A Model for Preparing Special and General Education Preservi

7/28/2019 A Model for Preparing Special and General Education Preservi

1/17

http://jte.sagepub.com

Journal of Teacher Education

DOI: 10.1177/0022487107306803

2007; 58; 440Journal of Teacher EducationToni R. Van Laarhoven, Dennis D. Munk, Kathleen Lynch, Julie Bosma and Joanne Rouse

A Model for Preparing Special and General Education Preservice Teachers for Inclusive Educatio

http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/58/5/440The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)

can be found at:Journal of Teacher EducationAdditional services and information for

http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/58/5/440Citations

by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://www.aacte.org/http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/58/5/440http://jte.sagepub.com/http://jte.sagepub.com/http://jte.sagepub.com/http://jte.sagepub.com/http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/58/5/440http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.aacte.org/


2/17

440

A MODEL FOR PREPARING SPECIAL AND

GENERAL EDUCATION PRESERVICE TEACHERS

FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Toni R. Van Laarhoven

Northern Illinois University

Dennis D. Munk

Carthage College

Kathleen Lynch

Northern Illinois University

Julie BosmaJoanne Rouse

Regional Access and Mobilization Project

Project ACCEPT (Achieving Creative & Collaborative Educational Preservice Teams) representsan initiative at Northern Illinois University, where special and general education preserviceteachers are joined in a voluntary project featuring an enhanced curriculum and field experiencesin inclusive classrooms. Participants receive intensive preparation in use of assistive technologies,functional behavioral assessment, and instructional accommodations as well as experience design-ing lesson plans that include features of universal design. This article describes the specific featuresof the Project ACCEPT curriculum and outcomes for the first year of implementation.

Keywords: inclusive education; preservice preparation; collaboration; coteaching

The widespread practice of including studentswith exceptionalities in general education class-rooms, often called inclusive education, hasincreased expectations for both special and gen-eral educators and has sparked discussion,debate, and structural changes in teacher prepa-ration programs (e.g., Blanton, Griffin, Winn, &Pugach, 1997; Fisher, Frey, & Thousand, 2003;Kilgore & Griffin, 1998; Stayton & McCollum,2002; Strawderman & Lindsey, 1995). Along withthe expanded responsibilities of educators ininclusive environments have come cautionaryreports suggesting that special (Fisher et al., 2003;Kilgore & Griffin, 1998) and general (Davern,1999; Lesar, Benner, Habel, & Coleman, 1997;Schumm & Vaughn, 1991) educators may nothave the necessary attitudes or dispositions, orperhaps more important, the professional skills tosuccessfully instruct students in diverse, inclusive

classrooms. Although professional developmentfor in-service teachers remains a prominentapproach to preparing for inclusive education,increased emphasis has been placed on the rolesand responsibilities of teacher preparation pro-grams to prepare new educators for teaching ininclusive classrooms.

Restructuring of teacher preparation programshas been widely recommended as a means tobetter prepare preservice special and general edu-cators for inclusive settings. Literature describingprogrammatic changes suggests that restructur-ing may include a range, or continuum, of initia-tives designed to improve readiness of graduatesfor inclusive education. At one end of the contin-uum are initiatives in which distinct programs forspecial and general educators have been meldedinto a unified teacher preparation program inwhich all teacher candidates undertake an

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007 440-455DOI: 10.1177/0022487107306803 2007 by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

http://jte.sagepub.com/http://jte.sagepub.com/http://jte.sagepub.com/http://jte.sagepub.com/


3/17

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007 441

expanded program designed to meet the guide-lines and standards for both special and generaleducation certifications (e.g., Jenkins, Pateman,& Black, 2002; Sindelar, Pugach, Griffin, & Seidl,1995). Although they are viewed as an ideal

model for teacher preparation (Blanton et al.,1997; Hinders 1995; Lesar et al., 1997), unifiedprograms may never achieve large-scale adop-tion because of potential barriers such as cost,disincentives to extend the length and require-ments of undergraduate programs, and bothhuman and institutional resistance to dramaticchanges in the structure of colleges of educationand individual teacher preparation programs(Lesar et al., 1997).

A more prevalent initiative to improveteacher preparation involves what may be

called enhancement of existing programs byadding new courses or field experiences, or byrevising the content and requirements for exist-ing courses or experiences for special and/orgeneral education programs (Strawderman &Lindsey, 1995). Program enhancements mayalso involve the creation of shared, even collab-orative, experiences for special and general edu-cation preservice teachers (e.g., Nowacek &Blanton, 1996; Peterson & Beloin, 1998). Infusionof content into existing classes has also been usedto enhance the preparation of general education

teacher candidates (Cook, 2002; Lombardi &Hunka, 2001). Generally speaking, initiativeswithin teacher preparation programs to improvereadiness of special and general educators forservice in inclusive classrooms have varied sig-nificantly in scope and content.

A positive attitude or disposition towardstudents with exceptionalities is a prerequisite fordevelopment of effective strategies in inclusiveclassrooms (Blanton, 1992; Brantlinger, 1996).Examples of curricula designed to facilitate posi-tive attitude and disposition include use of simu-lation activities and personal interactions withstudents with disabilities (Peterson & Beloin,1998). Although attitudes provide the basis forbeing willing to support inclusive practices, itmay be more meaningful to focus on the devel-opment of skills and/or competencies necessaryfor supporting students in inclusive classrooms.

Researchers who have made recommenda-tions regarding the competencies required for

special and general educators in inclusive set-tings have suggested that collaborative teamingand teaching skills are of paramount importance(Jenkins et al., 2002; Pugach, 1996). However,these skills are not often adequately addressed in

preparatory programs (Voltz & Elliott, 1997).Preservice educators, also referred to as teachercandidates, benefit from instruction on specificcollaborative behaviors and, perhaps moreimportant, opportunities to collaborate withtheir special or general education counterpartsduring their education. Thus, program enhance-ments that create shared courses and field expe-riences may be more effective than those thatprovide content on collaborative skills withoutopportunities to practice collaboration.

Field experiences in diverse, inclusive class-

rooms have been strongly recommended forpreparing teachers for inclusive education (Lesaret al., 1997; Nowacek & Blanton, 1996). Indeed,experiential learning has been touted as havingmore impact on the development of teacher can-didates than other aspects of their programs(Sileo, Prater, Luckner, Rhine, & Rude, 1998;Stowitschek, Cheney, & Schwartz, 2000). Theimpact of field experiences is further enhancedwhen undertaken early in the program and aspart of a team that includes counterparts fromspecial or general education programs. In sum,

field experiences in inclusive classrooms andpreparation for collaborative teaming andteaching have garnered significant support asintegral components of teacher preparationprograms.

