Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress
International
Special Education Conference
Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity?
1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland
about the conference
programme
registration
accommodation
contact
|
Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland |
home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact |
Mary Brownell, University of Florida,
Anne Jordan, University of Toronto, &
Janette Klingner, University of Colorado at Boulder
For correspondence please contact Mary Brownell, mbrownell@coe.ufl.edu
In North America, there has been a resurgence of interest in the impact of teachers on the achievement gains of students, both with and without disabilities. Over the past decade, researchers have amassed data documenting the important role teachers play in fostering student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Rice, 2003; Wenglinsky, 2002). Such research clearly shows a link between teachers and student achievement gains. For example, using student gain scores over a three year period, Rivers and Sanders (1996) demonstrated that highly effective general education teachers could produce, on average, gains of 53 percentile points compared to the 14 percentile point gains of the least effective teachers. Although the research clearly shows a link between teachers and student achievement gains, it does not provide sufficient information about the teacher characteristics, knowledge, and skills that promote good student achievement.
The general education literature sheds light on those teacher characteristics most likely to secure student achievement gains. The majority of this research involves large-scale studies of teacher characteristics that influence student achievement (Rice, 2003; Wayne & Youngs, 2003). Less research exists to demonstrate connections between student achievement gains and teacher behaviors, knowledge, and beliefs. The special education literature is even more incomplete in providing research-based information about teacher quality and achievement of students with special educational needs. There is a limited and diverse research base that defines the dimensions of what it means to be an effective teacher, either as a general education teacher with students with special needs who are included in the general education classroom, or as a special education teacher working directly with students with special needs. In this paper, we synthesize major findings from research on these various approaches as a basis for building a conceptual framework for teacher quality in special education. In developing this framework, we acknowledge that dimensions of teacher quality are not isolated, decontextualized constructs, but are in part the result of teachers’ interactions with their social context. The purpose of this paper therefore is to examine the current state of the evidence about the impact of quality of teaching on the achievement gains of students with special educational needs. In order to derive a picture of the state of the art in research on teacher quality and students with special education needs, we will briefly review the categories of research that examine the characteristics of teachers in both general and special education settings and their impact on students, limiting the review to elementary education and paying special attention to reading and mathematics. The categories are: 1. teacher qualifications, training and length of experience, 2. teachers' practices, 3. teacher knowledge, beliefs and attitudes, and 4. contextual classroom factors, such as number of students with disabilities present in a classroom, student socio-economic status, school leadership and ethos. In each category we briefly summarize the main trends that research (is a word missing in here?) provides about the impact of teaching on students in general education; that is, elementary teachers working in general classrooms. We then consider evidence about students in special education; that is, general education teachers working with students with special needs who are included in general education classrooms, and special education teachers working in comprehensive, withdrawal and segregated settings with students with special educational needs. We examine a growing body of research on the quality of teachers in special education; their qualifications, training, practices and impact on students with disabilities. It will be seen that, despite the resurgence of interest in teacher characteristics and impact of teaching quality in general, the special education community lacks research-based information about teacher quality on students with special education needs. Assessing and advancing teacher quality requires a definition or model of teacher quality from which comparisons can be made. How these models are conceptualized or developed can be approached from several different angles: by examining teacher characteristics that may be related to quality (e.g., verbal ability) and determining their relationship with student achievement; by setting a priori standards for teacher practices, knowledge, or dispositions; by setting a priori standards for student outcomes; by seeking out teachers who are more and less successful in obtaining selected student outcomes and determining which teacher practices, knowledge, or dispositions are correlated with the desired student outcomes; or by manipulating teacher practices, knowledge, or dispositions in order to determine the impact on the desired student outcomes.
In the course of considering the approaches taken by researchers, we draw upon research in studies of process-product relationships (the process of teaching and its outcome on or production of student achievement); studies of exemplary teachers; comparisons of teachers whose students differ in high vs. low achievement gains; and evidence from large scale assessment studies of student achievement. We complete the review with studies of contextual classroom factors, such as class size and make up, that impact student achievement.
North American legislative context
Teacher qualifications, training and length of experience
The research on the level of skills and knowledge which teachers bring to the classroom has been summarized and critiqued at length in two recent publications (Rice, 2003; Wayne & Youngs, 2003). Findings from this research are organized around three major categories: teacher qualifications and ability, teacher preparation, and years experience.
