Developing a Theory of Program Vision as Professional Socialization in Special Education Teacher Preparation

Abstract

In general education, researchers find candidates’ pre-service experiences are a tool for socialization into the knowledge, norms, and values of the profession. An important aspect of this process is program vision—the collective understanding of teaching put forth by a preparation program. Yet, few investigations in special education examine program vision. Using interviews with candidates across six teacher preparation programs, the author generates theory to understand the role of vision in special education teacher candidates’ professional socialization and how experiences of program vision are associated with their conceptions of their future roles and responsibilities. Candidates’ conception of special educators’ roles reflected three characterizations consistent within, but distinct across programs: Direct Instructor, Supportive Differentiator, and General Responder. Each profile was associated with unique roles and responsibilities for special educators. Findings draw attention to the importance of examining vision as a tool for professional socialization in special education teacher preparation.

Keywords

program vision roles qualitative methods research methods teacher preparation professional socialization

In response to advances in the field of special education, policy changes over the last two decades have required significant shifts in the enactment of teacher preparation; special educators must now be prepared to fulfill increasingly complex roles to support students with disabilities (SWDs) in accessing equitable, effective, and evidence-based educational opportunities (Brownell et al., 2010; Leko et al., 2015; Sayeski et al., 2019; Shepherd et al., 2016). For example, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) mandates that schools provide SWDs with access to the general education curriculum, the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA) mandates that schools be held accountable for all students’ achievement with reference to that curriculum, and recent court cases raise the standard for the delivery of and benefit received from special education services (e.g., Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 2017). Thus, special educators are increasingly responsible for ensuring that all students meet academically demanding grade-level standards while also making measurable progress toward individual educational goals (McLaughlin, 2010; Sayeski et al., 2019). Simultaneously, policy changes, such as multitiered systems of support, have prioritized collaboration in special educators’ work (Jones et al., 2019). As such, teacher preparation programs (TPPs) face a pressing challenge: preparing special education teacher candidates (SETCs) to take on multifaceted, complex roles (Leko et al., 2015). Yet how this challenge is addressed often falls short of expectations. Plagued by issues of time and coverage (Sykes et al., 2010), special education TPPs tend toward “tinkering” with existing program structures without attending to foundational questions regarding what it means to do the work of special education and to prepare special educators for this work (Pugach et al., 2020, p. 93).

Studies of exemplary general education teacher preparation offer important insight into the tools that special education TPPs might draw on to move beyond “tinkering” and, instead, design programs that intentionally and effectively prepare candidates for the complexity of the profession (Darling-Hammond et al., 2006; Feiman-Nemser et al., 2014; Hammerness, 2006). This body of scholarship indicates that an important part of this design is program vision—the understanding of teaching and learning communicated to and taken up by candidates throughout preparation. Vision is a powerful tool through which programs socialize candidates into professional roles. This extends beyond knowledge transmission; vision is a coherent, well-organized conception of teaching and learning that informs the structure, curriculum, and pedagogy of preparation (Grossman et al., 2008; Hammerness & Klette, 2015). Importantly, vision serves as a heuristic through which candidates understand knowledge and learn roles, the patterned behaviors enacted to fulfill a particular purpose in an organization or social system (Biddle, 1986). In line with role theory, vision shapes the theories and practices candidates take up and enact in the field (Feiman-Nemser et al., 2014) and grounds their teaching in an understanding of what is possible and appropriate (Kennedy, 2006). A clear vision is likely even more important in special education, given the many roles novice special educators must take on, the difficulties they experience negotiating those roles, and the ways that policy guiding special education is subject to local interpretation (Mathews et al., 2017; Weatherley & Lipsky, 1977). Yet, scant special education research examines how vision informs role conceptions (Billingsley et al., 2020).

In this study, I consider how SETCs experience program vision. First, I describe the contribution of vision to teachers’ professional socialization—the implicit and explicit experiences through which future teachers integrate the knowledge, norms, and values of a profession into their identity—and the limited research on program vision in special education. Then, drawing on sensemaking theory (Weick, 1995), I use constructivist grounded theory to explore how SETCs experience vision and how it informs their beliefs about their future roles.

Literature Review

Although largely unexplored in special education, research in general education highlights the importance of vision in pre-service teachers’ professional socialization, particularly their developing understanding of teachers’ roles and responsibilities (e.g., Darling-Hammond et al., 2006; Feiman-Nemser et al., 2014). Vision includes epistemological orientations through which professional knowledge is constructed (e.g., constructivist, critical) and normative understandings of what constitutes “good teaching,” both of which drive how individuals are expected to enact teachers’ roles (Kennedy, 2006). A TPP’s vision is filtered through candidates’ perspectives as they form their professional identity; thus, research on vision must grapple with how candidates make sense of their TPP’s vision (Feiman-Nemser, 2001).

A strong vision helps candidates organize techniques learned in preparation, so they can draw on them as they take on more responsibilities (Grossman et al., 2000) and as their role increases in complexity (Mathews et al., 2017). For example, in a longitudinal study in which the authors collected interviews, observations, and documents to explore 10 teachers’ writing instruction from pre-service through induction, Grossman and colleagues (2000) found teachers took up their TPP’s vision as they critiqued and improved practice into the second year of teaching. Their conception of vision helped them understand “the way it should look” (p. 657) and supported them in prioritizing and enacting aspects of professional vision in the field.

The extent to which programs cohere around a vision influences candidates by changing beliefs about learners, influencing appropriation of practice in preparation, and shaping enactment of practice in schools (Darling-Hammond et al., 2006; Hammerness & Klette, 2015), each of which contributes to candidates’ conception and enactment of their professional role. For example, using longitudinal, comparative case study methods drawing on observations of teaching and interviews, Feiman-Nemser et al. (2014) examined how 30 graduates of three TPPs with distinctive commitments carried vision into the field; in TPPs that carefully considered how assignments, learning opportunities, and program structures supported a particular vision, graduates’ practice reflected their TPP’s philosophies, pedagogies, and values years later.

Program Vision in Special Education

Despite evidence that vision plays a central role in professional socialization, and the role problems experienced by novice special educators, only one study has examined this construct in special education. In a content analysis of 64 program descriptions and evaluations from 1990 to 2003, Brownell et al. (2005) found that many TPPs’ vision emphasized preparing SETCs for inclusive practice, but subsumed SWDs into broader conceptions of diversity. Also, foundational to understanding vision, TPPs’ epistemological orientations varied, with documents from 31% of programs suggesting a positivist epistemological stance and 55% of programs aligning with constructivism; for 14% of programs, the authors found it difficult to determine which orientations TPPs adopted because they tended to blend the tenets of positivism and constructivism. Although this study contributes to our understanding of the content of TPPs’ vision, the focus on program documents precluded a thorough examination of how candidates experienced their TPPs’ vision or how vision socializes SETCs into roles. The use of program documents presents a one-sided view of preparation experiences and omits an important voice: the SETC as learner. Brownell and colleagues recognized this limitation and called for future research regarding how TPPs communicate “what it means to be a qualified beginning special education teacher” (p. 249) and how this framing might be taken up by novice educators.

