“That’s My Job”

Special Education Research on Teachers’ Beliefs

One line of research in special education focuses on preservice teacher beliefs. Leko et al. (2014) studied 11 preservice teachers’ beliefs over a 10-month period. They found that strong beliefs did not change during this period. Although the core beliefs remained steadfast during the study, the participants did ascribe to more adaptable ways of thinking instead of stating one approach was always a panacea. Leko et al. also found that beliefs were influenced by personal experience in learning to read, practical experience working with students, and concepts within course work, specifically the concepts repeated throughout a number of courses (e.g., individualization). Other current studies in special education also found that core concepts in course work seem to influence beliefs (Beacham & Rouse, 2012; Sharma & Sokal, 2013).

Teachers’ beliefs about their own efficacy (i.e., whether teachers attribute student outcomes to their own actions rather than to situations beyond their control) and how these beliefs affect their perceptions of competence or their actual practice has also been examined. For example, Brownell and Pajares (1999), using path analytic techniques, found that general education teachers’ perceptions of their own teaching competence influenced their perceptions of success in teaching students with disabilities. With regard to research focusing on special education teachers, Allinder (1995) found that special education teachers with higher teaching efficacy set higher goals for students and increased end of the year goals on math curriculum-based measurements more so than teachers with low efficacy. Brady and Woolfson (2008) found that both general and special education teachers with high efficacy were more likely than teachers with low efficacy to attribute a student’s failures to school factors (i.e., teacher, curriculum) rather than internal factors linked to the student, thus suggesting they were willing to accept responsibility for student outcomes.

Another line of research in special education is the examination of teachers’ beliefs about disabilities and their link to beliefs about learning and instructional practices. Jordan and Stanovich (2003) identified two categories of general education teachers with regard to their role with students in special education, the pathognomonic and the interventionist teacher. The pathognomonic teacher believes a child’s disability is a stable characteristic of the child and the child is best served in a pull-out placement while the interventionist teacher believes a child’s disability is a barrier to learning but can be overcome by reducing barriers within the general educational placement. Jordan et al. (2009) found teachers with interventionist beliefs view the learning of students with disabilities as their responsibility and they may take it on themselves to learn more about how to educate these students effectively. Furthermore, findings suggest that interventionist beliefs are connected with effective instructional practices (Stanovich & Jordan, 1998).

Special education teachers’ beliefs have also been studied with regard to literacy instruction. Berry (2006) examined general education and special education teachers’ beliefs about writing instruction, learning, and disabilities. These teachers were in two separate inclusive classrooms and all reported interventionist beliefs. The sets of teachers, however, perceived the disability in two different ways: either as a “breakdown needing repair” or a “vulnerability needing protection” (Berry, 2006, p. 21). The teachers who saw the beliefs as a breakdown needing repair were more likely to emphasize a systematic curriculum that emphasized the stages of writing, whereas the teachers who viewed the disability as needing protection emphasized social interactions and student-centered learning. Hollenbeck (2013) examined the reading comprehension practices of a teacher considered effective and the beliefs that drove her practices. While the teacher had a strong sense of responsibility for student learning, she did revert back to a student deficit model when students were making limited progress. Hollenbeck (2013) hypothesized that reverting back to this deficit model may have kept the teacher from improving her own practice: “The notion that learning would coalesce someday to enable higher level thinking may have kept Wendy from reflecting on and modifying her current practices” (p. 21). Finally, Ruppar et al. (2015) examined the beliefs of special education teachers teaching literacy to students with severe disabilities. They found context and beliefs had a reciprocal relationship.

Finally, there is some evidence that beliefs can change over time. Ruiz et al. (1995) found that teachers’ beliefs and practices changed due to a professional development. With regard to beliefs, the authors found that all teachers began the project with a belief that a learning disability was a deficit within the child, yet their views changed over the course of the professional development, moving close to a more contextual view. Findings from the Ruiz et al. study are important because they suggest that teacher educators can shape and guide teacher education candidates’ beliefs and, therefore, the practices of special education teachers.

