Special Education Teacher Candidate Assessment

Abstract

Teacher preparation has been under intense scrutiny in recent years. In order for preparation of special education teacher candidates to remain viable, candidate assessment practices must apply practices identified in the extant literature base, while special education teacher education researchers must extend this base with rigorous efforts to link preservice candidate assessment of knowledge, skills, and dispositions, to authentic experiences in the field, in-service professional practice, and student achievement. The authors review prior research on special education candidate assessment from 2000 to the present in three primary domains: skills and knowledge related to academics, behavior, collaboration, and transition; dispositional factors, including attitudes about disability, inclusion, and diversity; and authentic, field-based assessments, including measures of candidates’ impact on students and their induction experiences. Implications for policy and practice are provided.

Keywords

assessment teacher education special education field experience accountability

Across the country, teacher education programs are grappling with tensions and conflicts related to the purpose of education, the role and value of assessment, and the implications of the standards-based movement for learners in P-12 settings and the teachers who serve them. Teacher quality gained prominence with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2001 (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001), which called for a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Qualified was defined as having a bachelor’s degree, full state certification through various routes, and content area expertise; less emphasis was placed on pedagogical skills. The rhetoric on highly qualified has shifted to highly effective as measured by P-12 student outcomes (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Much like the high-stakes testing experienced by P-12 students, teacher education programs are increasingly judged based on their graduates’ ability to produce adequate yearly progress in their students.

Multiple arguments have been made justifying the need to improve accountability in teacher preparation programs. These include continued disparities in academic achievement by students of color and students with disabilities compared with their White peers (Aud et al., 2011), U.S. academic rankings compared with other developed nations (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD], 2010), and the need for a populace able to compete in a global market (American Association of College Teachers of Education [AACTE], 2011). Although there is some existing research indicating an effective teacher is central for student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Feng & Sass, 2010; Nougaret, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2005), there is a lack of research indicating what type of preparation (e.g., residency, traditional, clinically rich, etc.) is necessary and what instructional and assessment techniques are most conducive to producing the desired results (Sindelar, Brownell, & Billingsley, 2010).

Currently, institutions of higher education prepare 90% of teachers through traditional and alternative programs (AACTE, 2011); therefore, it is essential for teacher educators to assess the quality of their graduates so that they can predict their effectiveness once they are teachers of record and consequently demonstrate to policy makers and key stakeholders the value of teacher preparation. For special education teacher preparation programs, teacher quality must incorporate a range of assessment strategies—addressing candidate content knowledge, dispositions about disability and culture, and the impact of teaching performance on student outcomes—to ensure that graduates have the range of skills necessary to be successful in the divisive policy arena of contemporary public education.

Significance

There is a continued need to develop a strong research agenda focused on special education teacher preparation (Sindelar et al., 2010). The lack of research in this area can be attributed to the early age of special education and the emphasis on intervention research versus research examining special education teacher preparation. Prior research focuses primarily on a variety of topics including teacher shortages (McLeskey, Tyler, & Flippin, 2004; Nichols, Bicard, Bicard & Casey, 2008), alternate certification routes (Rosenberg, Boyer, Sindelar, & Misra, 2007), and mentoring (Billingsley, 2004). Lacking is research identifying viable assessments for special education teacher candidates in light of the increased emphasis on inclusion. Currently, there is a growing trend to couple teacher quality with student achievement (e.g., Florida Department of Education, Louisiana Department of Education) and thus measure teacher effectiveness with value-added models (Feng & Sass, 2010). Although student achievement is an important consideration in assessing teacher performance, it is not the only consideration; mediating variables including socioeconomic status, class size, and school contextual factors must be taken into account, as well as the manner in which students are assigned to teachers and the teaching configurations (e.g., co-teaching, team teaching, support facilitation, resource room).

Historically, accountability of teacher preparation programs has centered on program accreditation and teacher certification (Wilson & Youngs, 2005), which have been described as inputs (e.g., Goe, 2006). The role of outputs, or student outcomes, as measured by high-stakes tests, has gained prominence in the conversation. Goe asserts that neither in isolation provides the necessary data to determine what teachers “actually do” (p. 2) or where they learned it nor do they take into consideration other factors (e.g., context, parent involvement, leadership) that contribute (either positively or negatively) to student learning. National accrediting bodies, such as the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), which recently merged with the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) to form the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), assert that accountability and continuous improvement are dual missions of accreditation. Yet, in spite of decades of accreditation activities, the relevance of teacher preparation programs is still in question, the problem of failing schools persists, and there is limited evidence of how accreditation has influenced teacher quality. Therefore, the assessment of teacher candidates must take into account what they know and believe, how they apply it, under what conditions, and to what extent.

Assessment of teacher candidates is further complicated when considering the complexity of the role of a special educator. Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, and Danielson (2010) described how special education teacher preparation has “evolved from specialized, clinical preparation in residential facilities into an enterprise that now lacks clear conceptual boundaries” (p. 358). Special education teachers may find themselves teaching in a variety of settings including self-contained classrooms or schools, resource rooms, general education settings, in a variety of roles with diverse responsibilities such as co-teaching, team teaching, support facilitation, and/or interventionist, and with students with various needs and disability labels. In light of the blurring of the roles of special education teachers, what knowledge, skills, and dispositions should special education candidates be able to demonstrate upon graduation? Furthermore, what is the current state of research on candidate assessment methods and tools that could demonstrate our worth as teacher educators and provide quality data that assist with program improvement? This article will review the research literature on assessment in teacher education within special education in an attempt to answer both questions.

Method

The literature search criteria were English-language empirical (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods study using original data) articles in peer-reviewed journals since 2000 on assessment of preservice special education teacher candidates in the United States. With these limiters in place, Education Research Information Center (ERIC), Wilson Education, and PsychINFO were searched using the following terms: Teacher education or teacher preparation, special education or disability, and assessment or evaluation. In addition, given its focus on research related to special education teacher preparation, an issue-by-issue search was conducted in Teacher Education and Special Education. Additional articles were identified through ancestry searches of articles that met the selection criteria. A total of 790 unique articles were identified through the original searches; of these, 74 met all criteria.

Results

The review is organized into three broad, overlapping aspects of candidate assessment in special education: assessment of core knowledge, dispositions, and applied experiences. Articles on assessment of core knowledge and skill domains necessary for effective special education, which includes academic, behavioral, and collaborative competencies, are reviewed first. Next, we discuss articles assessing candidate dispositions, including attitudes about (a) disability or inclusion and (b) diversity or multiculturalism. Third, we discuss assessment approaches focusing on candidates’ applied experiences through which they enact special education knowledge, skills, and dispositions in authentic contexts; these approaches include field experience assessment, research linking candidate performance to student achievement, and studies following program completers into their initial years of teaching. This organizing scheme follows the logic that teacher candidates must possess requisite knowledge, skills, and dispositions, before being able to implement them in educational settings for the benefit of student achievement. Some articles addressed multiple assessment areas.

Knowledge and Skills

Forty-three studies addressed special education candidate knowledge and skills in four areas: academics, behavior, collaboration, and transition (Table 1).

Table 1.

Knowledge and Skills.

