Special Education Preservice Teacher Knowledge of Mathematics Methods: The Effects of Content Acquisition Podcasts (CAPs)

Abstract

In undergraduate college courses, assignments designed to showcase preservice teacher learning traditionally include classroom presentations, papers, projects, and tests. Often, these activities do not translate into permanent products that will be utilized outside the course. The purpose of this pilot study was to investigate the effects of self-created video podcasts on content acquisition among undergraduate preservice special education teachers. Preservice teachers in two undergraduate courses were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: (1) podcast condition (treatment group; n = 25) and (2) traditional live presentation condition (control group; n = 25). The participants in each group were then assigned targeted instructional strategies for teaching mathematics. Pre–post measures included a comprehensive multiple-choice test and an open-ended assessment targeting each assigned strategy. During the last 2 weeks of the semester, participants presented their final product and completed the posttests. Results suggested that the participants in the treatment group (podcasts) acquired a deeper understanding of their assigned strategy than the participants from the comparison group (live presentations). The treatment group also outperformed the control group on the comprehensive multiple-choice test.

Keywords

special education teacher preparation adult education podcasts math content/curriculum area technology integration technology perspectives

With increasing demands on all preK–12 educators, it is the role of teacher preparation programs to effectively deliver training in content and instructional practices so that preservice teachers can begin their careers as skilled as possible. Preparing educators to understand conceptually dense content, such as mathematics and science, and then teach that content to children in the classroom is a challenging task (Kunter et al., 2013). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) requires appropriate and equitable education for students who have special learning needs and that this education be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE). For many students with disabilities, the LRE is the general education classroom. This means that both the general and special education teachers must be prepared to teach the general education curriculum while meeting the individual needs of those students who require special education services.

Instructional Strategies in Mathematics for Children With Disabilities

Historically, there has been a gap in educational research on math interventions for individuals with disabilities (Gersten et al., 2009). For example, in the What Works Clearinghouse Practice guide for struggling math students (Gersten et al., 2009), the only teaching practices with strong evidence are the use of systematic and explicit instruction and teaching students to identify underlying problem structure (schemas) when solving word problems. Practices with moderate evidence include the use of screening to identify students in need of intervention, teaching students to use visual representation of mathematical ideas, and regularly building fluent math fact retrieval during daily lessons (Gersten et al., 2009). Additional teaching practices recommended by researchers for children with math difficulties and math learning disabilities include strategy instruction for problem-solving, use of the concrete-representational-abstract teaching sequence, and peer-assisted learning strategies (Allsopp & Haley, 2015; Nagro, Weiss, & Daley, 2017).

Generally, special education instruction is centered on explicit and systematic instruction (Baker, Gersten, & Lee, 2002; Gersten et al., 2009; McLeskey et al., 2017; National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008). Special education teachers require the skills to provide specialized instruction, outside of commercial curricula and programs (Doabler et al., 2012), as many math curricula lack core components of math instruction for children with disabilities, such as opportunities to build math proficiency (Bryant et al., 2008) and opportunities to verbalize math thinking (Doabler, Fien, Nelson-Walker, & Baker, 2012). While special education teachers must integrate instructional strategies and accommodations to help those students with special needs, they may have difficulty contextualizing these practices to be specific to the mathematics curriculum (Van Ingen, Eskelson, & Allsopp, 2016). Special education teachers must learn to adapt standards-based mathematics content knowledge (Van Boxtel, 2017), while simultaneously addressing each child’s unique math learning challenges, using research- and evidence-based methods (Gersten et al., 2009). Thus, it is important that college educators find current and effective ways to provide multiple means for preservice special educators to acquire and apply their mathematical knowledge.

Teacher Preparation for Students With Math Disabilities or Difficulties

Instructors in special education teacher preparation programs must draw on a limited research base about effective instructional practices for teaching math to struggling learners and children with disabilities in the general curriculum and limited research about effective teacher preparation special education math (Allsopp & Haley, 2015). In a synthesis of research on professional development and preservice teacher training in special education mathematics, Allsopp and Haley (2015) concluded that the existing research demonstrated mixed results and provided little cumulative evidence for any specific approaches in special education math teaching preparation and professional development. They found some evidence that preservice teacher mathematics knowledge, as well as the number of methods courses they completed, helped predict future special education teachers’ use of explicit instructional practices and use of classroom accommodations for mathematics (Gagnon & Maccini, 2007; Maccini & Gagnon, 2006).

Technology in Teacher Preparation Courses

Standards for teacher competency have expanded to include technology-based skill sets including advanced skills such as designing learning experiences that are enriched by technology, demonstrating technology innovation and leadership beyond one’s own classroom, and using technology to help meet the needs of diverse learners and learners with special needs (International Society for Technology in Education, 2019; National Education Association, 2019). Specifically, teachers with these competencies can use technology to provide opportunities to enhance math instruction for individuals with disabilities (Smith & Okolo, 2010). There are many ways for teachers to integrate technology within the classroom, particularly within opportunities to individualize and differentiate instruction for students with disabilities in mathematics (Akpan & Beard, 2014). In fact, special education teachers can not only enhance student learning by using technology but can also promote student independence (Cviko, McKenney, & Voogt, 2014).