Research on Teachers’ Beliefs and How They Perceive Their Roles and Responsibilities

In special education, the research on special education teachers’ perceptions of their roles and responsibilities is limited in scope and does not provide in-depth information about how more accomplished special education teachers view their roles and responsibilities compared with less accomplished special education teachers. Most of the research focusing on special educators’ beliefs regarding their roles revolves around issues of co-teaching and collaboration. Fennick and Liddy (2001) surveyed 168 general and special education teachers on numerous co-teaching issues. With regard to perceived responsibilities, the majority of the teachers agreed on the perceived roles of both general and special educators; however, they differed significantly on who was more responsible for instruction and behavior management. Each group saw themselves as bearing most of the responsibility for these aspects. Villa, Thousand, Meyers, and Nevin (1996) surveyed 680 general and special education teachers on their perceptions of heterogeneous grouping. With regard to roles and responsibilities, researchers found that the majority of respondents believed they shared responsibility for all children and strongly believed they should work as equal partners to help struggling students succeed academically, but exactly how they saw themselves working with students, colleagues, and parents was not explored.

The Larger Study

The current study was part of a larger effort to understand special education teacher quality. While Bishop et al. (2010) examined degrees of accomplishment in a small number of beginning special education teachers, the current project consisted of practicing special educators with a range of teaching experience in special education who provided reading instruction to students with learning disabilities. These teachers were observed and rated on instructional practices and their reading content knowledge was assessed. Teachers also participated in a semistructured interview.

Strategy of Inquiry

The focus of the current qualitative study was to examine the beliefs of special education teacher participants, as expressed during interviews. We wanted to know the extent to which there were differences in the beliefs of teachers considered more accomplished compared with those rated as less accomplished, based on their classroom observations scores.

Participants and Setting

Because we were interested in comparing the beliefs of more accomplished and less accomplished teachers, we selected teachers with relatively strong scores on our observation instrument, the Reading in Special Education (RISE; see description below; scores of 3.5 or higher; n = 23), and all those with relatively low scores (scores of 2.0 or lower; n = 18) for a total of 41 participants. We excluded teachers with an average or slightly above average score for the purpose of this current study.

Similar to the earlier research which examined differences in more accomplished, moderately accomplished and less accomplished teachers (Bishop et al., 2010), we chose to use the RISE, a reliable and valid teacher observation instrument that examines teacher practices, rather than students achievement scores, as we find that using student achievement scores can be fraught with problems. Value-added research on teachers has determined that relying on 1 year of student gains in achievement is questionable. For general education teachers, reliability coefficients for a single year of data range from .40 to .80 and are considered by experts to be relatively unstable (McCaffrey, Sass, Lockwood, & Mihaly, 2009). The reliability of student achievement gains as a measure of effectiveness for special education teachers is even more suspect. For one, special education teachers provide students with specific learning disabilities a limited portion of their instruction compared with what is provided by their general education peers; thus, the achievement gains students with learning disabilities make is attributed to both teachers, and the portion of variance attributed to the special education teacher is impossible to disentangle from that which is attributed to the general education teachers. Second, special education teachers often teach small numbers of students, making it more difficult to establish reliable relationships between special education teachers and their students’ achievement gains (McCaffrey & Buzick, 2014). Thus, observations of special education teachers using protocols that capture what is considered effective instruction in special education may be a more valid and reliable way of identifying who is effective and who is not.

Participants for our study were part of the larger study that included 59 practicing special educators from Florida, Colorado, and California. All teachers taught third-, fourth-, and/or fifth-grade students with learning disabilities in reading. All were fully certified in special education. The vast majority of teachers were Caucasian and female. Teachers taught in culturally and linguistically diverse schools (39% White, 18% African American, 38% Hispanic/Latino, and 4% Other), with high percentages of students receiving free lunches (from 70% to 84%).

Data Sources

Our data sources included the RISE Observation Instrument and an interview conducted with each teacher.

Data Analysis

Our qualitative approach to data analysis was both inductive and deductive (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999). We analyzed our data from the “bottom up,” accounting for all interview data, yet recognized the influence of our knowledge as prior special educators and the literature related to beliefs when establishing codes. First, two researchers separately read through a selection of interviews and identified initial themes related to beliefs (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). For instance, we labeled the following excerpt as “locating/creating materials”: “I don’t look at not having the right curriculum as a hindrance for me. I go and I find specific books in reading programs.” The initial themes were compared and reviewed by a third researcher to create a set of initial codes. Next, all three researchers applied the codes with additional interviews, adding as needed until the development of new codes was exhausted. We discussed instances where we disagreed on how to code until we reached consensus. We repeated this process with additional interviews until we established interrater agreement of 90%. A final coding schema was determined following the comparison of these jointly coded interviews. Once we achieved interrater agreement, we coded all remaining interviews. Every sixth interview was double coded and compared to make sure we continued to be in agreement.