No other studies have focused on vision in special education. Yet, as scholars in general education note, program vision is a marker of exemplary preparation (Darling-Hammond et al., 2006); a well-articulated vision could possibly support SETCs in managing the struggles they experience with understanding and enacting meaningful roles as they move into the field (Mathews et al., 2017). Moreover, although TPPs may take strides to actively and particularly shape candidates’ learning, SETCs are organizing existing and emerging beliefs, attitudes, and actions into a conception of their future role (Weick, 1995), which may reflect explicit and implicit messages from their TPP (Feiman-Nemser et al., 2014). Responding to Brownell and colleagues (2005), this study focuses on how SETCs’ experiences of preparation shape their vision of special educators’ roles.

Theoretical Framework

I frame this study using sensemaking theory, focusing on the individual processes through which SETCs “structure the unknown” (Weick, 1995, p. 4). Some may posit that professional guidelines are an important part of structuring preparation and making plain the roles special educators should take up. Yet, the existence of guidelines such as the Council for Exceptional Children’s (CEC, 2015) What Every Special Educator Must Know or CEC’s high leverage practices (McLeskey et al., 2017) may be insufficient when preparing candidates for the complex, multifaceted work of special education and the role ambiguity novice special educators face (Mathews et al., 2017). For example, although teacher educators may assert the value of various dimensions of practice (e.g., data-based individualization, partnering with students and families), time constraints and need for broad coverage may drive teacher educators to make trade-offs in structuring preparation and emphasize certain roles over others (Sykes et al., 2010). Conversely, in trying to make sense of a barrage of new knowledge, candidates’ understanding of their future roles might reflect the messages they experience as most dominant in preparation as opposed to a nuanced, multidimensional understanding of the profession.

Sensemaking theory (Weick, 1995) is a useful tool in thinking about candidates’ role conceptions. Triggered by uncertainty, in sensemaking processes novices construct meaning regarding their roles, responsibilities, and identities. The process is likely more complicated than what is written in the structural components of teacher preparation (e.g., syllabi, assignments) or in professional standards. As individuals experience multiple and sometimes contradictory messages regarding professional roles and responsibilities (Youngs et al., 2011), they incorporate new information into existing frameworks and adapt or adjust beliefs and actions in light of this information (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012). Often, sensemaking relies on experiences that affirm or interrupt already held knowledge, beliefs, and values regarding special education (Weick, 1995).

Purpose of the Study

In this study, I generate theory to understand the role of vision in SETCs’ professional socialization and how candidates’ experiences of program vision are associated with their conceptions of special educators’ roles and responsibilities. This necessitates attention to the messages candidates take up throughout preparation and how they make sense of their roles, responsibilities, and identities as special educators. The following questions guide my analysis: (a) How do SETCs experience vision as a tool for professional socialization? (b) How do SETCs describe the nature of their TPP’s vision of special educators’ roles and responsibilities?

Methods

In this study, I analyzed interviews with SETCs across six TPPs to explore their perceptions of program vision. Because my study purpose centered the processes through which candidates made sense of vision in the context of traditional TPPs (as opposed to how vision was imparted to SETCs), I elected to conduct a constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014). This methodology is useful when seeking to develop theory inductively while also attending to the ways that induction is situated in researchers’ knowledge, experiences, and beliefs (Trainor & Graue, 2014). Furthermore, constructivist grounded theory is useful when seeking to develop theories that prioritize and reflect participant experiences (Charmaz, 2017). A constructivist perspective views individuals as active agents who draw on their experiences and environment to construct knowledge (Crotty, 1998). This allowed me to explore the messages that candidates took up from preparation and how this informed their socialization into their professional roles.

Sites and Participants

Because I aimed to generate theory regarding the ways that candidates’ experiences of vision differently socialize them into the profession, theoretical sampling strategies informed site and sample selection. All selected university sites were in the top 100, nationally or regionally, as noted by the U.S. News & World Report (2017) graduate school rankings for colleges of education. Sites were predominantly public, represented an equal number of research- and teaching-focused institutions, and spanned Midwest, South, and Mid-Atlantic regions (see Table 1). All sites were traditional TPPs; I did not include alternative or residency programs. In all TPPs, candidates pursued a Master’s degree (initial certification) with a focus on Mild/Moderate disabilities with the option of dual certification (general and special education). SETCs participated together in a cohort model where they attended coursework, engaged in field placements prior to internships, and had access to inclusive and resource settings for field work. As such, SETCs’ perspectives on vision were likely not biased by exposure to one service delivery model. Included TPPs relied heavily on face-to-face coursework, but utilized online courses to varying degrees.

Table 1.

Site and Participant Information.

Site	TPP A	TPP B	TPP C	TPP D	TPP E	TPP F
Region	Mid-Atlantic	Mid-Atlantic	Midwest	South	Mid-Atlantic	Midwest
Focus^a	Research	Teaching	Research	Research	Teaching	Teaching
Public or Private	Public	Public	Public	Public	Public	Private
Participants
N	3	5	4	3	3	2
% of total sample	15.0	25.0	20.0	15.0	15.0	10.0
Gender
Female	2	5	4	2	3	2
Male	0	0	0	1	0	0
No Response	1	0	0	0	0	0
Race/Ethnicity
White or Caucasian	3	5	4	3	3	2
Black or African American	0	0	0	0	0	0
Asian	0	0	0	0	0	0

Note. TPP = teacher preparation programs.

Programs were classified as research-intensive or teaching-intensive.

Following institutional review board (IRB) approval, I selected a purposeful, nested sample (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007) from the sample of teacher candidates recruited for a larger study of SETCs’ development (N = 90; Mathews, 2018) in which an online survey was administered to SETCs at all six TPPs (response rate = 61%). All survey participants (a) were SETCs, (b) in traditional TPPs, (c) who had completed student teaching, but (d) were not yet full-time teachers. In selecting interview participants, I sampled proportionally across TPPs. Consistent with recommendations, the interview sample included 20 SETCs (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007). This allowed me to explore SETCs’ perspectives in ways that a broader sample would not. Although a limitation, all participants were White; only one was male. Notably, this reflects trends in the teaching workforce, where fewer than 20% of educators are people of color (Billingsley et al., 2019).

Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures

Interviews

I developed a semi-structured interview protocol to probe SETCs’ experiences of program vision. I convened a panel of four reviewers with a range of theoretical perspectives and expertise in teacher quality, preparation, and role development to provide feedback. The final protocol addressed SETCs’ beliefs about special educators’ roles and responsibilities, their understanding of their TPP’s vision, and the way preparation shaped role beliefs.

After piloting the protocol, I conducted interviews via video-conference in August 2017; one interview was via phone. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. On average, interviews lasted 60 minutes. During interviews, I elicited SETCs’ perspectives to understand how they connected their preparation experiences to their beliefs about special educators’ roles. The questions were designed to probe what SETCs believed was central to their role and the extent to which their TPP’s vision was a part of developing that belief. For example, I asked, “How would you describe your TPP’s vision of special education?” and then probed for consistency across faculty, coursework, and field experiences. I also asked, “How do you define the role of a special educator? How was this role presented in your TPP? Did your beliefs about special educators’ roles change during preparation?” To allow candidates to discuss their experience of vision implicitly, I asked questions about their learning opportunities and how these experiences shaped their understanding of special education. Following this, I probed for information regarding how their beliefs were shaped by their TPP’s vision.

