Faculty Perceptions of Expertise Among Teachers of Students With Severe Disabilities

Abstract

Given recent increased attention to teacher evaluation, it is imperative to understand the expertise teachers need to educate students with severe disabilities. In this grounded theory study, the authors interviewed nine special education faculty who specialize in severe disabilities about the job-related skills and qualities exhibited by expert teachers of students with severe disabilities. The results indicate that in addition to systematic and student-centered instruction, expert teachers of students with severe disabilities are guided by a set of non-negotiable principles regarding inclusion and the dignity and value of students with severe disabilities. Implications for teacher preparation and evaluation are discussed.

Keywords

teachers special education severe disabilities teacher expertise

In teacher education, it might seem axiomatic that students whose teachers have higher levels of expertise will experience better outcomes than students of novice teachers. Research has suggested that teacher expertise, as measured by knowledge about teaching, experience, and education, has a more powerful effect on student achievement than other factors, such as socioeconomics or class size (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997), and has the greatest impact for struggling learners (Wright et al., 1997). Effective teaching practices, including the use of evidence-based practices, are associated with positive gains in student achievement (Cook & Cook, 2013; Slavin, 2002) and are crucial to the learning of students with disabilities (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009). Unfortunately, research suggests that special education teachers frequently engage in practices that lack an evidence base or have been demonstrated to have minimal to potentially negative effects on student learning (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009; Kavale & Foorness, 2000). Furthermore, they leverage practices with an evidence base less frequently (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009). Preparing special education teachers to be experts who have the content and pedagogical knowledge, experience, and education needed to successfully teach students with disabilities should be a primary goal of teacher educators.

Currently, student outcome-based measures are one predominant way to measure teacher effectiveness (Holdheide, Goe, Croft, & Reschly, 2010). Unfortunately, educational research and methodology have not yet identified a system of teacher evaluation that accounts for all of the complex factors that influence student learning (Holdheide et al., 2010; Stumbo & McWalters, 2006 2011). This is especially true when considering the needs of students with disabilities, many of whom see multiple teachers throughout the school day, receive instruction in curriculum that differs from their peers, and for whom traditional assessment methods have been found to be invalid (Benedict, Thomas, Kimerling, & Leko, 2013; Blanton, Sindelar, & Correa, 2006). For students with severe disabilities, whose progress may be incremental and the effects of various teaching decisions (e.g., functional vs. academic programming) are not well understood (Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers, 2011; Bouck, 2012), evaluating teachers based on student growth models becomes even more complex. Although lists of basic competencies for special education teachers of students with severe disabilities have been developed (e.g., Council for Exceptional Children, 2013; Ryndak, Clark, Conroy, & Stewart, 2001), no model exists to date that captures the various roles, skills, and qualities of excellent teachers of students with severe disabilities—those who would be considered experts by faculty, administrators, and fellow teachers. This lack of a model for evaluating teachers of students with severe disabilities paired with the challenges to student outcome-based measures for this population contributes to the lack of consensus as to how to identify teacher expertise and measure teacher effectiveness in severe disabilities.

Teacher Expertise

Experience and expertise, although often used in conjunction, are different. Broadly, expertise refers to special skills or knowledge relating to mastery of a subject (Dreyfus, 1984). Novices develop into experts through a series of stages that progress from reliance on rules to agentive decision making (Dreyfus, 1984). This often happens as they gain instructional experience (Berliner, 2004). Berliner (2004) suggests that expert teachers have had approximately 7,000 hours of teaching experience and about 1,000 hours studying teaching through university work. In 3 to 5 years, a teacher is “no longer surprised” by what happens in school, and in 5 to 7 years, a teacher might be considered an expert (Berliner, 2004). Experience is one component of expert teaching, but experienced teaching is distinct from expert teaching in important ways (Berliner, 1986). Someone with experience might constrict their field of work so it more closely matches the routines they are prepared to execute, but an expert pursues problem solving to push the boundaries of a field (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993). Expertise is more than a simple combination of time and experiences; experts use their experiences in specific ways.

Expert teachers exhibit a set of skills and qualities that set them apart in the profession. Similar to Dreyfus’ (1984) model of expertise, flexibility and automaticity are two qualities that have been identified in expert teachers (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993; Berliner, 1994). Flexible thinking, or “fluid” knowledge (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993), allows an expert to be creative rather than reliant on procedures when solving problems. Expert teachers are fluent in recognizing patterns and as a result, notice and capitalize on many teaching opportunities (Berliner, 1994). Expert teachers are highly responsive and student-centered during instruction (Smith & Strahan, 2004), particularly expert special education teachers (Leko, Brownell, Sindelar, & Murphy, 2012; Stough & Palmer, 2003). Expert special education teachers are explicit and interactive instructors focused on the individual learning and behavioral needs of students (Leko et al., 2012; Stough & Palmer, 2003). Research on special education teachers usually focuses on special education teachers in general, as opposed to specifically focusing on teachers of students with severe disabilities (e.g., Leko et al., 2012; Stough & Palmer, 2003). The specific expertise of teachers of students with severe disabilities has not been explored.