Next, we combined codes to create categories related to roles and responsibilities. For instance, along with “locating/creating materials” there were several other codes that discussed being resourceful (e.g., trying new strategies, finding support when needed, modifying curriculum). These we identified as the role, “Resource Manager.” Belief categories helped us establish themes that represented teachers’ beliefs. We coded the more accomplished teachers’ and less accomplished teachers’ interviews separately, tabulating responses according to themes, and then compared findings in each category, looking both at frequency of responses and also at qualitative similarities and differences.

Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness was developed through the data analysis process and the subsequent reporting of the data. First, this was a collaborative work in which a number of researchers engaged in rigorous data analysis. As previously stated, a subset of researchers coded the data and worked toward consensus and interrater agreement. Furthermore, researchers were cognizant of looking for data that confirm and disconfirm the codes and themes. Finally, the thick description of the data provides a trail of evidence to substantiate our interpretations (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005).

Instructor: Providing Individualized Instruction

For the most part, participants believed the main role of a special educator was to provide individualized instruction to meet the diverse needs of their students. In particular, their views of good special education reading instruction showed few substantial differences, with both groups stating that reading instruction should target individualized needs. The more accomplished teachers were only slightly more likely to emphasize the importance of systematic, explicit instruction and attended to the specific aspects of assessment, modeling, and feedback in their interviews.

There were a few differences that we found in how participants viewed their instructional role. More accomplished teachers were much more likely to stress aspects of instructional intensity. We saw this mentioned in three different ways: setting high expectations, a continuous desire for professional growth, and the expectation that students must continuously be learning. This belief in intense instruction was aptly captured in this more accomplished teacher’s words:

The intensity. That’s intense, intense, intense! Not that we never do anything fun in special education, but time is of the essence and my goal is to have students all working. And so, no matter what, I feel like time is of the essence so I have to use my time wisely.

We did find one less accomplished teacher who mentioned urgency as an issue. In this excerpt, however, she was referencing how much time she had to work with her students, “It definitely affects my instruction because I feel more pressured within those few hours that I have them in school to try to give them more.” Yet, more consistently, we found the less accomplished teachers believed special education should not be intense, as reflected in the following quote:

I like the flexibility. I like the fact that if I’m reading a story and if a kid is jumping on a pogo stick [in the story in the book], then I’ll go borrow a pogo stick and teach them all to hop on it because there are 6 kids in the group and we’ll go outside. If I had 28 kids I don’t think I would do that. The fact that I can be silly and move around a lot and I know if I’m bored they are bored and I like a lot of activity and I can do that and I can be as creative as I want.

Overall, the role of instructor was a key belief across both groups of teachers. Wasburn-Moses (2005) found that most special educator’s time was allotted to activities other than providing individualized instruction, a problem for a field that is devoted to working specifically with the learning needs of students with disabilities. Across groups, teachers prioritized the importance of this role, a key tenet of special education. The difference in their perceptions of what individualized instruction means, however, particularly in terms of intensity, has an impact on the instructional practices teachers select for their students, which can influence student academic gains.

Resource Manager: Practicing Resourcefulness

Resourcefulness, while a characteristic trait, was viewed by the teachers as an important aspect of being a special educator, particularly in terms of managing resources. Being resourceful included trying new strategies, finding support when needed, locating and creating materials, and modifying curricula. Each of these managed resources resonated across both groups of teachers in our study. One teacher stated, “An effective special education teacher knows where and how to get resources to meet the diverse needs of students.”

Furthermore, both groups of participants mentioned how they located, created, or bought materials from their own money. One teacher commented, “Over the years, I developed my own supply of materials so if the school doesn’t have something, chances are, I have it, um, to pull from.” Each group also noted that they believed it to be their responsibility to modify or supplement curricula materials if they felt it was needed.

Differences between the groups related to why or how teachers managed their resources. More accomplished teachers spoke about modifying the curriculum specifically in terms of meeting students’ needs. Less accomplished teachers described modifying or supplementing the curriculum. While some noted that they needed to do this to meet students’ needs, others spoke of these changes as ways to make the program more motivating for them and the students. One less accomplished teacher stated that “it’s fun and helpful to take the students off a program for a while to give them a break,” while another shared that he “loves inventing his own curriculum.” A third noted,

I look through and see what works for the kids and what would keep them motivated as opposed to keeping up with the pace of Open Court. Open Court for my population if I followed it would be very boring . . .

