特殊教育专业知识外文文献

Is it all about loving the kids Perceptions about expertise in special education Andrea L Ruppar a Carly A Robertsb Amy J Olsonc aUniversity of Wisconsin Madison 1000 Bascom Mall Madison WI 53706 USA bUniversity of Washington 2012 Skagit Lane Miller Hall Box 353600 USA cWinona State University Gildemeister Hall 221 P O Box 5838 175 W Mark Street Winona MN 55987 USA h i g h l i g h t s Perspectives on expert teaching reveal assumptions about students Perspectives on expert teaching reveal assumptions about the purposes of special education Forms of expert teaching met different functions depending on expectations Positive narratives about teachers and students contrasted with defi cit oriented views a r t i c l e i n f o Article history Received 12 June 2017 Received in revised form 26 January 2018 Accepted 2 February 2018 Available online 20 February 2018 Keywords Special education Severe signifi cant disabilities Teacher expertise a b s t r a c t Teachers school leaders and faculty n 32 were interviewed regarding their perceptions about the expertise of teachers of students with signifi cant support needs While participants agreed that expert instruction was characterized by knowledge about the student and positivity their beliefs differed in relation to the functions of those expert skills Findings revealed that defi cit and asset oriented views of students were related to views about the professionalism of teachers The implications of these fi ndings are discussed in relation to the apparent link between defi cit views about students and views of special education teachers as professionals 2018 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved 1 Introduction Avarietyof individual and social factors affect the experiences of students in schools Teachers and school leaders beliefs knowl edge and expectations about student capacities underscore these factors Images of ideal classrooms and teaching known as visions of instruction Hammerness 2001 have been used to reveal the often hidden assumptions that drive teachers practice While some visions are sharply focused refl ect a broad perspective on the changes that can be affected by teaching and articulate a long range plan for improvement other visions are narrow vague and short sighted Less developed aspects of visions of instruction can sometimes point to tacit beliefs about students and the teacher s professionalrole Britzman 1991 Clandinin 1986 Hammerness 2001 For students with signifi cant support needs who are often physically and socially separated from the school community vi sions of instruction among important stakeholders such as ad ministrators teachers and teacher educators can affect students and their teachers sense of belonging in the school and their ac cess to high quality instructional resources and opportunities Greenway McCollow Hudson Peck Ruppar Roberts 2017 Ropo 2004 noted that teaching expertise is particularly situation specifi c and expert teaching is not likely transferrable among different teaching situations This could be especially important for studying expertise in special education Special education teachers might teach and support students in preschool elementary middle high school transitioning from school to work or in a postsecondary setting On a given day a teacher of students with signifi cant sup port needs could be teaching in a calculus class English literature class the cafeteria physical education a local store the public bus and even such private spaces as the bathroom or nurse s offi ce Within those settings the teacher might be working with different students who present with different competencies and challenges and require instruction on highly individualized goals This pre sents challenges for defi ning expertise in the fi eld Because of the wide range of conditions under which a teacher of students with signifi cant support needs might be expected to engage in instruc tion defi ning what constitutes expertise depends in part on the instructional setting In a series of studies Ruppar and colleagues examined percep tions about expertise among special education teachers of students with signifi cant support needs see Roberts Ruppar Ruppar Roberts 2017 Teachers described how they leveraged deep relationships with students as they made instruc tionaldecisions set high expectationsthat included a clear vision of positive outcomes believed in the interconnectedness of teaching and advocacy and forged strong collegial relationships with other professionals as well as family members Similarly Stough and Palmer 2003 found that expert special education teachers used their extensive knowledge about students to assess students emotional and academic needs Urbach et al 2015 found that while less accomplished teachers focused on relationships and protecting students more accomplished teachers believed that high intensity instruction was necessary and clearly understood thatstudents academicachievementwastheteacher sre sponsibility Together these fi ndings suggest that knowledge about students is a hallmark of teaching expertise and expectations for student achievement among expert teachers refl ect assumptions that students have the capacity to learn and achieve positive out comes However teachers of students with signifi cant support needs have reported that other teachers and school leaders do not understand their roles and responsibilities Greenway McCollow Hudson Roberts 2013 While previous research has uncovered perceptions about expertise in teaching students with signifi cant support needs additional information about stakeholders assumptions about students with signifi cant support needs and their teachers is embedded in visions of expert in struction By examining visions of expert instruction the inter section between beliefs and practice can be explored 1 2 Purpose The purpose of this study was to understand how expertise among teachers of students with signifi cant support needs is defi ned by