Toward a Model of Learning and Transfer: A Review of Instructional Methods and Learning Outcomes in Special Education Teacher Preparation

Abstract

In the past decade and a half, measurable outcomes of teacher performance and student achievement have moved to the forefront of education policy. Researchers have identified a gap in special education teacher preparation research and have called for the re-envisioning of current educational models, emphasizing a focus on effective methods in special education teacher preparation. Prior studies and literature reviews have demonstrated a need for experimental research on effective methods that move preservice teachers (PSTs) from knowledge to application. In this article, the authors present a model of learning and transfer based on the How People Learn theoretical framework. Guided by this framework, a review of literature resulted in 12 experimental, quantitative studies of instructional methods delivered primarily within university classroom-based settings, measuring PSTs’ outcomes at increasingly deeper levels of learning and transfer. Findings indicate various instructional methods within university coursework lead to strong, positive learning outcomes for PSTs, with most studies measuring knowledge acquisition and conceptual application of knowledge. Yet, more studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of coursework on teacher candidates’ application for and within classroom settings, as well as students’ outcomes. Implications and future research are discussed.

Keywords

teacher preparation special education instructional methods knowledge application transfer

In the past decade and a half, measurable outcomes of teacher performance and student achievement have moved to the forefront of education policy. The standards-based reform movement led to an initial focus on teacher performance, with states enacting policies to measure teachers’ effectiveness related to student achievement. Research supports the connection between quality teacher education and positive student outcomes. Teachers who are prepared at accredited institutions outperform those who are not, producing higher student achievement (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2006). Smith (2012) also noted that teachers who are well prepared and fully certified before entering the classroom “consistently produce significantly stronger student achievement gains than do uncertified teachers” (p. 98).

Sindelar, Brownell, and Billingsley (2010), however, identified a severe gap in special education teacher preparation research, acknowledging that “such research is challenging” (p. 10), and highlighting a specific need for research about effective instructional methods in special education teacher preparation. It has become critically important to understand how specific instructional methods in these programs lead not only to knowledge but also to the transfer of knowledge and skills for classroom settings to reduce the research-to-practice gap. Recent articles have called for the re-envisioning of current educational models, emphasizing a focus on research of effective methods in special education teacher preparation (Rock et al., 2016). Similarly, Leko, Brownell, Sindelar, and Kiely (2015) advocate for “a more practice-based approach” to teacher preparation “grounded in research on effective teachers and effective teacher education”, but also acknowledge there is “insufficient research in general and special education preparation to constitute such a foundation” (p. 30).

Prior Related Literature

Prior literature reviews have identified various instructional methods that effectively improved preservice teachers’ (PSTs) knowledge and application of content, teaching-related skills, and evidence-based practices (EBPs), including training to mastery, providing performance feedback, video analysis, and coaching newly learned skills (Cornelius & Nagro, 2014; Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010; Nagro & Cornelius, 2013; Scheeler, 2008). These reviews focused on specific instructional practices measured primarily in preservice fieldwork settings or inservice teachers’ classrooms, not within coursework at universities. While findings indicate these methods are effective, they require additional time and training beyond the university classroom, highlighting a need for research-based instructional strategies implemented during the coursework portion of professional preparation.

While some recent literature reviews have documented research in instructional practices for special education teacher preparation within coursework, concluding that selected reviewed studies demonstrated statistically significant results, there was a lack of experimental studies (Newman-Thomas & Rieth, 2011). Many studies focused on participants’ perceptions of their preparation, self-reported knowledge, and self-reported use of practices, which generally improved following instruction, coursework, or program completion. McCall, McHatton, and Shealey (2014), for example, conducted a literature review about assessment practices in special education teacher preparation programs, including those related to increased knowledge, skills, dispositions, and field experiences. While they found that preparation programs use a variety of assessment practices, the authors emphasized the need for providing PSTs with “multiple and substantive opportunities to apply their learning in an authentic context” (pp. 61-62). It is also important to note many reviewed studies were qualitative, used surveys, or used databases to determine participant outcomes, rather than employing experimental designs. Sindelar et al. (2010) further noted that, although various instructional methods have been promoted in the literature, “the effectiveness of these individual practices for deepening teachers’ knowledge is unknown” (p. 14) because they lack the support of experimental research studies.

Theoretical Model for Literature Review

To review and analyze the current literature related to special education teacher preparation, particularly in light of the demonstrated need for experimental research on effective instructional strategies that move teachers from knowledge to application, the authors developed a model of learning and transfer based on Bransford, Brown, and Cocking’s How People Learn (HPL) theoretical framework (National Research Council [NRC], 2000). This model represents hierarchical measures of learning outcomes within teacher preparation. The first level includes self-reported outcomes, attitudes, and beliefs, which are commonly used measures because data are relatively easy to collect. The second level is knowledge acquisition, which refers to recall of factual information presented in coursework, such as vocabulary, key characteristics of students with disabilities, key characteristics of EBPs, or other factual information related to special education. The emphasis of this construct is memorization of information, rather than understanding (NRC, 2000). The third level is conceptual application of knowledge, which refers to the application of information presented in coursework to demonstrate understanding, rather than simply recalling factual information. The emphasis of this construct is PSTs’ ability to conceptualize “what they have learned to solve novel problems—to show evidence of transfer” (NRC, 2000, p. 9). To further demonstrate transfer of learning, application for classroom settings refers to the application of information presented in coursework to develop artifacts or demonstrate skills directly related to those required for the classroom (NRC, 2000). As the HPL framework emphasizes the need for experiential learning opportunities to lead toward mastery, application in classroom settings represents yet a deeper outcome measure. Finally, changes in students’ outcomes as a result of teachers’ instructional practices yields the strongest evidence of transfer. The purpose of this literature review is to examine experimental studies of instructional methods delivered primarily within coursework to measure PSTs’ outcomes at increasingly deeper levels of learning and transfer as defined by this framework, highlighting effective practices in special education teacher preparation, as well as substantiating the need for further inquiry.