After each interview, I constructed an analytic memo including emerging themes and codes, and questions raised regarding SETCs’ experience, their TPP, or the broader sample (Charmaz, 2014). As I collected new data, I added interview probes to illuminate potential themes. For example, when I noted participants needed more clarity regarding collective vision (instead of individual professors’ beliefs), I expanded the probe to have participants imagine someone attending a conference and presenting their TPP’s vision. I followed with questions about the consistency of vision across preparation experiences. When data became redundant, participant selection ceased for each TPP. I uploaded transcriptions to Dedoose for analysis.

Analysis

To develop theoretical explanations of SETCs’ experience of program vision, I used constructivist grounded theory methods (Charmaz, 2014). I developed codes inductively in three stages: initial, focused, and theoretical coding; Table 2 contains a codebook excerpt showing these stages. In initial coding, I analyzed interview transcripts focusing on fragments of the data using in vivo and gerund codes (e.g., model-lead-test and coming alongside students). During focused coding, I used constant comparison to sort and synthesize initial codes into categories and subcategories and identify concepts central to analysis. Then, I identified the most salient codes and tested them against other data to determine whether there were conceptual overlaps or inconsistencies. For example, although all SETCs discussed individualization, their understanding of individualization varied; SETCs in TPPs B and D discussed individualization as targeting specific skills and working from the student’s instructional level, and SETCs in TPPs A and C discussed individualization as the strategies support students in accessing the general education curriculum. Through this process, I moved from concrete codes toward higher levels of abstraction. I then applied my final codes to the data. I coded each interview and constructed a memo including all SETCs from each TPP to compare and contrast role beliefs taken up within and across sites.

Table 2.

Excerpt From Development of Code Book.

Theoretical codes	Focused codes	Sample of initial codes	Definition
Influence of Vision	Solidified Understanding of Profession	Brother Mother SET	Candidates discuss how preparation experiences provided them with a framework through which they could enact already held beliefs about special education
	Formed Understanding of Profession	No established beliefs“What it meant”	Candidates discuss how preparation experiences were the predominant source of knowledge, beliefs, and values regarding special education
Epistemology	Positivism	Meta-analysesScienceResearch-based	Discusses the legitimacy of research and the scientific method in making decisions; includes discussion of a single body of expert knowledge as an objective truth
	Constructivism	Interpret“It depends on the students”	Discusses how legitimate practice comes from the collective examination of multiple knowledge bases, including but not limited to knowledge generated by experts; other sources are considered commensurate with knowledge generated from research; discussion of practice as contextually specific
Responsibility	Provide direct instruction	Model-lead-testExplicit instructionMastery learning	Emphasizes direct instruction (Watkins & Slocum, 2003); includes mastery learning, model-lead-test, errorless teaching
	Provide differentiated instruction	“Every student learns differently”Format	Emphasizes differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 2017); includes differentiating by content, process, or product
	Provide strategic instruction	StrategiesKnowledge of strategies	Emphasizes cross-cutting strategies; includes providing teachers and students with strategies and serving as a resource for strategies

Note. SET = special education teacher.

Finally, I used theoretical codes to specify how focused codes related to each other and might form a theory of TPP vision as professional socialization in special education. Here, my goal was to “weave the fractured story back together” (Glaser, 1978, p. 72). In this, it became apparent that SETCs’ beliefs clustered around one of three characterizations and that, though these included shared roles, each highlighted distinct features of special educators’ work. For a feature to be included in a characterization, each SETC from a given TPP had to report a similar vision. For example, each candidate in TPP D reported the same vision, as did SETCs in TPP B, whereas candidates in other TPPs did not indicate the same features in their program’s vision.

I reviewed interviews in full to ensure the theory was representative of the data as a whole, as opposed to merely the excerpted codes, and conducted a search for disconfirming evidence to ensure sound conclusions. In developing characterizations, the goal was to identify SETCs’ role beliefs and to understand what was most salient to them as sensemakers. Although it is likely that TPPs included other messages about special educators’ roles, participants did not note these as central to their future role. Coherence within and across programs regarding these roles suggests a valid theory regarding the messages candidates took up during preparation.

During analysis, it became evident that SETCs within programs envisioned future roles they believed were consistent with their TPP’s vision; they also took up common conceptions of knowledge and knowing, or epistemological perspectives. Because their role conceptions appeared to be situated in specific epistemological assumptions, I integrated this into the theory.

Establishing Credibility and Trustworthiness

I used multiple strategies to enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of findings (Brantlinger et al., 2005). To enhance credibility, I collected evidence from multiple participants in each TPP and looked for convergence of responses within and across programs. In addition, peer debriefing was crucial to the development of robust theory; the peer challenged my assumptions, probed for bias, and posed alternative explanations throughout the study. This individual has significant experience as a teacher education researcher across general and special education and has expertise regarding program vision. For example, in our discussions he highlighted that how candidates took up advocacy reflected purpose-driven beliefs; this shifted analysis from a focus on defining roles and responsibilities to incorporate how these were directed toward a purpose. To ensure findings reflected SETCs’ experiences, after each interview, I summarized my take-aways and asked for their input. After analysis, I provided them with their transcript and an outline of findings, asking for feedback. Participants believed findings were accurate (e.g., one was “in agreement with findings,” and another said, “I did not find anything inconsistent”). None reported findings were inconsistent with their experiences.

Positionality

In constructivist grounded theory, researchers must situate their identities, beliefs, and experiences in the study and consider the ways in which these shape their interpretive lens (Charmaz, 2017). I am a non-disabled, White woman who entered special education through a traditional TPP. With limited schema regarding special education, I depended on my TPP to shape my professional vision. In these ways, my identity and pre-service experiences reflect those of the majority of my participants. Presently, I am a researcher and teacher educator focused on questions of role—a research interest that demands we examine vision—in special education; this research emerges from experiences of dissonance between the messages I received in preparation regarding the crucial importance of intervention for meaningful inclusion and over a decade of experience as a special educator in K–12 settings where intervention was often deprioritized when faced with the demands of the general education curriculum and replaced with (often perfunctory) inclusive practices. This resulted in considerable and unexpected role problems. My experiences reflect those of novice special educators, described in over four decades of literature (Billingsley et al., 2020); consistent with research (e.g., Feiman-Nemser et al., 2014; Hammerness & Klette, 2015), I believe that a deep understanding of vision could enhance professional socialization in pre- and in-service training. In seeking to explore how candidates experience professional socialization, and consistent with social constructivism (Crotty, 1998), I value the ways that SETCs—the learner—make sense of vision. Although there are other valuable perspectives regarding TPP vision, I believe the learner’s voice is a crucial part of understanding how SETCs are positioned to enter the field.

