Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Data-Based Decision Making and Instruction in Mathematics

Teachers' Sense of Efficacy: An Important Factor in School Improvement

The term children with special educational needs (SEN) refers to highly diverse populations of children with a wide range of physical, cognitive and socioemotional disabilities or difficulties as well as strengths and resources causing them to require varying degrees of special educational support and assistance (Squires, 2012; Vehmas, 2010; Wilson, 2002). Several studies document significant gender imbalances in the number of students who receive special educational support, and for most disability categories the prevalence is higher for boys (Skårbrevik, 2002). The reasons for these imbalances are likely complex, and it is beyond the scope of the present review to account for the hypotheses and findings associated with each disability category. However, a general hypothesis across different categories of special educational needs is the notion that special educational needs are more likely to remain undetected in girls as symptoms and problems in girls may be less visible to educators (Arms et al., 2008). Traditional special education consists of segregating students with special needs from mainstream students within separate and typically smaller classrooms or educational settings. However, as early as in the 1930s, a movement originally known as mainstreaming, and in more recent years as inclusion, has sought to bring an end to segregated placement as the preferred educational option for students with special needs (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980). In 1994, the idea of inclusive education became even more consolidated when the Salamanca Statement was adopted by representatives from 92 countries, resulting in an international shift in policy. This meant that far more students with special needs started entering general educational settings around the globe (Murawski & Lee Swanson, 2001; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). The terms inclusion, mainstreaming, integrated placement, and cross-categorical instruction all refer to educational settings with a group composition consisting of a mixture of students with and without special educational needs. In the present review, we have chosen to use the term inclusion to refer to general educational settings in which there is a mixture of students with and without special educational needs. Ideally, inclusion and inclusive education should be based on an educational approach in which the goal is to continuously address and respond to the diversity of needs of all learners through increasing participation and reducing exclusion within and from education. Inclusion thus may involve changes and modifications in content, approaches, structures and strategies, with a common vision which covers all children and a conviction that it is the responsibility of the regular system to educate all children. Inclusion emphasises the provision of opportunities for equal participation of children with disabilities (physical, social and/or emotional) whenever possible into general education, but leaves open the possibility of personal choice and options for special assistance and facilities for those who need it (UNESCO, 2005). Inclusion as an ideological and theoretical movement was built on a philosophical foundation but during the last 60 years, the number of empirical studies addressing inclusive education has grown tremendously. However, findings on the efficacy of inclusion on student outcomes are still far from unequivocal (Kavale & Forness, 2000; Lindsay, 2007; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). This is where the present review will contribute, as the aim of the review is to summarise contemporary evidence on the effects of inclusive education when compared to a traditional segregated approach on students' learning, socioemotional adjustment and well-being. It is important to consider the types of students who might benefit most from inclusive education. As stated earlier, it is possible that the effects of inclusive education may be different for girls and boys. Further, a child's cognitive and socioemotional skills and needs develop throughout childhood and adolescence (Lightfoot et al., 2009) and thus, it is possible that the potential benefits of inclusive education may vary depending on the age of the children. We plan to to explore the impact of these student characteristics on student outcomes. At the core of inclusion is the principle that students with special or additional learning needs or disabilities belong in mainstream education. The fundamental principle of inclusive education is that all children should learn together, regardless of any difficulties or differences (UNESCO, 2005; Winter & O'Raw, 2010). However, operationally within the present review, we define inclusion as an educational setting with a mixture of children with and without special educational needs. In the present review, the intervention termed inclusion may thus be defined as any given group composition within a general educational setting which contains at least one child with an identified special educational need. Based on the core principles of inclusion there are many ways in which inclusion may be practised and adjusted, and thus there are a large number of characteristics within the inclusive setting, which may vary across the included studies. We will review studies of all kinds of inclusive education meaning that placement in the inclusive setting may be full time or part time. Special education students are a diverse group, as outlined in Section 4.1.2, and we will review studies regardless of the type of special educational needs of the student population and regardless of the ratio of students with and without special needs within the inclusive setting. We will include studies in which the general education teachers are provided with support and continuing professional development aimed at helping the teachers accommodate the needs of special education students and studies of inclusive settings in which no such support is offered to the teachers. It is often referred to as coteaching when two or more professionals deliver substantive instruction to a diverse or blended group of students within the same physical space (Murawski & Lee Swanson, 2001). In the present review, we will include studies, in which special education teachers and/or teaching assistants are present within the general education setting (coteaching) and studies in which they are not. For physically disabled students there may be adjustments made to the inclusive educational setting in order to accommodate aids such as wheelchairs, and for dyslexic students a number of computer programmes may be available. We will review studies in which students with special needs are provided with any kind of aid and technological support. This list