Method

Search criteria for this review were limited to English-language articles published in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals since 2006. The last search for articles was conducted in July 2016. Five electronic databases were searched (Academic Search Complete, Education Research Complete, ERIC, PsychInfo, and PsychArticles) using the following Boolean phrase: (“pre-service” OR “preservice” OR “undergraduate” OR “credential”) AND (“teacher education” OR “teacher preparation” OR “teacher instruction”) AND (“special education” OR “disability” OR “disabilities” OR “special needs” OR “special populations” OR “exceptional”) AND (“methods” OR “instruction” OR “effectiveness” OR “knowledge” OR “application” OR “outcomes”). This search returned 805 articles. Results were narrowed by reading titles that appeared to meet the purpose of this review, and then further narrowed by reading the abstracts and/or full texts. Similar procedures were followed for hand searches of Teacher Education and Special Education, Exceptional Children, and The Journal of Special Education Technology. References of included articles were also reviewed to determine if additional studies met criteria.

Inclusion Criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (a) included a majority (i.e., more than 50%) of preservice special education teacher participants; (b) were conducted in a university setting, with the intervention primarily occurring within coursework; (c) used an experimental, quantitative research design; and (d) measured knowledge and/or application of topics or skills.

Articles were excluded if the study compared traditional, face-to-face instruction with online instruction or alternative certification programs; was conducted outside of the United States; was conducted primarily in fieldwork settings; used a qualitative, correlational, or descriptive design; or measured attitudes, beliefs, or perceived knowledge and ability. Qualitative, correlational, or descriptive studies were excluded as these designs do not allow for reasonable inferences to the causality of interventions (Council for Exceptional Children, 2014). The purpose of these criteria was to narrow the focus to studies within university coursework, grounded in experimental design, and focusing on higher levels within the theoretical framework of HPL, given the need for evidence in this specific area of special education personnel preparation. With these criteria applied to titles, abstracts, and full texts of articles, 12 studies were included in this review.

Coding Procedures

Studies were coded using the following characteristics: participants, university setting, coursework/intervention setting, study design (experimental, quasi-experimental, or single-case, number of groups, test design), independent and dependent variables, instrumentation, data analyses, terms authors used to describe what they were measuring, constructs measured, and relevant findings. Coded terminology used in articles represented a selection of specific terms to describe participants’ outcomes. Repetitive terminology (e.g., knowledge and content knowledge) were not included in the table. Constructs measured included knowledge acquisition, conceptual application of knowledge, application for classroom settings, application in classroom settings, and students’ outcomes as represented and operationally defined in the theoretical model.

Interrater Agreement

The first author developed a coding sheet and instructions that operationally defined constructs measured with specific examples of each. The first author provided an example of a coded study and discussed the procedures with the second author while going through the article and coding sheet. The first author coded all studies while the second author provided interrater reliability for 50% of studies. After reviewing the interrater coding sheet, it was noted that some data regarding experimental design and effect sizes of relevant results were missing from the initial draft. The first author discussed these criteria with the second author, who reviewed studies for these data. Interrater reliability was determined by number of ratings in agreement for each characteristic divided by total number of ratings. Initial agreement was at 89%. The authors discussed discrepancies, which resulted in 100% agreement.

Results

Results are discussed related to aggregate data for participants, settings, and study designs. Organized by instructional methods, data are provided for variables, instrumentation, analyses, terms used, constructs measured, and relevant findings (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Variables, Instrumentation, Data Analyses, Terms Used, Constructs Measured, and Relevant Findings of Included Studies.

