Breaking the Cycle: Preparing Pre-Service Teachers for Disability-Related Discussions

Abstract

Teacher preparation programs play a seminal role in the development of prospective teachers, as they provide future educators with information regarding the rights of students with disabilities and the pedagogical means to support them in the classroom. Yet, few programs focus on how to discuss disability with students (Abernathy & Taylor, 2009; Cosier & Pearson, 2016). Once they enter into practice, many teachers hesitate to engage students in conversations about disabilities because they are unsure of what to say or fear offending students with disabilities (Crowson & Brandes, 2014; Gay & Howard, 2000). Because there is scant literature on how to best prepare pre-service teachers to hold disability-related discussions in their future classrooms, in this article, the authors aim to fill a void in current practice by providing examples of activities, assessments, and related materials that enable pre-service teachers to talk about disabilities.

Keywords

teacher beliefs teacher self-efficacy teacher preparation policy/service delivery (equity)

As a legally blind third grader, I was fortunate to learn in a standard classroom, though my teachers had to adjust some of their lesson plans and practices. . . . We all faced challenges: some dealt with fighting parents or arrived early for reduced-fee breakfast, others had trouble with math or reading. Yet we bonded, as kids do, over the school year. We ate and played together. We celebrated triumphs and commiserated over setbacks. We learned about and appreciated our differences. For me, having a disability and learning in an integrated classroom among my peers was essential.

—Shah (2016)

Paras Shah’s Huffington Post essay, “Inclusive Classrooms Benefit All Children,” captures the experience of many students with disabilities who are able to learn, play, and grow alongside their peers. Although Shah’s blindness set him apart, he and his classmates cultivated relationships based on common interests and, equally importantly, respected one another’s differences. In the United States, most students with disabilities are educated alongside peers who are typically abled. As of 2013, 95% of 6- to 21-year-old students with disabilities were served in public schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Even so, student and teacher attitudes toward students with disabilities are not always positive (Brandes & Crowson, 2009; Crowson & Brandes, 2014). Given that some typically abled students avoid engagement with classmates with disabilities because of feelings of discomfort, fortifying peer relationships—and positive perceptions of disability—is critically important (Cameron & Rutland, 2006; Shah, Wallis, Conor, & Kiszely, 2015).

Researchers have suggested several strategies to facilitate an inclusive¹ educational environment; these include acquiring a culturally responsive, strength-based view of students (Taylor & Sobel, 2011; Villegas, 2007), using Universal Design for Learning (UDL; (Rapp, 2014; Rose & Meyer, 2006), differentiating instruction (Tomlinson, 2001), and promoting respect for differences (Voltz, Brazil, & Ford, 2001). In line with cultivating a classroom community that recognizes and values difference, Voltz et al. (2001) offered,

in order for students, including those with disabilities, to feel psychologically safe in their school environment, they must feel accepted by their teachers and peers . . . Directly talking about and studying various types of human diversity, as well as the individual strengths and weaknesses that we all have, can be used to develop understanding and acceptance. These discussions should also include the human commonalities (e.g., need for belonging, etc.) that bind us together. (p. 26)

Educators can also promote awareness by conducting disability-related discussions that encourage understanding and acceptance of all students (Prater & Dyches, 2008). These conversations allow students to see that all individuals can have dreams, challenges, embarrassments, and triumphs, and that these experiences are not dictated by one’s ability status (Cameron & Rutland, 2006; Hollander, 2004; Prater & Dyches, 2008).

Yet, many teachers hesitate to engage in conversations regarding disabilities because they are unsure of what to say and fearful of offending students with disabilities (Crowson & Brandes, 2014; Gay & Howard, 2000). Pre-service teachers’ feelings about inclusion and perceived self-efficacy can also heighten this resistance; data have indicated a correlation between prospective teachers’ negative attitudes toward inclusion and lower levels of self-efficacy related to teaching students with disabilities (Crowson & Brandes, 2014). Even when teachers claim to support inclusion, many are uncomfortable having students with disabilities in their own classrooms (de Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2011; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996).

Teacher preparation programs play a seminal role in addressing pre-service teachers’ perceptions of inclusion and providing them with the theoretical and pedagogical tools to boost their feelings of self-efficacy (Crowson & Brandes, 2014). Yet, few programs focus on how to discuss disability with students (Abernathy & Taylor, 2009; Cosier & Pearson, 2016). Although scholars (Artman-Meeker, Grant, & Yang, 2016; Prater, Dyches, & Johnstun, 2006; Salend, 2011) have offered strategies and related materials for in-service teachers who want to address disability in the classroom, there is scant literature on how to best prepare pre-service teachers to hold disability-related discussions in their future classrooms. In response, this article aims to fill a void in current practice by providing examples of activities, assessments, and related materials that enable pre-service teachers to talk about disabilities.