Berliner (1986) suggested that if the complexity of problem solving in teaching is made more explicit, there would be “some increase in valuing the job of classroom teachers” (p. 10). With this in mind, the limited attention paid to the expertise of teachers of students with severe disabilities has contributed to their unique skills being unrecognized and undervalued both within and outside of education. Special education teachers’ job duties are quite different from the duties of other teachers, and include case management, collaboration, designing curriculum modifications and accommodations, providing support during class, and supervision of paraprofessionals, in addition to providing systematic instruction on academic and adaptive skills (Jackson, Ryndak, & Billingsley, 2000; Rainforth, York, & McDonald, 1997). In addition to the unique duties required of all special educators, teachers of students with severe disabilities have additional responsibilities. They have to plan for individualized instruction in activities of daily living; manage extensive health related needs; coordinate individualized therapy to support students’ speech, language, occupational, and physical development; incorporate assistive technology and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices into instruction for students with minimal to no functional communication; and manage persistent, challenging behavior (Jackson et al., 2000: Rainforth et al., 1997; Roberts, 2013). Teachers of students with severe disabilities have expressed that colleagues and administrators, both within and outside of special education, lack understanding about their teaching duties and role (Roberts, 2013). These unique job duties might not be reflected on teaching evaluations, which are increasingly consequential for teachers’ job security. The value of teachers of students with severe disabilities may be better appreciated through understanding and recognizing their multiple duties and skills.

Therefore, our purpose in conducting this study was to enhance understanding of the teaching practices of expert teachers of students with severe disabilities. We hope that an explication of the qualities of expert teachers of students with severe disabilities will advance the profession and the quality of education for students with severe disabilities. The research question that guided this study was, “What are the qualities and skills of expert teachers of students with severe disabilities as defined by faculty who specialize in severe disabilities?”

Method

Research Design and Procedures

We report findings from the first phase of a three-part interview study to develop a preliminary model of teacher expertise for students with severe disabilities. In this grounded theory study, we aimed to move beyond describing the data to propose a new model of expertise among teachers of students with severe disabilities (Creswell, 2007). Grounded theorists enter into the research process without an a priori theoretical framework, allowing the theory to emerge from and be “grounded” in the data (Creswell, 2007, p. 63). We conducted iterative, reflexive analyses of our interview data to construct our grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006). Each concept and component concept represented in our model can be linked to multiple pieces of data across participants.

Setting and Participants

Through a combination of criterion and purposeful procedures, we identified the nine special education faculty members for participation in the study. First, we obtained a list of all institutes of higher education (IHEs) offering teaching licensure in severe disabilities in five target states (Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Minnesota) using the state department of education websites and the Carnegie Classification database (http://classifications.carnegiefoun-dation.org). We purposefully selected one of each type of institution (i.e., baccalaureate, masters, doctoral, research) from each state to identify participants with a range of teaching-focused and research-focused careers across various state contexts. This included teaching courses or publishing research related to severe disabilities. We used departmental websites to identify the faculty member(s) with expertise in severe disabilities. If faculty research and teaching areas were not apparent on the departmental website, we contacted the department head to identify the faculty member(s) with expertise in severe disabilities. Once our list of faculty members with expertise in severe disabilities was identified, we sent each faculty member a recruitment email followed by up to three reminder emails inviting participation. If, after three reminder emails, we had not received a response, we returned to the list of institutions to find a similar replacement institution. We examined our categories for saturation throughout the analysis process (Charmaz, 2006).

After contacting a total of 23 faculty members, our sampling and recruitment resulted in a sample of 9 faculty member participants: 8 females and 1 male, with experience as faculty ranging from 4 to 32 years. Four participants were from research IHEs, 3 from master’s IHEs, 1 from a doctoral IHE, and 1 from a baccalaureate IHE. Eight of the faculty members were in schools on a regular basis either conducting applied research with teachers of students with severe disabilities or supervising preservice special education teachers of students with severe disabilities. One faculty member was a recent retiree and emeritus professor at the time of the interview, and had spent a long career in classroom research and teacher education. All of the participants had previous experience either working as a classroom teacher of students with severe disabilities or working as a job coach, service provider, consultant, or transition specialist, for students with severe disabilities prior to beginning their faculty careers.

Data Sources and Collection

Each faculty member participated in one structured, 45- to 90-minute telephone interview consisting of nine core questions (see Table 1). All interviews were audio-recorded with participant consent. Specific follow-up questions were asked depending on the participants’ responses. For example, if participants did not specifically mention communication with families, the interviewer asked whether the participant thought that communication with parents was an important component of expertise. Interviews were conducted between May and July 2013.