Several additional competencies have beendescribed in the professional literature. Skill inmaking curricular and instructional accommo-dations and modifications has been identifiedas critical for both special and general educa-tors (Fisher et al., 2003) and may be more use-ful to teachers than knowledge of diagnosticcriteria and characteristics of specific disabili-ties (Peterson & Beloin, 1998). In addition to theaforementioned competencies, Fisher et al.(2003) suggested that preparation programsfocus on fostering knowledge and skill in theareas of assistive technologies, supervision ofparaeducators, and positive behavioral support.

In essence, the need for restructuring ofteacher preparation programs in response to



4/17

442 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007

increasing diversity and inclusiveness ofpublic school classrooms has evolved from dis-cussion and debate more than a decade ago toa continuum of initiatives in programs acrossthe country. These initiatives have several

influences that might include changes in certi-fication laws, standards-based reform, feedbackfrom graduates, or interests of particular faculty.Such was the case in the Department of Teachingand Learning at Northern Illinois University,when Project ACCEPT (Achieving Creative &Collaborative Educational Preservice Teams) wasinitiated. The remainder of this article willdescribe the components, outcome measures,and results to date for the project.

PROJECT ACCEPT: BACKGROUND

AND FOUNDATIONS

Project ACCEPT represents an initiative in theDepartment of Teaching and Learning atNorthern Illinois University to enhance thepreparatory programs for special and generalteacher candidates. As was the case for many ofthe aforementioned initiatives, Project ACCEPTwas a response to implementation of standards-based certification requirements for special andgeneral education teachers in Illinois and recog-nition within the college and department that

graduating teachers would benefit fromprogram enhancements focusing on inclusiveeducation. Unique features of Project ACCEPTinclude a partnership with an outside agency toinform content of the project and support pro-vided by a grant from a state agency.

The State Board of Education initiated thedevelopment of learning standards for K-12students that resulted in an increased emphasison inclusive methodologies, instructional andcurricular accommodations, functional behav-

ioral assessment, collaborative skills, andknowledge of assistive technologies for bothspecial and general education preserviceteachers. The learning standards providedadditional direction for the need to providemore interaction among the teacher candidatesand faculty in the Department of Teaching andLearning. Prior to initiating the project, the dis-tinct programs in special education, elemen-tary education, and secondary education did

not provide for interaction between preserviceeducators or the faculty teaching in thoseprograms. Teacher candidates in the elemen-tary and secondary education programs wererequired to take a traditional mainstreaming

course, whereas the special education majorswere not required to take that or any othercourse focusing on inclusive education. In aneffort to enhance the programs for all threegroups of teacher candidates, the traditionalclass was revised and was added as a requiredcourse for special education majors as well,thus creating a shared experience.

As a means to inform the content and to pro-vide ample resources for the new class, theDepartment of Teaching and Learning collabo-rated with the Regional Access and Mobilization

Project, which is a center for independent livingagency that supports individuals with disabilities,to pursue and receive a 4-year grant from theIllinois Council on Developmental Disabilities.The purpose of the grant was to develop andevaluate an innovative model for preparingteachers for service and leadership in inclusiveschools. As an advocacy organization for indi-viduals with disabilities and their families, theRegional Access and Mobilization Project con-tributed expertise in shaping positive attitudesand dispositions toward individuals with dis-

abilities as well as access to families of studentswith disabilities. The faculty in the universityfocused on the logistics of restructuring,development of field-based experiences, andmeeting state standards through enhance-ment of critical competencies for all preserviceteachers.

In general, the context for Project ACCEPTinvolved the convergence of state and institu-tional initiatives to restructure teacher prepara-tion, partnership with an outside agency, and asuccessful grant proposal that funded a projectcoordinators position as well as technologyand materials for project activities.

STRUCTURE OF PROJECT ACCEPT

During the pilot year, participation in ProjectACCEPT was voluntary for special, elemen-tary, and secondary education majors. The pro-ject consisted of attendance in a 10-hour



5/17


institute prior to the beginning of a semester,enrollment in a designated section of thecourse Collaborative Teaching in InclusiveSettings (TLSE 456), completion of a field expe-rience in an inclusive classroom, and enhanced

instruction in the areas of functional behavioralassessment, instructional accommodations,and assistive technology (for which hands-onexperiences were required). Participation in theproject was voluntary due to the fact thatteacher candidates had to agree to engage inadditional activities that required travel to clin-ical sites and to attend the institute prior to thestart of the semester. In addition, during thepilot year, the identified course was not arequired course for graduation among specialeducation majors; they needed to take the

course as an elective. Each component of theproject will be outlined below.

Institute

The institute consisted of a series of activitiesdesigned to facilitate positive attitudes and dis-positions toward individuals with disabilitiesand their inclusion in regular classrooms. Forteam-building activities, participants were placedinto cohorts that included teacher candidates inspecial education, elementary education, andsecondary education. In addition, participantsengaged in simulation activities wherein theyexperienced what it would be like to be a studentwith disabilities in classroom settings (with bothpositive and negative experiences).

Course

During the semester, the class met for 3 hoursonce per week. Course materials included a textby Friend and Bursuck (2003) and a packet of

readings and materials selected to address criticalcompetencies such as universal lesson plandesign, collaboration, functional behavioralassessment, assistive technology, and additionaltopics. Individuals with disabilities, in-serviceeducators (some with disabilities themselves),and parents served as guest speakers for thecourse. To promote consistency in experiencesfor participants in all sections of the course, the

materials were arranged by topic areas intomodules. The topics covered within each mod-ule addressed many of the Illinois ProfessionalTeaching Standards.

Clinical Experience

A major distinction between the traditionalcourse and Project ACCEPT was the clinicalexperience. Cohorts in Project ACCEPT com-pleted a field experience in an inclusive class-room near the end of the semester, after havingcollaborated on a simulated lesson plan as a classassignment. The cohorts were required to spenda minimum of 6 hours in an inclusive classroom,culminating in the delivery of a coplanned andcotaught lesson on the last visit. Although most

teacher candidates eventually had some experi-ences in inclusive classrooms during the courseof their education, prior to the implementationof this clinical experience, there were no system-atic requirements to ensure that all preserviceeducators would have opportunities to coplanand coteach in inclusive classrooms. This fieldexperience differed in that it had to be in aninclusive classroom and coplanning andcoteaching were required.

