Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 22 November 2014, At: 13:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Childrenand YouthPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vpsf20
Beginning Teachers' Views of Their Collaborative RolesGreg Conderman a & Sarah Johnston-Rodriguez aa Department of Teaching and Learning, Northern Illinois UniversityPublished online: 07 Aug 2010.
To cite this article: Greg Conderman & Sarah Johnston-Rodriguez (2009) Beginning Teachers' Views of Their Collaborative Roles,Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53:4, 235-244, DOI: 10.3200/PSFL.53.4.235-244
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.53.4.235-244
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions andviews expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primarysources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Beginning Teachers’ Views of Their Collaborative Roles
Greg Conderman and Sarah Johnston-Rodriguez
ABSTRACT: The Individuals With Disabilities Education Impro- vement Act (2004) made significant changes in the roles of general and special educators, especially related to inclusion and collaboration. This pilot study examined the perceptions of beginning elementary and secondary school special and general education teachers in a midwestern state in the United States regarding their preparation for and the importance of their new roles, as well as their current training needs and plans to remain in teaching. The authors provide results from forced-choice and open-ended survey questions along with implications and suggestions for future research, especially in the areas of school culture, 1st-year mentoring, and preservice preparation.
KEYWORDS: beginning teachers, collaboration, novice teachers, school culture, transition to teaching
THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES Education Improvement Act (IDEIA; 2004) resulted in significant changes in how students with disabilities are educated. Specifically, the reauthorization emphasized having high expectations for students with disabilities and ensuring their access to the general education curriculum in the regular classroom—to the maximum extent possible—to meet developmental goals. In addition, general education teachers now assume a more active role in developing individualized education plans (IEPs) by helping determine appropriate accommodations and modifications that students need to access the general education curriculum (R. Turnbull, Huerta, & Stowe, 2006). Consequently, general and special education teachers now collaboratively discuss students’ needs, problem solve, demonstrate instructional techniques, lead or participate in professional-development initiatives, share resources, and network with other professionals and outside agencies (Dettmer, Dyck, & Thurston, 2005). General and special education teachers must be skilled in collaboration to meet accountability standards for students, design professional development plans, and address multicultural issues to empower parents representing diverse
cultures (Gerber & Popp, 2000). Admittedly, collaboration is a significant component of the reauthorization of IDEIA (Friend & Cook, 2007).
According to A. Turnbull, Turnbull, and Wehmeyer (2007), these role changes were associated with two critical special education reforms. The first is inclusion, which seeks to ensure a place for students with disabilities in the general education curriculum to the maximum extent appropriate. The second is collaboration, which is a strategy that advances inclusion and enhances the likelihood of its success. Clearly, IDEIA creates a presumption in favor of educating students with disabilities together with those without disabilities. A clear progressive trend toward greater inclusion has been witnessed since 1984–1985, when the U.S. Department of Education first started collecting inclusion data (U.S. Department of Education, 2001).
Although much has been researched about inclusion and collaboration, few published studies have examined experiences of novice special education teachers and their work environments (Kilgore & Griffin, 1998). Early investigations indicated infrequent or inadequate communication between general and special education teachers (Haynes & Jenkins, 1986), special education teachers’ unfamiliarity with general education curriculum (Pugach & Johnson, 1989), and general education teachers’ lack of inclusion strategies (Baker & Zigmond, 1990). Schumm, Vaughn, Gordon, and Rothlein (1994) concluded that general education teachers were unlikely to consistently make accommodations for students with disabilities unless they had the knowledge, skills, and confidence to do so. They recommendeded that teacher education programs prepare general education teachers to plan collaboratively
235
Address correspondence to Greg Conderman, Northern Illinois University, Department of Teaching and Learning, Gable 162D, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA; [email protected] (e-mail). Copy-right © 2009 Heldref Publications
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
14 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
236 Preventing School Failure Vol. 53, No. 4
with special education teachers. Billingsley and Tomchin (1992) echoed this view and maintained that challenges that novice special education teachers encounter were in part due to inadequate initial preparation.
More recent investigations indicated that novice special education teachers identified inclusion as a significant source of concern (Kilgore & Griffin 1998). Conderman and Stephens’s (2000) preliminary work indicated that beginning special education teachers found collaborating with general education teachers, parents, and paraprofessionals more challenging than paperwork or other logistical issues. Similarly, Snyder, Garriott, and Aylor (2001) discovered that a majority of general education and special education inclusion teachers indicated that teaching was to some degree problematic, especially because of the difficulty of working closely with another adult in collaborative or cooperative teaching. Other investigations revealed that many teachers in general and special education have been ill-prepared to meet the needs of students with disabilities in inclusionary settings (e.g., Lesar, Benner, Habel, & Coleman, 1997; Welch, 1996). More recently, Carlson, Brauen, Klein, Schroll, and Willig (2002) discovered that only 53% of special education teachers and 29% of general education teachers recalled having coursework in collaboration, and White and Mason (2006) noted that 54% of beginning special education teachers needed assistance in collaborating with general education teachers.