of possible variations in student and classroom characteristics is not exhaustive, and in summary, within the present review we will include studies of all kinds of inclusive education as long as the studies are aimed at exploring the effects of inclusion in comparison to segregated special educational settings. We plan to conduct moderator analyses to explore the impact of specific characteristics of the inclusive educational setting and the characteristics of special educational needs on student outcomes. Considering the rapid global development towards inclusive educational placement for students with special educational needs, there is a rather surprising lack of pedagogical, psychological, or didactic theories regarding the specific ways in which inclusive education may affect students with special needs' academic and socioemotional development. Group composition within the educational setting may play a significant role in determining the academic achievement, socioemotional development and overall wellbeing of special needs students. Theoretically and ideologically, scholars favouring mainstreaming or inclusion propose that segregated educational placement causes stigmatisation and social isolation which may have detrimental effects on the self-concept, social identity, and self-confidence of students with special educational needs (Dyssegaard & Larsen, 2013). Second, being placed in a general education classroom along with typically developing peers is proposed to benefit special needs students' academic growth through peer effects (Rea et al., 2002; Tremblay, 2013). Finally, it is hypothesised that social interaction with general education peers may provide developmental opportunities that are not present in smaller, specialised units (Fisher & Meyer, 2002). On the other hand, opponents of inclusive education for all special needs students suggest that placement in general education classrooms may have adverse effects for special needs children especially if the time and resources allocated for individualisation and differentiation are not aligned with student needs. In such cases, special needs students' learning opportunities and wellbeing may also suffer, resulting in damages to self-concept (Zeleke, 2004), social isolation or bullying (Monchy et al., 2004; Pijl et al., 2010), stress (Pitt & Curtin, 2004), negative self-perception, and lower self-confidence (Bakker et al., 2007; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). Hegarty (1993) provides a narrative review of the literature on inclusion and suggests that a number of factors are associated with positive student outcomes in inclusive settings. These are: (1) instruction based on student achievement needs, (2) materials and procedures that allow students to proceed at their own pace, (3) additional time for students who need it, (4) increased student responsibility for their own learning, (5) cooperation among students in achieving goals, (6) support teaching and (7) collaboration among special and general education teachers. In sum, the impact of inclusion on the academic achievement, socioemotional development, and wellbeing of students with special needs may be hypothesised to be both positive and negative, and the current knowledge base is rather unclear, leaving special educators and policymakers uncertain when making decisions on special education provision. Since the 1980s, a number of reviews on the impact of inclusion on students with special needs have been published (Madden & Slavin, 1983; Ottenbacher & Cooper, 1982; Wang & Baker, 1985; Hegarty, 1993). Results are equivocal, and several reviews point to a number of methodological challenges and weaknesses of the study designs within the included primary studies. In summary, most reviews suggest a neutral or small positive impact of inclusion on most outcomes. However, all reviews also point to the need to study the impact of potential moderators more thoroughly, as there may be several interaction effects between student and classroom characteristics, such as student disability category × proportion of students with disabilities within the classroom and disability category × presence of teaching assistants. Therefore, it is important to conduct the present review in order to explore the impact of potential moderators associated with student and classroom characteristics. In the following section we present the existing reviews and their main findings. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 50 primary studies exploring the effects of special versus regular class placement for children with special needs, Carlberg and Kavale (1980) concluded that for students with special needs consisting of below average IQs, special classes were significantly inferior to regular classes on all outcome measures (separate analyses were carried out for achievement, social/personal and other measures). However, for students with behavioural disorders, emotional disturbances and learning disabilities (LDs), special classes were superior to regular classes. Madden and Slavin (1983) conducted a narrative review of the effects of mainstreaming/inclusion on students with mild academic disabilities. The review does not include a description of the search strategy for identifying records or the criteria used to determine eligibility for inclusion in the review. The review concludes that among methodologically adequate studies, findings indicate few benefits on academic and social outcomes of placement in full-time special education compared with part-time placement with resource support or full time regular class placement for students with mild academic disabilities. Ottenbacher and Cooper (1982) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 43 primary studies exploring the effects of class placement (special class, regular class and resource class defined as placement in regular education classroom with resource support and the possibility for part time segregated education) on the social adjustment of students with mild cognitive disabilities. The overall results suggest a very small effect in favour of special class placement over regular class placement. However, when special class placement was compared with resource class placement, results were insignificant but favouring resource class placement. Wang and Baker (1985) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 11 primary studies exploring the effects of mainstreaming/inclusion on children with special educational needs. In order to be eligible for inclusion in this review, primary studies needed to provide information on the effects of mainstreaming on students with special needs placed in a regular education setting. The studies had to use a control group consisting of special needs students with comparable impairment classifications placed in a segregated learning environment. The final selection of studies included 11 studies published between 1975 and 1984. The included studies