predict reading comprehension, reading interest, and reading efficacy from teaching styles. Participants were 109 students with learning disabilities from seven elementary schools

Personnel Preparation Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, Volume 21, 223–251 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0735-004X/doi:10.1016/S0735-004X(08)00009-8

223

224

FAYE ANTONIOU AND GEORGIOS D. SIDERIDIS

in Germany. By use of observational protocols and multilevel random coefficient modeling to account for the multilevel structure of the data, results indicated that: (a) reading comprehension was positively predicted from students’ attitudes and a structured classroom discourse, and negatively by a flexible teaching style, (b) reading interest was positively predicted by a structured and positive climate, and negatively by a discourse that was too guided, and (c) reading efficacy was predicted positively from students’ attitudes and teachers’ fostering, and negatively from teachers’ flexibility, guidance, and structure. Implications of the findings are discussed in the context of creating adaptive classroom climates for learners who have difficulties in learning.

The development of instructional contexts that are conducive to student learning, motivation, achievement, and emotionality should be the ultimate goal for teachers, educators, principals, and academic service providers (Howes, 2000). Those contexts, termed in various ways across theoretical frameworks (e.g., ethos, climate, instructional discourse, styles of teaching, lesson quality), have been accountable for a number of students’ outcomes, including: disruptive behaviors (Kaplan, Gheen, & Midgley, 2002), achievement (Reusser, 2000), social-emotional functioning (Howes, 2000), positive affect (den Brok, Brekelmans, & Wubbels, 2004; Kaplan & Midgley, 1999), adjustment to school (Wentzel, 2002), students’ perceptions of support (Ghaith, 2003), maladaptive behaviors such as bullying (Yoneyama & Rigby, 2006), quality of student–teacher relationship (Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995), school satisfaction (Samdal, Wold, & Bronis, 1999), student motivation (Church, Elliot, & Gable, 2001) or lack of it (Wolters, 2004), self-handicapping (Urdan, 2004), aggression (Raschle, CoulombCabagno, & Delsarte, 2005), self-regulation (Perry & VandeKamp, 2000), psychological functioning (Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996), mental health (Somersalo, Solantaus, & Almqvist, 2002), cognitive outcomes (den Brok, Brekelmans, & Wubbels, 2004), and antisocial behaviors (Reinke & Herman, 2002); the importance of these contexts has been documented for at-risk learners such as students with learning disabilities (Pierce, 1994; Sideridis, 2005). What is less well known, however, is how classroom environments can be predictive of reading achievement and motivation for students with learning disabilities. A brief literature review follows that examines what we know about these dependent variables and their role and function for different ability groups.

Prediction of Reading Comprehension, Reading Interest and Efficacy

225

READING COMPREHENSION: IMPORTANCE AND PREDICTION In language and literacy research, understanding text is the ultimate goal (Ouellette, 2006). Particularly for students with learning problems, their reading comprehension ability is at worrisome levels (Mastropieri, Scruggs, Bakken, & Whedon, 1996). So far, reading comprehension has been predicted by vocabulary (Nation & Snowling, 2004; Share & Leiken, 2004), word recognition (Ehri, 2005; Plaut, McClelland, Seidenberg, & Patterson, 1996), and decoding measures (Vellutino, Scanlon, & Spearing, 1995; Yovanoff, Duesbery, Alonso, & Tindal, 2005), depending on the theoretical predication of the researchers but little attention has been given to the influence (proximal or distal) of classroom environments, and specifically teacher behaviors, practices, and teaching styles on reading comprehension. Thus, the present study attempts to fill this gap by examining how reading comprehension can be predicted by linear combinations of variables that assess classroom climates and teaching styles. This prediction is far more important for students with learning disabilities, whose struggles are associated with feelings of impotency and helplessness (Grimes, 1981; Sideridis, 2003), hopelessness (Sideridis, 2005), anxiety (Heath & Ross, 2000; Lufi & Darliuk, 2005), and depression (Maag & Reid, 2006; Sideridis, 2006).

READING MOTIVATION, READING EFFICACY, AND READING ABILITY If students are not motivated to read, then it is very likely that they will not read and that they will fail language arts (Gottfried, 1990; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000; Sweet, Guthrie, & Ng, 1998). In a longitudinal study, Wigfield and Guthrie (1997) reported strong correlations between reading motivation and reading growth (see also Morgan & Fuchs, in press). Using a multidimensional measure of motivation (Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala, & Cox, 1999; Watkins & Coffey, 2004), they explained up to 15% of the variance in reading growth as a function of that motivational term. Reading interest is a salient variable in the motivational literature and has been strongly linked to the level of reading, reading ability, and reading comprehension (Hidi, 1990, 2001). As Hidi and Anderson (1992) pointed out, individual interest tends to develop slowly but has long-lasting adaptive

226

FAYE ANTONIOU AND GEORGIOS D. SIDERIDIS

effects for student’s learning (see also Renninger, 2000), compared to situational interest, which is evoked by the specificities in the environment, and is not expected to have such adaptive effects (Schraw & Lehman, 2001). Because interest for a task involves enhanced attention and cognitive functioning by allocating resources toward the task, it is associated with enhanced effort and, consequently, higher achievement (Ainley, Hidi, & Berndorff, 2002). Also, because interest has been conceptualized as a ‘‘dispositional motivational characteristic’’ (Schiefele, 1999, p. 260), it is important to understand and predict it, given its relation to a complex network of feeling-related or value-related characteristics (Renninger, 1990; Schiefele, 1999). Specifically for reading, interest has been linked to reading comprehension, text recall, enhanced memory for material, etc. (Anderson, 1982; Hidi & Baird, 1988; Kintsch, 1980; Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger, 1992; Schiefele & Krapp, 1996). In particular, Shnayer (1968) showed that increased interest was associated with enhanced reading comprehension compared to low interest, and these effects were replicated by Baldwin, Peleg-Bruckner, and McClintock (1985) especially with regard to boys (see also Asher & Richard, 1974). Thus, one purpose of the present study was to predict learning-disabled students’ reading interest from linear combinations of behaviors reflecting teaching styles and the specificities (qualities) of a classroom’s environment, given that interest has such strong effects on achievement.1 Self-efficacy on the other hand is, according to Schiefele (1999), a motivationally relevant belief that is an important antecedent of motivationally relevant cognitions, intentions to achieve, and actual achievement (see also Bandura, 1986; Garcia & de Caso, 2006; Pekrun, 1993; Schunk, 1995). According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy beliefs represent ones’ capabilities to produce given attainments and are salient predictors of a person’s academic functioning (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996), and academic or emotional self-regulation (Bandura, 1997; Schunk, 1994). Schunk (1994) suggested that, when students feel competent about their ability to achieve desired end states, they are likely to set challenging goals and ‘‘stay’’ with them longer (see also Pajares, 1996). As Bandura, Pastorelli, Barbaranelli, and Caprara (1999) nicely put it: ‘‘Unless people believe they can produce desired effects by their actions, they have little incentive to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties’’ (pp. 258– 259). Bandura et al. have even implicated lack of self-efficacy to a generalized lack of self-control with implications for childhood depression (Bandura et al., 1999). In the context of the present investigation, it is particularly important to examine the prediction of self-efficacy for students

Prediction of Reading Comprehension, Reading Interest and Efficacy

227

with LD, given their documented low levels in that construct (Klassen, 2002; Tabassam & Grainger, 2002). Although the levels in self-efficacy for students with LD have been questioned,2 the predictive validity of this selfbased belief has been consistently high as it related strongly to academic selfregulation (Garcia & de Caso, 2006), and text comprehension (Chapman & Tunmer, 1997; Shell, Colvin, & Bruning, 1995; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Thus, it is very important to further test this pattern of relations for students with LD because of the fact that these self-efficacy beliefs for this population are relatively unchanged, even in the presence of an effective intervention program in reading (Antoniou, 2006; see Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006 for a study with typical students). Given the wealth of information supporting the predictive role of selfefficacy to explain variance in achievement and self-regulation (Guthrie et al., 1999), the present study attempts to predict LD students’ self-efficacy from classroom characteristics in an effort to understand the propensities and characteristics of this important construct. Although, we found no study that attempted to provide an answer to the same network of relationships as ours, Oliver and Paull (1995) predicted self-esteem from family climate. Although less relevant, that study provided evidence regarding the negative role a controlling parenting climate exerted on a person’s self-esteem and functioning. They further showed that a negative family environment termed ‘‘affectionless control’’ (i.e., high on control and low on affect – in essence an authoritarian parenting style) was associated with low self-esteem and even the presence of depression.

TEACHING STYLES, QUALITY OF LESSON, AND CLASSROOM CLIMATE According to Reinke and Herman (2002), a school’s climate ‘‘encompasses factors such as communication patterns, norms about what is appropriate or how things are to be done, role relationships and role perceptions, patterns of influence and accommodation, and rewards and sanctions’’ (p. 552) (see also Tobin & Sprague, 2000). Thus, it is a dynamic social environment that reflects interactions between teachers and students but this environment is mostly under the control of the teacher (Pierce, 1994). Particularly for students with LD, specific attributes of the classroom environment have been linked to adaptive student outcomes and behaviors. For example, Sideridis (2006) demonstrated how a classroom environment,

228

FAYE ANTONIOU AND GEORGIOS D. SIDERIDIS

which emphasizes cooperation, is highly interesting and values student autonomy, as well as emphasizes personal best rather than competition, was associated with enhances in achievement and positive affect for students with LD compared to an environment that emphasized competitive strivings. The findings have been strikingly more salient when teacher’s style of instruction (based on motivational parameters) matched that of the students (in terms of cooperative or competitive structures, see Sideridis, 2007). Thus, it is extremely important to examine the attributes, characteristics, behaviors, routines, and styles of teachers that are accelerators of students’ learning associated with adaptive student behaviors, and that cultivate a positive classroom environment (Bulgren & Scanlon, 1997/1998). This line of research attempts to shed light on student’s motivation and achievement (as reflected by their scores on reading comprehension, interest, and efficacy) by bringing together two distinct literatures: one assessing students’ attributes and characteristics and the other examining the effects of classroom environments on student behaviors. Apparently, this description reflects the multilevel and multivariate nature of the data to be collected and analyzed (Ainley et al., 2002; Rowe, 2000). Thus, the purpose of the present study was to predict reading comprehension, reading interest, and reading efficacy from teaching styles and the quality of student lesson in a group of students with learning disabilities. In other words, we aimed to find linear combinations of predictors (teaching styles and quality of the classroom environment) that were conducive to learning (reading comprehension) and motivation (interest and efficacy). Because this study involved two levels of data, those at the classroom level and those at the student level, we employed a Multilevel Random Coefficient Model (MRCM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) in which student behaviors were nested within classroom characteristics or teacher behaviors.

METHOD Participants Teachers Fifteen teachers took part in the study with a mean age of 44 years (ranged between 29 and 59 years). Nine were female, and six were male. Their job experience in special education ranged between 2 months and 37 years, with a mean experience of 13.8 years.

Prediction of Reading Comprehension, Reading Interest and Efficacy

229

Students There were 109 participating students (5th–8th graders) from six special schools for students with special education needs and one integrating school of the Rhein-Main area in Hessen, Germany.3 The participating students attended 15 classes mainly drawn from the 6th and 7th grade levels, with three more being at the 5th-grade level and one at the 8th-grade level. Before entering the special or integrating school, all students had undergone a series of tests including an assessment to determine their level of ability (potential), a medical test, and interviews by experienced school psychology personnel. The students’ mean age was 13 years, 6 months. There were 60 boys and 49 girls. One-third of the participating students spoke German as their first language. Children with German as second language and children who did not speak German at home consisted two-thirds of the participants. Students were tested in intelligence, vocabulary knowledge, and decoding speed, all prerequisite to reading comprehension skills (Protopapas, Sideridis, Mouzaki, & Simos, 2007). Specifically, the criteria used to classify students as having learning disabilities were based on the discrepancy model (Sofie & Riccio, 2002) rather than recent recommendations (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2002; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003), and were as follows: (a) adequate intelligence, (b) reading difficulty as reflected by achievement 2–3 years below grade level, (c) absence of physical handicaps, and (d) discrepancy between ability (as reflected in IQ scores) and achievement in reading comprehension measures. More specifically, students were identified as having LD when they scored at or above a standardized score of 85, as measured by the Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFT) (Cattell, Weib, & Osterland, 1987). Additionally, the students’ reading-grade level was estimated in comparison to normative scores for that grade level in reading comprehension. Students’ reading-grade equivalent had to be at least three grades below their actual grade. The discrepancy formula applied involved regression analysis.

Procedures The classrooms were observed by trained research assistants three times after an arrangement with their supervisors. However, in order to avoid potential reactivity effects by teachers, and in instances when teachers felt uneasy from the fact that their behavior was monitored, assessments were conducted during two sessions only. The appointments were agreed in advance between graduate assistants and the teachers. The former were

230

FAYE ANTONIOU AND GEORGIOS D. SIDERIDIS

responsible for observing the sessions and establishing a positive climate between them and the teachers and students. All assessments took place after the students were accustomed with the presence of research assistants in the classes. In total, 37 h of observations were conducted, with an average of 2.9 h per class. Thus, observational ratings were based on those sessions.

Measures Reading Comprehension In order to evaluate reading comprehension, students were asked to read a 250-word text and answer seven multiple-choice and five open questions corresponding to the text (from Souvignier & Ruehl, 2005). For each testing point, parallel versions of the same test were implemented. Five of seven multiple-choice questions referred to concrete text details, whereas the last two required the reader’s total appraisal of the content of the text, which would be indicative of their deep understanding of the text’s meaning. Following the structure of the narrative texts, the open questions referred the main character, his/her aims, an emerging problem, and the solution of the story. The points that the students could achieve ranged between 0 and 17, and there was no time limit for the fulfilment of the test. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s a) was a ¼ 0.65. Reading Interest A reading interest scale (Souvignier & Ruehl, 2005) was used for every testing point in order to examine changes in students’ interest concerning reading. It consisted of five items, and students had to select one of the four alternatives ranging from ‘‘I absolutely agree’’ to ‘‘I absolutely disagree.’’ The items reflected students’ pleasure regarding reading (e.g., ‘‘I like reading books,’’ ‘‘Reading amuses me’’) and their attitudes toward reading (e.g., ‘‘It is easy for me to read books,’’ ‘‘I prefer reading than watching television,’’ and ‘‘I love receiving books as presents’’). The range of points that students could receive varied between 5 and 20. With a Cronbach’s a score of 0.81, the internal consistency of the scale was satisfactory. Reading Self-Efficacy It was assessed using a measure constructed by Jerusalem and Satow (1999). Students endorsed eleven items such as: ‘‘If I make an effort, I can also understand difficult text’’ or ‘‘If I have to work on my own on a difficult text, I believe that I can make it.’’ The response options were: ‘‘I absolutely

Prediction of Reading Comprehension, Reading Interest and Efficacy

231

agree,’’ ‘‘I partially agree,’’ ‘‘I disagree,’’ and ‘‘I absolutely disagree.’’ Students could earn between 11 and 44 points on this scale. The reliability estimate (Cronbach’s a) was 0.72. Quality of Lesson The rating scale used (Korneck, 2002) is a transactional scale of seven levels (1–7) designed to check the content accordance between the supervised lesson and the program’s content. Values over 4 are indicative that the lesson is conducted under the concept of the reading-strategy program. The internal consistency of the scales was determined for each of the 14 classes of behaviors. In total, the rating scale included three items, which were labeled: ‘‘Program’s content,’’ ‘‘Program’s accomplishment,’’ and ‘‘Students’ attitude’’ (see Appendix A). In more detail, the ‘‘Program’s content’’ scale (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.72) included items that describe the completeness and appropriateness of the teachers’ instructional approach. The item ‘‘Focal point of the lesson’’ examined if the emphasis of instruction is on the implementation of strategies or whether the content of the text was the focal point of teachers’ attention. The item ‘‘Reflection to strategy knowledge’’ was rated between often and never, whereas the ‘‘Identification with the trainings content’’ ranged between high and not at all (nonexistent). Regarding the ‘‘Content’s certainty’’ and ‘‘Expenditure of time for themes relevant to the program,’’ they both estimated the implementation of the program’s content. In the ‘‘Program’s accomplishment’’ scale (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.69), themes such as ‘‘Manual’s adaptation to the students,’’ ‘‘Incorporation of one’s own ideas in the lesson,’’ and ‘‘Presentation’’ were recorded. The last item included information on ‘‘Students’ attitudes,’’ which reflected their interest in the program, their participation, and attention. The internal consistency of this scale (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.81) was adequate. Teaching Styles Observations on teachers’ instructional behavior were gathered through a rating scale (Helmke & Weinert, 1997). Teachers’ teaching styles were recorded based on three classes of behaviors: ‘‘Guidance,’’ ‘‘Stimulation,’’ and ‘‘Fostering.’’ In ‘‘Guidance’’ (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.75), the supervisors observed the phases between transfers in the lesson, usage of time, and amount of discussions. In ‘‘Stimulation’’ (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.78), the raters observed the time that teachers devoted to individual students in order to stimulate them and evaluated the content of the questions and whether teacher’s responses were relevant. With ‘‘Fostering’’ (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.76),

232

FAYE ANTONIOU AND GEORGIOS D. SIDERIDIS

the raters evaluated the presence of active monitoring, the provision of information from teachers, and the perception of students that the teacher is a responsible and trustworthy person. Internal consistency estimates for this scale were 0.91 (see Appendix B).

Data Analysis Multilevel modeling has proven to be a very effective technique to analyze data that come from nested structures (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992; Roberts, 2004). Such structures usually involve students that are nested within classrooms (this is one typology of multilevel models). Using such designs then, one is able to predict variations in student behaviors as a function of teacher, classroom, and/or other characteristics. A series of MRCMs were run to evaluate whether reading comprehension, interest, and self-efficacy can be predicted by teachers’ style of instruction. Thus, student behaviors (level 1) were nested within teachers’ style of instruction (level 2). Prior to estimating any ‘‘structural’’ model, however, one needs to assess whether there is enough variance to be modeled across variables and levels of analyses (i.e., student and classroom). Thus, a series of unconditional models (i.e., models without any predictor variables in them) were run in order to verify that effect. All unconditional models pointed to the presence of ample levels of variance at level 1 that could be modeled by level-2 predictors (all w2 values exceeded the conventional levels of significance). Specifically, 9% of the variance in self-efficacy was between schools w2 (11) ¼ 20.504, po0.05, and the respective estimates for reading interest and reading efficacy were 14% [w2 (12) ¼ 27.273, po0.01] and 9.4% [w2 (11) ¼ 21.592, po0.01]. Additionally, we examined the reliability of the level-2 parameters. These reliabilities reflect the ‘‘discriminant ability’’ of the level-2 units as reflected by their least squares estimates (b0 and b1). Results indicated that the reliability estimates of the level-2 units were high for two out of the three dependent variables: 0.62 for reading comprehension, 0.68 for reading interest, and 0.01 for reading efficacy (All estimated from the respective structural models). The implication, however, from low reliabilities is not an invalidation of the model but rather the fact that a specific parameter needs to be considered fixed rather than random in subsequent analyses. This is why all structural models were consequently run with fixed effects. Specifically for reading comprehension, the following MRCM model was run to estimate the predictive validity of teaching styles and quality of

Prediction of Reading Comprehension, Reading Interest and Efficacy

233

lesson, all based on observations/ratings from teachers’ behaviors in the classroom. As mentioned above, the models were run with fixed effects because both solutions (fixed and random) were associated with very similar estimates: Level 1 Y 0ðReading comprehensionÞ ¼ b0 þ b1 ðPlacementÞ þ r Level 2 b1 ¼ g10 b0 ¼ g00 þ g01 ðFlexibilityÞ þ g02 ðAttitudeÞg03 ðGuidanceÞ þ g04 ðStructureÞ þ g05 ðFosteringÞ þ g06 ðClimateÞ Here, b1 represents the mean effects of placement for students placed in general or special education settings. In essence, the placement4 variable acted as a covariate in all subsequent models [(integrated (0); special education (1)], because preliminary modeling indicated that it differentiated most dependent variables substantially. The term g10 represents the intercept of placement and was not modeled further. The term g00 represents the intercept of mean comprehension, whereas the terms g01 through g06 represent partial regression coefficients for the prediction of mean levels of reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities. All coefficients were grand mean centered so that one standardized unit change in each independent variable was associated with one unit of change in reading comprehension (unstandardized). The above model was run with reading comprehension, reading interest, and reading efficacy being the dependent variables.

RESULTS Prediction of Reading Comprehension from Teaching Styles and Lesson Quality As shown in Table 1, attitudes and structure in the lesson were positive predictors of reading comprehension. Thus, use of a structured lesson that cultivated a positive attitude by students was conducive to learning. On the contrary, flexibility in the lesson was a negative predictor of reading comprehension. This latter variable, however, may reflect a rather ‘‘loose’’ and likely unorganized teaching style, which was not linked to positive

234

FAYE ANTONIOU AND GEORGIOS D. SIDERIDIS

Table 1.

Fixed Effects Solution for the Prediction of Reading Comprehension across Groups of Students.

Fixed Effect

Standard Coefficient

Slope for placement (covariate) b1 Intercept g10 1.034591 Slope for students with LD b0 Intercept g00 13.002138 Flexibility g01 0.927158 Attitude g02 0.799250 Guidance g03 0.172143 Structure g04 0.842458 Fostering g05 0.039790 Climate g06 0.189564

Error

t-ratio

d.f.

p-value

0.743043

1.392

101

0.167

0.696597 0.320221 0.253798 0.475665 0.108628 0.258865 0.346006

18.665 2.895 3.149 0.362 7.755 0.154 0.548

101 101 101 101 101 101 101

0.000 0.005 0.003 0.718 0.000 0.879 0.585

Indicates statistical significant coefficients at po0.05; d.f., degrees of freedom.

reading comprehension outcomes. Placement did not account for significant variance in reading comprehension, when all other variables were in the model.

Prediction of Reading Interest from Teaching Styles and Lesson Quality For the prediction of reading interest, the structure of the lesson and climate comprised of significant positive predictors, whereas guidance was emerged as a negative predictor (see Table 2). Interestingly, structured lessons seemed to covary with interest, although one could think that too much structure would be restrictive of students’ interest. In order to elucidate the above findings, a series of mediational models were put forth. These models tested the hypothesis that the relationship between teaching styles/quality of lesson and interest is mediated by reading comprehension (ability). Thus, in linear regression form, the following model was tested: Y 0ðReading interestÞ ¼ g00 þ g01 ðGuidanceÞ þ g10 ðReading comprehensionÞ þ g11 ðGuidance  Reading comprehensionÞ As shown in the above equation, of interest was the predictive ability of the interactive term ‘‘Guidance  Reading comprehension,’’ after

Prediction of Reading Comprehension, Reading Interest and Efficacy

Table 2.

235

Fixed Effects Solution for the Prediction of Reading Interest across Groups of Students.

Fixed Effect

Standard Coefficient

Slope for placement (covariate) b1 Intercept g10 0.889723 Slope for students with LD b0 Intercept g00 11.931616 Flexibility g01 0.512223 Attitude g02 0.965580 2.362707 Guidance g03 Structure g04 1.211872 Fostering g05 0.479857 Climate g06 2.002864

t-ratio

d.f.

p-value

1.060857

0.839

101

0.404

0.812427 0.494085 0.587322 0.998807 0.258490 0.575956 0.506993

14.686 1.037 1.644 2.366 4.688 0.833 3.950

101 101 101 101 101 101 101

0.000 0.303 0.103 0.020 0.000 0.407 0.000

Error

Indicates statistically significant coefficients at po0.05; d.f., degrees of freedom.

controlling for the linear effects of guidance. Thus, this cross-level interaction was modeled as a dependent variable. Results indicated that the above hypothesis was confirmed for guidance (bcross-level interaction ¼ 0.25, t(105) ¼ 2.575, p ¼ 0.012) but not for climate (bcross-level interaction ¼ 0.15, t(105) ¼ 1.450, p ¼ 0.150) or structure (bcross-level interaction ¼ 0.18, t(105) ¼ 1.666, p ¼ 0.098), although the latter approached levels of significance.

Prediction of Reading Efficacy from Teaching Styles and Lesson Quality As shown in Table 3, fostering and attitude were the only positive predictors of reading efficacy. On the contrary, reading efficacy was predicted negatively from flexibility, guidance, and structure. As with reading interest (above), a series of mediational models were run to estimate the indirect role of ability for the prediction of reading efficacy from teaching styles/climate. Results indicated that no variable was affected by the influence of ability. Specifically, nonsignificant effects emerged for attitude (bcross-level interaction ¼ 0.10, t(105) ¼ 0.991, p ¼ 0.324), flexibility (bcross-level interaction ¼ 0.06, t(105) ¼ 0.531, p ¼ 0.596), fostering (bcross-level interaction ¼ 0.08, t(105) ¼ 0.637, p ¼ 0.525), and guidance, although it approached levels of significance (bcross-level interaction ¼ 0.17, t(105) ¼ 1.763, p ¼ 0.080).