Table 1.

Structured Interview Protocol.

Faculty interview questions
1. Tell me about your experience working with teachers of (and/or students with) severe disabilities.
2. Can you describe an ideal educational model or program for students with severe disabilities?
3. What does an expert teacher of students with severe disabilities do in the classroom, which gives you the sense that he or she is an expert?
4. What does an expert teacher of students with severe disabilities do professionally, outside the classroom, which gives you the sense that he or she is an expert?
5. What else might cause you to think that a teacher is an expert?
6. What attitudes or dispositions do you think an expert teacher of students with severe disabilities would have?
7. What information about individual students do expert teachers use when making instructional decisions?
8. How do expert teachers gain information about their students?
9. Where do expert teachers learn about curriculum materials and instructional strategies to inform their practice?

Data Analysis

All interviews were transcribed and uploaded into Dedoose™ for analysis. Using Saldaña’s (2009) procedures, the first and second authors coded the entire data set in two coding cycles. In the first cycle, we used open codes to uncover descriptive codes, structural codes, initial codes, and in vivo codes (Saldaña, 2009). We first used structural codes to organize the data by specific research question (Saldaña, 2009). Then, we identified initial descriptive codes (Charmaz, 2006) to explore emerging concepts or themes in the data. We also identified any in vivo codes (e.g., “presence”) that were pertinent to the research questions. The initial codes were reorganized, reanalyzed, and refined in second cycle coding. In second cycle coding, we grouped the codes into related categories, subcoding and recoding the data as necessary (Saldaña, 2009). The third author completed the same process concurrently using a subset of the data (three transcripts [33%]). In the final step of analysis, we all discussed the codes and categories, reviewed evidence, posed alternative explanations, and reached consensus (Saldaña, 2009).

Collaboratively, we wrote memos defining the major categories. The memo writing was itself an iterative process, as we searched for conflicting evidence, and challenged each other’s biases. The visual representation of our data was, likewise, a collaborative and iterative process. While we discussed the categories, we drew various visual models to illustrate our thinking. Then, we independently drew models and shared them in a meeting, where we incorporated aspects of each of our models and reached consensus on a model to represent our data.

Trustworthiness and Credibility

We used procedures recommended by Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, and Richardson (2005) to ensure the trustworthiness and credibility of our data. As teacher educators and former teachers, we each have specific ideas about good teaching. Our biases needed to be systematically checked throughout the analysis process through questioning and returning to the data to back up our claims. When a member of the research team made a claim, the other researchers questioned the claim, searching for alternative explanations and disconfirming evidence. For example, in an early version of our model, one researcher drafted a visual representation that included the teaching cycle “plan-teach-assess.” Another researcher questioned whether the data truly illustrated a cycle; on further investigation, we concluded that this cycle did not represent our data. We established researcher triangulation by using multiple researchers in data collection and analysis. Each member of the research team conducted a sample of the interviews and collaborated on data analysis. First level member checks verified the accuracy of interview transcripts (Brantlinger et al., 2005). As a second level member check, we sent summaries of our interpretations of each interview to participants prior to analysis.

Findings

The three core concepts identified through coding were (a) teaching identity, (b) purposeful and systematic instruction, and (c) focus on the individual. These core concepts and their components are displayed in Figure 1. The model illustrates that a teacher’s identity is composed of a “presence” as well as a set of guiding principles, which drive the teacher’s collaboration, advocacy, and lifelong learning. The unidirectional arrows indicate that these components directly influence the iterative systematic instructional process, characterized by the in vivo codes within the lower circle. At the center of the instructional process is the teacher’s deep knowledge of each individual student’s uniqueness, resulting in customized and meaningful instruction. The core and component concepts, and the relationships among them, are defined and supported with representative evidence in the following section.

Figure 1.

A preliminary model of teacher expertise in severe disabilities.

Teaching Identity

“Presence”

Usually, when I walk into a classroom, I can feel it. I don’t know how to exactly say what that is, but you can feel a certain energy. You can feel a certain sense of security, like the students know what they are expected to do. (Susan)

Nearly every faculty member described a feeling or sense that a teacher was an expert. “Immediately I notice their presence that’s having an effect in the classroom” (Audrey). Experts’ confidence creates a calm and positive, yet rigorous and exciting environment. They are persistent in pushing students to meet high expectations, and students feel safe to learn and take risks. “They don’t give up . . . They’re always pushing” (Amanda). In the presence of an expert teacher, “everybody is just waiting for that moment, for that aha moment” (Susan). Their kind, even-tempered, and calm demeanor demonstrates that they truly enjoy and respect their students.

