edTPA: Assisting Rural Special Education Teacher Candidates to Incorporate Self-Regulation Skills in Planning and Instruction

Abstract

Forty-one states and 928 teacher preparation programs across the United States are using the Teaching Performance Assessment (edTPA) as an evaluation tool to determine teacher readiness and/or meet licensure requirements. Nationwide, pre-service special education teachers struggle to demonstrate proficiency in specific areas of the edTPA (i.e., plan assessments to monitor and support student learning, analyze teaching effectiveness, and incorporate learner feedback into future learning goals). A commonality across these areas is the incorporation of self-determination skills (e.g., self-regulation) into student learning. Assisting pre-service special education teachers to help students become more self-determined may increase these lower scores on the edTPA. More importantly, increasing self-determination is particularly important for students with disabilities in rural areas who often face challenges related to poverty, decreased opportunities for post-school employment, and underemployment due to geographic location and isolation. This article provides a description of how a special education department sought to assist pre-service special educators in embedding self-regulatory behaviors within lesson plans to better promote self-determination for their students in rural communities across eastern North Carolina.

Keywords

edTPA lesson planning self-regulation assessment teacher preparation rural special education

The Teaching Performance Assessment (edTPA, 2020; Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity [SCALE], 2013) is an evaluation designed to quantify teacher performance through a variety of activities (i.e., planning, instruction, assessment). Currently, 41 states and more than 928 teacher preparation programs use this assessment to determine licensure or program evaluation across 27 content and/or accreditation areas (e.g., exceptional children, middle grades language arts; edTPA, 2020; Pecheone et al., 2018). This standardized assessment, which was adopted by institutions of higher education (IHE) as early as fall of 2013 (SCALE, 2013), is comprised of three tasks (i.e., Planning for Instruction, Instructing and Engaging the Focus Learner, and Assessing Learning) that are evaluated using a total of 15 rigorous rubrics (five rubrics per task).

In the first task, Planning for Instruction and Assessment, teacher candidates are required to collect baseline information, develop three to five lesson plans using baseline data, and create a plan to assess student performance based on lesson objectives. In the second task, Instructing and Engaging the Focus Learner, candidates are required to video record a lesson, up to 20 min in length, as evidence of their teaching ability. The candidates are evaluated on their ability to establish a learning environment conducive to instruction while deepening student learning. Finally, in the third task, Assessing Learning, teacher candidates are required to provide student assessment data and analyze how they provided feedback to the learner. In addition, they must evaluate how they supported their student and discuss next steps for instruction.

The edTPA has a total of five rubrics per task (i.e., 15 rubrics total), with each rubric containing five levels or rating scales (e.g., Level 3 is considered proficient). Teacher candidates can earn a maximum score of 75 points. Cut scores determining whether a teacher candidate passes or fails the assessment differ from state to state and can range between 35 and 41 (Pecheone et al., 2018). On average, special education teacher candidates score 44.3 on the assessment falling in the mid-range compared with the other 27 content areas (Pecheone et al., 2018). Since the inception of the edTPA, special education teacher candidates nationally have scores lower than average on three rubrics (i.e., Rubrics 5, 10, 13; Pecheone et al., 2018). These rubrics measure a candidate’s ability to plan assessments to monitor and support student learning, analyze teaching effectiveness, and incorporate learner feedback into future learning goals (see Table 1). One commonality across these three areas is the incorporation of self-determination skills (e.g., self-regulation) into student learning to involve targeted pupils in their education programming and use this interaction as an additional data source for evidencing a candidate’s ability to provide appropriate instructional feedback.

Table 1.

edTPA Rubrics With Mean National Score.

