Exploring the role of professional development on secondary special educators self-efficacy and use of evidence-based transition practices

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Past research has suggested that secondary special educators enter the profession with limited knowledge and skills to provide effective evidence-based transition practices (EBTPs) to students with disabilities. Professional development (PD) is known to be one pathway to expand teachers’ knowledge and delivery of evidence-based transition practices, yet minimal research exists investigating what PD activities are most effective at increasing teachers’ use of EBTPs.

OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this study was to determine how transition specific PD influenced secondary special educators’ knowledge and perceived self-efficacy regarding the use of EBTPs in their classrooms to support students with disabilities.

METHODS:

A correlational research design was used to investigate teacher self-efficacy to deliver EBTPs when the amount, type, and location of PD are factors. Descriptive statistics, an analysis of variance (ANOVA), and a multiple linear regression analysis were performed.

RESULTS:

The amount of PD offered had a significant effect on teachers’ perceived efficacy compared to the location and type of professional development received. Further, the results of teachers’ perceived effectiveness, changes made as a result of PD, and other factors related to PD are reported.

CONCLUSIONS:

After receiving PD, teachers were more likely to make changes in their classroom that, in turn, affected their self-efficacy and effectiveness to deliver EBTPs to support students with disabilities. Implications for teacher professional development research, practice, and policy are also discussed.

Keywords

Transition evidence-based practices professional development survey

1 Introduction

Transition planning and delivering evidence-based transition practices (EBTP) is critical in preparing students with disabilities (SWDs) to be successful and engaged adults. However, transition following high school remains difficult for many youth with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 2017). Although researchers have led efforts to improve transition outcomes (e.g., Lipscomb et al., 2017; Shogren & Whittenburg, 2020), access to postsecondary education, low employment rates, and low employment wages remains a significant concern for SWDs (Bouck & Joshi, 2012; Freeman & Simonsen, 2015; Grigal et al., 2011; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018). One way to address this concern is preparing teachers of SWDs to use EBTPs that have been linked to influencing SWDs post-school success (Carson et al., 2019; Test et al., 2009; Wehman, 2013). In general, potential concerns in research indicate that special education teachers lack the transition competencies to effectively implement and deliver EBTSs (Benitez et al., 2009; Morningstar & Clark, 2003; Ruppar et al., 2016). Thus, suggesting that special educators enter the field lacking the knowledge and skills to effectively deliver practices that will help reverse some of the poor transition outcomes experienced by SWDs.

1.1 Evidence-based transition practices

Teachers’ knowledge of transition is critical to improving student outcomes. Kohler et al. (2016) developed a framework, Taxonomy for Transition 2.0, that promotes evidence-based practices across five primary practice categories to ensure successful transition outcomes for students with disabilities. Kohler’s original framework (1996) was developed based on the use of concrete practices and effective programs; yet, the framework has since been updated to include the most recent literature on predictors of post-school success. These include strategies to increase the graduation rates and reduce dropout, enhance school climate, and increase vocational rehabilitation services focused on fostering successful transition of youth with disabilities in college and careers” (Kohler, 2016, p. 2). The framework is divided into five categories based upon literature and research (Test et al., 2009) in the field of secondary special education: (a) student-focused planning, (b) student development, (c) interagency collaboration, (d) family engagement, and (e) program structure. Across these five categories, studies in the field of special education have measured how secondary special educators use evidence-based practices in their classrooms and/or their knowledge of transition services for students with disabilities, including collaborating with related agencies and stakeholders. This research has investigated pre-service teacher training and how teachers’ skills are developed across the different areas of transition.

1.1.1 Teachers use of EBTPs

Researchers have described that teachers value the use of EBTP and view them as important but receive limited training in these areas (Mazzotti & Plotner, 2016). Researchers also found that teachers are entering the field lacking knowledge of transition competencies, and personnel preparation programs were not preparing teachers to deliver effective transition services to students (Benitez et al., 2009). In 2013, Morningstar and Benitez expanded on these findings by evaluating teachers’ preparation to teach transition. Results indicated that personnel preparation programs rarely offered transition-specific courses, and teachers’ use of transition practices were often influenced by completing transition courses, or professional development (PD) opportunities during practice. Similarly, Plotner and colleagues (2015) investigated factors that influence teachers’ use of effective practices for transition found that most teachers never received training on EBTP, nor gained the needed knowledge from their pre-service preparation programs. Thus, further investigation is necessary to investigate how teachers gain knowledge and skills to deliver EBTPs. One way to investigate this phenomenon is to understand the impact of PD on teachers’ knowledge and use of EBPTs.

1.2 Professional development

PD is one pathway to expand teachers’ knowledge of delivering EBTPs. Research has shown that PD opportunities increase teacher knowledge and practice and improves student outcomes (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; DeMonte, 2013; Yang et al., 2018). There are a variety of types of PDs used across the field of education. The different types of PD offered can include trainings, observations, professional learning communities, coaching, and mentoring. However, it is found that PD is most effective when it specifically relates to teachers interests, meaningful to their practice, collaborative, and occurs over time using feedback and continuous training (Leko & Brownell, 2009). However, teachers have reported greater change in their practice by using a combination of these professional practices rather than just using one session or a single approach (Andersson & Palm, 2017; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). When teachers engage in PDs, it increases their content knowledge and classroom pedagogy, promoting student learning and increasing outcomes (Blank & De Las Alas, 2009; Gersten et al., 2014; Rotermund et al., 2017).

