Abstract
An understanding of one’s intention to pursue a career related to special education is crucial yet there is limited research in this area. This study examined factors that influence teacher candidates’ intention to pursue a career in special education by surveying 214 preservice teachers. Data were analyzed using path analysis to capture the complex relationships. Results revealed that interest/commitment and outcome expectations of the special education careers were the two most important predictors of preservice teachers’ intention to work in special education–related careers. Special education teaching efficacy only has an indirect effect on their special education career intention via two mediator variables (i.e., special education outcome expectations and career interest/commitment to children with special needs). Preservice teachers’ personal and work experiences with individuals requiring special services directly influence their interest and commitment to serving individuals with special needs, and thus indirectly impact their intention to pursue a special education career.
The shortage of special education personnel has been a persistent concern over the years (Boe, 2006; McLeskey, Tyler, & Flippin, 2004; Strunk & Robinson, 2006; Thornton, Peltier, & Medina, 2007; U.S. Department of Education, 2009). According to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education (2011), 44 states, in particular, low-income districts, reported teacher shortages in the area of special education in 2011-2012. Indeed, more than 50,000 teachers are needed to resolve the special education teacher shortage, with 98% of the nation’s largest school districts reporting shortages (McLeskey et al., 2004). At the same time, the demand for special educators is expected to increase by 17% through 2018, a rate greater than what is predicted for all other occupations (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2009). The special education teacher shortage seriously affects the success of special education services provided to children with disabilities due to inadequately trained teachers capable of effectively designing and implementing Individualized Education Programs (IEPs; D. D. Smith, Robb, West, & Tyler, 2010).
An urgent aspect of the special education personnel shortage is the insufficient supply of special education teacher candidates. While many researchers argued that the apparent shortage of special education teachers is due to an excessive rate of turnover (Ingersoll, 1997; Podgursky, 2006; as cited by Boe, Cook, & Sunderland, 2008), empirical evidence from a national teacher survey suggested that the inadequate supply of special education teacher candidates even more seriously exacerbates the shortage (Boe et al., 2008). According to Katsiyannis, Zhang, and Conroy (2003), each year colleges and universities graduate nearly 22,000 special education teachers, roughly half the number required to fill vacant positions. Furthermore, statistics reported by the American Association for Employment in Education (AAEE) show that in the decade from 2000 to 2010, there was “considerable” or “some” shortage in all types of special education categories (AAEE, 2010). Finally, a recent report revealed that while more than 800 special education teachers resigned last school year in Minnesota, only 417 new special educator teaching licenses were issued (Mcguire & Meitrodt, 2013).
Special education teachers leave the profession at a high rate. Retaining novice teachers is considered critical to special education (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2003; Merrow, 1999). Statistics show that more than one quarter of novice teachers in the United States leave the profession within three years of employment (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004). High special education teacher attrition has widespread implications for school districts financially and academically, because districts are forced to bear the cost of recruiting and training new teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2003). American schools are estimated to spend over two billion dollars annually on replacing special education teachers who quit the profession (McKinney, Berry, Dickerson, & Campbell-Whately, 2007).
The supply of qualified general education teachers with expertise in special education represents another serious problem (D. D. Smith et al., 2010; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2009). Currently, 57% of students with disabilities are instructed in general education classrooms for 80% or more of the time (31st Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] by U.S. Department of Education, 2009); however, many general education teachers reported that they were not sufficiently prepared to teach children with disabilities in inclusive classrooms (Abt Associates Inc., 2006). The majority of teacher preparation programs for general educators require minimal preparation in instructing students with disabilities (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2009), and consequently many general education teachers report that they lack needed skills to effectively instruct students with disabilities (Abt Associates Inc., 2006).
Shortages of special education faculty also impact teacher preparation in institutions of higher education (D. D. Smith, Pion, Tyler, & Gilmore, 2003; D. D. Smith, Pion, Tyler, Sindelar, & Rosenberg, 2001), which curtails the nation’s capacity to prepare special education teachers, general education teachers, and personnel in other related-services who provide services to children with special needs (D. D. Smith et al., 2010). Furthermore, from 1990 to 2010, a shortage of sufficient personnel in special education–related areas including physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, school psychologists, audiologists, and school nurses has been reported (AAEE, 2010).
To summarize, the national shortage of special education teachers has been a persistent concern over the past decades (Montrosse & Young, 2012; Sindelar, Brownell, & Billingsley, 2010; Sindelar et al., 2012; D. D. Smith et al., 2010). Teacher shortages in special education severely impact the quality of services provided to students with disabilities (Billingsley, 2004). Consequently, there is a need to understand how preservice teachers decide their career intentions in this era of teacher shortages.
Prior Research on Special Education Personnel Shortage
Across existing studies examining special education teachers’ shortage, several factors have been reported as causing special education teachers to leave the profession. These factors primarily focus on low teaching efficacy, inadequate preparation and insufficient experiences, and negative outcome expectations (e.g., demanding work loads, low salary, and unsatisfactory work conditions; Brownell, Sindelar, Bishop, Langley, & Seo, 2003; Brownell, Smith, McNellis, & Lenk, 1994; Emery & Vandenberg, 2010).