Experts’ energy and passion are evident in their interactions with colleagues, parents, and administrators. They consistently communicate optimism about students’ progress and futures. Experts have a vision for students, and their commitment to realizing this vision is evident when they share information about their work. As Sandy explained,

The trait that I think that really stands out to me for somebody who I consider to be an expert teacher is that they’re really committed . . . They just love what they’re doing, and they love the kids they work with, and they see things in their kids other people don’t. They see potential. They see a life worth living . . ..They just know their kids really well, and when they talk about their students, you can see that in them. You can see the enthusiasm that they have, and they tend to be very passionate about the information they share . . . you just know it when you hear it. They know what they’re doing. (Sandy)

Guiding principles

You’re always checking yourself against the non-negotiables of typical, natural environment, age-appropriate[ness] . . . self-advocacy of what their [students’] own long-term goals are. (Amanda)

Experts’ principles guide their work, beginning with their understanding of the social nature of disability and their responsibility to provide support for access. “When they think about disabilities, they think about individuals being disabled because in particular contexts, they don’t have the supports they need to be able. And, therefore, our job is to provide these supports” (John). They understand that contexts can be disabling, disability labels can be dehumanizing, that these labels undermine expectations for student learning, and that “labels of disability really don’t have a whole lot of meaning in defining who a student is” (Sandy). Recognizing this, experts are constantly aware of the need to preserve students’ dignity. When speaking, their language demonstrates that they deeply respect students’ right to equitable access to education. During instruction, they prioritize meaningful participation in age-appropriate activities within inclusive contexts. These are “non-negotiables” (Amanda), and every decision must meet this standard. Their “spirit of inclusivity” (Susan) guides their teaching as they work toward an overall goal to increase independence and self-determination. Lifelong learning, collaboration, and advocacy are the three guiding principles we identified in our data.

Lifelong learning

You’re always looking for learning opportunities for both yourself and for your students . . . You believe that they deserve to live their best life, and you’re going to do everything in your power to support that. (Susan)

As lifelong learners, experts are open to new ideas, and draw on extensive professional networks to creatively solve the problems they face in their classrooms. This lifelong learning is done specifically to improve students’ access to education. Experts do not resist change. Instead, they actively seek out information to improve their teaching. For example, one faculty member described a time when an expert teacher asked her student teacher’s supervisor to stay an extra half hour after an observation to give her feedback as well (Linda).

Because professional development opportunities for teachers of students with severe disabilities are limited in many districts, experts are self-directed in staying current with emerging ideas, research, practices, and trends in the field. They maintain memberships in professional organizations, through which they access research and practice publications and attend conferences. They might also seek out the latest practices on the Internet. Professional networks and peers are crucial to expert teachers’ access to new information. They network extensively, demonstrating their passion for their work:

You can tell those people that are just excited about being special educators . . . They’re going to conferences or asking people. They seem to have a lot of friends that are all in the field, you know, because they’re just eager to learn more or to find out more or share. (Susan)

Because they know that teaching strategies should be highly individualized, experts are discerning in their willingness to apply new ideas to their practice. Their teacher education programs provided them with a strong theoretical foundation, through which they filter and apply new practices. While they are open to new ideas, they do not use a teaching strategy simply because other teachers in their school are using it, or because their district purchased a curriculum. “They’re open to keep looking for whatever it is that they need, and also question, is this purposeful or meaningful for my students?” (Susan). Their pursuit of information is on behalf of their students; as a result, lifelong learning and advocacy overlap.

Advocacy

Their advocacy role never ends . . . they understand that in order for their kids to demonstrate new possibilities and to open more and more doors for kids and see greater outcomes, they have to be advocates . . . they have to continue an advocacy route in educating their colleagues, educating their peers, educating the district and the community. (Audrey)

As advocates, expert teachers are not satisfied with the status quo and are constantly seeking information that will help improve students’ educational experience and outcomes. They recognize that interactions with colleagues, participation on school-wide teams, and relationships with administrators and community members afford opportunities to advocate for resources and seek out information. We find Susan’s description of a “scavenger” particularly apt to explain how lifelong learning can also be an act of advocacy:

I think they almost have to become like a scavenger. They have to be open to looking for things out in the world that pertain to their students. You know, like any time they see something online or in trade papers or go to conferences. And not just go with like, oh, this is the best practices, I’m just going to buy this . . . but to be able to just have an open mind and question, you know, and picture their students in their mind’s eye. (Susan)

As advocates, experts are relentlessly positive: “They’re their kids’ best cheerleaders . . . When there are some good things that are happening, they’re inviting administrators and the principals and their colleagues, and the families to see that” (Susan). Recognizing that others will look to them for how to interact with students with severe disabilities, they lead by example. “If they treat their students with respect, and if they have high expectations for their students, and they’re treating their students like their typical peers, that’s going to be the best type of leadership” (Susan). They are interested in issues that affect their schools, take active roles on committees, and assume leadership roles to shape the direction of the school and their programs.