1.2.1 Professional development in special education

For special educators, PD across content areas and classroom management techniques are critical. Past studies have identified that most special educators possess strong classroom management skills and lack content knowledge (Bishop et al., 2010; Brownell et al., 2009; Sweigert & Collins, 2017). Sindelar et al. (2010) mentioned that for PD to be effective, teachers’ knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions must be developed. Research has identified many different practices for effective PD, including the use of coaching, modeling, role-play, discussions (Brock & Carter, 2013), direct instruction (Desimone, 2009), or multiple forms (i.e., whole group followed by coaching and evaluation; Garet et al., 2001). Further, for PD to be effective, it must also be ongoing (Zhang et al., 2011). Further, when the PD focuses on specific content related areas, it has the most significant influence on practice (Yoon et al., 2007). For example, middle and high school special educators and other transition professionals rarely received transition specific PD, and teachers reported having to seek out their very own resources to implement EBTP (Mazzotti & Plotner, 2016; Plotner et al., 2016). Few studies have focused on offering PD for EBTP; yet those that did found that direct instruction (Scott et al., 2019), content-specific training (Doren et al., 2012; Flannery et al., 2015), and use of online training (i.e., webinars, YouTube presentations) increased teachers knowledge related to transition (Inge et al., 2016).

1.3 Theoretical framework for teacher effectiveness through professional development

Teacher effectiveness is how teachers use specific teaching practices, define tasks, and determine success by solving problems and challenges that may be faced (Bray-Clark & Bates, 2003). More specifically, the way teachers are self-organized, self-reflective, and self-regulate supports the idea that self-efficacy is a part of teacher effectiveness (Bray-Clark & Bates, 2003). Further, teacher effectiveness has been defined as teachers’ abilities to use research-based practices and implement instruction to enhance and sustain student performance (Becenti, 2009). Teacher effectiveness can be influenced by teachers’ self-efficacy, which impacts student learning and could predict behavioral responses (Campbell et al., 2003; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014). Bandura (1989) defined self-efficacy as an individual’s belief in his/her capacity to perform the behaviors necessary to produce specific performance attainments.

Thus, teachers need to have a higher sense of self-efficacy to deliver effective instruction to students. Research indicates that when self-efficacy is low, teachers’ performances are low, and they are less likely to provide effective instruction to their students (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009). Nevertheless, when teachers perceived knowledge increased, or they felt confident in these areas, they had increased self-efficacy. Based on the literature surrounding PD, it is evident that effective PD can positively influence teachers’ knowledge and use of EBTP. Therefore, based on what is known about effective PD practices, teachers can enhance their skills and knowledge by receiving instruction in specific EBTP areas. However, few studies have investigated how secondary special educators receive PD to improve their transition practices. Thus, a study of current special education practitioners was needed to better understand what types of PD teachers attended, which they found to be most effective, and how the PD improved their knowledge and skills around transition, including how they could apply what they learned to their classrooms.

Past research has investigated the use of PDs on developing postsecondary goals (Doren et al., 2012), transition-related components of the IEP (Flannery et al., 2015), and the effectiveness of online training (Kim & Morningstar, 2007). However, research has not specifically investigated what PD activities special educators attended, what they learned (related to EBTP), and what they perceived as effective transition-related PD. By better understanding these areas, states, and districts can better focus their PD requirements to meet teachers’ specific needs by using content-focused instruction that is also job-specific, incorporates ongoing PD opportunities (i.e., coaching and mentoring), and involves collaboration among all educators (Desimone, 2009). Therefore, this study sought to explore the relation between transition specific PD and how it may impact secondary special educators’ knowledge and self-efficacy surrounding the use of EBTP. In this study, we focus on examining the teachers’ perceived efficacy and the extent to which they felt PD increased their knowledge and skills to effectively provide EBTP to SWDs and the extent to which change was made in their classrooms. The following research questions guided this study:

Research question 1: What types of professional development activities do secondary special educators’ access to improve their knowledge and skills around delivering evidence-based transition practices for students with disabilities?

Research question 2: Is there a relationship between the level of perceived self-efficacy surrounding transition and the types of PD training received?

Research question 3: Is there a difference in the level of perceived self-efficacy related to the use of EBTP and the amount of PD among secondary special education teachers?

Research question 4: Is there a difference in the level of perceived self-efficacy regarding the use of EBTP based on where teachers receive PD?

Research question 5: Does the PD type, amount of PD, and where teachers receive PD collectively better predict self-efficacy for secondary teachers than one single variable alone?

2 Methodology

We use a correlational research design utilizing a cross-sectional survey to identify the ways secondary special education teachers were accessing PD for EBTP and to evaluate how PD influences their perceived self-efficacy. Specifically, we used a modified version of the Teacher Activity Survey to collect data to examine participants’ use of PD for EBTPs. Independent variables measured in this study included: (a) amount of PD received; (b) type of PD teachers participated in, and (c) location of PD. These were measured using continuous and categorical scales. The dependent variable was the teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and effectiveness. Means and standard deviations are calculated for each variable. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and multiple linear regression is also used to answer the research questions.

2.1 Participants

Participants of this study included secondary special educators from 9 different states. Participants were recruited directly through the Division on Career Development and Transition (DCDT), a national organization focused on improving the quality of and access to career/vocational and transition services for people with disabilities and connect research and practice to enhance the field of transition. The organization includes over 1200 transition professionals, including researchers, doctoral students, self-advocates, parents/guardians, teachers, transition specialists, job coaches. Eligibility criteria required that the participant be a special educator for grades six through 12 in either a private or public-school setting, as transition planning may begin as early as middle school for students with disabilities. An e-mail including the survey was sent to a total of 7,502 DCDT participants, opened by 1,579 (29%), and accessed by 240 (15.2%). Of those that clicked on the survey, 37 surveys were completed (15.4%).