Author (year)	IVDV and instrumentationData analyses	Terms used	Constructs measured	Relevant findings
Case-based instruction
Fitzgerald et al. (2009)	IV: Type of course implementation of Teacher Problem Solving Skills (a series of interactive multimedia case studies focusing on students with emotional and behavioral disorders): Learning within the case; using the case as context; guided application of case knowledge and skills; learning within and as context. DV: Rubric scores on concept maps determined by number of nodes, number of links, and quality of concept maps determined against an expert-developed map Factorial ANOVA; repeated-measures ANOVA	Learning of knowledge and skills; conceptual change	Conceptual application of knowledge	Significant gains from pretest to posttest for number of nodes (η² = .101), number of links (η² = .077), and quality of map scores (η² = .380) for all participants. Nodes scores (η² = .058), links scores (η² = .771), and quality of map scores showed significant interaction (η² = .145) for course implementation type, with higher scores from implementing “within-case learning with guided application” (p. 51).
Spooner, Baker, Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Browder (2007)	IV: A 1-hour classroom presentation on how to modify lesson plans for students with mild and severe disabilities using the three components of UDL compared with no instruction DV: Rubric scores on UDL lesson plans from posttest condition, which consisted of scores for total test representation, expression, and engagement Repeated-measures ANOVA	Abilities to develop universally designed lessons; concepts and application	Application for classroom settings	Significant effect from pretest to posttest for UDL training group when compared with the control group for total scores (η² = .398), representation (η² = .207), expression (η² = .177), and engagement (η² = .333). Significant gains from pretest to posttest for the UDL training group for total scores (η² = .433), representation (η² = .316), expression (η² = .404) and engagement (η² = .091).
Yadav, Bouck, Da Fonte, and Patton (2009)	IV: Traditional lecture with discussion compared with video case–based instruction about phonemic awareness and reading comprehension DV: Rubric scores on posttests of applied knowledge (open-ended questions of knowledge, how PSTs would teach the topic, and how they would assess students) and video-case analyses of teaching Two-way ANCOVA	Case interpretation, video-case analyses, generalization of learning	Conceptual application of knowledge	No significant differences for video-case analyses compared with traditional instruction. Descriptive results indicated that participants who learned from video case–based instruction scored higher (µ = 0.75, SD = 0.21) as compared with traditional lecture (µ = 0.69, SD = 0.13).
Content Acquisition Podcasts (CAPs)
Carlisle, Thomas, and McCathren (2016)	IV: Practitioner-friendly article compared with CAP about reading/literacy concepts and activities. DV: Scores on posttest, which included multiple-choice questions measuring declarative knowledge and application items to match activities with appropriate principle Repeated-measures ANOVA	Declarative knowledge items; application items	Knowledge acquisition Conceptual application of knowledge	Significantly greater gains for CAP group from baseline to posttest for all test items, with a large effect size ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .19). Significantly greater gains for CAP group on knowledge items, with a small effect size ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .05), but no significant differences related to time. Significantly greater and faster gains on application items for CAP group ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .18).
Embedded EBPs and practice with students
Al Otaiba and Lake (2007)	IV: Class sessions to teach PSTs how to implement the tutoring intervention (Tutor-Assisted Intensive Learning Strategies) and how to measure student progress using DIBELS DV: For PSTs, scores on Teacher Knowledge Assessment: Structure of Language, a multiple-choice assessment of teachers’ knowledge of words, phonemes, and reading instruction. For students, three subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, and Nonsense Word Fluency and Oral Reading Fluency subtests of DIBELs Repeated-measures ANOVA; Paired-samples t tests	Teacher knowledge Student achievement	Knowledge acquisition Students’ outcomes	Significant gains over time in knowledge for PSTs (d = 2.58). Significant gains for students in Nonsense Word Fluency (d = 2.61), Oral Reading Fluency (d = 1.97), and Word Identification (d = 0.72). No significant gains for students in Word Attack and Passage Comprehension.
Spear-Swerling (2009)	IV: Instruction on topics related to language arts and field-based tutoring sessions DV for PSTs: Scores on posttests of five measures of teacher knowledge, which included identification tasks (e.g., indicate number of phonemes, number of syllables, etc.) and open-ended questions. For tutored children: Scores on posttests of oral vocabulary, phonemic awareness, basic reading skills, spelling skills, and phonics concepts Repeated-measures MANOVA	Knowledge of literacy instruction; knowledge tasks; tutored children’s progress	Knowledge acquisition Conceptual application of knowledge Students’ outcomes	For PSTs: Significant gains from pretest to posttest for all five measures: Graphophonemic segmentation (η² = .560), syllable types (η² = .822), irregular words (η² = .532), morpheme segmentation (η² = .610), and general knowledge about reading (η² = .691). For tutored children: Significant gains from pretest to posttest for all six measures: Letter sounds (η² = .734), CORE reading (η² = .537), CORE spelling (η² = .411), reading irregular words (η² = .624), spelling irregular words (η² = .245), and phonics concepts (η² = .745). No significant correlations between PSTs’ and children’s scores.
Embedded EBPs within coursework
Musti-Rao, Kroeger, and Schumacher-Dyke (2008)	IV: Use of guided notes during lecture-based instruction compared with guided notes and response cards DV: Scores on weekly quizzes of material presented during previous course session, which included multiple-choice and true/false questions Visual analysis; Mean scores across baseline and intervention conditions with effect size estimates	Academic performance	Knowledge acquisition	Mean percentages of quiz scores for each condition indicated an increase from baseline (71.7%) to use of guided notes only (81.4%) and use of guided notes plus response cards (80%). The authors estimated strong effect sizes for guided notes only (d = 0.95) and guided notes plus response cards (d = 0.81).
Lyublinskaya and Tournaki (2014)	IV: Coursework about integrating technology into science and math for students with disabilities DV: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Levels Rubric scores consisting of total lesson scores and those for knowledge of four components: incorporating technology, student understanding, curriculum and materials, and instructional strategies. Paired-samples t tests	Developed lesson plans; applying theoretical principles	Application for classroom settings	Significant gains in lesson plan rubric scores from pretest to posttest for total scores (d = 0.530), conception (d = 0.572), students (d = 0.558), curriculum (d = 0.524), and instruction (d = 0.612).
Weiss, Pellegrino, and Brigham (2016)	IV: Embedded practices through co-taught course with secondary social studies education faculty and candidates or independently taught by special education faculty for special education candidates DV: Rubric scores on concept maps, determined by number of nodes, number of links, and number of levels/items from central concept Mann-Whitney U test; independent-samples t tests	Conceptual understanding; level of appropriation	Conceptual application of knowledge	Co-taught group developed significantly more links than independently taught group. No significant differences between the groups for number of nodes and levels. Co-taught group demonstrated significant growth from pretest to posttest, while independently taught group did not show significant growth. Effect sizes were not reported.
Engagement during lecture-based instruction using SRSs
Blood and Neel (2008)	IV: Course lectures using PowerPoint presentations that included questions to be answered with SRS compared with course lecture without questions DV: Scores on weekly content quizzes which included questions measuring new content and content from previous course sessions Independent-samples t tests	Knowledge of content; achievement	Knowledge acquisition	Significantly higher quiz scores following sessions with assignment using SRS when compared with sessions without assignment. Effect sizes were not reported.
Blood (2012)	IV: Course lectures using PowerPoint presentations that included questions to be answered with SRS compared with course lecture without questions DV: Scores on content quizzes given once every three weeks. Quizzes included two scores for short-term recall, one score for intermediate recall, and one score for long-term recall. Independent-samples t tests	Knowledge of content; short-term, intermediate, and long-term recall	Knowledge acquisition	Significantly higher scores for second short-term recall, intermediate recall, and long-term recall quizzes following sessions with assignment using SRS when compared with sessions without assignment. Effect sizes were not reported.
Instruction using an online module
Courey, Tappe, Siker, and LePage (2012)	IV: Use of the IRIS Center’s module Universal Design for Learning: Creating a Learning Environment That Challenges and Engages all Students and guided notes created by the researchers DV: Total rubric scores on UDL lesson plans from pretest, posttest, and maintenance conditions Factorial repeated-measures ANOVA; paired-samples t tests	Design lesson plans; acquisition of UDL principles; application	Application for classroom settings	Significant gains in application for classroom settings through UDL lesson plans from pretest to posttest (d = 2.06) and from posttest to maintenance (d = 0.46).

