View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Special Education Student Teachers' Reflections on Skills and Observed Practices

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Special Education Student Teachers' Reflections on Skills and Observed Practices
Language: English
Authors: Conderman, Greg, Baker, Stephanie, Walker, David A.
Source: Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas. 2023 96(1):1-10.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Special Education Teachers, Teaching Skills, Teacher Education Programs, Student Teachers, Student Teaching, Knowledge Level, Students with Disabilities, Professionalism, Cooperation, Functional Behavioral Assessment, Intervention, Student Attitudes, Skill Development, Program Effectiveness, Teacher Competencies
DOI: 10.1080/00098655.2022.2128285
ISSN: 0009-8655
1939-912X
Abstract: Over the course of five consecutive fall and spring semesters, 119 undergraduate and graduate candidates in a special education initial teacher licensure program from a large Midwestern, public university participated in a study to examine their reflections of their student teaching experiences. Specifically, candidates reported their a) knowledge of and b) ability to effectively implement skills associated with their teacher education program and Council for Exceptional Children standards and c) the extent to which they observed the effective implementation of these skills during student teaching. Candidates reported highest scores in areas related to professionalism and collaboration and lower scores in designing functional behavioral assessments and interventions for students with low incidence disabilities. Conclusions for educators are included.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1376616
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEGatFeEp4B8kNwIV6j8zaYAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDADrRfVHIzo96awOKgIBEICBm9jfkUJc5RvAiQE71gLE2v_ibfoaU-mU167A8OZFX7mMU1Qm2A5U57EkVzMDNSar-YODvUF7ZjfXyLfT2HU3U__WZe2ugHULWdc3keG8tzk_pMhBKXJpJLeP46bZwRIHt9bxwOebdW3CLOCij8s4SG1nWw1bUf6WAEutUnuvDRmQE1glok3BYlDydlA0K6hDFxlRnoxbTYfLHmnn
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0161394415;clh01jan.23;2023Jan23.02:01;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0161394415-1">Special Education Student Teachers' Reflections on Skills and Observed Practices </title> <p>Over the course of five consecutive fall and spring semesters, 119 undergraduate and graduate candidates in a special education initial teacher licensure program from a large Midwestern, public university participated in a study to examine their reflections of their student teaching experiences. Specifically, candidates reported their a) knowledge of and b) ability to effectively implement skills associated with their teacher education program and Council for Exceptional Children standards and c) the extent to which they observed the effective implementation of these skills during student teaching. Candidates reported highest scores in areas related to professionalism and collaboration and lower scores in designing functional behavioral assessments and interventions for students with low incidence disabilities. Conclusions for educators are included.</p> <p>Keywords: Student teaching; teacher preparation; special education preparation; cooperating teacher; classroom environment; first-year teachers; learning environments; learning disorders; mentors; preservice education; teacher certification; communication; collaboration</p> <p>Thousands of education majors nation-wide transition from college student to teacher through their student teaching experience. Student teaching is typically the culminating experience in a teacher preparation program in which an intern (student teacher) works closely with a mentor (cooperating teacher) while also receiving support and feedback from a university supervisor. Student teaching has been the only means by which beginning teachers can prepare for the rigors of assuming a teaching position (Prater and Sileo [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref1">23</reflink>]). The experience provides an opportunity to learn the profession which, in turn, reduces anxiety associated with beginning teaching (Rice [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref2">24</reflink>]). In fact, substantial pre-service student teaching experience has a strong effect on the probability that a beginning special educator will remain in the field one year later (Connelly and Graham [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref3">8</reflink>]); thus, providing stability to the special education teaching force.</p> <p>Student teachers in special education typically learn many aspects of the job that support this transition. Some of these tasks include writing and implementing lesson plans, attending team meetings, writing Individual Education Programs (IEPs), supervising students, developing behavior plans, creating curricular materials, and collecting assessment data within an authentic setting (Conderman, Morin, and Stephens [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref4">6</reflink>]). For various reasons, leaders in teacher education consider student teaching an important, if not the most important, facet of teacher preparation (Hollins and Guzman [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref5">16</reflink>]). For example, leaders from the National Research Council ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref6">21</reflink>]) identified field experiences, of which student teaching is a feature, as one of three components of teacher preparation that have the highest potential for influencing student outcomes.