2.2 The Teacher Activity Survey

The measure used to collect the data was a modified version of the Teacher Activity Survey (Garet et al., 1999). The original Teacher Activity Survey was created to have teachers describe how PD has changed their instruction and has been found valid and reliable (Garet et al., 1999). The survey creators used past research and literature to identify what represented “high-quality PD” based on these areas. The measure is comprised of specific categories including collective participation (α= 0.35), content focus, active learning (α= 0.84), coherence (α= 0.71), enhanced knowledge and skills (α= 0.78), and changes in teaching practice (α= 0.87) with added competencies relating to EBTP and measures of self-efficacy. The original measure utilized 45 questions, explicitly investigating the increased knowledge surrounding mathematics and science.

2.2.1 Teacher Activity Survey for Transition

We refer to the modified version of the Teacher Activity Survey as the Teacher Activity Survey for Transition (TAST). In this version of the survey, we added questions to collect demographic information such as (a) school setting (rural, suburban, urban), (b) number of years teaching, (c) disability category taught, (d) grade level(s) of students, (e) type of classroom (inclusion, self—contained, private day setting, resource, etc.). We also modified the measure to include competencies relating to EBTPs and measures of self-efficacy. Questions were added and/or changed to include language related to transition and measuring teacher self-efficacy based on the 32 EBTPs identified by Test and colleagues in 2009. Questions focused on teacher self-efficacy used words such as “knowledge and skills have been enhanced” or “I have made a change in . . . ” While the original survey was created to measure teachers’ knowledge of mathematics skills, specific questions were changed to focus on the EBTPs. For instance, questions asking about the focus of the PD activity or teachers’ confidence to perform specific math activities were changed to reflect EBTPs, and teachers’ self-efficacy focused on PD around EBTP.

The final survey consisted of a total of 82 total questions. Section one asked participants to answer nine questions related to demographic information, followed by 42 questions related to the professional development activity in section two. Of the 42 questions, two were open-ended questions, seven select all that apply questions, eight multiple-choice questions, and 25 questions, which utilized Likert-type rating scales. First, 20 questions using a 3-point Likert Scale (i.e., collective participation; 1 = no emphasis to 3 = major emphasis) was used to evaluate the amount of focus given to each topic based on PD that was identified as most effective. Five questions using a 5-point Likert Scale then focused on the extent to which the overall PD and topics were (a) consistent with teachers goals; (b) based on prior knowledge; (c) followed up with specific activities; (d) designed to support federal and state policies, and (e) designed to support school and district assessments and initiatives (i.e., coherence; 1 = not at all to 5 = great extent). Section three included a total of 31 questions. Twenty questions included in section three used a 5-point Likert Scale (1 = I can do very little to 5 = I can definitely do) and were used to evaluate teachers’ self-efficacy related to their use of EBTPs. Next, one multiple choice question was used from the original measure (i.e., Have you attempted to introduce changes in your teaching because of your participation in professional development activities?) followed by ten questions which used a 4-point Likert Scale to evaluate teachers enhanced knowledge and skills related to EBTPs and in what areas change was made (1 = no change to 4 = significant change).

2.3 Data collection and analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM Statistical Pack for the Social Science (SPSS) Statistics 24. The first step in data analysis was to analyze the descriptive information from the demographic data, including the number of participants in the survey, response rate, and participants’ characteristics. Descriptive statistics were run on the independent (PD), and dependent variables (self-efficacy related to transition) used to determine means and standard deviations. Based on the research questions, the following types of analyses were used: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Multiple Linear Regression.

3 Results

3.1 Demographic data

Demographic data were collected on survey questions 1–10 of the TAST instrument. Data were analyzed according to gender, the number of years teaching, professional role, highest degree obtained, setting, classroom setting, grade levels, and state. Results showed the largest representation of participants in the study were teachers who taught in a self-contained classroom. Most of the teachers taught students with Emotional Disturbance (n = 29) followed by students with Intellectual Disability (n = 28) and/or Autism Spectrum Disorder (n = 25). However, all 13 of the IDEA disability categories are represented. Seventeen percent of the 50 states were represented, with the largest population of participants coming from Virginia (n = 12). Overall, the majority of the teachers had over ten years of teaching experience. The participant characteristic results are in Table 1. Frequencies and percentages were calculated to determine these demographic characteristics.

Table 1
Demographic data

Characteristic Frequency Percentage

Gender

Female 34 91.8

Male 3 8.1

Years teaching

1–5 years 6 16.2

6–10 years 7 18.9

10 + years 24 64.8

Professional role

Special educator (grades 6–12) 26 70.2

Transition coordinator 8 21.6

Job coach 3 8.1

Highest degree

Bachelor’s degree 4 10.8

Master’s degree 27 72.9

Doctoral degree 4 10.8

Professional certification in transition 4 10.8

Setting

Rural 13 35.1

Suburban 15 40.5

Urban 9 24.3

Classroom setting

Inclusion in the general education classroom 7 18.9

Self-contained special education classroom 15 40.5

Resource classroom 5 13.5

Consulting services 10 27.0

Characteristic	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Female	34	91.8
Male	3	8.1
Years teaching
1–5 years	6	16.2
6–10 years	7	18.9
10 + years	24	64.8
Professional role
Special educator (grades 6–12)	26	70.2
Transition coordinator	8	21.6
Job coach	3	8.1
Highest degree
Bachelor’s degree	4	10.8
Master’s degree	27	72.9
Doctoral degree	4	10.8
Professional certification in transition	4	10.8
Setting
Rural	13	35.1
Suburban	15	40.5
Urban	9	24.3
Classroom setting
Inclusion in the general education classroom	7	18.9
Self-contained special education classroom	15	40.5
Resource classroom	5	13.5
Consulting services	10	27.0

Table 1 analyses show that a majority of the participants were female (91.8%), had ten or more years of teaching experience (64.8%), and were secondary special educators in grades 6–12 (70.2%). The majority of participants (n = 27) received a Master’s degree, and many (40.5%) of the participants taught in self-contained special education classrooms, where students are taught a majority of the day. About a quarter of participants (25.6%) reported providing transition specific consulting services in the general education classroom. Finally, many teachers reported that they taught across grade levels with eight teachers reporting teaching across grades 6–12; three reporting grades six through eight; and 15 reporting grades nine through 12. Others reported providing services to “postgraduates” or teaching in just sixth or 12th grades (31.7%).