Low Teaching Efficacy
Teaching efficacy is the belief that one can bring forth desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even for unmotivated and difficult students (Bandura, 1977). A strong sense of teacher efficacy provides teachers with the continuing motivation and energy that are crucial to a long-term commitment to teaching (Yeo, Ang, Chong, Huan, & Quek, 2008); in contrast, low sense of efficacy causes lower enthusiasm and diminished effort during a teaching career (Brownell, Hirsch, & Seo, 2004; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
Low self-efficacy among special education teachers significantly contributes to decisions to leave the special education field. Emery and Vandenberg (2010) discussed the attrition rate of special education teachers and identified low self-efficacy and increased stress as primary reasons for their departure from the profession. Similarly, Brownell et al. (2003) reported that teacher stress and a sense of inadequate preparation were significant predictors of special education teachers’ decisions to leave the field.
Inadequate Preparation
Research has consistently reported that insufficient preparation and training are related to low teaching efficacy among many special education teachers (Brownell et al., 2003; Emery & Vandenberg, 2010; Ingersoll, 2001; Katsiyannis et al., 2003). Adequate education training and successful student–teaching experiences are crucial for enhancing teachers’ beliefs that they can make a difference in the lives of students with special needs. Successful training and work experiences can significantly enhance teachers’ efficacy in improving the functioning of students with disabilities (Cherniss, 1993; Friedman, 1999); likewise, unsuccessful work or training experiences can result in learned helplessness among special education teachers that “no matter how hard I try, I cannot really make a difference in a child with disabilities” (Katsiyannis et al., 2003; West & Hudson, 2010).
Insufficient training is a significant problem as a considerable portion of special education positions are filled by teachers who were inducted into the field through alternative routes to certification (Griffin, Winn, Otis-Wilborn, & Kilgore, 2003). Even among the regularly certified special education teachers, many recent graduates reported that they did not feel equipped with the needed special education content knowledge and pedagogical strategies, or sufficient student-teaching experiences (West & Hudson, 2010). In particular, many first year special education teachers complained that they were challenged in preparing the content of instruction to be delivered to students with disabilities (Griffin et al., 2009). This concern implies that they were not adequately prepared for the instructional content during their teacher education programs.
Negative Career Outcome Expectations
Outcome expectations refer to “personal beliefs about probable response outcomes” (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994, p. 83). These outcomes may be physical, social, or personal in nature (Bandura, 1986). Although there is a higher level of employability, existing studies point to less than optimistic outcome expectations among special education teachers. These negative outcome expectations can be found in literature describing how special education teachers feel dissatisfied about what they can obtain from this career after they have been in the field for a few years. For example, Stempien and Loeb (2002) reported that special education teachers were the most dissatisfied group among all teachers, and their job dissatisfaction is a major contributor to the high attrition rates of special education teachers (Emery & Vandenberg, 2010). Their dissatisfaction was associated with burnout, chronic stress, low salaries, intensive working load, limited professional development opportunities, and poor work conditions (Emery & Vandenberg, 2010). Additional concerns involve the intensive paperwork required to implement IEP for students with disabilities, challenging relationships with parents of children with disabilities, limited student progress (Billingsley, 2004; Jennett, Harris, & Mesibov, 2003; Payne, 2005), and a lack of administrative support (Billingsley, 2004; Fish & Stephens, 2010; Gersten, Keating, Yovanaf, & Harniss, 2001; Otto & Arnold, 2005). Gersten et al. (2001) also reported that the discrepancy between what special education teachers expected to do in the job and what they actually do, was one of the major factors associated with in-service teachers’ decisions to leave the field. Furthermore, Stephens and Fish (2010) concluded that potential candidates would increase their intention to work in special education, if they expect better career outcomes such as gaining competitive salaries, extra financial incentives, and opportunities for professional development.
To summarize, researchers have identified a variety of reasons for the high attrition rate and inadequate supply of special education teachers. However, factors such as low efficacy, inadequate preparation, negative outcome expectations, and inadequate supports can be common reasons for deciding to leave any profession (e.g., science, engineering, or mathematics) (Daempfle, 2003; Rask, 2010). Unfortunately, there is sparse research describing factors unique and most fundamental to individuals deciding to pursue a special education career. In addition, the successful identification of the impact of these factors on special education teachers’ career decisions has not resulted in a clear explanation of the complex and interactive relations among them. Consequently, in-depth analyses are needed to examine how these factors influence each other directly and indirectly and finally determine the teachers’ decisions to leave or stay in the special education profession; and what is unique during this career decision-making process in special education compared with other career options.
Use of Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) Model to Understand the Personnel Shortage of Special Education
Lent and colleagues (1994) proposed SCCT to explain and predict an individual’s development of vocational and academic interests and intentions. A graphic illustration of the SCCT model is represented in Figure 1. Since its formal introduction, the SCCT model has been widely examined across multiple cultures and across subject-matter domains (Betz & Hackett, 2006; Fouad, 2002; Lent, 2005; Lent, Paixão, da Silva, & Leitão, 2010), primarily including mathematics, engineering, and science-related subjects.
The social cognitive career theory by Lent, Brown, and Hackett (1994, 2000).
However, there have been few applications in the context of the social sciences including special education (Lent et al., 2010; Sheu et al., 2010). This study will examine the SCCT model in a special education context to illustrate how less-seasoned preservice teachers form their career interests and shape their intentions to work in special education, prior to deciding if they would like to receive formal training in a special education program. A conceptual model initiated by applying the SCCT model to special education is illustrated in Figure 2. The constructs included in the initial model and the specific hypothesized relations among these constructs are described below.
The initial conceptual model (Model A).