</p> <p>However, just increasing the number of field experiences or the length of existing clinical experiences is unlikely to produce significant change in teacher preparation. Quality teacher preparation largely depends on the value of field-based experiences (O'Shea et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref7">22</reflink>]). Ronfeldt and Reininger ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref8">25</reflink>]) noted that the context of the field experience site, the support and attributes of the university supervisor, and the support and attributes of the cooperating teacher are important dimensions associated with a successful student teaching experience. Specifically, researchers have noted that student teachers often experience professional growth from experiences in professional development schools (Ronfeldt [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref9">26</reflink>]) and urban and multicultural settings (Grossman, Ronfeldt, and Cohen [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref10">14</reflink>]). Second, university supervisors have a positive impact on student teachers' pedagogy, classroom management, autonomy, and efficacy. Finally, cooperating teachers model effective instruction and provide critical feedback to the student teacher, which is important for their professional growth (Conderman, Morin, and Stephens [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref11">6</reflink>]). However, a teacher preparation program, including the student teaching experience, cannot completely prepare student teachers for their first teaching position. Some practical suggestions in terms of how in-service mentors and administrators can help new teachers may include: school administrators that have the responsibility of continuing the professional growth of the beginning teacher by providing an in-service mentor, conducting a needs assessment of the teacher's strengths and needs, providing continuous staff development on issues relevant to the position and school district, and thoroughly informing the teacher about evaluation processes and procedures. Collectively, these components, working in unison, prepare beginning teachers who will be successful and remain in the profession.</p> <p>Of special interest in this study is the influence of the cooperating teacher who models effective instruction, classroom management, and collaboration skills. In a review of literature from the past three decades, Killian and Wilkins ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref12">17</reflink>]) discovered several studies that indicated the cooperating teacher has a significant influence on student teachers. Other researchers (e.g., Cook [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>]; Smagorinsky, Sanford, and Konopak [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref14">27</reflink>]) have suggested that cooperating teachers, more than others (such as professors or supervisors), have the strongest influence on pre-service teacher attitudes and learning during student teaching and perhaps across teacher preparation generally. Certainly, the goal is that student teachers will learn exemplary practices from their cooperating teacher.</p> <p>This study was conducted to assess student teaching candidates per their student teaching experiences. Several avenues of thought prompted our interest such as (a) the importance of student teaching, (b) the recent emphasis on evidence-based and high leverage practices (McLeskey et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref15">19</reflink>]), (c) the recommendation that additional research is needed that includes teacher candidates' perspectives (Clift and Brady [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref16">4</reflink>]), and (d) our own internal assessment data indicating that candidates observed poor practices during student teaching. Specifically, we wanted to examine perceptions of student teachers regarding their knowledge of effective skills, their ability to implement skills and which skills did they observe being implemented effectively during their student teaching experience.</p> <hd id="AN0161394415-2">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161394415-3">Background information</hd> <p>The context for this study was a large, public Midwestern university with a K-12 cross-categorical initial special education licensure program graduating approximately 80–90 candidates annually. The department employs 14 tenure or tenure-track professors with expertise in various areas of special education and early childhood education. Both undergraduate and graduate special education programs are fully accredited. Candidates complete the student teaching experience and the associated one-credit student teaching seminar during their last semester. They complete two full-time eight-week student teaching experiences that are geographically located within one hour of the main campus. Candidates receive in-person supervision by qualified and experienced university supervisors a minimum of four times for each student teaching experience. Prior to student teaching, undergraduates completed 375 clock hours in supervised pre-student teaching field experiences, and graduate students documented 100 hours observing or working directly with students with disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0161394415-4">Research questions</hd> <p>Our specific research questions included:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Research Question 1: What are candidates' assessment of their knowledge regarding how to implement effectively various skills presented during their program?</item> <p></p> <item> Research Question 2: What are candidates' assessment of their ability to implement effectively these skills?</item> <p></p> <item> Research Question 3: Which of these skills did candidates observe being implemented effectively during their student teaching experience placements (#1 and #2)?</item> <p></p> <item> Research Question 4: Is there a relationship between the student teaching placement and candidates' perception of their ability to implement various skills?</item> <p></p> <item> Research Question 5: Is there a relationship between skills observed during student teaching and student teachers' perception of their ability to implement various skills?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0161394415-5">Participants</hd> <p>One hundred nineteen student teaching candidates (i.e., 100 undergraduate and 19 graduate) participated in this study (i.e., 99 females and 20 males), where proper human subject protocols, including informed consent, were followed. Ninety-six percent of the students self-identified as 'Caucasian,' 2% as 'African American,' and 2% as 'Hispanic.' All spoke English as their primary language. The candidates' ages ranged from 20 to 42 years, with a mean of 23.81 (or 24 years). All candidates were completing their licensure to teach K-12 cross-categorical special education. All candidates participated in the study during their last student teaching seminar meeting that occurred at the conclusion of their student teaching experience. Therefore, we had a 100% response rate per the study.</p> <hd id="AN0161394415-6">Procedures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161394415-7">Survey</hd> <p>The survey included four parts: demographic questions (i.e., gender, age, program status; Part 1); questions regarding student teaching placements (i.e., cooperating teacher gender, grade levels served, type of program; Part 2); candidates' perceptions of their knowledge, ability, and observation of effective implementation of the 16 skills (Part 3); and two open-ended questions regarding their preparation program and student teaching experiences (Part 4). One master's level candidate, two undergraduate candidates, and one special education professor reviewed and field-tested the first draft of the survey. Slight wording edits for clarification were made based on this pilot feedback.