Teacher qualifications and ability. Over the past two decades, researchers have examined the relationship between student achievement gains and test scores on teacher exams (e.g., National Teacher Exam) and other tests of basic skills and ability (e.g., the ACT). Although findings from these studies do not provide conclusive evidence, they do suggest a positive relationship between teacher ability as measured by scores on national teacher exams and student achievement gains, particularly if the test captures those skills needed to teach a particular subject. For example, studies examining the correlations between teacher performance on tests of verbal ability, such as the ACT, and student achievement gains in reading show significant positive relationships, and this relationship is 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).
Other research supporting the role of teacher qualifications has focused on establishing relationships between student achievement gains and the prestige of teachers’ undergraduate institutions. 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). Again, the magnitude of this positive relationship was greater for student achievement in school districts with higher poverty levels. Because prospective teachers attending more selective institutions are, on a whole, more likely to have higher levels of tested ability on exams such as the ACT, these correlations provide further evidence of how teacher ability influences student achievement.
Teacher preparation and background. Research examining how teacher preparation affects student achievement gains attempts to establish connections between certain teacher education variables and student achievement gains. These teacher education variables include: (a) level of degree earned, (b) coursework taken, (c) teacher certification status, and (d) quality of the preparation program. To date, this research has been diverse in terms of methodologies used and provides inconclusive results. Large-scale quantitative research has been unable to link degree level of teacher or education coursework completed with student achievement gains, unless the research specifically examines linkages between subject area coursework in mathematics and student achievement in mathematics. Holding a master’s degree in mathematics is related to gains in student achievement. Similar findings hold for coursework taken and teacher certification status (Rice, 2003). Teachers with either a major in mathematics or certification in that area are more likely to secure better student achievement gains in mathematics than teachers without such a background (Wayne & Youngs, 2003).
Other research examining the influence of teacher education coursework and fieldwork on teacher quality has been mostly qualitative and unconnected to student achievement gains. These studies have documented how teacher preparation programs positively influence the way teachers organize their knowledge about a particular content area and student learning as well as how they deliver instruction (Rice, 2003; Wilson, Floden, Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). The only exception is a recent study of eight exemplary teacher education programs in reading. Graduates of programs identified as exemplary were superior to other beginning elementary teachers in their literacy practices and ability to secure student achievement gains (International Reading Association, 2003; Maloch et al., 2003). Even during their first few years of teaching, teachers who were prepared in high quality reading teacher education programs were found to teach in markedly different ways than most other teachers, performing at levels that met or exceeded the standard of experienced teachers rated as “excellent” by their principals. As part of this research, Harmon et al. (2001) described the specific qualities that characterized the exemplary teacher preparation programs.
Studies of the relationship between teacher preparation and background and the achievement of students with disabilities have been few. In special education, three studies document the importance of teacher preparation. Teacher certification status and highest degree earned were significant factors contributing to an overall score on teacher quality (Carlson Lee, & Schroll, (2004), and this teacher quality score predicted achievement gains for elementary students with disabilities (Blackorby, 2003). Finally, Nougaret, Scruggs and Mastropieri (2005) showed that special education teachers who had completed their licensure requirements had a significantly greater impact on the achievement gains of their students than did teachers who were practicing on an emergency provisional license and who had not undertaken formal training in special education. This study addresses a debate in the United States about the importance of training in special education in light of the severe shortage of qualified teachers, and the press to hire teachers without such qualifications.
Teaching experience. It is logical that teachers with more classroom experience should have acquired the knowledge and pedagogy that enables them to foster greater student achievement gains than their less-experienced counterparts. To a certain degree, the research evidence supports this position. For elementary teachers, experience within the first few years of teaching has a positive influence on student achievement. Student performance seems to increase with each year the teacher spends in the classroom. However, this effect drops off after the first five years of teaching and re-emerges for teachers with more than 14 years of experience (Rice, 2003).
2. Teaching practices
There is a limited and diverse research base that defines the dimensions of what it means to be a qualified teacher in special education, including two studies conducted in the process product tradition ( Leinhardt, Zigmond, & Cooley, 1980; Sindelar, Smith, Harriman, Hale, & Wilson, 1986) , observational and belief studies of effective inclusion teachers, one study of expert special education teachers’ thinking (Stough & Palmer,2003), one large-scale survey study linking teacher characteristics and self-reported practices with student achievement gains (Carlson et al., 2004), and one study examining the differences the classroom practices of special education teachers with traditional preparation versus those with very limited preparation (Nougaret, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2005).
