Differences in beginning special education teachers: The influence of personal attributes,...

DIFFERENCES IN BEGINNING SPECIALEDUCATION TEACHERS: THE INFLUENCE OFPERSONAL ATTRIBUTES, PREPARATION, AND

SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT ON CLASSROOMREADING PRACTICES

Anne G. Bishop, Mary T. Brownell, Janette K. Klingner, Melinda M. Leko,and Sally A. C. Galman

Abstract. Little research exists to help us understand why somebeginning special education teachers of reading engage in moreeffective classroom practices than others. Factors that may influ-ence these differences include personal attributes, preparation,and school environment. This mixed-methods study examinedbeginning special education teachers (N = 25) who taught readingto elementary students. Teachers were identified as most accom-plished, moderately accomplished, and least accomplished, asdefined by an overall classroom practice score. Interviews, obser-vational field notes, and survey data on preparation and workenvironment revealed that the most accomplished beginners wereconsistently reflective, resourceful, and relentless and used theseattributes to improve instruction, whereas others varied in thisregard. Furthermore, while adequately prepared in special educa-tion, beginners reported inadequate preparation in reading. Theinterplay of personal attributes, preparation, and school environ-ment seems to be a powerful determinant of a teacher's level ofaccomplishment.

ANNE G. BISHOP, Ph.D., University of Florida.MARY T. BROWNELL, Ph.D., University of Florida.

fANETTE K. KLINGNER, Ph.D., University of Colorado-Boulder.MELINDA M. LEKO, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison.

SALLY A. C. GALMAN, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts-Amherst

Beginning teachers are often portrayed as struggling: their students in the curriculum, (c) meeting their stu-scrambling to deal with the complexity of teaching and dents' individual needs, (d) figuring out what to teachleft to their own devices to maneuver a complex school and how, and (e) navigating the school environmentenvironment. Specifically, beginning teachers often (Reynolds, 1995). In addition, many appear focused onhave trouble (a) with student discipline, (b) engaging themselves and their own survival rather than on mak-

Volume 33, Spring 2010 75

ing their instruction more responsive to students. Inmany cases, their practice can seem mechanical andunresponsive to students (Kagan, 1992).

Not all beginning teachers experience the same strug-gles in their practice, however,' and some appear betterequipped than others to deal with the demands ofteaching. In special education, three studies haveshown marked differences between the instructionalpractices of beginning special education teachers, withsome teachers demonstrating remarkable sophisticationin their ability to engage and effectively teach studentswith disabilities (Browneli et al., 2009; Nowacek,McKinney, & Hallahan, 1990; Seo, Browneli, Bishop, &Dingle, 2008).

At a time when teacher quality is receiving muchnational attention (e.g., the No Ghild Left Behind Act,U.S. Gongress, 2001; the Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Improvement Act, U.S. Department ofEducation, 2004), we need to understand why somebeginning special education teachers engage in moreeffective classroom practices than others. Such under-standing of special education teachers of reading is espe-cially important given the preponderance of studentswith reading disabilities served and the numbers of spe-cial education teachers who are likely to enter the class-room through alternative routes.

Most of the research examining beginning specialeducation teachers has examined challenges theseteachers face and workplace supports they need toencouragé them to stay (Billingsley, 2004; Billingsley,Griffin, Smith, Kamman, & Israel, 2009). Less is under-stood about the factors that may contribute to differ-ences in their practices. In general education, there is ahealthier literature base explaining how differences inindividual teacher qualities, initial preparation, andschool context explain variations in beginning teacherpractice. We acknowledge that some of these findingsmay apply to beginning special education teachers, butwe can only surmise that the complexity of special edu-cation makes the struggle to enact their practice moreexaggerated. Such complexities include applying theirbroad-based teacher training to address a multitude ofstudent needs and the multiple roles they are likely toassume in schools (Blanton, Sindelar, & Gorrea, 2006).

To better understand why some beginning specialeducation teachers were more adept in their practicethan others, we selected teachers from a larger studywho were deemed as more or less effective in teachingreading to students with learning disabilities. We builton this larger study to further our field's understandingof beginning special education teachers, their practice,and influences on their practice. In establishing arationale for the study, we analyzed literature in generaland special education that demonstrates the relative

importance of three major clusters of variables in influ-encing beginning teacher practice: personal attributes,teacher preparation, and school environment.

Factors That Influence Classroom PracticesPersonal attributes. Personal attributes and unique

experiences of beginning special education teachers arelikely to play a powerful role in shaping their classroompractices as well as their understanding of teaching andlearning. Personal attributes include teacher beliefs andindividual personal traits. It is well established thatone's prior experience as a student in elementary andsecondary schools has a strong influence on classroompractice (Richardson, 1996). Students of teaching bringpowerful, personal history-based lay theories aboutclassroom practice to their teacher education experi- 'enees (Holt-Reynolds, 1992). Such theories or beliefsabout teaching, learning, and students, in turn, playstrong mediating roles in what novices learn aboutteaching and how they apply it in the classroom(Richardson, 1996). In special education, however,entering beliefs may not play the same role in classroompractice, as prospective teachers have spent little time ina special education setting (Pugach, 2005).

One individual personal trait that is prominent in theteacher education literature is a propensity for reflec-tion. Reflective teachers consistently analyze theirteaching practices and search for ways to better helptheir students (Ross, Bondy, & Kyle, 1993). Reflectiveteachers are introspective, open-minded, responsible,and have the "ability to view situations from multipleperspectives" (Ross et al., 1993, p. 48; Zeichner & Liston,1996).

Although reflecting on their practice should enableteachers to improve their practice, barriers such as timeconstraints, fear of being judged, weak knowledge of thecontent and how students might learn it, and the diffi-culty of analyzing one's own actions can hinder teach-ers' abilities to reflect (Pickett, 1996; Turner-Bissett,1999). Reflection continues to be an area of interest forresearchers, as the ability to reflect is a common traitamong accomplished teachers (Loughran, 2002).

Individual teacher traits also play an important role inhow teachers respond to the challenges they confrontwhen entering the special education classroom. Generaleducation teachers, working in inclusive classrooms, aremore likely to engage in cognitively demanding instruc-tional interactions and provide more active instructionwhen they perceive themselves as being able to assiststudents with disabilities instructionally compared totheir less efficacious peers (Stanovich & Jordan, 1998).

The role that personal attributes play in the learningand practices of special education teachers, however,has not been subject to much study to date (Renzaglia,

Learning Disability Quarterly 76

Hutchins, & Lee, 1997). Lessen and Frankiewicz (1992)reported that successful special education teachers dis-played humor, enthusiasm, fairness, empathy, flexibil-ity, and self-control. In addition, they maintained goodrelations with individuals and groups of students.Teachers' ability to forge positive relationships with stu-dents with disabilities may be due to their level of self-efficacy with regard to their competence as teachers.Thus, in a large survey study of special education teach-ers, Carlson, Lee, and SchroU (2004) identified self-effi-cacy as a key dimension of teacher quality.

Beginning special education teachers' beliefs aboutinstruction, their beliefs about their role in helping stu-dents with disabilities, their ability to reflect on theirinstruction, and their confidence in their ability to workwith students with disabilities, are likely to influencetheir ability to learn from what they are doing. If begin-ning special education teachers are able to identify theinstructional improvements they must make and areconfident that they will be able to make them, theirinstructional practices are likely to be stronger.

Teacher preparation. Early teacher training repre-sents the integration of beliefs, knowledge, and prac-tices of beginners (Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy,2001). What teachers learn prior to entering the class-room makes a difference in their success. The qualityand intensity of as well as the components that areincorporated into the learning directly influence abeginner's ability to teach. While it is often difflcult toseparate preparation experiences from resulting knowl-edge and beliefs, we think it is important to examinepreparation as a separate entity, acknowledging thatpreparation experiences are key in acquiring the spe-cialized knowledge necessary for effective classroompractices in reading.

The general education literature includes a series ofstudies creating linkages between teacher education,teacher practice, and student achievement specific toreading. Researchers have demonstrated that exem-plary teacher education programs have an advantageover generic elementary programs in preparing begin-ning teachers to provide reading instruction. Graduatesof exemplary teacher education reading programsreported being more responsive to the students' needsand demonstrated more effective classroom practiceusing a validated observation system (InternationalReading Association, 2003; Maloch et al., 2003). Thiswork supports the importance of high-quality prépara-tion to promote beginning teacher quality.