</p> <p>To develop questions for the third part of the survey, we examined course syllabi, reviewed core Council for Exceptional standards for initial special education preparation, and contacted professors teaching courses in the initial licensure program with whom we explained the study's purpose and requested core skills associated with their course. Our initial skills list included 30 items. After collecting these skills statements, we eliminated identical outcomes and edited them for clarity and parallel structure. Our final list included 16 skill-based items that included areas such as classroom management, collaboration, writing IEPs, teaching math, reading, and functional skills, working with a paraprofessional, using assessment data, and exhibiting professionalism.</p> <p>For the third part of the survey, candidates indicated their knowledge of effectively implementing the skill, their ability to implement effectively the skill, and the level to which they observed the skill being implemented effectively during student teaching. We agree with Bouet ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref17">2</reflink>]) that knowledge of skills and the ability to implement skills are different. Bouet noted that knowledge refers to being familiar with factual information and concepts. In contrast, skills refer to the ability to apply knowledge in different situations. We were interested in both outcomes as well as if candidates observed these skills during their student teaching experience. For each of these questions, candidates responded using a 5-point Likert-scale with the low score as (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>) <emph>very limited</emph>, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>) <emph>minimal</emph>, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>) <emph>adequate</emph>, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref21">4</reflink>) <emph>substantial</emph>, and the high score as 5) <emph>extensive</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0161394415-8">Data analysis procedures</hd> <p>We collected both quantitative (Parts 1–3) and qualitative (Part 4) data in the survey. A graduate assistant entered responses from Parts 1–3 in an Excel file and typed Part 4 responses verbatim. The second author reviewed responses for accuracy and corrected any errors. After analyzing quantitative data, the two lead researchers independently read, analyzed, and coded each open-ended response from the two open-ended questions in Part 4 (Creswell [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>]). After reading comments several times, we used an inductive process of open coding to establish emerging themes (Mertens [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref23">20</reflink>]) and formed initial categories by looking for regularities and phrases sentence by sentence to represent topics and patterns (Bogdan and Biklen [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref24">1</reflink>]). If two or more responses within a question were similar, we coded them into a category. We scrutinized data by noting interrelationships and connections between categories and subcategories. We communicated 5 times to share categories and responses within each category and, after discussions, coded 282 comments into 11 themes with 100% agreement.</p> <hd id="AN0161394415-9">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161394415-10">Score reliability</hd> <p>Items from the scale were examined by computing internal consistency estimates of score reliability via Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α). A recommended cutoff value for score reliability derived from survey research and/or used in applied settings is α ≥.80 (Henson [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref25">15</reflink>]). The score reliability indices were as follows: My Knowledge α =.87; My Ability α =.82; Placement #1 α =.81; and Placement #2 α =.90. The entire survey (all four sub-scales combined): α =.83, which are all considered high internal consistency metrics for the four sub-scales and the entire protocol.</p> <hd id="AN0161394415-11">Descriptive statistics</hd> <p>On Part 1 of the survey, candidates identified the educational setting most descriptive of their student teaching placement. Almost half (49%) of the placements were in self-contained special education classrooms, 23% were in resource room settings, 21% were in co-taught settings, and 7% were in other settings, such as transition programs or a therapeutic day school.</p> <p>Furthermore, for research questions 1, 2, and 3, Tables 1–3 provide descriptive statistics and results per those questions posed. As noted in Table 1, which addressed research question 1, candidates reported being most knowledgeable about displaying professionalism (4.90), reflecting upon their practices (4.80) and collaborating with general education teachers (4.63). Candidates reported being less knowledgeable about developing functional behavioral analyses (FBAs) (3.76), leading an IEP meeting (3.93), and writing an IEP (4.0).</p> <p>Table 1. Knowledge of Skills.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Skill</td><td>M</td><td>SD</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Implement effective classroom management</td><td char=".">4.27</td><td char=".">0.66</td></tr><tr><td>Design functional behavior assessments</td><td char=".">3.76</td><td char=".">0.85</td></tr><tr><td>Use co-teaching models</td><td char=".">4.34</td><td char=".">0.79</td></tr><tr><td>Lead IEP meetings</td><td char=".">3.93</td><td char=".">0.86</td></tr><tr><td>Work with paraprofessionals</td><td char=".">4.56</td><td char=".">0.82</td></tr><tr><td>Provide reading instruction</td><td char=".">4.34</td><td char=".">0.68</td></tr><tr><td>Provide math instruction</td><td char=".">4.35</td><td char=".">0.82</td></tr><tr><td>Teach functional skills</td><td char=".">4.40</td><td char=".">0.76</td></tr><tr><td>Design IEPs for students with low incidence disabilities</td><td char=".">4.22</td><td char=".">0.92</td></tr><tr><td>Write IEPs</td><td char=".">4.00</td><td char=".">0.89</td></tr><tr><td>Make data-based decisions</td><td char=".">4.48</td><td char=".">0.69</td></tr><tr><td>Interpret data from standardized assessments</td><td char=".">4.33</td><td char=".">0.99</td></tr><tr><td>Collaborate with parents</td><td char=".">4.54</td><td char=".">0.71</td></tr><tr><td>Collaborate with general education teachers</td><td char=".">4.63</td><td char=".">0.60</td></tr><tr><td>Display professionalism</td><td char=".">4.90</td><td char=".">0.40</td></tr><tr><td>Reflect upon practice</td><td char=".">4.80</td><td char=".">0.53</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2. Ability to Implement Skills.