More than three decades ago, researchers established correlations between what classroom teachers do (processes) and student achievement gains (products) (Brophy & Good, 1986; Doyle, 1986; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). This research showed that students were most likely to make the greatest achievement gains under specific instructional conditions, including: (a) when teachers provided direct instruction and maintained a quick pace while teaching, (b) when teachers allocated most of their time to curricular activities, (c) when teachers managed the classroom in ways that enabled students to be highly engaged in curricular activities, (d) when the teacher engaged students in curricular activities at their instructional level, and (e) when teachers provided active instruction as opposed to independent seatwork.
In the late 1980s, process-product research fell out of favor because of criticism over its inability to adequately capture the complexity of teaching and the role that subject matter knowledge plays in teaching (Blanton et. al, 2003; Gage and Needels, 1989). Recently, increasing public pressure for teachers to be accountable for student achievement has resulted in a re-examination of what it means to be an effective teacher.
In special education, two different groups of researchers used process-product methodology to establish relationships between the classroom practices of special educators and student achievement gains (Leinhardt, Zigmond, & Cooley, 1980; Sindelar et al., 1986). These researchers found that teachers who employed techniques to increase students’ academic engagement time were also able to improve student achievement gains.
Recently, observational studies in general education have improved on the procedures used in the original process-product research by enriching the range and complexity of teacher practices sampled. In both literacy and mathematics, researchers have developed various approaches for capturing what effective literacy and mathematics teachers do (Foorman & Schatschneider, 2003; Haager, Gersten, Baker, & Graves, 2003; Reynolds & Muis, 2003; Roehrig, Dolezal, Mohan-Welsh, Bohn, & Pressley, 2003). These studies include qualitative studies of teachers identified as exemplary versus non-exemplary, observational studies employing more quantitative instrumentation to uncover the dimensions of effective literacy instruction, and use of various self-report techniques (e.g., classroom logs and surveys) to determine linkages between self-reported practices and student achievement gains.
In-depth qualitative studies of teachers identified as exemplary versus non-exemplary reveal distinct differences in the literacy practices of these teachers with struggling and disabled readers. Exemplary teachers were selected based on their ability to actively engage students during literacy instruction and, in some cases, their ability to secure stronger student achievement gains than many of their colleagues. Researchers studied both exemplary and less exemplary teachers using multiple observations and some interviews. Across these various studies, data analyses revealed that exemplary teachers differed from their less exemplary peers on several dimensions. Exemplary teachers engaged students in continuous, intensive instruction in which multiple opportunities for students to read and write were provided during both language arts instruction and content area instruction (Allington & Johnston, 2002; Mariage, 1995; Pressley et al., 2001). When teaching literacy, exemplary teachers provided extensive, explicit skill instruction within a literacy rich environment. They also encouraged students to be self-regulated when working and actively taught them the problem-solving strategies for doing so. Additionally, exemplary teachers crafted well-managed, cooperative, and positive environments in which children were highly engaged in literacy activities. Exemplary teachers emphasized cooperation among students and effort. They expected students to work together in positive and productive ways, establishing a reliance on themselves and each other rather than the teacher. Exemplary teachers created positive environments for students and adjusted instruction to meet their needs, using scaffolding, re-teaching, and small group instruction when appropriate. Moreover, exemplary teachers were keenly aware of students’ needs as they carefully monitored students’ understanding.
Jordan & Stanovich (1999, 2000) observed three teachers during reading and mathematics instruction who were exemplary at including students with disabilities into their elementary classrooms. Confirming findings from studies of general education classrooms, they found that these teachers maximized their instructional time in order to work with individuals and small groups, encouraged independent learning and risk taking, calibrated their instructional delivery to individual learner characteristics, and accepted and encouraged moral responsibility and community in the classroom.
These qualitative studies are exceptional in that they provide rich pictures of the complex nature of classroom practice and could be used successfully to provide in-depth information about how individual teachers are responding to certain efforts to improve their practice. However, such case study methods are limited in their usability in comparative studies of professional development or preservice preparation efforts.
In the past decade or so, other classroom observation systems have emerged that are more quantitative in nature. These observation systems are structured in different ways, depending largely on the researchers’ aims. Some researchers have developed observational systems that require observers to make judgments about the quality of literacy or mathematics instruction (Brownell et a., 2004; Haager, Gersten, Baker & Graves, 2003; Muijs & Reynolds, 2000). Using these systems, observers make judgments about specific teacher behaviors after taking extensive field notes. Specifically, the observer must rate the teacher on a likert scale for demonstrating a particular practice. The likert scale ratings are an attempt to assess the quality of the observed practice. These systems are unlike process-product observation systems that only assessed the frequency (or quantity) of certain behaviors (e.g., Stallings & Kaskowitz, 1974). These new observation systems represent what is known about effective teaching generally and effective teaching of literacy or mathematics specifically.