Advocacy is woven into expert teachers’ identities. They possess

this natural sense to really always fight for that voice that might not be heard, whether they’re sitting around and they’re at home, whether they’re part of . . . professional groups that really hone in on making sure the kiddos with significant disabilities are not forgotten about . . . It’s almost a part of them. (Amanda)

Expert teachers recognize that everyday decisions can be tools for advocacy.

It goes on all the time . . . in the hallways, in the bathrooms, in the gym, in the community, out on the bus line, lining the kids up . . . the kids are really part of the school; they’re not an object of pity . . . it’s good that everybody sees that. (Susan)

In team decisions, expert teachers are “not just sitting down, oh, we can’t do that. Oh, I’m sorry, the policy says . . .” (Amanda). Instead, they are assertive problem solvers, engaging in a kind of collaborative-advocacy that allows them to push for change while also maintaining the role of a team player. Advocacy, therefore, overlaps with collaboration.

Collaboration

I think they create opportunity for open access to their classroom, not the closed-door teacher, but the teacher that says come in and see what I’m doing with my kids so you understand what we’re doing here. A highly collaborative spirit. (Laura)

As collaborative advocates, expert teachers recognize that they cannot “prescribe and direct and do everything” (Laura). They develop relationships with colleagues that enhance their knowledge about students and lead to cohesive service delivery. They do not “view [their] particular assignment in such a parochial way, but . . . negotiate and work with other specialists in the building and in the district to create the kind of high-presence models that can make the difference for kids” (Audrey). They are willing to “not always be right . . . their focus is on the students” (Laura). They know how to ask questions that will not only elicit needed information but preserve and enhance relationships or prompt others to think in different ways. In collaborating with multiple individuals, team meetings are well-organized, and “there is an impact after the meeting, that you see things happening and carried through” (John). Their presence at meetings has the effect of “really invigorating others and almost providing that visionary leadership without even realizing they’re doing it” (Audrey).

The effectiveness of an expert teacher’s supervision and relationships with paraprofessionals distinguishes them from novice teachers. “Not every teacher has the wherewithal to be a good supervisor, to be honest” (Susan). “Besides being an expert teacher, you also have to be an expert supervisor, manager, scheduler, trainer, because it’s up to you to train those other people” (Susan). An ineffective relationship with paraprofessionals can be observed when paraprofessionals are either seemingly doing nothing, or are “taking over” (Sandy). In contrast, an effective relationship is characterized by “paraprofessionals [who] are able to implement instructional programs developed by the teacher without needing a lot of supervision, and they know what their role is and what the teacher’s role is” (Sandy).

Expert special educators of students with severe disabilities effectively navigate inclusive co-teaching arrangements rather than isolating themselves in a self-contained classroom. In their teaching, the roles of general and special educators are fluid and seamless: “If someone came in the room, they couldn’t identify right away who is who” (John). Rather than focusing on a particular student, an expert special educator “also understands that part of his or her role is to educate others in that setting, and educate peers that are learning in that setting” (Audrey). Outside the classroom, the relationship between the general and special educator is similarly characterized by fluid roles:

It’s not, well, you’re the content expert and I’m the classroom management expert, or you’re the content expert, I’m the modification expert. It’s I know this material just as well as you . . . and we’re going to sit down together and figure out how best to universally design the classes to get these main points across to make sure that this kiddo gets it too. (Amanda)

Finally, collaboration with parents is essential to expert teaching for students with and without disabilities. Expert teachers of students with severe disabilities work hard at developing genuine, trusting, and respectful relationships with parents, and truly value the partnership for the insights they offer about their children. Faculty described continual, innovative, and at times relentless efforts to communicate with parents, and examples of support groups, workshops, websites, or traveling to a parents’ workplace to guide them through the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process. The result will be “much better education for the children when the teacher and parent have lots of respect for one another, know one each other, care about each other” (John).

Purposeful and Systematic Instruction

A teacher who is very purposeful, has clear learning intentions for the students with significant disabilities in the classroom, and has a way to meaningfully measure the accomplishments of those students and to share those. (Audrey)

The previously described skills and qualities—guiding principles and non-negotiables, lifelong learning, advocacy, and collaboration—coalesce in expert teachers’ instruction, which is focused, active, purposeful, and systematic. To teach in this way, specific planning is necessary, and plans reflect the teacher’s longitudinal thinking about “the important things for [each] student to be able to do or demonstrate, and know where they are right now and where they need to be” (John). “They are very outcome-driven. But they are richer, meaningful outcomes where you can actually feel the effect on the lives of the learners” (Audrey). Frequent informal assessments allow continuous adjustment of instruction based on assessment data, “forever asking questions” about what the students can do, or what level of support is needed (John). Keen observation and relationships with students glean information, which is used to design assessments. A “depth and intuition about the student” guides experts as they uncover ways for students to demonstrate what they know (Alexa).

