Docere est discere : Preparing undergraduates in special education to effectively teach

1. Docereestdiscere: Preparing undergraduates in special education to effectively teach • Presented by: Peter M. Post Jr. MA Dissertation chair: Sharon McNeely, Ph.D Committee member: Robert McKanna, Ed.D Program Chair – College of Education: Robert McKanna, Ed.D

2. Problem statement • How must teachers of special education be trained? • Not enough solid research to develop infallible guidelines (Sindelar, Brownell and Billingsley, 2010) • Essentials: verbal ability, content knowledge, educational coursework, certification and teaching experience (Stronge, Tucker and Hindman, 2004). • Did a classroom experience of tutoring students with special needs as undergraduates contribute to a perception of being prepared to teach for new teachers?

3. Definitions • Dispositions: way in which values, commitments and professional ethics manifest themselves in professional practice (Rinaldo et.al, 2009) • Exceptional child: differs from average child in mental characteristics, sensory abilities, communication, behavior and emotional development (Kirk, et.al, 2009) • Pre-service teacher candidates: persons in training to become teachers (in this study in a traditional, four-year college program).

4. Definitions (continued) • Program logic model: picture of how an organization does its work…linking outcomes with program activities (W.K. Kellog Foundation, 2004) • Service learning: as an instructional model allows students to learn by providing real-life service to meet community needs (Jenkins & Sheehey, 2009) • Tutoring: a systematic plan for supplementing the student’s educational program (Vaugh et al., 2011)

5. Significance of the Study • A need for teachers that are able to work with students that are struggling in school (Pugach, 2011) • Measuring skills that show dispositions to be good teachers has not always been done successfully (Darling-Hammond, 2010) • A realistic view of what teaching entails can be experienced by pre-service teacher candidates through tutoring, observations and student teaching (Haverback & Parault, 2008). • This study will highlight one model that incorporates coursework with field experience (tutoring).

6. Research question Did tutoring students with low incidence disabilities as college juniors contribute to a teacher’s perception of being prepared to teach when entering the job force?

7. Subquestions • Were there differences in the perception to be prepared to teach among those graduates that graduated more recently compared to those that had graduated longer ago? • Were there differences between the graduates that continued education coursework compared to those that have not done additional post-graduate work?

8. Literature Review • The need for field experience in teacher training: Teacher training facilities must design, implement and evaluate field experiences for pre-service teacher candidates in order to develop dispositions essential to help all students learn (NCATE, 2008, standard 3). “Training programs should be evaluated on how well their gradates are prepared for teaching, as opposed to the coursework they complete (Advance Illinois, 2009, p.12)

9. Literature review • The need for field service in special education Pre-service teacher candidates should have extensive field experiences and clinical practices interacting with exceptional students (NCATE, 2008). Pre-service teacher candidates may understand the concept of inclusive practices but feel unprepared to implement and operationalize the knowledge that they have gained (McCray & McHatton, 2011). Genuine experiences with students that have special needs during teacher training are impacted by limitations in resources, money, time and co-teaching opportunities (Harvey et al., 2011)

10. Major Studies • The Met Life Survey of the American Teacher has been used since 1984 to gauge educational issues in the United States. • The surveys began with the simple but provocative idea: to listen to teachers (Met Life, 2008). • In 2006 1001 teachers, 500 principals and 200 deans of education were interviewed to determine if teacher candidates were being adequately prepared to enter the schools to which they were hired.

11. Methodology: Research design • A mixed methodology with a quantitative and a qualitative piece. • Quantitatively, subject responses were compared to answers regarding perceptions of being prepared to teach expressed by teachers in the Met Life surveys. • Qualitatively, open-ended answers were elicited from the candidates relating to their perceptions of being prepared to teach in the undergraduate training.

12. Methodology: Population and sampling procedures • Surveys were sent to graduates of the training program that have graduated from the years 2006 – 2011 representing teachers with various years of experience.

13. Methodology: Instrumentation • The study followed guidelines for a program evaluation as expressed in the logic model to “prove” and “improve” program outputs (W.K. Kellogg, 2004). • Quantitatively, results from answers from the subjects compared to peers (as measured by the Met Life survey) sought to “prove” quality while • Qualitatively, threads in the responses regarding program strengths and weaknesses will be valuable for future planning to “improve” outcomes.

14. Methodology: Procedures • In addition to gathering results from the survey data, an opportunity to receive a one-page reflection written by the subject at the end of the course was offered to further enhance communication on program effectiveness

15. Methodology: Data processing and analysis • A comparative analysis was made with the answers given by the subjects compared to those of the Met Life teachers. • T-tests were conducted to check for internal differences among the graduates • Threads were developed that noted program strengths and indicated where weaknesses occurred.

16. Methodology: assumptions • Using the Kellogg (2004) model for the six steps of logical analysis of a program: • A. Assumption – the field experience of working with a student with special needs contributed to a perception of being prepared to teach when entering the field. • B. Inputs – pre-service teacher candidates • C. Activities – tutoring students with special needs during coursework on low incidence disabilities

17. Kellogg (2004) model (continued) • D. Outputs – gaining experience by tutoring students with special needs • E. Outcome – confidence in teaching ability when entering the field. • F. Impact – producing teachers that are able to work successfully with all students despite challenges of disability.

18. Methodology: Limitations • Small sample of subjects – the number of pre-service teachers enrolled in this class ranged from 16-24. • Surveys – an assumption was that the subjects answered honestly. • Graduates had developed a relationship with the instructor of the course who is also the researcher. • The data only reflected the subjects perception of their preparedness to teach and does not measure their actual effectiveness.

19. Results • Response rate to the survey was generally 56% with 60% of these responders also doing part 2 of the survey. • Participant Demographics by Frequency and Percent __________________________________________________________ • N=49 Frequency Percent • Class of 2006 2 4.1% • Class of 2007 12 24.5% • Class of 2008 7 14.3% • Class of 2009 11 22.4% • Class of 2010 6 12.2% Class of 2011 11 22.4%

20. In all answers to MetLife questions, graduates rated themselves more prepared as shown below: …to teach subject matter …to maintain order and discipline

21. The largest disparity in scores was noted in feeling prepared to work with children of varying abilities ExP = exceptionally prepared Not P = not prepared

22. On questions related to expectations, graduate scores indicate teaching conditions were either better than or what they expected to encounter

23. Internal differences noted by independent t-tests on earlier (x1) versus later (x2) graduates) • Table 2 • Significant survey items noted by independent sample t-test results comparing graduates of 2006-2008 with graduates from 2009-2011 • _____________________________________________________________________________________ • Survey Questions_______________________ t-score x1 x2 p ____ • 1. How prepared were you to teach the subject -2.881 3.59 4.24 .006 • matter? • 3. How prepared were you to work with children -2.976 3.86 4.52 .005 • of varying abilities? • 10. How prepared were you to help with bullying -2.284 2.95 3.56 .027 • in schools? • 13. How prepared were you to help students with -3.123 3.00 3.80 .003 • lack of support from parents? • 15. How prepared were you to help students from -2.083 3.09 3.68 .043 • poverty backgrounds?

24. and graduates that had not taken additional coursework (x1) versus those that had taken more classes (x2) • Table 3 • Significant items noted in independent sample t-test results comparing teachers that have not taken additional coursework since graduating to those students that have earned additional credit. • ____________________________________________________________________________________________ • Survey questions t-score x1 x2p • 1. How prepared were you to teach the subject 2.10 4.13 3.59 .046 • matter? • 3. How prepared were you to work with children 2.572 4.43 3.82 .015 • of varying abilities? • 7. How prepared were you to work collaboratively 2.282 4.33 3.76 .029 • with a mentor? • 12. How prepared were you to help your students 2.271 3.47 2.82 .030 • with obtaining/using proper nutrition?

25. Qualitative response common threads to questions of program strength and weakness • Elim +17 responses • Field placements/experiences/clinical hours +5 specifically • Student teaching +12 • Tutoring +10 • Novice Teaching +6 • Teacher aiding +5 • Special education placement +1 • Diverse classroom settings +11 responses • “Hands-on” experiences +7 responses • Encouraging/knowledgeable staff/professors +5 responses • Writing IEPs +4 responses • Experienced guest speakers +2 responses • Classroom observations +2 responses • Writing unit/lesson plans +2 responses What experiences do you remember that were significant in helping you feel prepared to teach?