Hypothesized Roles of Contextual Variables
The SCCT model suggests that personal, contextual, and experiential factors work together to shape individuals’ academic and career-related efficacy and outcome expectations and then indirectly impact one’s interests, goals, actions, and performance outcomes. Such contextual variables include familial influences, parental involvement, and cultural socialization (Lent et al., 1994; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000). Byars-Winston and Fouad (2008) explained that these background variables may influence the nature and variety of learning experiences to which people are exposed. According to SCCT, one’s “learning experiences inform self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectancies through exposure to various activities and contexts from which people receive feedback about their skills and performance as well as develop expectations regarding the outcomes of their performance and particular pursuits” (Byars-Winston & Fouad, 2008, p. 427). In previous research, several studies tested the direct effect of mastery experiences on self-efficacy and their results supported this proposition (Blanco, 2010; Fouad, 2002). In the context of special education, two types of mastery experiences may affect preservice teachers’ special education teacher efficacy: work experiences of serving individuals with disabilities, and personal experiences with individuals who have special needs. Previous research indicated that insufficient preparation and training are the primary reasons for the low efficacy of teachers who serve children with special needs (Brownell et al., 2003; Emery & Vandenberg, 2010; Ingersoll, 2001; Katsiyannis et al., 2003). Therefore, in the initial SCCT model (Figure 2), we hypothesized that work experiences and personal experiences with individuals who have disabilities will directly impact preservice teachers’ special education teaching efficacy and outcome expectations.
In addition, teacher efficacy has been defined as context and subject-matter specific (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). With greater specificity of tasks, domains, and inclusion of context (Slone & Hancock, 2008), special education requires specialized instructional strategies for teaching students with disabilities. We hypothesize that preservice teachers’ general teaching efficacy positively and directly impact their special education teaching efficacy and thus positively and indirectly impact their intention to pursue a special education career.
Hypothesized Roles of Special Education Teacher Efficacy
Central to the SCCT model is the role of self-efficacy in guiding academic and career-related processes and outcomes (Lent et al., 1994, 2000; Lent, Lopez, Lopez, & Sheu, 2008). In this context of special education careers, it refers to teaching efficacy in one’s instructional capacity to influence the performance of children with disabilities. According to SCCT, individuals’ self-efficacy directly impacts their interests, outcome expectations, and career goals or intentions. In special education, a low teaching efficacy in teaching children with special needs contributes to teachers’ decisions to leave the special education field (Brownell et al., 2003; Brownell et al., 1994; Emery & Vandenberg, 2010). Thus, the study hypothesizes that preservice teachers’ special education teacher efficacy positively and directly impacts preservice teachers’ interests to serve children with disabilities, special education outcome expectations, and on their intention to work in special education-related careers.
Hypothesized Roles of Special Education Outcome Expectations
In the SCCT model, important associations have also been identified to be related to self-efficacy and outcome expectations, because people typically expect to receive favorable outcomes when pursuing activities at which they think they are proficient in (Lent et al., 2010). Special education teacher self-efficacy also contributes to special education teachers’ outcome expectations because teachers with high levels of efficacy tend to have higher job satisfaction levels (Viel-Ruma, Houchins, Jolivette, & Benson, 2010). Furthermore, Brownell et al. (1994) reported that teachers who had a higher sense of self-efficacy often felt more prepared by their preservice and initial teaching experiences and consequently more likely to stay in the special education profession. Unfortunately, low levels of special education teacher efficacy often leads to negative career outcome expectations, a sense of helplessness, a loss of interest and commitment to the profession, and ultimately the decision to leave the special education profession (Gersten et al., 2001). As mentioned in the section describing self-efficacy, we hypothesize that preservice teachers’ special education career outcome expectations are positively influenced by their special education teaching efficacy.
On the other hand, outcome expectations, along with self-efficacy of a particular area, have also been found to predict academic choice, such as course enrollment in math and science fields (Fouad & Smith, 1996; Gainor & Lent, 1998; P. L. Smith & Fouad, 1999). For example, students will be more likely to choose a mathematics-related area if they believe that their high achievement in a mathematics class will result in better career options, higher earning potential, parental approval, and enhanced feelings of personal competence. Likewise, in special education, if preservice teachers believe that the excellence of their special education teaching performance will bring in a high salary, promising promotion opportunities, prestigious social status, and a happy life, they may present more active attitudes toward pursuing a career in special education. In contrast, if they believe that special education teachers are underpaid, receive fewer promotion opportunities, and are under-respected in the community, they will demonstrate less-favorable attitudes toward special education. Therefore, we hypothesize that preservice teachers’ outcome expectations will directly and positively decide their intentions to work in special education professions.
In science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) related areas, the original SCCT model also reveals that positive outcome expectations result in increased career interests. People tend to develop sustained academic or career interests (i.e., how much they like related activities of a discipline) based on their beliefs about their capabilities of successfully performing the required tasks (self-efficacy) and on their expected outcomes to which their efforts could lead (Lent et al., 2010). For example, if students believe high mathematics achievement will enhance their self-competence, increase peer respect, and bring forth promising career opportunities, they usually demonstrate stronger interests in learning mathematics. As such, by applying the SCCT model into the special education context, we also hypothesize that preservice teachers’ outcome expectations will directly and positively decide their interests and commitment to serving individuals with disabilities.