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Skill</td><td>M</td><td>SD</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Implement effective classroom management</td><td char=".">4.02</td><td char=".">0.49</td></tr><tr><td>Design functional behavior assessments</td><td char=".">3.93</td><td char=".">0.50</td></tr><tr><td>Use co-teaching models</td><td char=".">4.76</td><td char=".">0.53</td></tr><tr><td>Lead IEP meetings</td><td char=".">4.08</td><td char=".">0.72</td></tr><tr><td>Work with paraprofessionals</td><td char=".">3.84</td><td char=".">1.00</td></tr><tr><td>Provide reading instruction</td><td char=".">3.92</td><td char=".">0.85</td></tr><tr><td>Provide mathematics instruction</td><td char=".">4.54</td><td char=".">0.66</td></tr><tr><td>Teach functional skills</td><td char=".">4.13</td><td char=".">0.79</td></tr><tr><td>Design IEPs for students with low incidence disabilities</td><td char=".">3.85</td><td char=".">0.87</td></tr><tr><td>Write IEPs</td><td char=".">4.31</td><td char=".">0.96</td></tr><tr><td>Make data-based decisions</td><td char=".">4.19</td><td char=".">0.89</td></tr><tr><td>Interpret data from standardized assessments</td><td char=".">4.05</td><td char=".">0.94</td></tr><tr><td>Collaborate with parents</td><td char=".">4.26</td><td char=".">0.93</td></tr><tr><td>Collaborate with general education teachers</td><td char=".">4.68</td><td char=".">0.63</td></tr><tr><td>Display professionalism</td><td char=".">4.33</td><td char=".">0.94</td></tr><tr><td>Reflect upon practice</td><td char=".">4.31</td><td char=".">0.81</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3. Extent Observed Skills Implemented.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>First Placement</td><td /><td>Second Placement</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Skill</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Implement effective classroom management</td><td char=".">4.59</td><td char=".">0.69</td><td char=".">4.34</td><td char=".">0.95</td></tr><tr><td>Design functional behavior assessments</td><td char=".">3.36</td><td char=".">1.48</td><td char=".">3.40</td><td char=".">1.47</td></tr><tr><td>Use co-teaching models</td><td char=".">3.47</td><td char=".">1.48</td><td char=".">3.39</td><td char=".">1.58</td></tr><tr><td>Lead IEP meetings</td><td char=".">4.18</td><td char=".">1.26</td><td char=".">4.09</td><td char=".">1.23</td></tr><tr><td>Work with paraprofessionals</td><td char=".">4.46</td><td char=".">1.11</td><td char=".">4.28</td><td char=".">1.25</td></tr><tr><td>Provide reading instruction</td><td char=".">4.11</td><td char=".">1.34</td><td char=".">3.78</td><td char=".">1.43</td></tr><tr><td>Provide math instruction</td><td char=".">4.06</td><td char=".">1.27</td><td char=".">3.86</td><td char=".">1.42</td></tr><tr><td>Teach functional skills</td><td char=".">3.79</td><td char=".">1.54</td><td char=".">3.73</td><td char=".">1.48</td></tr><tr><td>Design IEPs for students with low incidence disabilities</td><td char=".">3.79</td><td char=".">1.54</td><td char=".">3.77</td><td char=".">1.45</td></tr><tr><td>Write IEPs</td><td char=".">4.13</td><td char=".">1.23</td><td char=".">4.12</td><td char=".">1.28</td></tr><tr><td>Make data-based decisions</td><td char=".">4.42</td><td char=".">0.89</td><td char=".">4.35</td><td char=".">0.98</td></tr><tr><td>Interpret data from standardized assessments</td><td char=".">4.02</td><td char=".">1.22</td><td char=".">4.04</td><td char=".">1.25</td></tr><tr><td>Collaborate with parents</td><td char=".">4.55</td><td char=".">0.84</td><td char=".">4.38</td><td char=".">1.06</td></tr><tr><td>Collaborate with general education teachers</td><td char=".">4.25</td><td char=".">1.31</td><td char=".">4.15</td><td char=".">1.35</td></tr><tr><td>Display professionalism</td><td char=".">4.85</td><td char=".">0.51</td><td char=".">4.64</td><td char=".">0.88</td></tr><tr><td>Reflect upon practice</td><td char=".">4.67</td><td char=".">0.73</td><td char=".">4.61</td><td char=".">0.82</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As found in Table 2, which addressed research question 2, candidates reported being most skilled (i.e., having the ability) in implementing co-teaching models (4.76), collaborating with general education teachers (4.68), and teaching mathematics (4.54). Candidates reported being less skilled in working with a para- professional (3.84), designing IEPs for students with low incidence disabilities (3.85), and providing reading instruction (3.92).</p> <p>Table 3, which addressed research question 3, provides means and standard deviations for the extent to which candidates observed the effective implementation of the 16 skills across their two eight-week student teaching experiences (i.e., noted subsequently as Placement #1 and Placement #2). Candidates reported highest scores in observing professionalism (Placement #1 = 4.85, Placement #2 = 4.64), reflecting upon practices (4.67, 4.61), and implementing classroom management (4.59, 4.34). They reported lowest scores in designing FBAs (Placement #1 = 3.36, Placement #2 = 3.34), implementing co-teaching models (3.47, 3.39), and teaching functional skills (3.79, 3.73).</p> <hd id="AN0161394415-12">Correlations</hd> <p>We conducted Pearson Correlation Coefficients for research question 4 to investigate the relationship between the variables "student teaching placement" and "candidates' perception of their ability to implement various skills." Placement #1 was statistically significant and positively correlated with 'low' to 'moderate' strength (<emph>r</emph> =.336; <emph>p</emph> =.048) and with a 'small' effect size (<emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> or the coefficient of determination) =.11. The <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> result indicated that the percentage of the variance (11%) in the variable "student teaching placement #1" was accounted for in the model via the presence of the variable "candidates' perception of their ability to implement various skills" or the converse relationship. Additionally, a correlation test was conducted for research question 5 to determine the relationship between the two variables "skills observed during student teaching" and "student teachers' perception of their ability to implement various skills." No statistically significant finding was derived from the model (<emph>p</emph> >.05) and; thus, there was no relationship present between these two variables.