Abstract
Preservice teacher beliefs merit additional attention from special education teacher-educators. Given current policy and reforms aimed at improving outcomes for students with disabilities and increasing the adoption of evidence-based practices, teacher-educators should recognize the barrier that preservice teacher beliefs can pose and consider beliefs as a potential contributor to the longstanding gap between research and practice in special education. Two particular belief constructs addressed in this article are (a) self-efficacy and (b) credibility for information sources. Each of these influences preservice teacher confidence, motivation, decision making, and actions in service of students with disabilities, impacting instructional decision making and treatment of children.
Keywords
There is a much-discussed and long-standing gap between research and practice in special education (Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997; Greenwood & Mabeady, 2001; McLesky & Billingsley, 2008) and a constant push to increase the adoption of evidence-based practices (EBPs) to improve outcomes for students with disabilities (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009; Cook, Landrum, Tankersley, & Kauffman, 2003; Council for Exceptional Children [CEC], n.d.; Kretlow & Blatz, 2011). Although EBPs in special education are not easily defined (CEC, n.d.), the American Psychological Association (2005) provides a simple and perhaps useful definition for their field: “evidence-based practice is the integration of the best available research with clinical expertise in the context of patient characteristics, culture, and preferences.” Although for special education the focus would be on students rather than patients, in this current policy climate, few would argue the importance of implementing EBPs, and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education’s (NCATE, 2008) recommendations for transforming teacher education advocate a grounding in clinical practice. Yet in special education practice, there is an important barrier to the adoption of EBPs that is infrequently addressed in research on EBPs and is possibly neglected in teacher education practice. Preservice teacher beliefs have a profound impact on practice as self-efficacy (Brownell & Pajares, 1999; Pajares, 1992, 1996; Viel-Ruma, Houchins, Jolivette, & Benson, 2010) and beliefs about which resources are credible (Putnam & Borko, 2000; Weiss, 1995; Willingham, 2012) motivate teachers’ actions and are foundational to decision making about which practices will be adopted.
A search of the teacher education literature in two premier teacher education journals, the Journal of Teacher Education and Special Education (TESE), a publication of the Teacher Education of the Council of Exceptional Children, and the Journal of Teacher Education (JTE): The Journal of Policy, Practice, and Research in Teacher Education, which is published in association with the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, revealed differences between the general education and special education teacher education literature for consideration of teacher beliefs in research and practice. Between October 1977 and April 2013, TESE published 11 articles that included belief in the title, and 379 articles that included this term in the full text, while during the same time period, JTE included 23 articles with belief in the title and 819 that included this term in the full text. Next, a keyword search for belief and evidence-based practice yielded three articles in JTE and 14 in TESE. In one of the three articles from JTE retrieved in this secondary search, Cochran-Smith (2006) discussed alternative perspectives on the meaning of evidence in teacher education and how these varied perspectives have influenced policy and practice. She cautions against a narrow definition of evidence, expressing concerns about empirical evidence alone as the standard. In a later article (Cochran-Smith & Boston College Evidence Team, 2009), the challenges of creating a culture of evidence in a teacher education program are described in a report on the efforts of Boston College’s reforms, using mixed methods research to document program outcomes. The conceptual framework that guided their change process covers the complexity of factors that influence teacher learning and student outcomes, including university and school cultures and individual characteristics of both teachers and pupils (Cochran-Smith & Boston College Evidence Team, 2009, p. 461). Conversely, in JTE, Fallon (2006) presented his recommendations for an increased focus on empirical data linking teacher education with student outcomes to inform policy and practice. These articles are thoughtful in considering the quality and credibility of evidence for various stakeholders.
In TESE, authors focused on several topics influenced by teacher beliefs and the evidence base, such as self-efficacy for accommodating students with challenging behaviors (Gettinger, Stoiber, & Koscik, 2008), including students on the school-to-prison pipeline (Houchins, Shippen, & Murphy, 2011; Shippen, Patterson, Green, & Smitherman, 2012) and collaborative (Brownell, Griffin, Leko, & Stephens, 2011) and interdisciplinary teacher education models (Miller & Stayton, 2006). Conderman, Johnston-Rodriguez, Hartman, and Walker (2013) focused on the perceptions held by beginning special educators regarding their teacher education experiences, and Jones (2009) examined novice special educators’ views about EBPs, including their own use of such practices. Of interest in the work by Jones (2009) is that even the teachers in her case study who espoused the use of EBPs were observed to engage in low levels of adoption in practice, demonstrating a clear disconnect between their intent and their actions. This group of studies is aligned with the special education agenda to use research to develop and promote use of EBPs to improve outcomes for teachers and their students.