Thus far, four studies have investigated the contribu-tion of special education preparation to beginningteaching. For example, Sindelar, Daunic, and Rennells(2004) examined the practices of beginning special edu-cation teachers who participated in three preparation

routes, using a validated observation system. Praxis III(Dwyer, 1998). These researchers found that teachersgraduating from campus-based and alternative pro-grams run through a district-university collaborativewere more competent than those graduating from adistrict-only alternative program.

Nougaret, Scruggs, and Mastropieri (2004) also foundthat preparation plays a role in beginning special edu-cation practice, as teachers in their study who receivedminimal preparation were less sophisticated in theirpractice than teachers graduating from a special educa-tion preparation program. Feng and Sass (2009) pro-vided preliminary data that demonstrate connectionsbetween preparation and student achievement.Speciflcally, these researchers found that special educa-tion teachers, with approximately 30 hours of prepara-tion, made stronger contributions to the readingachievement gains of students with disabilities thanteachers without such preparation.

Finally, Leko (2008) demonstrated that not all specialeducation preservice teachers benefited equally fromtheir preparation in special education and reading.Using qualitative interviews and observations as well asratings on a validated observation tool, Leko found thatthe opportunities preservice teachers had to apply theirknowledge of teaching reading to students with disabil-ities, as well as their individual beliefs about teachingreading and their competence for teaching, seemed towork together to influence the quality of their instruc-tion.

These studies demonstrate connections betweenteacher preparation and beginning special educationpractice. Further, the Leko study (2009) shows that vari-ations' in preparation experiences and individual quali-ties of beginning special education teachers are likely toshape teachers' practices.

School environment. External factors also come intoplay as beginners engage in classroom practice, andthese factors may be pronounced for special educationteachers given the complex challenges they encounterin schools. Environments marked by collaborative col-leagues, mentorship, access to materials, and supportiveadministrators enable special as well as general educa-tion teachers to develop their skills. Across several stud-ies, beginners described how collégial support wasimportant in learning to teach. Support allowed teach-ers to take risks, provided new ideas for instruction,enabled teachers to secure feedback on instruction, andhelped them to feel more self-efficacious about teachingand their influence in the school (Appleton & Kindt,1999; Chester & Beaudin, 1996).

Johnson, Kardos, Kauffman, Liu, & Donaldson (2004)found evidence of strong instructional leadership inschools that inducted beginning teachers successfully.


Principals played a key role in establishing supportiveacademic cultures. Effective principals hired teacherswho understood the school mission and provided ongo-ing feedback aimed at validating and improving begin-ning teachers' practice. This helped teachers developmore certainty about their teaching and improved theirself-efficacy (Chester & Beaudin, 1996). Additionally,effective principals played a strong role in crafting highexpectations for behavior and learning and supportedbeginners in fulfilling those expectations. In schoolswith effective leadership, beginners believed they werenot left to "sink or swim."

Access to quality curriculum also seems to influence abeginning teacher's ability to provide instruction.Research on beginners demonstrates that they often relyon textbooks to inform their instruction, even whenthey believe doing so constrains their creativity. Well-specified curricula that help teachers approach instruc-tion and make decisions assist them in feeling secureabout their teaching (Kauffman, Johnson, Kardos, Liu,& Peske, 2002).

In a qualitative interview with 50 first- and second-year teachers, Kauffman et al. (2002) found that teacherswho had access to a well-articulated curriculum werelikely to feel confident when approaching instruction. Incontrast, when teachers did not have access to structuredcurriculum, they felt lost. The pressure to create curricu-lum occurred while they were learning to maintain dis-cipline, engage students in classroom activities, navigatea new school context, communicate with parents, dealwith state standards, and evaluate student work. In suchsituations, beginning teachers felt exhausted, scramblingto stay one step ahead of the students.

Although the literature on beginning teachers pro-vides a useful foundation, few studies have been con-ducted in special education on the confluence of factorsaffecting beginning teacher practice. In sum, we haveinsufficient research to help us explain why some begin-ning special education teachers of reading engage inmore effective classroom practices than others.

The purpose of this study was to examine accom-plished, moderately accomplished, and less accom-plished beginning special educators, defined by anoverall classroom practice score using a valid and reli-able observation instrument. Specifically, we sought toascertain if there were commonalities and differencesamong teachers with varying instructional abilities inreading by focusing on personal attributes, preparation,and school environment.

METHODWe employed a mixed-methods strategy of inquiry.

We deemed this to be the most appropriate approachfor helping us understand the confluence of personal

attributes, preparation, and school environment of par-ticipating beginning teachers. Such a method allows formore indepth study of factors than is possible usingother approaches. This strategy of inquiry enabled us toexamine teachers in context (LeCompte & Schensul,1999).

ParticipantsParticipants included 25 teachers with one to three

years of experience who were assigned to teach readingto students with high-incidence disabilities in grades3-5 (all names are coded by state name and an assignednumber). The teachers taught in seven school districtsin Colorado and Florida, with 18 of the 25 teachersworking in Florida. The percentage of students inschools receiving free or reduced-cost lunch rangedfrom 2.7% to 87%; the median was 71%. A majority ofteachers (n = 20) were in resource settings. All but threeused core reading programs such as Reading MasteryPlus and Harcourt Brace Trophies. Use of the reader'sworkshop model combined with guided reading wasreported by the three teachers who implemented a lessprescribed curriculum delivery model. Fifteen of the25 teachers had completed a traditional degree in spe-cial education, 4 had majored in general education andtaken a special education certification test to becomequalified, and 6 had participated in alternative pro-grams that added special education to an existingnoneducation bachelor's degree.

Teachers were observed using the Reading Instruc-tion in Special Education Observation Instrument(RISE), an instrument developed to capture effectivespecial education reading practices and used in an ear-lier study to measure beginning special education qual-ity (Brownell et al., 2009). The RISE is comprised of 22items that address the following subscales: Instruc-tional Practices, General Instructional Environment,Decoding, Com-prehension, and Classroom Manage-ment. These subscales were designed to address com-ponents of effective reading instruction as well asinstructional and classroom management practicesknown to define effective instruction in special educa-tion (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001; NationalReading Panel, 2000);

Items in each subscale are based on a 4-point Likertscale, and observers may score using mid-point ratingssuch as 2.5. A score of 1 represents "Low Quality" and a4 represents "High Quality." Teachers were observedteaching reading on three to four occasions by one ortwo researchers. Upon completion of the observation, ascore for each item was assigned. An overall classroompractice (QCP) score was calculated to represent overalleffectiveness. The QCP score was the average scoreacross all items on the RISE.


The validity and reliability evidence for the RISE wasestablished in a larger study (Brownell et al., 2009). Itsinternal structure validity was established by examiningcorrected item-total correlation coefficients for theentire instrument and for each of the subscales. Thecoefficient alpha for the total instrument was 0.96.Corrected item-total correlation coefficients rangedfrom .5 to .9, providing evidence that the internal struc-ture of the instrument was consistent with its intendedstructure.

Criterion validity was established by employing hier-archical linear modeling analyses to determine the pro-portion of variance contributed to student readingachievement gains by average overall practice as well assubscale scores on the RISE. OCP, general instructionalenvironment, and classroom management scores con-tributed a significant proportion of variance to oral read-ing fluency gains (.37, .48, and .59, respectively). Theconnection between the OCP performance score on theRISE and student achievement gains provides furtherevidence of its validity in quantifying quality readinginstruction in special education.

Reliability of the RISE was established by calculatingalpha coefficients for the entire scale (.96) and the sub-scales (.88 to .94). We established interrater reliabilitybetween and within sites. Further, we establishedanchor persons in all sites, who trained the group to80% reliability before going into the field. We also main-tained within-site observer agreement, with interraterobserver agreement calculated on 10% of the observa-tions; 70% of the observations were at 81% or above.

Teachers were categorized based on results from theRISE: most accomplished, moderately accomplished,and least accomplished. We identified the most accom-plished beginners as the seven teachers who had anoverall classroom practice score of 3.5 or 4 (an average ofall RISE items). Twelve teachers fell into the moderatelyaccomplished range, with overall classroom practicescores that ranged from 2.0 to 3.0. Six teachers fell at theother extreine of the teacher practice continuum, withoverall classroom practice scores at 1.5 or below. Theseteachers were considered least accomplished. These cutscores represent the ranges that cluster above and belowthe score of 2.5, the score that reflected average per-formance for each item.