Note. IV = independent variables; DV = dependent variable; UDL = universal design for learning; PSTs = preservice teachers; CAP = content acquisition podcast; CORE = Consortium on Reading Excellence; EBPs = evidence-based practices; DIBELS = dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills; SRS = student response system.

Participants and Settings

Studies included sample sizes that ranged from 18 to 251 PSTs (see Appendix). Descriptive statistics were reported regarding undergraduate-level (n = 8) and graduate-level (n = 7) participants. Studies (n = 2) that reported student outcomes data included second graders in urban or high poverty schools. Coursework focused on reading/literacy methods (n = 3), behavior (n = 2), introduction to special education (n = 1), science and math methods (n = 1), language development (n = 1), collaboration (n = 1), general instructional methods (n = 1) and various courses (n = 2).

Study Designs

Almost all included studies were quasi-experimental (n = 11), with only two studies using experimental designs, randomly assigning participants to experimental or control conditions, and one study using a single-case design (see Appendix). Group designs included one group (n = 7), two group (n = 3), and unspecified groups (n = 1). Instructional methods were measured using the following study designs: pretest–posttest (n = 8), pretest-posttest-maintenance (n = 1), and posttest only (n = 2).

PSTs’ Learning Outcomes

To provide an understanding of PSTs’ learning outcomes, results are discussed in relation to constructs of how instructional methods were measured using terms from the HPL framework: knowledge acquisition, conceptual application of knowledge, application for classroom settings, and students’ outcomes. While two studies measured students’ outcomes (Al Otaiba & Lake, 2007; Spear-Swerling, 2009), application in classroom settings was not measured quantitatively. Implementation of instructional methods is described as related to each learning outcomes’ construct.

Knowledge acquisition

Half of included studies (n = 6) measured knowledge acquisition, which was assessed by questions in the following formats: multiple-choice, true/false, cloze, short answer/open-ended, and identification tasks. Common terminology included content knowledge, recall, declarative knowledge, and academic performance. To improve PSTs’ knowledge acquisition, the literature supports the use of the following instructional methods: content acquisition podcasts (CAPs), embedded EBPs and practice with students, embedded EBPs within coursework, and engagement during lecture-based instruction.

CAPs

Developed using principles of Mayer’s multimedia learning theory, CAPs are enhanced podcasts that incorporate pictures, audio, and on-screen text to maximize recall of new information. CAPs are not intended to replace classroom instruction, but instead supplement it (Carlisle et al., 2016). Carlisle et al. (2016) compared the use of CAPs with text-based instruction (i.e., reading a practitioner-friendly article) on the topics of phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and phonics. Participants completed a multiple-choice test to measure knowledge acquisition, which the authors referred to as “declarative knowledge items” such as “phonology refers to the rules for:” followed by four choices (p. 91). Those who viewed CAPs made significantly greater gains than those who read a practitioner-friendly article. While aggregate results for both knowledge and application items indicated a large effect size ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .19), those disaggregated for knowledge acquisition indicated a small effect size ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .05).

Embedded EBPs and practice with students

Two studies provided instruction using embedded EBPs during university classroom-based activities, while utilizing field-based components to practice skills with second-grade students (Al Otaiba & Lake, 2007; Spear-Swerling, 2009). In addition to text-based instruction, Al Otaiba and Lake (2007) taught candidates how to implement Tutor-Assisted Intensive Learning Strategies, a direct instruction-based intervention consisting of lessons and activities developed by Al Otaiba, Lane, and Torgersen (2003, as cited in Al Otaiba & Lake, 2007). To teach and build phonological awareness, phonics, and fluency skills, PSTs implemented scripted lessons and activities. To help children improve comprehension and vocabulary, PSTs were taught how to implement dialogic reading strategies. Additional class sessions were used to instruct candidates on the use of DIBELS reading measures and practice administering these with the instructor until they reached mastery. PSTs then tutored elementary school students and measured progress using DIBELS twice per week for 10 weeks. PSTs’ reading knowledge was assessed using multiple-choice questions to determine knowledge of words, phonemes, and reading instruction. They demonstrated significant learning gains, with strong effects (d = 2.58).

Similarly, Spear-Swerling (2009) supplemented lecture- and text-based instruction with university classroom-based practice to implement specific lessons and activities during tutoring sessions. For example, lesson activities included the use of letter tiles for word-building or “whole-word multisensory techniques” for irregular words (p. 437). PSTs then tutored second grade students once each week for 8 weeks, with two of these dedicated to administering assessments. PSTs’ reading knowledge was measured in five areas using identification tasks (e.g., indicate syllable types for various words) and open-ended questions (e.g., “what is reading and why is it important?” p. 435). Results indicated significant gains from pre- to posttest on all five measures, with strong effects (see Table 1).

Embedded EBPs within coursework

Musti-Rao, Kroeger, and Schumacher-Dyke (2008) examined the use of two EBPs within university classroom-based instruction: guided notes and response cards. Guided notes followed a cloze format, which included key facts and concepts from slide presentations and lectures. PSTs were given whiteboards to use as response cards, simultaneously displaying responses to questions posed by the instructor. Using a single-case ABCBC design, the authors compared lecture-based instruction and in-class activities (control) with the additional use of guided notes only or guided notes plus response cards during lecture. Review questions were presented at the end of class sessions. At the beginning of the next class, PSTs completed multiple-choice and true/false quizzes measuring content from the previous session. Mean percentages of quiz scores for each condition indicated an increase from baseline (71.7%) to guided notes only (81.4%) and guided notes plus response cards (80%). The authors estimated strong effect sizes for guided notes only (d = 0.95) and guided notes plus response cards (d = 0.81).