Deep knowledge and respect for the uniqueness of each student directly influences teaching: An expert “is able to take all that local knowledge of the student with the more traditional forms of data collection, and then make really good instructional decisions” (Alexa). The integration of information and sources to make individualized instructional decisions is quintessential to expert teaching. Fluent prompting strategies combine with an understanding of how environments affect learning, and problems are solved using a behavioral framework. Experts understand how to manipulate consequences, “making sure that there are reasons for the student to want to learn, so that there is reinforcement” (John). Finally, experts know how to fade support, make themselves “obsolete” (Amanda), and allow the student to function independently and with natural supports.

Students with severe disabilities often require ongoing attention for medical, behavioral, or attentional concerns, or to ensure the accessibility of materials. Experts fluidly manage these matters without disrupting instruction. Sandy described an example of an expert teacher she had observed:

One thing that she was able to do was to deal with the medical issues, the trach, the suctioning, all that kind of stuff, did it just beautifully well, like continuing on with instruction . . . And that’s the ability to overlook some of the medical complications and to focus on instruction and engagement. And for this person to just smoothly, you know, suction a kid and then just go right on with whatever, and . . . not make a big deal of it, was really important.

Flexibility is necessary to ensure that students access instruction without interruptions. As Susan explained, “They’re able to adjust or adapt right on the spot.” Similarly, recognizing opportunities for instruction during almost any activity is another skill of expert teachers. Faculty provided examples of experts using their knowledge of individual students to embed instruction for communication, mobility, academics, and socialization into everyday routines and activities. For example, a student working on a mobility goal would walk to each activity. Because of their teachers’ adeptness at recognizing opportunities and facilitating instruction, students of expert teachers are constantly engaged in learning.

Focus on the Individual

An expert teacher has a good relationship or good rapport with the student . . . that enriches and enhances everything that goes on, in terms of the instruction and the students’ behavior and deportment in the classroom. (John)

Central to experts’ instruction is authentic interest in understanding and responding to the individual needs of each student. They “fall in love with their students,” getting to know students “just as if they were a niece or a nephew” (Alexa). They are “eager” to learn information about “the whole child, not just that little classroom piece” (Susan). Authentic relationships allow teachers to “crawl inside that student’s head to figure out what’s going on” (Linda) and adopt the perspective of the student to design programming that is personally meaningful. Their search for knowledge about students is driven by respect for the student’s voice: “It’s the epitome of respect when you’re trying to figure out what somebody is trying to communicate to you no matter how they’re communicating that” (Linda). This allows the students and teachers “develop a trust and bond and then empower that student to make the choices they need to make” (Audrey).

Observational skills are of particular importance: “You have to be so tuned in to the subtleties of human behavior . . . You have to take the time to observe and to listen to the unspoken message” (Linda). Linda described how one expert used observations to immediately adjust instruction:

I’ve watched her [the teacher] just turn around and observe her class and just watch quietly just a few minutes. And then she may wander around and whisper something into each of the paraprofessionals’ ears. And I’m guessing what she’s whispering is, you might want to try this, or I think he’s trying to communicate this, or don’t forget to let him know when we’re going to transition to the next activity, because he’s having a really good day, and we don’t want to provoke a challenging behavior.

In sum, expert teachers of students with severe disabilities draw on multiple domains of knowledge in their work. Inside and outside of the classroom, they are guided by principles of inclusion, meaningful participation, and valuing students as individuals. Experts fluently integrate deep knowledge about individual students with broad knowledge about their progress relative to valued outcomes. Simultaneously, experts understand the multiple contextual layers that influence students’ outcomes, such as family priorities, classroom-based factors that support or hinder motivation and access to meaningful participation, social perceptions of disability, and systematic variables that might require advocacy work on behalf of the teacher. They integrate this information with their identity as a teacher as they plan and make moment-to-moment decisions to maximize students’ engagement in meaningful, age appropriate, and inclusive instruction. Expert teachers’ interactions with students are characterized by systematic instruction, empathy, enjoyment, and respect for dignity at all times. They collaboratively reach decisions and understand that their teaching role never ends; even when students are not present, they act as leaders, modeling their respect for students and sharing their knowledge about students with colleagues. Their respect for students guides their pursuit of information about the student and about the latest instructional strategies and research, and drives their work as advocates. As Susan aptly quipped, “It takes more than just teaching kids, you know?”