</p> <hd id="AN0161394415-13">Open-ended questions</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161394415-14">Question #1</hd> <p>The first open-ended question requested comments about the program. The majority (64%) of comments for this question described satisfaction with the program and feeling well prepared for student teaching and being a special education teacher. Candidates reflected upon their program by noting that they appreciated the early clinical experiences, and they would recommend the program to others. Typical comments associated with this theme included, "I feel this program prepared me for everything to become an excellent teacher" and "...all the information and knowledge I have received through this program has given me the confidence and ability to be a great teacher." Other themes associated with this question included: 1). suggestions for program improvement (34%), 2). comments about professors (13%), and 3). comments associated with clinicals or student teaching (8%). Candidates suggested more information throughout their coursework on writing IEPs and FBAs and additional coursework on classroom management. They appreciated their knowledgeable, approachable, and caring professors.</p> <hd id="AN0161394415-15">Question #2</hd> <p>The second open-ended question asked about the student teaching experience. Slightly over one-third (35%) of all comments described the overall student teaching experience. Representative comments included: "Student teaching gave me the hands-on training that I needed to become an outstanding special educator," "I really enjoyed my student teaching experience," "My experience was amazing," and "Student teaching was the best part of the program." Other themes included: 1). comments about the student teaching placement (20%), 2). comments about the cooperating teacher (26%), and 3). comments about the university supervisor (14%).</p> <p>Candidates commented on their preference for certain types of placements (e.g., "I think a full year of student teaching would be very beneficial," "I was glad I had two different experiences," and "Teaching a full 16 weeks gave me confidence." The majority of candidates praised their cooperating teachers and supervisors for being supportive and welcoming. For example, one candidate wrote, "My supervisor helped me out and put me back on my feet". Another noted, "I never once felt like I lacked support or felt alone."</p> <hd id="AN0161394415-16">Alignment of quantitative and qualitative results</hd> <p>Results from Likert-scale items and open-ended questions were supportive of across similar themes. In both types of responses, candidates noted that they observed, felt most knowledgeable about, and appreciated seeing positive examples of professionalism, reflection, and collaboration modeled by professors, supervisors, and cooperating teachers. Correspondingly, in both types of responses, candidates reported feeling less skilled in writing IEPs and FBAs and recommended additional instruction and practice opportunities throughout their program in these areas. An area of contrast between the Likert-scale and open-ended findings occurred in instructional planning. Candidates recommended less emphasis on a largescale performance assessment, such as the educative Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA), yet they acknowledged needing more preparation teaching reading and functional skills.</p> <hd id="AN0161394415-17">Discussion</hd> <p>The results from this study indicated that candidates reported being the most knowledgeable in areas such as displaying professionalism, reflecting upon their practice, and collaborating with general education teachers. These results support previous findings from first-year special educators from the study's institution who felt well prepared in these skills (Conderman, Morin, and Stephens [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref26">6</reflink>]). This suggests that teacher candidates can identify their strengths and that these strengths may continue as candidates assume employment.</p> <p>We were not surprised that candidates noted strengths in professionalism and reflection. Instructors and professors in the special education program emphasize professionalism and reflection through assignments and discussions in numerous courses throughout the program. All course syllabi depict a conceptual framework that emphasizes these skills. Therefore, candidates hear about and have many opportunities to analyze their professional skills and reflect upon their practices using rubrics associated with self-assessments of their recorded lessons. Similarly, all early clinical evaluation forms and the student teaching evaluation form specifically note these skills as outcomes to be discussed and assessed. It may be that numerous exposure and practice with these two skills accounted for the higher scores derived from this study.</p> <p>Candidates also felt knowledgeable about collaborating with general educators. Previous studies (i.e., Conderman and Stephens [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>]; Griffin et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref28">13</reflink>]) revealed that beginning special educators need support with collaborative tasks, communication and collaboration were pressing issues, and that relationships with general educators affected their success with collaboration. Collaboration skills are critical with the increase in inclusion, co-teaching, and tiered supports (Brownell et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref29">3</reflink>]), and these skills, like other competencies, must be developed within coursework and clinical experiences (Friend and Cook [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref30">12</reflink>]). Our teacher education programs include a stand-alone collaboration course that acquaints candidates with communication, collaboration, and consultation skills. Each course includes a culminating project requiring candidates to apply and analyze collaboration skills with general educators. Further, our candidates take some courses in the elementary education program. It may be our stand-alone courses and exposure to courses taught by professors in the elementary education program that shaped candidates' knowledge of collaboration.