When cohorts cotaught their lessons, the pro-ject coordinator or other project staff observedthe lessons and completed an evaluation form.Reflective meetings were held after each lesson,and the cooperating teachers were invited to pro-vide feedback. To conserve space, the coursemodules, standards that were addressed, andmaterials will not be described in detail; however,copies can be obtained from the authors or byvisiting the Project ACCEPT Web site (http://www.cedu.niu.edu/tlrn/projectaccept/).

Specific Competencies

To promote increased competence in the useof instructional accommodations, cohorts prac-ticed matching accommodations to studentprofiles described in vignettes. Based on theinformation provided in the vignettes, teachercandidates completed a project involvingdesign of a universally designed lesson planfor a diverse classroom of learners. Throughout



6/17


the course, participants were given instruction onthe integration of assistive technologies intoclassroom environments. Demonstrations of howto use the technologies were presented and inter-spersed throughout other modules and during

lesson plan development. Participants were thenrequired to perform proficiency checkoutsusing a variety of assistive technology devicesand programs (e.g., program an augmentativecommunication device, operate text-reading soft-ware). In addition, enriched experiences in func-tional behavioral assessment were provided.These included in-class demonstrations andpractice completing data collection forms fordetermining the function of behavior. The enrich-ment activities offered in Project ACCEPT sup-plemented the reading material, lecture, and

discussion that occurred in both the experimentaland control classes. The structure and content ofthe Project ACCEPT section of TLSE 456 (thecourse designator) was, in effect, being field-tested during the initial year of the project. Thegoal for the 4-year project was to standardize thecontent for all sections (with a minimum of sixsections per semester being offered).

The content and activities for the projectwere based on recommendations within theprofessional literature, feedback from gradu-ates, and the learning standards required by

the state. Major competencies included (a) pos-itive attitude and disposition toward individu-als with exceptionalities, (b) knowledge andpractice of collaborative and teaming skills, (c)knowledge of family issues and strategies forcollaboration with families, (d) knowledge andapplication of universal design for learning inlesson plan development for inclusive class-rooms, (e) knowledge and capability withassistive technologies, and (f) knowledge andapplication of positive behavioral support.

Participants in the Project

Experimental group. There were a total of 53teacher candidates participating in ProjectACCEPT across two semesters. The two ACCEPTclasses consisted of 46 women and 7 men, and ofthose, 15 were in special education, 13 were in sec-ondary education, and 25 were in elementaryeducation. The secondary majors came from

various programs from the College of Liberal Artsand Sciences (i.e., history, psychology, sociology,and biology). To be eligible for participation, theteacher candidates/preservice educators wererequired to have had at least one early clinical

experience prior to enrolling in the course or beenrolled in an early clinical during the samesemester as the ACCEPT course.

Control group (C group). Because ProjectACCEPT consisted of enhancements to the exist-ing mainstreaming course, three sections of thetraditional class were chosen to serve as the Cgroup for the project. It is important to note thatthe materials and instruction for the traditional, orcontrol, sections were based on a curriculum thathad been developed by the department to meet

the professional teaching standards and to preparegraduates for inclusive settings. Faculty observa-tions and teacher candidate evaluations suggestedhigh levels of satisfaction with the course. Datawere collected from three different traditionalclasses. Atotal of 66 preservice educators agreed toparticipate; however, only 53 completed both thepre and post instruments (i.e., 13 men, 40 women).

Major distinctions. To summarize, the curricu-lum for the control classes included the sametextbook that was used in the experimental

classes. The three curricular areas specifically tar-geted by Project ACCEPTfunctional behavioralassessment, curricular accommodations, andassistive technologywere also covered in thecourse text or materials, but practice activitieswere not provided. The most prominent distinc-tions between the traditional class and the ProjectACCEPT experience were that the former did notinclude a collaborative clinical experience,enhanced instruction with hands-on experiencesfor the three topical areas described above, aninstitute, or involvement of a community agency.

In addition, there were no special educationmajors in the control sections, thereby limitingopportunities for sharing of expertise and collab-oration during in-class exercises.

Methods of Evaluation

The goal in determining the outcomes, ordependent variables, for the project was to



7/17


evaluate not only the teacher candidates atti-tudes or dispositions toward inclusive educa-tion but also their competency in implementingcritical strategies prior to and following theirexperience (pretest and posttest measures).

Toward this end, two survey instrumentsdescribed previously in the literature wereselected to assess attitudes, and original curricu-lar probes were developed to assess competencein the areas of functional behavioral assessment,instructional accommodations, and use of assis-tive technologies. The same instruments wereused during pre and post measures.

Curricular probes. To assess the preservice edu-cators knowledge and competence in the areasof functional behavioral assessment, instruc-

tional accommodations, and assistive technol-ogy, participants from the experimental and Cgroups provided written responses to a series ofprompts or questions related to a vignette. One-page vignettes describing a classroom scenarioand a particular students strengths and chal-lenges were developed for each of the three top-ics. Participants were instructed to read thevignettes, write responses to a series of questionsasking about the precise challenges for thestudent, and describe strategies that might behelpful.

To ensure content validity for the probes, thefirst and second authors identified criticalknowledge and skills in the areas of functionalbehavioral assessment, instructional adapta-tions, and assistive technology. Coverage of crit-ical content within the course materials wasverified, and draft vignettes were generated.Other project staff and in-service teachersenrolled in graduate courses responded to mul-tiple drafts of the probes until clarity in expecta-tions and consistency in responses wereachieved. A rubric was used to score the writtenresponses to the curricular probes. Responseswere scored for accuracy, comprehensiveness,and specificity, using a 3-point scale (3 = fullydeveloped, 2 =partially developed, 1 = undeveloped,0 = no response). The scoring rubric included cri-teria and examples developed for each of thetopical vignettes. Interrater reliability was deter-mined across three project staff who practicedscoring responses until they reached 100%

agreement on five consecutive probes withineach category. The probes (control and exper-imental) were then randomly assigned tothree different scorers. To prevent scoringbias, numbers were assigned to the probes,

and names were removed. Interobserveragreement was conducted on 23% of theprobes using the percentage agreement index(agreements/agreements + disagreements 100). Responses within each category weregiven a score (3, 2, or 1), and the score had tomatch between observers to be scored as anagreement. Reliability was calculated for eachcategory, and the following agreement scoreswere obtained: (a) functional behavioralassessment = 86%, (b) instructional accommo-dations = 78%, and (c) assistive technology =

84% agreement. In addition, to ensure that datawere entered correctly for the rating scales, asecond project staff member rechecked thescores and found that all scores were enteredcorrectly.