Rubric description/number	Rubric Level 5 example	M score
Rubric 5: Planning Assessments to Monitor and Support Learning	Planned assessments (including baseline data) and the daily assessment records are aligned to all lesson objectives and provide evidence for monitoring the focus learner’s progress toward the learning goal at different points in the learning segment Assessments for the learning goal reflect appropriate levels of challenge and support in light of the focus learner’s specific strengths, needs, and lesson objectives The candidate describes plans to involve the focus learner in monitoring his or her own progress in developmentally appropriate ways	2.9
Rubric 10: Analyzing Teaching Effectiveness	Candidate proposes changes for instruction and/or planned support strategies related to the learning goal that make clear, specific connections to The strengths and needs of the focus learner and Research and/or theory Changes support the focus learner’s movement toward maintained, generalized, and/or self-directed use of knowledge and/or skills related to the learning goal	2.7
Rubric 13: Learner Understanding and Use of Feedback	Candidate describes how he or she will support the focus learner to understand and use feedback related to strengths AND needs related to the learning goal	2.7

Note. edTPA = Teaching Performance Assessment.

Self-Regulation Skills and the edTPA

Self-determination can include skills such as problem solving, making choices, and self-advocacy (Algozzine et al., 2001; Shogren et al., 2017; Wehman & Taylor, 2020). Teaching self-determination not only promotes improved academic performance, but it is also directly linked to positive postsecondary outcomes related to employment, community engagement, and independent living skills (Wehman & Taylor, 2020). Self-determination skills, also known collectively as self-regulation skills (Agran, 1997; Wehman & Taylor, 2020), specifically addressed in Rubrics 5, 10, and 13 of the edTPA are goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation. For teacher candidates to score at proficient or above in each of these rubrics, they must (a) plan for the learner to monitor his or her own academic progress while also describing what the learner will do with this information (Rubric 5); (b) describe changes that could be made to the lesson to improve maintenance, generalization, and the learner’s self-directed use of skills while supporting these changes with research or theory (Rubric 10); and (c) describe supports used to guide the learner to understand his or her strengths and weaknesses (i.e., self-evaluate; Rubric 13).

Together, goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation can aid students with disabilities in becoming more independent and taking responsibility for their own learning (i.e., self-regulation skills). Best practice in special education involves teaching such skills as they enhance both academic and functional performance for students with disabilities (Lee et al., 2009; Martin et al., 2003; Shogren, 2013). More importantly, self-regulated learning has been demonstrated to aid in student development in terms of increased quality of life (Shogren et al., 2015), which, apart from teacher candidates needing to master, is vitally important for students with disabilities (Test & Fowler, 2018).

Challenges in Teaching Self-Regulation Skills

To an extent, it is not surprising that many special education teacher candidates have struggled with incorporating self-regulation instruction in the aforementioned rubrics. Criticisms of edTPA rubrics include a lack of clear word choice within the rubrics themselves as well as minimal consideration of student learners, especially those who are learning both academic and functional curriculum (Othman et al., 2017). Furthermore, incorporating self-regulated learning to improve student independence, and as a means of useful data to improve academic outcomes, can be difficult as self-regulated learning is multidimensional.

While the literature on teaching self-regulation strategies has demonstrated its effectiveness, it has also highlighted existing gaps. For example, Martin et al. (2003) suggested that in-service teachers can have difficulty deciding how to start teaching components of self-determination (e.g., self-regulation) or may be apprehensive in adjusting their current instructional approaches (e.g., Mithaug & Mithaug, 2003; Zimmerman et al., 1996). Similarly, Othman et al. (2017) suggested that for teachers serving students with extensive support needs (e.g., multiple disabilities) and who have limited skill sets, successfully embedding self-regulation goals within the required three to five lesson plans submitted as part of the edTPA assessment can be challenging to demonstrate in such a limited time frame.

Further exacerbating these challenges; most reviews on the effects of self-determination skills have focused on specific populations (e.g., autism, learning disabilities) and these findings may not be generalized to broader groups of students, including those receiving special education in rural settings (Algozzine et al., 2001; Chou et al., 2017; Test & Fowler, 2018). If educators are apprehensive in teaching such skills or lack the training to teach these skills and researchers are still investigating applications across other disability areas, it stands to reason that there is a delay in training special educators to implement these best practices. National results from edTPA data show that special education teacher candidates are scoring below proficiency in Rubrics 5, 10, and 13, further providing some evidence that these candidates are not successfully embedding self-regulation strategies in a proficient manner to help plan, teach, and assess their target pupils.