Understanding Why Some Teachers Avoid Disability-Related Discussion

Conceptually, we draw on Lortie’s (1975) theory of the apprenticeship of observation and Bandura’s (1994) work on self-efficacy to better understand why classroom teachers typically do not discuss disabilities with their students. In addition, we leverage current research that explores pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and examine the role that teacher education programs play in facilitating positive perceptions of disability. Taken together, these bodies of knowledge highlight the ways that teacher education programs can disrupt the apprenticeship of observation, improve attitudes regarding disabilities, and promote more inclusive classrooms.

Considering the Apprenticeship of Observation

The observation and recommendations that follow in this article are predicated on what Lortie (1975) referred to as the “apprenticeship of observation.” The term apprenticeship of observation describes the thousands of hours spent in classrooms as students prior to entering teacher education programs and becoming educators. Lortie’s narrative asserts that people enter teaching with deeply rooted beliefs that are difficult to replace, despite the introduction to more progressive methods and practices in teacher education programs. Ultimately, Lortie (1975) concluded that this apprenticeship of observation weakens the effects of teacher education.

Lortie’s view, however, is not without criticism. Mewborn and Tyminski (2006) argued that beliefs about the apprenticeship of observation are overly narrow and are widely accepted simply through repetition, rather than actual empirical evidence. Indeed, recent empirical work has suggested that the apprenticeship of observation is more nuanced than initially proposed, with factors such as prior experiences and teacher education program structure, focus, and process influencing the degree to which pre-service teachers emulate the education they experienced during their own schooling (Smagorinsky & Barnes, 2014). Other research on student teachers and early-career teachers has found that the context of teaching influences the extent to which teachers rely on both their own prior experiences as well as the ideas they were exposed to in their teacher education programs (Flores & Day, 2006; Friesen & Besley, 2013; Hong, Greene, & Lowery, 2017; Smagorinsky, Cook, Moore, Jackson, & Fry, 2004).

Therefore, the apprenticeship of observation may not be as uniformly influential as initially proposed by Lortie (1975). Nevertheless, due to the wide variety of factors that influence the degree to which teachers emulate their own schooling experiences, it is imperative for teacher education programs to directly address pre-service teachers’ prior assumptions about disability. Hutchinson and Martin (1999) described how classroom teachers are increasingly asked to create inclusive environments for students with disabilities; however, inclusion may have looked different (or perhaps may not have existed) when today’s pre-service teachers were in school, and disability may not have been explicitly discussed. This lack of experience with discussions related to disability specifically as well as with teaching in general likely hinders pre-service teachers in connecting their beliefs about inclusion to their teaching practices (Hutchinson & Martin, 1999).

The Role of Self-Efficacy

We also draw on research related to the role of self-efficacy in teaching. Self-efficacy is “people’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives” (Bandura, 1994). In general, self-efficacy determines how people feel, think, and behave (Bandura, 1994); specific to special education, teacher self-efficacy plays a role in understanding the capabilities and meeting the needs of students with disabilities (Woolfson & Brady, 2009). Bandura (1982) suggested that even if individuals know that they should do something (e.g., explicitly address and discuss disability in their classrooms), they are very unlikely to engage in that behavior or task without knowledge of how to do so. Research on self-efficacy provides a rationale for engaging in conversations about disability with pre-service teachers and modeling how to do so appropriately to facilitate inclusion in their future classrooms.

A Note on Teacher Dispositions

Though it is not the central focus of this article, we would be remiss not to mention the importance of teacher dispositions, which represent educators’ assumptions and beliefs about teaching, learning, and students (Bialka, 2016; Diez, 2007; Grossman, 2005; Katz & Raths, 1985; Nieto, 2000; Schussler, 2006; Villegas, 2007). Though dispositions are but one component of teacher education, they are prominently discussed and are an essential component of the InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards, alongside knowledge and skills (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2011). Notwithstanding the importance of dispositions, it is outside the scope of the present article to provide a thorough review of the literature in this area; we direct the interested reader to studies that specifically investigate pre-service teachers and their dispositions toward students with disabilities (Bialka, 2017; Mueller & Hindin, 2011; Woolfson & Brady, 2009).