Many researchers agree that the major responsibility for changing teacher attitudes and skills about inclusion and collaboration rests with teacher-preparation programs. Hinders (1995) argued that teacher-preparation programs must take a leadership role in preparing educators to meet the needs of students with disabilities in the general education setting. However, a nationwide survey of special education student teaching practices (Conderman, Morin, & Stephens, 2005) indicated that traditional paper-type assignments, such as lesson plans, top the list of student teaching requirements with less attention given to tasks involving collaboration or consultation skills, such as working with paraprofessionals, meeting with parents, or collaborating with general education teachers.
Researchers have associated several competencies with inclusion and collaboration. Some skills such as adapting instruction, consulting, and contributing to teams are reflected in the Interstate New Teacher Assessment Standards Consortium (INTASC). These skills, and many other similar ones, are established standards that are considered important for all beginning teachers, and are now being infused in teacher education programs nationwide (Conderman, 2003). These beginning teacher standards, the accountability movement in education, the recent No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) legislation, and the frequently noted research-to-practice gap in
education (Carnine, 1997) further substantiate the need for collaborative efforts in schools.
Method
Because all teachers need to possess the knowledge, skills, and dispositions associated with inclusion and collaboration, an important question is the following: “How are teachers, especially beginning teachers, responding to their new responsibilities and challenges associated with inclusion and collaboration?” Therefore, the purpose of this pilot study was to examine beginning general and special education teachers’ perceptions of their preparation and importance of skills associated with their collaborative roles under IDEIA. We were also interested in teachers’ current training needs and their plans to remain in the teaching field. We mailed surveys to 25 secondary school general education teachers, elementary school general education teachers, secondary school special education teachers, and elementary school special education teachers with 6 or fewer years of teaching experience. These teachers’ names were randomly selected from the State of Illinois teacher directory. Our sample size was determined on the basis that we considered this a pilot study. We distributed follow-up postcards to nonresponders 2 months after the initial survey distribution.
We developed a three-part, peer-validated survey in which participants were asked to respond to forced-choice and open-ended questions. We initially distributed the survey to 5 special education teachers, special education administrators, and special education university professors for feedback and suggestions and made minor changes in wording after taking such feedback into consideration. Further, we field-tested the survey using 10 special education teachers in Illinois who were not part of the study by requesting them for feedback. We made minor wording changes to questions after taking such feedback into consideration.
In Part 1, respondents indicated their level of preparedness and their perception of the importance of 20 skills related to inclusion and collaboration. These were based on INTASC standards, items from a survey developed by Schumm et al. (1994) and outcomes from our literature review. Participants rated each skill on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not prepared) to 4 (very prepared) and a corresponding 4-point Likert-type scale (assessing one’s sense of the importance of each skill) ranging from 1 (not important) to 4 (very important). In Part 2, participants supplied demographic data such as gender, race, highest level of education, years of teaching experience, and number of credits taken in special education. In Part 3, participants responded to five open-ended questions related to the most useful components from their teacher-preparation program regarding working with students with disabilities, their most challenging situation, current training needs, advice for
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
14 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Summer 2009 Conderman & Johnston-Rodriguez 237
beginning teachers, and whether they anticipate remaining a teacher for 3 more years. We conducted a Cronbach’s alpha reliability measure, resulting in an overall measure of .934, with the preparedness scale at .949 and the importance scale at .912.
Results
After follow-up reminder post cards, surveys were received from 46 teachers (46% response rate), which included 14 elementary school special education teachers, 14 secondary school special education teachers, 9 general elementary school teachers, and 9 general secondary school teachers. This response rate is considered acceptable for a mail survey, especially because of its nature as a pilot study (Miller, 1991). Of participants (42 women, 4 men), 39 reported that they were Caucasian, 3 reported African American, 2 reported Asian, and 2 reported Hispanic. Regarding education, 30 of the participants reported having a bachelor’s degree, whereas 16 reported having a master’s as their highest degree. Regarding teaching experience, 39 reported 0–2 years, 4 reported 3–5 years, and 3 reported more than 5–6 years.
Independent t test results from Part 1 indicated no significant differences on the basis of teacher age, gender, or ethnicity. This section will report results from general education teachers, special education teachers, and significant differences between groups. To determine mean and standard deviation scores for each of the 20 items in Part 1, we assigned values ranging from 1 point for the response of not prepared or not important up to 4 points, respectively, for the response of very prepared or very important. Responses were coded by a graduate assistant, and we verified 85% of the responses for accuracy with 99% agreement. Changes were noted during data analysis.
