Selection Pressures * on Special Education Teacher Preparation

Abstract

In this introduction to the special issue on evolving changes in our field, we have intentionally chosen to use the power of a vastly different metaphor to promote deep reflection. Specifically, we will introduce the notion of selection pressures and its impact on an evolutionary process, illustrating how special education teacher education has changed or evolved. We discuss these changes in the context of the 21st century and contextualize this explanation by representing special education teacher education as an avatar, thereby borrowing from the virtual world. We borrow concepts from natural science and the virtual world to help promote a new understanding of the nature of special education teacher education. Several selection pressures have been identified as affecting and moving forward special education teacher education such as (a) professional development/course delivery, (b) field experiences/mentoring induction, and (c) performance assessment. Each factor is considered with regard to its influence on the evolving nature of the 21st-century special education teacher education.

Keywords

change in special education teacher education evolution of special education teacher education teacher preparation policy/service delivery

As we enter the second decade of the 21st century, there is reason to celebrate many of the strides made in education over the past 25 years. While the passage of time does not necessarily guarantee progress, change is virtually inevitable and, in many cases, beneficial. While reflection on past events can be a helpful exercise (Buysse, Sparkman, & Wesley, 2003; Welch & James, 2007), if education in general and teacher education in particular is to improve, then a great deal of work lies ahead. Several scholars have identified components of the most effective teacher education programs (see Brownell, Ross, Colon, & McCallum, 2005; Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, & Danielson, 2010; Darling-Hammond, 2006, for reviews), and these analyses have been beneficial to the field and have inspired many ideas for consideration.

A macro or programmatic view of special education teacher education is one place to start, although potentially problematic, if the whole is not sufficiently understood. Clearly, there is more we need to learn about special education teacher education (Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Sindelar, Brownell, & Billingsley, 2010; Spooner, Algozzine, Wood, & Hicks, 2010) requiring researchers and practitioners to think broadly about the questions posed and the methods by which these questions are answered. Program descriptions and reviews are helpful but inevitably only lead to certain kinds of information and rightly so, as it is not necessary to solve every problem or answer every question with a single inquiry.

Scientific inquiry begins with a rich description of a phenomenon before moving on to more detailed and in-depth investigations (Sagan, 1996). Beginning with the whole is the logical place to start, and a great deal of scholarly work in special education teacher education has had a whole or macro level focus, explicated through reviews or program descriptions (Fullerton, Ruben, McBride, & Bert, 2011; Leko, Brownell, Sindelar, & Murphy, 2012) as well as through innovative economic efficacy analyses (Sindelar et al., 2012). What makes for an effective special education teacher education program and, more broadly, what are those mechanisms that should or should not be included in an evidence-based teacher education program? Current knowledge is tentative, and while it is possible to make some claims about effective programming, there is yet work to be done to identify evidence-based practices. In this case, the search for the evidence base is not confined to one or two different interventions, specially designed for a particular population, but something much larger.

The complex picture of special education teacher education requires a more nuanced examination that will allow insights into the interworking of the enterprise and a deep understanding of how it might be improved. In short, an examination of the mechanisms that actually enable teacher preparation is necessary. While a host of mechanisms are viable, we believe that three comprehensive categories capture the most critical activities in which special education teacher educators engage. Specifically, these mechanisms include: (a) professional development and course delivery, (b) field experiences and mentoring induction, and (c) performance-based assessment. In this article, which serves as an introduction to this special issue on the evolving nature of special education teacher education, we introduce readers to these mechanisms as well as some of the issues that we believe influence these mechanisms, including (a) diversity, (b) technology, and (c) teacher quality. Our intent here is to encourage thought, reflection, and of course, action. We hope this issue spurs fruitful lines of research and inquiry, which ultimately produce the data and evidence necessary to effectively refine special education teacher education in the 21st century.

Science often requires creative thought. Discovery is not an isolated process from integration to application. Applicable results are not spontaneously generated from basic science, particularly not in the social sciences but rather require a cycle of events with one part of the process informing the other. Special education teacher educators are primarily concerned with high quality application of research findings, and this concern must be accompanied by an understanding of how knowledge is discovered and then applied in an effective manner. In spite of the differences among the branches of science and how knowledge is applied, the principles remain the same.