In order for in-service teachers to use technology to facilitate math skills in the classroom, it is important to incorporate the use of technology within teacher preparation programs in mathematics (Baglama, Yikmis, & Demirok, 2017). Baglama, Yikmis, and Demirok (2017) interviewed 15 special education preservice teachers on their views of using technology to teach mathematics to students with disabilities. Although the preservice teachers felt comfortable using technology, the majority recommended additional in-service training to support mathematics instruction using technology for children with disabilities, particularly integrating both visual and audio supports within technology.

The research base for the use of technology in higher education is steadily growing. However, many common instructional methods used within college courses are based on learning theories that lack current empirical support (Clark, 2009). Undergraduate assignments often consist of presentations, tests, and papers. However, technology-enhanced college classrooms can promote improved engagement (Carle, Jaffee, & Miller, 2009) and content knowledge (Kennedy, Kellems, Thomas, & Newton, 2015).

One example of the use of technology in higher education is podcasting. In an examination of the literature on the efficacy of instructor-created podcasts from 2004 to 2009, Heilesen (2010) found that although podcasting itself has mixed results regarding college student outcomes, instructor-created podcasting, whether video or audio, might have a positive impact on the academic environment. Within this same study, college students perceived the podcasts as an improvement to the study environment and used the podcasts as a new study tool (Heilesen, 2010). Evans (2008) also found that undergraduate students in an information and communications course rated instructor-created content-review audio podcasts as more effective than the textbook and their class notes for final exam preparation. More specifically, empirical evidence supports active learning, multimedia, technology-enhanced practices, and quick access to information in the college classroom. Dieker et al. (2014) outlined five technology-enhanced practices backed by evidence of effectiveness for use with preservice teachers: (a) podcasts including content acquisition podcasts (CAPs), (b) video case studies, (c) online delivery of content, (d) innovations in supervision and feedback, and (e) teaching simulations. Kennedy and colleagues (2015) confirmed that content-rich CAPs developed by preservice teachers are a promising practice that can support pedagogical content knowledge development.

CAPs

CAPs are short, audio and visual teaching segments that can deliver instruction in any content area, typically created using still images with recorded narration (Kennedy, Hart, & Kellems, 2011). Unlike traditional podcasts, which are usually published online as a series and made available for downloading, CAPs are often stand-alone files, created by educators for instructional purposes. CAPs were designed based on Mayer’s (2008, 2009) cognitive theory of multimedia learning and 12 accompanying evidence-based instructional design principles. CAPs offer a promising solution to build content knowledge and improve strategy instruction for preservice teachers (Kennedy, Thomas, & Meyer, 2014; Kennedy et al., 2015).

Empirical evidence supporting CAPs

The literature on CAPs is relatively new in special education teacher preparation programs; however, the evidence shows promise in supporting undergraduate learner engagement and cognition (Ely, Kennedy, Pullen, Williams, & Hirsch, 2014). For example, CAPs have been used to support teacher candidates’ knowledge of curriculum-based measurement (CBM). Kennedy, Wagner, and colleagues (2016) investigated the effectiveness of CAPs with 270 preservice teachers across three universities. The intervention group received information on CBMs through a CAP, while the control group received a practitioner-friendly reading on CBMs. Participants who received the information via CAP scored significantly higher on knowledge and application than the control group.

CAPs have also been used to build preservice teachers’ knowledge of phonological awareness skills (Carlisle, Thomas, & McCathren, 2016; Kennedy, Driver, Pullen, Ely, & Cole, 2013). For example, in the Kennedy and colleagues’ (2013) study, undergraduate students were assigned to one of two conditions: (a) reading an article on phonological awareness or (b) watching a CAP on phonological awareness. The undergraduate students who watched the CAP experienced a significant main effect and large effect size on the posttest and again on maintenance several weeks later. CAPs have also been used as a vehicle to increase knowledge of introductory special education content (Kennedy, Newton, Haines, Walther-Thomas, & Kellems, 2012), positive behavioral interventions and supports (Kennedy & Thomas, 2012), and literacy skills in comparison to more traditional coursework assignments such as an article review or chapter readings.

