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.
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).
Knowledge and Skills.
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).
Dispositions.
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).
Applied Experience.
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.