Author (year)	Sample	Research design and measures	Summary of findings
Academic
Al Otaiba and Lake (2007)	18 UG SE	ANOVA, t-tests; knowledge assessment, reading questionnaire; student reading assessments.	Significant gains for candidate reading knowledge during reading methods course with tutoring component. Significant student gains with nonsense word fluency, oral reading fluency, and word identification; no change for word attack and passage comprehension.
Alexander, Lignugaris/Kraft, and Forbush (2007)	6 SE (5 UG, 1 GR)	Single subject, descriptives; case study, written products; student CBMs.	Online math methods course increased candidate knowledge of curriculum planning for all candidates with strong field-based application measures; student scores increased.
Barton and Wolery (2007)	6 ECSE (3 UG, 3 GR)	Single subject; email feedback on the use of expansions and specific praise.	Instructor email feedback led to increase in candidate use of expansions (repeating child language with more complex language) but not specific praise.
Burke (2005)	40 UG	Correlation, regression; two New York state teacher certification exams, SAT scores, high school and college GPA.	SAT scores and college GPA significant predictors of certification scores. Verbal SAT scores more predictive than math.
Capizzi, Wehby, and Sandmel (2010)	3 GR SE	Single subject; lesson components, rate of praise statements, and opportunities to respond.	Mentoring through consultative feedback and self-evaluation of videotaped instruction led to increase in number of lesson components and amount of behavior-specific praise delivered for all participants.
Foegen, Espin, Allinder, and Markell (2001)	45 SE	ANOVA; Teacher Belief Survey following presentations about utility and validity of CBMs.	No effects for presentation format (statistical vs. first-person accounts). Beliefs were more positive about utility of CBM than about its validity.
Gormley and Ruhl (2007)	37 UG (10 SE, 27 EE)	Experimental, MANOVA; intervention was video tutorial and self-paced study guide; letter-sound, irregular word identification, and child error identification.	Video tutorial and self-paced study guide improved scores on letter-sound knowledge and irregular word identification application but not on analyzing child letter-sound errors.
Griffin, Jitendra, and League (2009)	5 GR SE	Descriptives, qualitative; candidate observations and interviews; student math assessment.	Teachers of students making more progress used more teacher press, questioning, diverse instructional materials, and differentiated instruction.
Keller, Brady, and Taylor (2005)	3 UG SE	Single subject; specific social praise.	Audiotaped self-evaluation increased specific social praise in target content area. Two of three participants generalized to other content areas.
King-Sears, Carran, Dammann, and Arter (2012)	98 (34 SE, 64 GE)	t-tests; Student Teacher Skill Survey for student teachers working with students with disabilities.	SE had significantly higher ratings than GE for working with students with disabilities. No differences between traditional and alternative certification programs.
Leko and Brownell (2011)	6 GR SE	Qualitative; interviews, observations, and artifacts.	Opportunities to appropriate knowledge in practice, personal qualities, motivation for knowledge assimilation, and access to knowledge, are key factors for implementing literacy knowledge.
Marlatt (2004)	50 GR SE	Discriminant analysis; survey of practical knowledge.	Candidates had higher expectations for student responsibilities than novice or experienced teachers, and higher academic expectancies and expectations for student behavior than experienced teachers.
Miller et al. (2009)	251 (36 UG SE, 133 GR SE, 43 UG GE, 39 GR GE)	ANOVA, qualitative; concept maps (nodes, links, quality of map rubric scores) and interviews.	Multimedia case studies led to increase in concept map links and nodes for all groups except UG GE. All groups increased quality of map scores.
Nevin, Thousand, Parsons, and Lilly (2000)	45 SE	Descriptives, qualitative; survey of instructional competencies, observations, and interviews.	High mean self-ratings among program completers on 10 of 11 competencies; using technology lowest (mean below 3 on 4-point scale).
Phillips and Halle (2004)	4 UG SE	Single subject; environmental arrangement strategies and delayed prompting procedures.	All increased frequency and variation of environmental arrangement strategies and frequency of delayed prompts implemented.
Rosas and Campbell (2010)	26 GR SE	Descriptives; transcript review, Ohio Achievement Test-Practice Eighth Grade Math practice test, belief and confidence survey.	Scores on belief and confidence survey exceeded math knowledge and training.
Spear-Swerling (2009)	45 SE (16 GR, 29 UG)	MANOVA; reading knowledge self-ratings direct; student reading assessments.	Candidates had inaccurate perceptions of knowledge initially but knowledge improved significantly; students improved. Teacher knowledge measures did not predict student reading growth.
Spear-Swerling and Brucker (2004)	67 UG SE, 80 GR SE	Quasi-experimental, ANOVA; three measures of candidate word-structure knowledge; student reading assessments.	Candidates in literacy courses exceeded candidates in introductory special education course in syllable type and irregular words tasks. Students improved on all five reading measures. Candidate word-structure knowledge correlated with children’s progress in decoding phonetically regular words.
Spear-Swerling and Brucker (2006)	147 SE	ANOVA; three measures of word-structure knowledge, three reading ability assessments.	Differences in reading abilities related to performance on word-structure knowledge. Word reading accuracy and spelling ability, but not general language abilities or reading speed, influenced acquisition of word-structure knowledge. Course instruction influenced knowledge acquisition as much or more than component abilities.
Spybrook and Walker (2012)	33 SE, EC, and EE	Qualitative; group plans for centers, brochures explaining exhibits, and reflections.	Importance of connecting theory to practice, place of play in assessment, inclusive practices, validity of children’s museums as field placements.
Stotsky (2009)	n/a	Test analysis; phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, and math content in various special education licensure exams.	Licensure exams for SE contain low percentages of items related to phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, and math knowledge and related pedagogical knowledge.
Utley (2006)	21 GR (17 SE, 2 EE, two social work)	Qualitative; questionnaire, student artifacts.	Candidates in methods course focused on situated learning committed to apply their learning in the field and attributed their knowledge gain to dimensions of situated learning in the course.
Behavior
Begeny and Martens (2006)	110 GR (39 EE, 35 Sec, 36 SE)	Descriptives, ANOVA; survey on training in behavioral instruction and principles, index of training in behavioral instruction practices.	No training indicated for 43% of items. SE had significantly more coursework and applied training than EE and Sec in academic assessment strategies.
Capizzi, Wehby, and Sandmel (2010)	3 GR SE	Single subject; lesson components, rate of praise statements, and opportunities to respond.	Mentoring through consultative feedback and self-evaluation of videotaped instruction led to increase in number of lesson components and amount of behavior-specific praise delivered for all participants.
Fitzgerald et al. (2011)	16 SE	ANOVA, t-tests, qualitative; online discussion groups, interviews, concept maps (nodes, links, and map quality).	Significant changes in how candidates conceptualized problem behavior and associated solutions using multimedia case studies from pretreatment to first follow-up. Gains maintained when candidates were employed.
Keller, Brady, and Taylor (2005)	3 UG SE	Single subject; specific social praise.	Audiotaped self-evaluation increased specific social praise in target content area. Two of three participants generalized to other content areas.
Kraemer, Cook, Browning-Wright, Mayer, and Wallace (2008)	22 GR SE	t-tests; Behavior Support Plan Quality Evaluation Guide.	Training significantly improved the quality of PBS plans among autism educators.
Liaupsin (2002)	24 UG SE, 5 GR SE	ANOVA, content analysis, descriptives; expert evaluation, test of FBA knowledge.	Positive expert evaluations of a computer-based self-assessment FBA program. Significant difference in knowledge gains between in-service and comparison group. No significant difference between preservice and comparison group.
Oliver and Reschly (2010)	n/a	Analysis of course syllabi for presence of instruction related to classroom management.	Majority of programs emphasized reactive procedures (65%) with far fewer (12%-29%) addressing structured environment, active supervision and student engagement, schoolwide behavioral expectations, and classroom routines.
Scheeler, McAfee, Ruhl, and Lee (2006)	5 SE	Single subject; candidate use of three-term contingency trials with students.	Corrective, immediate feedback shown to be effective for increasing completion of three-term contingency trials by teachers. All five SE reached criterion level. Correct student responses increased for 4 of 5 SE.
Van Laarhoven, Munk, Lynch, Bosma, and Rouse (2007)	53 (15 SE, 25 EE, 13 Sec)	ANOVA; Attitudes Toward Inclusion and Instructional Adaptations surveys; curricular probes for FBA, inclusion, and other topics.	All participants showed increases in knowledge of FBA and attitude toward inclusion scores. More substantial gains for participants in Project ACCEPT (collaborative clinical experience and enhanced instruction) and greater gains for GE than SE.
Collaboration
Bradley and Monda-Amaya (2005)	9 GR SE	Single subject, qualitative; Conflict Opinion Interview, Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, vignettes with scoring rubric, scoring tables with expert responses.	Conflict resolution intervention led to positive changes in analysis of conflicts in collaborative settings and taking steps toward resolution.
Fults and Harry (2012)	9 GR ECSE	Descriptives, qualitative; questionnaire on vignettes about family-professional relationships, interviews, reflections.	Higher mean scores across all vignettes with greatest change for students with low initial scores.
Gallagher, Vail, and Monda-Amaya (2008)	41 GR SE	Qualitative; weekly journals.	Most frequent comments among candidates in a collaboration course: self-evaluation, communication skills, personal evaluation of team, components of teaming.
Griffin, Jones, and Kilgore (2006)	72 (50 GR SE, 22 GR ECSE)	Qualitative; course assignments.	Candidates in collaboration course identified facilitators (communication, common concern for the student, family involvement) and obstacles (expectations, perception of role, conflicting goals).
Hallam, Buell, and Ridgley (2003)	123 UG programs	Factor analysis, chi-squares; survey on content, field experience, instruction, and assessment strategies related to families in poverty.	Programs with home visit requirements were more likely to address content related to family and parent supports and knowledge. More reflective essays than performance assessments.
McHatton and Daniel (2008)	8 SE, 8 GE	MANOVA; survey of awareness, knowledge of students, and knowledge of content.	Significantly higher awareness ratings for SE than for GE (English education); both groups improved following co-teaching practicum.
McKenzie (2009)	53 programs	Descriptives; survey on collaboration preparation.	Thirty percent have no collaboration course; splintered collaboration in many IHEs. Many of the problems related to collaboration in the public schools are paralleled by the division between special and general education at IHEs.
Murray and Curran (2008)	26 UG (16 SE)	Wilcoxon-matched pairs; survey on learning outcomes, focus group.	Statistically significant changes on all objectives after a course on parent-professional interactions that included parents in instruction.
Murray and Mandell (2004)	22 ECSE	Qualitative; interviews	Candidate confidence in utilizing family-centered practices is the result of preservice opportunities to interact with families. Involvement of families in coursework is important.
Stang and Lyons (2008)	43 GR SE	Descriptives, qualitative; survey on knowledge and comfort with co-teaching.	Participant knowledge of co-teaching increased after participating in co-taught teacher education course.
Welch and Brownell (2002)	79 UG (25 SE, 39 EE)	Quasi-experimental, ANOVA, qualitative; cognitive knowledge related to collaboration, attitude/perceived skill and knowledge related to collaboration, focus groups.	Learners made significant gains in all groups with larger gains for both experimental conditions (collaboration videos only and videos with CDs). Significant gains for attitudinal skills subsection for all groups.
Transition
Morningstar, Kim, and Clark (2008)	73 GR SE	t-tests, qualitative; survey of transition competencies, focus groups, interviews.	Transition program resulted in significant gains in transition competencies.
Nevin, Malian, and Williams (2002)	19 UG SE	Chi-squares, qualitative; definitions of self-determination from performance and portfolio reviews.	Statistically significant differences in definitions of self-determination after program participation; definitions more closely matched research-based definition.
Wandry et al. (2008)	196 SE (67 GR, 129 UG)	Descriptives; survey: transition-related preparation, implementation, and perceived gaps in-service delivery.	Few candidates received instruction in transition services prior to taking dedicated transition-related coursework. Candidates were not confident about their transition knowledge.