Elementary school teachers felt best prepared in the following skills: being sensitive to children and families from various cultures (M = 3.22, SD = 0.67), using effective communication skills with colleagues and team members (M = 3.11, SD = 0.78), and co-planning with colleagues to meet the needs of students (M = 3.11, SD = 0.60). They felt least prepared in implementing accommodations or modifications for students with disabilities or 504 plans (M = 2.22, SD = 0.83), having appropriate expectations for students with disabilities (M = 2.33, SD = 0.71), using a variety of information when planning for students with disabilities (M = 2.44, SD = 0.53), pacing and timing lessons for students with disabilities (M = 2.44, SD = 0.53), using individualized criteria when evaluating students with disabilities (M = 2.44, SD = 0.88), individualizing instruction for students with disabilities (M = 2.44, SD = 0.88), working with a paraprofessional (M = 2.44, SD = 0.73), and promoting greater access to the general
curriculum for students with disabilities (M = 2.44, SD = 0.73). Elementary school teachers awarded their highest importance ratings to being sensitive to children and families from various cultures and co-planning (M = 3.89, SD = 0.33), using effective communication skills (M = 3.67, SD = 0.50), communicating with parents about the needs of a child with a disability (M = 3.56, SD = 0.73), and working with a paraprofessional (M = 3.56, SD = 0.53). The lowest importance score was associated with the following skills: using individualized criteria for evaluating students with disabilities (M = 3.11, SD = 0.78), using frequent progress monitoring (M = 3.11, SD = 0.78), implementing accommodations and modifications (M = 3.11, SD = 1.05), and having appropriate expectations for students with disabilities (M = 3.11, SD = 0.78).
Secondary educators felt best prepared in the following skills: being sensitive to children and families from various cultures (M = 3.76, SD = 0.50) and using effective communication skills (M = 3.2, SD = 0.67). They felt least prepared in the following skills: using various classroom grouping models (M = 2.11, SD = 1.05), individualizing evaluation criteria (M = 2.11, SD = 0.78), co-teaching (M = 2.11, SD = 0.78), pacing and timing instruction for students with disabilities (M = 2.22, SD = 0.83), adapting course content (M = 2.22, SD = 0.67), and promoting greater access to the general curriculum (M = 2.22, SD = 0.83). They felt the following skills were the most important in their current job: being sensitive to children and families of various cultures and communicating with parents regarding the needs of the child (M = 3.67, SD = 0.50) and co-planning (M = 3.56, SD = 0.53). Pacing and timing instructional lessons (M = 2.78, SD = 0.44) received the lowest importance score.
Elementary school special education teachers felt best prepared in the following skills: using effective communication skills with others (M = 3.31, SD = 0.75), being sensitive to children and families of diverse cultures (M = 3.23, SD = 0.83), and adapting course content for students with disabilities (M = 3.23, SD = 0.73). They felt less well-prepared in the following skills: promoting greater access to the general education curriculum (M = 2.31, SD = 1.03), co-planning (M = 2.54, SD = 0.88), working with a professional (M = 2.62, SD = 0.77), and co-teaching (M = 2.62, SD = 1.04). Communicating with parents about their child’s disability (M = 3.92, SD = 0.28), being sensitive to children and families of various cultures (M = 3.85, SD = 0.38), and adapting course content for students with disabilities (M = 3.85, SD = 0.38) were skills that received the highest importance scores, and working with a paraprofessional (M = 3.31, SD = 0.63) was the skill that received the lowest importance score.
Secondary special education teachers felt most prepared in adapting course content (M = 3.33, SD = 0.72) and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
14 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
238 Preventing School Failure Vol. 53, No. 4
providing individual instruction for students (M = 3.33, SD = 0.90), implementing accommodations (M = 3.27, SD = 0.70), and having appropriate expectations for students (M = 3.27, SD = 0.80). They felt least prepared in using various grouping systems (M = 2.50, SD = 0.74), designing various assessment tools (M = 2.60, SD = 0.74), and promoting access to the general education curriculum (M = 2.60, SD = 0.99). Adapting course content (M = 3.80, SD = 0.41) and using individualized criteria for evaluating assignments, (M = 3.67, SD = 0.49), implementing accommodations, (M = 3.67, SD = 0.82) and problem-solving interventions (M = 3.67, SD = 0.49) were the skills that received the highest importance scores, whereas working with a paraprofessional (M = 3.00, SD = 1.00), co-teaching (M = 3.07, SD = 0.88), and using various grouping models (M = 3.07, SD = 0.96) were the skills that received the lowest important scores.
We used independent t tests to compare (a) Part 2 survey responses of general education teachers with special education teachers and (b) those of elementary school teachers with
secondary school teachers. As shown in Table 1, special education teachers felt significantly more prepared than general education teachers in the areas of planning instruction, pacing lessons, evaluating assignments, adapting course content, monitoring student progress, individualizing instruction, implementing accommodations, having appropriate student expectations, and participating on a team.
Similarly, as shown in Table 2, special education teachers rated the following five skills as being significantly more important in their current job situation than did general education teachers: pacing lessons, evaluating assignments, adapting course content, implementing accommodations, and problem-solving strategies.