Hypothesized Roles of Special Education Career Interests
Another crucial variable in the SCCT model is one’s interests in a particular academic or professional area. Career interest results from the interaction of self-efficacy and outcome expectations over time (Blanco, 2010; Lent et al., 2010). By applying it in the special education context, it seems that preservice teachers’ interest/commitment to serving students with disabilities are directly and positively affected by special education teacher efficacy and special education outcome expectations.
In the SCCT model, career interest is not only an outcome construct decided by self-efficacy and outcome expectations, but a predicting construct of a person’s ultimate intention or goals in their career. Career interests, or how much one likes or dislikes major activities involved in an academic or career domain, working together with self-efficacy, and outcome expectations, largely decide how people develop career intentions or academic goals in the future (Lent et al., 1994, 2000; Lent et al., 2008; Lent et al., 2010). For example, a student’s intention to select a college major in math or science is typically consistent with one’s interests in math or science. In the context of special education, teachers’ commitment, empathy and interest in serving individuals with special needs is one of the most commonly mentioned reasons cited by special education teachers when talking about their decision to work in special education (Stephens & Fish, 2010) or continuing to stay in the field (Brownell et al., 1994; Gersten et al., 2001; Jennett et al., 2003). Therefore, based on the SCCT, we hypothesize that preservice teachers’ interest/commitment to serving individuals with disabilities directly and positively affect preservice teachers’ intentions to work in the special education profession.
Hypothesized Roles of Special Education Career Intentions
Career intentions, the outcome variable in SCCT, refer to the determination to engage in a particular activity or to pursue a specific action to achieve some desired outcome (Bandura, 1986; Lent et al., 1994, 2000). Career intentions to pursue a specific action to achieve some desired outcome, are also emphasized in the SCCT model and social cognitive theories (Bandura, 1986; Lent et al., 1994). With the SCCT model, career intentions/goals can be explained as the result of interests, self-efficacy beliefs, and outcome expectations. As mentioned previously, based on the SCCT model we hypothesize that preservice teachers’ special education career intentions are directly impacted by their special education teacher efficacy, outcome expectations of special education careers, and their interest/commitment to serving individuals with special needs.
Research Questions
Current teacher-preparation programs in higher education recruit education majors during the freshman year. A small percent of these education majors may choose to pursue a special education degree while the majority of them pursue a general education degree. Given the importance of an adequate supply of special education teacher candidates (Boe et al., 2008), it is critical to investigate how novice education majors determine their career intentions to choose a special education profession.
The purpose of this study was to investigate (a) how preservice teachers decide to pursue a career in special education and (b) whether the SCCT model can be applied to special education to explain preservice teachers’ special education career intentions. A conceptual model developed by applying the SCCT model to special education is illustrated in Figure 2.
Method
Participants
A total of 214 undergraduate students taking an “Introduction to Special Education” course during the academic year 2011-2012, participated in the survey. This course is the only special education course required for all education majors and is a pre-requisite course for special education majors to take other special education courses. This course is the only special education course required for all education majors. In this course, students examined the historical background information related to the field of special education, reviewed components necessary for effective collaboration and consultation with parents and other professionals; examined the nature and characteristics of various disabilities; and discussed services and programs to help meet the educational, social, and/or personal goals for students with disabilities. These goals were achieved via the use of case studies, large and small group class discussions, chapter readings, class assignments, and related activities. Because this study examined those factors that determine why some education majors choose special education while some others do not, it would be inappropriate to implement this survey in an in-depth special education course, which is only taken by special education majors having already decided to major in special education.
After discarding one incomplete survey, 213 valid surveys were retained. Participants were education majors in a large public land-grant university in the southeastern United States. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 36 years old, with an average age of 20.61 (SD = 2.29). White students comprised 84.5% of the participants; among the rest, 8.5% were African American, 3.3% were Hispanic, 0.5% were Asian, 1.9% were bi-racial, and 1.4% were unknown. The participants consisted of a significantly higher percentage of females (80.2% vs. 19.8% males). Among the participants, 34.40% were freshman/sophomores, 37.70% juniors, 26.90% seniors, and 0.90% graduate students. In this study, the participants of different years in college did not differ from each other in special education training experiences, because the introduction to special education course is a pre-requisite course for taking any other special education courses.
Measures
The instruments in this study were developed according to the hypothesized cognitive factors discussed by Lent et al. (1994, 2000). A survey was developed to assess preservice teachers’ attitudes toward working in special education careers. The survey was developed by a team of special education professionals referring to Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) professional standards to ensure face validity. The initial survey was piloted in a cohort of senior special education majors enrolled in a special education assistive technology course, and needed revisions were made according to their feedback. The survey was administered with paper and pencil in large groups. The survey included 99 questions across 7 subscales. Five subscales were Likert-type on a scale of 1 to 6 or 1 to 5. Two subscales regarding the participants’ experiences with individuals with disabilities included “yes or no” questions. The participants typically took about 30 min to complete the survey without taking breaks.
At the beginning of the survey, participants were asked to provide demographic information such as age, gender, race, and grade level; this part also asked for preservice teachers’ personal and work experiences with individuals who have special needs. Regarding personal experiences with individuals with disabilities, participants were assessed with five questions including whether they had a family member/friends/classmate with disabilities, or if they are individuals with special needs himself or herself. Regarding work experiences with individuals with disabilities, the preservice teachers were asked about their fulltime/part-time/volunteering experiences with individuals with disabilities.