Note. UG = undergraduate; SE = special education; GR = graduate; CBM = curriculum-based measure; ECSE = early childhood special education; GPA = grade point average; SAT = Scholastic Aptitude Test; IHE = institution of higher education; EE = elementary education; GE = general education; EC = early childhood; Sec = secondary education; PBS = positive behavior support; FBA = functional behavior assessment.

Academics

Twenty-two articles related to assessing candidates’ academic competencies encompass areas such as reading, language development, and math. Reading-related research suggested candidates’ reading skills are instrumental in how effectively they are able to teach P-12 learners (Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2006). Given that finding, identifying instructional approaches that increase candidate instructional efficacy is essential and such approaches should use caution with self-assessment measures, as candidates have been found to overestimate their reading (Spear-Swerling, 2009) and math knowledge (Rosas & Campbell, 2010).

Several articles examine whether particular instructional strategies led to improved knowledge. For example, Gormley and Ruhl (2007) reported the use of video and a self-paced study guide enabled preservice special and general educators to increase their knowledge of language structure content as measured by phoneme-grapheme probes. Likewise, Phillips and Halle (2004) found the use of delayed prompts through presentation, videotaped demonstrations, and simulated role-play increased the number of teaching occasions and facilitated communicative requesting among students with language delays. Another strategy found to increase candidates’ use of expansion was email feedback during field experiences (Barton & Wolery, 2007).

Less research has been conducted on special education candidates’ math knowledge and skills. What does exist suggests that online instruction in combination with effective practicum supervision (Alexander, Lignugaris/Kraft, & Forbush, 2007) and effective communication patterns in combination with math pedagogical content knowledge (Griffin, Jitendra, & League, 2009) lead to achievement gains among candidates’ students.

Behavior

Nine behavior-related studies focused primarily on assessment of methods related to candidate knowledge and skill with functional behavior assessments (FBAs) and related tools (Fallon, Zhang, & Kim, 2011; Kraemer, Cook, Browning-Wright, Mayer, & Wallace, 2008; Van Laarhoven, Munk, Lynch, Bosma, & Rouse, 2007). For example, self-paced FBA tutorials were found to be effective methods for supporting the application of FBA-related skills (Liaupsin, 2002).

Collaboration

Among 11 articles meeting the search criteria, two aspects of collaboration were highlighted: (a) assessment of professional collaboration competencies and (b) assessment of family–teacher collaboration. Although there is consensus in the field supporting the need for preparing teacher candidates to effectively collaborate with other professionals as well as families and organizations, there is limited data addressing the extent to which programs assess the impact of collaboration on student achievement. What does exist addresses comfort with co-teaching (Stang & Lyons, 2008), conflict analysis and resolution (Bradley & Monda-Amaya, 2005), and facilitators and obstacles to collaborative problem solving during field experiences (Griffin, Jones, & Kilgore, 2006). Other research has examined collaboration between special educators and families (e.g., Fults & Harry, 2012), some with a high degree of input from family members of individuals with disabilities (Murray & Curran, 2008; Murray & Mandell, 2004).

Transition

Just three studies addressed candidate assessment in transition and self-determination competencies, despite survey evidence suggesting that candidates lack confidence in knowledge and skills related to transition assessment and instruction (Wandry et al., 2008). Assessments consisted of surveys on transition competencies (Morningstar, Kim, & Clark, 2008) and a qualitative study documenting the development of candidates’ conceptual understanding of self-determination (Nevin, Malian, & Williams, 2002).

Dispositions

Eighteen studies on candidate dispositions addressed two primary areas: attitudes about disability and inclusive education and attitudes about diverse students with disabilities (Table 2).

Table 2.

Dispositions.