The discovery process begins with a consideration of a problem and a question that the researcher attempts to answer. Conceptualizing the problem can be quite perplexing. It may be more convenient to consider issues in isolation, leaving it to others to tackle the most pressing issues, but this is not a luxury in the social sciences, as there is much to be done and very little time in which to accomplish viable goals. The question is how does science move forward, specifically, how are large questions conceptualized and answered, and solutions implemented?

Answers to questions often begin with an attempt to simply make sense of the world, often done through metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Humans depend heavily on language (Gottschall & Wilson, 2005); narrative and the exchange of information can help us make sense of the world. Metaphor serves this purpose quite well, as conceptualizing that which we do not understand, relative to that which we do, can in many cases lead to greater insights. In the next section, we will use the power of metaphor to encourage a different conceptualization of special education teacher education, illustrating change or evolution, borrowing concepts from natural science and the virtual world.

The Imaginative Power of Metaphor

Special education teacher education is a relatively young field, and there is still much to explore. As the field expands and scholarly work is conducted, seemingly, there is change. What is, however, the process for change? How does change take place and how might the field benefit from a deep understanding of the change process? An examination of change is possible through a variety of means, but here, the tool will be the creative power of metaphor.

While the word evolution may conjure thoughts about biology and the development of animals, conceptually, evolution is a change process, and using the ideology behind it can serve as the framework for understanding change in any process, including special education teacher education. In this introduction to the special issue on evolving changes in our field, we have intentionally chosen to use the power of a vastly different metaphor to promote deep reflection. Specifically, we introduce evolution and the impact of selection pressures on the evolutionary process, illustrating how special education teacher education changes or evolves. Because we are discussing these changes in the context of the 21st century, we also contextualize this explanation by representing special education teacher education as an avatar, thereby borrowing from the virtual world.

We borrow concepts from natural science and the virtual world to help promote a new understanding of the nature of special education teacher education. We believe that the natural science and virtual world metaphors we use to describe this process will help readers to conceptually imagine special education teacher education as a functioning organism (i.e., avatar) and to extend the metaphor to understand influences (i.e., selection pressures) on special education teacher education as it evolves and makes attempts to adapt to an ever-changing environment.

This cognitive exercise will use two key metaphors: (a) evolution and (b) avatars. If special education teacher education were imagined as a living organism (human like) subject to the powerful forces of evolution, it might be well represented through an avatar. In the virtual world, an avatar is the graphical representation (personification) of a user or the user’s alter ego or character. In some cases the representation may reflect the user accurately, but in many cases, the representation is modified to reflect a more desirable state. How the avatar is designed and what influences (selection pressures) a user incorporates into the design of the avatar can illustrate the evolving nature of the 21st-century special education teacher.

As organisms evolve, change is inevitable, and selection pressures heavily influence this change. Selection pressures are the environmental conditions leading to differential fitness based on the value of a particular trait (Geary, 2005). In other words, changes in climate, ecology, and/or the social environment can lead to fundamental changes in the way an organism lives and ultimately survives. If special education teacher education is imagined as an avatar, making attempts to adapt to its ever-changing environment, it follows that some forces (selection pressures) will be beneficial, while others will not. Furthermore, the debates about how, when, and why the avatar changes would inevitably revolve around whether internal or external changes need to be made for improvement. The avatar might need to be changed from within, requiring complete restructuring of programs, or outside influences might need to be better managed to benefit the avatar.

Evolving Special Education Teacher Education

If special education teacher education were an organism personified by an avatar, how might the avatar be described and what might the avatar look like? We will avoid assigning gender or other demographic variables, as these details are not as critical to the discussion as the nature of the avatar and how the avatar responds to selection pressures. Selection pressures affect organisms, namely, humans over long periods of time, referred to as deep time (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2002). As deep time passes, humans adapt, but of course as time passes, humans experience success and failure. For example, while humans inhabit virtually every part of the earth, there are some environments that are near impossible in which to thrive. In spite of this, the human species continues to explore all environments, illustrating the strength of the human spirit.

