Journal of Teacher Education

http://jte.sagepub.com A Model for Preparing Special and General Education Preservice Teachers for Inclusive Education
Toni R. Van Laarhoven, Dennis D. Munk, Kathleen Lynch, Julie Bosma and Joanne Rouse Journal of Teacher Education 2007; 58; 440 DOI: 10.1177/0022487107306803 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/58/5/440

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)

Additional services and information for Journal of Teacher Education can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/58/5/440

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

A MODEL FOR PREPARING SPECIAL AND GENERAL EDUCATION PRESERVICE TEACHERS FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Toni R. Van Laarhoven
Northern Illinois University

Dennis D. Munk
Carthage College

Kathleen Lynch
Northern Illinois University

Julie Bosma Joanne Rouse

Regional Access and Mobilization Project

Project ACCEPT (Achieving Creative & Collaborative Educational Preservice Teams) represents an initiative at Northern Illinois University, where special and general education preservice teachers are joined in a voluntary project featuring an enhanced curriculum and field experiences in inclusive classrooms. Participants receive intensive preparation in use of assistive technologies, functional behavioral assessment, and instructional accommodations as well as experience designing lesson plans that include features of universal design. This article describes the specific features of the Project ACCEPT curriculum and outcomes for the first year of implementation. Keywords: inclusive education; preservice preparation; collaboration; coteaching The widespread practice of including students with exceptionalities in general education classrooms, often called inclusive education, has increased expectations for both special and general educators and has sparked discussion, debate, and structural changes in teacher preparation programs (e.g., Blanton, Griffin, Winn, & Pugach, 1997; Fisher, Frey, & Thousand, 2003; Kilgore & Griffin, 1998; Stayton & McCollum, 2002; Strawderman & Lindsey, 1995). Along with the expanded responsibilities of educators in inclusive environments have come cautionary reports suggesting that special (Fisher et al., 2003; Kilgore & Griffin, 1998) and general (Davern, 1999; Lesar, Benner, Habel, & Coleman, 1997; Schumm & Vaughn, 1991) educators may not have the necessary attitudes or dispositions, or perhaps more important, the professional skills to successfully instruct students in diverse, inclusive classrooms. Although professional development for in-service teachers remains a prominent approach to preparing for inclusive education, increased emphasis has been placed on the roles and responsibilities of teacher preparation programs to prepare new educators for teaching in inclusive classrooms. Restructuring of teacher preparation programs has been widely recommended as a means to better prepare preservice special and general educators for inclusive settings. Literature describing programmatic changes suggests that restructuring may include a range, or continuum, of initiatives designed to improve readiness of graduates for inclusive education. At one end of the continuum are initiatives in which distinct programs for special and general educators have been melded into a unified teacher preparation program in which all teacher candidates undertake an

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007 440-455 DOI: 10.1177/0022487107306803 2007 by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education 440
Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

expanded program designed to meet the guidelines and standards for both special and general education certifications (e.g., Jenkins, Pateman, & Black, 2002; Sindelar, Pugach, Griffin, & Seidl, 1995). Although they are viewed as an ideal model for teacher preparation (Blanton et al., 1997; Hinders 1995; Lesar et al., 1997), unified programs may never achieve large-scale adoption because of potential barriers such as cost, disincentives to extend the length and requirements of undergraduate programs, and both human and institutional resistance to dramatic changes in the structure of colleges of education and individual teacher preparation programs (Lesar et al., 1997). A more prevalent initiative to improve teacher preparation involves what may be called enhancement of existing programs by adding new courses or field experiences, or by revising the content and requirements for existing courses or experiences for special and/or general education programs (Strawderman & Lindsey, 1995). Program enhancements may also involve the creation of shared, even collaborative, experiences for special and general education preservice teachers (e.g., Nowacek & Blanton, 1996; Peterson & Beloin, 1998). Infusion of content into existing classes has also been used to enhance the preparation of general education teacher candidates (Cook, 2002; Lombardi & Hunka, 2001). Generally speaking, initiatives within teacher preparation programs to improve readiness of special and general educators for service in inclusive classrooms have varied significantly in scope and content. A positive attitude or disposition toward students with exceptionalities is a prerequisite for development of effective strategies in inclusive classrooms (Blanton, 1992; Brantlinger, 1996). Examples of curricula designed to facilitate positive attitude and disposition include use of simulation activities and personal interactions with students with disabilities (Peterson & Beloin, 1998). Although attitudes provide the basis for being willing to support inclusive practices, it may be more meaningful to focus on the development of skills and/or competencies necessary for supporting students in inclusive classrooms. Researchers who have made recommendations regarding the competencies required for

special and general educators in inclusive settings have suggested that collaborative teaming and teaching skills are of paramount importance (Jenkins et al., 2002; Pugach, 1996). However, these skills are not often adequately addressed in preparatory programs (Voltz & Elliott, 1997). Preservice educators, also referred to as teacher candidates, benefit from instruction on specific collaborative behaviors and, perhaps more important, opportunities to collaborate with their special or general education counterparts during their education. Thus, program enhancements that create shared courses and field experiences may be more effective than those that provide content on collaborative skills without opportunities to practice collaboration. Field experiences in diverse, inclusive classrooms have been strongly recommended for preparing teachers for inclusive education (Lesar et al., 1997; Nowacek & Blanton, 1996). Indeed, experiential learning has been touted as having more impact on the development of teacher candidates than other aspects of their programs (Sileo, Prater, Luckner, Rhine, & Rude, 1998; Stowitschek, Cheney, & Schwartz, 2000). The impact of field experiences is further enhanced when undertaken early in the program and as part of a team that includes counterparts from special or general education programs. In sum, field experiences in inclusive classrooms and preparation for collaborative teaming and teaching have garnered significant support as integral components of teacher preparation programs. Several additional competencies have been described in the professional literature. Skill in making curricular and instructional accommodations and modifications has been identified as critical for both special and general educators (Fisher et al., 2003) and may be more useful to teachers than knowledge of diagnostic criteria and characteristics of specific disabilities (Peterson & Beloin, 1998). In addition to the aforementioned competencies, Fisher et al. (2003) suggested that preparation programs focus on fostering knowledge and skill in the areas of assistive technologies, supervision of paraeducators, and positive behavioral support. In essence, the need for restructuring of teacher preparation programs in response to
441