Author (year)	Sample	Research design and measures	Summary of findings
Attitudes about disability and inclusion
Carroll, Petroff, and Blumberg (2009)	12 (3 GR SE, 4 UG SE, 5 UG Sec)	Qualitative; interviews.	Candidates involved in a college program for adults with intellectual disabilities had improved attitudes about inclusion and academic capacity of individuals with intellectual disabilities.
Dotger and Ashby (2010)	23 SE	Qualitative; candidate/paraprofessional interactions, debriefing.	During a methods course, simulated interactions with a paraprofessional caused many candidates to act against their stated beliefs supporting inclusion.
Goeke (2008)	75 UG (10 SE)	Experimental, chi-squares, qualitative; written responses; responses compared between treatment (expert commentary) and control groups.	No significant differences found between intervention (expert commentary case method) and control. Reluctance to accept theoretical and pedagogical information that conflicts with previously held beliefs about inclusion.
Lee, Patterson, and Vega (2011)	92 SE	Descriptives, correlations; survey of teacher efficacy, level of knowledge and skills, level of support, perceptions on issues in special education.	Personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy are strong correlates of teachers’ confidence in knowledge and skills and closely related to sense of control over major issues in special education.
LePage, Nielsen, and Fearn (2008)	146 SE	Qualitative; artifacts, survey, and interview.	Compared with traditional program candidates, dual credential candidates emphasized citizenship more than individual achievement and placed more emphasis on community and various types of diversity. More experienced candidates focused more on communities of learners than individual students.
Marable, Leavitt-Noble, and Grande (2010)	40 UG SE	Qualitative; written class assignments, survey.	After participating in discussion related to books on inclusion, candidates showed more insight, empathy, and respect.
Rainforth (2000)	18 GR SE	Descriptives; course survey with Stages of Concern Questionnaire.	After course on supporting students with significant support needs in inclusive classrooms, candidates reported higher likelihood of using inclusive methods and fewer concerns about inclusive education.
Rizza and Morrison (2002)	92 SE (33 GR, 59 UG)	Chi-squares, descriptive; survey on characteristics and behavior of students with EBD or gifted labels.	Students with gifted labels were viewed as successful and independent. Students with EBD labels were seen as disruptive and dangerous.
Shippen, Crites, Houchins, Ramsey, and Simon (2005)	326 GR and UG (164 SE, 149 GE)	MANOVA; Preservice Inclusion Survey.	Significant gains on survey with decreased anxiety and hostility toward inclusion. Higher ratings for SE and dual certification candidates than for GE.
Silverman (2007)	71 SE and GE	Descriptives, correlations; Epistemic Beliefs Inventory and Opinions Relative to Integration of Students with Disabilities, case studies.	Candidates with higher-level epistemological beliefs (beliefs about knowledge characterized as complex and uncertain) were more likely to hold more positive attitudes toward inclusion.
Van Laarhoven, Munk, Lynch, Bosma, and Rouse (2007)	53 (15 SE, 25 EE, 13 Sec)	ANOVA; Attitudes Toward Inclusion and Instructional Adaptations surveys; curricular probes for FBA, inclusion, and other topics.	All participants showed increases in knowledge of FBA and attitude toward inclusion scores. More substantial gains for participants in Project ACCEPT (collaborative clinical experience and enhanced instruction) and greater gains for GE than SE.
Wood and Benton (2005)	49 SE	MANOVA, ANOVA; analysis of vignettes and questions related to a student who fails a test.	Evidence of systematic bias related to ADHD and gender attribution. When a student had no disability, teachers rated a boy more likely to fail than a girl. When a student had ADHD, they rated the females more likely to fail.
Diversity
Correa, Hudson, and Hayes (2004)	45 ECSE	Quantitative, qualitative; concept maps, written responses.	After course in multicultural education, candidates’ conceptual knowledge and beliefs about multicultural teaching methods improved.
Fults and Harry (2012)	9 GR ECSE	Descriptives, qualitative; questionnaire on vignettes about family-professional relationships, interviews, reflections.	Higher mean scores across all vignettes with greatest change for students with low initial scores.
Hallam, Buell, and Ridgley (2003)	123 UG programs	Factor analysis, chi-squares; survey on content, field experience, instruction, and assessment strategies related to families in poverty.	Programs with home visit requirements were more likely to address content related to family and parent supports and knowledge. More reflective essays than performance assessments.
Kea, Trent, and Davis (2002)	43 (6 SE, 20 Sec, 17 EE; 41 UG, 2 GR)	Descriptives; three surveys of multicultural knowledge.	Participants didn’t believe their programs prepared them well to teach culturally diverse students. They felt better able to teach students in their own racial group.
McHatton and Daniel (2008)	8 SE, 8 GE	MANOVA; survey of awareness, knowledge of students, and knowledge of content.	Significantly higher awareness ratings for SE than for GE (English education); both groups improved following co-teaching practicum.
Trent and Dixon (2004)	26 SE	Measures of centrality and sphericity, qualitative; concept maps, comparative essays.	Statistically significant changes in concepts candidates deemed most central and specific after taking introductory course with multicultural content.

Note. GR = graduate; SE = special education; UG = undergraduate; Sec = secondary education; GE = general education; EE = elementary education; FBA = functional behavior assessment; ADHD = attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; ECSE = early childhood special education; EBD = emotional and behavioral disabilities.

Attitudes about disability and inclusive education

Among the 12 studies on attitudes about disability or inclusive education, several researchers used surveys to assess improvements in candidate attitudes (Rainforth, 2000; Schraw, Bendixen, & Dunkle, 2002; Shippen, Crites, Houchins, Ramsey, & Simon, 2005) and one researcher found a positive relationship between higher-level epistemological beliefs and positive attitudes toward inclusion (Silverman, 2007). Additional methods for assessing attitudes include interviews (Carroll, Petroff, & Blumberg, 2009), open-ended questionnaires and written reflections (Marable, Leavitt-Noble, & Grande, 2010), and candidate responses to vignettes (Wood & Benton, 2005). A few studies assessed the efficacy of particular instructional tools for improving candidate attitudes: book talks (i.e., using memoirs) increased attitudes, empathy, and respect toward people with disabilities (Marable et al., 2010), and simulated interactions between candidates and paraprofessionals suggested that inclusion instruction in coursework translates poorly to more authentic settings (Dotger & Ashby, 2010).

Diversity

The growing diversity of America’s public schools and the need to prepare teacher candidates to work effectively with diverse students and their families is an important consideration in examining the quality of teacher preparation programs. The six studies reviewed used a variety of assessment methods: surveys (Kea, Trent, & Davis, 2002; McHatton & Daniel, 2008), concept maps (Correa, Hudson, & Hayes, 2004; Trent & Dixon, 2004), and vignettes (Fults & Harry, 2012).

Authentic Experiences

Thirty-one studies addressed assessment of candidates in the field across three areas: (a) studies examining field-based experiences generally, (b) studies examining candidate impact on student achievement, and (c) induction studies following candidates exiting a program into their first years of teaching (Table 3).

Table 3.

Applied Experience.