Tables 3 and 4 indicate significant differences between responses of elementary and secondary school teachers. Table 3 indicates that elementary school teachers felt better prepared in using a variety of grouping models.
Last, as noted in Table 4, elementary school teachers rated the following skills as being significantly more important in their current job than did secondary school teachers:
TABLE 1. Significant Differences in Perceived Preparation Between General and Special Education Teachers
General education teachers Special education teachers
Skill p Cohen’s d t M SD M SD
Planning .003 0.98 –3.185 2.39 0.61 3.07 0.77Instructional pacing .027 0.71 –2.294 2.33 0.69 2.89 0.88Evaluating .007 0.85 –2.820 2.28 0.83 3.00 0.86Adapting course content .001 1.14 –3.758 2.44 0.78 3.29 0.71Progress monitoring .046 0.63 –2.058 2.56 0.71 3.07 0.90Individualizing instruction .005 0.89 –2.935 2.44 0.86 3.21 0.88Providing accommodations .003 0.96 –3.178 2.33 0.91 3.18 0.86Having appropriate expectations .034 0.67 –2.189 2.61 0.85 3.18 0.86Participating in teams .033 0.66 –2.206 2.50 0.86 3.07 0.86
Note. For each t, df = 44.
TABLE 2. Significant Differences in Perceived Importance Between General and Special Education Teachers
General education teachers Special education teachers
Skill p Cohen’s d t M SD M SD
Instructional pacing .011 0.71 –2.643 2.33 0.69 2.89 0.88Evaluating .007 0.82 –2.849 3.06 0.73 3.57 0.50Adapting course content .011 0.89 –2.747 3.33 0.69 3.82 0.39Providing accommodations .036 0.64 –2.168 3.22 0.88 3.71 0.66Problem solving .035 0.64 –2.179 3.33 0.59 3.68 0.50
Note. For each t, df = 44.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
14 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Summer 2009 Conderman & Johnston-Rodriguez 239
using effective communication skills with colleagues, participating on teams, and co-planning.
Open-Ended Questions
Teachers responded to five open-ended questions in Part 3 of the survey. Data from open-ended questions were analyzed to identify critical themes. First, we typed all written responses to all five of the open-ended questions. We typed responses by question and sample group (e.g., elementary school teachers, secondary school teachers, secondary school special education teachers, elementary school special education teachers). Each of us received a copy of the printed comments. Then, each of us independently read, analyzed, and color-coded responses for each question on the basis of reoccurring themes. If two or more responses in a sample group were similar, they were coded into a category. We communicated three times to share our categories and responses within each category. When discussing the coding systems, the analysis began with 20 categories. However, we discussed the need to add an additional category to four questions. Responses from all five questions were therefore coded into 24 categories. Both of us coded 147 comments, with 83% agreement, and resolved disagreements through discussion before final analysis.
The first open-ended question asked participants about the most useful aspect from their teacher-preparation program regarding students with disabilities. The themes for this question were the following: having hands-on practical
knowledge and experience (17 comments), using information from courses (9 comments), knowing methods and strategies (7 comments), knowing about the special education process (4 comments), knowing about the unique needs of each child (4 comments), and collaborating with others (3 comments). All groups noted the importance of having hands-on field experience through practicum or student teaching, especially with veteran teachers. They also noted the importance of being familiar with the characteristics of unique learners, having a repertoire of support strategies, and learning how to modify curriculum and instruction. In addition, general education teachers noted the importance of a foundation in special education law.
The second question asked participants to indicate what they found most professionally challenging in their current situation. The themes for this question were the following: interpersonal issues and challenges of working with others because of differences in philosophy and style (11 comments), logistical issues such as lack of resources or time (10 comments), making adaptations and differentiating instruction (9 comments), behavior and motivation issues (5 comments), IEP process and paperwork (3 comments), and insufficient preparation (2 comments). Special education teachers noted the “stigma” of being a special education teacher and other teachers’ negative views of special education. They also articulated several challenges associated with the IEP process (e.g., paperwork, writing goals), limited resources and materials, scheduling and
TABLE 3. Significant Differences in Perceived Preparation Between Elementary and Secondary Education Teachers
Elementary education teachers Secondary education teachers
Item p Cohen’s d t M SD M SD
Grouping students .025 0.69 2.318 2.91 0.81 2.33 0.87
Note. For t, df = 44.
TABLE 4. Significant Differences in Perceived Importance Between Elementary and Secondary Education Teachers
Elementary education teachers Secondary education teachers
Item p Cohen’s d t M SD M SD
Communication .004 0.88 3.058 3.73 0.46 3.17 0.76Participation in teams .018 0.73 2.466 3.64 0.58 3.13 0.80Co-planning .003 0.92 3.130 3.82 0.40 3.33 0.64
Note. For each t, df = 44.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
14 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
240 Preventing School Failure Vol. 53, No. 4
planning, and providing appropriate instructional support. General education teachers noted difficulties associated with differences in coworkers’ styles, training, and views toward students. All secondary school teachers noted classroom management and student behavior as challenges. They also noted large class size and student diversity as challenges. Last, general and special education teachers indicated that working effectively with at-risk students and their families was a challenge.