Attitudinal surveys. Two different surveyswere used to assess the attitudes and disposi-tions of both the Project ACCEPT and Controlgroups toward inclusive education and the useof specific instructional strategies. The AttitudesToward Inclusion survey was adapted from the

original version described in Minke, Bear,Deemer, and Griffin (1996). The adaptationsinvolved primarily reformatting of the surveyand the addition of three items. This rating scaleconsisted of 10 items (i.e., statements regardingassumptions underlying inclusion) that wererated on a 6-point scale (i.e., strongly disagree tostrongly agree). These items appear in Table 1.

Minke et al. (1996) reported a validation pro-cedure for the attitudinal survey that involvedconsultation with staff from the school districtto ensure the applicability of questions forteachers both within and outside inclusiveclassrooms (p. 158). The instrument wasreviewed multiple times based on feedbackfrom school personnel (p. 158). The original sur-vey also included items from the TeacherEfficacy Scale (Soodak & Podell, 1993), andMinke et al. reported results of a componentanalysis confirming two factors that influenceteacher candidate learning: (a) personal abilities



8/17


TABLE 1 Growth Differences: Responses to Attitudes Toward Inclusion Survey

EG ES C

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Statements in Survey M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

1. I am familiar with inclusion. 4.00 1.63 5.75 0.76 5.27 0.70 5.93 0.27 4.09 1.26 5.53 0.63

2. The needs of the majority 4.18 1.25 4.91 1.23 3.73 1.58 4.21 1.31 3.51 1.05 4.67 1.10

of children with disabilities

can be met in the regular

classroom.

3. The social and emotional 3.26 1.39 2.53 1.44 3.64 1.28 3.07 1.33 3.41 1.16 2.84 1.40

needs of children with

disabilities are better met

in special classes than

regular classes.

4. The social and emotional 1.76 1.02 1.60 1.04 1.60 0.63 1.79 1.19 2.45 1.24 1.87 1.07

needs of children without

disabilities are negatively

affected when integrated among

children with disabilities.

5. Teaching children with 2.24 1.22 1.84 1.19 1.93 0.96 2.14 1.51 2.88 1.23 2.40 1.20disabilities is asking too

much of regular teachers.

6. Only minor adjustments will be 3.00 1.34 3.69 1.51 2.80 1.42 3.00 1.66 2.40 1.13 3.64 1.38

needed to teach all students

in the regular classroom.

7. Good teachers can teach 4.68 1.43 4.50 1.81 4.53 1.60 5.08 1.61 3.80 1.47 4.80 1.11

all students.

8. Special education teachers are 4.61 1.67 4.80 1.18 5.20 0.56 5.07 1.33 5.12 1.06 5.04 1.09

better trained than regular

classroom teachers to teach

children with disabilities

9. Special education teachers are 3.84 1.59 3.78 1.43 4.00 1.46 4.29 1.43 4.62 1.15 4.56 1.00

more effective than regular

classroom teachers in teaching

children with disabilities.10. Special education teachers 3.84 1.64 3.53 1.48 4.33 0.90 4.36 1.28 4.23 1.08 4.05 1.31

use different teaching methods

than regular teachers.

Growth Differences for Three Groups

Effect Size (Cohensd)

F Statistic andp Value

Statements in Survey Growth Difference EG ES C

1. I am familiar with inclusion. F(2, 98) = 3.52, p= .033 1.37 .51 1.13

2. The needs of the majority of children F(2, 96) = 2.73, p= .070 .42 .35 1.09

with disabilities can be met in the

regular classroom.

3. The social and emotional needs of F(2, 97) = 0.08, p= .925 .44 .35 .36

children with disabilities are better metin special classes than regular classes.

4. The social and emotional needs of children F(2, 98) = 2.83, p= .064 .14 .15 .48

without disabilities are negatively affected

when integrated among children

with disabilities.

5. Teaching children with disabilities is asking F(2, 98) = 2.50, p= .087 .31 .22 .45

too much of regular teachers.

6. Only minor adjustments will be needed to F(2, 97) = 2.50, p= .089 .49 .14 .77

teach all students in the regular classroom.

(continued)



9/17


and skills and (b) external factors such as homeenvironment. Items added for Project ACCEPT

addressed familiarity with inclusion, percep-tions of the amount of adjustment needed forstudents with disabilities, and whether skilledteachers can teach all children. These itemswere validated through field testing with in-service teachers enrolled in graduate courses.

The second survey, Instructional Adaptations,was also adapted from an original versiondescribed in Minke et al. (1996). Using a 4-pointscale, respondents rated the desirability, feasibil-ity, and frequency of use for six common adapta-tions: (a) adapting daily assignments, (b)

providing alternate materials, (c) monitoring forunderstanding, (d) individualizing instruction,(e) using different classroom management strate-gies, and (f) using different grading criteria. Theoriginal survey consisted of six items selectedfrom the Adaptation Evaluation Instrument(Schumm & Vaughn, 1991), and componentanalyses were conducted to confirm internalconsistency of the selected items (Minke et al.,p. 161). Mean scores for desirability, feasibility,and frequency of use are reported in Table 2.

RESULTS

Results will be presented for special educa-tion majors within the experimental group (ESgroup), general education majors within theexperimental group (EG group), and theteacher candidates in the Control Group (Cgroup). The rationale for separating the twomajors within the experimental group was that

special education majors may have had previ-ous exposure to some content in their other

courses, especially in the areas of assistive tech-nology and functional behavioral assessment.Mean pretest scores on the curricular probes, tobe described later, were higher for the ESgroup, suggesting that they entered the projectwith more background knowledge than theircounterparts. Reporting results for the ES andEG groups separately highlights the relativebenefits each group received from participat-ing in the project.

The analyses for the written responses to thecurricular probes and for the surveys included

both a parametric test (ANOVA) for differencesin the growth from the pretest to the posttestfor the three groups and effect sizes, whichindicate the magnitude of the growth from thepretest to the posttest (presented in Tables 1through 3). An ANOVA was also used to deter-mine any differences in the posttest scores for thethree groups. Evaluating the effectiveness of amultifaceted intervention such as ProjectACCEPT requires consideration of its impact ondifferent types of teacher candidates, with theexpectation that impact will vary across differenttypes of teacher candidates. Effect sizes revealthe relative impact of the project across specialeducation and general education majors withinthe experimental group and the impact of thetraditional course for the C group.