The Role of Teacher Education: Shaping Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion

As Crowson and Brandes (2014) explicated, “a key goal of teacher education programs is to develop future teachers who hold inclusive attitudes toward diverse groups of students and who are willing to advocate on their behalf” (p. 161). Teachers’ negative attitudes toward inclusion, specifically related to educating students with disabilities, may play a role in their avoidance of disability-related discussions. Studies (de Boer et al., 2011; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996) have suggested that while most general education teachers claim to support inclusion, many do not feel comfortable having students with disabilities in their own classrooms, or only feel comfortable including students with certain disabilities. For example, according to Avramidis and Norwich (2002), “teachers are more willing to include students with mild disabilities or physical/sensory impairments than students with more complex needs” (p. 142). This disconnect can be traced to teachers’ perceptions of their certification programs and related training, as many pre-service teachers do not feel adequately prepared to meet the needs of students with disabilities in their classrooms (de Boer et al., 2011; Jobling & Moni, 2004). Since the effectiveness of inclusion is highly dependent on teacher attitudes, the pre-service preparation period plays a pivotal role in shaping teachers’ perceptions of both inclusion and students with disabilities (Ajuwon et al., 2012; Forlin, Earle, Loreman, & Sharma, 2011; Zagona, Kurth, & MacFarland, 2017).

Coursework can mitigate negative attitudes by providing pre-service teachers with explicit instruction regarding inclusion. In a recent study, Zagona et al. (2017) found that general and special education teachers who enrolled in inclusive education courses during the pre-service period were more likely to individualize instruction, provide accommodations, and adapt content standards. This work supports Shippen et al.’s (2005) prior research on coursework and pre-service teacher attitudes. In 2005, Shippen et al. administered the Preservice Inclusion Survey (PSIS) to 326 prospective teachers (general education, special education, and dual certification) before and after taking a survey of exceptionalities course. Participants seeking dual certification were more receptive to inclusion and less anxious than the other two groups both before and after the course. The researchers believed that the consistently positive attitudes of dual certification candidates were shaped, at least in part, by their intention to work with students with and without diagnosed disabilities. In addition, pre-service general education and special education teachers felt more confident about working in inclusive classroom environments after taking the course, again pointing toward the importance of pre-service coursework in preparing individuals to work in inclusive settings. Building on Shippen’s work, McCray and McHatton (2011) utilized the Modified Survey of Attitudes Toward Inclusion of Students With Special Needs to better understand elementary and secondary pre-service teachers’ perceptions of inclusion. Results again showed that participants’ attitudes were more positive after taking an initial course on working with students with disabilities. Like Avramidis and Norwich (2002), however, the researchers noted that “pre-service teachers seemed more amenable to including students with certain disabilities, specifically those with learning disabilities” (p. 148), indicating that further work in this area still needs to be done.

McHatton and Parker’s (2013) investigation of elementary and special education pre-service teachers revealed a discrepancy in attitudes between the two groups. The researchers administered the Attitudes Toward Inclusion Survey before and after students took part in a classroom management course and a related field placement in K-5 classrooms. They found that while the elementary pre-service teachers’ attitudes improved, the attitudes of the prospective special education teachers were stagnant, and in some cases, attitudes became less positive. The researchers concluded that the different trajectories were likely the result of participants’ combined course and field experiences. As they explained,

For the [elementary group], the collaborative course/field experience . . . occurred in a highly structured setting with deliberate pairings with special education pre-service teachers, an emphasis in coursework on SWDs, and field placements in inclusive classrooms. [For pre-service special education teachers], this dissonance may manifest itself in field experiences where a multitude of factors (e.g., special educator as guest in the elementary classroom, lack of their own instructional space, attitude of the elementary educator) inform their perceptions. (p. 199)

These studies indicate that the praxis of coursework and fieldwork play a critical role in the development of pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Explicitly introducing prospective teachers to facilitating and participating in discussions related to disability as a component of their coursework is one way to further develop positive attitudes toward inclusion. Since pre-service teachers likely have no prior experience with these conversations, teacher educators must provide concrete examples of and opportunities to discuss disabilities with classroom learners, thus promoting pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy (Bandura, 1994) and the idea of full inclusion more broadly.