Question 3 asked participants about their current training needs. The themes for this question were the following: new strategies and innovations (10 comments), professional development (10 comments), special education process, law, paperwork, and IEPs (4 comments), behavior strategies (2 comments), and collaboration (2 comments). All groups indicated a need for training in strategies to provide differentiated curriculum and instructional interventions as well as understanding special education law and related legal components such as LRE (least restrictive environment). Special education teachers described unique needs in the areas of IEP process, behavior strategies, and assistive technology. General education teachers noted the need to expand their understanding of how to integrate IEP goals into the curricula.
Question 4 asked participants whether they planned to remain a teacher for at least 3 more years. Responses for this question were coded as yes or no. The majority (96%) of novice teachers unequivocally affirmed their desire to stay in teaching with many declaring their passion for their job and students. Two respondents noted their aspirations to move into administration or related jobs. The view of teaching as a career or a long-term job emerged, and those who came to teaching in mid-life professed the need to “stay with it.”
The final question requested advice for other beginning teachers. The themes for this question were the following: find and use a support group and keep learning (15 comments), take care of yourself and reflect on your personal qualities (10 comments), stay student-focused (4 comments), stay positive (3 comments), and be prepared for instruction (3 comments). Elementary school teachers (both groups) provided suggestions on how to receive support and advice by building support networks, having mentors, and seeking information from others. They mentioned school culture in terms of seeking positive experiences, avoiding “naysayers,” getting involved, and “learning the ropes.” Gaining the respect of others was an important issue. Most teachers emphasized the importance of “taking care of yourself.” Special education teachers offered guidance regarding personal survival and coping and “getting along” (e.g., “hang in there,” “avoid power struggles,” “learn the ropes”). They discussed discipline and developing student relationships (e.g., “become one with students, find out
what makes them tick”), and developing lesson plans for being prepared. They also recommended (a) not expecting perfection and (b) being flexible, particularly in terms of time frames. Their responses were also unique in their perspective on advocacy and legal issues because they emphasized the following: abiding by the law, maintaining documentation, and advocating for student rights.
Discussion
This pilot study investigated the perceptions of beginning elementary and secondary school special and general education teachers in the State of Illinois regarding their preparation and the importance of various competencies associated with collaboration and inclusion. We were also interested in these teachers’ reflections of their 1st few years in teaching, as noted in the open-ended questions— especially regarding their advice for others and their intent to remain teaching.
A predominant finding of this investigation is that beginning teachers in this sample felt well prepared for and value working with children and families of diversity. Three of the four subgroups noted that they were well prepared in being sensitive to children and families from various cultures. These skills are critical to all teachers and reflect professional dispositions that educators need at all grade levels. These beginning teachers may have been exposed to such skills throughout their teacher-preparation program as skills related to diversity that are frequently infused in many courses, they may have had concentrated course work on diversity in their foundations of education course (a required course for Illinois teacher certification), or they may have taught in diverse classrooms in their clinical experiences. Across school districts in the United States, the number of students from non-English-speaking backgrounds has risen dramatically, representing the fastest growing segment of the student population. Further, Illinois is one of six states that accounts for the greatest concentration of new immigrants (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006). Therefore, preservice teachers in Illinois are likely to encounter many diverse classrooms throughout their field experiences. These clinical experiences provide authentic opportunities for applying critical dispositions, which are sometimes lacking in teacher-preparation programs (Beverly, Santos, & Kyger, 2006). Although many teachers felt that they value diversity, they also noted the challenges of working effectively with at-risk students and their families.
Beginning teachers also reflected on the importance of field experiences in preparing them for teaching students with disabilities. Responses to open-ended questions from all groups indicated that student teaching, field experiences, working with veteran teachers, and life experiences, such as substitute teaching and being a paraprofessional, helped
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
14 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Summer 2009 Conderman & Johnston-Rodriguez 241
them link theory to practice. These comments affirm the importance of planning sequential, purposeful, and well-connected field-based assignments to courses in which preservice teachers have authentic opportunities to observe and implement research-based strategies under the supervision of experienced and successful mentors. Coursework on inclusion, collaboration, or educating students with disabilities is insufficient without opportunities to practice those skills in authentic settings. Field-based experiences are often considered the most important component of the teacher-preparation program, and preservice teachers usually rate them as the most valuable aspect of their preservice preparation (Guyton & McIntyre, 1990). However, for skills to become rooted in best practice, entry-level practitioners need extended field experiences mentored by qualified teachers and supervised by university personnel (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996).