Alternatively, TESE articles by Bondy and Brownell (2004) and Brownell et al. (2011) were centered on theory to make sense of the complex relationships between teacher education, teacher knowledge, teacher beliefs, and the adoption of EBPs. These authors drew on the general education teacher education literature on teacher beliefs about practice, along with theories of teacher efficacy and teacher change to develop a more collaborative approach toward narrowing the research-to-practice gap by including teachers as partners in knowledge generation (Bondy & Brownell, 2004; Brownell et al., 2011). In her article in Educational Technology Research & Development in which she discussed barriers to technology integration, Ertmer (2005) hypothesized that teacher’s pedagogical beliefs might be “the final frontier” to adoption of integrated technology practices (p. 25).
For special education, focused attention on preservice teacher beliefs might be a final frontier to surmount as well. Further consideration of the impacts of preservice teacher beliefs on practice could contribute to the narrowing of the research-to-practice gap and increase the adoption of EBPs. Although studying an amorphous construct such as beliefs may be a hard fit given the largely positivist/postpositivist orientation of the field (Klingner & Boardman, 2011; McLesky & Waldron, 2004), for the field of special education, whose strength relies on a foundation of individualization, it has always been understood that no single theory or method is relevant to all problems (Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 2010). Moreover, although qualitative research has been a less common paradigm in special education, a range of qualitative methods offer particular affordances for understanding preservice teacher beliefs and the contexts which shape them (Klingner & Boardman, 2011; McDuffie & Scruggs, 2008; Pugach, 2001; Putnam & Borko, 2000). The special education knowledge base stands to benefit from systematic investigation of preservice teacher beliefs to enable the field to support future teachers in examining deeply held beliefs about ability and practice and reconstructing those beliefs to more closely align with the evidence base in the field of special education.
This article draws on both general education and special education teacher education literature to define beliefs, including constructs of self-efficacy and beliefs about credibility of information and resources that influence teacher actions.
Definitions
Teacher beliefs about teaching may be hard to define, and definitions may be debated in the literature (Pajares, 1992). For the purposes of this article, Borg (2001), captured the complexity of beliefs, along with their relationship to knowledge and actions:
To sum up, a belief is a proposition which may be consciously or unconsciously held, is evaluative in that it is accepted as true by the individual, and is therefore imbued with emotive commitment; further, it serves as a guide to thought and behavior. (p. 186)
Furthermore, beliefs alone cannot account for teacher practices (Rich & Hannafin, 2008), and teachers experience the pull of many factors that influence their beliefs and actions and result in conflicts, contradictions, and inconsistencies between their beliefs, knowledge, and actions (Ertmer, 2005; Jones, 2009; Pajares, 1992).
Self-efficacy beliefs relate to a teacher’s expectations for how he or she will perform in a specific context, for a given task, and the outcomes anticipated for his or her own performance (Bandura, 1997; Brownell & Pajares, 1999). A form of confidence, Pajares (1996) noted, “efficacy beliefs help determine how much effort people will expend on an activity, how long they will persevere when confronting obstacles, and how resilient they will prove in the face of an adverse situation” (p. 544).
Credibility relates to sources of information in which teachers place trust and accept as reliable resources for guidance about teaching and how those beliefs influence every aspect of their decision making in the classroom. Many lines of research, including teacher socialization (Zeichner & Gore, 1990), teacher change (Rich & Hannafin, 2008), teacher decision making (Maloch et al., 2003; Torff, 2011), and information problem solving (Brand-Gruwel, Wopereis, & Vermetten, 2005; Jonassen, 2000), can provide insights into how teachers identify and view various information sources and make decisions about their trustworthiness.
