Pub Date : 2023-08-03DOI: 10.1177/08884064231188389
M. Burke, Chak Li, A. Johnston, R. Carter, Ling Zhang, G. Francis, A. Turnbull
Family–professional partnerships are essential for promoting positive outcomes for students with and without disabilities. However, the extent to which professional preparation standards address skills to cultivate family–professional partnerships is unclear. Without this knowledge, it is challenging to understand the preparation of education professionals in developing partnerships with families. The purpose of this study is to explore the relation between preparation standards and two factors of family–professional partnerships (i.e., enhancing connection and enhancing capacity) for general and special education teachers as well as other education professionals. The authors use expert review to identify and evaluate 159 professional preparation standards from 15 Specialized Professional Associations and the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium in relation to the two factors. Findings showed no significant differences among the standards in relation to enhancing connection among family–professional partnerships. Standards related exclusively to special education, younger students, or teachers (vs other education professionals) were significantly more likely to reflect enhancing capacity among family–professional partnerships. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.
{"title":"Examining Standards Related to Family–Professional Partnerships for Education Professionals","authors":"M. Burke, Chak Li, A. Johnston, R. Carter, Ling Zhang, G. Francis, A. Turnbull","doi":"10.1177/08884064231188389","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064231188389","url":null,"abstract":"Family–professional partnerships are essential for promoting positive outcomes for students with and without disabilities. However, the extent to which professional preparation standards address skills to cultivate family–professional partnerships is unclear. Without this knowledge, it is challenging to understand the preparation of education professionals in developing partnerships with families. The purpose of this study is to explore the relation between preparation standards and two factors of family–professional partnerships (i.e., enhancing connection and enhancing capacity) for general and special education teachers as well as other education professionals. The authors use expert review to identify and evaluate 159 professional preparation standards from 15 Specialized Professional Associations and the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium in relation to the two factors. Findings showed no significant differences among the standards in relation to enhancing connection among family–professional partnerships. Standards related exclusively to special education, younger students, or teachers (vs other education professionals) were significantly more likely to reflect enhancing capacity among family–professional partnerships. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":57031,"journal":{"name":"师范教育","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78224491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-08DOI: 10.1177/08884064231180595
Roddy Theobald, Dan Goldhaber, Erica Mallett Moore
The authors use data on high school students and teachers from Washington state to connect the observable characteristics and preparation of career and technical education (CTE) teachers to various non-test outcomes (absences, disciplinary incidents, grades, grade progression, and on-time graduation) of students with and without disabilities in their classrooms. The authors find that students participating in CTE tend to have better non-test outcomes when they are assigned to a CTE teacher from the state’s Business and Industry (B&I) pathway—designed for CTE teachers with 3 years of industry experience but no formal teacher preparation—relative to being assigned to a traditionally prepared CTE teacher. These relationships do not significantly differ for students with and without disabilities, despite survey data suggesting that CTE teachers from the B&I pathway receive little formal training in special education. These results suggest that content knowledge and experience may matter more than traditional preparation for CTE teacher effectiveness.