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

increasing diversity and inclusiveness of public school classrooms has evolved from discussion and debate more than a decade ago to a continuum of initiatives in programs across the country. These initiatives have several influences that might include changes in certification laws, standards-based reform, feedback from graduates, or interests of particular faculty. Such was the case in the Department of Teaching and Learning at Northern Illinois University, when Project ACCEPT (Achieving Creative & Collaborative Educational Preservice Teams) was initiated. The remainder of this article will describe the components, outcome measures, and results to date for the project. PROJECT ACCEPT: BACKGROUND AND FOUNDATIONS Project ACCEPT represents an initiative in the Department of Teaching and Learning at Northern Illinois University to enhance the preparatory programs for special and general teacher candidates. As was the case for many of the aforementioned initiatives, Project ACCEPT was a response to implementation of standardsbased certification requirements for special and general education teachers in Illinois and recognition within the college and department that graduating teachers would benefit from program enhancements focusing on inclusive education. Unique features of Project ACCEPT include a partnership with an outside agency to inform content of the project and support provided by a grant from a state agency. The State Board of Education initiated the development of learning standards for K-12 students that resulted in an increased emphasis on inclusive methodologies, instructional and curricular accommodations, functional behavioral assessment, collaborative skills, and knowledge of assistive technologies for both special and general education preservice teachers. The learning standards provided additional direction for the need to provide more interaction among the teacher candidates and faculty in the Department of Teaching and Learning. Prior to initiating the project, the distinct programs in special education, elementary education, and secondary education did
442

not provide for interaction between preservice educators or the faculty teaching in those programs. Teacher candidates in the elementary and secondary education programs were required to take a traditional mainstreaming course, whereas the special education majors were not required to take that or any other course focusing on inclusive education. In an effort to enhance the programs for all three groups of teacher candidates, the traditional class was revised and was added as a required course for special education majors as well, thus creating a shared experience. As a means to inform the content and to provide ample resources for the new class, the Department of Teaching and Learning collaborated with the Regional Access and Mobilization Project, which is a center for independent living agency that supports individuals with disabilities, to pursue and receive a 4-year grant from the Illinois Council on Developmental Disabilities. The purpose of the grant was to develop and evaluate an innovative model for preparing teachers for service and leadership in inclusive schools. As an advocacy organization for individuals with disabilities and their families, the Regional Access and Mobilization Project contributed expertise in shaping positive attitudes and dispositions toward individuals with disabilities as well as access to families of students with disabilities. The faculty in the university focused on the logistics of restructuring, development of field-based experiences, and meeting state standards through enhancement of critical competencies for all preservice teachers. In general, the context for Project ACCEPT involved the convergence of state and institutional initiatives to restructure teacher preparation, partnership with an outside agency, and a successful grant proposal that funded a project coordinators position as well as technology and materials for project activities. STRUCTURE OF PROJECT ACCEPT During the pilot year, participation in Project ACCEPT was voluntary for special, elementary, and secondary education majors. The project consisted of attendance in a 10-hour

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

institute prior to the beginning of a semester, enrollment in a designated section of the course Collaborative Teaching in Inclusive Settings (TLSE 456), completion of a field experience in an inclusive classroom, and enhanced instruction in the areas of functional behavioral assessment, instructional accommodations, and assistive technology (for which hands-on experiences were required). Participation in the project was voluntary due to the fact that teacher candidates had to agree to engage in additional activities that required travel to clinical sites and to attend the institute prior to the start of the semester. In addition, during the pilot year, the identified course was not a required course for graduation among special education majors; they needed to take the course as an elective. Each component of the project will be outlined below.

materials were arranged by topic areas into modules. The topics covered within each module addressed many of the Illinois Professional Teaching Standards.

Clinical Experience
A major distinction between the traditional course and Project ACCEPT was the clinical experience. Cohorts in Project ACCEPT completed a field experience in an inclusive classroom near the end of the semester, after having collaborated on a simulated lesson plan as a class assignment. The cohorts were required to spend a minimum of 6 hours in an inclusive classroom, culminating in the delivery of a coplanned and cotaught lesson on the last visit. Although most teacher candidates eventually had some experiences in inclusive classrooms during the course of their education, prior to the implementation of this clinical experience, there were no systematic requirements to ensure that all preservice educators would have opportunities to coplan and coteach in inclusive classrooms. This field experience differed in that it had to be in an inclusive classroom and coplanning and coteaching were required. When cohorts cotaught their lessons, the project coordinator or other project staff observed the lessons and completed an evaluation form. Reflective meetings were held after each lesson, and the cooperating teachers were invited to provide feedback. To conserve space, the course modules, standards that were addressed, and materials will not be described in detail; however, copies can be obtained from the authors or by visiting the Project ACCEPT Web site (http:// www.cedu.niu.edu/tlrn/projectaccept/).

Institute
The institute consisted of a series of activities designed to facilitate positive attitudes and dispositions toward individuals with disabilities and their inclusion in regular classrooms. For team-building activities, participants were placed into cohorts that included teacher candidates in special education, elementary education, and secondary education. In addition, participants engaged in simulation activities wherein they experienced what it would be like to be a student with disabilities in classroom settings (with both positive and negative experiences).

Course
During the semester, the class met for 3 hours once per week. Course materials included a text by Friend and Bursuck (2003) and a packet of readings and materials selected to address critical competencies such as universal lesson plan design, collaboration, functional behavioral assessment, assistive technology, and additional topics. Individuals with disabilities, in-service educators (some with disabilities themselves), and parents served as guest speakers for the course. To promote consistency in experiences for participants in all sections of the course, the

Specific Competencies
To promote increased competence in the use of instructional accommodations, cohorts practiced matching accommodations to student profiles described in vignettes. Based on the information provided in the vignettes, teacher candidates completed a project involving design of a universally designed lesson plan for a diverse classroom of learners. Throughout
443