3.2 Teacher sense of self-efficacy

Participants rated their degree of confidence to perform the EBTP using a scale of one through five. Means and standard deviations were calculated for the different EBTP domains based on teacher effectiveness and are presented in Table 2; sub-scales using the Taxonomy for Transition Programming 2.0 framework (Kohler, Gothberg, Fowler, & Coyle, 2016), specify how evidence-based practices are grouped. Reliability analysis was carried out for each subscale to measure internal consistency (i.e., how closely related a set of items are as a group) and reported acceptable (0.7≤α< 0.8), good 0.8≤α< 0.9) and excellent (0.9≤α) reliability in each area. Teacher perceived effectiveness was measured using the survey results and grouping the variables into one measurable variable to get an effectiveness score for each participant. The participants’ total self-efficacy score in Table 2 is the group mean and standard deviation.

Table 2
Teacher sense of self efficacy

Evidence-Based Transition Practice M SD

Student focused planning 4.32 0.75

Develop IEP goals and objectives 4.50 0.893

Provide a program focused on individuals needs 4.26 0.891

Involve students in IEP meetings 4.18 1.06

Student development 4.21 0.79

Teach students functional life skills 4.39 0.916

Teach students self-determination skills 4.39 0.823

Teach students functional academic skills 4.37 0.883

Teach students job-specific employment skills 4.29 0.956

Teach students leisure skills 4.13 1.02

Provide social skills training 4.11 1.03

Teach students communication skills 4.08 1.024

Teach students academic skills 4 1.05

Program structure 4.07 0.84

Understand the IDEA requirements for transition 4.42 0.79

Provide community-based instruction 4.13 1.14

Evaluate the transition program for development and improvement 4.05 1.11

Utilize formative and data-driven evidence to make decisions 3.95 0.94

Understand different models of transition programs and practices 3.92 0.941

Implement the use of evidence-based practices 3.92 1.08

Family engagement 4.14 0.86

Teach parents and families about transition 4.16 1.00

Know and use strategies to include the family in the transition process 4.13 0.91

Interagency collaboration

Work with students, parents, educators, service providers, community agencies, postsecondary schools, employers and/or other stakeholders 4.47 0.98

Total self efficacy score of participants 4.19 0.73

Evidence-Based Transition Practice	M	SD
Student focused planning	4.32	0.75
Develop IEP goals and objectives	4.50	0.893
Provide a program focused on individuals needs	4.26	0.891
Involve students in IEP meetings	4.18	1.06
Student development	4.21	0.79
Teach students functional life skills	4.39	0.916
Teach students self-determination skills	4.39	0.823
Teach students functional academic skills	4.37	0.883
Teach students job-specific employment skills	4.29	0.956
Teach students leisure skills	4.13	1.02
Provide social skills training	4.11	1.03
Teach students communication skills	4.08	1.024
Teach students academic skills	4	1.05
Program structure	4.07	0.84
Understand the IDEA requirements for transition	4.42	0.79
Provide community-based instruction	4.13	1.14
Evaluate the transition program for development and improvement	4.05	1.11
Utilize formative and data-driven evidence to make decisions	3.95	0.94
Understand different models of transition programs and practices	3.92	0.941
Implement the use of evidence-based practices	3.92	1.08
Family engagement	4.14	0.86
Teach parents and families about transition	4.16	1.00
Know and use strategies to include the family in the transition process	4.13	0.91
Interagency collaboration
Work with students, parents, educators, service providers, community agencies, postsecondary schools, employers and/or other stakeholders	4.47	0.98
Total self efficacy score of participants	4.19	0.73

Note. Scale was 1–5 with 1 = I cannot do at all to 5 = I definitely can do. M = Mean, and SD = Standard Deviation.

3.3 Research question 1

Most participants participated in college courses followed by in- or out-of-district workshops. Also, most teachers listened to a lecture (n = 27, 75%), and/or participated in whole-group or small group discussions (n = 25, 69.4%). The types of PD activities receiving the lowest engagement scores were networking with peers (n = 1, 2.8%) leading whole (n = 5, 13.9%) or small group (n = 7, 19.4%) discussions and demonstrating a lesson (n = 7, 19.4%). Teachers were allowed to select multiple activities they engaged in, so most participants selected more than one option indicating a variety of activities throughout the PD. See Table 3.

Table 3
Participation in professional development

Type of professional development Frequency Percentage

In-district workshop or institute 7 19

College course 8 21

Out-of-district workshop or institute 4 11

Teacher collaborative or network 1 5

Out-of-district conference 7 19

Mentor/coach/lead teacher/observer 4 11

Teacher committee or task force 3 8

Independent study (obtain information on your own) 2 6

Type of professional development	Frequency	Percentage
In-district workshop or institute	7	19
College course	8	21
Out-of-district workshop or institute	4	11
Teacher collaborative or network	1	5
Out-of-district conference	7	19
Mentor/coach/lead teacher/observer	4	11
Teacher committee or task force	3	8
Independent study (obtain information on your own)	2	6

3.4 Research question 2

An ANOVA was conducted to determine the relationship between teachers’ level of perceived self-efficacy and the types of PD training they received. The independent variable was the type of professional training received (i.e., participation in an in-district workshop, college course, conference, etc.). Results of a one-way ANOVA suggest there was no significant relationship between the types of PD received and teachers’ perceived effectiveness, F(7, 26) = 0.588, p = 0.759, η2 = 0.14. Suggesting the hypothesis that there is a difference in the level of perceived self-efficacy and type of PDs should be rejected with 99.9%confidence, indicating there is no relationship between type and self-efficacy.