Engagement during lecture-based instruction using student response systems (SRS)

Two studies compared lecture-based instruction and PowerPoint presentations with the added use of SRS to engage PSTs (Blood, 2012; Blood & Neel, 2008). In the experimental conditions, checks for understanding were integrated throughout presentations as candidates individually responded with the SRS and received immediate feedback on three to five questions (Blood & Neel, 2008) or 10 to 12 questions (Blood, 2012). Knowledge acquisition was measured using quizzes directly related to the weekly presentation content (Blood & Neel, 2008) or cumulative content to measure short-, intermediate-, and long-term recall of presentation material (Blood, 2012). In both studies, candidates scored significantly higher on quizzes following engagement using SRS than during lecture-based instruction. Effect sizes were not reported in either study.

Conceptual application of knowledge

Almost half of included studies (n = 5) measured conceptual application of knowledge, which was assessed by performance-based tasks (e.g., counting phonemes or morphemes); matching activities that required application of concepts; or open-ended questions that required participants to apply factual knowledge to specific cases; described concepts presented in coursework; or constructed concept maps. Common terminology for this construct included application items, ability to apply knowledge/skill, knowledge tasks, conceptual change, conceptual understanding, and case analyses/interpretation. In general, positive results were reported for conceptual application of knowledge using case-based instruction, CAPs, and embedded EBPs within coursework or practice with students. The level of application varied across studies, however.

Case-based instruction

Two studies used case-based instruction to measure conceptual application of knowledge, both of which incorporated multimedia components. Fitzgerald et al. (2009) implemented multiple combinations of instructional strategies within courses using Teacher Problem Solving Skills (a series of interactive multimedia case studies focusing on students with emotional and behavioral disorders). Each instructor combined two of the following methods: learning within the case (i.e., completing all assigned activities), using the case as context (i.e., using information from cases to contextualize course content, without having to complete activities), guided application of case knowledge and skills (i.e., completing all assigned activities and applying concepts to simulated or actual situations), and learning within and as context (i.e., completing all assigned activities and using information from cases to contextualize content). The authors measured PSTs’ conceptual application of knowledge using concept maps developed at the beginning of the semester as a pretest and at the end of the semester as a posttest. All participants demonstrated significant gains with strong effects for number of nodes “representing the breadth of knowledge” (η² = .101), number of links “representing the interconnectedness of knowledge” (η² = .077), and quality of map scores compared with an expert-developed concept map (η² = .380; p. 39). Notably, PSTs who were instructed with the combination of “within-case learning with guided application” scored significantly higher than those with other combinations of case-based implementation (p. 51).

To measure PSTs’ learning of phonemic awareness and reading comprehension, Yadav, Bouck, Da Fonte, and Patton (2009) compared oral lecture-based instruction and discussion with video case–based instruction using Reading Classroom Explorer (RCE). The literacy topics were counterbalanced across the study, as PSTs were randomly assigned to control or experimental groups for phonemic awareness and then participated in the other group when learning about reading comprehension. In the experimental condition, PSTs were introduced to the literacy topic and then tasked with finding several video exemplars from the RCE library and justifying their choices. During whole group discussion, PSTs then shared their chosen video cases, highlighting how the teacher implemented the practice and how students learned the concept. Participants completed pre- and posttests of open-ended questions (e.g., how they would teach and assess the literacy concept) and video-case analyses, in which PSTs indicated important aspects of teaching, instructional goals, and how they would teach the lesson after viewing video vignettes. Yadav et al. (2009) did not find any significant differences for video-case analyses compared with traditional instruction.

CAPs

In addition to evaluating the effectiveness of CAPs on knowledge acquisition, Carlisle et al. (2016) indicated they measured application of concepts. The authors noted “application items required students to match an instructional activity or strategy to the aspect of [phonological awareness] it was meant to teach” such as “clapping the syllables in a word” (p. 91). They found those who received instruction using CAPs made significantly greater gains on application items than those who read a practitioner-friendly article, with a large effect size (η² = .18).

Embedded EBPs within coursework

In a study of concepts learned within a collaboration course, Weiss, Pellegrino, and Brigham (2016) compared embedded and modeled implementation of co-teaching with independently taught course sessions. The control group included only special education PSTs taught by a special education faculty member. In the experimental condition, both general and special education PSTs attended class together while special education and general education social studies faculty members co-taught the course. During class sessions, they would model effective co-teaching instruction within the context of social studies lessons, while providing effective strategies for students with disabilities. In addition, the instructors “would often role-play examples and nonexamples for candidates,” who would then collaboratively work with those in the other preparation program. In the control group, the special education faculty member would describe these examples and nonexamples, providing a script for special education PSTs to use during group work. Similar to Fitzgerald et al. (2009), PSTs completed concept maps as pre- and posttest measures of conceptual application of knowledge (Weiss et al., 2016). When compared with the independently taught group, the authors found that the co-taught group demonstrated significant growth from pre- to posttest and developed significantly more links demonstrating connections between concepts. No significant differences were found between the groups for number of nodes and levels. Effect sizes were not reported.

Embedded EBPs and practice with students

In addition to measuring knowledge acquisition, Spear-Swerling (2009) also examined the application of knowledge through open-ended questions. Questions required PSTs to explain concepts related to writing and the English language, identifying risk factors that would predict reading difficulties at the kindergarten level, and explaining the relationship between skilled readers and the use of contextual clues. On this measure, PSTs scored significantly higher on posttests (η² = .691).

Application for classroom settings

One quarter of studies (n = 3) measured application for classroom settings, all of which included lesson plan development rated using rubrics. Terminology for this construct included develop/design lesson plans and applying principles. Case-based instruction, embedded EBPs within coursework, and instruction using an online module all led to improved learning outcomes for PSTs.