used a wide variety of outcomes, but within the meta-analysis, outcomes were synthesised into three categories: performance, attitudinal, and process effects, and separate analyses were carried out for each of the three outcome categories. The study found small-to-moderate beneficial effects of inclusion on all outcomes with an overall mean weighted effect size across all studies and all three categories of outcomes of 0.33. Hegarty (1993) provides a narrative review of the literature on integration (inclusion) of students with different disabilities. The narrative review is based on a literature review which was commissioned by the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and was conducted by researchers in five different countries. The review does not include a description of the search strategies for identifying records or the criteria used to determine eligibility for the selected primary studies. Within the review, a number of factors which are associated with effective integration programmes are identified. Baker et al. (1994/1995) describe a review and meta-analysis by Baker et al. (1994/1995), which included 13 primary studies exploring the effects of inclusive placement on academic and social outcomes for students with special needs. We have been unable to retrieve the original publication, but according to Baker et al. (1994/1995), this study found a very small effect in favour of inclusive placement on academic outcomes (0.08) and a small to moderate effect on social outcomes (0.28). Sebba and Sachdev (1997) provide a review as part of a research report on what works for whom in inclusive education. The review does not include a description of the search strategy or the criteria for inclusion/exclusion of studies for the review. Within the research report, the authors suggest an overall positive impact of inclusive education and list a number of potential moderators such as attitudes of teachers and parents as well as a number of recommendations for the implementation of inclusive education. McGregor and Vogelsberg (1998) provide a narrative review of studies of both the effects of inclusive schooling on student outcomes and studies focusing on issues related to the implementation of inclusion. The review includes both quantitative and qualitative studies including case studies. Results are difficult to synthesise, but suggest an overall positive impact of inclusion based on the main findings: (1) students with disabilities demonstrate high levels of social interaction in settings with typically developing peers, but placement alone does not guarantee positive social outcomes; (2) interactive small group contexts facilitate skill acquisition and social acceptance; (3) friendships develop between students with disabilities and typically developing peers. Freeman and Alkin (2000) conducted a systematic narrative review in which it was concluded that on measures of academic achievement and social competence, children with mental retardation placed in general education perform better than children with mental retardation placed in special education classrooms. This review was only about children with mental retardation and did not include meta-analyses. Murawski and Lee Swanson (2001) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis which included 6 studies exploring the effectiveness of coteaching on student outcomes of both general education students and students with special educational needs. Coteaching was defined as two or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to a diverse or blended group of students within a shared/common physical space, and thus in this review coteaching is a form of inclusion. The outcomes within the included studies were grades, achievement scores, social and attitudinal outcomes. The review found coteaching to be effective (average total effect size of 0.40). It is unclear what the control conditions within the included studies were and two of the included studies did not have a control group, but used a pre-test/post-test research design. Lindsay (2007) provides a narrative review of the effectiveness of inclusive education for students with special educational needs. The review provides a historical overview of the vast literature prior to 2000 and a search of studies published 2001–2005 in eight journals on special education. The search identified 1373 studies and points to the fact that only 1% of the identified papers were comparative outcome studies. The review concludes that there is a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of inclusion and argues that where evidence does exist, the balance is only marginally positive. Lindsay (2007) thus supports the need for an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of inclusion for students with special needs, with special attention to the potential impact of student and classroom moderators. In a systematic narrative review of the effects of inclusion on both learning and socioemotional outcomes of students with and without special needs, Ruijs and Peetsma (2009) point to mixed findings regarding the effects of inclusion on student outcomes and suggest a number of potential moderators. The authors conclude that there is a need for more research. This review has not been updated since publication and does not include meta-analyses. In 2009, a systematic review of evidence comparing the academic performance of students with special needs in different educational settings was carried out by the Canadian Council on Learning. The review included 30 primary studies. The search strategy for identifying studies was not described. The included studies examined students with LDs, intellectual disabilities, language impairments and mixed disabilities. The quality of each study was rated as either "high", "medium", or "low" based on criteria related to transparency and research design, and effect sizes were retrieved. No meta-analyses were carried out, but the authors provide tables illustrating the number of effect sizes for each disability category favouring either inclusive or segregated settings along with the quality ratings of the studies from which they were retrieved. The authors point to mixed findings but conclude that the balance of evidence shows favourable academic outcomes for students with special educational needs educated in inclusive settings, however they also note that results are not homogenous and that effects are generally small in magnitude.11 The review was retrieved 2.10.2019 from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519296.pdf. Dyssegaard and Larsen (2013) provide a systematic review and narrative synthesis on the effects of including children with special needs in mainstream teaching in primary and lower secondary school, and on which of the applied educational methods have proven to have a positive effect. The narrative synthesis is based on 43 studies of which 16 studies were deemed to have a "high level of