Regarding general teaching efficacy, researchers adopted the 24 items from the Teaching Efficacy Survey developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001). Items were rated using a 6-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). General teaching efficacy included three aspects of general teaching efficacy. (1) Efficacy for instructional strategies (eight survey items) measuring students’ efficacy of choosing and implementing effective strategies to facilitate students’ learning, such as “To what extent can you use a variety of assessment strategies?” “To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused?”; (2) Efficacy for classroom management. Eight items in this survey included questions like “How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom,” “How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules”; and (3) Efficacy for student engagement. Eight items were like “How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork” “How much can you do to help your students value learning?” The overall internal reliability (Cronbach’s α) was .95. A full scale can be found in Tschannen-Moran and Hoy.
Regarding special education teaching efficacy, we adopted 21 items from the Teaching Efficacy Survey developed by Coladarci and Breton (1997). Coladarci and Breton used a 24-item instrument modified from Gibson and Dembo (1984) and reworded to apply specifically to special education. Items were rated using a 6-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Items were conceptualized to assess as a special education teacher (paraprofessional), how one believed their efforts can change the performance of a child with disabilities. It included items like “If one of my special education students could not do a class assignment, I would be able to accurately assess whether the assignment was at the correct level of difficulty,” “when a resource-room student is having difficulty with an assignment, I am usually able to adjust it to the student’s level.” The overall internal reliability (Cronbach’s α) was .85. A full scale can be found in Coladarci and Breton.
Regarding special education career outcome expectations, researchers designed 15 items to measure the preservice teachers’ special education career outcome expectations and their perceptions of the importance of teaching students with disabilities. Items included “If I become a good teacher in special education, then my friends will approve of me”; “If I take special education classes in the teacher education program, I will be more successful in my teaching career”; “Learning special education provides me with better job opportunities.” Items were rated on a 6- point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Negatively worded items were reverse-scored so that the higher scores indicated stronger beliefs.
Interest/commitment to serving individuals with disabilities was assessed with a 20-item scale designed by the researchers. This construct was conceptualized by 20 items assessing the preservice teachers’ interest in various activities related to special education, such as “enrolling in a local or national special education organization (e.g., CEC)” and “participating in an assistive technology fair for individuals with special needs.” Participants were asked to indicate their degree of interest in teaching in a special education setting based on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly dislike) to 5 (strongly like). The overall internal reliability (Cronbach’s α) was .95.
Preservice teachers’ intentions to pursue a career in special education was assessed by a scale consisting of 11 items assessing preservice teachers’ specific teaching intention in special education or how much preservice teachers intend to work in a broader field related to serving and educating children with special needs. Statements included items like, “I plan to enter a career in teaching special education students,” “I intend to enter a career which will utilize special education related skills and knowledge.” Preservice teachers were asked to indicate their degree of intention to work with children with special need in a broader scope based on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The overall internal reliability (Cronbach’s α) was .90.
Procedures
The above measures were administered in six sections of an introductory special education course at a major public research institution in the southeastern United States. All sections were taught with the same syllabus and instructional materials. The survey was administered at the very end (i.e., during the last week before final exam) of the semester. Therefore, the participants had foundational knowledge and skills about teaching students with disabilities after taking the “Introduction to Special Education” course for 15 weeks.
All students enrolled in the introduction to special education sections gave consent to participate in this study. Using assigned research identification numbers, we ensured the confidentiality of participants. Standard directions were provided for each session and the participants completed the survey in about 30 min. Participants were awarded two bonus points for taking this survey.
Results
Descriptive Analysis
The descriptive statistics of the measures are shown in Table 1. The preservice teachers’ general teaching efficacy yielded relatively high scores (mean of 4.63 points on a 6-point Likert-type scale), suggesting that the participants generally perceived their efficacy in teaching general education students was positive. Surprisingly, these preservice teachers generated relatively high scores on their expectations of pursuing a special education career (mean of 4.39 on a 6-point Likert-type scale). The participating preservice teachers were positive about their interests and commitment to serving students with special needs (mean of 3.11 on a 5-point Likert-type scale). Participants scored slightly above neutral in their efficacy in teaching special education students (mean of 3.79 on a 6-point Likert-type scale) and their intention of pursuing a career related to special education (mean of 2.65 o on a 5-point Likert-type scale).
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Indicator Variables.
Note. SS = Sub Scale.
Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).
Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).
Path Analysis
In statistics, path analysis is used to describe the directed dependencies among a set of variables (Garson, 2012; Kline, 2010). Path analysis procedures allow testing whether a multivariate set of data fits well with the a priori causal model. Specifically, on the basis of theory, researchers can hypothesize a model which indicates directional relationships between independent and dependent variables, evaluate how well the data fits the model, and compare multiple models generated from competing theories (Kline, 2010).
The models in the path analysis were estimated using Mplus software version 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012). Pairwise deletions were used to manage missing data. Unlike listwise deletion which removes all data of the cases that have missing values on any of the variables, pairwise deletion only removes the specific missing values from the analysis rather than removing the entire case (Roth, 1994). Multiple goodness-of-fit indices for model fit check were used for model evaluation and revision, including Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Sharma, Mukherjee, Kumar, & Dillon, 2005). In evaluating the overall goodness-of-fit criteria for the path models, CFI values greater than .90, RMSEA values around .06, and a value less than .08 for standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) generally provide statistical support that a model explains the data within a small degree of error (Quintana & Maxwell, 1999; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). The goal of the research was to test the initial SCCT model in special education (Figure 2) and to re-specify the model if necessary to find the best fit and best interpretable model based on SCCT theory to interpret the data about special education personnel shortage.