Data CollectionTeacher interviews. To understand the differences

among the teachers, we developed and administered ateacher interview (see Appendix). Questions were struc-tured around (a) preparation and learning opportunitiesto gain knowledge, (b) teachers' perceptions of theirability to enact their new craft in the classroom, and (c)school context.

Preparation questions tapped into how well preparedteachers felt in special education and, in particular,reading. One line of questioning read as follows: "Didyou have any reading instructors who were particularlyeffective in helping you see how to put what you werelearning into practice? Can you give me examples ofwhat they did?" Teachers were also asked to describetheir successes and challenges in the first couple of yearsof teaching. Teachers responded to questions such as:"What aspects of reading instruction are most challeng-ing to you? What was your biggest success in teachingthis year?" Questions relating to school environmentfocused on the level of support they felt they received.For example, teachers responded to the following: "Howdoes your teaching environment help or hinder youfrom putting your ideas for teaching reading into prac-tice? What type of curricula are you using in your class-room and what types of supports have you received?"This one- to two-hour interview was conducted at theschool site with the research team recording responseson a tape recorder or computer.

Secondary data sources. Two data sources were usedto support findings from the interviews. First, theresearch team developed and administered The SpecialEducation Beginning Teacher Survey: Influences onPractice. This two-part survey was used to collectteacher preparation data relating to (a) the quality oflearning opportunities to teach reading instruction and(b) characteristics of the school environment that sup-port teacher learning. Subscales include (a) the contentof both special education and reading specific course-work (a = .92), (b) opportunities for active learning(a = .90), (c) coherence of learning opportunities forteaching reading (a = .88), (d) relevance of learningopportunities (a = .90), (e) opportunities to learn fromthe curriculum (a = .83), (f) schoolwide efforts toimprove reading (a = .87), (g) collective teacher prac-tices in reading instruction (a = .81), (h) school climate(a = .91), and (i) reading beliefs (a = .66). All items werescored on a 5-point Likert scale.

Trained observers took extensive field notes during allclassroom observations to further inform the findings.These notes provided detailed descriptions of teachers'classroom reading and management practices; evidencedrawn from these notes supported the scoring of theobservation instrument. All observers were former read-ing and special education teachers and had considerableexperience conducting classroom observations. Addi-tionally, observers were trained to be reliable on theRISE (as described earlier).

Data AnalysisQuantitative data were used to sort beginning teach-

ers into groups based on an overall classroom practice


rating derived from the RISE. Teacher interviews playeda primary role in the qualitative data analysis, andsecondary data sources such as the teacher surveyand observation field notes were also part of the analy-sis. By incorporating multiple data sources and amixed methodology, we were able to establish triangu-lation and deepen our understanding of beginningteachers.

We followed both deductive and inductive processesin a multiStep fashion. Our approach was deductive inthat we established a priori which general factors wewanted to examine; it was inductive in the sense thatwithin each of these broad categories, we themed thedata primarily from the "bottom up" using a groundedtheory or constant-comparative approach (Glaser &Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Gorbin, 1990). However, attimes we followed our intuitions, checking to see if thedata confirmed our understanding, in more of a deduc-tive manner. In their description of qualitative researchin special education, Brantlinger, Jiménez, Klingner,Pugach, and Richardson (2Ö05) noted that, "It seemsthe more experienced the researchers, the more theirstudies would anticipate findings and be designed todocument rather than discover phenomena" (p. 197).Thus, they point out that researchers often moved backand forth between the data and emerging theories andtheir own intuitions or expert beliefs.

Interviews served as our primary data source. Ourfirst step was to read through all interviews to get abroad sense of what the data showed. Then we chun-ked all responses, putting brackets around text thatapplied to one idea. Next, we indicated whether eachchunk applied to one of the three broad factors that webelieved would influence teacher practice based on theliterature (i.e., personal attributes, preparation, con-text), or "other." We then analyzed the interviews ofthe teachers who received the lowest overall classroompractice score to determine if certain characteristics orconstructs would emerge. This was done in a "bottom-up" fashion, whereby we gave a code or label to eachchunk of data (i.e., portion of interview response) andthen looked for ways to cluster chunks with the sameor similar codes. As explained by Glaser and Strauss(1967), we compared each chunk "with the previousincidents in the same and different groups coded in thesame category ... [This process] soon starts to genefate'theoretical properties of the category" (p. 106).

The next step was to examine the code clusters forpatterns or themes, constructing "a set of relationalstatements that can be used to explain, in a generalsense, what is going on" (Strauss & Gorbin, 1990, p.145). We also looked for negative cases and worked torefine our themes. In addition, we made note of quotesthat exemplified emerging themes.

The interviews with moderately and most accom-plished teachers were analyzed in a similar fashion, cod-ing our data, clustering the data, and looking forthemes, in a recursive manner. Once this was donewithin the teacher types (i.e., least, moderately, andmost accomplished), we checked themes across types.For example, reflectiveness, resourcefulness, and relent-lessness emerged as personal attributes that could beattributed to the most accomplished teachers. We thenlooked at the low and moderately accomplished teach-ers for examples of these qualities. We triangulatedinterview data with Likert-scale ratings from TheInfluences on Practice Survey and the observed practicesfrom field notes on the RISE.

For example, we compared the interview, survey, andobservation data from a moderately accomplishedteacher who told an interviewer she was inadequatelyprepared to teach word study. Both the interview andthe score on the Preparation Survey indicated her con-cern about teaching phonics. Similarly, her word studyscore on a lesson teaching blends supported her reportof struggling to teach word study. By analyzing datafrom teachers along a continuum, the findings provideda glimpse irito the role personal attributes, preparation,and context can play in supporting or hindering abeginner's ability to thrive during the early years.

Trustworthiness and CredibilitySeveral steps were taken to account for our biases and

to ensure the trustworthiness and credibility of our find-ings. From a qualitative perspective, the researcher isa critical instrument in collecting and analyzing data(Patton, 2002). Thus, .knowledge and experience playa key role in data interpretation and should be acknowl-edged. As researchers, teacher educators, and formerclassroom teachers, we have more than 80 years of com-bined experience in special education, general educa-tion, and administration, with specific expertise inreading instruction for students with disabilities. Thus,we brought well-informed views to our research of whatgood general instructional practices look like and peda-gogical content knowledge that is reading specific, aswell as knowledge of learners, educational contexts, andcurricula.

In addition, we have also accumulated several years ofexperience conducting qualitative research and are welltrained in how to account for biases when carrying outa study, analyzing data, and interpreting findings. Thus,we were aware of our preconceptions and openly dis-cussed differing opinions. Specifically, we discussed ourperspectives about the use of the observation instru-ment, data collection procedures, and the data analysisprocess. For example, in one meeting where all of uswere in attendance, we watched a videotaped lesson in


which the teacher was using a scripted approach to pro-vide reading instruction. We realized that those of uswho favored this method tended to rate the teachermore favorably than those of us who did not; however,we reached group consensus and developed a commonmindset that reflected a comprehensive direct instruc-tion approach to teaching reading. In a rigorous, sys-tematic fashion, we followed this interactive processwith every item on the RISE, making sure we were inagreement about the factors addressed by each item.

After establishing interrater reliability within thegroup, we conducted at least 15% of our observations inteams, independently completing the RISE and compar-ing our ratings and our impressions. Similarly, we fol-lowed a multiStep process to data analysis that involvedreaching consensus about every code and theme.

To account for and monitor our biases as well as ourimpressions, we engaged in reflection while conductingobservations and kept track of our thoughts and reac-tions to what we were seeing by recording observers'comments, or memos, while writing field notes. Forexample, in one observation, the researcher noted, "[Itseems to me she is emphasizing and saying the incorrectform much more often than the correct form.] (KH, 5-13-04)." Memos such as these reminded us to check ourimpressions against the data to determine if they heldtrue. As another way to ensure the validity of our find-ings, we looked for counterexamples during the data-analysis process whenever findings were emerging.

Finally, to ensure trustworthiness and credibility, wealso engaged an external auditor. This step was added torespond to concerns that some of the data coders alsoconducted observations of the -teachers. An externalauditor can confirm that the "inferences are logical andgrounded in the findings" (Brantlinger et al., 2005,p. 201).

The external auditor was not involved in the data col-lection process and did not know the teachers' OCP rat-ings prior to conducting analyses. The auditor analyzedthe interview, observation field notes, and The SpecialEducation Beginning Teacher Survey, looking for evi-dence of teachers' levels of relentlessness, resourceful-ness, and reflectiveness, in addition, the auditorexamined participating. teachers' school contexts andpreparation levels.