When resources are managed in a way that drives the intensity of instruction, students may have more opportunities to learn. Harry and Klingner (2006) described how poorer schools lacked resources, which also equated to unacceptable quality of instruction in special education classrooms. Diligently working toward locating appropriate resources is a key role for special educators, and when coupled with a sense of a continuous need for learning, can promote quality instructional practices. These differences in beliefs about resourcefulness between groups link to their beliefs about their role as instructor and the importance of intensity, with more accomplished teachers seeing their role in being resourceful as a key part of providing intense, individualized instruction.

Collaborator: Working With General Education Teachers

For both groups of teachers, the role of instructor and resource manager was readily connected to the role of collaborator and the importance of working with and being a resource to general education teachers. In addition, one more accomplished and one less accomplished teacher discussed training teachers on how to work with special education students. Both groups talked about the importance of communication through collaborative relationships with the general education teacher.

Communicator: Working With Parents

Almost all of the teachers expressed the belief that parental support made an impact on student learning. Many of our teachers discussed the importance of gaining parent support. Not everyone, however, talked about the importance of working with parents in similar ways. Differences emerged in how teachers engaged parents in school activities. The less accomplished teachers described actions that were passive in terms of garnering parental engagement (e.g., creating websites for parents to access, sending home books for students to read) or simply involved tapping into the resources of “those couple of parents that have money and interest to help.” Only one less accomplished teacher specifically described a more active stance—calling parents on the phone. When more accomplished teachers discussed the actions they would take to foster parental involvement, more often their talk involved action: frequent phone calls, conducting home visits, inviting parents into the class for specific activities. In this excerpt, one of our more accomplished teachers expressed her position:

When I have it [parent involvement], it is incredibly helpful. But it’s really hard to get that from the population I teach. I see a change from the beginning of the year until the end of the year. By the end of the year, I have done my home visits and parents have come into the classroom. That extra support at the end of the year is helpful to my students because they practice more at home. Parents understand more what I’m trying to teach them on their homework.

Although both groups of teachers recognized how important and supportive parental involvement is to the academic success of their students, their approach was markedly different.

Relationship Builder: Connecting With Students

Building relationships with students was a role that both groups of participants found to be important, but their purpose in building relationships was notably different. More accomplished teachers were more likely to talk about relationships as a means to an end. For example, one explained how building a relationship linked to setting high expectations:

The first thing to do is to establish a relationship or a rapport with the students, get to know the students, about their interests, let them know that you care about them. Then it is important to tell them what you expect out of them.

In contrast, less accomplished teachers were much more likely to talk about how building relationships with their students provided a safe haven for them, or a place where they could “get love.” One less accomplished teacher shared,

We cuddle up in here; we play. (She laughs). You know, I will just throw a lesson out the window and we are all sitting around chatting or whatever . . . so many times a lot of these kids don’t get attention and they just don’t get love. This is the only place where they can get a little bit of love . . .

Although providing students with a safe learning environment is important, what characterized at least some of the less accomplished teachers was the almost exclusive focus on helping students feel positive about themselves at the expense of academics.

Student Supporter: Advocate or Protector

Across groups, teachers talked about supporting their students. More accomplished teachers discussed helping students get the education they deserve. For example, one more accomplished teacher commented that she needed professional trainings to support her students, “Advocate for my kids, and advocate for myself and I pushed and pushed until the administration finally learned that I wasn’t going to shut up.” Another stated, “I have the opportunity to stand up for children who tend, without me, to be left out or pushed aside.”

Supporting students for our less accomplished teachers equated with protection, with examples from interviews indicating that students with disabilities need special education as a safe haven or promoting their social/emotional well-being by attending to self-esteem for the “whole child” as their primary goal. For example, one less accomplished teacher stated, “I like the fact that I can help these kids and that I feel like hopefully, I mean I don’t see that sometimes that I am doing anything curriculum wise for them, but I’ve seen them grow as people.” In contrast to the more accomplished teachers, only two less accomplished teachers spoke of advocating.

As seen in the above roles, the more accomplished teachers were more likely to advocate for their students’ learning—reflected in the idea of intensity of instruction and the continued need for learning.

Teach Regardless

Our last theme emerged primarily from the more accomplished teachers. When asked about specific influences that affected their teaching, more accomplished teachers made statements focusing on their responsibility to “teach regardless” of influences that affected their instruction (e.g., parental support, district mandates, specific learning disabilities, support from general education). For example, when asked about parent support one teacher shared, “I think that the support that I get from parents is generally limited, but I do feel like I put in so much effort that I can compensate for that.” All of their comments had a sense of self efficacy—a belief in the power of their own efforts. As one more accomplished teacher said, “I’m not going to give up and I’m not going to use things as excuses.”

