Although inservice has been a component of teacher education for over a century, certain changes in the last decade, such as the advent of Public Law 94–142 (The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) and revisions in certification requirements, have increased the need for inservice. An effective inservice program: (a) identifies objectives, (b) selects qualified staff, (c) uses effective content delivery, (d) uses the appropriate level of intensity, and (e) evaluates inservice effectiveness. An example of an intensive inservice program that documented student progress illustrates the benefits of implementing a well-planned inservice program.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BurkeP. J., & CohenM.The quest for competence in serving the severely/profoundly handicapped. A critical analysis of personnel preparation programs. In SontagE. (Ed.), Educational programming for the severely and profoundly handicapped.Reston VA: The Council for Exceptional Children, 1977.
2.
CarpenterR. L.Closed circuit interactive television and inservice training. Exceptional Children, 1979, 45, 289–290.
3.
EdelfeltR. A., & LawrenceG.In-service education: The state of the art. In EdelfeltR. A. & JohnsonM. (Eds.), Rethinking in-service education.Washington DC: National Education Association, 1975.
4.
GlassR. M. & MecklerR. S.Preparing elementary teachers to instruct mildly handicapped children in regular classrooms: A summer workshop. Exceptional Children, 1972, 39, 152–156.
5.
HentschelD.Change theory applied to inservice education. Planning and Changing, 1977, 8, 103–114.
6.
HopsH.WalkerH. M.FleischmanD. H.NagoshiJ. T.OmuraR. T.SkindrudK., & TaylorJ.CLASS: A standardized in-class program for acting-out children. II Field test evaluations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1978, 70, 636–644.
7.
HornerD.A competency-based approach to preparing teachers of the severely and profoundly handicapped: Perspective II. In SontagE. (Ed.), Educational programming for the severely and profoundly handicapped.Reston VA: The Council for Exceptional Children, 1977.
8.
MannD.The politics of training teachers in schools. Teachers College Record, 1976, 78, 323–338.
9.
MeadeE. J.Jr.No health in us. In RubinL. J. (Ed.), Improving in-service education: Proposals and procedures for change.Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1971.
10.
MillerS. R.MillerT. L., & RippA. C.The university goes to the student: A model for inservice training. Contemporary Education, 1979, 50, 155–158.
11.
National Advisory Committee on the Handicapped. The individualized education program: Key to an appropriate education for the handicapped child, 1977 annual report.Washington DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1977.
12.
PasanellaA. L., & VolkmorC. B.Coming back … or never leaving.Columbus OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1977.
13.
RudeC. R.Trends and priorities in inservice training. Exceptional Children, 1978, 45, 172–179.
14.
ShoresR. E.BurneyJ. D., & WiegerinkR.Teacher training in special education: A review of research. In MannL. A. & SabatinoD. A. (Eds.), The third review of special education.New York: Grune & Stratton, 1976.
15.
SkrticT. M.KnowltonH. E., & ClarkF. L.Action versus reaction. A curriculum development approach to inservice education. Focus on Exceptional Children, 1979, 11, 1–16.
16.
SnellM. E.ThompsonM. S., & TaylorK. L.Providing inservice to educators of the severely handicapped: The active response inservice training model. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 1979, 14, 25–33.
17.
WilcoxB.A competency-based approach to preparing teachers of the severely and profoundly handicapped: Perspective I. Reston VA: The Council for Exceptional Children, 1977.