Breaking the Cycle: How Teacher Educators Can Facilitate Disability-Related Discussions

Several researchers (Artman-Meeker et al., 2016; Prater et al., 2006; Salend, 2011) have proposed strategies aimed to integrate disability-based discussion into K-12 classrooms. Nested within his textbook, Creating Inclusive Classrooms, Salend (2011) offered a section entitled, “Teaching About Individual Differences Aimed at Disability” (pp. 178-189). Key factors in the success of these strategies include “fostering an understanding of the importance of one’s individuality, independence, dignity, and self-determination, and avoiding pitying and protective responses,” as well as “emphasizing that we all have more similarities than differences and that our differences make us unique and our similarities unite us” (p. 179). By doing so, teachers can leverage the strengths of all classroom learners and avoid creating situations where students with disabilities are viewed as less capable than their peers. In addition, Salend provided a series of action items for teachers to consider:

Reflect on your attitudes, behaviors, and language;

Highlight students’ abilities rather than their challenges, and describe them in positive and meaningful ways;

Use individual-first language, and refer to students by their names (for example, avoid statements such as “the special education students will work with Mrs. Jones right now,” as this stigmatizes and isolates students from their peers);

Integrate disability simulations;

Provide opportunities for students to assume leadership positions;

Teach your students to show mutual respect for each other. (pp. 181-182)

Salend also suggested utilizing films and books about disability in the classroom, as well as inviting individuals with disabilities to join the class as guest speakers. If the teacher does invite a speaker with a disability, it is critical that the teacher thoughtfully evaluates the purpose behind the session and the forum for classroom engagement. Through enacting of each of the aforementioned strategies, classroom teachers can cultivate classrooms where all students feel appreciated and empowered.

One point of caution relates to Salend’s (2011) suggestion to use disability simulations to facilitate conversations about how it feels to have a disability. While the intention of simulations are to engender empathy, they are often criticized for reinforcing stereotypes regarding disability (Silverman, Gwinn, & Van Boven, 2015). If an instructor does choose to use a simulation, he or she must evaluate the purpose behind the activity and ensure that it does not reinforce negative perceptions of life with a disability.

Prater et al. (2006) and Artman-Meeker et al. (2016) provide valuable resources for teachers who want to educate their students about disabilities through use of children’s literature. Prater et al. presented a thorough evaluation of texts related to learning disabilities, while Artman-Meeker et al. offered a “decision-making framework” that teachers could use when selecting classrooms texts that incorporate any type of disability. Artman-Meeker et al. applied their framework to analyze Dolly Gray² awardees. Central to both arguments is that literature provides a powerful forum for teachers to promote awareness and understanding.

Both sets of authors provide useful, practical tools for evaluating potential classroom texts. These include analysis of the portrayal of disability (Prater et al., 2006); consideration of whose point of view is dominant and if it is realistic (Artman-Meeker et al., 2016; Prater et al., 2006); as well as whether individuals with disabilities found in the text make decisions and influence their own lives (Artman-Meeker et al., 2016). Furthermore, the authors urged teachers to evaluate the texts for use of appropriate terminology and loaded language. For example, teachers should be aware of books that “use euphemisms to mask the realities of disability” or describe disability “with the intent to hurt” (Artman-Meeker et al., 2016). In addition to offering analytical strategies, Prater et al. (2006) and Artman-Meeker et al. (2016) also recommended numerous texts that teachers can incorporate into their classroom libraries. These texts were accompanied by lesson plans that provide opportunities for discussion.

Linking to Higher Education: Book Review and Lesson Plan Assignments

Although the aforementioned researchers have provided valuable tools for discussing disability, their strategies and related resources are geared toward in-service teachers. To bridge the gap between higher education and the K-12 environment, we present two assignments that can be used to foster explicit conversations related to disabilities in college classrooms, to better prepare pre-service teachers to use these tools to discuss disability in the future. The Book Review Assignment appears in two forms (see Table 1), and the Disability-Based Lesson Plan provides an example of how pre-service educators can teach their students about disabilities. In addition to providing details on each assignment, we offer information related to course context, implementation, and general student receptivity. Although these assignments differ in scope and sequence, they share the common goal of raising pre-service teachers’ disability awareness and increasing their feelings of self-efficacy when discussing and teaching about disability.

Table 1.

Examples of Two Book Review Assignments Given in Undergraduate Special Education Courses.