There is no doubt that special education teacher educators show the same ingenuity when faced with challenges. Selection pressures are categorized as invariant and variant. Invariant selection pressures are those that are relatively unchanged over time. This stability allows humans or other species to adapt. For example, a mountain range or a large body of water may initially cause problems for survival, but after learning how such events or conditions are navigated, it is easier to anticipate and later adapt. The corollary to teacher education is the need for educating or training. The fact that pre-service teachers need to be prepared to effectively teach children is a constant with little variation over time. In contrast, variant selection pressures are not constant and, at times, change quite rapidly and without warning. These selection pressures are much more difficult to adapt to and can complicate attempts at survival. Variant selection pressures include harsh environmental conditions or extreme natural disasters often altering the availability of resources. These conditions can be difficult to adapt to, and without prior warning, the response to such changes may be haphazard at best. For example, new or modified policies enacted at the local and/or national level may require full-scale changes in a very short period. Similarly, requirements put forth by accrediting bodies can heavily influence virtually every aspect of program operations. These and other invariant selection pressures may require adaptations, although there is no guarantee that changes will lag in time, causing problems for the species while adjusting to the new conditions.

Evolution is a dynamic process but does not progress toward a pre-determined goal. Thus, there is no overarching goal at some endpoint in time. Organisms live and attempt to survive, adapting to changes along the way, sometimes with great success and at other times with no success and thus, become extinct. Adaptation, in part, unfolds via interactions between human nature and the environment, either complimenting or conflicting with the natural world. The point here is that, similar to humans, the special education teacher education’s nature is well known and includes professional development and course delivery, field experiences and mentoring induction, and performance-based assessment. Is it possible that this portrays a limited view of the nature of special education teacher education? Perhaps, but there is always more to discover and for present purposes, these aspects provide a basis for discussion. In an attempt to survive and thrive, the special education teacher education avatar encounters selection pressures, made up of invariant and variant conditions. These conditions make for a welcoming or harsh environment.

The natural science and virtual world metaphors described above will help readers to conceptually imagine special education teacher education as a functioning organism and understand how this organism is subject to various influences as it evolves and makes attempts to adapt to an ever-changing environment whether welcoming or hostile to the organism. This unique representation will illuminate the issues, which shape special education teacher education in the 21st century. We know that special education teacher education is a critical enterprise; we also know that the enterprise is subject to a number of different influences that can potentially improve or detract from its effectiveness, and by encouraging a creative consideration of the enterprise, we can advance toward a new understanding.

Current Selection Pressures Affecting Special Education Teacher Education

The dynamic interaction between an organism and its environment is subject to selection pressures, thus bringing about change. Anticipating an appropriate response to all those factors that might affect special education teacher education is one of the most challenging aspects of any attempt at adaption. For example, the dizzying number of for-profit colleges and universities now vying for some of the same resource as non-profit colleges and universities was hardly a blip on the radar just a few short years ago. Yet, these for-profit colleges and universities stand as competition that requires attention.

We intend to show that change is not necessarily linear or progressively better and not always directed toward a positive outcome. If, however, the direction and intent of change is well understood, there is a chance that the field may develop a creative approach that prepares everyone to expect the best but to be prepared for the worst. A discussion of each challenge facing special education teacher education would be futile, as there is possibly hundreds of ways to categorize and consider these challenges. Thus, for ease of understanding and to offer some semblance of clear organization, the challenges or selection pressures have been confined to succinct categories and each will be discussed in turn. The nature (practices) of special education teacher education will be discussed first and then later, specific selection pressures will be identified and discussed to illustrate the dynamic interaction leading to either success or failure. We begin with a discussion of our conceptualization of special education teacher education’s nature.

Professional Development/Course Delivery

Course work is essential to any teacher education program. Most teacher education programs consist of different course sequences. Seemingly, these courses are logically linked and help teacher candidates easily discern connections between concepts and ultimately learn the skills necessary to apply those concepts to effectively deliver instruction. In addition to a primary mode of knowledge dissemination, courses also serve as a means to help teacher candidates develop as professionals. Thus, course work and professional development are and should be a critical aspect of teacher education.

Often, questions are raised about the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs (Boe, Shin, & Cook, 2007; Nougaret, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2005). Complex issues, such as the assumed inadequacy of teacher preparation are generally not amenable to simple solutions characterized by straightforward cause–effect relationships. Instead, complex issues require deep analysis on several levels (Brownell et al., 2010). A global view of teacher education without a closer examination of the smaller components may overlook details that may reveal a more telling story. Professional development and course work are such components of a teacher education program that must be reviewed much more closely, as special education teacher educators spend such a great deal of time developing and delivering course work and professional development experiences.