Teacher candidate–created CAPs

Active learning strategies promote knowledge acquisition and application with preservice special education teachers (Leko, Brownell, Sindelar, & Murphy, 2012). Preservice teacher–created CAPs are an example of an active learning strategy in the college classroom. Kennedy, Aronin, O’Neal, Newton, and Thomas (2014) examined whether the teacher candidates were able to create CAPs that followed Mayer’s principles and included evidence-based practices for vocabulary instruction. Kennedy and colleagues (2014) found that teacher candidates included evidence-based practices within their CAPs and adhered to Mayer’s principles with 87% accuracy on the first draft and 99% accuracy on the final product after receiving feedback. A follow-up survey revealed that the teacher candidates found creating the CAPs useful and planned to use them in the future. Weiss, Evmenova, Kennedy, and Duke (2016) also examined the teacher candidates’ creation of CAPs and found again that teacher candidates were able to incorporate Mayer’s principles and evidence-based vocabulary instruction with some inconsistency. Neither study, however, included a comparison group nor did they measure the impact of the created CAP on teacher candidate knowledge. In a third study, Alves and colleagues (2017) found that teacher candidates who created CAPs to teach a vocabulary word scored equally on a knowledge measure as those who created a nonmultimedia activity, but the CAP group outperformed the comparison group in a demonstration of instruction task. Further investigation of CAPs produced by preservice teachers is warranted.

CAPs in a special education math methods course

Based on the prior evidence, the need to infuse technology and active learning into preservice special education teacher preparation programs is important, and CAPs are one method to accomplish this. The use of instructor-created CAPs has demonstrated positive impacts in the college classroom (e.g., Kennedy & Thomas, 2012; Kennedy et al., 2012). Heilesen (2010) noted, however, that when college students are actively engaged in the creation of course podcasts, rather than listening to an instructor-created lecture, student knowledge and retention rates increase dramatically. In-service-created and preservice-created CAPs have been shown to demonstrate positive effects in vocabulary instruction (Alves et al., 2017; Kennedy et al., 2014; Weiss, Evmenova, Kennedy, & Duke, 2016). However, the current study is the first to investigate self-created CAPs among preservice teachers regarding mathematics methods in special education.

Purpose of the Current Study

The purpose of the current study was to conduct a pilot investigation of the effects of preservice teacher–created CAPs on their own knowledge of mathematics methods in special education. Specifically, the investigators wanted to examine whether creating and viewing video CAPs would affect participants’ content acquisition of strategies for teaching mathematics differently than creating and viewing traditional live student presentations using PowerPoint or a similar presentation software. The following research questions were explored:

Research Question 1: How did participants in the CAPs condition (i.e., treatment group) perform on a multiple-choice test covering mathematics strategies when compared to participants in the live presentation condition (i.e., comparison group)?

Research Question 2: How did participants in the treatment condition perform on an open-ended, strategy-specific assessment on mathematics strategy instruction when compared to the comparison group?

Method

An experimental two-group pretest–posttest design was used to answer the research questions. The study occurred in two sections of a math methods course. The students in the two sections were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: treatment (n = 25) or comparison (n = 25). Both groups received the same instruction, but as an end product to the course, Group 1 created a CAP, and Group 2 created live presentations using presentation software such as PowerPoint or Google Slides. The study examined the effects of CAPs on preservice teachers’ (a) general content knowledge acquisition in mathematics strategies on a pre–post multiple-choice test and (b) depth of knowledge on an assigned mathematics strategy on a pre–post open-ended assessment.

Participants

The participants included 50 undergraduate preservice special education teachers enrolled in one of two sections of a face-to-face course titled: Instructional methods and strategies on mathematics and science for teaching students with disabilities at one comprehensive liberal arts university in the southeastern United States. The course focused on preparing students to teach math and science strategies for children aged 3–21 years with mild disabilities in the general curriculum (e.g., learning disabilities, mild behavior challenges). The preservice teachers were in their final year of their teacher preparation program. See Table 1 for specific demographic data for all participants.

Table 1.

Demographic Data.

Demographic Characteristics	Comparison Group	Intervention Group
Average age	22.11	22.22
Race
Caucasian	70%	89%
African American	28%	11%
Hispanic/Latino	2%	0
Gender
Female	70%	88%
Male	30%	22%
Major
Special Education: General Curriculum	100%	100%

Experimental Conditions

During the first week of the experiment, all preservice teachers in the two sections were presented with an institutional review board consent form for their data to be included in the study. All (i.e., 100%) preservice teachers in the two sections of the course consented to their data being used in the study. The mathematics strategy presentation or CAP was a required component of the course, as was the pretest and posttest.

After consent was obtained, all participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (i.e., treatment or comparison). After grouping, the participants in each group were randomly assigned a mathematics instructional strategy (see Table 2). The strategies were duplicated across the two groups, so that participants in each group were exposed to the same targeted mathematics strategies. Immediately after being assigned to a group, and given a targeted mathematics strategy, all participants took a multiple-choice pretest covering all 14 mathematics strategies and an open-ended, strategy-specific pretest targeting their assigned mathematics strategy. The preservice teachers were informed that throughout the semester they would develop a classroom presentation or a CAP (based on their random group and strategy assignment) to be presented as a final project at the end of the semester. Participants in each condition would present their final project only to other members of their assigned group (CAPs or live presentations). After viewing their groups’ CAPs or presentations, all participants were given two posttests. The posttests were the same assessments used for the pretest at the beginning of the semester: (a) the multiple-choice test covering all strategies and (b) the open-ended, strategy-specific assessment (see Tables 3 and 4 for sample questions; see Table 5 for the open-ended rubric).