Author (year)	Sample	Research design and measures	Summary of findings
Field experience
Adams, Bondy, and Kuhel (2005)	13 UG SE, 6 GR SE	Qualitative; interviews.	Candidate responses to early field experience ranged from resistance to passion and commitment. Prior knowledge/experience and opportunities for scaffolding were important factors.
Adams and Wolf (2008)	86 GR ECSE	Descriptives; observations, portfolio rubric ratings.	Mean candidate ratings (1-4 scale) on a performance-based assessment were between 3.25 and 3.50 across 10 performance-based measures.
Capizzi, Wehby, and Sandmel (2010)	3 GR SE	Single subject; lesson components, rate of praise statements, and opportunities to respond.	Mentoring through consultative feedback and self-evaluation of videotaped instruction led to increase in number of lesson components and amount of behavior-specific praise delivered for all participants.
Dymond, Renzaglia, Halle, Chadsey, and Bentz (2008)	2 SE	Interobserver reliability; on- and off-site observations.	Videoconferencing is a promising means of observing practicum students. Eighty-six percent interobserver reliability between face-to-face and remote observation.
Falconer and Lignugaris/Kraft (2002)	4 SE	Qualitative; interviews, supervisor’s field notes.	Two-way conferencing technology is beneficial for supervising candidates in remote locations.
Griffin, Jones, and Kilgore (2006)	72 (50 GR SE, 22 GR ECSE)	Qualitative; course assignments.	Candidates in collaboration course identified facilitators (communication, common concern for the student, family involvement) and obstacles (expectations, perception of role, conflicting goals).
Hanline (2010)	15 UG ECSE	Qualitative; weekly journals, observation notes, evaluations.	Candidate perceptions of field experiences emphasized child-focused practices, assessment, and family-based practices.
Kamens (2007)	4 (2 SE, 2 GE)	Case study; student journals, interviews, observation notes.	Co-taught student teaching experience has potential value for preparing candidates for inclusive practices.
Kea, Trent, and Davis (2002)	43 (6 SE, 20 Sec, 17 EE; 41 UG, 2 GR)	Descriptives; three surveys of multicultural knowledge.	Participants didn’t believe their programs prepared them well to teach culturally diverse students. They felt better able to teach students in their own racial group.
Keller, Brady, and Taylor (2005)	3 UG SE	Single subject; specific social praise.	Audiotaped self-evaluation increased specific social praise in target content area. Two of three participants generalized to other content areas.
Knapczyk, Hew, Frey, and Wall-Marencik (2005)	26 SE	Descriptives, qualitative; questionnaire about mentoring experience, online observation, reflection logs.	Candidates and mentors gave positive evaluations of practicum experience featuring online mentoring during methods course for working with students with EBD.
Leko and Brownell (2011)	6 GR SE	Qualitative; interviews, observations, and artifacts.	Opportunities to appropriate knowledge in practice, personal qualities, motivation for knowledge assimilation, and access to knowledge, are key factors for implementing literacy knowledge.
O’Brian, Stoner, Appel, and House (2007)	9 SE	Qualitative; observations of conferences with SE and mentors, interviews, reflection logs, and mentor evaluations.	Relationships and role definitions among student teachers and mentors were more important than candidates’ development.
Recchia and Puig (2011)	5 ECSE	Qualitative; journals.	Self-contained setting as one of several field experiences encouraged flexible thinking about teaching children with special needs and improved understanding about continuum of placements.
Roberson, Woolsey, Seabrooks, and Williams (2004a)	13 (5 SE, 8 deaf education)	Descriptives; MS-CISSAR.	Evidence for MS-CISSAR as a viable observational assessment tool.
Roberson, Woolsey, Seabrooks, and Williams (2004b)	8 deaf education	Descriptives; MS-CISSAR.	Evidence for MS-CISSAR as a viable observational assessment tool.
Rock et al. (2009)	15 GR SE	t-tests; video-recorded teacher observations, reflections.	Bug-in-ear technology is a viable tool for increasing teachers’ rate of praise statements and use of effective instructional practices.
Sayeski and Paulsen (2012)	389 SE, EE, Sec	Descriptives; Cooperating Teacher Evaluation online tool.	Effective mentors had time for one-on-one mentoring, gave regular specific feedback in a variety of forms, and allowed students to experiment with new strategies.
Scheeler, McKinnon, and Stout (2012)	5 SE	Single subject; three-term contingency trials.	Bug-in-ear technology was effective in increasing candidate use of three-term contingency trials.
Spybrook and Walker (2012)	33 SE, EC, and EE	Qualitative; group plans for centers, brochures explaining exhibits, and reflections.	Importance of connecting theory to practice, place of play in assessment, inclusive practices, validity of children’s museums as field placements.
Tillman, Richards, and Frank (2011)	20 SE	Descriptives, qualitative; survey, Praxis/Pathwise written observations, guided and open-ended reflections.	General congruence among measures for assessing candidate preparedness. Some mentors were reluctant to criticize candidates.
Impact on student achievement
Al Otaiba and Lake (2007)	18 UG SE	ANOVA, t-tests; knowledge assessment, reading questionnaire; student reading assessments.	Significant gains for candidate reading knowledge during reading methods course with tutoring component. Significant student gains with nonsense word fluency, oral reading fluency, and word identification; no change for word attack and passage comprehension.
Alexander, Lignugaris/Kraft, and Forbush, (2007)	6 SE (5 UG, 1 GR)	Single subject, descriptives; case study, written products; student CBMs.	Online math methods course increased candidate knowledge of curriculum planning for all candidates with strong field-based application measures; student scores increased.
Griffin, Jitendra, and League (2009)	5 GR SE	Descriptives, qualitative; candidate observations and interviews; student math assessment.	Teachers of students making more progress used more teacher press, questioning, diverse instructional materials, and differentiated instruction.
Scheeler, McAfee, Ruhl, and Lee (2006)	5 SE	Single subject; candidate use of three-term contingency trials with students.	Corrective, immediate feedback shown to be effective for increasing completion of three-term contingency trials by teachers. All five SE reached criterion level. Correct student responses increased for 4 of 5 SE.
Spear-Swerling (2009)	45 SE (16 GR, 29 UG)	MANOVA; reading knowledge self-ratings direct; student reading assessments.	Candidates had inaccurate perceptions of knowledge initially but knowledge improved significantly; students improved. Teacher knowledge measures did not predict student reading growth.
Spear-Swerling and Brucker (2004)	67 UG SE, 80 GR SE	Quasi-experimental, ANOVA; three measures of candidate word-structure knowledge; student reading assessments.	Candidates in literacy courses exceeded candidates in introductory special education course in word-structure knowledge. Students improved on all five reading measures. Candidate word-structure knowledge correlated with children’s progress in decoding phonetically regular words.
Induction
Fitzgerald et al. (2011)	16 SE	ANOVA, t-tests, qualitative; online discussion groups, interviews, concept maps (nodes, links, and map quality).	Significant changes in how candidates conceptualized problem behavior and associated solutions using multimedia case studies from pretreatment to first follow-up. Gains maintained when candidates were employed.
Lava, Recchia, and Giovacco-Johnson (2004)	25 ECSE	Qualitative; focus groups.	Challenges in first year of teaching: collaboration with colleagues, seeking and finding support, working with complex family issues, and dealing with the demands of a large bureaucratic system.
Nevin, Thousand, Parsons, and Lilly (2000)	45 SE	Descriptives, qualitative; survey of instructional competencies, observations, and interviews.	High mean self-ratings among program completers on 10 of 11 competencies; using technology lowest (mean below 3 on 4-point scale).
Sindelar, Daunic, and Renells (2004)	46 SE	MANOVA, ANOVA; observations, principal questionnaire, teacher questionnaire.	All participants exhibited basic competence. Graduates from traditional programs outperformed those from alternative certification programs on three criteria: making goals/procedures clear to students, making content comprehensible, and monitoring student learning/feedback.

Note. UG = undergraduate; SE = special education; GR = graduate; ECSE = early childhood special education; GE = general education; Sec = secondary education; EE = elementary education; MS-CISSAR = Mainstream–Code for Instructional Structure and Student Academic Response; EC = early childhood; CBM = curriculum-based measure; EBD = emotional and behavioral disabilities.

Field experience

Twenty-one articles ad-dressed field experience generally. Measures for observing teacher candidates in the field include the Praxis III, which has three components: direct observation with a running narrative, written materials (class profile, teacher profile, lesson plan), and interviews with the teacher before and after the lesson (Sindelar, Daunic, & Renells, 2004). A second tool, the Mainstream–Code for Instructional Structure and Student Academic Response (MS-CISSAR), requires trained observers to record classroom ecology, teacher behaviors, and student behaviors at regular, alternating 1-minute intervals. Roberson, Woolsey, Seabrooks, and Williams (2004a, 2004b) found this to be a valuable source of evidence on competent teaching that could provide targeted feedback for improving candidates’ teaching practices. Other aspects of field experience previously examined included the relationship between mentor teachers and candidates (O’Brian, Stoner, Appel, & House, 2007; Sayeski & Paulsen, 2012) and collaboration during field experiences (Griffin et al., 2006; Kamens, 2007). Several studies have also verified technology-based assessment tools as viable methods for providing feedback and mentoring to teacher candidates in field placements (Dymond, Renzaglia, Halle, Chadsey, & Bentz, 2008; Falconer & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2002; Rock et al., 2009; Scheeler, McAfee, Ruhl, & Less, 2006; Scheeler, McKinnon, & Stout, 2012).