Goeke (2008) examined the use of case studies to help teachers learn theoretical and pedagogical information. Her results indicated that teachers were reluctant to accept information that conflicted with their current beliefs (see Handal, 2003; Kose & Lim, 2011; Torff & Sternberg, 2000, for similar findings). In another investigation, Trent and Dixon (2004) used concept maps as a means to measure teachers’ conceptual change. The intent of the investigation was to gauge whether teachers actually develop fundamentally different ways of thinking about a particular concept (i.e., diversity in a multicultural education course). While the investigators did reveal some change, it is difficult to conclude that the teacher candidates realized conceptual change to the degree desired.

In addition to course work and professional development, there are also other experiences outside the classroom that have a firm foothold in special education teacher education programs. Field experience, mentoring, and induction into the teaching profession will be discussed next.

Field Experience/Mentoring and Induction

Field experiences are often thought to be necessary components of teacher education programs as these experiences are expected to allow teacher candidates to observe and gain some perspective on the implementation of effective practices (Bullough et al., 2002; Santagata, Zannoni, & Stigler, 2007). Unfortunately, it is not clear that either of these goals is reached. Teacher candidates are often at the mercy of the most readily available field experience placement and/or teachers, and therefore, may or may not have the opportunity to observe any effective teaching practices. In addition, if teacher candidates are naïve to why a particular practice is more effective than the other, the field experience may not be as useful, at least for the teacher candidate (Capraro, Capraro, & Helfeldt, 2010; Recchia & Puig, 2011).

Although a number of assessment methods have been conceived to measure teacher candidate performance (see McCall, Alvarez McHatton, & Shealey, 2014), there is still much to learn about preparing candidates for field experience, choosing the right activities to conduct during field experiences and assessing the activities so that teacher educators know that learning has actually taken place.

Performance-Based Assessment

Course delivery, field experiences, and performance-based assessment are all linked. Performance-based assessment serves as a common link to the previously described teacher education practices, as it is difficult, perhaps almost impossible, to judge the validity of a course, field experience, mentoring program, or any other activity without evaluating teacher candidate performance. Knowing how teacher candidates perform is certainly not the only way to determine the effectiveness of special education teacher educator practice, but it is one of the most significant indicators separating novice teachers from more experienced teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2006), as the point of teacher education is to prepare teachers and to prepare them well.

Performance-based assessment is a term that may convey different meaning to different people, but here, the term refers to the evaluation of teacher candidate performance on a number of tasks when actually performed (i.e., delivery of a lesson during a field experience). Application generally follows the acquisition of knowledge, and teacher candidates must at some point go beyond their basic knowledge. Almost from the beginning of a teacher education program, teacher candidates must apply their knowledge and demonstrate a deep understanding of this knowledge and an ability to apply the knowledge in common and novel situations. An understanding of the special education teacher education avatar requires an understanding of the selection pressures that affect its development.

In the next section, we discuss a specific set of conditions that we believe capture some of the most critical selection pressures shaping special education teacher education. We have identified variant and invariant selected pressures. We will begin with a discussion of the invariant pressures that affect the field and then move to variant pressures that will conceivably remain with us and require the field to continually frame a response, adapting along the way. We begin with a discussion of invariant selection pressures.

Elaboration of Pressures

Invariant Selection Pressures

The importance of teacher education programs and, more specifically, the practices used to facilitate teacher education programs (i.e., course development and professional development, field experiences, mentoring and induction, and performance-based assessment) clearly require attention. We have chosen several invariant selection pressures to illustrate a number of factors that affect the evolution of the special education teacher educator avatar.

Traditional routes in teacher preparation

Completing a university teacher preparation is one of the most common means to receive teacher training. A number of universities were founded as “normal schools,” dedicated exclusively to teacher preparation. The dictates of these programs are currently based on state requirements, with each state’s requirements for earning state licensure as a special educator varying from state to state. For example, in the states of California and New York, teachers who proceed through the traditional route must first possess a bachelor’s degree in any area before entering a teacher education program. In the aforementioned states, all teacher certification programs are graduate programs. In states such as New Mexico, Virginia, and Florida, teacher candidates can major in education, earning a bachelor’s degree (i.e., BA, BS, or BEd) in early childhood education, elementary education, secondary education with an emphasis on a core academic area, or special education; these programs are officially undergraduate programs. In Pennsylvania, another model is used, where all special education majors are dual majors. A special education major intent on working at the elementary level must dual-major in special education and elementary education; a special education major intent on working at the secondary level must also major in a core academic content area.