Findings

This analysis revealed that candidates believed their TPP had a consistent vision that was instrumental in shaping their perspectives regarding special educators’ roles. Although they described some dimensions of role in similar ways across TPPs, there were substantive differences in the messages SETCs reported as central to their role. These cohered around three distinct role conceptions, each informed by different epistemologies. I begin by exploring how participants spoke about vision as a tool for professional socialization and then explain commonalities and differences across candidates’ perspectives regarding vision.

Importance of Vision

SETCs’ reported vision was important in forming beliefs about their future profession. This was not a matter of self-selection into TPPs aligned with their beliefs; instead, data suggested SETCs viewed their professional selves as a product of preparation. They reported their role beliefs were shaped by their TPP, noting it was “drilled into our heads” (Mandy, B) and that their own vision was “verbatim what I was taught” (Mariah, D). In speaking about her experience, Macy (E) stated, “I’m a product of my program . . . the values that I’ve grown to believe [were] instilled in me . . . from the . . . beginning . . .”

This process, however, occurred differently. Whether experience formed or solidified their beliefs about special educators’ roles seemed to depend on prior experiences. SETCs who reported limited schema regarding special education felt their TPP completely formed their conception of the profession. For example, when asked whether her TPP changed her understanding of special education and SWDs, Britney (A) stated, “I feel like I didn’t go in with a lot of beliefs about students with disabilities.” Similarly, Natalie (C) reported her TPP’s vision was “really all that I know . . . so [my beliefs] didn’t necessarily change.” Courtney (E) explained how her TPP corrected misconceptions, though “it took me a while to understand what it meant.” Others, who had an established schema (from family, K–12 schooling, or work with individuals with disabilities), reported that their TPP solidified their understanding and provided a framework for prior experiences. The TPP “expanded upon what I already felt . . . it didn’t necessarily change my view, it just emphasized . . . the importance” (Macy, E). They reported their TPP provided them with techniques to support enactment of beliefs they already held when they began preparation. For example, Tracey (B), whose brother has Down syndrome, noted her experience provided a framework to understand his needs and her future work. “I know how specific I have to be with him . . . . I always knew it . . . [but] it wasn’t until I got to [TPP] when they were like, ‘This is called explicit instruction’ that I learned how to actually teach explicitly.”

Program Vision and Conceptions of Role

SETCs’ conceptualizations of special educators’ roles included some features that were shared by participants across TPPs, whereas others were specific to candidates in certain programs. As shown in my theoretical model (Figure 1), SETCs’ understandings of special educators’ roles suggested shared epistemological assumptions within, but not across, reported experiences.

Figure 1.

Theoretical model of shared and specific conceptions of role in special education teacher preparation.

Common Conceptions of Role

Participants across TPPs discussed three roles that were evident across conceptions of vision: building relationships, ensuring compliance, and collaborating with stakeholders.

Across TPPs, participants referred to building relationships with students as an important part of vision. They spoke about relationships as a space where they should be a “cheerleader” (Britney, A; Courtney, E) and “champion” (Tori, C) for students and a way to communicate care. As Courtney (E) said, “I definitely want to be that teacher for students that are . . . lost and looking for a person who believes in them.” They discussed how relationships motivate students to engage in challenging learning. Elliott (D) asserted,

If [teachers] do not respect . . . students, students aren’t going to respect them . . . They have to be loving. The students have to know [teachers] care about them. When they know that, they want to work harder for you.

Participants also believed their vision focused on ensuring procedural compliance. Natalie (C) noted that an SET’s main responsibility was to ensure students’ education was “based on their [IEP] goals . . . talking with the family, setting goals with them, [discussing] how you are going to . . . get them . . . headed toward that goal and achieving that goal.” Gwen (A) corroborated this, saying her main responsibility was to “accommodate and modify instruction” to help students progress toward Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals. They believed this distinguished between general and special educators. Participants noted special educators were responsible for ensuring the IEP team understood the importance of complying with the “legality” (Britney, A) of the IEP. Lisa (B) said, “You have to [be] sure . . . you’re not doing something that could legally lead to trouble.”

Finally, participants across programs reported that their TPP’s vision focused on collaboration, which they understood as communication and consultation (e.g., listening, problem-solving). Macy (E) explained the value of collaboration in coordinating IEP teams:

[You have to be] a good communicator, both active listening and speaking to people . . . the student, their family members, service providers, and administration . . . All of these people need to be involved in order to get the best . . . outcomes.

Candidates stated this type of collaboration was an essential part of their efficacy as special educators. In collaboration, SETCs believed they should prepare for conflict: “You handle a lot of conflict resolution . . . I think you need to learn . . . to communicate with people and resolve conflict between students and adults” (Monica, E).

Distinctions Across Programs

Candidates took up three epistemological orientations consistent within, but not across, TPPs: positivism (Turner, 2001), constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978), and a blended approach that drew on both positivism and constructivism; importantly, this assertion aligns with Brownell and colleagues’ (2005) findings. Although all candidates discussed advocacy as a role, the purpose of advocacy appeared to shift with epistemological orientation. Furthermore, each orientation was associated with one of three ways of conceptualizing what was central to an effective special educator’s role. Analyses illuminated three visions of role: Direct Instructor, General Responder, and Supportive Differentiator. Drawing on candidates’ perspectives, each of these conceptions extended beyond the shared roles described above; conceptions of professional roles were distinct from one another, such that they did not co-occur within any one program.

Positivism and the direct instructor

Participants from two programs—TPPs B and D—discussed a vision oriented toward positivism. Aligned with positivist approaches to special education and objectivist epistemological traditions (Crotty, 1998; Turner, 2001), they (a) believed that knowledge was generated through the scientific method; (b) valued research as a single, unquestioned reality; and (c) asserted that instructional decisions and individualization should be based on empirical inquiry. These SETCs saw their responsibility as advocating for practice legitimatized through “research and meta-analyses” (Meredith, B). Research was not just a source of information; a defining feature of the job, it provided objective guidelines for practice. As Elliott (D) shared,

[Y]ou need to be knowledgeable . . . [This comes] through research, staying up to date . . . Really abiding by . . . that evidence-based research, because it works, so why not use it? . . . [A]s long as you are doing something that is scientifically proven, is evidence based, shows progress, shows that it works, then you are doing your job.

For SETCs in these TPPs, their positivist epistemology appeared to influence their thoughts about methods and curriculum. As Meredith (B) highlighted, “a special education teacher needs to be—like not going on to Pinterest—but using the research-based methods [proven] to be highly effective.” Tracey stated that “You have to advocate to do the correct kind of instruction.” SETCs spoke about the importance of selecting the “correct materials” (Tracey, Meredith, B) and defined this as meaning that they had evidence from research to “back up” (Meredith, B; Elliott, D) their effectiveness. Consistent with others in these TPPs, Tracey (B) asserted that this orientation to research drove her thoughts regarding advocacy: “You can be explicit with any lesson, but it needs to be an explicit lesson from an evidence-based curriculum . . . you may have to advocate to [use] correct . . . evidence based . . . curriculum.”

Role as a direct instructor

In TPPs where participants reported positivist perspectives, beliefs reflected the role of Direct Instructor with responsibilities for providing direct instruction, targeting students’ instructional level, and collecting and analyzing data on progress.