3.5 Research question 3

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine the difference between the amount of PD and the mean scores of perceived self-efficacy. The independent variable was the amount of PD (i.e., how many and how long), and the dependent variable was the self-efficacy effectiveness measure. To evaluate the amount of PD received, participants responded to an open-ended question asking them to identify how many professional development activities they participated in focused on the use of EBTPs for students with disabilities. Next, a multiple-choice question asked participants to identify the length of time for the PD activity/activities (i.e., less than one day, one day, two-four days, a week, a month, more than a month, or not applicable). Participants indicated they participated in 0 –25 PD activities focused on the use of EBTPs in transition. Results of a one-way ANOVA suggest there was a significant relationship between how many PDs were received and teachers’ self-efficacy, F(9, 23) = 2.39, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.48. Findings suggest that the hypothesis, there is a difference in the level of perceived self-efficacy and how many PDs are received can be retained with 99.9%confidence. Another one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine the difference between the number of hours of PD offered and teacher effectiveness. Results of a one-way ANOVA suggest that there was a significant relationship between how many hours teachers were engaged in transition specific PD activities and teachers’ effectiveness, F(11, 23) = 2.92, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.72. This suggests there is a difference in the level of perceived self-efficacy and how many hours teachers receive PD can be retained with 99.9%confidence.

3.6 Research question 4

We conducted a one-way ANOVA to compare the mean scores of teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and where PD was offered. The independent variable was where teachers received PD (i.e., online, in-person, or hybrid), and the dependent variable was the effectiveness measure. Results of a one-way ANOVA suggest that there was no significant relationship between where teachers received the PD and the perceived teachers’ effectiveness, F(2, 30) = 1.221, p = 0.309, η2 = 13. Results suggest that the hypothesis that there is a difference in level perceived self-efficacy and type of PD can be rejected with 99.9%confidence, indicating the null hypothesis is true. A post hoc analysis was conducted to examine differences between specific groups further and found no significant differences.

3.7 Research question 5

Multiple linear regression as conducted to determine if the independent variables amount, type, and location of PD collectively predict higher perceived self-efficacy for secondary special educators. The population model that was used was y = b₀ + b₁x₁ + b₂x₂ + b₃x₃ +ɛ. The outcome, the values for each predictor, and the y-intercept (effectiveness) are the partial regression coefficients as they estimated after controlling for the other predictors in the model.

Results suggest a positive and significant (t = 2.93, p < 0.05, n = 37) relationship between the amount PD received and the teachers perceived effectiveness score after controlling for the type of PD and the location of the PD. The model indicated a non-significant relationship between PD type (t = 0.336, p = 0.727, n = 37) and teachers’ perceived effectiveness score after controlling for the amount and location of PD. There was also a non-significant relationship between the PD (t = –0.804, p = 0.429, n = 37) and teacher effectiveness score after controlling for the amount and type of PD received. Finally, the average teacher effectiveness score is 4.12 out of 5 when teachers receive no PD, indicating they feel they can do quite a bit when implementing EBTPs. This model corresponds to an Adjusted R square value of 0.168, with one significant predictor being the amount of PD received. This one predictor explained 16.8%of the variance of the data. The strongest predictor was Amount (β= 0.501), followed by Type (β= 0.063), and Location (β= –0.140). The F-value of 2.958 (p < 0.05) suggests that the model has some significant predictive power compared to the sample mean. It is most likely that predictive power comes from the amount of PD variable.

4 Discussion

Analyses of the survey data suggest that if teachers received PD, they were more likely to make changes in their classroom that, in turn, affected their self-efficacy and effectiveness to deliver EBTPs to support SWDs. While there were no significant findings based on location and type of PD, the amount of PD received was significant. Findings also revealed that more focused PD opportunities (i.e., PD training based on specific skill areas/topics) had the most influence on the change in the classrooms. However, it is concerning that the PD activities considered in the literature (e.g., coaching, mentoring, and providing feedback) had the lowest scores. Therefore, future uses of these strategies in the context of this study should explore the reasons why these teachers rated those experiences lower.

Based on the correlational analysis, the teachers in this study can make changes and feel confident in making changes in their classrooms after receiving PD (r = 0.531, p < 0.01). Therefore, one could consider that the changes made after receiving PD training were related to teacher effectiveness to provide the EBTP; evidenced by the fact that when analyzing the correlation between the emphasis of the PDs versus change, there was also a significant positive correlation (r = 0.594, p < 0.01), indicating that when more emphasis was given, more change was likely to be made. This finding is consistent with the literature showing the content-specific instruction (Leko & Brownell, 2009) is effective in PD.

However, simply providing one or two PD workshops in this area is concerning. While teachers’ scores for efficacy were higher, this could be attributed to the fact that many of the teachers had more years of experience. When comparing means, those with more than ten years of teaching experience had the highest rating for effectiveness (M = 4.36) compared to those with one to five years of teaching experience (M = 3.72). Therefore, further research of pre-service and/or beginning in-service teachers would be important to investigate to understand better what areas need to be focused on specific to transition. There was a strong positive relationship between the number of PD activities and teacher effectiveness, suggesting that when teachers are engaged in multiple effective PD activities that provide a focus on transition, they are more likely to make changes to their instructional practices.