Alternative preparation routes

In conjunction with the traditional university teacher preparation programs, the U.S. Office of Education allows alternative teacher preparation programs. According to the Department of Education (DOE), alternative routes must meet four requirements: (a) high quality professional development must be sustained, intensive, and classroom focused; (b) intensive supervision must include regular support or a teacher mentoring program; (c) candidate may not function as a teacher for no more than 3 years; and (d) satisfactory progress must be demonstrated toward full certification. How those requirements are interpreted and met vary from state to state and program to program.

One widely used alternative preparation program accessed by those seeking education training is at the community college level. This route has its own governing body—The National Association of Community College Teacher Education Programs (NACCTEP). According to NACCTEP (2009), “91% of community colleges in the United States offered teacher education coursework in 2007, and that 47% of community colleges had teacher education programs in 2008” (p. 3). Specifically, in 2008, five states allowed one or more community colleges in the state to grant bachelor’s degrees in education: Florida, Indiana, Nevada, New Mexico, and West Virginia. States such as California and Arizona also offer teacher certification programs at the community colleges. In these programs, students who already possess a bachelor’s degree may earn a teaching certificate at the community college (Johnson & Briden, 2004; Townsend & Ignash, 2003). Maryland created an associate of arts in teaching degree at the community colleges to meet the state’s need for teachers. In 39 states, an applied baccalaureate degree, also called a “workforce baccalaureate,” allows students to transfer classes or credits from a non-baccalaureate program into their teacher education program (Townsend, Bragg, & Ruud, 2009). Similar programs allow students to waive the student teaching requirement of the program if they have completed 2 years of full-time teaching. Some states’ departments of education accept teaching experience as “teaching” in business or the military (Maryland State Department of Education, 2013).

Another alternative route to licensure is through programs developed by local education agencies (LEA). Districts such as Los Angeles Unified School District and the Philadelphia Area School District have intern programs that produce teachers to teach students in shortage areas including special education. In this alternative licensure program, the district trains and uses its own teaching force to teach K-12 and adult students. New York City, the largest district in the nation, has a number of alternative certification programs including programs for full-time teachers, interns, residents, and apprenticeships. All are aimed at providing more teachers for shortage areas such as special education, math, science, and teaching English language learners (New York City Department of Education, 2011).

In addition to the alternative routes named, there are programs that have become nationally renowned such as Teach for America (TFA) and Troops to Teachers (TTT). TFA provides “a five-week intensive training program designed to set corps members up for success from their first day of teaching” (TFA, 2013). The TTT program is intended for military personnel who want to pursue a second career in teaching on exiting the military. To qualify, the candidate must have a bachelor’s degree in an academic area or “have the equivalent of one year of college with six years of work experience in a vocational or technical field or meet state requirements for vocational/technical teacher referral in order to be a vocational teacher” (Defense Activities for Non-Traditional Education Support, 2011, p. 1). To also meet the highly qualified challenge, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) allows each state to develop its own High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE) policies for special educators in the classroom to meet the requirement to be highly qualified special educators at the secondary level (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).

Finally, there is the for-profit sector of teacher preparation programs available nationwide. National programs include the University of Phoenix, National University, and The New Teacher Project founded by Michelle Rhee, former chancellor of Washington, D.C., public schools. The various routes to teacher certification are vastly different in requirements but all lead into providing teachers for the classroom.

Goals of teacher preparation programs

Regardless of the program or pathway, every teacher education program strives to produce teachers with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to effectively teach core academic subjects to an increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse student body. The special educator must know federal, state, and local legislation, as well as implementation practices; make decisions concerning instruction and intervention in the Response to Intervention process; know assessment theories and practices to assist in determining eligibility; write Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), including goals and objectives; write general report cards as well as special report cards on the goals and objectives; conduct and support progress monitoring; consult and collaborate with colleagues and administrators; stay updated in best practices in differentiation; stay current with various assistive technology; gather information on various disabilities from high to low incidence, from common to obscure; perform procedures that some would consider medical procedures; and interact with multiple community agencies to facilitate transition services. The special educator must also know how to teach core academic subjects, often in several content areas to several age ranges and academic levels concurrently, with the cultural sensitivity and global-perspective that teaching requires. The role of the special educator shifts from the student and lifelong learner (often required for renewal of certifications) to “superior” of paraprofessionals, to “inferior” of administrators and the district, to that of peer to colleagues, and to advocate for students and parents.