</p> <p>Candidates reported feeling less knowledgeable regarding technical skills such as designing FBAs, leading an IEP meeting, and writing an IEP. Our candidates learn about and complete an FBA in one of their classes. In our state, school social workers typically assume leadership for developing FBAs. Therefore, candidates accepting a position out of state will be at a disadvantage if their IEP team expects them to assume leadership in developing FBAs. It is possible that candidates completed the FBA assignment for their class with minimal follow up and skill reinforcement in subsequent classes and clinicals, an occurrence observed by Feiman-Nemser ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref31">11</reflink>]) who discussed the fragmentation of university coursework and student teaching experiences. Feiman-Nemser noted that courses taught by individual faculty rarely build on or connect to one another. Markelz, Riden, and Scheeler ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref32">18</reflink>]) arrived at similar conclusions. These researchers examined the extent that teacher educators taught preservice candidates to generalize skills to their K-12 classrooms. Their results indicated ambiguity with familiarity of generalization techniques and fidelity of implementation. Specifically, course syllabi lacked opportunities for skill generalization, and student teaching supervisors reported a disconnection between university and classroom realities.</p> <p>Certainly, candidates need multiple opportunities to practice critical skills over time, analyze the practice under various conditions, and receive specific feedback. They also need to be able to practice skills within a safe environment without the pressure of a high-stakes assessment. To support purposeful candidate generalization of critical skills, teacher educators can engage in frequent curriculum mapping that indicates when skills are introduced, practiced, and mastered and make curricular adjustments accordingly to assure appropriate progression of critical skills. Further, student teaching supervisors and cooperating teachers need to be familiar enough with the teacher education program to cue candidates about their previous courses and course projects to support generalization and application of skills to a new context.</p> <p>Student teaching candidates in this study reported a disconnection between what they know about effective co-teaching and what they observed regarding co-teaching. This finding supports observations that practicing co-teachers often use the one-teach one-observe or one-teach one assist co-teaching model. These models often place the special educator in a passive role and may account for the less-than-optimal results from the co-teaching literature (Conderman, Gerzel-Short, and Liberty [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref33">5</reflink>]). Student teachers (and even beginning special education teachers) may not be comfortable changing existing poor co-teaching practices within their school. It may be safer, as a non-tenured teacher, to assume existing practices. Informing the cooperating teacher of the expectations of the student teaching candidate to experience best practices, providing sustained staff development to district personnel at the student teaching site, and carefully crafting and monitoring co-teaching experiences for student teachers and cooperating teachers might support change in existing co-teaching practices. Our teacher candidates reported that they had the knowledge and skills to use the various co-teaching models effectively, but they did not observe them at their student teaching site.</p> <hd id="AN0161394415-18">Limitations</hd> <p>The current study has two likely inter-related limitations. The first limitation is affiliated with the study's non-randomly selected sample that consisted of all accessible (i.e., from a specific academic department) student teaching candidates from a public Midwestern university, which had an over-representation of female, Caucasian participants who may not have been representative proportionally to the greater student teacher population. Second, due to the lack of randomness in deriving a sample of the participants for this study, there may have been a selection threat to internal validity. Relatedly, there may have been a threat to external validity per the diminished generalizability of the study's results.</p> <hd id="AN0161394415-19">Implications for practice</hd> <p>Surveying teacher candidates throughout their program and again at the conclusion of their program provides assessment data that may not be obtained in other venues. Data obtained through this project augmented other assessment data that we regularly collect such as state test scores, grade point averages, disposition checks, performance-based projects from selected courses, and early clinical and student teaching evaluation forms. This study provided a unique opportunity for candidates to share their perceptions of their knowledge and skills at the culminating point in their studies as well as observations of these skills during student teaching. Honoring candidates' voices is an important, but perhaps neglected, aspect of the program assessment process.</p> <p>Sharing such data with program faculty and contextualizing it with other data is helpful for making programmatic considerations. For example, data from this study and other sources collected over several years motivated the special education faculty to make curricular changes such as deleting courses that were redundant, adding a course on writing IEPs, and examining student teaching assignments. Additionally, several faculty are providing free professional development to personnel in our K-12 partnership schools on co-teaching and supporting students with behavioral issues to promote best practices in our early clinical and student teaching sites. Using data to make decisions such as these helps complete the assessment cycle.</p> <p>Student teaching is the culminating experience in most teacher education programs. Many factors contribute to a successful experience. Teacher candidates are better prepared when they have practiced a variety of skills in previous methods courses and early clinical experiences, so they can reflect upon those experiences and constructive feedback associated with those assignments. As one of our candidates wrote, "The program prepared me to make the professional leap."