Table 3 presents the individual and com-bined pretest and posttest means and standarddeviations for the curricular probes. The topportion of the table presents the means and

TABLE 1 (continued)



Statements in Survey Growth Difference EG ES C

7. Good teachers can teach all students. F(2, 96) = 7.04, p= .001 .13 .31 .71

8. Special education teachers are better F(2, 98) = 0.06, p= .942 .04 .14 .05trained than regular classroom teachers

to teach children with disabilities

9. Special education teachers are more effective F(2, 98) = 0.84, p= .433 .18 .23 .07

than regular classroom teachers in teaching

children with disabilities.

10. Special education teachers use different F(2, 98) = 0.83, p= .438 .33 .00 .05

teaching methods than regular teachers.

NOTE: EG = experimental group, general education; ES = experimental group, special education; C = control group, general education.

Responses are on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree).



10/17


standard deviations for pretest and posttestscores for each group on each of the threeprobes as well as for the total (combined)probes scores. The bottom portion presents theresults of the ANOVA, specifically the F valueand probability, conducted to determine poten-tial differences in the growth (differencebetween the pretest and posttest scores) among

the three groups. As evidenced in the table,significant differences were found in the growthfor the probes on functional behavioral assess-ment, F(2, 97) = 5.67,p = .005, assistive technology,F(2, 97) = 18.90,p = .000, and the combined probetotals for all three groups, F(2, 97) = 11.61,p = .000.Tukey post hoc pairwise comparisons (Hopkins& Glass, 1978) revealed that the growth scores on

TABLE 2 Growth Effects for Instructional Adaptations Survey

EG ES C

Responses to Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Instructional

Adaptations M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Desirabilitya 17.89 5.18 18.94 4.00 19.4 2.95 21.93 2.16 18.05 3.39 19.24 3.38

Feasibilityb 16.82 4.33 19.19 3.32 18.8 3.17 20.00 2.42 16.47 2.87 18.29 2.87

Frequencyc 12.82 3.56 15.16 3.60 15.2 3.32 15.71 4.60 13.50 2.97 15.89 3.10



Responses to Instructional F Statistic andp Value

Adaptations Growth Difference EG ES C

Desirability F(2, 98) = 0.61, p= .543 .30 .74 .39

Feasibility F(2, 97) = 0.56, p= .574 .49 .29 .59

Frequency F(2, 97) = 1.43, p= .244 .45 .11 .53


a. Responses are on a 4-point scale (1 = not desirable, 4 = highly desirable).

b. Responses are on a 4-point scale (1 = not feasible, 4 = highly feasible).

c. Responses are on a 4-point scale (1 = rarely/never, 4 = almost always).

TABLE 3 Growth Effects for Written Responses to Probes

EG ES C

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Written Responses to Vignettes M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Functional behavioral 2.84 1.13 4.18 1.17 3.27 1.03 4.46 1.33 2.35 1.12 2.83 1.02

assessmenta

Accommodationsa 3.79 1.36 5.29 1.03 4.47 1.13 5.15 0.90 3.34 1.30 4.24 1.11

Assistive technologya 2.39 1.35 4.38 1.33 3.67 1.35 4.92 1.19 1.92 1.08 2.07 1.08Probe totalb 9.03 2.71 13.79 2.48 11.40 1.80 14.54 2.82 7.62 2.49 9.15 2.13




Written Responses to Vignettes Growth Difference EG ES C

Functional behavioral assessment F(2, 97) = 5.67, p= .005 1.03 1.01 .35

Accommodations F(2, 97) = 1.53, p= .223 1.37 0.43 .54

Assistive technology F(2, 97) = 18.90, p= .000 1.42 0.95 .10

Probe total F(2, 97) = 11.61, p= .000 1.55 1.09 .49


a. Total possible points for each probe = 6.

b. Total possible points for combined probes = 18.



11/17


the functional behavioral assessment probesfor the EG group were significantly greaterthan those for the C group (p = .007) but notthose for the ES group (p = .397). There were alsono significant differences in the growth scores

between the ES and C groups (p=

.092). Tukeypost hoc comparisons for the assistive technol-ogy probe indicated that growth scores for boththe EG and ES groups were significantly greaterthan those for the C groups, EG > C (p = .000),ES > C (p = .020), whereas there were no signifi-cant differences between the EG and ES groups(p = .308). When analyzing the overall growthdifference on all three probes combined, pair-wise comparisons revealed that the only signifi-cant differences existed between the EG and Cgroups, EG > C (p = .000).

The last three columns in the lower portionof Table 3 present the effect size data as calcu-lated with Cohens d (Cohen, 1988), which rep-resents the difference between the pretest andposttest scores, divided by the pooled standarddeviations. The following scale is generallyused to interpret the magnitude of an effectbased on d: small effect, 0 < d < .2; moderateeffect, .2 < d < 8; large effect, d > .8. Large effectsizes of 1.03 (functional behavioral assess-ment), 1.37 (accommodations), and 1.42 (assis-tive technology) were observed for the EG

group for all three probes, suggesting thattheir knowledge in these three topical areasincreased dramatically with participation inthe project. A large effect size was observed forthe ES group for probes on functional behav-ioral assessment (d = 1.01) and assistive tech-nology (d = .95), whereas a moderate effect wasobserved for the probe on accommodations(d = .43). Moderate effect sizes were observedfor the C group on probes for functional behav-ioral assessment (d = .35) and accommodations(d = .54) and for the total probes (d = .49). Onlya small effect size was noted for the probeinvolving assistive technology (d = .10).

Additional analyses were conducted to deter-mine potential differences in the posttest scoresfor the three groups. The rationale for this analy-sis was that whereas the amount of growth byeach group was evidence for the impact of theproject, the experimental group or the C groupcould achieve growth but still prove to be less

knowledgeable than a counterpart group. Suchwas the finding with ANOVA results indicat-ing differences in the posttest means on probesfor functional behavioral assessment, F(2, 98) =20.77, p = .000, instructional accommodations,

F(2, 98)=

11.54,p=

.000, and assistive technology,F(2, 98) = 55.42, p = .000. Tukey post hoc pair-wise comparisons revealed that posttestscores for both the EG and ES groups weresignificantly higher than those for the C group(p = .000) on functional behavioral assessment,whereas no significant differences existedbetween the mean scores for the ES and EGgroups (p = .713). Asimilar pattern was observedfor posttest means for the instructional accom-modations probe, with both the ES (p = .000) andEG groups (p = .018) scoring significantly higher

than the C group, and no differences being evi-denced in scores between the two experimentalgroups (p = .914). This pattern was repeated forposttest scores on the third probe involvingassistive technology, with both experimentalgroups scoring significantly higher, ES > C (p =.000) and EG > C (p = .000). No significant differ-ences were found between means for the twoexperimental groups (p = .343).