Table 2.

Preservice Teacher–Assigned Mathematics Strategies.

Concrete-representational-abstract/concrete-semiconcrete-abstract

Cover-copy-compare

Self-monitoring and self-regulation techniques for mathematics

Problem-solving techniques

Mnemonic instruction

Peer tutoring with constant time delay

Counting strategies

Memory enhancement techniques

Progress monitoring with a curriculum-based measure and immediate corrective feedback

Table 3.

Sample Multiple-Choice Questions.

1. ____ This strategy using explicit explanation of the steps of problem-solving through teacher modeling metacognitive thought.

Independent practice

Self-monitoring

Think-alouds

Graphic organizers

2. _____ The following is an example of which strategy: Mr. Carlyle utilizes dry erase boards for each student to practice a math problem, while three students are working out the problem on the whiteboard.

Rehearsing information aloud

Self-monitoring

Manipulative use

Opportunities to respond

3. The following strategy assists students with visual displays to organize and memorize content:

Self-monitoring

Process-directed feedback

Mnemonic instruction

Graphic organizers

4. _____ The following is an example of the following strategy: Ms. Potter encourages her students to use charts and graphs of their progress in multiplication facts in order to build awareness and motivation for her students.

Self-monitoring

Universal tier screening

Graphic organizers

Cognitive-based instruction

5. _____ The following example illustrates which thinking strategy for addition?

Think: 6 + 8 = _______

“4 plus 2 is 6. Take the 2 from the 6, put it with the 8 to get 10, that leaves 4 more for 14.”

Doubles

One/two more than

Make a ten

Counting on

Table 4.

Open-Ended Strategy-Specific Assessment.

Name of strategy assigned._______________________________

Give the purpose of the strategy.

Describe the strengths and weaknesses of children who would benefit from this strategy.

Give step-by-step instructions on how to implement this strategy (use the back as needed).

Table 5.

Open-Ended Response Rubric.

Criteria	Level 1, 0 points	Level 2, 1–3 points	Level 3, 4–5 points	Score
Detailed description of the strategy	No response, and/or inaccurate response	Partially accurate description	Accurate description
Strengths and challenges of the strategy	No response and/or inaccurate response	Partially accurate response of strengths and challenges	Accurate response
Step-by-step instructions (how it is implemented)	No steps for strategy implementation provided, and/or the steps are inaccurate	Partially accurate response of step-by-step instructions, and/or response is lacking information	Complete and accurate step-by-step instructions. Example is given
				Total score out of 15: ________

All participants received the same course materials and instruction regarding mathematics and science methods for preservice special education teachers, as required by course objectives. The instructor was the same for all participants. All participants were exposed to all mathematics strategies in one class session, midpoint of the semester. Each strategy was presented by the instructor on a PowerPoint with the strategy listed, accompanied by an example. In the next class, for the purposes of the CAPs and live presentation end-of-semester assignment, participants were introduced to Mayer’s principles for the design of multimedia instruction (Mayer, 2008). Particularly, Mayer’s (2008) five principles to reduce extraneous processing (i.e., coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity) and the three principles for managing essential processing (segmenting, pretraining, and modality) were highlighted. These two class sessions were designed to assist students in their end-of-semester project (i.e., CAPs or live presentation) as well as enhance their knowledge in mathematics methods and presenting materials electronically in future endeavors.

Treatment Group

The independent variable was the creation of a CAP and treatment groups’ viewing of CAPs. A CAP is a brief, audio and visual teaching segment created using still images with recorded narration that, in this case, was used to deliver instruction related to a targeted mathematics strategy. The participants in the treatment group were randomly assigned a mathematics strategy and were asked to create an audiovisual CAP about their assigned mathematics strategy. Each preservice teacher in the treatment group was required to create a CAP that was no longer than 5 min and to present their CAPs to other participants in the same group at the end of the semester. The preservice teachers in the treatment group were instructed to work individually, and they had 11 weeks to create their CAPs. The treatment group had 1 week longer to prepare than the comparison group because they were informed to not attend the “live presentation” class held the week prior to the treatment groups’ viewing of the CAPs.