The shifting dynamics of teacher education

Teacher educators are responsible for teaching the essential knowledge and skills just described to an increasingly diverse college student body. Add to that the challenge to stay current with federal and state legislation, Response to Intervention, best practices, assistive technology, and classroom technology while being culturally responsive to our teacher candidates and teaching cultural responsiveness. Given that outside agencies determine much of the direction in which teacher education programs proceed, the imperative may be to meet the requirements of teacher education accrediting agencies such as NCATE and Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) and of the department of education offices at the state level.

Variant Selection Pressures

In addition to invariant pressures, there are other issues, more unstable (prone to change rapidly), that affect special education teacher practice. We have chosen three seemingly variant selection pressures as common and critical to special education teacher educators. We believe that diversity, technology, and teacher quality are so critical to special education teacher education and remain so, that attention must be paid to each or programs may fall short of meeting the needs of current and future teacher candidates. These variant selection pressures or common issues provide the link for each of the reviews in this issue. Each will be described in turn.

Diversity, cultural competence, and multicultural education are not synonymous but related. The first can imply differential population distributions of people or, in some cases, a disposition, while in contrast, cultural competence implies a skill set to be applied when interacting with certain populations. Multicultural education may imply curriculum but may also include varied concepts such as disposition or instructional methods. Thus, it is no surprise that there is still a great deal of discussion about how these concepts might be brought into special education teacher education research (Larkin, 2012) and training (Sleeter & Owur, 2011).

The point here is not to detract from the viability of the concepts but rather to emphasize the need for special education teacher educators to adapt and make changes to programming that will result in better prepared special education teachers. Similarly, it is difficult to underestimate the impact of the rapidly evolving nature of technology and the speed with which these changes affect the way pre-service teachers are trained (Machalicek et al., 2010; McDonnell et al., 2011; Morse, 2010). In addition, teacher quality and how quality is measured against federal, state, and program standards (e.g., Drame & Pugach, 2010) also seem to create relatively significant gaps in our understanding of how, when, and why teacher education programs should change and adapt to the variant conditions. We see selection pressures and the evolution metaphor as a means to help explain the difficulties we face as special education teachers, specifically with regard to the challenges associated with adapting to largely variant conditions that can create an environment in which adaptation is difficult at best.

While professional development and course delivery, field experiences and mentoring induction, and performance-based assessment each have unique features that should be considered in isolation, these invariant selection pressures permeate the nature of the special education teacher education avatar. Therefore, in this special issue, each author considered one of the three special education teacher education mechanisms and all three of the common issues as a means to frame their work.

A Path Forward

Evolving issues in special education teacher preparation has brought us to a critical point in our field. These issues are inclusive of, but not limited to rise in alternative preparation routes (e.g., TFA), the efficacy of these routes (e.g., comparing teachers who are alternatively prepared vs. teachers who are university trained), assessment (e.g., questions about how teacher candidates should be assessed in class and the field), and how that assessment data should be used (e.g., tying student performance to teacher candidate performance). For example, online courses may not necessarily provide a forum for open discussions that foster favorable dispositions about multicultural education or students from diverse cultural backgrounds (Leonard & Leonard, 2006). This and other issues were considered in relation to the larger issue of diversity.

What do we know about the special education teacher education avatar and the evolutionary path that lie ahead? In large part, we can only speculate, but based on the past, there is most certainly a need for some thought about the future and the challenges to be faced. The special education teacher avatar must look within and make fundamental changes to entire programs as well as its components. Perhaps contemplation about principles, followed by goals and direct action emanating from those goals, will help shape a bright future for special education teacher education. First, strong principles must be conceived and then used as a guide for program development and implementation. Second, as simple as it may sound, the avatar needs clear ideals that can be translated into achievable goals. Third, the avatar must take action. Organisms are not static bystanders in the evolutionary process. Although evolution is not goal directed, the avatar must clearly be and direct its own future toward quality teacher preparation. Adaptation must not only be confined to inward change but must also include attempts at influencing outside forces and modifying the environment accordingly. Thus, the avatar must be active in a number of different ways.