A third major theme of our study was that subgroups have different in-service needs. Once out in the schools and in their own positions, beginning teachers are capable of articulating their needs for professional development. For example, elementary school teachers expressed the need for new intervention strategies and ways to integrate IEP expectations with grade-level instruction; secondary school teachers were interested in ways to teach students from different academic levels in one class as well as special education laws; whereas special education teachers desired more information on assistive technology, reading strategies, behavior strategies, and sequencing content. These reflections reaffirm the commitment to providing beginning teachers with seamless support through individualized professional plans and mentoring programs as they transition from their role of student to teacher. Griffin, Winn, Otis-Wilborn, and Kilgore (2003) discussed common components of mentoring programs associated with successful 1st-year teaching experiences for new special education teachers, which included the following: culture of shared responsibility and support, interactions between new and experienced teachers, continuum of professional development, deemphasized evaluation, clear goals and purposes, and diversified content. Individualized staff development and mentoring programs incorporating these components may provide more focused and intensive support while improving teacher attrition and retention (White & Mason, 2006).
Teachers’ Perceptions
A central focus of this study was to identify beginning teachers’ perceptions of their preparation and their views of the importance of certain skills related to inclusion and collaboration. As expected, subgroups varied on their levels of preparation and the skills they felt were most critical to their current positions. General education teachers felt
less well prepared in skills associated with curriculum and assessment, such as making accommodations and modifications, providing student access to the general education curriculum, and using individualized assessments and progress monitoring. It is interesting that the same respondents also viewed some of these skills as less important. We hypothesized that in some schools, the special education teacher or paraprofessional assumes many of these curricular and assessment roles, thereby freeing the general education teacher from such tasks. Similarly, secondary general education teachers felt less well prepared in grouping models and instructional pacing, suggesting that their program prepared them to teach by using more traditional and large-group instructional methods. As schools in Illinois and across the nation move toward implementing a response to intervention (RTI) model, general education teachers at all levels will need to expand their knowledge and skills in scientifically based and research-based methods and progress-monitoring models. Clearly, RTI is an assessment and instructional process that is dynamic, recursive, and based on rigorous scientific research (Kame’enui, 2007). The extent to which teacher-preparation programs prepare general and special education teachers to use research-based methods and make data-driven instructional decisions determine teachers’ abilities to implement this approach. Making this paradigm shift may not be easy or quick for teacher education programs because curriculum changes take time. Further, we hope that general education preservice teachers receive a consistent message about the importance of these skills throughout their program rather than only learning about them in their single special education course.
Not surprising, special education teachers in this sample felt better prepared in many specialized skills, such as individualizing programs, making accommodations, and pacing instruction, than their general education counterparts. This confirms that teacher education programs are meeting their certification goals and that teachers are able to reflect on skills learned in those programs. Somewhat surprising was their low score on the importance of working with a paraprofessional. Paraprofessionals play many critical roles in supporting the learning environment for students with disabilities, and the special education teacher typically is responsible for training, supervising, and evaluating the paraprofessional. Although the reason for this low score is not clear, perhaps our sample of special education teachers did not have a paraprofessional, or perhaps a more seasoned teacher provided the training and supervision of the paraprofessionals in their building. We are aware that beginning teachers in some Illinois districts are relieved of some responsibilities until they are tenured (which occurs in the 5th or 6th year), and perhaps training and supervising paraprofessionals fall in this category.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
14 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
242 Preventing School Failure Vol. 53, No. 4
Last, we were encouraged that teachers in our sample remained enthusiastic about continuing in the teaching profession for at least 3 years. This sentiment was shared by teachers in all subgroups. This finding is in contrast with long standing research on teacher attrition and turnover. Beginning teachers leave at a higher rate than more experienced teachers, and beginning special education teachers are much more likely to leave than are beginning general education teachers (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Further, special education teachers often leave teaching after only 1 year (Billingsley, 2002). The teachers in our sample remained well connected with their reason for teaching and frequently commented about finding teaching exciting, rewarding, and enjoyable, despite challenges. It appears that these teachers were satisfied with their career choice and had found enough personal satisfaction from working with students and colleagues to counter issues related to excessive paperwork, discipline, or poor salaries.
Limitations
There are two major limitations to this study—both relating to the participants. First, the pilot study included a small sample size, and second, all of the teachers were from Illinois. The study set the stage for a subsequent larger study and allowed us to field test our survey instrument, which was determined to have high internal qualities. The small sample size does not allow great generalization beyond this group. Similarly, although participants came from all parts of the state of Illinois, including rural and urban areas, these findings cannot be generalized beyond our sample because of the characteristics and policies unique to the state.
Future Implications
Although numerous studies have described challenges facing 1st-year teachers, questions raised in this study suggest several issues that merit further exploration. The recommendations that we present in this article are based on data analysis along with the findings and discussion. Specific suggestions for future research include questions surrounding the role of organizational culture and organizational socialization, mentoring 1st-year teachers, and preservice preparation. Further examination of these critical questions associated with beginning teaching could expand current understanding of challenges that beginning teachers encounter.