{"title":"CTE Teachers and Non-Test Outcomes for Students With and Without Disabilities","authors":"Roddy Theobald, Dan Goldhaber, Erica Mallett Moore","doi":"10.1177/08884064231180595","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064231180595","url":null,"abstract":"The authors use data on high school students and teachers from Washington state to connect the observable characteristics and preparation of career and technical education (CTE) teachers to various non-test outcomes (absences, disciplinary incidents, grades, grade progression, and on-time graduation) of students with and without disabilities in their classrooms. The authors find that students participating in CTE tend to have better non-test outcomes when they are assigned to a CTE teacher from the state’s Business and Industry (B&I) pathway—designed for CTE teachers with 3 years of industry experience but no formal teacher preparation—relative to being assigned to a traditionally prepared CTE teacher. These relationships do not significantly differ for students with and without disabilities, despite survey data suggesting that CTE teachers from the B&I pathway receive little formal training in special education. These results suggest that content knowledge and experience may matter more than traditional preparation for CTE teacher effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":57031,"journal":{"name":"师范教育","volume":"128 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73327904","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-08DOI: 10.1177/08884064231177662
K. O’Brien, Sarah A. Nagro, Gino D. Binkert, K. Szocik, Margaret A. Gerry
Field experiences are often considered by researchers, leading organizations, and accrediting bodies as a critical component of special education teacher preparation. Yet, much remains unknown about the types or numbers of field experiences that will best prepare special education teacher candidates. Given the ongoing changes in the field of teacher education to move toward practice-based approaches and increasing calls for more rigorous research, we aim to update the review conducted by Nagro and deBettencourt, which looked at special education field experiences from 2000 to 2014. Specifically, we conducted a systematic literature review of the research on field experiences including special education teacher candidates that have been published from 2013 to 2020 to examine what is known about participants, field experience duration and settings, field experience instructional approaches and content, field experience activities, and methodologies employed. We discuss findings for special education teacher preparation, including future research directions.
{"title":"Field Experiences in Special Education Teacher Preparation: A Review of the Literature","authors":"K. O’Brien, Sarah A. Nagro, Gino D. Binkert, K. Szocik, Margaret A. Gerry","doi":"10.1177/08884064231177662","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064231177662","url":null,"abstract":"Field experiences are often considered by researchers, leading organizations, and accrediting bodies as a critical component of special education teacher preparation. Yet, much remains unknown about the types or numbers of field experiences that will best prepare special education teacher candidates. Given the ongoing changes in the field of teacher education to move toward practice-based approaches and increasing calls for more rigorous research, we aim to update the review conducted by Nagro and deBettencourt, which looked at special education field experiences from 2000 to 2014. Specifically, we conducted a systematic literature review of the research on field experiences including special education teacher candidates that have been published from 2013 to 2020 to examine what is known about participants, field experience duration and settings, field experience instructional approaches and content, field experience activities, and methodologies employed. We discuss findings for special education teacher preparation, including future research directions.","PeriodicalId":57031,"journal":{"name":"师范教育","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82472450","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-02DOI: 10.1177/08884064231172525
Jamie Day, Sarah A. Nagro, Loretta Mason-Williams
In the United States, there exists a chronic shortage of qualified special education teachers to provide instructional services to students with disabilities. One policy solution developed to increase the number of qualified teachers is alternative routes (ARs), which are broadly defined as nontraditional and accelerated preparation paths to obtain a teaching license. In this longitudinal descriptive study, we investigate (a) the national trends of special education teacher enrollment and completion in AR programs from 2012 to 2020 and (b) the special education teacher preparation requirements in state alternative pathways that are disaggregated by their affiliation with institutions of higher education. Findings reveal that AR programs preparing special education teachers are on the rise within the United States, but they vary significantly on their preparation requirements. Implications for future research and policy recommendations needed within the recruitment and preparation of special education teachers will be discussed.
{"title":"The Nationwide Trends and Preparation Requirements of Alternative Route Programs in Special Education","authors":"Jamie Day, Sarah A. Nagro, Loretta Mason-Williams","doi":"10.1177/08884064231172525","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064231172525","url":null,"abstract":"In the United States, there exists a chronic shortage of qualified special education teachers to provide instructional services to students with disabilities. One policy solution developed to increase the number of qualified teachers is alternative routes (ARs), which are broadly defined as nontraditional and accelerated preparation paths to obtain a teaching license. In this longitudinal descriptive study, we investigate (a) the national trends of special education teacher enrollment and completion in AR programs from 2012 to 2020 and (b) the special education teacher preparation requirements in state alternative pathways that are disaggregated by their affiliation with institutions of higher education. Findings reveal that AR programs preparing special education teachers are on the rise within the United States, but they vary significantly on their preparation requirements. Implications for future research and policy recommendations needed within the recruitment and preparation of special education teachers will be discussed.","PeriodicalId":57031,"journal":{"name":"师范教育","volume":"15 3-4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72608102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：