We first tested the conceptual model as illustrated in Figure 2. As shown in Table 2, a significant chi-square value (p = .0003), an RMSEA value of .12, a TLI value of .831, all suggesting a poor model fit. In other words, the data collected in the special education case does not support the original SCCT model.
Goodness of Fit of the Three Models Tested.
Note. RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index.
Then we tested a rival model (Figure 3), in which personal experiences and work experiences with individuals who have special needs positively and directly increased the preservice teachers’ interest/commitment to serving students with special needs. Although a satisfactory goodness of fit (CFI = .98, TFI = .91, RMSEA = .09, and SRMR = .04) was yielded as shown in Table 1, five non-significant regression coefficients were found, including the effects of work experiences on special education teaching efficacy (β = −.06, p > .05) outcome expectations (β = .11, p > .05), effects of personal experiences on special education teaching efficacy (β = .04, p > .05) and outcome exportations (β = .03, p > .05), and the effect of special education efficacy on career intention of special education (β = .06, p > .05).
A re-specified model (Model B).
After removing the five non-significant paths, a parsimonious model presented all significant paths with good model fit index. The final model had a non-significant chi-square (p = .05), CFI value of .97, a TLI value of .95, an RMSEA value of .06, and an SRMR value of .05, all suggesting a good fit of the model for the data. Moreover, all paths with statistical significance suggest causal relations between the predictors and outcome variables. The indices of all the three models are presented in Table 2.
The Final Model
The results of the analysis of the final model are shown in Figure 4. The most important and direct determining factors for preservice teachers’ career intentions include (1) interest and commitment to individuals with special needs (β = .71, p < 0.001) and (2) outcome expectations to special education careers (β = .18, p < 0.001). They both had significant direct influences on preservice teachers’ intention to serve children with special needs and explained 64.80% of the variances in special education-related career intentions.
The final model (Model C).
As hypothesized, general teaching efficacy had a significant impact on special education teaching efficacy (β = .42, p < .001) and explains 17.60% of the variance of special education teaching efficacy. Special education efficacy significantly predicts preservice teachers’ career expectations of working in special education professions (β = .16, p < .05). However, differing from what we hypothesized, work experiences and personal experiences seem not to significantly determine how competent the preservice teachers feel in teaching special education students, or predict special education career outcomes. Instead, work experiences and personal experiences directly and positively affect how committed preservice teachers are to individuals with special needs (i.e., for work experiences, standardized β = .17, p < .01, for personal experiences, standardized β = .16, p < .01). Congruent with the SCCT model or Model A, preservice teachers’ interest and commitment to individuals with disabilities are also directly influenced by their special education teacher efficacy (β = .19, p < .01) and by their outcome expectations of special education careers (β = .41, p < .001). These four variables (i.e., special education teaching efficacy, special education outcome expectations, work experiences, and personal experience with people who have special needs) explained 28.3% of the variances of preservice teachers’ interests and commitment to individuals with special needs.
Another major difference from our originally hypothesized model (i.e., Model A) is that special education teaching self-efficacy did not have a significant direct influence on intention to pursue a career in special education (β = .06, p > .05). Indeed, special education teaching efficacy only had an indirect influence on intentions via the mediators of outcome expectations and/or interest/commitment to special education. Preservice teachers’ career intention to pursue special education careers, the outcome variable, is directly influenced by their interest/commitment to individuals with disabilities (β = .71, p < .001) and their outcome expectation of special education careers (β = .18,p < .001).
The Direct and Indirect Effects
Table 3 shows the standardized total effects, direct and indirect effects for each independent variable. All six independent variables turned out to have significant total effects on students’ intentions to pursue a career to serve students with special needs. These six determinants accounted for approximately 64.90% of the variance in preservice teachers’ intention to pursue a career related to serving children with special needs.
Direct-, Indirect-, and Total-Effect of Independent Variable on Preservice Teachers’ Intention to Pursue a Special Education Career.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Special education teaching efficacy: The surprising indirect impact
Although we initially hypothesized a significant direct effect of special education teaching efficacy on preservice teachers’ intentions/goals to serve students with disabilities, the results showed that special education teaching efficacy only indirectly predicted their intention via two mediators—interest/commitment to individuals with disabilities and special education outcome expectations. The direct association of special education teacher efficacy and their intention to pursue special education-related careers was insignificant in Model B (β = .06, p > .05).
Although only an indirect effect, one should not underestimate the importance of special education teaching efficacy in determining participants’ intentions to work in special education. Preservice teachers’ special education teaching efficacy has a direct effect of .16 on outcome expectations and a direct effect of .19 on interest and commitment to individuals with disabilities. Both outcome expectations and interest/commitment in serving special education children are dominant factors determining one’s intention to serve children with special needs. Through the indirect path via interest/commitment to individuals with disabilities (i.e., special education teacher efficacy→interest/commitment to individuals with disabilities→intention to pursue a special education career), special education teacher efficacy had a significant effect of .14 on preservice teachers’ intention to pursue a career in special education. Through the indirect path via outcome expectation (i.e., special education teacher efficacy→outcome expectation→intention to pursue a special education career; and special education teaching efficacy→outcome expectations→interests/commitment to individuals with disabilities→intention to pursue a special education career), special education teacher efficacy had a significant effect of .08. To summarize, special education teacher efficacy has a total effect of .21 on participants’ intentions to pursue a special education career in an indirect manner.