Students in the treatment group were provided with written instructions, a PowerPoint, and a CAP on how to make a CAP (found at: https://vimeo.com/16517954). Participants all used PowerPoint or Google Slides, then either created a screencast over the presentation or narrated the presentation and saved it as a video. The last month of the semester, participants in the treatment group presented their CAPs on the projection screen in the classroom to the other treatment group participants in their course section. The participants in the treatment group did not view any live presentations (i.e., comparison groups’ presentations). At the end of each CAP presentation, the instructor left time for questions and answers as well as clarification from the instructor, in the case that any information in the CAP was inaccurate. The CAPs were graded on a rubric by the instructor. At the end of the class period, after the teacher candidates viewed all CAPs, the participants were given the posttests. Additionally, participants in the treatment condition gave permission for their CAPs to be publicly disseminated online so that teachers in the community could access and view them through the university mathematics clinic website.

Comparison Group

The participants in the comparison group were randomly assigned a mathematics strategy and were required to create an informational live presentation. The participants were given two pretests (i.e., the multiple-choice test covering all strategies and the open-ended, strategy-specific assessment) after they were assigned to the comparison group. The preservice teachers were directed to create a presentation on the assigned mathematics strategy that was between 5 min and 10 min in length using a presentation software, such as PowerPoint, Google Slides, or Prezi. They were instructed to work individually, and they had 10 weeks to prepare for the presentation. The participants in the comparison group presented their live presentations on the projection screen in the classroom to the other comparison group participants in their course section at the end of the semester. The participants in the comparison group did not view any CAPs. Using the same format as the treatment group, the instructor left time for questions and answers as well as clarification from the instructor, in the case that any information in the presentation was inaccurate. The CAPs were graded on a rubric by the instructor. At the end of the class period, after the teacher candidates viewed all presentations, the participants were given the posttests.

Dependent Variables

The first two authors designed the assessments. The researchers reviewed multiple textbooks and reputable sources to agree upon 14 mathematics strategies for teaching children with disabilities that were deemed of utmost importance to the preservice teachers’ future teaching assignments (see Table 2). A mathematics disabilities expert from a different university reviewed and validated the multiple-choice test as well as the rubric used to evaluate the strategy-specific assessment. All participants took both assessments at the beginning of the semester (pretest) and again at the end of the semester (posttest), within the same class period they viewed the CAPs or the live presentations.

All strategy multiple-choice assessment

To answer Research Question 1, the participants took a multiple-choice question pretest at the beginning of the semester to assess participant’s knowledge on all 14 mathematics strategies. This assessment consists of 25 questions, which is given by paper and pencil. After viewing all the live presentations or CAPs, the same multiple-choice assessment was given to each participant as a posttest.

Open-ended, strategy-specific assessment

To answer Research Question 2, the participants took a strategy-specific assessment, which assessed students’ knowledge of the strategy that they researched and presented either through the live presentation or CAP. The students took this assessment at the same time as the multiple-choice assessment, as a pretest and posttest. The students were asked to write responses for the following three prompts: (1) describe the intervention, (2) describe the population who would benefit from the strategy, and (3) provide step-by-step instructions to teach the strategy. The specific mathematics strategy responses were graded on a researcher-created rubric.

Data Analysis and Interobserver Reliability

All pretests and posttests were scored by three trained graduate student research assistants and one professor who were blind to the group assignments and the pre–post condition. The open-ended assessment was scored using a rubric, and the multiple-choice assessment was scored from an answer key. Each participant was given a total score on both assessments. Each of the raters scored a total of 18 assessments, and interrater reliability was thus calculated for 40% of the assessments. The resulting interrater reliability was 91%. For both research questions, data were analyzed using analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with α levels set at .05. Effect sizes, using partial η² were calculated for each dependent variable in which significant differences were noted. Based on Cohen’s d effect size calculator, all effect sizes were determined as small (i.e., η² = < .5).

Results

The first evaluation measured student knowledge of all strategies using a pretest–posttest multiple-choice assessment. Results of the all strategy multiple-choice assessment revealed greater gains among the treatment group, but there was no statistical significance between groups. The second evaluation measured their knowledge of the one strategy each student was assigned using a pretest–posttest open-ended assessment. Again, the treatment group showed greater gains from pretest to posttest; however, on the open-ended strategy assessment, those gains were statistically significant. Each research question is explored below.

Research Question 1: All Strategy Multiple-Choice Assessment

Research Question 1 examined the preservice teachers’ general knowledge of mathematics strategies for students with disabilities, as assessed on a pre–post multiple-choice assessment. Data were analyzed using ANOVAs on SPSS (Version 24) software to determine between-group differences on posttests. While there was not a significant difference between groups on the posttest, students in the CAPs group experienced larger gains on the multiple-choice assessment after watching their group’s student-created CAPs (see Tables 6 and 7 for results and descriptive data). On the multiple-choice posttest, the students in the presentation group scored a mean total score of 72.24 (12.58 SD) of 100 points, whereas students in the CAPs condition scored a mean of 77.13 (12.83 SD) of 100 points, F(1, 49) = 1.93, p = .17, η² = .04. The strength of the effect size between the intervention and the dependent variable was considered small.