Provide direct instruction

SETCs in Direct Instructor programs reported their TPP communicated a vision of special educators’ roles focused on knowing “the background of direct instruction and how it is . . . implemented” (Meredith, B). Mariah’s (D) explanation underscored how this idea was at the foundation of their preparation:

Every class, direct instruction, direct instruction, direct, explicit instruction. That rang true in every single class and I think that they can pride themselves on teaching us that. It got to the point where they’d ask a question, you would go, “Direct instruction has to be the answer.” It’s kind of like the Jesus question. [The answer is] always Jesus, so we’re good. So [the answer] was direct instruction for us.

Although one SETC from TPP B noted they enjoyed a “variety of perspectives,” all SETCs in these TPPs emphasized direct instruction and instructional techniques aligned with scholarship in Direct Instruction (e.g., Watkins & Slocum, 2003). For example, SETCs in these programs spoke about “constantly getting hammered with . . . model-lead-test” (Elliott, D) and providing “errorless teaching” (Meredith, B) when planning and delivering instruction.

SETCs shared how this focus helped them make sense of experiences in settings where direct instruction was not emphasized. For example, Juliana (D) explained how she and peers drew on this framework to make sense of contrasting messages in general education courses:

. . . [in general education] they don’t talk a lot about the same methods of instruction. . . as special [education] majors . . . we would think, “This is how we’re going to script it, and this is how we’re going to write it out, it’s going to have these components.” . . . we had that special [education] brain . . . like, “I’m hearing it and I’m picking up on it and I know what they’re saying, but I’m going to teach this other way.”

Elliott (D) and Meredith (B) discussed how they took direct instruction into placements where it was not normative. Elliott said, “When I [taught], I brought [direct instruction] with me . . . [T]hat was what I was taught to do, so that is what I was going to do.” Thus, vision served as a filter through which they made sense of experiences in coursework and field placements.

Target students’ instructional level

A second responsibility unique to SETCs in Direct Instructor programs was teaching at students’ instructional level, which they defined as targeting students’ specific needs and beginning instruction there. As Lisa (B) explained,

[S]pecial educators really have to be that force that . . . stops and finds the instructional level, and teaches there . . . rather than continue to teach at the level where they should be according to their peers [in general education], you need to teach at their instructional level because, if not, they are not going to get there.

Although participants in other TPPs discussed addressing individual needs, SETCs in TPPs B and D were unique in their emphasis on identifying the instructional level and working toward mastery. They reported being counseled: “If you are teaching [students] to mastery in a few things, it is . . . better than half teaching them in a lot of things” (Tracey, B). Mariah (D) noted, “The biggest thing for me is making sure it’s for that student’s need, not just what is convenient.”

Data-driven instruction

SETCs in TPPs B and D noted the importance of “taking data and using that data to drive instruction” (Mandy, B). Although candidates in other programs mentioned the importance of data, only candidates in programs where the Direct Instructor role was prominent spoke about the importance of collecting and using data throughout instruction, and how it was a part of being “willing to change” instruction (Tracey, B). Data informed all aspects of instruction; “[instruction] had to be based off of something that we pulled data-wise that the student was lacking” (Mariah, D). They discussed using data to make decisions about where to begin instruction, the success of instruction, and whether they should shift instruction. Jenna (B) stated, “you have to use data . . . to make decisions [about] what . . . groups they go in, . . . what . . . lesson you do, whether you have to . . . rework the foundation, or if you can move on.”

Constructivism and the supportive differentiator

Discussions with participants in programs E and F reflected the tenets of constructivism (Crotty, 1998; Vygotsky, 1978). They (a) believed effective practice was specific and contextual, (b) made decisions about practice relative to the individual and the setting, and (c) drew on multiple knowledge bases and perspectives in enacting their vision of individualized instruction.

Reflecting the ways that constructivism highlights the situated nature of practice, Lauryn (F) highlighted that there “is not one way to be a special educator,” and Monica (E) stated, “every special education teacher . . . does something completely different.” In contrast to Direct Instructors, candidates in these TPPs did not prioritize research evidence, instead emphasizing personal knowledge of students. As Courtney (E) noted, “It is all circumstantial . . .trial and error of figuring out what . . . works with specific students.” Expanding on the idea of negotiating what works with specific students, Brandy (F) explained the linkages with knowledge of students personally: “I think the most effective things were when [we] truly knew the student and how they learned and their likes and dislikes.” Although SETCs in other TPPs discussed the importance of knowing students, candidates’ emphasis on making instructional decisions based on personality instead of academic or social/emotional/behavioral factors distinguished these TPPs.

It was clear that candidates valued multiple voices in constructing a deep understanding of students, saying they needed to work with parents, teachers, and other students to “come alongside” (Courtney, E; Lauren, F) and support them. In gathering multiple perspectives, their goal was to secure individualized instruction to meet students’ needs, as discussed above; Macy (E) proclaimed, “Isn’t this supposed to be individualized?” What was unclear was the extent to which this individualization aligned with evidence-based instruction for SWDs.

Role as a supportive differentiator

For SETCs in programs E and F, their conception of special educators’ roles centered on being a Supportive Differentiator. Candidates viewed special educators’ primary responsibilities as supporting students, parents, and teachers to provide access to inclusive settings; co-teaching with parity between general and special educators; and differentiating instruction by content, process, and product.

Supporting multiple stakeholders

In these programs, participants discussed a vision focused on doing whatever it takes to support the team (e.g., general educators, parents) to help students reach their potential. Often described in nebulous ways that lacked a clear tie to student outcomes, support was central to how they conceptualized special educators’ work. Macy (A) noted, “[A]s long as I’m providing support—whether it works or it doesn’t—I’m still attempting to do those things. . . that makes a good special education teacher.” Participants discussed how their responsibility was not to provide instruction based on a particular pedagogical framework or set of practices, but to provide any needed support that might help the student succeed.

Candidates did not feel special educators were alone in this endeavor. Monica (E) spoke of the importance of being able to “work with a very large number of people.” Their aim was to help students succeed at their highest potential, which typically meant supporting access to inclusive settings. Brandy (F) stated special educators were responsible to “come alongside the general educator and . . . help them fit students with disabilities into [inclusive] classrooms.” She then explained this meant special educators should focus on “how to best include students with disabilities and involve them in the general education classroom to the best of their abilities . . . having general educators and general education students support that student.” Special educators, according to these SETCs, were responsible to do whatever was necessary to support inclusion.

Co-teaching for parity

Although inclusion was not framed as the only setting in which special educators should work, candidates in these TPPs considered it a marker of success. “We talked a lot about how the general classroom isn’t necessarily the least restrictive environment for everyone, but if they can, don’t limit them and find ways for them to be in there” (Monica, E). One important way to ensure success in inclusive settings was to use “the six models of co-teaching” (Macy, E). Yet they did not discuss co-teaching as a way to provide the evidence-based interventions and specialized instruction required by special education law; rather, it was a way to provide generalized support for students in inclusive settings. Participants shared that observers should not be able to distinguish between general and special educators. Monica (E) shared,

I should have a role as a special [education] teacher and co-teacher in which I . . . provide support to everyone in that class and them . . . not know if I was the [special] or the [general educator].