Findings from studies employing these observational systems tend to reinforce findings from the qualitative and process-product research studies. Teachers who secure the best student achievement gains are effective classroom managers who employ direct, active instruction that engages students in intensive content learning. Effective teachers ask multiple questions and ensure that most if not all of the students are engaged in the questioning process. Moreover, the classrooms of effective teachers are warm, supportive places to be. Haager et al. (2003), suggests that effective teachers also enact sophisticated knowledge of reading instruction and that their instruction is explicit, draws on the prior knowledge of struggling readers, makes connections with what they know, and places considerable emphasis on explicit and active word identification, phonological awareness, and vocabulary instruction. As in the qualitative studies, teachers provide explicit skill instruction within the context of extended opportunities to read and write.
Jordan, Lindsay & Stanovich (1996) and Jordan & Stanovich (2000) confirmed the characteristics of elementary teachers working with students with disabilities included in their classrooms. Effective teachers spent significantly more individual time with these students than did less effective teachers, and interacted with them at a higher level of cognitive engagement. The difference was reflected in the increased academic self concept scores of the students, both with and without disabilities, in the classes of the effective teachers.
Using the Classroom Observation Scale (COS), an observation system linked to Haager et al’s (2003) English-Language Learner Classroom Observation instrument for beginning readers, Jordan and Stanovich (2001,2004) and Stanovich and Jordan (1997) examined the characteristics of elementary classroom teachers who include students with disabilities in their general education classrooms for language arts and mathematics. Their findings reflect those of the general education classroom observation research. Effective teaching practices that can benefit all students focus on high levels of student engagement, together with excellent managerial and time management skills. The most effective teachers are able to maximize instructional time and use it to work with individual students and small groups, calibrating the content and delivery of the materials to the individual characteristics of each student. In a recent synthesis of the COS conducted with 63 elementary classroom teachers (Jordan, 2004), discriminant function analysis reveals that teachers’ engagement of students significantly discriminated the highest scoring groups of teachers. COS item clusters were also related to instruction received by students with disabilities included in these classes. The instruction received by two students with disabilities was rated on a 7-point ordinal scale of teachers' interactions, from 'no interaction' to 'frequent dialogical interaction'. Teachers with high scores on the COS student engagement items also engaged students with disabilities significantly more frequently, and at higher levels of cognitive engagement than did teachers with low scores.
In addition to observational studies, various self-report techniques have also been used to assess classroom practice. These techniques include teacher logs and self-report surveys where teachers have opportunities to indicate how much they engage in certain literacy or mathematics activities. With one exception, these self-report techniques have been designed to assess the impact of various comprehensive professional development efforts in literacy and mathematics. Researchers at the University of Michigan (Rowan, Camburn, & Correnti, 2000; Rowan, Harrison, & Hayes, 2004) have developed teacher logs for assessing the impact of school-wide reform efforts in mathematics and literacy on teacher practice. For example, in the Language Arts Log, teachers are asked to select a target student with reading difficulties for a particular lesson and describe how much time they spent on comprehension, word analysis, reading fluency, vocabulary, and other aspects of language arts instruction for that particular student. Additionally, they are asked to indicate whether or not they taught certain reading or writing strategies in the lesson, such as, summarizing important details in text or self-monitoring for meaning. Log responses differed for teachers participating in different types of school-wide reform, suggesting that teachers were learning from such reform efforts to implement certain aspects of curriculum more thoroughly than others. If those aspects of curriculum result in better student achievement gains, then practices measured on logs could provide some insights about the dimensions of teacher quality.
Researchers have also asked teachers to report their classroom practices using surveys. Mostly, these surveys have been used to assess the impact of specific curriculum or certain professional development efforts on teacher practice. For instance, Cohen and Hill (2000) used self-report surveys to assess the extent to which teachers were moving towards more effective mathematics practices as a result of their participation in comprehension mathematics reform efforts under the Eisenhower Program. In another instance, these surveys were used as mechanisms for defining teacher quality in special education. Carlson et al (2004) asked special education teachers to indicate what reading, behavior, and inclusion practices they employed to capture one facet of teacher quality in their research. In both cases, these researchers found that teachers varied in their self-reported practices and that such variations could be tied to other important variables, such as student achievement, certification status, and professional development opportunities. In the Carlson et al. (2004) study, self-reported practices in reading, behavior, and inclusion were used along with certification status, sense of efficacy, time spent in individual professional growth activities, and experience to predict gains in student achievement.