The auditor rated teachers based on their level ofreflectiveness, resourcefulness, relentlessness, schoolsupports, and preparation. The agreement between theauditor and the research team was 96%, 88%, 100%,100%, and 100%, respectively.

The auditor also grouped the teachers into one ofthree groups: most accomplished, accomplished, andleast accomplished. In 96% of the cases, the auditor'soverall rating was congruent with the teachers' OCP

rankings. There was one teacher for whom the ratingswere discrepant. The external auditor had ranked her asbeing low moderately to least accomplished, whereasthe teacher's OCP rating placed her in the most accom-plished group. A conversation between the auditor andthe research team ensued, at which time the auditorprovided justifications for the ratings. In the auditor'sview, this teacher's performance seemed inconsistent,and it was clear that her classroom management skillswere not as advanced as those of some of the other mostaccomplished teachers. Such conversations with theauditor helped us think more critically about the dataand emerging themes.

RESULTSPersonal attributes, teacher preparation, and school

environment, as well as speciflc themes related to thesefactors, provided insight into how more accomplishedteachers differed from teachers who were less accom-plished as defined by classroom reading practice.

In the following; we first report oh the three specificpersonal attributes that emerged because understandingwhat the most accomplished beginners brought to theclassroom provides a framework for understanding therole preparation and environment play in supporting orhindering classroom instruction. Next, we discuss theteachers' reported perceptions of their preparation andexamine if their classroom practices reflected theirinsights. We report themes that relate to the schoolenvironment and examine how it can impact the class-room practice of teachers within all three subgroups.Finally, we examine the interaction of these factors toenable or inhibit classroom reading instruction.

Personal Attributes: Reflective, Resourceful, andRelentless

Three speciflc attributes emerged as we analyzed theteacher interviews. As the OCP scores increased, teach-ers' propensity for being reflective, resourceful, andrelentless also emerged. The most accomplished teach-ers (« = 7) consistently exhibited these qualities; how-ever, varying levels of these attributes were observedamong the moderately accomplished teachers (n = 12),while the least accomplished teachers (n = 6) rarely dis-played these characteristics.

Reflective. Most accomplished beginners seemed tothihk carefully and in more detail about their students'needs and the learning environment. They focusedmore on academics as opposed to relationship building.Two of the most accomplished teachers spoke of tryingto understand the complexities of students' learningdisabilities by attempting "to see learning through theireyes" and by identifying the "academic triggers" thatled to behavior problems in order to develop individ-ual behavior plans. In both cases, observation notes


revealed teacher dialogue that was rich with academicpraise and scaffolding for students who were struggling.In one instance, a teacher completely restructured howshe approached a particular vocabulary word. For exam-ple, when students struggled to define the word squawk,she used the word in a sentence and imitated how a birdwould sound when it was squawking.

Moderately accomplished teachers presented varyingdegrees of sophistication in their reflections. Commentsin interviews suggested that some of these teachers wereable to reflect in specific ways on their students. Qnemoderately accomplished teacher explained why it wasimportant for her to write down all her thoughts aboutinstruction every day. She said, "You have to take thattime at the end of the day to write as much down as youcan. It helps me organize my thoughts and I can reflectupon what happened." Another moderately accom-plished teacher described how she took action based onher reflections. She was observed explicitly teachingcomprehension strategies, specifically using Venn dia-grams for a compare-and-contrast lesson after express-ing concerns about her students' ability to "self-regulatetheir learning." Qther moderately accomplished teach-ers were not always as reflective. At times, they fluctu-ated between responding to learners' needs and keepingpace with the curriculum. For instance, one teacher wasobserved effectively adjusting her instruction for a stu-dent who demonstrated frequent behavior problems,yet at the same time, she described an effective teacheras "someone who can get lessons completed."

The least accomplished teachers did not talk indetailed ways about their instruction; instead, theyspoke in generalities, and reflection was not as evident.Much attention focused on personal relationships, withlittle talk about studerits' instructional needs. As oneteacher put it, "Really, I just try to get on that personallevel and find out more about their interests and makethat connection whether it's a favorite sport, or TVshow, or color." Least accomplished teachers also haddifficulty articulating specific changes they would makein their classrooms. Even when instruction was the focalpoint, their thoughts about how to improve instructionwere not powerful. As one teacher explained, "I'm reallyrepeating the same strategy for all the kids all the timeso they are all getting the same material."

In summary, as teachers' overall classroom practicescores decreased, their reflections on teaching shiftedaway from student academics.

Resourcefulness. Beginning teachers varied in theirability to find resources, such as materials and knowl-edge, to improve their instruction. Like many begin-ning special education teachers in other studies, ourparticipants struggled to find materials. Thus, lack ofadequate materials and resources were reported by 10

out of 18 of the Florida teachers and by 1 out of 7Colorado teachers.

Less accomplished teachers were those most likely tofind themselves without materials. Two of the sevenmost accomplished teachers reported a lack ofresources, whereas four of the moderately accomplishedand five of the six least accomplished teachers talkedabout not having sufficient materials. Less accom-plished teachers appeared to be more disadvantaged bythe contextual situations, but comments from thesebeginners made us wonder if the struggle to be resource-ful may also be at work.

The most accomplished beginners articulated theirneed for more knowledge and identified ways in whichthey were pursuing it. For example, they often talkedabout actively pursuing more coursework or school-based learning opportunities. A most accomplishedteacher talked about how her reading endorsementadded to her degrees in special education. "I feel like allof the work I've done, whether in college, or. getting thereading endorsement or workshops, I feel like I can pullit all together." Observations of this teacher verified hersophisticated knowledge of reading instruction. She art-fully wove together multiple curricula and strategies.

Most accomplished teachers were also capable ofdrawing on multiple materials for enhancing theirinstruction or seeking them out when they were notavailable. Qne teacher, who relied mostly on theWilson® curriculum to shape her instruction, pulledother curriculum materials in to supplement the Wilsonmaterials. Qther most accomplished teachers searchedfor materials to meet their students' needs. Qne of themost accomplished teachers spoke of searching formaterials to tutor students, and finding "materials in anold teacher's closet such as Companion Reading andReading Mastery I." She talked about needing to be self-sufficient, in a context that was less than supportive,if she was to meet her students' needs. Comments suchas "I just found a way to make it work" were threadedthroughout her responses.

Moderately and least accomplished teachers hadaccess to fewer materials and varied in their ability torespond to this situation. Moderately accomplishedteachers realized they needed more materials, and manywent on the hunt for them; yet, they were often unableto elaborate on how they would put these materialsto use. Qne teacher could list names of specific pro-grams and resources available, but observations revealedinstruction that lacked cohesiveness.

The least accomplished teachers seemed moredefeated than moderately accomplished teachers whenthey did not have access to curricula. Instead of seekingout materials, they seemed to rely on whatever wasreadily available, making copies of worksheets that were


often inappropriate. (Two least accomplished teachersshared that their copying privileges had been revokedbecause of the high volume of worksheets they gener-ated.) Only one of the least accomplished teachers wasmore aggressive. She described using "the Internet toget teaching ideas and her computer to make hands-onnote cards, picture cards, and matching games." Yet, herstruggle to provide effective instruction, as revealedthrough her observation, suggested that she was unableto identify appropriate materials for her students. Shedid not provide the same level of explicit instructionwhen drawing on these resources, as did more accom-plished teachers.

Reientlessness. Teachers who were perceived asrelentless persevered with students, trying newapproaches when students struggled. They took a "no-more-excuses" approach to instruction and neverblamed lack of parental support or school context as abarrier to helping students learn. That is, relentlessteachers approached barriers that hindered instructionor student progress in an active way. Most accom-plished teachers talked about never giving up on stu-dents until they found a way to reach them. One mostaccomplished teacher, whose students had significantreading and cognitive disabilities, stated, "I think all ofour kids have a way of learning; it's just a matter ofbeing persistent to find a key to unlock that." Anothernoted, "You really need to know each individual kid toteach them how to read. You can't teach every kid toread the same way." The most accomplished teachers'relentless approach to helping students learn seemed toallow them to individualize for their students.