Organizational culture, by definition, has the potential to influence employee behavior, job satisfaction, well-being, and retention (Schein, 1992). Schools, similar to any organizations, develop and maintain their unique cultures. Whereas some schools’ cultures may be characterized as collaborative communities, others may have more individualistic cultures (Hopkins, 1990). As Hopkins noted, teachers are more apt to assume collaborative roles and engage in mutual partnerships
in the context of collaborative school cultures. Typically, organizational cultures, complex by nature, comprise multiple layers: an explicit level marked by overt, everyday rituals, rules, and rewards and an embedded layer symbolized by unspoken behavioral norms and shared values (Schein). Although implicit, these norms reflect inferred values and shared assumptions of the school’s cultural climate and serve as prevailing standards. The implicit nature of these cultural norms presents a potential barrier to newcomers including beginning teachers, who must depend on others, such as veteran teachers or mentors, to provide access to insider information. Furthermore, the culture climate in some schools may not value collaborative practice or innovative approaches. Such environments pose considerable constraints for new teachers seeking to collaborate or apply new strategies (Hargreaves, 1994). Thus, school culture and the cultural socialization that new teachers experience are significant research considerations for teacher educators. In addition, we know little about how beginning teachers cope with and adjust to socialization and cultural constraints. Further exploration may provide valuable insights into the resiliency and retention of beginning teachers.
Associated with the topic of school culture, beginning special education teachers characterize themselves as marginalized and set apart from their general education peers because of the special education stigma. As special education teachers, they frequently find themselves in the position of “standing their ground” as they articulate and advocate for students’ needs. In their questioning of standard, accepted school practices, they “rock the boat” and place themselves in the position of cultural outsiders. Implications for beginning special education teachers suggest that attempts on their part to collaborate, coteach, or advocate for inclusion could be negatively affected by their outsider status. Further inquiry into how cultural climate affects teacher practices, development, and student outcomes would benefit teacher educators.
Participants in the present study repeatedly noted the importance of veteran teachers and mentors as sources of support and advice. Although the importance of mentors is well established, detailed information on the role mentors play in the cultural socialization of beginning teachers is limited. Angelle (2002) asserted that mentors in the most effective schools serve as models and sources of social support and assist beginning teachers in the cultural socialization process. However, not all mentors provide necessary support and advice. Attitudes toward role requirements and involvement with beginning teachers vary among mentors, with mentor support in less effective schools frequently characterized as “hands off” or “missing in action” (Angelle, 2002). Thus, while designated to provide support to new teachers during the socialization process, a mentor’s level of support depends on individual
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
14 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Summer 2009 Conderman & Johnston-Rodriguez 243
mentor interpretation. Considering the critical role that mentoring plays in effective socialization of beginning teachers, exploration of how to maximize the benefits of mentoring is warranted.
Beginning educators in this study reported considerable challenges associated with collaboration. Preservice coursework and field experiences were insufficient preparation for collaborative activities in the real world of teaching. As a core concept in preservice preparation, collaboration is typically presented as a construct associated with legal and professional mandates. However, what may be missing is a thorough understanding of the complexities of collaboration with its contextual nuances and an opportunity for preservice teachers to observe and experience it. As Kilgore, Griffin, Otis-Wilborn, and Winn (2003) noted, preparation in collaboration should include application in field settings with supervision that includes modeling provided by faculty. Lack of experience and opportunities to apply collaboration may erode beginning educators’ sense of confidence, resulting in a reluctance to collaborate. Additional examination of teacher motivations to engage or avoid collaboration in the school setting would benefit preservice preparation curriculum.
Conclusion
In summary, our findings suggest that beginning teachers face ongoing challenges associated with coworkers, school culture, and preservice preparation. Helping new teachers learn the ropes and become members of a collaborative community of practice may result in improved practice and counter their sense of isolation (Hopkins, Beresford, & West, 1998). Teachers are more apt to assume collaborative roles when situated within the context of collaborative school cultures. Moreover, surrounded by a supportive, collaborative culture, beginning teachers may be better adjusted, innovative, and resilient (Hopkins et al.).
Last, as Bauer, Johnson, and Sapona (2004) noted, existing pressures to move to alternative routes in teacher preparation create a high-stakes atmosphere in the field of teacher education. If teacher-preparation programs are to maintain a leadership role, programs and practices must reflect the expressed needs and current experiences of beginning teachers. The call for increased skills, expanded supports, and more authentic experiences to better meet the range and intensity of student needs found in today’s classrooms is a critical and essential message to which teacher-preparation programs should respond.
AUTHOR NOTES
Greg Conderman is an associate professor of special education in the Department of Teaching and Learning at Northern Illinois University. His research interests are secondary special education,
collaboration, and beginning teachers. Sarah Johnston-Rodriguez is an assistant professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning at Northern Illinois University. Her interests are transition, service learning, and problem-based learning.