4.1 Limitations

This study was based on self-reported data and had limitations. These limitations should be considered when interpreting the data and findings. First, the response rate of those who opened (but may not have completed) the survey was low (15.8%). This low response rate could be due to the timing when the survey was sent out. With the target participants being secondary special educators, and the survey being disseminated in late June, teachers may not be actively checking their e-mail (multiple attempts were made to increase the number of participants). Another limitation, typical in self-efficacy studies, was the reliance on self-reported data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). While participants were asked to rate their confidence level in providing EBTP to SWDs, their answers may not reflect their true abilities to deliver these practices. While teachers perceive they are confident in delivering this EBTP, their actual effectiveness may be skewed and alter their responses. Survey questions such as “I can” statements versus “I feel” were included to account for teachers’ perceptions of their behaviors, not a direct judgment of the quality.

4.2 Implications for research, practice, and policy

4.2.1 Research

In this study, we identify several implications for future research. First, additional studies could further investigate the reasons for the non-significant findings of PD type and location, as past research has indicated this is a predictor of effective PD. Further investigations of teacher’s experiences with PD types is critical, as it was a limitation that teachers were only limited to reporting on one type of PD, evaluating additional PD participation would be informative. It could help determine which PDs are most effective and which teachers perceive to be most beneficial by allowing teachers to identify all types of PD.

Many teachers reported a college course as their most effective type PD, yet, it would be interesting to investigate what colleges are doing to increase transition competencies. However, if that is the best type of PD teachers are receiving, further investigation into the types of college courses offered would be critical to understanding what aspects of transition are focused on. Further, with some teachers not being able to go back and take college courses, an investigation of what school systems and district are doing to increase teachers’ transition competencies would be imperative as well to better understand the ways the districts seek to improve teachers’ knowledge surrounding EBTP to improve student outcomes.

Future research should also investigate the impact PD has on student outcomes. While evidence-based practices and teacher perceived effectiveness in delivering these practices were evaluated, it would be interesting to see which of these practices teachers use the most and how teachers see a change in student achievement. Using a qualitative methodology (e.g., interviews) may provide a more in-depth and comprehensive understanding and exploration of how teachers experience PD. This methodology could provide a rich narrative explaining the reasons for change, their perceptions of their effectiveness, and PD experiences.

Further analyses were completed and identified a positive correlation between teacher perceived effectiveness and change made in their classrooms. Correlation analyses allowed for the strength and direction of these variables to be measured, leading to research focused on the effects of PD on teacher effectiveness. A study investigating teachers’ perceived effectiveness before the receipt of transition-focused PD and after would be necessary to better understand the specific type of PD that influenced teacher self-efficacy and their ability to deliver evidence-based transition practices.

Also, identifying the types of PD teachers find most valuable, and the areas of transition they are most interested in developing themselves could be essential to investigate. This could be done in collaboration with local and state vocational rehabilitation agencies to involve the entire transition team and make distinctions between the evidence-based transition practices teachers have control over, and the whole transition team’s needs. Taylor and colleagues’ (2016) work, identifying vocational rehabilitation counselors and educators interested in participating in joint training to enhance student transition outcomes, also supports this need, serving as a foundation to enhance interagency collaboration and better understand the best ways to improve students’ outcomes.

While many of the participants felt they could “do a quite a bit” to deliver these EBTSs, there was a significant difference in those who had more years of experience versus those in their first five years of teaching. This supports the literature that states that teachers are not prepared in their teacher preparation programs to deliver these evidence-based transition practices. Therefore, investigating first-year second special educators’ transition knowledge and self-efficacy would be interesting to determine, over time, how their efficacy may increase and what impacts this change over time. The selected transition competencies were based on the work of Test et al. (2009) and Kohler et al. (2016), which identified EBTP that predicted improved outcomes for SWDs. However, evaluating teachers’ effectiveness in using evidence-based practices and comparing them to teachers’ self-efficacy would help understand how they use evidence-based practices and possess the background knowledge to be an effective secondary special educator. Finally, due to the small sample size, consideration should be given to increasing the number of participants in future iterations of this survey to understand the nature of transition specific PD better and perceived self-efficacy to deliver these practices, and how teachers are motivated to attend PD opportunities.

4.2.2 Policy

As stated in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, PD is meant to be ongoing, intensive, collaborative, job-embedded, data-driven, and classroom-focused. Therefore, regularly assessing that states are providing these opportunities to their teachers will ensure that teachers receive adequate PD opportunities. After future research of the non-significant findings, identifying what variables need to be included in the policy to define PD further will be necessary. While ESSA provides mandates for PD for all teachers, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 still includes the language of “highly qualified,” which the ESSA law no longer includes. One of the requirements under IDEA 2004 is that teachers receive PDs that are sustained, intensive, and classroom focused. Therefore, as the reauthorization of IDEA is overdue, consideration should be given to the regulations surrounding more focused PD to increase the quality of special educators to deliver EBTPs. This includes explicitly investigating what PD is needed for all transition stakeholders to improve transition outcomes for SWDs versus just teachers.

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (2014) mandates that students with disabilities receive transition services and are provided pre-employment transition services to ensure students with disabilities are being prepared for employment. While educators and vocational rehabilitation service providers must provide transition services, it is essential to collaborate and coordinate services. Therefore, school systems should be assessed to ensure they are partnering and providing effective PD training to teachers and vocational rehabilitation service providers to ensure a shared understanding of the roles for transition service delivery. This is especially important when considering PD opportunities as effective collaboration and coordination of services lead to greater post-school outcomes for SWDs (Test et al., 2009).

State and local policymakers could also consider school schedules that increase opportunities for teachers to access PD. This includes professional working days dedicated to providing teacher feedback and engaging in professional activities to improve student outcomes. Other strategies include increasing funding for teachers to go back to school, attend conferences, and/or receive training on evidence-based transition practices. By providing these services, they can develop knowledgeable and skilled methods to provide evidence-based practices to all students.