Table 6.

Descriptive Scores as Depicted by Means and Standard Deviations on Both Dependent Measures.

Demographic Characteristics	Comparison Group			Intervention Group
Demographic Characteristics	n	Mean Pretest	Mean Posttest	n	Mean Pretest	Mean Posttest
Open-ended response strategy-specific assessment	25	7.9 (6.58 SD)	9.1 (3.43 SD)	25	5.06 (6.04 SD)	12.32 (1.74 SD)
Multiple-choice all strategies assessment	25	61.19 (12.96 SD)	72.24 (12.58 SD)	25	64.88 (11.26 SD)	77.13 (12.83 SD)

Note. SD = standard deviation.

Table 7.

One-Way Analysis of Variance of Scores Between Groups on the Open-Ended Response Posttest and Multiple-Choice Posttest.

Source	df	SS	MS	F	p	η
Open-ended response strategy-specific assessment	1	132.715	132.71	18.09	.000^a	.289
Multiple-choice all strategies assessment	1	317.96	317.96	1.936	.171	.04

Note. SS = Standard Score; MS = Mean Score.

^aSignificant at α level .05.

Research Question 2: Open-Ended, Strategy-Specific Assessment

The second research question examined the preservice teachers’ depth of knowledge on one specific mathematics strategy for students with disabilities. A one-way between-subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of preservice teacher–created CAPs (treatment) and live presentations (comparison) on strategy-specific knowledge. On the open-ended strategy posttest, the preservice teachers in the live presentation group scored a mean total score of 9.1 of 15 points (3.43 SD), whereas students in the CAPs condition scored a mean of 12.32 of 15 points (1.74 SD; see Table 6). There was a significant effect of the preservice teacher–created CAPs on depth of knowledge on the open-ended assessment at the p < .05 level for the treatment condition with a small effect size F(1, 49) = 18.09, p < .001, η² = .289. These results suggest that when the preservice teachers created and viewed CAPs, they experienced greater depth of knowledge on their assigned strategy.

Discussion

There is an ongoing need for special education programs to meaningfully infuse technology and active learning strategies into their pedagogical repertoires in order to engage preservice teachers in constructing deeper levels of knowledge. This may be particularly important for discipline-specific content areas in which teacher candidates will need to be able to modify general strategies in order to support students with varied learning needs. The results of the study indicate that teacher candidate–created CAPs, when compared to live classroom presentations, have a greater impact on depth of knowledge, particularly when focusing on one specific strategy in special education math methods. This finding is deducted from the results of an open-ended strategy-specific assessment, which revealed a statistically significant difference among preservice teachers who prepared their own CAP about an assigned math strategy.

Contributions

It has been well-documented that utilizing technology allows for more accessible, engaging, and personalized learning experiences than traditional modes of content delivery (Henrie, Halverson, & Graham, 2015; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, 2017). For example, researchers have found that instructor-created podcasts may be a more effective learning tool than reading textbooks and taking notes (Evans, 2008). Additionally, instructor-created podcasts have been successfully used to provide students with a new means of studying (Heilesen, 2010) and increase active engagement in learning (Carle et al., 2009). More specifically, instructor-created CAPs have been shown to improve students’ content acquisition (Kennedy et al., 2014; Kennedy et al., 2015).

This study makes a unique contribution to the research on CAPs by (a) focusing on the impact of student-created products, rather than instructor-created materials, to increase student knowledge and retention rates (Heilesen, 2010) and (b) applying CAPs to preservice teacher learning about mathematics instructional teaching methods. Three previous studies have been conducted on undergraduate student–created CAPs in education (Alves et al., 2017; Kennedy, Aronin et al., 2014; Weiss et al., 2016); however, no previous research evaluating the effects of student-created CAPs on preservice teacher knowledge in an undergraduate special education math methods courses exists. The results reveal that student-created CAPs promoted greater depth of knowledge than live student classroom presentations and that exposure to those CAPs maybehave also contributed to a greater breadth of knowledge in math methods.

Implications

Results of the current study indicate CAPs as a viable option for college professors who search for technology-enhanced alternatives to traditional classroom activities. With current technology often readily available to college students, the creation of CAPs is an accessible teaching strategy. For example, CAPs can be created by narrating a PowerPoint and saving as a video or by using free screencast software. Student-created CAPs are also an option for hybrid or fully online classes, when face-to-face live classroom presentations are not feasible. Further, CAPs can provide a permanent product to classroom assignments, when many typical assignments, such as live presentations, are less likely to be used outside the college classroom.