Interest/commitment to serving individual with disabilities: A powerful and direct predictor
As hypothesized, preservice teachers’ interest and commitment to individuals with disabilities, significantly and positively determines preservice teachers’ intention to pursue a career serving children with special needs. The direct and total effect of interest/commitment to individuals with special needs on preservice teachers’ intention to pursuing special education-related careers was .71.
Different from the original SCCT model, we found that interest and commitment to individuals with disabilities of preservice teachers was directly influenced by four variables: personal experiences with individuals with disabilities (β = .16, p < .01), work experiences with individuals with disabilities (β = .17, p < .01), outcome expectations on special education careers (β = .41, p < .001), and special education teaching efficacy (β = .19, p < .01).
Outcome expectations: Important direct and indirect impacts
Consistent with what we hypothesized based on SCCT model, the outcome expectation of a special education-related career has both a direct effect (.18) on intention to pursue a career in special education, as well as an indirect effect (.29) via the mediator of one’s interest/commitment to individuals with special needs. The total effect of outcome expectations on one’s intention to pursue a career related to special education was .47. In the context of special education, outcome expectations are essential in determining the intention to choose special education-careers of preservice teachers.
We found both direct and indirect associations between special education career outcome expectations and preservice teachers’ intentions to pursue a career in special education. On one hand, positive expectations related to the outcomes of pursuing a career in special education, such as “if I pursue a career in special education, I will . . .,” directly and positively impacted the magnitude of how much a preservice teacher would like to pursue a special education career (β = .18, p < .001). The results suggested that satisfactory career outcomes (e.g., salary, employment, and professional development opportunities, respect and appreciation from the communities, etc.) may directly attract more preservice teachers to join the special education field. On the other hand, positive outcome expectations increase preservice teachers’ interests and commitment to serving individuals with disabilities, and then ultimately enhance their intention to pursue a career related to special education.
Personal experiences and work experiences: The indirect impacts
Personal experiences such as having a close personal experiences with individuals with disabilities (e.g., family members, close friends, classmates, or oneself), demonstrated a significant effect on students’ interest and commitment to serving people with special needs. It had a significant total effect of .11 and the effect was entirely indirect. The effect of personal experiences of having a significant other with disabilities was mediated by their interest/commitment to individuals with disabilities, instead of being mediated by their teaching efficacy in special education as we initially hypothesized. When having significant others, close friends or classmates with special needs, preservice teachers were more likely to demonstrate concerns, empathy, commitment, and interests in helping individuals with special needs and consequently set up an intention to pursue a career in special education.
Similar paths appear related to the effects of work experiences with individuals who need special services. The work experiences had a significant total effect of .12 and the effect was entirely indirect on preservice teachers’ intention to pursue a special education career. Work experiences of serving individuals with disabilities (e.g., full-time special education teacher, part-time work experiences, voluntary experiences) demonstrated a positive and indirect effect on preservice teachers’ intention to pursue a special education-career via the mediator of preservice teachers’ career interest and commitment to special education.
General education teaching efficacy: The indirect and weak impact
As we hypothesized, general education teaching efficacy demonstrated an indirect impact on preservice teachers’ intention to pursue a career in special education via mediators of special education teaching efficacy, outcome expectations, as well as interests and commitment to serving individuals with special needs. The total and indirect effect was .09 and is less powerful in terms of predicting preservice teachers’ intention to pursue a special education career. This suggests a possible hypotheses to the question of why there is an adequate amount of well-prepared general education teacher candidates looking for general education teaching positions, while there is such a severe shortage of special education personnel.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the factors influencing the decisions of education majors when pursuing special education careers. This research question is answered through examining the SCCT model in the special education context with participants enrolled in an introductory special education course.
One should note that when interpreting the results, caution should be applied, primarily related to the participant sampling: because our research question was how educational majors decide their special education intentions, participants were education majors enrolled in an “introduction to special education” course, which is a foundational special education course required by all education majors. As a result, all participants in this study had not received any formal special education training. The sample may limit the extent to which the findings can be generalized to more seasoned special education majors or in-service teachers, but it does highlight certain implications for those who design and implement teacher training programs to attract potential special education majors and general education teachers with expertise in special education.
The results from descriptive statistics suggested that most of the preservice teachers, when taking the very first special education course, have relatively high general education teaching efficacy, and positive special education teaching efficacy. Although we cannot simply conclude that preservice teachers had higher general teaching efficacy and special education teaching efficacy, there seems to be a need to improve the preservice teachers’ special education teacher efficacy.
The participants generated relatively high scores in their expectation of special education careers, a finding divergent from the literature describing the negative outcome expectations reported by in-service special education teachers (Emery & Vandenberg, 2010). It appears that positive expectations in working in special education among preservice teachers may “wane” in light of challenges faced as an in-service teacher. Future research may seek to address methods of supporting positive outcome expectations over teaching experiences.