Additionally, a no-excuses mindset allowed mostaccomplished teachers opportunities to improve theirinstruction and communicate a sense of reientlessnessto their students. When talking about learning a newcore reading program, one most accomplished teachersaid, "Doing the program as designed is difficult, butI'm going to stay on next year. I am not one to shy awayfrom a challenge. I won't be defeated. I will do until Ican't do any better." Another teacher explained howher no-excuses approach transferred to her studentswhen she said, "I think I portray to students that I knowsome days are good and some aren't, but when youcome to school it is up to you to make it profitable."

Moderately, accomplished teachers varied in how will-ing they were to relentlessly pursue new teaching tech-niques and work hard. Half of the moderatelyaccomplished teachers talked about the need to persist.As one said, "You have to try, try, try and just be willingto change all your teaching and not get stuck. Kidsdon't learn if you don't adapt." As a critique on col-leagues, another teacher stated that giving up was nother style, "What are we going to sit around and do.

worksheets and hang out? It's a disservice, especially tokids who have learning disabilities. I don't want to belazy. I don't want a cake walk job." Other moderatelyaccomplished teachers seemed thwarted by the prob-lems they faced. Some tended to blame parents, describ-ing them as "big walls" and barriers to learning. Whentalking about parents, one moderately accomplishedteacher stated that she "walked into a landmine ofissues of problems." She was not ready to deal with thehighly involved parents in her affluent school.

Least accomplished teachers seemed overwhelmed bythe responsibilities of teaching and expressed a sense offrustration as opposed to perseverance or reientlessness.They responded to challenges by flnding reasons whythings could not be done and were more likely to con-sider parents as a barrier or to blame them for a lack ofstudent progress. When talking about their teachingexperiences and students, two first-year teachers usedwords and phrases that related to survival. Onedescribed her year as "rocky," stating that she "wasthrown into a tornado." A third-year teacher consis-tently blamed parents for students' lack of academicprogress, declaring, "In special education, usually youdon't get much parent support and that really does killyou as far as teaching kids to read."

In summary, being reientlessness, reflective, andresourceful seemed to allow the most accomplishedbeginners and some of the moderately accomplishedteachers to be better problem solvers during instructionand when seeking instructional resources. Further, their"no-more-excuses" attitude seemed to allow them topersist even under less than desirable conditions.

Teacher PreparationInterviews with teachers identified three important

themes related to preparation: (a) content knowledge inspecial education and pedagogical content knowledgeof reading are both viewed as critical components ofpreparation, (b) opportunities to practice and applyinformation in the classroom influence a beginner'ssense of preparedness and classroom practice, and (c)preparation in classroom management influences abeginner's ability to deliver instruction.

Content knowledge in special education and peda-gogical content knowledge of reading. Of the 25 teach-ers, all but 5 (those who were alternatively certified)entered the classroom having completed more than onespecial education course, and all but three felt well pre-pared in special education. Even one of the least accom-plished teachers described her special educationpreparation as, " . . . fine and my professors were so sup-portive." However, teachers felt less confident in theirpreparation for teaching reading. All but one felt unpre-pared to teach reading, and this teacher held a master's


degree in special education, took reading classes specificto students with disabilities, and participated in a tuto-rial program where she taught a well-developed curricu-lum to struggling readers.

Teachers felt that their preparation programs overem-phasized teaching basic early reading skills while pro-viding insufficient preparation for teaching studentswith more complex reading disabilities in the uppergrades. One moderately accomplished teacher com-plained that her reading course lacked rigor, citing asevidence the fact that her final exam was held at a pan-cake restaurant. Another teacher indicated that herreading coursework in general education provided littlecontent about how to teach students with disabilities.Yet another teacher noted that her special educationpreparation lacked sufficient coursework in teachingreading. She indicated that her husband had a strongerfoundation in reading as an elementary educationmajor. She believed she needed the information helearned, plus coursework specific to reading disabilities.

Opportunities to practice and apply information.Across all groups, teachers perceived as being mostworthwhile experiences that provided opportunities forapplied practice. One teacher's comments representedthe group when she explained, "I don't think anythingcan replace actually practicing in the classroom, actu-ally working with other teachers and observing." Themost accomplished teachers were more likely to reporthaving adequate opportunities to practice, with six outof seven reporting valuable opportunities to practiceduring their preparation programs.

Responses from the 18 moderately to least accom-plished teachers were less consistent. Five of theseteachers described their preparation as "too much the-ory," but further probing revealed that they were mostfrustrated with learning about how to teach readingfrom textbooks. These teachers indicated that they didnot reject theoretical perspectives, but instead, wantedopportunities to put theories into practice. As one leastaccomplished teacher stated, "Theories were taught, butnone of my classes put them into action." In fact, onlythree of the least accomplished teachers noted that theyhad experienced good practice opportunities.

Teachers described field experiences in their prepara-tion program as key to what they had and had notlearned about how to teach reading. Across all sub-groups, teachers often recalled what they learned inthese experiences with a high level of specificity. Onemoderately accomplished teacher believed that practiceteaching reading during her internship helped her over-come the limitations of her preparation program in thisarea. She indicated that after teaching Reading Masteryduring her internship, she "felt comfortable and pre-pared" to use the same curriculum during her first year

of teaching. Three of the least accomplished teachershad internships unrelated to their current placement orhad no internship at all and, thus, had no opportunitiesto teach reading or even work with elernentary studentswith disabilities prior to taking their first job. Only oneof the most accomplished teachers expressed concernover the mismatch between her training and currentclassroom placement. She was trained to teach studentswith severe disabilities and felt ill equipped to teachreading. However, her instruction was focused and skill-fully delivered. She attributed her knowledge aboutteaching reading to peer teachers and a district-spon-sored class, as well as access to a strong reading curricu-lum.

Preparation in classroom management. Classroommanagement skills influence 'a beginner's ability todeliver instruction, and the teachers in this study wereno exception. For the most part, both moderately andmost accomplished beginners reported that theircoursework provided a considerable amount of infor-mation on the following: (a) how to organize a class-room, (b) how to develop and reinforce rules androutines, and (c) specific strategies for managing stu-dent behaviors.

Observation data indicated that 18 out of 19 teacherswho reported taking classroom management courses inspecial education demonstrated average or above man-agement skills and maintained warm, supportive envi-ronments. Only one of the most accomplished teachersindicated that her classroom management experienceswere less than desirable. She indicated, "I had classes onbehavior management, but I never got to apply it."

The least accomplished teachers seemed to have themost insufficient preparation in classroom manage-ment. Four out of six teachers received a low classroommanagement rating of 1.5, and all attributed their lackof control, in part, to a lack of preparation or opportu-nities to practice. One teacher stated, "I had only oneclass in my preservice program and had to do a projectthat involved setting up my own classroom manage-ment plan for my ideal class. What good did that do ifyou don't get the ideal class?"

In terms of classroom management practices, itappeared that teachers who were more skilled promoteda supportive learning community rather than simplyregulating the environment. For example, in the mod-erately and most accomplished beginners' classrooms,teachers employed techniques that promoted studentchoice and ownership in the learning process. One ofthe most accomplished teachers was observed offering achoice of activities to students. Two most accomplishedand moderately accomplished teachers challenged theirstudents to meet fluency goals by having them graphtheir progress. In contrast, least accomplished teachers


were often at a loss for how to manage behavior. Forinstance, we observed one teacher spend an entire read-ing class having students write all of the inappropriatebehaviors that were not allowed, including burping,hollering, and so on. These contrasting examples exem-plify how skilled classroom management can support orhinder the entire learning process for students.

School FactorsWorking conditions supported or hindered the begin-

ning teachers' ability to practice. Data were collectedrelated to (a) availability of resources and learningopportunities, (b) classroom settings such as servicedelivery models and number of students observed, and(c) collégial and administrative support. Using the fieldnotes from observation, survey, and interview data, thefollowing three themes emerged: (a) access to curricu-lum and professional learning opportunities variedacross and within subgroups but were consideredinvaluable supports; (b) the design of classroom settingsmay either support or hinder a beginner's ability to pro-vide effective instruction; and (c) administrative andcollégial support focused on instruction, rather thangeneralized support, enhances classroom practice.

Access to curriculum and professional leaming op-portunities. Having access to a predetermined curricu-lum supported instruction. Teachers appreciated havinga designated and often structured curriculum. Six teach-ers in Florida and three teachers in Golorado taught inschools without a specified curriculum or program. Themost comprehensive support was reported by teachersin one Florida district using Reading Mastery, and bythree Golorado teachers using guided reading and oneGolorado teacher using Wilson.