236

FAYE ANTONIOU AND GEORGIOS D. SIDERIDIS

Table 3.

Fixed Effects Solution for the Prediction of Reading-Efficacy across Groups of Students.

Fixed Effect

Standard Coefficient

Slope for placement (covariate) b1 Intercept g10 1.398424 Slope for students with LD b0 Intercept g00 31.531031 Flexibility g01 0.565578 Attitude g02 2.279564 Guidance g03 1.970333 Structure g04 1.763971 Fostering g05 1.475930 Climate g06 0.469125

Error

t-ratio

d.f.

p-value

1.226489

1.140

101

0.257

0.971346 0.233635 0.378497 0.849204 0.122489 0.383564 0.359689

32.461 2.421 6.023 2.320 14.401 3.848 1.304

101 101 101 101 101 101 101

0.000 0.017 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.195

Indicates statistically significant coefficients at po0.05; d.f., degrees of freedom.

Comparison between Predictor Variables in Reading Comprehension, Reading Interest, and Reading Efficacy A series of custom w2 tests were run to estimate between coefficient differences across all dependent variables (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). This set of analyses tested the hypothesis that the slopes of two predictors are equal and, thus, intended to evaluate the predictive validity of the predictors compared to each other (rather than the absolute criterion of zero, which at times can be meaningless). These post-hoc w2 tests run with 1 degree of freedom and all effects were adjusted for the presence of family-wise error using the Bonferroni procedure (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).

Reading Comprehension Results indicated that flexibility was a significantly more negative predictor compared to teachers’ attitude w2 (1) ¼ 13.494, po0.001, structure w2 (1) ¼ 31.824, po0.001, and fostering w2 (1) ¼ 4.210, po0.05. Teachers’ attitude was a significantly more positive predictor compared to fostering w2 (1) ¼ 14.805, po0.001 and climate w2 (1) ¼ 4.330, po0.001. Guidance was significantly less effective compared to structure w2 (1) ¼ 4.077, po0.05. Last, structure was significantly more effective compared to fostering only w2 (1) ¼ 6.873, po0.01.

Prediction of Reading Comprehension, Reading Interest and Efficacy

237

Reading Interest With regard to reading interest, results showed that flexibility was a significantly more positive predictor compared to guidance w2 (1) ¼ 13.494, po0.05 and less positive compared to climate w2 (1) ¼ 4.424, po0.05. Similarly, attitude was a significantly more positive predictor compared to guidance w2 (1) ¼ 5.091, po0.05 and fostering w2 (1) ¼ 7.916, po0.01, but less positive compared to climate w2 (1) ¼ 3.977, po0.05. Guidance was a significantly more negative predictor compared to structure w2 (1) ¼ 12.812, po0.001 and climate w2 (1) ¼ 10.663, po0.001. Structure was a significantly more positive predictor of interest, compared to fostering w2 (1) ¼ 6.184, po0.05. Last, fostering was a significantly more negative predictor of interest compared to climate w2 (1) ¼ 11.146, po0.01. Reading Efficacy Results for reading efficacy indicated that flexibility was a significantly more negative predictor compared to attitude w2 (1) ¼ 69.494, po0.001, and a more positive predictor compared to structure w2 (1) ¼ 16.302, po0.001, and at last, a more negative predictor compared to fostering w2 (1) ¼ 33.355, po0.001. Attitude was a significantly more positive predictor of reading efficacy compared to guidance w2 (1) ¼ 12.404, po0.001, structure w2 (1) ¼ 86.509, po0.001, fostering w2 (1) ¼ 56.175, po0.001, and climate w2 (1) ¼ 126.491, po0.001. Guidance was a significantly more negative predictor compared to fostering w2 (1) ¼ 8.204, po0.01. Structure was related to interest significantly more negatively compared to fostering w2 (1) ¼ 50.754, po0.001 and climate w2 (1) ¼ 11.017, po0.01. Last, fostering was a significantly more positive predictor of reading efficacy compared to climate w2 (1) ¼ 40.507, po0.001.

DISCUSSION The purpose of the present study was to predict reading comprehension, reading interest, and reading efficacy from teaching styles and the quality of student lesson in a group of students with learning disabilities. In summary, results showed that only attitudes and structure of the lesson were positive predictors of reading comprehension. Teacher’s flexibility emerged as a significant negative predictor of reading comprehension (Table 4). High levels of structure were associated with enhanced reading comprehension and reading interest as well. Thus, this teaching style that is characterized by high organization is adaptive for both achievement

238

FAYE ANTONIOU AND GEORGIOS D. SIDERIDIS

Table 4.

Summary of Effects for Each Dependent Variable as a Function of the Independent Ones.

Independent Variables Flexibility Attitude Guidance Structure Fostering Climate

Reading Comprehension

Reading Interest

Reading Efficacy

 + n.s. + n.s. n.s.

n.s. n.s.  + n.s. +

 +   + n.s.

Note: Only significant effects are denoted with a plus or minus sign; n.s., nonsignificant effects.

purposes and motivation. Subsequently, it is suggested that a ‘‘structured style’’ that also incorporates interesting, engaging, and challenging exercises will likely result in positive achievement outcomes. This recommendation arises from the fact that student interest has been a reliable positive predictor of student achievement (Hidi, 2001; Schiefele, 1999). Similarly, Sadoski, Goetz, and Rodriguez (2000) showed that concrete and highly structured texts not only were recalled better, compared to abstract texts, but were also associated with higher comprehensibility. Thus, highly structured lessons that involve interesting and engaging material relate to a type of motivational discourse that is supportive for students’ learning (such as the one described by Turner et al., 2002). Another interesting finding from the present study was that guided instruction was a negative predictor of students’ interest and self-efficacy. This finding makes inherent sense in that student’s autonomy (Deci, Hodges, Pierson, & Tomassone, 1992; Ryan & Deci, 2000) is not possible when a teacher lectures because a controlling environment is certainly associated with less autonomy. Lack of autonomy then is likely associated with lack of student interest. In similar, yet unknown ways, guided instruction negatively affected students’ self-efficacy levels. We can only speculate that reading efficacy was related to guided instruction in a negative way because too much guidance may render the person helpless, in that a person may feel less competent and efficacious. Trouilloud, Sarrazin, Bressoux, and Bois (2006) reported that when a classroom environment was autonomy supportive, students’ perceived competence levels were high. Nevertheless, unraveling this relationship should be an objective of future research, as other moderating variables such as interest, ability, and other personal or situational characteristics may have contributed to that effect.

Prediction of Reading Comprehension, Reading Interest and Efficacy

239

Student’s attitude was a positive predictor of reading comprehension and self-efficacy as well. This composite reflected students’ interest (high–low), participation (active–passive), and attention (active–passive). This linear combination then was associated with enhanced achievement and reading efficacy. This finding agrees with earlier literature in that active student engagement was linked to significant increases in achievement (Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1989; Stanley & Greenwood, 1983). Furthermore, students’ interest, compared to boredom, was linked to adaptive behavioral outcomes and achievement (Butler, 1992; Sansone, Weir, Harpster, & Morgan, 1992). For example, in an experimental study, Tobias and Everson (2000) reported achievement gains up to 30% for students in a high-interest compared to a low-interest condition. Positive attitudes toward an academic task have been consistently positive predictors of achievement in students with LD (Sideridis, 2005). However, in the present study, this construct reflects the ability of the teacher to cultivate positive attitudes in his/her students, and there were no comparable findings for that effect. A positive classroom climate (as reflected by high scores in climate and fostering) was indicative of high interest and efficacy by students. This finding agrees with the general premise that a classroom environment that is characterized by positive feedback, reinforcement, help-giving, and in general a positive motivationally discourse (Ryan, Gheen, & Midgley, 1998; Turner et al., 2002) in which students feel they belong to (Roeser et al., 1996) is adaptive for student motivation (see also Brooks, 2005; Patrick, Turner, Meyer, & Midgley, 2003). Interestingly, those environmental attributes were not significant correlates of reading comprehension. This finding highlights that a positive instructional discourse would not by itself lead to high achievement; it is possible only through the appropriate use of strategic learning (as indicated by the role of structure in teaching). More research is needed to examine how the above variables may covary with achievement and/or motivational outcomes in synergistic ways (i.e., through additive or interactive means). Unfortunately, in the present study, the number of classrooms was modest and the inherent loss of degrees of freedom from modeling additional parameters precluded that option. The present study has implications for teacher training. First, teachers of various disciplines have consistently been asking about training in order to accommodate typical students (Cruickshank & Kennedy, 1976) or particularly students with special education needs (Sideridis & Chandler, 1997; Yarger, 1979), and they have consistently reported that they are inadequately trained (Winer, 1970). We suggest that teacher training be

240

FAYE ANTONIOU AND GEORGIOS D. SIDERIDIS

expanded to involve information provided by research on motivational discourse processes (Turner et al., 2002), classroom climate (Urdan, 2004), and psychology of emotion (Sideridis, Mouzaki, Simos, & Protopapas, 2006) since all these variables have proven to be important predictors of student’s achievement and adjustment. New views on teacher training have suggested that teachers should be trained to achieve behavioral changes in their students (Kealey, Peterson, Gaul, & Dinh, 2000) using psychological principles (theory), and particularly using motivation components. The present study is limited by a number of factors. First, there was a small-to-moderate number of level-2 units to be modeled, and this effect may have limited the generalizability of the present study’s findings, although the reliability coefficients were pretty high. Second, ratings came from trained observers regarding classroom practices but did not follow a strict observational protocol. Thus, the data collected reflected the ratings of observable events, rather than frequency or duration assessments of specificsetting events. In the future, it would be interesting to examine how different teaching styles may interact with each other in order to affect different student behaviors. Additionally, it would be important to evaluate how those teaching styles affect student behavior in a likely dynamic fashion. That is, across the learning continuum, how do different teaching styles influence subsequent student engagement and achievement? On the same vein, it would be of interest to examine how the above independent variables influence the emotional experience at school, particularly for students with learning disabilities for whom positive affectivity is at low levels during school time (Sideridis, 2003), but still everybody expects them to function at levels equal to those of typical peers. Examining how classroom environments affect the emotional experience of students may be one venue toward improving their achievement outcomes.

NOTES 1. In a meta analysis, Schiefele (1999) reported that the relationship between personal interest and text learning was 0.27 (significant at po0.01), and that of situational interest with text learning to be equal to 0.33 (again significant at po0.01). Although several factors were not controlled for in those findings (e.g., ability, motivation, presence of experimental conditions), they still represent a significant set of relations that highlights the importance of interest as an antecedent of motivated behavior with regard to reading comprehension.

Prediction of Reading Comprehension, Reading Interest and Efficacy

241

2. There is a suspicion in the research community that the conflicting findings regarding the levels of self-efficacy beliefs in students with LD reflect inflated and exaggerated estimates by these students (see also Graham, Harris, & Saddler, in press). For example, Graham, Schwartz, and McArthur (1993) reported that 10–14year-old students with LD tended to exaggerate their estimates of self-efficacy even in the presence of very low achievement. If those estimates reflect true perceptions, then one would expect that these students would allocate the necessary resources to attain positive academic outcomes (i.e., increased effort, persistence, engagement, use of strategies, positive affect, etc.). However, if that is not the case, and the underlying construct is low perceptions about the self, then the exaggerated perceptions would not be associated with the necessary allocation of resources to regulate achievement-related behaviors. This is one possible explanation why perceptions of self-efficacy have not been consistently linked to positive academic outcomes for students with LD. 3. Students attending special schools in Germany are those who cannot attend typical schools because of their special education needs. They exhibit learning disabilities, mild mental retardation (IQ 55–85), emotional and behavioral problems, language deficits, or environmental disadvantages (poverty, immigration or lack of German language) and are labeled students with special educational needs (SEN) (Powell, 1994). The assessment of their achievement is always based on the curriculum requirements and the knowledge, abilities, and skills acquired at a specific grade. These assessments take place twice a year and are placed in interim reports in students’ records. Standardized achievement tests aiming to assess students’ performance in specific subject matters are not routinely administered at the state level. In Hessen, where the specific research study took place, the results from the CBMs indicated to the school supervisors that a student should be placed in general or special education. The school supervisors then consulted students’ parents in order to take the final decision. Parents can object to a placement decision. If, however, such a disagreement is reached, then the State is required to intervene and provide a solution for that specific case. The evaluation of a student’s performance is therefore reflecting not only a pedagogical process but also an organizational one, and is based on officially authorized administrative regulations (Deutscher Bildungsserver). 4. In a series of unconditional models, placement emerged as a significant predictor of most dependent variables. Thus, it acted as a covariate in all subsequent modeling, and thus all regression coefficients are partial coefficients, controlling for the influence and contribution of placement. .

REFERENCES Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 545–561. Anderson, R. C. (1982). Allocation of attention during reading. In: A. Flammer & W. Kintsch (Eds), Discourse processing (pp. 292–305). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Antoniou, F. (2006). Improving reading comprehension in students with special educational need. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.

242

FAYE ANTONIOU AND GEORGIOS D. SIDERIDIS

Asher, S. R., & Richard, M. A. (1974). Sex differences in comprehension of high- and lowinterest reading material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 614–619. Baldwin, S. R., Peleg-Bruckner, Z., & McClintock, A. H. (1985). Effects of topic interest and prior knowledge on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 497–504. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: WH Freeman. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mulifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206–1222. Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficacy pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 258–269. Brooks, R. B. (2005). Creating a positive climate for students with learning disabilities: The power of mindsets. In: G. D. Sideridis & T. A. Citro (Eds), Research to practice: Effective interventions in learning disabilities (pp. 1–20). Boston, MA: Learning Disabilities Worldwide. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bulgren, J. A., & Scanlon, D. A. (1997/1998). Teacher’s instructional routines and learning strategies that promote understanding of content area concepts. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 41, 292–302. Butler, R. (1992). What young people want to know when: Effects of mastery and ability goals on interest in different kinds of social comparisons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 934–943. Cattell, R. B., Weib, R. H., & Osterland, J. (1987). Grundintelligenztest – Skala 1, (Kinder von 5-9 Jahren; Sonderschuler bis zur 4. Klasse). Gottingen: Westermann Hogrefe. Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (1997). A longitudinal study of beginning reading achievement and reading self-concept. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 279–291. Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 43–54. Cruickshank, D. R., & Kennedy, J. J. (1976). Research in teacher education: Assessing inservice training needs through teacher responses. Journal of Teacher Education, 27, 169–173. Deci, E. L., Hodges, R., Pierson, L., & Tomassone, J. (1992). Autonomy and competence as motivational factors in students with learning disabilities and emotional handicaps. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 457–471. den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Interpersonal teacher behaviour and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 407–442. Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188. Garcia, J. J., & de Caso, A. M. (2006). Changes in writing self-efficacy and writing products and processes through specific training in the self efficacy beliefs of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4, 1–27. Ghaith, G. (2003). The relationship between forms of instruction, achievement and perceptions of classroom climate. Educational Research, 45, 83–93. Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525–538. Graham, S., Harris, K., & Saddler, B. (in press). Teaching students with LD to be smarter writers: Self-regulated strategy development. In: G. D. Sideridis & T. A. Citro (Eds),

Prediction of Reading Comprehension, Reading Interest and Efficacy

243

Classroom management and learning strategies for struggling learners. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Graham, S., Schwartz, S. S., & McArthur, C. A. (1993). Knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 237–249. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371–383. Grimes, L. (1981). Learned helplessness and attribution theory: Redefining children’s learning problems. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 91–100. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 231–256. Heath, N. L., & Ross, S. (2000). Prevalence and expression of depressive symptomatology in students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 24–36. Helmke, A., & Weinert, F. E. (1997). Unterrichtsqualitaet und Leistungsentwicklung: Ergebnisse aus dem SCHOLASTIC-projekt. In: F. E. Weinert & A. Helmke (Eds), Entwicklung im Grundschulalter (pp. 241–252). Weinheim: Beltz. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571. Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 191–209. Hidi, S., & Anderson, J. (1992). Situational interest and its impact on reading and expository writing. In: K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi & A. Krapp (Eds), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 215–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students’ recall of expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 465–483. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151–179. Howes, C. (2000). Social-emotional classroom climate in child care, child–teacher relationships and children’s second grade peer relations. Social Development, 9, 191–204. Jerusalem, M., & Satow, L. (1999). Schulbezogene Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen. In: R. Schwarzerk & M. Jerusalem (Eds), Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schuelermerkmalen. Dokumentation des psychometrischen Verfahrens im Rahmen der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs ‘‘Selbstwirksame Schulen’’ (pp. 15–16). Berlin: Freie Universitaet Berlin. Kaplan, A., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (2002). Classroom goal structure and student disruptive behavior. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 191–211. Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1999). The relationship between perceptions of the classroom goal structure and early adolescents’ affect in school: The mediating role of coping strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 187–212. Kealey, K. A., Peterson, A. V., Gaul, M. A., & Dinh, K. T. (2000). Teacher training as a behavior change process: Principles and results from a longitudinal study. Health Education and Behavior, 27, 64–81. Kintsch, W. (1980). Learning from texts, levels of comprehension, or: Why anyone would read a story anyway. Poetics, 9, 87–98. Klassen, R. (2002). A question of calibration: A review of the self-efficacy beliefs of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 88–102.

244

FAYE ANTONIOU AND GEORGIOS D. SIDERIDIS

Korneck, C. (2002). Entwicklung eines Verfahrens zur lehrzielorientierten Unterrichtsbeobachtung im Deutschunterricht fuenfter Klasses. Unvero¨ffentlichte Diplomarbeit am Institut fu¨r Paedagogische Psychologie der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitaet, Frankfurt. Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (1992). Interest, learning and development. In: K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi & A. Krapp (Eds), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Lufi, D., & Darliuk, L. (2005). The interactive effect of test anxiety and learning disabilities among adolescents. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 236–249. Maag, J. W., & Reid, R. (2006). Depression among students with learning disabilities: Assessing the risk. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 3–10. Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T. E., Bakken, J. P., & Whedon, C. (1996). Reading comprehension: A synthesis of research in learning disabilities. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 10, 201–227. Morgan, P., & Fuchs, D. D. (in press). Does poor reading performance undermine children’s motivation? In: G. D. Sideridis & T. A. Citro (Eds), Strategies in reading for struggling learners. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal Research in Reading, 24, 342–356. Oliver, J. M., & Paull, J. C. (1995). Self-esteem and self-efficacy: Perceived parenting and family climate and depression in university students. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 467–481. Ouellette, G. P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 554–566. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578. Patrick, H., Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., & Midgley, C. (2003). How teachers establish psychological environments during the first days of school: Associations with avoidance in mathematics. Teachers College Record, 105, 1521–1558. Pekrun, R. (1993). Facets of adolescents’ achievement motivation: A longitudinal expectancyvalue approach. In: P. Pintrich & M. Maehr (Eds), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 139–189). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Perry, N. E., & VandeKamp, K. J. O. (2000). Creating classroom contexts that support young children’s development of self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 821–843. Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M., & Rollins, K. (1995). The first two years of school: Teacher–child relationships and deflections in children’s school adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 295–312. Pierce, C. (1994). Importance of classroom climate for at-risk learners. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 37–42. Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56–115. Protopapas, A., Sideridis, G. D., Mouzaki, A., & Simos, P. (2007). Development of lexical mediation in the relation between reading comprehension and word reading skills in Greek. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 1–33. Raschle, O., Coulomb-Cabagno, G., & Delsarte, A. (2005). Perceived motivational climate and observed aggression as a function of competitive level in youth male French handball. Journal of Sport Behavior, 28, 51–67.

Prediction of Reading Comprehension, Reading Interest and Efficacy

245

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Reinke, W. M., & Herman, K. C. (2002). Creating school environments that deter antisocial behavior in youth. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 549–559. Renninger, K. A. (1990). Childrens’ play interest, representations and activity. In: R. Fivush & J. A. Hudson (Eds), Knowing and remembering in young children (pp. 125–165). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In: C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 375–404). New York, NY: Academic. Reusser, K. (2000). Success and failure in school mathematics: Effects of instruction and school environment. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 9, 17–26. Roberts, K. J. (2004). An introductory primer on multilevel and hierarchical linear modeling. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2, 30–38. Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408–422. Rowe, K. J. (2000). Simultaneous estimation of interdependent effects among multilevel composite variables in psychological research: An annotated example of the application of multilevel structural equation modeling. In: N. Duan & S. Reise (Eds), Multilevel modeling: Methodological advances, issues and applications (pp. 1–28). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking for help? An examination of the interplay among students’ academic efficacy, teachers’ socialemotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 528–535. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Rodrı´ guez, M. (2000). Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 85–95. Samdal, O., Wold, B., & Bronis, M. (1999). Relationship between students’ perceptions of school environment, their satisfaction with school and perceived academic achievement: An international Study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 296–320. Sansone, C., Weir, C., Harpster, L., & Morgan, C. (1992). Once a boring task always a boring task? Interest as a self-regulatory mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 379–390. Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 257–279. Schiefele, U., & Krapp, A. (1996). Topic interest and free recall of expository text. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 141–160. Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 23–52. Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attribution in academic settings. In: D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational implications (pp. 75–99). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

246

FAYE ANTONIOU AND GEORGIOS D. SIDERIDIS

Schunk, D. H. (1995). Inherent details of self-regulated learning include student perceptions. Educational Psychologist, 30, 213–216. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification in learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 155–168. Share, D. L., & Leiken, M. (2004). Language impairment at school entry and later reading disability: Connections at lexical versus supralexical levels of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 87–110. Shell, D. F., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 386–398. Shnayer, S. W. (1968). Relationship between reading interest and reading comprehension. Proceedings of the 13th International Association on Reading (pp. 698–702). Sideridis, G. D. (2003). On the origins of helpless behavior in students with learning disabilities: Avoidance motivation? International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 497–517. Sideridis, G. D. (2005). Classroom goal structures and hopelessness as predictors of day-to-day experience at school: Differences between students with and without learning disabilities. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 308–328. Sideridis, G. D. (2006). Understanding low achievement and depression in children with learning disabilities: A goal orientation approach. International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, 31, 163–203. Sideridis, G. D. (2007). Goal orientations and classroom goal structures as predictors of classroom student behaviors for Greek students with and without learning difficulties. Clarifying the differential role of motivational orientations. Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities, 20, 101–138. Sideridis, G. D., & Chandler, J. (1997). Assessment of teacher attitudes toward inclusion of students with disabilities: A confirmatory factor analysis. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 14, 51–64. Sideridis, G. D., Mouzaki, A., Simos, P., & Protopapas, A. (2006). Classification of students with reading comprehension difficulties: The roles of motivation, affect, and psychopathology. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 159–180. Sofie, C. A., & Riccio, C. A. (2002). A comparison of multiple methods for the identification of children with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 234–244. Somersalo, H., Solantaus, T., & Almqvist, F. (2002). Classroom climate and the mental health of primary school children. Norway Journal of Psychiatry, 56, 285–290. Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-regulation as a framework for implementing strategy instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 16, 57–71. Souvignier, E., & Ruehl, K. (2005). Forderung des leseverstandisses, lesestrategiewissens und leseinteresses von schulern it lernbehinderungen durch strategieorientierten unterricht. Heilpadagogische Forschung, 31, 2–11. Stanley, C. O., & Greenwood, C. R. (1983). How much opportunity to respond does the minority disadvantaged student receive in school?. Exceptional Children, 49, 370–373. Sweet, A. P., Guthrie, J. T., & Ng, M. M. (1998). Teacher perceptions and student reading motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 210–223. Tabassam, W., & Grainger, J. (2002). Self-concept, attributional style and self-efficacy beliefs of students with learning disabilities with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 141–151.

Prediction of Reading Comprehension, Reading Interest and Efficacy

247

Tobias, S., & Everson, H. T. (2000). Assessing metacognitive knowledge monitoring. In: G. Schraw (Ed.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 147–222). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements and Erlbaum Associates. Tobin, T., & Sprague, J. (2000). Alternate education strategies: Reducing violence in school and the community. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 177–186. Trouilloud, D., Sarrazin, P., Bressoux, P., & Bois, J. (2006). Relation between teachers’ early expectations and students’ later perceived competence in physical education classes: Autonomy–supportive climate as a moderator. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 75–86. Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E., Kang, Y., & Patrick, H. (2002). The classroom environment and students’ reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 88–106. Urdan, T. C. (2004). Predictors of academic self-handicapping and achievement: Examining achievement goals, classroom goal structures, and culture. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 251–264. Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential pitfalls. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 18, 137–146. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Spearing, D. M. (1995). Semantic and phonological coding in poor and normal readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 59, 76–123. Watkins, M., & Coffey, D. Y. (2004). Reading motivation: Multidimensional and indeterminate. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 110–118. Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73, 287–301. Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432. Winer, R. M. (1970). The crucial factor in urban education: An intensive teacher-to-teacher training program for urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 6, 240–243. Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 236–250. Yarger, S. J. (1979). Teacher training in mainstreaming–integrating handicapped children into the regular classroom. New York, NY: Educational Products Information Exchange Institute. Yoneyama, S., & Rigby, K. (2006). Bully/victim students and classroom climate. Youth Studies Australia, 25, 34–42. Yovanoff, P., Duesbery, L., Alonso, J., & Tindal, G. (2005). Grade-level invariance of a theoretical causal structure predicting reading comprehension with vocabulary and oral reading fluency. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 4, 4–12.