Although self-reports through surveys have been used effectively in some studies, research on their validity and reliability is mixed. In a comparison of frequently administered logs and self-report surveys, Burnstein and his colleagues found generally low correlations between these two measures for content coverage, whereas, Porter and his colleagues (1993) found that correlations could be as high as .80, depending on the curriculum topic.
3. Teacher knowledge, beliefs and attitudes
Teacher knowledge. There is general consensus that effective teachers are expert at planning and preparation for instruction. They have 'content knowledge' (Shulman, 1986); that is, a strong grasp of the foundational concepts of their subjects. Effective teachers also have 'pedagogical content knowledge' (Shulman, 1986); involving the skillful blending of a teacher’s subject matter knowledge, knowledge of learners, knowledge of curricula, knowledge of context, and knowledge of pedagogy (Lin, 1999; Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987). Finally, they are skilled at pedagogical techniques, such as ways to assess individual student skills and knowledge, techniques to maximize and preserve instructional time, develop appropriate learning materials and activities calibrated to student differences, and monitor outcomes.
Much of the research in this area is qualitative. It portrays effective teachers as knowledgeable, reflective pedagogical wizards who are able to create engaging, focused instruction for students. In general education, research on teacher characteristics is being used to advocate for various teacher quality initiatives and policies. However, the research has not been tied to student outcomes except for one study that links differences in the teachers’ content knowledge for teaching mathematics to student achievement outcomes (Hill, Rowan, & Ball, in press).
Educators and policymakers agree that expert teachers are knowledgeable about their subject (Shulman, 1986; Walsh, 2001; Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987). However, they agree less about the nature of that knowledge. Many policymakers and some researchers assert that subject matter knowledge plays the most central role in teacher quality. Policymakers frequently refer to large-scale studies demonstrating the link between teacher subject matter knowledge and student achievement gains to support a need for more teachers with content area expertise. Additionally, in the area of reading and language arts, some researchers have focused mostly on the knowledge of language and text teachers need to teach children to read (Brady & Moats, 1997; McCutchen et al., 2002). Other researchers, however, particularly those interested in how teachers learn, assert that subject matter knowledge is only one component of the rich knowledge base teachers have. These researchers suggest that in addition to subject matter knowledge, expert teachers have well-developed pedagogical content knowledge that enables them to represent subject matter for the novice learner (Phelps & Schilling, 2004; Rowan, Harrison, & Hayes, in press).
To a certain degree, research supports both positions. For instance, Goldhaber and Brewer (2000) found that teachers with subject matter preparation in mathematics were able to secure better gains in student achievement than their counterparts without such preparation. Other research evidence, however, supports a more complex view of teacher knowledge. Monk (1994) found that pedagogical coursework in mathematics had a value-added effect on student achievement. That is, teachers with both subject matter expertise and education coursework in methods for teaching mathematics were more able to secure student achievement gains than teachers with subject matter expertise only, suggesting that expert teachers have knowledge that combines, at a minimum, an understanding of subject matter and pedagogy. Further, Foorman and Schatschneider (2003) found moderate correlations between teacher knowledge and observed classroom practice, also demonstrating that teachers use knowledge that includes subject matter knowledge and other knowledge about instruction and students.
Teacher beliefs and attitudes. What teachers believe about students and teaching plays a critical role in the instructional decisions they make in the classroom (Richardson & Placier, 2001). Teachers’ beliefs primarily focus on the teaching and learning process, driving decisions they make about which curricula to use, materials and activities to select, and instructional content to emphasize. Mostly teachers’ beliefs center on perceptions of: (a) how to best teach content to students, (b) how students learn, (c) how students’ abilities and other environmental factors outside school influence the learning process, and (d) teachers’ responsibilities in fostering student learning.
The literature is replete with examples of how teachers’ beliefs affect their actions in the classroom (Pajares, 1992; Richardson & Placier, 2001). In special education, most of this research focuses on how general education teachers’ beliefs about disability influence the extent and type of responsibility such teachers take for educating students with disabilities in their classroom (Jordan, Kircaali-Iftar, & Diamond, 1993; Stanovich & Jordan, 1998).