Discussion

The findings of the current study provide illustrations and examples of what expertise in teaching with severe disabilities might look like in relationship to other types of teaching. Some of our findings are congruent with models of general expertise as well as overall teaching expertise. A key aspect of expertise across disciplines is flexible and automatic decision making (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993; Tsui, 2009). Our participants described expert teachers who made on-the-spot adaptations, smoothly managing students’ medical and behavioral needs, and recognizing and capitalizing on opportunities for teaching as they arose. A high level of sensitivity to students is recognized as indicative of expertise in general education (Smith & Strahan, 2004) and special education (Leko et al., 2012; Stough & Palmer, 2003). Among teachers of students with severe disabilities, this sensitivity is heightened, as deep relationships and knowledge of students inform teachers in both moment-to-moment and long-term decision making. Professionally, expert teachers demonstrate leadership and service to the profession (Smith & Strahan, 2004). Among teachers of students with severe disabilities, leadership extends to collaboration across many different groups within and outside of the school community; they serve as a model and advocate on behalf of students.

We found other skills that appeared unique to expert teaching of students with severe disabilities. Teachers of students with severe disabilities have to manage multiple adults as well as students, and collaborate with general and special education teachers, several related service providers, and families, all the while balancing the functional and academic needs of students. While a strong command of instructional strategies is acknowledged as important among special education teachers (Bishop, Brownell, Klingner, Leko, & Galman, 2010; Brownell, Adams, Sindelar, Waldron, & Vanhover, 2006; Dingle, Brownell, Leko, Boardman, & Haager, 2011), our faculty participants noted that specific skills in systematic instruction are essential to guide instruction for students with severe disabilities. All of these skills, however, fail to account for the most important qualities of expert teachers of students with severe disabilities—their guiding principles, their “presence” with students, and their deep knowledge and authentic relationships with individual students. They distinguish themselves from other teachers in their ability to recognize students’ potentials and, as Sandy said, “see a life worth living.” They continuously develop their teaching expertise and relationships with students (Smith & Strahan, 2004), because they value students as individuals.

These findings have implications for the development of teacher evaluations. In this study, we identified some skills and qualities of expert teachers. While some skills identified could be quantified (e.g., extent of collaboration, leadership activities, individualization of instruction), some qualities might not be easily measured. Specifically, the expert teacher’s “presence” in a classroom seems especially suited for qualitative measures that would need to be triangulated among several observers. Other areas, such as advocacy activities and lifelong learning, might be evaluated using both qualitative and quantitative measures. Our findings seem to suggest that evaluations for teachers of students with severe disabilities should reflect rich and varied data that illustrate the complexities of their roles and responsibilities.

Limitations and Future Directions for Research

The limitations of this study inform future research. The findings of our study should be viewed as preliminary, as they reflect only faculty perceptions of expertise. We acknowledge that this viewpoint represents only a small portion of the stakeholders involved in working with and evaluating teachers of students with severe disabilities. Importantly, our sample, while diverse in relationship to IHE type, was limited to Midwestern states and was overwhelmingly White. This is a reflection of the lack of diversity among special education faculty nationally (Robb, Smith, & Montrosse, 2012). Prioritizing the perspectives of a more diverse professoriate will add dimension to the current model. Future studies of expertise should examine perceptions of other stakeholders, including administrators and expert teachers themselves, and draw comparisons among stakeholders’ responses and recommended practices. It would also be important to learn whether these findings are consistent for teachers of students with other types of disabilities. Moreover, interviews provide a limited perspective and would benefit from supplementary in-depth observations of expert teaching in action. Future interviews and observations should include the perspectives of students, and identify how expert teaching affects students’ responses, affect, and engagement. These data will contribute to a more socially valid definition of expertise.

Conclusion

To continue to ensure educational quality for students with severe disabilities, recognition of teaching excellence is needed. A variety of professionals, including general and special education teachers, can demonstrate expertise in teaching students with severe disabilities. This model provides preliminary evidence that can be used to develop teaching evaluations that are valid for all learners, provides a structure for teachers to set and reach career goals, and can contribute to the design of teacher education and mentoring. We hope that this study will help ensure that teachers who successfully educate students who experience the most challenges are acknowledged for their expertise, so that students with severe disabilities might access equitable, inclusive, and rigorous education.

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

Andrea Ruppar is an assistant professor of special education in the Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research focuses on social and individual factors affecting educational decision making for students with severe disabilities, and literacy instruction for students with severe disabilities.

Carly Roberts is an assistant professor of special education in the Department of Educational Studies at Purdue University in West Lafayette, IN. Her research investigates teacher quality, access to the general curriculum, and literacy instruction for students with intellectual disability.

Amy Jo Olson is an assistant professor in the Department of Special Education at the University of Northern Iowa. Her research is in the area of collaborative teaming to enhance access to the general curriculum for students with severe disabilities.

References

Ayres

K. M.

Lowrey

K. A.

Douglas

K. H.

Sievers

(2011). I can identify Saturn but I can’t brush my teeth: What happens when the curricular focus for students with severe disabilities shifts. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 11-21.

Benedict

A. E.

Thomas

R. A.

Kimerling

Leko

(2013). Trends in teacher evaluation: What every special education teacher should know. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 60-68.