evidence". The included studies consist of randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, cohort studies, longitudinal studies, and studies using a pre-test/post-test design. The systematic review included studies focusing on outcomes for both mainstream and special needs students and does not include a meta-analysis. The conclusion points to mixed findings regarding the overall effectiveness of inclusion on the academic achievement and psychosocial adjustment of special needs students and suggests that the effects may vary depending on the age of the child and the overall school and teacher attitudes towards inclusion. Furthermore, the review suggests that the effectiveness of coteaching may depend on the educational background and continuous professional development of both special and general education teachers and of teaching assistants. Carroll et al. (2017) provide a rapid evidence assessment of studies focused on approaches, strategies, and interventions supporting children and young people with special educational needs in mainstream schools. The rapid evidence assessment is based on a systematic search in a single database (ERIC) as well as a strategy of consulting experts within the relevant fields. The initial search identified 1046 papers of which 505 were later excluded due to low quality of evidence. The rapid evidence assessment points to a number of implementation strategies, pedagogical and didactic approaches which have shown positive results. Furthermore, the study points to evidence gaps and suggests the need for further research. The rapid evidence assessment does not include a meta-analysis. In the present review, besides being up to date, we will conduct an extensive risk of bias assessment of all included studies, and we will provide separate meta-analyses for each conceptual outcome (academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing). Furthermore, we hope to be able to conduct moderator analyses based on the children's specific disability categories and the specific type of inclusion setting. This may shed further light on the initial differential findings from existing reviews. Traditional segregated special education is costly and in a time of increased interaction between special and general education systems and constraints on education spending, policymakers must consider the cost-efficiency of different special needs provisions. As more students with special educational needs enter general education settings, educators and policymakers must consider how the needs of these students are met in different settings and on what grounds placement in general or special educational settings should be determined. As previously noted, the current knowledge base is ambiguous with many findings suggesting a complex interplay between student and classroom characteristics (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980; Mesibov & Shea, 1996; Peetsma et al., 2001), leaving special educators and policymakers uncertain when making decisions on special education provision and highlighting the need for a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of inclusion on student outcomes. The objective of this systematic review is firstly: To uncover and synthesise data from studies to assess the effects of inclusion on measures of academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing of children with special needs when compared to children with special needs who receive special education in a segregated setting. A secondary objective is to explore how potential moderators (gender, age, type of special need, part or full time inclusive education, and coteaching) affect the outcomes. The moderator analysis will be performed as outlined in Section 4.3.11. In order to summarise what is known about the causal effects of inclusion on student's academic achievement, socioemotional outcomes, and wellbeing in special education, we will include all studies with a well-defined control group. Thus, the study designs eligible for inclusion are: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (allocated at either the individual level or cluster level, e.g., class/school/geographical area etc.). Non-randomised studies (inclusion has occurred in the course of usual decisions, the allocation to inclusive and segregated special educational placement is not controlled by the and there is a comparison of two or more of at least a group and a control using a single group research will not be eligible for inclusion in the review. Non-randomised studies using an approach will not be the of exclusion of studies using an for for studies of these In order to the risk of bias in cluster randomised studies, we will study designs in which only one was to the intervention or control group. there must be at least two units in the intervention group and two units in the control group, as there is a risk of effects with effects this likely be In order to the of findings from the present review to current and we will search to studies published The for studies is as a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses have synthesised the effects of inclusion based on studies published prior to Second, educational settings, pedagogical approaches and the development and of technological to support the educational needs of special needs children have changes throughout the two & and in order for the findings from the present review to be to the current within educational settings, we will review to the more recent findings. The review will include special needs children in to the in in special education in the defined as the countries. The reasons for focusing on the are we that the in which children with disabilities are within is which fundamental differences in the for children with disabilities around the globe et al., 2010; & 2013). Second, special education is costly and thus the resources for special educational support for children with special needs are often different between in the and the developing regarding the of what a special educational need Wilson, 2002). A used be found in the with in which special needs are into 13 different disability categories under which children are eligible for For more information on the disability of with These categories are: challenges related to a child's to or e.g., or impairment conditions a child's or e.g., e.g., and or language impairment difficulties with or e.g., language problems a child's to or impairment including and where a child most or all even with a impairment to a not by the of children from both and vision impairment when a child has problems with or as in the case of disability intellectual by or other kinds of physical disabilities with more than one by the However, the criteria are not to be as or as of what special educational needs but are rather as in the search for and of relevant studies. We that existing to define special educational needs, as in and are by a lack of which to be