Rating 1–7

Strategy–Content

Often–Never

High–Low Absolute–Not at all High–Low

Flexible–Inflexible

Often–Never

Free–Read from script

Interested– Uninterested Attentive–Inattentive

Active–Passive

248

It refers to the interest students expressed on the topics, manifested by asking questions and expressing comments. It refers to the attention the students show and their eagerness to follow instructions for appropriate program implementation. It refers to the quantity of participation during the lesson. Examples include practicing, answering questions, producing ideas, etc.

It refers to the ability of the teacher to adjust the content of the lesson to students’ knowledge background, needs, and academic level. It refers to teacher’s ability to take in the ideas of his/her students in a lesson’s implementation. It refers to the ability of the teacher to present the material orally rather than reading them from instructional manuals.

It refers to the focal point of the lesson. When the teacher focuses on explaining, modeling, and practicing the strategies included in the program, the lesson’s content is characterized as strategy-oriented. On the other hand, when the teacher emphasizes the text’s content, its meaning, and components (for the narrative and expository texts), then it was characterized as content –oriented. It refers to the ability of the teacher to activate students’ knowledge on reading strategies by asking questions or engaging them in self-regulatory activities. It refers to teacher’s ability to adapt instruction to students’ personal style. It refers to teachers’ confidence to deliver instruction. It refers to the time the teacher dedicates for themes that enhance strategy knowledge and reading comprehension.

Description/Explanation

APPENDIX A. LESSON’S CONTENT ACCORDING TO KORNECK (2002) Characteristic Content Lesson’s emphasis

Reflection to strategy knowledge Identification with the content Content’s certainty Time expenditure on relevant themes Flexibility Adaptation to students’ needs Incorporation of students’ ideas in the lesson Presentation Student’s attitudes Interest Attention Participation

FAYE ANTONIOU AND GEORGIOS D. SIDERIDIS

It refers to the instructional time the teacher dedicates on relevant material. It refers to the time the teacher spends discussing topics that are irrelevant to the lesson’s content.

It refers to the way that the teacher transitions from one step to the next. It refers to the ability of the teacher to keep his/her focus on the lesson’s theme and/or the instructional strategy implemented.

Each unit includes specific instructional steps such as: presentation of strategy, group work, guided practice, consolidation of material, independent work, self-monitoring. The teacher manages all instructional steps within lesson limits.

Comprehensible– Incomprehensible

Max. (45 min)–min. In short–at length

Smooth–Agitated Often–Never

Short–Long

Rating 1–7

It refers to teacher’s delivery of presentation style.

Description/Explanation

APPENDIX B. TEACHING STYLES ASSESSED IN THE PRESENT STUDY (FROM HELMKE AND WEINERT, 1997) Characteristic Guidance Phases between changes in the unit (how fast the teacher transfers responsibility to the students) Connectedness Time spent in other subjects apart from the lesson’s content Time usage for material Quantity of discussions conducted for secondary themes

Prediction of Reading Comprehension, Reading Interest and Efficacy

Structure Teaching

249

Teacher attention Adjustment of instruction to students’ level of ability

Stimulation Stimulation

It refers to the notes and hints that the teacher uses in order to regulate students’ concentration with the material and comprehension. It refers to the teacher paying attention to each student individually. It refers to the ability of the teacher to modify the type and content of instruction according to the students’ needs and achievement level.

Direct: The teacher is specific and concrete, presents goals and main points, presents content sequentially, checks students’ understanding frequently. Indirect: The teacher provides means of organizing content in advance, uses inductive and deductive methods, focuses on attaining high levels of abstraction, uses questions to guide understanding, allows students to evaluate their own responding, and provides guidance to students as needed. Topics to be presented in explicit teaching involve: review, presentation of goals/new information and strategy, modeling of the procedure, example usage, checking students’ understanding, guided practice on new material, practice, generalization of questions’ feedback, independent work, selfmonitoring.

Teaching style

Connectedness between teaching units

Description/Explanation

Characteristic

APPENDIX B. (Continued )

Often–Never Flexible–Inflexible

Often–Never

Explicit–Implicit

Direct–Indirect

Rating 1–7

250 FAYE ANTONIOU AND GEORGIOS D. SIDERIDIS

Reaction to students’ failures

Reaction to students’ performance

Students’ impression of the teacher as a responsible and trustworthy person Climate Paying attention to students’ affective experience

Provision of information to enhance students’ understanding and question asking Active monitoring

Fostering Help

The teacher tries to evoke students’ interest in reading and encourages group work and cooperation with other students. Satisfies students’ needs and produces feelings of happiness and satisfaction. The teacher enhances students’ motivation for learning. It refers to the way that the teacher responds to the students’ successes: positive when he/she reinforces successes and gives corrective feedback in failing instances. It refers to the way that the teacher reacts to students’ failure by giving relevant feedback, working for practice, etc.

It refers to the teacher’s ability to observe, monitor, and support students’ learning behaviors and achievement level. Do the students ask questions freely? Do they answer even if they are not sure? Do they seek teacher’s help? Do they follow teacher’s instruction and guidance?

It refers to the provision of helpful hints so that students use the necessary strategies for comprehension. Provision of information and questioning regarding the lesson’s content.

Positive–Negative

Positive–Negative

Strong–Weak

High–Low

Often–Never

Often–Never

Often–Never

Prediction of Reading Comprehension, Reading Interest and Efficacy 251

This page intentionally left blank

DIRECTIONS FOR CHANGE IN BLENDING SCIENCE INSTRUCTION AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Lisa A. Dieker, Craig Berg and Bobby Jeanpierre ABSTRACT The expertise in the fields of science and special education are being blended in today’s classrooms as a result of all students being expected to meet state standards. Having high standards can be positive, yet for many science and special educators finding ways to blend the expertise of these two fields has not been clearly defined. This chapter provides an overview of the status of both fields, as well as providing specific ideas related to the changes that need to occur for a more blended approach to instruction. The chapter concludes with an example of a co-taught lesson using the 5E Learning Cycle as well as future directions for these two fields to work together to meet the needs of all students.

Change is inevitable. So how do educational fields merge as our nation’s classrooms become more diverse to include a wide range of cultural, behavioral, and academic differences? The following scenario provides a

Personnel Preparation Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, Volume 21, 253–275 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0735-004X/doi:10.1016/S0735-004X(08)00010-4

253

254

LISA A. DIEKER ET AL.

glimpse into the current reality being faced by both the fields of science and special education in a typical middle or high school program. Two new teachers meet with the science curriculum specialist and the following scenario unfolds: Welcome to our school. As new teachers we are excited that you have cutting edge knowledge. As a special educator and a science educator, you will be asked to work together as a team. In our school, we have been using a co-teaching model for the past 4 years and we assume as recent graduates you are prepared for this type of teaching. We look forward to your working together to ensure the success of all students in your co-taught science class. This scenario is one that is happening regularly to both science and special educators as more and more students with disabilities are included in secondary classrooms and are expected to meet state standards (Hardman & Nagle, 2004). Yet as these changes are occurring in practice, the reality is that many teacher education programs or professional development activities may not reflect the paradigm change in practice (Thurlow & Johnson, 2005). Therefore, this article is framed around what might be the typical response from these new teachers placed in a classroom together and to provide examples to assist both practicing teachers and higher education faculty to think about the needed changes across our fields. How should our fields answer the questions and concerns these new teachers might each have related to a science and special education co-taught classroom? A typical response when two teachers are put in a room together is, ‘‘What is it that we are supposed to do together?’’ To begin to address this question, a dialogue across the fields of science and special education must occur about the role of co-teaching and simultaneously the changes in the way science instruction is provided in today’s classroom (Haskell, 2000). For example, the way most teachers were taught science curriculum when they were in school might not be considered best practice in today’s classroom. The days of reading a science book, answering a few questions at the end of the chapter, and the occasional lab are ideas of the past and are not found in highly effective science classrooms. Today state-of-the-art lessons focus on students working in groups, using inquiry-based learning approaches and constructing their own knowledge about numerous scientific concepts reflective of national and state standards. Although No Child Left Behind (2001) and Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (2004) are both intended to provide better educational options for all students, some districts and schools may encounter difficulties in how to best implement the demands for standards-based

Science Education and Special Education

255

education and the requirement of providing an inclusive education (Lipsky, 2003). At the same time, the days of the field of special education taking students down the hall to learn basic facts with a special educator who may or may not have science background, and students not being held accountable to learn the same level of knowledge as students without disabilities, no longer exist. Instead, special educators must either be highly qualified to deliver science content or in most cases are working collaboratively with a secondary science teacher who is highly qualified in science, while the special educator is highly qualified in helping students learn who might not succeed without additional support (NCLB, 2001). The special educator is expected to support the delivery of the content to ensure the success of all students (Dieker & Murawski, 2003). The field of special education has been moving forward at a rapid pace in ensuring that all students with disabilities have access to the general education curriculum. At the same time the field of science education has strongly embraced a more constructivist approach to science instruction. Many science teachers use the stages of the 5E Learning Cycle (Engage, Explore, Explain, Extend, and Evaluate), a constructivist model (Bybee, 1997), to help students mentally and physically engage in a topic, while special educators are prepared to work collaboratively with general education counterparts. Where both fields seem to fall short is that special educators may not receive knowledge in the 5E Learning Cycle, other critical science instructional approaches, or content knowledge in their preparation, that is typically generic in nature related to content. In contrast, science educators may not be introduced to how they should work collaboratively with a highly qualified special educator in their classroom (Cawley, Hayden, Cade, & Baker-Kroczynski, 2002), or what are the basic ways they can support students with disabilities in their instruction. Hence the response, ‘‘What are we supposed to do?’’ To assist the two fields in working together, this article provides an overview of the current status of science instruction, followed by a discussion of coteaching and concluding with an example of how to blend the practice of co-teaching within the 5E Learning Cycle. In the final summary are items that are critical for science educators to understand about special education and items that are critical for special educators to understand about science education. Hence, we hope to provide a bridge for discussion between these two worlds focused on all students being more successful, and to help new teachers understand their respective roles and ‘‘What they are supposed to do.’’

256

LISA A. DIEKER ET AL.

CURRENT STATUS OF THE FIELD OF SCIENCE While multiple learning theories co-exist and provide guidance for various purposes and outcomes, constructivism is one of the key driving forces in science education today. Constructivism is a ‘‘philosophical viewpoint, regarding how the mind forms and modifies its understanding of reality’’ (UMass Physics Education Research Group, 2007); a ‘‘theory of knowledge used to explain how we know what we know’’ (Lorsbach & Tobin, 1992). Learning results from ongoing changes in student’s mental frameworks as they attempt to make meaning out of their experiences (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985). ‘‘Constructivist’’ teachers would base their instruction on the premise that knowledge is constructed, not transmitted, and prior knowledge impacts the learning process. Additionally, initial understanding is local, not global, and building useful knowledge structures requires effortful and purposeful activity (UMass Physics Education Research Group, 2007). More specifically, the pedagogical implications might include much (not all) of what students are expected to know and learn. Students need to actively construct knowledge, piece together the components, and build structures that form the frameworks of knowledge, ideas, concepts, and performance capabilities targeted in science. Therefore, learning requires a different and very active role – the polar opposite of the ‘‘funnel’’ model in which teachers pour knowledge into students’ brains. Prior to studying a specific topic in science class, students often have some ideas about the topic; ideas that are strongly held and very resistant to change. Instruction may or may not impact their pre-existing ideas, or may impact those ideas in ways we might not imagine (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985). Furthermore, real learning has the learner doing much of the work. The learner needs to have a clear sense of purpose, and actively contributes by planning, doing, responding, sharing, discussing, reacting, and generally communicating with classmates and the teacher. Instructional models are designed specifically to engage students in the learning process as an active participant, not an observer. In short, an instructional model utilizing these premises and implications contrasts sharply with a model based on notions. Students learn when they mentally process the ideas, objects, actions, observations, and oral interchanges that encompass the learning zone. What they learn, think, or believe is greatly affected by what they already thought before they began, and how they interpreted the incoming stimuli. Teachers who attend to constructivist theory use models that uncover these ideas and thoughts, benefiting both the students and the teacher as delineated starting points, and as periodic indicators of growth toward intended outcomes.

Science Education and Special Education

257

Inquiry A casual look at inquiry might suggest a close partnership with constructivism. Yet, while one could argue that constructivism requires an inquiry model, not all inquiry models are equally compatible with constructivism. Inquiry ‘‘involves activity and skills, but the focus is on the active search for knowledge or understanding to satisfy a curiosity’’ (Haury, 1993). Categories of inquiry include structured inquiry, guided inquiry, and student-initiated inquiry (aptly defined in http://www.nwrel.org/ msec/science_inq/answers.html). Enough differences exist between these categories in terms of supporting the basic premises of constructivism to make a significant difference in outcomes of instruction. Whatever particular inquiry model is used, it is the student and teacher actions that showcase the effectiveness of the model in delivering instruction based on constructivist foundations. For example, in structured inquiry, students are following instructions from the teacher, and less so as we move to guided inquiry and on to student-initiated inquiry. One way of determining whether a lesson is derived from constructivism is to consider how questions about the activity. For example, How is the lesson structured so that teachers and students continually uncover their ideas and how do these ideas change or become modified as a result of instruction – not at simply the quiz or test point? Students should be expected to communicate their plans, intentions, thoughts, beliefs, questions, concerns, objections, and conclusions to another person at multiple points during instruction. Additional questions could include, how is the lesson structured to be flexible to accommodate the students’ differing ideas, knowledge base, and hence starting and ending points? The very basis of constructivism is focusing on student’s currently thinking actions or interchanges and what activity or interactions will help them reconsider their current conceptual stance. What intervention will help dislodge strongly held, but incorrect or partially correct ideas, and help the student build upon or remodel existing ideas? Finally one would want to consider, how is the lesson structured so that the teacher interacts with the students in a manner to support the intentions of the inquiry model? The effectiveness of any model can be quickly reduced to ashes by how teachers ask questions and respond to students. Children are quite happy to exit instruction for a variety of reasons, at a time that suits them. The teacher’s role is to keep students mentally engaged until targeted goals are reached. There are many models of inquiry – a short list includes the Generative Learning model, the Learning Cycle, the 5E’s, and the Four Traits of

258

LISA A. DIEKER ET AL.

Science Inquiry (http://www.nwrel.org/msec/science_inq/4traits.html). Other models include the Three P’s, Search Solve Create, and Share, Issues Analysis, and Structured Controversy. Without going into detail, comparisons, or contrast, all of these models indicate aspects of constructivism playing a key role in the development of the model and the lesson delivery using these models. Some of the models focus more on problem solving while others target the interplay between science and societal issues. The Learning Cycle, Generative Learning model, and the 5E’s are all variations of an evolved model used to deal specifically with developing a robust understanding of science knowledge and concepts; learning about forces, gravity, sound, cell division, body functions, and the other hundreds of concepts that comprise a science curriculum. These models also immerse students in developing and perfecting the process skills of doing science such as observing, classifying, communicating, inferring, predicting, measuring, and graphing. All of these process skills invite a range of learners to be involved in learning and embracing many of the concepts emerging in special education through the planning pyramid and Universal Design for Learning (see www.cast.org).

SO WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE FIELD OF SCIENCE EDUCATION? Constructivism and inquiry are the bedrock upon which effective science instruction is built. One targeted endpoint of science instruction is a solidly developed, robust understanding of science concepts. Inquiry also can equally facilitate students becoming functionally literate in science and able to investigate and do science in a profitable manner – personally, socially, and academically with the foundations of science necessary for many potential careers. A science classroom, not using a healthy dose of inquiry and without a constructivist theory as one of the working frameworks, would lack credibility. Effective science instruction includes inquiry for all students and especially for students with special needs (National Research Council, 2001). The leading science teacher professional organization NSTA provides critical guidance and examples of inquiry in action (NSTA Pathways, 2000), and the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) are quite specific with regard to the necessity and benefits of using inquiry in the science classroom.

Science Education and Special Education

259

Inclusion As such, in today’s world of standards and high expectations for all students, and implementation using models of effective instruction, inclusion in an inquiry setting can greatly benefit students with special needs (Melber, 2004). While inquiry provides students with a model of instruction that fits their learning needs, an inquiry model takes a significant level of teaching skills to successfully implement. Inclusion often provides students with one teacher who is a specialist with regard to students with special needs, but is often a generalist in learning and at times a novice with regard to using inquiry strategies. Co-teaching is a must for student success. Ideally, the co-teaching setting provides students with a science teacher who is an expert in inquiry and yet knows how individuality plays a key role in learning and how the inquiry model fosters unique ideas – clearly a beneficial starting point for students with special needs. While the primary classroom teacher takes the lead role, the special educator quickly becomes a supportive and equal partner in the inquiry process. As an inquiry model like the 5E’s is labor-intensive with teachers moving from group to group, interacting with various individuals or small groups, inclusion provides the student and the classroom teacher with the additional support of a second facilitator who is the expert in helping individual students learn. With some preparation, the special educator can share this important instructional role and provide students with special needs the additional supportive interaction and attention they must have as outlined in their Individualized Education Program to explore and satisfy the need to know, further develop ideas and concepts, and develop the exploratory skills useful in so many moments of one’s life and career.

Special Educators’ Limited Background The introduction of NCLB and ongoing revisions to IDEA has continued to move forward the expectations and outcomes for students and teachers alike in special education. With the introduction of standardized assessments in the field of science, the time for special education to understand how to work with, enhance and compensate for students learning and behavioral needs is now (Cawley, Foley, & Miller, 2003), especially at the secondary level if we expect students to gain access to college and higher level careers. In a recent article, Scruggs and Mastropieri (2007) provide a review of the practices commonly accepted in the field of special education and note that

260

LISA A. DIEKER ET AL.

both instructed and constructed knowledge are critical in science instruction for students with disabilities. Although the research in science and special education is limited, it does indicate that students can be successful in hands-on inquiry-based environments such as science (Dalton, Morocco, Tinvan, & Mead, 1997). Mastropieri and Scruggs (1995) posit that students with disabilities are less likely to encounter difficulties with language and literacy demands with a hands-on science approach that includes manipulative activities and thematic units instead of a text-oriented one. The following sections provide a summary of concepts in science instruction that are assumed by effective science teachers, which must be understood in a collaborative manner by the special educator, followed by information and reflections for science educators to think about in relation to the field of special education.

What Special Educators Need to Know about Science Constructivist or inquiry approach to teaching is a style that is prevalent in more and more science classrooms. This style of teaching may be difficult for some students with disabilities. Therefore, an initial discussion with a science colleague should focus on the special model they embrace in their science instruction such as the 5E Learning Cycle. The collaboration between the special educator and the science educator prior to beginning to work together is essential since as the adults in the room, they will be modeling how students should work together. A cooperative and collaborative environment is embraced in many inquiry-based science classrooms. When utilizing cooperative learning, ensure that students have adequate peer and teacher support. Additionally, it is important to be certain that within the groups the academic and behavioral needs of students with disabilities are addressed in the roles assigned and the structures utilized (e.g., jigsaw, numbered-heads together). Special educators also need to know that deductive reasoning and cognitive discourse are a part of the inquiry process and to assume that numerous questions and student-focused discussions will occur in a more progressive science classroom. Additionally, one should consider how to provide some guided discussion questions for students who may have difficulty with open-ended discussions. For example, practice the response to some questions in an alternative setting or provide students with additional information (e.g., movie) to help them acquire the same knowledge that others might gain from a general discussion. Yet one

Science Education and Special Education

261

should also ensure there are enough instructional strategies in place to support students who may have reasoning or neurological delays in understanding basic concepts being presented. In addition to accommodations to discussions, demonstrations also require some involvement from the special educator. Demonstrations can be teacher directed but are often student-driven in inquiry-based lessons. Teachers may demonstrate an aspect of a scientific process and ask students to talk about what they observed. Students also may be asked to show their logic through demonstrations during labs. If student directed, consider having a checklist for students to follow each step of the demonstration and perhaps guided questions or visual supports to help the student understand each step of the demonstration. On the other hand, with a more hands-on approach and an inquiry-based process more time is spent with students working in labs. Students with disabilities may need to have lab steps broken down for them or even presented one step at a time for success. As a special educator, be ready to deal with any issues that might arise related to safety and make certain that a proactive approach to these issues are addressed in planning prior to the introduction of the lab. Be aware that students not being able to follow some basic safety procedures may lead to their being denied access to general education content classrooms (e.g., not being able to put on safety goggles). Just as background knowledge is important, so is a student’s disposition related to science. For example, we know that females may see themselves as limited in sciences and some students with disabilities may have been pulled for resource support during science instruction in the past. It is important to take measures to see how students feel about their skills in science before you start to teach. Likewise by assessing prior knowledge and being proactive by pre-teaching concepts that students might not know, students will stay more positive in relation to their ability to be effective in the science lesson.

Technology as a Tool One way to embrace the concepts of Universal Design for Learning (Rose & Meyer, 2000) is by providing multiple means of expression, engagement, and representation as you provide support within the inquiry process. Numerous tools exist to help students with sensory or safety issues in science. For example, several Web sites offer activities such as frog dissections online or the new National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standards (NIMAS)

262

LISA A. DIEKER ET AL.

outlined in IDEA ’04 will provide for textbook material to be accessible in electronic format to enlarge or have material read aloud to students. It may be helpful to investigate sites to help with giving students richer experiences in science (e.g., www.brainpop.com). The final concept that special educators need to know about science is that more students are being included in science classrooms because of the constructivist nature and the ability to show multiple means of expression (universal design for learning). As a special educator, be ready to provide alternative assessment ideas for a teacher who uses a more traditional approach such as paper pencil tests. By using an alternative assessment, students may be able to express that they know just as much and in some cases more then students who do not have disabilities.