4.2.3 Practice

This study revealed that more experienced teachers seemed to have higher rates of effectiveness than those just beginning. Therefore, one of the implications for practice would be for the schools to assign expert teachers who can train, mentor, and/or coach teachers on effective ways to use evidence-based practices. This type of effective ongoing PD support may benefit novice teachers in schools. A model of effective PDs that allows teachers to connect with research and evidence-based practices would be critical in giving teachers the tools needed to recognize and implement evidence-based practices. Finding a way for teachers to connect with professional organizations, along with state and local agencies to offer more ways to connect with the transition stakeholders at conferences, through publications, and online trainings, to expand the PD trainings for longer durations and build upon one another could increase teacher’s knowledge and self-efficacy. Specifically targeting teachers’ needs, as literature explains, when teachers are interested in PD, and it is meaningful to their practice, they are more apt to change their practice (Inge et al., 2016; Kim & Morningstar, 2007). The majority of the teachers in this study reported that the best PD was based on their interest in the topic and were ones they chose to attend versus mandated by their school district or administration. Therefore, another practical implication would be to offer teachers choices or opportunities outside of the school district to receive PD in their areas of interest and again, providing funding for them to attend those trainings. In addition to connecting with professional organizations, partnering with local and state agencies who are also providing transition services would be beneficial to educators, as vocational rehabilitation providers can provide supports in the schools and local education agencies to enhance student post-school outcomes. Lastly, local universities would provide connections and opportunities for collaboration among faculty and teachers to develop a way to connect the research and practice; and provide more access to college types of PD, where the best types of PD were perceived from the participants in this study.

Future research and policy recommendations can provide more insight for recommendations in practice. Still, it is best to increase the amount of PD teachers receive that are interest-based, focused, and ongoing. Increased mentoring and coaching should be provided to improve teachers’ practice, and critical feedback needs to be given.

5 Conclusion

This study was conducted based on the gaps in the literature identifying that teachers lack the competencies and knowledge needed to deliver evidence-based transition practices effectively. A few studies have investigated how secondary special educators receive transition-specific PD. This study’s findings identify that this population of secondary-special educators felt they could deliver evidence-based transition practices to SWDs. A majority of participants received instruction in a college course that they were enrolled in, either as electives (they chose to take) or as part of their college programming. It was also identified that after participating in PD, teachers did make changes to their classrooms. Results indicated that the amount of PD received had a significant effect on teachers ‘perceived effectiveness compared to the PD type and location. Using a self-report survey as data collection is a known limitation when providing research, political, and practical recommendations. Future research should further investigate special educators’ involvement in PD, the policy should become more robust in defining PD for special educators, and practical recommendations include increasing the PD and types of PD special educators receive. While this study investigated perceived teacher effectiveness related to PD, future studies should consider looking at PD to enhance teacher quality further and increase student outcomes.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

References

Andersson,

, & Palm,

(2017). The impact of formative assessment on student achievement: A study of the effects of changes to classroom practice after a comprehensive professional development program. Learning and Instruction, 49, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.12.006

Bandura,

(1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.5.729

Bayar,

(2014). The components of effective professional development activities in terms of teachers’ perspective. International Online Journal of Education Sciences, 6(2), 319–327. https://dx.doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2014.02.006

Benitez,

D. T.

, Morningstar,

M. E.

, & Frey,

B. B.

(2009). A multistate survey of special education teachers’ perceptions of their transition competencies. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728808323945

Bishop,

, Brownell,

M. K.

, Klingner,

, Leko,

, & Galman,

(2010). Differences in beginning special education teachers: The influence of personal attributes, preparation, and school environment on classroom reading practices. . Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 75–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/25701435.

Blank,

R. K.

, & De Las Alas,

(2009). The effects of teacher professional development on gains in student achievement: How meta-analysis provides scientific evidence useful to education leaders. Council of Chief State School Officers. Washington, DC.

Bouck,

E. C.

, & Joshi,

(2012). Functional curriculum and students with mild intellectual disability: Exploring postschool outcomes through the NLTS2. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 139-153.

Bray-Clark,

, & Bates,

(2003). Self-efficacy beliefs and teacher effectiveness: Implications for professional development. Professional Educator, 26(1), 13–22.

Brock,

M. E.

, & Carter,

E. W.

(2013). A systematic review of paraprofessional-delivered educational practices to improve outcomes for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(4), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079691303800401

10.

Brownell,

M. T.

, Bishop,

A. G.

, Gersten,

, Klingner,

J. K.

, Penfield,

R. D.

, Dimino,

, Haager,

, Menon,

, & Sindelar,

P. T.

(2009). The role of domain expertise in beginning special education teacher quality. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500401.

11.

Carlson,

S. R.

, Munandar,

V. D.

, Wehmeyer,

M. L.

, & Thompson,

J. R.

(2019). Special education transition services for students with extensive support needs. Special Education Transition Services for Students with Disabilities: Advances in Special Education, 35, 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0270-401320190000035015

12.

Creswell,

J. W.

, Creswell,

J. D.

(2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.

13.

Darling-Hammond,

, Hyler,

M. E.

, & Gardner,

(2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.

14.

Darling-Hammond,

, Wei,

R. C.

, Andree,

, Richardson,

, & Orphanos,

(2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council. http://www.bulldogcia.com/Documents/Articles/NSDCstudy2009_Prof_Learning_in_Learning_Profession_Report.pdf.

15.

DeMonte,

(2013). High-quality professional development for teachers: Supporting teacher training to improve student learning. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED561095.pdf.

16.

Desimone,

L. M.

(2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140.

17.

Doren,

, Flannery,

K. B.

, Lombardi,

A. R.

, & Kato,

M. M.

(2013). The impact of professional development and student and teacher characteristics on the quality of postsecondary goals. Remedial and Special Education, 34(4), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512468037.

18.

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

19.

Flannery,

K. B.

, Lombardi,

, & Kato,

M. M.

(2015). The impact of professional development on the quality of the transition components of IEPs. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 38(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512468037.