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

the course, participants were given instruction on the integration of assistive technologies into classroom environments. Demonstrations of how to use the technologies were presented and interspersed throughout other modules and during lesson plan development. Participants were then required to perform proficiency checkouts using a variety of assistive technology devices and programs (e.g., program an augmentative communication device, operate text-reading software). In addition, enriched experiences in functional behavioral assessment were provided. These included in-class demonstrations and practice completing data collection forms for determining the function of behavior. The enrichment activities offered in Project ACCEPT supplemented the reading material, lecture, and discussion that occurred in both the experimental and control classes. The structure and content of the Project ACCEPT section of TLSE 456 (the course designator) was, in effect, being fieldtested during the initial year of the project. The goal for the 4-year project was to standardize the content for all sections (with a minimum of six sections per semester being offered). The content and activities for the project were based on recommendations within the professional literature, feedback from graduates, and the learning standards required by the state. Major competencies included (a) positive attitude and disposition toward individuals with exceptionalities, (b) knowledge and practice of collaborative and teaming skills, (c) knowledge of family issues and strategies for collaboration with families, (d) knowledge and application of universal design for learning in lesson plan development for inclusive classrooms, (e) knowledge and capability with assistive technologies, and (f) knowledge and application of positive behavioral support.

various programs from the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (i.e., history, psychology, sociology, and biology). To be eligible for participation, the teacher candidates/preservice educators were required to have had at least one early clinical experience prior to enrolling in the course or be enrolled in an early clinical during the same semester as the ACCEPT course. Control group (C group). Because Project ACCEPT consisted of enhancements to the existing mainstreaming course, three sections of the traditional class were chosen to serve as the C group for the project. It is important to note that the materials and instruction for the traditional, or control, sections were based on a curriculum that had been developed by the department to meet the professional teaching standards and to prepare graduates for inclusive settings. Faculty observations and teacher candidate evaluations suggested high levels of satisfaction with the course. Data were collected from three different traditional classes. A total of 66 preservice educators agreed to participate; however, only 53 completed both the pre and post instruments (i.e., 13 men, 40 women). Major distinctions. To summarize, the curriculum for the control classes included the same textbook that was used in the experimental classes. The three curricular areas specifically targeted by Project ACCEPTfunctional behavioral assessment, curricular accommodations, and assistive technologywere also covered in the course text or materials, but practice activities were not provided. The most prominent distinctions between the traditional class and the Project ACCEPT experience were that the former did not include a collaborative clinical experience, enhanced instruction with hands-on experiences for the three topical areas described above, an institute, or involvement of a community agency. In addition, there were no special education majors in the control sections, thereby limiting opportunities for sharing of expertise and collaboration during in-class exercises.

Participants in the Project

Experimental group. There were a total of 53 teacher candidates participating in Project ACCEPT across two semesters. The two ACCEPT classes consisted of 46 women and 7 men, and of those, 15 were in special education, 13 were in secondary education, and 25 were in elementary education. The secondary majors came from
444

Methods of Evaluation
The goal in determining the outcomes, or dependent variables, for the project was to

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

evaluate not only the teacher candidates attitudes or dispositions toward inclusive education but also their competency in implementing critical strategies prior to and following their experience (pretest and posttest measures). Toward this end, two survey instruments described previously in the literature were selected to assess attitudes, and original curricular probes were developed to assess competence in the areas of functional behavioral assessment, instructional accommodations, and use of assistive technologies. The same instruments were used during pre and post measures. Curricular probes. To assess the preservice educators knowledge and competence in the areas of functional behavioral assessment, instructional accommodations, and assistive technology, participants from the experimental and C groups provided written responses to a series of prompts or questions related to a vignette. Onepage vignettes describing a classroom scenario and a particular students strengths and challenges were developed for each of the three topics. Participants were instructed to read the vignettes, write responses to a series of questions asking about the precise challenges for the student, and describe strategies that might be helpful. To ensure content validity for the probes, the first and second authors identified critical knowledge and skills in the areas of functional behavioral assessment, instructional adaptations, and assistive technology. Coverage of critical content within the course materials was verified, and draft vignettes were generated. Other project staff and in-service teachers enrolled in graduate courses responded to multiple drafts of the probes until clarity in expectations and consistency in responses were achieved. A rubric was used to score the written responses to the curricular probes. Responses were scored for accuracy, comprehensiveness, and specificity, using a 3-point scale (3 = fully developed, 2 = partially developed, 1 = undeveloped, 0 = no response). The scoring rubric included criteria and examples developed for each of the topical vignettes. Interrater reliability was determined across three project staff who practiced scoring responses until they reached 100%

agreement on five consecutive probes within each category. The probes (control and experimental) were then randomly assigned to three different scorers. To prevent scoring bias, numbers were assigned to the probes, and names were removed. Interobserver agreement was conducted on 23% of the probes using the percentage agreement index (agreements/agreements + disagreements 100). Responses within each category were given a score (3, 2, or 1), and the score had to match between observers to be scored as an agreement. Reliability was calculated for each category, and the following agreement scores were obtained: (a) functional behavioral assessment = 86%, (b) instructional accommodations = 78%, and (c) assistive technology = 84% agreement. In addition, to ensure that data were entered correctly for the rating scales, a second project staff member rechecked the scores and found that all scores were entered correctly. Attitudinal surveys. Two different surveys were used to assess the attitudes and dispositions of both the Project ACCEPT and Control groups toward inclusive education and the use of specific instructional strategies. The Attitudes Toward Inclusion survey was adapted from the original version described in Minke, Bear, Deemer, and Griffin (1996). The adaptations involved primarily reformatting of the survey and the addition of three items. This rating scale consisted of 10 items (i.e., statements regarding assumptions underlying inclusion) that were rated on a 6-point scale (i.e., strongly disagree to strongly agree). These items appear in Table 1. Minke et al. (1996) reported a validation procedure for the attitudinal survey that involved consultation with staff from the school district to ensure the applicability of questions for teachers both within and outside inclusive classrooms (p. 158). The instrument was reviewed multiple times based on feedback from school personnel (p. 158). The original survey also included items from the Teacher Efficacy Scale (Soodak & Podell, 1993), and Minke et al. reported results of a component analysis confirming two factors that influence teacher candidate learning: (a) personal abilities
445