As with most technology-enhanced student projects, students will require access to technology, beyond a cell phone, to create a CAP. It was found that while the traditional undergraduate students are assumed to have practical understanding in technology, creating CAPs was a new skill that required explicit instructions. If professors were to utilize this method of instruction, access to technology and explicitly written directions should be provided to students to reduce frustration and to keep focus on the learning of the content knowledge rather than simply learning the technology.

Limitations

There are several limitations to the current study. The participants were from one rural comprehensive university in the southeast region of the United States. Therefore, the results cannot be generalized to all undergraduate preservice special education teachers. Additionally, the students took the course with the same professor; hence, the results may differ with additional professors and with different courses. While a special education mathematics disabilities expert validated the survey, there is a lack of reliability on the measure and scoring rubric. In order to determine CAPs as an acceptable teaching strategy, a social validity measure, from the students’ perspective, would have been beneficial. Finally, it must be acknowledged that the independent variable had two parts: (1) the creation of the CAP and (2) the viewing of the CAPs presentations. Thus, it cannot be determined whether student growth was due to the creation or the viewing of the CAPs presentations, or the combination of both.

Future Research

In future studies, researchers would benefit from collecting data across universities to better generalize the results, obtain greater sample sizes, and investigate other content areas. As the current study was conducted solely in a face-to-face class, it would be interesting to investigate student-created CAPs in fully online or hybrid classes. Study participants were all undergraduate students; thus, it would also be intriguing to investigate if the same effects are found with graduate students.

In future studies, researchers may want to examine more deeply the question of why the CAPs were more effective in student acquisition of mathematics strategies. For example, does watching a presentation versus watching CAPs require different levels of attention? Is there something about a student-created CAP that is more engaging to the learner than a classmate presenting the same information? Further, what is it about the active involvement needed to create a CAP that is different from the process of creating a presentation? Do students spend more time developing a CAP versus a classroom presentation? Does it require more creative or higher level thinking skills? In essence, what is it exactly that leads to greater content acquisition from one approach to the other?

Finally, it would be interesting to investigate if after creating a CAP for a college assignment, the teacher candidates are then successful in creating CAPs or videos for their future elementary, middle, and high school students. Particularly, the preservice teachers may create CAPs to assist future students and parents with homework activities or for use in providing preteaching or retention instruction outside the classroom, allowing them to demonstrate the digital competencies for learning that may be required for state licensure requirements.

Conclusion

CAPs created by college students are a promising active learning solution to promote engagement and effective knowledge acquisition. Using multimedia within the college classroom may not only improve student knowledge but also promote active learning and construction of knowledge. With increasing student dependence on technology, college professors may seek new technological ways to engage students in their own learning that utilizes methods that interest the current student population. Student-created CAPs may be one solution to infuse multimedia instruction in the college classroom.

Footnotes

Authors' Note

Jessica Bucholz is now affilaited with Sarasota County Schools.

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.

References

Akpan

J. P.

Beard

L. A.

(2014). Assistive technology and mathematics education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2, 219–222.

Allsopp

D. H.

Haley

K. C.

(2015). A synthesis of research on teacher education, mathematics, and students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 13, 177–206.

Alves

K. D.

Kennedy

M. J.

Kellems

R. O.

Wexler

Rodgers

W. J.

Romig

J. E.

Peeples

K. N.

(2017). Improving preservice teacher vocabulary instruction: A randomized controlled trial. Teacher Education and Special Education. doi:10.1177/0888406417727044

Baglama

Yikmis

Demirok

M. S.

(2017). Special education teachers’ views on using technology in teaching mathematics. European Journal of Special Education Research, 2, 120–133.

Baker

Gersten

Lee

D. S.

(2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 51–73.

Bryant

B. R.

Bryant

D. P.

Kethley

Kim

S. A.

Pool

Seo

Y. J.

(2008). Preventing mathematics difficulties in the primary grades: The critical features of instruction in textbooks as part of the equation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 21–35.

Carle

A. C.

Jaffee

Miller

(2009). Engaging college science students and changing academic achievement with technology: A quasi-experimental preliminary investigation. Computers & Education, 52, 376–380.

Carlisle

A. A.

Thomas

C. N.

McCathren

R. B.

(2016). The effectiveness of using a content acquisition podcast to teach phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and phonics to preservice special education teachers. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31, 87–98.

Clark

R. E.

(2009). Translating research into new instructional technologies for higher education: The active ingredient process. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 4–18.

10.

Cviko

McKenney

Voogt

(2014). Teacher roles in designing technology-rich learning activities for early literacy: A cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 72, 68–79.

11.

Dieker

L. A.

Kennedy

M. J.

Smith

Vasquez

III Rock

Thomas

(2014). Use of technology in the preparation of pre-service teachers (Document No. IC-11). University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center. Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/

12.

Doabler

C. T.

Cary

M. S.

Jungjohann

Clarke

Fien

Baker

… Chard

(2012). Enhancing core mathematics instruction for students at risk for mathematics disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44, 48–57.

13.