Others echoed this belief. They expressed a responsibility to work in inclusive settings in undetectable ways; co-teaching alongside general educators was integral to this effort.

Providing differentiated instruction

Finally, SETCs in Supportive Differentiator TPPs focused on providing differentiated instruction (popularized by Tomlinson, 2017). They conceptualized differentiation as planning and delivering individualized instruction because “every student learns differently” (Monica, E). This was not just for SWDs; “because [SWDs] were integrated into the general classroom, [differentiation] was also offered to general students” (Monica, E). Differentiation was a way to promote accepting, inclusive environments.

Candidates discussed differentiation as focused on a holistic knowledge of students as individuals, not necessarily an understanding of students’ present level of performance and the evidence-based practices that would best meet their needs. Candidates focused on “know[ing] what their strengths and weaknesses are, what they like, don’t like, what makes them tick” (Courtney, E). As Macy (E) remarked, “The role is to think about a child’s strengths, . . . preferences, . . . interests, and what they really need. It’s the special [educator’s] job, to tailor instruction to meet those strengths, preferences, interests, and needs.” Certainly, this understanding of the student as an individual is integral to providing effective instruction, but the method of individualization (i.e., preference) seemed to lack the strong foundation of evidence-based practice valued in special education (CEC, 2015; McLeskey et al., 2017).

A blended epistemology and the general responder

Finally, participants in TPPs A and C drew on a vision that blended positivist and constructivist epistemological orientations. Like participants in Direct Instructor TPPs whose perspectives aligned with positivist thought (Crotty, 1998; Turner, 2001), they valued research as a legitimate source of information, saying, “the special education teachers’ main goal is to . . . accommodate and modify current instruction by using evidence-based practices and . . . methods that were researched and proven to be effective” (Gwen, A). Yet, consistent with epistemology supported by participants in Supportive Differentiator TPPs, they spoke about selection of research-based strategies operating in tandem with a deep, personal knowledge of students. As Missy (A) asserted, this required “adjusting [research-based practices] to individual students.”

This balancing act between positivist and constructivist approaches was also evident in candidates’ beliefs about how to make decisions regarding practice. They spoke about the special educator as having technical knowledge about research-based strategies proven to support students in accessing the general curriculum. Gwen (A) posited, “I think [a special educator] should be aware of . . . evidence-based practices that work and are efficient . . . Always keep that mind open . . . so that they can educate . . . other staff members.” Nevertheless, they also believed they were responsible for curating perspectives to inform decisions. In contrast to participants in TPPs in which candidates reported positivist epistemologies—where research was the primary source of information—participants in programs with blended epistemologies moved beyond their knowledge of research to gather information from valued others. Missy (A) said,

I can’t get my answers from their general education teacher, but maybe I’m going to talk to the counselor or their parent or ask for help beyond the school bubble . . . I think asking for help . . . is important to addressing the needs of the whole student.

Participants took a trial-and-error approach to applying research in instruction. Natalie (C) noted,

So much . . . is trying it out and seeing if it works . . . [Y]ou never know what could work . . . I think it is always worth giving it a try, like little things that you may see other teachers do, or . . . just being more resourceful for trying things that will click . . .

Candidates spoke about switching directions if a strategy was ineffective. Gwen (A) understood this as an important part of applying knowledge: “I think I would want a special educator to be . . . open to change. If something works better, to [say], ‘Okay, I tried this . . . It didn’t work. Let’s move on to something else’.” In essence, they advocated for providing research-based strategies, reflecting on the efficacy of strategies for specific students in specific contexts, and tweaking instruction based on a newfound understanding of individual students.

Role as a general responder

SETCs in these TPPs conceptualized special educators’ role as being a General Responder: connecting to the general curriculum; providing research-based strategies; and responding to diverse needs, including but not only the needs of SWDs.

Connecting students to the general education curriculum

In programs A and C, candidates drew on platitudes about teaching and learning to discuss their first responsibility: connecting students to the general education curriculum. This included being a “bridge between the disability and [students’] education” (Britney, A) and “thinking about what bridges we can build between our students and the general curriculum or classroom” (Gwen, A). Candidates conceived of this responsibility broadly and reported that faculty “just used the word effective a lot” in describing their responsibilities (Fiona, TPP C) and that special educators should always work hard to “find information to support [the] student” (Natalie, TPP C). Participants from across these TPPs reported that connecting students to the curriculum was central to their role.

Providing research-based strategies

SETCs who envisioned special educators as General Responders did not appear to operate from a specific framework (e.g., direct instruction) or concept (e.g., differentiation). Instead, responses suggested one of a special educator’s primary responsibilities was having “background knowledge of multiple strategies to try” (Fiona, C) and that this was necessary to promote independent access to the general curriculum. As Tori (C) stated, “You need to give students strategies to accomplish their work independently. I think it’s all about giving kids strategies to make them successful independently.”

These discussions often emphasized using research “proven to work” (Gwen, A). Missy (A) said special educators should be able to consult research to determine whether they were implementing strategies with fidelity: “I . . . think, ‘Well, this didn’t quite work . . . Is it . . . the practice or . . . because I wasn’t implementing it with fidelity?’ Then go back to the literature . . . .”

These SETCs believed that gathering and disseminating strategy knowledge were integral to special educators’ work. Fiona (C) noted that special educators should be “lifelong learners,” and Gwen (A) said they were “vessels” for bringing research to schools. Exemplifying the ways General Responders blended epistemologies, Missy (A) discussed how special educators should combine their knowledge of research-based strategies with knowledge of individual students:

In tandem [with knowledge of students] is a really good knowledge base . . . Having a big toolbox and being able to use the right tools . . . knowing the resources you have and then not running into a problem and getting stuck and isolated, but . . ., if you don’t have the tool in your toolbox, go find it from someone else.

Responding to diverse needs

In TPPs A and C, candidates reported that the classes taken outside of special education tended to focus on using effective practices to meet diverse needs (e.g., struggling learners, second-language learners), instead of the specific needs of SWDs. They did not perceive these courses as having a conception of effective teaching that was distinct from their special education coursework. SETCs reported that the program vision had “pretty clear messaging, because it was pretty general” (Missy, A). Similarly, Toni (C) explained how special education was absent or subsumed into broad discussions about meeting diverse needs: “A lot of it was not even talked about or really covered [in general education] . . . There was never really a time where we’d be in one class and we’d be like, ‘Wow, this professor said this for special [education]’ .” Thus, participants reported that their TPP’s vision was anchored in using responsive instruction to meet all learners’ needs. The focus was on a general, flexible vision of instruction that was designed to meet the array of needs through research-based practices.

The Grounded Theory

Figure 1 depicts the grounded theory, including the (a) role conceptions articulated across TPPs, (b) the epistemologies taken up by candidates within TPPs, and (c) three distinct conceptions of special educators’ roles and responsibilities housed within SETCs’ experiences and expressed as the purpose of their advocacy. This theory suggests epistemology highlights what is considered legitimate and, accordingly, orients candidates toward the distinct roles and responsibilities they should prioritize. This grounded theory underscores that preparation must attend to which roles and responsibilities are illuminated—and obscured—through a particular epistemological lens. Importantly, although this theory prompts teacher educators to ask questions of their program vision (i.e., epistemology, roles, and responsibilities communicated explicitly and implicitly), it must be understood in light of the context in which the data were collected (i.e., traditional TPPs) and the sociocultural identities of the participants (i.e., primarily White women). The theory should not be interpreted as connoting that there are only three possible visions in special education. For example, there are likely TPPs which operate from critical epistemological stances and, accordingly, prioritize different roles and responsibilities.