</p> <p>The transition from student to intern is also smoother when the practices of the cooperating teacher (and school district) parallel (as much as possible) those in the teacher education program. When disconnection occurs, the student teacher is likely to follow the cooperating teacher's practice, even if those are not considered "best practices." Being proactive by clarifying assignments, describing best practices, maintaining frequent communication among the student teacher, cooperating teacher and supervisor, and providing professional development to cooperating teachers support the student teacher and reduce opportunities for misunderstandings and conflict later. Admittedly, it is impossible to prepare the student teacher for every situation that they will encounter in their teaching career. However, a culminating experience with experienced and vested mentors who offer the student teacher a safe place to explore while providing wise insight is an invaluable and critical component in the journey of joining the teaching profession.</p> <hd id="AN0161394415-20">Suggestions for future research</hd> <p>The impact of student teaching and variables associated with student teaching provide multiple avenues for future research.One area for subsequent research as suggested by the current results includes how cooperating teachers are selected and prepared for their roles as mentors. Some candidates reported that either in early clinicals or student teaching experiences, their cooperating teacher was not an effective mentor. We maintain an updated list of cooperating teachers and request reflections from our candidates regarding their mentor. However, securing highly qualified and experienced (tenured) special education cooperating teachers is often a challenge, and we avoid using the same teachers in consecutive semesters, if possible, to prevent burn out. Acknowledging the importance of the cooperating teacher's role, future research could provide insight into qualities of effective cooperating teachers, viable options when selection is low, appropriate incentives for cooperating teachers, and training models. Results from this study, combined with other existing data, has informed faculty members for making programmatic changes such as infusing more assignments for IEP practice writing. Though time consuming, we recommend teacher educators regularly research their clinical and student teaching policies and practices along with alumni surveys as part of their overall assessment plan. Are beginning teachers able to apply what they learned in their teacher preparation program to their new position? Can they find authentic opportunities to apply best practices, or do they follow existing practices even when those practices do not reflect what they know to be recommended by our professional groups? Our experience is that candidates are very willing to share their insights and recommendations for their teacher preparation program, and they feel validated when we ask for their perspectives. Also, data from candidate surveys are valuable for completing program assessment plans, continuously informing teacher educators, and improving program outcomes.</p> <ref id="AN0161394415-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref18" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Bogdan, R, and S. Biklen. 2007. Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. 5th ed. Boston : Allyn & Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref17" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bouet, G. 2015. The difference between knowledge and skills: Knowing does not make you skilled. ELearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/difference-between-knowledge-and-skills-knowing-not-make-skilled.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref20" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Brownell, M. T., P. T. Sindelar, M. T. Kiely, and L. C. Danielson. 2010. Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children 76 (3): 357 – 77. doi: 10.1177/001440291007600307.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref16" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Clift, R. T, and P. Brady. 2005. Research on methods courses and field experiences. In Studying teacher education: The report on the AERA panel on research and teacher education, eds. M. Cochran-Smith, and K. Zeichner, 309 – 424. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref33" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Conderman, G., L. Gerzel-Short, and L. Liberty. 2021. Where's the SDI? Co-teaching in secondary math and -science classrooms. [Conference presentation]. Council for Exceptional Children, March 3–6, Baltimore, MD.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref4" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Conderman, G., J. Morin, and J. T. Stephens. 2005. Special education student teaching practices. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth 49 (3): 5 – 10. doi: 10.3200/PSFL.49.3.5-10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref27" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Conderman, G, and J. T. Stephens. 2000. Voices from the field: Reflections from beginning special educators. Teaching Exceptional Children 33 (1): 16 – 21. doi: 10.1177/004005990003300103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref3" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Connelly, V, and S. Graham. 2009. Student teaching and teacher attrition in Special Education. Teacher Education and Special Education 32 (3): 257 – 69. doi: 10.1177/0888406409339472.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref13" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cook, L. 2007. When in Rome: Influences on special education student teachers' teaching. International Journal of Special Education 22 (3): 119 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell, J. W. 2011. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th ed. Boston : Merrill Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feiman-Nemser, S. 2001. From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 103 (6): 1013 – 55. doi: 10.1111/0161-4681.00141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friend, M, and L. Cook. 2017. Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffin, C., K. Kilgore, J. Winn, A. Otis-Wilborn, W. Hou, and C. Garvan. 2009. First-year special educators: The influence of school and classroom context factors on their accomplishments and problems. Teacher Education and Special Education 32 (1): 45 – 63. doi: 10.1177/0888406408330870.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grossman, P., M. Ronfeldt, and J. Cohen. 2011. The power of setting: The role of field experience in learning to teach. In Applications to teaching and learning. American Psychological Association (APA) Educational psychology handbook, eds. K. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, A. Bus, S. Major, and H. L. Swanson, vol. 3, 311 – 34. Washington, D.C. : American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henson, R. K. 2001. Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 34 (3): 177 – 89. doi: 10.1080/07481756.2002.12069034.