Doabler

C. T.

Fien

Nelson-Walker

N. J.

Baker

S. K.

(2012). Evaluating three elementary mathematics programs for presence of eight research-based instructional design principles. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 200–211.

14.

Ely

Kennedy

M. J.

Pullen

P. C.

Williams

M. C.

Hirsch

S. E.

(2014). Improving instruction of future teachers: A multimedia approach that supports implementation of evidence-based vocabulary practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 35–43.

15.

Evans

(2008). The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast revision lectures in higher education. Computers & Education, 50, 491–498.

16.

Gagnon

J. C.

Maccini

(2007). Teacher-reported use of empirically validated and standards-based instructional approaches in secondary mathematics. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 43–56.

17.

Gersten

Chard

D. J.

Jayanthi

Baker

S. K.

Morphy

Flojo

(2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1202–1242.

18.

Heilesen

S. B.

(2010). What is the academic efficacy of podcasting? Computers & Education, 55, 1063–1068.

19.

Henrie

C. R.

Halverson

L. R.

Graham

C. R.

(2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36–53. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.005

20.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

21.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2019). ISTE standards for educators. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators

22.

Kennedy

M. J.

Aronin

O’Neal

Newton

J. R.

Thomas

C. N.

(2014). Creating multimedia-based vignettes with embedded evidence-based practices: A tool for supporting struggling learners. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29, 15–30.

23.

Kennedy

M. J.

Driver

M. K.

Pullen

P. C.

Ely

Cole

M. T.

(2013). Improving teacher candidates’ knowledge of phonological awareness: A multimedia approach. Computers & Education, 64, 42–51.

24.

Kennedy

M. J.

Hart

J. E.

Kellems

R. O.

(2011). Using enhanced podcasts to augment limited instructional time in teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 87–105.

25.

Kennedy

M. J.

Kellems

R. O.

Thomas

C. N.

Newton

J. R.

(2015). Using content acquisition podcasts to deliver core content to preservice teacher candidates. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50, 163–168.

26.

Kennedy

M. J.

Newton

J. R.

Haines

S. J.

Walther-Thomas

C. S.

Kellems

R. O.

(2012). A triarchic model for teaching “Introduction to Special Education”: Case studies, content acquisition podcasts, and effective feedback. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 20, 251–275.

27.

Kennedy

M. J.

Thomas

C. N.

(2012). Effects of content acquisition podcasts to develop preservice teachers’ knowledge of positive behavioral interventions and supports. Exceptionality, 20, 1–19.

28.

Kennedy

M. J.

Thomas

C. N.

Meyer

P. J.

(2014). Using evidence-based multimedia to improve vocabulary performance of adolescents with LD: A UDL approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 72–86. doi:10.1177/0731948713507262

29.

Kennedy

M. J.

Wagner

Stegall

Lembke

Miciak

Alves

K. D.

… Brown

(2016). Using content acquisition podcasts to improve teacher candidate knowledge of curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 82, 303–320. doi:10.1177/0014402915615885

30.

Kunter

Klusmann

Baumert

Richter

Voss

Hachfeld

(2013). Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 805.

31.

Leko

M. M.

Brownell

M. T.

Sindelar

P. T.

Murphy

(2012). Promoting special education preservice teacher expertise. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44, 1.

32.

Maccini

Gagnon

J. C.

(2006). Mathematics instructional practices and assessment accommodations by secondary special and general educators. Exceptional Children, 72, 217–234.

33.

Mayer

R. E.

(2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63, 760.

34.

Mayer

R. E.

(2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

35.

McLeskey

Barringer

M. D.

Billingsley

Brownell

Jackson

Kennedy

… Ziegler

(2017, January). High-leverage practices in special education. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center.

36.

Nagro

S. A.

Weiss

M. P.

Daley

J. T.

(2017). Getting past “I Hate Math!” In Murawski

W. W.

Scott

K. L.

(Eds.), What really works with exceptional learners (pp. 6–22). Corwin.

37.

National Education Association. (2019). Partnership for 21st century skills. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/34888.htm

38.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

39.

Smith

S. J.

Okolo

(2010). Response to intervention and evidence-based practices: Where does technology fit? Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 257–272.

40.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in higher education: A supplement to the national education technology plan. Washington, DC: Author.

41.

Van Boxtel

J. M.

(2017). Common core expertise for special education teachers: What do special education administrators think is important? Teacher Education Quarterly, 44, 57.

42.

Van Ingen

Eskelson

S. L.

Allsopp

(2016). Evidence of the need to prepare prospective teachers to engage in mathematics consultations. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 18, 73–91.

43.

Weiss

M. P.

Evmenova

A. S.

Kennedy

M. J.

Duke

J. M.

(2016). Creating content acquisition podcasts (caps) for vocabulary: The intersection of content, pedagogy, and technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31, 228–235.