Discussion

This study builds upon prior research in special education (Brownell et al., 2005) and maps on to how researchers in general education conceptualize vision as a tool through which candidates construct a deep understanding of their professional roles (Feiman-Nemser et al., 2014; Grossman et al., 2000). Consistent with Brownell et al.’s (2005) findings, participants’ beliefs appeared to be driven by epistemological assumptions embedded in their TPPs’ vision of “good teaching,” suggesting preparation may be doing more than providing opportunities to acquire skills. Instead, the theory developed through this study suggests candidates are acculturated into conceptions of knowledge and knowing in preparation.

These differences were reflected in participants’ beliefs about their TPPs’ visions for special educators’ primary roles in schools. Preparation was a site where SETCs gathered, negotiated, and organized information about what they believed was most central to their role (Weick, 1995). SETCs’ perceptions of vision shaped their goals for their professional identity (Hammerness & Klette, 2015) and how they defined “what it means to be a qualified beginning special education teacher” (Brownell et al., 2005, p. 249). Vision was a heuristic that helped them make sense of curricular content and experiences (Darling-Hammond et al., 2006) and set expectations for how to enact their role in schools (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Their experience of vision extended along a continuum, from roles tightly focused on evidence-based practice (Direct Instructor) to addressing the needs of all learners across all settings (General Responder).

This finding speaks to tensions particular to special education. Whereas SETCs who experienced vision as forwarding the Direct Instructor role spoke about processing other models of instruction, other SETCs did not report doing this. It could be that TPPs in which SETCs reported experiencing a less concrete vision potentially did a disservice; by operating from broad understandings of “good teaching” (i.e., General Responder), SETCs might lack the mooring influence of a clear framework through which they could make sense of instruction, student need, and the roles they would enact in schools. On the contrary, SETCs in Direct Instructor and Supportive Differentiator programs emphasized fragments of special educators’ work (i.e., instruction or collaboration); this narrow role conception is counter to what time use research reveals about special educators’ work (Vannest & Hagan-Burke, 2010; Wasburn-Moses, 2005; Weiss et al., 2014). Although TPPs likely addressed special educators’ multiple roles, within TPPs, candidates’ beliefs clustered around a single vision that may not have adequately highlighted the complexity of these roles.

This analysis raises questions about breadth and depth in preparing special educators. The broad problems of teaching—fragmentation due to professional specialization, lack of shared knowledge, and highly variable working conditions—are also the problems of teacher education (Sykes et al., 2010). Given that time use studies reveal special educators are required to enact multiple roles beyond that of instructor (Vannest & Hagan-Burke, 2010; Wasburn-Moses, 2005) and that their work is likely shaped by the contexts and conditions in which they work (Mathews et al., 2021; Vannest & Hagan-Burke, 2010; Weiss et al., 2014), the problems outlined by Sykes and colleagues (2010) are further exacerbated in special education. Thus, TPPs must consider how program vision connects to the context in which novices will work and will shape that they bring to their in-service induction experiences. Should preparation experiences provide a broad overview and assume novice special educators will develop specific, technical skills in their schools? Or should preparation train candidates to mastery in key practices and assume they will take up others in schools? Although special education preparation is guided by standards that note TPPs should be doing both (CEC, 2015; McLeskey et al., 2017), these findings indicate that TPPs are possibly making trade-offs about what is prioritized in preparation and the messages communicated to SETCs. The mere presence of professional standards does not negate the realities of teacher education (Sykes et al., 2010). It is likely that, when faced with the complexity of special educators’ roles and limited time for preparation, TPPs foreground certain aspects of role over others. Professional standards and policy are likely an insufficient mechanism for transformation, as TPPs often respond by appending existing structures without comprehensively redesigning preparation to address new needs (Pugach et al., 2020).

Implications for Practice

SETCs across TPPs reported experiencing a clear vision of special education, each highlighting how preparation socialized them into the shared knowledge, norms, and values of the profession. Yet, in each role conception, candidates reported a vision of “good teaching” that was somehow limited, either broadly encompassing many roles without providing an in-depth heuristic to understand how to fulfill them or narrowly focused on particular responsibilities.

For example, SETCs in Direct Instructor TPPs were socialized into roles which centered an evidence-based instructional framework. Because these novices were prepared to deliver instruction that powerfully targets students’ needs, this could result in improved student outcomes. Yet, special educators’ provision of interventions is collaborative and interdependent with others’ work (Billingsley et al., 2020; Stelitano et al., 2020). The extent and nature of collaborative, collegial interactions are often associated with role problems (Mathews et al., 2017) and predict retention plans (Jones et al., 2013). Without systematic attention to developing collaborative skills, SETCs from Direct Instructor TPPs may be disadvantaged. In contrast, SETCs in Supportive Differentiator TPPs were socialized into roles that foreground how special educators work in the broader school community, potentially positioning them to more successfully enact the collaborative work that is integral to meaningful inclusion (McLaughlin, 2010) and that takes up a significant amount of special educators’ time (Vannest & Hagan-Burke, 2010; Wasburn-Moses, 2005). Yet, the emphasis on providing ad hoc accommodations and modifications without a clear instructional framework may serve as a proxy for meaningful inclusion and replace the specialized instruction many SWDs require (Sayeski et al., 2019). Finally, in General Responder TPPs, a strength was that SETCs understood how research-based practice could inform their work with SWDs and other struggling learners. Yet, their emphasis on accessing the general education curriculum could promote a watered-down understanding of the individualized curricula SWDs might require and special educators’ agentic, informed role in providing specialized instruction in that curricula (Pugach et al., 2020).

Professional socialization is a complicated process that occurs across institutions. It is possible that TPPs “pass the buck” on to schools to support novices in making sense of complex, ambiguous roles (Mathews et al., 2017). What might it look like for teacher preparation to systematically consider the roles special educators take up and equip novices with the tools necessary to enact multiple roles in schools? It might be that, in recognizing schools’ diverse needs, TPPs could work to coordinate socialization experiences such that districts understand what SETCs learn in preparation and what supports they might need in practice.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

This study was not intended to generalize to all special education TPPs, but to generate theory based on the differences between SETCs’ experiences of vision. Future studies should examine how these findings hold across settings; the selection of traditional TPPs bounds the application of this theory. Furthermore, when attending to questions of learner voice, it is crucial that we consider whose perspectives are highlighted. Candidates with more diverse sociocultural identities (e.g., race, language, dis/ability) may experience vision differently than the White, predominantly female participants in this study; participants’ positions along intersecting axes of privilege/oppression (Crenshaw, 1991) are likely a crucial part of their experiences and the extent to which they take up messaging from their TPP. Epistemological tensions could result from clashes between SETCs’ lived experiences and the ways the TPP orients them toward questions of role. Finally, analysis focused on SETCs’ experience of vision, which could differ from program perspectives. Future research should examine alignment across stakeholders to explore the extent to which TPPs’ intended vision is communicated in preparation and how this relates to SETCs’ perspectives. Subsequent studies could examine how novices take up vision in practice, including knowledge measures and observations of practice. This study is an important first step in research that helps our field to understand TPP vision as a tool for more intentionally and effectively preparing special educators for complex work, underscoring that preparation positions candidates to take on particular, potentially impactful role conceptions in their practice.