Results of analyses of growth and posttestmean scores on the curricular probes for thethree groups can be summarized as follows: (a)

probe scores increased from pretest to posttestfor all three groups, with significantly moregrowth observed in the ES and EG groups; (b)the largest effects sizes were observed for theEG group; and (c) posttest scores for the twoexperimental groups were similar and alsohigher than those for the C group. Together, thefindings suggest that the EG group experiencedthe greatest benefit from participation in theproject and performed similarly to their specialeducation counterparts who might be presumedto have prior exposure to content on functionalbehavioral assessment and perhaps on curricu-lar adaptations and assistive technology.

Table 1 presents results of the pretest,posttest, and growth analysis for AttitudesToward Inclusion survey. Note that the wordingof individual items determines whether desireddirection of change in scores should increase ordecrease. For some items, a decrease in scoresfrom pretest to posttest would indicate an



12/17


improved attitude toward inclusion (e.g., Item5: teaching children with disabilities is askingtoo much of regular teachers).

The lower portion displays the F score andprobabilities resulting from the ANOVA.

Significant differences (p .8. Because growth can be marked bydecreases in mean scores from pretest to posttest,some effect sizes are negative numbers. Negativescores are interpreted using the above scale, with-out regard for the negative sign preceding thescore. For the EG group, a large effect size wasobserved for item 1 (d = 1.37), whereas moderateeffects sizes were noted for Items 2 (d = .42), 3 (d =.44), 5 (d = .31), 6 (d = .49), and 10 (d = .33). Nolarge effects sizes were observed for the ES group,and moderate effects sizes were noted for Items 1(d= .51), 2 (d= .35), 3 (d= .35), 5 (d= .22), 7 (d= .31),and 9 (d = .23). For the C group, large effects sizeswere noted for Items 1 (d = 1.13) and 2 (d = 1.09),with moderate effects sizes on Items 3 (d = .36), 4(d = .48), 5 (d = .45), 6 (d = .77), and 7 (d = .71).

A comparison of the posttest scores for onlythe three groups was conducted to determine ifsignificant differences in attitude existed at theconclusion of the project. Significant differences



13/17


were evident in the posttest for only Item 9,which suggests that special educators are moreeffective when teaching individuals with dis-abilities, F(2, 98) = 4.22,p = .017. Tukey post hocpairwise comparisons indicated that the C

groups mean posttest score was significantlyhigher than that of the EG group (p = .013), sug-gesting that the C group believed morestrongly than the EG group that special educa-tors are more effective. However, there were nosignificant differences on this item among theother comparisons. The absence of significantdifferences on all of the other items suggeststhat the three groups held similar attitudestoward inclusion at the end of the project,despite the fact that the effect sizes presentedin Table 1 indicate differences in the amount of

growth during the project. However, when themean posttest scores were compared, one orboth of the experimental groups still had moredesirable scores than the C group on each itemin the survey.

Effects of participation in Project ACCEPTon responses to the Attitudes Toward InclusionSurvey can be summarized as follows: (a)Effect sizes indicate the greatest growthoccurred for the EG and C groups, suggestingthat these two groups entered the project witha lack of knowledge regarding inclusion or

with skepticism; (b) the two experimentalgroups revealed negative growth in severalitems related to the capability of the generaleducation classroom and general educators toserve students with disabilities, perhaps as aresult of the clinical experience that was notcompleted by their counterparts in the Cgroup; (c) all three groups became more famil-iar with inclusion (Item 1) and came to believethat a majority of students with disabilities arebetter served in the general education class-room (Items 2 and 3); and (d) overall, theexperimental groups had more desirableposttest scores on all items than the C group.

Table 2 summarizes responses to theInstructional Adaptations survey, which includesitems intended to assess the perceived desir-ability, perceived feasibility, and frequency ofuse for several common adaptations forstudents with disabilities. As evidenced in thetable, positive growth was observed for all

three groups for each of three areas of the sur-vey. Results of the ANOVA reported in thelower portion of the table indicate that no sig-nificant differences between the degree ofgrowth by the three groups were observed.

The last three columns in Table 2 present theeffect size data as calculated with Cohens d.The following scale was used to interpret themagnitude of an effect based on d: small effect,0 < d < .2; moderate effect, .2 < d < 8; large effect,d > .8. Given that no significant differences ingrowth scores were found for the three groups,it is not surprising that a majority of the effectsizes were in the moderate range. The ES groupexperienced an effect size for desirability ofadaptations (d = .74) more than twice that ofthe other two groups, but an effect size of only

.11 for frequency, substantially lower than thatof the EG group (d = .45) and C group (d = .53).When comparing posttest scores only, signifi-cant differences were evident on only the desir-ability item, F(2, 98) = 4.03,p = .021. Tukey posthoc comparisons revealed that the ES grouphad significantly higher scores than both theEG (p = .022) and C groups (p = .029).

Although not statistically significant, subtledifferences between the groups emerged whenthe means of posttest scores were examined.With the exception of the frequency scores, the

experimental groups had higher scores thanthe C group. Based on the posttest scores, theES group was the most convinced that instruc-tional adaptations were both desirable and fea-sible. The EG group believed that instructionaladaptations were more feasible than did the Cgroup and that they would be used somewhatless frequently. The C group, on the other hand,believed that instructional adaptations shouldoccur more frequently but was less convincedthat implementation would be feasible.

The effects of participation in ProjectACCEPT on responses to the InstructionalAdaptations survey can be summarized as fol-lows: (a) Both experimental groups experi-enced positive growth from pretest to posttestin the areas of perceived desirability, perceivedfeasibility, and frequency of use, although thatgrowth did not differ significantly from that ofthe C group, and (b) participation in the projectappears to have had the most significant effect



14/17


on special educators perceptions of the desir-ability of adaptations but minimal effect on thefrequency with which they will use the adapta-tions. Perhaps the clinical experience influencedthe attitudes of the EG and ES teacher candi-

dates; they believed more strongly than the Cgroup that instructional accommodations arefeasible but not necessarily needed as frequently.

DISCUSSION AND REFLECTION

Programmatic innovations to address theneeds of preservice teachers/teacher candidatesentering inclusive classrooms have involvedchanges to the structure of teacher preparationprograms, addition of new classes or experiences,or enrichment of existing courses or experiences.