Sound, rationale decision making is one of the hallmarks of independent thinkers. Is the avatar mature enough to make decisions about its own fate? Must special education teachers turn to others to help shape practice or is the avatar’s current development sufficient to move forward? Reflection on our past and serious consideration of our future may allow the avatar to be an independent entity; only time will tell. Part of the avatar’s independence may be dictated by its ability to measure performance. Do we know enough about our own practice to support those practices that are effective and to jettison those practices that have proven to be ineffective? This too must be a part of the future evolution of the avatar. Next, the avatar must be willing and able to defend its position. A threatened animal (including humans) is extremely dangerous. An animal on the prowl for food is quite cunning and clever. How does the special education teacher education avatar handle the necessary tasks for survival? Does it cower in fear or is there a strong and decisive response? Perhaps what is necessary here is a strong offense, in contrast to a perpetual defensive stance that neglects to adequately inform the general public about quality teacher education. Finally, how resilient is the avatar? How might the avatar stand against attacks from the outside, making the case for the importance of teacher education, pointing to those practices that prepare quality teachers? The avatar must be a self-sustaining organism. While it is true that the avatar does not operate in a vacuum, it is also true that the avatar must develop, evolve to be the powerful entity that it can be.

The articles included in this special issue will feature some review of the literature and commentary on a number of fuels that affect teacher education in the 21st century, to include what we know and need to know and recommendations regarding effective teacher education programming, specifically: (a) course delivery and professional development, (b) field experiences and induction, and (c) performance assessment. We hope that the entire issue will provoke thought and discussion to advance the field.

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

Charles Dukes is an associate professor and doctoral coordinator in the Department of Exceptional Student Education at Florida Atlantic University (FAU). His research interests include special education teacher education, conceptual change, development of social relationships for individuals with intellectual disabilities, and skill development for adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorders.

Sharon M. Darling is an associate professor and honors coordinator in the Department of Exceptional Student Education at FAU. Her research interests include curriculum development for young children with disabilities, special education teacher education, conceptual change, and early childhood educator professional preparation.

Kim Doan is an associate professor in the Department of Special Education at West Chester University in West Chester, Pennsylvania. Her research interests include special education personnel preparation, qualitative method, and teacher candidate disposition and reflection for effective practice.

References

Bjorklund

D. F.

Pellegrini

A. D.

(2002). The origins of human nature: Evolutionary developmental psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Boe

E. E.

Shin

Cook

L. H.

(2007). Does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers in either special or general education? The Journal of Special Education, 41, 158-170.

Brownell

M. T.

Ross

D. D.

Colon

E. P.

McCallum

C. L.

(2005). Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison with general teacher education. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 242-252.

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.

Bullough

R. V.

Young

Erickson

Birrell

J. R.

Clark

D. C.

Egan

M. W.

. . . Smith

(2002). Rethinking field experience: Partnership teaching versus single-placement teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 68-80.

Buysse

Sparkman

Wesley

(2003). Communities of practice: Connecting what we know with what we do. Exceptional Children, 69, 263-277.

Capraro

M. M.

Capraro

R. M.

Helfeldt

(2010). Do different types of field experience make a difference in teacher candidates’ perceived level of competence? Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(1 Winter), 131-154.

Darling-Hammond

(2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 300-314.

Defense Activities for Non-Traditional Education Support. (2011). Troops to teachers. Retrieved from http://www.dantes.doded.mil/Programs/TTT.html

10.

Drame

E. R.

Pugach

M. C.

(2010). A house built on quicksand? Exploring the teacher quality conundrum for secondary special education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 55-69.

11.

Fullerton

Ruben

B. J.

McBride

Bert

(2011). Development and design of a merged secondary and special education teacher preparation program. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(2), 27-44.

12.

Geary

D. C.

(2005). The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general intelligence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

13.

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.

14.

Gottschall

Wilson

D. S.

(2005). The literary animal: Evolution and the nature of narrative. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

15.

Grossman

McDonald

(2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 1-205.

16.

Handal

(2003). Teacher’s mathematical beliefs: A review. The Mathematics Educator, 13(2), 47-57.

17.