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

TABLE 1

Growth Differences: Responses to Attitudes Toward Inclusion Survey

EG Pre Statements in Survey

1. I am familiar with inclusion. 2. The needs of the majority of children with disabilities can be met in the regular classroom. 3. The social and emotional needs of children with disabilities are better met in special classes than regular classes. 4. The social and emotional needs of children without disabilities are negatively affected when integrated among children with disabilities. 5. Teaching children with disabilities is asking too much of regular teachers. 6. Only minor adjustments will be needed to teach all students in the regular classroom. 7. Good teachers can teach all students. 8. Special education teachers are better trained than regular classroom teachers to teach children with disabilities 9. Special education teachers are more effective than regular classroom teachers in teaching children with disabilities. 10. Special education teachers use different teaching methods than regular teachers. M 4.00 4.18 SD 1.63 1.25 M 5.75 4.91

ES Post
SD 0.76 1.23 M 5.27 3.73

C Post Pre
SD 0.27 1.31 M 4.09 3.51 SD 1.26 1.05 M 5.53 4.67

Pre
SD 0.70 1.58 M 5.93 4.21

Post
SD 0.63 1.10

3.26

1.39

2.53

1.44

3.64

1.28

3.07

1.33

3.41

1.16

2.84

1.40

1.76

1.02

1.60

1.04

1.60

0.63

1.79

1.19

2.45

1.24

1.87

1.07

2.24

1.22

1.84

1.19

1.93

0.96

2.14

1.51

2.88

1.23

2.40

1.20

3.00

1.34

3.69

1.51

2.80

1.42

3.00

1.66

2.40

1.13

3.64

1.38

4.68 4.61

1.43 1.67

4.50 4.80

1.81 1.18

4.53 5.20

1.60 0.56

5.08 5.07

1.61 1.33

3.80 5.12

1.47 1.06

4.80 5.04

1.11 1.09

3.84

1.59

3.78

1.43

4.00

1.46

4.29

1.43

4.62

1.15

4.56

1.00

3.84

1.64

3.53

1.48

4.33

0.90

4.36

1.28

4.23

1.08

4.05

1.31

Growth Differences for Three Groups Effect Size (Cohens d) Statements in Survey
1. I am familiar with inclusion. 2. The needs of the majority of children with disabilities can be met in the regular classroom. 3. The social and emotional needs of children with disabilities are better met in special classes than regular classes. 4. The social and emotional needs of children without disabilities are negatively affected when integrated among children with disabilities. 5. Teaching children with disabilities is asking too much of regular teachers. 6. Only minor adjustments will be needed to teach all students in the regular classroom. F Statistic and p Value Growth Difference

EG
1.37 .42

ES
.51 .35

C
1.13 1.09

F(2, 98) = 3.52, p = .033 F(2, 96) = 2.73, p = .070

F(2, 97) = 0.08, p = .925

.44

.35

.36

F(2, 98) = 2.83, p = .064

.14

.15

.48

F(2, 98) = 2.50, p = .087 F(2, 97) = 2.50, p = .089

.31 .49

.22 .14

.45 .77

(continued)

446

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

TABLE 1 (continued)

Effect Size (Cohens d) Statements in Survey

7. Good teachers can teach all students. 8. Special education teachers are better trained than regular classroom teachers to teach children with disabilities 9. Special education teachers are more effective than regular classroom teachers in teaching children with disabilities. 10. Special education teachers use different teaching methods than regular teachers. F Statistic and p Value Growth Difference

EG
.13 .04

ES
.31 .14

C
.71 .05

F(2, 96) = 7.04, p = .001 F(2, 98) = 0.06, p = .942

F(2, 98) = 0.84, p = .433

.18

.23

.07

F(2, 98) = 0.83, p = .438

.33

.00

.05

NOTE: EG = experimental group, general education; ES = experimental group, special education; C = control group, general education. Responses are on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree).

and skills and (b) external factors such as home environment. Items added for Project ACCEPT addressed familiarity with inclusion, perceptions of the amount of adjustment needed for students with disabilities, and whether skilled teachers can teach all children. These items were validated through field testing with inservice teachers enrolled in graduate courses. The second survey, Instructional Adaptations, was also adapted from an original version described in Minke et al. (1996). Using a 4-point scale, respondents rated the desirability, feasibility, and frequency of use for six common adaptations: (a) adapting daily assignments, (b) providing alternate materials, (c) monitoring for understanding, (d) individualizing instruction, (e) using different classroom management strategies, and (f) using different grading criteria. The original survey consisted of six items selected from the Adaptation Evaluation Instrument (Schumm & Vaughn, 1991), and component analyses were conducted to confirm internal consistency of the selected items (Minke et al., p. 161). Mean scores for desirability, feasibility, and frequency of use are reported in Table 2. RESULTS Results will be presented for special education majors within the experimental group (ES group), general education majors within the experimental group (EG group), and the teacher candidates in the Control Group (C group). The rationale for separating the two majors within the experimental group was that

special education majors may have had previous exposure to some content in their other courses, especially in the areas of assistive technology and functional behavioral assessment. Mean pretest scores on the curricular probes, to be described later, were higher for the ES group, suggesting that they entered the project with more background knowledge than their counterparts. Reporting results for the ES and EG groups separately highlights the relative benefits each group received from participating in the project. The analyses for the written responses to the curricular probes and for the surveys included both a parametric test (ANOVA) for differences in the growth from the pretest to the posttest for the three groups and effect sizes, which indicate the magnitude of the growth from the pretest to the posttest (presented in Tables 1 through 3). An ANOVA was also used to determine any differences in the posttest scores for the three groups. Evaluating the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention such as Project ACCEPT requires consideration of its impact on different types of teacher candidates, with the expectation that impact will vary across different types of teacher candidates. Effect sizes reveal the relative impact of the project across special education and general education majors within the experimental group and the impact of the traditional course for the C group. Table 3 presents the individual and combined pretest and posttest means and standard deviations for the curricular probes. The top portion of the table presents the means and
447

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

TABLE 2

Growth Effects for Instructional Adaptations Survey

EG Responses to Instructional Adaptations

Desirabilitya Feasibilityb Frequencyc

ES Post Pre
SD 4.00 3.32 3.60 M 19.4 18.8 15.2 SD 2.95 3.17 3.32 M 21.93 20.00 15.71

C Post
SD 2.16 2.42 4.60 M 18.05 16.47 13.50

Pre
M 17.89 16.82 12.82 SD 5.18 4.33 3.56 M

Pre
SD 3.39 2.87 2.97 M 19.24 18.29 15.89

Post
SD 3.38 2.87 3.10

18.94 19.19 15.16

Growth Differences for Three Groups Effect Size (Cohens d) Responses to Instructional Adaptations
Desirability Feasibility Frequency F Statistic and p Value Growth Difference

EG
.30 .49 .45

ES
.74 .29 .11

C
.39 .59 .53

F(2, 98) = 0.61, p = .543 F(2, 97) = 0.56, p = .574 F(2, 97) = 1.43, p = .244

NOTE: EG = experimental group, general education; ES = experimental group, special education; C = control group, general education. a. Responses are on a 4-point scale (1 = not desirable, 4 = highly desirable). b. Responses are on a 4-point scale (1 = not feasible, 4 = highly feasible). c. Responses are on a 4-point scale (1 = rarely/never, 4 = almost always).