Case-based instruction

In an experimental study with special education and general education candidates, Spooner, Baker, Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Browder (2007) measured the effectiveness of an instructional session on UDL. Prior to the intervention, all participants were given a case study involving a hypothetical student with disabilities and then tasked with creating a lesson plan incorporating the principles of UDL. Those in the experimental group engaged in a 1-hour presentation about how to modify lessons for students with mild and severe disabilities while implementing UDL. The presentation included visual cues (e.g., underlining and bold lettering) to “allow participants a strategy to remember using UDL concepts in developing their own lesson plans” (p. 110). Following the presentation, the instructor used another case study, providing specific examples (e.g., assistive technology) of how to modify lessons for students with disabilities. Finally, with the guidance of the instructor, the experimental group used the pretest case study to practice using the principles of UDL while developing a lesson plan. Those in the control group received no instruction about the topic. After the intervention, all participants were given a new case study and asked to complete a lesson plan incorporating UDL principles. When compared with the control group, PSTs in the UDL training group demonstrated significant gains from pre- to posttest for total lesson plan scores (η² = .398) and for each principle of UDL: representation (η² = .207), expression (η² = .177), and engagement (η² = .333), demonstrating strong effects.

Embedded EBPs within coursework

Lyublinskaya and Tournaki (2014) focused on PSTs’ application of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), which refers to “the bodies of teacher knowledge needed for teaching with technology in specific content areas and grade levels” (p. 450). PSTs enrolled in a methods course for integrating technology into science and math instruction developed a series of lessons plans to demonstrate application of TPACK knowledge. The instructor embedded analysis of “various models and strategies for technology-infused lessons” and their effective use within example lesson plans, activity development using technology tools and strategies, lesson plan development, individual feedback, and reflection within the course. The authors developed a TPACK lesson plan scoring rubric, which measured four components of TPACK knowledge: purposes of incorporating technology, student understanding, thinking and learning with technology, curriculum and materials that integrate technology, and instructional strategies for teaching and learning with technology. PSTs demonstrated significant gains in lesson plan rubric scores from pretest to posttest for total scores (d = 0.530), conception (d = 0.572), students (d = 0.558), curriculum (d = 0.524), and instruction (d = 0.612), indicating moderate effect sizes.

Instruction using an online module

Similarly to Spooner et al. (2007), Courey, Tappe, Siker, and LePage (2012) examined PSTs’ application of UDL when developing lesson plans. The intervention was a web-based IRIS Center module titled Universal Design for Learning: Creating a Learning Environment That Challenges and Engages All Students. The module not only presented content knowledge on UDL but also “modeled the UDL principles in the delivery with embedded videos, closed captioning, and audio” (p. 13). As PSTs completed the IRIS module, they also filled in guided notes provided by the instructor. Given a template, participants completed lesson plans prior to the intervention, immediately after the module, and at the end of the semester. Results showed a significant increase in PSTs’ ability to create lesson plans that incorporated principles of UDL from pretest to posttest (d = 2.06) and from posttest to maintenance (d = 0.46), demonstrating large and moderate effects, respectively.

Students’ outcomes

Only two studies measured students’ outcomes within school settings. Both studies used embedded EBPs and practice with students in schools as instructional methods, described previously (Al Otaiba & Lake, 2007; Spear-Swerling, 2009). Aside from university classroom-based training in the tutoring interventions, Al Otaiba and Lake (2007) did not provide additional support within school-based settings. The authors found children made significant gains with strong effects for three out of five reading measures (see Table 1). While they measured PSTs’ application in classroom settings using qualitative methods (e.g., weekly reflections), these results are not discussed as they are outside the scope of this review.

Spear-Swerling (2009) indicated the course instructor was present during tutoring sessions to “provide suggestions and modeling of various techniques” and provide “written feedback on lessons” (p. 436). During these debriefing sessions, PSTs were also given the opportunity to ask questions or receive additional guidance as needed. Children participants demonstrated significant growth from pre- to posttest for all six measures of reading progress with strong effects (see Table 1). Notably, no significant correlations were found between PSTs’ knowledge and children’s scores following tutoring.

Discussion

The purpose of this literature review was to examine experimental research measuring PSTs’ outcomes at increasingly deeper levels of learning and transfer, while examining specific instructional methods delivered within university coursework. With the exception of one study (Yadav et al., 2009), all instructional methods led to significant and positive learning gains. Of the studies that reported effect sizes, most indicated strong effects of instructional methods, with remaining findings indicating moderate effects. Results further solidify the importance of quality teacher preparation coursework, while validating the effectiveness of several types of instructional strategies: case-based instruction, CAPs, embedding EBPs within coursework and practice with students, engagement strategies, and using an online module. It should be noted that with the exception of Fitzgerald et al. (2009), these studies compared the intervention with traditional lecture- or text-based instruction, no instruction on the topic of interest, or used within group analyses to measure changes in learning. Future research should focus on comparing different types of instructional methods.

Measures and reported results related to conceptual application of knowledge varied widely across included studies. For this review, if researchers classified their measures as application items, we too included these within the conceptual application of knowledge construct. Arguably, creating extensive concept maps to show connectedness and depth of understanding or applying concepts to specific cases demonstrates a greater level of conceptual application than matching activities to three specific forced-choice options. This suggests a need for more robust measures that require candidates to meaningfully apply knowledge, as well as guidance on operationalizing and measuring “application” or further teasing out various ways researchers categorize application items and assessments.

Overall, the findings of this review indicate a strong need for more experimental research on instructional methods related specifically to special education PSTs. We identified only 12 university classroom-based experimental studies directly measuring knowledge and application (as opposed to perceived knowledge) that included a majority of special education participants. Despite publication in special education focused journals, several quality studies that came across our review were excluded as participants represented a majority of general education teacher candidates (e.g., Kennedy & Thomas, 2012; Newman-Thomas et al., 2012; Sayeski, Hamilton-Jones, & Oh, 2015; Xin, Accardo, Shuff, Cormier, & Doorman, 2016).