What is missing from the literature in general and special education is the linkage between beliefs and student achievement. Only a few studies over the past two decades have demonstrated linkages between teachers’ beliefs and student achievement gains in general education (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Rosenholtz, 1989; Reynolds & Muis, 2003). In special education, two studies show that teacher self-efficacy (the belief that a teacher can influence student learning through what she does) is a dimension of teacher quality. In a factor analysis, teacher self-efficacy was found to be a significant component of teacher quality for elementary students with disabilities (Carlson, 2003); and self-efficacy, in combination with other teacher quality variables, predicted student achievement gains (Blackorby, 2003).
In summary, a large body of research into the impact of differences in teachers' knowledge, beliefs and attitudes suggests that these are important contributors to differences in teachers' effectiveness. Kagan (1992) notes that "The more one reads studies of teacher beliefs, the more one strongly one suspects that this piebald of personal knowledge lies at the very heart of teaching" (p. 85).
Contextual factors
Number of students with disabilities included in general education classrooms. Demeris (2004, in submission) showed that number of students with disabilities, and overall class size had no significant effect on the reading, writing and mathematics gains scores of the students in more than 2000 classrooms participating in Ontario's large-scale third grade assessment. Indeed, there was some evidence in this study that the achievement scores of students may even be enhanced by the inclusion of students with disabilities regardless of the number included in the class. As in other studies, Demeris did find that socio-economic status was the sole predictor of student achievement.
Studies by Dyson and Polat (2004), Fishbaugh and Gum (1994), Hunt, Staub, Alwell and Goetz (1994), Sharp, York and Knight (1994) and Saint-Laurent et al. (1998) also found that the inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom is not detrimental to the academic performance of students without disabilities. Indeed, Dyson and Polat (2004) showed that schools with staff that valued both high inclusion and high achievement produce students with above average achievement scores, whether or not they had a disability.
The leadership of a school also has a significant impact on teacher practices, and therefore possibly the quality of their instruction. Leithwood and Janzi (1999) have demonstrated the large effect size associated with principals who foster instruction, and in inclusive special education, Ainscow (1999) has shown this effect to hold for staffs of schools who subscribe to including students with disabilities. Stanovich and Jordan (1998) also showed how the beliefs and attitudes of the school principal were the most significant contributors to teacher practices in inclusive elementary schools.
Summary and conclusions
Although current observational research is a vast improvement over the process product research results from observational research are promising, this work is in its infancy. Educators do not know how effective teaching practices observed in reading and mathematics transfer to other subject areas and different populations of students. For instance, in special education, we have little knowledge, beyond that provided by process product research, of how effective teachers provide instruction to students with disabilities. To date, researchers have not developed observation systems that would capture more complex views of effective teaching in special education. Our field clearly needs to understand how this instruction is delivered to students with disabilities and its impact on their achievement. What this research has not helped us understand is how instruction might change for different types of students. Mostly because the authors talk about what teachers do generally for the class rather than specifically for individual students who have extreme learning and behavioral challenges.
Establishing a link between teacher preparation, teacher quality and student outcomes is no easy task, particularly in the field of special education. Special educators’ roles in school vary widely and creating a valid assessment system to capture such variability is necessarily challenging. For instance, is it possible to isolate the effects of a special education teacher on student outcomes when special education students are typically served by teams of people? Perhaps the general education models of teacher quality, which are reviewed here, are too simplistic for teasing apart the contextual complexities surrounding instruction in special education settings. However, there is a base in the research findings to suggest that quality of teaching is important for both general and special education students, and that instructional setting, student and class characteristics, which have long been cited by policy makers as causal factors in student achievement, may in fact not be primary contributors to student success. This examination will however need to wait for considerably more research evidence to accumulate, before the complexities and interactions of the variables can be understood.
References
Ainscow, M.(1999). Understanding the development of inclusive schools. London: Falmer Press.
Allington, D. L., & Johnson, P. H. (2002). Reading to learn: Lessons from exemplary fourth-grade classrooms. NY: Guilford Press.
Ashton, P.T. & Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.
Blackorby, J. (2003, September). Analysis for teacher quality: Update on the collaborative analysis from the Study of personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE) and the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS). Memorandum to Patricia Gonzalez, U.S. Department of Education. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Blanton, L., Sindelar, P., Correa, V., Hardman, M., McDonnel, J., & Kuhel, K. (2002). Conceptions of beginning teacher quality: Models for conducting research. Center for Personnel Studies in Special Education. Retrieved December 18, 2003 from http://www.copsse.org.
Brady, S., & Moats, L. (1997). Informed instruction for reading success: Foundations fro teacher preparation (Opinion paper 120). Baltimore, MD: International Dyslexia Association.
Brophy, J.E., & Good, T.L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (3rd. ed., p. 328-375). New York: MacMillan.