Impact on student achievement

Six studies addressed the impact on students’ academic achievement using one of the following methods: achievement scores, performance assessments, or direct measures. These articles focused on reading (Al Otaiba & Lake, 2007; Spear-Swerling, 2009; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2004), math (Griffin et al., 2009), or a variety of academic outcomes (Alexander et al., 2007; Scheeler et al., 2006). By in large, these studies documented positive student gains; however, Al Otaiba and Lake (2007) reported mixed results: Students that candidates tutored as part of a reading methods course had more gains in nonsense word fluency, oral reading fluency, and word comprehension, than in word attack and passage comprehension.

Induction

Four studies followed exiters from special education teacher education programs into the field to study their impact. Much of this research sought to identify successes and challenges in early teaching experiences by using self-report surveys (Nevin, Thousand, Parsons, & Lilly, 2000) or qualitative methods (Fitzgerald et al., 2011; Lava, Recchia, & Giovacco-Johnson, 2004). Only one article used direct observation, as Sindelar et al. (2004) used the Praxis III tool to compare observed performance of graduates from different types of preparation programs; they found that while all candidates demonstrated basic competency, candidates from a traditional preparation program outperformed those from a university–district partnership program and an alternative certification program on three criteria: making goals and procedures clear to students, making content comprehensible, and monitoring student learning and feedback.

Discussion

The studies reviewed here provide some practical guidance to special education teacher educators in their work to provide comprehensive assessment for a range of special education candidate competencies. Results indicate varied methods for assessing special education candidates including surveys, content knowledge measures, observations, concept maps, structured vignettes, and a host of technology tools. One clear implication is the importance of providing candidates multiple and substantive opportunities to apply their learning in an authentic context. Whether assessing learning in college courses or in field placements, teacher educators should strive for candidates to enact situated knowledge (i.e., knowledge tied to a particular classroom context or scenario) to help candidates move from knowledge about generic instructional strategies to opportunities to enact content-specific domain expertise (Brownell et al., 2009; Leko & Brownell, 2011; Utley, 2006), preferably with measures of impact on student achievement (Griffin et al., 2009; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2004).

The review not only revealed areas of relative strength in the literature (e.g., reading knowledge and skills, FBAs, field-based observation tools) but also identified several concerns regarding the state of special education teacher assessment. For instance, a significant portion of the research focused on isolated studies exploring a particular aspect of candidate assessment, but evidence of coordinated efforts among teacher educator researchers to present systematic replications of prior assessment studies was lacking, as was research on how some of these measures could be brought to scale. Furthermore, there was a shortage of articles detailing assessment of behavior-related skills in teacher candidates, notwithstanding research supporting FBA in candidate preparation. The persistent and distressing in-school experiences (e.g., suspension, restrictive placements) and post-school outcomes (e.g., high school graduation, college enrollment, interaction with the juvenile justice system) among students with emotional and behavioral disorders (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2005) point to a pressing need for additional research on how to prepare candidates to best serve students with this label and other students who exhibit challenging behaviors. What’s more, the dearth of studies related to transition suggests that the field should focus more attention on assessing candidates’ performance in relation to long-term student outcomes. Finally, although a few studies identified assessment techniques for candidates working with particular student populations (e.g., Rainforth, 2000; Rizza & Morrison, 2002; Roberson et al., 2004a, 2004b; Wood & Benton, 2005), most research did not specify the student population for which the technique was designed.

While we fully recognize the need to assess special education teacher candidates to ensure they have the necessary skills, knowledge, and dispositions to be effective once they become teachers of record, at least two key concerns regarding issues in candidate assessment must be addressed. First, trends in higher education assessment are moving toward uniform teacher candidate assessment (e.g., ed. Teacher Performance Assessment [TPA]) paralleling standards-based approaches in P-12 settings (Ravitch, n.d.). Rennert-Ariev (2008) noted that the move toward performance-based assessments in higher education requires careful examination, as the manner in which they are implemented and understood by faculty and teacher candidates may ultimately not result in improved learning. He examined the hidden curriculum in performance-based assessment in one teacher preparation program and found “superficial demonstrations of compliance with external mandates were more important than authentic intellectual engagement. Program participants frequently made the minimal possible effort to satisfy the requirements of what they perceived as routine, bureaucratized tasks” (p. 106). The policy trend for standardized TPAs and their potential hidden curriculum has not yet been systematically studied in the literature on candidate assessment in special education. One route for future research is to study partnerships between teacher colleges and research institutions to collaboratively develop a framework for special education teacher preparation that takes into consideration what Feiman-Nemser (2001) called the connective tissue between teacher preparation, induction, and in-service professional development. Such partnerships would help avoid a division between teacher education researchers and teacher educators similar to the division that characterizes the relationship between teachers and academics (Gore & Gitlin, 2004). At the very least, teacher candidate assessments should be evaluated to ensure that they address the full range of special education candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions, as documented in the research.

Second, any move toward a national curriculum for teachers, much like efforts underway for students with the common core standards, should weigh the merits of variability in teacher education programs (e.g., some programs have strengths in reading interventions, whereas others highlight culturally responsive special education pedagogy). Danielson (2001) discussed the need to identify what it is that teacher candidates should be able to demonstrate at particular developmental stages, how they are expected to demonstrate it, and how to train evaluators, especially if the assessment is performance based. This too is problematic, as it is possible for individuals to demonstrate something once and never do it again (mastery vs. frequency), and it may be possible for individuals to have the ability to do something but never have an opportunity to demonstrate that ability (Levine, 2007). It is also important to consider key contextual variables: To what extent should candidate assessment differ depending on the local context (e.g., urban vs. suburban, self-contained vs. inclusive settings, students with mild/moderate disabilities vs. students with more significant support needs), and should special education preparation programs specialize in preparing candidates for particular contexts? We argue that variability in candidate preparation is essential if we are to meet the needs of our diverse student population; however, as this review has shown, research examining the differential impact of varied preparation programs on graduates’ professional practice and impact on student achievement is in its infancy with the few related studies focused mainly on differences between traditional and alternative certification programs (e.g., Sindelar et al., 2004). Thus, teacher educators should carefully consider the risk of pursuing a uniform approach to candidate assessment that may potentially eliminate diversity and specialization in preparation programs.

Conclusion

Assessment of special education teacher candidates is a complex issue that must take into account candidates’ development of knowledge and skills about content areas, behavior, and collaboration; dispositions relative to disability, inclusion, and culture; and applied teaching practices in school contexts that lead to student achievement. Overall, the research base for special education teacher candidate assessment is relatively thin, insofar as little coordinated and systematic research has provided a clear portrait of how (a) particular assessment strategies impact student achievement and (b) candidates transfer their knowledge into professional positions during induction. These are considerable challenges in special education, given the range of contextual factors at school sites including student disability categories, special education delivery format, and stressors associated with high-poverty placements. It is important for special education teacher educators to recognize that (a) candidate assessment must be multifaceted and capture the development of candidate competencies over time and (b) policy pressure to homogenize special education teacher preparation programs must be carefully scrutinized to ensure it is in the best interest of the students, families, and communities we serve.

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.

Author Biographies

Zach McCall is an assistant professor of Urban Special Education at the University of Missouri–Kansas City. His research interests include the intersections of race/ethnicity, social class, and disability; family involvement in special education; and the transition to college and employment among youth with emotional or behavioral disabilities.

Patricia Alvarez McHatton is a professor and chair of the inclusive education department at Kennesaw State University. Her research interests include collaboration, preservice teacher education, and school experiences of diverse adolescents. A major emphasis of her work is using arts-based research as a means of making research findings accessible to the communities in which the research is undertaken.

Monika Williams Shealey is the dean and professor of special education at Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey. Her scholarly interests include the examination of urban and special education, the experiences of traditionally marginalized groups in teacher and special education, and leadership in teacher education.

References

*Adams

Bondy

Kuhel

(2005). Preservice teacher learning in an unfamiliar setting. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 41-61.

*Adams

S. K.

Wolf

(2008). Strengthening the preparation of early childhood teacher candidates through performance-based assessments. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 29, 6-29.