In contrast, only two of the less accomplished teachers noted the impact of outside influences on their practice. Qualitatively, their comments differed; both seemed more passive than the comments of the stronger teachers. One stated, “You are helping them and you are hoping and praying that they are paying attention during those fifty minutes. It is not fair to kids but what can you do.” Both of the less accomplished teachers’ comments bring up the idea of “hope” as an instructional practice—an idea that clearly differs from the more accomplished teachers’ motto of “teach regardless” and instructional intensity. In their work, Silva and Morgado (2004) found that teachers with higher efficacy in terms of their instructional practice were also resourceful, particularly in regard to recognizing the factors that contribute to the struggles of students with disabilities in school, yet continuing their instruction, regardless of these factors.

Limitations

In this study, we provide a general sense for 31 teachers’ beliefs rather than the in-depth perspective that would be possible with a case study or ethnographic approach. Our analysis of the beliefs of more and less accomplished teachers was based on one semistructured interview. It is quite possible that additional interviews would have revealed additional information about teachers’ beliefs about their roles and responsibilities. In addition, our study was limited to teachers within similar a context. While teachers could teach in an inclusive setting or resource room, our study targeted special education teachers who taught third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade students with learning disabilities in reading. The beliefs that shape instructional practices of special educators working with younger or older students, different content, or disabilities may differ. Therefore, the transferability of this study to special education teachers in other settings or roles is limited. Teachers in other settings or roles may reveal different sets of beliefs. Finally, our article focused on the stated beliefs of only 31 participants. Follow-up studies that access the beliefs of higher numbers of participants would provide clearer evidence to support our findings.

Implications

Pajares (1992) asserted that beliefs may be the “single most important construct in educational research” (p. 311) and can “inform educational practice in ways that prevailing research agendas have not and cannot” (p. 307). We agree with this declaration. In a time when research-based programs are front and center in our thinking, we need to be cognizant of other factors that potentially contribute to teaching and learning. If specific beliefs can be linked to effective instructional practices and student outcomes, then more research should focus on making these beliefs explicit and on how to help teachers change their beliefs.

The finding that less accomplished teachers are more likely to focus on relationship building is important. Although strong, positive relationships are certainly valuable, we must remind teacher candidates that building relationships should not be seen as an end in and of itself. Related research on young White women and Western feminine norms suggests that privileging and maintaining “nice” and loving relationships and appearances may be inversely correlated with activity or action-oriented stances (Mahalik et al., 2005). Considering that our data set is made up of a majority of young White women, as is the majority of the cadre of novice teachers at the elementary level across the United States. (Zumwalt & Craig, 2005), such research may well give pause to discussions of “loving kids” as part of the work of the teacher. “Loving” must not become an excuse for letting children languish and not pushing them to achieve.

In contrast to the less accomplished teachers, the more accomplished teachers were more efficacious and focused on students’ academic needs. If a teacher’s self-efficacy affects his or her expectations and instructional practices, then more research in this area is certainly needed. In a field where student self-determination and advocacy skills are the focus of much research, then perhaps teachers can be taught these skills as well.

Our findings suggest that beliefs can have an effect on instruction practices. For special educators who hold strong beliefs about the importance of improving educational outcomes for their students, instructional practices are more intense and outside influences do not appear to influence a teacher’s focus from implementing programs and classrooms experiences designed to meet the academic needs of their students. For special educators who hold strong beliefs about building rapport with students and making sure they feel safe, their instructional practices may place greater emphasis on motivating students over the implementation of intense instructional practices. As Richardson (1996) noted, beliefs unconsciously influence the actions that are taken up by educators. Yet, previous research has also shown that beliefs can be influenced by core tenants in course work (Beacham & Rouse, 2012; Leko et al., 2014; Sharma & Sokal, 2013) and through professional development experiences (Ruiz et al., 1995). We recommend pursuing research that further examines the roles of beliefs in improving instructional practices of special educators. In particular, we argue that teacher educators must continue to identify the core beliefs of more accomplished special educators and highlight the importance of these beliefs within course work or professional developments. Furthermore, teacher educators must continuously work with special educators to help them reveal their beliefs about students, and work to constructively change them in ways that will better support academic outcomes for students with special needs. A richer understanding of the foundational role educator beliefs play in instruction is necessary if we are to influence instructional practice.