Brownell, M., Bishop, A., Klingner, J., Gersten, R., Haager, D., Penfield, R., Menon, S., Dimino, J., & Sindelar, P. (2005). Defining and assessing beginning teacher quality in special education: First steps. Unpublished manuscript.
Carlson, E., Lee, H., & Schroll, K. (2004). Identifying attributes of high quality special education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27 (4), 350-359.
Cohen, D.K. & Hill, H. (2000). Instuctional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102, 294-343.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. University of Washington Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Retrieved December 18, 2003 from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/LDH_1999.pdf
Demeris, H. (2004). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. OISE/University of Toronto.
Demeris, H., Jordan, A., & Childs, R. (in submission). The impact of students with disabilities included in third grade classrooms on the large-scale achievement scores of their non-identified peers. Exceptional Children.
Doyle, W. (1986), Classroom organization and management. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (3rd. ed., p.392-431). New York: MacMillan.
Dyson, A., Polat, F., & Farrell, P. (2004). Inclusion and student achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Fishbaugh, M., & Gum, P. (1994). Inclusive education in Billings, Montana: A prototype for rural schools. (No. ED #69 636): ERIC Reproduction Service.
Foorman, B. R., & Schatschneider, C. (2003). Measurement of teaching practices during reading/language arts instruction and its relationship to student achievement. In S. Vaughn and K. L. Briggs (Eds.), Reading in the classroom: Systems for the observation of teaching and learning (pp. 1-30). Baltimore: Paul H Brooks Publishing.
Gage, N.L. & Needels, M.C. (1989) Process-product research on teaching: A review of criticisms. Elementary School Journal, 89, 253-303.
Goldhaber, D.D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis, 22, 129-145.
Haager, D., Gersten, R., Baker, S., & Graves, A. (2003). The English-Language Learner Classroom Observation instrument for beginning readers. In S. Vaughn and K. Briggs (Eds.), Reading in the classroom: Systems for the observation of teaching and learning (pp. 111-114). Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing.
Harmon, J., Hedrick, W., Martinez, M., Perez, B., Keehn, S., Fine, J.C., Eldridge, D., Flint, A.S., Littleton, D.M., Bryant-Shanklin, M., Loven, R., Assaf, L., & Sailors, M. (2001). Features of excellence of reading teacher preparation programs. In J.V. Hoffman, D.L. Schallert, C.M. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, & B. Maloch (Eds.), Fiftieth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 262–274). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Hill, H., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. (in press). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal.
Hunt, P., Staub, D., Alwell, M., & Goetz, L. (1994). Achievement by all students within the context of cooperative learning groups. The Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 19(4), 290-301.
International Reading Association (2003). Prepared to make a difference: Research evidence on how some of America’s best college programs prepare teachers of reading. Newark, DE: Author.
Jordan, A. (2004).The beliefs and practices of Canadian teachers about including students with special education needs in their regular elementary classrooms. Education Exceptionality Canada
Jordan, A. Kircaali-Itfar, G.& Diamond, C.T.P. (1993) Who has the problem, the student or the teacher? Differences in teachers’ beliefs about their work with at-risk and integrated exceptional students. International Journal of Development, Disability and Education, 40(1). 45-62
Jordan, A., Lindsay, L., & Stanovich, P. (1997). Classroom teachers' interactions with students who are normally achieving, at-risk and exceptional. Remedial and Special Education, 18(2), 82-93.
Jordan, A. & Stanovich, P. (2005). The beliefs and practices of Canadian teachers about including students with special needs in their regular elementary classrooms. Exceptionality Education Canada.
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. [On-line], 3, Available: http://www.nasen.org.uk.
Jordan, A & Stanovich, P. (2001) Patterns of teacher-student interaction in inclusive elementary classrooms and correlates with student self-concept. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. 48(1), 43-62.
Kagan, D.M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27, 65-90.
Leinhardt, G., Zigmond, N., & Cooley, W. W. (1981). Reading instruction and its effects. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 343-361.
Leithwood K. & Jantzi, D. (1999) Transformational school leadership effects: A replication. School effectiveness and school improvement. 10(4), 451-479.
Lin, S. S. J. (1999, April). Looking for the prototype of teaching expertise: An initial attempt at Taiwan. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction service No. ED 434 894).
Maloch, B., Flint, A. S., Eldridge, D., Harmon, J., Loven, R., Fine, J. C., Bryant-Shanklin, M., & Martinez, M. (2003) Understandings, beliefs, and reported decision making of first-year teachers from different reading teacher preparation programs. Elementary School Journal, 103(5), 431-457.