We also identified a need for more research at deeper levels of learning. Few studies examined the effectiveness of instructional methods on application for classroom settings, and those that did only demonstrated improved learning outcomes within groups or when comparison conditions offered no instruction. Furthermore, no studies were found that quantitatively measured application within classroom settings, a gap that may possibly be filled by searching for follow-up studies in fieldwork. For example, Fitzgerald et al. (2011) followed up with candidates after completing their preparation program and accepting teaching positions. Because this study did not look at direct application in the university classroom, it was excluded from this review. Finally, only two quasi-experimental studies measured students’ outcomes. To further examine application for and within classrooms, multiple types of artifacts and assessments should be utilized as outcome measures (e.g., lesson plans, classroom management plans, behavior intervention plans, and data-based intervention plans). Teacher educators should capitalize on the use of field-based experiences, requiring PSTs to apply such artifacts in authentic settings to measure students’ academic and behavioral change data.

Limitations

Only quantitative outcomes related to knowledge and application were reported, which excluded findings from included studies that measured PSTs’ perceived knowledge, preferred instructional methods (i.e., social validity), or instructional methods qualitatively. The review also focused on peer-reviewed studies, which leads to publication bias. Another limitation to review findings is the determination of the quality of studies; we relied on the publication process to validate study quality. While outside the scope of this review, applying quality indicators to studies would improve the reliability of findings.

Implications for Teacher Preparation Programs and Teacher Educators

This literature review provides a conceptual model for measuring PSTs’ learning outcomes as a result of various instructional methods at different levels of knowledge and application, based on the HPL framework, an established adult learning theory (NRC, 2000). Given the call for re-envisioning current teacher preparation models (Leko et al., 2015; Rock et al., 2016), obtaining empirical evidence about their effectiveness is an imperative. Sindelar et al. (2010) identified a need for “theory-of-change models that provide a foundation for developing practices and assessing their impact on preservice teachers’ knowledge and performance” (p. 14). Substantial research demonstrates the effectiveness of instructional methods in teacher preparation on reported outcomes (e.g., confidence, perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs), knowledge acquisition, and conceptual application of knowledge. Programs (and subsequently, researchers) must shift the emphasis to application for and within classroom settings, moving toward a practice-based and applied approach to teacher preparation. To develop measures and study deeper levels of application, teacher educators and researchers are encouraged to use Innovation Configurations (ICs) from the CEEDAR Center (2015). Designed to improve teacher preparation programs, ICs are self-assessment tools used to determine teacher candidates’ opportunities to learn, apply, implement, and receive feedback regarding specific competencies related to special education. ICs are provided in at least 15 different areas, such as EBPs for students with various disabilities, literacy and mathematics instruction, improving challenging behaviors, and culturally relevant pedagogy.

Ultimately, the goal of preparation programs is to produce teachers who effectively improve students’ outcomes. Therefore, measures of student performance must become the focus of future research. In other words, does application of knowledge lead to the development and use of skills that then lead to changes in students’ academic and behavioral outcomes? Teacher educators are in a unique position to validate the effectiveness of their programs, demonstrating their graduates are well prepared to implement practices for the benefit of students.

Footnotes

Appendix

Participants, Settings, and Designs of Included Studies.

Author (year)	Participants	University settings	Coursework settings	Design
Al Otaiba and Lake (2007)	18 UG SE PSTs and 12 second-grade students	University in Southern United States Two high poverty schools in mid-size southern city	Reading methods course	Quasi-experimental, one-group, pretest–posttest
Blood and Neel (2008)	35 SE GR (25 PSTs, 10 other master’s programs)	University campus	Introductory course about behavioral disorders	Quasi-experimental, one-group, posttest
Blood (2012)	28 UG SE PSTs	University campus	Course about educating students with EBD	Quasi-experimental, one-group, posttest
Carlisle, Thomas, and McCathren (2016)	50 UG SE PSTs	Large public university in Midwest	Course about language development of students with disabilities	Experimental, two-group, pretest–posttest
Courey, Tappe, Siker, and LePage (2012)	45 GR SE PSTs	Large, urban university in northern California	Introductory special education courses	Quasi-experimental, one-group, pretest–posttest-maintenance
Fitzgerald et al. (2009)	251 UG and GR GE and SE	Five different universities	Undergraduate and graduate courses for general and special education majors	Quasi-experimental, pretest–posttest
Lyublinskaya and Tournaki (2014)	91 GR SE PSTs	Public university in New York City	Introductory course about using technology to teach science and math to students with disabilities	Quasi-experimental, one-group, pretest–posttest
Musti-Rao, Kroeger, and Schumacher-Dyke (2008)	19 UG SE PSTs	University setting	Instructional methods	Single-case design, ABCBC withdrawal design
Spear-Swerling (2009)	45 SE PSTs (16 GR, 29 UG) 45 tutored, second-grade children	University setting. Fieldwork in classroom of local, urban school	Special education methods course to teach language arts to students with disabilities	Quasi-experimental, one-group, pretest–posttest
Spooner, Baker, Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Browder (2007)	72 UG and GR PSTs (21 UG, 51 GR; 41 SE, 31 GE)	University in southeastern United States	Four education courses	Experimental, two-group, pretest–posttest
Weiss, Pellegrino, and Brigham (2016)	66 GR PSTs (48 SE, 18 SecE)	Large, public, mid-Atlantic university	Consultation and collaboration courses	Quasi-experimental, two-group, pretest–posttest
Yadav, Bouck, Da Fonte, and Patton (2009)	22 UG PSTs	Large Midwestern university	Special education methods course on literacy instruction for students with disabilities	Quasi-experimental, one-group, pretest–posttest

Note. UG = undergraduate; SE = special education; PST = preservice teacher; EBD = evidence-based practice; GR = graduate; GE = general education; SecE = secondary education.