Purpose This study aims to selects a teacher training program located in China’s rural area and focus on its preservice teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education in China and their expectations of teacher training programs. Design/methodology/approach The selected teacher training program is in School of Education of a comprehensive university, located in a small town in Northeast China. Five preservice teachers in the Department of Teacher Education were interviewed. The interviewees were randomly selected among those who have already gained at least 60 credits of coursework prior to the interview. Each interview lasted for approximately 0.5 h. Interview notes were summarized and coded using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step approach. In addition to interview data, other data sources were used, such as classroom observation and review of curriculum and program requirement. Findings Although the selected teacher preparation program started offering some selective special education courses to preservice teachers, there are limited number of offerings and a lack of field placement in inclusive settings, and stereotypical opinions towards disabilities still exist as a roadblock for choosing special education teacher profession. Research limitations/implications The current study only focuses on one rural teacher training institution and report preservice teachers’ opinions toward teacher education curriculum, factors that lead to their decision in the teacher education major and their vision towards inclusion in China. Recommendations are provided to increase public awareness of disability, and create more field based experience in inclusive settings for preservice teachers. However, the result may not be generalized to reflect preservice teachers of teacher training institutions located in developed areas where there are rich opportunities for field experience in inclusive setting or special education programs, and who offer more extensive special education courses. Practical implications It is recommended that teacher preparation program modify curriculum and offer more special education courses, as well as develop connections with local special education schools and inclusive programs, thus creating more field based opportunities for preservice teachers to work with children with disabilities. Originality/value There are limited studies on rural preservice teachers’ attitudes towards being a special education teacher and how the teacher training programs prepare them to become a special education teacher. The current study fills the gap and conduct an interview study of preservice teachers’ from a rural teacher training programs perceptions of China’s special education, how they choose the program of study that prepare them to become a special education teacher, and their rating of the teacher preparation program.