Bereiter

Scardamalia

(1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.

Berliner

D. C.

(1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15, 5-13. doi:10.31012/0013189X015007007

Berliner

D. C.

(1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performances. In Mangieri

J. N.

Block

C. C.

(Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students: Diverse perspectives (pp. 161-186). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Berliner

D. C.

(2004). Describing the behavior and documenting the accomplishments of expert teachers. Bulletin of Science, Technology, & Society, 24, 200-212. doi:10.1177/0270467604265535

Bishop

A. G.

Brownell

M. T.

Klingner

J. K.

Leko

M. M.

Galman

A. C.

(2010). Differences in beginning special education teachers: The influence of personal attributes, preparation, and school environment on classroom reading practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 75-92.

Blanton

L. P.

Sindelar

P. T.

Correa

V. I.

(2006). Models and measures of beginning teacher quality. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 115-127. doi:10.1177/00224669060400020201

Bouck

E. C.

(2012). Secondary students with moderate/severe intellectual disability: Considerations of curriculum and post-school outcomes from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 1175-1186. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01517.x

10.

Brantlinger

Jimenez

Klingner

Pugach

Richardson

(2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195-207. doi:10.1177/001440290507100205

11.

Brownell

M. T.

Adams

Sindelar

Waldron

Vanhover

(2006). Learning from collaboration: The role of teacher qualities. Exceptional Children, 72, 169-185. doi:10.1177/001440290607200203

12.

Burns

M. K.

Ysseldyke

J. E.

(2009). Reported prevalence of evidence-based instructional practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 3-11. doi:10.1177/0022466908315563

13.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

14.

Cook

B. G.

Cook

S. C.

(2013). Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 47, 71-82. doi:10.1177/0022466911420877

15.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2013). Draft initial and advanced specialty sets. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/Standards/Special-Educator-Professional-Preparation/CEC-Initial-and-Advanced-Specialty-Sets

16.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Darling-Hammond

(2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8,1-44.

18.

Dingle

M. P.

Brownell

M. T.

Leko

M. M.

Boardman

A. G.

Haager

(2011). Developing effective special education reading teachers: The influence of professional development, context, and individual qualities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 87-103.

19.

Dreyfus

H. L.

(1984). What expert systems can’t do. Raritan, 48, 22-36.

20.

Holdheide

L. R.

Goe

Croft

Reschly

D. J.

(2010). Challenges in evaluating special education teachers and English language learners specialists (TQ Research & Policy Brief). Washington, DC: National Compre-hensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrived from http://www.tqsource.org/publications/July2010Brief.pdf

21.

Jackson

Ryndak

D. L.

Billingsley

(2000). Useful practices in inclusive education: A preliminary view of what experts in moderate to severe disabilities are saying. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 25, 129-141. doi:10.2511/rpsd.25.3.129

22.

Kavale

K. A.

Foorness

S. R.

(2000). Policy decisions in special education: The role of meta-analysis. In Gersten

Schiller

E. P.

Vaughn

(Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Synthesis of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 281-326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

23.

Leko

M. M.

Brownell

M. T.

Sindelar

P. T.

Murphy

(2012). Promoting special education preservice expertise. Focus on Exceptional Children, 7, 1-17.

24.

Rainforth

York

McDonald

(1997). Collaborative teams for students with severe disabilities: Integrating therapy and educational services. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

25.

Robb

S. M.

Smith

D. D.

Montrosse

B. E.

(2012). The context of the demand for special education faculty: A study of special education teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35, 128-139. doi:10.1177/0888406412444760

26.

Roberts

C. A.

(2013). Identity development of literacy teachers of adolescents with significant cognitive disabilities (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3588529)

27.

Ryndak

D. L.

Clark

Conroy

Stewart

(2001). Preparing teachers to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities: Program configuration and expertise. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 26, 96-105. doi:10.2511/rpsd.26.2.96

28.

Saldaña

(2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

29.

Slavin

R. E.

(2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31, 15-21. doi:10.3102/0013189X031007015

30.

Smith

T. W.

Strahan

(2004). Toward a prototype of expertise in teaching: A descriptive case study. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 357-371. doi:10.1177/0022487104267587

31.

Stough

L. M.

Palmer

D. J.

(2003). Special thinking in special settings: A qualitative study of expert special educators. Journal of Special Education, 36, 206-222. doi:10.1177/002246690303600402

32.

Stumbo

McWalters

(2011). Measuring effectiveness: What will it take? Educational Leadership, 68, 10-15.

33.

Tsui

A. B.

(2009). Distinctive qualities of expert teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, 421-439. doi:10.1080/13540600903057179

34.

Wright

P. S.

Horn

S. P.

Sanders

W. L.

(1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67. doi:10.1023/A:1007999204543