TABLE 3

Growth Effects for Written Responses to Probes

EG Pre Written Responses to Vignettes

Functional behavioral assessmenta Accommodationsa Assistive technologya Probe totalb M 2.84 3.79 2.39 9.03 SD 1.13 1.36 1.35 2.71 M 4.18 5.29 4.38 13.79

ES Post
SD 1.17 1.03 1.33 2.48 M 3.27 4.47 3.67 11.40

C Post Pre
SD 1.33 0.90 1.19 2.82 M 2.35 3.34 1.92 7.62 SD 1.12 1.30 1.08 2.49 M 2.83 4.24 2.07 9.15

Pre
SD 1.03 1.13 1.35 1.80 M 4.46 5.15 4.92 14.54

Post
SD 1.02 1.11 1.08 2.13

Growth Differences for Three Groups Effect Size (Cohens d) Written Responses to Vignettes
Functional behavioral assessment Accommodations Assistive technology Probe total F Statistic and p Value Growth Difference

EG
1.03 1.37 1.42 1.55

ES
1.01 0.43 0.95 1.09

C
.35 .54 .10 .49

F(2, 97) = 5.67, p = .005 F(2, 97) = 1.53, p = .223 F(2, 97) = 18.90, p = .000 F(2, 97) = 11.61, p = .000

NOTE: EG = experimental group, general education; ES = experimental group, special education; C = control group, general education. a. Total possible points for each probe = 6. b. Total possible points for combined probes = 18.

standard deviations for pretest and posttest scores for each group on each of the three probes as well as for the total (combined) probes scores. The bottom portion presents the results of the ANOVA, specifically the F value and probability, conducted to determine potential differences in the growth (difference between the pretest and posttest scores) among
448

the three groups. As evidenced in the table, significant differences were found in the growth for the probes on functional behavioral assessment, F(2, 97) = 5.67, p = .005, assistive technology, F(2, 97) = 18.90, p = .000, and the combined probe totals for all three groups, F(2, 97) = 11.61, p = .000. Tukey post hoc pairwise comparisons (Hopkins & Glass, 1978) revealed that the growth scores on

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

the functional behavioral assessment probes for the EG group were significantly greater than those for the C group (p = .007) but not those for the ES group (p = .397). There were also no significant differences in the growth scores between the ES and C groups (p = .092). Tukey post hoc comparisons for the assistive technology probe indicated that growth scores for both the EG and ES groups were significantly greater than those for the C groups, EG > C (p = .000), ES > C (p = .020), whereas there were no significant differences between the EG and ES groups (p = .308). When analyzing the overall growth difference on all three probes combined, pairwise comparisons revealed that the only significant differences existed between the EG and C groups, EG > C (p = .000). The last three columns in the lower portion of Table 3 present the effect size data as calculated with Cohens d (Cohen, 1988), which represents the difference between the pretest and posttest scores, divided by the pooled standard deviations. The following scale is generally used to interpret the magnitude of an effect based on d: small effect, 0 < d < .2; moderate effect, .2 < d < 8; large effect, d > .8. Large effect sizes of 1.03 (functional behavioral assessment), 1.37 (accommodations), and 1.42 (assistive technology) were observed for the EG group for all three probes, suggesting that their knowledge in these three topical areas increased dramatically with participation in the project. A large effect size was observed for the ES group for probes on functional behavioral assessment (d = 1.01) and assistive technology (d = .95), whereas a moderate effect was observed for the probe on accommodations (d = .43). Moderate effect sizes were observed for the C group on probes for functional behavioral assessment (d = .35) and accommodations (d = .54) and for the total probes (d = .49). Only a small effect size was noted for the probe involving assistive technology (d = .10). Additional analyses were conducted to determine potential differences in the posttest scores for the three groups. The rationale for this analysis was that whereas the amount of growth by each group was evidence for the impact of the project, the experimental group or the C group could achieve growth but still prove to be less

knowledgeable than a counterpart group. Such was the finding with ANOVA results indicating differences in the posttest means on probes for functional behavioral assessment, F(2, 98) = 20.77, p = .000, instructional accommodations, F(2, 98) = 11.54, p = .000, and assistive technology, F(2, 98) = 55.42, p = .000. Tukey post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that posttest scores for both the EG and ES groups were significantly higher than those for the C group (p = .000) on functional behavioral assessment, whereas no significant differences existed between the mean scores for the ES and EG groups (p = .713). A similar pattern was observed for posttest means for the instructional accommodations probe, with both the ES (p = .000) and EG groups (p = .018) scoring significantly higher than the C group, and no differences being evidenced in scores between the two experimental groups (p = .914). This pattern was repeated for posttest scores on the third probe involving assistive technology, with both experimental groups scoring significantly higher, ES > C (p = .000) and EG > C (p = .000). No significant differences were found between means for the two experimental groups (p = .343). Results of analyses of growth and posttest mean scores on the curricular probes for the three groups can be summarized as follows: (a) probe scores increased from pretest to posttest for all three groups, with significantly more growth observed in the ES and EG groups; (b) the largest effects sizes were observed for the EG group; and (c) posttest scores for the two experimental groups were similar and also higher than those for the C group. Together, the findings suggest that the EG group experienced the greatest benefit from participation in the project and performed similarly to their special education counterparts who might be presumed to have prior exposure to content on functional behavioral assessment and perhaps on curricular adaptations and assistive technology. Table 1 presents results of the pretest, posttest, and growth analysis for Attitudes Toward Inclusion survey. Note that the wording of individual items determines whether desired direction of change in scores should increase or decrease. For some items, a decrease in scores from pretest to posttest would indicate an
449