As IHEs use edTPA data to inform programmatic changes, it becomes increasingly important to address areas where teacher candidates struggle and provide potential solutions that may lead to improved teaching outcomes (Test & Fowler, 2018). As such, the purpose of this article is to describe steps faculty members from the special education department at East Carolina University, an IHE serving rural communities across North Carolina, took to better assist special education teacher candidates in embedding self-regulation skills through a lesson plan sequence. A brief overview of self-regulation behaviors (i.e., goal setting, self-monitoring, self-evaluation), application of examples, and implications are provided.

Providing Context: edTPA and Rural Special Education

For special education teacher candidates in rural areas, there have historically been challenges related to teacher readiness and retention (Monk, 2007). Typically, rural school systems lack resources (e.g., materials, curriculum, training) and often rely on high numbers of lateral entry (i.e., qualified individuals working in classrooms while obtaining a teaching license) and emergency licensed teachers (Berry et al., 2011; Brownell et al., 2005; Hammond & Ingalls, 2003). This not only affects student performance in the K-12 setting but also potentially affects pre-service teacher performance on assessments like edTPA. These candidates may be placed in classrooms without fully licensed special educators or special educators that have little to no access to professional development due to geographic isolation. For example, Hollo et al. (2019) highlighted the harmful policies that some states have taken to combat teacher shortages. In short, many states are allowing educators who are licensed in a particular content area to take additional licensure exams to become endorsed in other content areas, described by the researchers as endorsement by exam (Hollo et al., 2019). Hypothetically, this means that someone licensed in elementary education could receive an endorsement to teach students with moderate/severe intellectual disability in high school without any coursework or experience teaching this population. While future ramifications of such policies are unknown, it is not difficult to imagine how such quick fixes could hurt special education teacher candidates who have internships in rural classrooms under the supervision of a special education teacher who has not completed a professional preparation program. As such, it is important to understand the context of rural special education classrooms as these settings face unique obstacles, not only for students with disabilities but for special education teacher candidates, that differ compared with other geographic regions (Othman et al., 2017).

Supporting Rural Special Education Teacher Candidates on Self-Regulation Instruction

Practicum and Clinical Placements

East Carolina University’s College of Education serves more than 40 rural school districts in the eastern part of the state. In addition to teacher preparation coursework, the university also provides professional development for current special educators and places the majority of our teacher candidates within those school districts for both practicum and internship experiences. To host a practicum or clinical internship, special education teachers in the region must have a teaching license in the general or adapted curriculum (i.e., curriculum for students with high incidence disabilities or curriculum for students with low incidence disabilities) and receive permission from their principal to partake in the experience. These supervising teachers typically have special education teacher candidates who initially perform observational assignments in their classrooms. During practicum experiences, all undergraduate special education teacher candidates are placed in rural schools/classrooms. A majority of the schools qualify for Title 1 funds; in one county alone, 72% of the 39 schools have Title 1 status.

To be a clinical teacher and host a 1-year internship, the special education teacher must have a minimum of 3 years teaching in special education and attend a 1-day training conducted by the university. In these placements, teacher candidates perform their final teaching experiences with a 1-day a week internship in the fall semester of their senior year and a 5-day a week internship in the subsequent spring semester. Special education candidates typically perform their internships within rural districts across eastern North Carolina but on rare occasions may seek to perform their internship in their hometown, which may or may not be considered rural. Over the past 2 years, more than 90% of special education candidates have been placed in rural internships. It is important to note that during the fall internship experience, these candidates take the edTPA, which may differ from other programs who have students complete the edTPA in their final semester as a capstone assessment.