	Setting	Examples of assigned books	Product of book review to be submitted for grading and instructor feedback
Book Review Assignment A	Though the assignments were given at two different universities, both assignments were given in 200-level, undergraduate special education courses designed for prospective teachers also pursuing dual certification in general and special education.	Students chose from a list of fictional young adult novels about children or adolescents with a disability. Some example books included • Rain Reign by Ann. M. Martin (autism spectrum disorder) • Out of My Mind by Sharon Draper (cerebral palsy) • Girls Like Us by Gail Giles (intellectual disability) • Bluefish by Pat Schmatz (dyslexia). Students were also required to read a corresponding selection from their textbook that focused on the disability.	After reading both the fiction book and the textbook selection, pre-service teachers were asked to submit a written structured book review that included • a concise summary of the book; • a critical assessment of the book, in which students discussed how the author presented individuals with disabilities and compared/contrasted what they learned from the book with what they learned from the textbook reading associated with the disability; and a recommendation of whether they would use the book in a K-12 classroom, along with suggestions for how they might do so.
Book Review Assignment B		Students chose from a list containing a range of books, from young adult novels to autobiographies. Some example books included• Fish in a Tree by Linda M. Hunt (dyslexia)• Wonder by R.J. Palacio (physical disability—facial abnormality)• Thinking in Pictures, and Other Reports From My Life With Autism by Temple Grandin (autism)• The Center Cannot Hold: My Journey Through Madness by Elyn R. Saks (emotional behavioral disability—schizophrenia)Students were also encouraged to integrate corresponding textbook selections that focused on the disability.	After reading both the chosen book and the textbook selection, pre-service teachers were asked to create a presentation that integrated the following:• an analysis of the book’s portrayal of the disability• the impact of the disability on the characters of the book• a compare/contrast of the disability presented in the book with texts assigned in the course• a reflection on one’s perception of the book• a consideration on how reading the reading the book prepared one to be more conversant on the topic on the particular disability topicStudents were given a range of choices to present, from traditional (e.g., Prezi or PowerPoint) to non-traditional (e.g., creating a hypothetical interview with the character).

Book review assignment

As previously discussed, one way for teacher educators to foster dialogue surrounding disabilities is through assignments related to children/young adult literature (Artman-Meeker et al., 2016; Prater & Dyches, 2008). The Book Review assignment took place in the context of an introductory undergraduate special education course designed for prospective teachers pursuing dual certification in both general and special education. The course was the first special education course that most students had enrolled in, and focused on the historical roots of special education; philosophies and theories that provide the basis for practices in special education; laws, policies, and ethics that regulate special education; past and present practices regarding referral, assessment, placement, and instruction of students with disabilities; and current issues affecting the field of special education.

Prior to receiving this assignment, prospective teachers read and discussed excerpts from books containing first-person descriptions of the experiences of individuals with disabilities in small groups as well as in the whole-class setting. They also learned about common portrayals of individuals with disabilities in the media (e.g., “object of pity,” “inspiration,” etc.; Garland-Thomson, 2002). Thus, though still novices, prospective teachers had begun to have experiences directly discussing disability in the college classroom.

Once the book review assignment was completed, a whole-class discussion about the exercise helped foster explicit conversations related to disability. Prospective teachers were able to discuss their ideas for using the book in a K-12 classroom as well as their concerns about fostering conversations directly related to disability. In general, feedback to this assignment was positive, and prospective teachers walked away with an understanding of the potential of children/young adult literature for fostering conversations related to diversity and disability.

A variation of the book review assignment

A variation of the book review assignment described above took place in a 200-level, undergraduate special education course designed for prospective teachers also pursuing dual certification in general and special education. This course focused on delving into the 13 federally defined categories of disabilities under Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as well as gaining familiarity with the various teaching methodologies that address the needs of all students in the classroom. At the beginning of the term, the students were given a list of approved books that focus on a main character with a disability. As the term progressed and as each of the categories of disabilities were examined through readings, lecture, and discussion, students were deliberately encouraged to add to the conversation by sharing relevant stories and pieces from their individually chosen books.

Similar to the assignment described above, the completion of the book review assignment was followed by whole-group discussion, where the prospective teachers were encouraged to share their comfort level in thinking about and having more explicit conversations about disability, both with each other and with others. Feedback included students expressing that this assignment was rewarding, that it enhanced the course materials because it gave a much more personal and intimate perspectives on the disabilities discussed in class, and that they wished that they had time to read more of the books on the list. Overall, the assignment provided a valuable backdrop to having rich discussions about disability.

Disability-based lesson plan

The Disability Lesson Plan was situated within a required undergraduate, introductory special education course for pre-service, general education teachers. In addition to presenting prospective educators with information pertaining to specific disabilities and related pedagogical practices, this one-semester class shed light on the social implications of disability. Furthermore, students gained exposure to different theoretical models of disability and used these constructs to examine the legacy of special education in the United States and abroad.

The Lesson Plan served as the culminating assignment of the semester and was intended to synthesize all aspects of the pre-service teachers’ learning. This included their ability to construct a lesson plan, their understanding of different disability categories and accommodations, as well as their capacity to teach children about disabilities. Earlier in the semester, the students spent several class sessions learning about the principles of UDL (Rapp, 2014). For this reason, students were required to state how their lesson aligned with the UDL tenets of assessment, output, and engagement.