REFERENCESAngelle, P. (2002, April). Socialization experiences of beginning
teachers in differentially effective schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities? Exceptional Children, 56, 515–526.
Bauer, A., Johnson, L., & Sapona, R. (2004). Reflections on 20 years of preparing special education teachers. Exceptionality, 12, 239–246.
Beverly, C., Santos, K., & Kyger, M. (2006). Developing and integrating a professional disposition curriculum into a special education teacher preparation program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 26–31.
Billingsley, B. (2002). Beginning special educators: Character- istics, qualifications, and experiences. SPeNSE summary sheet. Baltimore: Westat. Retrieved May 1, 2002, from http://www .spense.org
Billingsley, B. S., & Tomchin, E. M. (1992). For beginning LD teachers: What their experiences suggest for trainers and employ-ers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7, 104-112.
Carlson, E., Brauen, M., Klein, S., Schroll, K., & Willig, S. (2002). Study of personnel needs in special education: Key find-ings. Rockville, MD: Westat.
Carnine, D. (1997). Bridging the research-to-practice gap. Excep-tional Children, 63, 513–521.
Conderman, G. (2003). Using portfolios in undergraduate special education teacher education programs. Preventing School Fail-ure, 47(3), 106–111.
Conderman, G., Morin, T., & Stephens, J. T. (2005). Special education student teaching practices. Preventing School Failure 49(3), 5–10.
Conderman, G., & Stephens, J. T. (2000). Reflections from beginning special educators. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33, 16–21.
Dettmer, P., Dyck, N., & Thurston, L. (2005). Consultation, collaboration, and teamwork for students with special needs. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A model for English-language learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 195–210.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2007). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gerber, P. J., & Popp, P. A. (2000). Making collaborative teaching more effective for academically able students: Recommenda-tions for implementation and training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 229–236.
Griffin, C. C., Winn, J. A., Otis-Wilborn, A., & Kilgore, K. L. (2003). New teacher induction in special education (COPSSE Document Number RS-5). Gainesville: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.
Guyton, E. M., & McIntyre, D. (1990). Student teaching and school experiences. In W. R. Houston (Ed.). Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 514–534). New York: Macmillan.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teach-ers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.
Haynes, M. C., & Jenkins, J. R. (1986). Reading instruction in special education resource rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 161–190.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
14 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
244 Preventing School Failure Vol. 53, No. 4
Hinders, K. (1995). Dual certification and the regular education initiative. Journal of Teacher Education, 46, 200–209.
Hopkins, D. (1990). The international school improvement project (ISIP) and effective schooling: Towards a synthesis. School Organization, 10, 179–194.
Hopkins, D., Beresford, J., & West, M. (1998). Creating the con-ditions for classroom and teacher development. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 4, 115–141.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004. Retrieved September 13, 2006, from http://www .ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html#law
Kame’enui, E. J. (2007). A new paradigm: Responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 6–7.
Kilgore, K., & Griffin, C. (1998). Beginning special educators: Problems of practice and the influence of school context. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21, 155– 173.
Kilgore, K., Griffin, C., Otis-Wilborn, A., & Winn, J. (2003). The problems of beginning special education teachers: Exploring the contextual factors influencing their work. Action in Teacher Education, 25, 38–47.
Lesar, S., Benner, S. M., Habel, J., & Coleman, L. (1997). Prepar-ing general education teachers for inclusive settings: A con-structivist teacher education program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20, 204–220.
Miller, D. C. (1991). Handbook of research and design and social measurement (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). Summary report. What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2001). Retrieved November 14, 2006, from http://public.leginfo.state .ny.us/menugerf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS
Pugach, M. C., & Johnson, L. J. (1989). Pre-referral interventions: Progress, problems, and the challenges. Exceptional Children, 55, 559–564.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Gordon, J., & Rothlein, L. (1994). General education teachers’ beliefs, skills, and practices in planning for mainstreamed students with learning disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 22–37.
Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004). What are the effects of induc-tion and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41, 681–714.
Snyder, L., Garriott, P., & Aylor, M. W. (2001). Inclusion confu-sion: Putting the pieces together. Teacher Education and Spe-cial Education, 24, 198–207.
Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2007). Excep-tional lives: Special education in today’s schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Turnbull, R., Huerta, N., & Stowe, M. (2006). The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act as amended in 2004. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). To assure the free appro-priate public education of all children with disabilities: Twenty-third report to Congress on the implementation of the Individu-als With Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
Welch, M. (1996). Teacher education and the neglected diversity: Preparing teachers to teach students with disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 355–367.
White, M., & Mason, C. Y. (2006). Components of a successful mentoring program for beginning special education teachers: Perspectives from new teachers and mentors. Teacher Educa-tion and Special Education, 29, 191–201.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
13:
14 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