What Science Educators Need to Know about Special Education In addition to special educators needing to know science, science educators need to know some things about special education. Ideally, science educators work closely with special educators, but that is not always, or even sometimes, the norm in schools. Yet, students with special needs have legally defined levels of needs and anticipated support. Classroom teachers need to know and understand the laws regarding special education and the resulting implications for the school and classroom. Knowing such foundational information is critical to interpreting and utilizing an IEP and therefore providing acceptable levels of services and support in the classroom. Specifically, teachers need to have a functional awareness of different types of disabilities and implications for inclusive classrooms – meaning how to provide accommodations for lessons and activities in which students with special needs participate. Most important is to be open to differences and willing to learn, grow, and understand their knowledge about disabilities just in the same way the special educator may need to learn about science instruction. In some schools, special educators and science teachers have the opportunity to work together in the classroom. In these cases, the special educator and classroom teacher can and should be seen as partners in the classroom with the classroom teacher largely responsible for planning and delivering the lesson, with the assistance and guidance of the special educator regarding accommodations. For true co-teaching to occur, there must be co-planning, co-instruction, and co-assessing. So remember to

Science Education and Special Education

263

arrange your schedule for planning, be open to sharing your instruction and discuss in advance how you will and are assessing all students’ performance. The role of the special educator will vary depending on the magnitude of the students’ special needs and the types of accommodations necessary. At times the lead instructional role during the lesson, or parts of the lesson, may switch back and forth from the classroom teacher to the special educator. This co-teaching role is best started during the pre-service teacher education program where co-teaching then becomes a common and eagerly anticipated partnership. As it relates to science content, science educators support multimodality as an especially critical form of instruction in helping students with disabilities gain familiarity with the science material (McGinnis & Stefanich, as cited in Abell & Lederman, 2007). Special educators have strong background in strategic instruction and can be very instrumental in providing these strategies to increase retention of key concept learned through the inquiry process. Both Dieker and Little (2005) and Mastropieri and Scruggs (2001) emphasize the benefits of incorporating strategy instruction into a successful co-teaching partnership. This suggestion is important because research in special education clearly indicates that secondary students with disabilities respond to the use of strategic learning and content enhancements to assist students in the learning process and to connect previously learned knowledge (Deshler et al., 2001). One component of Strategic Instruction Model which can be very beneficial in science instruction are Content Enhancement Routines that include the use of graphic organizers; instruction that is intensive, explicit, and well organized; a way to focus on key concepts and principles; highly focused direct instruction; strategy instruction; mnemonic strategy instruction and a process for monitoring student progress, all integrated into one model (Deshler et al., 2004). These instructional strategies can contribute to the learning of all students, and may be essential for the mastery or retention of concepts for students with disabilities in science. Caine and Caine (1997) identify three conditions that maximize the learning process and provide classroom examples. Brain-based teaching means knowing as much or more about how your students learn and think, as the subject matter you teach. With regard to students with special needs, classroom teachers need to know the applicable intricacies and variations for instruction so that ‘‘brain-based’’ means brain-compatible with ALL individual students. Advocates of brain-based teaching insist that there is a difference between ‘‘brain-compatible’’ education, and ‘‘brain-antagonistic’’ teaching practices

264

LISA A. DIEKER ET AL.

and methods which can actually prevent learning (Chipongian, n.d.). In the book, ‘‘How Children Learn Science’’ (Good, 1977), several principles are put forth about science instruction. First, instruction must address students’ science preconceptions. These preconceptions are often embedded and resistant to change and are not easily changed. Second, knowledge of what it means to ‘‘do science’’ must be addressed. Along with essential process skills like observation and experimentation, students should learn how to reason and imagine. Imagination is not often talked about in school science; yet, it is important: ‘‘One of the most important aspects of science – yet perhaps one of the least emphasized in instruction – is that science involves processes of imagination’’ (Good, 1977, p. 406). The third principle is metacognition. Metacognition research, which focused on comprehension of text and ‘‘more recent research which targeted specifically to monitoring of and reflection on scientific reasoning have also shown promising effects’’ (Good, 1977, p. 407). These three principles when collectively addressed can help students experience the excitement of doing science in a way that does justice to all stages of scientific inquiry process. In the most current publication on students’ science learning, Taking Science to School (Duschl, 2007), Chapter 9: ‘‘Teaching Science as Practice,’’ researchers reported the following main findings:  Students learn science by actively engaging in the practices of science, including conducting investigations; sharing ideas with peers; specialized way of talking and writing; mechanical mathematical, and computerbased modeling; and development of representations of phenomena.  All major aspects of inquiry, including managing the process, making sense of data, and discussion and reflection on the results, may require guidance.  Instruction needs to build incrementally toward more sophisticated understanding and practices. To advance students’ conceptual understanding, prior knowledge and questions should be evoked and linked to experiences with experiments, data, and phenomena. Practices can be supported with explicit structures or by providing criteria that help guide the work.  Discourse and classroom discussion are key to supporting learning in science. Students need encouragement and guidance to articulate their ideas and recognize that explanation rather than facts is the goal of the scientific enterprise.  Ongoing assessment is an integral part of instruction that can foster student learning when appropriately designed and used regularly. (p. 251)

Science Education and Special Education

265

Meanwhile, McGinnis and Stefanich (as cited in Abell & Lederman, 2007) state that although it has been challenged, there are researchers who have suggested that there are disrupted brain functions in some learners that can be identified and hypothetically ‘rewired’ producing compensatory activation in other areas of the brain (Shaywitz, 2003; Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2004; Simos et al., 2002). These collective research findings offer promise for students learning and doing science from diverse cultural groups and learning abilities. Unfortunately, inexperienced teachers, and sometimes experienced teachers, in general are poorly prepared to implement an effective management plan, and ill-equipped to productively diminish inappropriate behaviors. Every classroom, regardless of makeup, has to conform to a level of appropriate behavior regardless of presence or absence of students with special needs, so that instruction can take place at an acceptable level and pace, and no particular student can interfere with the learning of the other students. Using inquiry, versus rigid stay-in-your-seat, teaching may produce extra management challenges for teachers if students try to take advantage of the greater responsibility given to them during the less rigid inquiry learning session, and students with special needs might be especially confused with the perspective of more latitude; there might be more opportunities for bad personal choices. It is not uncommon for teachers to express their discomfort with using inquiry or any hands-on activity, stating fears regarding management and student self-control as a primary reason. As such, developing and establishing rules, procedures, and routines is a must (Wong & Wong, 2004) and a benefit to all students, with a highly effective discipline schema and plan in place for the inevitable times of misbehavior – a discipline plan such as Cooperative Discipline (Albert, 1989) works extremely well. In addition, classroom teachers in inclusive classrooms need to learn additional methods such as behavior modification techniques that special educators are trained to apply. In short, the special educator and classroom teacher need to use pre-planned, agreed upon, and mutually supportive classroom management and discipline strategies that facilitates inquiry, direct instruction, or other strategies that are being used in lessons.

Co-Teaching One service delivery model that can be used to blend the expertise of these two fields and is often considered in light of the highly qualified requirement

266

LISA A. DIEKER ET AL.

is co-teaching where students are served by a general educator and a special educator in the same classroom (Dieker & Murawski, 2003). The challenges provided by this pairing have been studied by Magiera, Smith, Zigmond, and Gebauer (2005), where the researchers found special educators acting in an instructional assistant role (Mastropieri et al., 2005) instead of applying skills in their expertise of student learning. When implemented successfully, co-teaching has the potential to help students with disabilities in science and subsequently life. The way in which support is provided varies according to the options used for co-teaching. Friend, Reising, and Cook (1993) have identified five options teachers typically use when implementing a co-teaching model: (1) Lead and Support – One teacher leads and another offers assistance and support to individual or small groups; (2) Station Teaching – Students are divided into heterogeneous groups and work at classroom stations with each teacher; (3) Parallel Teaching – Teachers jointly plan instruction, but each may deliver it to half the class or small groups; (4) Alternative Teaching – One teacher works with a small group of students to pre-teach, re-teach, supplement, or enrich while the other teacher instructs the large group; (5) Team Teaching – Both teachers share the planning and instruction of students in a coordinated manner.

An Example of the 5E Learning Cycle and Co-Teaching The following lesson is just one example of the numerous ways that two teachers could choose to work together. The following example of the 5E Learning Cycle strategy includes a co-teaching component. The 5E Learning Cycle is made up of five stages including Engage, Explore, Explain, Extend, and Evaluate. This example highlights features of quality instruction including at the core co-teaching with a special education teacher, cooperative learning, and the use of assistive technology. This lesson is presented to reflect upon how the 5E Learning Cycle and the various type of co-teaching might be used collaboratively to assist teachers working together and teacher educators to explore work across these two areas. Therefore, at least an understanding of the 5E Learning Cycle provides a good beginning as two teachers work together, like the teachers in the opening scenario, in thinking about how special educators can be a part of this inquiry-based process. Bybee presented the stages of the 5E Learning Cycle in 1997. A summary of each stage is provided to help special educators understand the premise of each of the five stages.

Science Education and Special Education

267

 Engage – Here the teacher tries to capture the student’s attention, stimulate their thinking and help them access prior knowledge related to the topic.  Explore – The teacher gives students time to think, plan, investigate, and organize collected information about the topic.  Explain – Students are now involved in an analysis of their exploration. Their understanding is clarified and modified because of reflective activities.  Extend – This section gives students the opportunity to expand and solidify their understanding of the concept and/or apply it to a real world situation.  Evaluate – Students demonstrate their knowledge and teachers evaluate typically using some type of rubric. Engage Science Teacher’s Role. The first stage in the 5E Learning Cycle is Engage. During this stage the teacher aims to capture students’ attention and arouse student interest and curiosity. The teacher should attempt to make connections between past and present learning experiences. At this point, the teacher also wants to assess the level of student understanding and misconceptions of the topic by asking the students to make predictions about the topic of the lesson. In the Engage stage the teacher attempts to capture the student’s attention and arouse student interest and curiosity by a stimulating activity such as performing a song, showing a clip from a popular movie, which highlights a scientific topic or simply asking students to draw a picture to engage students in the topic of the day. The teacher also at this stage assesses the students’ level of understanding of the topic by asking the students to make predictions about the topic of the lesson. The Role of the Special Educator. At the beginning stage, the special educator might go over the five stages, discussing behavioral expectations for the lesson while the general education colleague takes attendance. The special educator also might role-play or have an equal role in the front of the room with the general educator as the engagement activity is being presented. The special educator at this stage could lead the activity with the general educator providing support or one teacher could start the activity while the other takes care of needed tasks to ensure that maximum engaged learning

268

LISA A. DIEKER ET AL.

time is utilized. Either way, for true co-teaching to be demonstrated there should be evidence in the first 5 min of both teachers co-presenting content material to ensure parity in the presentation. Explore Science Teacher’s Role. The second E in the Learning Cycle is Explore. During this stage, students are given time to plan, investigate and actively explore materials or their environment, collect data, and organize the data they collected. Students should be working together without direct instruction from the teachers. The co-teachers’ roles involve listening to and observing student interactions. The teacher asks questions to find out what students are trying, what is happening, and what that means to them. The teacher should provide guidance throughout this process. Special Education Teacher’s Role. At this stage, the special educator should maintain the spirit of what is special about special education, and to monitor the progress of students with disabilities whom he or she is serving in that classroom. Although parity in the relationship should always be present, the special educator should ensure that students’ IEP goals and objectives are being met and at this critical stage additional supports are put in place if students are floundering. Explain Science Teacher’s Role. The third stage in the Learning Cycle is Explain. During this stage, students present their findings and offer conclusions. Students listen to others results and conclusions and compare to their own. The role of the teachers in this stage is to ask students for evidence and clarification related to their conclusions. The teacher can introduce new science vocabulary, and offer explanations for concepts at this point. Special Educator’s Role. The co-teaching team at this point might decide to use a parallel model to put students in smaller groups and to allow sharing in a safer environment. The teacher might also introduce a learning strategy, such as a graphic organizer to help students identify and organize key points and to help them enhance their knowledge. At this point, visual images such as from Google images might be introduced to help reinforce key verbal concepts through visual means to lead to the next stage of inquiry.

Science Education and Special Education

269

Extend (also Referred to as the Expansion or Elaboration Stage) Science Educator’s Role. Next, the students move on to the fourth stage, Extend, also referred to as the Expansion or Elaboration stage. At this point, students use and practice what they learned by applying their understanding to new situations or experiences. Students are expected to use new definitions and labels. Students are presented with new but related challenges and are expected to apply what they learned to these new situations. This develops a deeper, broader, and more solidified understanding of the concept, or process. The expansion stage can also lead back to the exploration stage of the next lesson. Special Educator’s Role. At this stage, the special educator may find a need to use an alternative teaching model for students who are struggling with the basic concepts. For example, if 90% of the class understands the process but a few students need to redo the lab, have further discussions or even be provided a second inquiry experience the special educator might take a small group of students to re-teach the concept. The special educator also would be checking for clear understanding by all students with disabilities at this stage of the process to determine if further instruction beyond the class period might be needed (e.g., follow-up activity in a resource class or at home). Evaluate Science Educator’s Role. This stage of the Learning Cycle is Evaluate. During this stage, the teacher assesses students’ understanding of concepts, abilities, and skill development. It is important to keep in mind, however, that each phase of this model provides opportunities for the teacher to evaluate students and allow for students to check their understanding. During this final stage, the teacher should assess students’ overall understanding of the concepts. The focus of the evaluation phase is on what students know and can do. Special Educator’s Role. At this stage of the Learning Cycle, the special educator should be assessing all students’ learning, but also have a critical eye for both the academic and behavioral outcomes for the students with disabilities involved in the process. If these students were not successful at any point in the process, even with co-taught support, then this issue needs to be at the core of the discussion during the planning of the next 5E lesson related to how to remediate this particular lesson.

270

LISA A. DIEKER ET AL.

Future Directions ‘‘So, what are we supposed to do together?’’ We believe that first there must be dialogue and a basic understanding of each other’s fields, but most importantly an openness to growing and learning together. Modeling not only cooperative learning for our students, but also ensuring access and success for all students. We conclude with potential implications for each of our fields related to working as a team, as well as how the blending of science, special education, and high standards will impact the future of science education.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION Currently, it is clear in the document Science Education Standards (1996), that ‘‘all’’ includes learners with exceptional needs. Currently, most science education teacher preparation programs do not adequately provide preservice teachers with knowledge or experiences they need to be adequately prepared to meet the diverse needs of ‘‘all’’ learners. Therefore, it is imperative that a blending of science instruction and special education instruction happen in schools throughout the country. No matter how well intentioned science teachers may be, they may unintentionally fail to provide high quality, engaged science instruction to all of their students without the needed support. McGinnis and Stefanich (as cited in Abell & Lederman, 2007) argue, ‘‘Evidence indicates that both practicing and prospective science teachers note the inadequacy of their preparation to make instructional adjustments for students with disabilities’’ (p. 303). But, we offer that many science teachers would make the needed accommodations for students in exceptional education with the assistance of a special educator. Science educators face not only the need to carryout the usual accommodations required of other content specialists, but they must also attend to how experiments and materials will be handled safely by ‘‘all’’ students (Stefanich, 1994). If we are to achieve the vision of ‘‘science education for all’’ (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989) as presented in the National Science Education Standards (1996), it is essential that science educators and special educators work collaboratively with students and their parents to provide the quality of science instruction espoused in the National Science Education Standards (1996). Science educators who have a commitment to the vision of ‘‘science for all’’ will provide students experiences that utilize inquiry-based

Science Education and Special Education

271

pedagogy, include deep science content and capitalize on students’ strengths and not their exceptionalities.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION The implications for the field of special education are very high compared to science education. These implications are not only for the teacher, but also most importantly, for the students special educators serve. Currently, special education teachers especially at the secondary level are frustrated by the expectation that they must be content qualified to serve secondary students. Yet, the real frustration should be from children with disabilities and their families. Until recent changes in legislation, students with disabilities were often receiving a lower level of science instruction or being denied access to the same science curriculum as their nondisabled peers. In a society where problem-solving skills and advanced science knowledge are often at the core of higher level careers not only were students with disabilities being denied content they were also being denied access to many career options. Students with disabilities, especially students from diverse cultures, tend to be labeled behavioral disordered at a rate higher than should occur. Yet students labeled emotionally disturbed or learning disabled have proven through normal intelligence scores that they are academically capable of mastering higher level content; however, this mastery is not possible if they are denied the same opportunities as their peers. Denying students access to state-of-the-art science instruction not only hinders their success in school but correlates to students, especially with emotional disabilities, being unemployed or underemployed not to mention the low rate of college enrollment for students with disabilities in general. However, just providing access to content knowledge without providing adequate support from special educators focused on students unique academic and behavioral needs means these students will fail again in the general education setting. Therefore, special educators being prepared by today’s professors just like their students must be given access to secondary content knowledge. In science, special educators need to learn state-of-the-art practices so they can support their general education counterparts to deliver high levels of content that students with disabilities have the right to access. This type of collaborative partnership is what must occur and is intended to be the spirit of the laws of IDEA and NCLB.

Lesson plans should demonstrate that both teachers had input and will be actively engaged with all students during each of the five stages Materials ready prior to lesson; may include books on tape, adapted assignments, highlighters, etc.

Teacher Behaviors Observed

5E Learning Cycle Reflection Observation Form.

Evidence that assessments vary in type and format; used to monitor progress, plan, and implement differentiated instruction Copies of modified tests, examples of modifications and accommodations, IEP requirements present Rubric, criteria for grade, variety of grading options evident

Source: Modified from a Co-Teaching Checklist (Murawski, Dieker, & Stanford, 2003).

Assessment of all students occurred by both teachers

Co-assessing Assessment of all students occurred in each of the five stages Alternate assessments were developed

Co-instruction of the 5E Learning Cycle Engage Both teachers involved in capturing student’s attention, stimulating thinking, and accessing prior knowledge and identifying misconceptions in students’ understanding Explore Both teachers helped students frame their question and asked questions of all learners Explain Both teachers provides definitions and explanations using students’ previous experiences as a basis for the discussion and adding multiple ways of representation (e.g., visual, verbal, written) as needed Elaborate Students use and practice what they learned by applying their understanding to new situations/experiences supported by both teachers; students who need additional support are provided that support at this stage Evaluate Both teachers assesses students’ understanding of concepts, abilities, and skill development and an alternative plan is proposed for students who did not master the primary lesson concepts

All aspects of the 5E Learning Cycle were planned for and discussed Adapted materials, instruction, behavior, and safety issues were addressed

Teacher Action

Table 1. Effective

Evident

Not Observed

272 LISA A. DIEKER ET AL.

Science Education and Special Education

273

THREE CURRICULA THAT NEED TO BE TAUGHT TOGETHER So how is this spirit of collaboration and perhaps even synergy between the fields of special education and science education to occur? We propose a simple beginning with collaboration among higher education faculty in teacher preparation courses, as well as across all professional development opportunities provided to practicing teachers (Dieker & Berg, 2002). Focusing on teaching the curricula of science, special education and collaboration as an integrated package instead of isolated sets of knowledge. However, we are not suggesting that either science education or special education can ever learn everything there is to know about each other’s fields, but if these two laws suggest that students with disabilities will be included into the general education then those who support those laws, teachers and teacher educators must also be included. Therefore, educators in both fields must learn at least a basic common language so higher levels of learning can occur for all students who will benefit from teachers who when placed together know exactly ‘‘what to do!’’ We conclude this article by providing two tools (Table 1) that we believe communicates what should be observed not only with the 5E Learning Cycle, but what also should be happening as the fields of general and special education work together in secondary science classrooms. These tools are provided to assist educators in both fields to reflect upon an effective co-taught classroom.

REFERENCES Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Albert, L. (1989). A teacher’s guide to cooperative discipline, how to manage your classroom and promote self-esteem. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Caine, R., & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Cawley, J., Foley, T. E., & Miller, J. (2003). Science and students with mild disabilities: Principle of universal design. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 160–171. Cawley, J., Hayden, S., Cade, E., & Baker-Kroczynski, S. (2002). Including students with disabilities into the general education science classroom. Exceptional Children, 68, 423–435. Chipongian, L. (n.d.). What is ‘‘Brain-Based Learning’’? Retrieved July 18, 2007, from: http:// www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/brain-based

274

LISA A. DIEKER ET AL.

Dalton, B., Morocco, C. C., Tinvan, T., & Mead, P. (1997). Supported inquiry science: Teaching for conceptual change in urban and suburban science classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 670–684. Deshler, D. D., Lenz, B. K., Bulgren, J., Schumaker, J. B., Davis, B., Grossen, B., et al. (2004). Adolescents with disabilities in high school setting: Student characteristics and setting dynamics. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2(2), 30–48. Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Lenz, B. K., Bulgren, J. A., Hock, M. F., Knight, J., & Ehren, B. J. (2001). Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(2), 96–108. Dieker, L. A., & Berg, C. A. (2002). Can secondary math, science and special educators really work together? Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 92–99. Dieker, L. A., & Little, M. (2005). Secondary reading: Not just for reading teachers anymore. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 276–283. Dieker, L. A., & Murawski, W. W. (2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues, current trends, and suggestions for success. High School Journal, 86, 1–13. Duschl, R. A. (2007). Taking science to school. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Friend, M., Reising, M., & Cook, L. (1993). Co-teaching: An overview of the past, a glimpse at the present, and considerations for the future. Preventing School Failure, 37(4), 6–11. Good, R. G. (1977). How children learn science: Conceptual development and implications for teaching. Mishawaka, IN: Better World Books. Hardman, M. L., & Nagle, K. (2004). Public policy: From access to accountability in special education. In: A. M. Sorrells, H. J. Rieth & P. T. Sindelar (Eds), Critical issues in special education: Access, diversity, and accountability (pp. 277–292). Boston, MA: Pearson. Haskell, D. H. (2000). Building bridges between science and special education: Inclusion in the science classroom. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 4(3), 1–10. Retrieved August 23, 2007, from http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/haskell.html Haury, D. L. (1993). Teaching science through inquiry. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science Mathematics and Environmental Education, Columbus, OH. Retrieved August 5, 2007, from http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/publaw/107publ.html Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L. 108-446, 108th Congress (2004). Lipsky, D. K. (2003). The coexistence of high standards and inclusion. School Administrator, 60(3), 32–35. Lorsbach, A. W., & Tobin, K. (1992). Constructivism as a referent for science teaching. In: F. Lorenz, K. Cochran, J. Krajcik & P. Simpson (Eds), Research matters y to the science teacher. NARST Monograph, number 5. Manhattan, KS: National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Magiera, K., Smith, C., Zigmond, N., & Gebauer, K. (2005). Benefits of co-teaching in secondary mathematics classes. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(3), 20–24. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1995). Teaching science to students with disabilities in general education settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(4), 10–13. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2001). Promoting inclusion in secondary classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 265–274. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K. (2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 260–270.

Science Education and Special Education

275

Melber, L. (2004). Inquiry for everyone: Authentic science experiences for students with special needs. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 1(2) Article 4. Retrieved 12/1/07, from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol1/iss2/ Murawski, W., Dieker, L., & Stanford, P. (2003). Co-teaching checklist. Baldwin County Public Schools: Author. National Science Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Science Resources Center, Inquiry Science Meets Special Needs Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring/ Summer 2001 Retrieved May 2, 2007 from http://www.nationalsciencesresourcescenter. org/news/Inquiry_science_FW_2001.html National Science Teachers Association [NSTA]. (2000). NSTA pathways to the science standards: Guidelines for moving the vision into practice. Washington, DC: NSTA. No Child Left Behind (NCLB). (2001). No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, y 115, Stat. 1425 (2002). Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Roles for the science teacher. In: R. Osborne & P. Freyberg (Eds), Learning in science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2000). Universal Design for Learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15, 67–70. Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2007). Science learning in special education: The case for constructed versus instructed learning. Exceptionality, 15, 57–74. Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). Neurobiological indices of dyslexia. In: H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris & S. Graham (Eds), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 514–531). New York: Guilford Press. Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2004). Reading disability and the brain. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 6–11. Simos, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., Bergman, E., Berier, J. I., Foorman, B. R., Castillo, E. M., Davis, R. N., Fitzgerald, M., & Papanicolaou, A. C. (2002). Dyslexia-specific brain activation profile becomes normal following successful remedial training. Neurology, 58, 1203–1213. Stefanich, G. (1994). Science educators as active collaborators in meeting the educational needs of students with disabilities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 5, 56–65. Thurlow, M. L., & Johnson, D. R. (2005). High-stakes testing of students with disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 305–314. UMass Physics Education Research Group. (2007). Constructivism. Retrieved September 1, 2007, from University of Massachusetts Amherst: UMass Scientific Research Institute Web site: http://umperg.physics.umass.edu/topics/constructivism Wong, H., & Wong, R. (2004). How to be an effective teacher: The first days of school. Mountain View, CA: Wong Publications.

This page intentionally left blank

MATH DISABILITIES: ITALIAN AND U.S. PERSPECTIVES$ Silvia Lanfranchi, Daniela Lucangeli, Olga Jerman and H. Lee Swanson ABSTRACT This chapter reviews research on math disabilities (MD) from two different points of view: Italian and American. Our goal is to gain consensus on identifying the cognitive deficits that underlie problems associated with MD as well as to provide an overview of some of the instructional approaches to remediate these deficits. The review outlines similarities and differences in the research perspectives between the two countries. Although the results show some consensus on the identification of MD and the cognitive mechanisms associated with this deficit (e.g., working memory), some differences remain between the two research perspectives (e.g., incidence of MD).

For the past decade, increased attention has been given to the study of math disabilities (MD) in Italy and the United States. Among the large number of

$

This chapter was partially supported by the U.S. Department of Education (H023E40014) and Peloy funds awarded to last author.

Personnel Preparation Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, Volume 21, 277–308 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0735-004X/doi:10.1016/S0735-004X(08)00011-6

277

278

SILVIA LANFRANCHI ET AL.

studies devoted to this topic, of particular interest are those studies examining cognitive processes involved in the development of mathematical skills. We believe these processes are important not only because they can explain the various mechanisms involved in math skills acquisition, but also because they help to develop more precise assessment and treatment procedures. This chapter focuses on the research outcomes in two countries and attempts to outline some of the commonalities and issues that emerge in studying children with MD. In general, our comparisons center on: (1) definition of MD; (2) specificity of MD and comorbidity with reading disabilities (RD); (3) underlying cognitive deficits of children with MD; and (4) treatment programs for children with MD. Prior to discussing selected research outcomes, we will briefly review some of the controversial points in the field of math development in children.

PERSPECTIVES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF NUMERACY Considerable controversy surrounds young children’s understanding of numbers. The topic is important for both theory and practice because the knowledge that children attain during the early school years lays the foundation for further math concept development and, consequently, for math instruction. Gelman and Gallistel (1978), for example, assume that children possess innate conceptual principles guiding their learning to count during the preschool period. Fuson et al. (Fuson, 1988; Fuson & Hall, 1983) argued that numbers have different meanings in different contexts, and thus ‘‘number word’’ is context-dependent. A number word provides a ‘‘cardinal’’ context to describe the numerosity of a set of discrete objects or events. The ‘‘meaning’’ of number words is their successive assignment to items in a one-to-one correspondence. The referent of a number word is the item with which it is paired. In other words, the referent for a particular number word differs with each count in the same way as the referent for a pronoun differs from sentence to sentence. Earlier reviews (Wynn, 1990; Dowker, 1998) have indicated a complex relationship among the different processes involved in the understanding of the meaning of numbers in the context of arithmetic knowledge. Arithmetic knowledge cannot be interpreted as a general cognitive competence. Rather, it represents a complex cognitive system involving the

Math Disabilities

279

awareness of many different interrelated subcomponents such as quantity, numbers, procedures, and use of strategies. Several reviews have indicated that children with MD experience problems in basic arithmetic calculation and/or arithmetic problem solving (Geary, 1993). Basic arithmetic calculation has its roots in numerical knowledge that develops with the automatization of specific competencies (e.g., arithmetic facts). These competences could be affected by specific difficulties in both children and adults (McCloskey, 1992; Temple, 1991). Arithmetic problemsolving skills require not only knowledge of basic arithmetic facts (calculation) but also proficiency in other complex cognitive processes such as verbal comprehension, planning of solution strategies, monitoring, and metacognitive skills. The differentiation between the two skills is supported by a body of evidence presenting cases of children who experience problems in basic arithmetic (dyscalculia) but, at the same time, are able to solve arithmetic problems not requiring calculation. On the other hand, there are children with average ability in calculation who experience difficulties in solving problems (Jordan & Montani, 1997; Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004). This distinction between arithmetic calculation and problem solving reflects, to a certain extent, the difference found in reading between decoding and comprehension. Both cases involve a differentiation between basic abilities, which must be overlearned in order to become automatized, and more complex abilities, which require the use of controlled processes along with some simple routine procedures (e.g., typical solution algorithms). The dissociation between basic arithmetic calculation and arithmetic problem solving has been shown in metacognitive training studies that focus on controlled processes (Lucangeli, Cornoldi, & Tellarini, 1998).