The impact of such structured curricula became evi-dent as one of the least accomplished teachers' instruc-tion became more engaging and well structured whenusing a prescribed curriculum. During a structured read-ing group, she followed the Reading Mastery curricu-lum, keying into specific children for error correctionsand inattentiveness. Observers reported high rates ofstudent engagement during this time. However, whenthis teacher moved into a listening comprehension les-son using a novel, student engagement decreased andinappropriate student behavior increased.

Even more accomplished beginners expressed thatthey were disadvantaged without designated curricula,as they often tried to create coherent, engaging instruc-tion by pulling together various materials. One accom-plished teacher put it best when describing herfrustrations, "Special education just gets pieces of stuff,and we try to figure out how to use them."

Professional learning opportunities at the school anddistrict level were reported as invaluable support. Thus,

81% of the teachers spoke positively about their learn-ing opportunities. Yet, teachers' perceptions of the qual-ity and usefulness of information varied.

Moderately and most accomplished teachers were bet-ter able to identify useful professional development. Forinstance, one of the least and one of the most accom-plished teachers described the same districtwide profes-sional development opportunity offered by a textbookpublisher. The least accomplished beginner found thesix-hour inservice on a new core curriculum as "veryuseful, and I use it a lot." In contrast, a most accom-plished beginner provided a less positive description,stating it "was just about what the book had in it andhow to use it." The most accomplished beginner wasable to distinguish between a training that provided anorientation to a teacher's edition and richer professionaldevelopment opportunities. As researchers familiar withthis inservice, we substantiate the latter description.

Instructional settings. Factors such as class size andservice delivery model influenced the beginners' abili-ties to deliver instruction and impacted their percep-tions of support. Within our teacher sample, class sizevaried from 2 to 25 students, and there appeared to bea relationship between the number of students and theoverall environmental support perceived by teachers. InGolorado, for example, seven out of the eight teachersrated their context as positive; interestingly, Goloradoteachers were observed teaching the smallest groups. InFlorida, the number of students instructed variedamong schools. However, instructional group size didnot correlate with the teachers' OGP scores. For exam-ple, a most accomplished beginner expressed frustrationabout the size of her class (N = 25), but compensated bydelivering effective instruction. A moderately accom-plished teacher served only two students at one time,yet discussed feeling overwhelmed in trying to meetindividual needs. Three out of six of the least accom-plished teachers were observed instructing small groupsof four to six students.

In some cases, the service delivery model contributedto teacher dissatisfaction and, for less accomplishedbeginners, resulted in the inability to demonstrate effec-tive practice. Eleven teachers reported concerns relatingto their service delivery model; three were in self-con-tained settings, one in an inclusive classroom, andseven in puUout resource settings. They expressed con-cern over their inability to meet the needs, of theirstudents due to setting constraints. Even a most accom-plished beginner described her self-contained class of 12students as a "logistical nightmare," with four mathgroups, five reading groups, and two science groups.Moderately and least accomplished teachers alsoexpressed concern. One teacher lamented, "I don'tthink anyone told me what it meant to teach resource.


I thought it meant I could teach anything, but I didn'tthink it meant I could have all different kids in oneroom."

The depth and breadth of individual student needsappeared to influence the beginners' ability to provideeffective instruction. Even in the best of settings, a mostaccomplished beginner shared concern over having 12students with at least four or flve different instructionallevels. A moderately accomplished teacher in a self-con-tained setting talked about the high needs of her 12 stu-dents, who were at least two years below grade level,and her struggle to individualize without resources andguidance. A least accomplished teacher had a difflcultsetting with 25 students; she stated, "Try to make itwork when you have 25 kids in here at the same timeand each has a different need."

Administrative and collégial support. Administra-tive and collégial support that focused on instruction,rather than generalized support, enhanced teachers'classroom practice. While all but two teachers assignedabove-average Likert scale scores for administrative sup-port, the interviews revealed a distinct difference inbeginners' perceptions of support. For example, threeof the least accomplished beginners viewed positive col-légial support as social and administrative support asnonobtrusive. As one least accornplished teacher indi-cated, "Mr. C was just great because he tends to leaveyou alone."

Most of the moderately to most accomplished begin-ners had a different interpretation of support. Manyspoke of well-crafted, instructionally driven supportthat offered them professional growth opportunities.One beginning teacher described her support system bysaying, "My environment is wonderful. I have a reallystrong support system, and the principal is flexible andgives us feedback. She gives us ideas about what to dowith reading too. She trusts us and allows us to makethe decisions, which is very powerful for teachers ... Iam not isolated. Isolation and student behavior is whya lot of my friends leave teaching." It appears thataccomplished beginners who were more focused onmeeting the academic needs of students equated tostrong administrative support with instructional sup-port.

Most beginners talked about mentorship from a col-league, grade-level, or reading coach. When analyzingdata, we generally defined support as collégial. Teacherswith an academic orientation appreciated instructionalassistance as opposed to social support. A most accom-plished beginner stated, "I have a great coteacher inreading; we sit and reflect on what's the most practicaland what's the most beneficial for our kids." A leastaccomplished beginner defined collégial support asbeing included in social events by a grade-level team.

Interactions between personal attributes, prepara-tion, and work context. These three major factorsworked together in our study to enable or inhibit class-room reading instruction. For the two most accom-plished teachers (OCP = 4), opportunities to learnconcrete strategies for teaching reading, their knowl-edge of classroom management, their personal attrib-utes, and the supportive nature of their school contextenabled them to deliver instruction that was cohesiveand consistently high in quality. The remaining mostaccomplished teachers' classroom reading practices(3.5) seemed more influenced by an interaction of thesefactors. For instance, although one most accomplishedteacher had deep preparation in special and generaleducation as well as extended opportunities to learnabout teaching reading, the somewhat unsupportivenature of her school context sometimes created barriersto her instruction. Specifically, this teacher's insuffi-cient access to appropriate reading materials, strugglesto provide intensive instruction within the parametersof an inclusive class, and inadequate preparation in thenew basal curriculum sometimes detracted from herinstruction. During one observation, this teacher strug-gled to settle a small group of students into instructionand provide coherent instruction in the guided readinglesson. However, her relentlessness and resourcefulnessin pursuing the appropriate reading materials for herstudents enabled her to provide intensive and cohesivefluency and comprehension strategy instruction tosmall groups of students.

Moderately and least accomplished teachers seemedmore influenced by their lack of preparation for teach-ing reading than their most accomplished peers. Themajority of these teachers seemed less certain of how tomake up for their lack of knowledge by seeking outresources and reflecting on their practice. They oftenselected activities and strategies based on a common-sense approach to reading or a desire to make readingfun. For instance, one moderately accomplished teacherreported receiving insufficient preparation in phonics,and during a lesson on phonics was observed usingHangman to teach blends instead of careful directinstruction. Further, she incorrectly described conso-nant digraphs as blends. Other moderately and leastaccomplished teachers relied on their common sense orbeliefs about "what reading is and is not" to driveinstruction. As one moderately accomplished teacherput it, "I just skimmed fluency at college and don't careif my students are fluent. I only care if they understandwhat they are reading." Not surprisingly, fluencyinstruction was not observed in this teacher's class-room.

Moderately and least accomplished teachers' lack ofknowledge sometimes resulted in an overreliance on


personal experiences as a reader, or what one teacherreferred to as "common sense." Qne of the least accom-plished teachers explained, "I relied on my prior knowl-edge as a kid to learn to teach how to break downwords." A moderately accomplished beginning teacherclaimed that she could "make up work for my fifth-grade students because I remember being in fifth grade,"but had trouble working with first graders "because Icouldn't remember back that far."

DISCUSSIONIn this study, we attempted to understand the differ-

ences among special education beginners who vary intheir classroom reading practice by exploring three fac-tors: personal attributes, preparation, and school envi-ronment. In the following, we discuss what we learned.

1. Special education teachers mirror what we knowabout other beginning teachers. The profiles of ourbeginners reflect in many ways the literature on begin-ning teachers in general (e.g., Kagan, 1992; Kauffmanet al., 2002; Reynolds, 1995), as most needed addifionalsupport in negotiating their new school environmentsand struggled to provide engaging, effective readinginstruction. However, most possessed stronger class-room management skills than is typical of beginners ingeneral education. This command of classroom man-agement likely is linked to the-emphasis in behaviorsupport in special education preparation. General edu-cation preparation might benefit from similar course-work.