Changes to the Curriculum

For several years, East Carolina University has participated in using edTPA as a measure for pre-service teacher candidacy readiness and most recently for teacher licensure as mandated by the state of North Carolina (edTPA, 2020). Throughout this time, faculty within the special education department have analyzed edTPA performance data to determine ways to enhance special education candidate’s preparation for teaching and to improve future pass rates. Through a combination of coursework student progress reports (i.e., clinical supervisor assessments), and evaluations of edTPA data, faculty noted candidates struggling with the incorporation and application of self-regulation skills when teaching students with disabilities. More specifically, special education candidates had difficulties planning to promote the use of self-regulation skills, deciding how they might support students to become more independent when learning content (i.e., students becoming more self-directed), and helping students make sense of data/feedback collected and provided. These difficulties align with similar issues documented by national edTPA scores (i.e., Rubrics 5, 10, 13). For instance, during the fall of 2017, special education teacher candidates (n = 42) from East Carolina University, in their senior year, scored an average of 2.8, 2.6, and 2.6 on Rubrics 5, 10, and 13, respectively. There were five failures overall and a mean edTPA score of 44.7. Moreover, progress reports from that same academic year demonstrated this cohort of candidates struggled the most with providing feedback, using multiple means to monitor student performance, and adjust instruction to improve learner outcomes.

As a result, special education faculty implemented targeted measures to better support the next cohort of special education teacher candidates (n = 28) during the spring and fall of 2018. Two methods courses, one during the Junior spring semester and the other during Senior fall semester, were selected for content revisions to enhance candidates’ understanding and use of instruction of self-regulation skills. These revisions were implemented in an effort to provide sustained engagement and feedback, embedded opportunities for active learning, and “manualized” content based on suggestions provided by Morningstar et al. (2017).

In general, faculty members embedded required readings and case studies highlighting the instruction of self-regulation skills (e.g., Lee et al., 2009). They also modified lesson plan templates to ensure candidates included student instruction of self-regulation skills and developed a self-regulation plan/checklist for the student corresponding to the revised lesson plan template. More importantly, opportunities for candidates to practice teaching these skills during rural practicum and internship placements were provided as well. The following outline provides specific steps taken to promote instruction of self-regulation skills via the self-regulation plan/checklist and revised lesson plan template for special education teacher candidates at East Carolina University.

Understanding and Embedding Self-Regulation Skills in Instruction

The first step in supporting special education teacher candidates was to increase their understanding of the following self-regulation behaviors: goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation. As a brief overview, goal setting is the process by which an individual identifies specific objectives that he or she wants to achieve. Self-monitoring is the process of an individual engaging in self-observational or recording behaviors. In other words, once an objective or goal is identified, the individual records their performance toward meeting said objective. Finally, self-evaluation is the process where the individual analyzes data collected during self-monitoring to determine whether the objective was met and whether a new objective or subtle changes to the current objective need to be made (Lee et al., 2009).

Developing the Self-Regulation Plan/Checklist

As a part of their Junior semester, special education teacher candidates used a self-regulation plan/checklist adapted from Lee et al. (2009, see Figure 1). Before using and applying this checklist, candidates had to select a target pupil they would work with for the semester on a teaching assignment that mimicked the edTPA (i.e., plan, instruct, assess). The candidates created lesson plans and had to embed self-regulation skills within these lessons. When evaluating student needs, candidates were charged with considering any unique student qualities that required altering the goal-setting/self-monitoring sheet as it related to their lessons. Depending on those needs, the process varied across candidates. For instance, goal-setting and self-monitoring sheets were adapted for students who were non-verbal, requiring a receptive mode of communication. Responses to goals and use of monitoring checklists often required pre-made cards or simpler ways to track progress on a goal (e.g., adding stickers to a bar graph during progress).

Figure 1.

Self-regulation plan/checklist.

Candidates were taught to guide their students through the goal-setting process, especially when setting goals related to academic content, and provided their students with needed supports (e.g., task directions, prompting). Some examples of goal setting included but were not limited to improving criteria, desired behaviors (e.g., time on task), or targeted academic skills (e.g., sight words). Following these conversations, candidates and students worked together to develop a plan to achieve the goal and a means for students to monitor their progress by creating a self-monitoring data sheet. This document ensured students kept track and reflected on their performance, making it critical for the self-regulation process. After creating this document, the candidate and student had a follow-up conversation and reviewed the document a final time to ensure all information necessary to measure the goal was included.