MATH DISABILITIES DEFINED As described in the Diagnostic System Manual (DSM-IV, 1996), the principal characteristic of MD, also referred to as dyscalculia, is reflected when an individual’s calculation ability (assessed by individually administered standardized tests) is lower than expected on the basis of chronological age, psychometric assessment of intelligence, and level of instruction. Dyscalculia reflects an incapacity to understand terms, operations, or basic arithmetical concepts, an incapacity to process operational symbols, difficulties in manipulating standard arithmetic concepts, spatial difficulties in calculation (e.g., correctly aligning numbers), difficulties in learning basic

280

SILVIA LANFRANCHI ET AL.

arithmetic facts, difficulties in reading or writing numbers, and difficulties in memorizing numerical information.

Italian Perspective Epidemiological data from the International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities found that 2.5% of school-age children in the U.S. experience MD. However, the incidence of students with MD in Italy is surprisingly greater. Lucangeli (2005) found that 5 out of 25 children (20%) exhibit mathematical difficulties starting from the first year of elementary school. This discrepancy in incidence between the U.S. and Italy may be explained by the fact that arithmetical instruction in Italian math curricula provides a limited focus on numerical knowledge and numerical abilities. To further clarify why the incidence of MD is so high among Italian children, we present our summaries with regard to the following issues:  Italian research on MD: general models and assessment;  Italian perspective on problem-solving deficits: general models and assessment;  Metacognition;  Italian treatment strategies to improve math skills. Italian Research on MD Recently, research in Italy has been devoted to identifying general subtypes of MD. In particular, a recent large-scale Italian normative study was conducted to examine how children between ages 6 and 14 learn basic arithmetic. Based on a sample of more than 5,000 subjects (Cornoldi, Lucangeli, & Bellina, 2002; Cornoldi & Lucangeli, 2004), three main MD subtypes were distinguished. The first subtype reflected problems concerning numerical knowledge; the second subtype revealed difficulties in the use of procedures in written calculation (procedural dyscalculia); and the third was related to the problems in lexical digit comprehension and production (digit dyslexia). The three subtypes are not necessarily independent (for more comprehensive review, see Cornoldi et al., 2002). For example, numerical knowledge serves as a prerequisite for the last two subtypes, and some aspects of mental and automatized calculation are required to perform written calculation. There were also distinctions among subtypes. For example, several children possessed only elementary numerical knowledge and/or a

Math Disabilities

281

low level of calculation fluency but, nevertheless, they were comparable to many of their classmates on written calculation accuracy. In contrast, some children with good numerical knowledge scored low in calculation. Examining the development of number and calculation abilities in children, this normative study provided an opportunity to describe some of the nuances between subgroups. To capture some of these nuances, different assessment batteries were created. For example, the AC-MT test is a standardized Italian test for individual and collective administration that assesses calculation abilities in children from grades 1st through 8th. This standardized test is comprised of four parts: written calculation, numerical knowledge, general accuracy, and general speed. Each grade level is assessed by different tasks. The total score is obtained by summing up the scores from written calculation, accuracy, and speed subtests. The score for each of the four subtests, in turn, is derived from the following tasks: ordering by magnitude, recovery of automatic numbers combination, and number dictation. In addition, there is a downward version of this test aimed at evaluating different components of numeral and calculation skills. The test is designed for children aged 8–10 (3rd–5th grades), and divided into two parts. The first part assesses competencies of written and oral computation involved in all four subparts of arithmetical calculations. If the results are below the 10th percentile from the norm, the second part is administered. The second part measures number comprehension and production skills via other different subtests. For each subtest, the errors and speed are recorded; the first measure, error examination, gives information about the accuracy of the process and the second one focuses on the automatization of skills. Problem-Solving Deficits Several researchers in Italy assume that the acquisition of five cognitive abilities contribute to successful problem solving in children. These abilities include: semantic text comprehension, problem representation, problem categorization, planning, and self-evaluation (see Lucangeli, Tressoldi, & Cendron, 1998, 1999 for a review). Semantic comprehension of text in a given arithmetic problem involves similar cognitive processes required for the comprehension of any other type of text (e.g., argumentative, narrative, etc.). In addition, specific knowledge of the meaning of certain mathematical terms, such as ‘‘altogether,’’ ‘‘more than,’’ or ‘‘less than’’ is necessary. Problem representation is the construction of a mental model. According to Mayer (1981, 1992), information drawn from the text is connected

282

SILVIA LANFRANCHI ET AL.

(integrated) in a unified structure, in which the values of the different variables become related to each other and to the unknown data. This ability to construct a model representation is extremely important for the determination of the various correct choices to solve the problem. It is obvious that a wrong or a partial representation of the relations between the different variables and their values would negatively influence the solution plan and the calculation choices. There is a disagreement, however, around the characteristics of a mental representation. Some authors argue that the information is coded in a propositional format (Wicker, Weinstein, Yelich, & Brooks, 1978). Others believe it is represented in a pictorial form (Antonietti, 1991). We speculate that the format may vary based on the type of problem, type of information, and problem-solving experience (Nathan, Kintsch, & Young, 1992). However, there is consensus in the literature that visual representation plays an important role in the organization of the information presented in the text (Wicker et al., 1978; Kaufman, 1988; Lewis, 1989; Antonietti, 1991; Hegarty, Mayer, & Monk, 1995). The third ability involved in problem solving is the capacity to categorize the given problem and recognize its structure. This ability has been found to be highly developed in experts at problem solving (Larkin, McDermott, Simon, & Simon, 1980; Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981; Vanlehn, 1989) and could result from experience with similar problems at school. The solution plan is the fourth skill necessary for the math word problem solving to achieve the right answer, creating a sequence of ordered steps. Finally, self-evaluation is viewed as the ability to monitor one’s own performance based on one’s own skills in problem solving. These five facilities serve as a basis for the economic model of cognition and metacognition (Lucangeli et al., 1998). The model was tested (Lucangeli et al., 1998) with independent samples of students in different grade levels (366 children total). In order to measure these abilities, the authors devised a series of mathematical word problems in a multiple-choice format for each of the identified skills. One of the devised instruments was Soluzione Problemi Matematici (SPM), a problem-solving assessment battery for children between 3rd and 8th grade (Lucangeli et al., 1999). The battery consists of four problems given for each grade level. Further, every problem is broken down into five components: (1) text comprehension of problem information; (2) representation of the information in a script and the ability to define and integrate it; (3) problem categorization based on its profound structure (operations needed to solve the problem); (4) planning of steps to solve the problem; and (5) self-evaluation of the effectiveness of the procedures utilized in the solution phase.

Math Disabilities

283

The possibility to assess the proficiency level of problem-solving ability in these five areas contains important implications. It allows for isolating and pinpointing specific difficulties a child may have in solving math problems, and, consequently, facilitates the detection of problems and the establishment of goals for treatment (Tressoldi & Lucangeli, 1999).

Metacognition In recent years, there has also been great interest in the study of metacognition and metacognitive competencies associated with arithmetic development in Italy (Lucangeli & Cornoldi, 1997). Metacognition involves an individual’s conscious awareness and control of his/her own cognitive processing (Cornoldi, 1995). Research indicates that children with difficulties in mathematics lack the general knowledge required to successfully perform math tasks such as avoiding errors, obtaining relevant information, or checking the results (Lucangeli, Cornoldi, & Tessari, 1991; Lucangeli, Galderisi, & Cornoldi, 1995; Lucangeli & Passolunghi, 1995). In one of their studies that included 781 children (397 from 3rd grade and 394 from 4th grade), Lucangeli and Cornoldi (1997) found a strong relationship between mathematical abilities (numerical and geometrical problemsolving abilities in particular) and metacognitive abilities. The connection between the two abilities was not only in terms of specific control processes, but also in terms of metacognitive attitude toward mathematics, especially related to motivational aspects such as self-regulation and self-esteem.

Treatment Treatment programs for children with MD have been developed recently by Italian researchers (Lucangeli, Poli, & Molin, 2003c; Lucangeli, De Candia, & Poli, 2003a). One of such programs is presented by Lucangeli et al., which aims to improve basic numerical abilities (Lucangeli, Poli, & Molin, 2003b; Lucangeli et al., 2003b; Lucangeli et al., 2003a). The program, titled ‘‘Numerical Intelligence,’’ has its roots in cognitive developmental science and targets to foster numerical abilities from preschool to the 5th-grade level. The main focus of the program is to improve numeric knowledge and specific cognitive processes such as counting, lexical, semantic, and syntactic processes, oral calculation, and written calculation. Counting refers to the

284

SILVIA LANFRANCHI ET AL.

counting capability and is guided by the knowledge of principles based on nonverbal numerical expertise: biunivocal correspondence, stable order/ sequence, and cardinality (Gelman & Gallistel, 1978; Gallistel & Gelman, 1992; Gelman & Meck, 1983; Fuson, 1988; Wynn, 1990). Lexical processes focus on the capacity to assign names to numbers. Each digit assumes a different name. (McCloskey, Caramazza, & Basili, 1985; Grewel, 1952, 1969; Deloche & Seron, 1982a, 1982b; Seron & Deloche, 1983, 1984). Semantic processes area refers to the capacity to comprehend the meaning of numbers (McCloskey, 1992). Syntax processes area focuses on specific spatial relationships among digits composing numbers, i.e., a digit defines its value within the number (units, tens, hundreds, etc.) according to its spatial position (Grewel, 1952, 1969; Deloche & Seron, 1982a, 1982b; Seron & Deloche, 1983, 1984). The general objective in the Oral calculation area is to learn different strategies and to practice oral calculations in order to reach the level of automaticity (Baroody, 1983, 1987; Siegler & Mitchell, 1982; Geary, 1990, 1993; Geary, Brown, & Samaranayake, 1991; Beishuizen, 1993; Ashcraft, 1994). Three different studies using this program were carried out recently (see Lucangeli, Tressoldi, & De Candia, 2005 for a review). The first two studies tested the validity of ‘‘Numerical Intelligence’’ program and involved a sample of 42 preschoolers in the first study and 39 children from 2nd grade in the second study. The results revealed a reduction in the number of children showing arithmetical difficulties. This teaching program focused on improving cognitive processes involved in the development of numerical knowledge. The results of a third study demonstrated a decrease in the mean number of errors in children with MD when compared to the control group. Among the key characteristics contributing to the efficacy of this program with its six-core content areas was active student learning. The focus on active student learning highlighted metacognitive knowledge of what was being taught and determined when it was necessary to substitute inefficient calculation strategies with more efficient ones. This metacognitive emphasis, however, did not exclude the necessity to automatize factual recall through drill and practice. It was found necessary to integrate a drill and practice approach with metacognitive learning, offering more opportunities for students to become active and autonomous learners. Taken together, these results suggest that the traditional Italian math curriculum needs to be integrated with metacognitive training. There are promising interventions for children with MD to promote a more active and strategic approach to mathematics learning (Caponi, Falco, Focchiatti, Cornoldi, & Lucangeli, 2006). Perhaps, one of the most comprehensive

Math Disabilities

285

curriculums was developed by Montague and was targeted for middle school LD students (Montague, 1992). Montague (an American researcher) has worked actively with her Italian counterparts. Her curriculum covers not only all five cognitive abilities delineated by Lucangeli’s model (Lucangeli et al., 1998) but also takes into account comprehending the text, paraphrasing the information, visualizing the problem, planning the steps to solve a problem, estimating the outcome, computing the calculation, and evaluating the final results. The curriculum is supplemented by a series of metacognitive strategies such as self-instruction, selfquestioning, and self-monitoring. Various metacognitive programs have been developed in Italy and contain a wide number of general activities for improving math performance (Caponi et al., 2006). These activities emphasize the development of children’s ideas about mathematics, math anxiety, children’s attitudes toward mathematics, cognitive styles, and specific control processes like planning, monitoring, and self-evaluating (Lucangeli et al., 1998). For example, the Metacognitive Program for Improving Mathematics Skills and Problem-Solving Abilities was devised by Cornoldi and his research group (Cornoldi et al., 1995). The main goals of the program are to promote (a) metacognitive awareness in mathematics, and (b) control processes (such as planning of strategies and monitoring) on task performance. The program is devised for children between 8 and 12 years of age. It contains five general goals tapping the knowledge of and attitudes about mathematics and five general goals concerning control processes.

Summarizing Italian Research In summary, Italian researchers have focused their attention on identifying the cognitive processes that distinguish between basic arithmetic deficit and arithmetic problem-solving deficits. In addition, the distinction is drawn among three basic arithmetic subtypes. These three subtypes include: (a) digit dyslexia, dealing with difficulties in lexical digit comprehension and production; (b) procedural dyscalculia, problems in the execution of calculation procedures; and (c) deficits in numerical knowledge, which are characterized by difficulties in understanding the concept of quantity and its principles. On the basis of these subtypes, specific tests for effective assessments of MD and intervention programs to improve math skills have been developed.

286

SILVIA LANFRANCHI ET AL.

AMERICAN RESEARCH As with the Italian researchers, the study of individual differences in mathematical cognition has been studied extensively by cognitive psychologists during recent decades in the United States. Unfortunately, what is clear from a large range of studies in American research on individual differences (e.g., research by Geary, Jordan, Hecht) is that a significant number of children in American schools demonstrate poor achievement in mathematics. The incidence of MD in the United States may be as common as RD. That is, several studies (Badian, 1983) estimate that approximately 6–7% of the school-age population in American schools have MD. Although this figure may be inflated because of variations in definition, there is consensus that a significant number of children in American schools demonstrate poor achievement in mathematics. Given the incidence of MD in the general public school population, American researchers have been focusing on the cognitive characteristics of such children. A good strategy to understand these individual differences would be to discuss some research studies in the U.S. We provide a sampling of three major researchers who have studied MD in the United States. We will first start with the work by Geary et al. (Geary, 2003; Geary, Hamson, & Hoard, 2000; Geary, Hoard, & Hamson, 1999; Geary, Hoard, Byrd-Craven, & DeSoto, 2004), who describe strategies and procedures used by typicallyachieving children to solve simple and complex addition problems. When children enter school, two common counting procedures are used: fingers to count and/or counting all of the numbers or counting from one of the larger numbers. These counting procedures facilitate the development of memory representations for basic facts. For normal-achieving children, there is a gradual developmental shift during the elementary school years from counting procedures to a reliance on arithmetic facts. Children with MD, however, rely more heavily on finger counting at the end of the elementary school years and, therefore, are less likely than average-achieving children to use retrieval-based processes. Thus, finger counting may be viewed as a consequence or cause of poor memory for arithmetic facts. Accordingly, Geary et al. view difficulties in the formation of arithmetic facts or in accessing these representations from memory as a defining feature of MD. Several studies by Geary show that children with MD do not perform as well as their same-age peers on working memory (WM) tasks. However, the mechanisms that underlie these group differences in WM are still under investigation. Some studies suggest that there are problems in accessing numbers because of difficulties in processing speed (e.g., articulation speed).

Math Disabilities

287

Other accounts suggest that these children have difficulty inhibiting irrelevant associations. That is, children with MD make retrieval errors because they cannot inhibit irrelevant associations from entering WM. Hecht et al.’s (Hecht, Close, & Sabtisi, 2003; Hecht, Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 2001) research focuses on fractions and MD. There are clear individual differences in the rate at which children acquire mathematical skills involving fractions. Hecht et al. present a model of the kinds of knowledge children need to know in order to successfully solve problems of a fraction nature. Their results showed that knowledge reflects three correlated factors (procedural, factual, and conceptual). For example, there is a procedural knowledge which involves the child’s awareness of processing steps. There is also a conceptual understanding which enables children to connect meaning to a fraction symbol, as well as factual knowledge which represents the memorization of facts. There are also intrinsic factors such as WM, and extrinsic factors such as formal instruction and practice. In subsequent work, Hecht et al. (2003) have indicated that mathematical knowledge, classroom behavior, and WM were uniquely correlated with fraction outcomes. According to their research, they believe that the dominant cause of incorrect performance on fraction computation problems by children who experience math difficulty is procedural knowledge errors. Jordan et al.’s (Jordan & Montani, 1997; Jordan, Hanich, & Kaplan, 2003; Hanich, Jordan, Kaplan, & Dick, 2001) research primarily focused on the links between reading and math difficulties. She indicates that children with MD are not well understood because several studies used heterogeneous groups and reading performance was not controlled. Thus, there is a question as to whether children with MD suffer from the same processes associated with RD. She argues that some authors have incorrectly assumed that MD is related to language which, in turn, suggests some commonality between math and reading. Jordan takes issue with Geary’s earlier findings (Geary, 1993) that the problems in number and fact retrieval may be related to a phonological processing difficulty. Her research suggests that children with RD (children with known phonological deficits) do better than those with MD or comorbid disabilities (MD+RD) on rapid fact retrieval. In general, the results of Jordan et al. suggest that both MD and MD+RD groups have difficulty in number knowledge, counting procedures and arithmetic operations, and computational fluency. What differentiates the two groups is the ability to solve complex word problems. Growth and mathematical achievement and catching up to normal achieving peers is better achieved by math-disabled students because they can use their verbal strength to compensate for their weakness in processing numbers. Thus, Jordan suggests

288

SILVIA LANFRANCHI ET AL.

that deficits in fact retrieval and, by extension, calculation and fluency, are the defining features in math difficulties, specific or otherwise.

Summary As the reader can tell, there is some disagreement among U.S. researchers about the cognitive mechanisms that might underlie MD. Further, there is disagreement as to whether MD and RD share a common disorder, whether retrieval of math facts can be dissociated from verbal ability, and whether WM plays a major role when compared to basic number processing. In reviewing three American researchers and their findings on MD, we would like to make four general observations. We will then conclude with some observations based on a meta-analysis Swanson and Jerman (2006) have recently completed on the published cognitive literature related to MD. First, the primary cognitive mechanisms that separate MD from RD are unclear. Some authors have suggested that memory representations for arithmetic facts are supported in part by the same phonological and semantic memory systems that support decoding and reading comprehension (see Geary, 1993; Hecht et al, 2001 for a review). If this is the case, then one can argue that phonological processes that contribute to reading disorders are a source of math retrieval difficulties in children with MD. Others challenge this assumption (Jordan). Unfortunately, there are at least two reasons why it is difficult to determine from the existing literature whether the cognitive processing of children with MD is distinct from that with RD. The first reason is that the operational criteria for defining MD and RD, as well as the terminology, vary across studies. Variations in definitions and issues of comorbidity have raised questions about whether some of the processes associated with MD include cognitive subprocesses specific to math or whether deficits affecting math extend to other domains, such as reading. When reviewing the studies, we find that the cut-off scores for defining MD vary from the 45th percentile to the 8th percentile. For example, Geary et al. included children who fell below the 30th percentile (Geary et al., 1999) or the 35th percentile (Geary et al., 2000) in his studies. Jordan et al. referred to children with math difficulties as children below the 35th percentile. Other studies in the U.S. have been more conservative, such as Koontz and Berch (1996) and Swanson (1993), and have used the 25th percentile as a cut-off point in defining MD. A second reason is that, in many of these comparison studies, we find that the classification procedures are not that distinct (orthogonal)

Math Disabilities

289

from the comparison measures. For example, MD and RD (and average achievers) are compared on computation and word problem-solving measures when the classification measures of MD (e.g., standardized tests) include similar mathematical operations. Thus, it is not surprising that many of the children with MD are characterized as having primary deficits in calculation. Second, different conclusions about primary mechanisms underlying MD development emerge. From a developmental perspective, Geary et al. and Jordan suggest that procedural knowledge of children with MD improves over time. At the same time, such children have difficulty retrieving basic arithmetic facts from long-term memory (LTM), a deficit that does not improve over time. Geary et al. indicate that the mechanisms underlying MD have been related to poor WM, in particular to either phonological or the executive system, such as the inability to inhibit irrelevant information. Jordan indicates that the mechanisms that may underlie MD are related to deficits in fact retrieval and, by extension, calculation and fluency. In contrast, Hecht et al. focus on the conceptual knowledge of children with MD. They find that conceptual understanding of fractions is a consistent and important source of variability in fraction estimation, word problem solving, and fraction computation in children with MD. Third, because there is no consensus on subtypes of MD, it is difficult to sort outcomes related to cognitive measures. Not unlike the point above, some of the diversity in findings and interpretations may be related to various subtypes of MD under study. Studies that include certain subtypes of MD may confound our general conclusions about the primary cognitive characteristics of MD. Thus, it may be informative to review some of these subtypes. One of the most comprehensive syntheses, in our opinion, of the cognitive literature on MD related to subtypes was provided in the early work by Geary (1993) (also see Geary, 2003 for a review). His review indicates that children with MD are a heterogeneous group and show one of the three types of cognitive disorders. One disorder characterizes children with MD as deficient in semantic memory (with which Jordan takes issue). These children are characterized as having weak fact retrieval and high error rates in recall. Disruptions in ability to retrieve basic facts from LTM due to inhibition may be a defining feature of this subtype (Geary, 1993). Further, Geary’s review indicated that the characteristics of these retrieval deficits, such as slow solution times, suggest that children with MD do not experience a simple developmental delay, but a persistent cognitive disorder across a broad age span.

290

SILVIA LANFRANCHI ET AL.

Another type of math disorder, according to Geary, is procedural. Children in this category generally use developmentally immature procedures in numerical calculations and, therefore, have difficulties in sequencing multiple steps in complex procedures (this subtype may be in line with the work of Hecht et al.). For example, research in Israel (GrossTsur, Manor, & Sha1ev, 1996) suggests that children with MD have a basic understanding of numbers and small quantities. However, children with MD have difficulties keeping information in WM and monitoring the counting process, which create errors in their counting. Studies by Jordan (Jordan & Montani, 1997; Jordan et al., 2003) indicate that children with MD have difficulties in solving simple and complex arithmetic problems. These differences are assumed to involve both procedural and memorybased deficits. Some procedural deficits are related to miscounting or losing track of the counting process. The third type is a visual–spatial math disorder. Interestingly, few American studies have fully explored this subtype. These children, however, are characterized as having difficulties representing numerical information spatially. For example, they may have difficulties representing the alignment of numerals in multicolumn arithmetic problems or may rotate numbers. Further, they have difficulties in areas that require spatial ability such as geometry and place values. Recent work by Geary et al. (2004) suggests that these deficits are not due to poor spatial abilities, but, rather, due to poor monitoring of the sequence of steps of an algorithm and from poor skills in detecting and then self-correcting errors. Finally, the components of memory that underlie MD are unclear. Although the majority of studies in the U.S. suggest that children with MD have memory deficits related to accessing number facts, the components related to these deficits are still under investigation. There is some consensus that arithmetic facts in children with MD are not retrieved quickly and/or accurately. To date, theories of the representation of arithmetic facts in LTM (e.g., distribution of associations model; Siegler & Shrager, 1984) indicate that performance on simple arithmetic depends on retrieval from LTM. The strength to which associations are stored, and, hence, the probability of retrieving them correctly, depends in part on experience, with associations being formed each time an arithmetic problem is encountered, regardless of whether the association is correct. Thus, the ability to utilize memory resources to temporarily store numbers when attempting to reach an answer is of significant importance in learning arithmetic. Poor recall of arithmetic facts, of course, leads to difficulties executing calculation procedures and immature problem-solving strategies.

Math Disabilities

291

Although not an American researcher, Butterworth (Butterworth, Cappelletti, & Warrington, 1996; Landerl, Bevan, & Butterworth, 2004) suggests that some domain general explanations of MD found among U.S. researchers, such as memory deficits, are suspect. More specifically, Butterworth challenges some of the conclusions by Geary. Geary suggested that children with MD have a deficit in their ability to represent phonetic and semantic information in LTM, as well as some difficulties in inhibiting irrelevant information in WM. However, Butterworth suggests that phonetic and semantic memory problems have been disassociated in the neuropsychological literature. He (Landerl et al., 2004) also challenges the assumption that (a) access to LTM depends on WM, and (b) finger counting may be viewed as a means to control WM demands (or a consequence or a cause of poor memory for arithmetic facts). Landerl et al. (2004) matched children on span level and found that arithmetic problems were unrelated to WM. His earlier work with Italian researchers (Girelli, Lucangeli, & Butterworth, 2000) also shows that children with MD take longer than controls to decide whether two numbers were numerically greater, but were just as comparable to controls on physical judgments, suggesting that children at risk for MD are slower at subsidizing numerical information (making numerical judgments on a number of items, e.g., dots). In general, Butterworth argues that MD is due, in part, to a slower and less-efficient cognitive processing of numerical information at a very basic level. Children with MD are poorer on recognizing numerical displays.