Alexander

Lignugaris/Kraft

Forbush

(2007). Online mathematics methods course evaluation: Student outcomes, generalization, and pupil performance. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 199-216.

*Al Otaiba

Lake

V. E.

(2007). Preparing special educators to teach reading and use curriculum-based assessments. Reading and Writing, 20, 591-617.

American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. (2011). Transformations in educator preparation: Effectiveness and accountability. New York, NY: Author. Available from http://aacte.org

Aud

Hussar

Kena

Bianco

Frohlich

Kemp

Tahan

(2011). The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

*Barton

E. E.

Wolery

(2007). Evaluation of e-mail feedback on the verbal behaviors of pre-service teachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 30, 55-72.

*Begeny

J. C.

Martens

B. K.

(2006). Assessing pre-service teachers’ training in empirically validated behavioral instruction practices. School Psychology Quarterly, 21, 262-285.

Billingsley

B. S.

(2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of the research literature. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 39-55.

10.

*Bradley

J. F.

Monda-Amaya

L. E.

(2005). Conflict resolution: Preparing special educators to work in collaborative settings. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 171-184.

11.

Brownell

M. T.

Bishiop

A. B.

Gersten

Klingner

J. K.

Penfield

R. D.

Dimino

. . .Sindelar

P. T.

(2009). The role of domain expertise in beginning special education teacher quality. Exceptional Children, 75, 391-411.

12.

Brownell

M. T.

Sindelar

P. T.

Kiely

M. T.

Danielson

L. C.

(2010). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children, 76, 357-377.

13.

*Burke

(2005). Teacher certification exams: What are the predictors of success? College Student Journal, 39, 784-793.

14.

*Capizzi

A. M.

Wehby

J. H.

Sandmel

K. N.

(2010). Enhancing mentoring of teacher candidates through consultative feedback and self-evaluation of instructional delivery. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 191-212.

15.

*Carroll

S. Z.

Petroff

J. G.

Blumberg

(2009). The impact of a college course where pre-service teachers and peers with intellectual disabilities study together. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 351-364.

16.

*Correa

V. I.

Hudson

R. F.

Hayes

M. T.

(2004). Preparing early childhood special educators to serve culturally and linguistically diverse children and families: Can a multicultural education course make a difference? Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 323-341.

17.

Danielson

(2001). New trends in teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 58(5), 12-15.

18.

Darling-Hammond

(2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance assessments can measure and improve teaching. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/teacher_effectiveness.html

19.

*Dotger

Ashby

(2010). Exposing conditional inclusive ideologies through simulated interactions. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 114-130.

20.

*Dymond

S. K.

Renzaglia

Halle

J. W.

Chadsey

Bentz

J. L.

(2008). An evaluation of videoconferencing as a supportive technology for practicum supervision. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31, 243-356.

21.

*Falconer

K. B.

Lignugaris/Kraft

(2002). A qualitative analysis of the benefits and limitations of using two-way conferencing technology to supervise preservice teachers in remote locations. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 368-384.

22.

Fallon

M. A.

Zhang

Kim

E. J.

(2011). Using course assessments to train teachers in functional behavior assessment and behavioral intervention plan techniques. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 12, 50-58.

23.

Feiman-Nemser

(2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teacher. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.

24.

Feng

Sass

T. R.

(2010). What makes special-education teacher special? Teacher training and achievement of students with disabilities (Working Paper No. 49). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001435-what-makes-special.pdf

25.

*Fitzgerald

Mitchem

Hollingsead

Miller

Koury

Tsai

(2011). Exploring the bridge from multimedia cases to classrooms: Evidence of transfer. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(2), 23-38.

26.

*Foegen

Espin

C. A.

Allinder

R. M.

Markell

M. A.

(2001). Translating research into practice: Preservice teachers’ beliefs about curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 226-236.

27.

*Fults

R. M.

Harry

(2012). Combining family centeredness and diversity in early childhood teacher training programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35, 27-48.

28.

*Gallagher

P. A.

Vail

C. O.

Monda-Amaya

(2008). Perceptions of collaboration: A content analysis of student journals. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31, 12-20.

29.

Goe

(2006). The teacher preparation → teacher practices → student outcomes relationship in special education: Missing links and next steps. Washington, DC: National comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

30.

*Goeke

J. L.

(2008). A preliminary investigation of prospective teachers’ reasoning about case studies with expert commentary. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31, 21-35.

31.

Gore

J. M.

Gitlin

A. D.

(2004). (Re)Visioning the academic-teacher divide: Power and knowledge in the educational community. Teachers and Teaching, 10, 35-58. doi:10.1080/13540600320000170918

32.

*Gormley

Ruhl

K. L.

(2007). Language structure knowledge of preservice teachers: Connecting speech to print. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 83-92.

33.

*Griffin

C. C.

Jitendra

A. K.

League

M. B.

(2009). Novice special educators’ instructional practices, communication patterns, and content knowledge for teaching mathematics. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 319-336.

34.

*Griffin

C. C.

Jones

H. A.

Kilgore

K. L.

(2006). A qualitative study of student teachers’ experiences with collaborative problem solving. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 44-55.

35.

*Hallam

R. A.

Buell

M. J.

Ridgley

(2003). Preparing early childhood educators to serve children and families living in poverty: A national survey of undergraduate programs. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18, 115-124.

36.

*Hanline

M. F.

(2010). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of field experience in inclusive preschool settings: Implications for personnel preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 335-351.

37.

*Kamens

M. W.

(2007). Learning about co-teaching: A collaborative student teaching experience for preservice teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 155-166.

38.

*Kea

C. D.

Trent

S. T.

Davis

C. P.

(2002). African American student teachers’ perceptions about preparedness to teach students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Multicultural Perspectives, 4(1), 18-25.

39.

*Keller

C. L.

Brady

M. P.

Taylor

R. L.

(2005). Using self-evaluation to improve student teacher interns’ use of specific praise. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 368-376.

40.

*King-Sears

M. E.

Carran

D. T.

Dammann

S. N.

Arter

P. S.

(2012). Multi-site analyses of special education and general education student teachers’ skill ratings for working with students with disabilities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(2), 131-149.

41.

*Knapczyk

D. R.

Hew

K. F.

Frey

T. J.

Wall-Marencik

(2005). Evaluation of online mentoring of practicum for limited licensed teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 207-220.

42.

*Kraemer

B. R.

Cook

C. R.

Browning-Wright

Mayer

G. R.

Wallace

M. D.

(2008). Effects of training on the use of the behavior support plan quality evaluation guide with autism educators. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 179-189.

43.

*Lava

V. F.

Recchia

S. L.

Giovacco-Johnson

(2004). Early childhood special educators reflect on their preparation and practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 190-201.

44.

*Lee

Patterson

P. P.

Vega

L. A.

(2011). Perils to self-efficacy perceptions and teacher-preparation quality among special education intern teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(2), 61-76.

45.

*Leko

M. M.

Brownell

M. T.

(2011). Special education preservice teachers’ appropriation of pedagogical tools for teaching reading. Exceptional Children, 77, 229-251.

46.

*LePage

Nielsen

Fearn

E. J.

(2008). Charting the dispositional knowledge of beginning teachers in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31, 77-92.

47.

Levine

A. C.

(2007). Dispositions: An attempt to define teacher. Teachers College Record (ID Number 13708). Available from http://www.tcrecord.org

48.

*Liaupsin

C. J.

(2002). The comprehensive evaluation of a self-instructional program on functional behavior assessment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(3), 5-25.

49.

*Marable

M. A.

Leavitt-Noble

Grande

(2010). Book talks in special education methods courses: Using literature to influence, inspire, and prepare teacher candidates. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 143-154.

50.

*Marlatt

E. A.

(2004). Practical knowledge storage among preservice, novice, and experienced educators of students who are deaf and hard-of-hearing. Exceptional Children, 70, 201-214.

51.

*McHatton

P. A.

Daniel

P. L.

(2008). Co-teaching at the pre-service level: Special education majors collaborate with English majors. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31, 118-131.