The Elementary School Journal Volume 81, Number 1 ? 1980 by The University of Chicago 0013-5984/81/8101-0008$0o1.00 In colleges and universities across the country, prospective and practicing teachers and administrators take courses on planning-curriculum-planning and instructional planning. During the courses, teachers and administrators usually study an objectives-first model of curriculumplanning. This model has four steps. Planners are expected to 1. Formulate objectives 2. Choose appropriate learning activities

Special Education teachers are often held to the same accountability standards as general education standards when it comes to effective teaching. This can cause frustration and disconnect between professionals and their job description. A set of research-based, high-leverage practices has been developed to provide special education teachers with guidance as to what makes them an effective teacher. While the use of high-leverage practices has been accepted and implemented into many districts for teacher effectiveness, special educators need more systematic methods for evaluating the effectiveness of their practice using high-leverage practices. The purpose of this study was to create a tool for administrators to use in providing direct, content level guidance related to high-leverage practices. The purpose of this study was to create a tool through the use of the recommended high-leverage practices that can be used to adequately evaluate special educators’ performance in the classroom and the inclusive setting.

Teacher effectiveness is fundamental to educational reform. Good teachers of children and adults demonstrate critical, decisive, intellectual work, and caring, personal interactions. Effective teachers believe in diversity, meeting individual learner needs, and interacting with others to support shared decision making. Educational reformers studying teacher effectiveness find a sense of teaming: Effective teachers strengthen alliances with students, parents, and peers, rather than achieve professional status by sequestering knowledge and insulating themselves from those they serve (Andrew, 1997; Darling-Hammond, 1996; Goodlad, 1994; Hudson & Glomb, 1997; Manouchehri, 1997; National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 1994; National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996; Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1996). Collaboration skills are key to teacher effectiveness and teaming. Reviewers of school organization have long held that understanding collaboration is critical to teaching success (Schmuck & Runkel, 1985). Collaboration advocates recognize that teaming skills must be addressed directly (Idol, Paolucci-Whitcomb, & Nevin, 1986; Larson & LaFasto, 1989). Many teacher preparation programs may not stress collaboration and communication skills; beginning teachers may lack skills and crucial experiences. Preservice teachers (PTs) make complex decisions, yet specific collaboration preparation is rare, especially in decision making for special needs learners (Dynak, Whitten, & Dynak, 1997; Little & Robinson, 1997). Having a sense of how PTs might collaborate to define, design, and implement discrete structures for instruction can be particularly important in anticipating critical stages of successful student teaching and beginning teacher experiences (Coben, Chase Thomas, Sattler, & Morsink, 1997; Dynak et al., 1997; Hudson & Glomb, 1997; Little & Robinson, 1997; National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996). The current inclusion emphasis implies that special education and general education teachers must coordinate services and adapt materials and instruction. Exposure to collaboration experiences can enable PTs to make more informed decisions about how and when to use collaboration teaching strategies to meet the needs of all students (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995; Council for Exceptional Children, 1995; Englert & Tarrant, 1995; Hudson & Glomb, 1997; Putnam, 1993; Rosenberg, O'Shea, & O'Shea, 1998). Our purpose in this study was to gain an understanding of PTs' collaboration perceptions and types of collaboration patterns evolving in university preparation. We wanted to determine whether PTs believe they can prepare for their future collaborative roles. We sought data on whether PTs believe that collaboration preparation can assist them in addressing needs of students with disabilities. We wanted to explore alternative means of preservice collaboration opportunities across special education and general education preparation. Thus, we requested PTs to collaborate by use of electronic mail technology, face-to-face contacts, and written products devised jointly for diverse learners in the language arts curriculum. Methods Participants. Participants were PTs enrolled in the College of Education at Slippery Rock University. There were 103 total PTs enrolled in elementary education or special education coursework. Elementary education PTs included 43 females and 11 males. Six of these were sophomores; 48 had junior status at the study's initiation. Forty female and 9 male special education PTs participated. Fifteen were first semester sophomores; 34 had junior status or higher. Only 6 participating PTs across groups indicated previous tertiary collaboration experience. Measures and Procedures. Our purpose was to determine PTs' views of collaboration experiences, incorporated in the course assignments, in preparation for future roles. …

The use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) is a tenant of effective instruction for students with disabilities in general and special education classrooms. In fact, it is essential that teachers use EBPs across content areas as they would benefit all students and maximise opportunities for those with special needs. Often, students with disabilities have difficulty meeting the academic, social, emotional, and behavioural demands of inclusive classroom settings when effective EBPs are not consistently implemented. In 2017, the Council for Exceptional Children and the CEEDAR Center at the University of Florida identified a set of evidence-based, high-leverage practices (HLPs) with the goal to guide teacher educators and professional development providers in the task of teacher preparation. This article discusses the application of four HLPs related to social, emotional, behavioural and instructional practices for students with disabilities in inclusive settings. The four HLPs addressed in this article are connected to the teachers’ ability to integrate multifaceted learning goals into instructional planning and delivery to create effective learning environments that may improve learning outcomes for students with (and perhaps without) disabilities across settings and content areas.

Meeting the needs of students with autism and mild disabilities effectively in traditional and remote settings must be an individualized, purposeful, and data-driven process [1]. Learning to implement a core foundation of easy-to-use evidence-based instructional practices can help teachers across content areas develop a core foundation of “go to” practices which can potentially benefit all students with and without disabilities [2]. The High-Leverage Practices (HLPs) recently identified by the Council for Exceptional Children and the CEEDAR Center at the University of Florida [3] can help educators to target their students’ most significant skill deficits and, subsequently, develop and deliver instructional programming that may help students develop to their fullest potential. The 22 identified HLPs are multifaceted, evidence-based practices.

This article provides information and resources to help special education teacher educators improve preservice teachers’ competence for working with disabled1 students and addressing ableism in their classrooms, by incorporating young adult (YA) literature into special education teacher preparation experiences. Embedding YA literature with representations of disability can address ableism in education by helping preservice special education teachers to conceptualize disabled adolescents differently. Current approaches to teacher education may reinforce dysconscious ableism (Broderick & Lalvani, 2017) and undergird educational segregation on the basis of disability. After reviewing current literature on addressing ableism during teacher preparation and using YA literature in teacher education, this article models how special education teacher educators can critically examine YA texts by providing criteria for evaluating representations of disability and a unit plan with three lessons for use in an introductory special education course. A bibliography of young adult books featuring characters with disabilities is also provided.

Using a sample of special education teachers (n=339), this study investigated how current special education teachers implement high-leverage practices with students with disabilities and identify the most- and least-implemented practices. This study also used regression analysis to determine if factors such as years of experience, disability category, school level, and caseload can predict the level of implementation. The study used an instrument containing 22 high-leverage practices that were updated in 2024 by the Council for Exceptional Children and the CEEDAR. The findings show that low-to-medium levels of implementation of the 22 practices. The most frequently implemented practices were establishing an organized learning Environment and using instructional Technologies. Practices that have lower levels of implementation were teaching cognitive and metacognitive strategies and conducting functional behavioral assessments. Results also showed that years of experience, disability category, and caseload are significant predictors of level of implementation. Teachers who teach students with high-incidence disabilities or have more years of experience have higher levels of implementation compared to those who teach students with low-incidence disabilities or are less experienced. School level appeared to be a nonsignificant predictor. In general, findings indicated the importance of using high-leverage practices as the core curriculum in teacher preparation programs. Keywords: high-leverage practices, special education teachers, students with disabilities, effective teaching, evidence-based practices

Introduction: Measuring Instruction

Aim/Purpose: The study aimed to develop a unique program based on a technological hackathon (MATH-HACK) for special education pre-service teachers (PSTs), and to examine its impact on their Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) as well as on their attitudes toward designing technology-based activities in mathematics for students with special needs. Background: Integrating technology into mathematics instruction is vital for supporting students with special needs. While special education teachers often express positive attitudes toward technology integration, its actual implementation in practice remains limited, mainly due to insufficient training. Pre-service teachers often report a need for greater support in developing the skills needed to integrate technology effectively. Methodology: The sample included 63 special education PSTs, exceeding the minimum required size of 52 determined in advance using G*Power. TPACK and attitude questionnaires regarding the design of technology-based mathematical activities were used. The quantitative analysis, conducted using SPSS (Version 29), included paired samples t-tests, repeated measures ANOVAs, Pearson correlations, and hierarchical regression analyses to identify predictors of improvement. Contribution: This study proposes a practical training program for special education PSTs, emphasizing the integration of technology as a core component. It underscores the potential contribution of the MATH-HACK program as a foundation for developing professional knowledge (TPACK) and fostering positive attitudes in this field. Findings: The findings show improvement in each component of TPACK, with the most notable gains in technological knowledge. Students’ attitudes improved, particularly regarding their ability to cope with challenges. Moreover, it was found that PSTs who designed technological activities for students with emotional-behavioral disabilities and learning disabilities showed greater improvement in all areas of TPACK compared to PSTs who designed activities for students with complex disabilities. In addition, most PSTs preferred this method of instruction to classic instructional techniques. Recommendations for Practitioners: The findings indicate that the MATH-HACK training program contributes to the development of PSTs’ TPACK components, while also fostering positive attitudes toward designing technology-based activities for students with special needs. In light of its contribution, it is recommended that similar training programs be developed and implemented further. Recommendation for Researchers: It is recommended to incorporate interviews to gain a deeper understanding of the improvements experienced by the research participants and to continue with a longitudinal study to assess whether they apply what they learned during the hackathon in their teaching practices. Impact on Society: The study highlights the potential contribution of this innovative model to the preparation of special education PSTs within a technological-mathematical context, a process that may enhance the mathematical achievement of students with special needs. Future Research: It would be valuable to assess the program’s applicability in other content disciplines, both in special education and general education.

Special education (SPED) teacher preparation programs are intended to help preservice teachers (PSTs) learn and adopt effective teaching practices to serve students with special needs. To help SPED-PSTs learn needed skills, SPED mentor teachers (MTs) must employ high-leverage practices (HLPs) such as performance feedback, conferencing, and modeling. Although most teacher preparation programs utilize modeling in preparing PSTs, little is known about how SPED-MTs use this mentoring tool. An interpretative phenomenological analysis was conducted to explore how SPED-MTs engaged PSTs in modeling practices during a practicum experience. Data from semi-structured interviews were analyzed to describe SPED-PST and SPED-MT attitudes, experiences, and use of modeling over the course of a special education practicum, focusing on MTs’ modeling strategies and PSTs’ subsequent behaviors. The relative impacts of simple and cognitive modeling on the PST-MT relationship were compared. SPED-MTs’ modeling foci were compared to recommended HLPs. This preliminary study provides recommendations for SPED-MTs’ use of modeling with SPED-PSTs.

One of the main resources to promote the inclusion of students with special educational needs in Valencian Community regular schools are the communication and language classrooms. The success of this resource depends, among other aspects, on the knowledge that both regular and special educational teachers have about its functioning. For this reason, the aim of this work is to analyze the knowledge, misconceptions, and gaps about the functioning of these classrooms that early childhood education and primary education pre-service teachers have in their final year at university. Likewise, the results obtained by special educational pre-service teachers are compared to the results obtained by regular pre-service teachers. To do this analysis, a quantitative assessment instrument has been used. Results indicate a lower knowledge of regular pre-service teachers compared to special educational pre-service teachers, which leads to unfavorable implications for educational inclusion. The results suggest the need to offer a broader and more equal training related to special education for all pre-service teachers in order to guarantee inclusive quality practices in schools.

Does learning how to use data mean being motivated to use it? Effects of a data use intervention on data literacy and motivational beliefs of pre-service teachers