Mariage T. V. (1995). Why students learn: The nature of teacher talk during reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 214-234.
Mastropieri, M.A. & Scruggs, T.E. (2004). Effective classroom instruction. In C. Spielberger, (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied psychology (pp. 687-691). Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier.
McCutchen, D., Abbott, R.D., Green, L.B., Beretvas, S.N., Cox, S., Potter, N.S., Quiroga, T., & Gray, A.L. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 69-86.
McLaughlin, M., & Jordan, A. (in press) Push or pull: The forces that shape inclusion in the U.S.A. and Canada. In P. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Moats, L.C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81-104.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13, 125-145.
Muijs, D. & Reynolds, D. (2002). Teachers' beliefs and behaviors: What really matters? Journal of Classroom Interaction, 37(2), 3-15.
National Commission on Excellence in Elementary Teacher Preparation for Reading Instruction. (2003). Prepared to make a difference. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Nougaret, A.A., Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (2005). Does teacher education produce better special education teachers? Exceptional Children, 71(3), 217-229.
Pajares, M.F. (1992) Teacher beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Phelps, G. & Schilling, S. (2004). Developing measures of content knowledge for teaching reading. Elementary School Journal, 105, 31-48.
Porter, A.C., Kirst, M.W., Osthoff, E.J., Smithson, J.L., & Schneider, S.A. (1993). Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and NCE classrooms. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.
Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Allington, R., Block, C.C., Morrow, L., Tracey, D., Baker, K., Brooks, G., Cronin, J., Nelson, E., Woo, D. (2001). A study of effective first-grade literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(1), 35-58.
Rice, J.K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC: The Economic Policy Institute.
Richardson, V. & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (4 th. Ed. Pp. 905-947). Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.
Rivers, J.C. & Sanders, W.L. (1996). Research project report: Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
Roehrig, A.D., Dolezail, S.E., Mohan-Welsh, L., Bohn, C.M., & Pressley, M. (2003, April). The development of a tool to assess the quality of early-primary grade teachers’ classroom practices. Poster presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Rosenshine, B. & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (3rd. ed., p.376-391). New York: MacMillan.
Rozenholtz, S.J. (1989). Teacher’s workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman.
Rowan, B., Camburn, E., & Correnti, R. (2004). Using teacher logs to measure the enacted curriculum: A study of literacy teaching in 3 rd grade classrooms. Retrieved on March 30 from http:/www.sii.soe.umich/edu/papers.html
Rowan, B., Harrison, D., & Hayes, A. (2004). Using instructional logs to study elementary school mathematics: A close look at curriculum and teaching in the early grades. Elementary School Journal, 105, 103-127.
Saint-Laurent, L., Dionne, J., Giasson, J., Royer, E., Simard, C., & Pierard, B. (1998). Academic achievement effects of an in-class service model on students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64(2), 239-253.
Sharpe, M. N., York, J. L., & Knight, J. (1994). Effects of inclusion on the academic performance of classmates without disabilities. Remedial and Special education, 15(5)(281-287).
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
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.
Stallings, J. & Kaskowitz, D. (1974). Follow Through classroom observation evaluation 1972-1973 (SRI Project URU-7370). Stanford, CA: Stanford Research Institute.
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, RoutledgeFalmer (August)
Stanovich, P. & Jordan, A. (2000). Effective teaching as effective intervention. Learning Disabilities: A Multi-disciplinary Journal. 10(4) 235-238.
Stanovich, P. & Jordan, A. (1999). Exemplary teaching in inclusive classrooms. Thalamus, 17(1). 69-70.
Stanovich, P. & Jordan, A. (1998). Canadian teachers' and principals' beliefs about inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching in heterogeneous classrooms. Elementary School Journal. 98, 221-238.
Stough, L. & Palmer, D. (2003). Special thinking in special settings: A qualitative study of expert special educators. The Journal of Special Education, 36(4), 206-222.
Walsh, K. (2001). Teacher education reconsidered: Stumbling for quality. Retrieved January 15, 2001, from the Abell Foundation, Inc. Web site: http://www.abell.org/pubsf.htm.
Wayne, A.J. & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89-122.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12). Retrieved December 18, 2003 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/.
Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.
Wilson, S.M., Shulman, L.S., & Richert, A.E. (1987). ‘150 different ways’ of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Eds.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104-124). London: Cassell Educational Limited.
No Child Left Behind; Public Law 107-110, 201)
home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |