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. EdD (Trinity Christian College) with seniors: Katie Gesch Samantha Murphy and Sarah Rodgers.

2. Topic: Partnerships to enhance the learning of pre-service teachers and Christian day schoolers • We will be looking at a partnership between Trinity Christian College and Elim Christian School plus brainstorming other ways that schools could enhance learning through such partnerships.

3. Dr. Post researched the effectiveness of the Trinity/Elim partnership through a program evaluation covering 6 years

4. 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?

5. 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?

6. 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).

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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%

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

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

15. A look at those numbers: • I. During your first teaching position how prepared were you to… • EP VPPPNtPNaA • 1. teach the subject matter • 25.0% 45.8% 25.0% 4.2% 0.0% • 16% 46% 32% 6% 1% • 2. maintain order and discipline • 27.1% 39.6% 27.1% 4.2% 2.1% • 11% 28% 40% 17% 3% • 3. work with children of varying abilities • 41.7% 39.6% 16.7% 2.1% 0.0% • 8% 26% 40% 23% 2% • 4. engage families in supporting their children’s education • 14.6% 45.8% 31.3% 8.3% 0.0% • 8% 25% 41% 22% 4%

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

17. 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?

18. Possible explanations for the discrepancy of later graduates feeling more prepared to teach. • 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) Currently students have also been required to produce a transition plan for their tutee as part of their course evaluation. • C) 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).

19. Also note 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?

20. 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 or that increased education was tied to employment requirements and some of the graduates (especially those working in public schools) had to take more credit hours.

21. 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

22. Qualitative response themes: What college experiences prepared you to teach? Most significant Least helpful E-portfolios (+4 responses) Writing reflections +3 Busywork +3 Projects in addition to student teaching +2 Learning technology that has not been useful +2 Novice teaching hours +2 • Elim (+17 responses) • Student teaching +12 • Diverse classroom settings +11 • Tutoring +10 • “Hands-on” experiences +7 • Novice teaching +6 • Encouraging/knowledge-able professors +5

23. What were the strengths and weaknesses of your college training program? Strengths Weaknesses Electronic portfolio (+6 responses) IEP training +5 Class scheduling +4 Busywork +3 Preparation for working with parents +3 Lack of training in a resource setting +2 • Relations with professors/staff (+27 responses) • Multiple/diverse teaching experiences +13 • Small class size +8 • Going into classrooms early in the program +6 • Christian worldview +5

24. 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

25. Summary and Recommendations • Indications from this program evaluation would confirm that graduates perceived themselves as being prepared to teach upon entering the profession and that tutoring students with special needs during teacher training contributed to this confidence level. Program changes that increased exposure to real students and provided genuine teaching experiences may have contributed to preservice teachers feeling even more prepared. This would suggest that teacher training programs should continue to promote school partnerships and share unique concepts that benefit college students as well as the schools being served.

26. 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. • 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. • 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.

27. 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 • 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.

28. Questions or comments?