Putting U.S. Research All Together In summary, it is evident to the reader that U.S. research yields a great deal of diversity in how the samples are defined, as well as what may underlie problems of MD. So the question emerges, given the diversity of conclusions about MD, what are the primary cognitive deficits that underlie performance in children with MD? We offer no simple answer to this question. Swanson and Jerman (2006) have recently completed a quantitative synthesis of the literature published in English that compares children with MD to average achievers, children with RD, and children with comorbid disabilities on this question. They synthesized some of the published literature, comparing the cognitive functioning of children with MD with (1) average-achieving children, (2) children with RD, and (3) children with comorbid disabilities (RD+MD). At the onset, before discussing the results, their synthesis has its limitations. Two are most

292

SILVIA LANFRANCHI ET AL.

apparent. First, and most important, several studies failed to report IQ scores or had below average IQ scores, and therefore they were deleted from the final selection of studies. However, it was the authors’ assumption that studies that reported average IQ scores allowed to focus on children whose general mental ability was not impaired. Further, IQ was an important variable to control for, as it was found in the preliminary analysis to be correlated with the majority of cognitive measures in the analysis. Second, in contrast to Jordan, Fuchs, and others, no clear-cut differences were found between children with arithmetic and reading difficulties on cognitive measures. This may be because (as stated earlier) studies which have examined MD have used lenient selection criteria in classifying children as having a specific arithmetic deficit and, in some cases, poor arithmetic skills have been accompanied by relatively low reading skills. Therefore, it was difficult to determine whether results attributed to MD were, in fact, due to arithmetic difficulties or whether they were outcomes related to generally poor academic skills that share the same process that incorporates both reading and math skills. In sum, Swanson and Jerman’s meta-analytic search obtained articles that were published between 1970 and June 2003. Collectively, all methods identified well over 300 journal articles. The pool of literature was then narrowed down to 85 potentially relevant studies based on selecting only comparative studies (e.g., children with MD compared with an averageachieving group) from English peer-reviewed journals. These ‘‘potential studies’’ were further evaluated to determine their relevance to the current review. To be included in the meta-analysis, each study had to satisfy the following criteria: 1. An MD group was compared with an average-achieving group. Other comparisons were coded (e.g., children with RD) if an MD group was in the sampling. 2. Within the MD groups, at least one math subgroup had no reported comorbidity (e.g., RD, ADHD). 3. Each study reported scores from norm-referenced standardized measures of intelligence and math separated by group. Several studies were excluded if: (a) they were not published in refereed journals; (b) they failed to provide enough quantitative data to calculate effect sizes (ESs); (c) they failed to include a comparison group; and/or (d) they failed to provide information of ability group performance on a standardized (norm referenced) math and/or IQ test. Overall, 28 studies met all criteria and were retained for the final inclusion into the meta-analysis.

Math Disabilities

293

Given these caveats, Swanson and Jerman calculated ESs that ranged in terms of magnitude according to Cohen’s (1988) classification of large (0.80), moderate (0.50), and small (0.20). Approximately 194 ESs compared MD with average achievers (M ¼ 0.52, standard error (SE ) ¼ 0.01), 58 ESs compared MD and children with RD (0.10, SE ¼ 0.03), and 102 ESs compared children with MD to children with MD+RD (M ¼ 0.26, SE ¼ 0.02). ESs were separated into categories that covered 10 areas: Literacy (reading comprehension, writing, vocabulary, and phonological awareness), Problem solving-verbal (e.g., measures of accuracy in solving story problems), Speed (rapid naming of letters, numbers, and objects and speed measures such as coding), Problem solving-visual-motor (e.g., Tower of Hanoi), Long-term memory (e.g., answer/questions – what is the capital of California, recall a story they heard), short term memory (STM )-words (recall of increasingly difficult sets of words and letters. The STM domain varied from WM (below) in that no distracter question was asked of the participant prior to retrieval), STM-numbers (the recall of increasingly difficult sets of digits), WM-verbal (process and storage, e.g., listening span), WM-visualspatial (process and storage, e.g., visual matrix), and Attention (e.g., teacher ratings of classroom behavior). We will briefly report the important findings yielding the highest magnitude of differences. Swanson and Jerman found that average achievers outperformed children with MD on measures of verbal problem solving (M ¼ 0.58), naming speed (M ¼ 0.70), verbal WM (M ¼ 0.70), visualspatial WM (M ¼ 0.63), and LTM (M ¼ 0.72). The results further indicated that children with MD outperformed children with comorbid disabilities (MD+RD) on measures of literacy (M ¼ 0.75), visual-spatial problem solving (M ¼ 0.51), LTM (M ¼ 0.44), STM for words (M ¼ 0.71), and verbal WM (M ¼ 0.30). Interestingly, they found that children with MD could only be differentiated (although weakly) from children with RD on measures of naming speed (0.23) and visual-spatial WM (0.30). More important, their analysis [Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM)] showed that the magnitude of ESs in overall cognitive functioning between MD and average achievers was primarily related to verbal WM deficits when the effects of all other variables (e.g., age, IQ, reading level, other cognitive domain categories) were partialed out. The results of their analysis also indicated that age was unrelated to the magnitude of ESs. That finding emerged even when the type of assessed domain, IQ, math level, and reading level were partialed out of the analysis. Thus, this synthesis of the literature supports the notion that MD is persistent across age. Swanson and Jerman also addressed whether the ESs

294

SILVIA LANFRANCHI ET AL.

varied as a function of severity in MD and intellectual level. They used normed referenced math scores above or below the 25th percentile on the classification measures as a means to separate studies. They found that severity of MD interacted with age. That is, age effects on cognitive processing were more pronounced in the severe math group than the moderate math group. However, the effects of age and severity of MD on ESs were eliminated in the HLM analysis. That is, IQ and severity of math differences played little role in the outcomes related to the cognitive ES variables. In general, their results are in line with Geary (2003) suggesting MD can be partly attributed to WM deficits. The variable that contributed most to the overall cognitive functioning of MD participants relative to average achievers was verbal WM. So, taken together across American research programs and Swanson and Jerman’s (2006) meta-analysis of the literature, what cognitive deficits underlie MD? Four possibilities are considered. First, we address the issue of whether verbal (semantic and/or phonological) memory deficits underlie MD. Geary (1993) suggested that semantic memory may underlie many of the problems of children with MD because learning the number facts is tied to representations of semantic memory. Swanson and Jerman found that when variables related to various classification measures and comparison measures (e.g., naming speed and problem solving) were partialed from the analysis, distinct processes related to verbal WM were attributed to the magnitude of the ESs. Thus, it appears that the results suggest that deficits in a verbal memory system do play an important role. Whether this verbal memory system draws primarily from a phonological (or semantic) storage system is difficult to untangle. Given that STM taps a phonological system (Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Conway, 1999), and minimal group differences between MD and average achievers emerged on word STM (M ¼ 0.45, SE ¼ 0.09) and digit STM (M ¼ 0.26, SE ¼ 0.05), a system that involves processes other than phonological memory (e.g., executive processing of verbal material) is implicated. Second, processes that underlie MD can be separated from processes that underlie RD. Jordan states that verbal ability compensates for performance on problem-solving measures in MD children when compared to children with comorbid disabilities. Swanson and Jerman did not find that to be the case in their meta-analysis. In fact, the mean ES between MD and MD+RD was 0.13 (SE ¼ 0.13) and between MD and RD-only was 0.10 (SE ¼ 0.05) on verbal problem solving. This poor differentiation, of course, could be due to working with a limited data set. However, it is possible that an important correlate of MD is RD. The results suggest that children with

Math Disabilities

295

RD and MD were differentiated only on measures of naming speed and visual-spatial WM. Of course, the question emerges whether weak support for the notion that distinct processes separate children with MD from children with RD means that such children share a common set of mental resources? Some studies have documented that children with MD perform poorly on very complex math tasks such as word problems, and that this is not necessarily due to just a numerical deficit, but to both phonological and executive processing deficits (Swanson & Sachse-Lee, 2001). Thus, one could argue that the similarities between MD and RD children become much more reliable with greater manipulations of phonological information (a position consistent with Hecht et al., 2001). Phonological STM is believed to be composed of rehearsal components and phonological skills that are deficient in children with MD and RD. Swanson and Jerman found in their meta-analysis that the two groups could not be differentiated on measures attributed to phonological memory (STM for digits and words). That is, the ESs between these two groups were 0.16 for STM-words and 0.03 for STM-digits. A further difficulty with the phonological explanation is that they found an advantage for RD in terms of naming speed, a measure assumed to tap phonological processing. Thus, although Swanson and Jerman did not discount the fact that RD and MD children share similar deficits in phonological processing, some disadvantages emerged for children with MD in the memory areas not attributed to phonological skills (i.e., visualspatial WM). Finally, WM deficits may underlie MD. Because verbal (M ¼ 0.70) and visual-spatial WM (0.63) tasks were deficient in MD as compared to average achievers, it appears that their memory deficits may operate outside a verbal system. This finding differs from other studies suggesting that WM deficits in MD children are domain specific. For example, two Canadian researchers, Siegel and Ryan (1989) found that children with MD perform poorer on WM tests related to counting and remembering digits. They did not have difficulties on nonnumerical WM tasks. In contrast, Koontz and Berch (1996) tested children with and without MD on digit and letter span tasks. They found that the children with MD performed below average on both types of tasks, indicating a general WM difficulty (also see Swanson, 1993 for a similar finding). However, as indicated earlier by Landerl et al. (2004), there is no convincing evidence that WM is a causal feature of MD. The meta-analysis by Swanson and Jerman, however, showed support at least for a verbal WM deficit when the influence of age, IQ, reading ability, and related domain categories (e.g., STM-number information, naming speed) were partialed out.

296

SILVIA LANFRANCHI ET AL.

Math Intervention Studies in U.S. Four syntheses investigating the effectiveness of improving math achievement in children with learning problems have been published (Baker, Gersten, & Lee, 2002; Kunsch, Jitendra, & Sood, 2007; Xin & Jitendra, 1999; Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999). We will briefly summarize the outcomes comparing findings from some of these recent meta-analyses. A synthesis by Baker et al. (2002) examined research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. As indicated by the authors, their synthesis was built upon an earlier synthesis by Swanson et al. (1999) and was broadened to directly investigate the effects of instruction on mathematics achievement in low SES children. The Baker et al.’s (2002) synthesis was also an extension of the National Research Council (NRC) report (Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell, 2001), which synthesized diversity studies on mathematics in the elementary and middle school years. The NRC report focused on students experiencing serious difficulties learning mathematics. The primary criteria for studies that defined a low-achieving group were teacher-based nomination or a measure of math performance. Some studies determined at risk children as those below the 50th percentile, where others selected children at risk below a criteria of the 34th percentile. Students with learning disabilities were included in one-third of the studies in their analysis. In general, Baker et al.’s conclusions from 15 study results were quite similar to those of Swanson et al.’s (1999). First, providing feedback to students on how they are performing enhances mathematics achievement (the average ES is 0.68 standard deviation units). Second, using small groups positively influences math achievement. Finally, principles of direct or explicit instruction coupled with strategy instruction are critical in teaching mathematical concepts and procedures. Another synthesis by Xin & Jitendra (1999) focused on word problemsolving intervention research with samples of students with learning problems (broadly defined). This synthesis provided an overview of research with word problem-solving interventions in samples of students with learning problems, those with mild disabilities, and those at risk for mathematics failure. In general, the synthesis concluded that strategy instruction and procedures that emphasize ‘‘problem representation’’ techniques produced larger ESs than other more general approaches. Four categories were considered in analyzing interventions. One category of intervention focused on the ‘‘representation of ideas’’ or information given in a word problem. These procedures included ways of diagramming

Math Disabilities

297

(e.g., pictorially diagramming) or using manipulatives to solve a problem. Another category included problem-solving heuristics that involved both direct instruction and cognitive strategies (e.g., explicit teaching and selfmonitoring strategy) about how to solve the problem. A third intervention was computer-aided instruction, in which there was an interactive video or disc program. Of the intervention categories, strategy training was the most frequently used for problem solving. Overall, the ES was 1.05 for representation instruction, 1.01 for strategy instruction, and 2.46 for computer-assisted instruction. There was a general category of instruction, nonspecific to mathematics, which had an overall ES of essentially 0. What can be concluded from these syntheses and overall review of literature related to evidence-based instructional models for children with math difficulties? The main conclusion is that an effective general model of instruction that combines the components of direct and strategy instruction supersedes other models for remediating math problems. More specifically, the ES (M ¼ 0.55) of the combined strategy instruction and direct instruction model meets Cohen’s (1988) criterion of 0.50 for a moderate finding. Summary In general, there are some confounds in American research on MD. Some of these confounds have been partly due to attributing the difficulties in math and reading acquisition to the same cognitive processes (i.e., phonological processes). In addition, the criterion for determining MD has fluctuated from the 45th to the 8th percentile among researchers. In practice, these confounds have led to an inability to clearly isolate the cognitive variables that underlie MD. However, we do note some consensus that children with MD have difficulty in accurately and/or efficiently access numerical information, such as math facts. Clearly, the results suggest to the reader that identifying the cognitive, as well as neural mechanisms underlying math disorders are only just emerging.

DISCUSSION Overall, what can be concluded when comparing research on MD in Italy and the U.S.? To answer this question, we focus on the following areas: first, the definitional criteria for MD and MD subtypes; second, cognitive processes that may underlie MD; and, finally, the comparison of various intervention programs in math.

298

SILVIA LANFRANCHI ET AL.

Definitions and Subtypes One of the hot topics of the disagreement in both countries concerns the question of the definition of MD, its operational criteria, and MD prevalence. As Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, and Barnes (2007) note, there are ‘‘no consistent standards by which to judge the presence or absence of LDs in math’’ (2007, p. 207). The term is used broadly to describe a wide variety of deficits in math skills in both countries. Math disorder, MD, and dyscalculia are among the most often used terms. While dyscalculia is often associated with difficulties in arithmetic calculation and number processing, it is also related to problem solving, computation, conceptual difficulties, and/or poor procedural knowledge. Unfortunately, the MD definition lacks consensus in both countries. Given the complexity of establishing solid criteria to operationalize MD, it is not surprising that both countries experience difficulty in estimating MD incidence among school-age population. The Italian review highlights the discrepancy between the number of children showing mathematical difficulties during the first year of primary school (about 20%), and the number of children actually being diagnosed with mathematical disabilities (about 2.5%). On the other hand, several research studies (Badian, 1983) estimate that approximately 6–7% of the school-aged population of children in American schools demonstrate poor achievement in mathematics. These differences in percentages, of course, do not mean differences in the incidence of MD in the two countries, but rather indicate inconsistency in definition and inclusion criteria. As Swanson and Jerman (2006) point out, operational criteria for defining MD vary widely across studies. In reviewing the studies for their meta-analysis, they found the cut-off scores for defining MD to fluctuate from the 45th to the 8th percentile. For example, Geary’s studies contained samples of children falling below either the 30th percentile (Geary et al., 1999) or the 35th percentile (Geary et al., 2000). Jordan et al. referred to children with math difficulties as children below the 35th percentile. Other U.S. researchers used more stringent cut-off point criterion below the 25th percentile in defining MD (Koontz & Berch, 1996; Swanson, 1993). Recently, a new approach, responsiveness to intervention (RTI) has been used in the identification of learning disabilities as an alternative to that commonly used in the U.S. achievement vs. intelligence discrepancy criterion. Studies that had utilized RTI models in their design report the decreasing number of students diagnosed as LD in both reading and math domains (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hollenbeck, 2007; Vellutino et al. 1996).

Math Disabilities

299

A recent study by Fuchs et al. (2005), for instance, compared the incidence of LD in math in four different subgroups of students. All subgroups varied considerably in the rate of MD occurrence. The authors reported a prevalence rate of 1.77% for the traditional IQ–aptitude discrepancy subgroup, and a rate of 9.75% if the group was defined as low math performance–average intelligence. At the same time, the prevalence of math LD fell from 9.75% to 5.14% when using the RTI method for MD categorization. Another important and related issue concerns the lack of agreement on subtype classification of MD. Italian researchers tend to distinguish between basic arithmetic deficits, linking calculation skills to automatized competencies, and arithmetic problem-solving deficits. In addition, the distinction is drawn among three basic arithmetic subtypes. These three subtypes include: (a) digit dyslexia, dealing with difficulties in lexical digit comprehension and production; (b) procedural dyscalculia, problems in the execution of calculation procedures; and (c) deficits in numerical knowledge which are characterized by difficulties in understanding the concept of quantity and its principles. The distinction between MD subtypes in American literature is also unclear. Although the research is apparent in the existence of heterogeneous subsets of children with different patterns of math problems, there is no consensus on MD subtypes. Geary (1993), for example, proposed to distinguish between three kinds of deficits in math. The first type is associated with impairments in semantic memory resulting in weak fact retrieval and high error rates in recall. The second is linked to procedural deficits related to immature procedures in numerical calculations along with difficulties in sequencing multiple steps in complex procedures. The third subtype involves visual–spatial math disorders related to the difficulty in representing the numerical information spatially. Hecht et al. (2001) point to three other types of impairments associated with errors in solving fractions: difficulties in procedural knowledge, in factual knowledge, and in conceptual understanding. Both of these viewpoints, however, stem from the cognitive perspective, which assumes that the problems in math development are the result of a deficient cognitive system or deficient cognitive subprocesses, such as phonological processing. Yet, researchers in both countries highlight the significance of considering the specificity of MD and its comorbidity with other learning disabilities, most frequent of which is RD. The problem of differentiating students with MD-only from students with RD-only appears to be highly complicated in both countries. The issue is important, as it is

300

SILVIA LANFRANCHI ET AL.

not clear whether MD are qualitatively different from reading problems or reflect a common cognitive deficit that accounts for problems in both domains, but to a different degree of severity. Although the synthesis of literature conducted by Swanson and Jerman suggested that MD and RD could only be differentiated on measures of speed and visual-spatial WM (again, general cognitive processes), the research in America continues to obtain mixed results about what differentiates the two groups and whether they, in fact, could be properly differentiated at all. At the same time, the findings from studies comparing students with MD only and comorbid MD and RD are also incongruous. Fletcher et al. (2007), for example, speculate that the two types of learning disabilities, MD-only and MD+RD, do not represent distinct kinds of problems involving orthogonal processes, but are rather comorbid. Generally, the majority of studies find statistical differences between these two MD subgroups on some cognitive measures. Swanson and Jerman (2006), for instance, found that students with MD outperformed students in the comorbid group on measures of literacy, visual–spatial problem solving, LTM, and STM for words. Pulling together the results and considerations from both countries, we can conclude that more work is needed to be done in order to reach universal agreement on the definition of MD and its subtypes. Not only will it be useful for more accurate diagnosis of this deficit, but it will also help to distinguish between MD and math difficulties. In addition, a more precise definition will permit researchers across countries to combine and compare results from various studies and gain a better understanding on the nature of this deficit. Cognitive Deficits A variety of cognitive deficits associated with MD have been proposed recently, such as processing speed, phonological processing, attention, and working memory executive functions (Desoete & Royers, 2005; Fletcher et al., 2007; Hecht et al., 2001; Swanson & Jerman, 2006). However, there is still no consensus on which are the primary cognitive mechanisms that underlie MD. The literature review from both countries concurs that difficulties in math acquisition are associated with cognitive deficits. Both Italian (Cornoldi et al., 2002) and U.S. (for a review see Fletcher et al., 2007; Swanson & Jerman, 2006) researchers argue that individuals with MD reveal deficits in numerical knowledge, in the use of procedures in written calculation and/or in accessing number facts accurately and efficiently.

Math Disabilities

301

Moreover, based on the recent results from the meta-analysis and other work done in the field, American researchers speculate that deficits in working memory could be the main cause of MD. In addition to problems in the memory system, Italian researchers (Lucangeli et al., 1998, 1999) also speculate on the existence of problems in some other cognitive abilities, such as text comprehension, problem representation, problem categorization, planning and self-evaluation. They assume that the problem-solving area may be the point of convergence for the common cognitive processes underlying both math and RD. At the same time, researchers in Italy and U.S. find that individuals with poor problem-solving skills show deficits in updating relevant information and suppressing irrelevant information. Overall, when comparing the findings from both countries, there appears to be some concurrence that problems in efficient math acquisition are related to working memory, specifically processes related to executive processes. The impairments are usually related to the functions of the central executive, such as problems in updating relevant information and suppression of irrelevant or no-longer relevant information. Swanson and Jerman found in their meta-analysis that students with MD were inferior to the control students in the domains of visuo–spatial (0.63) and verbal (0.70) working memory. Thus, it is clear that students with math problems have deficient WM systems; however, what remains unresolved is whether WM deficits are primary, secondary, or/and occur independently of other kinds of impairments. In addition, there is convincing evidence in both countries that MD is related to the language system, especially when examining group differences in problem solving. Swanson and Jerman (2006) found an overall mean ES of 0.72 in favor of students without MD on measures of LTM. There are also studies that report MD students’ as having difficulties in learning, in oral language, in retaining information, and retrieving math facts (Cirino, Fletcher, Ewing-Cobbs, Barnes, & Fuchs, 2007; Jordan & Hanich, 2000). Moreover, numerous studies demonstrate the poor performance of students with MD on measures of processing speed and attention. Several studies (Bull & Johnston, 1997) found speed to be the strongest predictor of math performance in younger students. In a similar line, attention often appears to be a good predictor of math skills (Cirino et al., 2007; Fuchs et al., 2006). Finally, another cognitive ability, metacognition, has been more widely analyzed by Italian researchers when compared to American researchers (although see Montague, 1992). This metacognitive perspective assumes a close relation between the areas of learning and metacognitive monitoring processes. Italian researchers (Lucangeli & Cornoldi, 1997) have identified a

302

SILVIA LANFRANCHI ET AL.

relationship between mathematical abilities (e.g., numerical and problemsolving skills) and metacognitive abilities. This relationship is described not only in terms of specific control processes, but also in terms of an individual’s metacognitive attitude toward mathematics.

Interventions for Mathematical Disabilities Finally, the review of literature demonstrates the vigorous activity of researchers in both countries to identify successful math intervention strategies and programs. Italian researchers employ various effective interventions to improve calculation skills, numerical knowledge in elementary school students, develop problem-solving skills, and promote use of metacognitive strategies. As discussed in more detail above, Cornoldi et al., Lucangeli et al., and others have implemented numerous remedial programs to improve math skills in Italian children (Cornoldi et al., 1995; Lucangeli et al., 1998; Lucangeli et al., 2003b; Tressoldi & Lucangeli, 1999) at different grade levels. Various meta-analyses pinpoint to some of the successful short-term interventions for math skills related to combining direct and strategy instruction. Overall, the content of intervention programs seems similar between the two countries. The focus is often given to cognitive–behavioral approaches: drilling lower-order skills, strategy training, modeling various skills, teaching self-instructional techniques, task analysis, and verbalizing steps. However, what seems to be different lies in the recent design of American intervention programs. At least two trends appear in the intervention research. First, intervention programs that use peer-mediated instruction are more common in the U.S. than Italy. Peer-mediated instruction includes pairs of students working collaboratively on solving tasks and activities to increase academic engagement and performance (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Karns, 2001; Ginsburg-Block & Fantuzzo, 1998). Examples of peer-mediated instruction include classwide peer tutoring (CWPT), peer-assisted learning strategies (PALS), and reciprocal peer tutoring (RPT). Kunsch et al. (2007) recently conducted a research synthesis to evaluate the effectiveness of peer-mediated instruction for students with math problems and found an overall mean ES of 0.47. Their findings support the effectiveness of peer-mediated instruction in improving math performance across all grade levels. Second, RTI has recently become important to U.S. researchers. Fuchs et al., for instance, conducted an intervention study using an RTI model to

Math Disabilities

303

improve 3rd-grade students’ problem-solving skills (Fuchs et al., 2007). The findings indicated that poor problem solvers significantly decreased their difficulties and improved learning (‘‘transfer’’ to other related problems), and showed the best performance when they received two tiers of intervention. ‘‘Transfer’’ rates of unresponsiveness (‘‘immediate-transfer,’’ same problem–different wording, and ‘‘near-transfer,’’ similar problem– similar wording, formats) of students not receiving intervention were 86 and 100%; of those receiving first tier of intervention (whole class) – 29 and 54%; of those receiving only second tier (tutoring)  55 and 62%; finally, for those receiving both tiers, the rates were 12 and 26%. Thus, interventions using an RTI method looks promising for improving students’ learning skills and reducing the number of students diagnosed as having MD. In summary, identifying the cognitive mechanisms underlying MD is emerging in both countries as a major area of study. Researchers from both countries are designing effective intervention procedures to remediate math deficits. Several parallel findings are emerging in both countries that will advance our understanding of the nature of MD deficits. Future partnerships of researchers from both countries will promote finding effective ways of helping and motivating individuals with math problems to acquire math skills.