Johnson

Briden

(2004). Rio Salado college online post-Baccalaureate Teacher Preparation Program. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 41-42.

18.

Kose

B. W.

Lim

E. Y.

(2011). Transformative professional learning within schools: Relationship to teachers’ beliefs, expertise, and teaching. Urban Review, 43, 196-216. doi:10.1007/s11256-010-0155-9

19.

Lakoff

Johnson

(1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4, 195-208.

20.

Larkin

(2012). Using the conceptual change model of learning as an analytic tool in researching teacher preparation for student diversity. Teacher College Record, 114(8), 1-35.

21.

Leko

M. M.

Brownell

M. T.

Sindelar

P. T.

Murphy

(2012). Promoting special education preservice teacher expertise. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(7), 1-16.

22.

Leonard

(2006). Teachers and tolerance: Discriminating diversity dispositions. The Teacher Educator, 42, 30-62. doi:10.1080/08878730609555392

23.

Machalicek

O’Reilly

M. F.

Rispoli

Davis

Lang

Franco

J. H.

Chan

J. M.

(2010). Training teachers to assess the challenging behaviors of students with autism using video tele-conferencing. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 203-215.

24.

Maryland State Department of Education. (2013). Maryland approved alternative teacher preparation programs directory. Retrieved from http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/BD768049-284F-4E0E-9516-47049DB799CE/28679/MAAPPDirectoryUpdatedMay202011.pdf

25.

McCall

Z. A.

Alvarez McHatton

Shealey

M. W.

(2014). Special Education teacher candidate assessment: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37(1), 51-70.

26.

McDonnell

Jameson

J. M.

Riesen

Polychronis

Crockett

M. A.

Brown

B. E.

(2011). A comparison of on-campus and distance teacher education programs in severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 106-118. doi:10.117/0888406410380424

27.

Morse

M. L.

(2010). Online modules to teach content area literacy to preservice teachers. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(2), 57-61.

28.

National Association of Community College Teacher Education Programs. (2009). 10 myths and realities about community college teacher education programs. Retrieved from http://nacctep.riosalado.edu/Drupal/PDF/Myths.pdf

29.

New York City Department of Education. (2011). Getting certified: Alternative routes to certification. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/TeachNYC/certification/alternatives.htm

30.

Nougaret

A. A.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

(2005). Does teacher education produce better special education teachers? Exceptional Children, 71, 217-229.

31.

Recchia

S. L.

Puig

V. I.

(2011). Challenges and inspirations: Students teachers’ experiences in early childhood special education classrooms. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 133-151. doi:10.1177/0888406410387444

32.

Sagan

(1996). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. New York, NY: Random House.

33.

Santagata

Zannoni

Stigler

J. W.

(2007). The role of lesson analysis in pre-service teacher education: An empirical investigation of teacher learning from a virtual video-based field experience. Journal of Math Teacher Education, 10, 123-140.

34.

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.

35.

Sindelar

P. T.

Dewey

J. F.

Rosenberg

M. S.

Corbett

N. L.

Denslow

Loftinia

(2012). Cost effectiveness of alternative route special education teacher preparation. Exceptional Children, 79, 25-42.

36.

Sleeter

C. E.

Owur

(2011). Research on the impact of teacher preparation to teach diverse students: The research we have and the research we need. Action in Teacher Education, 33, 524-536. doi:10.1080/01626620.2011.627054

37.

Spooner

Algozzine

Wood

C. L.

Hicks

(2010). What we know and need to know about teacher education and special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 44-54.

38.

Teach for American. (2013). Training and online support. Available from http://www.teachforamerica.org

39.

Torff

Sternberg

R. J.

(2000). Understanding and teaching the intuitive mind: Student and teacher learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

40.

Townsend

B. T.

Bragg

D. D.

Ruud

C. M.

(2009). Development of the applied baccalaureate. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33, 686-705.

41.

Townsend

B. T.

Ignash

J. M.

(Eds.). (2003). The role of the community college in teacher education [Special Issue]. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2003(121).

42.

Trent

S. C.

Dixon

D. J.

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

43.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). New no child left behind flexibility: Highly qualified teachers. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/hqtflexibility.html

44.

Welch

James

R. C.

(2007). An investigation on the impact of a guided reflection technique in service-learning courses to prepare special educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 276-285.