Qf particular interest are the similarities between thisstudy's beginners and the findings of the NationalCommission on Excellence in Elementary TeacherPreparation for Reading Instruction (InternationalReading Association, 2003; Maloch et al., 2003). Themost accomplished special educators mirrored gradu-ates from highly recognized programs, as both groups(a) elaborated in a sophisticated manner when ques-tioned about their instruction, (b) focused more on stu-dent needs than self, and (c) were resourceful inextending their knowledge of teaching reading to sup-port students and to extend their professional develop-ment.

2. Preparation matters in both generic pedagogy andpedagogy for reading. Qur examination of beginningteachers permitted only a retrospective analysis of theirteacher preparation coursework and experiences; nev-ertheless, a relationship seemed to exist between con-tent acquired through applied experiences andsuccessful implementation of classroom practices. Thefocus on pedagogy and behavior management in spe-cial education preparation programs seemed toenhance the classroom practices of our beginningteachers.

Additionally, the teachers in this study suggestedthat learning about theories and methods for teachingreading was insufficient; they needed opportunities toapply information acquired from coursework. Similarto graduates from exemplary reading programs in theNational Commission on Excellence in ElementaryTeacher Preparation for Reading Instruction study, ourmost accomplished beginning teachers talked abouttheir preparation or extended learning opportunities inmore favorable ways. Thus, they noted as valuableopportunities to practice teaching reading to studentswith disabilities during field experiences, as well asindepth learning opportunities some participantssought after their initial preparation. The research onprofessional development .supports the importance ofthese types of active opportunities to learn (Desimone,2009).

3. Contextual support impacts a beginner's abilityto thrive. Qur findings indicate that contextual sup-ports that are focused on improving instruction caninfluence positively the practices of beginning specialeducation teachers. In our study, well-articulated cur-riculum materials, instructionally focused administra-tive support, and opportunities to learn more aboutteaching reading played a role in what beginners did inthe classroom. These findings align with findings fromgeneral education establishing the important roleinstructional supports play in supporting beginningteachers Qohnson et al., 2004; Kauffman et al., 2002).Qur findings elaborate more general findings fromresearch on beginning special education teachers. Todate, researchers have established the needs of begin-ning special education teachers in terms of administra-tive, collégial, and curricular supports, but theseresearchers have not provided insight into the types ofsupports beginning special education teachers need toimprove their instruction.

The Importance of the Interaction Among FactorsQur analyses led us to believe that environment,

attributes of teachers, and their preparation experiencescombine to support or hinder teacher development.Thus, our findings support previous research examiningthe influences on the practices of beginning generaleducation teachers, and suggest that the path frompreparation to enactment of classroom practice is notlinear.

The complex interweave of preparation opportuni-ties, personal attributes, and workplace conditionsserves to either support quality instruction or detractfrom it. Qverall, the most accomplished teachersappeared to benefit from the right mix of these factors,whereas the least accomplished teachers were derailedby their lack of knowledge, confidence to persist, insuf-

Leaming DisabiUty Quarterly 88

ficient preparation, and workplace barriers. Moderatelyaccomplished teachers were in the middle. Becausethey seem to have some of the attributes of moreaccomplished peers, we believe they are in the bestposition to benefit from an improved context (e.g.,including additional support) and improved prepara-tion for teaching reading.

LimitationsAlthough this study provides information about

beginning special education teachers and influences ontheir practice, the qualitative nature of its design limitsits generalizability. Additionally, our need to selectteachers on the basis of their RISE performance maycause some consternation in.the special education com-munity; however, as a research team we believed wewere left with few viable options.

Selecting individual teachers on the basis of theirstudent achievement gains is fraught with problems. Aclose examination of value-added research on teachershas demonstrated that selecting effective teachers onthe basis of student achievement gains is unreliable (Hill& Schilling, 2009), as students are not assigned ran-domly to teachers. Thus, we believed it was best to selectteachers based on a conception of effective classroomperformance that had been validly tied to gains in stu-dent performance. Despite these limitations, alignmentof our findings with previous general education researchon beginners suggests that our results offer additionalinsights into how the reading instruction of beginningspecial education teachers might be improved.

Implications for Research and PracticeWhile we were pleased to capture the attributes and

experiences of beginning teachers, we wondered whatour findings meant for preparation programs. If reflec-tion, resourcefulness, and reientlessness promote effec-tive teaching practices, what can special educationteacher educators do to promote these attributes? Ifintense reading preparation is critical, how do specialeducation preparation programs with broad certifica-tion requirements provide the expertise necessary toaddress the complex reading needs of our students?Also, mismatches between job placements and fieldexperiences are a concern. How do special educationprograms that prepare students for noncategoricallicensure deal with this dilemma?

Glimpses at the experiences of our beginners suggestthat preparation should include pedagogy, content-knowledge pedagogy in reading, classroom manage-ment, and applied learning opportunities. Addressingfindings related to personal attributes is more complex.However, fostering beliefs that all children can learnwhen teachers persistently address learning needs andproviding teachers with skills to be reflective and

resourceful may be reasonable considerations. Manyprograms already recognize the importance of promot-ing reflective practice. Perhaps, if beginning special edu-cation teachers are well prepared to teach students withdisabilities and receive ongoing support in schools toteach reading, they will see themselves as having theresources and confidence to persist when the going getstough.

Ensuring such continuity between initial preparationand professional development will require a seamlessapproach to initial preparation and ongoing profes-sional development in the schools. To have an impact,teacher education programs, individual school sites,and school districts must join forces to create the rightset learning opportunities and working conditions forbeginning special education teachers.

REFERENCESAppleton, K., & Kindt, I. (1999). Why teach primary science?

Influences on beginning teachers' practices. Journal of ScienceEducation, 21(2), 155-168.

Billingsley, B. S. (2004). Special education teacher retention andattrition: A critical analysis of the research literature. Journal ofSpecial Education, 38(1), 39-55.

Billingsley, B. S., Griffin, C. C, Smith, S.J., Kamman, M., & Israel,M. (2009). A review of teacher induction in special education:Research, practice, and technology solutions (NCIPP Doc. No. RS-1). Retrieved February 8, 2010, from http://ncipp.org/reports/rs_l.pdf

Blanton, L., Sindelar, P. T., & Correa, V. (2006). Models andmeasures of beginning teacher quality. Journal of SpecialEducation, 40, 115-127.

Brantlinger, E., Jiménez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., &Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special educa-tion. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195-207.

Brownell, M., Bishop, A. G., Gersten, R., Klingner, J., Penfield, R.,Dimino, J., Haager, D., Menon, S., & Sindelar, P. (2009). Therole of domain expertise in beginning special education teacherquality. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 391-411.

Carlson, E., Lee, H., & Schroll, K. (2004). Identifying attributes ofhigh quality special education teachers. Teacher Education andSpecial Education, 27, 350-359.

Chester, M. D., & Beaudin, Q. B. (1996). Efficacy beliefs of newlyhired teachers in urban schools. American Educational ResearchJournal, 33(1), 233-257.

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers'professional development: Toward better conceptualizationsand measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.

Dwyer, C. A. (1998). Psychometrics of PRAXIS III: Classroom per-formance assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation inEducation, 12, 163-187.

Feng, L., & Sass, T. R. (2009). Special education teacher quality andstudent achievement. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Williams, J., & Baker, S. (2001). Teachingreading comprehension strategies to students with learning dis-abilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research,

. 71(2), 279-320.Glaser B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:

Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine PublishingCompany.


Hill, H. C, & Schilling. S. G. (2009). Evaluating value-added models:A measurement perspective. Unpublished manuscript.

Holt-Reynolds, D. (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevantprior knowledge in course work. American Educational Researchfoumal, 29(2), 325-349.

International Reading Association. (2003). Prepared to make a dif-ference: An executive summary of the national commission on excel-lence in elementary teacher preparation for reading instruction.Newark, DE: Author.

Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Kauffman, D., Liu, E., & Donaldson,M. L. (2004, October 29). The support gap: New teacher's earlyexperiences in high-income and low-income schools. EducationPolicy Analysis Archives, J2(61). Retrieved October 10, 2008,from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/vl2n61/.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice andbeginning teachers. Review of Educational Review, 62(2), 129-169.

Kauffman, D., Johnson, S. M., Kardos, E. L., Liu, E., & Peske, H. G.(2002). Lost at sea: New teachers' experiences with curriculumand assessment. Teachers College Record, 104(2), 272-300.

LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Analyzing and inter-preting ethnographic data. In J. J. Schensul & M. D. LeCompte(Eds.), Book five of the ethnographer's toolkit Walnut Creek, CA:Altamira Press.

Leko, M. M. (2008). Understanding the various influences on specialeducation pre-service teachers' appropriation of conceptual and prac-tical tools for reaching reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Florida. .

Lessen, E., & Frankiewicz, L. E. (1992). Personal attribute and char-acteristics of effective special education teachers: Considerationsfor teacher educators. Teacher Education and Special Education,15(2), 124-131.

Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search ofmeaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Educa-tion, 53(1), 33-43.

Maloch, B., Flint, S. A., Eldridge, D., Harmon, J., Loven, R., Fine, J.C, et al. (2003). Understandings, beliefs, and reported decisionmaking of first-year teachers from different reading teacherpreparation programs. The Elementary School journal, 103(5),431-457.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National ReadingPanel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment ofthe scientific research literature on reading and its implications forreading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of ChildHealth and Human Development.

Nougaret, A. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2004). Theeffects of teacher licensure on teachers' pedagogical compe-tence: Implications for elementary and secondary teachers ofstudents with learning disabilities and behavioral disabilities. InT. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Research in secondaryschools. Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 1,pp. 301-318). St. Louis, MO: JAI Press.

Nowacek, E. J., McKinney, J. D., & Hallahan, D. P. (1990).Instructional behaviors of more and less effective beginning reg-ular and special educators. Exceptional Children, 57, 140-149.-

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pickett, A. (1996). Refiective teaching practices and academic skillsinstruction. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from http://www.indiana.edu/1506/mod02/pickett.html

Pugach, M. (2005). Research on preparing teachers to work withstudents with disabilities. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M.Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERApanel on research and teacher education (pp. 549-590). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Renzaglia, A., Hutchins, M., & Lee, S. (1997). The impact of teachereducation on the beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions of preser-vice special educators. Teacher Education and Special Education,20(4), 360-377.

Reynolds, A. (1995). The knowledge base for beginning teachers:.Education professionals' expectations versus research findingson learning to teach. Elementary School Journal, 95, 199-221.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learningtoteach. InJ. Sikula, T.J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Hand-book of research on teacher education (pp. 102-119). New York:Macmillan.

Ross, D., Bondy, E., & Kyle, D. (1992). Refiective teaching for stiidentempowerment: A constnictivist approach to elementary curriculum.

• New York: Macmillan.Seo, S., Brownell, M. T., Bishop, A. G., & Dingle, M. (2008).

Beginning special education teachers' classroom reading in-struction: Practices that engage elementary students with learn-ing disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75(1), 97-122.

Sindelar, P. T., Daunic, A., & Rennells, M. S. (2004). Corhparisonsof traditionally and alternatively trained teachers. Exceptionality,12, 209-223.

Stanovich, J. P., & Jordan, A. (1998). Canadian teachers' and prin-cipals' beliefs about inclusive education as predictors of effectiveteaching in heterogeneous classrooms. The Elementary SchoolJournal, 98(3), 221-238.

Strauss, A. L, & Gorbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newberry Park, GA:Sage.

Turner-Bisset, R. (1999). The knowledge bases of the expertteacher. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 39-55.

U.S. Gongress. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Conferencereport to accompany H.R.I, report 107-334. Washington, DG:Government Printing Office.

U.S. Departrnent of Education. (2004). 20th annual report toCongress on the implementation of the Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act. Washington, DG: Author.

Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacherpreparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommenda-tions. Seattle: University of Washington.

Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1996). Refiective teaching: An introduc-tion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

APPENDIXInterview Protocol

Concepts of individualization1. Why did you decide to become a special educator?2. What does good special education look like?3. From your perspective, what does it mean to

individualize for reading instruction?4. How do you go about individualizing for students

in your classroom during reading instruction?5. Tell me about the efforts you haye taken to indi-

vidualize that you have been proud of. What didyou do to support the students?

6. What struggles do you have individualizing forstudents in your class?

7. Do you have ways of determining what particularstudents need to do to become better readers?

8. How do you go about determining their needs?


9. Can I see what you do? How often do you collectthis information? How does this informationhelp you?

10. What influences your ability to individualize forreading?

11. What supports are available at the school or inyour district to help you individualize for readinginstruction in your classroom?

12. What barriers exist at your school or in your dis-trict that make it difficult for you to individualizefor reading instruction in your classroom?

13. How did you learn techniques the techniquesyou have acquired for individualizing for readinginstruction?

14. What did you learn in your teacher educationprogram about individualizing for students inreading?

15. Did you have any opportunities to practice whatyou were learning?

16. How were these opportunities structured?17. Are you able to incorporate the ideas you learned?

Why or why not?18. What opportunities have you had to learn about

individualizing for reading instruction at yourschool site?

Concepts of good reading instruction1. How do you think children like the ones you

teach learn to read?2. What are the pieces or components of good read-

ing instruction for the types of students youteach? Or, what aspects of reading do you haveto teach to help your students become good read-ers?

3. How do you go about implementing these com-ponents or aspects of good reading instructioninto your class?

4. When you teach your best reading lessons, howdo you incorporate these aspects of readinginstruction into your class? Can you give mesome examples?

5. How do you know you have helped the students?Please give examples

6. Think of two students who have a hard timedespite all your efforts to help them learn toread, what do you do to help those students. Canyou give me two or three examples?

Preparation in reading instruction1. What does a good special education teacher do

when teaching reading?2. How do you compare to your definitions of a

good reading teacher?3. Do you like being a special education teacher?

Please explain.

4. What do you like best about being a special edu-cation teacher?

5. What do you like least?6. Do you plan to continue teaching?7. When you first started teaching reading to special

education students? What surprised you most?8. What was your biggest success in teaching read-

ing?9. What was your biggest challenge?

10. What aspects of reading did you feel most well-prepared to teach and why?

11. What has helped you to feel prepared?12. Has your reading instruction changed since the

beginning of the year? Please explain what youthink contributed to these changes.

13. Are there things that you wish you knew how todo while teaching reading but do not?

14. Where did you get most of your ideas for teach-ing reading?

Teacher preparation program1. What was your teacher preparation like?2. Did it help you at all in doing your job as a •

teacher? In what ways has it helped?3. How were you prepared to teach reading? Was

your training adequate?4. In your teacher preparation program, what kind

of coursework did you take in reading or specialeducation that focused on teaching reading?

5. What content was covered about teaching read-ing? Did this coursework help you? How?

6. Were there any instructors that were particularlygood at helping you? What specifically did theydo to help you learn about teaching reading?

7. What kinds of opportunities did you have inteacher education program to teach reading tostudents?

8. What about teaching reading to students withdisabilities?

9. How many opportunities did you have? Howlong were they? Did they help you? Why or whynot? Did they help you learn to individualize forstudents with disabilities? Why or why not?

10. What kinds of opportunities have you had sinceyou became a classroom teacher to learn more •about teaching reading? How did these opportu-nities help you?

11. What kinds of curriculum materials have youbeen able to use to teach reading? Have thosematerials helped you learn more about teachingreading? How have they helped? Or, why do youthink they were not helpful?


12. What on-the-job supports have you received thathave helped you become a better readingteacher?

13. Have you had a mentor teacher or colleague whohas helped you learn more about teaching read-ing?

Pre-observation Interview Protocol1. What do you plan to accomplish in your lesson

tomorrow?2. What are your goals?3. How do you plan to accomplish those goals?4. What specific activities will you use? Are there

any students that you anticipate will strugglewith the lesson? What will you do to help them?

Post-observation Interview Protocol1. How do you think the lesson went?2. Were there any students who struggled or were

well ahead of everyone else?3. What do you plan to do next?

AUTHORS' NOTEThis study was conducted through the Center on PersonnelStudies in Special Education, funded by the Office of SpecialEducation Programs (OSEP) of the U.S. Department of Education(cooperative agreement #H3256Q000002). Opinions expressed inthis paper do not necessarily reflect those of OSEP.

Please address correspondence about this article to: Anne Bishop,University of Florida, Norman Hall G-315, Gainesville, FL 32611;e-mail: [email protected]


Copyright of Learning Disability Quarterly is the property of Council for Learning Disabilities and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Differences in beginning special education teachers: The influence of personal attributes,...

Documents

Transcript of Differences in beginning special education teachers: The influence of personal attributes,...