Teacher beliefs may be content specific, and for special education, teacher beliefs about topics such as inclusion, whether all students are capable of learning, and about functions of challenging behavior have strong influences on actions. Beliefs about special education and students with disabilities can and do have serious implications for student outcomes, affecting teachers’ treatment of children as well as their instructional decision making (Brownell & Pajares, 1999; Cook & Cameron, 2010; Monroe, 2005; Silverman, 2007).
Considering Beliefs
Suggestions are offered for helping preservice teachers and their instructors become aware of their beliefs; such awareness can support novice teachers in becoming critical consumers of information and research and can promote self-efficacy for implementing EBPs for students with disabilities. Furthermore, awareness and opportunities to reflect on congruence and disparities between one’s individual beliefs and teacher education content can support teacher candidates in making personal heuristics overt, aiding them in revising their thinking (Shavelson & Stern, 1981). As well, teacher-educators can take preservice teachers’ beliefs about their content under advisement; as preservice teacher beliefs are revealed and examined, then instruction, readings, discussions, and activities can be provided that take their beliefs about students with disabilities into consideration.
Without spending time eliciting and evaluating preservice teachers’ beliefs, teacher-educators may misunderstand or misinterpret their students’ thinking. Not all instructional activities are of sufficient intensity or quality to influence students’ thinking. For example, in case study research conducted by the PT3 Group at Vanderbilt (2003), preservice teachers in a newly modularized mathematics education course did not change their thinking about early mathematics education. In a pretest challenge, students responded that the purpose of early mathematics education should focus on basic operations, while the instructor intended to promote the belief that early mathematics instruction should develop a much deeper understanding of numeracy and relationships between numbers. Following instruction, and at the end of the course, many of these preservice teachers had not revised their initial stance. Poststudy examination revealed that resources chosen by the instructor did not create adequate cognitive dissonance to challenge students’ thinking and help them focus on viable alternative perspectives. This, in turn, led course developers to revise materials to improve future instruction. Furthermore, while student’s thinking may change, it may not change in the ways intended by the instructor (Anderson & Bird, 1995). In Anderson and Bird’s (1995) work, preservice teacher beliefs about teaching and also about how to succeed in a college course were barriers to understanding three cases carefully selected to highlight alternative ways of teaching and introduce methods congruent with constructivist teacher reforms. In response to instruction, preservice teachers largely assimilated new information into preexisting schema of good teaching rather than reframing or broadening their ideas about what good teachers do. Just as performance data inform instruction, so should data about preservice teachers’ thinking about content and practice. Next, six suggestions are offered to support teacher-educators in better understanding their students’ beliefs about special education.
Engage in self-reflection: Teacher-educators should consider their own beliefs about their work and their goals for future teachers. Consider whether students view you as a credible resource. Often teacher-educators removed by years from classroom experiences are less powerful influences than experiences with field-based supervisors and mentors (Intrator & Kunzman, 2009). For experienced researchers and teacher-educators, how can this reality be compensated for and accommodated?
Invite preservice teacher reflection: Help students to uncover what they believe about good teaching, about themselves as teachers, and about students, including diverse learners. Make time for sufficient reflection through discussion and writing, online and face-to-face. Even if students pass tests and demonstrate requested skills, if the knowledge is not a good fit with their beliefs, EBPs will not transfer (Bransford, Lin, & Schwartz, 2005).
Create cognitive dissonance: Pose authentic problems of practice that help preservice teachers see alternative perspectives and consider multiple potential outcomes (Stuart & Thurlow, 2000). For students with disabilities, teachers’ beliefs about different kinds of fairness (Welch, 2000) and teacher acceptance or rejection of students with disabilities (Cook & Cameron, 2010) may provide interesting problem sets.