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

improved attitude toward inclusion (e.g., Item 5: teaching children with disabilities is asking too much of regular teachers). The lower portion displays the F score and probabilities resulting from the ANOVA. Significant differences (p < .05) are noted between growth scores only for Items 1 and 7. Post hoc analyses revealed that on Item 1, I am familiar with inclusion, the EG group had significantly greater growth difference than the ES group (p = .025) but not the C group (p = .536). There were no significant differences between the ES and C groups on Item 1 (p = .107). For item 7, Good teachers can teach all students, the C group experienced the greatest degree of growth over the experimental groups. These differences were significant in comparison to the EG group (p = .001) but not the ES group (p = .404). There were also no significant differences between the EG and ES groups (p = .385). For most items, the three groups produced posttest scores indicating a more positive attitude toward inclusion, with some exceptions for both experimental groups. The EG group was less convinced that good teachers can teach all students (Item 7) and was more in agreement with the statement that special educators are better trained to teach students with disabilities (Item 8). It should be noted, however, that the growth differences between the pretest and posttest scores were modest (less than .2) and interpretation of these results is difficult given the direction of responses to other items. Perhaps the C group, without having had actual experiences in inclusive classrooms, was more confident in its own abilities, whereas the EG group, having had actual classroom experiences, may have had more tempered or realistic responses. Indeed, the EG groups perception that special educators are better prepared to teach students with disabilities may be an artifact of their increased knowledge and collaboration with their counterparts. However, this finding is not as meaningful when the mean posttest scores are examined. Although the EG group had an increase between prescores and postscores on Item 8, the C group had a stronger belief that special educators are better trained (M = 5.04) than the EG group (M = 4.80).
450

Exceptions in the direction of pretest and posttest scores were also found for the ES group, which indicated an increase in agreement with statements suggesting that other students may be affected by the presence of a student with disability (Item 4), teaching students with disabilities is asking too much of general educators (Item 5), special educators are more effective (Item 9), and special educators use different teaching methods (Item 10). Although results for the C group indicate positive growth on all items, these findings can be put in perspective by comparing the mean posttest scores across the groups for each item. Closer inspection of the posttest scores reveals that although the intended direction was a decrease from pretest to posttest scores, the C group still had less desirable scores on most of these items than their experimental counterparts. For instance, the C group still ended up with higher posttest scores than the ES and EG groups on several itemsItem 4: C group (M = 1.87), ES group (M = 1.79), and EG group (M = 1.60); Item 5: C group (M = 2.40), ES group (M = 2.14), and EG group (M = 1.84); Item 9: C group (M = 4.56), ES group (M = 4.29), EG group (M = 3.78). Effect sizes for each item were computed using Cohens d. As described previously, the scale for interpreting a d score is as follows: small effect, 0 < d < .2; moderate effect, .2 < d < 8; large effect, d > .8. Because growth can be marked by decreases in mean scores from pretest to posttest, some effect sizes are negative numbers. Negative scores are interpreted using the above scale, without regard for the negative sign preceding the score. For the EG group, a large effect size was observed for item 1 (d = 1.37), whereas moderate effects sizes were noted for Items 2 (d = .42), 3 (d = .44), 5 (d = .31), 6 (d = .49), and 10 (d = .33). No large effects sizes were observed for the ES group, and moderate effects sizes were noted for Items 1 (d = .51), 2 (d = .35), 3 (d = .35), 5 (d = .22), 7 (d = .31), and 9 (d = .23). For the C group, large effects sizes were noted for Items 1 (d = 1.13) and 2 (d = 1.09), with moderate effects sizes on Items 3 (d = .36), 4 (d = .48), 5 (d = .45), 6 (d = .77), and 7 (d = .71). A comparison of the posttest scores for only the three groups was conducted to determine if significant differences in attitude existed at the conclusion of the project. Significant differences

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

were evident in the posttest for only Item 9, which suggests that special educators are more effective when teaching individuals with disabilities, F(2, 98) = 4.22, p = .017. Tukey post hoc pairwise comparisons indicated that the C groups mean posttest score was significantly higher than that of the EG group (p = .013), suggesting that the C group believed more strongly than the EG group that special educators are more effective. However, there were no significant differences on this item among the other comparisons. The absence of significant differences on all of the other items suggests that the three groups held similar attitudes toward inclusion at the end of the project, despite the fact that the effect sizes presented in Table 1 indicate differences in the amount of growth during the project. However, when the mean posttest scores were compared, one or both of the experimental groups still had more desirable scores than the C group on each item in the survey. Effects of participation in Project ACCEPT on responses to the Attitudes Toward Inclusion Survey can be summarized as follows: (a) Effect sizes indicate the greatest growth occurred for the EG and C groups, suggesting that these two groups entered the project with a lack of knowledge regarding inclusion or with skepticism; (b) the two experimental groups revealed negative growth in several items related to the capability of the general education classroom and general educators to serve students with disabilities, perhaps as a result of the clinical experience that was not completed by their counterparts in the C group; (c) all three groups became more familiar with inclusion (Item 1) and came to believe that a majority of students with disabilities are better served in the general education classroom (Items 2 and 3); and (d) overall, the experimental groups had more desirable posttest scores on all items than the C group. Table 2 summarizes responses to the Instructional Adaptations survey, which includes items intended to assess the perceived desirability, perceived feasibility, and frequency of use for several common adaptations for students with disabilities. As evidenced in the table, positive growth was observed for all

three groups for each of three areas of the survey. Results of the ANOVA reported in the lower portion of the table indicate that no significant differences between the degree of growth by the three groups were observed. The last three columns in Table 2 present the effect size data as calculated with Cohens d. The following scale was used to interpret the magnitude of an effect based on d: small effect, 0 < d < .2; moderate effect, .2 < d < 8; large effect, d > .8. Given that no significant differences in growth scores were found for the three groups, it is not surprising that a majority of the effect sizes were in the moderate range. The ES group experienced an effect size for desirability of adaptations (d = .74) more than twice that of the other two groups, but an effect size of only .11 for frequency, substantially lower than that of the EG group (d = .45) and C group (d = .53). When comparing posttest scores only, significant differences were evident on only the desirability item, F(2, 98) = 4.03, p = .021. Tukey post hoc comparisons revealed that the ES group had significantly higher scores than both the EG (p = .022) and C groups (p = .029). Although not statistically significant, subtle differences between the groups emerged when the means of posttest scores were examined. With the exception of the frequency scores, the experimental groups had higher scores than the C group. Based on the posttest scores, the ES group was the most convinced that instructional adaptations were both desirable and feasible. The EG group believed that instructional adaptations were more feasible than did the C group and that they would be used somewhat less frequently. The C group, on the other hand, believed that instructional adaptations should occur more frequently but was less convinced that implementation would be feasible. The effects of participation in Project ACCEPT on responses to the Instructional Adaptations survey can be summarized as follows: (a) Both experimental groups experienced positive growth from pretest to posttest in the areas of perceived desirability, perceived feasibility, and frequency of use, although that growth did not differ significantly from that of the C group, and (b) participation in the project appears to have had the most significant effect
451