Next, both the student and teacher candidate collected data, during a specified time in the lesson (e.g., guided practice, independent practice) using the self-monitoring sheet. The student was also given an opportunity to self-evaluate following the lesson. As data were collected, the candidate and student routinely conferenced to review collected data and determine whether the goal had been met or needed to be revised. Specifically, candidates confirmed goals were clear, written in student friendly terms, ensured the self-monitoring sheet was appropriately aligned with the goal (e.g., if the goal was to follow the steps of a task analysis for solving an algebraic equation, the self-monitoring sheet needed an area to assist students in recording progress toward that goal), and provided self-evaluation opportunities to reflect on and adjust performance. Candidates were encouraged to repeat this same process during their fall Senior I semester when they took the edTPA.

Components of the checklist

The self-regulation plan/checklist (see Figure 1) included dedicated spaces for (a) identifying the subject matter, (b) defining the goal, (c) identifying the consequence for meeting the goal (i.e., reinforcer), (d) collecting data based on the selected task, and (e) opportunities to self-evaluate based on performance information. In addition, the form included a teacher comments section to highlight how the candidate used the data collected by students to inform their future instruction. Using the plan/checklist helped candidates tailor the requirements of their lessons and was initially designed for students who expressively communicated their responses (i.e., write). This was modified for students whose current communication repertoires only included receptive modes of communication (e.g., students who selected responses from provided options). What was important for special education teacher candidates to initially understand was that student response modes had to be carefully considered, assistance needed to be provided when selecting goals, and students needed to have a chance to practice collecting some data prior to instruction. For students new to this process, candidates were encouraged to provide prompts as often as needed to ensure their students understood what was expected from them. After these initial considerations, candidates could formally begin a lesson using the checklist. The steps outlined below were taken by faculty members when instructing candidates to use the self-regulation plan/checklist in conjunction with their lesson plans.

Embedding Self-Monitoring Into a Lesson Plan

Step 1: Opening the lesson

Lesson plans included an introduction or lesson plan opener, teacher instruction (e.g., modeling), guided practice, independent practice, and assessment (see Figure 2). The opener was a vital part to the lesson plan and often began with an introduction of the topic for instruction, opportunities to connect to previous learning, and provided the objective of the lesson in terms students understood. Special education teacher candidates were encouraged to embed self-regulation skills within the lesson opener. After the objective was introduced, candidates were taught to ask their students to identify the topic of study (e.g., Math, English, Social Studies), help develop a personal academic goal that was related to the objective, and help students consider a reinforcer that they wanted to work toward.

Figure 2.

Instructional lesson plan incorporating self-regulation skills.

Step 2: Monitoring performance

After students recorded their goals, they were given opportunities to monitor their performance during the lesson. Areas where candidates considered providing these opportunities came during guided or independent practice portions of the lesson. Again, the candidates were encouraged to initially prompt students as needed to monitor performance in the specified section of the lesson. Teacher candidates also verified that students were correctly entering data and provided assistance as needed.

Within the self-regulation plan/checklist, under How Am I Doing? (see Figure 1), teacher candidates could customize this section to match the targeted objective. For instance, candidates had to ensure that the targeted items taught (e.g., number of words correct, percentage of words correct) matched the trials on the monitoring sheet so a student could monitor his or her progress correctly. Implementing reinforcers (e.g., providing positive social praise, choosing a preferred activity, receiving a work break) were also considered as they motivated students through the learning process.

Communicating with parents to improve reinforcers and interests

Throughout the process, teacher candidates were highly encouraged to communicate with parents and learn what additional interests students had outside of the classroom. This information was beneficial for instruction as it allowed teacher candidates to embed additional reinforcers. For instance, one father shared with a teacher candidate that his daughter was going to prom and that they were shopping for a dress. With this information, the teacher candidate decided to use the student’s interest in shopping as a means to keep her motivated throughout a lesson and tailored reinforcers in the lesson to things associated with prom preparation (e.g., hair accessories, costume jewelry). In addition to descriptive verbal praise statements, the teacher candidate incorporated looking at prom dresses online with a peer for 10 min as an additional reinforcer. Once the student met her goal, she could print dresses she found online to take home to her father for potential purchase.