The Lesson Plan was comprised of four major sections: (a) submission of a written plan, (b) implementation of the lesson during a class session, (c) participation as mock students in classmates’ lessons, and (d) composition of a two-page reflection that summed what they had learned. Given that sections of the course range from 25 to 30 students, members of the class completed the assignment in groups of four.

Each group created a written plan that provided an overview of their lesson. Plan components included content area, grade level, objectives, supplies needed, activities, time allotment, assessment, and accommodations. Lessons lasted approximately 20 minutes. Table 2 and Figure 1 provide examples of a lesson that uses an algebraic concept to teach students about disabilities and accessibility.

Table 2.

Sample Algebra Lesson Plan: Understanding Rates and Accessibility.

Subject: Algebra 1
Global Purpose: To teach students about accessibility and have students understand that a lack of accessibility can affect the lives of individuals with disabilities.
Objectives:• To have students use their knowledge of rates to plan a trip from their current suburban location to the nearby city.• To have students recognize the issues public transportation can pose for some individuals with disabilities.
Materials: Pencils; calculator; map of local suburban/urban train routes; worksheet; iPad, phone, or computer with Internet access to search distances between places.
Lesson Overview:	• Review rate and the distance formula.• Ask students why they might have to calculate rate and distance.• Explain that rate and distance are useful when mapping out trips. Follow up by asking students if they have ever traveled on public transportation, and, if so, what modes they have used.
Documentary: “The Long Wait: A Disabled Filmmaker’s Unique Experiment in NYC”	• Tell students that they will be watching a 6-minute documentary about Jason DaSilva’s experience using public transportation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdXUZJJv3yY).• Explain that DaSilva uses a wheelchair, and the film highlights some of the issues that he encounters when attempting to travel from Brooklyn to Manhattan. Ask students to pay attention to the barriers he faces and whether these were issues that they had ever considered when using public transportation (or traveling in general).• After watching the documentary, explain that the New York City transit system is not as accessible as it could be, which can make it difficult for people with disabilities to do things that typically abled people may take for granted.
Planning a Trip:	• Tell students that they will explore the accessibility of the local transit system to see if individuals who use wheelchairs would encounter some of the same travel difficulties that DaSilva faced in New York City.• Break students into groups of 3-4 and distribute worksheet and train map to all students.• Explain that students will use their knowledge of rates to plan a trip from their current suburban location to the nearby city. They will plan the same trip twice: the first trip will chart the quickest path, and the second trip will take accessibility into consideration (i.e., making sure that all modes of transportation are fully accessible).• Tell students that when they plan their trip, they will have to choose one additional destinations to visit in the city, using public transportation to travel from site to site.• Model how to map the fastest and the most accessible routes from their current destination to an example location.• Ask students to complete the rest of the activity with groupmates.
Closing:	• Review findings as a whole group• Ask students to complete the following questions for homework: How did your knowledge of rates help you to complete this activity? What did your rate calculations reveal about accessibility? Why is accessibility important to consider?

Figure 1.

Sample algebra lesson plan: Understanding rates, distance, and accessibility worksheet.

To encourage classmate participation, the mock students were expected to pose at least one question across all group lessons, and they were graded accordingly. In addition to enacting the lesson in class, each of the pre-service teachers composed a two-page reflection, where they provided background information on why the group selected this lesson and what they hoped future students would gain from it; addressed how the activities and assessments selected met their lesson objectives; identified any potential challenges they (as the teachers) could encounter during the lesson; and explained what skills and ideas they took from this project moving forward. This reflective component allowed students to consider all aspects of the lesson, as well as what they learned through the process.

Anecdotal student feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Prospective teachers created lessons across multiple subject areas, including Mathematics, Spanish, and Music, and each lesson incorporated disability awareness. Though the pre-service teachers articulated that it was initially difficult to find ways to discuss disabilities—especially in non-humanities courses—they seemed to appreciate having the opportunity to deliberately consider what these conversations could look like in their future classes.

Implications for Teacher Education

Although curricular resources are available to teachers who want to discuss disabilities in their classrooms, a gap exists between strategies and implementation. Lortie’s (1975) theory sheds light on the reason why some teachers may not feel comfortable integrating disability-related conversations in their classrooms. If pre-service teachers were not exposed to disability-related teaching, they could be hesitant to engage in these pedagogical practices—or unaware of them altogether. Teacher preparation programs also play a seminal role in promoting prospective teachers’ feelings of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1994). Research (Ajuwon et al., 2012; Forlin et al., 2011; Zagona et al., 2017) has shown that effectiveness of inclusion is correlated with pre- and in-service teachers’ positive attitudes toward inclusion. By providing pre-service teachers with essential knowledge and skills related to disabilities, teacher education programs can work toward the development of future educators who feel prepared to teach in inclusive classrooms.