Project ACCEPT is a hybrid of approaches in thatit involves a new required course for special edu-cators as well as enrichment of the existing tra-ditional class. If effective, Project ACCEPT couldprove also to be an efficient model for improvingthe preparation of new teachers for inclusiveclasses in that it involves only one additionalcourse for special education majors and minimaladditional requirements for the general educa-tion majors.

To evaluate the impact of participation inProject ACCEPT, we compared several out-

comes for both preservice teachers in the pro-ject and teacher candidates enrolled in thetraditional course. The rationale was that theenriched experiences provided in ProjectACCEPT would not only result in the develop-ment of positive attitudes but also improve theskill level of the teacher candidates beyondwhat might be expected from participation inthe traditional class, although growth by the Cgroup was both desired and expected. As theresults indicate, all preservice educators bene-fited from participating in either the traditionalor the Project ACCEPT experience. All teachercandidates improved in both their contentknowledge and attitudinal scores as a result oftheir enrollment in their respective courses.However, the outcomes of the data analysesindicated that participation in Project ACCEPTresulted in more substantial gains among theES and EG groups, particularly in terms oftheir content knowledge as measured on the

curricular probes. The teacher candidates whoexperienced the most substantial gain were inthe EG group, in terms of their growth frompretest to posttest scores on almost all mea-sures. The most impressive results were found

within the curriculum probe measures.The EG group performed significantly betteron posttest measures pertaining to functionalbehavioral assessment, accommodations, andassistive technologies than the C group. Inaddition, they demonstrated significantly moregrowth (pre to post differences) on both func-tional behavioral assessment and assistivetechnologies than their C group counterparts.The ES group also performed significantlybetter than the C group on all of these mea-sures with the exception of growth score differ-

ences for functional behavioral assessment andinstructional accommodations. One interestingfinding is that although the ES group startedoff with more knowledge in these curricularareas (as is demonstrated by the pretest scores),there were no significant differences betweenthe EG and ES groups on posttest scores by theend of the experience. This provides additionalsupport for the finding that the EG group expe-rienced a great deal of growth in contentknowledge as a result of its participation inProject ACCEPT.

The purpose of using the attitudinal scaleswas to determine if preservice teachers wouldemerge with positive attitudes as a result of par-ticipating in their respective experiences (as wehad no prior knowledge of their attitudes whenthey enrolled). Overall, there were very few dif-ferences between the groups in terms of theirattitudes and dispositions toward inclusion. Allgroups demonstrated positive attitudes as mea-sured on the Attitudes Toward Inclusion surveyand the Instructional Adaptations survey. By theend of the experience, the only significant differ-ence that was evident on the Attitudes TowardInclusion survey (based on posttest scores) wason Item 7, Special education teachers are moreeffective. It was interesting that the C groupscored significantly higher than the EG group onthis item. There could be a variety of explana-tions for this outcome. Perhaps the C groupteacher candidates were taught that they shouldrely more heavily on the special educators once



15/17


they are in the field, or maybe they did nothave confidence in their own abilities. The onlyother item that revealed significant differencesbetween the groups (based on posttest analy-ses) was the item indicating desirability of

using instructional accommodations withstudents with disabilities. The ES group scoredsignificantly higher on this item than the EGand C groups.

Although having positive attitudes and dis-positions toward supporting students with dis-abilities is certainly desirable, teachers mustalso have the skills necessary for supportingthem effectively. For instance, although theexperimental and C groups did not differ muchin terms of the attitudes toward providinginstructional adaptations (see Table 2), there

clearly were differences between the groupsbased on their ability to identify instructionalaccommodations as measured on the curricu-lar probes. Tukey post hoc pairwise compar-isons indicated that both the ES (p = .000) andEG groups (p = .018) scored significantly higherthan the C group. It is our belief that withimproved skills, the teacher candidates inProject ACCEPT will be more prepared and, itis hoped, more successful in meeting the chal-lenges of inclusive education in the future.

Limitations

The effectiveness of the project described inthis article was based on data collected fromthe first year of implementation. As a result,the sample size was relatively small, and gen-eralization of the findings, particularly in rela-tion to specific items on the curricular probesand surveys, is somewhat limited. In addition,because the curricular probes were specific tocontent covered in the project, we were not

able to establish their concurrent or predictivevalidity with other measures, thus limitingbroader use of the probes until their technicaladequacy is confirmed.

Consistency in day-to-day instructionalpractices and the instructors styles across thecontrol classrooms was not controllable to theextent possible in the Project ACCEPT classes,and thus the results for participants in the con-trol classrooms could have been influenced by

instructor, as well as curricular, variables. Onesolution may be to have the same instructor forall control classes, a strategy that was not pos-sible in our department.

Implications of Results

Considered as a whole, Project ACCEPT didhave positive effects on the attitudes and abili-ties of the preservice teachers. The degree towhich any individual experience or activityaffected the participants cannot be determinedfrom the data collected in the first year. Indeed,our plan is to assess the impact of each of theproject components and to continue to refinethe content based on those results. The clinicalexperience will continue to be a critical compo-

nent of the project. Informal feedback from theparticipants indicated that although it wassometimes difficult to schedule the clinicalexperience, they would like even more time inthe classroom.

Collaborative activities and lesson planningare the foundation for the project, and informalfeedback from preservice teachers was strikinglysimilar to perceptions of in-service teachers; col-laborating takes more time but is worthwhile.Perhaps gaining this insight at the preservicelevel will prepare the teacher candidates todedicate time for collaboration when theyencounter in-service colleagues who do notperceive collaboration as cost effective.

Even with some of the shortcomings identi-fied by some of the teacher candidates, manystated that they felt their experience was muchmore beneficial than their friends experiences(who were enrolled in the traditional course).They believed that the actual teaching in realschools and the hands-on experiences with tech-nologies were very beneficial; as a result, many

teacher candidates went back to their advisorsto recommend placing future teacher candidatesin the program. Consequently, we anticipateteacher candidate recruitment becoming mucheasier in the upcoming semesters.