Step 3: Closure, evaluation, and reflection

The conclusion of the lesson included an opportunity for reflection about what was learned. Students reviewed their data and determined how they performed toward accomplishing their goal. Teacher candidates were taught to specifically ask students to record how they thought they did based on their goals and confirm whether or not their evaluation was accurate. If a student’s evaluation of their performance did not match a teacher candidate’s assessment, the candidate was encouraged to have a conversation with the student to discuss the discrepancy.

Evaluation of charted performance was important because it helped guide the self-evaluation process. Students were encouraged to think of ways they could improve their performance for the subsequent lesson. Moreover, it was good practice to have students keep a record of their selected goals over time. Rivera et al. (2018) found that graphing academic progress was a positive influential component for students with learning disabilities in postsecondary settings. The process allows for a visual analysis of data, providing a concrete representation of information that may be easier for students to understand. Encouraging students to set goals, collect data based off those goals, and graph those data are commonly used practices used to teach self-monitoring to students with more extensive support needs (e.g., Agran et al., 2005; Pennington & Koehler, 2017).

Step 4: Provide relevant feedback and rewrite goals if necessary

After student reflection occurred, special education teacher candidates provided relevant feedback of the lesson and helped students decide whether goals needed to be modified or kept the same. The candidates were taught to provide explicit feedback and discuss student strengths and areas for improvement. Feedback reflected academic or behavioral progress that the student demonstrated during the lesson. An important role of the candidate was to give feedback in a positive manner while supporting the student’s understanding of how he or she could improve.

Step 5: Start a new lesson and repeat

At the commencement of a new lesson, the previous work that took place using the goal setting/self-monitoring checklist became part of helping the student connect to previous learning and act as a mechanism to open the new lesson. As teacher candidates introduced a new lesson, a review of the previous checklist and goals occurred. In addition, strengths and areas of improvement were discussed to aid in continued academic and personal growth throughout the lesson.

Conclusion

The cohort of Juniors (n = 28) completed their edTPA during the fall of 2018 as first semester Seniors. This group only had two failures and scored an average of 3.09, 2.72, and 2.87 on Rubrics 5, 10, and 13, respectively, while scoring a mean of 48 on the edTPA. Compared with the previous cohort (n = 42), there was an improvement in overall mean scores on the assessment and across Rubrics 5, 10, and 13. Moreover, there were fewer failures compared with the previous cohort (n = 5). Based on these scores, future changes to the curriculum may involve earlier introduction and applied practice of self-regulation instruction during the sophomore year. Although there were improvements between cohorts, it is important to note that differences in scores may have been attributed to variations in cohort abilities. Thus, experimental evaluation is warranted, especially if IHEs continue using these data to improve teacher outcomes and to further support educators in helping meet the diverse needs of students in rural communities. The steps provided and materials illustrated were simple modifications in one undergraduate curriculum that positively affected the quality of lessons planned, taught, and submitted for the edTPA. Although results were positive, IHEs like East Carolina University need to take further steps to evaluate how these changes affect teacher readiness, as well as academic and functional outcomes for students with disabilities, to further improve training for in-service teachers across various settings.

Embedding self-regulation skills within an instructional plan is beneficial for students with disabilities as it promotes improved academic, functional, postsecondary, and social outcomes (Algozzine et al., 2001; Lee et al., 2009; Martin et al., 2003; Rivera et al., 2018; Shogren et al., 2015). It may also be of greater benefit to students with disabilities in rural areas as these students often experience challenges related to poverty, decreased opportunities for employment, and underemployment due to geographic location and isolation (Test & Fowler, 2018). As such, it becomes important for IHEs in rural areas to ensure they adequately and continually identify ways to improve candidates’ performance, particularly in rural settings where students with disabilities struggle the most. Not only should IHEs be concerned with teacher outcomes, but they should also be concerned with how these outcomes affect students in public schools across the nation.