Teacher educators are perfectly positioned to have meaningful conversations with future teachers about how to effectively discuss disability with their future students. These essential conversations complement our current discussion of students’ rights and related pedagogical practices. Building on the information available that defines how teacher educators can integrate these conversations into existing coursework, the Book Review Assignment and Disability-Based Lesson Plan provide concrete, actionable opportunities for teacher educators to both model and encourage their pre-service teachers to integrate disability-related discussions in their classroom. This work is a necessary step toward breaking the cycle of avoiding disability-related topics, promoting self-efficacy among pre-service teachers so that they are comfortable having conversations surrounding human diversity and individual strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately cultivating inclusive classroom communities that recognize and value difference.

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.

Notes

Author Biographies

Christa S. Bialka is an assistant professor of Special Education in the Department of Education and Counseling at Villanova University. Her research interests include understanding the development of teacher dispositions, preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms, and disability awareness. She currently serves as the President of the Pennsylvania Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children.

Nicole Hansen is an assistant professor in the School of Education at Fairleigh Dickinson University. Her research interests include mathematics learning, learning disabilities, and pre-service teacher education.

Sarah Jin Wong is an assistant professor and director of Field Placement in the Department of Education at Bryn Athyn College. Her passion and research interests center on inclusive education, pre-service teacher education, and learner engagement.

References

Abernathy

T. V.

Taylor

S. S.

(2009). Teacher perceptions of students’ understanding of their own disability. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 121-136. doi:10.1177/0888406409334084

Ajuwon

P. M.

Lechtenberger

Griffin-Shirley

Sokolosky

Zhou

Mullins

F. E.

(2012). General education pre-service teachers perceptions of including students with disabilities in their classrooms. International Journal of Special Education, 27, 100-107.

Artman-Meeker

Grant

T. O.

Yang

(2016). By the book: Using literature to discuss disability with children and teens. Teaching Exceptional Children, 48, 151-158.

Avramidis

Norwich

(2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129-147. doi:10.1080/08856250210129056

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Bandura

(1994). Self-efficacy. In Ramachaudran

V. S.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Bialka

(2016). Beyond knowledge and skills best practices for attending to dispositions in teacher education programs. Issues in Teacher Education, 25(2), 3-21.

Bialka

C. S.

(2017). Understanding the factors that shape dispositions toward students with disabilities: a case study of three general education pre-service teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(6), 616–636. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1223183

Brandes

J. A.

Crowson

H. M.

(2009). Predicting dispositions toward inclusion of students with disabilities: The role of conservative ideology and discomfort with disability. Social Psychology of Education, 12, 271-289. doi:10.1007/s11218-008-9077-8

10.

Cameron

Rutland

(2006). Extended contact through story reading in school: Reducing children’s prejudice toward the disabled. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 469-488.

11.

Cosier

Pearson

(2016). Can we talk? The underdeveloped dialogue between teacher education and disability studies. Sage Open, 6(1), 1-10. doi:10.1177/2158244015626766

12.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011). Interstate teacher assessment and support consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Author.

13.

Crowson

H. M.

Brandes

J. A.

(2014). Predicting pre-service teachers’ opposition to inclusion of students with disabilities: A path analytic study. Social Psychology of Education, 17, 161-178. doi:10.1007/s11218-013-9238-2

14.

de Boer

Pijl

S. J.

Minnaert

(2011). Regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 331-353.

15.

Diez

M. E.

(2007). Looking back and moving forward: Three tensions in the teacher dispositions discourse. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 388-396. doi:10.1177/0022487107308418

16.

Flores

M. A.

Day

(2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teachers’ identities: A multi-perspective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 219-232. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.09.002

17.

Forlin

Earle

Loreman

Sharma

(2011). The sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education revised (SACIE-R) scale for measuring pre-service teachers’ perceptions about inclusion. Exceptionality Education International, 21(3), 50-65.

18.

Friesen

M. D.

Besley

S. C.

(2013). Teacher identity development in the first year of teacher education: A developmental and social psychological perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 23-32. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.06.005

19.

Garland-Thomson

(2002). The politics of staring: Visual rhetorics of disability in popular photography. In Garland-Thomson

Snyder

Brueggemann

B. J.

(Eds.), Disability studies: Enabling the humanities (pp. 56–75). New York: Modern Language Association.

20.

Gay

Howard

T. C.

(2000). Multicultural teacher education for the 21st century. The Teacher Educator, 36(1), 1-16.

21.

Grossman

P. L.

(2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In Cochran-Smith

Zeichner

(Eds.), Review of research in teacher education (pp. 425-476). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

22.