Although beyond the scope of this article,additional data were collected to determine ifparticipation in Project ACCEPT and traditionalcourses prepared preservice educators for theirfirst year of teaching. Outcome surveys were



16/17


sent to the experimental and C group teachercandidates following their participation intheir respective experiences. The survey con-sisted of eight items (e.g., statements regardingtheir confidence in engaging in collaborative

activities and/or instructing students in inclu-sive settings) rated on a 5-point scale (i.e.,strongly disagree to strongly agree), and results arereported elsewhere (Van Laarhoven et al., 2006).Preliminary findings indicate that on outcomesurveys, Project ACCEPT participants mademore positive ratings than the preserviceteachers in the C group for all items, indicatingthat they believed their participation in the expe-rience was beneficial. In addition, the projectparticipants indicated that the most beneficialaspects of their experience were collaboration

with majors from different educational areas, fol-lowed by participation in simulations andhands-on experiences with assistive technolo-gies. Our assessment of project outcomes willcontinue until all participants are out teachingfor at least 1 year and will be expanded toinclude the aforementioned analysis of eachcomponent of the project. In addition, follow-upsurveys and interviews with project participantsduring their student teaching experience, andonce they are employed as full-time classroomteachers, will continue. The types of classrooms

our past participants seek and the attitudes andskills they bring to their first classroom may bethe most important indicators of the success ofProject ACCEPT.

REFERENCES

Blanton, L. P. (1992). Preservice education: Essentialknowledge for the effective special education teacher.Teacher Education and Special Education, 15(2), 87-96.

Blanton, L. P., Griffin, C. C., Winn, J. A., & Pugach, M. C.(Eds.). (1997). Teacher education in transition. Denver: Love.

Brantlinger, E. (1996). Influence of preservice teachersbeliefs about pupil achievement on attitudes towardinclusion. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19(1),17-33.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioralsciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cook, B. G. (2002). Inclusive attitudes, strengths, andweaknesses of pre-service general educators enrolledin a curriculum infusion teacher preparation pro-gram. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(3),262-277.

Davern, L. (1999). Parents perspectives on personnel atti-tudes and characteristics in inclusive school settings:Implications for teacher preparation programs. TeacherEducation and Special Education, 22(3), 165-182.

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Thousand, J. (2003). What do spe-cial educators need to know and be prepared to do for

inclusive schooling to work? Teacher Education andSpecial Education, 26(1), 42-50.Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2003). Including students

with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers(3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hinders, K. (1995). Dual certification and regular educa-tion initiative.Journal Of Teacher Education, 46, 200-208.

Hopkins, K. D., & Glass, G. V. (1978). Basic statistics for thebehavioral sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Jenkins, A. A., Pateman, B., & Black, R. (2002).Partnerships for dual preparation in elementary, sec-ondary, and special education programs. Remedial andSpecial Education, 23(6), 359-371.

Kilgore, K. L., & Griffin, C. C. (1998). Beginning special

educators: Problems of practice and the influence ofschool reform. Teacher Education and Special Education,21(3), 155-173.

Lesar, S., Benner, S. M., Habel, J., & Coleman, L. (1997).Preparing general education teachers for inclusive set-tings: A constructivist teacher education program.Teacher Education and Special Education, 20(3), 204-220.

Lombardi, T. P., & Hunka, N. J. (2001). Preparing generaleducation teachers for inclusive classrooms: Assessingthe process. Teacher Education and Special Education,24(3), 183-197.

Minke, K. M., Bear, G. G., Deemer, S. A., & Griffin, S. M.(1996). Teaching experiences with inclusive class-rooms: Implications for special education reform.

Journal of Special Education, 30(2), 152-186.Nowacek, E. J., & Blanton, L. P. (1996). A pilot project

investigating the influence of a collaborative methodscourse on preservice elementary education teachers.Teacher Education and Special Education, 19, 298-312.

Peterson, M., & Beloin, K. S. (1998). Teaching the inclusiveteacher: Restructuring the mainstream course inteacher education. Teacher Education and SpecialEducation, 21(4), 306-318.

Pugach, M. C. (1996). Unifying the preparation ofprospective teachers. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback(Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education:Divergent perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 239-252). Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations formainstreamed students: General classroom teachers per-spectives. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 18-27.

Sileo, T. W., Prater, M. A., Luckner, J. L., Rhine, B. T., &Rude, H. (1998). Strategies to facilitate preserviceteachers active involvement in learning. TeacherEducation and Special Education, 21(3), 187-204.

Sindelar, P. T., Pugach, M. C., Griffin, C. C., & Seidl, M.(1995). Reforming teacher education: Challenging thephilosophy and practices of educating regular andspecial educators. In J. L. Paul, H. Rosseli, & D. Evans



17/17

Journal of Teacher Education Vol 58 No 5 November/December 2007 455

(Eds.), Integrating school restructuring and special educa-tion reform (pp. 140-166). New York: Harcourt Brace.

Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1993). Teacher efficacy andstudent problem as factors in special education refer-ral.Journal of Special Education, 27, 66-81.

Stayton, V. D., & McCollum, J. (2002). Unifying general

and special: What does the research tell us? TeacherEducation and Special Education, 25(3), 211-218.Stowitschek, J. L., Cheney, D. A., & Schwartz, I. S. (2000).

Integrating fundamental change through experientialinservice development. Teacher Education and SpecialEducation, 23(2), 142-156.

Strawderman, C., & Lindsey, P. (1995). Keeping up withthe times: Reform in teacher education. Journal ofTeacher Education, 46(2), 95-101.

Van Laarhoven, T., Munk, D. D., Lynch, K., Wyland, S.,Dorsch, N., Zurita, L., et al. (2006). Project ACCEPT:Preparing pre-service special and general educatorsfor inclusive education. Teacher Education and SpecialEducation, 29(4), 209-212.

Voltz, D. L., & Elliott, R. N. (1997). Collaborative teacherroles in facilitating inclusion: Preservice preparation forgeneral and special educators. Teacher Educator, 33, 44-60.

Toni R. Van Laarhoven is an associate professor atNorthern Illinois University. Her research interests

include effective instructional methods for teaching indi-viduals with developmental disabilities, video modeling,integration of assistive technology in teacher education,and functional assessment.

Dennis D. Munk is a professor of education at

Carthage College. He received his EdD in special educa-tion from Northern Illinois University. He has conductedresearch in the areas of functional assessment, inclusiveeducation, and assessment and grading.

Kathleen Lynch, MSEd, has several years of experi-ence teaching special and general education in publicschools. She is the project coordinator for Project

ACCEPT, an adjunct instructor at Northern IllinoisUniversity, and a technical educational consultant in theChicagoland area.

Julie Bosma is the executive director of the RegionalAccess and Mobilization Project, a center for indepen-dent living located in north central Illinois.

Joanne Rouse is the services director for the RegionalAccess and Mobilization Project.

Documents

A Model for Preparing Special and General Education Preservi