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.

ORCID iD

Hannah Morris Mathews

Author Biography

Hannah Morris Mathews is an assistant professor in special education at the University of Florida. Her research focuses on the professional socialization and role development of special educators. This includes examining varied perspectives on role (e.g., special educators, teacher educators, administrators) and the various settings in which role is negotiated and enacted.

References

Biddle

B. J.

(1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435

Billingsley

B. S.

Bettini

Mathews

H. M.

McLeskey

(2020). Improving working conditions to support special educators’ effectiveness: A call for leadership. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419880353

Billingsley

B. S.

Bettini

Williams

T. O.

(2019). Teacher racial/ethnic diversity: Distribution of special and general educators of color across schools. Remedial and Special Education, 40(4), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517733047

Brantlinger

Jimenez

Klingner

Pugach

Richardson

(2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207.

Brownell

Ross

Colón

McCallum

(2005). Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison with general teacher education. The Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669050380040601

Brownell

Sindelar

Kiely

Danielson

(2010). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600307

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory. SAGE.

Charmaz

(2017). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 34–45.

Coburn

C. E.

Woulfin

S. L.

(2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.008

10.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2015). What every special educator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines (7th ed.).

11.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

12.

Crotty

(1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. SAGE.

13.

Darling-Hammond

Fickel

Koppich

Macdonald

Merseth

Miller

Ziechner

(2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. Jossey-Bass.

14.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S.Ct. 988 (2017).

15.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015–2016).

16.

Feiman-Nemser

(2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00141

17.

Feiman-Nemser

Tamir

Hammerness

(Eds.). (2014). Inspiring teaching: Preparing teachers to succeed in mission-driven schools. Harvard Education Press. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.188585

18.

Glaser

B. G.

(1978). Theoretical sensitivity. The Sociology Press.

19.

Grossman

Hammerness

McDonald

Ronfeldt

(2008). Constructing coherence: Structural predictors of perceptions of coherence in NYC teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108322127

20.

Grossman

Valencia

Evans

Thompson

Martin

Place

(2000). Transitions into teaching: Learning to teach writing in teacher education and beyond. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(4), 631–662.

21.

Hammerness

(2006). From coherence in theory to coherence in practice. Teachers College Record, 108(7), 1241–1265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00692.x

22.

Hammerness

Klette

(2015). Indicators of quality in teacher education: Looking at features of teacher education from an international perspective. In LeTendre

G. K.

Wiseman

A. W.

(Eds.), International Perspectives on Education and Society (Vol. 27, pp. 239–277). Emerald Group Publishing.

23.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

24.

Jones

N. D.

Bettini

Brownell

(2019). Competing strands of educational reform policy: Can collaborative school reform and teacher evaluation reform be reconciled? The Elementary School Journal, 119(3), 468–486. https://doi.org/10.1086/701706

25.

Jones

N. D.

Youngs

P. A.

Frank

(2013). The role of school-based colleagues in shaping the commitment of novice special and general education teachers. Exceptional Children, 79(3), 365–383.

26.

Kennedy

(2006). Knowledge and vision in teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 205–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285639

27.

Leko

Brownell

Sindelar

P. T.

Kiely

M. T.

(2015). Envisioning the future of special education personnel preparation in a standards-based era. Exceptional Children, 82(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915598782

28.

Mathews

H. M.

(2018). Examining opportunities to learn in special education teacher preparation [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Virginia]. https://doi.org/10.18130/V3416SZ7M

29.

Mathews

H. M.

Lillis

Bettini

E. A.

Peyton

Pua

Oblath

Jones

N. D.

Smith

Sutton

(2021). Working conditions and special educators’ reading instruction for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 87(4), 476–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402921999825

30.

Mathews

H. M.

Rodgers

J. D.

Youngs

P. A.

(2017). Sensemaking for beginning special educators: A systematic mixed studies review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.007

31.

McLaughlin

M. J.

(2010). Evolving interpretations of educational equity and students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600302

32.

McLeskey

Barringer

M.-D.

Billingsley

Brownell

Jackson

Ziegler

(2017, January). High-leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center. http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/portfolio/ccsc-2017-high-leverage-practice

33.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Collins

K. M. T.

(2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281–316. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2007.1638

34.

Pugach

M. C.

Blanton

L. P.

Mickelson

A. M.

Boveda

(2020). Curriculum theory: The missing perspective in teacher education for inclusion. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419883665

35.

Sayeski

K. L.

Bateman

D. F.

Yell

M. L.

(2019). Re-envisioning Teacher Preparation in an Era of Endrew F.: Instruction Over Access. Intervention in School and Clinic, 54(5), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451218819157

36.

Shepherd

K. G.

Fowler

McCormick

Wilson

C. L.

Morgan

(2016). The search for role clarity: Challenges and implications for special education teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(2), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406416637904

37.

Stelitano

Russell

J. L.

Bray

L. E.

(2020). Organizing for meaningful inclusion: Exploring the routines that shape student supports in secondary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 57(2), 535–575. https://doi.org/10.3102/002831219859307

38.

Sykes

Bird

Kennedy

(2010). Teacher education: Its problems and some prospects. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 464–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110375804

39.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

40.

Trainor

A. A.

Graue

(2014). Evaluating rigor in qualitative methodology and research dissemination. Remedial and Special Education, 35(5), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325q14528100

41.

Turner

J. H.

(2001). The origins of positivism: The contributions of Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer. In Smart

Ritzer

. (Eds.), Handbook of social theory (pp. 30–42). SAGE.

42.

U.S. News & World Report. (2017). Best graduate schools 2017 ( McGrath

, Ed.).

43.

Vannest

K. J.

Hagan-Burke

(2010). Teacher time use in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 31(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508327459

44.

Vygotsky

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

45.

Wasburn-Moses

(2005). Roles and responsibilities of secondary special education teachers in an age of reform. Remedial and Special Education, 26(3), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325050260030301

46.

Watkins

Slocum

T. A.

(2003). Elements of direct instruction. Journal of Direct Instruction, 3(2), 4–32.

47.

Weatherley

Lipsky

(1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171–197.

48.

Weick

K. E.

(1995). Sense-making in organizations (Vol. 3). SAGE.

49.

Weiss

M. P.

Petrin

R. A.

Farmer

T. W.

(2014). Responsibilities of special educators in rural schools: A latent class analysis. Exceptionality, 22(2), 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2013.802235

50.

Youngs

Jones

Low

(2011). How beginning special and general education elementary teachers negotiate role expectations and access professional resources. Teachers College Record, 113(7), 1506–1540.