three groups of individuals with special knowledge of the phenomenon 1 teacher education faculty specializing in the preparation of teachers of students with signifi cant support needs 2 school leaders responsible for evaluating teachers of students with signifi cant support needs and 3 teachers identifi ed as ex perts in teaching students with signifi cant support needs We chose these three groups of stakeholders because we reasoned they would be positioned to provide defi nitions that are grounded in their own experiences and observations and their defi nitions might shed light about current social understandings and defi ni tions of expertise in relation to teaching students with signifi cant support needs In particular we explore the congruencies and di versity among their understandings about various forms of teach ing practices and the functions they believed those practices serve In the current analysis we specifi cally addressed the question What do perceptions about forms and functions of expert teaching reveal about how students with signifi cant support needs and their teachers are positioned in schools 1 3 Theoretical framework According to Hammerness 2001 a vision of instruction is a set of ideal images of classroom instruction For example Munter 2014 found that mathematics teachers envisioned features of high quality instruction across four dimensions a the role of the teacher b the nature of classroom discourse c the classroom environment and d student engagement p 597 Within each dimension teachers articulated characteristics of specifi c activities and behaviors that contributed to high quality instruction In examining defi nitions and visions of expertise we analyzed our data in terms of the forms and functions of the teaching behaviors they described Saxe Gearhart Franke Howard and Crockett 1999 described form and function as the instructional practice form and the pedagogical rationale for why that specifi c practice is used or how it should be used function For example Saxe et al found that specifi c forms of mathematics assessments shaped students mathematical thinking in different ways in other words certain assessment forms served a different function than others and were used for different purposes Since people might perceive different functions for similar practices the ways in which teachers in the Saxe et al study articulated the function of specifi c assess ment forms which provided insight into their pedagogical decision making skills and values In the current study we examined the varying ways that participants described expert teachers work specifi c forms and examined how those descriptions might explain the intended outcomes of their work as teachers from the participants perspectives intended functions 2 Research design and methodology In this comparative qualitative interview study we examined the experiences and perspectives of participants regarding a spe cifi c social phenomenon Expertise among teachers of students with signifi cant support needs Brinkmann Ruppar et al 2015 Ruppar et al 2017 A total of 32 participants were recruited from three sepa rate groups 1 teachers of students with signifi cant support needs 2 school leaders who supervised and evaluated teachers of stu dents with signifi cant support needs and 3 teacher education faculty at institutions of higher education with expertise in A L Ruppar et al Teaching and Teacher Education 71 2018 319e328320 students with signifi cant support needs Participant selection took place in three phases with faculty recruitment in year 1 school leader recruitment in year 2 and teacher recruitment in year 3 2 1 1 Faculty The faculty participants were selected using purposive stake holder sampling Palys 2008 Twenty three faculty members at institutions of higher education that provide teacher preparation for teachers of students with signifi cant support needs were sent emails inviting participation in the study We selected the in stitutions to refl ect research intensive doctoral master s and baccalaureate granting institutions from four Midwestern states in ordertofacilitate future follow up observations Of the 23 invited 9 faculty members at institutions of higher education in Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota and Wisconsin participated in the study The faculty members were from a variety of types of in stitutions i e 1 baccalaureate 3 masters 1 doctoral 4 research and all were either researchers focusing on signifi cant support needs and or involved in the preparation of future teachers of students with signifi cant support needs The faculty members included 8 females and 1 male with 4e32 years of experience in education All of the faculty members had experience working directly with students with signifi cant support needs in school settings 2 1 2 School leaders School leaders included school and district school administra tors who directly supervised and evaluated teachers of students with signifi cant support needs in preK 12 settings e g principals or assistant principals district or program coordinators Leaders were recruited using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling Creswell 2007 First we sent emails to school leaders in districts of varying sizes and settings i e rural suburban and ur ban in the states of Illinois Indiana Iowa Minnesota and Wis consin to facilitate future follow up observations Few school leaders responded to our initial recruitment but eventually nine agreed to participate After a fi rst round of analysis of data from this group we noticed that our sample did not include leaders from districts where students with signifi cant support needs were sup ported in general education settings and the school leaders re sponses seemed lacking in specifi c details about teachers skills Therefore leaders in schools or districts where students with sig nifi cant support needs were supported in general education classes rather than in special education settings were specifi