Unlike other studies that focus on identifying significant contributing factors to a teacher’s decision to pursue or stay in special education careers, the current study highlighted the complex relationships among these contributing variables and illustrated how these variables impact each other in determining teacher-candidates’ career intentions. This study also contributed to the literature by examining the SCCT model in the context of special education. Previously, the SCCT model has been applied in math, engineering, and science-related domains, but there have been few applications in the context of artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional themes (Lent et al., 2010; Sheu et al., 2010). In the latter fields, value, experiences, belief, and culture may play a more important role in the career development model. Overall, the present study supported the utility of the SCCT model in the context of special education, with a few unique relations identified. The majority of hypothesized relations based on the SCCT model are verified in the present study, including the direct contributions of interest/commitment to special education individuals and outcome expectations of working in special education professions on preservice teachers’ career intentions; the association between special education teacher efficacy and special education career outcome expectations; and the relation of general teaching efficacy and context-specific teaching efficacy in special education.
Results also indicate some unique relationships among the variables in determining preservice teachers’ special education career intentions. First, personal and work experiences did not significantly increase or decrease efficacy in teaching special education. Future research efforts should examine how special education training would affect preservice teachers’ special education teaching efficacy by surveying preservice and in-service teachers with diverse special education training experiences. In addition, special education teaching efficacy only indirectly impacts preservice teachers’ career intentions in special education, mediated by teacher-candidates’ outcome expectations and/or interest and commitment to individuals with special needs. This appears to be unique in special education as opposed to STEM areas. In most STEM areas, individuals’ career intentions are directly influenced by how competent an individual feels in the subject domain. For example, if a student believes that as long as he/she works hard, he/she will do well in science, he/she is more likely to choose a science-related area. However, in special education, even if the preservice teachers believe that their work can make a difference in the lives of students with special needs, they may still be reluctant to pursue a career in special education. This could be a result of concerns about the extensive workload, low payment, or fewer professional development opportunities. Although this finding needs to be cross-validated in more special-education teacher groups, it implies that to attract preservice teachers to special education careers, in addition to improving special education teacher efficacy, teacher preparation programs should pay attention to the mediating variables, such as interest and commitment to special education, or outcome expectations.
Furthermore, results highlighted a positive and direct influence of participants’ interest/commitment to individuals with special needs. This finding is consistent with the literature that in-service teachers’ commitment plays an important role in deciding intention to stay or leave the special education field (Brownell et al., 1994; Gersten et al., 2001), and that the majority of in-service teachers initially pursued a career in special education due to their empathy toward students with special needs (Stephens & Fish, 2010). We should also note that in some social, humanity or charity profession domains, career interest, and commitment implies a deep concern, belief, philosophy, or even a religious ideology (Jennett et al., 2003), and thus we should recognize the importance of maximizing the role of society and community culture in valuing, appreciating, encouraging, and supporting individuals’ altruistic behaviors in regard to helping children with disabilities. This certainly is a concern far beyond teacher education. The special education teacher shortage is not only an issue within teacher preparation programming, but also rooted in social values.
Findings revealed the importance of establishing positive outcome expectations among preservice teachers to recruit adequate teacher candidates. Outcome expectations may include financial factors (i.e., salary, benefits), employability factors (i.e., greater employability, job stability, promotion opportunities), and social factors (i.e., pride of students’ progress, and appreciation and respect from the community). It seems that at the initial stage, preservice teachers start with positive expectations of outcomes of a special education career. Strategies to retain such positive outcome expectations should be involved in further special education training programs. For example, special education programs can provide adequate employment information (i.e., such as employment rates and salary ranges) to preservice teachers, invite in-service teachers to share their experiences, provide effective mentoring during student-teaching, and provide intern opportunities for preservice teachers to obtain first-hand experiences.
Last, the present study highlighted the unique contributions of personal and work experiences with individuals with special needs in determining preservice teacher interest in serving individuals with disabilities. Work experiences with individuals with disabilities also have a strong and direct impact on teacher candidates’ interest and commitment to individuals with special needs. It implies that teacher education programs should provide adequate volunteer or intern opportunities to work with special education students. The results also indicate a strong and direct impact of having a family member/friend/classmate with disabilities on maximizing teacher candidate understanding, empathy, interests, and commitment to individuals with disabilities. It would be hard to imagine an individual without any personal or work experiences with individuals with disabilities to be devoted to special education. Clearly, these personal experiences with disabilities are far beyond the responsibilities of teacher education training programs, and this finding implies that the special education teacher shortage should not be limited to the failure of teacher preparation programs. Rather, our community should work toward increasing the special education teacher candidate pool by enhancing public disability awareness and promoting the integration of people with disabilities into the larger society.
For example, early interactions with peers with disabilities as the result of inclusionary practices in special education may enhance typically developing children’s acceptance of peers with disabilities (Logan et al., 1995; Staub & Peck, 1995) and increase their willingness to help individuals with disabilities, which may later influence their interests/commitment to pursue a career in special education. In addition, having a family member with special needs significantly influences the attitudes of children without disabilities toward people with disabilities and subsequently influences their future career interest (Dyson, 1999; Stoneman, 2005; Strohm, 2002). In this sense, enlarging the candidate pool for special education practitioners ultimately relies on increasing awareness, acceptance, and integration of people with disabilities into the greater society.
To summarize, findings from this study underscore the direct influence of the participants’ interest/commitment to individuals with special needs as well as personal and work experiences with individuals with special needs in determining preservice teachers’ interest in pursuing careers in special education. Follow-up research may cross-validate the conclusions of this study by examining the model in other preservice teacher programs, especially programs involving more seasoned special education preservice teachers. Future research may also compare how inservice special education teachers may differ in the career decision-making process, and what roles teacher training variables (e.g., field experiences, program curriculum, and faculty quality) may play in this process.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.