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

Sara Werner Juarez, PhD, is an assistant professor of special education and moderate/severe disabilities at CSU Fresno. Her research interests are effective methods in teacher preparation, classroom management and behavioral intervention, and evidence-based practices for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Cammy Purper, PhD, is chair and associate professor of education at California Baptist University. Her research interests are early childhood teacher training and early intervention/inclusion models of instruction.

References

*Al Otaiba

Lake

V. E

. (2007). Preparing special educators to teach reading and use curriculum-based assessments. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 591-617. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9056-z

*Blood

(2012). Student response systems in the college classroom: An investigation of short-term, intermediate, and long-term recall of facts. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 20, 5-20.

*Blood

Neel

(2008). Using student response systems in lecture-based instruction: Does it change student engagement and learning? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16, 375-383.

*Carlisle

A. A.

Thomas

C. N.

McCathren

R. B.

(2016). The effectiveness of using a content acquisition podcast to teach phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and phonics to preservice special education teachers. Journal of Special Education, 31(2), 87-98. doi:10.11.77/0162643416651723

The CEEDAR Center. (2015). Innovation configurations. Retrieved from https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/

Cornelius

K. E.

Nagro

S. A.

(2014). Evaluating the evidence based of performance feedback in preservice special education teacher training. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37, 133-146. doi:10.1177/0888406414521837

Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). Council for Exceptional Children standards for evidence-based practices in special education. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/~/media/Images/Standards/CEC%20EBP%20Standards%20cover/CECs%20Evidence%20Based%20Practice%20Standards.pdf

*Courey

S. J.

Tappe

Siker

LePage

(2012). Improved lesson planning with universal design for learning (UDL). Teacher Education and Special Education, 36, 7-27. doi:10.1177/0888406412446178

*Fitzgerald

Koury

Mitchem

Hollingsead

Miller

Park

M. K.

Tsai

(2009). Implementing case-based instruction in higher education through technology: What works best? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17, 31-63.

10.

Fitzgerald

Mitchem

Hollingsead

Miller

Koury

Tsai

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

11.

Kennedy

M. J.

Thomas

C. N.

(2012). Effects of content acquisition podcasts to develop preservice teachers’ knowledge of positive behavioral interventions and supports. Exceptionality, 20, 1-19. doi:10.1080/09362835.2011.611088

12.

Kretlow

A. G.

Bartholomew

C. C.

(2010). Using coaching to improve the fidelity of evidence-based practices: A review of studies. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 279-299. doi:10.1177/0888406410371643

13.

Leko

M. M.

Brownell

M. T.

Sindelar

P. T.

Kiely

M. T.

(2015). Envisioning the future of special education personnel preparation in a standards-based era. Exceptional Children, 82, 25-43. doi:10.1177/0014402915598782

14.

*Lyublinskaya

Tournaki

(2014). A study of special education teachers’ TPACK development in mathematics and science through assessment of lesson plans. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22, 449-470.

15.

McCall

McHatton

P. A.

Shealey

M. W.

(2014). Special education teacher candidate assessment: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37, 51-70. doi:10.1177/0888406413512684

16.

*Musti-Rao

Kroeger

S. D.

Schumacher-Dyke

(2008). Using guided notes and response cards at the postsecondary level. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31, 149-163. doi:10.1177/0888406408330630

17.

Nagro

S. A.

Cornelius

K. E.

(2013). Evaluating the evidence base of video analysis: A special education teacher development tool. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36, 312-329. doi:10.1177/0888406413501090

18.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2006). What makes a teacher effective? A summary of key research findings on teacher preparation. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/public/researchreports/teacherpreparationresearch/whatmakesateachereffective/tabid/361/default.aspx

19.

National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school: Expanded edition ( Bransford

J. D.

Brown

A. L.

Cocking

R. R.

, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

20.

Newman-Thomas

Rieth

H. J.

(2011). A research synthesis of the literature on multimedia anchored instruction in preservice teacher education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26, 1-22.

21.

Newman-Thomas

Smith

C. A.

Zhao

Kethley

C. I.

Rieth

H. J.

Swanson

E. A.

Heo

(2012). Technology-based practice to teach preservice teachers to assess oral reading fluency. Journal of Special Education Technology, 27, 15-32.

22.

Rock

M. L.

Cheek

A. E.

Sullivan

M. E.

Jones

J. L.

Holden

K. B.

Kang

(2016). Looking back and moving ahead: A content analysis of two teacher education journals. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39, 7-27. doi:10.1177/0888406415622031

23.

Sayeski

K. L.

Hamilton-Jones

(2015). The efficacy of IRIS STAR Legacy modules under different instructional conditions. Teacher Education and Special Education, 38, 291-305. doi:10.1177/0888406415600770

24.

Scheeler

M. C.

(2008). Generalizing effective teaching skills: The missing link in teacher preparation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17, 145-159. doi:10.1007/s10864-007-9051-0

25.

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. doi:10.1177/0888406409358593

26.

Smith

D. D.

(2012). Welcome to the TESE special issue about the Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment Project. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35, 97-100.

27.

*Spear-Swerling

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

28.

*Spooner

Baker

J. N.

Harris

A. A.

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Browder

D. M.

(2007). Effects of training in universal design for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 108-116.

29.

*Weiss

M. P.

Pellegrino

Brigham

F. J.

(2016). Practicing collaboration in teacher preparation: Effects of learning by doing together. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40, 65-76. doi:10.1177/0888406416655457

30.

Xin

J. R.

Accardo

A. L.

Shuff

Cormier

Doorman

(2016). Integrating global content into special education teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39, 165-175. doi:10.1177/0888406416631124

31.

*Yadav

Bouck

Da Fonte

Patton

(2009). Instructing special education pre-service teachers through literacy video cases. Teaching Education, 20, 149-162.