cally invited to participate A total of 12 school leaders agreed to participate in the study The school leaders were from six states i e Florida Illinois Indiana Minnesota New Mexico Wisconsin and had between 2 and 25 years of experience working as school leaders Of the 12 school leaders 9 were building principals or assistant principals and 3 were district level coordinators or directors Of the building based leaders 5 were working in elementary schools and 4 were working in secondary schools 2 1 3 Teachers Teachers were recruited for participation through reputational sampling Palmer Stough Burdenski see Table 1 for the interview protocol Each participant was interviewed once During interviews we solicited participants explanations of teacher expertise and quality in struction when responses were limited or lacking specifi c exam ples Interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis and participants names were changed to pseudonyms 2 3 Data analysis All three authors participated in the data analysis process which included coding analyzing and refl ecting individually and collec tively The data from each stakeholder group i e faculty school leaders teachers were analyzed within and across groups The focus of the current paper is the cross group analysis with particular attention to the characteristics and practices described by each stakeholder group as they compared to each other In this iteration of the study we completed deductive and inductive an alyses across groups using our theoretical framework of vision of instruction and form and function of instructional practice 2 3 1 Coding and condensing the data During the fi rst stepof the current analysis each researcherread and coded all of the transcripts using open coding Strauss b high expectations c continual improvement d communication collaboration and management Two themes focused on the instructional practices used by expert teachers of students with signifi cant support needs and included a purposeful data driven and systematic and b individual student focused 2 3 2 Making meaning from the data After the fi nal round of coding we analyzed the coding density of the major themes across stakeholder groups to infer meaning from the data Brinkmann and b positivity which functioned to maintain positive feelings among teachers and other staff Throughout we contrast these narratives with the strengths based vision of expert instruction 3 2 1 Form knowledge about the student Knowledge about students in the defi cit view is used for behavioral control rather than building individualized curricula From the defi cit vision of expert instruction student compliance and an orderly classroom were indicators that the teacher had control over the class and students challenging behavior in particular Kim a school leader described the knowledge she ex pected a teacher to possess about her students A L Ruppar et al Teaching and Teacher Education 71 2018 319e328324 You may not see it on the IEP but this child only works for green M b are inherently unpredictable and c have simplistic desires e g a green M absent fromSam s descriptionwas an acknowledgementof student choice control or voice The function of these skills is evident in the following quote from Sam The routine the transitions the structure the differentiated instruction all of the things that make a good teacher have this man whipped into shape In the strengths based vision the ability to take the student s perspective in instructional planning was considered an indicator of expertise The teacher who uses transitions and structure to control students rather than support their agency starkly contrasts with the strengths based viewpoint Similarly Kim s assertion that an expert teacher s relationship with students makes the child want todo exactlywhat the teachers want them todo contrasts with the strengths based vision that teachers develop relationships with students to make individualized teaching decisions 3 2 3 Form positivity In the defi cit vision of instruction teachers of students with signifi cant support needs were described as caring loving and responsive to their students simplistic needs While these qualities were described as refl ecting a positive attitude this narrative emphasized students defi cits and devalued the teacher s role as an educator This vision promoted the notion that an expert teacher s positivity functioned to care for the students rather than teach them and cheered for their students rather than holding them to high expectations As Tyrone a school leader described Generally the students think I go to school the teacher takes care of me you know They are it s not real hard to make one of your students love you You know they kind of come out the fi rst dayalready liking you because you re the teacher For the lack of a better term it s kind of elementary Tyrone articulates aviewpoint that the task of teaching students with signifi cant support needs is simple because the students have simplelearningneeds James aschoolleader echoedthe perspective that students needs are simple suggesting that in struction might not be a priority for them Oftentimes they are students who are you know they don t have some of maybe some of the other complications that other teenagers have Things might be a little more simplistic for them And oftentimes they re the kids you can go talk to or just be with who are you know it can kind of make your day In contrast some respondents described caring and patience when asked about what skills expert teachers demonstrated in the classroom and failed to mention any other teaching skills or instructional decision making that might signify expertise Chris topher a school leader shared Patience With these type of kids they really have to have a heart and Kim another school leader stated Number one is that she cares Sally a school leader also discussed a teacher s demeanor and interpersonal behavior with colleagues rather than her teaching skills I mea