52.

*McKenzie

R. G.

(2009). A national survey of pre-service preparation for collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 379-393.

53.

McLeskey

Tyler

N. C.

Flippin

S. S.

(2004). The supply of and demand for special education teachers: A review of research regarding the chronic shortage of special education teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 5-21.

54.

*Miller

K. J.

Koury

K. A.

Fitzgerald

G. E.

Hollingsead

Mitchem

K. J.

Tsai

Park

M. K.

(2009). Concept mapping as a research tool to evaluate conceptual change related to instructional methods. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 365-378.

55.

*Morningstar

M. E.

Kim

Clark

G. M.

(2008). Evaluating a transition personnel preparation program: Identifying transition competencies of practitioners. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31, 47-58.

56.

*Murray

M. M.

Curran

E. M.

(2008). Learning together with parents of children with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31, 59-63.

57.

*Murray

M. M.

Mandell

C. J.

(2004). Evaluation of a family-centered early childhood special education preservice model by program graduates. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24, 238-249.

58.

*Nevin

Malian

Williams

(2002). Perspectives on self-determination across the curriculum. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 75-81.

59.

*Nevin

Thousand

Parsons

A. S.

Lilly

M. S.

(2000). “The kids keep me fresh!” Results of a follow-up survey of graduates from two special education teacher education programs who are teaching. Teacher Education Quarterly, 27(1), 87-108.

60.

Nichols

S. M. C.

Bicard

S. C.

Bicard

D. F.

Casey

L. B.

(2008). A field at risk: The teacher shortage in special education. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 597-600.

61.

No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). Public Law 107-110. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

62.

Nougaret

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

(2005). The impact of licensure status on the pedagogical competence of first year special education teachers. Exceptional Children, 71, 217-229.

63.

*O’Brian

Stoner

Appel

House

J. J.

(2007). The first field experience: Perspectives of preservice and cooperating teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 264-275.

64.

*Oliver

R. M.

Reschly

D. J.

(2010). Special education teacher preparation in classroom management: Implication for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 188-199.

65.

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2010). PISA 2009 at a glance. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1787/9789264095298-en

66.

*Phillips

Halle

(2004). The effects of a teacher-training intervention on student interns’ use of naturalistic language teaching strategies. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 81-96.

67.

*Rainforth

(2000). Preparing teachers to educate students with severe disabilities in inclusive settings despite contextual restraints. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 25(2), 83-91.

68.

Ravitch

(n.d.). Let your voice be heard: A Q & A with academic historian Diane Ravitch. National Education Association. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/49319.htm

69.

*Recchia

S. L.

Puig

V. I.

(2011). Challenges and inspirations: Student teachers’ experience in early childhood special education classrooms. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 133-151.

70.

Rennert-Ariev

(2008). The hidden curriculum of performance based assessment. Teachers College Record, 110(1), 105-138.

71.

*Rizza

M. G.

Morrison

W. F.

(2002). Uncovering stereotypes and identifying characteristics of gifted students and students with emotional/behavioral disabilities. Roeper Review, 25, 73-77.

72.

*Roberson

Woolsey

M. L.

Seabrooks

Williams

(2004a). Data-drive assessment of teacher candidates during their internships in deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf, 148, 403-412.

73.

*Roberson

Woolsey

M. L.

Seabrooks

Williams

(2004b). An ecobehavioral assessment of the teaching behaviors of teacher candidates during their special education internship experiences. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 264-275.

74.

*Rock

M. L.

Gregg

Thead

B. K.

Acker

S. E.

Gable

R. A.

Zigmond

N. P.

(2009). Can you hear me now? Evaluation of an online wireless technology to provide real-time feedback to special education teachers-in-training. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 64-82.

75.

*Rosas

Campbell

(2010). Who’s teaching math to our most needy students? A descriptive study. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 102-113.

76.

Rosenberg

M. S.

Boyer

K. L.

Sindelar

P. T.

Misra

S. K.

(2007). Alternative route programs for certification in special education: Program infrastructure, instructional delivery, and participant characteristics. Exceptional Children, 73, 224-241.

77.

*Sayeski

K. L.

Paulsen

K. J.

(2012). Student teacher evaluations of cooperating teachers as indices of effective mentoring. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(2), 117-130.

78.

*Scheeler

M. C.

McAfee

J. K.

Ruhl

K. L.

Lee

D. L.

(2006). Effects of corrective feedback delivered via wireless technology on preservice teacher performance and student behavior. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 12-25.

79.

*Scheeler

M. C.

McKinnon

Stout

(2012). Effects of immediate feedback delivered via webcam and bug-in-ear technology on preservice teacher performance. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35, 77-90.

80.

Schraw

Bendixen

L. D.

Dunkle

M. E.

(2002). Development and validation of the Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI). In Hofer

B. K.

Pintrich

P. R.

(Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 261-272). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

81.

*Shippen

M. E.

Crites

S. A.

Houchins

D. E.

Ramsey

M. L.

Simon

(2005). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of including students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 92-99.

82.

*Silverman

J. C.

(2007). Epistemological beliefs and attitudes toward inclusion in pre-service teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 42-51.

83.

Sindelar

P. T.

Brownell

M. T.

Billingsley

(2010). Special education teacher education research: Current status and future directions. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 8-24

84.

*Sindelar

P. T.

Daunic

Renells

M. S.

(2004). Comparisons of traditionally and alternatively trained teachers. Exceptionality, 12, 209-223.

85.

*Spear-Swerling

(2009). A literacy tutoring experience for prospective special educators and struggling second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 431-443.

86.

*Spear-Swerling

Brucker

P. O.

(2004). Preparing novice teachers to develop basic reading and spelling skills in children. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 332-364.

87.

*Spear-Swerling

Brucker

P. O.

(2006). Teacher-education students’ reading abilities and their knowledge about word structure. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 116-126.

88.

*Spybrook

Walker

S. L.

(2012). Creating inclusive, literacy-embedded play centers in a children’s museum: Connecting theory to practice. Journal of Early Childhood Education, 33, 382-391.

89.

*Stang

K. K.

Lyons

B. M.

(2008). Effects of modeling collaborative teaching for pre-service teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31, 182-194.

90.

*Stotsky

(2009). Licensure tests for special education teachers: How well they assess knowledge of reading instruction and mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 464-474.

91.

*Tillman

Richards

S. B.

Frank

C. L.

(2011). A mixed-methods study assessing special education preservice candidates’ preparedness for their first year of teaching. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 1(1), 50-66.

92.

*Trent

S. C.

Dixon

D. J.

(2004). “My eyes were opened”: Tracing the conceptual change of pre-service teachers in a special education/multicultural education course. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 119-133.

93.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Race to the Top application for initial funding (CFDA Number: 84.395A). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/application.doc

94.

*Utley

B. L.

(2006). Effects of situated learning on knowledge gain of instructional strategies by students in a graduate level course. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 69-82.

95.

*Van Laarhoven

T. R.

Munk

D. D.

Lynch

Bosma

Rouse

(2007). A model for preparing special and general education preservice teachers for inclusive education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 440-455.

96.

Wagner

Newman

Cameto

Levine

(2005). Changes over time in the early postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: A report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

97.

*Wandry

D. L.

Webb

K. W.

Williams

J. M.

Bassett

D. S.

Asselin

S. B.

Hutchinson

S. R.

(2008). Teacher candidates’ perceptions of barriers to effective transition programming. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 14-25.

98.

*Welch

Brownell

(2002). Are professional ready for educational partnerships? The evaluation of a technology-enhanced course to prepare educators for collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 133-144.

99.

Wilson

S. M.

Youngs

(2005). Accountability processes in teacher education. In Cochran-Smith

Zeichner

(Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the American Educational Research Association panel on research and teacher education (pp. 591-643). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

100.

*Wood

J. G.

Benton

S. L.

(2005). Attributional responses to students with attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder who fail. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 153-162.