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

on special educators perceptions of the desirability of adaptations but minimal effect on the frequency with which they will use the adaptations. Perhaps the clinical experience influenced the attitudes of the EG and ES teacher candidates; they believed more strongly than the C group that instructional accommodations are feasible but not necessarily needed as frequently. DISCUSSION AND REFLECTION Programmatic innovations to address the needs of preservice teachers/teacher candidates entering inclusive classrooms have involved changes to the structure of teacher preparation programs, addition of new classes or experiences, or enrichment of existing courses or experiences. Project ACCEPT is a hybrid of approaches in that it involves a new required course for special educators as well as enrichment of the existing traditional class. If effective, Project ACCEPT could prove also to be an efficient model for improving the preparation of new teachers for inclusive classes in that it involves only one additional course for special education majors and minimal additional requirements for the general education majors. To evaluate the impact of participation in Project ACCEPT, we compared several outcomes for both preservice teachers in the project and teacher candidates enrolled in the traditional course. The rationale was that the enriched experiences provided in Project ACCEPT would not only result in the development of positive attitudes but also improve the skill level of the teacher candidates beyond what might be expected from participation in the traditional class, although growth by the C group was both desired and expected. As the results indicate, all preservice educators benefited from participating in either the traditional or the Project ACCEPT experience. All teacher candidates improved in both their content knowledge and attitudinal scores as a result of their enrollment in their respective courses. However, the outcomes of the data analyses indicated that participation in Project ACCEPT resulted in more substantial gains among the ES and EG groups, particularly in terms of their content knowledge as measured on the
452

curricular probes. The teacher candidates who experienced the most substantial gain were in the EG group, in terms of their growth from pretest to posttest scores on almost all measures. The most impressive results were found within the curriculum probe measures. The EG group performed significantly better on posttest measures pertaining to functional behavioral assessment, accommodations, and assistive technologies than the C group. In addition, they demonstrated significantly more growth (pre to post differences) on both functional behavioral assessment and assistive technologies than their C group counterparts. The ES group also performed significantly better than the C group on all of these measures with the exception of growth score differences for functional behavioral assessment and instructional accommodations. One interesting finding is that although the ES group started off with more knowledge in these curricular areas (as is demonstrated by the pretest scores), there were no significant differences between the EG and ES groups on posttest scores by the end of the experience. This provides additional support for the finding that the EG group experienced a great deal of growth in content knowledge as a result of its participation in Project ACCEPT. The purpose of using the attitudinal scales was to determine if preservice teachers would emerge with positive attitudes as a result of participating in their respective experiences (as we had no prior knowledge of their attitudes when they enrolled). Overall, there were very few differences between the groups in terms of their attitudes and dispositions toward inclusion. All groups demonstrated positive attitudes as measured on the Attitudes Toward Inclusion survey and the Instructional Adaptations survey. By the end of the experience, the only significant difference that was evident on the Attitudes Toward Inclusion survey (based on posttest scores) was on Item 7, Special education teachers are more effective. It was interesting that the C group scored significantly higher than the EG group on this item. There could be a variety of explanations for this outcome. Perhaps the C group teacher candidates were taught that they should rely more heavily on the special educators once

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

they are in the field, or maybe they did not have confidence in their own abilities. The only other item that revealed significant differences between the groups (based on posttest analyses) was the item indicating desirability of using instructional accommodations with students with disabilities. The ES group scored significantly higher on this item than the EG and C groups. Although having positive attitudes and dispositions toward supporting students with disabilities is certainly desirable, teachers must also have the skills necessary for supporting them effectively. For instance, although the experimental and C groups did not differ much in terms of the attitudes toward providing instructional adaptations (see Table 2), there clearly were differences between the groups based on their ability to identify instructional accommodations as measured on the curricular probes. Tukey post hoc pairwise comparisons indicated that both the ES (p = .000) and EG groups (p = .018) scored significantly higher than the C group. It is our belief that with improved skills, the teacher candidates in Project ACCEPT will be more prepared and, it is hoped, more successful in meeting the challenges of inclusive education in the future.

instructor, as well as curricular, variables. One solution may be to have the same instructor for all control classes, a strategy that was not possible in our department.

Implications of Results
Considered as a whole, Project ACCEPT did have positive effects on the attitudes and abilities of the preservice teachers. The degree to which any individual experience or activity affected the participants cannot be determined from the data collected in the first year. Indeed, our plan is to assess the impact of each of the project components and to continue to refine the content based on those results. The clinical experience will continue to be a critical component of the project. Informal feedback from the participants indicated that although it was sometimes difficult to schedule the clinical experience, they would like even more time in the classroom. Collaborative activities and lesson planning are the foundation for the project, and informal feedback from preservice teachers was strikingly similar to perceptions of in-service teachers; collaborating takes more time but is worthwhile. Perhaps gaining this insight at the preservice level will prepare the teacher candidates to dedicate time for collaboration when they encounter in-service colleagues who do not perceive collaboration as cost effective. Even with some of the shortcomings identified by some of the teacher candidates, many stated that they felt their experience was much more beneficial than their friends experiences (who were enrolled in the traditional course). They believed that the actual teaching in real schools and the hands-on experiences with technologies were very beneficial; as a result, many teacher candidates went back to their advisors to recommend placing future teacher candidates in the program. Consequently, we anticipate teacher candidate recruitment becoming much easier in the upcoming semesters. Although beyond the scope of this article, additional data were collected to determine if participation in Project ACCEPT and traditional courses prepared preservice educators for their first year of teaching. Outcome surveys were
453