Provide opportunities for experience: To learn theory in practice and check their understandings, students need multiple opportunities across a variety of settings and scenarios to observe and evaluate EBPs. Field experiences should be well-scaffolded, and both exemplary practices and nonexamples contribute to the development of understanding (Conderman, Morin, & Stevens, 2005; NCATE, 2008). If field experience is not accessible, case study (Burden, Tinnerman, Lunce, & Runshe, 2010; Fitzgerald et al., 2011; Schrader et al., 2003) and problem-based learning (Barron et al., 1998; Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007; Ochoa, Kelly, Stuart, & Rogers-Adkinson, 2004) can provide authentic and situated practice. Theoretically sound and well-designed multimedia has excellent affordances for teacher learning (Atkins et al., 2010; Borko, Whitcomb, & Liston, 2009; Bransford, Brophy, & Williams, 2000; Clark, 2009; Jonassen, 2008; Mayer, 2009; Thomas & Rieth, 2011).
Support novices in developing expert thinking habits: Professionalization (CEC, 2003; NCATE, 2008) and enculturation (Feiman-Nemser, 2003) of novice teachers is critical. New teachers need support in developing critical judgment and becoming good consumers of the literature. Particularly in this day and age of information overload, understanding research is vital to teacher decision making about EBPs for students with disabilities (Franzoi & Ratlif-Crain, 2003; Kretlow & Blatz, 2011). Professional learning communities and professional organizations play key roles in the induction process.
Establish a professional learning community (PLC) that extends beyond the classroom and where students are welcome to return during induction: Maloch et al. (2003) report on a successful PCL in which novices were inducted into teaching by university faculty and supervisors, mentor teachers, grade-level teams, readings specialists, other new teachers, and continued contact with former peers in their program. In this PLC, the reflective and problem-solving habits learned during their program carried into their formal induction.
Promote membership in professional organizations, beginning with local and national student teaching organizations, and then, familiarize and recruit students into content and specialized organizations in their areas of future expertise. These memberships provide important professional development opportunities, including ongoing access to current research through journals, websites, and conferences as well as opportunities for awards and grants. Professional organizations support the development of a broader and richer learning community beyond the local school context. Stewart and Davis (2005) found that membership in an educational honor society promoted dispositions aligned with both local and national benchmarks for future teachers.
Help students to learn to gather and use data effectively. Teacher beliefs and actions are influenced and motivated by observable and measurable evidence of positive student outcomes (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Shavelson & Stern, 1981; Torff, 2011). Prepare future teachers to collect the specialized kinds of data that are EBPs for students with disabilities (e.g., curriculum-based measurement, progress monitoring, screening procedures, standardized testing, etc.; Woods-Groves & Hendrickson, 2012). In a study by Scott and Smith (2001), teachers who were quite confident that their intervention had closed the gap between struggling first grade readers and their peers were disappointed by reading fluency data clearly demonstrating that this was not the case. Yet the unwelcome data led to changes in their literacy instruction, including increased duration of the first grade intervention and the addition of a preventative intervention in kindergarten. Data demonstrating the efficacy of teachers’ efforts have long been known to influence both beliefs and actions (Skiba, Deno, Marston, & Casey, 1989).
Conclusion
Beliefs of all kinds tend to be tenacious and enduring (Torff, 2011), and teacher change occurs individually and at variable rates (Brownell, Adams, Sindelar, Waldron, & Vanhover, 2006, Thomas et al., 2012). For special education, belief constructs of self-efficacy for working with students with disabilities and credibility judgments that impact the adoption of EBPs are particularly salient. Although a more slippery outcome to measure, to underestimate, neglect, or dismiss the powerful influence of beliefs on preservice teacher choice, intent, and future behavior seems a lost opportunity for the field. Consideration of beliefs, given the strength of their impact on actions, should be important in special education teacher education programs, particularly for classes offered to general education preservice teachers who will work in inclusive settings (Baker, 2002; Harvey, Yssel, Bauserman, & Merbler, 2010; Maloch et al., 2003). And given substantial evidence that the teacher is the single most significant factor in student outcomes (Blanton, Pugach, & Florian, 2011; Darling-Hammond, 2000; McLesky & Billingsley, 2008), individual teacher beliefs matter. For special education, given hallmarks of the field that include individualization, implementation with fidelity, data-based decision making, and mastery of intentional and systematic manipulation of variables and intensity of intervention, the efforts to promote beliefs that align with the goals of special education for future teachers should, and have, resulted in positive change for students with disabilities (e.g., What Works Clearinghouse, http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/).
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.