26. What experiences do you remember that you feel were not helpful in preparing you to teach? • E-portfolios +4 responses • Writing reflections +3 responses • Busy work +3 responses • Projects in addition to student teaching +2 responses • Learning technology that has not been useful +2 responses • Novice teaching hours + 2 responses • 1 response each for • Class at Elim (not enough interaction time) • Too much emphasis on diverse placements • Book work (should have more case studies) • Regular education courses

27. How, if at all, did tutoring a student with special needs help you feel prepared to teach? • Planned individualized lessons/differentiated instruction +9 responses • Planned and used various types of methods taught in class +7 responses • Real world experience +6 responses • Worked one-on-one before moving to taking over a class +5 responses • Opportunity to think “outside the box” – be creative +4 responses • Bonded with a student +3 responses • Hands-on activities +3 responses • Improved ability to communicate +2 responses • Got direct feedback from the student +2 responses • A difference that we (tutor & tutee) made on each other +2 responses • Knew I was in the right field/re-energized me +2 responses • Could try things out without every move being watched +2 responses

28. What were two or three strengths of your college teacher training program? • Relations with professors/staff +27 responses • Multiple/diverse teaching experiences +13 responses • Small class size +8 responses • High number of clinical hours + 8 responses • Going into classrooms early in the program (sophomore year) +6 responses • First hand (hands-on) experiences +6 responses • Christian worldview +5 responses • High expectations + 3 responses • Sense of Christian community + 2 responses • Close partnership with area schools + 2 responses • Novice teaching + 2 responses • Organization of the program +2 responses • Experienced staff +2 responses

29. What do you feel were two or three weaknesses of your college teacher training program? • Electronic portfolio (hard to access, not useful) +6 responses • IEP training (no easy IEP, more training on goal writing) + 5 responses • Class scheduling (too many evening courses, not flexible, need summer/online courses) +4 responses  • Busy work +3 responses • Preparation for working with parents (i.e. training for conferences) + 3 responses • Lack of training to teach in a resource room setting +2 responses • Adjunct professors (merely paid readers) +2 responses • Lack of variety of SPED professors +2 responses • Outdated facilities +2 responses • More training needed in teaching reading +2 responses • Un-useful classes geared more for general ed. (i.e. reading in the content area) +2 responses • Need more experience in handling student behaviors & behavior plans +2 responses

30. Nine responders took the opportunity to make additional comments including: • One thing that I really feel college students should be more prepared in when going into special education is working with paras/aides in the classroom. Sometimes, as I experienced, you get some really good ones and some really difficult to work with. Learning what to do in those situations and how to maintain leadership would be a great course to add. • I think one thing that would be useful for a special education teacher to know is the different types of therapies out there. Parents ask questions all the time and it would be beneficial to learn them in school rather than in the field. • My professors used real personal experiences and real current situations to complement and improve textbook theory. It brought the materials to life and made it memorable to use in a classroom now.

31. Of the graduates that responded to part 2 of the survey … • 75% were able to correctly identify their tutee by name • and • 21% accurately recalled the scripture verse that they had used in their final course reflection

32. Discussion • Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005) suggest that “teacher education programs need to consider how they can engage in partnerships with schools and districts that work to transform schooling and teaching in tandem (p.5).” Evidence from this program evaluation would indicate that having undergraduate students tutoring students with special needs as juniors contributed to their perception of being prepared to enter the field with legitimate expectations.

33. Quantitative Indicators • Graduates of the program consistently rated themselves as more prepared to enter the teaching profession than the population of teachers surveyed by MetLife and • on questions related to meeting expectations when initially teaching, graduates found that conditions met or exceeded their expectations across the board.

34. Qualitative Input • Tutoring a student with special needs was cited most often as a significant experience that contributed to being prepared to teach. Most responses also indicated some sort of “hands-on” training or actual field experiences. • Graduates noted learning how to differentiate instruction and using methods taught in class as the top two ways that tutoring a student with special needs prepared them for teaching.

35. Regarding the college training program overall.. • the top strength of the program noted by the graduates was being able to form relations with professors and staff along with small class size. • Multiple/ diverse teaching experiences, the high number of clinical hours, going into classroom early in the program and first-hand educational experiences were prominently mentioned as top program strengths.