Limitations
The effectiveness of the project described in this article was based on data collected from the first year of implementation. As a result, the sample size was relatively small, and generalization of the findings, particularly in relation to specific items on the curricular probes and surveys, is somewhat limited. In addition, because the curricular probes were specific to content covered in the project, we were not able to establish their concurrent or predictive validity with other measures, thus limiting broader use of the probes until their technical adequacy is confirmed. Consistency in day-to-day instructional practices and the instructors styles across the control classrooms was not controllable to the extent possible in the Project ACCEPT classes, and thus the results for participants in the control classrooms could have been influenced by

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

sent to the experimental and C group teacher candidates following their participation in their respective experiences. The survey consisted of eight items (e.g., statements regarding their confidence in engaging in collaborative activities and/or instructing students in inclusive settings) rated on a 5-point scale (i.e., strongly disagree to strongly agree), and results are reported elsewhere (Van Laarhoven et al., 2006). Preliminary findings indicate that on outcome surveys, Project ACCEPT participants made more positive ratings than the preservice teachers in the C group for all items, indicating that they believed their participation in the experience was beneficial. In addition, the project participants indicated that the most beneficial aspects of their experience were collaboration with majors from different educational areas, followed by participation in simulations and hands-on experiences with assistive technologies. Our assessment of project outcomes will continue until all participants are out teaching for at least 1 year and will be expanded to include the aforementioned analysis of each component of the project. In addition, follow-up surveys and interviews with project participants during their student teaching experience, and once they are employed as full-time classroom teachers, will continue. The types of classrooms our past participants seek and the attitudes and skills they bring to their first classroom may be the most important indicators of the success of Project ACCEPT. REFERENCES
Blanton, L. P. (1992). Preservice education: Essential knowledge for the effective special education teacher. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15(2), 87-96. Blanton, L. P., Griffin, C. C., Winn, J. A., & Pugach, M. C. (Eds.). (1997). Teacher education in transition. Denver: Love. Brantlinger, E. (1996). Influence of preservice teachers beliefs about pupil achievement on attitudes toward inclusion. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19(1), 17-33. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cook, B. G. (2002). Inclusive attitudes, strengths, and weaknesses of pre-service general educators enrolled in a curriculum infusion teacher preparation program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(3), 262-277.
454

Davern, L. (1999). Parents perspectives on personnel attitudes and characteristics in inclusive school settings: Implications for teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(3), 165-182. Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Thousand, J. (2003). What do special educators need to know and be prepared to do for inclusive schooling to work? Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(1), 42-50. Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2003). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Hinders, K. (1995). Dual certification and regular education initiative. Journal Of Teacher Education, 46, 200-208. Hopkins, K. D., & Glass, G. V. (1978). Basic statistics for the behavioral sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Jenkins, A. A., Pateman, B., & Black, R. (2002). Partnerships for dual preparation in elementary, secondary, and special education programs. Remedial and Special Education, 23(6), 359-371. Kilgore, K. L., & Griffin, C. C. (1998). Beginning special educators: Problems of practice and the influence of school reform. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(3), 155-173. Lesar, S., Benner, S. M., Habel, J., & Coleman, L. (1997). Preparing general education teachers for inclusive settings: A constructivist teacher education program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20(3), 204-220. Lombardi, T. P., & Hunka, N. J. (2001). Preparing general education teachers for inclusive classrooms: Assessing the process. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(3), 183-197. Minke, K. M., Bear, G. G., Deemer, S. A., & Griffin, S. M. (1996). Teaching experiences with inclusive classrooms: Implications for special education reform. Journal of Special Education, 30(2), 152-186. Nowacek, E. J., & Blanton, L. P. (1996). A pilot project investigating the influence of a collaborative methods course on preservice elementary education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19, 298-312. Peterson, M., & Beloin, K. S. (1998). Teaching the inclusive teacher: Restructuring the mainstream course in teacher education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(4), 306-318. Pugach, M. C. (1996). Unifying the preparation of prospective teachers. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 239-252). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General classroom teachers perspectives. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 18-27. Sileo, T. W., Prater, M. A., Luckner, J. L., Rhine, B. T., & Rude, H. (1998). Strategies to facilitate preservice teachers active involvement in learning. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(3), 187-204. Sindelar, P. T., Pugach, M. C., Griffin, C. C., & Seidl, M. (1995). Reforming teacher education: Challenging the philosophy and practices of educating regular and special educators. In J. L. Paul, H. Rosseli, & D. Evans

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

(Eds.), Integrating school restructuring and special education reform (pp. 140-166). New York: Harcourt Brace. Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors in special education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27, 66-81. Stayton, V. D., & McCollum, J. (2002). Unifying general and special: What does the research tell us? Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(3), 211-218. Stowitschek, J. L., Cheney, D. A., & Schwartz, I. S. (2000). Integrating fundamental change through experiential inservice development. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23(2), 142-156. Strawderman, C., & Lindsey, P. (1995). Keeping up with the times: Reform in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 46(2), 95-101. Van Laarhoven, T., Munk, D. D., Lynch, K., Wyland, S., Dorsch, N., Zurita, L., et al. (2006). Project ACCEPT: Preparing pre-service special and general educators for inclusive education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29(4), 209-212. Voltz, D. L., & Elliott, R. N. (1997). Collaborative teacher roles in facilitating inclusion: Preservice preparation for general and special educators. Teacher Educator, 33, 44-60.

include effective instructional methods for teaching individuals with developmental disabilities, video modeling, integration of assistive technology in teacher education, and functional assessment. Dennis D. Munk is a professor of education at Carthage College. He received his EdD in special education from Northern Illinois University. He has conducted research in the areas of functional assessment, inclusive education, and assessment and grading. Kathleen Lynch, MSEd, has several years of experience teaching special and general education in public schools. She is the project coordinator for Project ACCEPT, an adjunct instructor at Northern Illinois University, and a technical educational consultant in the Chicagoland area. Julie Bosma is the executive director of the Regional Access and Mobilization Project, a center for independent living located in north central Illinois. Joanne Rouse is the services director for the Regional Access and Mobilization Project.

Toni R. Van Laarhoven is an associate professor at Northern Illinois University. Her research interests

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, November/December 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

455