20.

Freeman,

, & Simonsen,

(2015). Examining the impact of policy and practice interventions on high school dropout and school completion rates: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 205–248. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314554431.

21.

Garet,

, Birman,

, Porter,

, Desimone,

, Herman,

, & Suk Yoon,

(1999). Designing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

22.

Garet,

M. S.

, Porter,

A. C.

, Desimone,

, Birman,

B. F.

, & Yoon,

K. S.

(2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915.

23.

Gersten,

, Taylor,

M. J.

, Keys,

T. D.

, Rolfhus,

, & Newman-Gonchar,

(2014). Summary of research on the effectiveness of math professional development approaches. REL 2014-010. Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544681.pdf.

24.

Grigal,

, Hart,

, & Migliore,

(2011). Comparing the transition planning, postsecondary education, and employment outcomes of students with intellectual and other disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34(1), 4–17. doi: 10.1177/0885728811399091

25.

Henry,I., II.

W R.

(2015). Transition services: An investigation of the knowledge, confidence, and practice of special education teachers in District of Columbia public charter high schools (Order No. 10032320). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1774373207).

26.

Hirsch,

(2001). Teacher recruitment: Staffing classrooms with quality teachers. Denver, CO: The State Higher Education Executive Officers.

27.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, PL 108-446, Dec. 3, 2004, 118 Stat. 2647.

28.

Inge,

K. J.

, Graham,

C. W.

, Erickson,

, Sima,

, West,

, & Cimera,

R. E.

(2016). Improving the employment outcomes of individuals with traumatic brain injury: The effectiveness of knowledge translation strategies to impact the use of evidence-based practices by vocational rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 45(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-160815.

29.

Jacobs,

J. E.

(2017). Secondary special education teachers and transition specialists: Collaborative efforts. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

30.

Kim,

K. H.

, & Morningstar,

M. E.

(2007). Enhancing secondary special education teachers’ knowledge and competencies in working with culturally and linguistically diverse families through online training. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 30(2), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/08857288070300020201

31.

Kohler,

P. D.

, Gothberg,

J. E.

, Fowler,

and Coyle,

(2016). Taxonomy for transition programming 2.0: A model for planning, organizing, and evaluating transition education, services, and programs. Western Michigan University. http://www.transitionta.org.

32.

Leko,

M. M

, & Brownell,

M. T.

(2009). Crafting quality professional development for special educators: What school leaders should know. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(1), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990904200106.

33.

Liu,

A. Y.

, Lacoe,

, Lipscomb,

, Haimson,

, Johnson,

D. R.

, & Thurlow,

M. L.

(2018). Preparing for life after high school: The characteristics and experiences of youth in special education. Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012. Volume 3: Comparisons over time (Full report) (NCEE 2018-4007). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

34.

Mazzotti,

V. L.

, & Plotner,

A. J.

(2016). Implementing secondary transition evidence-based practices: A multi-state survey of transition service providers. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 39(1), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143414544360.

35.

Morningstar,

M. E.

, & Benitez,

D. T.

(2013). Teacher training matters: The results of a multistate survey of secondary special educators regarding transition from school to adulthood. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412474022.

36.

Morningstar,

M. E.

, & Clark,

G. M.

(2003). The status of personnel preparation for transition education and services: What is the critical content? How can it be offered?Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 26(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/088572880302600208.

37.

Plotner,

A. J.

, Mazzotti,

V. L.

, Rose,

C. A.

, & Carlson-Britting,

K. B.

(2016). Factors associated with enhanced knowledge and use of secondary transition evidence-based practices. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(1), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406415599430.

38.

Rotermund,

, DeRoche,

, & Ottem,

(2017). Teacher professional development by selected teacher and school characteristics: 2011-12. Stats in Brief. NCES 2017-200. National Center for Education Statistics.

39.

Ruppar,

A. L.

, Neeper,

L. S.

, & Dalsen,

(2016). Special education teachers’ perceptions of preparedness to teach students with severe disabilities. Research and Practices for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(4), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916672843

40.

Shogren,

K. A.

, & Wittenburg,

(2020). Improving outcomes of transition-age youth with disabilities:Alife course perspective. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 43(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143419887853

41.

Sindelar,

P. T.

, Brownell,

M. T.

, & Billingsley,

(2010). Special education teacher education research: Current status and future directions. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(1), 8–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406409358593.

42.

Skaalvik,

E. M.

, & Skaalvik,

(2009). Does school context matter? Relations with teacher burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(3), 518–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.12.006.

43.

Skaalvik,

E. M.

, & Skaalvik,

(2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0.

44.

Taylor,

D.L.

, Morgan,

R.L.

, & Callow-Heusser,

C.A.

(2016). A survey of vocational rehabilitation counselors and special education teachers on collaboration in transition planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 44, 163–173. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-150788

45.

Test,

D. W.

, Fowler,

C. H.

, Richter,

S. M.

, White,

, Mazzotti,

, Walker,

A. R

, Kohler,

, & Kortering,

(2009). Evidence based practices in secondary transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(2), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728809336859.

46.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (USED, OSERS). (2017). A transition guide to postsecondary education and employment for students and youth with disabilities. Washington DC.

47.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t06.htm

48.

Wehman,

(2013). Transition from school to work: where are we and where do we need to go?Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36(1), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143413482137.

49.

Yoon,

K. S.

, Duncan,

, Lee,

S. W. Y.

, Scarloss,

, & Shapley,

K. L.

(2007). Reviewing the Evidence on How Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement. Issues & Answers. REL 2007-No. 033. Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest (NJ1). https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/REL_2007033.pdf.

50.

Zhang,

, Lundeberg,

, Koehler,

M. J.

, & Eberhardt,

(2011). Understanding affordances and challenges of three types of video for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.015