36. In regard to weaknesses • Although all responses to the tutoring experience were positive, one graduate indicated that there was not enough contact provided with staff and programs – “a good idea but poorly executed.” • Top responses to the question about “unhelpful” experiences included electronic portfolios, writing reflections and busy work as those items cited most frequently.

37. And weaknesses for the college program overall saw • Electronic portfolios again being mentioned most frequently with “busy work” also being noted. • There were multiple responses regarding training on IEPs, preparing to work with parents, and training to work in a resource room environment. • Lack of flexible class scheduling, variety of professors, and outdated facilities were also cited by some as weaknesses.

38. Possible explanations for the discrepancy of later graduates feeling more prepared to teach. • Two changes that have occurred in the tutoring program include: • A) during the first years of implementation, college students only worked with their tutees on assignments given by classroom teachers whereas more currently the college students provide activities during the final 10 sessions of the class. • B) more current students have also been required to produce a transition plan for their tutee as part of their course evaluation.

39. College program change • A college program change that has gone into effect over the last four years is the requirement of special education majors to be double majors in education which means they have now been required to take additional methods classes in science, mathematics, and history (which often implement contact with actual students as well).

40. Possible reasons for those taking postgraduate courses feeling less prepared to teach • One possibility that was investigated was that these were students that had also graduated earlier in the program but an examination of the graduations dates proved that this was random. • A simple explanation could be that these graduates felt as if they needed more education to become better (more prepared) teachers but increased education (like program evaluations) are constantly benefitted by doing more research.

41. Additional factors to consider • Graduates from this institution go on to teach in both public and private schools. Taking into account the school at which the graduate was able to find employment, and if that school may have been one at which they student taught, may have also contributed to their perception of being prepared to teach there and fulfilling expectations as the graduate embarked upon their teaching career.

42. Questions or comments?

43. References • Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance can measured and improve teaching. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/pdf/teacher_effectiveness.pdf. • Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass • Harvey, M. W., Yssel, N., Bauserman, A. D., & Merbler, J. B. (2010). Preservice teacher preparation for inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 31(1), 24-33. doi:10.1177/0741932508324397 • Haverback, H. R. and Parault. S. J. (2008). Pre-service reading teacher efficacy and tutoring: A review. Educational Psychological Review, 20, 237-255. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9077-4.

44. References • Jenkins, A., & Sheehey, P. (2009). Implementing service learning in special education coursework: What we learned. Education, 129(4), 668-682. • Kirk, S., Gallagher, J.J., Coleman, M.R. and Anastasiow. (2009). Education Exceptional Children. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

45. References • McCray, E. D., & McHatton, P. A. (2011). "Less afraid to have them in my classroom": Understanding pre-service general educators preceptions about inclusion. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(4), 135-155. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/923754422?accountid=34899 • Metropolitan Life Insurance, C. (2008). The Met Life Survey of the American teacher, 2008: Past, present and future. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. • National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2008). Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation Institutions. Retrieved from NCATE website: http://ncate.org.

46. References • Pugach, M.C., Blanton, L.P., & Correa, V.I. (2011). A historical perspective on the role of collaboration in teacher education reform: Making good on the promise of teaching all students. Teacher Education and Special Education 34(3), 183-200. doi:10.1177/0888406411406141. • Rinaldo, V. J., Denig, S. J., Sheeran, T. J., Cramer-Benjamin, R., Vermette, P. J., Foote, C. J., & Smith, R. (2009). Developing the intangible qualities of good teaching: self-study. Education, 130(1), 42-52. • Sindelar, P.T., Brownell, M.T., & Billingsley. (2010). Special education teacher education research: Current status and future directions. Teacher Education and Special Education33(1), 8-24. doi:10.1177/0888406409358593

47. References • Stronge, J. H., Tucker, P. D., & Hindman, J. L. (2004). Handbook for Qualities of Effective Teachers. Assoc. for Supervision and Curriculum Development. • Vaugh, S.R., Bos, C.S., and Schumm, J.S. (2011). Teaching students who are exceptional, diverse, and at risk in the general education classroom. Upper Saddle River: NJ. PearsonPublishing. • W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide. retrieved from http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/PED/Resources/documents/LogicModelGuide.pdf.