REFERENCES Antonietti, A. (1991). Why does mental visualization facilitate problem solving?. In: R. H. Logie & M. Denis (Eds), Mental images in human cognition. Elsevier: Amsterdam. Ashcraft, M. H. (1994). Model of mental calculation. Paper presented at the Concepts of Number and Simple Arithmetic Workshop, SISSA-ISAS, Trieste, Italy. Badian, N. A. (1983). Arithmetic and nonverbal learning. In: H. R. Myklebust (Ed.), Progress in learning disabilities (Vol. 5, pp. 235–264). New York, NY: Grune and Stratton. Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. S. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. Elementary School Journal, 103, 51–73. Baroody, A. J. (1983). The development of procedural knowledge: An alternative explanation for chronometric trends of mental arithmetic. Developmental Review, 3, 225–230. Baroody, A. J. (1987). The development of counting strategies for single-digit addition. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18, 141–157. Beishuizen, M. (1993). Mental strategies and materials or models for addition and subtraction up to 100 in Dutch second grades. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 294–323. Bull, R., & Johnston, R. S. (1997). Children’s arithmetical difficulties: Contributions from processing speed, item identification, and short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65, 1–24.

304

SILVIA LANFRANCHI ET AL.

Butterworth, B., Cappelletti, L., & Warrington, E. K. (1996). Short-term memory impairments and arithmetical ability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 251–262. Caponi, B., Falco, G., Focchiatti, R., Cornoldi, C., & Lucangeli, D. (2006). Didattica metacognitiva della matematica [Metacognitive instruction in mathematics] Nuove prospettive e strumenti. Trento: Erickson. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152. Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J. M., Ewing-Cobbs, L., Barnes, M. A., & Fuchs, L. S. (2007). Cognitive arithmetic differences in learning difficulty groups and the role of behavioral inattention. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 25–35. Cohen J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press. Cornoldi, C. (1995). Metacognizione e apprendimento [Metacognition and learning]. Bologna: Il Mulino. Cornoldi, C., & Lucangeli, D. (2004). Arithmetic education and learning disabilities in Italy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 42–49. Cornoldi, C., Lucangeli, D., & Bellina, M. (2002). AC-MT test di valutazione delle abilita` di calcolo. Trento: Erickson. Cornoldi, C., Lucangeli, D., Caponi, B., Falco, G., Focchiatti, R., & Todeschini, M. (1995). Matematica e metacognizione [Mathematics and metacognition]. Trento: Erickson. Deloche, G., & Seron, X. (1982a). From one to 1: An analysis of a transcoding process by means of neuropsychological data. Cognition, 12, 119–149. Deloche, G., & Seron, X. (1982b). From three to 3: A differential analysis of skills in transcoding quantities between patients with Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia. Brain, 105, 719–733. Desoete, A., & Roeyers, H. (2005). Cognitive skills in mathematical problem solving in Grade 3. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 119–138. Dowker, A. (1998). Individual differences in normal arithmetical development. In: C. Donlan (Ed.), The development of mathematical skills (pp. 275–302). Hove, England: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis (UK). DSM-IV. (1996). Manuale diagnostico e statistico dei disturbi mentali. Milano: Masson. Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309–331. Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J. D., & Hamlett, C. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493–513. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Capizzi, A. M., et al. (2006). The cognitive correlates of third-grade skill in arithmetic, algorithmic computation, and arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 29–43. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hollenbeck, K. N. (2007). Extending responsiveness to intervention to mathematics at first and third grades. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 13–24. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Karns, K. (2001). Enhancing kindergarteners’ mathematical development: Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 495–510.

Math Disabilities

305

Fuson, K. C. (1988). Counting and concepts of number. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Fuson, K. C., & Hall, J. W. (1983). The acquisition of early number word meaning: A conceptual analysis and review. In: H. P. Ginsburg (Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking (pp. 49–107). New York, NY: Academic Press. Gallistel, C. R., & Gelman, R. (1992). Preverbal and verbal counting and computation. Cognition, 44, 43–74. Geary, D. C. (1990). A componential analysis of an early learning deficit in mathematics. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 363–383. Geary, D. C. (1993). Mathematical disabilities: Cognitive, neuropsychological and genetic components. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 345–362. Geary, D. C. (2003). Learning disabilities in arithmetic: Problem-solving differences and cognitive deficits. In: H. L. Swanson, K. Harris & S. Graham (Eds), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 199–213). New York, NY: Guilford. Geary, D. C., Brown, S. C., & Samaranayake, V. A. (1991). Cognitive addition: A short longitudinal study of strategy choice and speed of processing differences in normal and mathematically disabled children. Developmental Psychology, 27, 787–797. Geary, D. C., Hamson, C. O., & Hoard, M. K. (2000). Numerical and arithmetical cognition: A longitudinal study of process and concept deficits in children with learning disability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 236–263. Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd-Craven, J., & DeSoto, M. C. (2004). Strategy choices in simple and complex addition: Contributions of working memory and counting knowledge for children with math disability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80, 121–151. Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., & Hamson, C. O. (1999). Numerical and arithmetical cognition: Patterns of functions and deficits in children at risk for a mathematical disability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74, 213–239. Gelman, G., & Gallistel, C. R. (1978). The child’s understanding of number. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gelman, G., & Meck, E. (1983). Preschoolers counting: Principles before skills. Cognition, 13, 343–359. Ginsburg-Block, M. D., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (1998). An evaluation of the relative effectiveness of NCTM standard-based interventions for low-achieving urban elementary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 560–569. Girelli, L., Lucangeli, D., & Butterworth, B. (2000). The development of automaticity in accessing number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 76, 104–122. Grewel, F. (1952). Acalculia. Brain, 75, 397–407. Grewel, F. (1969). The acalculias. In: P. J. Vinken & G. W. Bruyn (Eds), Handbook of clinical neurology (pp. 181–196). North Holland: Amsterdam. Gross-Tsur, V., Manor, O., & Sha1ev, R. S. (1996). Developmental dyscalculia: Prevalence and demographic features. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 38, 25–33. Hanich, L. B., Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., & Dick, J. (2001). Performance across different areas of mathematical cognition in children with learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 615–626. Hecht, S. A., Close, L., & Sabtisi, M. (2003). Sources of individual differences in fraction skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 86, 277–302.

306

SILVIA LANFRANCHI ET AL.

Hecht, S. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (2001). The relationship between phonological processing abilities and emerging individual differences in mathematical computation skills: A longitudinal study of second to fifth grades. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79, 192–227. Hegarty, M., Mayer, R. E., & Monk, C. A. (1995). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: A comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 18–32. Jordan, N., Hanich, L. B., & Kaplan, D. (2003). A longitudinal study of mathematical competencies in children with specific mathematics difficulties versus children with co-morbid mathematics and reading difficulties. Child Development, 74, 834–850. Jordan, N. C., & Hanich, L. B. (2000). Mathematical thinking in second-grade children with different forms of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 567–578. Jordan, N. C., & Montani, T. O. (1997). Cognitive arithmetic and problem solving: A comparison in children with specific and general mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 629–639. Kaufman, G. (1988). Mental imagery and problem solving. In: M. Denis, J. Engelkamp & J. T. E. Richardson (Eds), Cognitive and neuropsychological approaches to mental imagery (pp. 231–240). Boston, MA: Nijkoff. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Koontz, K. L., & Berch, D. B. (1996). Identifying simple numerical stimuli: Processing inefficiencies exhibited by arithmetic learning disabled children. Mathematical Cognition, 2, 1–23. Kunsch, C. A., Jitendra, A. K., & Sood, S. (2007). The effects of peer-mediated instruction in mathematics for students with learning problems: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22(1), 1–12. Landerl, K., Bevan, A., & Butterworth, B. (2004). Developmental dyscalculia and basic numerical capacities: A study of 8–9 year old students. Cognition, 93, 99–125. Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physic problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342. Lewis, A. B. (1989). Training students to represent arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 521–531. Lucangeli, D. (2005). National survey on learning disabilities. Rome: Italian Institute of Research on Infancy. Lucangeli, D., & Cornoldi, C. (1997). Mathematics and metacognition: What is the nature of the relationship? Mathematical Cognition, 3(2), 121–139. Lucangeli, D., Cornoldi, C., & Tellarini, M. (1998). Metacognitive difficulties in problem solving skills. In: T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 12, pp. 219–243). Oxford: Elsevier. Lucangeli, D., Cornoldi, C., & Tessari, F. (1991). Bambini con disturbi d’apprendimento in lettura e matematica: Aspetti comuni e specificita’ nei deficit cognitivi e di conoscenza metacognitiva [Children with learning disorders in reading and math: Common and specific aspects of cognitive deficit and metacognitive knowledge]. Psichiatria dell’infanzia e dell’adolescenza, 58, 629–642. Lucangeli, D., De Candia, C., & Poli, S. (2003a). L’intelligenza numerica. Terzo volume. Abilita` cognitive e metacognitive nella costruzione della conoscenza numerica dagli 8 agli 11 anni [Numerical intelligence: Vol. 3. Cognitive and metacognitive ability in the construction of numerical knowledge between 8 and 11 years of age]. Trento: Erickson.

Math Disabilities

307

Lucangeli, D., Galderisi, D., & Cornoldi, C. (1995). Specific and general transfer effects of metamemory training. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10, 11–21. Lucangeli, D., & Passolunghi, M. C. (1995). Psicologia dell’apprendimento matematico [Psychology of mathematics learning]. Torino: Utet. Lucangeli, D., Poli, S., & Molin, A. (2003b). L’intelligenza numerica. Primo volume. Abilita` cognitive e metacognitive nella costruzione della conoscenza numerica dai 3 ai 6 anni. Trento: Erickson. Lucangeli, D., Poli, S., & Molin, A. (2003c). L’intelligenza numerica. Secondo volume. Abilita` cognitive e metacognitive nella costruzione della conoscenza numerica dai 6 agli 8 anni. Trento: Erickson. Lucangeli, D., Tressoldi, P., & Cendron, M. (1998). SPM: Test di valutazione delle abilita’ di soluzione dei problemi matematici [The SPM test for math problem solving achievement]. Trento: Erickson. Lucangeli, D., Tressoldi, P., & Cendron, M. (1999). Validation of a comprehensive model for mathematical word problem solving. Contemporary Journal of Educational Psychology, 23, 257–275. Lucangeli, D., Tressoldi, P., & De Candia, C. (2005). Education and treatment of calculation abilities of low achieving students and students with dyscalculia: Whole class and individual implementations. In: T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 18, pp. 199–225). Oxford: Elsevier. Mayer, R. E. (1981). Frequency norms and structural analysis of algebra story problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 199–216. Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York, NY: Freeman. McCloskey, M. (1992). Cognitive mechanisms in numerical processing: Evidence from acquired dyscalculia. Cognition, 44, 107–157. McCloskey, M., Caramazza, A., & Basili, A. (1985). Cognitive mechanism in number processing and calculation. Evidence from dyscalculia. Brain and Cognition, 4, 171–196. Montague, M. (1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 230–248. Nathan, M. J., Kintsch, W., & Young, E. (1992). A theory of algebra word problem comprehension and its implications for the design of learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 4, 329–390. Seron, X., & Deloche, G. (1983). From 2 to two: An analysis of a transcoding process by means of neuropsychological evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13, 215–236. Seron, X., & Deloche, G. (1984). From 4 to four: A supplement to ‘‘From three to 3’’. Brain, 106, 735–744. Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. B. (1989). The development of working memory in normally achieving and subtypes of learning disabled children. Child Development, 60, 973–980. Siegler, R. S., & Mitchell, R. (1982). The development of numerical understanding. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 16, 241–312. Siegler, R. S., & Shrager, J. (1984). Strategy choice in addition and subtraction: How do children know what to do? In: C. Sophian (Ed.), Origins of cognitive skill (pp. 229–293). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Swanson, H. L. (1993). Working memory in learning disability subgroups. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 87–114.

308

SILVIA LANFRANCHI ET AL.

Swanson, H. L., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (2004). The relationship between working memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at risk for serious math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 471–491. Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Swanson, H. L., & Jerman, O. (2006). Math disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 249–274. Swanson, H. L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2001). A subgroup analysis of working memory in children with reading disabilities: Domain-general or domain-specific deficiency? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 249–263. Temple, M. C. (1991). Procedural dyscalculia and number fact dyscalculia. Double dissociation in developmental dyscalculia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 8, 155–176. Tressoldi, P. E., & Lucangeli, D. (1999). In search of a comprehensive model of mathematical word problem solving: Implication for the diagnosis and the treatment of mathematical word problem solving difficulties. In: T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 13, pp. 95–114). Oxford: Elsevier. Vanlehn, K. (1989). Problem solving and cognitive skill acquisition. In: M. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 527–579). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experimental deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638. Wicker, F. W., Weinstein, C. E., Yelich, C. A., & Brooks, J. D. (1978). Problem reformulation training and visualization training with insight problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 372–377. Wynn, K. (1990). Children’s understanding of counting. Cognition, 36, 155–193. Xin, Y. P., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). The effects of instruction in solving mathematical word problems for students with learning problems: A meta-analysis. Journal of Special Education, 32, 207–225.

TRAINING TEACHERS, PARENTS, AND PEERS TO IMPLEMENT EFFECTIVE TEACHING STRATEGIES FOR CONTENT AREA LEARNING Margo A. Mastropieri, Thomas E. Scruggs and Lisa Marshak ABSTRACT Teaching materials were developed for increasing learning in important history content, and teachers, parents, and peers were trained in strategies for implementing these materials in inclusive classrooms, using a variety of procedures. After a 9-week period of guided and supervised instruction, results from posttests indicated that higher student achievement resulted from the implementation of experimental materials by trained teachers, parents, and peers. A significant condition by group interaction revealed that, although both student groups benefited, the peer-tutoring procedure differentially facilitated learning by students with mild disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Implications for teaching, and for teacher and parent training are provided.

Personnel Preparation Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, Volume 21, 309–327 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0735-004X/doi:10.1016/S0735-004X(08)00012-8

309

310

MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

Previous research has documented the effectiveness of specific instructional strategies in promoting content area learning of students with disabilities (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2003, 2004); effective instructional strategies have included spatial organization of content (Boyle, 1996), strategic note taking (Boyle & Weishaar, 2001), mnemonic strategies (Mastropieri, Sweda, & Scruggs, 2000), learning strategies (Hudson, 1996), and classwide peer tutoring (Spencer, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2003). Mastropieri, Scruggs, Berkeley, and Graetz (2007) recently conducted a meta-analysis of 70 available research studies on secondary content area learning interventions for students with disabilities. They concluded that the overall standardized mean difference effect size (M ¼ 1.00) was very high, and that the overall effect was substantial for a wide range of instructional interventions. Among other findings, Mastropieri et al. (2007) concluded that interventions that had been delivered by researchers were associated with much higher effect sizes (M ¼ 1.37) than interventions delivered by special education teachers (M ¼ 1.15) or general education teachers (M ¼ 0.62). It could be argued that this finding is simply an artifact of the studies evaluated; however, this ‘‘researcher effect’’ has also been observed in other research syntheses in special education (Berkeley, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2007; Mastropieri, Scruggs, Bakken, & Whedon, 1996; Talbott, Lloyd, & Tankersley, 1994). Mastropieri et al. (2007) suggested that a more complete understanding (or more ‘‘ownership’’) of the instructional strategy may lead, in part, to higher researcher effects. This implementation issue may be even more pronounced in general education classes, where Mastropieri et al. (2007) reported that general education teachers were associated with the lowest overall effect sizes. Further, a synthesis of qualitative research on coteaching in general education classes (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007) revealed that many general education teachers only infrequently employed specific instructional strategies intended to improve learning and memory of academic content. It may be suggested from these findings that general education teachers, unaccustomed to implementing specific instructional strategies, are even less likely to prove themselves to be the most effective implementers of these strategies. Further, it is not illogical to suggest that other implementers, such as parents and peers, may also be in need of relevant training. Effective instructional strategies need not necessarily be complicated, however. One of the most important variables in academic learning has been demonstrated to be time-on-task (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2007b). This is true in all content areas including social studies and science.

Content Learning

311

According to Grover Whitehurst (2005), science and social studies each involves vocabulary, concepts, and procedures, typically acquired through extensive practice and application over time: ‘‘There is a lot of contentythat simply has to be learned through practice and time-on-task’’ (Whitehurst, 2005, p. 23). However, such practice must (a) be directly relevant to instructional objectives, (b) be presented on an appropriate skill level, and (c) maximize opportunities for students to respond. This may be particularly true for students with disabilities. Therefore, it seemed very likely that teachers and researchers could agree on implementing instructional strategies that met these standards. The present investigation was part of a larger project (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2007a), intended to develop and implement effective content area instructional practices in inclusive secondary classrooms, implemented by general education teachers. In order to maximize the teacher implementation effect, we first developed instructional strategies after classroom observations and met with teachers to develop methods and materials that would address their needs. In this way, we felt teachers would feel greater ownership of the materials and the purposes of the intervention. With appropriate training, then, we hoped that the overall effectiveness of the strategies would be high. In previous related research, we had implemented, with teacher collaboration, effective interventions in science, including units in chemistry (Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Graetz, 2005), and the scientific method (Mastropieri et al., 2006). Since we were proposing implementing instructional strategies that already had empirical support, we were concerned in this investigation that training was appropriately developed and implemented. Further, since our intervention of choice included homeand school-based tutoring, we also needed to implement appropriate training of parents and classroom peers. In this investigation, identified history teachers and specialists targeted the relevant academic content from World War I though World War II for the implementation study, although materials were developed from the Spanish American War through the Civil Rights Movement. In a number of individual meetings, teachers identified all relevant information from these content areas that were likely to feature prominently on the district benchmarks and state high-stakes assessments. After discussing a number of options for instructional strategies, the teachers and researchers agreed upon classwide peer tutoring using tutoring materials targeted directly to the purposes of the instruction. Using those analyses, it was decided to make two sets of tutoring materials for each major unit of instruction, each directly relevant to an assessment outcome. One set of materials corresponded

312

MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

directly with the district Benchmarks, and the other set corresponded directly with the high-stakes testing objectives. When content was covered on the Benchmarks, it was deleted from the high-stakes testing set of materials to reduce redundancy. In addition, pre- and posttests were developed to match each major set of tutoring materials. Training materials are described in the sections that follow, followed by a description of the evaluation study.

TRAINING MATERIALS Tutoring Materials Tutoring materials designed to highlight the most important Benchmark and high-stakes testing content were developed along with testing materials, parent training materials, and teacher materials. Figs. 1 and 2 display a Test: World War I Benchmark 7 Name:

Date:

Class Period:

Directions: Please try your hardest to answer as many questions as you can. 1. What was the US position at the beginning of World War I?

2. What was the Zimmerman telegram?

3. What were the main causes behind the US entering WWI??

4. What was the Lusitanian and why was it important?

5. Was the stalemate in the trenches on the Western Front a reason for US involvement in the Great War?

Fig. 1.

Test: World War I. Benchmark 7.

Content Learning

313

Selected Tutoring Materials for Benchmark 7: World War I What was the US position at the beginning of World War I?

Neutrality – not to take either side.

What was the Zimmerman telegram?

A coded note sent by the Germans to Mexico asking them to fight the US on the Texas border. The note really angered the US.

What were the main causes behind the US entering WWI?

The US ties to Great Britain, the Alliance System, unrestricted German submarine warfare, sinking of the Lusitania, the Zimmerman telegram; and the US had a financial stake in the Allies winning.

What was the Lusitania and why was it important?

The Lusitania was a British passenger ship sunk by a German submarine on which 128 Americans were killed. President Wilson threatened to break off relations with Germany as a result.

Was the stalemate in the trenches on the Western Front a reason for US involvement in the Great War?

No it was not a reason.

Fig. 2.

Tutoring Materials for Benchmark 7: World War I.

sample set of tests and tutoring materials. Each question and corresponding response was originally color-coded, in that matching questions and responses were printed in the same color lettering. Originals were printed in a larger font than that provided here. Materials were printed on card stock, laminated and housed in separately labeled and colored file folders in plastic boxes housed in the classrooms. Tutoring Directions and Recording Sheets Tutoring rules, procedures, and directions were also written and provided to students and teachers. In addition, student-recording sheets were developed

314

MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

on which students were required to write their test scores and record their performance on the Benchmark and high-stakes testing tutoring materials. The rules, procedures, and checklists for tutoring, based on previous research (Mastropieri, Scruggs, Spencer, & Fontana, 2003), were presented as follows: Rules for tutoring    

Talk only to your partner about the peer-tutoring program. Talk in a quiet voice. Cooperate with your partner. Do your best. Identifying and correcting mistakes

 Your partner says the wrong answer: Say, ‘‘You missed that one. Can you try again?’’  Your partner gives a partially correct answer: Say, ‘‘Almost, can you think of anything else?’’  Your partner waits longer than 3 s to give an answer (count: 1 – one thousand, 2 – one thousand, 3 – one thousand), then say, ‘‘The answer is ‘‘_____.’’ Ask the question again. Checklist         

Pick up your own tutoring folder. Get with your partner. Write date, time, and partner names on your record sheet. Take Benchmark or high-stakes pretests. Take out fact sheets. Begin asking and answering the questions with your partner. Change roles with partner. When you know the content take the posttest. Put all tutoring materials away.

Parent Materials Materials were also developed for parents to use to supplement the in-school tutoring for the Benchmarks and high-stakes tests. Training materials had been placed on the Blackboard Web-based system (see Figs. 3 and 4 for examples). Instructions for accessing the materials from Blackboard and how to use them at home with children were developed. These materials

Fig. 3.

Blackboard Announcements for Parents.

Content Learning 315

Fig. 4.

Documents for Parent Tutoring Posted on Blackboard.

316 MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

Content Learning

317

were identical in nature to the ones used in the class, with a few minor exceptions. First, materials were available on the class Blackboard site, training procedures and checklists for accessing Blackboard were provided, suggestions for how to use the tutoring materials at home, and recordkeeping log sheets to record use of Blackboard and tutoring materials were provided. In addition, sample types of reinforcement procedures to use at home were also provided. Parents were notified about the training sessions through flyers sent home with their children. Flyers were prepared in English and Spanish only, since it was determined that no other languages were necessary. Parent training sessions were held in the evenings for the parents to become familiarized with the project, with using Blackboard to access the study materials, and with using the tutoring materials. Parents were pre- and posttested on their knowledge of accessing Blackboard at these sessions and provided with contact information of project staff should they have follow-up questions. Identical folders containing the same information were also prepared for parents who were unable to attend any evening training sessions. These materials were sent home with the students. It was also publicized that if parents wanted hard copies of the materials to use at home (for example, due to the unavailability of internet access at home), project staff would provide copies for home use. In addition, parents were provided with a ‘‘fancy colored pen’’ to use as an initial reinforcement with their children. It was also noted that if parents were unable to obtain additional reinforcers, they should contact project staff who would provide additional reinforcers when asked. Next are presented the tutoring rules and checklists and reinforcement ideas similar to those provided to parents: Rules for tutoring  Talk only to each other (child and parent) about the peer-tutoring program.  Talk in a quiet voice.  Cooperate with your partner (child or parent).  Do your best. Identifying mistakes    

Your child says the wrong answer. Your child gives a partially correct answer. Your child adds unnecessary information. Your child waits longer than 3 s to give an answer (count: 1 – one thousand, 2 – one thousand, 3 – one thousand).

318

MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

Correcting mistakes  If your child misses an answer, say, ‘‘You missed that one. Can you try again?’’  If your child answers correctly, say, ‘‘Good.’’ Ask the question again.  If your child does not know an answer, wait 3 seconds, then say, ‘‘The answer is ‘_____’.’’  Ask the question again.  When the correct reply is given, say, ‘‘Good.’’ Checklist    

Get out own tutoring fact sheets and record-keeping sheet. Get with your child. Write date and time on your record sheet. Begin asking and answering the questions with your child (if the child is alone, have him/her cover one side of the sheet and ask and answer questions independently).  Put all tutoring materials away. Using Reinforcements When working with your child, small rewards or reinforcements can be used to encourage and maintain their participation. We have provided a few items for you to use as needed. Frequency: Some students may do their homework assignments without any type of reinforcement and some may need more encouragement. We suggest the reinforcements, when needed, be given starting on a weekly basis. The pens can simply be used as a fun tool for homework. Other Reinforcements: If additional reinforcements are needed, blank gift certificates/coupons can be used for a number of parent/child activities such as:         

Trip to the movies Video rental and popcorn night Lunch/Dinner at the favorite restaurant Bowling Pizza and movie night Miniature golf Ice skating or roller skating Paintball/Arcades Batch of homemade cookies

Content Learning

319

The local Dollar Tree/Dollar Store also has a variety of items you may be interested in purchasing and using as well (e.g., yardstick bubblegum, playing cards, puzzle books, etc.). If you need further assistance with obtaining additional reinforcements, please contact Jenn or Joanne at (703) 993-4xxx or e-mail: [email protected]. Student Materials Student materials included individual packets for all students to use in classwide peer-tutoring activities. Students’ folders contained individual student record-keeping forms and tutoring rules and procedures. The record-keeping materials included checklists for students to record progress on the tutoring material. A separate box contained multiple sets of materials, broken into segments of 4–6 cards, each 8½ by 11 inches in size. Each set of cards was included in a separately colored folder. Each card addressed a specific set of benchmark or high-stakes tests (see examples above). The tutor looked at an individual card and asked relevant questions of the tutees, and then students reversed roles. When questioning was completed, and students felt they had mastered the content, they would go and get the appropriate test corresponding to the set of tutoring materials and take the tests. Students then scored each other’s tests using teacher and researcher-developed scoring rubrics. Teacher Materials Teachers were provided with an instructor manual containing general instructional procedures, the rules and procedures for use throughout the entire tutoring program and copies of all student materials, including record-keeping sheets and pre- and posttesting materials. In addition, overhead transparencies of all key content were developed by project staff and provided to teachers. Materials were also loaded on the teachers’ Blackboard site by project staff, so they would be available online for students to have access to at home with their parents. Teachers also were provided notebooks and asked to maintain instructional logs describing the implementation of the materials on a daily basis. Student Participants Fifty-five middle school students with and without disabilities participated in the 9-week investigation. Fifteen of the students enrolled in the inclusive

320

MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

classes met federal and state criteria for disability classification (14 for learning disabilities and 1 for emotional disabilities). Forty-eight percent of the participants were males, and a range of racial and ethnic backgrounds was represented (33 Caucasian, 9 Hispanic-American, 2 African-American students, 10 Asian-American, and 1 other ethnic background). Students spent a 50-min period in history 3 days a week and a 90-min block period 1 day a week. Students with disabilities spent the majority of the school day in inclusive classes. Demographic data on the special education sample placed them within a normal range of functioning intellectually but several years below grade level in reading. Student Materials Both conditions used the same textbook and accompanying materials. The materials were adopted by the district for students enrolled in 7th grade history. Teachers also used the high-stakes test standards adopted by the state for guidance in selecting most important content to emphasize. (1) Traditional condition materials: Materials in the traditional instruction condition consisted of teacher lecture, class notes, class activities, and accompanying textbook materials. These materials consisted of worksheets that accompanied each chapter with fill-in-the-blank items, matching items, vocabulary, and short-answer items. Teacher materials also included using a general model of teacher effectiveness, in that each day contained daily review, statement of purpose, and teacher presentation of information, guided, and independent practice. Teacher-led presentations were accompanied with questioning, completion of the notes with assistance using the overhead projector, use of supplemental audios and videos, and class activities. (2) Tutoring condition materials: Tutoring materials were developed based on previous research-based strategy instruction with special populations. Materials previously employed by Greenwood et al. and Fuchs and their colleagues, and Mastropieri et al. (2001) were modified and adapted to meet the needs of secondary students in inclusive history. Materials included lesson plans for introducing the rules and procedures, for identifying and correcting errors, for using elaborative strategies, and for recording daily progress with the information contained in the tutoring materials. All participants received folders containing self-recording sheets on which students recorded their progress with the information covered during tutoring.

Content Learning

321

Information identified by the teacher as critical for the school year was developed into tutoring materials. Cards containing important concepts and related information were developed, including strategies to enhance learning and recall of the information. Materials were designed so that strategies were included and would be used if students required assistance in learning the new materials. Approximately 5–7 cards were included in separate sequenced folders such that when students finished with one folder they proceeded at their own pace to the next folder and so forth until they had completed learning the content for each respective unit of instruction. Students recorded their progress and took pre- and posttests that were designed to match the district benchmarks. Procedure Once university human subjects review board permission, and permission of district, teacher, student, and parent were obtained, classes were assigned a treatment order to the two instructional conditions. The intervention was conducted over a period of 9 weeks and included pretesting, parent training, student training, posttesting, and attitude surveys toward the instruction. Since the middle school used block scheduling, classes met for approximately 50 min 3 days a week and on a rotating block schedule 2 days a week for 90 min. Students in all classes were informed that they were participating in a project designed to provide information on how teachers could be better trained to teach students in history. Sessions were observed by project staff who recorded notes and videotaped classes. A crossover design was employed, in which all classes received both traditional instruction and tutoring, for different instructional units. Each student, therefore, had a score for peer tutoring and a score for traditional instruction. Instructional unit and condition were counterbalanced to address treatment order or unit difficulty effects. (1) Traditional condition procedure: During this condition, the teachers directed all aspects of instruction. Lessons began with a daily review, teacher presentation of new information, guided, and independent practice and laboratory activities. Students participated in answering teacher questioning of content, taking notes independently, and in completing relevant laboratory work. Relevant worksheet activities on the chapters were also completed. (2) Tutoring condition: During this condition, all teacher presentations were identical as those in the traditional condition; however, time usually

322

MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

spent completing worksheets was devoted to the tutoring activity. Tutoring roles, rules, and materials were covered, and students tutored one another using the tutoring materials. Tutoring dyads were selected such that only one student with disabilities was in a dyad. During tutoring, the stronger students began by asking partners the history content. Immediately following, roles were reversed and the other partner asked the questions. Dyads proceeded through the materials independently and recorded their performance on their recording sheets. Even though all student tutoring pairs employed the same tutoring materials, these materials and procedures can be considered appropriate for differentiated instruction (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2006). For example, students studied and practiced content information in tutoring pairs, rather than whole class learning. This important structural difference allowed for considerable flexibility in individual learning. Students could proceed at their own learning pace, with tutoring partners using pre- and posttests and recording student performance. Using pre and post unit tests and recording sheets, students could skip items and units, and move more rapidly through activities that were already known or easily mastered. Additional practice and time could be devoted to practicing and learning more difficult content. Finally, all students could take more time to review the content until mastery, focusing most on content that was most difficult for them. Parent Materials and Training Parent-training meetings were held over several evenings in the computer laboratories at the school. Project staff introduced parents to the Web-based program Blackboard and the research project and materials. Parents were taught how to access Blackboard, how to access the tutoring materials, how to download copies of the tutoring materials, and how to use the tutoring materials at home. Parents were pre- and posttested on their use of Blackboard and use of the tutoring materials and asked to complete an attitude survey on the training. Parents were also provided with logs to use to record the amount of time that materials were used at home and to record any opinions regarding the use of the Web and/or the materials. Data Sources Quantitative data sources included pre- and posttests of history content, and parent training on Blackboard. Qualitative data sources included open-ended surveys of student views of tutoring, teacher journal entries,

Content Learning

323

observational records based on field notes and videotape records, and parent feedback on the training and home component.

Fidelity of Treatment Checklists containing key instructional components were developed and used by observers to ensure that instruction adhered to relevant condition-specific components. Observers used checklists to report whether instruction maintained key elements. It was found that during tutoring and traditional instruction, condition-specific instructional components were faithfully implemented.

RESULTS Pretest scores revealed little or no prior knowledge of unit content, and therefore were not employed in subsequent analyses. Posttest data were entered into a 2 condition (tutoring vs. traditional)  2 group (normally achieving vs. students with disabilities) analysis of variance (ANOVA), with repeated measures on the condition variable. Results indicated that, overall, students scored significantly higher in the tutoring condition ( po 0.01), and that, across conditions, normally achieving students outperformed students with disabilities ( po0.01). A group-by-condition interaction ( po0.05) revealed that students with disabilities differentially benefited from the tutoring condition (see Fig. 5). It was also found that training significantly enhanced parent learning of Blackboard and use of tutoring procedures to use at home using project materials, according to pre–posttest data, t(21) ¼ 25.23, po0.001. Parents also rated training as generally very effective (see Table 1). On the surveys, the majority of the students agreed they enjoyed working together with partners, described interactions with partners positively, and felt that the extra practice with materials was beneficial. Some students felt they already knew the materials and wanted to proceed at a more rapid rate. Analysis of teacher reports revealed positive support for tutoring, citing for benefits student interactions, student enthusiasm, student learning, and increased parental involvement. The concern most frequently noted was that some of the brighter students in the inclusive class might not have needed the tutoring practice (although analyses of the data indicated that these same students performed better with tutoring). Analysis of field notes and videotape records triangulated and confirmed the information taken from student and teacher responses and journal entries.

324

MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL. Effects of Classwide Peer Tutoring on Achievement in History 90 Mean Percent Correct

88 86 84 general

82

special

80 78 76 74 Control

Tutoring Condition

Fig. 5.

Condition by Student Group Interaction on Posttest.

Table 1.

Parent Ratings of Training Components.

Training Component Effectiveness of training Effectiveness of trainers Training informative Sufficient time for training Helpfulness of handouts

Parent Rating Mean (SD) 4.68 4.73 4.59 4.45 4.68

(0.48) (0.46) (0.59) (0.74) (0.48)

Note: For all ratings, 1 ¼ low; 5 ¼ high.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TRAINING OF TEACHERS, PARENTS, AND PEERS The present investigation confirmed the effectiveness of appropriately trained teachers, parents, and peers, and the effectiveness of peer tutoring in history conducted within middle school inclusive classes. When using tutoring, students learned more content than when taught more traditionally. In addition, teacher and student attitudes were overall very positive about tutoring. Parent reports were also very positive toward the training of learning to use

Content Learning

325

Blackboard and the tutoring materials. Although the total number of parent participants was limited in the present investigation, results of the present investigation suggest that appropriately employed peer-tutoring programs with parent involvement components may increase content area learning in middle school inclusive history classes. Future research could address the effects of the parent component more specifically. As students with mild disabilities progress through the grade levels to secondary school, they find less and less regular classroom time allocated to strategic instruction for learning content area information. The results of the present investigation suggest that students in inclusive history classes can tutor each other in critical content area materials, and that when they do so, their content area learning improves at a rate greater than that attained through more traditional instruction. In addition, parents who participated expressed gratitude at being involved and being able to help their children with relevant practice activities. Teachers of middle school students should consider classwide peer tutoring and parental involvement as an important means of delivering high-quality instruction to all students. It appears that students seem to be actively engaged with the tutoring materials and the practice using reciprocal tutoring appears effective. Teachers appear receptive toward using the materials as a supplement to class activities. They do not replace class instruction but do provide additional supplemental practice. Some classes appear to be quite noisy during the tutoring while others do not. This may be a function of the behaviors of individual students within those classes. At any rate, classwide peer-tutoring interventions are typically considerably more ‘‘active’’ than whole class, teacher-led instruction, in that all students are actively practicing and learning academic content, and some amount of adjustment is needed, especially for teachers who are used to more traditional instruction. Presently ongoing research in social studies classrooms is replicating the procedures of this investigation, and additionally including mnemonic (memory-enhancing) strategies to facilitate memory for target content (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1989). Outcomes from this investigation will provide information on whether students can implement more complicated (and more effective) learning strategies in classwide peer-tutoring formats (see also Mastropieri et al., 2005). The findings of the present investigation add to the existing literature underlying the effectiveness of instructional strategies in content area learning in general (Mastropieri, Scruggs, Berkeley, & Graetz, 2007), and the effectiveness of peer tutoring specifically (Mastropieri, Spencer, Scruggs, & Talbott, 2000). However, it also provides additional information

326

MARGO A. MASTROPIERI ET AL.

on training of teachers, parents, and peers to implement specific instructional strategies, and the positive results that can be obtained. Although the data from this investigation cannot be applied directly to the problem of the ‘‘researcher effect’’ in instructional research, it does demonstrate that teachers, parents, and peers can effectively implement high-quality instruction, and that specific training procedures, including appropriate materials, practice, and the use of Blackboard technology, can result in substantial improvements in content area learning in inclusive classrooms.

REFERENCES Berkeley, S. L., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2007). An updated synthesis of intervention research on reading comprehension for students with learning disabilities (1995–2005). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL. Boyle, J. R. (1996). The effects of a cognitive mapping strategy on the literal and inferential comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 86–98. Boyle, J. R., & Weishaar, M. (2001). The effects of strategic note taking on the recall and comprehension of lecture information for high school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 133–141. Hudson, P. (1996). Using a learning set to increase test performance of students with learning disabilities in social studies classes. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, 78–85. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1989). Mnemonic social studies instruction: Classroom applications. Remedial and Special Education, 10(3), 40–46. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement: Results of recent randomized field trials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Salt Lake City, UT. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2007a). Promoting success in content area classes: Final report (Grant # H324C020085). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2007b). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Bakken, J. P., & Whedon, C. (1996). Reading comprehension: A synthesis of research in learning disabilities. In: T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Intervention research (Vol. 10, Part B, pp. 201–227). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Berkeley, S., & Graetz, J. (2007). The effectiveness of special education for secondary content area learning: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. (2005). Cognition and learning in inclusive high school chemistry classes. In: T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Vol. 18. Cognition and learning in diverse settings (pp. 107–118). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Content Learning

327

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Mohler, L. J., Beranek, M. L., Spencer, V., Boon, R. T., & Talbott, E. (2001). Can middle school students with serious reading difficulties help each other and learn anything? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 18–27 Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Norland, J., Berkeley, S., McDuffie, K., Tornquist, E. H., & Conners, N. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science: Effects on classroom and high-stakes tests. Journal of Special Education, 40, 130–137. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Spencer, V., & Fontana, J. (2003). Promoting success in high school world history: Peer tutoring versus guided notes. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 52–65. Mastropieri, M. A., Spencer, V., Scruggs, T. E., & Talbott, E. (2000). Students with disabilities as tutors: An updated research synthesis. In: T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Vol. 14. Educational interventions (pp. 247–279). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science/JAI Press. Mastropieri, M. A., Sweda, J., & Scruggs, T. E. (2000). Putting mnemonic strategies to work in an inclusive classroom. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 69–74. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2003). Science and social studies. In: H. L. Swanson, K. Harris & S. Graham (Eds), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 364–379). New York, NY: Guilford. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2004). Recent research applications in secondary content areas for students with learning and behavioral disabilities. In: T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Vol. 17. Research in secondary schools (pp. 243–263). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416. Spencer, V. G., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2003). Content area learning and students with emotional or behavior disorders: Comparison of strategies. Behavioral Disorders, 28, 77–93. Talbott, E., Lloyd, J. W., & Tankersley, M. (1994). Effects of reading comprehension interventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 223–232. Whitehurst, G. (2005). Research on science. Paper presented at the Secretary’s Summit on Science, Washington, DC. Retrieved November 9, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/ rschstat/research/progs/mathscience/whitehurst04/index.html

This page intentionally left blank

SUBJECT INDEX Accountability, 2, 11, 50, 58–59 Achievement, 8, 10, 22, 26, 35–41, 46, 49–50, 52–56, 58, 60, 91, 93, 100, 105, 111, 114, 116, 126, 128, 163, 169, 183–185, 200, 203–204, 214, 224, 226–229, 237–241, 286–287, 296, 298, 309, 324 Africa, 126–127, 133, 135 African American teachers, 191 Alternative route preparation, 94, 96 Alternative route programs, 95, 172 Alternative routes (ARs), 89, 91–96, 98, 105–106, 110, 116, 152, 172, 202 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), 103 American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE), 90 Apprenticeship of observation, 129–130 Attrition, 15, 59, 89, 91–92, 104, 106, 108–110, 112–116, 151–152, 165, 171–172

Cognition, 282, 286 Cognitive deficits, 277–278, 291, 294, 300 Cohort programs, 151, 153–155, 157, 159, 161, 163–167, 169–177 Collaboration, 10, 15–16, 20–24, 51, 56–59, 63–64, 91, 113–114, 125, 127–128, 133, 151–152, 157–158, 161, 164–167, 169, 173–175, 260, 273, 311 Collaborative leadership, 2 Computation, 281, 287, 289, 298 Conceptual framework, 1–3, 5, 7, 9, 11–13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 60–61, 64 Constructivism, 256–258 Consultants, 197–198 Content area learning, 309–310, 325–326 Content knowledge, 3, 6–7, 13, 20, 25, 44–45, 48, 53–54, 56, 61–62, 64, 91, 97, 116, 185, 255, 271 Co-teaching, 62, 115, 254–255, 259, 262–263, 265–266, 268, 272 Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), 14, 17–18, 61, 152, 189, 195 Culturally and linguistically different, 189, 193–194 Culture of teaching, 169, 177

Behavior management, 15–16, 20, 24, 43, 45, 64, 77–81, 83, 170, 196 Behavioral disabilities, 1–2, 12, 19, 35, 75, 89, 125, 151, 181, 209, 223, 253, 277, 309 Certification, 15–16, 19, 37–38, 40, 49, 61–62, 90, 97–98, 101, 107, 154, 162, 172, 182–187, 189–190, 192–193, 199, 201, 203 Classroom climate, 223–225, 227, 239–240 Classroom Community Scale, 214–216

Differentiated instruction, 272, 322 Discourse analysis, 53, 137 Diverse learners, 8, 11, 14, 18–22, 24, 51, 56–57 Down syndrome, 136–137, 142 329

330 DVD-based learning, 125 Dyscalculia, 279–280, 285, 298–299 Early career special educators, 181, 186, 190, 192–196, 198 Equity, 14, 100–101, 104, 182 Expert teachers, 43, 54–55, 81 Faculty, 16–17, 22–23, 25–26, 51, 57, 65, 103–104, 109, 133, 151, 154, 157–158, 160, 163–169, 173–177, 201, 203, 254, 273 Flexibility, 224, 233–238, 322 Focus group interviews, 155, 160, 167 Gender, 11, 39, 103, 191 General education, 6, 12, 16, 18–19, 21–22, 35–36, 41–43, 45–46, 48–50, 58, 61, 63–64, 91, 94, 96–97, 101, 107, 109, 115–116, 151–152, 155, 167, 182–183, 185, 187–188, 190, 200, 255, 261, 267, 271, 273, 310–311 Germany, 224, 229, 241, 313 Hands-on approach, 261 High-quality teachers, 35–36, 41, 114 High stakes testing, 77 History, 23, 36, 172, 182, 211, 213, 309, 311, 320–322, 324–325 Inclusive classrooms, 125, 127, 129, 131, 133, 135, 137, 139, 141, 143, 145, 262, 265, 309, 326 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 10–11, 15, 18, 24, 37, 58, 63, 66, 93, 108, 152, 202, 219, 259, 262, 271 Induction, 36, 52, 63, 65, 110, 112–116, 181, 187–190, 192, 196, 199, 201–202 Inquiry learning, 265 Instructional practice, 41, 43, 46–48, 50, 59, 91, 114, 311

SUBJECT INDEX Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), 152 Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Special Education, 152 Interviews, 46, 57, 81, 155–160, 162–163, 166–167, 169, 172, 175, 187, 229 IQ, 38, 229, 241, 292–295, 299 Italy, 277, 280–281, 283, 285, 297, 301–302 Kenya, 125, 128, 134–136, 144 Knowledgeable professionalism, 2 Latino teachers, 101, 105, 107, 111 Learning disabilities, 42, 127, 214, 223–225, 228–229, 233, 237, 240–241, 280, 296, 298–300, 320 Literacy, 21, 42–43, 48, 54–55, 59–60, 62, 64, 127, 225, 260, 293, 300 Local education agencies (LEAs), 187–188 Math, 39, 94, 136, 169, 184, 277–285, 287–303 Math disabilities, 277, 279, 281, 283, 285, 287, 289, 291, 293, 295, 297, 299, 301 Mathematics, 6–7, 20, 39–41, 44, 46, 48, 52–54, 58, 61–62, 64, 100, 128, 184, 283–286, 296–298, 302 Mentoring, 13, 16, 20–21, 65, 91, 110, 112–113, 115–116, 162, 172, 190, 197–199, 202 Meta-analysis, 288, 292, 294–295, 298, 301, 310 Metacognition, 264, 280, 282–283, 301 Metacognitive training, 279, 284 Multimedia, 131, 214, 219

Subject Index Negative group dynamics, 165, 173, 175 No Child Left Behind (NCLB), 10, 24, 37, 41, 48, 63, 66, 89–99, 101, 103–105, 107–109, 111, 113, 115–116, 152, 183, 254–255, 259, 271 Non-verbal behavior, 85 Norway, 125, 127, 133, 135, 138 Online communities, 213 Online courses, 209, 211–219 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 126, 128 Overrepresentation, 100–101 Parent training, 309, 312, 317, 321–322 Parents, 5–6, 15, 21, 50, 75, 78, 81, 111, 134, 140, 162, 170, 195–196, 199, 241, 270, 309–311, 314–315, 317, 319, 322–326 Pedagogical content knowledge, 3, 7, 44–45, 48, 53–54, 61–62 Pedagogical knowledge, 3, 7, 44, 51, 75, 77, 91, 97 Pedagogy, 1, 3, 6–7, 9, 12–14, 16–17, 19–21, 23–26, 37, 43, 45, 48–49, 51–52, 54–55, 64, 80, 101, 103–104, 107, 116, 133, 168, 184–185, 271 Peer support, 157, 165 Peer tutoring, 302, 310–311, 321, 324–325 Policy, 1, 3–5, 12–14, 16, 18, 36, 65, 90–92, 106, 108–110, 116, 130, 134, 183, 201 Poverty, 39, 105, 108, 127, 181–183, 186–188, 190–204, 241 Problem solving, 136, 258, 279, 281–282, 289, 293–294, 297–298, 300–301 Professional development (PD), 13, 35, 49–60, 62, 65, 78–79, 103, 106, 113–114, 126, 128, 132–133, 168, 171, 190, 196, 202, 254, 273

331 Quality of lesson, 227, 231, 234 Questionnaire, 162, 209, 215–216, 218–219 Reading comprehension, 21, 52, 223–240, 288, 293 Reading efficacy, 223–225, 228, 232–233, 235–239 Reading interest, 223–239 Recruitment, 14, 90, 102–106, 108, 116, 201 Reflection, 9, 22, 36, 51, 76, 82, 128–129, 131–132, 134–137, 140, 143–145, 157, 176, 231, 264, 272 Reflective teaching, 2, 8 Regular education classrooms, 46 Retention, 102–110, 112–116, 171–172, 184, 201, 263 Salary, 90, 95, 109–112, 116 Science education, 255–259, 261, 263, 265, 267, 269–271, 273 Science teachers, 62, 255, 260, 262, 270 Self-efficacy, 46, 181, 185–189, 195, 226–227, 230, 232, 238–239, 241 Sense of community, 156, 159, 165, 174, 209–217, 219 Situated learning, 54 Skilled teachers, 82, 84–85 Social-emotional support, 151, 165, 167–168, 174 Special education, 1, 12, 16–22, 24, 35–38, 40–43, 45–49, 57–58, 60–66, 89–101, 103–109, 111, 113, 115–116, 131, 151–155, 162–163, 165, 167, 169–172, 175, 177, 181–187, 189–191, 193, 195, 197, 199–203, 228–229, 233, 239, 241, 253–255, 257–263, 265–271, 273, 310, 320 Structure, 44, 98, 111, 164–165, 167, 176–177, 214, 224, 230, 233–239, 282 Student teacher, 26, 77, 80–83, 127, 129–135, 140–142, 144–146, 170

332 Student teaching, 13, 15, 23, 109, 127, 156, 163, 167, 171, 189–190, 192–195, 199 Students with disabilities, 12, 16, 18–21, 37, 43, 45–48, 50, 58, 60, 93, 152, 161, 182, 187, 190, 200–201, 203–204, 209, 213–214, 219, 254–255, 260–261, 263, 266, 268–271, 273, 310–311, 320, 323 Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE), 40, 106, 181, 186–188, 190, 192, 194 Surveys, 12, 15, 155–157, 160–166, 175–176, 188, 321–323 Tacit knowledge, 75, 79–80 Teacher authority, 75–77, 79, 81, 83, 85 Teacher certification, 154, 184, 203 Teacher characteristics, 38, 40–41, 183–184, 190–191 Teacher preparation, 1–3, 5, 7–8, 10, 12–14, 16–17, 19–26, 36, 50, 57, 61–63, 65, 91–92, 95–96, 98, 102–104, 116, 130, 152–154, 158–159, 163, 169, 172–173, 176, 184–185, 188–189, 194, 270, 273

SUBJECT INDEX Teacher quality, 35–38, 40–41, 44, 47–52, 60–65, 96, 104, 113, 116, 126, 181–193, 195, 197, 199–201, 203–204 Teacher shortages, 40, 65, 90, 92, 109, 171 Teacher supply, 89, 91, 93, 95, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105, 107–109, 111, 113, 115, 201 Teachers’ attitude, 46, 236 Teachers’ beliefs, 45–50 Teaching styles, 46, 223, 225–228, 231–235, 237, 240 Troops to Teachers, 90 Uganda, 125, 128, 134–136, 144 United Kingdom (UK), 77–79 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 127 United States, 10–11, 99, 101, 152, 176, 182, 188, 203, 277, 286 Universities, 25–27, 92, 102, 152, 175–177, 194, 202, 215 University students, 209, 212, 214–215 Withitness, 83–85 Working memory, 277, 286, 300–301