Hollander

S. A.

(2004). Inclusion literature: Ideas for teachers and teacher educators. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 1(8). Retrieved from http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol1/iss8/3/?utm_source=corescholar.libraries.wright.edu%2Fejie%2Fvol1%2Fiss8%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

23.

Hong

Greene

Lowery

(2017). Multiple dimensions of teacher identity development from pre-service to early years of teaching: A longitudinal study. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43, 84-98. doi:10.1080/02607476.2017.1251111

24.

Hutchinson

N. L.

Martin

A. K.

(1999). Fostering inclusive beliefs and practices during preservice teacher education through communities of practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22, 234-250.

25.

Jobling

Moni

K. B.

(2004). “I never imagined I’d have to teach these children”: Providing authentic learning experiences for secondary pre-service teachers in teaching students with special needs. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 5-22. doi:10.1080/1359866042000206026

26.

Katz

Raths

(1985). Dispositions as goals for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1(4), 301-307.

27.

Lortie

(1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

28.

McCray

E. D.

McHatton

P. A.

(2011). “Less afraid to have them in my classroom”: understanding pre-service general educators’ preceptions about inclusion. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38, 135-155.

29.

McHatton

P. A.

Parker

(2013). Purposeful preparation: Longitudinally exploring inclusion attitudes of general and special education pre-service teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36, 186-203.

30.

Mewborn

D. S.

Tyminski

A. M.

(2006). Lortie’s apprenticeship of observation revisited. For the Learning of Mathematics, 26(3), 30-33.

31.

Mueller

Hindin

(2011). An analysis of factors that influence preservice elementary teachers’ developing dispositions about teaching all children. Issues in Teacher Education, 20(1), 17-34.

32.

Nieto

(2000). Placing equity front and center: Some thoughts on transforming teacher education for a new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 180-187. doi:10.1177/0022487100051003004

33.

Prater

M. A.

Dyches

T. T.

(2008). Teaching about disabilities through children’s literature. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

34.

Prater

M. A.

Dyches

T. T.

Johnstun

(2006). Teaching students about learning disabilities through children’s literature. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(1), 14-24.

35.

Rapp

(2014). Universal design for learning in action: 100 ways to teach all learners. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

36.

Rose

D. H.

Meyer

(2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

37.

Salend

S. J.

(2011). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

38.

Schussler

(2006). Defining dispositions: Wading through murky waters. Teacher Educator, 41, 251-268.

39.

Scruggs

Mastropieri

(1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74.

40.

Shah

(2016, April 11). Inclusive classrooms benefit all children [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/paras-shah-/inclusive-classrooms-bene_b_9659984.html

41.

Shah

Wallis

Conor

Kiszely

(2015). Bringing disability history alive in schools: Promoting a new understanding of disability through performance methods. Research Papers in Education, 30, 267-286. doi:10.1080/02671522.2014.891255

42.

Shippen

M. E.

Crites

S. A.

Houchins

D. E.

Ramsey

M. L.

Simon

(2005). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of including students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 92-99.

43.

Silverman

A. M.

Gwinn

J. D.

Van Boven

(2015). Stumbling in their shoes: Disability simulations reduce judged capabilities of disabled people. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 464-471.

44.

Smagorinsky

Barnes

M. E.

(2014). Revisiting and revising the apprenticeship of observation. Teacher Education Quarterly, 41(4), 29-52.

45.

Smagorinsky

Cook

Moore

Jackson

Fry

(2004). Tensions in learning to teach: Accommodation and the development of a teaching identity. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 8-24.

46.

Taylor

S. V.

Sobel

D. M.

(2011). Culturally responsive pedagogy: Teaching like our students’ lives matter (Vol. 4). West Yorkshire, England: Emerald Group Publishing.

47.

Tomlinson

(2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for supervision and curriculum development.

48.

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Digest of education statistics, 2013. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59

49.

Villegas

A. M.

(2007). Dispositions in teacher education: A look at social justice. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 370-380. doi:10.1177/0022487107308419

50.

Voltz

D. L.

Brazil

Ford

(2001). What matters most in inclusive education: A practical guide for moving forward. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37, 23-30.

51.

Woolfson

L. M.

Brady

(2009). An investigation of factors impacting on mainstream teachers’ beliefs about teaching students with learning difficulties. Educational Psychology, 29, 221-238.

52.

Zagona

A. L.

Kurth

J. A.

MacFarland

S. Z.

(2017). Teachers’ views of their preparation for inclusive education and collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40, 163-178. doi:10.1177/0888406417692969