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

Christopher J. Rivera

References

Agran

(1997). Student directed learning: Teaching self-determination skills. Brooks/Cole.

Agran

Sinclair

Alper

Cavin

Wehmeyer

Hughes

(2005). Using self-monitoring to increase following-direction skills of students with moderate to severe disabilities in general education. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 3–13.

Algozzine

Browder

Karvonen

Test

D. W.

Wood

W. M.

(2001). Effects of interventions to promote self-determination for individuals with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 71, 219–277.

Berry

A. B.

Petrin

R. A.

Gravelle

M. L.

Farmer

T. W.

(2011). Issues in special education teacher recruitment, retention, and professional development: Considerations in supporting rural teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051103000402

Brownell

M. T.

Bishop

A. M.

Sindelar

P. T.

(2005). NCLB and the demand for highly qualified teachers: Challenges and solutions for rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687050502400103

Chou

Y. C.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Lee

(2017). Comparisons of self-determination among students with autism, intellectual disability, and learning disabilities: A multivariate analysis. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 32, 124–132.

edTPA. (2020, April). Participation map. https://edtpa.aacte.org/state-policy

Hammond

Ingalls

(2003). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion: Survey results from elementary school teachers in three southwestern rural school districts. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 22, 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687050302200204

Hollo

Floyd

K. K.

Brigandi

C. B.

(2019). Endorsement by exam: Policy and practice in rural special education. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 38, 177–184.

10.

Lee

S. H.

Palmer

S. B.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2009). Goal setting and self-monitoring for students with disabilities: Practical tips and ideas for teachers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 139–145.

11.

Martin

J. E.

Mithaug

D. E.

Cox

Peterson

L. Y.

Van Dycke

J. L.

Cash

M. E.

(2003). Increasing self-determination: Teaching students to plan, work, evaluate, and adjust. Exceptional Children, 69, 431–446.

12.

Mithaug

D. K.

Mithaug

D. E.

(2003). Effects of teacher-directed versus student-directed instruction on self-management of young children with disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 133–136.

13.

Monk

D. H.

(2007). Recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in rural areas. The Future of Children, 17, 155–174.

14.

Morningstar

M. E.

Clark

Holzberg

D. G.

(2017). Professional development for transition: Annotated bibliography. http://transitionta.org/system/files/effectivepractices/AB_PD_2017.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=1227&force

15.

Othman

L. B.

Robinson

Molfenter

N. F.

(2017). Emerging issues with consequential use of the edTPA: Overall and through a special education lens. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40, 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417718251

16.

Pecheone

R. L.

Whittaker

Klesch

. (2018, September). Educative Assessment & Meaningful Support: edTPA Administrative Report, 2017. https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=4271&ref=edtpa

17.

Pennington

Koehler

(2017). Effects of modeling, story templates, and self-graphing in the use of story elements by students with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 52, 280–290.

18.

Rivera

C. J.

Wood

C. L.

James

Williams

(2018). Improving study outcomes for college students with executive functioning challenges. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143418758256

19.

Shogren

K. A.

(2013). A social-ecological analysis of the self-determination literature. Mental Retardation, 51, 496–511.

20.

Shogren

K. A.

Lee

Panko

(2017). An examination of the relationship between postschool outcomes and autonomy, psychological empowerment, and self-realization. The Journal of Special Education, 51, 115–124.

21.

Shogren

K. A.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Rifenbark

G. G.

Little

T. D.

(2015). Relationships between self-determination and postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 48, 256–267.

22.

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity. (2013). edTPA field test: Summary report.

23.

Test

D. W.

Fowler

C. H.

(2018). A look at the past, present, and future of rural secondary transition. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 37, 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517751607

24.

Wehman

Taylor

J. P.

(2020). Functional curriculum design. In Wehman

Kregel

(Eds.), Functional curriculum for elementary and secondary students with special needs (pp. 9–10). Pro-Ed.

25.

Zimmerman

B. J.

Bonner

Kovach

(1996). Psychology in the classroom: A series on applied educational psychology. Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. American Psychological Association.