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hollins, E, and M. T. Guzman. 2005. Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations. In Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education, eds. M. Cochran Smith and K. M. Zeichner, 477 – 548. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Killian, J. E, and E. A. Wilkins. 2009. Characteristics of highly effective cooperating teachers: A study of their backgrounds and preparation. Action in Teacher Education 30 (4): 67 – 83. doi: 10.1080/01626620.2009.10734453.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Markelz, A., B. Riden, and M. C. Scheeler. 2017. Generalization training in special education teacher preparation: Does it exist? Teacher Education and Special Education 40 (3): 179 – 93. doi: 10.1177/0888406417703752.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLeskey, J., M. D. Barringer, B. Billingsley, M. Brownell, D. Jackson, M. Kennedy, T. Lewis, L. Maheady, J. Rodriguez, and M. C. Scheeler. 2017. High-leverage practices in special education. January. Arlington, VA : Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mertens, D. M. 2020. Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. 2010. Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. Report by the Committee on the study of teacher preparation programs in the United states. Washington, DC : National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Shea, D. J., D. Hammitte, R. Mainzer, and M. D. Crutchfield. 2000. From teacher preparation to continuing professional development. Teacher Education and Special Education 23 (2): 71 – 7. doi: 10.1177/088840640002300202.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prater, M. A, and T. W. Sileo. 2004. Fieldwork requirements in special education preparation: A national study. Teacher Education and Special Education 24 (3): 251 – 63. doi: 10.1177/088840640402700305.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rice, J. K. 2003. Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC : Economic Policy Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ronfeldt, M, and M. Reininger. 2012. More or better student teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (8): 1091 – 106. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ronfeldt, M. 2012. Where should student teachers learn to teach? Effects of field placement school characteristics on teacher retention and effectiveness. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 34 (1): 3 – 26. doi: 10.3102/0162373711420865.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smagorinsky, P., A. D. Sanford, and B. Konopak. 2006. Functional literacy in a constructivist key: A nontraditional student teacher's apprenticeship in a rural elementary school. Teacher Education Quarterly 33 (4): 93 – 109.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Greg Conderman; Stephanie Baker and David A. Walker</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref32"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1376616
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Special Education Student Teachers' Reflections on Skills and Observed Practices
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Conderman%2C+Greg%22">Conderman, Greg</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Baker%2C+Stephanie%22">Baker, Stephanie</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Walker%2C+David+A%2E%22">Walker, David A.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Clearing+House%3A+A+Journal+of+Educational+Strategies%2C+Issues+and+Ideas%22"><i>Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas</i></searchLink>. 2023 96(1):1-10.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education+Teachers%22">Special Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Skills%22">Teaching Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education+Programs%22">Teacher Education Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Teachers%22">Student Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Teaching%22">Student Teaching</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professionalism%22">Professionalism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperation%22">Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Functional+Behavioral+Assessment%22">Functional Behavioral Assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Competencies%22">Teacher Competencies</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00098655.2022.2128285
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0009-8655<br />1939-912X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Over the course of five consecutive fall and spring semesters, 119 undergraduate and graduate candidates in a special education initial teacher licensure program from a large Midwestern, public university participated in a study to examine their reflections of their student teaching experiences. Specifically, candidates reported their a) knowledge of and b) ability to effectively implement skills associated with their teacher education program and Council for Exceptional Children standards and c) the extent to which they observed the effective implementation of these skills during student teaching. Candidates reported highest scores in areas related to professionalism and collaboration and lower scores in designing functional behavioral assessments and interventions for students with low incidence disabilities. Conclusions for educators are included.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1376616
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1376616
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00098655.2022.2128285
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 1
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Special Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Education Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Teaching
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Professionalism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Functional Behavioral Assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Competencies
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Special Education Student Teachers' Reflections on Skills and Observed Practices
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Conderman, Greg
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Baker, Stephanie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Walker, David A.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0009-8655
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1939-912X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 96
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas
              Type: main
ResultId 1